Tinjauan Sistematis Kebutuhan Asesmen Koneksi Matematis Berbasis Integrasi MCMA dengan PCM

Nurzanah Sri Hastuti; Iva Sarifah; Lussy Dwiutami Wahyuni

doi:10.31932/j-pimat.v8i1.6300

Tinjauan Sistematis Kebutuhan Asesmen Koneksi Matematis Berbasis Integrasi MCMA dengan PCM

Nurzanah Sri Hastuti, Iva Sarifah, Lussy Dwiutami Wahyuni

Abstract

The mathematical connection assessment instruments that apply in high schools (SMA) generally still rely on dichotomous scoring, so that they are not able to describe students' partial understanding in detail. This study aims to examine the need for the development of a Multiple Choice Multiple Answer (MCMA) format instrument with a Partial Credit Model (PCM) through the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) approach. The study method refers to the Cochrane Handbook and the PRISMA protocol by analyzing 31 articles that meet the final inclusion criteria. The results of the study reveal that dichotomous scoring is limited in representing partial understanding PCM offers more accurate, fair, and informative measurements. The integration of MCMA with PCM has the potential to be developed as a mathematical connection assessment instrument based on a strong conceptual basis and can be used as a mathematical assessment innovation. Specifically, this study provides a starting point for further research related to the design, validation, and implementation of mathematical connection instruments at the high school level.

Keyword: Mathematical Connections Assessment, Multiple Choice Multiple Answer (MCMA), Partial Credit Model (PCM)

Full Text:

PDF

References

Aimi, M., Aima, Z., & Fitri, D. Y. (2024). Analisis Kemampuan Pemahaman Konsep Matematis Peserta didik Pada Materi Bunga & Anuitas. J-PiMat, 6(1), 1065–1074. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31932/j-pimat.v6i1.3260

Aszahra, Z. Z., Rosyadi, A. A. P., & In’am, A. (2024). Kemampuan Koneksi Matematis dalam Menyelesaikan Masalah Matematika. Prismatika: Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Riset Matematika, 7(1), 14–28.

Beiting-Parrish, M., Verkuilen, J., McCluskey, S., Everson, H., & Wladis, C. (2021). Multiple Answer Multiple Choice Items: A Problematic Item Type? (pp. 347–357). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74772-5_31

Betts, J., Muntean, W., Kim, D., & Kao, S. (2022). Evaluating Different Scoring Methods for Multiple Response Items Providing Partial Credit. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 82(1), 151–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164421994636

Castleton, G. (2002). Workplace literacy as a contested site of educational activity. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(7), 556–566.

Donoghue, J. R. (1994). An Empirical Examination of the IRT Information of Polytomously Scored Reading Items Under the Generalized Partial Credit Model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(4), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1994.tb00448.x

Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2013). Item response theory for psychologists. Item Response Theory for Psychologists, 1–371. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410605269

Hatisaru, V. (2024). International Journal of Mathematical Education in Mathematical connections – a growing construct. 5211. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2023.2283346

Haylock, D., & Thangata, F. (2007). Key Concepts in Teaching Primary Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446214503

Jiao, H., Liu, J., Haynie, K., Woo, A., & Gorham, J. (2012). Comparison Between Dichotomous and Polytomous Scoring of Innovative Items in a Large-Scale Computerized Adaptive Test. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164411422903

Ma, W., & de la Torre, J. (2016). A sequential cognitive diagnosis model for polytomous responses. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 69(3), 253–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12070

Morris, W., Holmes, L., Choi, J. S., & Crossley, S. (2025). Automated Scoring of Constructed Response Items in Math Assessment Using Large Language Models. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 35(2), 559–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-024-00418-w

Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMMS 2019 International Results in Mathematics and Science.

Muraki, E. (1992). A Generalized Partial Credit Model: Application of an EM Algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169201600206

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2011). Teaching Mathematics in the 21st Century. In Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 1–31). Pearson.

Noh, M. F. bin M., Matore, M. E. E. M., Sulaiman, N. A., Azeman, M. T., Ishak, H., Othman, N., Rosli, N. M., & Hannah, S. (2024). Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment in Educational Testing: A Score Strategy-Based Evaluation. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 21(4), 260–272. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17576/ebangi.2024.2104.21

Nurwahid, M., Ashar, S., & Awantagusnik, A. (2025). Pembelajaran Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) Berbasis Literasi Numerasi: Strategi dan Tantangan. Consistan: Jurnal Tadris Matematika, 3(01), 22–38. https://ejournal.alqolam.ac.id/index.php/CONSISTAN

OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results What Students Know and Can Do? Vol. I.

Oktaviani, A. N. (2025). Pengembangan Three-tier Diagnostic Test untuk Mengidentifikasi Miskonsepsi pada Materi Cahaya Fase C. Universitas Islam Negeri Profesor Kiai Haji Saifuddin Zuhri Purwokerto.

Penfield, R. D. (2004). The Impact of Model Misfit on Partial Credit Model Parameter Estimates. In Journal of Applied Measurement (Vol. 5, Issue 2, pp. 115–128). Richard M Smith.

Persson, R. A. X. (2023). Theoretical evaluation of partial credit scoring of the multiple-choice test item. Metron, 81(2), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40300-022-00237-w

Putri, A. G. E., & Wutsqa, D. U. (2019). Students’ Mathematical Connection Ability in Solving Real-world Problems. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1320, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1320/1/012066

Schneid, S. D., Armour, C., & Brandl, K. (2025). Beyond right or wrong : How partial credit scoring on multiple- choice questions improves student performance and assessment perceptions. April, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/bcp.70127

Schneid, S. D., Armour, C., Park, Y. S., Yudkowsky, R., & Bordage, G. (2014). Reducing The Number of Options on Multiple-Choice Questions: Response Time, Psychometrics and Standard Setting. Medical Education, 48(10), 1020–1027. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12525

Shepard, L. A. (2018). Learning Progressions as Tools for Assessment and Learning. Applied Measurement in Education, 31(2), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2017.1408628

Solihah, W. (2023). Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment Development and Aplication of a Three Tier Test Diagnostic Instrument to Assess Conceptual Understanding. Edusentris: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran, 10(3). https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/edusentris/article/view/73237

Susuoroka, G. (2023). Mathematics Learning and Individual Differences in Primary And Secondary Schools. In Trends in Primary and Secondary School Mathematics Education (pp. 73–84). KATAPUNO-PRINTS.

Sutiarso, S., Rosidin, U., & Sulistiawan, A. (2022). Developing Assessment Instrument Using Polytomous Response in Mathematics. European Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), 1441–1462.

Torre, J. De, & Minchen, N. (2014). Cognitively Diagnostic Assessments and the Cognitive Diagnosis Model Framework. Psicología Educativa, 20, 89–97. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2014.11.001

Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=RxjjUefze_oC

Williams, M., Wood, E., Arslantas, F., & MacNeil, S. (2021). Examining chemistry students’ perceptions toward multiple-choice assessment tools that vary in feedback and partial credit. Canadian Journal of Chemistry, 99, 933–941. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjc-2020-0398

Yao, L., & Boughton, K. (2009). Multidimensional Linking for Tests with Mixed Item Types. 46(2), 177–197.

Zhai, X., & Li, M. (2021). Validating a partial-credit scoring approach for multiple-choice science items: an application of fundamental ideas in science. International Journal of Science Education, 43(10), 1640–1666. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1923856

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31932/j-pimat.v8i1.6300