NIGERIAN OPEN AND DISTANCE LEARNING LECTURERS’ DIFFICULTY IN CONSTRUCTING STUDENTS’ TEST ITEMS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25159/0256-8853/673Keywords:
Delivery Mode, Difficulty, Gender, Lecturers, Open and Distance Learning, Test Item Construction.Abstract
Â
This paper examines the level of difficulty lecturers experience in constructing test items for various types of tests based on gender and institutional mode of delivery in an Open and Distance Learning higher education context. Descriptive cross-sectional survey research was adopted as the research paradigm, using lecturers from one single mode and one dual mode ODL institution in South West Nigeria as the study population. Stratified simple random sampling techniques were used to select 240 lecturers as the sample. Three research questions and two hypotheses guided the study’s investigation. A questionnaire with a reliability coefficient of 0.78 using Cronbach’s alpha value was used as the research instrument. Frequency, percentages, t-test statistics and charts were utilised to analyse the data. The results showed that ODL lecturers exhibited moderate levels of difficulty in test item construction. Female ODL lecturers found case study, multiple choice, matching, essay, and completion items more difficult to generate than their male counterparts did. There was a significant difference in the difficulty male and female ODL lecturers experienced in constructing test items. Significant differences were also found in the difficulty experienced by single and dual mode ODL lecturers in construct test items. The findings of the study have implications for the capacity development of lecturers, ODL institution management, and test experts in order to improve lecturers’ capacities in test items construction.
References
Angelo, T. A., and K. P. Cross. 2008. Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ainsworth, L., and V. Viegut, D. 2006. Common formative assessments: How to connect standardsbased instruction and assessment. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Ayodele, S. O., J. A. Adegbile, and J. G. Adewale. 2003. Evaluation studies. Ibadan: Powerhouse Press and Publishers.
Barton, P. E. 2002. Staying on course in education reform. Princeton: Educational Testing Service. Commonwealth of Learning. 2000. An introduction to open and distance learning. http://www.col. org/ODLIntro/introODL.htm (accessed January 15, 2016).
Dayioglu, M. and S. Turut-Asik. 2007. Gender differences in academic performance in a large public university in Turkey. Higher Education 53(2): 255–277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-2464-6
Devine, M., and M. Yaghlian. 2000. Test construction manual: Construction of objective tests. Cornell University Center for Teaching Excellence. http://www.clt.cornell.edu/campus/teach/faculty/Materials/TestConstructionManual.pdf (accessed
February 3, 2016)
Doherty, Y., S. J. Kovas, and R. Plomin, R. 2001. Gene-environment interaction in the etiology of mathematical ability using SNP sets. Behavior Genetics 41(1): 141–154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-010-9405-6
Greiff, S., S. Wüstenberg, D. V. Holt, F. Goldhammer, and J. Funke. 2013. Computer-based assessment of complex problem solving: Concept, implementation, and application. Educational Technology Research and Development 61(3): 407–421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9301-x
Guskey, T. R. 2003. How classroom assessment can improve learning. Educational Leadership 60(5): 7–11.
Halpern, D. F., and M. L. LaMay. 2000. The smarter sex: A critical review of sex differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology Review 12(2): 229–246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009027516424
Hyde, J. S. 2005. The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist 60(6): 581–592. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581
Izard, J. 2005. Overview of test construction. Paris: International institute for educational planning.
Kifer, E. 2001. Large-scale assessment: Dimensions, dilemmas, and policies. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Koksal, D. 2004. Assessing teachers’ testing skills in ELT and enhancing their professional development through distance learning on the Net. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 5(1): 105–124.
Linn, R. L., and M. D. Miller. 2005. Measurement and assessment in teaching. 9th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Nisbett, R. E., J. Aronson, C. Blair, W. Dickens, J. Flynn, D. F. Halpern, and E. Turkheimer. 2012.
Intelligence: New findings and theoretical development. American Psychologist 67 (2): 130– 159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026699
Oblinger, D. G. 2000. The nature and purpose of distance education. Technology Source. technologysource.org/article/nature_and_purpose_of_distance_education/ (accessed June 4,
Popham, W. J. 2002. Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ramos-Mattoussi, F., and Milligan, J. A. 2013. Building research and teaching capacity in Indonesia through international collaboration. New York. Institute of International Education.
Tansel, A. 2002. Determinants of school attainment of boys and girls in Turkey: Individual, household and community factors. Economics of Education Review 21(5): 455-470. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(01)00028-0
UNESCO. 2002. Open and Distance Learning trends policy and strategy considerations. Paris: UNESCO.
University of Washington 2015. Manual for testing. Washington, D.C.: University of Washington Press.
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., and K. Leung. 2000. Methodological issues in psychological research on culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 31(1): 33–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031001004
Young, J. W., and J. L. Fisler. 2000. Sex differences on the SAT: An analysis of demographic and educational variables. Research in Higher Education 41(3): 401–416. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007099012828
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Accepted 2016-07-27
Published 2016-11-10
