Evaluation & the Health Professions

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bakdash, M. B.
Right arrow Articles by Bandt, Carl. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bakdash, M. B.
Right arrow Articles by Bandt, Carl. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 5, No. 4, 449-458 (1982)
DOI: 10.1177/016327878200500406

Determining Congruence between Teaching Intentions, Student Expectations, and Evaluation Practices

M. Bashar Bakdash

Allan L. Lange

Carl. L. Bandt

School of Dentistry University of Minnesota

Periodic review and analysis of didactic achievement tests are essential parts of the process of improving teaching, learning, and testing programs. This study describes a method for determining the degree of cognitive congruence between teaching intentions, student expectations, and testing practices. A three-category model (recall, comprehension, and application) adopted from Bloom's Taxonomy was used to survey periodontology faculty and thirdyear dental students regarding their opinion of how test questions should be distributed. Actual distribution of test items used to evaluate student didactic achievement were also categorized by three raters. In addition, item difficulty and discrimination were calculated for each category of items andfor each course. Faculty recommended a distribution heavily weighted in favor of comprehension and applicationtype items, while the actual distribution and student recommendations favored recall-type items. Recall and comprehension questions were equal in terms of difficulty and discrimination. However, application items were less difficult and had the lowest discrimination. The approach used in this study resulted in information useful for planning future test construction.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?