Main Article Content

Abstract

Kegiatan pengabdian pada masyarakat (PPM-2020) melibatkan 20 guru kelas IV, V dan VI yang berasal dari sekolah inti dan imbas dalam lingkup kota Curup, Provinsi Bengkulu. Penentuan lokasi dan peserta dilakukan secara nonrandom sampling dengan teknik convenience sampling. Data diperoleh dari wawancara dan angket pengetahuan guru tentang karakteristik butir tes untuk mengukur kemampuan berfikir tingkat tinggi (HOT). Data diolah untuk menentukan persentase (%), rata-rata, dan standar baku untuk dideskripsikan secara kualiatif dan kuantiatif. Jawaban angket didalami melalui wawancara. Berdasar hasil analisis data disimpulkan bahwa (a) pengetahuan awal 20 peserta tentang karakteristik butir tes HOT relatif bervariasi, (b) pengetahuan peserta tentang karakteristik butir tes HOT mengalami perubahan setelah mengikuti kegiatan (c) keterampilan peserta dalam perakitan butir tes HOT menunjukkan peningkatan. Implikasi dari kegiatan ini adalah (1) kegiatan yang sejenis dapat dilakukan dalam skala lebih luas untuk beberapa gugus sekolah dan (2) perlu panduan praktis perakitan butir tes HOT untuk guru-guru Sekolah Dasar.

 Keywords: Pendapat guru-guru, Penyusunan tes HOT, Kompetensi guru

Article Details

How to Cite
Koto, I., Susanta, A., & Winarni, E. W. (2020). PeningkatanKompetensi Pedagogik Guru-guru Sekolah Dasar Tentang Tes Keterampilan Berfikir Tingkat Tinggi Higher Order Thinking Skill. Jurnal Abdi Pendidikan, 1(2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.33369/abdipendidikan.1.2.99-111

References

  1. Amare, N. (2006). To slide ware or not to slideware: Students’ experiences with PowerPointTM vs. Lecture. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 36(3), pp. 297–308.
  2. Blake, R. S. (March, 1982). Discovery versus expository instructional strategies: Literature review and implications for instructional design. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Society for Performance and Instruction.
  3. Brookhart, S. M. (1999). The art and science of classroom assessment: The missing part of pedagogy. Washington, D.C: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education and Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
  4. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage publications.
  5. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R., S (2016). Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics. 5(1). pp. 1-4. doi: 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11.
  6. Haenen, J. (2001). Outlining the teaching–learning process: Piotr Gal’perin’s contribution, Learning and Instruction. Vol. 1, pp. 157–170
  7. Hudson, B., Henderson, S. & Hudson, A. (2015) Developing mathematical thinking in the primary classroom: Liberating students and teachers as learners of mathematics, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 47(3), pp. 374-398.
  8. Kennedy, M. (2016). Parsing the practice of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education. Vol 67 (1), pp. 6-17.
  9. Kuechler, W. L. & Simkin. M. G.(2003). How well do multiple choice tests evaluate student understandingin computer programming classes? Journal of Information Systems Education. Vol. 14(4), p. 389.
  10. Manizade, A. & Orrill, C. H. (2020). International perspectives on frameworks for mathematics teachers’ knowing and quality of mathematics instruction, Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 22(2), pp. 93-97, DOI: 10.1080/14794802.2020.1798809
  11. Marsh, H. W. (1996). Positive and Negative Global Self-Esteem: A Substantively Meaningful Distinction or Arti factors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 70(4), pp. 810-819.
  12. Mokhtar, M. M., Jamil, M., & Yaakub, R. (2020). Debate as a tool for learning and facilitating based on higher order thinking skills in the process of argumentative essay writing. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. Vol. 19(6). pp. 62-75. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.6.4
  13. Olsen, B., & Buchanan, R. (2019). An investigation of teachers encouraged to reform grading practices in secondary schools. American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 20 (10), pp. 1–36. DOI: 10.3102/0002831219841349.
  14. Ozaslan, E. N., & Maden, Z. (2013). The use of power point presentations at in the department of foreign language education at middle east technical university. Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, 2, pp.234-246.
  15. Paxton. M. (2000). A linguistic perspective on multiplechoice questioning. Assessment andEvaluation in Higher Education. Bath: Jun 2000. Vol. 25 (2); p.109-224.
  16. Soulé, H. & Warrick, T. (2015). Defining 21st century readiness for all students; What we know and how to get there. Psychology of Aesthetics, creativity, and the Art, 9(2): 178-188.
  17. Voogt dan Robin (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3)..http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938