A Construction of Learning Diagnostic Test for Mathematics Learning Strand on Geometric Transformation for Matthayomsuksa 2 Students in Nong Bualumphu Province

Abstract

Learning activities require a concurrence of assessing and evaluating students’
learning in order to know whether students’ learning occurs or not. As a result,
students were found as groups of the ones who know or do not know. For the groups
who do not know, there should be an analysis of causes or learning deficits so that
students can be individually developed according to capacities, interests, and needs.
One of the ways to investigate causes of student’s learning deficits is constructing a
test for learning diagnosis. Therefore, the study was aimed to construct a learning
diagnostic test, to verify the constructed test in terms of the item discrimination and
item difficulty powers, structural validity and the total reliability, and to investigate the
problems on mathematics learning about geometric transformation of Mathayomsuksa
2 students in the second semester of the academic year 2010 in Nong Bualumphu
province. Three hundred and forty students were selected from twelve schools by
multi-stage random sampling. The research instruments consisted of two tests, namely,
(1) the 25-item-diagnostic test for investigating learning deficit with problem-solving
questions or filling the answers, given to a sample of 85 students, and (2) the 125-itemdianostic test of choice to study the five options with 5 sections each for learning
which was developed from the diagnostic test for investigating learning deficit. The
test was trialled three times. In the first place, the 125-item diagnostic test for learning
was tried out with a sample of 80 students in order to investigate the item
discrimination and item difficulty powers and improve the items which do not meet
the criteria. In the second place, the 125-item diagnostic test for learning was tried out
with a sample of 80 students in order to investigate the item discrimination and item
difficulty powers and choose 100 items which meet the criteria. In the third place, the
100-item diagnostic test was tried out with a sample of 95 students in order to
examine the item discrimination and item difficulty powers, structural validity, and the
total reliability.
The results were as follows:
1. On the first trial, the 125-item diagnostic test with 5 sections each of
which included 25 items yielded the item difficulty power ranging from .21 to .79, and
the item discrimination power ranging from -.23 to .94. There were 17 items which did
not meet the criteria.
2. On the second trail, the 125-item diagnostic test with 5 sections each of
which included 25 items generated 100 items which met the criteria and were chosen.
The items were found to have the item difficulty power ranging from .34 to .79 and the
item discrimination power ranging from .23 to .89.
3. On the third trial, the 100-item diagnostic for learning with 5 sections
each of which consisted of 20 items obtained the item difficulty power ranging from
.25 to .78, the item discrimination power ranging from .20 to .89, and the structural
validity at the .05 level of significance. The total reliability was .84.
4. An analysis of errors the students made in answering the diagnostic test
for learning showed that the errors the students made were the students’
misunderstanding about the meaning of geometric transformation and confusion about
sizes, shapes, and motions as well as directions of transformation, vectors, reflection
lines and rotation centers, responding pairs of parallel motions, reflection and
rotation. Also, they were unable to remember the properties of parallel motions,
reflection and rotation and they wrote parallel pairs of X, Y interchangeably.
In conclusion, the constructed learning diagnostic test obtained good qualities
in terms of the item difficulty power, the item discrimination power, the structural
validity, and the total reliability so that the test could be used to investigate students’
learning deficit in geometric transformation.