|Abstract or Summary
- The purpose of this study was to compare the quality of data
obtained from individual oral and group written administration of a
classroom simulation test. The individual oral procedure involved
one group of subjects taking the simulator test individually and responding
orally, while the group written procedure involved another
group writing their responses to the simulator test under group
The sample consisted of 34 women majoring in elementary
education at Oregon College of Education at Monmouth, Oregon.
These subjects were matched on the basis of age and years of teaching
In each of the two different test procedure. the subjects responded
to 11 short filmed episodes of the classroom behavior of
22 sixth grade children. The subjects enacted the role of student
teacher and were asked to respond at any time during the filmed
episode where they felt some response or action was needed. Each
subject was equipped with a stop watch. This was used to indicate
the point in time in the sequence of events that a subject chose to
initiate a response or formulate a judgment. In both test procedures
the subjects were asked to respond as if they were actually the
teacher talking to the children portrayed on the film.
Upon completion of each of the episodes, the subjects were
asked to answer three questions: (1) What was it in this situation
that made you, as the teacher, respond when you did? (2) Why did
you say what you said or do what you did? and (3) What did you
anticipate achieving, if anything, by the response you made? These
questions were used to try and tap the rationale or reasoning for the
particular response made.
The protocols, which included responses to the filmed episodes
and the answers to the three questions, from the two test procedures
were compared in the following ways: (1) the number of words
elicited by each method, (2) the point in the episode (time) at which
the subject responded, (3) the degree of involvement in the response,
(4) the homogeneity of content, and (5) the consistency between the
rationale given for a response and the response itself.
Analyses three, four and five involved placement of the protocols
in category systems. Reliability of category classification was
demonstrated by a measure of percent agreement between two sets
of raters before the protocols were classified.
The data were analyzed by the chi-square analysis and the t-test
for related samples to determine the similarity of data elicited by
the two administrative procedures.
In general, the results of the analyses indicated that the two
methods of test procedure, individual oral and group written, elicited
comparable data to a classroom simulation test. On the basis of
these results, several conclusions seem justified:
1. The group written procedure is economically superior to
the individual oral procedure because of its tendency to elicit significantly
shorter protocols and because it can be administered to
more than one person at one time.
2. Both methods are similar in terms of the time of initiation of response.
3. The group written procedure and the individual oral procedure
are similar in facilitating involvement in the simulator test.
4. Both methods are similar in terms of the nature of the
5. Consistency between response and rationale for the response
was independent of method of administration.
The results of the present investigation cannot claim superiority
for one method over the other, but it points to the equality of
both. Additional research involving the use of simulation materials
under various methodological conditions needs to be done in order
to further explore the potential of this type of test stimuli.