MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158808429 · doi:10.5539/cis.v4n6p66

Computerized Summative Assessment of Multiple-choice Questions: Exploring Possibilities with the Zimbabwe School Examination Council Grade 7 Assessments

2011· article· en· W2158808429 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Benjamin Tatira, Lillias Hamufari Natsai Mutambara, Conilius Jaison Chagwiza, Lovemore J. Nyaumwe

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummative assessmentComputer scienceMultiple choiceOnline assessmentTest (biology)Set (abstract data type)SoftwareQuality (philosophy)Field (mathematics)Formative assessmentMedical educationMathematics educationSignificant differencePsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to develop educational software for online assessment of multiple choice responses (MCQs). An automated assessment software program, duly developed in this study can display assessment items, record candidates' answers, and mark and provide instant reporting of candidates' performance scores. Field tests of the software were conducted on four primary schools located in Bindura town using a previous year summative Grade 7 assessment set by the Zimbabwe School Examination Council (ZIMSEC). Results were that computerized assessment in mathematics has the potential to enhance the quality of assessment standards and can drastically reduce material costs to the examination board. The paper exposes test mode benefits inherent in computer-based assessments, such as one-item display and ease of candidates selecting/changing optional answers. It also informs the ongoing debate on possible enhancement of candidates' performance on a computer-based assessment relative to the traditional pen-and-paper assessment format. The need for the development of diagnostic instructional software to compliment computerized assessments is one of the recommendations of the study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.009
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer and Information ScienceSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207