1.png)
![](https://www.dimensions.ai/wp-content/themes/dimensions-2023.1/dist/images/dimensions-logo-400w.png"){kind=logo}
Quantitative Analysis Towards Higher Order Thinking Skills of Chemistry Multiple Choice Questions for University Admission
Abstract
The research about quantitative analysis towards higher order thinking skill of chemistry multiple questions for university admission is carried out in the acceleration class of SMAN Modal Bangsa. This research aims to analyze the test of validity, reliability, correlation between difficulty index and discriminatory power, functioning and nonfunctioning distractors of chemistry multiple questions quantitatively which are frequently offered to students in national university admission. It used a descriptive-quantitative method and purposive sampling technique. Students of the acceleration class were selected purposely because they have been frequently answering the higher order thinking questions. Data were collected using 20 multiple choice questions developed from questions banks. Before questions used for students, the questions were assessed by two validators. The result of the validity test shows that 100% questions were valid with an average scale score of 0.93 (best valid). Further analysis used a reliability test to indicate the correlation of item score and total score of questions symbolized by Cronbach alpha of 0.94, 0.92 and 0.89 for aspect of content, construction, language or culture, respectively. The correlation between difficulty index and discriminatory power was reliable with correlation coefficient of 0.842. The final analysis is done towards distractor function, and it shows that overall 83.75% was functioning distractors. Then, nine questions or 45% met ideal expectations with four functioning distractors. Therefore, the most higher order thinking chemistry multiple questions have good quality or feasible to be used in university admission.
Keywords: higher order thinking, validity, reliability, difficulty index, discriminatory power and distractors
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Ali, S.H. & Ruit, K.G. 2015. The impact of item flaws, testing at low cognitive level, and low distractor functioning on multiple-choice question quality. Perspective on Medical
Begum, T. 2012. A guideline on developing effective multiple choice questions and construction of single best answer format. Journal of Bangladesh College of Physicians and Surgeons, 30(2):159–166.
Bhat, S.K., & Prasad, K.H.L. 2021. Item analysis and optimizing multiple-choice questions for avisible question bank in ophthalmology: a cross-sectional study. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 69(2):343–346.
Bonett, D.G. & Wright, T.A. 2014. Cronbach’s alpha reliability: interval estimation, hypothesis testing, and sample size planning. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1):3-15.
Butler, A.C. 2018. Multiple-choice testing in education: are the best practices for assessment also good for learning?. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(1):1–9.
Chauhan, Rameshbhai, P., Rathrod, Punjabhai, S., Rameshbhai, B., Rameshbhai, G., Ankit, Andvaryu, & Prahladbhai, A. 2013. Study of difficulty level and discriminating index of stem type multiple choice questions of anatomy in Rajkot. Biomirror, 4(6):37-40.
Dehnad, A., Nasser, H., & Hosseini, A.F. 2014. A comparison between three-and four-option multiple choice questions. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(1):398–403.
DiBattista, D., Sinnige-Edger, J.-A., & Fortuna, G. 2014. The “none of the above” option in multiple-choice testing: an experimental study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 82(2):168–183.
Douglas, M., Wilson, J., & Ennis, S. 2012. Multiple-choice question tests: a convenient, flexible and effective learning tool? a case study. Innovation in Education and Teaching International, 49(2):111-121.
Griethuijsen, R.A.L.F., Eijick, M.W., Haste, H., Brok, P.J., Skinner, N.C., & Mansour, N. 2014. global patterns in students’ view of science and interest in science. Research in Science Education, 45(4):581–603.
Hadisaputra, S., Ihsan, M.S., Gunawan, & Ramdani, A. 2020. The development of chemistry learning device based blended learning model to promote students’ critical thinking skills. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521(1):1–5.
Haladyna, T.M., & Downing, A.M. 1993. How many options is enough for a multiple-choice test item?. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(1):999–1010.
Hamdi, S., Suganda, I.A., & Hayati, N. (2018). Developing Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) Test instrument using lombok local cultures as contexts for junior secondary school mathematics. Research and Evaluation in Education, 4(2):126–135.
Harta, J., Rasuh, N.T., & Seriang, A. (2020). using hots-based chemistry national exam questions to map the analytical abilities of senior high school students. Journal Science Learning, 3(3):143–148.
Ichsan, I.Z., Sigit, A.V., Miarsyah, M., Ali, A., Arif, W.P., & Prayitno, T.A. 2019. HOTS-AEP: Higher order thinking skills from elementary to master students in environmental learning. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(4):935–942.
Isa, M., Khaldun, I., & Halim, A. (2017). Penerapan model pembelajaran kooperatif tipe tai untuk meningkatkan penguasaan konsep dan berpikir tingkat kritis siswa pada materi hidrokarbon. Jurnal IPA dan Pembelajaran IPA, 1(2):213-223.
Khairani, A.Z., & Shamsuddin, H. 2016. Assessing item difficulty and discrimination indices of teacher-developed multiple-choice tests. Assessment for Learning Within and Beyond the Classroom, 1(1):417-426.
Kingston, N.M., Tiemann, G.C., Miller-Jr, H.L., & Foster, D. 2012. An analysis of the discrete-option multiple choice item type. Psychological Test and Assessment Modelling, 54(1):3–19.
KoÇdar, S., Karadag, N., & Sahin, M.D. 2016. Analysis of the difficulty and discrimination indices of multiple-choice qustions according to cognitive levels in an open and distance learning context. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15(4):16–24.
Mahjabeen, W., Alam, S., Hassan, U., Zafar, T., Butt, R., Konain, S., & Rizvi, M. 2014. difficulty index, discrimination index and distractor efficiency in multiple choice questions. An Official Journal of Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University (SZABMU), 13(4):310-316.
Moreno, R., Martinez, R.J., & Muniz, J. 2015. guidelines based on validity criteria for the development of multiple choice items. Psicothema, 27(4):388-394.
Olutola, A.T. 2015. Item difficulty and discrimination indices of multiple choice biology tests. Liceo Journal of Higher Education Research, 11(1):16-30.
Osundare, A.G., & Omirin, M.A. (2016). Determining the differences in the difficulty and discriminating indices of chemistry completion and matching test formats. European Journal of Research and Reflection in Educational Science, 4(2):65–70.
Pande, S.S., Pande, S.R., Parate, V.R., Nikam, A.P., & Agrekar, S.H. 2013. Correlation between difficulty & discrimination indices of mcqs in formative exam in physiology. South-East Asian Journal of Medical Education, 7(1):45–50.
Patil, R., Palve, S.B., Vell, K., & Boratne, A.V. 2016. Evaluation of multiple choice questions by item analysis in a medical college at Pondicherry, India. International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health, 3(6):1612–1616.
Puspitasari, Y.D., & Nugroho, P.A. 2020. Peningkatan higher order thinking skill dan kemampuan kognitif pada mahasiswa melalui pendekatan science, environment, technology and society berbantuan modul pembelajaran. JIPI (Jurnal IPA dan Pembelajaran IPA), 4(1):11-28.
Rahma, A., Shamad, M., Idris, M.E.A., Elfaki, O., Elfakey, W., & Salih, K.M.A. 2017. Comparison in the quality of distractors in three and four options type of multiple choice questions. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 8(1):287-291.
Rahmati, Yusrizal, & Hasan, M. 2017. Critical thinking skills enhancement of students through inquiry learning model laboratory based on reflection of the light. JIPI (Jurnal IPA dan Pembelajaran IPA), 1(1):34-41.
Shakurnia, A. 2019. A Survey on distractors in multiple-choice questions and its relationship on difficulty and discriminative indices. Iranian Journal of Medical Education, 19(1):180-188.
Sim, SM., & Rasiah, R.I. 2006. Relationship between item difficulty and discrimination indices in true/false-type multiple choice questions of a pra-clinical multidisciplinary paper. Ann Acad Med Singapore, 35(1):67–71.
Sinurat, R., Nevrita, & Hindrasti, N.E.K. 2020. Identifikasi tingkat kemampuan berpikir kritis siswa pada materi asi eksklusif dan program keluarga berencana. JIPI (Jurnal IPA dan Pembelajaran IPA), 4(1):60-69.
Sugiyono. 2009. Metode penelitian pendidikan (pendekatan kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: CV. Alfabeta.
Suwono, H., Pratiwi, H.E., & Susilo, H. 2017. Enhancement of student's biological literacy and critical thinking of biology through socio-biological case-based learning. JIPI (Jurnal IPA dan Pembelajaran IPA), 6(2):213-220.
Taber, K.S. 2018. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(1):1273–1296.
Taib, F., & Yusoff, M.S.B. 2014. Difficulty index, discrimination index, sensitivity, and specificity of long case and multiple choice questions to predict medical students’ examination performance. Journal of Taibah University Medical Science, 9(2):110-114.
Tarrant, M., Ware, J., & Mohammed, A.M. 2009. An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis. BMC Medical Education, 9(40):1–8.
Towns, M.H. 2004. Guide to developing high quality, reliable, valid multiple-choice assessments. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(1):1426–1431.
Tsaparlis, G. 2020. Higher and lower-order thinking skills: the case of chemistry revisited. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(3):467–483.
Yusup, F. 2018. Uji validitas dan reliabilitas instrumen penelitian kuantitatif. Jurnal Tarbiyah: Jurnal Ilmiah Kependidikan, 1(1):17–23.
Zainudin, S., Ahmad, K., Ali, N.M., & Zainal, F.A. 2012. Determining course outcomes achievement through examination difficulty index measurement. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59(1):270-276.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/jipi.v5i2.20508
Article Metrics
Abstract view : 0 timesPDF - 0 times
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2021 Jurnal IPA & Pembelajaran IPA
JIPI (Jurnal IPA dan Pembelajaran IPA)
ISSN 2614-0500 (print) | 2620-553X (online)
Organized by Universitas Syiah Kuala
Published by Master of Science Education Study Program Graduate School Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
Website : http://jurnal.usk.ac.id/jipi
Email : jipi@usk.ac.id
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.