Repeated Failure in Board Exams: Lack of Knowledge or Erroneous Knowledge?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37226/rcp.v4i2.4809Keywords:
board exams, double loop learning, repeated testing, response tendencyAbstract
Board exams are used to confirm that each professional has the minimum necessary knowledge. They are a filter, where those who approve are recognized by the Estate as authorized professionals (Cruz, 2016). Many applicants fail repeatedly, even after studying for the exam. Failures are presumed to be due to insufficient knowledge of their discipline. During the review of these tests, it has been observed that some repeat many wrong answers. This indicates a second possibility, wrong learning. Studies indicate that repetition of wrong answers can be up to 68 percent (Feinberg, Raymond & Haist, 2015). To evaluate this phenomenon in Puerto Rico, we examined the response trends in two administrations of the same version of the test for two technical occupations (health and machinery). Excel statistical analysis functions known as logical tests and comparison operators were used. The results indicate that the type of error that prevailed was changing an incorrect alternative to another incorrect alternative. This could be explained by Argyris' double loop learning theory. In addition, applicants from the health field improved their score by repeating their exam, while those from machinery obtained lower scores.
References
Argyris, C. (1976). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391848
Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115–125. https://hbr.org/1977/09/double-loop-learning-in-organizations
Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational learning. Allyn and Bacon.
Argyris, C. (1997). Initiating change that perseveres. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(3), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764297040003006
Argyris, C. (2002). Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(2), 206–218. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2002.8509400
Brizuela, A., & Montero-Rojas, E. (2013). Predicción del nivel de dificultad en una prueba estandarizada de comprensión de lectura: aportes desde la psicometría y la psicología cognitiva. RELIEVE. Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Edu-cativa, 19(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.19.2.3143
Boris, M. (2006, Septiembre). La regulación de las profesiones de salud. Sus principales determinantes. Presentación realizada durante el XIII curso OPS/OMS-CIESS legislación de salud, México, DF.
Butler, A. C. (2010). Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying. Journal of Experimen-tal Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(5), 1118–1133. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019902
Chen, Y., & Liu, C. (2016). A short note on the relationship bet-ween pass rate and multiple attempts. Journal of Educational Measurement, 53(4), 431–447. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12124
Cirino, G. (1984). Introducción al desarrollo de pruebas escritas. Edito-rial Bohío.
Cruz, P. D. R. (2016). Reválida para la profesión de trabajo social en Puerto Rico: aspectos a reflexionar. Análisis, 16(1), 57–66. https://revistas.upr.edu/index.php/analisis
Friedman, V. J., & Lipshitz, R. (1992). Teaching people to shift cognitive gears: Overcoming resistance on the road to Model II. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28(1), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886392281010
Feinberg, R. A., Raymond, M. R. & Haist, S. A. (2015). Repeat tes-ting effects on credentialing exams: Are repeaters misinfor-med or uninformed? Educational Measurement: Issues and Prac-tice, 34(1), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12059
Geving, A. M., Webb, S., & Davis, B. (2005). Opportunities for repeat testing: Practice doesn’t always make perfect. Applied HRM Research, 10(2), 47–56. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.502.1985&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Gobierno de Puerto Rico. (1952, 25 de julio). Ley 82-447: Constitu-ción del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico. San Juan, PR.
Gely, G. G., Yglesias, L., & Rosado, N. (2007). Análisis de tasas de aprobación para certificaciones profesionales y reválidas en Puerto Rico. Consejo de Educación Superior de Puerto Rico. http://www.agencias.pr.gov/agencias/cepr/inicio/publicaciones/Publicaciones/EstudioAnalisisRevalidasPRGilda%20Gisela%20Gely.pdf
Guzmán, J. C. (2011). La calidad de la enseñanza en educación superior ¿Qué es una buena enseñanza en este nivel educati-vo? Perfiles Educativos, 33(SPE), 129–141. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/132/13221258012.pdf
Impara, J. C. (1995). Licensure testing: Purposes, procedures, and prac-tices. Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/buroslicensure/
Lozano-Díaz, A. (2003). Factores personales, familiares y académi-cos que afectan al fracaso escolar en la Educación Secundaria. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 1(1), 43–66. http://ojs.ual.es/ojs/index.php/EJREP/article/view/1080/0
Millman, J. (1989). If at first you don't succeed setting passing scores when more than one attempt is permitted. Educational Researcher, 18(6), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018006005
Navarro, R. E. (2003). Factores asociados al rendimiento académi-co. Revista Iberoamericana de educación, 33(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.35362/rie3312872
Raymond, M. R., Neustel, S., & Anderson, D. (2007). Retest effects on identical and parallel forms in certification and licensure testing. Personnel Psychology, 60(2), 367–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00077.x
Sueiro, K. T. (2017). La alineación en la educación. Un grito de auxilio de las facultades de derecho puertorriqueñas. Kálat-hos, 9(1), 34–52. http://kalathos.metro.inter.edu/kalathosmag/publications/Kalathos-Vol9-Num1.pdf
Toro, C. A. (2002). Los errores de diseño y el aprendizaje en las organi-zaciones: Teoría de acción, evidencia empírica y aplicaciones prácti-cas. Publicaciones Puertorriqueñas.
Young, S. D. (1987). The rule of experts: Occupational licensing in Ame-rica. Cato Institute.
Vale, C. D. (2006). Computerized item banking. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 261–285). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://fatihegitim.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/hndb-t-devt.pdf
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Eduardo Torres-Rodríguez, Carmen Rivera-Rivera, Kelvin Mariani-Escalante, Juan Flores Cintrón , Gabriel Cirino Gerena
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
