Advertisement

International Review of Education

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 85–101 | Cite as

Le concept de banque d'items et ses implications sur le contenu didactique

  • G. Tistaert
  • Magabe Mwene
Articles Principaux
  • 18 Downloads

Résumé

Le développement du concept de banque d'items répond à des situations didactiques nécessitant, pour plus d'efficacité, la conservation d'une quantité d'items susceptibles d'être utilisés à n'importe quel moment. Le recours à l'ordinateur permet d'améliorer et de rationaliser la gestion d'une banque d'items.

Cependant, l'extension du concept a suivi deux axes principaux. D'une part, une attention particulière porte sur l'adéquation des items stockés avec le contenu de l'apprentissage et suscite l'émergence d'une technologie de rédaction des items.

D'autre part, les considérations psychométriques ont érigé l'invariance en caractéristique essentielle des items. Celle-ci exige que les items répondent aux présupposées des modèles de traits latents.

Sur base des arguments théoriques soutenus par quelques résultats de recherches, la dernière partie de l'article rélève le désaccord profond existant entre chercheurs au sujet de la solidité des présupposés de ces modèles dans le domaine didactique. Le compromis réside probablement dans un courant admettant la multidimensionalité des items à caractère didactique.

Summary

The development of the concept of an item bank comes as a reply to the didactic situations which for reasons of efficiency require the storing of a number of susceptible items to be used at any time. Access to the computer makes possible an improvement and rationalization of the management of the item bank. At the same time the extension of the concept has followed two main directions. On the one hand, particular care relates to the adequacy of stored items with the content of learning and it brings about the emergence of a technology of item-editing. On the other hand, psychometric considerations have caused the invariance of essential characteristics of the items. This demands that the items respond to the presupposed models with latent traits. On the basis of theoretical arguments supported by some research findings the final part of the article calls attention to the deep discord among researchers concerning the reliability of the presuppositions of these models in the didactic field. The compromise will probably lead to it that the multidimensionality of items which have a didactic character are admitted.

Zusammenfassung

Die Entwicklung des Konzepts der Itembank ist eine Antwort auf die didaktischen Gegebenheiten, die es aus Gründen der Wirksamkeit nötig machen, eine Anzahl bestimmter Item-Mengen so zu speichern, daß sie jederzeit abgerufen werden können. Der Zugang zum Computer erlaubt die Verwaltung der Itembank zu verbessern und zu rationalisieren. Zur gleichen Zeit verfolgt die Verbreitung des Konzepts zwei Hauptrichtungen. Einerseits ist die Aufmerksamkeit besonders darauf gerichtet, daß die gespeicherten Item dem Lehrinhalt entsprechen und somit eine Technologie der Item-Redaktion hervorrufen. Andererseits haben psychometrische Erwägungen die Invarianz der wesentlichen Charakteristiken der Item bewirkt. Dies macht es erforderlich, daß die Item den Voraussetzungen der Modelle mit latenten Charakteristiken entsprechen. Auf theoretischen, von Forschungsergebnissen gestützten Argumenten läßt der letzte Teil des Artikels die tiefen Streitigkeiten, die zwischen Wissenschaftlern bezüglich der Zuverlässigkeit der Voraussetzungen dieser Modelle herrschen, im didaktischen Bereich wieder aufleben. Der Kompromiß läuft wahrscheinlich darauf hinaus, eine Multidimensionalität der Item mit didaktischen Kennziffern gelten zu lassen.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. 1.
    Allal, L., et al., (ed.)L'évaluation formative dans un enseignement différencié. Berne-Francfort/M.: Peter Lang, 1979.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, J., et al. An evaluation of Rasch's structural model for test items'.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. 19 (1966), No. 1, pp. 49–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Angoff, W. H., ‘Scales, norms and equivalent scores’. In Thorndike, R. L.,Educational Measurement. 2è éd. Washington: ACE, 1971, pp. 508–600.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bacher, F. ‘La docimologie’. In Reuchlin, M.,Traité de psychologie appliquée. Vol. 6. Paris: PUF, 1973, pp. 30–87.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bejar, I. I. et al.Calibration of an Item Pool for the Adaptive Measurement. Minnesota: Minnesota University, 1977. ERIC ED. 146231.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bejar, I. I. ‘A procedure for investigating the unidimensionality of achievement tests based on item parameter estimate’.Journal of Educational Measurement. 17 (1980), No. 4, pp. 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bejar, I. I. ‘Introduction to item response models and their assumptions’. In Hambleton, R. K. (éd.)Applications of Item Response Theory. Vancouver, British Columbia: 1983, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Birenbaum, M. et Tatsuoka, K. K., ‘On the dimensionality of achievement test data’.Journal of Educational Measurement. 19 (1982), No. 4, pp. 259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Block, J. H. (éd.)Mastery Learning: Theory and Practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bloom, B. S., ‘Learning for mastery’.Evaluation Comment. 1 (1968), No. 1.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Childs, R.,Item Banking. Basic Test Series. NFER, s.d. ERIC ED. 163.017.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Choppin, B. H., ‘Recent developments in item banking: a review’. In De Gruijter D. N. M. et Van der Kamp, L. J. T. (éds.),Advances in Psychological and Educational Measurement. New York-London: John Wiley and Sons, 1976. pp. 233–245.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Landsheere, G.Evaluation continue et examens. Précis de docimologie. Bruxelles-Paris: Ed. Labor-Fernand Nathan, 1971.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Landsheere, G.Dictionnaire de l'évaluation et de la recherche en éducation. Paris: PUF, 1979.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dobby, J. et Duckworth, D.,Objective Assessment by Means of Item Banking. London: Evans Methuen, 1979.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Doherty, V. W., et Forester, F. ‘Can Rasch model scaled scores be predicted from a calibrated pool?’ Paper presented at the annual meeting of AERA, 1976. ERIC ED. 133.331.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fischer, G. H. ‘The linear logistic model as an instrument in educational research’.Acta Psychologica. 37 (1973), pp. 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fricke R. et Luhmann, R. ‘Criterion-referenced tests-theory and application’.Studies in Educational Evaluation. 9 (1983), No. 2, pp. 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gendre, F. ‘Les développements contemporains dans la construction des mesures psychologiques’.Revue internationale de psychologie appliquée. 31 (1982), No. 1, pp. 91–115.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goldstein, H., ‘Dimensionality, bias, independence and measurement problems in latent trait test score models’.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. 33 (1980), No. 2, pp. 234–246.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldstein, H., et Blinkhorn, S. ‘Monitoring educational standards. An appropriate model’.Bulletin of the British Psychological Society. 30 (1977), pp. 309–311.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gorth, W. P. et Swaminathan, H.Criterion-referenced Item Banking in Electronics: Appendix G. Final Report. 1972. ERIC ED. 097.414.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gorth, W. P. et al. ‘Computer program for test objective and item banking.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1 (1971), pp. 245–250.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gustaffson, J. E., ‘Testing and obtaining fit of data to Rasch model’.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. 33 (1980), 2, pp. 205–233.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hambleton, R. K. et Cook, L. L., ‘Latent trait models and their use in the analysis of educational data’.Journal of Educational Measurement. 14 (1977), No. 2, pp. 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hambleton, R. K. (éd.)Applications of Item Response Theory. Vancouver, British Columbia: 1983.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hsu, T. C. et Carlson, M. ‘Test construction aspects of the computer assisted testing model’.Educational Technology. 13 (1973), No. 3, pp. 26–27.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Leclercq, D. ‘Computerised tailored testing: structured and calibrated item banks for summative and formative evaluation’.European Journal of Education. 15 (1980), No. 3, pp. 251–260.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lewy, A. et Dorona, R. ‘Group tailored tests and some problems of their utilization’. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Educational Testing. Leyden, The Netherlands: 1979. ERIC ED. 159.210.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Libaw, F. B., ‘Constructing tests with the Mentrex tutorial system’.Educational Technology. 13 (1973), No. 3, pp. 35–37.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lippey, G.,Computer Assisted Test Construction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publ., 1974.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    McBride, J. R. et Weiss, D. J.,A World Knowledge Item Pool for Adaptive Ability Measurement. Research Report No. 74-2, 1974. ERIC ED. 096.339.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    McLean, D. et Ragsdale, G., ‘The Rasch model of achievement tests. Inappropriate in the past, inappropriate to-day, inappropriate tomorrow’.Canadian Journal of Education. Canadian Journal of Education. 8 (1983), No. 1, pp. 71–76.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Millman, J., ‘Creating domain referenced tests by computer’. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA, 1977. ERIC ED. 135.852.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Newbould, C. A. et Massey, A. J., ‘A computerized item-banking system (CIBS)’.British Journal of Educational Technology. 8 (1977), No. 2, pp. 114–123.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Palmer, D. G.,Banks of Items for H.SC.: Biology Level III and Division I with Computerized Self Moderation and Error Analysis Procedures Using the Items from the Bank. 1975. ERIC ED. 137.053.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Prosser, F., ‘Item banking’. In Lippey, G.Op. cit. Computer Assisted Test Construction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publ., 1974. pp. 29–65.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rasch, G. ‘An item analysis which takes individual differences into account’.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. 19 (1966), No. 1, pp. 49–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Remondini, D. J., ‘Test item system: a method of computer assisted test assembly’.Educational Technology. 13 (1973), No. 3, pp. 35–37.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rentz, R. R. et Bashaw, W. L., ‘The national reference scale for reading: an application of the Rasch model’.Journal of Educational Measurement. 14 (1977), No. 2, pp. 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Robitaille, D. F., et O'Shea, T., ‘The development of an item bank in mathematics using the Rasch model’.Canadian Journal of Education. 8 (1983), No. 1, pp. 57–70.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Roid, G. and Haladyna, T. ‘The emergence of item writing technology’.Review of Educational Research. 50 (1980), pp. 293–314.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Roid, G. et Haladyna, T.A Technology for Test Item Writing. New York: Academic Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shoemaker, D. M. ‘Applicability of item banking and matrix sampling to educational assessment’. In De Gruijter, D. N. M. et Van der Kamp, L. J. T. (éds.),Advances in Psychological and Educational Measurement. London-New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1976, pp. 225–231.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Subkoviak, M. J., et Baker, F. B., ‘Test theory’.Review of Research in Education. 5 (1977), pp. 275–317.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tatsuoka, K. K. et Birenbaum, M., ‘The effect of different instructional methods on achievement tests’.Journal of computer-based instruction. 8 (1981) 1–8.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tistaert, G., ‘Functionele betekenis van itembanking voor didactische doeleinden’.Tijdschrift voor opvoedkunde. 19 (1973–74), No. 3, pp. 211–228.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Traub, R. E., ‘A priori considerations in choosing an item response model’. In Hambleton, R. K. (éd.)Op. cit. Applications of Item Response Theory. Vancouver, British Columbia: 1983. pp. 57–70.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Toggenburger, F., ‘Classroom teacher support system’.Educational Technology. 13 (1973), No. 3, pp. 42–43.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Whitely, S. E., et Dawis, R. V., ‘The nature of objectivity with the Rasch model’.Journal of Educational Measurement. 11 (1974), No. 2, pp. 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wood, R. et Skurnik, L. S.,Item Banking. A Method for Producing School-based Examinations and Nationally Comparable Grades. The Mere, Upton Park, Slough, Bucks, NFER, 1969.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wright, B. D., ‘Solving measurement problems with the Rasch model’.Journal of Educational Measurement 14 (1977), No. 2, pp. 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wright, B. D. et Stone, M. H.,Best Test Design: Rash Measurement. Chicago: Mesa, 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Tistaert
  • Magabe Mwene

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations