论文标题
基于计算机和纸笔测试：对茎专业的微积分研究
Computer-based and paper-and-pencil tests: A study in calculus for STEM majors
论文作者
论文摘要
基于计算机的测试是对教师和学生提供优势的技术的扩展使用。我们使用不同的测试模式研究了STEM专业的微积分II类。有324名学生的三个部分：纸笔测试，基于计算机的测试以及两者。计算机测试会立即提供反馈，允许多次提交和合并。纸笔测试需要工作和解释，以检查高认知需求任务。每个测试模式都使用其方法的强度。同一位讲师在同一天为学生提供了同一位讲座，以及相同的家庭作业和到期日期。该设计是准实验性的，但学生不知道注册时的测试模式。研究的两个基本问题是：（1）纸笔和基于计算机的测试是否以一致的方式测量STEM演奏II的知识和技能？ （2）在完全基于计算机的微积分II课程中，学生在需要铅笔和纸测试的班级中获得的知识和技能是如何与学生相比的。这些结果表明，基于计算机的测试与纸笔测试一致，就像基于计算机的测试一样。结果也与仅使用计算机评估的完全基于计算机的类别的纸笔测试的课程一致。
Computer-based testing is an expanding use of technology offering advantages to teachers and students. We studied Calculus II classes for STEM majors using different testing modes. Three sections with 324 students employed: Paper-and-pencil testing, computer-based testing, and both. Computer tests gave immediate feedback, allowed multiple submissions, and pooling. Paper-and-pencil tests required work and explanation allowing inspection of high cognitive demand tasks. Each test mode used the strength of its method. Students were given the same lecture by the same instructor on the same day and the same homework assignments and due dates. The design is quasi-experimental, but students were not aware of the testing mode at registration. Two basic questions examined were: (1) Do paper-and-pencil and computer-based tests measure knowledge and skill in STEM Calculus II in a consistent manner? (2) How does the knowledge and skill gained by students in a fully computer-based Calculus II class compare to students in a class requiring pencil-and-paper tests and hence some paper-and-pencil work. These results indicate that computer-based tests are as consistent with paper-and-pencil tests as computer-based tests are with themselves. Results are also consistent with classes using paper-and-pencil tests having slightly better outcomes than fully computer-based classes using only computer assessments.
