Abstract
Learning is an activity that is inseparable from human life. By learning humans are able to develop the potentials that they carry from birth so that later they are able to adapt themselves to meet their needs. With learning expected changes in behavior in accordance with the expected goals. But sometimes behavioral changes that are expected do not occur even if they are not in accordance with the expected goals, so that learning difficulties are born. To help solve the problem of learning difficulties including doing diagnostic tests. Diagnostic tests are used to determine students' difficulties in mastering certain competencies. As technology develops, interactive ICT-based diagnostic tests are absolutely necessary to be a solution in diagnosing learning difficulties. This research produces a product in the form of ICT-based interactive diagnostic tests. This ICT-based diagnostic test in addition to being interactive is also able to generate passing grades, set scores automatically, randomize questions automatically, and arrange variations of questions automatically. As for developing this diagnostic test model using Thiagarajan development research design that is the 4D development model consisting of the defining (Define), Designing, Developing, and Disseminate stages. Diagnostic evaluation is one of the evaluation functions that requires procedures and competencies higher than the educator role as an evaluator. Diagnostic evaluation is an evaluation that has a special emphasis on healing student learning difficulties that are not solved by the improvement formula that is usually offered in the form of evaluation formative. Diagnostic evaluation can also be interpreted as an evaluation that is used to determine student weaknesses so that based on these weaknesses can be given appropriate treatment.
Keywords
References
- Abraham, A. 2006. Perceptions of the Linkages between teaching Contexts, Approaches to Learning and Outcomes. Research Online institutional repository for the University of Wollongong.Google Scholar ↗
- Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2013. Educational Evaluation Basics. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.Google Scholar ↗
- Belkaoui, A. R. (1992). Accounting Theory. 3rd ed. New York : 5th ed. Boston.Google Scholar ↗
- Carroll, Margaret Kelly. 2011. Fun and Games in Higher Education. Eastern Education Journal, Vol 40(1) spring. pp. 23 – 32.Google Scholar ↗
- Dale, E.1859. Audiovisiual methods inteaching. 3rd ed. New York : Holt.Google Scholar ↗
- Dyson, B. (2014). Quality Physical Education: AGoogle Scholar ↗
- Commentary on Effective Physical EducationGoogle Scholar ↗
- Teaching. Research Quarterly for Exercise andGoogle Scholar ↗
- Sport, 92(2), 144–152.Google Scholar ↗
- doi:10.1080/02701367.2014.904155DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
- Dyson B. 2014. Dyson, B. (2014). Quality Physical Education: AGoogle Scholar ↗
- Dyson, B., & Casey, A. (Eds.). (2012). CooperativeGoogle Scholar ↗
- Learning in physical education: A research-basedGoogle Scholar ↗
- approach. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar ↗
- Dyson, B. 2014. Quality Physical Education : A commentary on Effective Physical Education Teaching. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 92 (2). pp 144-152.Google Scholar ↗
- Fitzpatrick, J. L., Saners, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternatives, approaches, and practical guidelines (3rd Ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar ↗
- Hiltz, Starr Roxanne. 1991. The “Virtual Classroom”: Using Computer‐Mediated Communication for University Teaching. Journal of Communication. Vol 36. Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1991.tb01427.x.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
- Horton, William. 2002. Speakers_ experiences and audience design: knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees. Journal of Memory and Language, 47 (2002) 589–606.Google Scholar ↗
- Iserameiya F.E, Ibeneme O.T 2018. Effect of Mastery Learning Strategy on Junior Secondary School Students' Academic Achievement in Basic Technology in Edo State, Nigeria. International Journal of New Technology and Research (IJNTR), Volume-4, Issue-3. pp 95-101.Google Scholar ↗
- Jones, Karrie. 2008. Making Cooperative Learning Work in the College Classroom: An Application of the ‘Five Pillars’ of Cooperative Learning to Post-Secondary Instruction. The Journal of Effective Teaching, Vol. 8, No. 2. pp 61-76.Google Scholar ↗
- Khafid, Muhammad, 2007. Factors Affecting Difficulty in Learning Accounting. Journal of Economic Education, Vol 2 No.1.Google Scholar ↗
- Morable, Linda. 2000. Using Active Learning Technique. Exclusive opyright is retained by the U.S. Department of Education, the Texas Higher education Coordinating Board, and Richland College.Google Scholar ↗
- Nur, Muhamad et al. (2000). Cooperative Learning. Surabaya: Unesa University Press.Google Scholar ↗
- Silberman, Mel. 2001. “Active Learning: 101 Active Learning Strategy”. Translated by Sarjuli et al. Yogyakarta: Yappendis.Google Scholar ↗
- Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation Theory, Models and Applications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar ↗
- Schinske, Jeffrey N . 2011. Taming the Testing/Grading Cycle in Lecture Classes Centered Around Open-Ended Assessment.. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA).Reprinted with permission from Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 40, No. 4.Google Scholar ↗
- Slameto. 2001. Education Evaluation. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.Google Scholar ↗
- Uno, Hamzah (2006). Theory of Motivation and Its Measurement Analysis in the Field of Education. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.Google Scholar ↗
- Zaini, Hisyham. 2007. Active Learning Strategy. Yogyakarta : CTSD.Google Scholar ↗