@article {1302,
	title = {QUALITY AND FEATURE OF MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS IN EDUCATION},
	journal = {Problems of Education in the 21st Century},
	volume = {78},
	year = {2020},
	month = {August/2020},
	pages = {Continuous},
	type = {Original article},
	chapter = {576-594},
	abstract = {The quality of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) as well as the student{\textquoteright}s solve behavior in MCQs are educational concerns. MCQs cover wide educational content and can be immediately and accurately scored. However, many studies have found some flawed items in this exam type, thereby possibly resulting in misleading insights into students{\textquoteright} performance and affecting important decisions. This research sought to determine the characteristics of MCQs and factors that may affect the quality of MCQs by using item response theory (IRT) to evaluate data. For this, four samples of different sizes from US and China in secondary and higher education were chosen. Item difficulty and discrimination were determined using item response theory statistical item analysis models. Results were as follows. First, only a few guessing behaviors are included in MCQ exams because all data fit the two-parameter logistic model better than the three-parameter logistic model. Second, the quality of MCQs depended more on the degree of training of examiners and less on middle or higher education levels. Lastly, MCQs must be evaluated to ensure that high-quality items can be used as bases of inference in middle and higher education.},
	keywords = {higher education, item evaluation, item response theory, multiple-choice test, secondary education},
	issn = {1822-7864},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/20.78.576},
	url = {http://oaji.net/articles/2020/457-1596902595.pdf},
	author = {Bing Jia and Dan He and Zhemin Zhu}
}
@article {1044,
	title = {FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT ON AN INDIVIDUAL AND AN INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL ON THE WAY TO QUALITY CULTURE IN HIGHER EDUCATION},
	journal = {Problems of Education in the 21st Century},
	volume = {75},
	year = {2017},
	month = {February/2017},
	pages = {Continuous},
	type = {Original article},
	chapter = {54-71},
	abstract = {Several issues are always on the agenda in higher education, most notably quality assessment methods and whether this methodology has a direct influence on teaching, and the improvement of teaching quality by including effectiveness, efficiency, reliability, responsiveness as well as empathy. On the one hand it is a logical and a justified movement towards the standardisation of quality assessment procedures, but on the other hand, integration of an individualised approach, which would allow assessing one{\textquoteright}s performance in essence and providing solutions for different higher education practice specifics, which we can see both in higher education institutions internationally as well as locally.
The purpose of quality assessment is to define must-do and must-have things, so that higher education institutions would integrate emerging tendencies.
Transforming assessment is crucial for the performance of the entire institution, both in planning and in managing the everyday work of the institution, as well as by applying assessment methods to the academic staff and students individually. By acknowledging the results, additional decisions should be made, e.g., what strategies and methods should be used to promote teacher motivation, what should be done to achieve better study results, what do better performing students need, and how to approach those students who are performing poorly. This research aims to explore the formative assessment experience at the Riga Stradin{\v s} University (hereinafter RSU), which is crucial to nurture quality culture in higher education. The formative approach in quality allows you to build and strengthen the understanding of quality within the organisation showing that quality assessment is quality forming and altogether it is a continuous process.
},
	keywords = {formative assessment, higher education, quality assessment, quality assurance, quality culture},
	issn = {1822-7864},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/17.75.54},
	url = {http://journals.indexcopernicus.com/abstract.php?icid=1232393},
	author = {Tatjana   Koke and Nora Jansone-Ratinika and Rudite Koka}
}
@article {1069,
	title = {TEACHING AND LEARNING {\textendash} WHAT IS THIS IN TROUBLED SPACES?},
	journal = {Problems of Education in the 21st Century},
	volume = {75},
	year = {2017},
	month = {August/2017},
	pages = {Continuous},
	type = {Editorial},
	chapter = {322-323},
	abstract = {Teaching for five, 10, 15 years. Why are you still teaching? Why are you still teaching science subjects?
So, what is it about teaching that attracts you or in other words {\textendash} What is in it for you? Most importantly, what is in it for the learners, the community and the world?
Teaching is a double-binded affair with yourself and with others (learners, colleagues and others).  With every aspect of what you do the introspective and reflexive questioning and responses to why you teach how and what you teach has a historical and almost umbilical cord to your first days of teaching or even learning how to teach or becoming a teacher. Reflecting on these days may reveal much about the decision to teach or was it just an act of putting pen to the teacher degree application form because there was nothing else? Or was it {\textendash} {\textquotedblleft}My daughter has been working for an insurance company for five years and she is now unemployed. I told her to do teaching because she will always have a job{\textquotedblright} (a conversation with a school principal).
},
	keywords = {higher education, schooling, sustainable living},
	issn = {1822-7864},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/17.75.322 },
	url = {http://oaji.net/articles/2017/457-1503750186.pdf},
	author = {Angela James}
}
