...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training >Commercial competence: comparing test results of paper-and-pencil versus computer-based assessments
【24h】

Commercial competence: comparing test results of paper-and-pencil versus computer-based assessments

机译：商业能力：比较纸笔和铅笔评估的测试结果

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Abstract Background Vocational education and training (VET) aims to enable young adults or trainees to participate in the workplace, and to promote their vocational capacities. In order to examine trainees’ competencies at the end of VET, appropriate instruments are needed. This contribution aims: (1) to give an outline of such an instrument, one that has been designed to evaluate vocational competencies in the field of economics, and (2) to present the results of an empirical comparison of two possible test modes: computer-based assessment (CBA) versus paper-based assessment (PBA). The use of new technologies offers various opportunities for competence measurement: in particular, the computer as an assessment tool presents an authentic work tool drawn from professional life and promises novel ways of designing assessments. However, the current assessment practice in Germany is dominated by the use of traditional PBA, and there is less evidence about the possible effects of CBA. This study addresses the question of whether there are significant differences in the various ways of representing and measuring commercial competence with respect to specific content, item format, and, finally, motivational aspects. Methods A sample of 387 trainees from the German VET system was used to compare these two kinds of assessment. The analyses were realized using Item Response Theory and, particularly, Differential Item Functioning to detect differences between PBA and CBA at the item level. In addition to the performance data, motivational aspects, such as emotional state and test attractiveness, were also taken into account by a pre-/post-questionnaire. Results The study demonstrates that both test formats (CBA and PBA) can represent commercial competence in a valid and reliable way, but differences were found for certain items in the number of correct responses. The PBA shows a slight advantage in respect of overall item and model fit. Another key finding of our comparative study, at item level, is important from an instructive viewpoint: (domain) specific items are easier to solve in CBA than in PBA, whereas more general items are answered correctly more frequently in the latter. Contrary to expectations, we could not confirm the overall dominance of CBA against PBA on the basis of test takers’ motivation, but values from CBA were more stable over time. Conclusions The study facilitated making the strengths and weaknesses of both test formats evident, and this implies the possibility of identifying opportunities for further development in assessment practice and in designing tests. Selected design criteria and aspects of test administration are discussed, with the aim of seeking to optimize test development in order to create the best possible estimates for young adults’ competence and capacity to participate in the world of work.
机译：摘要背景职业教育与培训（VET）旨在使年轻人或受训者能够参加工作场所，并提高他们的职业能力。为了在VET结束时检查学员的能力，需要适当的工具。该贡献的目的是：（1）概述这种工具，该工具旨在评估经济学领域的职业能力，（2）给出两种可能的测试模式的经验比较结果。基于纸质的评估（CBA）与基于纸质的评估（PBA）。新技术的使用为能力评估提供了各种机会：特别是，作为评估工具的计算机提供了从职业生涯中汲取的真实工作工具，并有望以新颖的方式设计评估。但是，德国目前的评估做法主要是使用传统的PBA，而且关于CBA可能产生的影响的证据较少。这项研究解决了以下问题：在表示和衡量商业能力的各种方式方面，就特定内容，项目格式以及动机方面而言，是否存在显着差异。方法以德国职业教育与培训系统的387名受训者为样本，比较这两种评估。使用项目响应理论（尤其是差异项目功能）来实现分析，以检测项目级别的PBA和CBA之间的差异。除了表现数据，问卷调查前/调查后还考虑了动机方面，例如情绪状态和测试吸引力。结果研究表明，两种测试格式（CBA和PBA）都可以有效且可靠地代表商业能力，但在某些项目中，正确答案的数量存在差异。 PBA在整体项目和模型拟合方面显示出一点优势。从指导性的角度来看，我们在项目级别上进行比较研究的另一个关键发现很重要：与CBA相比，CBA中的（领域）特定项目更容易解决，而在PBA中，更一般的项目被更正确地回答。与预期相反，根据应试者的动机，我们无法确定CBA相对PBA的总体优势，但随着时间的推移，CBA的价值更加稳定。结论该研究有助于使两种测试形式的优缺点都变得明显，这意味着有可能在评估实践和设计测试中找到进一步发展的机会。讨论了选定的设计标准和测试管理的各个方面，目的是寻求优化测试开发，以便为年轻人参与工作世界的能力和能力创建最佳的估计。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号