JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for WEB-ASSISTED-ASSESSMENT Archives


WEB-ASSISTED-ASSESSMENT Archives

WEB-ASSISTED-ASSESSMENT Archives


WEB-ASSISTED-ASSESSMENT@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

WEB-ASSISTED-ASSESSMENT Home

WEB-ASSISTED-ASSESSMENT Home

WEB-ASSISTED-ASSESSMENT  2001

WEB-ASSISTED-ASSESSMENT 2001

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: facility and discrimination

From:

Dr Mary Masson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

This list, hosted by the CASTLE project, is for those interested in conduct" <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:07:26 +0000

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (69 lines)

Hi
I downloaded Jon's document this morning and had a quick scan before
I sent the brief note about how we calculate facility and
discrimination.

What struck me, looking at the document again just now, was how much
of what we do at the end of the day is the same.  I absolutely
agree that the statistical analysis is a waste of time if no-one
looks at the results and attempts to interpret them in a meaningful
way.

In haste, here are a few notes and thoughts about how I look at
facility and discrimination data, for ABCD MCQ exams.

1. Only the values from the main diet exam mean anything. Here
we would expect N>250, so results are almost certainly significant,
though we don't have a formula for it.

2. Resit values are expected to be different, since the ability of
candidates does not represent the general ability of the class.
Also, N is much lower.

3. Negative discrimination usually means that the wrong answer has
been entered.&nbsp; Occasionally, it is a really poor
question/answer, in which the better students are disadvantaged
because they have more knowledge (or whatever is being tested).
I would delete such a question from the scoring.

4. Questions with a high facility value usually have lower
discrimination then those with low facility value.

5. A question with low facility and high discrimination is a good
question that only the best students are managing to answer.

6. A question with low facility and low discrimination is a poor
question - or one that indicates that students have misunderstood the
material taught, or the question.

7. A good exam paper will be designed to contain questions with
differing values of facility and discrimination.

Mary Masson

On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 13:58:11 +0000 Jon Maber <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> (part omitted)

> Apart from any of that the statistical analysis is a complete waste of
> time if noone intends to take action as a result and for that to
> happen they have to understand how to interpret the result.  A common
> problem is that a simplistic explanation can become current - e.g. if
> you get a negative discrimination index on your question you are a
> cr*p teacher and if all your questions have a positive discrimination
> index you are a  brilliant teacher.
>
> The document I referenced before attempts to deal with this issue by
> presenting various scenarios.
>
> Jon Maber

----------------------
Dr Mary Masson
Department of Chemistry
University of Aberdeen
Meston Walk, Aberdeen AB24 3UE

Tel 01224 272931   Fax 01224 272921
email [log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
June 2019
April 2019
March 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
November 2017
October 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
May 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
June 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager