• Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.281-297
• /
• 2012

Mathematics evaluation is aimed at measuring students' mathematical ability to think and achievement. Moreover, the quality of mathematics education at school is elevated by the test questions analysis and application process. And the starting point of evaluation is to make good test questions. This study is composed of four parts. First, theoretical background associated with making test questions is surveyed. Second, example questions according to the education goals and question-making cautions are presented. Third, four practical stages of making test questions which consist of designing, making the first draft of questions, verifying and making the final draft of questions, are illustrated.

• The Mathematical Education
• /
• v.49 no.4
• /
• pp.395-410
• /
• 2010

Current mathematics of CSAT(College Scholastic Ability Test) faces time to prepare examination questions according to the new curriculum making this year the last. MEST(Minister of Education, Science and Technology) already decided the range of examination in 2008. However, the discuss about how to construct the questions and what form of questions should be set was not conducted enough. Mathematics items of CSAT will have to undergo changes both in 2012 and 2014. Also, reconstruction of the examination questions for the past 16 years and the exploration of the new direction are strongly required. To accord with these requirements, this study analyze Japan's college entrance exam, NCTUA(National Center Test for University Admissions) which is the most similar to our exams. And then on the basis of this, the applicable implication to set mathematics questions in 2012 and 2014 CSAT will be deducted.

• Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.1-17
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this paper was to investigate the mathematical knowledge and perspective of elementary school teachers in the development and evaluation of students' mathematical tests, analyse test questions, and suggest several principles for the several issues of making and evaluating test-questions. The researcher surveyed 268 elementary school teachers who attended a teachers training program at the A university during January, 2005. The data were analysed by the patterns. The patterns were ambiguity or uncorrectly-described test questionnaires, wrong interpretation of students' responses by the teachers, teacher's deficiency of student' levels and perspectives of mathematics, problematic questionnaires against test-making method, and so forth. Teachers are encourages to cross check to avoid the above problems, to have a strong mathematical knowledge, and to see students' mathematical answers in a flexible manners.

• Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.169-186
• /
• 2015

According to changes of college admission policies and the first application for 2009 revised mathematics curriculum, we should redefine characterization of mathematics section in 2017 College Scholastic Ability Test(CSAT) and prepare a plan on details of making questions related to it. Specially, we need to reflect the voices of the school site in order to determine the method of making CSAT questions which is consistent with the intent of it and contributes to the normal operation of high school curriculum. In this study, we polled out 312 schools among 2,338 high schools nationwide and math teachers of the schools were been chosen were surveyed. The sampling method used a proportionate stratified sampling by the department of education. Analyzing the results of the survey, We redefined characterizations and roles of mathematics section in 2017 CSAT and suggested the details including questions distribution according to optional object of 2017 CSAT mathematics section.

• Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.179-199
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this study was to discover differences between mathematically gifted students (MGS) and non-gifted students (NGS) when making probability judgments. For this purpose, the following research questions were selected: 1. How do MGS differ from NGS when making probability judgments(answer correctness, answer confidence)? 2. When tackling probability problems, what effect do differences in probability judgment factors have? To solve these research questions, this study employed a survey and interview type investigation. A probability test program was developed to investigate the first research question, and the second research question was addressed by interviews regarding the Program. Analysis of collected data revealed the following results. First, both MGS and NGS justified their answers using six probability judgment factors: mathematical knowledge, use of logical reasoning, experience, phenomenon of chance, intuition, and problem understanding ability. Second, MGS produced more correct answers than NGS, and MGS also had higher confidence that answers were right. Third, in case of MGS, mathematical knowledge and logical reasoning usage were the main factors of probability judgment, but the main factors for NGS were use of logical reasoning, phenomenon of chance and intuition. From findings the following conclusions were obtained. First, MGS employ different factors from NGS when making probability judgments. This suggests that MGS may be more intellectual than NGS, because MGS could easily adopt probability subject matter, something not learnt until later in school, into their mathematical schemata. Second, probability learning could be taught earlier than the current elementary curriculum requires. Lastly, NGS need reassurance from educators that they can understand and accumulate mathematical reasoning.

• The Mathematical Education
• /
• v.56 no.1
• /
• pp.63-80
• /
• 2017

By analysing the examination papers from third grade high school students, we classified the errors occurred in the problem solving process of high school 'Geometry and Vectors' into several types. There are five main types - (A)Insufficient Content Knowledge, (B)Wrong Method, (C)Logical Invalidity, (D)Unskilled Expression and (E)Interference.. Type A and B lead to an incorrect answer, and type C and D cannot be distinguished by multiple-choice or closed answer questions. Some of these types are classified into subtypes - (B1)Incompletion, (B2)Omitted Condition, (B3)Incorrect Calculation, (C1)Non-reasoning, (C2)Insufficient Reasoning, (C3)Illogical Process, (D1)Arbitrary Symbol, (D2)Using a Character Without Explanation, (D3) Visual Dependence, (D4)Symbol Incorrectly Used, (D5)Ambiguous Expression. Based on the these types of errors, answers of each problem was analysed in detail, and proper ways to correct or prevent these errors were suggested case by case. When problems that were used in the periodical test were given again in descriptive forms, 67% of the students tried to answer, and 14% described flawlessly, despite that the percentage of correct answers were higher than 40% when given in multiple-choice form. 34% of the students who tried to answer have failed to have logical validity. 37% of the students who tried to answer didn't have enough skill to express. In lessons on curves of secondary degree, teachers should be aware of several issues. Students are easily confused between 'focus' and 'vertex', and between 'components of a vector' and 'coordinates of a point'. Students often use an undefined expression when mentioning a parallel translation. When using a character, students have to make sure to define it precisely, to prevent the students from making errors and to make them express in correct ways.