ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION IN DAILY EXAM (UH) BY PHYSICS TEACHER IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL (SMA) PILOTING CURRICULUM 2013 IN MEDAN.
ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION IN DAILY EXAM (UH) BY
PHYSICS TEACHER IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL (SMA)
PILOTING CURRICULUM 2013 IN MEDAN
By:
Uli Dofa Sirait
Reg Number 4103322021
Bilingual Physics Education Program
THESIS
Submitted to Acquires Eligible Sarjana Pendidikan
PHYSICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2014
iv
PREFACE
Praise and thanks to Jesus Christ who has give a flood of merci and
guidance to writer so I can finished this thesis.
This thesis which titled is “Assessment Implementation in Daily Exam
(UH) by Physics Teacher in Senior High School (SMA) Piloting Curriculum 2013
in Medan” is arranged to acquire scholar degree of Physics Education, Faculty of
Mathematics and Nature Science State University of Medan.
Thank you so much to Alkhafi Maas Siregar, M.Si as thesis supervisor
who has guide and give suggestion to writer from initial research until finished
this research. Thank you so much also to Prof. Dr. M. Bangun Harahap, MS, Dr.
Sondang R. Manurung, M.Pd and Drs. Rahmatsyah, M.Si who have gave critics
and suggestions to writer. Thank you so much to Dr. Ridwan Abdullah Sani, M.Si
as academic supervisor. Thank you so much to Prof. Motlan Sirait, M.Sc,.Ph.D as
Dean of FMIPA State University of Medan, Prof.Dr.rer.nat.Binari Manurung,
M.Si as Bilingual Program Coordinator and to all Mr. and Mrs. Lecturer and staff
employee of Physics FMIPA State University of Medan who have encouraged
writer.
Special Gratefully to: Dear Mother Rohani Sihombing and Beloved father
Alek Sirait for grow me up and educate me in this life. Thank you to my only
brother and all my sisters and special thank you for my beloved, Erwin Pasaribu.
Thank you for my warmnest friendship (MBG), Andi Lumbangaol, Joy Sinaga,
Nesron Solin, Mula Sirait, Soritua, Boston, Heber Sagala, Susi M. Tambunan,
Remi Napitupulu, Evi K. Simanjuntak and Christine M. Siregar.
To all of my colleagues in Physics Department FMIPA UNIMED,
especially to students of Physics Bilingual 2010, Christine Siregar, Evi Kamelia,
Kartika, Rindy, Feggy, Nurazizah Pulungan, Fitriah Rambe,Rofi, Jovan Sitinjak,
James Simanungkalit, Rikcy, Indra, Jeneva, Riando and Lindudeen. And all my
friends at PPL in SMA. N.2 Kisaran, Sartika Tampubolon, Evridya Rizki, Nurul,
Rahmania, Sheila, Selly, Tri, Eska, Yasir, Elfan, Armadani Ritonga.
v
I realize this thesis is out of perfect caused by my literature or knowledge.
That’s why, writer hope constructivism’s advice and suggestion in order to make
this thesis is useful for all of us.
Medan, June 26th, 2014
Uli Dofa Sirait
ID. Number: 4103322021
iii
ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION IN DAILY EXAM (UH) BY
PHYSICS TEACHER IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL (SMA)
PILOTING CURRICULUM 2013 IN MEDAN
Uli Dofa Sirait (ID. Number 4103322021)
ABSTRAC
The aim of this research is to analyze the conformity of assessment
standard implementation in daily exam by physics teacher in some Senior High
School (SMA) piloting Curriculum 2013 in Medan with government standard. To
show is the daily exam that conducted by physics teacher in senior high schools in
Medan accordance with demand of curriculum 2013 and how far physics teacher
have implemented the assessment standard of daily exam (UH) demand to
Curriculum 2013.
The research is using qualitative method with a phenomenology approach
where researcher is the main instrument. Technical data collections are
questionnaires, in-depth interview and documentation. Where questionnaire for
student, in-depth interview for teacher and documentation of teacher file. Total
numbers of subjects or data sources are six schools consist of six persons of
Physics teacher and ten persons of students.
The results of research are the implementation of assessment by physics
teacher is not appropriate with curriculum demanded. Students that teacher
assessed at 76.38% only, it is sorely lacking in the implementation assessment.
That should be perfect to get appropriate and accurate assessment. The results
shown from in-depth interviews of teachers amounted to 69.58%, this is a
strengthening from students’ rating assessing to their teacher in each school were
on average 76.17%. The lower results 52.75% indicated from teachers’
documentation. It is a process of triangulation that researchers did to get the
assessment accuracy of teachers’ assessment standards implementation at every
school. The obtained average data triangulation at 66.24%.Behavior of physics
teacher in concerting and arranging of assessment mechanism is not maximal.
Mechanism and technical assessment that conducted by physics teachers on daily
exam have not changed.
vi
CONTENTS
Page
Legitimation Page
i
Biography
ii
Abstrac
iii
Preface
iv
Contents
vi
Figure List
ix
Table List
x
Appendix List
xi
I.
II.
Introduction
1.1 Background
1
1.2 Problem Identification
4
1.3 Problem Limitation
4
1.4 Problem Statement
4
1.5 Objectives
5
1.6 Advantages Research
5
Literature Review
2.1 Theoretical Framework
6
2.1.1 Education Assessment
6
2.1.2 Types of Assessment
6
2.1.3 Teacher in Assessment
8
2.1.3.1 Why Teacher Need Know About Assessment
2.1.4 National Assessment Standards
9
13
2.1.4.1 Assessment Principle
14
2.1.4.2 Authentic Assessment
15
vii
2.1.4.3 Procedure And Mechanism of Assessment
Conduct By Teachers
2.1.5 Curriculum 2013
2.1.5.1 Assessment Models in Curriculum 2013
20
2.1.5.2 Competency Assessment
22
2.1.5.2.1 Attitude Competency
22
2.1.5.2.2 Knowledge Competency
24
2.1.5.2.3 Skill Competency
25
2.1.6 Daily Exam (UH)
2.1.6.1 Assessment Technique in Daily Exam (UH)
2.2 Conceptual Framework
III.
17
20
27
27
30
Research Method
3.1 Research Method
32
3.2 Location of Research
32
3.3 Proceduer
32
3.4 Instrument of Research
33
3.5 Data resources
33
3.6 Data Collection Techniques
33
3.6.1 Questionnaire
34
3.6.2 In depth Interview
34
3.6.3 Documentation
34
3.7 Data Analysis
35
3.7.1 Analysis before Conducting Research
35
3.7.2 Analysis during Conducting Research
36
3.7.2.1 Data Reduction
36
3.7.2.2 Data Display
37
3.7.2.3 Conclusion Drawing/ verification
37
3.8 Planning of Data Validity Testing
37
3.8.1 Credibility testing (internal validity)
37
3.8.2 Transferability testing (external validity)
37
viii
IV.
3.8.3 Dependability testing
38
3.8.4 Conformability testing
38
Result And Discusion
4.1 Result
39
4.1.1 Informant’s Identities
39
4.1.2 Result of Data Analysis
40
4.1.3 Data Analyze Compare by Teacher’s Age and
Teaching Experience
4.2 Discusion
4.2.1 Behavior of Physics Teacher in Implementing of
Assessment’s Mechanism
4.2.2
V.
43
45
45
4.2.1.1 Planning of Daily Exam
45
4.2.1.2 Implement / Conducted of Daily Exam
46
4.2.1.3 Analized The Result of Daily Exam
47
4.2.1.4 Report The Result of Daily Exam
48
Factors that inhibiting of Physics Teacher did
not maximal implement standardized assessment
52
Conclusion and Suggestion
5.1 Conclusion
53
5.2 Suggestion
53
REFERENCE
54
ix
FIGURE LIST
Page
Figure 2.1
Mechanism of Assessment Conduct by Teacher
19
Figure 2.2
Design of Assessment in Curriculum 2013
26
Figure 2.3
Conceptual Framework of Assessment
31
Figure 3.1
Data Collecting Technique
33
Figure 3.2
Flow of Data Analysis
35
Figure 3.3
Components of Data Analysis
36
Figure 4.1
Teachers’s implementation of standart assessment
on daily exam
42
Figure 4.2
Teachers’s implementation of standart assessment on
daily exam by difference age
43
Teachers’s implementation of standart assessment on
daily exam by difference teaching experience
44
Figure 4.3
xi
APPENDIX LIST
Page
Appendix 1. Instrument for Questionnaire
56
Appendix 2. Instrument for In Depth Interview
57
Appendix 3. Documents Sheet
60
Appendix 4. Data of Students’ Questionnaire
61
Appendix 5. Data of Teacher in-depth interview
79
Appendix 6. Reduction Data of Students’ Questionnaire
84
Appendix 7. Reduction Data of Physics Teachers In Depth – Interview
86
Appendix 8. Reduction Data of Physics Teachers assessment
by documentation
88
Appendix 9. Research Documentation
89
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Education is an important role in improving the prosperity of society.
Education will produce reliable human resources (SDM) in managing natural
resources, using technology, and providing services. Human resources (SDM) will be
a valuable asset in developing the nation's progress. Therefore, each state should
identified quality of education as one of the highest national priority. To improve the
quality of education considers changes in the curriculum be one solution to making
education relevant to the demands of globally according to the statement of M.Nuh
(Momod, 2013) that changes the curriculum is the government's efforts to improve
the quality of education in Indonesia
There are strong reasons and obvious foundation when curriculum has been
changing time by time. These changes are encouraged by desire to improve, develop,
and increase the quality of the national education system continuously. The
curriculum is a set of planning and setting the objectives, content and learning
materials and methods used to guide the learning activities organizer to achieve
educational goals (Haryati, 2009). The changes of national education curriculum will
impact to changes some elements contained in curriculum. The elements are
competence of graduates, content standards, process standards, and assessment
standards.
Now, Indonesia is trying to implementation the Curriculum 2013. Graduate
competencies described in three dimensions: (a) attitudes, (b) skills and (c)
knowledge, accordance with the Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan
No.53 Tahun 2013 on Competency Standards for Primary and Secondary Education.
Attitude is part of the affective domain, a domain of psychomotor skills, and
knowledge domain. So the order of taxonomy education curriculum in 2013, is the
2
main attitudes, followed by skills, knowledge as last domain. The attitude should be
promoted first, continue to skills, and the last is the knowledge. In fact, one of
important points in implementation of curriculum which often ignore is the
assessment standard. It is very important part in National Education Standards as
required to improve the quality of education. Therefore, a good curriculum and the
learning process that really needs supported by a good appraisal system, planned and
sustainable.
Three aspects of graduate competencies form the basis of assessment
standards emphasize that task of the teacher is not only to provide information to
students, but also should be a facilitator, conduct learning facilities even be a subject
to determine student achievement. As the most important learning resources in the
school, teacher is very important to improve the standard of education because
efficiency and equity of school depends on the ability of the teacher, human resources
of teacher and motivation to provide the best performance. Teachers as a spearheads
in the implementation of curriculum required to understand and apply it optimally
and earnestly, because teachers also play a role in improving the standard of
education. In addition, teachers also should know how to conduct a valid assessment
to be able to measure student learning outcomes accordance with demands of
curriculum. There are various forms of assessment can be made by teachers to assess
the student learning outcomes, one of them is daily exam (UH). UH is a form of
technical exam which its implementation concerned left to the teacher and activity
undertaken by teacher periodically to measure the achievement of competence after
completing a basic competence (KD) or more. UH used as one consideration aspect
to determine the cumulative value of students’ competence achieve will be presented
on the report. In conduct the valid assessment, teachers must capable to develop
instrument that containing measured dimensions of competency. Assessing the
learning outcomes by educators conducted continuously to monitor the process and
progress of student learning including to improve the effectiveness of learning
activities. In assessing student learning outcomes, teachers must obey and follow
3
assessment standard. Basic assessment and appraisal standards that have been set in
Permendikbud No.66 Tahun 2013.
Research about assessment has been carried out previously by Gultom (2012)
that analyzed physics teachers’ understanding about assessment at several schools in
Medan. Found that in general assessment, that conducted by physics teachers (even
have educators certificate or not) in several SMA in Medan is less accordance with
demands of KTSP, Assessment was conducted without a description of learners’
progress caused the teachers’ understanding about assessment standards very limited,
socialization and guidance rarely added facility factor and students’ interest in
learning is low. Reinforced by the results of research by Handayani (2012) explain
that teachers assessed students tend through objective and subjective exams and
teachers’ low understand about assessment make they concluded assessment just as
examination. Literature studies also show that many teachers are confused and do not
understand, especially in the assessment form of curriculum 2013. In accordance with
what was delivered by Waruwu as Director of Education Training & Consulting,
Jakarta in her journal “Rangkuman Berbagai Pokok Pikiran Seputar Kurikulum 2013”
assessment became a difficult part to be implemented by educators alike with
statement of Rusilowati, Professor of the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural
Sciences (MIPA) Semarang State University (Unnes) at Curriculum 2013
socialization during December 2013 in the city of Semarang that some teachers
didnot understand assessment concept actually.
Based on description above, this research wil focused on studying assessment
implementation in daily exam by physics teachers in some piloting schools the
curriculum 2013 in Medan. This research is important because the new curriculum
2013 will be implement in year 2015 to change previous curriculum and need to
know how far the physics teacher in piloting schools have been implemented
assessment standart. If assessment’s mechanism and procedure has implemented
incorrectly and invalid so it produce negative impacts such as students’ assess
administration inaccurate, teacher does not know the level mastery of student, teacher
4
is not able to arrange student’s report progress of learning, teachers do not find
alternative solutions to develop their ability in teaching and learning and finally the
curriculum goal does not achieve.
1.2 Problem’s Identification
1. Teachers only carry out daily exam by tests and measure knowledge
competency only.
2. Teachers do not conduct the intergration assessment among competency of
attitude, skill and knowledge.
1.3 Limitations of the Study
Based on the background problems described above and the identification of
problems that have been described, considering the factors involved in the assessment
standards is very complex, as well as to research more focused, then the problem will
be limited based on the information in the search and the places or schools that will
investigated. This study will be limited as follows:
1. The research do in high school (SMA) in Medan, 2013-2014 academic year.
2. The research do on teachers who teach physics especially in class X.
3. The data will be only gathering from the target schools.
1.4 Problem Statement
Based on the background of the issues, identifying problems, and limitation
issues, the problems in this study can be formulated as follows:
1. Is the daily exam that conducted by physics teacher in senior high
schools in Medan accordance with demand of curriculum 2013?
2. How far physics teacher have implemented the assessment standard of
daily exam (UH) demand to Curriculum 2013?
5
1.5 Objectives
Based on the background of the issues, identifying problems, limitation issues,
and the problems in this study, the objectives of this research can be formulated as
follows:
1. Knowing the congruence of daily exam that conducted by physics
teacher in senior high schools in Medan with demand of curriculum
2013.
2. Knowing how far physics teacher have implemented the assessment
standard of daily exam (UH) demand to Curriculum 2013.
1.6 Advantages of Research
The researchers are expected to be useful for:
1.
Providing information about the uniformity of implementation of
assessment at Daily Exam (UH) that conducted by physics teacher with
assessment standards and curriculum set up by the government at several
senior high schools in Medan.
2.
Increase the researches knowledge about assessment.
3.
Become a motivation for teachers to improve their ability in conduct the
assessment.
53
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 CONCLUSION
From the above data it can be concluded that:
1. Teacher conduct the daily exam not maximal or not totaly congruence with
demand of curriculum 2013 because some factor such as minimal training or
guiding from the government to arrange the assessment, lack understanding
how to develop and implement standardized assessments and students interest
and motivation to study of physics subjects is still very low.
2. Physic teacher implemented the assessment standart of daily exam in 66.24%
where frailness at some factors like teacher not prepare seriously the
assessment instrument of daily exam, not analyze the result using scoring
guideline, not conduct exact remedi and enrichment, not give personal
constructive command to student.
5.2 SUGGESTION
From the above data can suggest that importance of particular concern
government education department supervisors to provide new information in the
assessment demand to Curriculum 2013 and schools must update the assessment
system so that the onset of improvement that is expected to improve education in
Indonesia.
54
REFERENCE
Act Goverment Education and Training, (2011), Teacher’s Guide to Assessment:
Sectoral Assessment Working, Act Goverment.
Ajzen, I., (2005), Attitude, Personality, and Behavior, Mc Graw-Hill Companies,
London.
Arikunto, S., (2005), Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan, Penerbit Bumi Aksara,
Jakarta.
Fraenkel,Jack.R., (2006), How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education, Mac
Grawa-hill,New york.
Gultom, R., (2012), Analysis of Physics Teachers' Understanding In Implementing of
Assessment at Several Senior High School in Medan., Thesis, FMIPA,
Unimed, Medan.
Haryati, M., (2009), Model dan Teknik Penilaian Pada Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan,
Gaung Persada Perss, Jakarta.
Hidayani, A., (2012), Study of a Comparison between Objective and Subjective Test
by Physics Teacher in Senior High School (SMA) in Medan., Thesis,
FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
James, P., (2001), Knowing What Students Know, National Academy Press,
Washington DC.
Joughin, G., (2009), Assessment, Learning and Judgment in Higher Education,
Springer Inc, Australia.
Kenji, T., (2010), Growing Success: Assessment, Evaluation, And Reporting In
Ontario School, Journal of Resource Site (1): 1-12
Krathwohl, D., (2002), A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy, College of Education, The
Ohio State University.
Momod, (2013), Sosialisasi dan Pelatihan Implementasi Kurikulum 2013 Surabaya:
http://mpn.kominfo.go.id/index.php/2013/03/06/kurikulum-2013-titiktolak-peningkatan-kualitas-pendidikan/ (Accessed on Januari 24th, 2014)
55
Nana, S., (1995), Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar, Remaja Rosdakarya,
Bandung.
Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Nomor 53 Tahun 2013. Tentang
Standar Kompetensi Lulusan.
Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Nomor 66 Tahun 2013. Tentang
Standar Penilaian Pendidikan.
Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 32 Tahun 2013. Tentang Standar Nasional Pendidikan.
Rusilowati,
A., (2013),Kesulitan Guru pada Penilaian Kurikulum 2013:
http://unnes.ac.id/berita/87-persen-guru-kesulitan-soal-penilaianpenilaian
kurikulum-2013/ (Accessed on Januari 13rd, 2014)
Russell, M., (2012), Assessment in the classroom, The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc,
USA.
Scott, D., (2001), Curriculum And Assessment, Ablex Publishing, London.
Screerens, J., (2005), Education Evaluation, Assessment and Monitoring, Swets &
Zeithinger Publishers, Netherlands.
Sugiyono, (2010), Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R&D, Alfabeta,
Bandung.
Undang-undang Republik Indonesia nomor 14 tahun 2005 tentang guru dan dosen.
Undang-undang Republik Indonesia nomor 20 tahun 2003 tentang sistem pendidikan
nasional.
Waruwu, F., (2013), Rangkuman Berbagai Pokok Pikiran Seputar Kurikulum
2013,Electronic Journal,1-1
Wardhani, Sri., (2008), Standar Penilaian Pendidikan (Implikasinya Terhadap Tugas
Guru Matematika dan Sekolah), Pusat Pengembangan dan Pemberdayaan
Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan Matematika, Yogyakarta.
56
PHYSICS TEACHER IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL (SMA)
PILOTING CURRICULUM 2013 IN MEDAN
By:
Uli Dofa Sirait
Reg Number 4103322021
Bilingual Physics Education Program
THESIS
Submitted to Acquires Eligible Sarjana Pendidikan
PHYSICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2014
iv
PREFACE
Praise and thanks to Jesus Christ who has give a flood of merci and
guidance to writer so I can finished this thesis.
This thesis which titled is “Assessment Implementation in Daily Exam
(UH) by Physics Teacher in Senior High School (SMA) Piloting Curriculum 2013
in Medan” is arranged to acquire scholar degree of Physics Education, Faculty of
Mathematics and Nature Science State University of Medan.
Thank you so much to Alkhafi Maas Siregar, M.Si as thesis supervisor
who has guide and give suggestion to writer from initial research until finished
this research. Thank you so much also to Prof. Dr. M. Bangun Harahap, MS, Dr.
Sondang R. Manurung, M.Pd and Drs. Rahmatsyah, M.Si who have gave critics
and suggestions to writer. Thank you so much to Dr. Ridwan Abdullah Sani, M.Si
as academic supervisor. Thank you so much to Prof. Motlan Sirait, M.Sc,.Ph.D as
Dean of FMIPA State University of Medan, Prof.Dr.rer.nat.Binari Manurung,
M.Si as Bilingual Program Coordinator and to all Mr. and Mrs. Lecturer and staff
employee of Physics FMIPA State University of Medan who have encouraged
writer.
Special Gratefully to: Dear Mother Rohani Sihombing and Beloved father
Alek Sirait for grow me up and educate me in this life. Thank you to my only
brother and all my sisters and special thank you for my beloved, Erwin Pasaribu.
Thank you for my warmnest friendship (MBG), Andi Lumbangaol, Joy Sinaga,
Nesron Solin, Mula Sirait, Soritua, Boston, Heber Sagala, Susi M. Tambunan,
Remi Napitupulu, Evi K. Simanjuntak and Christine M. Siregar.
To all of my colleagues in Physics Department FMIPA UNIMED,
especially to students of Physics Bilingual 2010, Christine Siregar, Evi Kamelia,
Kartika, Rindy, Feggy, Nurazizah Pulungan, Fitriah Rambe,Rofi, Jovan Sitinjak,
James Simanungkalit, Rikcy, Indra, Jeneva, Riando and Lindudeen. And all my
friends at PPL in SMA. N.2 Kisaran, Sartika Tampubolon, Evridya Rizki, Nurul,
Rahmania, Sheila, Selly, Tri, Eska, Yasir, Elfan, Armadani Ritonga.
v
I realize this thesis is out of perfect caused by my literature or knowledge.
That’s why, writer hope constructivism’s advice and suggestion in order to make
this thesis is useful for all of us.
Medan, June 26th, 2014
Uli Dofa Sirait
ID. Number: 4103322021
iii
ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION IN DAILY EXAM (UH) BY
PHYSICS TEACHER IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL (SMA)
PILOTING CURRICULUM 2013 IN MEDAN
Uli Dofa Sirait (ID. Number 4103322021)
ABSTRAC
The aim of this research is to analyze the conformity of assessment
standard implementation in daily exam by physics teacher in some Senior High
School (SMA) piloting Curriculum 2013 in Medan with government standard. To
show is the daily exam that conducted by physics teacher in senior high schools in
Medan accordance with demand of curriculum 2013 and how far physics teacher
have implemented the assessment standard of daily exam (UH) demand to
Curriculum 2013.
The research is using qualitative method with a phenomenology approach
where researcher is the main instrument. Technical data collections are
questionnaires, in-depth interview and documentation. Where questionnaire for
student, in-depth interview for teacher and documentation of teacher file. Total
numbers of subjects or data sources are six schools consist of six persons of
Physics teacher and ten persons of students.
The results of research are the implementation of assessment by physics
teacher is not appropriate with curriculum demanded. Students that teacher
assessed at 76.38% only, it is sorely lacking in the implementation assessment.
That should be perfect to get appropriate and accurate assessment. The results
shown from in-depth interviews of teachers amounted to 69.58%, this is a
strengthening from students’ rating assessing to their teacher in each school were
on average 76.17%. The lower results 52.75% indicated from teachers’
documentation. It is a process of triangulation that researchers did to get the
assessment accuracy of teachers’ assessment standards implementation at every
school. The obtained average data triangulation at 66.24%.Behavior of physics
teacher in concerting and arranging of assessment mechanism is not maximal.
Mechanism and technical assessment that conducted by physics teachers on daily
exam have not changed.
vi
CONTENTS
Page
Legitimation Page
i
Biography
ii
Abstrac
iii
Preface
iv
Contents
vi
Figure List
ix
Table List
x
Appendix List
xi
I.
II.
Introduction
1.1 Background
1
1.2 Problem Identification
4
1.3 Problem Limitation
4
1.4 Problem Statement
4
1.5 Objectives
5
1.6 Advantages Research
5
Literature Review
2.1 Theoretical Framework
6
2.1.1 Education Assessment
6
2.1.2 Types of Assessment
6
2.1.3 Teacher in Assessment
8
2.1.3.1 Why Teacher Need Know About Assessment
2.1.4 National Assessment Standards
9
13
2.1.4.1 Assessment Principle
14
2.1.4.2 Authentic Assessment
15
vii
2.1.4.3 Procedure And Mechanism of Assessment
Conduct By Teachers
2.1.5 Curriculum 2013
2.1.5.1 Assessment Models in Curriculum 2013
20
2.1.5.2 Competency Assessment
22
2.1.5.2.1 Attitude Competency
22
2.1.5.2.2 Knowledge Competency
24
2.1.5.2.3 Skill Competency
25
2.1.6 Daily Exam (UH)
2.1.6.1 Assessment Technique in Daily Exam (UH)
2.2 Conceptual Framework
III.
17
20
27
27
30
Research Method
3.1 Research Method
32
3.2 Location of Research
32
3.3 Proceduer
32
3.4 Instrument of Research
33
3.5 Data resources
33
3.6 Data Collection Techniques
33
3.6.1 Questionnaire
34
3.6.2 In depth Interview
34
3.6.3 Documentation
34
3.7 Data Analysis
35
3.7.1 Analysis before Conducting Research
35
3.7.2 Analysis during Conducting Research
36
3.7.2.1 Data Reduction
36
3.7.2.2 Data Display
37
3.7.2.3 Conclusion Drawing/ verification
37
3.8 Planning of Data Validity Testing
37
3.8.1 Credibility testing (internal validity)
37
3.8.2 Transferability testing (external validity)
37
viii
IV.
3.8.3 Dependability testing
38
3.8.4 Conformability testing
38
Result And Discusion
4.1 Result
39
4.1.1 Informant’s Identities
39
4.1.2 Result of Data Analysis
40
4.1.3 Data Analyze Compare by Teacher’s Age and
Teaching Experience
4.2 Discusion
4.2.1 Behavior of Physics Teacher in Implementing of
Assessment’s Mechanism
4.2.2
V.
43
45
45
4.2.1.1 Planning of Daily Exam
45
4.2.1.2 Implement / Conducted of Daily Exam
46
4.2.1.3 Analized The Result of Daily Exam
47
4.2.1.4 Report The Result of Daily Exam
48
Factors that inhibiting of Physics Teacher did
not maximal implement standardized assessment
52
Conclusion and Suggestion
5.1 Conclusion
53
5.2 Suggestion
53
REFERENCE
54
ix
FIGURE LIST
Page
Figure 2.1
Mechanism of Assessment Conduct by Teacher
19
Figure 2.2
Design of Assessment in Curriculum 2013
26
Figure 2.3
Conceptual Framework of Assessment
31
Figure 3.1
Data Collecting Technique
33
Figure 3.2
Flow of Data Analysis
35
Figure 3.3
Components of Data Analysis
36
Figure 4.1
Teachers’s implementation of standart assessment
on daily exam
42
Figure 4.2
Teachers’s implementation of standart assessment on
daily exam by difference age
43
Teachers’s implementation of standart assessment on
daily exam by difference teaching experience
44
Figure 4.3
xi
APPENDIX LIST
Page
Appendix 1. Instrument for Questionnaire
56
Appendix 2. Instrument for In Depth Interview
57
Appendix 3. Documents Sheet
60
Appendix 4. Data of Students’ Questionnaire
61
Appendix 5. Data of Teacher in-depth interview
79
Appendix 6. Reduction Data of Students’ Questionnaire
84
Appendix 7. Reduction Data of Physics Teachers In Depth – Interview
86
Appendix 8. Reduction Data of Physics Teachers assessment
by documentation
88
Appendix 9. Research Documentation
89
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Education is an important role in improving the prosperity of society.
Education will produce reliable human resources (SDM) in managing natural
resources, using technology, and providing services. Human resources (SDM) will be
a valuable asset in developing the nation's progress. Therefore, each state should
identified quality of education as one of the highest national priority. To improve the
quality of education considers changes in the curriculum be one solution to making
education relevant to the demands of globally according to the statement of M.Nuh
(Momod, 2013) that changes the curriculum is the government's efforts to improve
the quality of education in Indonesia
There are strong reasons and obvious foundation when curriculum has been
changing time by time. These changes are encouraged by desire to improve, develop,
and increase the quality of the national education system continuously. The
curriculum is a set of planning and setting the objectives, content and learning
materials and methods used to guide the learning activities organizer to achieve
educational goals (Haryati, 2009). The changes of national education curriculum will
impact to changes some elements contained in curriculum. The elements are
competence of graduates, content standards, process standards, and assessment
standards.
Now, Indonesia is trying to implementation the Curriculum 2013. Graduate
competencies described in three dimensions: (a) attitudes, (b) skills and (c)
knowledge, accordance with the Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan
No.53 Tahun 2013 on Competency Standards for Primary and Secondary Education.
Attitude is part of the affective domain, a domain of psychomotor skills, and
knowledge domain. So the order of taxonomy education curriculum in 2013, is the
2
main attitudes, followed by skills, knowledge as last domain. The attitude should be
promoted first, continue to skills, and the last is the knowledge. In fact, one of
important points in implementation of curriculum which often ignore is the
assessment standard. It is very important part in National Education Standards as
required to improve the quality of education. Therefore, a good curriculum and the
learning process that really needs supported by a good appraisal system, planned and
sustainable.
Three aspects of graduate competencies form the basis of assessment
standards emphasize that task of the teacher is not only to provide information to
students, but also should be a facilitator, conduct learning facilities even be a subject
to determine student achievement. As the most important learning resources in the
school, teacher is very important to improve the standard of education because
efficiency and equity of school depends on the ability of the teacher, human resources
of teacher and motivation to provide the best performance. Teachers as a spearheads
in the implementation of curriculum required to understand and apply it optimally
and earnestly, because teachers also play a role in improving the standard of
education. In addition, teachers also should know how to conduct a valid assessment
to be able to measure student learning outcomes accordance with demands of
curriculum. There are various forms of assessment can be made by teachers to assess
the student learning outcomes, one of them is daily exam (UH). UH is a form of
technical exam which its implementation concerned left to the teacher and activity
undertaken by teacher periodically to measure the achievement of competence after
completing a basic competence (KD) or more. UH used as one consideration aspect
to determine the cumulative value of students’ competence achieve will be presented
on the report. In conduct the valid assessment, teachers must capable to develop
instrument that containing measured dimensions of competency. Assessing the
learning outcomes by educators conducted continuously to monitor the process and
progress of student learning including to improve the effectiveness of learning
activities. In assessing student learning outcomes, teachers must obey and follow
3
assessment standard. Basic assessment and appraisal standards that have been set in
Permendikbud No.66 Tahun 2013.
Research about assessment has been carried out previously by Gultom (2012)
that analyzed physics teachers’ understanding about assessment at several schools in
Medan. Found that in general assessment, that conducted by physics teachers (even
have educators certificate or not) in several SMA in Medan is less accordance with
demands of KTSP, Assessment was conducted without a description of learners’
progress caused the teachers’ understanding about assessment standards very limited,
socialization and guidance rarely added facility factor and students’ interest in
learning is low. Reinforced by the results of research by Handayani (2012) explain
that teachers assessed students tend through objective and subjective exams and
teachers’ low understand about assessment make they concluded assessment just as
examination. Literature studies also show that many teachers are confused and do not
understand, especially in the assessment form of curriculum 2013. In accordance with
what was delivered by Waruwu as Director of Education Training & Consulting,
Jakarta in her journal “Rangkuman Berbagai Pokok Pikiran Seputar Kurikulum 2013”
assessment became a difficult part to be implemented by educators alike with
statement of Rusilowati, Professor of the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural
Sciences (MIPA) Semarang State University (Unnes) at Curriculum 2013
socialization during December 2013 in the city of Semarang that some teachers
didnot understand assessment concept actually.
Based on description above, this research wil focused on studying assessment
implementation in daily exam by physics teachers in some piloting schools the
curriculum 2013 in Medan. This research is important because the new curriculum
2013 will be implement in year 2015 to change previous curriculum and need to
know how far the physics teacher in piloting schools have been implemented
assessment standart. If assessment’s mechanism and procedure has implemented
incorrectly and invalid so it produce negative impacts such as students’ assess
administration inaccurate, teacher does not know the level mastery of student, teacher
4
is not able to arrange student’s report progress of learning, teachers do not find
alternative solutions to develop their ability in teaching and learning and finally the
curriculum goal does not achieve.
1.2 Problem’s Identification
1. Teachers only carry out daily exam by tests and measure knowledge
competency only.
2. Teachers do not conduct the intergration assessment among competency of
attitude, skill and knowledge.
1.3 Limitations of the Study
Based on the background problems described above and the identification of
problems that have been described, considering the factors involved in the assessment
standards is very complex, as well as to research more focused, then the problem will
be limited based on the information in the search and the places or schools that will
investigated. This study will be limited as follows:
1. The research do in high school (SMA) in Medan, 2013-2014 academic year.
2. The research do on teachers who teach physics especially in class X.
3. The data will be only gathering from the target schools.
1.4 Problem Statement
Based on the background of the issues, identifying problems, and limitation
issues, the problems in this study can be formulated as follows:
1. Is the daily exam that conducted by physics teacher in senior high
schools in Medan accordance with demand of curriculum 2013?
2. How far physics teacher have implemented the assessment standard of
daily exam (UH) demand to Curriculum 2013?
5
1.5 Objectives
Based on the background of the issues, identifying problems, limitation issues,
and the problems in this study, the objectives of this research can be formulated as
follows:
1. Knowing the congruence of daily exam that conducted by physics
teacher in senior high schools in Medan with demand of curriculum
2013.
2. Knowing how far physics teacher have implemented the assessment
standard of daily exam (UH) demand to Curriculum 2013.
1.6 Advantages of Research
The researchers are expected to be useful for:
1.
Providing information about the uniformity of implementation of
assessment at Daily Exam (UH) that conducted by physics teacher with
assessment standards and curriculum set up by the government at several
senior high schools in Medan.
2.
Increase the researches knowledge about assessment.
3.
Become a motivation for teachers to improve their ability in conduct the
assessment.
53
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 CONCLUSION
From the above data it can be concluded that:
1. Teacher conduct the daily exam not maximal or not totaly congruence with
demand of curriculum 2013 because some factor such as minimal training or
guiding from the government to arrange the assessment, lack understanding
how to develop and implement standardized assessments and students interest
and motivation to study of physics subjects is still very low.
2. Physic teacher implemented the assessment standart of daily exam in 66.24%
where frailness at some factors like teacher not prepare seriously the
assessment instrument of daily exam, not analyze the result using scoring
guideline, not conduct exact remedi and enrichment, not give personal
constructive command to student.
5.2 SUGGESTION
From the above data can suggest that importance of particular concern
government education department supervisors to provide new information in the
assessment demand to Curriculum 2013 and schools must update the assessment
system so that the onset of improvement that is expected to improve education in
Indonesia.
54
REFERENCE
Act Goverment Education and Training, (2011), Teacher’s Guide to Assessment:
Sectoral Assessment Working, Act Goverment.
Ajzen, I., (2005), Attitude, Personality, and Behavior, Mc Graw-Hill Companies,
London.
Arikunto, S., (2005), Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan, Penerbit Bumi Aksara,
Jakarta.
Fraenkel,Jack.R., (2006), How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education, Mac
Grawa-hill,New york.
Gultom, R., (2012), Analysis of Physics Teachers' Understanding In Implementing of
Assessment at Several Senior High School in Medan., Thesis, FMIPA,
Unimed, Medan.
Haryati, M., (2009), Model dan Teknik Penilaian Pada Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan,
Gaung Persada Perss, Jakarta.
Hidayani, A., (2012), Study of a Comparison between Objective and Subjective Test
by Physics Teacher in Senior High School (SMA) in Medan., Thesis,
FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
James, P., (2001), Knowing What Students Know, National Academy Press,
Washington DC.
Joughin, G., (2009), Assessment, Learning and Judgment in Higher Education,
Springer Inc, Australia.
Kenji, T., (2010), Growing Success: Assessment, Evaluation, And Reporting In
Ontario School, Journal of Resource Site (1): 1-12
Krathwohl, D., (2002), A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy, College of Education, The
Ohio State University.
Momod, (2013), Sosialisasi dan Pelatihan Implementasi Kurikulum 2013 Surabaya:
http://mpn.kominfo.go.id/index.php/2013/03/06/kurikulum-2013-titiktolak-peningkatan-kualitas-pendidikan/ (Accessed on Januari 24th, 2014)
55
Nana, S., (1995), Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar, Remaja Rosdakarya,
Bandung.
Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Nomor 53 Tahun 2013. Tentang
Standar Kompetensi Lulusan.
Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Nomor 66 Tahun 2013. Tentang
Standar Penilaian Pendidikan.
Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 32 Tahun 2013. Tentang Standar Nasional Pendidikan.
Rusilowati,
A., (2013),Kesulitan Guru pada Penilaian Kurikulum 2013:
http://unnes.ac.id/berita/87-persen-guru-kesulitan-soal-penilaianpenilaian
kurikulum-2013/ (Accessed on Januari 13rd, 2014)
Russell, M., (2012), Assessment in the classroom, The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc,
USA.
Scott, D., (2001), Curriculum And Assessment, Ablex Publishing, London.
Screerens, J., (2005), Education Evaluation, Assessment and Monitoring, Swets &
Zeithinger Publishers, Netherlands.
Sugiyono, (2010), Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R&D, Alfabeta,
Bandung.
Undang-undang Republik Indonesia nomor 14 tahun 2005 tentang guru dan dosen.
Undang-undang Republik Indonesia nomor 20 tahun 2003 tentang sistem pendidikan
nasional.
Waruwu, F., (2013), Rangkuman Berbagai Pokok Pikiran Seputar Kurikulum
2013,Electronic Journal,1-1
Wardhani, Sri., (2008), Standar Penilaian Pendidikan (Implikasinya Terhadap Tugas
Guru Matematika dan Sekolah), Pusat Pengembangan dan Pemberdayaan
Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan Matematika, Yogyakarta.
56