Article Sidebar

Submitted
February 19, 2021
Accepted
February 19, 2021
Published
December 10, 2020
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 54 Download : 106

Main Article Content

Abstract

The problems that occur so far, the teacher has never measured the proportion of questions in basic competencies at each level of Pancasila and Citizenship Education subjects. So it is not yet known the distribution of questions in the school exams in Pancasila and Citizenship Education subjects. In addition, the reality that occurs in the field is that the questions made by the teacher in the exam are mostly only focused on the cognitive realm, even though for Pancasila and Citizenship Education subjects, the affective domain is also implicit in Permendikbud No. 37 of 2018. This study aims to describe the proportion of questions in basic competencies per class level, cognitive level, affective level of school exam questions in Pancasila and Civics Education subjects in Bengkulu City SD / MI students for the 2019/2020 academic year. This type of research is descriptive research. The subjects in this study were Class VI SD / MI Bengkulu City. The object in this study is the suitability of the basic competencies of grades IV, V, and VI with school exam questions, school exam questions, the proportion of cognitive levels, the proportion of affective levels of school exam questions for Pancasila education subjects and the citizenship of SD / MI students in Bengkulu City for the 2019 academic year / 2020. The research instrument used was documentation in the form of school exam questions for Pancasila Education and Citizenship of SD / MI students of Bengkulu City for the 2019/2020 academic year. The research data were analyzed using the proportion of the cognitive level of the affective on the items analyzed then the percentage was calculated. The results showed that: 1) The proportion of questions in basic competence per class level, including the basic competency of class VI as many as 4 percentage items of 10%, class V of 9 percentage items of 22.5% and class VI of 27 items a percentage of 67.5%; 2) The proportion of cognitive level, including the level of understanding (C2) as many as 11 items of 27.5%, applying (C3) of 8 items of 20%, analyzing (C4) of 15 items of 37.50%, and evaluating (C5)) as many as 6 items at 15%. Based on the analysis, the recall level (C1) and the creative level (C6) were not yet in the items on the school exam; 3) The proportion of the affective level, including the response level (A2) as many as 5 percentage items of 12.5%, the respect level (A3) as many as 15 items, the percentage of 37.5%, the organizing level (A4) as many as 8 percentage questions 20%, and the level of characterization according to value (A5) is 5 items, the percentage is 12.5%. Thus it can be concluded that the items in the PPKn subject school exam for the 2019/2020 school year have known the proportion of the number of questions in basic competencies per class level, the proportion of cognitive levels and affective levels.


Keywords: suitability of basic competencies, cognitive level, affective level.

Article Details

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree with the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
  4. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Ginting, E. D. B., Lusa, H., & Anggraini, D. (2020). Studi Deskriptif Proporsi Jenjang Kognitif dan Afektif Soal Ujian Sekolah Mata Pelajaran pendidikan pancasila dan kewarganegaraan Siswa SD/MI Kota Bengkulu Tahun Pelajaran 2019/2020. JURIDIKDAS: Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Dasar, 3(3), 300–308. https://doi.org/10.33369/juridikdas.3.3.300-308
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Abidin Y. (2014). Desain Sistem Pembelajaran Dalam Konteks Kurikulum 2013. Bandung: PT Refika Aditama.
  2. Anderson, L.W., dan Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assesing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educatioanl Objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
  3. Arikunto, S. (2013a). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik Edisi Revisi. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
  4. Arikunto, S. (2013b). Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
  5. Basuki, I & Hariyanto. (2014). Asesmen Pembelajaran. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
  6. BSNP. (2018). Buletin BSNP: Media Komunikasi dan Dialog Standar Pendidikan. Jakarta: BSNP.
  7. Depdiknas. (2008). Panduan Analisis Butir Soal. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
  8. Depdiknas. (2005). Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 2005 Tentang Guru dan Dosen. Jakarta: Depdiknas.
  9. Depdiknas. (2003). Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2003 Tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional. Jakarta: Depdiknas.
  10. Erfan, Nurwahidah, Anar, & Maulyda. (2020). Identifikasi Level Kognitif Pada Soal Ujian Akhir Semester Gasal Kelas IV Sekolah Dasar. Jurnal Kiprah, 8 (1), 19-26.
  11. Kemdikbud. (2018). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia Nomor 37 Tahun 2018 Tentang Standar Isi. Jakarta: Kemendikbud.
  12. __________. (2016). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia Nomor 23 Tahun 2016 Tentang Standar Penilaian Pendidikan. Jakarta: Kemendikbud.
  13. Kosasih. (2018). Strategi Belajar Dan Pembelajaran (Implementasi Kurikulum 2013). Bandung : Yrama Widya.
  14. Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., and Masia, B.B. (1964). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: David McKay Company
  15. Kurniawan, T. (2015). Analisis Butir Soal Ulangan Akhir Semester Gasal Mata Pelajaran IPS Sekolah Dasar. Journal of Elementary Education, 4 (1), 1-6.
  16. Majid, A,. (2017). Penilaian Autentik: Proses dan Hasil Belajar. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya.
  17. ________. (2014). Strategi Pembelajaran. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
  18. Purwanto. (2016). Evaluasi Hasil Belajar. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Belajar.
  19. Puspendik. (2019). Panduan Penulisan Soal HOTS-Higher Order Thinking Skills. Jakarta: Pusat Penilaian Pendidikan.
  20. ________. (2017). Panduan Penulisan Soal. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
  21. ________. (2015). Peraturan Kepala Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Nomor 009/H/HK/2015 tentang Prosedur Operasional Standar Penyelenggaraan Ujian Sekolah/Madrasah pada Sekolah Dasar/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah, Sekolah Dasar Luar Biasa, dan Penyelenggara Program Paket A/ULA Tahun Pelajaran 2014/2015.
  22. Sugiyono. (2019). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan (Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, Kombinasi, R & D, dan Penelitian Pendidikan). Bandung: Alfabeta.
  23. Wahab dan Sapriya. (2011). Teori dan Landasan Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan. Bandung: Alfabeta.
  24. Winarni, E. W. (2018a). Pendekatan Ilmiah Dalam Pembelajaran Kreatif Dan Inovatif. Bengkulu: FKIP UNIB.
  25. _____________,. (2018b). Teori dan Praktik Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif Penelitian Tindakan Kelas (PTK) Reseach And Development (R&D). Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
  26. _____________,. (2011). Penelitian Pendidikan. Bengkulu: FKIP UNIB.
  27. Winarno. (2014). Pembelajaran Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan Isi, Strategi dan Penilaian. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.