![](https://csdnimg.cn/release/download_crawler_static/19909733/bg1.jpg)
PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS AND TEACHER ASSESSMENTS
167
This suggests that whereas behavior problems and matters of vocational
placement are ultimately items of universal agreement between teacher and psy-
chologist, such is not the case with the question of students’ working above psycho-
logical potential in the classroom. The fact that students’ working above potential
is
the source of least agreement between teacher and psychologist must be inter-
preted in conjunction with the finding reported in Table
2
that clients’ working
above potential is equally
a
relatively difficult-to-anticipate problem for the psy-
chologist. There seems to exist
a
basic area of disagreement between the psycholo-
gist’s assessment of academic potential and the teacher’s observations of academic
performance.
It
thus appears that
a
need remains for further examination of the relationship
between measured psychological potential and actual classroom performance.
DELAYED RECALL VERSUS RECOGNITION AS A PREDICTOR
OF
HIGHER LEVEL COGNITIVE ACHIEVEMENTS’
RICHARD
B.
SMITH AND ROBERT MANGUM
Northern
Illinois
University
Educators have long been concerned with the relative value of information
that can be recalled as opposed to information that can just be recognized. The
question
is
at the heart of the arguments regarding essay and objective tests. Many
teachers and educators are convinced that recallable knowledge is of more worth
than knowledge that can only be recognized. People involved in test construction
have argued conversely that recallable knowledge is not more valuable than that
which can only be recognized. They point out that the solution to problems of the
real world is not
so
much concerned with recalling information as with making
choices from among readily discernible alternatives. In the discussion of the relative
merits of the two types of performance there is usually no definition of what is meant
by the worth of the types of performance.
The present study is concerned with the comparison
of
the performance of
students who can recall
a
principle after
a
period of years
as
opposed
to
those who
can only recognize the principle. The comparison is in terms of their ability to profit
from
a
communication. Profiting from the communication is determined by the
student’s ability to answer multiple choice items involving the
Taxonomy
(Bloom,
1956)
processes
of
“extrapolation,” “application,” “analysis,” “synthesis,” and
“evaluation.”
METHOD
Two hundred and eighteen college juniors were used
as
subjects. The subjects were given com-
pletion type test items which required that they recall seven different principles
of
the physical
sciences. The principles utilized were principles typically included in the junior high science cur-
riculum.
‘A
modified version
of
this paper was presented at the
annual
meeting
of
the American Educa-
.-
tional Resenrch Association,
Lo8
Angeles, February
1969.