بررسی تأثیر روش‌های مختلف سنجش(تشریحی یا چندگزینه‌ای) بر رویکردهای مطالعه و راهبردهای آماده شدن برای امتحان در دانشجویان با پیشرفت تحصیلی بالا و پایین

نوع مقاله : علمی- پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار دانشکده روان‌شناسی و علوم تربیتی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی،

2 استاد دانشکده روا‌ن‌شناسی و علوم تربیتی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

10.22055/edus.2008.15804

چکیده

هدف از انجام پژوهش حاضر نشان دادن تأثیر دو روش متداول سنجش کلاسی (تشریحی و چهارگزینه‌ای) بر رویکردهای مطالعه و راهبردهای آماده شدن برای امتحان در دانشجویان با پیشرفت تحصیلی بالا و پایین بوده است. برای انجام این پژوهش تعداد 332 نفر از دانشجویان با پیشرفت تحصیلی بالا و پایین در رشته‌های روان‌شناسی و مدیریت آموزشی دانشگاههای شاهد و آزاد اسلامی اراک شرکت داشتند. برای جمع‌آوری اطلاعات مربوط به رویکردهای مطالعه دانشجویان از پرسشنامه رویکردها و مهارت‌های مطالعه برای دانشجویان (ASSIST) و برای اندازه‌گیری راهبردهای آماده شدن برای امتحان از پرسشنامه محقق ساخته‌ای با همین نام استفاده شد. داده‌های مربوط به این متغیرها در دو نوبت پیش‌آزمون و پس‌آزمون در ابتدا و انتهای ترم تحصیلی جمع‌آوری شد. معدل واحدهای درسی گذرانده شده دانشجویان نیز به عنوان شاخص پیشرفت تحصیلی مورد استفاده قرار گرفت. برای تحلیل داده‌ها از روش‌های آماری MANCOVA و ANCOVA استفاده شد. نتایج پژوهش نشان داد که استفاده از امتحان‌های تشریحی دانشجویان را به سمت رویکرد عمقی مطالعه و استفاده از امتحان‌های چندگزینه‌ای آنها را به سمت رویکرد سطحی مطالعه سوق می‌دهد. در تعامل بین سطوح متغیرهای روش سنجش و پیشرفت تحصیلی، تعامل روش سنجش تشریحی و سطح پیشرفت تحصیلی بالا در مقایسه با سایر شکل‌های تعامل متغیرهای مذکور، باعث میشود که دانشجویان رویکرد عمقی‌تری در مطالعه داشته باشند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigating the Effects of Type of Assessment (Essay and Multiple-Choice) on Students' Approaches to Studying and Exam Preparation Strategies between Students with High and Low Academic Achievement

نویسندگان [English]

  • J. Fathabadi 1
  • A. Saif 2
1 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University,
2 Professor, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Allameh Tabatabaei University
چکیده [English]

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of type of assessment (essay and multiple-choice) on students' approaches to studying and exam preparation strategies between students with high and low academic achievement. 332 students with high and low academic achievement (based on their GPA with the cut of point 17 from 20) majoring in psychology and educational management from Shahed and Arak Islamic Azad Universities participated at this study. They all completed the ASSIST (Approaches and Study Skills of Students) questionnaire and a researcher made questionnaire about their exam preparation strategies at the beginning and end of the academic term. Results of MANCOVA (pretest scores used as covariates) revealed that essay examinations encouraged students employ deep studying approaches and deep preparation strategies and multiple -choice examinations made a tendency toward surface studying approaches and surface exam preparation strategies. There was a statistically significant interaction between essay type of assessment and high academic achievement and lead students to study more deeply compare with other forms of the mentioned variables.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • multiple- choice exam
  • approaches to studying
  • surface approach
  • deep approach
  • exam preparation strategies
  • academic achievement
سیف، علیاکبر (1384). سنجش فرایند و فراوردة یادگیری‌: روشهای قدیم و جدید. تهران: نشر دوران.
سیف، علیاکبر (1382). اندازهگیری، سنجش و ارزشیابی آموزشی (ویرایش سوم). تهران: انتشارات دوران.
 Alderon, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14, 2, 115-129.
Andrews, S., & Fullilove, J. (1994). Backwash and the use of English oral speculations on the impact of new examination upon sixth form English language testing in Hong Kong, New Horizons, 34, 46-52.
Au, C., & Entwistle, N. (1999). Memorization with understanding in approaches to study: cultural variation or response to assessment demands? paper presented at the European Association for research on Learning and Instruction Conference.Gothenburg University.
Barnes, S. M., Clarke, D., & Stephens, M. (2000). Assessment: the engine of systematic curriculum reform? Curriculum Studies, 32, 5, 623-650.
Baumgart, N., & Halse, C. (1999). Approaches to learning across cultures: The role of assessment, Assessment in Education, 6, 3, 321-339.
Biggs, J. B. (1995). Assumptions underlying to educational assessment, Curriculum Forum, 4, 2, 1-22.
Birenbaum, M. (1997). Assessment preferences and their relationship to learning strategies and orientations. Higher Education, 33, 71-84.
Boad, D. (1990). Assessment and the promotion of educational values. Studies in Higher Education, 15, 1, 101-110.
Booth, P., Luckett, P., & Mladenovic, R. (1999). The quality of learning in accounting education: The impact of approaches to learning on academic performance. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 8, 277–300.
Busato, V.V., Prins, F.J., Elshout, J.J., & Maker, C. (1998). Learning styles: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study in higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 427-441.
Cano, F. (2005). Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: Their change through secondary school and their influences on academic performance, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 203-221.
Cheng, L. (1997). How does washback influence teaching? Implications for Hong Kong, Language and Education, 11, 1, 38-54.
Cuneo, C. J., & Delsworth, H. (2002). The lost generation in e-learning: Deep and surface approaches to online learning.
Davidson, R. A. (2002). Relationship of study approach and exam performance. Journal of Accounting Education, 20, 29–44.
Diseth, A. (2001). Validation of Norwegian version of the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST): Application of structural equation modeling. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45, 381-394.
Diseth, A., & Martinsen, Y. (2003). Approaches to learning, cognitive style, and motives as predictors of academic achievement, Educational Psychology, 23, 2, 195-207.
Diseth, A. (2003). Personality and approaches to learning as predictors of academic achievement. European Journal of Personality, 17, 143-155.
Duff, A., Boyle, E., Dunleavy, K., & Fergusen, J. (2004). The relationship between personality, approaches to learning, and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1970-1920.
Eley,M.G. (1992) Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students, Higher Education, 23, pp. 231–254.
Elias, R. Z. (2005). Students’ approaches to study in introductory accounting courses. Journal of Education for Business, 12, 194-200.
Entwistle, J., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19, 169–194.
Entwistle, J., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19, 169–194.
Entwistle, N. J. (2002). Approaches to studying and levels of understanding: The influences of teaching and assessment. Higher Education, 19, 156–168.
Entwistle, N., Tait, H. & McCune, V. (2000) Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts, European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 33–48.
Gow, L., Kember, D., & Cooper, B. (1994). The teaching context and approaches to study of accountancy students. Issues in Accounting
Hassall, T., & Joyce, J. (1998). Floating on the surface or in the deep end? Management Accounting, 76, 46–50.
Hattie, J., Biggs, J. B., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 2, 99-136.
Laurillard, D. M. (1979). The process of student learning. Higher Education, 8, 395-409.
Lu, C., & Suen, H. K. (1995). Assessment approaches and cognitive styles. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32(1), 1–17.
Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976) On qualitative differences in learning: 1- Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.
Marton, F. (1976) On non-verbatim training: level of processing and level of outcome. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 16, 273- 279.
Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13, 3, 241-256.
 Minbashian, A., Huon, G.f., & Bird, K. D. (2004). Approaches to studying and academic performance in short-essay exams. Higher Education , 47, 161-176.
Morrow, K. (1986). The evaluation of communicative performance. In: Portal, M. (Ed).Innovations in Language Testing: Proceedings of the IUS/NFER Conference. London: NFER/Nelson, pp. 1-13.
Newstead, S. E. (1992). A study of two “quick-and-essay” methods of assessing individual differences in student learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 299-312.
Orpwood, G. (2001). The role of assessment in science curriculum reform, Assessment in Education, Vol.8, No.2.
Popham, W. J. (1987). The merits of measurement-driven instruction, Phi Delta Kappa, 68, 679-682.
Rose, R. J., Hall, C. W., Bolen, L. M., & Webster, R. E. (1996). Locus of control and college students’ approaches to learning. Psychological…www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/customcf/fsagenda /fsa408.htm
Sadler-Smith, E. (1997). “Learning style”: frameworks and instruments. Educational Psychology, 17, 15-63.
Scoullar, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple-choice question examination versus assignment essay, Higher Education, 35, 453-472.
Scoullar, K., & Prosser, M. (1994). Students’ experiences in studying for multiple-choice question examinations. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 267-279.
Septh, G., & Brown, R. (1990). Effects of college students’ learning styles and gender on their test preparation strategies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol.4, 189-202.
Smith, S. N., & Miller, R. J. (2005). Learning Approaches: Examination type, discipline of study, and gender. Educational psychology, 25, 1, 43-53.
Solomonides, I. & Swannell, M. (1995) Can students learn to change their approach to study? in: G.GIBBS (Ed.) Improving Student Learning. Through Assessment and Evaluation (Oxford, The Oxford Center for Staff Development.
Thomas, P., & Bain, J. (1984). Contextual dependence of learning approaches: The effects of assessment. Human Learning, 3, 227-240.
Tiwari,A. & Tang, C. (2000). Does portfolio assessment encourages students to adopt different assessment preparation strategies? eduforge.org/docman/.../1111/ePortfolio Project Research Report.pdf
Zhang, L. (2003). Does the big five predictlearning approaches? Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1431-1446.