An algorithmic approach to assessing behavior potential: Comparison with item forms and hierarchical technologies.

Abstract

Recent research in individualized (e.g., Lipson, 1967) and computer assisted (e.g., Suppes, 1966) instruction has led to an increasing awareness of the inadequacies of norm referenced testing and the need for testing procedures which determine each individual's mastery on specific types of tasks (e.g., Coulson & Cogswell, 1965). Knowing how well a student has performed relative to some peer group, for example, says relatively little about the kinds of decisions that must be made if instruction is to be totally individualized. Ideally, in mastery testing the procedures used should 1) pravide a sound basis for diagnosing individual strengths and weaknesses on each type of task, 2) require as few items as possible, and 3) provide a basis for generalizing from overall test performance to behavior on a clearly defined universe or domain of tasks.

The Role of Automation in Instruction

“…Task analysis focused initially on behavior -on what learners need to do (Miller, 1959;Gagne, 1966). In my own work, this focus morphed into cognitive task analysis -on what learners must learn for success (e.g., Scandura, 1970, 1971, Durnin & Scandura, 1973. My parallel work in experimental psychology (Greeno & Scandura, 1966;Scandura & Roughead, 1967) in the mid 1960s added the critical dimension of behavior to the equation.…”

An assessment‐led approach to processes in the science curriculum

“…Much intellectual energy has been expended, and formidable batteries of statistical and procedural techniques deployed. These have dealt with such areas as the control of domain specification (Popham 1980); item construction (Bormuth 1970, Durnin and Scandura 1973, Roid and Haladyna 1982; methods of assessing items (Rovinelli and Hambleton 1976); and the statistical analysis of response data using generalizability theory (Johnson and Bell 1985). (Many of the above contain bibliographies of the voluminous literature in this field.…”

Problem solving in schools and beyond: Transitions from the naive to the neophyte to the master

“…The process by which this is accomplished has been detailed in the literature (e.g., Scandura, 1971aScandura, , 1973Scandura, , 1977Durnin & Scandura, 1973) and I will not consider it here. It is sufficient for present purposes to observe that solving particular subtraction problems involves following one and only path through the subtraction rule.…”