|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract : Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris |
| Validity and reliability are the main important issues when developing a new instrument. This pilot study aims to test the validity and reliability of instruments in content knowledge for the Design and Technology subject in Malaysia. The content knowledge of RBT subject instruments that had been prepared consists of 94 dichotomous items and is distributed to 83 teachers. The purpose of the establishment of this instrument is to measure the five main constructs of this study, which is; (1) Introduction to Design and Technology; (2) Introduction to Design Project Management; (3) Product Making; (4) Introduction to Apply Technology; and (5) Introduction to Design and Technology in entrepreneurship. The approach used to examine the validity and reliability of the items and respondents in this study is emanate from the Rasch Measurement Model Approaches which is much more valid and well-grounded compared to just focus on the output produced by Cronbach’s Alpha. The Winsteps software Version 3.73 has been used to check on the functionality of the items in the aspects such as the item reliability and the separation of item-respondent, polarity item, the suitability of the item to measure the construct, the item difficulty level, and the respondent’s ability. It also allows the removal of items based on the statistics of polarity item and the suitability of the item. At the end of the analysis, it is found that there is a total of 10 items that were discarded because they did not meet the inspection criteria specified in accordance to the Rasch Model. The final instrument recorded a total of 84 items that can only be used to measure the five constructs of the study. Since this study was established as a pilot study, then the distribution made to the actual respondents can be carried out to measure the five main constructs of this study. This study shows that the Rasch Model can help researchers build a good instrument as the items constructed offset psychometric standards. |
| References |
Appanna, S., Tajularipin, S., & Wulandari, Y. (2018). The Effectiveness of Teachers Higher Order Thinking Skills Questions on Science Test Achievement. 10.2991/icems-17.2018.41. Aziz, A. A., Masodi, M. S., & Zaharim, A. (2013). Asas Model Pengukuran Rasch: Pembentukan Skala dan Struktur Pengukuran. Bangi: Penerbit UKM. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2011). Business research methods (11th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill. Cherner, T., & Smith, D. (2016). Reconceptualizing TPACK to meet the needs of twentyfirstcentury education. The New Educator. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/1547688x.2015.1063744 Conrad, K. J., Conrad K. M., Mazza, J., Riley, B. B., Funk, R., Stein, M. A., & Dennis, M. L. (2012). Dimensionality, hierarchical structure, age generalizability, and criterion validity of the GAIN’s Behaviioral Complexity Scale. Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 913-924, doi:10.1037/a0028196 Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2011). Business research methods (11th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill Fox, C. M., & Jones, J. A. (2005). Uses of Rasch modeling in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 45(1), 30-45. Harun, Z. N. (2014). Kompetensi Guru dalam Pengajaran Amali Reka Bentuk dan Teknologi di Sekolah Rendah Daerah Batu Pahat. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2015). Dokumen Standard Kurikulum dan Pentaksiran. Reka Bentuk dan Teknologi Tingkatan Satu. Putrajaya: Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum. Koehler, M., Greenhalgh, S., Rosenberg, J., & Keenan, S. (2017). What the tech is going on with teachers? Digital teaching portfolios? Using the TPACK framework to analyze teacher? Technological understanding. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(1), 31- 59. Linacre, J. M. (2007). A user’s guide to WINSTEPS Rasch-model computer programs. Chicago, Illinois: MESA Press. Moore, T. J., Johnson, C. C., Peters-Burton, E. E., & Guzey, S. S. (2016). The need for a STEM road map. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM Road map: A framework for integrated STEM education (3-12). NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group Runnels, J. (2012). Using the Rasch model to validate a multiple choice English achievement test. International Journal of Language Studies, 6(4), 141-153. Alwi, A., Kamis, A., & Ismail, B. L. H. (2018). Effects of Green Skills Module in Design and Technology Subjects on The Student’s Knowledge in Primary School. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(11), 1701–1712. Shulman, L. S., (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching, Educational Researcher, 5(2), 4-14. Sumintono, B. (2017). Rasch Model Measurement as Tools in Assessment for Learning. 10.2991/icei-17.2018.11. World Design Rankings. (2017). Latest World Design Rankings. Retrieve From http://www.designerrankings.com
|
| 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. |