阅读理解考试试题分析教师队伍与培训教育

Viator Lumban Raja
{"title":"阅读理解考试试题分析教师队伍与培训教育","authors":"Viator Lumban Raja","doi":"10.54367/kairos.v4i1.847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is not uncommon to put a blame on the students when they fail in the semester examination. The examiner or the one who constructs the test is rarely blamed or questioned why such a thing can happen. There is never a question whether the test is valid or reliable. In other words, the test itself is never evaluated in order to know if it meets the level of difficulty and power of discrimination. Madsen (1983: 180) says that item analysis tells us three things: (1) how difficult each item is, (2)whether or not the question discriminated or tells the difference between high and low students, (3) which distracters are working as they should.  This reading comprehension examination consists of 44 items, 35 items of reading comprehension and 9 items of vocabulary. The number of test takers are 18 students. The result of the analysis shows that only 5 students (27.7%) can do the test within average, meaning they can answer the test 50% correct of the total test items. This belongs to moderate category, not high nor excellent. Of the 44 test items, 33(75%) are bad items in that they do not fulfill one or both of the requirements concerning the level of difficulty and power of discrimination. And only 11 items (25%) meet the requirements of level of difficulty and power of discrimination. Regarding the distracters, there are 20 items (45.45%) whose distracters are not chosen either one or two. There are two items (4.54%), 25 and 34, the correct answer of which is not chosen by the test takers, including the high and low group. In short, these 20 items needs revising in term of distracters. Revision is made to those items whose distracters are not chosen and those which do not fulfill the requirements of level of difficulty and power of discrimination. Distracters which look too easy are changed, and those which are not totally chosen are revised. ","PeriodicalId":184113,"journal":{"name":"Kairos English Language Teaching Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"TEST ITEM ANALYSIS OF READING COMPREHENSION EXAMINATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS AND TRAINING EDUCATION\",\"authors\":\"Viator Lumban Raja\",\"doi\":\"10.54367/kairos.v4i1.847\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It is not uncommon to put a blame on the students when they fail in the semester examination. The examiner or the one who constructs the test is rarely blamed or questioned why such a thing can happen. There is never a question whether the test is valid or reliable. In other words, the test itself is never evaluated in order to know if it meets the level of difficulty and power of discrimination. Madsen (1983: 180) says that item analysis tells us three things: (1) how difficult each item is, (2)whether or not the question discriminated or tells the difference between high and low students, (3) which distracters are working as they should.  This reading comprehension examination consists of 44 items, 35 items of reading comprehension and 9 items of vocabulary. The number of test takers are 18 students. The result of the analysis shows that only 5 students (27.7%) can do the test within average, meaning they can answer the test 50% correct of the total test items. This belongs to moderate category, not high nor excellent. Of the 44 test items, 33(75%) are bad items in that they do not fulfill one or both of the requirements concerning the level of difficulty and power of discrimination. And only 11 items (25%) meet the requirements of level of difficulty and power of discrimination. Regarding the distracters, there are 20 items (45.45%) whose distracters are not chosen either one or two. There are two items (4.54%), 25 and 34, the correct answer of which is not chosen by the test takers, including the high and low group. In short, these 20 items needs revising in term of distracters. Revision is made to those items whose distracters are not chosen and those which do not fulfill the requirements of level of difficulty and power of discrimination. Distracters which look too easy are changed, and those which are not totally chosen are revised. \",\"PeriodicalId\":184113,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kairos English Language Teaching Journal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kairos English Language Teaching Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54367/kairos.v4i1.847\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kairos English Language Teaching Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54367/kairos.v4i1.847","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当学生在学期考试中不及格时,责备他们是很常见的。主考人或设计考试的人很少受到指责或质疑,为什么会发生这样的事情。测试是否有效或可靠从来都没有问题。换句话说,测试本身从来没有被评估过,以知道它是否符合难度和辨别能力的水平。Madsen(1983: 180)说,项目分析告诉我们三件事:(1)每个项目有多难,(2)问题是否区分了高低学生,(3)哪些干扰因素发挥了应有的作用。Â本次阅读理解考试包括44项,35项阅读理解和9项词汇。考生人数为18人。分析结果显示,只有5名学生(27.7%)能在平均范围内完成测试,这意味着他们能正确回答所有测试项目的50%。这属于中等类别,不高也不优秀。在44个测试项目中,33个(75%)是不好的项目,因为它们不满足难度和辨别能力的一个或两个要求。只有11项(25%)符合难度和辨别力的要求。在干扰因素方面,有20个项目(45.45%)的干扰因素没有选择一个或两个。包括高组和低组在内的考生没有选择正确答案的题目有25和34两个(4.54%)。总之,这20个项目需要在干扰方面进行修改。对未选择干扰项和不符合难度要求和辨别能力要求的项目进行修订。那些看起来太容易的干扰被改变了,那些没有完全选择的是revised.Â
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
TEST ITEM ANALYSIS OF READING COMPREHENSION EXAMINATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS AND TRAINING EDUCATION
It is not uncommon to put a blame on the students when they fail in the semester examination. The examiner or the one who constructs the test is rarely blamed or questioned why such a thing can happen. There is never a question whether the test is valid or reliable. In other words, the test itself is never evaluated in order to know if it meets the level of difficulty and power of discrimination. Madsen (1983: 180) says that item analysis tells us three things: (1) how difficult each item is, (2)whether or not the question discriminated or tells the difference between high and low students, (3) which distracters are working as they should.  This reading comprehension examination consists of 44 items, 35 items of reading comprehension and 9 items of vocabulary. The number of test takers are 18 students. The result of the analysis shows that only 5 students (27.7%) can do the test within average, meaning they can answer the test 50% correct of the total test items. This belongs to moderate category, not high nor excellent. Of the 44 test items, 33(75%) are bad items in that they do not fulfill one or both of the requirements concerning the level of difficulty and power of discrimination. And only 11 items (25%) meet the requirements of level of difficulty and power of discrimination. Regarding the distracters, there are 20 items (45.45%) whose distracters are not chosen either one or two. There are two items (4.54%), 25 and 34, the correct answer of which is not chosen by the test takers, including the high and low group. In short, these 20 items needs revising in term of distracters. Revision is made to those items whose distracters are not chosen and those which do not fulfill the requirements of level of difficulty and power of discrimination. Distracters which look too easy are changed, and those which are not totally chosen are revised. 
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信