scholarly journals What is a good question asker better at? From unsystematic generalization to adult-like selectivity across childhood

2021 ◽  
Vol 59 ◽  
pp. 101082
Author(s):  
Costanza De Simone ◽  
Azzurra Ruggeri
Keyword(s):  
Good Question

Analisis Kesulitan Pemahaman Konseptual Siswa Dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Pada Materi Fisika di XI MIA 3 DI MAN 2 Langsa

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (01) ◽  
pp. 23-28
Author(s):  
Armelia Yuniani ◽  
Mutia Rahmatika ◽  
Kastari Kastari ◽  
Muhammad Ichsan ◽  
Nurmasyitah Nurmasyitah
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Quantitative Method ◽  
Difficulty Level ◽  
Good Question ◽  
Level Of Difficulty

The research aims to determine the level of difficulty and differentiation of the exam on the middle semester of the subjects of the Physics class XI MIA 3 in MAN 2 Langsa. The research method used is a descriptive quantitative method. The results showed that for the difficulty level was obtained 13 questions (43.33%) Easy, 17 questions (56.66%) Medium and 0 problem (0%) Difficult. The results of the analysis of the differentiator power about 10 questions (33.33%) Received, 16 questions (53.33%) Discarded and 4 questions (13.33%) Fixed. Overall about the middle semester exam of physics subjects in class XI MIA 3 in MAN 2 Langsa year 2018/2019 is categorized as a good question, because it has the largest percentage of difficulty level in the category of moderate problems, namely as many as 17 questions (56.66%) And the largest percentage of the differentiator's power in the category of questions received 10 questions (33.33%).

Questions in secondary classrooms: Toward a theory of questioning

2021 ◽  
pp. 147787852110430
Author(s):  
Kimberly Alexander ◽  
Charles H. Gonzalez ◽  
Paul J. Vermette ◽  
Sabrina Di Marco
Keyword(s):  
Effective Teaching ◽  
Teacher Educators ◽  
Teaching Practice ◽  
Teaching Profession ◽  
Secondary Classrooms ◽  
Good Question ◽  
Effective Manner ◽  
Three Components

At the heart of the teaching practice is the art of questioning. Costa and Kallick noted that questions are the means by which insights unlock thinking. Effective questioning is essential to effective teaching. Despite this, a cohesive theory on the method of questioning has yet to be developed. A discussion of questioning is vital to moving the teaching profession forward. In this article, we propose a model of effective questioning that we see as the first step toward identifying a unifying theory of questioning. Our model contains the following three components: (1) a well-structured item (a good question), (2) clear expectations for the response (which we call ‘the five considerations’), and (3) a constructivist conversation. This work succeeds in bridging the gap between practice and theory that may otherwise limit good teachers from utilizing their questions in the most effective manner. Because of this, our model should be of use to teachers, teacher educators, professional developers, educational researchers, and theoreticians. We hope that a continued discussion of questioning ensues in all of these circles, so that our field can move closer toward the development of a theory of questioning.

scholarly journals Development of Computerized Testlet to Measure Science Process Skill on Stoichiometry

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 216
Author(s):  
Stefanus Kristiyanto ◽  
Ashadi Ashadi ◽  
Sri Yamtinah ◽  
Sri Mulyani
Keyword(s):  
Field Trials ◽  
Test Reliability ◽  
Difficulty Level ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Process Skills ◽  
Science Process Skills ◽  
Good Question ◽  
Validity Criteria ◽  
Individual Profiles ◽  
Distinguishing Features

<p>This research aims to develop a computerized testlet assessment to measure science process skills on stoichiometry material in terms of validity, reliability, difficulty level, distinguishing features and deception indexes that meet the criteria as good assessment instruments, and can display individual profiles of science process skills students. The subject of the research trial was a grade X student of Senior High School in Boyolali. Validity test is done by content validity, criteria, and expert validation. Reliability test is done by finding the price of the reliability coefficient r. Characteristics test is done by determining the level of difficulty, distinguishing features and deception index. The profile of science process skills is determined by measuring students' mastery of the science process. The results of the research and development was declared feasible and met the criteria as a good question with a validity of questions more than 0.79 (valid), has a test reliability on the main field trials of 0.643 and 0.610 on the trial the implementation of the field is relatively high, has a distinguishing power with a percentage of 10% bad, 66.7% is sufficient, and 23.3% is good, has a difficulty level with a percentage of 20% difficult, 53.3% moderate and 26.7% easy.</p>

Good review? Good question

2016 ◽  
pp. 150-164
Author(s):  
Margaret Flynn ◽  
Hilary Brown
Keyword(s):  
Good Question ◽  
Good Review

Women, Mathematics, and Computing

2011 ◽  
pp. 1303-1308
Author(s):  
Paula De Palma
Keyword(s):  
Computer Science ◽  
Peanut Butter ◽  
Testable Hypothesis ◽  
Betty Friedan ◽  
Good Question ◽  
Bachelor's Degrees ◽  
Underrepresentation Of Women ◽  
Women In Information Technology ◽  
Cub Scouts ◽  
Open Question

In 1963, Betty Friedan wrote these gloomy words: The problem lay buried, unspoken, for many years in the minds of American women. ... Each suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for groceries, matched slipcover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured Cub Scouts and Brownies, lay beside her husband at night – she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question—“Is this all?” The passage, of course, is from the The Feminine Mystique (Friedan, 1983, p. 15). Though it took another decade for the discontent that Friedan described to solidify into a political movement, even in 1963 women were doing more than making peanut butter sandwiches. They also earned 41% of bachelor’s degrees. By 1995, the number of degrees conferred had nearly tripled. The fraction going to women more than kept pace, at almost 55%. Put another way, women’s share of bachelor’s degrees increased by 25% since Betty Friedan first noticed the isolation of housewives. Consider two more sets of numbers: In 1965, 478 women graduated from medical school. These 478 women accounted for only 6.5% of the new physicians. Law was even less hospitable. Only 404 women, or just 3% of the total, received law degrees in 1965. By 1996, however, almost 39% of medical degrees and 43% of law degrees were going to women (Anderson, 1997). If so many women are studying medicine and law, why are so few studying computer science? That’s a good question, and one that has been getting a lot of attention. A search of an important index of computing literature, the ACM Digital Portal (ACM, 2005a), using the key words “women” and “computer,” produced 2,223 hits. Of the first 200, most are about the underrepresentation of women in information technology. Judging by the volume of research, what we can do to increase the numbers of women studying computer science remains an open question. While most investigators fall on one side or the other of the essentialist/social constructivist divide (Trauth, Quesenberry & Morgan, 2005), this article sidesteps the issue altogether in favor of offering a testable hypothesis: Girls and young women would be drawn to degree programs in computer science in greater numbers if the field were structured with the precision of mathematics. How we arrived at this hypothesis requires a look at the number of women earning degrees in computer science historically and in relation to other apparently similar fields.

On the Art of Setting a Good Question Paper

2017 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 56-60
Author(s):  
S. C. Dutta Roy
Keyword(s):  
Good Question
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document