Assessment of The Difficulty of Mathematics High-Level Reasoning Using Focus Group Discussion and Program Item Approaches

Rukli Rukli, Ma'rup Ma'rup
{"title":"Assessment of The Difficulty of Mathematics High-Level Reasoning Using Focus Group Discussion and Program Item Approaches","authors":"Rukli Rukli, Ma'rup Ma'rup","doi":"10.26858/jdm.v9i2.23577","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to estimate the difficulty level of high-level reasoning math problems by comparing the estimated difficulty level of the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) approach and the Iteman program. The estimation of the FGD approach uses a semantic differential scale on a scale of 1-7, while the Iteman program uses version 4.0. The study used a quantitative-comparative approach involving 79 FGDs of students and teachers of SMP/MTs in Soppeng Regency. Each FGD consisted of four people, one teacher and three students of class VIII. The comparative of difficulty level using Scheffe test with a significance level of 0.05. The results showed that the average level of difficulty in the FGD approach had significant similarity with the average level of difficulty in the output of the Iteman program approach. This means that the estimated level of difficulty of the FGD examinees has a similarity with the output of the Iteman program from the response data of the FGD examinees. This shows that examinees  from FGD in assessing the level of difficulty of high-level reasoning questions can be the teacher’s choice in schools other than the Iteman program.","PeriodicalId":123617,"journal":{"name":"Daya Matematis: Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Matematika","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Daya Matematis: Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Matematika","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26858/jdm.v9i2.23577","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aims to estimate the difficulty level of high-level reasoning math problems by comparing the estimated difficulty level of the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) approach and the Iteman program. The estimation of the FGD approach uses a semantic differential scale on a scale of 1-7, while the Iteman program uses version 4.0. The study used a quantitative-comparative approach involving 79 FGDs of students and teachers of SMP/MTs in Soppeng Regency. Each FGD consisted of four people, one teacher and three students of class VIII. The comparative of difficulty level using Scheffe test with a significance level of 0.05. The results showed that the average level of difficulty in the FGD approach had significant similarity with the average level of difficulty in the output of the Iteman program approach. This means that the estimated level of difficulty of the FGD examinees has a similarity with the output of the Iteman program from the response data of the FGD examinees. This shows that examinees  from FGD in assessing the level of difficulty of high-level reasoning questions can be the teacher’s choice in schools other than the Iteman program.
用焦点小组讨论和项目方法评估数学高级推理的难度
本研究旨在通过比较焦点小组讨论(Focus Group Discussion, FGD)方法和Iteman程序的估计难度水平,来估计高级推理数学问题的难度水平。FGD方法的估计使用1-7级的语义差异量表,而Iteman程序使用4.0版本。该研究采用了定量比较方法,涉及Soppeng reggency SMP/MTs的79名学生和教师的fgd。每个FGD由四人组成,一名老师和八班的三名学生。难度水平比较采用Scheffe检验,显著性水平为0.05。结果表明,FGD方法的平均难度水平与Iteman程序方法输出的平均难度水平具有显著的相似性。这意味着估计的FGD考生的难度水平与Iteman程序从FGD考生的响应数据中得到的输出具有相似性。这表明来自FGD的考生在评估高级推理问题的难度水平时可以是老师在Iteman项目以外的学校的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信