메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국과학교육학회 한국과학교육학회지 한국과학교육학회지 제28권 제1호
발행연도
2008.1
수록면
32 - 46 (15page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The purpose of this study was to analyse the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of paper-pencil tests for exploring its appropriateness as a selection tool of the gifted in science. For this purpose, we developed two (internal and external) item analysis frameworks, and applied these frameworks to analyse qualitative characteristics. Also, we analysed the relationship between two characteristics. The results of analysing qualitative characteristics revealed that the portion of items with acceleration context exceeding middle school curriculum level was relatively large, which caused low content validity. Furthermore, there was considerable deviation in content and context by subject matter and year, which caused test unstability. Items measuring knowledge domain was the most prevalent, and too much weight on data interpretation & analysis domain in inquiry process skills. In case of creativity test, the portion of items measuring convergent thinking was much larger than that of divergent or associative thinking. Most of these items were represented by using pictures and tables rather than using graphs. Item types of multiple-choice and short answers were superior to essay types. Discrimination index, on the whole, was appropriate (above 0.3), but item difficulty showed a vast deviation (0.01~0.90). Correlation coefficients among subject matters and test tools were very low, and test reliabilities were also low. Low item difficulty & high discrimination index item types were distinguishable. Items with acceleration context were more discriminating than enrichment context. Implications of developing quality paper-pencil test items in the selection of gifted students are discussed.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (39)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0