The Analysis of the Teacher-Made Multiple-Choice Tests Quality for English Subject

Authors

  • M.S.D, Indrayani Ganesha University of Education
  • A.A.I.N, Marhaeini Ganesha University of Education
  • A.A.G.Y, Paramartha Ganesha University of Education
  • L.G.E, Wahyuni Ganesha University of Education

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.23887/jere.v4i3.25814

Keywords:

summative assessment, teacher-made multiple-choice test, construction norms, instrument quality

Abstract

This study aimed at investigating and analyze the quality of teacher-made multiple-choice tests used as summative assessment for English subject. The quality of the tests was seen from the norms in constructing a good multiple-choice test. The research design used was descriptive research. Document study and interview were used as methods of collecting the data. The data was analyzed by comparing the 18 norms in constructing a good multiple-choice test and the multiple-choice tests, then, analyzed by using formula suggested by Nurkencana. The result showed the quality of the teacher-made multiple-choice tests a is very good with 79 items (99%) qualified as very good and I item (1%) qualified good. There were still found some problems referring to some norms. Therefore, it is suggested that the teachers have to pay attention to these unfulfilled norms. To minimize the issues, it is further suggested to do peer review, rechecking, and editing process.

References

Bailey, K. M. (1998). Learning about language assessment: dilemmas, decisionjs, and directions. Heinle & Heinle.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). “Assessment and Classroom Learning,. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7–73. https://doi.org/https://www.gla.ac.uk/t4/learningandteaching/files/PGCTHE/BlackandWiliam1998.pdf

Burton, S. J., Sudweeks, R. R., Marrill, P. F., & Wood, B. (1990). How to prepare better multiple-choice test items: Guidelines for university faculty. Doctoral Dissertation, Brigham Young University. Department of Instructional Science. https://doi.org/http://sites.educ.ualberta.ca/staff/ldelia/How-to-prp-MC-Tests=UK’University.pdf.

Connelly, M. (2009). Get writing: Sentences and paragraphs. Cengage Learning.

Dejong, G., Kokinakis, C. L., & Kuntzleman, C. (2002). The role of assessment in meeting the NASPE physical education content standards. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 73(7), 22–25. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2002.10607842

Estilden, K. P. (2017). Why is it important to learn English: A study of attitudes and motivation towards English and English language learning in Swedish upper secondary school. Retrieved September 2nd, 2019. https://doi.org/https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1078032&dswid=-1149

Haladyna, T. M. (2004). Developing and Validating Multiple-Choice Test Items. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hall, & Marshall. (2014). A Guide for Developing Multiple-Choice and Other Objective Style Questions. Centre for Academic Development. Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

Jabbarifar, T. (2009). The Importance of Classroom Assessment and Evaluation in Educational System. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Teaching and Learning. https://doi.org/https://www.fche.cl/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Jabbarifar-Taghi_2009_The-Importance-of-Classroom-Assessment-and-Evaluation-in-Educational-System.pdf.

Kolte, V. (2015). Item analysis of Multiple-Choice Questions in Physiology Examination. Indian Journal of Basic and Applied Medical Research, 4(4), 320–326. https://doi.org/https://ijbamr.com/pdf/september%202015%20320-326.pdf.pdf

Kurniawan, O., Noviana, E., & Muhammad, N. (2014). Analisis Kemampuan Guru Sekolahdasar Dalam Memahami Konsep Penggunaan Tanda Baca Se-Kecamatantampan Pekanbaru. Jurnal Primary Program Studi Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar Fakultas Keguruan Dan Ilmu Pendidikan Universitas Riau, 3(1). https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.33578/jpfkip.v3i1.2107

Lebagi, D., Sumardi, & Sudjoko. (2017). The Quality of Teacher-Made Test in EFL Classroom at the Elementary School and Its Washback in the Learning. Journal of English Education, 2(2). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31327/jee.v2i2.289

Mann, C. (2003). Point counterpoint: Teaching punctuation as information management. College Composition and Communication, 54(3), 359–393. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.2307/3594170

Ministerial of Education and Culture of Indonesia. (2016). Regulation of the Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4 of 2018 Regarding Assessment of Learning Outcomes. Jakarta, Indonesia.

Nurkancana dan Sunarta. (1992). Evaluasi Hasil Belajar. Surabaya: Usaha Nasional.

Puspendik Kemdikbud. (2019). Guidelines for Implementing Test Construction Training. Jakarta Indonesia.

Salamin, A., Farrah, M., Zahida, R., & Zaru, N. (2016). An Investigation into Punctuation and Capitalization Errors Made by Hebron University EFL Students. Al-Azhar University Research Journal. https://doi.org/http://dspace.hebron.edu:80/xmlui/handle/123456789/166

Solomon, M. (1990). The power of punctuation. Design Issues, 6(2), 28–32. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.2307/1511434

Tosuncuoglu, I. (2018). Importance of Assessment in ELT. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(9), 163–167. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i9.3443

Truss, L. (2003). Eats shoots and leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation. New York: Gotham Books.

Zimmaro, D. M. (2016). Writing Good Multiple-Choice Exams. Texas: University of Texas – Austin.

Zolfaghari, H. (1999). How to write a composition. Tehran: Asatir Press.

Downloads

Published

2020-07-05

How to Cite

Indrayani, M., Marhaeini, A., Paramartha, A., & Wahyuni, L. (2020). The Analysis of the Teacher-Made Multiple-Choice Tests Quality for English Subject. Journal of Education Research and Evaluation, 4(3), 272–278. https://doi.org/10.23887/jere.v4i3.25814

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 3 (2020): August

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with the Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (JERE)  agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. (See The Effect of Open Access)