home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
The World of Computer Software
/
World_Of_Computer_Software-02-387-Vol-3of3.iso
/
n
/
npeq114.zip
/
NPEQUAL.EXE
/
EQFACTS.DOC
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-02-23
|
19KB
|
365 lines
------------------------------------------------------------
EQUALIZER FACTS 0/7
------------------------------------------------------------
Program Files 1
Program Description 2
Levels of Thinking and Examples 3
Levels of Thinking Graph 5
Bibliography and Support 7
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Program Files 1/7
------------------------------------------------------------
-----(Outside NPEQUAL.EXE)-----
GO BAT A popular command to start a new disk
EQREADME DOC Helpful things to get you started
EQUPDATE DOC Update history of program
EQVENDOR DOC Also see DOC files below
FILE_ID DIZ Discription in ZIP
-----(Inside NPEQUAL.EXE)-----
EQ EXE EQUALIZER main menu
EQVR EXE Video review and testing
EQTW EXE Test question writing
BRT71EFR EXE Microsoft BASIC run-time module 7.1
EQTW MNU Program menu text
EQPGRAPH MNU Progress graph
EQTGRAPH MNU Test graph
TESTFILE MNU Test file menu
DISKLEAF DOC One sheet getting started disk leaflet
EQFACTS DOC Files, description, and support
EQMANUAL DOC Program manual
EQWARANT DOC Warranty and distribution
EQREGIST DOC Registering use and site invoice
GAMES DOC For fun and profit
------------------------------------------------------------
Sample Instructional Question Files (IQF)
------------------------------------------------------------
EQCHAP10 IQF General Science, force and work
EQCHAP12 IQF General Science, electricity
ESAMOD1 IQF Entomology, introduction, ESA Module 1
SGW1QST DMO Biology, methods and concepts
------------------------------------------------------------
Program Description 2/7
ABSTRACT: Students can create and review at three
levels of thinking test banks of better quality than those
supplied by textbook companies. Teachers can edit questions
into instructional question files or into real tests.
Sample question files are included.
EQUALIZER provides students the practice needed to
develop the self-judgment and the sense of responsibility
required to learn at higher levels of thinking. EQUALIZER,
an interactive program, lets one person experience in a few
hours what TRAINER, a test scoring program, does with a
lecture class of 120 over a six week period. Students can
create and maintain test banks of better quality than those
supplied by textbook companies. Teachers can edit questions
into instructional questions files or into real tests.
Three levels of thinking (Tourist, Pupil, and Student) are
operationally defined (they have to be when in a computer
program): The random guessing Tourist, the concrete Pupil,
and the formal, self-correcting, problem-solving Student.
VIDEO REVIEW lets students report what they know or can
reason by selecting questions they can answer with confi-
dence during cram, practice and test modes. Each question
is presented as short answer or fill-in-the-blank for
Students followed by the multiple-choice answers for Pupils
and Tourists. A progress trend line (graph) and a score
based on quantity and quality are displayed.
TEST WRITER allows students to work as equals with
teachers at the higher levels of thinking needed to write
high quality multiple-choice test questions from class
notes, readings, and observations. It too begins at the
lowest level of thinking: copying. Question and test
writing are carried out by short specific tasks or
assignments: Create or Copy, Select and Edit, Print Cram
Notes, Format and Print Tests, and Select by Key Terms.
Writing begins with a paragraph, a statement, or, a
question stem that makes sense to the writer plus an
acceptable fact or condition as an answer. A fully
developed question can contain two right and four wrong
answers. The wrong answers are outside acceptable
boundaries by the desired amount of discrimination.
Examples of Finer Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Biology Math Government
-----------------------------------------------------------
mouse / frog 1 unit politician
mouse / rabbit 1/10 unit state official
mouse / rat 0.0005 unit governor
-----------------------------------------------------------
Learning results in increased sensitivity to a subject.
It results from repeated acts, both real and imaginary.
------------------------------------------------------------
Levels of Thinking and Examples 3/7
------------------------------------------------------------
EQUALIZER is a means to empower students to be self-
correcting scholars rather than enabling them to just
survive in institutionalized education. By defining three
levels of thinking much of the confusion in educational
reform is eliminated. The three levels of thinking are:
2 self-correcting, problem-solving, Student
1 concrete, follower, Pupil
0 random guessing, Tourist
The three levels of thinking are operationally defined in
the video review portion of the program. Student reponses
are classified as random guessing, reporting from cold
memory, or reporting an answer as an educated guess or with
confidence.
The following examples of confusion that degrade
classroom performance are very common. I have often told
large lecture classes that a positive attitude is worth a
letter grade in the course. At level 2, the expectation is
that with a positive attitude, they will be more inclined to
do what is required in the course and thus make a better
test grade. At level 1, students expect by saying they have
a positive attitude, they can continue on as in the past and
an extra 10 points will be added to their test score (as in
grade school, for trying).
A practice test at level 2 provides insight into the
nature of the questioning and the area under study.
Students at level 1 are shocked if the real test is not the
same as the practice test they have memorized.
Competency tests are given to determine if an
individual is performing at some desired level. The idea,
at level 2, is that the person can do or report with
confidence what is known or can be reasoned on a test that
is a sub-sample of the area. The results have predictive
value. For students at level 1, the idea is to memorize or
practice enough only to pass the test. The results have no
predictive value (other than on retaking the exact same
version of the test).
The size of a lecture class at level 2 is of little
concern as such students prepare for the lecture and resolve
any questions or problems among themselves or in a
discussion with the lecturer. The lecture can deal with
interpretation, policy and application. It can be fun. At
level 1, the lecture is in effect a process of one person
doing the reading in class that level 2 students do before
class. This continues a process of not reading, but
passing, often started in grade school. The lecture must
define, relate, and repeat. It can be funny, but most often
is boring because the class size is usually too large for
effective group interaction and effective communication (a
process of reciprocal and verifying responses).
4/7
To them who have, more shall be given. To them who
have not, even that will be taken away. At level 2, new
facts and observations are associated with one another and
with older material to yield a far greater understanding and
ability to perform than the isolated new facts and
observations by themselves. At level 1, new facts and
observations lead to confusion until time has erased them
from memory. Course supplementation enriches at level 2.
The student can perform with greater confidence.
Supplementation adds to the burden of memorizing at level 1.
The student is less confident with more than one answer to
keep in mind.
Institutionalized education gets into too great a hurry
for students to demonstrate desired educational outcomes.
The teacher ends up at level 2 and the students at levels 1
and 0. This works within the system. It is not a suitable
preparation for being a responsible productive citizen. The
student must learn to think and perform at level 2, to be an
equal with the teacher. Then in time in a good learning
environment, the subject facts and skills will also develop,
along with self-judgment and the sense of responsibility
needed to learn at higher levels of thinking. EQUALIZER
allows students and teachers to work at all levels of
thinking in an area of great interest: tests that are valid
indicators of what a student can do after the course.
The American Assocation for Advancement of Science
(AAAS), Winter 1992 issue, on Project 2061 contains an
interesting comment: "Though it is easy for educators to say
'yeah, we do 2061,' often the work it takes to understand
SFAA and incorporate it into reform has not been done." The
work has been done in producing EQUALIZER. It can now be
used as an instructional package for assisting in reform.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Estimate of the Level of Thinking when Selecting from a Field of 5/7
Fifty Questions to Report What Was Known or Could Be Reasoned.*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weights: 50% for self-judgment, the foundation skill for using
higher levels of thinking and
an internal reward for learning.
50% for knowing or being able to reason the answer.
=============================================================================
THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS SELECTED SCORE LEVEL OF
0 10 20 30 40 50 THINKING
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
50>: 100%
* Assuming all 50 questions / :
perform well / : (2) FORMAL
/ :
/ :
>/ : 95
/ :
/ : PROBLEM
/ : SOLVING
/ :
40>/ : 90%
/ . :
/ . : SELF-
/ . : CORRECTING
/ . :
>/ . : 85
/ . :
/ . : MAKES
/ . : SENSE
/ . :
30>/ /: 80% ==========
/ . / :
/ . / :
/ . / :
/ . / :
>/ . / : 75
/ . / :
/ . / :
S / . / :
R / . / :
E 20>/ R E C I T I N G / : 70%
W / . S E N S E / . :
S / . / . : (1) CONCRETE
N / . / . :
A / . / . :
>/ . / . : 65
T / . / . :
H / . / . : MEMORIZE
G / . / . :
I / . / . :
R 10>/ / .: 60%
/ \ / . . :
/ \ / . . :
/ \ / . . : MATCH
/ \ / . . :
/ \ / . . :
>/ \ / . . : 55
/ \ / . . :
/ \ / . . : REPEAT
/ \ / . . :
/ \ / E D U C A T E D :
START-> * S T A R T I N G / G U E S.S I N G : 50%
\ / . . . :
\ / . . . :
\ / . . . :
\ / . . . :
>\ / . . . : 45
\ / . . . :
\ / . . . :
\ / . . . :
\ / . . . :
W 10>\ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -: 40% ===========
R \ . . . :
O \ . . C H A N C E . :
N \ . . . :
G \ . . . :
>\ . . . : 35
A \ . . . :
N \ . . . : (0) RANDOM
S \ . . . : GUESSING
W \ . . . :
E 20>\ N O N S E N S E . : 30%
R \ . . :
S \ . . : HOPING
\ . . :
\ . . :
>\ . . : 25
\ . . :
\ . . :
\ . . :
\ . . :
30>\ .: 20%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 10 20 30 40 50 LEVEL OF
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ANSWERS MARKED SCORE THINKING
=============================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------
BIBLIOGRAPHY and SUPPORT 7/7
------------------------------------------------------------
Hart, Richard A. 1981. Evaluating and rewarding student
initiative and judgement or an alternative to "sitting
through" a course if you did not test out. Pages 75-76
in Directory of Teaching Innovations in Biology.
Meeth, L. R. and Dean S. Gregory, Ed. Studies in
Higher Education:Arlington, Virginia. 252 pages.
Hart, Richard and Kenneth Minter. 1985. Using a
computer to manage typical classroom problems.
National Science Teachers Association Annual Meeting,
Cincinnati, Ohio 18-21 April.
Minter, Kenneth and Richard Hart. 1986. Essay testing
using multiple choice questions. Missouri Academy of
Science Annual Meeting, Warrensburg, MO 25-26 April.
Hart, Richard and Kenneth Minter. 1988. Diagnostic
Testing Using Multi-Choice and Matching Questions.
National Science Teachers Association Annual Meeting,
St. Louis, MO 7-10 April.
Minter, Kenneth and Richard Hart. 1989. Student Choice
in Computer Graded Tests. National Science Teachers
Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington
6-9 April.
Hart, Richard and Kenneth Minter. 1991. Student Choice
in Multiple-Choice Testing. National Science Teachers
Association Annual Meeting, Houston, Texas
27-30 March.
------------------------------------------------------------
Program support is available by mail from Nine-Patch
Software, 315 South Alco Ave., Maryville, MO 64468-2033
for registered users. (Else include a stamped and
self-addressed envelope.) Also at CIS 71222,3565.
Assistance in creating high quality questions from
paragraphs, class notes, and observations and in using
multiple-choice questions at higher levels of thinking is
available. Of interest are student and teacher workshops
and demonstrations in which the participants experience the
concepts of free-choice testing as well as learn about them.
Free-choice reporting with EQUALIZER spans portfolio, essay,
and multiple-choice: concept maps, paragraphs, and tests.
Richard A. Hart, Ph.D., (816) 582-8589
315 South Alco Avenue, Maryville, MO 64468-2033
------------------------------------------------------------
