Article Sidebar

Submitted
18 January 2021
Published
2 May 2021
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 344 Download : 959

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study aims to describe: (1) the proportion of cognitive levels; (2) the proportion of items on the dimensions of factual and conceptual knowledge in the basic competencies of grades IV, V, and VI; 3) the quality of the items based on the dimensions of factual knowledge in terms of content and context; and 4) the quality of the items based on the dimensions of conceptual knowledge in terms of content and context on the school exam questions for the subject of Natural Sciences for the 2018/2019 academic year. This type of research is a descriptive study with the method of documentation. The results obtained are: (1) The proportion of cognitive levels, including the level of knowing (C1) as many as 7 items (17.50%), understanding level (C2) as many as 20 items (50%), the level of implementing (C3) as many as 6 items (15%), and the level of analysis (C4) as many as 7 items (17.50%); (2) The proportion of items based on the dimensions of knowledge, including the dimensions of factual knowledge for class IV as many as 7 items (17.50%), class V with 4 items (10.00%), and class VI as many as 5 items (12, 50%). The dimensions of conceptual knowledge in class IV were 4 items (10.00%), class V had 10 items (25.00%), and class VI had 10 items (25.00%); (3) The results of expert validation based on the dimensions of factual knowledge in terms of content contained 7 items (17.50%) and context there were 9 items (22.50%); and (4) The results of expert validation based on the conceptual knowledge dimension in terms of content contained 9 items (22.50%) and context there were 15 items (37.50%).

Keywords

analysis of items dimensions of knowledge content

Article Details

License
Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Author Biography

Yugo Rahmadhani, Program Magister Pendidikan Dasar Universitas Bengkulu

Saya bertugas sebagai guru di SD Negeri 03 Kepahiang
How to Cite
Rahmadhani, Y., Koto, I. K., & Winarni, E. W. (2021). Analisis Kualitas Butir Soal Ujian Sekolah Mata Pelajaran IPA Berdasarkan Dimensi Pengetahuan Faktual dan Konseptual Ditinjau Dari Konten dan Konteks. Jurnal Pembelajaran Dan Pengajaran Pendidikan Dasar, 4(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.33369/dikdas.v4i2.14213
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Abidin, Y., Mulyati, T., & Yunansah, H. (2018). Pembelajaran Literasi. Bandung: Bumi Aksara.
  2. Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Asessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. A Bridged Edition. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
  3. Basuki, I., & Hariyanto. (2014). Asesmen Pembelajaran. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
  4. Berman, A. L., & Kuden J. L. (2017). Literacy Science. Journal Agriculture to Zoology Elsevier Limited. ISBN 978-0-08-100664-1
  5. BSNP. (2018). Buletin BSNP: Media Komunikasi dan Dialog Standar Pendidikan. Jakarta: BSNP.
  6. Febyronita, D. & Giyanto. (2016). Survei Tingkat Kemampuan Siswa Dalam Mengerjakan Tes Berbentuk Jawaban Singkat (Short Answer Test) Pada Mata Pelajaran IPS Terpadu (Geografi) Kelas VII di SMP Negeri 1 Mesuji Tahun Pelajaran 2015/2016. Jurnal Swarnabhumi, 1 (1), 17-21.
  7. Gaol, L. P., Khumaedi, M., & Masrukan. (2017). Pengembangan Instrumen Penilaian Karakter Percaya Diri pada Mata Pelajaran Matematika Sekolah Menengah Pertama. Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation, 6 (1), 63-70.
  8. Jusuf. R., Sopandi, W., Ratnawulan, A., & Sa’ud, U. D. (2018). Profil Karakteristik Ujian Nasional IPA SD Berdasarkan Taksonomi Bloom Revisi. Jurnal Visipena, 9 (1), 1115-1127.
  9. Mujib, N. R., Toenlioe, A. J. E., & Praherdhiono, H.. (2018). Analisis Butir Soal Ujian Nasional IPA SD/MI Tahun 2015 Sampai Dengan 2017 Berdasarkan Taksonomi Bloom. Jurnal JKTP, 1 (2), 149-158.
  10. Nofiana, M., & Julianto, T. (2018). Upaya Meningkatkan Literasi Sains Pembelajaran Berbasis Keunggulan Lokal. Jurnal Tadris Pendidikan Biologi, 9 (2), 24-35.
  11. Pertiwi, U. D., Atanti, R. D., & Ismawati, R. (2018). Pentingnya Literasi Sains Pada Pembelajaran IPA SMP Abad 21. Indonesian Journal of Natural Science Education (IJNSE),1 (1), 24–29.
  12. Puspendik. (2018). Panduan Penulisan Soal. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
  13. ________. (2016). Panduan Penulisan Soal. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
  14. Sugiyono. (2020). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Alfabeta.
  15. Sulaeman, A. A. (2016). Modul Guru Pembelajar Mata Pelajaran IPA Sekolah Menengah Pertama (SMP), Kelompok Kompetensi Guru, Pengembangan Instrumen Penilaian Pembelajaran. Pusat Pengembangan dan Pemberdayaan Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam (PPPPTK IPA) Direktorat Jenderal Guru dan Tenaga Kependidikan. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
  16. Tala, S. & Vesterinen, T.M. (2015). Nature of Science Contextualized : Studying Nature of Science With Scientists. Journal Science and Education, 24(4), 435-457.
  17. Winarni, E. W. (2018). Pendekatan Ilmiah Dalam Pembelajaran Kreatif Dan Inovatif. Bengkulu: FKIP UNIB.
  18. Winarni, E. W., Hambali, D., & Purwandari, E. P. (2020). Analysis of Language and Scientific Literacy Skills for 4th Grade Elementary School Students through Discovery Learning and ICT Media. International Journal of Instruction, 13(2), 213-222.
  19. Wulandari, N. & Sholihin, H. (2016). Analisis Kemampuan Literasi Sains pada Aspek Pengetahuan dan Kompetensi Sains Siswa SMP pada Materi Kalor. EDUSAINS, 8 (1), 66–73.