Meaning equivalence instructional methodology (MEIM)

• US 20020192629A1
• Filed: 05/30/2002
• Published: 12/19/2002
• Est. Priority Date: 05/30/2001
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Uri Shafrir
• Original Assignee: Uri Shafrir
• Inventors: Shafrir, Uri
• Granted Patent: US 6,953,344 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 434/322
• CPC Class Codes: G09B 7/00 Electrically-operated teaching apparatus or devices working with questions and answers mechanically operated G09B3/00; computing arrangements G06F

Abstract

This invention relates to a method and system that allows for testing the deep understanding that a student has for a concept by using the Meaning Equivalence Instructional Methodology (MEIM). The MEIM involves a meaning probe having a plurality of items. Each item has a plurality of statements and the student must select at least two statements having the same meaning. The meaning probe is then scored and feedback is provided. The MEIM allows instructors to test one or more students in any subject area. The MEIM also allows a student to perform self-tests. Furthermore, the scoring feedback provided by the MEIM allows for a remediation program to indicate to the student which areas of knowledge require strengthening. Accordingly, MEIM may also be used as a learning tool. MEIM may be applicable to elementary, secondary, post-secondary, adult and workplace learning environments.

Claims

1. A method for testing a student in a given subject area, the method comprising the steps of:

a) providing a meaning probe comprising a plurality of items, wherein each item comprises a plurality of statements;

b) testing the student with a meaning probe in the subject area by having the student select at least two statements having the same meaning;

c) scoring the meaning probe; and

,

d) providing feedback.

2. The method of claim 1, which includes providing each item with a target statement and a plurality of test statements, wherein the target statement is unmarked and encodes a concept about the subject area being tested.

3. The method of claim 2, which includes providing each test statement with one of a similar appearance and a different appearance compared to the target statement.

4. The method of claim 2, which includes providing each test statement with one of a similar meaning and a different meaning compared to the target statement.

5. The method of claim 3, which includes providing each test statement with one of a similar meaning and a different meaning compared to the target statement.

6. The method of claim 1, which includes providing at least one item family comprising a target statement and a plurality of test statements, and constructing at least one item from said at least one item family by selecting the target statement and some of the corresponding test statements, wherein, the target statement encodes a concept about the subject area being tested.

7. The method of claim 6, which includes providing each test statement with one of a similar appearance and a different appearance compared to the target statement and with one of a similar meaning and a different meaning compared to the target statement.

8. The method of claim 7, which includes providing each target statement as a text statement and providing at least one test statement having the same appearance and the same meaning as the target statement according to the steps of:

e) identifying a verb in the target statement;

f) looking for a lexical synonym for the verb; and

,

g) substituting the lexical synonym for the verb in the target statement to generate each such test statement from the target statement.

9. The method of claim 7, which includes providing each target statement as a text statement and providing at least one test statement having the same appearance and the same meaning as the target statement according to the steps of:

h) identifying a causative verb in the target statement; and

,

i) converting the voice of the causative verb from one of an active voice to a passive voice and a passive voice to an active voice to generate each such test statement from the target statement.

10. The method of claim 7, which includes providing each target statement as a text statement and providing at least one test statement having a different appearance and a similar meaning compared to the target statement, according to a heuristic method which comprises using different vocabulary to represent the concept of the target statement in each such text statement.

11. The method of claim 7, which includes providing each target statement as a text statement and providing at least one test statement having a different appearance and a similar meaning compared to the target statement, according to a heuristic method which comprises using different syntactic structures to represent the concept of the target statement in each such test statement.

12. The method of claim 7, which includes providing each target statement as a text statement and providing at least one test statement having a different appearance and a similar meaning compared to the target statement, according to a heuristic method which comprises using different grammatical structures to represent the concept of the target statement in each such test statement.

13. The method of claim 7, which includes providing each target statement as a text statement and providing at least one test statement generated from the target statement by changing the order of the words in the target statement.

14. The method of claim 7, which includes providing each target statement as a text statement and providing at least one text statement generated from the target statement by changing the punctuation in the target statement.

15. The method of claim 1, which includes providing a generic template for the meaning probe and generating new meaning probes from the generic template.

16. The method of claim 7, wherein the method further comprises storing item families in a database.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein the method further comprises adding new item families to the database to create a new database.

18. The method of claim 16, wherein the method further comprises providing a plurality of databases, wherein each of the databases contains concepts taught in a selected subject area.

19. The method of claim 16, wherein the method further comprises constructing each database to contain concepts taught in a textbook, for evaluating the student'"'"'s comprehension of the textbook.

20. The method of claim 1, which includes scoring the meaning probe by computing a global score comprising the total number of items in which all of the correct statements were selected by the student in step (b), and none of the incorrect statements were selected by the student.

21. The method of claim 1, which includes identifying correctly selected and incorrectly selected statements in accordance with step (b) and scoring the meaning probe by computing a first partial score and a second partial score for each item, wherein:

computing the first partial score comprises totaling the number of correct statements that were selected by the student divided by the total number of correct statements for the item; and

,

computing the second partial score comprises totaling the number of incorrect statements that were selected by the student divided by the total number of incorrect statements for the item.

22. The method of claim 1, which includes identifying correctly selected and incorrectly selected statements in accordance with step (b) and scoring the meaning probe by:

j) computing a global score comprising the total number of items in which all of the correct statements were selected by the student and none of the incorrect statements were selected by the student;

k) identifying the correct and incorrect statements for each item; and

,

l) computing a first partial score and a second partial score for each item, wherein;

computing the first partial score comprises totaling the number of correct statements that were selected by the student divided by the total number of correct statements for the item; and

,

computing the second partial score comprises totaling the number of incorrect statements that were selected by the student divided by the total number of incorrect statements for the item.

23. The method of claim 2, which includes, in step (b), having the student select statements having the same meaning, and scoring the meaning probe by calculating RI_EX and RI_IN according to the formulas:

24. The method of claim 2, which includes providing a meaning probe comprising:

a first plurality of items in which each item uses a first sign system for said target statement and for each test statement having a surface similarity with the target statement; and

,

a second plurality of items in which each item uses a second sign system for said target statement and for each test statement having a surface similarity with the target statement.

25. The method of claim 1, which includes providing at least one item with a marked target statement and requesting the student to provide at least one statement that has a similar meaning and a different appearance compared to the marked target statement.

26. The method of claim 1, which includes providing at least one item with a marked target statement and requesting the student to provide at least one statement that has a similar appearance and a different meaning compared to the marked target statement.

28. The system of claim 27, wherein the MEIM software program further comprises an item generator module for generating the items, a MEIM main module for controlling the operation of the software program, a master database and a database authoring module, wherein the MEIM main module is connected to the item generator module, the master database and the database authoring module and wherein the master database comprises a plurality of individual databases, each individual database comprising item families that are adapted for use by the item generator module to generate items.

29. The system of claim 28, wherein the database authoring module is adapted to create new individual databases and augment already existing individual databases by adding new item families to the already existing individual databases.

30. The system of claim 27, wherein the system further comprises an email program connected to the MEIM software program, a printer, an input device and a computer monitor, wherein the printer, input device and computer monitor are connected to the computer and wherein the student interacts with the MEIM software program through the input device and the computer monitor.

31. The system of claim 28, wherein the item generator is adapted to create at least one item from item families wherein each item family comprises a target statement and a plurality of test statements and constructing said at least one item from an item family is effected by selecting the target statement and some of the corresponding test statements from the item family, wherein the target statement encodes a concept about the subject area being tested.

32. The system of claim 27, wherein each item comprises a target statement and several test statements wherein the target statement is unmarked and encodes a concept about the subject area being tested.

33. The system of claim 32, wherein each test statement has one of a similar appearance and a different appearance compared to the target statement.

34. The system of claim 32, wherein each test statement has one of a similar meaning and a different meaning compared to the target statement.

35. The system of claim 27, wherein the scoring module is adapted to score the meaning probe by computing a global score comprising the total number of items in which all of the correct statements were selected by the student, and none of the incorrect statements were selected by the student.

36. The system of claim 27, wherein the scoring module is adapted to score the meaning probe by computing a first partial score and a second partial score for each item, wherein:

computing the first partial score comprises totaling the number of correct statements that were selected by the student divided by the total number of correct statements for the item; and

,

computing the second partial score comprises totaling the number of incorrect statements that were selected by the student divided by the total number of incorrect statements for the item.

37. The system of claim 27, which includes having the student identify correct and incorrect statements and wherein the scoring module is adapted to score the meaning probe by:

a) computing a global score comprising the total number of items in which all of the correct statements were selected by the student and none of the incorrect statements were selected by the student;

b) identifying the correct and incorrect statements for each item; and

,

c) computing a first partial score and a second partial score for each item, wherein;

computing the first partial score comprises totaling the number of correct statements that were selected by the student divided by the total number of correct statements for the item; and

,

computing the second partial score comprises totaling the number of incorrect statements that were selected by the student divided by the total number of incorrect statements for the item.

38. The system of claim 27, which includes having the student select correct statements having the same meaning and wherein the scoring module is adapted to score the meaning probe by calculating RI_EX and RI_IN according to the formulas:

39. The system of claim 32, wherein the meaning probe comprises:

a first plurality of items in which each item uses a first sign system for said target statement and for each test statement having a surface similarity with the target statement; and

,

a second plurality of items in which each item uses a second sign system for said target statement and for each test statement having a surface similarity with the target statement.

40. The system of claim 27, wherein at least one item comprises a marked target statement and the student must provide at least one statement that has a similar meaning and a different appearance compared to the marked target statement.

41. The system of claim 27, wherein at least one item comprises a marked target statement and the student must provide at least one statement that has a similar appearance and a different meaning compared to the marked target statement.

27. A system for testing a student in a given subject area, the system comprising a computer having a Meaning Equivalence Instructional Methodology (MEIM) software program comprising:

a) a meaning probe module for testing the student with a meaning probe in the subject area;

b) a scoring module for scoring the meaning probe;

c) a statistics module for computing statistics; and

d) a feedback module for providing feedback, wherein, the meaning, scoring, statistics and feedback modules are interconnected, and wherein, the meaning probe comprises a list of items and each item comprises a plurality of statements, wherein, for each item, the student must select at least two statements having the same meaning.