EFEKTIVITAS DISTRACTOR PADA TES PILIHAN GANDA UNTUK MENDETEKSI KESALAHAN SISWA DALAM MENYELESAIKAN SOAL MATEMATIKA

M. Yani
{"title":"EFEKTIVITAS DISTRACTOR PADA TES PILIHAN GANDA UNTUK MENDETEKSI KESALAHAN SISWA DALAM MENYELESAIKAN SOAL MATEMATIKA","authors":"M. Yani","doi":"10.22373/jppm.v2i2.4502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of the distractor on multiple choice tests to detect the students’ errors and the types of errors students made in solving math problems. This research is a descriptive qualitative study which research subjects were students of class IX MTsN Model Banda Aceh that consisted of 36 students, then three students were selected as subjects to be interviewed about mastery and mistakes made when completing math problems. Data were collected through tests and interviews which validity was used to test the credibility of the data by means of triangulation. Data analysis consisted of the stages of data reduction, data presentation, and conclusion drawing. The results showed that: 1) A good distractor on multiple choice tests had been completed such as a description test question for each answer option chosen by the students was very effective for detecting students’ errors in solving mathematics problems, in which 17.1% of students incorrectly applied mathematical concepts , 3.7% of students made mistakes due to lack of accuracy or error, 1.2% of students misunderstood the problem, and 4.7% of students did not make a solution, but only guessed from the ten questions given. 2) Conceptual errors made by the three subjects (MAH, BSR, and PES) were errors in analyzing the combined area of space and errors in algebraic factorization. Errors in understanding and applying the difference formula were only done by the subject MAH, errors in determining the square root of a number were only done by the subject BSR, and errors in squaring a number were only done by the subject PES. While procedural errors due to lack of thoroughness or error in substituting a value were carried out by subject MAH and PES, errors due to the inability to manipulate steps to solve a problem were only carried out by the subject MAH, and errors in writing the final results were only done by the BSR subject.","PeriodicalId":34144,"journal":{"name":"Al Khawarizmi","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Al Khawarizmi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22373/jppm.v2i2.4502","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of the distractor on multiple choice tests to detect the students’ errors and the types of errors students made in solving math problems. This research is a descriptive qualitative study which research subjects were students of class IX MTsN Model Banda Aceh that consisted of 36 students, then three students were selected as subjects to be interviewed about mastery and mistakes made when completing math problems. Data were collected through tests and interviews which validity was used to test the credibility of the data by means of triangulation. Data analysis consisted of the stages of data reduction, data presentation, and conclusion drawing. The results showed that: 1) A good distractor on multiple choice tests had been completed such as a description test question for each answer option chosen by the students was very effective for detecting students’ errors in solving mathematics problems, in which 17.1% of students incorrectly applied mathematical concepts , 3.7% of students made mistakes due to lack of accuracy or error, 1.2% of students misunderstood the problem, and 4.7% of students did not make a solution, but only guessed from the ten questions given. 2) Conceptual errors made by the three subjects (MAH, BSR, and PES) were errors in analyzing the combined area of space and errors in algebraic factorization. Errors in understanding and applying the difference formula were only done by the subject MAH, errors in determining the square root of a number were only done by the subject BSR, and errors in squaring a number were only done by the subject PES. While procedural errors due to lack of thoroughness or error in substituting a value were carried out by subject MAH and PES, errors due to the inability to manipulate steps to solve a problem were only carried out by the subject MAH, and errors in writing the final results were only done by the BSR subject.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
干达选择测试在材料应用中检测社会安全的干扰物有效性
本研究的目的是确定分心器在多项选择测试中的有效性,以检测学生在解决数学问题时的错误和错误类型。本研究是一项描述性定性研究,研究对象是班达亚齐MTsN模型第九班的学生,共有36名学生,然后选择三名学生作为受试者,就完成数学题时的掌握和错误进行访谈。数据是通过测试和访谈收集的,有效性用于通过三角测量来测试数据的可信度。数据分析包括数据缩减、数据展示和结论得出阶段。结果表明:1)在多项选择测试中,完成了一个很好的干扰因素,如对学生选择的每个答案选项都进行描述测试,这对检测学生在解决数学问题时的错误非常有效,其中17.1%的学生错误地应用了数学概念,3.7%的学生因缺乏准确性或错误而犯错,1.2%的学生误解了这个问题,4.7%的学生没有给出答案,只是从给出的十个问题中猜测。2) 三个主体(MAH、BSR和PES)所犯的概念错误是分析空间组合面积的错误和代数因子分解的错误。理解和应用差分公式的错误仅由受试者MAH造成,确定数的平方根的错误仅应由受试者BSR造成,对数进行平方的错误仅由受试者PES造成。虽然由于缺乏彻底性或替换值的错误而导致的程序错误由受试者MAH和PES执行,但由于无法操作步骤来解决问题而导致的错误仅由受试人MAH执行,而最终结果的书写错误仅由BSR受试者执行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
ANALISIS KESALAHAN SISWA DALAM MENYELESAIKAN SOAL PERSAMAAN KUADRAT ANALISIS KESALAHAN SISWA DALAM MENYELESAIKAN SOAL PERSAMAAN KUADRAT ANALISIS KESALAHAN SISWA DALAM PEMECAHAN SOAL ASESMEN KOMPETENSI MINIMUM NUMERASI BERDASARKAN TEORI POLYA ANALISIS KESALAHAN SISWA DALAM PEMECAHAN SOAL ASESMEN KOMPETENSI MINIMUM NUMERASI BERDASARKAN TEORI POLYA PENGARUH PENGGUNAAN VIDEO ANIMASI PEMBELAJARAN MATEMATIKA TERHADAP PEMAHAMAN MATEMATIKA SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI 2 MAJENE
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1