NONE 20260327091946567 wseas/wseas content-registration-form+ja@crossref.org content-registration-form WSEAS TRANSACTIONS ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT 1790-5079 2224-3496 Pepkolaj Lekë Department of Computer Science, Metropolitan Tirana University, ALBANIA Sander Kovaçi Department of Mathematical Engineering, Polytechnic University of Tirana, ALBANIA Muhammad Irfan Department of Mathematics Education Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta INDONESIA In recent years, there has been much discussion in Albania about the high school tests in mathematics. Their structure is almost the same every year. Despite the many discussions, there is no scientific study on this topic. This study aims to analyze the formulation of the test so that students feel comfortable and perform at their best. The methodology used includes several important parameters such as: types of questions/answers, distractors, language of questions, evaluation of tests using the MATH taxonomy and NISS skills; customization of the test and connection to high school mathematics objectives. The results of the study show that the test has two types of questions, closed and open, in a ratio of two to one. Distractors are not based on common errors, such as those resulting from poorly applied rules. Confusions due to ambiguity, mathematical logic, and syntactic problems are found. Almost all components of the MATH taxonomy are present where factual knowledge and fact systems predominate, followed by justification, interpretation, and understanding, but the components of information transfer and implications, conjecture, and comparison are missing. Among the Niss skills, problem solving, formulation, and resolution skills predominate, followed by mathematical thinking skills, while representational competence is missing. A weak point is the personalization of the text, where there are no questions with customizable difficulty levels. The test is in line with the objectives of the curriculum. Ultimately, this study is necessary for those who formulate admission tests and for mathematics teachers. 03 27 2026 03 27 2026 294 24 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en_US 10.37394/232015.2026.22.24 https://wseas.com/journals/ead/2026/a485115-1408.pdf C. R. Smith and C. Julie, “Mathematical question types,” in Proceedings of the 20th annual national congress of the association for mathematics education of south AfricaDemystifying mathematics, 2014, pp. 223– 233, [Online]. https://www.amesa.org.za/AMESA2014/Pro ceedings/papers/Long%20Papers/19.%20CH ARLES%20SMITH%20- %20MATHEMATICAL%20QUESTION%2 0TYPES.pdf (Accessed Date: June 7, 2025). A. Kan, O. Bulut, and D. C. Cormier, “The impact of item stem format on the dimensional structure of mathematics assessments,” Educ. Assess., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 13–32, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2018.1545 569. M. C. Rodriguez, “Choosing an item format,” in Large-scale assessment programs for all students, Routledge, 2012, pp. 182–197. T. M. Haladyna and M. C. Rodriguez, Developing and validating test items. Routledge, 2013. K. Marcq, E. J. C. Donayre, and J. Braeken, “The role of item format in the PISA 2018 mathematics literacy assessment: A crosscountry study,” Stud. Educ. Eval., vol. 83, p. 101401, 2024, https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/zpt45. P. L. Ferrari, “E-learning e matematica: Rappresentazione e comunicazione in matematica, le potenzialità dell’elearning,” L’educazione Mat. N, vol. 1, pp. 63–70, 2013. M. C. Rodriguez, R. J. Kettler, and S. N. Elliott, “Distractor functioning in modified items for test accessibility,” Sage Open, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 2158244014553586, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014553586. S. Vinner, “The pseudo-conceptual and the pseudo-analytical thought processes in mathematics learning,” Educ. Stud. Math., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 97–129, 1997. M. Irfan, T. Nusantara, S. Subanji, and . Sisworo, “Students know the concept but are incorrect in solving the proportional problem: How does it happen?,” Int. J. Sci. Math. Technol. Learn., vol. 27, no. 2, 2020, doi: 10.18848/2327-7971/CGP/v27i02/1-12. R. Duval, Sémiosis et pensée humaine: registres sémiotiques et apprentissages intellectuels, vol. 4. Peter Lang Berne, 1995. M. A. Alkhateeb, “The language used in the 8th grade mathematics textbook,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 15, no. 7, p. em1719, 2019, https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/106111. P. L. Ferrari, Educazione matematica, lingua, linguaggi. Costruire, condividere e comunicare matematica in classe., vol. 1. UTET Università, 2021. C. Walkington, V. Clinton, and A. Sparks, “The effect of language modification of mathematics story problems on problemsolving in online homework,” Instr. Sci., vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 499–529, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09481-6. R. Mohamed, M. Ghazali, and M. A. Samsudin, “A Systematic Review on Mathematical Language Learning Using PRISMA in Scopus Database,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 16, no. 8, p. em1868, May 2020, doi: 10.29333/ejmste/8300. C. B. Hornburg, S. A. Schmitt, and D. J. Purpura, “Relations between preschoolers’ mathematical language understanding and specific numeracy skills,” J. Exp. Child Psychol., vol. 176, pp. 84–100, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.07.005. K. O’halloran, Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. A&C Black, 2008. H. Yang and P. Yu, “The study about the influence of mathematics language on mathematics reading,” Res. Math. Educ., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 267–278, 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.7468/jksmed.2015.19.4.2 67. (text in Italian) L. Pepkolaj, Difficulties in mathematics: self-training courses in elearning, (“Difficoltà in matematica: percorsi di autoformazione in e-learning”), PhD Thesis. 2015. R. Duval, “A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics,” Educ. Stud. Math., vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 103–131, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-0400-z. D. Abrahamson, R. G. Lee, A. G. Negrete, and J. F. Gutiérrez, “Coordinating visualizations of polysemous action: Values added for grounding proportion,” ZDM - Int. J. Math. Educ., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 79–93, 2014, doi: 10.1007/s11858-013-0521-7. C. W. Suryaningrum, P. Purwanto, S. Subanji, H. Susanto, Y. D. Ningtyas, and M. Irfan, “Semiotic reasoning emerges in constructing properties of a rectangle: A study of adversity quotient,” J. Math. Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.22342/jme.11.1.9766.95-110. L. Pepkolaj, S. Kapia, and V. Hoxha, “Disa aspekte në krijimin e testeve matematikore,” in 16th International Conference, 2025, p. 190. G. Smith, L. Wood, M. Coupland, B. Stephenson, K. Crawford, and G. Ball, “Constructing mathematical examinations to assess a range of knowledge and skills,” Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 65–77, 1996, https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739960270109. S. M. D’Souza and L. N. Wood, “Designing assessment using the MATH taxonomy,” in Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group Australasia, Deakin University, 2003, [Online]. https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/6 622/1/2003001060.pdf (Accessed Date: May 7, 2025). M. Blanco Abellán, M. R. Estela Carbonell, M. Ginovart Gisbert, and J. Saà Seoane, “Computer assisted assessment through moodle quizzes for calculus in an engineering undergraduate course,” Quad. di Ric. Didatt., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 78–83, 2009, [Online]. Available: https://hdl.handle.net/2117/3063 (Accessed Date: May 7, 2025). E. Darlington, “The use of Bloom’s taxonomy in advanced mathematics questions,” Proc. Br. Soc. Res. into Learn. Math., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 7–12, 2013. M. Niss, “The Danish KOM project and possible consequences for teacher education,” Cuad. Investig. y Form. en Educ. Matemática, 2011, [Online]. https://archivo.revistas.ucr.ac.cr//index.php/c ifem/article/view/6957/6643 (Accessed Date: May 7, 2025). J. Liu, C. Liu, and N. J. Belkin, “Personalization in text information retrieval: A survey,” J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 349–369, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24234. R. Segal, Y. Levi, and N. Movshovitz-Hadar, “Personalization of mathematics teaching based on student’s mathematicalcommunication-forms,” 2022, [Online]. https://www.dpublication.com/wpcontent/uploads/2022/07/17-7166.pdf (Accessed Date: June 17, 2025). S. Dutke, A. C. Grefe, and C. Leopold, “Learning from scientific texts: personalizing the text increases transfer performance and task involvement,” Eur. J. Psychol. Educ., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 499–513, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015- 0281-6. R. N. Baliber and J. J. Sañosa Jr, “Document Analysis on Constructive Alignment of Course Learning Outcomes to Learning Activities and Assessment,” International Journal of Research Publication and Review, vol. 2582, p. 7421, 2022, [Online]. https://ijrpr.com/uploads/V3ISSUE1/IJRPR2 400.pdf (Accessed Date: June 17, 2025). A. Martone and S. G. Sireci, “Evaluating alignment between curriculum, assessment, and instruction,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 1332–1361, 2009, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309341375. E. T. M. Aquino, “Analysis of the Alignment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment in Higher Education Mathematic,” Am. J. Multidiscip. Res. Innov., vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 8– 23, 2024, https://doi.org/10.54536/ajmri.v3i5.3376. L. D. Wilson and P. A. Kenney, “Classroom and large-scale assessment,” A Res. companion to Princ. Stand. Sch. Math., pp. 53–67, 2003. G. Kulm, L. Dager Wilson, and R. Kitchen, “Alignment of content and effectiveness of mathematics assessment items,” Educ. Assess., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 333–356, 2005, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1004_2. T. A. Romberg and L. D. Wilson, “Issues related to the development of an authentic assessment system for school mathematics,” Reform Sch. Math. authentic Assess., pp. 1– 18, 1995. A. Aliaj and J. Bushi, “Educational Assessment in Transition: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives from Albania,” Br. J. Educ., vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 1–12, 2025. R. R. Salazar and R. M. Gumanoy, “Differentiated Learning Activities: Effects on Students Motivation and Involvement in Teaching Mathematics,” Int. J. Res. Innov. Soc. Sci., vol. 9, no. 3s, pp. 1707–1714, 2025.