TEACHERS BEHALF ON LANGUAGE TEST CONSTRUCTION
There are four steps necessarily to be conducted when designing multiple-choice test items, namely setting the objective, building both concise stems and options, determining one correct answer, employing item indices to accept or discarding items (Brown, 2004). As a matter of fact, most teachers in...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Nyak Mutia Ismail [verfasserIn] Marisa Yoestara [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2017 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching - Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2017, 20(2017), 2, Seite 78-84 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:20 ; year:2017 ; number:2 ; pages:78-84 |
| Links: |
Link aufrufen |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.24071/llt.v20i2.734 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ021921768 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ021921768 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230307052447.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230226s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.24071/llt.v20i2.734 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ021921768 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJb0fea851a2764a23ab7ae03cae8d614b | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a L7-991 | |
| 050 | 0 | |a P1-1091 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a Nyak Mutia Ismail |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a TEACHERS BEHALF ON LANGUAGE TEST CONSTRUCTION |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2017 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a There are four steps necessarily to be conducted when designing multiple-choice test items, namely setting the objective, building both concise stems and options, determining one correct answer, employing item indices to accept or discarding items (Brown, 2004). As a matter of fact, most teachers in Aceh are not very well-informed about the fourth step and they accept all items as they are. This study focuses on high school teachers who undergo all of the steps offered in the framework when constructing multiple-choice items for English summative test(s). The qualitative method using framework analysis was used in obtaining the data. A questionnaire was distributed to 15 teachers. The analysis process was carried out through three-step analysis (Miles, Huberman, Saldana, 2013). The results depict that the teachers hardly conduct the index determining step or try-outs when constructing a test. This implies that there is no empirical warrant that all items are worth tested and can be the fundamentals for decision-making when assessing and evaluating students test results. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a test construction, language testing, multiple-choice items, summative test, and assessment and evaluation. | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Education (General) | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Language and Literature | |
| 653 | 0 | |a P | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Philology. Linguistics | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Marisa Yoestara |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching |d Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2017 |g 20(2017), 2, Seite 78-84 |w (DE-627)1760634425 |x 25799533 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:20 |g year:2017 |g number:2 |g pages:78-84 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v20i2.734 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/b0fea851a2764a23ab7ae03cae8d614b |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT/article/view/734 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1410-7201 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2579-9533 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 20 |j 2017 |e 2 |h 78-84 | ||
| author_variant |
n m i nmi m y my |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:25799533:2017----::eceseafnagaeeto |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2017 |
| callnumber-subject-code |
L |
| publishDate |
2017 |
| allfields |
10.24071/llt.v20i2.734 doi (DE-627)DOAJ021921768 (DE-599)DOAJb0fea851a2764a23ab7ae03cae8d614b DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng L7-991 P1-1091 Nyak Mutia Ismail verfasserin aut TEACHERS BEHALF ON LANGUAGE TEST CONSTRUCTION 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier There are four steps necessarily to be conducted when designing multiple-choice test items, namely setting the objective, building both concise stems and options, determining one correct answer, employing item indices to accept or discarding items (Brown, 2004). As a matter of fact, most teachers in Aceh are not very well-informed about the fourth step and they accept all items as they are. This study focuses on high school teachers who undergo all of the steps offered in the framework when constructing multiple-choice items for English summative test(s). The qualitative method using framework analysis was used in obtaining the data. A questionnaire was distributed to 15 teachers. The analysis process was carried out through three-step analysis (Miles, Huberman, Saldana, 2013). The results depict that the teachers hardly conduct the index determining step or try-outs when constructing a test. This implies that there is no empirical warrant that all items are worth tested and can be the fundamentals for decision-making when assessing and evaluating students test results. test construction, language testing, multiple-choice items, summative test, and assessment and evaluation. Education (General) Language and Literature P Philology. Linguistics Marisa Yoestara verfasserin aut In LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2017 20(2017), 2, Seite 78-84 (DE-627)1760634425 25799533 nnns volume:20 year:2017 number:2 pages:78-84 https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v20i2.734 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b0fea851a2764a23ab7ae03cae8d614b kostenfrei https://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT/article/view/734 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1410-7201 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2579-9533 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 20 2017 2 78-84 |
| spelling |
10.24071/llt.v20i2.734 doi (DE-627)DOAJ021921768 (DE-599)DOAJb0fea851a2764a23ab7ae03cae8d614b DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng L7-991 P1-1091 Nyak Mutia Ismail verfasserin aut TEACHERS BEHALF ON LANGUAGE TEST CONSTRUCTION 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier There are four steps necessarily to be conducted when designing multiple-choice test items, namely setting the objective, building both concise stems and options, determining one correct answer, employing item indices to accept or discarding items (Brown, 2004). As a matter of fact, most teachers in Aceh are not very well-informed about the fourth step and they accept all items as they are. This study focuses on high school teachers who undergo all of the steps offered in the framework when constructing multiple-choice items for English summative test(s). The qualitative method using framework analysis was used in obtaining the data. A questionnaire was distributed to 15 teachers. The analysis process was carried out through three-step analysis (Miles, Huberman, Saldana, 2013). The results depict that the teachers hardly conduct the index determining step or try-outs when constructing a test. This implies that there is no empirical warrant that all items are worth tested and can be the fundamentals for decision-making when assessing and evaluating students test results. test construction, language testing, multiple-choice items, summative test, and assessment and evaluation. Education (General) Language and Literature P Philology. Linguistics Marisa Yoestara verfasserin aut In LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2017 20(2017), 2, Seite 78-84 (DE-627)1760634425 25799533 nnns volume:20 year:2017 number:2 pages:78-84 https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v20i2.734 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b0fea851a2764a23ab7ae03cae8d614b kostenfrei https://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT/article/view/734 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1410-7201 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2579-9533 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 20 2017 2 78-84 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.24071/llt.v20i2.734 doi (DE-627)DOAJ021921768 (DE-599)DOAJb0fea851a2764a23ab7ae03cae8d614b DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng L7-991 P1-1091 Nyak Mutia Ismail verfasserin aut TEACHERS BEHALF ON LANGUAGE TEST CONSTRUCTION 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier There are four steps necessarily to be conducted when designing multiple-choice test items, namely setting the objective, building both concise stems and options, determining one correct answer, employing item indices to accept or discarding items (Brown, 2004). As a matter of fact, most teachers in Aceh are not very well-informed about the fourth step and they accept all items as they are. This study focuses on high school teachers who undergo all of the steps offered in the framework when constructing multiple-choice items for English summative test(s). The qualitative method using framework analysis was used in obtaining the data. A questionnaire was distributed to 15 teachers. The analysis process was carried out through three-step analysis (Miles, Huberman, Saldana, 2013). The results depict that the teachers hardly conduct the index determining step or try-outs when constructing a test. This implies that there is no empirical warrant that all items are worth tested and can be the fundamentals for decision-making when assessing and evaluating students test results. test construction, language testing, multiple-choice items, summative test, and assessment and evaluation. Education (General) Language and Literature P Philology. Linguistics Marisa Yoestara verfasserin aut In LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2017 20(2017), 2, Seite 78-84 (DE-627)1760634425 25799533 nnns volume:20 year:2017 number:2 pages:78-84 https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v20i2.734 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b0fea851a2764a23ab7ae03cae8d614b kostenfrei https://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT/article/view/734 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1410-7201 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2579-9533 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 20 2017 2 78-84 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.24071/llt.v20i2.734 doi (DE-627)DOAJ021921768 (DE-599)DOAJb0fea851a2764a23ab7ae03cae8d614b DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng L7-991 P1-1091 Nyak Mutia Ismail verfasserin aut TEACHERS BEHALF ON LANGUAGE TEST CONSTRUCTION 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier There are four steps necessarily to be conducted when designing multiple-choice test items, namely setting the objective, building both concise stems and options, determining one correct answer, employing item indices to accept or discarding items (Brown, 2004). As a matter of fact, most teachers in Aceh are not very well-informed about the fourth step and they accept all items as they are. This study focuses on high school teachers who undergo all of the steps offered in the framework when constructing multiple-choice items for English summative test(s). The qualitative method using framework analysis was used in obtaining the data. A questionnaire was distributed to 15 teachers. The analysis process was carried out through three-step analysis (Miles, Huberman, Saldana, 2013). The results depict that the teachers hardly conduct the index determining step or try-outs when constructing a test. This implies that there is no empirical warrant that all items are worth tested and can be the fundamentals for decision-making when assessing and evaluating students test results. test construction, language testing, multiple-choice items, summative test, and assessment and evaluation. Education (General) Language and Literature P Philology. Linguistics Marisa Yoestara verfasserin aut In LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2017 20(2017), 2, Seite 78-84 (DE-627)1760634425 25799533 nnns volume:20 year:2017 number:2 pages:78-84 https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v20i2.734 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b0fea851a2764a23ab7ae03cae8d614b kostenfrei https://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT/article/view/734 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1410-7201 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2579-9533 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 20 2017 2 78-84 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.24071/llt.v20i2.734 doi (DE-627)DOAJ021921768 (DE-599)DOAJb0fea851a2764a23ab7ae03cae8d614b DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng L7-991 P1-1091 Nyak Mutia Ismail verfasserin aut TEACHERS BEHALF ON LANGUAGE TEST CONSTRUCTION 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier There are four steps necessarily to be conducted when designing multiple-choice test items, namely setting the objective, building both concise stems and options, determining one correct answer, employing item indices to accept or discarding items (Brown, 2004). As a matter of fact, most teachers in Aceh are not very well-informed about the fourth step and they accept all items as they are. This study focuses on high school teachers who undergo all of the steps offered in the framework when constructing multiple-choice items for English summative test(s). The qualitative method using framework analysis was used in obtaining the data. A questionnaire was distributed to 15 teachers. The analysis process was carried out through three-step analysis (Miles, Huberman, Saldana, 2013). The results depict that the teachers hardly conduct the index determining step or try-outs when constructing a test. This implies that there is no empirical warrant that all items are worth tested and can be the fundamentals for decision-making when assessing and evaluating students test results. test construction, language testing, multiple-choice items, summative test, and assessment and evaluation. Education (General) Language and Literature P Philology. Linguistics Marisa Yoestara verfasserin aut In LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2017 20(2017), 2, Seite 78-84 (DE-627)1760634425 25799533 nnns volume:20 year:2017 number:2 pages:78-84 https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v20i2.734 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/b0fea851a2764a23ab7ae03cae8d614b kostenfrei https://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT/article/view/734 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1410-7201 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2579-9533 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 20 2017 2 78-84 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching 20(2017), 2, Seite 78-84 volume:20 year:2017 number:2 pages:78-84 |
| sourceStr |
In LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching 20(2017), 2, Seite 78-84 volume:20 year:2017 number:2 pages:78-84 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
test construction, language testing, multiple-choice items, summative test, and assessment and evaluation. Education (General) Language and Literature P Philology. Linguistics |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Nyak Mutia Ismail @@aut@@ Marisa Yoestara @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2017-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
1760634425 |
| id |
DOAJ021921768 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ021921768</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230307052447.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.24071/llt.v20i2.734</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ021921768</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJb0fea851a2764a23ab7ae03cae8d614b</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">L7-991</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">P1-1091</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nyak Mutia Ismail</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">TEACHERS BEHALF ON LANGUAGE TEST CONSTRUCTION</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">There are four steps necessarily to be conducted when designing multiple-choice test items, namely setting the objective, building both concise stems and options, determining one correct answer, employing item indices to accept or discarding items (Brown, 2004). As a matter of fact, most teachers in Aceh are not very well-informed about the fourth step and they accept all items as they are. This study focuses on high school teachers who undergo all of the steps offered in the framework when constructing multiple-choice items for English summative test(s). The qualitative method using framework analysis was used in obtaining the data. A questionnaire was distributed to 15 teachers. The analysis process was carried out through three-step analysis (Miles, Huberman, Saldana, 2013). The results depict that the teachers hardly conduct the index determining step or try-outs when constructing a test. This implies that there is no empirical warrant that all items are worth tested and can be the fundamentals for decision-making when assessing and evaluating students test results.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">test construction, language testing, multiple-choice items, summative test, and assessment and evaluation.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Education (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Language and Literature</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">P</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Philology. Linguistics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marisa Yoestara</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching</subfield><subfield code="d">Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2017</subfield><subfield code="g">20(2017), 2, Seite 78-84</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1760634425</subfield><subfield code="x">25799533</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:20</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:78-84</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v20i2.734</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/b0fea851a2764a23ab7ae03cae8d614b</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT/article/view/734</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1410-7201</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2579-9533</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">20</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="h">78-84</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| callnumber-first |
L - Education |
| author |
Nyak Mutia Ismail |
| spellingShingle |
Nyak Mutia Ismail misc L7-991 misc P1-1091 misc test construction, language testing, multiple-choice items, summative test, and assessment and evaluation. misc Education (General) misc Language and Literature misc P misc Philology. Linguistics TEACHERS BEHALF ON LANGUAGE TEST CONSTRUCTION |
| authorStr |
Nyak Mutia Ismail |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)1760634425 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| callnumber-label |
L7-991 |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
25799533 |
| topic_title |
L7-991 P1-1091 TEACHERS BEHALF ON LANGUAGE TEST CONSTRUCTION test construction, language testing, multiple-choice items, summative test, and assessment and evaluation |
| topic |
misc L7-991 misc P1-1091 misc test construction, language testing, multiple-choice items, summative test, and assessment and evaluation. misc Education (General) misc Language and Literature misc P misc Philology. Linguistics |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc L7-991 misc P1-1091 misc test construction, language testing, multiple-choice items, summative test, and assessment and evaluation. misc Education (General) misc Language and Literature misc P misc Philology. Linguistics |
| topic_browse |
misc L7-991 misc P1-1091 misc test construction, language testing, multiple-choice items, summative test, and assessment and evaluation. misc Education (General) misc Language and Literature misc P misc Philology. Linguistics |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
1760634425 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)1760634425 |
| title |
TEACHERS BEHALF ON LANGUAGE TEST CONSTRUCTION |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ021921768 (DE-599)DOAJb0fea851a2764a23ab7ae03cae8d614b |
| title_full |
TEACHERS BEHALF ON LANGUAGE TEST CONSTRUCTION |
| author_sort |
Nyak Mutia Ismail |
| journal |
LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching |
| journalStr |
LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching |
| callnumber-first-code |
L |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2017 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
78 |
| author_browse |
Nyak Mutia Ismail Marisa Yoestara |
| container_volume |
20 |
| class |
L7-991 P1-1091 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Nyak Mutia Ismail |
| doi_str_mv |
10.24071/llt.v20i2.734 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
teachers behalf on language test construction |
| callnumber |
L7-991 |
| title_auth |
TEACHERS BEHALF ON LANGUAGE TEST CONSTRUCTION |
| abstract |
There are four steps necessarily to be conducted when designing multiple-choice test items, namely setting the objective, building both concise stems and options, determining one correct answer, employing item indices to accept or discarding items (Brown, 2004). As a matter of fact, most teachers in Aceh are not very well-informed about the fourth step and they accept all items as they are. This study focuses on high school teachers who undergo all of the steps offered in the framework when constructing multiple-choice items for English summative test(s). The qualitative method using framework analysis was used in obtaining the data. A questionnaire was distributed to 15 teachers. The analysis process was carried out through three-step analysis (Miles, Huberman, Saldana, 2013). The results depict that the teachers hardly conduct the index determining step or try-outs when constructing a test. This implies that there is no empirical warrant that all items are worth tested and can be the fundamentals for decision-making when assessing and evaluating students test results. |
| abstractGer |
There are four steps necessarily to be conducted when designing multiple-choice test items, namely setting the objective, building both concise stems and options, determining one correct answer, employing item indices to accept or discarding items (Brown, 2004). As a matter of fact, most teachers in Aceh are not very well-informed about the fourth step and they accept all items as they are. This study focuses on high school teachers who undergo all of the steps offered in the framework when constructing multiple-choice items for English summative test(s). The qualitative method using framework analysis was used in obtaining the data. A questionnaire was distributed to 15 teachers. The analysis process was carried out through three-step analysis (Miles, Huberman, Saldana, 2013). The results depict that the teachers hardly conduct the index determining step or try-outs when constructing a test. This implies that there is no empirical warrant that all items are worth tested and can be the fundamentals for decision-making when assessing and evaluating students test results. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
There are four steps necessarily to be conducted when designing multiple-choice test items, namely setting the objective, building both concise stems and options, determining one correct answer, employing item indices to accept or discarding items (Brown, 2004). As a matter of fact, most teachers in Aceh are not very well-informed about the fourth step and they accept all items as they are. This study focuses on high school teachers who undergo all of the steps offered in the framework when constructing multiple-choice items for English summative test(s). The qualitative method using framework analysis was used in obtaining the data. A questionnaire was distributed to 15 teachers. The analysis process was carried out through three-step analysis (Miles, Huberman, Saldana, 2013). The results depict that the teachers hardly conduct the index determining step or try-outs when constructing a test. This implies that there is no empirical warrant that all items are worth tested and can be the fundamentals for decision-making when assessing and evaluating students test results. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ |
| container_issue |
2 |
| title_short |
TEACHERS BEHALF ON LANGUAGE TEST CONSTRUCTION |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v20i2.734 https://doaj.org/article/b0fea851a2764a23ab7ae03cae8d614b https://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT/article/view/734 https://doaj.org/toc/1410-7201 https://doaj.org/toc/2579-9533 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Marisa Yoestara |
| author2Str |
Marisa Yoestara |
| ppnlink |
1760634425 |
| callnumber-subject |
L - General Education |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.24071/llt.v20i2.734 |
| callnumber-a |
L7-991 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T23:25:37.220Z |
| _version_ |
1803602244109598720 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ021921768</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230307052447.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.24071/llt.v20i2.734</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ021921768</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJb0fea851a2764a23ab7ae03cae8d614b</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">L7-991</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">P1-1091</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nyak Mutia Ismail</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">TEACHERS BEHALF ON LANGUAGE TEST CONSTRUCTION</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">There are four steps necessarily to be conducted when designing multiple-choice test items, namely setting the objective, building both concise stems and options, determining one correct answer, employing item indices to accept or discarding items (Brown, 2004). As a matter of fact, most teachers in Aceh are not very well-informed about the fourth step and they accept all items as they are. This study focuses on high school teachers who undergo all of the steps offered in the framework when constructing multiple-choice items for English summative test(s). The qualitative method using framework analysis was used in obtaining the data. A questionnaire was distributed to 15 teachers. The analysis process was carried out through three-step analysis (Miles, Huberman, Saldana, 2013). The results depict that the teachers hardly conduct the index determining step or try-outs when constructing a test. This implies that there is no empirical warrant that all items are worth tested and can be the fundamentals for decision-making when assessing and evaluating students test results.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">test construction, language testing, multiple-choice items, summative test, and assessment and evaluation.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Education (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Language and Literature</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">P</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Philology. Linguistics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marisa Yoestara</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching</subfield><subfield code="d">Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2017</subfield><subfield code="g">20(2017), 2, Seite 78-84</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1760634425</subfield><subfield code="x">25799533</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:20</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:78-84</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v20i2.734</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/b0fea851a2764a23ab7ae03cae8d614b</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT/article/view/734</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1410-7201</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2579-9533</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">20</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="h">78-84</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.401578 |