THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH COMPETENCE DIAGNOSTIC TESTS FOR PRESERVICE TEACHERS BY APPLYING THE G-DINA MODEL การพัฒนาแบบสอบวินิจฉัยความสามารถในการใช้ภาษาอังกฤษเพื่อการสื่อสารของนิสิตครู โดยประยุกต์ใช้ G-DINA MODEL
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The research aims were to develop an English language proficiency test for preservice teachers using the G-DINA MODEL and to develop a Profile, based on the information obtained from the diagnosis of preservice teachers’ English language proficiency for communication. The sample consisted of 566 preservice teachers (four-year-curriculum). Data was collected online and analyzed the using descriptive statistics and the G-DINA MODEL analysis. The research results revealed as follows an English language proficiency test for preservice teachers was developed with 49 multiple-choice questions in accordance with the CEFR standard at B1 level and criteria for communicative language set by the Teacher's Council of Thailand. The quality of the English test revealed that test was high valid and reliable = 0.9014. The test was classified into four competencies, namely, listening ability with 6 attributes (12 items), speaking ability with 6 attributes, (13 items), reading ability with 5 attributes (12 items) and writing ability with 4 attributes (12 items). The result of assessing the G-DINA MODEL was in accordance with all four competency criteria. The model was consistent with the empirical data score and the results of the diagnostic validity analysis revealed that the developed diagnostic test was accurate and met the required criteria. And all sub-traits have a Guessing Parameter and a Slipping Parameter through a low RMSEA parameter which can diagnose preservice teachers’ ability to use English for communication with their competencies classified and in the latent class of the test takers with the competencies in various areas according to the characteristics. And the result of Profile was developed with information obtained from diagnosing learners’ language communicative competencies in four separate areas, consisting of raw scores from the joint test. A pattern of qualification in that area according to the latent class of the test taker (probability) of knowing that qualification including information on the competence that the participant can perform and that learner should improve.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The owner of the article does not copy or violate any of its copyright. If any copyright infringement occurs or prosecution, in any case, the Editorial Board is not involved in all the rights to the owner of the article to be performed.
References
Agricola, B. T., Prins, F. J., van der Schaaf, M. F., & van Tartwijk, J. (2018). Teachers’ diagnosis of students’ research skills during the mentoring of the undergraduate thesis. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 26(5), 542–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2018.1561015
Basokcu, O. T., Ogretmen, T., & Kelecioglu, H. (2013). Model data fit comparison between DINA and G-DINA in cognitive diagnostic model. Education Journal, 2(6), 256 – 262. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20130206.18
Chansakul, S., & Boonsri, S. (2017). The use of DINA and G-DINA models to diagnose nursing literacy. EAU Heritage Journal Science and Technology, 11(3), 57-71. [in Thai]
Choi, K., Szakal, B., Chen, Y. H., Branzei, D., & Zhao, X. (2010). The Smc5/6 complex and Esc2 influence multiple replication-associated recombination processes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Biol Cell, 21(13), 2306–2314. doi: 10.1091/mbc.e10-01-0050
de la Torre, J. (2011). The generalized DINA model framework. Psychometrika, 76(2), 179 – 199.
Li, H., Hunter, C. V., & Lei, P. W. (2016). The selection of cognitive diagnostic models for a reading comprehension test. Language Testing, 33(3), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532215590848
Ma, W., & de la Torre, J. (2019). Category-level model selection for the sequential G-DINA model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 44(1), 45–77. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998618792484
Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Joe, H. (2014). Assessing approximate fit in categorical data analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(4), 305 – 328.
Rupp, A. A., Templin, J., & Henson, R. A. (2010). Diagnostic measurement: Theory, methods, and application. New York: The Guilford Press.
Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1989). Implications of cognitive psychology for educational measurement. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), The American Council on Education/Macmillan Series on Higher Education (pp. 263 – 331). Macmillan Publishing.
Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20(4), 345 – 354.
Tatsuoka, K. K. (1985). A probabilistic model for diagnosing misconceptions by the pattern classification approach. Journal of Educational Statistics, 10(1), 55 – 73.
Teachers Council of Thailand. (2020). Accreditation of the graduate diploma in teachers professional standards. Bangkok: The Teachers Council of Ladprao Printing House. [in Thai]