Article Sidebar

Submitted
October 31, 2023
Accepted
March 29, 2024
Published
April 19, 2024
Download
PDF Similiarity
Statistic
Read Counter : 200 Download : 132

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

ABSTRAK


 


Tujuan penelitian adalah memberikan gambaran kepraktisan HOTS faktual dan konseptual sebagai alat penilaian dalam konteks pendidikan IPA, serta profil hasil belajar siswa. Penelitian ini menggunakan model ADDIE sebagai kerangka model Penelitian dan Pengembangan (R&D). Peserta penelitian terdiri dari dua puluh orang yang duduk di kelas empat sekolah dasar di Bengkulu Tengah. Penelitian ini menggunakan panduan wawancara, angket, dan penilaian pemahaman konseptual dengan pertanyaan pilihan ganda. Penelitian ini menggunakan teknik analisis data yang melibatkan validasi ahli pada aspek materi, bahasa, konstruksi, dan reliabilitas, serta pemeriksaan hasil tes. Analisis deskriptif kuantitatif dilakukan untuk menilai profil prestasi belajar. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa terdapat instrumen penilaian keterampilan Berpikir Tingkat Tinggi pada faktual dan konseptual yang valid dan reliabel. Secara khusus, penelitian ini mengidentifikasi 15 dari 20 item asli yang memenuhi kriteria validitas dan reliabilitas. Soal tingkat kognitif dikategorikan menjadi tiga tingkatan, yaitu 40% masuk kategori C4, 33,33% masuk kategori C5, dan 26,67% masuk kategori C6. Studi ini juga menemukan bahwa 46,67% pertanyaan menilai pengetahuan faktual, sementara 53,33% menilai pengetahuan konseptual. Tingkat kognitif menganalisis memiliki profil tertinggi sebesar 88,33%, mengevaluasi sebesar 81%, dan mencipta sebesar 66,67%. Profil hasil belajar pengetahuan faktual sebesar 76,67%, sedangkan pengetahuan konseptual sebesar 72,22%.


 


Kata  kunci: instrumen penilaian, faktual dan konseptual, keterampilan berpikir tingkat tinggi, hasil belajar, pembelajaran IPA.


 


ABSTRACT


 


The research objective is to provide a depiction of the practicality of factual and conceptual HOTS as an assessment tool in the context of science education, as well as the profiles of student learning outcomes. The present study employs the ADDIE model as a framework for Research and Development (R&D) model. The study's participants comprised of twenty in the fourth-grade from elementary school in Bengkulu Tengah. The research employed interview guides, questionnaires, and conceptual comprehension assessment with multiple-choice questions. The present study employs a data analysis technique that involves expert validation to material, language, construction, and reliability aspects, alongside the examination of test results. Quantitative descriptive analysis was conducted to assess the learning achievement profile. The study results indicate that there are valid and reliable instruments for assessing factual and conceptual Higher-Order Thinking skills (HOTs). Specifically, the study identified 15 out of the original 20 items that met the criteria for validity and reliability. The cognitive level questions were categorized into three levels, with 40% categorized in C4, 33.33% in C5, and 26.67% in C6. The study also found that 46.67% of the questions assessed factual knowledge, while 53.33% assessed conceptual knowledge. The cognitive level of analyzing had the highest profile at 88.33%, followed by evaluating at 81%, and creating at 66.67%. The profile of learning outcomes for factual knowledge was 76.67%, while that for conceptual knowledge was 72.22%.


 


Keywords: assessment instrument, factual and conceptual, Higher-Order Thinking skills (HOTs), learning outcome, science learning

Keywords

assessment instrument factual and conceptual Higher-Order Thinking skills learning outcome science learning

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Endang Widi Winarni, Endina Putri Purwandari, Rinto Hartono

Creative Commons License

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

Authors who publish in 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.

• Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA)

Creative Commons License

Jurnal Kumparan Fisika is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Author Biographies

Endina Putri Purwandari, University of Bengkulu

Department Information System, Engineering Faculty, University of Bengkulu

Rinto Hartono, University of Bengkulu

Department of Primary Education, Graduate School, University of Bengkulu
How to Cite
Winarni, E. W., Purwandari, E. P., & Hartono, R. (2024). INSTRUMENT ASSESSMENT IN STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME FOR FACTUAL AND CONCEPTUAL HOTS ON SCIENCE EDUCATION. Jurnal Kumparan Fisika, 7(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.33369/jkf.7.1.9-20
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Kemendikbud. Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 Tentang Standar Kompetensi Lulusan Pendidikan Dasar Dan Menengah. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan; 2016.
  2. Kemendikbud. Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia Nomor 23 Tahun 2016 Tentang Standar Penilaian Pendidikan. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan; 2016.
  3. Sun H, Xie Y, Lavonen J. Exploring the structure of students’ scientific higher order thinking in science education. Thinking Skills and Creativity [Internet]. 2022 Mar [cited 2022 Nov 7];43:100999. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1871187122000025
  4. Winarni EW, Purwandari EP, Hafiza S. Automatic Essay Assessment for Blended Learning in Elementary School. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology [Internet]. 2022 Jan 26 [cited 2022 Oct 27];12(1):85. Available from: http://ijaseit.insightsociety.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=1&article_id=11835
  5. Haladyna TM, Downing SM, Rodriguez MC. A Review of Multiple-Choice Item-Writing Guidelines for Classroom Assessment. Applied Measurement in Education [Internet]. 2002 Jul [cited 2022 Oct 2];15(3):309–33. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15324818AME1503_5
  6. Stanger-Hall KF. Multiple-Choice Exams: An Obstacle for Higher-Level Thinking in Introductory Science Classes. Chudler EH, editor. LSE [Internet]. 2012 Sep [cited 2022 Nov 22];11(3):294–306. Available from: https://www.lifescied.org/doi/10.1187/cbe.11-11-0100
  7. Stringer JK, Santen SA, Lee E, Rawls M, Bailey J, Richards A, et al. Examining Bloom’s Taxonomy in Multiple Choice Questions: Students’ Approach to Questions. MedSciEduc [Internet]. 2021 Aug [cited 2023 Jan 23];31(4):1311–7. Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40670-021-01305-y
  8. Puspendik. Panduan Penulisan Soal HOTS-Higher Order Thinking Skills. Perpustakaan Nasional Republik Indonesia; 2019. (Pusat Penilaian Pendidikan).
  9. Rintayati P, Lukitasari H, Syawaludin A. Development of Two-Tier Multiple Choice Test to Assess Indonesian Elementary Students’ Higher-Order Thinking Skills. INT J INSTRUCTION [Internet]. 2021 Jan 1 [cited 2022 Nov 22];14(1):555–66. Available from: http://www.e-iji.net/dosyalar/iji_2021_1_33.pdf
  10. Tractenberg RE, Gushta MM, Mulroney SE, Weissinger PA. Multiple choice questions can be designed or revised to challenge learners’ critical thinking. Adv in Health Sci Educ [Internet]. 2013 Dec [cited 2022 Nov 4];18(5):945–61. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10459-012-9434-4
  11. Zuhriyah A, Suprijono A, Kasdi A. New Multiple Choice Questions in Critical Thinking Assessment: As A Way to Distinguish Between Logical Answers and Guess Answers. IJSRP [Internet]. 2019 Oct 12 [cited 2022 Nov 22];9(10):p9422. Available from: http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-1019.php?rp=P949196
  12. Hermayawati H. Teachers Efforts in Understanding the Factual, Conceptual, Procedural and Metacognitive Assessment Using the Revised 2013 Curriculum. IJLTER [Internet]. 2020 May 30 [cited 2023 Sep 8];19(5):186–99. Available from: http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/view/2129/pdf
  13. Maba W, Mantra IBN. An Analysis of Assessment Models Employed by The Indonesian Elementary School Teachers. ijssh [Internet]. 2017 Apr 30 [cited 2022 Oct 2];1(1):39. Available from: http://sciencescholar.us/journal/index.php/ijssh/article/view/38
  14. Miterianifa M, Ashadi A, Saputro S, Suciati S. Higher Order Thinking Skills in the 21st Century: Critical Thinking. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Social Science, Humanities, Education and Society Development, ICONS 2020, 30 November, Tegal, Indonesia [Internet]. Tegal, Indonesia: EAI; 2021 [cited 2022 Oct 2]. Available from: http://eudl.eu/doi/10.4108/eai.30-11-2020.2303766
  15. Gulcu A. The Evaluation of the Cognitive Learning Process of the Renewed Bloom Taxonomy Using a Web Based Expert System. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology [Internet]. 2016 Oct;15(4):17. Available from: http://www.tojet.net/articles/v15i4/15413.pdf
  16. Winarni EW. Teori dan Praktik Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif. Jakarta, Indonesia: Bumi Aksara; 2021.
  17. Krathwohl DR. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice [Internet]. 2002 Nov 1 [cited 2022 Oct 2];41(4):212–8. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
  18. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276–82.
  19. Abdullah AH, Soh HM, Mokhtar M, Hamzah MH, Ashari ZM, Ali DF, et al. Does the Use of Smart Board Increase Students’ Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)? IEEE Access [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Jan 23];9:1833–54. Available from: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9284437/
  20. Muhayimana T, Kwizera L, Nyirahabimana MR. Using Bloom’s taxonomy to evaluate the cognitive levels of Primary Leaving English Exam questions in Rwandan schools. Curric Perspect [Internet]. 2022 Apr [cited 2023 Sep 8];42(1):51–63. Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41297-021-00156-2
  21. Prasad GNR. Evaluating student performance based on bloom’s taxonomy levels. J Phys: Conf Ser [Internet]. 2021 Feb 1 [cited 2022 Nov 4];1797(1):012063. Available from: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1797/1/012063
  22. Zulfiani, Permana Suwarna I, Arif M, Juanengsih N, Rahmat Romadhon D. Science Adaptive Assessment-Tool Accommodating HOTS Assessment Based on Learning Style. In: 2020 8th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM) [Internet]. Pangkal Pinang, Indonesia: IEEE; 2020 [cited 2022 Nov 22]. p. 1–5. Available from: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9268884/
  23. Ho HK, Chng HT. Stirring deep thinking and learning through student-designed assessment problems. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning [Internet]. 2021 May [cited 2023 Jan 23];13(5):536–43. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1877129721000071
  24. Agarwal PK. Retrieval practice & Bloom’s taxonomy: Do students need fact knowledge before higher order learning? Journal of Educational Psychology [Internet]. 2019 Feb [cited 2022 Oct 2];111(2):189–209. Available from: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/edu0000282
  25. Thompson E, Hu M, Luxton-Reilly A, Whalley JL, Robbins P. Bloom’s Taxonomy for CS Assessment. 2008;78.
  26. Vukić Đ, Martinčić-Ipšić S, Meštrović A. Structural Analysis of Factual, Conceptual, Procedural, and Metacognitive Knowledge in a Multidimensional Knowledge Network. Complexity [Internet]. 2020 Mar 9 [cited 2023 Sep 8];2020:1–17. Available from: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/complexity/2020/9407162/
  27. Maranna S, Willison J, Joksimovic S, Parange N, Costabile M. Factors that influence cognitive presence: A scoping review. AJET [Internet]. 2022 Nov 4 [cited 2022 Nov 22];38(4):95–111. Available from: https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/7878
  28. Assoc. Prof., Princess Alia University College, Al-Balqa Applied University, Jordan, dr.saida.aladwan@bau.edu.jo, Aladwan SQA, Alfayez MQE, Assoc. Prof., Princess Alia University College, Al-Balqa Applied University, Jordan, Dr.Mona.Alfayez@bau.edu.jo, Shaheen HRA, Assoc. Prof., Princess Alia University College, Al-Balqa Applied University, Jordan, h.shaheen@bau.edu.jo. The Level of Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge in Mathematics and Its Relationship to Creative Thinking among Gifted Students. INT J INSTRUCTION. 2023 Oct 1;16(4):121–34.