HOTS Assessment of Biology Cell: Validity, Practicality and Reliability
DOI:
10.29303/jppipa.v7i3.742Published:
2021-07-25Downloads
Abstract
This study aims to produce an instrument for assessing high-order thinking skills about cell division material for students in class XII that are logically valid and empirically, practical and reliable. This study uses a 4D models development model consisting of the stages of defining, designing, developing, and disseminating. The dissemination stage was not carried out due to time and cost limitations. The subjects of this study were three validators consisting of two lecturers at the Department of Biology, Padang State University, and one teacher at Senior High School 2 Painan. Practicality was carried out by two biology teachers and 34 students of class XII of Senior High School 2 Painan. The data collection instruments were validation sheets and practicality tests. Data were analyzed using ANATES 4.09 application. The instrument for assessing high-order thinking skills about cell division material for class XII students who get an average logical validity value of 89.02% with valid criteria, the practical average value is 91.70% with very practical criteria. The empirical validity data analysis results obtained 37 questions out of 50 questions with a value of 74%, reliability of 0.89 with very high criteria. It can be concluded that an instrument for assessing the ability to think at a higher level about cell purchasing material is logically valid and empirically valid, practical, and reliableKeywords:
Assessment Cell Division HOTSReferences
Abidinsyah, A., Ramdiah, S., & Royani, M. (2019). The implementation of local wisdom-based learning and HOTS-based assessment: Teacher survey in Banjarmasin. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), 5(3), 407–414. doi: https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v5i3.9910
Anagun, S. S. (2018). Teachers' perceptions about the relationship between 21st century skills and managing constructivist learning environments. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 825–840. doi: https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11452a
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airiasian, W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Arikunto, S. (2012). Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Bumi Aksara. [Indonesian]
Boholano, H. B. (2017). Smart social networking: 21st century teaching and learning skills. Research in Pedagogy, 7(1), 21–29. doi: https://doi.org/10.17810/2015.45
Bilbao, P.P., Dayagbil, F.T., & Corpuz, B.B. (2013). Curriculum Development. Lorimar Publishing, Inc. Manila, Philippines.
Camacho, D. J., & Legare, J. M. (2015). Opportunities to create active learning techniques in the classroom. Journal of Instructional Research, 4, 38–45. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1127696
Dewi, N., Rahmi, Y., Alberida, H., & Darussyamsu, R. (2020). Validitas dan Reliabilitas Instrumen Penilaian Kemampuan Berpikir Tingkat Tinggi ten-tang Materi Hereditas untuk Peserta Didik SMA/MA. Jurnal Eksakta Pendidikan (JEP), 4(2), 138-146. doi: https://doi.org/10.24036/jep/vol4-iss2/512 [Indonesian]
Farisi, M. I. (2016). Developing the 21 st-century social studies skills through technology integration. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 17(1), 16–30. doi: https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.47374
Fitzpatrick, B., & Schulz, H. (2015). Do Curriculum Outcomes and Assessment Activities in Science Encourage Higher Order Thinking? Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 15(2), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2015.1014074
Gündüz, A. Y., Alemdağ, E., Yaşar, S., & Erdem, M. (2016). Design of a problem-based online learning environment and evaluation of its effectiveness. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Hwang, G.-J., Lai, C.-L., Liang, J.-C., Chu, H.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2018). A long-term experiment to investigate the relationships between high school students' perceptions of mobile learning and peer interaction and higher-order thinking tendencies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9540-3
Lince, R. (2016). Creative Thinking Ability to Increase Student Mathematical of Junior High School by Applying Models Numbered Heads Together. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(6), 206–212. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1092494
Mahoney, J. W., & Harris-Reeves, B. (2019). The effects of collaborative testing on higher order thinking: Do the bright get brighter? Active Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417723243
Marlina, D. I., & Rahmi, Y. L. (2021). Assessment of Higher Order Thinking Skills in Genetic Learning: A Validity, Practicality, and Reliability. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1940(1), 12121. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1940/1/012121.
Santi, D. H., Prayitno, B. A., & Muzzazinah, M. (2019). Problem solving process and creative thinking of students in ecosystem issue. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), 5(3), 537–548. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v5i3.9647
Sesen, B. A., & Tarhan, L. (2010). Promoting active learning in high school chemistry: Learning achievement and attitude. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2625–2630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.384
Surapranata, S. (2005). Panduan Penulisan Tes Tertulis ImplementasiKurikukum 2004. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya. [Indonesian]
Tajudin, N. M., & Chinnappan, M. (2016). The link between higher order thinking skills, representation and concepts in enhancing TIMSS tasks. International Journal of Instruction, 9(2), 199–214. doi: https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2016.9214a
Ugulu, I., Sahin, M., & Baslar, S. (2013). High school students' environmental attitude: Scale development and validation. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(4), 415–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2013.11890103
License
Authors who publish with Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY License). This license allows authors to use all articles, data sets, graphics, and appendices in data mining applications, search engines, web sites, blogs, and other platforms by providing an appropriate reference. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and will retain publishing rights without restrictions.
- 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 acknowledgment of its initial publication in Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA.
- 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).
