An experimental testing program is described which utilizes questions that are partly computer composed, in addition to a section composed by the instructor, and a retesting option to the student. Results from a trial of the program for one term indicate that (1) course grades were improved, (2) the student withdrawal failure rate was unaffected, and (3) the employed students took greater advantage of the retest than did the unemployed students

Broach, Billie G.

Hodges, Howard L.

English

ScholarWorks@UARK

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of ScienceVolume 30 Article 111976Experimental Testing Program in ElementaryChemistry: A Preliminary ReportBillie G. BroachUniversity of Arkansas at Little RockHoward L. HodgesUniversity of Arkansas at Little RockFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaasPart of the Chemistry Commons, and the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and ResearchCommonsThis article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able toread, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking priorpermission from the publisher or the author.This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academyof Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu, ccmiddle@uark.edu.Recommended CitationBroach, Billie G. and Hodges, Howard L. (1976) "Experimental Testing Program in Elementary Chemistry: A Preliminary Report,"Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 30 , Article 11.Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol30/iss1/11Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol.XXX,1976 27AnExperimental Testing Program inElementaryChemistry: APreliminary ReportBILLIEG. BROACH and HOWARD L.HODGESDepartment ofChemistry, University of Arkansas at LittleRock,LittleRock, Arkansas 72204ABSTRACTAn experimental testing program is described which utilizes questions that are partlycomputer composed, inaddition to a section composed by the instructor, and a retestingoption to the student. Results from a trial of the program for one term indicate that (1)course grades were improved, (2) the student withdrawal failure rate was unaffected, and(3) the employed students took greater advantage of the retest than did the unemployedstudents.INTRODUCTIONInthe fall of 1975 the authors introduced an experimental testingprogram at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in the coursetitled, "Elementary Chemistry I."The course is designed forseveralcategories of students: those who have had no high school chemistry;those who feel their chemistry background is weak as a result ofinadequate high school preparation or an interruption of severalyears in their college career; those whose background in mathe-matics is weak; those who are pursuing professional or preprofession-alcareers innursing, home economics, or agriculture; and those whoneed one semester of an introductory laboratory physical sciencecourse to fulfillgraduation requirements. The student population inthis particular class included 13 declared science majors inchemistry, physics, biology, or engineering; 32 students in health-related sciences such as nursing, premedicine, prepharmacy,medical technology, radiology technology, dental hygiene, physicaltherapy, and respiratory therapy; 6 students in such fields as lawenforcement, psychology, sociology, and physical education; and 4students who had notdeclared a major.Experience had shown that students who have little or no con-fidence in their ability to succeed in chemistry, for whatever thereason, pose a challenge. Itwas also apparent from experience thatthese students were the ones who ventured timidlyand reluctantlyintoElementary Chemistry I.Various approaches to testing had beentaken previously, and late in the fall of 1974 a grant to implement anew method of testing was applied for and received from theDonaghey Foundation through the Innovative Teaching Committeeat UALR. The proposed testing program was as follows. An extensivepool of multiple choice questions wouldbe compiled by the authorsand computerized by topics; at test time multiple tests would begenerated by the computer over selected topics from the pool ofquestions; a second section written by the instructor, includingproblem solving and discussion questions, would be duplicated andwould complete the test packet. Students wouldretain the computer-ized part of the test and turn inonly the standard answer sheet formand the duplicated part. The answer sheets would be processed bythe computer and a printout of the results of the first section posted;the second section would be graded by the instructor and returned tothe student. An optional discussion period would be scheduled at atime other than regular class time forquestions concerning the testand the material covered onit.Shortly thereafter a three-hour periodof time wouldbe set aside to enable a student to take a retest over thesame material. The three-hour period was chosen arbitrarily as acompromise between a full day for retesting which seemed highlydesirable and the block of time that could be worked into theinstructor's schedule.The authors' ambition was to collect definitive data on severalunanswered questions.1. Would students achieve at a higherlevel in a test-retest situ-ation than they would without the retesting?2. Could the high percentage of withdrawals and failures thatplague this course be reduced?3. Could some of the trauma experienced by many studentswhen confronted by a test be reduced?4. Was there a pattern of achievement and/or retesting of theemployed versus the unemployed student?PROCEDUREMechanically, itwas decided touse three questions per topic fromthe pool ofquestions for the computerized part of the test. For a 20-question test this meant a subset of60 questions from the large pool.This number was used to ensure that the questions acquired by thestudents would be limited and that the subset could be replaced inthepool with relative ease. Questions from the first test didnot reappearon the retest or the finalexamination although similar ones replacedthem. Students were required to turn inboth sections of the retestand the computerized part was notreturned to them. However, anystudent could obtain the computerized test for study in theinstructor's office at any time after the results of the retest wereposted. For both the initial test and the retest three parallel tests forthe noncomputerized part were prepared and identification of thethree was simplified by duplicating each test on paper of a differentcolor (test Aon blue paper, test B on yellow, and test C on white, forexample). This practice seems to be common among instructors oflarge classes. A room for the retest period was designated andstudents were allowed to come in at any time during a three-hourtime period tobe retested. Itwas possible fora student to spend theentire period on the test and the 50-minute classroom limit was notobserved.The method of testing was well received by the students. Thegrading scale was fixedand the scores were not curved. Retesting wasoptional and the higher of the two scores achieved by the student wasrecorded. There were several problem areas. It was necessary toschedule computer time for test generation rather far in advancebecause the computer was new to the campus and subject to beingshut down frequently. There was often a somewhat long time lagbetween testing and receiving test results from the computer. Itwasdifficult at first for the students toread computer "handwriting" andto fillin the IDfield on the answer sheets properly. The method oftesting also is very time consuming from the instructor's standpoint.However, by the end of the semester most of these problems hadsmoothed out. The wide margin on the right side of each computertest was especially useful to the student and the ability to keep thecomputerized part of the first test seemed helpful.RESULTSThe preliminary results of the testing were not as decisive as hadbeen anticipated. Table Isummarizes the results of the test -retesting.Column Ishows a breakdown by letter grade of the total number ofstudents who took the initial test foreach of the three lecture testsgiven during the semester. Column IIshows the number whoattempted toraise their score byretesting. The percentages shown inparentheses were obtained from the numbers in Columns Iand II.Column IIIshows the number of students attempting to raise theirgrades who were successful. The percentages in this column wereobtained from the numbers in Columns IIand III.A larger27Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 30 [1976], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1976BillieG. Broach and Howard L.Hodgespercentage of students had been expected to take advantage of the Inthe final analysis 18 of the 55 students in this study who began theretest opportunity than actually participated. Numerically, the totals course, or 32.7%, were able to achieve a higher final grade throughare about the same forall three tests. However, 49% of the students retesting than would have been possible without retesting. Ifthiselected to retest on test 3, and the percentage of those who raised figure is based on the 40 who completed the course, the percentagetheir scores was encouraging. As anticipated, the students who took rises to 45.0%.the retest were predominantly inthe C, D,and F range. Inan effort to determine whether or not this method of testing wasStatistically, 34 students, about 62%, took advantage of the discriminatory to the employed student, a study was made of theretesting sometime during the semester; 19 students retested only retesting pattern of the employed versus the nonemployed student,once, 16 retested twice, and 3 students retested on all three tests. The The questionnaires filledout by the students attending classes duringbenefits of the retesting are summarized in Table 2. Retesting on the the first week of the semester were examined carefully and thefinal examination was notpermitted. findings are presented in Table III.One of the most striking observations about the testing results is Contrary to what might have been expected, a substantially higherthat not even one student who withdrew from the course took percentage of employed students participated in the retestingadvantage of the retesting program. Itis especially surprising because program than did the nonemployed students. The withdrawal ratemany of these students did not withdraw until after the third test. contrast is not as dramatic but the rate is still noticeably higher forFurther study of this finding is indicated. Itis also ofinterest to note the nonemployed. Any change in the employment status of thethat a change from a score that wouldplace a student, forinstance, in students during the semester was not reported to the authors, butthe low "C" range without retesting but in the high "C" range by might have some bearing on the statistics. However, conclusions thairetesting would notbe reflected in the "Change after 3 tests" column, can be drawn from the figures in the table are that the employedbut was reflected in the "Change in final grade" column where the student seems to have been able to findtime forretesting and that thescore was averaged withthose for the remaining tests of the semester. withdrawal rate is lower for these students.Table I.Summary of Tests and Retests byStudent PopulationsColumn I Column II Column IIINo. who earned this No. attempting score No. raising scoregrade without retest rise by retest byretestTest Test TestGrade 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3_A 12 3 4 0(%) 1(33%) 1(25%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%)"B 11 2 5 3(27%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%)C 14 12 11 6(43%) 5(42%) 5(45%) 2(33%) 1(20%) 5(100%)D 4 10 6 1(25%) 6(60%) 4(67%) 1(100%) 4(66%) 3(75%)F 14 18 15 8(57%) 9(50%) 6(40%) 7(88%) 5(56%) 4(75%)Total 55 45 41 18(33%) 21(47%) 20(49%) 10(56%) 10(48%) 12(60%)Table II.Testing ResultsBygrade Bydegree ofchangeCourse grade Students using Students raising Student not Change after Change inafter 3 tests noretesting grade by retesting raising by 3 tests f'na'g™debyretestingA 1 2 1 1 C A IDAB 4 7 1 1BA 2BAC 3 3 4 6CB 2CAD 2 1 2 1 D B 1 D BF 4 0 3 3DC 6CBW J5_ 0_ 0 1 F D 4 D CSubtotals 29 13 12 1 F C2 F DTotal 55 13 T8Table III.Record of Employed Versus Nonemployed StudentsInitial Participants Completingenrollment inretesting Withdrawals courseEmployed 32 23(71.8%) 8(25.0%) 24(75.0%)Nonemployed 23 12(52.2%) 7(30.4%) 16(69.6%)Total 55 35(63.3%) 15(27.2%) 40(72.7%)28 Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXX,197628Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 30 [1976], Art. 11http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol30/iss1/11Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXX,1976 29An Experimental Testing Program inElementary Chemistry: A Preliminary ReportDISCUSSIONIIcomparison was made of the withdrawal-failure percentages infall semesters of 1973, 1974, and 1975. Inthe fall of 1973, thehdrawal-failure percentage forElementary Chemistry Iwas 34.7%he same semester of1974, it had dropped to 20.0%.This dramaticaction is believed to be the result of an exclusive computerting-retesting program in which the retest questions were takenm the same pool as the test questions. The authors recognized thatdents could easily increase their test scores byacquiring a pool of¦stums and memorizing the answers without understanding the<t-rial. Itis believed that this held students in class but was not airable method of testing. The percentage rose to 38.1% in ther5 fall semester; this increase is believed to reflect the change inthe testing procedure. Certainly the 38.1% rate of fall 1975 indicatesa failure to retain or even approach the low of the previous year.Littlecomfort can be drawn from the fact that notone of the studentswho withdrew from the course elected to take even one retest.Without exception these students were unattracted to the program.the following comments can be made concerning the questionsauthors are seeking to answer.1. A substantial number of students, 32.7% of the total begin-ning students and 45.0% of those who completed thecourse, were able to achieve ahigher grade against a fixed,uncurved grading scale with the test-retest program. Noattempt was made inthis study to determine whether or notstudents gained a better understanding of the materialcovered except from the information gleaned from the com-parison of the withdrawal-failure rates.2. Disappointingly, the test-retest program was not as success-ful as the previous year's program in reducing the with-drawal-failure rate. However, it is believed to be a morevalid program. Further study willbe made of succeedingclasses.3. The question of the reduction of testing trauma through thetest-retest program has yet to be resolved by data. It wasevident from informal student response that a large numberof students would have taken advantage of a retest on thefinal at any hour of the day or night had it been available.This indication does notconstitute hard evidence, however,and a questionnaire on this topic willbe administered as thestudy proceeds.4. The data collected for this study show that the employedstudent takes advantage of the test-retest opportunity and ismore successful than the nonemployed student inraising hisscore and grade.Additional data willbe collected and a comparison made of theachievement of two parallel classes differing only in the method oftesting.29Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 30 [1976], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1976

Experimental Testing Program in Elementary Chemistry: A Preliminary Report

UARK (University of Arkansas )

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 30 Article 11 1976 Experimental Testing Program in Elementary Chemistry: A Preliminary Report Billie G. Broach University of Arkansas at Little Rock Howard L. Hodges University of Arkansas at Little Rock Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas  Part of the Chemistry Commons, and the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons Recommended Citation Broach, Billie G. and Hodges, Howard L. (1976) "Experimental Testing Program in Elementary Chemistry: A Preliminary Report," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 30 , Article 11. Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol30/iss1/11 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu. Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol.XXX,1976 27AnExperimental Testing Program inElementaryChemistry: APreliminary ReportBILLIEG. BROACH and HOWARD L.HODGESDepartment ofChemistry, University of Arkansas at LittleRock,LittleRock, Arkansas 72204ABSTRACTAn experimental testing program is described which utilizes questions that are partlycomputer composed, inaddition to a section composed by the instructor, and a retestingoption to the student. Results from a trial of the program for one term indicate that (1)course grades were improved, (2) the student withdrawal failure rate was unaffected, and(3) the employed students took greater advantage of the retest than did the unemployedstudents.INTRODUCTIONInthe fall of 1975 the authors introduced an experimental testingprogram at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in the coursetitled, "Elementary Chemistry I."The course is designed forseveralcategories of students: those who have had no high school chemistry;those who feel their chemistry background is weak as a result ofinadequate high school preparation or an interruption of severalyears in their college career; those whose background in mathe-matics is weak; those who are pursuing professional or preprofession-alcareers innursing, home economics, or agriculture; and those whoneed one semester of an introductory laboratory physical sciencecourse to fulfillgraduation requirements. The student population inthis particular class included 13 declared science majors inchemistry, physics, biology, or engineering; 32 students in health-related sciences such as nursing, premedicine, prepharmacy,medical technology, radiology technology, dental hygiene, physicaltherapy, and respiratory therapy; 6 students in such fields as lawenforcement, psychology, sociology, and physical education; and 4students who had notdeclared a major.Experience had shown that students who have little or no con-fidence in their ability to succeed in chemistry, for whatever thereason, pose a challenge. Itwas also apparent from experience thatthese students were the ones who ventured timidlyand reluctantlyintoElementary Chemistry I.Various approaches to testing had beentaken previously, and late in the fall of 1974 a grant to implement anew method of testing was applied for and received from theDonaghey Foundation through the Innovative Teaching Committeeat UALR. The proposed testing program was as follows. An extensivepool of multiple choice questions wouldbe compiled by the authorsand computerized by topics; at test time multiple tests would begenerated by the computer over selected topics from the pool ofquestions; a second section written by the instructor, includingproblem solving and discussion questions, would be duplicated andwould complete the test packet. Students wouldretain the computer-ized part of the test and turn inonly the standard answer sheet formand the duplicated part. The answer sheets would be processed bythe computer and a printout of the results of the first section posted;the second section would be graded by the instructor and returned tothe student. An optional discussion period would be scheduled at atime other than regular class time forquestions concerning the testand the material covered onit.Shortly thereafter a three-hour periodof time wouldbe set aside to enable a student to take a retest over thesame material. The three-hour period was chosen arbitrarily as acompromise between a full day for retesting which seemed highlydesirable and the block of time that could be worked into theinstructor's schedule.The authors' ambition was to collect definitive data on severalunanswered questions.1. Would students achieve at a higherlevel in a test-retest situ-ation than they would without the retesting?2. Could the high percentage of withdrawals and failures thatplague this course be reduced?3. Could some of the trauma experienced by many studentswhen confronted by a test be reduced?4. Was there a pattern of achievement and/or retesting of theemployed versus the unemployed student?PROCEDUREMechanically, itwas decided touse three questions per topic fromthe pool ofquestions for the computerized part of the test. For a 20-question test this meant a subset of60 questions from the large pool.This number was used to ensure that the questions acquired by thestudents would be limited and that the subset could be replaced inthepool with relative ease. Questions from the first test didnot reappearon the retest or the finalexamination although similar ones replacedthem. Students were required to turn inboth sections of the retestand the computerized part was notreturned to them. However, anystudent could obtain the computerized test for study in theinstructor's office at any time after the results of the retest wereposted. For both the initial test and the retest three parallel tests forthe noncomputerized part were prepared and identification of thethree was simplified by duplicating each test on paper of a differentcolor (test Aon blue paper, test B on yellow, and test C on white, forexample). This practice seems to be common among instructors oflarge classes. A room for the retest period was designated andstudents were allowed to come in at any time during a three-hourtime period tobe retested. Itwas possible fora student to spend theentire period on the test and the 50-minute classroom limit was notobserved.The method of testing was well received by the students. Thegrading scale was fixedand the scores were not curved. Retesting wasoptional and the higher of the two scores achieved by the student wasrecorded. There were several problem areas. It was necessary toschedule computer time for test generation rather far in advancebecause the computer was new to the campus and subject to beingshut down frequently. There was often a somewhat long time lagbetween testing and receiving test results from the computer. Itwasdifficult at first for the students toread computer "handwriting" andto fillin the IDfield on the answer sheets properly. The method oftesting also is very time consuming from the instructor's standpoint.However, by the end of the semester most of these problems hadsmoothed out. The wide margin on the right side of each computertest was especially useful to the student and the ability to keep thecomputerized part of the first test seemed helpful.RESULTSThe preliminary results of the testing were not as decisive as hadbeen anticipated. Table Isummarizes the results of the test -retesting.Column Ishows a breakdown by letter grade of the total number ofstudents who took the initial test foreach of the three lecture testsgiven during the semester. Column IIshows the number whoattempted toraise their score byretesting. The percentages shown inparentheses were obtained from the numbers in Columns Iand II.Column IIIshows the number of students attempting to raise theirgrades who were successful. The percentages in this column wereobtained from the numbers in Columns IIand III.A larger27Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 30 [1976], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1976BillieG. Broach and Howard L.Hodgespercentage of students had been expected to take advantage of the Inthe final analysis 18 of the 55 students in this study who began theretest opportunity than actually participated. Numerically, the totals course, or 32.7%, were able to achieve a higher final grade throughare about the same forall three tests. However, 49% of the students retesting than would have been possible without retesting. Ifthiselected to retest on test 3, and the percentage of those who raised figure is based on the 40 who completed the course, the percentagetheir scores was encouraging. As anticipated, the students who took rises to 45.0%.the retest were predominantly inthe C, D,and F range. Inan effort to determine whether or not this method of testing wasStatistically, 34 students, about 62%, took advantage of the discriminatory to the employed student, a study was made of theretesting sometime during the semester; 19 students retested only retesting pattern of the employed versus the nonemployed student,once, 16 retested twice, and 3 students retested on all three tests. The The questionnaires filledout by the students attending classes duringbenefits of the retesting are summarized in Table 2. Retesting on the the first week of the semester were examined carefully and thefinal examination was notpermitted. findings are presented in Table III.One of the most striking observations about the testing results is Contrary to what might have been expected, a substantially higherthat not even one student who withdrew from the course took percentage of employed students participated in the retestingadvantage of the retesting program. Itis especially surprising because program than did the nonemployed students. The withdrawal ratemany of these students did not withdraw until after the third test. contrast is not as dramatic but the rate is still noticeably higher forFurther study of this finding is indicated. Itis also ofinterest to note the nonemployed. Any change in the employment status of thethat a change from a score that wouldplace a student, forinstance, in students during the semester was not reported to the authors, butthe low "C" range without retesting but in the high "C" range by might have some bearing on the statistics. However, conclusions thairetesting would notbe reflected in the "Change after 3 tests" column, can be drawn from the figures in the table are that the employedbut was reflected in the "Change in final grade" column where the student seems to have been able to findtime forretesting and that thescore was averaged withthose for the remaining tests of the semester. withdrawal rate is lower for these students.Table I.Summary of Tests and Retests byStudent PopulationsColumn I Column II Column IIINo. who earned this No. attempting score No. raising scoregrade without retest rise by retest byretestTest Test TestGrade 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3_A 12 3 4 0(%) 1(33%) 1(25%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%)"B 11 2 5 3(27%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%)C 14 12 11 6(43%) 5(42%) 5(45%) 2(33%) 1(20%) 5(100%)D 4 10 6 1(25%) 6(60%) 4(67%) 1(100%) 4(66%) 3(75%)F 14 18 15 8(57%) 9(50%) 6(40%) 7(88%) 5(56%) 4(75%)Total 55 45 41 18(33%) 21(47%) 20(49%) 10(56%) 10(48%) 12(60%)Table II.Testing ResultsBygrade Bydegree ofchangeCourse grade Students using Students raising Student not Change after Change inafter 3 tests noretesting grade by retesting raising by 3 tests f'na'g™debyretestingA 1 2 1 1 C A IDAB 4 7 1 1BA 2BAC 3 3 4 6CB 2CAD 2 1 2 1 D B 1 D BF 4 0 3 3DC 6CBW J5_ 0_ 0 1 F D 4 D CSubtotals 29 13 12 1 F C2 F DTotal 55 13 T8Table III.Record of Employed Versus Nonemployed StudentsInitial Participants Completingenrollment inretesting Withdrawals courseEmployed 32 23(71.8%) 8(25.0%) 24(75.0%)Nonemployed 23 12(52.2%) 7(30.4%) 16(69.6%)Total 55 35(63.3%) 15(27.2%) 40(72.7%)28 Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXX,197628Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 30 [1976], Art. 11https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol30/iss1/11Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXX,1976 29An Experimental Testing Program inElementary Chemistry: A Preliminary ReportDISCUSSIONIIcomparison was made of the withdrawal-failure percentages infall semesters of 1973, 1974, and 1975. Inthe fall of 1973, thehdrawal-failure percentage forElementary Chemistry Iwas 34.7%he same semester of1974, it had dropped to 20.0%.This dramaticaction is believed to be the result of an exclusive computerting-retesting program in which the retest questions were takenm the same pool as the test questions. The authors recognized thatdents could easily increase their test scores byacquiring a pool of¦stums and memorizing the answers without understanding the<t-rial. Itis believed that this held students in class but was not airable method of testing. The percentage rose to 38.1% in ther5 fall semester; this increase is believed to reflect the change inthe testing procedure. Certainly the 38.1% rate of fall 1975 indicatesa failure to retain or even approach the low of the previous year.Littlecomfort can be drawn from the fact that notone of the studentswho withdrew from the course elected to take even one retest.Without exception these students were unattracted to the program.the following comments can be made concerning the questionsauthors are seeking to answer.1. A substantial number of students, 32.7% of the total begin-ning students and 45.0% of those who completed thecourse, were able to achieve ahigher grade against a fixed,uncurved grading scale with the test-retest program. Noattempt was made inthis study to determine whether or notstudents gained a better understanding of the materialcovered except from the information gleaned from the com-parison of the withdrawal-failure rates.2. Disappointingly, the test-retest program was not as success-ful as the previous year's program in reducing the with-drawal-failure rate. However, it is believed to be a morevalid program. Further study willbe made of succeedingclasses.3. The question of the reduction of testing trauma through thetest-retest program has yet to be resolved by data. It wasevident from informal student response that a large numberof students would have taken advantage of a retest on thefinal at any hour of the day or night had it been available.This indication does notconstitute hard evidence, however,and a questionnaire on this topic willbe administered as thestudy proceeds.4. The data collected for this study show that the employedstudent takes advantage of the test-retest opportunity and ismore successful than the nonemployed student inraising hisscore and grade.Additional data willbe collected and a comparison made of theachievement of two parallel classes differing only in the method oftesting.29Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 30 [1976], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1976

https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2822&amp;context=jaas

Experimental Testing Program in Elementary Chemistry: A Preliminary Report

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UARK

UARK (University of Arkansas )