Mail pros and cons of testing. Tests: the pros and cons of this method of assessment. Formation of test tasks for computer control of knowledge
It would not be an exaggeration to say that today online testing systems have made a real revolution in learning. They helped to improve the assessment of students' knowledge. Now it is much easier for teachers to conduct exams, as well as monitor the results and progress of their students. Long gone are the days when the teacher had to create each test manually and record the results in a journal, calculate the average score. Today's online testing systems help track the progress of each student, avoiding complicated calculations. The tools for creating online tests themselves are becoming clearer and more convenient for both students and teachers.
Learning how to create online tests is easy
In the past, many educators have shied away from online quizzes because creating each one was a lot of work and could be really exhausting. Someone was afraid that he would not have enough knowledge, that he would need to buy additional equipment, deal with HTML code, or hire a programmer. But now the tools for creating tests are becoming so intuitive that every teacher, even a beginner, can easily create a great online test for their course. It is convenient that many programs do not require installation, working from a browser, but mobile applications to create online tests allow you to work even on the road.
Online testing saves time
Now you can create a whole database of questions and save them for future use. No need to write a separate test for each course - you can create an exam by simply choosing questions from an already created database or use a template that will be easy to change for each new course. In addition, the automatic scoring system is very useful. And how simple can analytics be! You can easily determine which students need your help. Agree, this will save you a lot of time and nerves. Many systems allow you to choose a design for your tests, as well as automatically generate personalized certificates based on the results of the exam.
Online tests are efficient and reliable
The reliability of tests becomes especially relevant for online courses. In order for each student's assessment to be objective, it is very important to prevent the possibility of cheating. And it is with the help of online testing programs that you can use methods that will prevent your students from sharing answers. You can create multiple versions of the same test by changing the order of questions and answer options. It will also be effective to offer more than 6 detailed answers for each question.
Many online testing systems do not allow the user to copy text from a dialog box. And we know that if the work is done at the computer, the student can simply copy the question to find the answer to it on the Internet. Even though the question and answer can be manually typed, you can set a time limit for the answer.
Disadvantages of Online Testing
- See what programs are available on the market. At the beginning, you do not need to study all the options that each of the programs provides, just look at the list of suggested tools. Please note that not all programs support the Russian language.
- Now that you know what features can be found in different programs, create a list of those that will be most important to you.
- Compare different online applications. Evaluate only those parameters that are important to you and will be decisive when choosing a platform.
- Read reviews.
- Test multiple applications. Many of them offer a free test drive. See how easy it will be to create a test and pass it. To do this, organize a small test among the students and find out their opinion. It is important that such a test be rather symbolic and not affect the assessment of knowledge itself.
Of course, it would be great if your webinar service or e-learning program supported online testing. Managing such a course requires less effort, all tests and results are stored in one place. But each course is individual, and the program for online testing should be chosen based on the characteristics of your particular course.
The test method is one of the main ones in modern psychodiagnostics. In terms of popularity in educational and professional psychodiagnostics, it has been firmly holding the first place in the world psychodiagnostic practice for almost a century.
In this section, tests should be understood as methods that consist of a series of tasks with a choice of ready-made answer options. When calculating the scores for the test, the selected answers receive an unambiguous quantitative interpretation and are summed up. The total score is compared with quantitative test norms, and after this comparison, standard diagnostic conclusions are formulated.
The popularity of the test method is due to the following main advantages:
1) standardization of conditions and results. Test methods are relatively independent of the qualifications of the user (performer), for the role of which even a laboratory assistant with a secondary education can be trained. This, however, does not mean that it is not necessary to involve a qualified specialist with a full-fledged higher psychological education in order to prepare a comprehensive conclusion on a battery of tests;
2) efficiency and economy. A typical test consists of a series of short tasks, each of which usually takes no more than half a minute to complete, and the entire test usually takes no more than an hour. Testing is simultaneously subjected to a group of subjects at once, thus, there is a significant saving in time for data collection;
3) the quantitative differentiated nature of the assessment. The fragmentation of the scale and the standardization of the test make it possible to consider it as a "measuring tool" that gives a quantitative assessment of the measured properties. The quantitative nature of the test results makes it possible to apply a well-developed apparatus of psychometrics, which makes it possible to assess how well a given test works on a given sample of subjects under given conditions;
4) optimal difficulty. A professionally designed test consists of items of optimal difficulty. At the same time, the average subject scores approximately 50% of the maximum possible number of points. This is achieved through preliminary tests - a psychometric experiment (or aerobatics). If in the course of piloting it becomes known that about half of the surveyed contingent copes with the task, then such a task is recognized as successful, and it is left in the test;
5) reliability. This is probably the most important advantage of tests in educational psychodiagnostics. The lottery nature of modern exams, with the drawing of lucky or unlucky tickets, has long been the talk of the tongue. Lottery for the examiner here turns into low reliability for the examiner - the answer to one fragment of the curriculum, as a rule, is not indicative of the level of assimilation of the entire material. In contrast, any well-designed test covers the main sections of the curriculum (tested area of knowledge or manifestation of some skill or ability). As a result, the opportunity for "tailers" to break into excellent students, and for an excellent student to suddenly fail, is sharply reduced;
6) justice. It is the most important social consequence of the advantages listed above. It should be understood as being protected from examiner bias. A good test puts everyone on an equal footing. As is well known, the examiner's subjectivity manifests itself most strongly not in the interpretation of the level of solution of the problem (it is not so easy to call black white, the solved problem - unsolved), but in the biased selection of tasks - easier for one's own, harder for others. Tests provide the most important function of the school as a social filter - the function of "socio-professional selection". The extent to which such selection turns out to be fair is of tremendous importance for the development of society. Therefore, it is so important for everyone who has access to tests and their results to learn a culture of competent and humane use of tests, because only a conscientious and qualified attitude of users to tests turns them into a tool that increases, rather than lowers, the level of justice in society;
7) the possibility of computerization. In this case, this is not just an additional convenience that reduces the living labor of qualified performers during a mass examination. As a result of computerization, all testing parameters increase (for example, with adapted computer testing, testing time is sharply reduced). Computerization is a powerful tool for ensuring information security (reliability of diagnostics). The computer organization of testing, which involves the creation of powerful information banks of test items, makes it possible technically to prevent abuse by unscrupulous examiners. The selection of tasks offered to a particular subject can be made from such a bank by the computer program itself during testing, and the presentation of a specific task to this subject in this case is as much a surprise for the examiner as it is for the subject.
In many countries, the adoption of the test method (as well as resistance to its adoption) is closely related to socio-political circumstances. The introduction of well-equipped test services in education is the most important tool in the fight against corruption that affects the ruling elite (nomenklatura) in many countries. In the West, test services operate independently of issuing (schools) and receiving (universities) organizations and provide the applicant with an independent certificate of test results, with which he can go to any institution. This independence of the testing service from the issuing and receiving organizations is an additional factor in the democratization of the process of selection of professional personnel in society, giving a talented and simply hard-working person an extra chance to prove himself.
Personnel assessment has been and remains one of the most important elements of the personnel management system: it is impossible to do without assessment either in the selection of personnel, or in certification, the creation of a personnel reserve, and the rotation of personnel. Often, the effectiveness of the entire HR system depends on the effectiveness of personnel assessment. The effectiveness of personnel assessment directly depends on the adequacy of the methods and approaches used. Is testing, so fashionable in the early 90s, always the same adequate method?
At one time, when HR management in our country took its first steps, most HR managers were recruited from psychologists who directly transferred with them the usual methods of scientific activity - tests - to a new field of activity. This is quite understandable - in those days they didn’t know or know how to do anything else, information about Western technologies for working with personnel leaked out “a teaspoon per hour”, their methods had not yet been developed.
To maintain their credibility and not lose their jobs, some psychologists gave candidates 300 to 600 questions each to fill out a battery of clinical tests. Of course, such a selection made an indelible impression. Both for candidates and employers. Yes, and on the "HR managers" themselves. In addition, the output is "objective" data. Apparently from there the myth of the omnipotence of tests originates.
Unfortunately, this is just a myth. The use of tests for scientific purposes has a number of limitations, while the use of testing in business is doubly limited.
Traditionally, the advantages of testing include the standardization of methods, the presence of a normative result, and its reproducibility. It is believed that the data obtained during testing are objective. Also, many managers are impressed by the scientific nature of the evaluation procedure in the case of testing.
However, almost all of these advantages have a "reverse side of the coin." Let's start with standardization. Far from all the methods used by HR managers are truly standardized (tested on a large, reference sample, which confirmed that for people with the same pronounced test trait, the test results will be the same), very often amateur and popular science tests are used in personnel work. Moreover, standardization in itself is not yet a guarantee of quality: as a rule, tests are standardized on students, and no one can guarantee that the norm, say, of anxiety among students, accountants and, for example, customs brokers will be the same.
The objectivity of the data obtained through testing can also be questioned. Most of the tests used in personnel assessment are questionnaires; not all of them are equipped with a lie scale. The bulk of these questionnaires were designed for research purposes, testing was voluntary, or at the initiative of the subject, so the scale of lies was not provided, or was poorly protected: there was no need for the subjects to lie. Therefore, for a person with higher education(which means a sufficiently high level of intelligence) to “get around” such a test is not a problem, especially if the success of passing the test depends on whether it will be accepted for a promising job.
In addition, cumbersome questionnaires require a lot of time to complete, process and interpret. Naturally, a person who spends a lot of time and effort filling out tests begins to feel annoyed with the company and the people who subjected him to such a “test”. As a result, the image of the company deteriorates, the loyalty of employees decreases.
By and large, psychological testing in personnel work makes sense in two cases: when assessing the professional suitability of specialists in a number of areas that have special requirements for cognitive functions (attention, memory, thinking, emotional sphere, etc.) of a professional (accountant, dispatcher, pilot, etc.). etc.) and with a large flow (mass recruitment or certification of specialists of the same type), when speed of assessment and great importance gains the ability to compare results.
At the same time, many characteristics that are in great demand in the labor market (corporatism, loyalty, constructiveness, customer orientation, etc.) cannot be reliably identified using tests. And to determine whether the candidate will fit into organizational culture companies cannot be determined by any methods other than observation and conversation. In addition, it is far from always possible to establish a direct connection between the presence of certain psychological qualities in a candidate and his professional success, and the absence of a number of professionally important qualities can be compensated for by experience and an individual style of activity. In general, fixation on identifying a predetermined set of characteristics limits the range of information that can be obtained during the survey.
In general, the use of questionnaire tests requires less competence in the field of psychology from the personnel manager than projective methods, observation and interviews, since the results of testing as a method are minimally dependent on the skill of the researcher. However, the lack of proper competence can lead to the fact that not what was planned is measured due to inadequate choice of method. Often the test that the researcher is good at or is accustomed to using is used rather than the one that fits the situation. Many, probably, faced with the fact that the MMPI clinical test, created to identify severe mental pathologies from the field of major psychiatry, was used to select and evaluate managers, sales representatives, insurance agents, bank employees. Even if we ignore ethical issues, the adequacy of using this method outside the clinic is, to put it mildly, in serious doubt. And the use of the Rorschach test (an even more complex projective clinical test that takes several years to master) in marketing focus groups (imagine this happens) is simply shocking. As practice shows, much more adequate and informative results in assessing professionalism can be achieved with the help of specially designed, structured interviews, case method and assessment center.
In terms of the variety of information provided, testing as a method significantly loses to such methods as conversation and observation. For all its seeming simplicity, ingenuity, bias and “unscientific”, a half-hour conversation can give an experienced psychologist or manager more information about a person than a half-hour test.
However, there are three main categories of tests that can be successfully used by the personnel department. These are projective, professional and cognitive tests. Projective tests provide a lot of various information about a person, do not require much time to pass, and it is very difficult to “deceive” them, since these methods rather appeal to the unconscious, having little contact with our conscious attitudes and beliefs. That is why projective methods, among other things, best method to determine serious mental pathologies of an organic nature that may not be detected in observation and conversation. Cognitive tests allow you to evaluate the features of cognitive functions: the distribution of attention, stress resistance, reaction speed, etc. Professional tests, as a rule, are not actually psychological. They allow you to assess the level of professional knowledge of a specialist.
In conclusion, I would like to recall that the test data, as well as the refusal to pass the test, according to the current legislation, cannot be the reason for the refusal of the applicant or employee in the workplace.
According to New Markets
Compared to other forms of knowledge control, testing has its advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages
Testing is a more qualitative and objective method of assessment, its objectivity is achieved by standardizing the procedure for conducting, checking the quality indicators of tasks and tests as a whole.
Testing is a fairer method, it puts all students on an equal footing, both in the control process and in the evaluation process, practically eliminating the subjectivity of the teacher. According to the English association NEAB, which deals with the final assessment of students in the UK, testing can reduce the number of appeals by more than three times, make the assessment procedure the same for all students, regardless of places of residence, type and species educational institution in which students are involved.
Tests are a more voluminous tool, since testing can include tasks on all topics of the course, while the oral exam usually has 2-4 topics, and the written one - 3-5. This allows you to reveal the knowledge of the student throughout the course, eliminating the element of chance when pulling out a ticket. With the help of testing, you can establish the level of knowledge of the student in the subject as a whole and in its individual sections.
The test is a more accurate tool, so, for example, a test assessment scale of 20 questions consists of 20 divisions, while the usual knowledge assessment scale has only four.
Testing is more efficient from an economic point of view. The main costs during testing are for the development of high-quality tools, that is, they are of a one-time nature. The cost of conducting the test is much lower than with written or oral control. Testing and monitoring the results in a group of 30 people takes one and a half to two hours, an oral or written exam - at least four hours.
Testing is a softer tool, they put all students on an equal footing, using a single procedure and common assessment criteria, which leads to a decrease in pre-examination nervous tension.
Flaws
The development of high-quality test tools is a long, laborious and expensive process.
The data obtained by the teacher as a result of testing, although they include information about knowledge gaps in specific sections, do not allow us to judge the reasons for these gaps.
The test does not allow to test and evaluate high, productive levels of knowledge related to creativity, that is, probabilistic, abstract and methodological knowledge.
The breadth of coverage of topics in testing has a downside. The student during testing, unlike the oral or written exam, does not have enough time for any in-depth analysis of the topic.
Ensuring the objectivity and fairness of the test requires the adoption of special measures to ensure the confidentiality of test items. When re-applying the test, it is desirable to make changes to the tasks.
There is an element of randomness in testing. For example, a student who did not answer a simple question may give the correct answer to a more complex one. The reason for this can be both an accidental mistake in the first question, and guessing the answer in the second. This distorts the test results and leads to the need to take into account the probabilistic component in their analysis.
It was the last of the above shortcomings that prompted a little research. I was wondering what average score a student can get by answering the test questions at random. A group of students was offered ten tests on various topics, which differed in the number of questions, interface and implementation method. Since it was the probabilistic component of the test that was studied, the students answered without thinking about the essence of the question. The control measure of each test was the percentage of correctly completed tasks. A total of 120 measurements were made. Control values ranged from 5% to 64%. Average of all measurements = 28.10%
Personnel assessment has been and remains one of the most important elements of the personnel management system: it is impossible to do without assessment either in the selection of personnel, or in certification, the creation of a personnel reserve, and the rotation of personnel. Often, the effectiveness of the entire HR system depends on the effectiveness of personnel assessment. The effectiveness of personnel assessment directly depends on the adequacy of the methods and approaches used. Is testing, so fashionable in the early 90s, always the same adequate method?
At one time, when HR management in our country took its first steps, most HR managers were recruited from psychologists who directly transferred with them the usual methods of scientific activity - tests - to a new field of activity. This is quite understandable - in those days they didn’t know or know how to do anything else, information about Western technologies for working with personnel leaked out “a teaspoon per hour”, their methods had not yet been developed.
To maintain their credibility and not lose their jobs, some psychologists gave candidates 300 to 600 questions each to fill out a battery of clinical tests. Of course, such a selection made an indelible impression. Both for candidates and employers. Yes, and on the "HR managers" themselves. In addition, the output is "objective" data. Apparently from there the myth of the omnipotence of tests originates.
Unfortunately, this is just a myth. The use of tests for scientific purposes has a number of limitations, while the use of testing in business is doubly limited.
Traditionally, the advantages of testing include the standardization of methods, the presence of a normative result, and its reproducibility. It is believed that the data obtained during testing are objective. Also, many managers are impressed by the scientific nature of the evaluation procedure in the case of testing.
However, almost all of these advantages have a "reverse side of the coin." Let's start with standardization. Far from all the methods used by HR managers are truly standardized (tested on a large, reference sample, which confirmed that for people with the same pronounced test trait, the test results will be the same), very often amateur and popular science tests are used in personnel work. Moreover, standardization in itself is not yet a guarantee of quality: as a rule, tests are standardized on students, and no one can guarantee that the norm, say, of anxiety among students, accountants and, for example, customs brokers will be the same.
The objectivity of the data obtained through testing can also be questioned. Most of the tests used in personnel assessment are questionnaires; not all of them are equipped with a lie scale. The bulk of these questionnaires were designed for research purposes, testing was voluntary, or at the initiative of the subject, so the scale of lies was not provided, or was poorly protected: there was no need for the subjects to lie. Therefore, for a person with a higher education (which means a sufficiently high level of intelligence), “passing” such a test is not a problem, especially if the success of passing the test depends on whether he will be accepted for a promising job.
In addition, cumbersome questionnaires require a lot of time to complete, process and interpret. Naturally, a person who spends a lot of time and effort filling out tests begins to feel annoyed with the company and the people who subjected him to such a “test”. As a result, the image of the company deteriorates, the loyalty of employees decreases.
By and large, psychological testing in personnel work makes sense in two cases: when assessing the professional suitability of specialists in a number of areas that have special requirements for cognitive functions (attention, memory, thinking, emotional sphere, etc.) of a professional (accountant, dispatcher, pilot, etc.). etc.) and with a large flow (mass recruitment or certification of specialists of the same type), when the speed of assessment is necessary and the ability to compare the result becomes of great importance.
At the same time, many characteristics that are in great demand in the labor market (corporatism, loyalty, constructiveness, customer orientation, etc.) cannot be reliably identified using tests. And it is impossible to determine whether a candidate will fit into the organizational culture of the company by any methods other than observation and conversation. In addition, it is far from always possible to establish a direct connection between the presence of certain psychological qualities in a candidate and his professional success, and the absence of a number of professionally important qualities can be compensated for by experience and an individual style of activity. In general, fixation on identifying a predetermined set of characteristics limits the range of information that can be obtained during the survey.
In general, the use of questionnaire tests requires less competence in the field of psychology from the personnel manager than projective methods, observation and interviews, since the results of testing as a method are minimally dependent on the skill of the researcher. However, the lack of proper competence can lead to the fact that not what was planned is measured due to inadequate choice of method. Often the test that the researcher is good at or is accustomed to using is used rather than the one that fits the situation. Many, probably, faced with the fact that the MMPI clinical test, created to identify severe mental pathologies from the field of major psychiatry, was used to select and evaluate managers, sales representatives, insurance agents, bank employees. Even if we ignore ethical issues, the adequacy of using this method outside the clinic is, to put it mildly, in serious doubt. And the use of the Rorschach test (an even more complex projective clinical test that takes several years to master) in marketing focus groups (imagine this happens) is simply shocking. As practice shows, much more adequate and informative results in assessing professionalism can be achieved with the help of specially designed, structured interviews, case method and assessment center.
In terms of the variety of information provided, testing as a method significantly loses to such methods as conversation and observation. For all its seeming simplicity, ingenuity, bias and “unscientific”, a half-hour conversation can give an experienced psychologist or manager more information about a person than a half-hour test.
However, there are three main categories of tests that can be successfully used by the personnel department. These are projective, professional and cognitive tests. Projective tests provide a lot of various information about a person, do not require much time to pass, and it is very difficult to “deceive” them, since these methods rather appeal to the unconscious, having little contact with our conscious attitudes and beliefs. That is why projective techniques, among other things, are the best method for determining serious mental pathologies of an organic nature that may not be detected in observation and conversation. Cognitive tests allow you to evaluate the features of cognitive functions: the distribution of attention, stress resistance, reaction speed, etc. Professional tests, as a rule, are not actually psychological. They allow you to assess the level of professional knowledge of a specialist.
In conclusion, I would like to recall that the test data, as well as the refusal to pass the test, according to the current legislation, cannot be the reason for the refusal of the applicant or employee in the workplace.
According to New Markets
