EXPLORING CONFIDENCE ACCURACY AND ITEM DIFFICULTY IN CHANGING MULTIPLE-CHOICE ANSWERS OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING TEST

Sarah Meilani Fadillah, M. Ha, E. Nuraeni, N. Y. Indriyanti
{"title":"EXPLORING CONFIDENCE ACCURACY AND ITEM DIFFICULTY IN CHANGING MULTIPLE-CHOICE ANSWERS OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING TEST","authors":"Sarah Meilani Fadillah, M. Ha, E. Nuraeni, N. Y. Indriyanti","doi":"10.32890/mjli2023.20.2.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose – Researchers discovered that when students were given the opportunity to change their answers, a majority changed theirresponses from incorrect to correct, and this change often increased the overall test results. What prompts students to modify theiranswers? This study aims to examine the modification of scientific reasoning test, with additional exploration on confidence accuracyand its relation to item difficulty.\nMethodology –A set of pre-test and post-test experiments which included 20 items of scientific reasoning test with confidencejudgement on each item were used. The items of the instruments were assessed for their validity by analysing their psychometric properties using the three-parameter (3PL) Item Response Theory, which was carried out in R studio. The set of items were randomly administered to 205 Indonesian undergraduate students with a background in science education related major. The accuracy of confidence was determined by categorising correct or incorrect answers to scientific reasoning questions based on their level of confidence.\nFindings –The results revealed that responses were modified more frequently from incorrect to correct than from correct to incorrect,resulting in a significant gain in overall scientific reasoning score although these modifications were not shown to be connected to theitem’s difficulty level. Even though confidence level also increased significantly, it was observed that Indonesian students repeatedlyresponded with overconfidence even after sitting for the same test after three weeks, which could indicate a lack of metacognitive ability. The findings of this study serve to spur educators to begin actively engaging in metacognitive training in their teaching and learning activities as a result of overconfidence that frequently occurs among Indonesian students in examinations.\nSignificance –This study provides further substantiation in the field of scientific reasoning and cognitive science; that a trend of confidence accuracy change in scientific reasoning test has been observed. It also contributes to uncovering the true ability of Indonesian students when performing such reasoning tests through their repeated attempts.","PeriodicalId":375345,"journal":{"name":"Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2023.20.2.5","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

Purpose – Researchers discovered that when students were given the opportunity to change their answers, a majority changed theirresponses from incorrect to correct, and this change often increased the overall test results. What prompts students to modify theiranswers? This study aims to examine the modification of scientific reasoning test, with additional exploration on confidence accuracyand its relation to item difficulty. Methodology –A set of pre-test and post-test experiments which included 20 items of scientific reasoning test with confidencejudgement on each item were used. The items of the instruments were assessed for their validity by analysing their psychometric properties using the three-parameter (3PL) Item Response Theory, which was carried out in R studio. The set of items were randomly administered to 205 Indonesian undergraduate students with a background in science education related major. The accuracy of confidence was determined by categorising correct or incorrect answers to scientific reasoning questions based on their level of confidence. Findings –The results revealed that responses were modified more frequently from incorrect to correct than from correct to incorrect,resulting in a significant gain in overall scientific reasoning score although these modifications were not shown to be connected to theitem’s difficulty level. Even though confidence level also increased significantly, it was observed that Indonesian students repeatedlyresponded with overconfidence even after sitting for the same test after three weeks, which could indicate a lack of metacognitive ability. The findings of this study serve to spur educators to begin actively engaging in metacognitive training in their teaching and learning activities as a result of overconfidence that frequently occurs among Indonesian students in examinations. Significance –This study provides further substantiation in the field of scientific reasoning and cognitive science; that a trend of confidence accuracy change in scientific reasoning test has been observed. It also contributes to uncovering the true ability of Indonesian students when performing such reasoning tests through their repeated attempts.
探究科学推理测验中选择题答案变更的信心、准确性和题目难度
目的——研究人员发现,当学生有机会改变他们的答案时,大多数人将他们的答案从错误改为正确,这种改变通常会提高整体测试结果。什么促使学生修改他们的答案?本研究旨在探讨科学推理测验的修正,并进一步探讨置信准确度及其与项目难度的关系。方法采用一套前测和后测实验,共包括20个科学推理测试项目,每个项目都有置信度判断。通过使用三参数(3PL)项目反应理论分析这些工具的心理测量特性,评估了它们的有效性,这是在R工作室进行的。问卷随机抽取205名具有科学教育相关专业背景的印尼大学生。信心的准确性是通过根据他们的信心水平对科学推理问题的正确或错误答案进行分类来确定的。发现-结果显示,从错误到正确的回答比从正确到不正确的回答修改得更频繁,导致整体科学推理得分显著提高,尽管这些修改并未显示与项目的难度水平有关。尽管自信水平也显著提高,但观察到印度尼西亚学生即使在三周后参加同样的测试后,也会反复表现出过度自信,这可能表明他们缺乏元认知能力。本研究的发现有助于教育工作者在教学活动中积极参与元认知训练,因为印尼学生在考试中经常出现过度自信的情况。意义——本研究在科学推理和认知科学领域提供了进一步的实证;科学推理测试的置信度和准确度有一定的变化趋势。它还有助于揭示印度尼西亚学生在进行这种推理测试时通过反复尝试的真实能力。
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