1.

0 Introduction
This paper contains the analysis of the data on students performance in the English Test Unit
that has been done in April 2014. The school that we have chosen for this project is Sekolah
Menengah Kebangsaan Sungai Abong located in Muar, Johor. The test paper was distributed
to students in Class 2 RKA 1 that consist of 30 form 2 students. Haji Norulhisham is the
current principle of the school and the teacher that we had adhere to regarding this project
was Madam Norashikin binti Abu BakarThe students in Class 2 RKA 1 consist of 22 girls
and 8 boys.

2.0 Planning and Construction
(TOS)





















2.5
No. NAMES MARKS
1 Tan Jia Yi 30
2 Intan Nurbalqis Binti Razali 28
3 Amanda Ong Mei Mei 28
4 Farah Wahidah Binti Zubir 28
5 Nurul Farhana Binti Sabarudin 27
6 Afini Putri Binti Bidin 27
7 Omar Athari 27
8 Sim Wei Fan 27
9 Chia Zhe Yie 27
10 Gui Qi Yuan 27
11 Muhammad Fakhruddin Bin Alias 27
12 Nur Qistina Safia Binti Rosdi 27
13 Lee Jie Ying 27
14 Firda Fareeza Binti Mohamed Ramli 26
15 Ahmad Nur Abid BinMohd Sidek 26
16 Ng Wan Thong 26
17 Ong Song Ling 26
18 Jessica Loh Seh Min 25
19 Chua Jing Er 25
20 Muhammad Hazir Mirza 25
21 Muhd Amsyar Akmal bin Mohd Amin 25
22 Orked Syahira Binti Zulkipli 25
23 Muhammad Afiq Bin Zulkipli 25
24 Fareena Tasya Binti Onn 24
25 Marina Salehuddin 24
26 Faiz Dollah Bin Shukor 24
27 Lau Zhi Wei 23
28 Aiman Shahmi Bin A. Jabar 22
29 Angeline Ng Ee Yinn 21
30 Amirul Syafiq Bin Azman 20


3.0 Assembling and Administering



4.0 Scoring and Grading
Students Grade

No.


Students Name

Marks

Percentage

Grade
1 Tan Jia Yi 30 100 A+
2 Intan Nurbalqis Binti Razali 28 93 A+
3 Amanda Ong Mei Mei 28 93 A+
4 Farah Wahidah Binti Zubir 28 93 A+
5 Nurul Farhana Binti Sabarudin 27 90 A+
6 Afini Putri Binti Bidin 27 90 A+
7 Omar Athari 27 90 A+
8 Sim Wei Fan 27 90 A+
9 Chia Zhe Yie 27 90 A+
10 Gui Qi Yuan 27 90 A+
11 Muhammad Fakhruddin Bin
Alias
27 90 A+
12 Nur Qistina Safia Binti Rosdi 27 90 A+
13 Lee Jie Ying 27 90 A+
14 Firda Fareeza Binti Mohamed
Ramli
26 87 A
15 Ahmad Nur Abid BinMohd
Sidek
26 87 A
16 Ng Wan Thong 26 87 A
17 Ong Song Ling 26 87 A
18 Jessica Loh Seh Min 25 83 A
19 Chua Jing Er 25 83 A
20 Muhammad Hazir Mirza 25 83 A
21 Muhd Amsyar Akmal bin Mohd
Amin
25 83 A
22 Orked Syahira Binti Zulkipli 25 83 A
23 Muhammad Afiq Bin Zulkipli 25 83 A
24 Fareena Tasya Binti Onn 24 80 A
25 Marina Salehuddin 24 80 A
26 Faiz Dollah Bin Shukor 24 80 A
27 Lau Zhi Wei 23 77 B+
28 Aiman Shahmi Bin A. Jabar 22 73 B
29 Angeline Ng Ee Yinn 21 70 B
30 Amirul Syafiq Bin Azman 20 67 B-

MARKS GRADES
90-100 A+
80-89 A
75-79 B+
70-74 B
65-69 B-
60-64 C+



5.0 Interpreting the scores
Table of Frequency

Class Interval


Tally

Frequency
29-30
/
1
27-28
//// //// // 12
25-26 //// //// 10
23-24 //// 4
21-22
//
2
19-20 / 1
Total 30


Scores Number of students
29-30 1
27-28 12
25-26 10
23-24 4
21-22 2
19-20 1



Mode, Median and Mean
MODE
= 27 (9)

MEAN
(30 + 28 + 28 +28 + 27 + 27 + 27 + 27 + 27 + 27 + 27 + 27 + 27 + 26 + 26 + 26 + 26 + 25 + 25 + 25
+ 25 + 25 + 25 + 24 + 24 + 24 + 23 + 22 + 21 + 20) / 30
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
29-30 27-28 25-26 23-24 21-22 19-20
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

Scores
769 / 30 = 25.63
MEDIAN
20 21 22 23 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 28 28 28
30
= 26

6.0 Item Analysis

Item No 1
A

B* C D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 0

10 0 0 100% .0
Lower 10

0 10 0 0

1. Index difficulty
(formula)
2. Index discrimination for answer key
3. Index discrimination for distracters (upper and lower)

Analysis
(..)















Item No 2
A

B* C D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 0

10 0 0 95% .1
Lower 10

1 9 0 0

Item No 3
A

B C D* Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 0

0 0 10 100% .0
Lower 10

0 0 0 10

Item No 4
A*

B C D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 10

0 0 0 100% .0
Lower 10

10 0 0 0 100% .0

Item No 5
A*

B C D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 10

0 0 0 90% 0.2
Lower 10

8 1 1 0

Item No 6
A

B C* D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 0

10 0 0 100% 0.0
Lower 10

0 10 0 0

Item No 7
A

B C* D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 0

0 9 1 90% 0.2
Lower 10

0 1 9 0

Item No 8
A

B* C D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 0

10 0 0 100 0.0
Lower 10

0 10 0 0





Item No 9
A*

B C* D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 10

0 0 0 100% 0.0
Lower 10

10 0 0 0

Based on the data, the index difficulty for item 9 is 100%. The index difficulty formula for item
9 is ( 10 + 10 / 2 ) x 10 = 100%. Whereas the index discrimination for item 9 is .0 which is
calculated through the formula of (10 10) and putting a decimal point to the left. For item 9, the
index discrimination for distracters is very low because none of the participant chosen any of the
distracters. From here, we can see that this item has high difficulty level and very low
discrimination making it too easy for the students to answer. In future research or test item
making, perhaps this item should be re-adjusted in order to test the students thinking skills.















Item No 10
A

B C* D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 0

0 10 0 85 0.3
Lower 10

0 1 7 2

Item No 11
A

B* C D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 3

7 0 0 40 0.6
Lower 10

2 1 7 0

Item No 12
A

B C D* Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 0

0 0 10 100% 0.0
Lower 10

0 0 0 10










Item No 13
A

B C D* Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 3

1 0 6 40 0.4
Lower 10

6 1 1 2

Based on the data, the index difficulty for item number 13 is 40%. The index difficulty formula
for item 13 is ( 6 + 2 / 2 ) x 10 = 40%. Whereas the index discrimination for item 13 is 0.4 which
is calculated through the formula of (6 2) and putting a decimal point to the left. For the
distracters, for the upper 10, 3 participants answered A, one participant answered B, and 0
student answered C. Whereas for the lower 10, 6 students answered A, 1 student answered B,
and 1 students answered C. Thus it could be seen that the index discrimination for the distracters
can be considered as high. From here, we can see that this item has low level of difficulty and
moderate level of discrimination making it a bit difficult for the students to answer. In future
research or test item making, perhaps this item should be re-adjusted because it is a bit difficult.

Item No 14
A

B C* D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 0

1 8 1 75 0.1
Lower 10

0 0 7

Based on data, the index difficulty level for item 14 is 75%. This is calculated through the
formula of (8 +7 / 2) x 10 = 75%. Whereas the index discrimination for item 14 is 0.1 which is
calculated through (8-7) and putting a decimal point to the left of the answer. For the distracters,
for the upper 10, there is 1 student that answered B and another 1 student answered D. Whereas
for the lower 10, 3 students chosen answered D. From here, it could be seen that the index
discrimination for the distracters can be considered as moderate. Based on this data, the difficulty
percentage of this item is moderate with very little discrimination. This item thus can be used for
future test making.
Item No 15
A

B C D* Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 0

2 0 8 70 0.2
Lower 10

0 1 3 6

Item No 16
A

B* C D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 0

8 0 2 85 0.-1
Lower 10

0 9 0 0

Item No 17
A

B* C D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 1

6 3 0 55 0.1
Lower 10

1 5 4 0
Item No 18
A*

B C D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 10

0 0 0 85 0.3
Lower 10

7 0 3 0

Item No 19
A

B C D* Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 0

0 0 10 75 0.5
Lower 10

0 4 1 5

Item No 20
A B* C D Difficulty Discrimination

Upper 10 1

9 0 0 8 0.2
Lower 10

2 7 0 1

Item No 21
A

B* C D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 0

10 0 0 95 0.1
Lower 10

0 9 1 0

Item No 22
A

B* C D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 0

10 0 0 90 0.2
Lower 10

0 8 2 0

Item No 23
A

B C* D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 0

0 10 0 95 0.1
Lower 10

0 1 9 0

Item No 24
A

B C* D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 1

1 8 0 65 0.3
Lower 10

3 2 5 0

Item No 25
A

B C D* Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 0

0 0 10 90% 0.2
Lower 10

0 1 1 8

Item No 26
A*

B C D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 9

0 0 1 85 0.1
Lower 10

8 2 1 1

Item No 27
A

B C* D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 0

0 10 0 100% 0.0
Lower 10

0 0 10 0

Item No 28
A*

B C D Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 10

0 0 0 100% 0.0
Lower 10

10 0 0 0

Item No 29
A

B C D* Difficulty Discrimination
Upper 10 0

0 0 10 90% 0.2
Lower 10 1 1 0 8


Item No 30
A

B* C D Difficulty Discrimination Decision Remark
Upper
10
2

8 0 0 70 0.2 (easy or moderate)
70 above easy
40-70 average
30 and below
difficult

1) Poor/
difficult/
easy
2) Remark
accept /
reject

Lower
10

4 6 0 0

Summary table

7.0 Conclusion
What we learn from item analysis
From all of the items, discuss which should we include or not