|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Full Text : |
| Artikel ini membincangkan pembinaan dan penilaian instrumen Ujian Aptitud (UA) yang digunakan bagi kemasukan ke program Sarjana Muda, Institut Pengajian Tinggi (IPT) Malaysia. Pendekatan kuantitatif dengan reka bentuk pembangunan penyelidikan yang melibatkan kaedah tinjauan digunakan dalam kajian ini. Pembinaan instrumen UA adalah berdasarkan model Benson dan Clark. Instrumen UA yang dibina terdiri daripada atribut taakulan matematik yang dikenal pasti melalui penelitian karya. Instrumen UA dinilai oleh enam orang pakar dalam bidang matematik, statistik, bahasa dan pentaksiran pendidikan dan diuji ke atas sampel kajian. Kesahan soalan UA dinilai berdasarkan Nisbah Kesahan Kandungan (NKK) manakala pekali Kuder Richardson (KR20) digunakan bagi menilai kebolehpercayaan. Sampel yang menjadi subjek kajian dipilih menggunakan kaedah pensamplean berstrata terdiri daripada 270 pelajar Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM), Matrikulasi dan Diploma yang memasuki salah sebuah IPT tempatan. Kajian yang dilakukan berjaya membina instrumen UA yang mengandungi 15 soalan algebra, 13 soalan analisis data dan kebarangkalian, 13 soalan nombor dan operasi, dan 16 soalan geometri dan pengukuran. Dapatan kajian menunjukkan bahawa 91 peratus soalan memenuhi kesahan kandungan dengan NKK melebihi .67. Ujian kebolehpercayaan terhadap soalan yang dibina mendapat nilai KR20 pada julat .80 dan .93, manakala nilai KR20 bagi keseluruhan soalan adalah .87. Kesimpulannya, kajian yang dijalankan berjaya membina dan menilai instrumen UA bagi kemasukan ke IPT. Implikasinya, instrumen UA yang dibina sesuai digunakan sebagai salah satu kaedah penilaian kemasukan ke IPT dan boleh diperluas penggunaannya kepada agensi-agensi yang menawarkan pembiayaan pengajian dalam memilih set pelajar yang terbaik. |
| References |
1. Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C., (Pnyt.) (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman Inc.
2. Benson, J., & Clark, F. (1982). A guide for instrument development and validation. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 36, 789-800. Diakses pada 8 Nov. 2016, dpd: http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.36.12.789
3. Benson, J., & Clark, F. (1982). A guide for instrument development and validation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 36(12), 789-800.
4. Coaley, K. (2014). An introduction to psychological assessment and psychometrics. London: Sage Publication.
5. Drost, E. A. (2011). Validity and reliability in social science research. Education Research and perspectives, 38(1), 105. Fischhoff, B., Crowell, N.A., & Kipke, M. (1999). Adolescent decision making: Implications for prevention programs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6. Forehand, M. (2005). Bloom’s taxonomy: Original and revised. Dalam M. Orey (Pnyt.). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching and technology. Diakses pada 8 Nov. 2016, dpd:http://www.textbookequity.org/oct/Textbooks/Orey_Emergin_Perspectives_Learning.pdf
7. Graves, J.L. (2002). The misuse of life history theory: J.P. Rushton and the pseudoscience of racial hierarchy. Dalam J.M. Fish (pnyt). Race and intelligence: Separating science from myth. Nahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Hashmi, M. A., Zeeshan, A., Saleem, M., & Akbar, R. A. (2012). Development and validation of an aptitude test for secondary school mathematics students. Bulletin of Education and Research, 34(1).
9. Hogan, T. P. (2013). Psychological testing: A practical introduction. Wiley Global Education.
10. Jeotee, K. (2012). Reasoning skills, problem solving ability and academic ability: implications for study programme and career choice in the context of higher education in Thailand (Doctoral dissertation, Durham University).
11. Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2017). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues. Nelson Education.
12. Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2009). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues. (7th Edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
13. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman brief intelligence test. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
14. Kong, Q. P., Wong, N. Y., & Lam, C. C. (2003). Student engagement in mathematics: Development of instrument and validation of construct. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 4-21.
15. Kuncel, N.R., & Hezlett, S.A. (2007). Standardized tests predict graduate students’ success. Science, 315, 1080–1081. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563-575.
26. Martha, K. (2009). Factors affecting academic performance of undergraduate students at Uganda Christian University. Unpub. Master of Arts in Educational Management Dissertation, Makerere University, Uganda.
27. McCallum, R.S., & Bracken, B.A. (2005). The universal nonverbal intelligence test, a multidimensional measure of intelligence. In D.P., Flanagan, & P.L., Harrison. Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd Edition). New York, NY: Guilford Press. 425-440.
28. Mohd. Majid Konting (2004). Kaedah penyelidikan pendidikan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
29. Naglieri, J.A., & Otero, T.M. (2012). The cognitive assessment system: From theory to practice. Dalam D.P. Flanagan, & P.L. Harrison. Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd Edition). New York, NY: Guilford Press. 376-399.
30. Raza, M. A., & Shah, A. F. (2011). Impact of favourite subject towards the scientific aptitude of the students at elementary level. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS), 31(1), 135-143.
31. Rudner, L.M., & Schafer. W.D. (2002). What teachers need to know about assessment. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
32. Salkind, N.J., & Rasmussen, K. (2007). Encyclopaedia of measurement and statistics. London: Sage Publications.
33. Schrank, F.A., McGrew, K.S., & Mather, N. (2014). Woodcock–Johnson IV tests of cognitive abilities examiner’s manual, standard and extended batteries. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
34. Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities examiner’s manual. Riverside Pub..
35. Sternberg, R.J. (2007). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
36. Thorndike, R.L., Hagen, E.P., & Sattler, J.M. (1986). Stanford-Binet intelligence scale (4th Edition). Chicago, IL: Riverside.
37. Wechsler, D. (2004). The Wechsler intelligence scale for children (4th Edition). London: Pearson Assessment. |
| This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. |