Basic Informations

C.V

???????? ????????

???????? ????????:

• ??????????: ???? ???? ???? ???????.
• ????? ????????: 15/10/1978?.        
• ???????: ????.

·                   ??????? ???????: ???? ??? ????? ????????- ???? ???????- ????? ??? ????.

·                   ????? ?????????:  ??? -  ???? ??????? ??????? – ?????? ??? ????

• ?????? ??????????         Dr.Bahnasawy@Yahoo.com
• ?????: 01223020565 – 01155659388 - 01092946028  
• ????:     0822315873
• ?????? ?????: ??? ????? ???????.                          

·                   ?????? ??????: ?????? ????????.

????????? ????????:

·    ????????? ?????? ???????? ( ???? ??????? ????? ??? ) ???  2001 ? ?????? ??? ( ??? ???? ?? ????? ????? ) ?? ???? ??????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????.

·     ??????? ????? ?? ??????? ???  2003? ?? ???? ??????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ???.

·    ????????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ????? (?????? ????????)  ?????? 2006? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ( ????? ) ?? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??????? ???????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????????.

·     ??????? ??????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ????? (?????? ????????) ???? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? 2008.

?????? ????????:

·    ???? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ????????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ( ????? ????? ???????? ) ?????? 1/8/2001.

·    ???? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ??????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ??????? ???2194 ?????? 9/12/2001? (????? ????? ????????).

·    ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? 1/4/2006?.

·    ???? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? (26 ) ?????? 31/12/2008.

??????? ??????? ????????:

1.                 1. ???? ???? ??????? (2012): ???? ???? ???????? ????????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???????? ????????? ???????? ??? ???????? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ? ??????? ?????? ?????? " ????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? " ?? ?????? ?? 28-29 ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ????????( ??? ????? ).

2.                 2. ???? ???? ??????? (2013): ??????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ???? ??????? ???????? ( ?????? – ?????? ) ??? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? (??? ?????).

3.                 3. ???? ???? ??????? (2014): ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????         ( ??? ????? ).

4.                 4. ???? ???? ???????  (2014): ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ??????? ???????? ???????? ??????? (??????? – ???????) ??? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????.

5.                 5. ???? ???? ??????? (2015): ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ???????? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ?????????? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ??????.

6.                 6. ???? ???? ??????? (2015):?????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ???????? ??? (17)? ????? ?????.

7.                 7. ???? ???? ??????? (2015): ??????????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ??????? " ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?????????? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ??????.

8.                 8. ???? ???? ??????? (2015): ??????? ??????? ???????? ???????????? ?????? ????????? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ???????? ??? (11).

9.                 9. ???? ???? ???????  (2015): ???????? ??????? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ????? ???? (29)? ??? (104).

??????? ?????????:

????: ???????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ???????? ??????:

??????: ???????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???????? ??????:

??????: ??????? ????????? ??????

1.    ????? ???? ???????? " ????? ??? ?????" ????? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ????.

2.    ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ??????.

3.    ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????????? ????????? ???????.

4.    ???? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ????????? ??????.

5.    ???? ???????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? .

??????? ??? ??????? ???????

?????: ????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????:

??????: ????? ??????? ??? ???????:

???????? ?? ????????? ???????:

1-    ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????-????? ?????? " ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ????????: ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ????????" ?? ?????? ?? 7-8/5/2002.

2-   ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? – ????? ??? ???? " ????????? ?? ????? ??????: ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????????" ???????? ?? 22 ????? 2003.

3-    ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ????????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ???  ?? ?????? ?? 19- 21 ????? 2004 (??????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ).

4-      ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ( ??????? ???????? ?? ??? ?????????) ?? ?????? ?? 27 – 28 ????? 2004.

5-      ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? " ??? ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ???????? " ?? ?????? ?? 15-17 |4 |2006 ????? ??????? ???? ?????.

6-    ??????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ???  ?????? ????????? ?? ??? ??? ?????–????? ???????? ??5-7/2/2007?.

7-    ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? " ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?? ??????? ??????? " ?? ?????? ?? 10-11 |4 |2007 ????? ??????? ???? ?????.

8-      ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? 6?????? "????? ??????? ??????? ?????? " ???? 2007 .

9-    ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????"????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????" ????? ??? ???? ??????? – ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?? 14-16 ?????2008 ?.

10- ????? ??? ????? ????????? ?????????? ???? ?????? ????? ???????? 2009 .

11- ????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ???????? 2010 .

12- ??????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? 14-15 ?????? 2010

13- ??????? ?????? ?????? " ????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? " ?? ?????? ?? 28-29 ?????? 2012 ???? ?????? ????? ????????.

14- ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? " ?????? ???? ?? ????? " 2/12/2014? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ????.

15- ??????? ?????? " ??????? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ??????? – ????????? ????? ???????? " ?? ?????? 16-17/12/2014? ????? ??? ????.

16- ??????? ?????? ????? ????????? " ??? ????? " ????? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ?????????? 8/3/2015.

??????? ?????????:

1.  ???? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ????????? ????????? ?? ?????? 14/7/2001? ??? 25/8/2001? - ????? ????????? ??????????.

2.  ???? ????? ????? ?????????? ???? ????? ????? (TOFEL ) ????? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? 17/9/2003 ? ??? 15/10/2003? -???? ??????- ????? ???????.

3. ???????? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????( ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ????

4.  ??????? ????????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? 17/1/2003 -21/4/2003

5. ???????? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? 5_8/5/2007? _ ???? ???? ??????? ??????? ???????? _ ???? ?????? _ ????? ??? ???.

6.  ?????? ????????? ????????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?? 25_30/1/2008? ????? ??? ?????.

7.  ?????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?? 12_17/3/2009 ????? ????????.

8. ???? ??? ??? ???????? ???????? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?????????????? ?? ???????? ????????? ????????? ??????? 22/11/2009? ??????? ?????? ????????.

9.  ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ????????? FLDP ?????? ??? ???? ??????? ???????:

v ???? "????? ?????? ??????? ??????" .

v ???? ?????? ????? ??????.

v ???? "??? ??????? ????????".

v ???? "??????? ??????????? ?? ??????? ".  

v ???? " ????? ????? ????? ????? ".

v ???? " ???????? ????? ?????? ".                              

10.    ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??????? POEP ????? ??????? -????? ??? ???? ??????? ???????:

v ???? "??????? ??? ??????? ???????"

v ???? " ??????? ?????? ??????".

11.   ???? ????? ?????? ( TOT ) ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ????????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? 20 – 25 /3/2010

12.  ???????? ????? ??????? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ??????? ???????? ??? ????????  ????????  ?? ????? -????? ????? ? ????? ????? ? ?????? ??????? ? ??? ??????? ? ??????? ??????? ? ?????? ???????.

13.  ???????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ????????? ???????? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????.

???????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ????????? ???????:

1-  ??? ???? ??????? ???????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????????.

2-  ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??????.

3-  ??? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? .

4-  ??? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ( ???? ????? ???? ).

5-  ??? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???????.

6-  ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? (2010).

??????? ?????????? ????? ???????:

1.  ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????.

2.  ??? ???? ????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ????????????.

3.  ???????? ?? ????? ????? (????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????).

4. ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????????? ????? ??????? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ????????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????  ???? ???? ??? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ????? ???????.

5. ??? ???????? ????? ??? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???????????? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ?????????.

6.  ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???????? .

7.  ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??? ????.

8.  ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????????? ??????? ?? ??????? ????????? ???????? .

9.  ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????????? ?? 2008-2010.

10.   ??? ??????? ???????? ????? ??? ???? ???????.

Master Title

Psychometric Study For The Effectiveness Of Some Variables On The Reliability Of The Criterion Referenced Tests

Master Abstract

Beni suef university Faculty of education Department of educational psychology Psychometric Study For The Effectiveness Of Some Variables On The Reliability Of The Criterion Referenced Tests. Research thesis Submitted for the obtainment of the master degree. By Ahmed Fikry Ahmed Bahnasawy The demonstrator In the department of the educational psychology. Supervised by Dr. Soliman Mohammed Soliman Dr. Foukia Ahmed Alsayed Assistant professor of the Education psychology and The head of the psychology department the faculty of Education – Benisuef university Assistant professor of the education psychology the faculty of Education - Beni suef university 2006 Summary Introduction: The evaluation is deemed not only an inseparable part of the education process, but also one of its basic components, in addition it comes up with the steps of the process. The evaluation is defined as the process of rendering judgments on the value of things or issues or situations or persons that draws upon certain norms or criteria. In education sphere, evaluation is defined as the process that seeks to gain knowledge of the extent of success or failure in the curriculum as well as the strengths and weaknesses, found in it, in order to get the sought – for aims perfectly. The test are one of the issues that concern every one of the responsible, the citizenry and even the students of both sexes, how ever the issue is neither discussed nor laught in a continuous gradual scientific way, capable of explaining the reasons of lowering the achievement level in the educational institutions and if any one gets knowledge of the results of the term end, he or she will actually feel how serious is the situation, as it is regarded as a massive material – humand educational and academic waste, if we add to this, the enormous pull out percent in the educational institutions. However, the problem lies in the absence of the standardized criteria and measurements that are able to estimate the educational situation accurately and honestly and objectively with amain of diagnosing the educational process, and identifying the real qualitative and a mantitative level of the educational output and its linkage with the plans and policies of the state as well as both the needs of the society and individual and achieving the productive congnitive development, and if the achievement tests, are the decision that is adopted in measuring the education outcomes and the internal abilities, within the educational institutions, then the tests tragedy for the majority, including the educational administration and teachers, men and women, is clear in their dependence on unscientific methods, and they are subject to the temperament on the one hand, and on unfamiliarity with prerequisite knowledge and the enough dexterity in setting achievements test on the other hand. It is intuitively clear thea th4ere are two trends for using the data we garner from evaluation process, in monitoring the fought after aims achievement, and the first trend depends on, what is called the abrm referenced tests, where in, the individual performance is confrunated with the his group’s performance, moreover the performance of his group is used as norm, where by his performance is judged. Owing the evaluation of the education to learning for mastery, the second trend in measurement emerges, and that is called criterion refrenced test, whereas the aim is no longer focusing on the differences amongst the individuals and drawing destruction between them, but it concentrates on paying attention to achievement measurement for the individuals, to determine the extent of continuity towards a level or even the mastery criterion, with an aim to achieve any curriculum and the results of this measurement as explained, within the adopted test and through a crederion that can be determined, inaccordance with the objective goals and irrespective of the peers levels. Reliability is a prerequisite condition of the standardized achievement tests conditions so the trust in what ever tests depends on the reliability of its marks. Study problem: In the course of the science and technology revolution, the main science, not least mathematics, have espcial significance in the contemporary education curriculum, the heart of this revolution and the stimulus for it as well as the main base for any progressor development. Mathematics learning becomes an strategic aim of the education aims towards it, the education systems should head, to build as scientific base for the society, that can come uup with the happenings in the global society, ie the technological and the scientific progress. The secondary education is considered are of the education stages, that are paid great attention, by the ministry of Education in Arab Republic of Egypt. All and sundry take a great interest in producing high quality results, owing to the patent fact that the practical and scientific future of the student depends on this stage. There are manifold factors have influence on the factor of crilerson referenced tests coefficient, so this study seeks to investigate some of these factors, using various and different methods for counting reliability factor, as a result it is easy to determine the main questions as follows. Does the reliability of the criterion refrenced test, according to the difference of some factors? From the above mentioned question, the following questions branch off: 1- Does the coefficient of the criterion Refrenced test reliability differs according to difference t the item type? 2- Does the coefficient of criterion referenced test differ, in accodance with the difference of counting reliability coefficient? 3- What is the best method of calculating the reliability of crderion refrenced test? Aims of the study 1- Determing the aims that the derivation unit in secondary school, second graders, seeks to attain. 2- Building up crelerion refrenced achievement test in the colums in the first stage of the general secondary certificate. 3- Studying the impact of the difference of an item type on the coefficient of criterion refrenced test reliability. 4- Studying the impace of the difference of counting the reliability coefficient on the criterion refrenced test reliability. The significance of the study: 1- The thestrical significance of the immediate study is patent, because it is considered an attempt to study the difference way of calculating the reliability of criterion refused tests. 2- The immediate study may contribute in building up criterion refrenced tests in the other school subjects. 3- Provide those who are in office as well as the experts of the educational development in the ministry of education, in Arab Republic of Egypt, and the teachers besides the supervisors in mathematics teaching field, with information about the importance of the criterion refrenced tests and the how of building them up as well as the extents of their contribution in determining. The applied significance of the study: 1- The possibility of increasing the reliability of the objective criterion refrenced tests. 2- Reaching the best method of calculating the reliability of the criterion refrenced tests. 3- Criterion refrenced achievement test may contribute in evaluating the second graders of the secondary stage in differentation subject derivation unit. 4- The immediate study is of a great benefit for the re- evaluation of the calcuilus curriculum in order to include the educational goals that are intended to be achieved in this stage. 5- Measuring the student’s mastery for the targeted educational tasks, in accordance with the planned goals, irrespective of drawing distinction between his performance and his peers’ performance. - The terminology of the study. - Reliability - Criterion - Criterion refrenced test - Multi – enace questions. 1- Relevant research and studies survey. 2- Theoretical study includes: a- Norm refrenced tests, their concept and features. b- Criterion refrenced tests, their concept, features, and the foundation of their building up. Second, the practical frame: In the light of the previous theoretical frame, the following is carried out. 1- Determining the derivation unit aims that the tests measure generally. 2- Building up Criterion refrenced test in the derisation unit, in the light of above mentioned goals, according to the following steps. 3- Determining the field or the subjects content, where in, the students achievement should be measured. 4- Determining the general and specific educational goals, that should be measured. - Right and wrong questions. - Completion questions. - Specification of the study. The study is restricted to aspecimen of students of secondary schools, first stage. From some schools of Benisuef educational directorate, and the study specimen includes fourty students as a pilot specimen and two hundred students as a final speciman. Tools of the study: Criterion refrenced achievement in derivation unit that is in the differentiation curriculum for the secondary school, second graders. Procedures of the study: The researcher utilizes the empirical methodology, because of its appropriates, for the study. The procedures of the study accomplishment: To answer the questions of the study, the following procedures have been taken. 1- First, the theoretical frame. 2- Designing the test specifications. 3- Building up the test items. 4- Determining the decisive mark. 5- Calculating the test validity ( Jery’s validity ) as well as the researcher uses a form, presented to the professor especialised in this domain. 6- Carrying out pioneer specimen for the test on a specimen of second school, second graders in some of the Benisuef educational directorate school, with an aim to: a- Determining the coefficient of reliability and validity. b- Writing of test items and organizing them. c- Setting the appropriate time for the test. d- Applying the suggested test to the target of specimen of secondary school, second grades. e- Analyzing and explaining results. f- Writing the recommend at ins and the prosals. Results of the study: - Concerning the methods of reliability calculation: First: Concerning the multi- choice question: 1- There are stastically significant differences at level 0>05 between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using fangastone method and the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using ”Haras” methodin favour of the grand reliability coefficient i.e. the one that is calculated using the fangastone method”. 2- There are statistically significant differences at level 0.05 between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using “Fangastone method” and the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method” in favour of the grand reliability coefficient, i.e the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using, Hampelton method. 3- There are statistically significant differences at level 0.51 between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using “Hampeltone method” and the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using Haras method” in favour of the grand reliability coefficient, i.e that is calculated using Hampeltone method. 4- There are statistically significant differences at level 0.05 between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using “spkofike method” in favour of the grand reliability coefficient that is calculated using Hampeltone method”. 5- There are no statistically significant differences between the reliability coefficient, calculated using fangastone method” and that one, calculated using spokfike method”. 6- There are no statistically significant differences between the reliability coefficient, calculated using “Haras method”, in favour of the grand reliability coefficient, i.e that one calculated using “ Hampeltone method” 7- There are no statistically siginificant differences between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method” and the reliability coefficient, calculating using “Spokfike method”. 8- There are no statistically significant differences, between reliability coefficient calculatied using Haras method” and the reliability coefficient, calculatied using spokfike method”. Second, concerning completion test: 1- There are statistically significant differences at level 0.05 between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using fangastone method and the reliability coefficient, calculated Haras method in favour of the grand reliability coefficient i.e. that one, calculated using fangastone method. 2- There are no statistically significant differences between the reliability coefficient that is calculated using “fangastone” method and the reliability coefficient calculated using Hampeltone method. 3- There are statistically significant differernces at level, 0.51 , between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using Haras method and the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method” in favour of the grand reliability coefficient, i.e the one that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method”. 4- There are no statistically significant differences between the reliability coefficient that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method” and the reliability coefficient, calculated using spokfike method. 5- There are no statistically significant differences between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using fangastone method and the reliability coefficient that is calculated using spokfike method”. 6- There are statistically significant differences at level 0.05 for image ( A) and at level 0.01 for image (B), between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method” and ther reliability coefficient, that is calculated using spokfike method, in favour of the grand reliability coefficient, i.e. the one that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method” . Third, concerning the right and wrong test: 1- There are statistically significant differences at level 0.05 between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using Fangastone method and the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method” in favour of the grand reliability coefficient, i.e that is calculated using “ Fangastone Method”. 2- Ther are no statistically significant differences between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using fangastone method and the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using Hampeltone method”. 3- There are statistically significant differences at level 0.01 between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method” and reliability coefficient, calculated using “ Hampeltone method”, in favour of the grand reliability coefficient i.e. that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method”. 4- There are no statistically significant differences between the reliability coefficient, calculated using fangastone method and there reliability coefficient calculated using spok fike method”. 5- There are no statistically significant differences between the reliability coefficient, calculated using fangastone method and the reliability coefficient calculated using spokfike method. 6- There are no statistically significant differences between the reliability coefficient, calculated using coefficient, calculated using “ Fangastone method” and the reliability coefficient, calculated using spokfike method. Concerning the difference of the item type: There are no difference for the values of reliability coefficients, with regard to the difference of the type of the item during the process of esteeming these coefficients, using the different methods, for fangastone, Haras “ Hampeltone and spokfike.

PHD Title

??????? ????? ??? ??????????? ?????????

PHD Abstract

Beni suef university Faculty of education Department of educational psychology Psychometric Study For The Effectiveness Of Some Variables On The Reliability Of The Criterion Referenced Tests. Research thesis Submitted for the obtainment of the master degree. By Ahmed Fikry Ahmed Bahnasawy The demonstrator In the department of the educational psychology. Supervised by Dr. Soliman Mohammed Soliman Dr. Foukia Ahmed Alsayed Assistant professor of the Education psychology and The head of the psychology department the faculty of Education – Benisuef university Assistant professor of the education psychology the faculty of Education - Beni suef university 2006 Summary Introduction: The evaluation is deemed not only an inseparable part of the education process, but also one of its basic components, in addition it comes up with the steps of the process. The evaluation is defined as the process of rendering judgments on the value of things or issues or situations or persons that draws upon certain norms or criteria. In education sphere, evaluation is defined as the process that seeks to gain knowledge of the extent of success or failure in the curriculum as well as the strengths and weaknesses, found in it, in order to get the sought – for aims perfectly. The test are one of the issues that concern every one of the responsible, the citizenry and even the students of both sexes, how ever the issue is neither discussed nor laught in a continuous gradual scientific way, capable of explaining the reasons of lowering the achievement level in the educational institutions and if any one gets knowledge of the results of the term end, he or she will actually feel how serious is the situation, as it is regarded as a massive material – humand educational and academic waste, if we add to this, the enormous pull out percent in the educational institutions. However, the problem lies in the absence of the standardized criteria and measurements that are able to estimate the educational situation accurately and honestly and objectively with amain of diagnosing the educational process, and identifying the real qualitative and a mantitative level of the educational output and its linkage with the plans and policies of the state as well as both the needs of the society and individual and achieving the productive congnitive development, and if the achievement tests, are the decision that is adopted in measuring the education outcomes and the internal abilities, within the educational institutions, then the tests tragedy for the majority, including the educational administration and teachers, men and women, is clear in their dependence on unscientific methods, and they are subject to the temperament on the one hand, and on unfamiliarity with prerequisite knowledge and the enough dexterity in setting achievements test on the other hand. It is intuitively clear thea th4ere are two trends for using the data we garner from evaluation process, in monitoring the fought after aims achievement, and the first trend depends on, what is called the abrm referenced tests, where in, the individual performance is confrunated with the his group’s performance, moreover the performance of his group is used as norm, where by his performance is judged. Owing the evaluation of the education to learning for mastery, the second trend in measurement emerges, and that is called criterion refrenced test, whereas the aim is no longer focusing on the differences amongst the individuals and drawing destruction between them, but it concentrates on paying attention to achievement measurement for the individuals, to determine the extent of continuity towards a level or even the mastery criterion, with an aim to achieve any curriculum and the results of this measurement as explained, within the adopted test and through a crederion that can be determined, inaccordance with the objective goals and irrespective of the peers levels. Reliability is a prerequisite condition of the standardized achievement tests conditions so the trust in what ever tests depends on the reliability of its marks. Study problem: In the course of the science and technology revolution, the main science, not least mathematics, have espcial significance in the contemporary education curriculum, the heart of this revolution and the stimulus for it as well as the main base for any progressor development. Mathematics learning becomes an strategic aim of the education aims towards it, the education systems should head, to build as scientific base for the society, that can come uup with the happenings in the global society, ie the technological and the scientific progress. The secondary education is considered are of the education stages, that are paid great attention, by the ministry of Education in Arab Republic of Egypt. All and sundry take a great interest in producing high quality results, owing to the patent fact that the practical and scientific future of the student depends on this stage. There are manifold factors have influence on the factor of crilerson referenced tests coefficient, so this study seeks to investigate some of these factors, using various and different methods for counting reliability factor, as a result it is easy to determine the main questions as follows. Does the reliability of the criterion refrenced test, according to the difference of some factors? From the above mentioned question, the following questions branch off: 1- Does the coefficient of the criterion Refrenced test reliability differs according to difference t the item type? 2- Does the coefficient of criterion referenced test differ, in accodance with the difference of counting reliability coefficient? 3- What is the best method of calculating the reliability of crderion refrenced test? Aims of the study 1- Determing the aims that the derivation unit in secondary school, second graders, seeks to attain. 2- Building up crelerion refrenced achievement test in the colums in the first stage of the general secondary certificate. 3- Studying the impact of the difference of an item type on the coefficient of criterion refrenced test reliability. 4- Studying the impace of the difference of counting the reliability coefficient on the criterion refrenced test reliability. The significance of the study: 1- The thestrical significance of the immediate study is patent, because it is considered an attempt to study the difference way of calculating the reliability of criterion refused tests. 2- The immediate study may contribute in building up criterion refrenced tests in the other school subjects. 3- Provide those who are in office as well as the experts of the educational development in the ministry of education, in Arab Republic of Egypt, and the teachers besides the supervisors in mathematics teaching field, with information about the importance of the criterion refrenced tests and the how of building them up as well as the extents of their contribution in determining. The applied significance of the study: 1- The possibility of increasing the reliability of the objective criterion refrenced tests. 2- Reaching the best method of calculating the reliability of the criterion refrenced tests. 3- Criterion refrenced achievement test may contribute in evaluating the second graders of the secondary stage in differentation subject derivation unit. 4- The immediate study is of a great benefit for the re- evaluation of the calcuilus curriculum in order to include the educational goals that are intended to be achieved in this stage. 5- Measuring the student’s mastery for the targeted educational tasks, in accordance with the planned goals, irrespective of drawing distinction between his performance and his peers’ performance. - The terminology of the study. - Reliability - Criterion - Criterion refrenced test - Multi – enace questions. 1- Relevant research and studies survey. 2- Theoretical study includes: a- Norm refrenced tests, their concept and features. b- Criterion refrenced tests, their concept, features, and the foundation of their building up. Second, the practical frame: In the light of the previous theoretical frame, the following is carried out. 1- Determining the derivation unit aims that the tests measure generally. 2- Building up Criterion refrenced test in the derisation unit, in the light of above mentioned goals, according to the following steps. 3- Determining the field or the subjects content, where in, the students achievement should be measured. 4- Determining the general and specific educational goals, that should be measured. - Right and wrong questions. - Completion questions. - Specification of the study. The study is restricted to aspecimen of students of secondary schools, first stage. From some schools of Benisuef educational directorate, and the study specimen includes fourty students as a pilot specimen and two hundred students as a final speciman. Tools of the study: Criterion refrenced achievement in derivation unit that is in the differentiation curriculum for the secondary school, second graders. Procedures of the study: The researcher utilizes the empirical methodology, because of its appropriates, for the study. The procedures of the study accomplishment: To answer the questions of the study, the following procedures have been taken. 1- First, the theoretical frame. 2- Designing the test specifications. 3- Building up the test items. 4- Determining the decisive mark. 5- Calculating the test validity ( Jery’s validity ) as well as the researcher uses a form, presented to the professor especialised in this domain. 6- Carrying out pioneer specimen for the test on a specimen of second school, second graders in some of the Benisuef educational directorate school, with an aim to: a- Determining the coefficient of reliability and validity. b- Writing of test items and organizing them. c- Setting the appropriate time for the test. d- Applying the suggested test to the target of specimen of secondary school, second grades. e- Analyzing and explaining results. f- Writing the recommend at ins and the prosals. Results of the study: - Concerning the methods of reliability calculation: First: Concerning the multi- choice question: 1- There are stastically significant differences at level 0>05 between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using fangastone method and the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using ”Haras” methodin favour of the grand reliability coefficient i.e. the one that is calculated using the fangastone method”. 2- There are statistically significant differences at level 0.05 between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using “Fangastone method” and the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method” in favour of the grand reliability coefficient, i.e the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using, Hampelton method. 3- There are statistically significant differences at level 0.51 between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using “Hampeltone method” and the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using Haras method” in favour of the grand reliability coefficient, i.e that is calculated using Hampeltone method. 4- There are statistically significant differences at level 0.05 between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using “spkofike method” in favour of the grand reliability coefficient that is calculated using Hampeltone method”. 5- There are no statistically significant differences between the reliability coefficient, calculated using fangastone method” and that one, calculated using spokfike method”. 6- There are no statistically significant differences between the reliability coefficient, calculated using “Haras method”, in favour of the grand reliability coefficient, i.e that one calculated using “ Hampeltone method” 7- There are no statistically siginificant differences between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method” and the reliability coefficient, calculating using “Spokfike method”. 8- There are no statistically significant differences, between reliability coefficient calculatied using Haras method” and the reliability coefficient, calculatied using spokfike method”. Second, concerning completion test: 1- There are statistically significant differences at level 0.05 between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using fangastone method and the reliability coefficient, calculated Haras method in favour of the grand reliability coefficient i.e. that one, calculated using fangastone method. 2- There are no statistically significant differences between the reliability coefficient that is calculated using “fangastone” method and the reliability coefficient calculated using Hampeltone method. 3- There are statistically significant differernces at level, 0.51 , between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using Haras method and the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method” in favour of the grand reliability coefficient, i.e the one that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method”. 4- There are no statistically significant differences between the reliability coefficient that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method” and the reliability coefficient, calculated using spokfike method. 5- There are no statistically significant differences between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using fangastone method and the reliability coefficient that is calculated using spokfike method”. 6- There are statistically significant differences at level 0.05 for image ( A) and at level 0.01 for image (B), between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method” and ther reliability coefficient, that is calculated using spokfike method, in favour of the grand reliability coefficient, i.e. the one that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method” . Third, concerning the right and wrong test: 1- There are statistically significant differences at level 0.05 between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using Fangastone method and the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method” in favour of the grand reliability coefficient, i.e that is calculated using “ Fangastone Method”. 2- Ther are no statistically significant differences between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using fangastone method and the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using Hampeltone method”. 3- There are statistically significant differences at level 0.01 between the reliability coefficient, that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method” and reliability coefficient, calculated using “ Hampeltone method”, in favour of the grand reliability coefficient i.e. that is calculated using “ Hampeltone method”. 4- There are no statistically significant differences between the reliability coefficient, calculated using fangastone method and there reliability coefficient calculated using spok fike method”. 5- There are no statistically significant differences between the reliability coefficient, calculated using fangastone method and the reliability coefficient calculated using spokfike method. 6- There are no statistically significant differences between the reliability coefficient, calculated using coefficient, calculated using “ Fangastone method” and the reliability coefficient, calculated using spokfike method. Concerning the difference of the item type: There are no difference for the values of reliability coefficients, with regard to the difference of the type of the item during the process of esteeming these coefficients, using the different methods, for fangastone, Haras “ Hampeltone and spokfike.