AN ANALYSIS OF CHEMISTRY HIGH SCHOOL END-OF-YEAR EXAMS ACCORDING TO BLOOM’S COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY
Abstract
ANALISIS UJIAN AKHIR KIMIA BERDASARKAN KOMPLEKSITASKOGNITIF TAKSONOMI BLOOM
Abstract
School exams has been used by teachers to determine the success of students’ learning. This research is aimed to determine the extent of students learning through an analysis of end-of-year exam items based on Bloom’s cognitive complexity. The exam instruments are gathered from chemistry teachers of 5 public schools, consisting of in total 190 5-multiple-choice items. Qualitative approach and theory-driven content analysis method using Bloom’s revised taxonomy of cognitive complexity were employed in the research. The result of this research showed that the majority of items (82.7%) determined students learning lower order cognitive skills (remember, understand, and apply). Skill of the analysis is the only higher order cognitive skill that has been found in the exam questions (17.3%). With regards to knowledge dimension, it was found that conceptual knowledge weighed the most among other dimensions (54.7%). It is interesting to see, however, that, the highest procedural knowledge was seen in the application skills (27.9%). This research suggests that chemistry teachers need to carefully determine exam questions according to the cognitive complexity in order to ensure the extent of students learning. For curriculum developer, this research can be used to consider the depth of students’ learning outcomes as they serve as the foundation for exam development. Further research can be done to determine the gap between the exams and the expected learning outcomes. This will be beneficial to understand the extent to which schools can go higher than the minimun learning outcomes determined by the government.
Abstrak
Ujian sekolah telah digunakan oleh guru untuk menentukan keberhasilan belajar siswa. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui sejauh mana siswa belajar kimia melalui analisis materi ujian akhir sekolah berdasarkan kompleksitas kognitif Bloom. Instrumen ujian dikumpulkan dari 5 sekolah umum, yang terdiri dari 190 item soal pilihan ganda. Pendekatan kualitatif dan metode analisis isi yang digerakkan oleh teori menggunakan taksonomi kompleksitas kognitif Bloom yang telah direvisi digunakan dalam penelitian ini. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa sebagian besar soal (82,7%) merupakan soal-soal dengan tingkat kognitif rendah (mengingat, memahami, dan menerapkan). Keterampilan analisis adalah satu-satunya keterampilan kognitif tingkat tinggi yang ditemukan dalam soal-soal ujian (17,3%). Untuk dimensi pengetahuan, ditemukan bahwa pengetahuan konseptual paling banyak di antara dimensi lainnya (54,7%). Menarik untuk dilihat, bagaimanapun, bahwa pengetahuan prosedural tertinggi terlihat pada keterampilan aplikasi (27,9%). Penelitian ini menyarankan guru untuk mempertimbangkan kompleksitas kognitif untuk memastikan sejauh mana siswa belajar.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Agung, S. (2013). Facilitating professional development of madrasah chemistry teachers: Analysis of its establishment in the decentralized educaitonal system of Indonesia. Utrecht University.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Arievitch, I. M. (2020). The vision of Developmental Teaching and Learning and Bloom ’ s Taxonomy of educational objectives. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 25, 100274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.01.007
Assaly, I. R., & Smadi, O. M. (2015). Using Bloom ’ s Taxonomy to Evaluate the Cognitive Levels of Master Class Textbook ’ s Questions, 8(5), 100–110. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n5p100
Chandio, M. T. (2021). Bloom ’ s Taxonomy : Reforming Pedagogy Through Assessment. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 8(1), 109–140.
Ching, A., Dizon, O., An, S., Lubguban, A. A., & Suppes, G. J. (2018). Online quiz methods for remedial learning in chemical engineering. Education for Chemical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2018.04.001
Davila, K., & Talanquer, V. (2010). Classifying End-of-Chapter Questions and Problems for Selected General Chemistry Textbooks Used in the United St ... Cehmical Education Research, 87(1), 97–101.
Davis, E. A., Janssen, F. J. J. M., Driel, J. H. Van, Davis, E. A., Janssen, F. J. J. M., & Teachers, J. H. V. D. (2016). Studies in Science Education Teachers and science curriculum materials : where we are and where we need to go. Studies in Science Education, 7267, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1161701
Dempster, E. R. (2012). Comparison of Exit-Level Examinations in Four African Countries Comparison of Exit-Level Examinations in Four. Journal of Social Science, 33(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2662.3684
Enero, U. J., & Umesh, R. (2019). Representation of Chemical Phenomena in Secondary School Chemistry Textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20, 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00191J
Essibu, J. (2018). A Comparative Analysis of the Performance of Regular Senior High Science Student and Remedial Science Student In Ghana. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 22(2).
Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (2006). Handbook of Test Development. (Routledge, Ed.) (1st Editio). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203874776
Kastner, M., & Stangl, B. (2011). Multiple Choice and Constructed Response Tests : Do Test Format and Scoring Matter ? Internationanl Conference on Education and Educational Psychology (ICEEPSY 2010), 12, 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.02.035
Knaus, K., Murphy, K., Blecking, A., & Holme, T. (2011). Assignment of Chemistry Exam Items. Journal of Chemical Education, 554–560.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom ’ s Taxonomy : An Overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–219.
Lin, P., Hou, H., Wang, S., & Chang, K. (2013). Analyzing knowledge dimensions and cognitive process of a project-based online discussion instructional activity using Facebook in an adult and continuing education course. Computers & Education, 60(1), 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.017
Mardapi, D., & Herawan, T. (2019). Community-Based Teacher Training : Transformation of Sustainable Teacher Empowerment Strategy in Indonesia, 21(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2019-0004
Rahayu, R. R. Y., & Sutrisno, H. (2019). The Effect Of Chemistry Learning Based On Analogy On Higher Order Thinking Skills Of Senior High. European Journal of Education Studies, 255–267. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2619248
Risnita, R., & Bashori, B. (2020). The Effects of Essay Tests and Learning Methods on Students ’ Chemistry Learning Outcomes. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(3), 332–341. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.30
Roberts, D., & Lederman, N. (1982). Developing the concept of “curriculum emphases” in science education. Science Education, 66(2), 243–260.
Setyowati, P. A., & Sutrisno, H. (2020). An analysis of representation level and cognitive level in curriculum-2013 chemistry textbook An analysis of representation level and cognitive level in curriculum-2013 chemistry textbook. In The 5th International Seminar on Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1440/1/012006
Tiemeier, A. M., Stacy, Z. A., & Burke, J. M. (2011). Using Multiple Choice Questions Written at Various Bloom ’ s Taxonomy Levels to Evaluate Student Performance across a Therapeutics Sequence. Innovations in Pharmacy, 2(2).
Tien, L. ., Roth, V., & Kampmeier, J. (2002). mplementation of a peer ‐ led team learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 606–632.
Tikkanen, G., & Aksela, M. (2012). Analysis of Finnish chemistry Matriculation Examination questions according to Cognitive Complexity. Nordina, 8(3), 258–268.
Wasis, Sukarmin, & Prastiwi, M. S. (2017). Cognitive Process Analysis of PISA, TIMSS, and UN Science Items Based on Revised Bloom Taxonomy. Advanced Scientific Publishers, 23(12). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.10575
Widarti, H. R., Herunata, H., Sulistina, O., Habiddin, H., & Nadhifah, Y. (2020). Exploring Chemistry Teachers ’ Knowledge of Higher Order Thinking Skills ( HOTs ) Based Assessment. In International Conference on Learning Innovation 2019 (ICLI 2019) (Vol. 446, pp. 21–25).
Widiyatmoko, A., & Shimizu, K. (2017). An overview of conceptual understanding in science education curriculum in Indonesia An overview of conceptual understanding in science education curriculum in Indonesia. In International Conference on Mathematics, Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/983/1/012044
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15408/es.v13i2.24110 Abstract - 0 PDF - 0
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2023 Salamah Agung, Amrina Alhumaira, Dedi Irwandi Yuskar, Tika Reformatika Fuadi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0).
EDUSAINS. P-ISSN:1979-7281;E-ISSN:2443-1281
Â
Â