基于标准的教育考试合格标准研究

发布时间：2018-06-03 18:02

本文选题：教育考试 + 划界分数　；参考：《教育科学》2012年05期

【摘要】：如何科学地确定合格标准是基于标准的教育考试关注的重要问题。我国传统上是以60分作为合格标准的划界分数,而国外发达国家大多是在考后通过专门标准设置的过程,再确定合格标准的划界分数。我国大规模教育考试传统上以60分作为合格标准划界分数,主要是因为在命题阶段采取了命题质量控制方法,使得刚合格考生的得分在60分附近。本研究以某市高等数学统考课程考试为例,在考前以传统60分合格标准为目标,在命题阶段采取命题质量控制方法,使得刚合格考生的得分在60分附近,而考后通过Angoff标准设置方法专门确定合格标准的划界分数,对比这两种方法过程和决策结果,进行了深入分析和探讨。研究结论表明:考前命题阶段的合格分数调整方法与Angoff标准设置方法在本质上具有相通之处,但两者结果却相差较大,基于标准的教育考试在考后通过专门的标准设置方法来设定合格标准更为科学和全面。
[Abstract]:How to scientifically determine the qualified standard is an important issue of standards-based educational examination. China traditionally uses 60 points as the demarcation score of the eligibility criteria, while most of the developed countries in foreign countries adopt the process of setting special standards after the examination, and then determine the demarcation scores of the qualified standards. Traditionally, 60 points are regarded as the standard mark of qualification in large-scale education examination in our country, mainly because the method of quality control of proposition is adopted in the stage of proposition, which makes the score of newly qualified examinee near 60 points. This study takes the course examination of higher mathematics in a certain city as an example, takes the traditional standard of 60 points as the goal before the examination, and adopts the method of quality control of the proposition in the stage of proposition, which makes the score of the newly qualified examinee near 60 points. After the examination, the Angoff standard setting method is used to determine the demarcation score of the qualified standard, and the comparison between the two methods and the decision results is carried out. The research results show that the adjustment method of qualified scores in the pre-test stage is essentially similar to the Angoff standard setting method, but the difference between the two results is quite large. Standard-based education tests are more scientific and comprehensive through a special standard setting method.
【作者单位】：上海市教育考试院;
【基金】：上海市教育科学2012年度市级项目“大规模教育考试试题难度模糊综合评判研究”(B12138)成果
【分类号】：G642.474

【参考文献】