đánh giá độ tin cậy của bài thi trắc nghiệm THứ NHấT TRÊN MáY TíNH cuối kỳ 4 dành cho sinh viên năm thứ hai không chuyên ngành tiếng anh trờng đại học kinh doanh và công nghệ hà nội -A STUDY ON THE RELIABILITY OF THE FINAL ACHIEVEMENT COMPUTER-BASED M

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES DEPARTMENT OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES NGUYEN THI VIET HA A STUDY ON THE RELIABILITY OF THE FINAL ACHIEVEMENT COMPUTER-BASED MCQS TEST FOR THE 4TH SEMESTER NON - ENGLISH MAJORS AT HANOI UNIVERSITY OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY (đánh giá độ tin cậy thi trắc nghiệm THứ NHấT TRÊN MáY TíNH cuối kỳ dành cho sinh viên năm thứ hai không chuyên ngành tiếng anh trờng đại học kinh doanh công nghệ hà nội) Minor Programme Thesis Field: Methodology Code: 601410 HANOI, 2008 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES DEPARTMENT OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES NGUYễN THị VIệT Hà A STUDY ON THE RELIABILITY OF THE FINAL ACHIEVEMENT COMPUTER-BASED MCQS TEST FOR THE 4TH SEMESTER NON - ENGLISH MAJORS AT HANOI UNIVERSITY OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY (đánh giá độ tin cậy thi trắc nghiệm THứ NHấT TrÊN MáY TíNH cuối kỳ dành cho sinh viên năm thứ hai không chuyên ngành tiếng anh trờng đại học kinh doanh công nghệ hà nội) Minor Programme Thesis Field: Methodology Code: 601410 Supervisor: Ngun Thu HiỊn M.A HANOI, 2008 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES DEPARTMENT OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES CANDIDATE’ S STATEMENT I hereby state that I: Nguyen Thi Viet Ha, Class 14A, being a candidate for the degree of Master of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirements of the College relating to the retention and use of Master of Arts Thesis deposited in the library In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my thesis deposited in the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of the thesis Signature Date i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In the completion of this thesis, I have received a great deal of backup Of primary importance has been the role of my supervisor, Ms Nguyen Thu Hien, M.A, Teacher of Department of English and American Languages & Cultures, College of Foreign Language, Vietnam National University, Hanoi I am deeply grateful to her for her precious guidance, enthusiastic encouragement and invaluable critical feedback Without her dedicated support and correction, this thesis could not have been completed I am deeply indebted to my dear teacher, Mr Vu Van Phuc, M.A, Head of Testing Center, College of Foreign Languages, VNU, who provided me with a lot of useful suggestion and assistance towards my study I would also like to express my sincere thanks to all teachers and colleagues in English Department, HUBT, for their help in conducting the survey, sharing opinions and making suggestions to the study Especially, my thanks go to Ms Le Thi Kieu Oanh, Assistant of English Department, HUBT for her willingness to offer test score data I wish to show my special thanks to the students of K11 at Hanoi University of Business and Technology who have actively participated in the survey Finally, it is my great pleasure to acknowledge my gratitude to beloved members of my family, especially my husband who constantly encouraged and helped me with my thesis ii ABSTRACT The main aim of this minor thesis is to evaluate the reliability of the final Achievement Computer-based MCQs Test for the 4th semester non-English majors at Hanoi University of Business and Technology In order to achieve this aim, a combination of both qualitative and quantitative research methods were adopted The findings indicate that there is a certain degree of unreliability in the final achievement computer-based MCQs test1 and there are two main factors that cause the unreliability including test item quality and test- takers’ performance Having carefully considered a thorough analysis of the collected data, the author made some suggestions in order to improve the quality of the final achievement test and the MCQs test for the non-majors of English in the th semester in Hanoi University of Business and Technology Firstly, the test objectives, sections and skill weight should be adjusted to be more compatible with the course objectives and the syllabus Secondly, a testing committee should be set up for the construction and development of a multi choice item bank including test items which are of good p-value and discrimination value iii LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS CBT: Computer-based testing HUBT: Hanoi University of Business and Technology MC: Multi choice MCQs: Multi choice questions ML Pre- : Market Leader Pre-intermediate KD: Kuder- Richardson SD: Standard deviation iv LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS Table Types of tests Table Scoring format for each semester Table The syllabus for 4th semester (for non –English majors) Table Time allocation for language skills and sections Table Specification grid for the final computer-based MCQs test Table Main points in the grammar section Table Main points in the vocabulary section Table Topics in reading section Table Items in the functional language sections 10 Table 10: Test reliability coefficient 10 Table 11: p-value of items in sections 11 Table 12: Discrimination value of items in sections 12 Table 13: Number of test items with acceptable p-value and discrimination value in sections 13 Table 14: Suggested scoring format 14 Table 15: Proposed test specifications 12 Chart Students’ response on test content 13 Chart Students’ response on item discrimination value 14 Chart Students’ response on time length 15 Chart Students’ response arbitrariness 16 Chart Students’ response on relation between test score and their achievement v TABLE OF CONTENT CANDIDATE’ S STATEMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT LIST OF ABBREVIATION LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS TABLE OF CONTENT Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale for the study 1.2 Aims and research questions 1.3 Theoretical and practical significance of the study 1.4 Scope of the study 1.5 Method of the study 1.6 Organization of the paper Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Language testing 2.1.1 What is a language test? 2.1.2 The purposes of language tests 2.1.3 Types of language tests 2.1.4 Criteria of a good language test 2.2 Achievement test 2.2.1 Definition 2.2.2 Types of achievement test 2.2.3 Considerations in final achievement test construction 2.3 MCQs test 2.3.1 Definition 2.3.2 Benefits of MCQs test 2.3.3 Limitations of MCQs test 2.3.4 Principles on designing a good MCQs test 2.4 Reliability of a test 2.4.1 Definition 2.4.2 Methods for test reliability estimate 2.4.3 Measures to improve test reliability 2.5 Summary Chapter 3: The Context of the Study 3.1 The current English learning, teaching and testing situation at HUBT 3.2 The course objectives, syllabus and materials used for the second non- i ii iii iv v vi 1 2 2 4 4 5 6 7 10 11 11 11 12 15 15 16 16 17 majors of English in Semester 3.2.1 The course objectives 3.2.2 Business English syllabus 3.2.3 The course book 3.2.4 Specification grid for the final achievement Computer-based MCQs test 17 17 19 19 in Semester Chapter 4: Methodology 21 vi 4.1 Participants 4.2 Data collection instruments 4.3 Data collection procedure 4.4 Data analysis procedure Chapter 5: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 5.1 The compatibility of the objectives, content and skill weight format of 21 21 21 22 23 23 the final achievement computer-based MCQ test for th semester with the course objectives and the syllabus 5.1.1 The test objectives and the course objectives 5.1.2 The test item content in four sections and the syllabus content 5.1.3 The skill weight format in the test and the syllabus 5.2 The reliability of the final achievement test 5.2.1 Reliability coefficient 5.2.2 Item difficulty and discrimination value 5.3 The attitude of students towards the MCQs test 5.4 Pedagogical implications and suggestions on improvements of the 23 24 26 27 27 27 29 34 existing final achievement computer-based MCQs test for the nonEnglish majors at HUBT 5.5 Summary Chapter 6: CONCLUSION 6.1 Summary of the findings 6.2 Limitations of the study 6.3 Suggestions for further study REFERENCES APPENDICES APPENDIX 38 39 39 40 40 41 I II Grammar, Reading, Vocabulary and Functional language check list APPENDIX IV Survey questionnaire (for students at HUBT) APPENDIX VII Students’ test scores APPENDIX XII Item analysis of the final achievement computer-based MCQs test 1- 150 items, 349 examinees APPENDIX XVII Item indices of the final achievement computer-based MCQs test vii Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Rationale of the study Testing plays a very important role in teaching and learning process Testing is one form of measurement which is used to point out strengths and weaknesses in the learned abilities of the students Through testing, especially tests scores we may discover the performance of given students and of teachers As far as students are concerned, test scores reveal what they have achieved after a learning period As for teachers, test scores indicate what they have taught to their students Based on test results, we may make improvement in teaching, learning and testing for better instructional effectiveness Another reason for the selection of testing a matter of study lies in the fact that the current language testing at Hanoi University of Business and Technology (HUBT) has been under a lot of controversy among students and teachers Testing is mainly carried out in the form of two objective tests on computers (named test and test 2) which are administered at the end of each semester The scores that a student gets on these tests are the main indicators of his or her performance during the whole semester There are different comments on the results of these tests, especially the test for the second-year non-English majors Some subject teachers claim that these tests not truly reflect the students’ language competence Others say that these tests are appropriate to what students have learnt in class and compatible with the course objectives and therefore reliable Also, among the students, opposite ideas exist Many think that these tests are more difficult than what they have learnt and studied for the exam, others say that these test items are easy and relevant to what they have been taught Therefore finding out whether the tests are closely related with what the students have been learnt and what the teachers have taught, also, whether these tests are of reliability is indispensable For the two reasons mentioned above, the author would like to undertake this study entitled “ A study on the reliability of the final achievement Computer-based MCQs Test for the 4th semester non-English majors at Hanoi University of Business and Technology” with the intention to examine rumors about this test In addition, the author hopes that the study results help to raise awareness among teachers as well as those who are interested in this field At the same time, study results, in some extent, can be applied to improve the current testing situation in HUBT 1.2 Aims and research questions 17 Milanovic, M; Saville, N (1996) Performance testing, cognition and assessment : selected papers from the 15th language testing research colloquium (LTRC), Cambridge and Arnhem Cambridge : Cambridge University Press 18 Spolsky, B (1995) Measured words Oxford: Oxford University Press 19 Trang, H.V (2005) Evaluating the reliability of the achievement writing test for the first-year students in the English Department, College of Foreign language, Vietnam National University, Hanoi and some suggestions for changes Unpublished M.A Thesis, VNU5 20, 20 Weir, C J (1990) Communicative Language testing Prentice hall International (UK) Ltd 21 Weir, C.J (2005) Language testing and validation: an evidence- based approach Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan 41 APPENDICES I APPENDIX Grammar, Reading, Vocabulary and Functional language check list Part Unit Items Task Page no Grammar Questions Correcting/ Making questions/ P66; Completing and Matching 29-30 Talking about future questions Matching/ completing P74; plan Reported speech sentences/Making sentences/ Completing sentences/ 32-33 P82; 37 Transforming direct into indirect speech/ Building headings/ Matching/ True- 126-127 False/ Classifying Planning for tourism – Matching/ Answering P72-73; questions/ Numbering 128-129 Town planning summary/ Completing Managing across sentence/ Answering Qs Answering the questions/ P81; cultures- The company Matching / True-False/ 130-131 song- Coaching new P65; Time management- sentences Answering question/ Ordering Fun marketing Selling dreams – Beyond advertising- Reading Choosing correct alternatives employees Vocabulary Filling missing vowels/ P 63; Matching/ Doing puzzle/ Word partnerships 28,29 Ways to plan Completing a text Matching/ Combining word/ P71; 32 Verbs and preposition Completing a text Matching/ Completing table/ P30; 36 Completing sentence/ Making Functional sentence/ Correcting Listen and tick, answer Telephoning: II P 67 language Exchanging questions, complete chart/ Role information (checking play information, asking for information, finishing a conversation) Meeting: Interrupting Listen and order, identify P 75 and clarifying Socializing and language function/ Role play Answer questions/ Listen and P 83 entertaining (making answer Qs, complete extract, excuses, asking and order/ Role play giving opinion, saying goodbye, thanking hosts) III APPENDIX Câu hỏi điều tra Các em sinh viên K11 thân mến, Khoa Tiếng Anh mong nhận đợc ý kiến em thi trắc nghiệm cuối kỳ (A6) Các câu trả lời thận trọng, xác đầy đủ em cho câu hỏi dới giúp ích nhiều cho việc nâng cao chất lợng thi cho sinh viên năm thứ hai Xin chân thành cảm ơn cộng tác em! Các em hÃy đánh dấu vào câu trả lời mà em lựa chọn, đa thêm ý kiến cần thiết Các em hÃy nhận xét nội dung thi trắc nghiệm máy Nội dung thi có phù hợp với kiến thức mà em đợc học lớp không? * Phần từ vựng a Phù hợp b Không phù hợp * Phần ngữ pháp a Phù hợp b Không phù hợp * Phần đọc hiểu a Phù hợp b Không phù hợp * Phần tình a Phù hợp b Không phù hợp Các em có nhận xét số lợng 150 câu hỏi thi trắc nghiệm cuối kỳ? a Quá nhiều b.Vừaphải Các em có nhận xét mức độ phân loại trình độ học sinh thi trắc nghiệm? a Cao b Thấp ………………………………………………………………………………………… IV C¸c em h·y nhËn xÐt vỊ thêi gian làm thi trắc nghiệm máy Thời gian làm bài: a Thừa b Đủ c Thiếu Các em có nhận xét dẫn dẫn làm thi trắc nghiệm máy ? a Rõ ràng b Không rõ ràng Các em đánh giá thái độ cán coi thi nh nào? a Nghiêm túc b Thiếu nghiêm túc Theo em phòng thi có ảnh hởng đến kết làm em không ? a Có ảnh hởng b Không ảnh hởng Trong trình làm máy tính em có bị trục trặc không? Nếu có em phải làm lại từ đầu việc có gây ảnh hởng tiêu cực đến kết thi em? a Có ảnh hởng b Không ảnh hởng Các em có chịu áp lực tâm sinh lý em làm không? a Có b Không 10 Trong làm thi em có thờng tuỳ tiện chọn đáp án không? a Có b Không 11 Các em nhận xét kiểu thi trắc nghiệm máy ? a Quen thuộc b Không quen thuộc 12 Các em nhận thấy kỹ sử dụng máy tính làm thi trắc nghiệm nh nào? a Tốt b Không tốt V 13 Các em nhận thấy việc đọc làm thi trắc nghiệm máy so với việc đọc làm thi trắc nghiệm giấy cho kết nh nào? a Khác b Không khác 14 Theo em điểm thi trắc nghiệm phản ánh tiến trình học tập em lớp nh ? a Chính xác b Không xác . VI APPENDIX STUDENTS TEST SCORES VII STUDENTS' TEST SCORES EXAMINEE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Lê Minh Đức Tạ Tuấn Anh Vũ Trần Chính Ngô TháI Dũng Nguyễn Thị Hồng Hạnh Lơng Hồng Hạnh Phạm Văn Kỳ Đỗ Ngọc Luyện Đặng Xuân Nam Hoàng Quốc Thái Trần Trung Thành Phan Chiễn Thắng Lê Bá Thực Nguyễn Quốc Toàn Ngô Mạnh Tuấn Nguyễn Anh Tn Bïi TrÝ T Ngun Kim Anh Bïi Tn Anh Mai Trung Hiếu Nguyễn Xuân Linh Đặng Ngọc Long Đỗ Tiến Mạnh Hoàng Quốc Minh Phạm Văn Phúc Viên Lê Quang Vũ Văn Thái Trần Văn Thuận Lê Mạnh Tú Đồng Sỹ Toản Phạm Văn Tuấn Nguyễn Thị Tú Uyên Ngô Bá Văn Bùi Hải Vinh Nguyễn Trọng Vinh Nguyễn Văn Việt Đặng Thị Quỳnh Anh Lê Quang Bình Chu Văn Chuyển Nguyễn Ngọc Diệp Đinh Thu Hằng Nguyễn Ngân Hà Cao Văn Hải DoÃn Thị Hạnh Bùi Thị Hiền Phan Thị Mỹ Hơng Đỗ Thị Linh x Score 6.13 5.73 7.4 7.07 5.07 4.27 4.93 6.27 6.47 6.2 5.67 6.07 5.67 6.13 5.27 6.13 5.13 6.67 5.93 5.47 6.13 7.6 6.13 7.67 6.53 8.4 6.47 5.8 7.33 5.87 6.13 6.53 5.47 4.8 5.87 7.27 4.47 3.93 7.53 6.73 6.13 5.4 5.47 8.53 6.07 x Mean 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 (xx)2 0.21 0.75 0.65 0.23 2.32 5.4 2.77 0.1 0.02 0.15 0.85 0.27 0.85 0.21 1.75 0.21 2.14 0.01 0.44 1.26 0.21 1.01 0.21 1.16 3.26 0.02 0.63 0.54 0.52 0.21 1.26 3.22 1.98 0.52 0.46 4.51 7.09 0.88 0.35 0.02 0.21 1.42 1.26 3.75 0.27 EXAMINEE 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 VIII Chu Thị Phơng Đào Duy Phong Ngô Văn Quân Ngô Thị Thìn Trần Thị Thảo Lại Văn Thờng Nông Phơng Thuỳ Phạm Ngọc Tú Nguyễn Thị Trang Nguyễn Thị Thu Trang Lê Thị Yến Phạm Thị Diệp Tạ Thị Doan Đặng Văn Dũng Lê Thuỳ Dung Phạm Thị Duyên Đoàn Ngọc Hải Nguyễn Thi Hạnh Nguyễn Văn Hiếu Đinh Văn Hoàng Nguyễn Thị Kim Liên Thân Thị Ngọc Mai Trần Hoài Nam Bùi Thị Ngát Nguyễn Quỳnh Nga Bùi Thuý Nga Đỗ Thị Bích Ngọc Nguyễn Jen Ny Nguyễn Xuân Quỳnh Vũ Thị Tâm Trần Thị Thơng Nguyễn Kim Thu Lê Minh Thuỷ Nguyễn Phơng Thuý Nguyễn Thị Tiệp Nguyễn Thị Thu Trang Đậu Thị Huyền Trang Phan Thị Quỳnh Trang Nguyễn Thị Hải Yến Nguyễn Thị Đam Đào Quỳnh Anh Nguyễn Thị Dung Hoàng Thị Thu Giang Bùi Trờng Giang Phan Ngọc Hơng Bùi Thị HảI Hà Tăng Thị Kim Hạnh x Score 7.6 5.33 5.67 5.4 6.67 6.87 6.47 8.73 4.13 6.07 6.47 6.33 5.47 6.47 7.2 5.33 7.33 3.4 7.53 8.87 5.87 4.93 6.87 7.6 7.33 6.07 6.33 6.07 6.87 5.73 7.93 8.13 4.27 6.67 6.87 7.47 8.67 5.67 7.6 6.33 5.93 5.53 x Mean 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 (xx)2 1.01 1.6 2.54 0.85 1.42 0.01 0.08 0.02 4.57 6.07 0.27 0.02 0.07 1.26 0.02 0.37 1.6 0.54 10.2 0.88 5.18 0.52 2.77 0.08 1.01 0.54 0.27 0.07 0.27 0.08 1.98 2.54 0.75 0.17 1.79 2.36 5.4 0.01 0.08 0.77 4.31 0.85 1.01 0.07 1.98 0.44 1.13 48 49 Vũ Thị Mai Lý Thị Phơng Ngân 6.6 5.8 6.59 6.59 0.63 97 98 Trần Thị Hoài Ngun Ph¬ng Hoa 7.4 6.87 6.59 6.59 x Score 6.87 7.27 5.33 7.53 8.27 7.6 8.27 6.33 8.47 8.07 5.2 5.27 7.53 2.93 7.27 8.53 7.6 7.87 0.13 7.33 8.2 7.33 3.93 7.4 8.33 5.47 7.13 7.13 8.07 6.53 5.67 4.53 5.73 8.07 6.93 6.67 6.4 4.33 4.07 5.67 5.6 x Mean 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 0.65 0.08 STUDENTS' TEST SCORES EXAMINEE 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 NguyÔn Thị Thanh Huyền Lu Thuỳ Linh Phạm Thanh Long Nguyễn ThÞ Qnh Mai Ngun ThÞ Nga Vị ThÞ Ngäc Ngun Thảo Nguyên Nguyễn Thị Minh Nguyệt Thái Ngọc Nhung Nguyễn Thị Lan Phơng Nguyễn Hồ Quanhg Đỗ Thị Nh Quỳnh Nguyễn Thị Thảo Phạm Thị Phơng Thuỳ Lê Thị Thu Thuỷ Lê Thị Thuỷ Phạm Thị Ngọc Trang Nguyễn Thị Thu Trang Lê Quỳnh Trang Ngô Quốc Tuân Vũ Thị Ngọc Anh Nguyễn Thành Công Bùi Khắc Cờng Phạm Văn Dũng Đoàn Thị Kim Dung Nguyễn T Duy Hà Lan Hơng Nguyễn Thị Thu Hiền Hoàng Thi Hiền Đặng Thanh Huyền Nguyễn Ngọc Linh Vũ Kiều Loan Phạm Thị Quỳnh Mai Vũ Thị Minh Nguyễn Thị Ngân Đỗ Thị Ngân Nguyễn Hoàng Nga Nguyễn Hồng Nhung Phạm Thị Hồng Nhung Nguyễn Trần Phơng Bùi Mạnh Quân Mạc Thị Ngọc Quỳnh Ngun Duy S¬n Ngun Quang ThiƯn x Score 7.07 6.67 6.53 9.33 6.93 6.67 6.93 8.73 6.07 6.67 6.67 6.33 7.4 7.07 7.93 8.4 7.67 6.13 8.67 5.73 8.33 7.07 2.47 3.6 6.53 6.13 5.27 6.53 5.47 5.4 6.87 7.73 8.67 6.4 7.33 6.47 5.4 7.27 4.53 7.47 7.47 8.67 4.07 6.07 x Mean 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 (x-x)2 EXAMINEE 0.23 0.01 7.49 0.11 0.01 0.11 4.57 0.27 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.65 0.23 1.79 3.26 1.16 0.21 4.31 0.75 3.02 0.23 17 8.96 0.21 1.75 1.26 1.42 0.08 1.29 4.31 0.04 0.54 0.02 1.42 0.46 4.26 0.77 0.77 4.31 6.37 0.27 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 IX Tõ Thị Hà Vân Dơng Thị HảI Yến Bùi Minh Đức Nguyễn Quỳnh Anh Lê Thị Quỳnh Anh Trơng Thuỳ Chi Hà Kim Dung Phí Thị Hằng Đào Minh Hà Phạm thị Thu Hà Lê Thị Hồng Vũ Thị Tuyết Lan Nguyễn Thị Liên Nguyễn Công Nhớ Bùi Thị Phơng Bùi Mai Phơng Nguyễn Thanh Phợng Bùi Thị Thu Quỳnh Lu Thị Trang Thảo Nguyễn Thị Thắm Trần Thị Thoa Hoàng Thị Thu Thuỷ Nguyễn Thị Thu Trang Hoàng Thị Huyền Trang Đặng Thị Huyền Trang Dơng Huyền Trang Phạm Thuý Vân Vũ Thanh Xuân Tạ Quốc Đạt Vũ Trọng Đam Trần Vũ Độ LÃ Mạnh Cờng Trịnh Văn Cờng Lại Văn Dũng Trần Mỹ Hằng Nguyễn Anh Hào Mai Thanh Hải Trần Diệu Hồng Trần Thị Bích Hậu Vũ Thị Hoàng Lan Đặng Vũ Lập Trần Thành Long Lu Thị Kiều Oanh Nguyễn Văn Quảng (xx)2 0.08 0.46 1.6 0.88 2.81 1.01 2.81 0.07 3.52 2.18 1.94 1.75 0.88 13.4 0.46 3.75 1.01 1.63 41.8 0.54 2.58 0.54 7.09 0.65 3.02 1.26 0.29 5.79 0.17 0.29 2.18 0.85 4.26 0.75 2.18 0.11 0.01 0.04 5.12 0.35 6.37 0.85 0.99 143 144 145 146 Phạm Thị Kim Thu Đào Thi Thuý Nguyễn Thị Thu Trang TrơngThị Hải Vân EXAMINEE 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 Ngô Văn Tháng Lê Quang Thọ Nguyễn Xuân Toàn Cao Anh Trung Đỗ Ngọc Tuyền Đinh Đức Anh Trần Tuấn Anh Phạm Ngọc Báu Vũ Thị Dung Trần Văn Hà Đào Thiị Thu Hà Phạm Trung Hiễu Nguyễn Quang Huy Vũ Văn Huyên Vũ Đức Lợng Nguyễn Văn Liễu §inh TiÕn Lùc NguyÔn §øc Minh Tèng Quang Nam NguyÔn Bích Ngọc Bùi Minh Ngọc Nguyễn Thanh Tâm Trần Mạnh Thắng Nguyễn Thị Thanh Thuỷ Nguyễn Thị Thu Thuý Phạm Văn D Tùng Phạm Thị Thu Trang Trần Thị Thu Trang Đỗ Quốc Trinh Trần Nguyệt ánh Nguyễn Hồng Ân Nguyễn Phơng Anh Chu Việt Cờng Nguyễn Thị Minh Châu Nguyễn Phơng Dung Nguyễn Thuỳ Dung Nguyễn Thị Thuý Hằng Nguyễn Thu Hơng Nguyễn Thị Hồng Hà Lê Thị Ngọc Hà Nguyễn Diệu Hà Nguyễn Thanh Hải 6.73 7.27 4.47 5.6 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 0.02 0.46 4.51 0.99 191 192 193 194 STUDENTS' TEST SCORES (xx x x)2 Score Mean 5.87 6.59 0.52 244 7.2 6.59 0.37 245 6.67 6.59 0.01 246 6.33 6.59 0.07 247 7.07 6.59 0.23 248 8.67 6.59 4.31 249 6.59 1.98 250 6.93 6.59 0.11 251 7.8 6.59 1.46 252 5.27 6.59 1.75 253 6.73 6.59 0.02 254 7.8 6.59 1.46 255 7.93 6.59 1.79 256 7.27 6.59 0.46 257 6.93 6.59 0.11 258 7.73 6.59 1.29 259 4.8 6.59 3.22 260 6.47 6.59 0.02 261 3.2 6.59 11.5 262 6.4 6.59 0.04 263 8.73 6.59 4.57 264 7.33 6.59 0.54 265 8.33 6.59 3.02 266 8.2 6.59 2.58 267 6.87 6.59 0.08 268 6.2 6.59 0.15 269 6.33 6.59 0.07 270 6.33 6.59 0.07 271 6.4 6.59 0.04 272 6.59 1.98 273 7.33 6.59 0.54 274 8.53 6.59 3.75 275 6.53 6.59 276 7.13 6.59 0.29 277 8.13 6.59 2.36 278 6.8 6.59 0.04 279 6.87 6.59 0.08 280 7.67 6.59 1.16 281 6.59 0.17 282 7.93 6.59 1.79 283 7.2 6.59 0.37 284 9.4 6.59 7.88 285 X Nguyễn Nguyệt Quỳnh Bùi Việt Thái Hoàng Phơng Thảo Đỗ Duy Thắng EXAMINEE Cao Thu Nga Ngô Hằng Nga Nguyễn Thị Quỳnh Nguyễn Thị Minh Tâm Hoàng Thị Thảo Đỗ Đức Thiện Đoàn Thu Thuỷ Hoàng Thanh Tùng Lê Quang Đạt Nguyễn Duy Điền Nguyễn Văn Chính Dơng Thu Hơng Vũ Thị Thuý Hà Đỗ Thu Hà Vũ thi Thu Hà Phạm Thị Thu Hoài Vũ Thị Hoạt Nguyễn Thị My Hun Ngun Minh Hun TrÇn Mü Linh Bïi Huy Long Hoàng Long Ngô Ngọc Mai Nguyễn Bích Phợng Nguyễn Hoàng Sơn Nguyễn Hoàng Sơn Nguyễn Thị Tám Nguyễn Thế Tình Nguyễn Mạnh Tởng Vuơng Thị Thu Trang Bùi Quang Trung Đỗ Đức Việt Trần Thu Anh Hoàng Thọ Công Cao Đức Cờng Nguyễn Mạnh Cờng Lơng Minh Châu Vũ Tiến Dũng Phạm Ngọc Duy Vũ Thị Hơng Giang Vũ Trờng Giang Nguyễn Thị Hơng 7.6 6.47 7.13 6.67 x Score 8.87 6.4 7.13 7.8 5.73 8.53 5.2 6.67 7.53 6.4 9.07 8.93 7.87 7.93 7.47 7.2 8.4 6.13 8.27 6.8 6.73 8.67 8.67 7.53 3.4 5.33 2.53 3.73 5.07 4.8 4.67 3.73 5.27 3.53 4.27 6.73 2.87 4.33 6.6 6.13 8.73 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 x Mean 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 1.01 0.02 0.29 0.01 (xx)2 5.18 0.04 0.29 1.46 0.75 3.75 1.94 0.01 0.88 0.04 6.13 5.46 1.63 1.79 0.77 0.37 3.26 0.21 2.81 0.04 0.02 4.31 4.31 0.88 10.2 1.6 12.9 16.5 8.2 2.32 3.22 3.7 8.2 1.75 9.38 5.4 0.02 13.9 5.12 0.21 4.57 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 Trần Lê Huy Nguyễn Diệu Linh Lê Thị Thanh Loan Nguyễn Hải Long Nguyễn Thị Hà Ly Nguyễn Thế Mẫn Phạm thị Thuý Ngà 3.07 8.8 8.07 4.87 6.73 4.2 7.13 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 12.4 4.87 2.18 2.97 0.02 5.73 0.29 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 2.67 8.6 7.8 7.4 7.47 4.53 4.8 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 Đỗ Huơng Thuỷ Nguyễn Anh Tú Ngô Văn Toàn Trần Huơng Trang Phó Đức Trung Phan Thị Vân Phạm Thanh Vân Hoàng Việt x Score 8.13 4.8 9.27 7.2 4.4 8.2 6.93 9.47 x Mean 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 ∑x ∑(x-x)2 Mean 2301 740 6.59 Hoàng Thị Mai Hơng Đinh Thị Thu Hà Trịnh Thu Hồng Đỗ Mạnh Hùng Bùi Sĩ Hiếu Bùi Huy Hoàng Lê Thị Hoa 15.4 4.03 1.46 0.65 0.77 4.26 3.22 STUDENTS' TEST SCORES EXAMINEE 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 Triệu Khánh Hoà Vũ Đình Khoa Phạm Chí Lợng Nguyễn Thị Thuỳ Linh Trịnh Thị Minh Loan Vũ Đức Long Nguyễn Tuyết Mai Hoàng Thị Kim Oanh Nguyễn Phơng Thảo Giang Thị Thảo Nguyễn Văn Thao Đinh Phơng Ngọc Anh Nguyễn thị Vân Anh Phạm Văn Bình Trần Thị thuỳ Dơng Lại Việt Dũng Phùng Thị Ngọc Dung Nguyễn Hơng Giang Ngô Đức Hải Trần Huy Hng Khuất Thị Thu Hoài Nguyễn Hoài Linh Lê Thị Diệu Linh Phạm Thị Loan Trần Thị Ngọc Mai Nguyễn Thành Nh Nguyễn Thị Thảo Lê Minh Thanh Nguyễn Thu Trang Nguyễn Viết Tuấn Vũ Viết Tuấn Nguyễn Anh Văn Nguyễn Trần Việt Ngô Thị Vân Anh Phùng Xuân Chinh Nguyễn Thế Dũng Nguyễn Tuấn Dũng Nhâm Thị Giang Trần Văn H¶i x Score 8.87 5.87 6.47 8.07 8.27 8.13 7.13 8.53 6.33 3.47 6.67 4.4 5.8 7.67 7.4 6.93 7.87 6.67 6.07 6.47 8.2 5.13 6.47 7.53 6.67 5.6 7.27 8.53 4.2 8.87 7.73 7.6 6.33 6.6 3.13 8.27 7.13 x Mean 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 (x-x)2 5.18 0.52 0.17 0.35 0.02 2.18 2.81 2.36 0.29 3.75 0.07 9.76 0.01 4.81 0.63 1.16 0.65 0.11 1.63 0.01 0.27 0.02 2.58 2.14 0.02 0.88 0.01 0.99 0.46 3.75 5.73 5.18 1.29 1.01 0.07 12 2.81 0.29 XI EXAMINEE 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 (xx)2 2.36 3.22 7.16 0.37 4.81 2.58 0.11 8.27 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 Nguyễn Thị Hiên Ngô Duy Huynh Nguyễn Thanh Hun Ngun Thanh Hun Ngun Ngäc Linh Bïi Ngäc Long Cao Thị Nhi Tô Minh Pha Nguyễn Đức Phong Trần văn Sang 7 8.07 6.8 7.6 5.47 9.13 6.67 5.2 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 0.17 0.17 2.18 0.04 1.01 1.26 1.98 6.43 0.01 1.94 XII APPENDIX ITEM ANALYSIS OF THE FINAL ACHIEVEMENT COMPUTER-BASED MCQS TEST 1- 150 ITEMS, 349 EXAMINEES XIII ITEM ANALYSIS FOR THE FINAL ACHIEVEMENT COMPUTER-BASED MCQS TEST 1- 150 ITEMS, 349 EXAMINEES Item No Item correct Item incorrect Total response Proportion correct (p) Proportion incorrect (q) Item variance ∑pq S.d of total scores Variance of total scores N (items) N -1 KD-20 Item No Item correct Item incorrect Total response Proportion correct (p) Proportion incorrect (q) Item variance ∑pq S.d of total scores Variance of total scores N (items) N -1 KD-20 121 228 349 0.35 0.65 0.23 33 1.46 2.12 150 149 14.6 234 115 349 0.67 0.33 0.22 236 113 349 0.68 0.32 0.22 207 142 349 0.59 0.41 0.24 226 123 349 0.65 0.35 0.23 215 134 349 0.62 0.38 0.24 221 128 349 0.63 0.37 0.23 224 125 349 0.64 0.36 0.23 220 129 349 0.63 0.37 0.23 10 214 135 349 0.61 0.39 0.24 11 206 143 349 0.59 0.41 0.24 12 217 132 349 0.62 0.38 0.24 13 214 135 349 0.61 0.39 0.24 14 217 132 349 0.62 0.38 0.24 15 218 131 349 0.62 0.38 0.23 16 212 137 349 0.61 0.39 0.24 17 225 124 349 0.64 0.36 0.23 18 210 139 349 0.6 0.4 0.24 19 213 136 349 0.61 0.39 0.24 20 205 144 349 0.59 0.41 0.24 21 220 129 349 0.63 0.37 0.23 33 1.46 2.12 150 149 14.6 22 225 124 349 0.64 0.36 0.23 23 212 137 349 0.61 0.39 0.24 24 206 143 349 0.59 0.41 0.24 25 210 139 349 0.6 0.4 0.24 26 215 134 349 0.62 0.38 0.24 27 206 143 349 0.59 0.41 0.24 28 215 134 349 0.62 0.38 0.24 29 212 137 349 0.61 0.39 0.24 30 200 149 349 0.57 0.43 0.24 31 223 126 349 0.64 0.36 0.23 32 216 133 349 0.62 0.38 0.24 33 227 122 349 0.65 0.35 0.23 34 217 132 349 0.62 0.38 0.24 35 217 132 349 0.62 0.38 0.24 36 215 134 349 0.62 0.38 0.24 37 221 128 349 0.63 0.37 0.23 38 205 144 349 0.59 0.41 0.24 39 202 147 349 0.58 0.42 0.24 40 213 136 349 0.61 0.39 0.24 XIV ... THE 4TH SEMESTER NON - ENGLISH MAJORS AT HANOI UNIVERSITY OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY (đánh giá độ tin cậy thi trắc nghi? ?m THứ NHấT TrÊN M? ?Y TíNH cuối kỳ dành cho sinh viên n? ?m thứ hai không chuyên. .. towards the final achievement Computer-based MCQs test 1? 1.3 Scope of the study The existing final achievement Computer-based MCQs test in the th semester for the second-year non-English majors... reduce the reliability of the test scores On the basis of these results, the author provides some suggestions towards the improvement of the test quality The reliability of the final achievement MCQs