この研究は,答案返却の方法として,I-無返却,II-単に返却するのみ,III-返却して自己検討,IV-返却して簡単な講評と矯正を加える,の4つを仮定し,それが学習成果に及ぼす効果並に他の2,3の関聯問題を追求することにあった。その結果を要約すれば(1)返却法III,IVはI,IIに比してたしかに効果的だとの結論を得た。(2)返却法IIIとIVとでは,IVがすぐれた方法であると考うべき相当な証拠があがった。(3)方法IとIIについては,何等有意の差を見出すことはできなかった。(4)以上の結論は,学習評価の価値に関する著者の基本仮定のいくつかに関係し,それを支持しているようである。(5)テスト並に答案返却は,一般的にみて,能力の低い生徒に対してよりも,能力の低い生徒に対してかより大きな積極的効果を及ぼした。(6)全体を通しで最も顕著な進歩を示しためは,返却IV法を能力劣等群に適用した場合であった。このことは,能力の劣った生徒への返却法としてはIVが最も効果的であることを意味するであろう。(7)返却法IIIも亦,IVについで劣等群の生徒の学習に対して効果的であった。この研究の実験計画並に結果の統計的処理に関しては,横浜国立大学助教授金井達蔵氏の絶大な御協力を得た。深甚な感謝の意をささげたい。

When we consider educational evaluation as an integral part of the effective learning situations, how to handle test-results, such as test-scoring or methods of handing back test-papers to pupils, will be one of the important problems. In this study, I focussed my attention exclusively to the influence of methods of handing back test-papers to pupils. Three purposes of this study are as follows(a) to know the difference of effects among various methods of returning test-papers upon the outcomes of learning, (b) to clarify the relationship between the effects of methods of returning papers and the ability of pupils, and (c) to test the author's hypotheses concerning the values of evaluation in learning process. This experimental study provided four various methods of returning test-papers to pupils as following; I.The teacher just administers a test, and neither hands back the test-papers to pupils, nor refers anything about the test-results. II.The teacher just hands back the test-papers to pupils, without giving any comment about them, or without giving any opportunity for supervised self examination. III.The teacher hands back the test-papers to pupils, and tells them to re examine the papers for themselves for a short while. IV. The teacher hands back the test-papers to pupils, and gives a simple comment supplemented by corrective teaching. Following the experimental process shown in Fig 1, I performed five experiments, changing both the learning materials and the tested. The average score in the retest, subtracted by the average score in the test (see Fig. 1), in each of the methods of handing back papers, represents its effects-quotient, which is shown in Tables 2, 5, 8, 11 and 12 each. Secondly, I tried to find an answer to purpose (a) mentioned earlier, by testing the significance of difference among the effects of various methods. The results are summarized in Table 16, and the conclusions are ; (1) it is certain that methods IIIand IV are more effective than methods I and II, (2) as for III and IV, there is some evidence that IV is more effective, (3) there is no significant difference between methods I and II and (4) lastly these conclusions give proof to the author's basic hypotheses concerning the evaluation of learning process. To answer to purpose (b), a statistical analysis was made concerning the difference of effects of these methods of returning papers both upon the high-ability group and upon the low-ability group. The results of this are shown in Tables 26 and 27, and the conclusions are that testing and how to return papers have a greater effect upon low-ability pupils than upon high-ability pupils, and that especially this tendency is most apparent in method IV, followed by method III.