Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T20:58:59.084Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of Computer Testing Feedback for Instructional Improvement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Daymon W. Thatch
Daymon W. Thatch*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey
Get access

Abstract

This study reports the development of a computer assisted testing (CAT) system and the use of this system over the past five years to develop a normative testing tool in an introductory microeconomics theory course. The CAT system is more than a testing tool and can be used to aid in instructional improvement by pinpointing difficulties in technical material areas, levels of learning abilities, general lack of understanding and patterns of mathematical, graphic and written problems. It would appear that the techniques used to develop the normative tests in this report could also be used to develop individual standarized examinations tailored to the learning objectives in other courses.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , April 1980 , pp. 75 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bloom, Benjamin. “Classification of Educational Goals,” Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. David McKay Co., New York. New York, 1956.Google Scholar
Boehlje, D. Michael and Eidman, Vernon R. “Simulation and Gaming Models: Application in Teaching and Extension Programs.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 60 (1978): 987–92.Google Scholar
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. The Fourth Revolution. New York: McGraw-Hill Hook Co., 1972.Google Scholar
Edward, C Richard and MacEwan, Arthur. “The Teaching of Economics.” American Economic Review, 60(1970): 1–12.Google Scholar
French, E. Charles. “Selected Alternative Programs for Bringing the Real World to the Undergraduate Classroom.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 56(1974): 1163–75.Google Scholar
Hammonds, M. Timothy. “Guided Analysis: An Experiment in Educational Techniques.” Amer. Agr. Econ. 58(1976): 546–50.Google Scholar
Kendrick, G. James. “Techniques for Motivating Students.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 55 (1973): 762–66.Google Scholar
McDonald, K. Sandra. Computer Capabilities and Usage for Undergraduate Grading and Reporting. Texas A & M University, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, 1976.Google Scholar
Mosher, T. A. “Higher Education in the Rural Social Sciences.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 55(1973): 711–19.Google Scholar
Oosterhof, C. Albert. Preparation of Data Input and Interpretation of the Revised Kocher-Oosterhof Item Analysis. University of Kansas, Dept. of Education, Research and Management, 1972.Google Scholar
Schultz, W. Theodore. “Reflections on Teaching and Learning in College of Agriculture.” Journal of Farm Economics, 47(1965): 17–22.Google Scholar
Thatch, W. Daymon. Grading and Analysing of Multiple Choice Questions by Off-Line and Computer Equipment. Cook College Rutgers, The State University, Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, June 1976.Google Scholar
Walker, L. Odell. “Innovations in Undergratuate and Extension Teaching: Discussion.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 60(1978): 1003–1007.Google Scholar
Wessel, L. Kelso. Computer Assisted Testing (CAT). Ohio State University, Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, March, 1975.Google Scholar
Westcott, R. Edwin and Thatch, Daymon W. Computer Program for Grading and Analyzing Multiple Choice Questions. Cook College, Rutgers The State University, Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, May 1972.Google Scholar
White, C. Fred. “Simulation of Agricultural Policy Formation as a Teaching Approach.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 59(1979): 225–27.Google Scholar