The primary purposes of this study were: (1) to study empirically differences that might occur among item-samples and (2) to compare empirically the effect of test item samples on matrix sampling estimates of the mean and variance of a population of test scores, and (3) to study empirically an analysis of variance design through multiple matrix sampling.

Team-based testing gives students a chance to earn additional points on individual unit tests by immediately re-taking the test as a team competing against other teams. This instructional approach has enjoyed widening implementation and impressive anecdotal support, but there remains a dearth of empirical studies evaluating its prescribed processes and promoted outcomes. Although the posited effectiveness and appeal of team-based testing seem consistent with the benefits of test-enhanced learning and collaborative learning in general, several limitations are readily apparent. Namely, the current format of the individual and team readiness assurance tests is expressly multiple-choice. Though there are some advantages of this type of question (e.g., ease of administering and grading), the long-term cognitive disadvantage relative to short-answer questions is well documented. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the proposed gain in learning through this format is attributable to the group effect -- be it social or cognitive, or simply to repeated exposure to the test items. Therefore, this study measured the effects of initial test question Format (short-answer vs. multiple-choice), Mode (individual vs. group), and Exposure (once vs. twice) on four delayed measures of learning: Old multiple-choice items (ones students had initially been tested over), Old short-answer items, New multiple-choice items, and New short-answer items. Two weeks after watching a video-recorded lecture, 208 college students took a thirty-item test comprising both the old and new items in multiple-choice and short-answer formats. Results revealed that 1) taking an initial test twice is better than once when the delayed test has old short-answer items or new multiple-choice items, 2) taking an initial short-answer test is better than multiple choice when the delayed test has either old multiple-choice, old short-answer, or new multiple-choice items, and 3) taking an initial team test is no different than taking an individual test when it comes to long-term learning. Particularly noteworthy from these results is how a) the effects of short-answer tests and taking tests twice are not present within Team conditions, and b) taking a multiple-choice test twice is as effective as taking a short-answer test once. Implications are discussed in light of learning theory and instructional practice. / text

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2007. / Title from first page of PDF file. Includes bibliographical references (p. 231-248).

This thesis analyzes the origins, growth, and legitimization of the standardized test preparation ("test-prep") industry from the late 1940s to the end of the 1980s. In particular, this thesis focuses on the development of Stanley H. Kaplan Education Centers, Ltd. ("Kaplan") and The Princeton Review ("TPR"), and how these companies were most conducive in making the test-prep industry and standardized test-preparation itself socially acceptable. The standardized test most frequently discussed in this thesis is the Scholastic Aptitude Test ("SAT"), especially after its development came under the control of Educational Testing Service ("ETS"), but due attention is also given to the American College Testing Program ("ACT"). This thesis argues that certain test-prep companies gained legitimacy by successfully manipulating the interstices of American business and education, and brokered legitimacy through the rhetorical devices in their advertising. However, the legitimacy for the industry at-large was gained by default as neither the American government nor the American public could conclusively demonstrate that the industry conducted wholesale fraud. The thesis also argues that standardized test manufacturers were forced to engage in a cat-and-mouse game of pseudo-antagonism and adaptation with the test-prep industry once truth-in-testing laws prescribed transparent operations in standardized testing. These developments affect the current state of American standardized testing, its fluctuating but ubiquitous presence in the college admissions process, and the perpetuation of the test-prep industry decades after its origins.