Page 135 - Making Instruction Work

chap 11 3/11/97 4:59 PM Page 121

criterion tests 121

NOTE: If you write your test items according to the
above procedure, and find yourself saying, “But the test
items look pretty much like the objective,” you need to
have a little chat with yourself. Remember that the object
of instruction is to bestow competence just as elegantly as
you can manage to do it. The object of testing is to check
to see if you’ve succeeded. The object of testing is not to
use trick questions just to make it harder, or to spread
people on a curve, or to find out whether students “really”
understand. If your test items look similar to your objec-
tives, rejoice. That’s the whole idea.

The Multiple-Choice Trap

There is often a temptation to want to use multiple-choice
and true-false items for testing competence. After all, didn’t we
spend an academic lifetime answering this type of item? Yes,
we did. And aren’t multiple-choice and true-false items easily
scorable by scanners? Yes, they are. And isn’t that a useful type
of item for spreading students on a curve? Yes, indeed.
But all of that is irrelevant. The most reliable way to find out
whether learners can change a tire is to ask them to do it. If you
used multiple-choice or true-false items, you might find out
what they know about tire-changing, but you won’t find out
whether they can do it. And if you wanted to use those types
of items, who would write them? You? Who would do the item
tryouts? You? Writing multiple-choice items is a specialty; it
isn’t easy to dash off a few items that are unambiguous and
that test exactly what you want to test; without training in this
skill you will be very likely to write items that don’t follow
good item-writing practice.
And who would do the scoring? You? If not, who will see to
it that the test papers get to the scoring machine, and back
again—in a timely manner? You see the trap. Just because