How 8th Graders are Assessed through Tests by Mathematics Teachers?

Abstract

Teacher-made tests (TMT) are the most used instruments for assessment and evaluation. This study investigates the cognitive requirements, test construction errors, and item types of TMTs. Content analysis technique is used in order to analyze and classify TMT items based on TIMSS-2019 assessment framework and based on criteria that is constructed to determine test construction errors. The data is consisted of 548 items in 30 exam papers of 18 mathematics teachers from 13 distinct schools. The distribution of TIMSS-2019 cognitive demands of all TMTs indicates that there is a strong emphasis on knowing or applying cognitive domains, with a total percentage of 93. Since 83% of all questions are of multiple choice and 17% are constructed-response type, teachers mostly prefer multiple choice item type. Findings also reveal that except face validity, there are errors concerning test constructions. Consequently, it is suggested that teachers should give more care on preparing items of higher cognitive levels, on tests of mixed type items, and on tests that involve lesser construction errors for more reliable tests. Finally, it is also suggested that measurement and evaluation specialists should be employed in each school or in each local Ministry of National Education Authority at least, in order to support teachers, but if this is not possible in a close time, there must be in-service training programs on measurement and evaluation for teachers to participate in.

Keywords

• eacher-made tests,eighth grade mathematics,TIMSS-2019 assessment framework,test construction errors,item type

Kaynakça

1. Basol, G., Balgalmis, E., Karli, M. G., & Oz, F. B. (2016). Content analysis of TEOG mathematics items based on MoNE attainments, TIMSS levels, and reformed Bloom Taxonomy. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(3), 5945-5967. doi:10.14687/jhs.v13i3.4326
2. Ben-Simon, A., & Cohen, Y. (2004, June). International assessments: merits and pitfalls. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the International Association for Educational Assessment, Philadelphia, USA.
3. Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay.
4. Cakan, M. (2004). Comparison of elementary and secondary school teachers in terms of their assessment practices and perceptions toward their qualification levels. Ankara University, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 37(2), 99-114.
5. Delil, A. (2019). How fifth graders are assessed through central exams in Turkey: A comparison with TIMSS 2019 Assessment Framework. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(11), 222-234.
6. Delil, A., & Yolcu Tetik, B. (2015). An Analysis of Turkish Eighth Grade High Stakes Mathematics Examination Questions Based on TIMSS-2015 Framework. Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 13(4), 165-184. doi:10.18026/cbusos.87313
7. DiDonato-Barnes, N., Fives, H., & Krause , E. S. (2014). Using a table of specifications to improve teacher-constructed traditional tests: an experimental design. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(1), 90–108. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2013.808173
8. Foy, P., Arora, A., & Stanco, G. M. (Eds.) (2013). TIMSS 2011 User Guide for the International Database: Released Items, Mathematics-Eighth Grade. Boston, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.

9. Gareis, C. R., & Grant, L. W. (2015). Teacher-made assessments: How to connect curriculum, instruction, and student learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
10. Incikabi, L. (2012). After the reform in Turkey: a content analysis of SBS and TIMSS assessment in terms of mathematics content, cognitive domains, and item types. Education as Change, 16(2), 301-312.
11. Incikabi, L., Kurnaz, M. A., & Pektas, M. (2013). An Investigation of Mathematics and Science Questions in Entrance Examinations for Secondary Education Institutions in Turkey. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(3), 352-364.
12. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
13. Marso, R. N., & Pigge, F. L. (1991). An analysis of teacher-made tests: item types, cognitive demands, and item construction errors. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16(3), 279-286.
14. Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2008). Designing and assessing educational objectives: Applying the new taxonomy. Thausand Oaks, CA. Corwin Press.
15. Ministry of National Education. (2013). Ortaokul matematik dersi ogretim programi [Secondary school mathematics curriculum]. Ankara: Ministry of National Education.
16. Mullis, I. V., & Martin, M. O. (2017). TIMSS-2019 Assessment Frameworks. Boston: Chestnut Hill, MA. Retrieved 08 17, 2016, from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/frameworks.html
17. Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 International Results in Mathematics. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. Retrieved 04 25, 2017, from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-results/
18. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
19. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thausand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.
20. Oescher, J., & Kirby, P. C. (1990, April). Assessing teacher-made tests in secondary math and science classrooms. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Boston, MA, USA.
21. Ozmen, Z. M., Taskin, D., & Guven, B. (2012). Determining the types of problems used by 7th grade maths teachers. Education and Science, 37(165), 246-261.
22. Tastekinoglu, E., & Aydin, G. (2014). A comparison of 4th grade mathematics exam items with TIMSS 2011 cognitive domain and mathematics curriculum aqusitions. In Proceedings of 3rd Turkish Congress of Graduate Studies (pp. 247-264). Sakarya, Turkey: Sakarya University.
23. Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2010). Elementary & Middle School Mathematics: Teaching Developmentally (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.