Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 1

Examining Difficulty and Discrimination Indices of Multiple Choice Questions according to Item Types in Distance Education

Uzaktan Eğitimde Çoktan Seçmeli Soruların Güçlük ve Ayırt Edicilik Değerlerinin Soru Türlerine Göre İncelenmesi

Pages
168–184
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In addition, it was found that opinions of students on the difficulty levels of questions showed variety.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to determine whether difficulty and discrimination indices of multiple choice questions differ according to item types in Turkey in higher education in a distance education setting and to identify the opinions of students on item types.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Quantitative data were collected from Item Analysis reports including 905 items whereas qualitative data were collected from 20 students via semi-structured interviews to reveal the opinions of students on difficulty levels of questions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, it was found that opinions of students on the difficulty levels of questions showed variety.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine whether difficulty and discrimination indices of multiple choice questions differ according to item types in Turkey in higher education in a distance education setting and to identify the opinions of students on item types. In this mixed study, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Quantitative data were collected from Item Analysis reports including 905 items whereas qualitative data were collected from 20 students via semi-structured interviews to reveal the opinions of students on difficulty levels of questions. It was identified that items were in 4 types which were positive, negative, problem-based and K-Type questions. As a result, there is a significant difference between the difficulty indices of positive questions and problem-based questions as well as negative questions and problem-based questions. On the other hand, no significant difference was found between the discrimination indices. In addition, it was found that opinions of students on the difficulty levels of questions showed variety.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Türkiye'de yükseköğretimde uzaktan eğitim bağlamında, çoktan seçmeli soruların güçlük ve ayırt edicilik değerlerinin soru türlerine göre farklılık gösterip göstermediğini belirlemek ve öğrencilerin soru türlerine ilişkin görüşlerini almaktır. Karma olarak desenlenen araştırmada hem nicel hem nitel veriler toplanmıştır. Nicel veriler için 905 soru üzerinde çalışılmış ve madde analizi raporlarından yararlanılmıştır. Nitel veriler ise öğrencilerin soruların güçlük değerlerine ilişkin görüşlerini ortaya koymak amacıyla 20 uzaktan öğrenciyle yapılan yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşmelerle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmada soruların olumlu soru kipindeki sorular, olumsuz soru kipindeki sorular, cevabı işlem gerektiren sorular ve K Tipi sorular olmak üzere 4 türde olduğu saptanmıştır. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre olumlu ve olumsuz soru kipindeki sorularla cevabı işlem gerektiren soruların madde güçlükleri arasında istatistiksel olarak manidar bir fark bulunurken, soruların ayırt edicilik değerleri arasında manidar bir fark bulunmamıştır. Öğrencilerin soruların güçlük değerlerine ilişkin görüşleri ve tercihlerinin farklılaştığı tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARADAĞ, N., ŞAHİN, M. D., KARADENİZ, A., KOÇDAR, S. (2022). Examining Difficulty and Discrimination Indices of Multiple Choice Questions according to Item Types in Distance Education. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 1, 168–184. https://ajindex.com/articles/531777

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Albanese, M. (1993). Type K and other complex multiple-choice items: an analysis of research and item properties. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(1), 28-33.
  2. Bray, J.H. ve Maxwell, S.E. (1982). Analyzing and interpreting significant MANOVAs. Review of Educational Research, 52, 340-367.
  3. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk, Ö. ve Köklü, N. (2015). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik. Ankara:
  4. Pegem Akademi. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitaive and qualitative research (3. baskı). New Jersey:Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara:
  5. Pegem Akademi. Downing, S. M., Dawson-Saunders, B., Case, S. M., ve Powell, R. D. (1991, Nisan). The psychometric effects of negative stems, unfocused questions, and heterogeneous options on NBME Part I and Part II item characteristics. National Council on Measurement in Education Konferansı'nda sunulan bildiri, Chicago. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statics using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Johnstone, A.H. (1983). Training teachers to be aware of student learning difficulties. İçinde Tamir, P., Hofstein, A. & Ben Peretz, M. (eds) Preservice and inservice education of science teachers. Rehovot, Israel & Philadelphia: Balaban International Science Services: 109-116.
  6. Jordan, S. ve Mitchell, T. (2009). e-Assessment for learning? The potential of short-answer free-text questions with tailored feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 371-385.
  7. Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M. ve Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309-309.
  8. Haladyna, T.M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items. (3 ed.) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Harasym, P. H., Price, P. G., Brant, R., Violato, C. ve Lorscheider, F. L. (1992). Evaluation of negation in stems of multiple-choice items. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 15, 198-220.
  9. Johnstone, A.H. (1983). Training teachers to be aware of student learning difficulties. İçinde Tamir, P., Hofstein, A. & Ben Peretz, M. (eds) Preservice and inservice education of science teachers. Rehovot, Israel & Philadelphia: Balaban International Science Services: 109-116.
  10. Kaptan, F. (1985). ÖSYS Fizik soruları üzerine bir nitelik araştırması. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans te