Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 174 views

    Sample Tos

    Uploaded by

    Jenelin Enero
    This two-way table of specification outlines the distribution of questions for a test with 9 objectives across 3 levels of cognitive domain (Easy, Average, Difficult). Objective 1 is assigned 4 questions worth 8% of the test, with 2 knowledge questions, 1 comprehension, and 1 application. Objective 4 is assigned the most questions (8) worth 16% of the test, with 3 knowledge, 1 comprehension, 1 application, 1 analysis, 1 synthesis, and 1 evaluation question. In total, the test contains 50 questions worth 100% that are distributed according to the table across the 9 objectives and 3 cognitive domains (easy, average, difficult).

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sample Tos

    Uploaded by

    Jenelin Enero
    174 views10 pages
    This two-way table of specification outlines the distribution of questions for a test with 9 objectives across 3 levels of cognitive domain (Easy, Average, Difficult). Objective 1 is assigned 4 questions worth 8% of the test, with 2 knowledge questions, 1 comprehension, and 1 application. Objective 4 is assigned the most questions (8) worth 16% of the test, with 3 knowledge, 1 comprehension, 1 application, 1 analysis, 1 synthesis, and 1 evaluation question. In total, the test contains 50 questions worth 100% that are distributed according to the table across the 9 objectives and 3 cognitive domains (easy, average, difficult).

    Original Description:

    tos

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This two-way table of specification outlines the distribution of questions for a test with 9 objectives across 3 levels of cognitive domain (Easy, Average, Difficult). Objective 1 is assigned 4 questions worth 8% of the test, with 2 knowledge questions, 1 comprehension, and 1 application. Objective 4 is assigned the most questions (8) worth 16% of the test, with 3 knowledge, 1 comprehension, 1 application, 1 analysis, 1 synthesis, and 1 evaluation question. In total, the test contains 50 questions worth 100% that are distributed according to the table across the 9 objectives and 3 cognitive domains (easy, average, difficult).

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as xlsx, pdf, or txt
    174 views10 pages

    Sample Tos

    Uploaded by

    Jenelin Enero
    This two-way table of specification outlines the distribution of questions for a test with 9 objectives across 3 levels of cognitive domain (Easy, Average, Difficult). Objective 1 is assigned 4 questions worth 8% of the test, with 2 knowledge questions, 1 comprehension, and 1 application. Objective 4 is assigned the most questions (8) worth 16% of the test, with 3 knowledge, 1 comprehension, 1 application, 1 analysis, 1 synthesis, and 1 evaluation question. In total, the test contains 50 questions worth 100% that are distributed according to the table across the 9 objectives and 3 cognitive domains (easy, average, difficult).

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as xlsx, pdf, or txt
    of 10

    SAMPLE OF TWO-WAY Table Of Specification

    No. of LEVEL OF COGNITIVE DOMAIN


    Objectives Percentage Knowledge & Comprehension Analyzing /
    Hours Application
    :Remembering / Understanding Evaluating
    % 60% 15% 15%
    a 16 36% 22% 10.909 5% 2.727 5%
    b 18 41% 25% 12.273 6% 3.068 6%
    c 10 23% 14% 6.818 3% 1.705 3%
    44 100% 30.000 7.500

    11 2 3 2
    12 3 3 2
    7 2 2 1
    30 7 8 5

    LEVEL OF COGNITIVE DOMAIN


    Knowledge (Remembering)
    Comprehension (Understanding)
    Application
    Analysis
    Synthesis (Creating)
    Evaluation
    cation
    VE DOMAIN No. of Item
    Analyzing / Items Placement
    Creating
    Evaluating
    15% 10%
    2.727 4% 1.818 18 1-18
    3.068 4% 2.045 20 19-38
    1.705 2% 1.136 11 39-50
    7.500 5.000 50 50

    18
    20
    12
    50
    Submission of Required Reports

    TOS Test Questions


    Subject Teachers (7/26/19) (7/29/19)
    MANINGGO Artemio S.
    Math 7 SAWANGA Rosalie R.
    TUCBO Lovely Pearl
    MARTIREZ Karen Ann A.
    Math 8 NADONZA Amor M.
    DAYHAM Igieanne Mae V.
    VELLECERA Jose D.
    Math 9
    JUNTILLA Ellson A.
    CUBAR Nida D.
    Math 10
    PADREQUIL Mary Joy D.
    HUGNAC Genalyn Q.
    Science 7
    BACUS Carmelita O.
    SALVA Rubie M.
    Science 8

    ALURO April May W.


    Science 9 DELA CRUZ Letecia C.
    GEALON Ma. Lourdes C.
    BRIONES Minda C.
    Science 10
    SAMSON Apolinario
    PECANTE Glorieta D.
    English 7 PARILLA Adeliza D.
    DULLENTE Jenmarie H.
    TABOCLAON Donata Y.
    English 8
    AMPUAN Annalee T.
    DELA ROMA Queene Bee Marie Z.
    English 9
    GELI Honey Rose B.
    MANAGASE Johanna P.
    English 10
    ECHEVERIA Dale O.
    OPADA Mary Ann A.
    Filipino 7 VALLECERA April Rose T.
    MIRA Roselyn J.
    ALERIA Evelyn C.
    Filipino 8
    BUG-OS Rosemarie L.
    CAILING Genny T.
    Filipino 9

    BITOON Ma. Angelie A.


    Filipino 10 BUNAYOG Mesilda C.
    CAILING Genny T.
    PERPETUA Bernadette O.
    AP 7 MIRA Roselyn J.
    COLUMBRES Eufresino
    GEALON Ma. Lourdes C.
    AP 8
    AP 8 OMEGA Engeline L.
    MIRA Roselyn J.
    SALALIMA Josie A.
    OMEGA Engeline L.
    AP 9 JUMILLA Norcili P.
    GEALON Ma. Lourdes C.

    PACALDO Renelda J.
    AP 10

    VILLARIN Jovelyn B.
    MAPEH 7 DAGONDON Stacy S.
    CULAJARA Edilyn A.

    MAPEH 8

    KILAT Mirasol F.
    MAPEH 9

    SOBIONO Ginalyn M
    MAPEH 10
    GUZMAN Letecia V

    ESP 7

    GEALON Ma. Lourdes C.


    ESP 8
    ALURO April May W.
    ALURO April May W.
    OMEGA Engeline L.
    JUMILLA Norcili P.
    ESP 9 GEALON Ma. Lourdes C.
    MIRA Roselyn J.

    ECHEM Irish Cindy Joy A.


    ESP 10

    BAGARES Jeanie V.
    MESAJON Fe C.
    TLE 7 (Bread & Pastry)
    ABEJO Emeline
    CAGA-ANAN Honeylyn
    SOLIS Celsa D.
    TLE 8

    Agriculture
    RAMOS Evelyn S.
    TLE 9 MESAJON Fe C.
    ICT
    SOLIS Celsa D.
    Agriculture
    RAMOS Evelyn S.
    OPADA Mary Ann A.

    TLE 10
    ICT
    ALERIA Evelyn C.
    TLE 10

    EPAS
    SOLIS Celsa D.

    SHS
    Grade 11
    GEN MATH DAZO Nerissa V.
    Politics & Government SALALIMA Josie A.
    Earth & Life Science DAYHAM Igieanne Mae V.

    Komunikasyon at
    Pananaliksik sa wika at ENERO Jenelin S.
    Kulturang Pilipino

    Grade 12
    PERDEV RECAMADAS Pamela Jane B.

    Understanding Culture, RECAMADAS Pamela Jane B.


    Society, and Politics
    Economics BALILING Raymond John M.
    Philosophy BALILING Raymond John M.
    Empowerment Tech BALILING Raymond John M.
    Malikhaing Pagdulat ENERO Jenelin S.
    DRRM RECAMADAS Pamela Jane B.
    Bread & Pastry COSMIANO Charlie H.
    SAMPLE OF TWO-WAY Table Of Specification
    LEVEL OF COGNITIVE DOMAIN
    Percentag EASY ( 60% ) AVERAGE ( 30% ) DIFFICULT ( 10% ) Item
    Objecti No. of e No. of Placemen
    ves Hours Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis Systhesis Evaluation Items t
    % 40% 20% 20% 10% 5% 5%
    3.20% 2 1.6% 1 1.6% 1 0.8% 0 0.4% 0 0.4% 0 4 1-4
    1 120 8%
    3.20% 2 1.6% 1 1.6% 1 0.8% 0 0.4% 0 0.4% 0 4 5-8
    2 120 8%
    3.20% 2 1.6% 1 1.6% 1 0.8% 0 0.4% 0 0.4% 0 4 9-12
    3 120 8%
    6.40% 3 3.2% 1 3.2% 2 1.6% 1 0.8% 1 0.8% 0 8 13-20
    4 240 16%
    6.40% 3 3.2% 1 3.2% 1 1.6% 1 0.8% 1 0.8% 1 8 21-28
    5 240 16%
    3.20% 2 1.6% 1 1.6% 1 0.8% 0 0.4% 0 0.4% 0 4 29-32
    6 120 8%
    7 120 8% 3.20% 1 1.6% 1 1.6% 1 0.8% 1 0.4% 0 0.4% 0 4 32-36
    8 180 12% 4.80% 2 2.4% 2 2.4% 1 1.2% 1 0.6% 0 0.6% 0 6 37-42
    9 240 16% 6.40% 3 3.2% 1 3.2% 1 1.6% 1 0.8% 1 0.8% 1 8 43-50
    1500 100% 40% 20 20% 10 20% 10 10% 5 5% 3 5% 2 50 1-50
    BUGO NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
    Bugo, Cagayan de Oro City

    VALIDATED TABLE OF SPECIFICATION in GENERAL MATHEMATICS (FINAL EXAMINATION)

    LEVEL OF COGNITIVE DOMAIN


    No. of Percentage EASY ( 60% ) AVERAGE ( 30% ) DIFFICULT ( 10% )
    TOPICS
    Hours Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis Systhesis Evaluation
    % 40% 20% 20% 10% 5% 5%
    SIMPLE INTEREST 120 7% 2.86% 2 1.4% 1 1.4% 2 0.7% 1 0.4% 0 0.4%
    COMPOUND INTEREST 360 21% 8.57% 4 4.3% 3 4.3% 0 2.1% 0 1.1% 0 1.1%
    SIMPLE ANNUITY 120 7% 2.86% 1 1.4% 0 1.4% 1 0.7% 1 0.4% 0 0.4%
    GENERAL ANNUITY 240 14% 5.71% 0 2.9% 0 2.9% 1 1.4% 0 0.7% 1 0.7%
    DEFERRED ANNUITY 240 14% 5.71% 0 2.9% 0 2.9% 0 1.4% 0 0.7% 0 0.7%
    STOCKS AND BONDS 240 14% 5.71% 0 2.9% 1 2.9% 1 1.4% 0 0.7% 0 0.7%
    LOGICAL REASONING 360 21% 8.57% 2 4.3% 0 4.3% 0 2.1% 0 1.1% 0 1.1%
    TOTAL 1680 100% 40% 9 20% 5 20% 5 10% 2 5% 1 5%

    Prepared by:

    NERISSA V. DAZO
    Math Teacher

    Checked by:
    ROEL R. LAMBERTE
    Principal I
    N)

    0% ) No. of Item
    valuation Items Placement
    5%
    0 6 1-6
    0 7 7-13
    0 3 14-16
    0 2 17-18
    1 1 19
    0 2 20-21
    0 2 22-23
    1 23

    You might also like