THE ROLES OF BIOLOGY EXERCISES CONSTRUCTION IN STUDENTS’ SCIENCE TEXTBOOK, STUDENTS’ SEX,
AND SCHOOL LEVEL ON PISA TEST ACHIEVEMENT IN BINJAI
A THESIS
Submitted to Biology Education Study Program in a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Pendidikan
By:
RAJA NOVI ARISKA Registration Number: 8136173013
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
i ABSTRACT
Raja Novi Ariska. Registration Number: 8136173013. The Roles of Biology Exercise Construction in Students’ Science Textbook, Students’ Sex, and School Level on PISA Test Achievement in Binjai. A Thesis. Biology Education Program. State University of Medan, 2015.
The aims of this study were to investigate the (1) construction of biology exercises items in students’ science textbook compared to PISA test items, (2) students’ sex, and (3) school level on PISA test achievement in Binjai, North Sumatera, Indonesia. The PISA items and biology items in students’ science textbook were purposively selected and analyzed by new Bloom’s taxonomy, knowledge dimensions and types of questions. Furthermore, a total of 695 students who age 15,3 to 16,2 years old from ten public schools were randomly selected and had tested with four different booklets of PISA biology test achievement, composed of 40 questions of 13 units. The result showed that test items construction in science textbook with 2013 curriculum was the most appropriate to PISA test items than the items within science textbooks of KTSP curriculum. In general, the students’ scientific literacy scored 48.92 ± 13.24 while PISA competencies scores respectively 46.77 ± 18.77 for identifying scientific issues, 49.48 ± 14.19 in explaining phenomena scientifically, and 46.30 ± 18. 69 for using scientific evidence. There was no difference of students’ sex to scientific literacy and the whole competencies. However, although the students in the same age 15 years old, the students who were one level higher, senior high school, had significant differences in competency of using scientific evidence than the student in junior high school (u =69,801.500; p = 0.000, whole respondents data; u = 5,405.000; p = 0.043, PISA operational age data). The differences in test item construction and period of learning science, partly, are the possible factors determine students’ achievement in PISA survey.
ii
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menyelidiki peran dari: (1) konstruksi soal latihan biologi pada buku IPA siswa, (2) jenis kelamin, dan (3) jenjang sekolah terhadap prestasi tes PISA di Binjai. Soal-soal PISA dan soal-soal biologi pada buku IPA di ambil secara purposif dan dianalisis dengan menggunakan taksonomi Bloom edisi revisi, level kognitif dan dimensi pengetahuan serta format pertanyaan. Kemudian, sebanyak 695 siswa berusia 15,3 – 16,2 tahun dari sepuluh sekolah negeri di Binjai di ambil secara acak dan diuji dengan soal Biologi PISA yang disusun dalam 4 kode naskah soal, masing-masing terdiri dari 40 soal. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa konstruksi soal biologi dalam buku teks IPA dengan menggunakan kurikulum 2013 paling sesuai dengan konstruksi soal PISA dibandingkan dengan soal-soal biologi pada buku teks IPA dengan kurikulum tingkat satuan pendidikan (KTSP). Hasil tes terhadap soal-soal PISA pada konten biologi menunjukkan bahwa nilai rerata untuk kategori literasi sains adalah 48.92 ± 13.24 dan nilai rerata untuk masing- masing kompetensi yang dinilai PISA adalah 46.77 ± 18.77 untuk mengidentifikasi permasalahan ilmiah, 49.48 ± 14.19 dalam menjelaskan fenomena secara ilmiah, dan 46.30 ± 18. 69 dalam menggunakan bukti ilmiah. Uji Mann-Whitney menunjukkan tidak terdapat peran jenis kelamin terhadap kemampuan literasi sains dan tiga kompetensi PISA. Akan tetapi, walaupun berada pada jenjang umur yang sama (15,3 – 16,2 tahun) siswa yang berada pada satu tingkat lebih tinggi menunjukkan bahwa kemampuan siswa SMA secara signifikan berbeda dengan kemampuan siswa SMP dalam kompetensi menggunakan bukti ilmiah (U =69,801.500; P = 0.000, data seluruh responden; U = 5,405.000; P = 0.043, data responden dengan usia operasional PISA). Perbedaan konstruksi soal dan periode belajar IPA secara terpisah merupakan faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi prestasi literasi sains siswa dalam survei PISA
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Praise and sincerest gratitude be to the Almighty, Allah SWT, for his
immeasurable blessing and all of the kindness that ease her life, so that she finally
able to accomplish her thesis which entitled “The Role of Biology Exercises
Construction in Students’ Science Textbook, Students’ Sex, and School Level on PISA Test Achievement in Binjai”. It is intended as one of the requirement to obtain the degree of Magister Pendidikan from Biology Education Study
Program, Postgraduate Program State University of Medan.
The writer would like to express her special heartfelt thanks to the peoples
who never stop motivating, providing constructive advices, and commenting for
better improvement. Earnest gratitude is expressed for her thesis supervisor,
Syarifuddin, M.Sc., Ph.D. and Prof. Dr. rer.nat Binari Manurung, M.Si for their
invaluable time spent in giving guidance, suggestions, comments, and critics for
the improvement of this thesis.
She also owes debt to the peoples, Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed, Dr.H.
Hasruddin, M.Pd., and Dr. Hj. Fauziyah Harahap, M.Si. as examiners, for their
constructive comments and suggestions for the improvement of this thesis. The
whole teachers and students who participated in this research at SMP Negeri 1
Binjai, SMP Negeri 2 Binjai, SMP Negeri 3 Binjai, SMP Negeri 7 Binjai, SMP
Negeri 11 Binjai, SMA Negeri 1 Binjai, SMA Negeri 2 Binjai, SMA Negeri 3
Binjai, SMA Negeri 4 Binjai, and SMA Negeri 5 Binjai.
Undying gratitude to her beloved parents, H. Raja Abidinsyah and Hj.
Aminatun Zuhriah for their boundless loves, attentions, encouragements, and
understanding every weaknesses of her. Especially, when she faced the puzzling
situations in the completion of this thesis, the amazing endorsement and deep
constructive advices always sheds to her. So she still could stay on the tract to
overcome it. Brothers and sisters, Raja M. Rizky B., Raja Suci R., Raja Nurul F.,
and Raja M. Akbar H. for their invaluable support when she conducted the
Thanks also to Pasca Dik Bio A 2013 for countless hours gathering
valuable feedback and the overwhelming friendship (Al Khudri, Amrullah, Elena,
Erlia, Dewi, Dina, Maidera, Jhonas, Mahpuzah, Sukmawati, Siska, and Dhian)
and relatives who cannot be mentioned more for the friendship, invaluable
support, patience, and insight.
May Allah always bless us. Finally, with all humility this paper hopefully
will be beneficial to contribute ideas in education, especially for the writer.
Medan, June 2015 The writer
Raja Novi Ariska
v
1.6.1. Theoretical Significance ……….. 11
1.6.2. Practical Significance ……….. 11
2.1.4. Textbook and Educational Achievement………. 15
2.1.5. Role of Textbook……….. 16
2.1.6. Scientific Literacy ……… 17
2.1.7. Scientific Learning in 2013 Curriculum ……….. 20
2.1.8. PISA………. 21
2.1.8.1. Focus of PISA……… 21
2.1.8.2. Dimension of PISA Scientific Literacy ... 23
2.1.9. Indonesian Achievement in PISA Survey…………...………. 27
vi
3.3. Methods and Design of research ………. 38
3.4. Operational Definition……….. 39
3.4.1. Biology PISAQuestion………. 39
3.4.2. Biology Exercise Construction in Science Textbook……….. 39
3.4.3. Students’ Sex……… 40
3.4.4. School Level……… 40
3.4.5. PISA Test Achievement……….. 40
3.5. Research Instrument………. 41
3.5.1.Item Analysis and Result of Research Instrument ……….. 43
3.6. Research Procedure ………. 45
3.7. Data Analysis………... 49
3.8. Hypothesis ………... 53
CHAPTER IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Result and Data Analysis………. 55
4.1.1.Distribution of Assessment Questions Based on Bloom New Taxonomy………. 55
4.1.2. Question Distribution Based on the Type of the Questions ………… 58
4.1.3. Students’ Scientific Literacy ……… 59
4.1.4. Students’ Responses to Each Item……… 66
4.1.5. Sex Differences to Scientific Literacy and Its Competencies ……… 67
4.1.6. School Level Differences to Scientific Literacy and Its Competencies 68 4.2. Discussion ……… 71
4.2.1.Distribution of Question Based on Bloom New taxonomy…………. 71
4.2.2.Distribution of Question Based on Type of Question……….. 74
4.2.3. Students’ Scientific Literacy……… 75
4.2.4. Students’ Responses to Items………... 79
4.2.5. Sex Differences to Scientific Literacy and Its Competencies ……… 103
4.2.6. School Level Differences to Scientific Literacy and Its Competencies 105
vii
LIST OF TABLE
Table 2.1. Context for PISA Scientific Literacy Assessment………… 24 Table 2.2 The Sample Verb and Sample Behavior of Bloom
Original Taxonomy……… 28
Table 2.3. The Cognitive Level of Thinking ……..……… 31 Table 2.4. The Knowledge Dimension………... 32 Table 3.1. Total of Respondents and School Included in the Study ….. 38 Table 3.2. Blue Print of PISA Assessment of Scientific Literac……… 42 Table 3.3. Critical Level of Question………. 50 Table 3.4. The Percentage Category of Scientific Literacy……..……. 51 Table 4.1. Question Tabulation Based on The Level Of Thinking…… 56 Table 4.2 The description of attained each literacy category………... 60 Table 4.3. The Description of Data for Each Aspect Based on School
Level to Whole Sample……… 62
Table 4.4. The Description of Data for Each Aspect Based on Sex
to Whole Sample……… 63
Table 4.5. The Description of Data for Each Aspect Based on School
Level to PISA age-based respondents ……… 64 Table 4.6. The Description of Data for Each Aspect Based on
Sex to Whole Sample……… .. 65 Table 4.7. The comparison of Indonesia correct answer percentage in
PISA and Research……….. 67
viii
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 2.1. The component of PISA scientific literacy framework………. 23
Figure 2.2. Cognitive Domain of Bloom original taxonomy and revision 30 Figure 4.1. Cognitive level distribution of the question……….. 55
Figure 4.2. Knowledge Dimension Distribution of the Question………… 57
Figure 4.3. Question Type Distribution………... 59
Figure 4.4. Students’category of Scientific Literacy………... 60
Figure 4.5. Students’ attainment based on school level………... 61
Figure 4.6. The result of Gender factor to science literacy……….. 63
Figure 4.7. The diagram of school effect to science literacy ……...……… 64
Figure 4.8. The result of Gender effect to Science Literacy………...……. 65
Figure 4.9. Question difficulty indices distribution………. 66
Figure 4.10. Physical exercise unit in PISA OECD’s Assessment ………… 80
Figure 4.11. Item of Physical exercise in Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam – Kemendikbud………. 80
Figure 4.12. Question 1 of Physical exercise unit……….. 81
Figure 4.13. The same question found in Kemendikbud science textbook.... 84
Figure 4.14. The complex multiple choice question no. 38 of Major Surgery. 85 Figure 4.15. Question no. 14 of Cloning unit……….……… 85
Figure 4.16. The Genetically Modified Crops unit ………... 90
Figure 4.17. Question 3 from Acid Rain Unit……….... 91
Figure 4.18. The Tabulation of Gases Source fromKemendkbud Book…… 92
Figure 4.19 The question from kemendikbud science textbook which similar To PISA item………. 92
Figure 4.20. The question and matter from ESIS science textbook which Similar to PISA item………. 93
Figure 4.21. The matters from TS which appropriate to answer Acid Rain Item………... 94
viiii
LIST OF DIAGRAM
x
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Bloom New Taxonomy Framework and Knowledge
Dimension.. ………. 118
Appendix 2. Question Tabulation Based on New Bloom Taxonomy and Knowledge dimension and Type of Question………... 119
Appendix 3. Comparison of Question Based on Level of cognition, Knowledge Dimension, and Types of Question…………... 122
Appendix 4. Question Collection from the whole Sources……… 123
Appendix 5. Instrument Test for Scientific Literacy………. 153
Appendix 6. Validity and Reliability of Instrument……….. 170
Appendix 7. Reliability Test………. 172
Appendix 8. Difficulty indices of instrument test………. 173
Appendix 9. Discrimination indices……….. 174
Appendix 10. Students’ responses to each item……….. 176
Appendix 11. Normality Test of the Data……… 190
Appendix 12. Homogeneity test of the Data………..………... 191
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
The development of knowledge of science which in accordance with the
rapid advancement of technology requires good education system to prepare
peoples to be able adapt to a novel situation, absorb and filter new information,
and solve various issues they face in life with science-related skills (OECD,
2007). It is in line with the core objective of science education which termed as
scientific literacy (Chaisri, 2014; American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 2014). Scientific literacy is defined as the incorporation of scientific idea
and concepts within and across various scientific disciplines, as well as scientific
practices (Shwartz et al, 2006). It relates to the individual competencies of using
scientific knowledge, identifying questions, and drawing evidence-based
conclusions (OECD, 2013; Master, 2005).
Assessment as an important part of evaluation is tightly interconnected
with curriculum and instruction. It assess whether or not the goals of education are
reached after several teaching and learning process (Edutopia, 2008). Many
strategies can be performed to obtain information about the progress and
achievement as a result of education process through the assessment, including;
class-based assessment, school-based assessment, regional, national and
international scale assessment, according to the objectives of the assessment
(Looney, 2011).
2
Educational organizations have been developed the international-scale
assessments which focus on the achievement and trends of education system
across countries, within country. The results of this international study could
reflect the quality of education in the member and participating countries, enrich
and enlarge the national view in preparing and facilitating the best way about the
weaknesses and strength of a country, finally able to monitoring the improvement
of the country.
Program for International Student Assessment or PISA as an international
large-scale comparative survey are purposes on monitor the trends of students’
literacy and offers insights for education policies of participating countries
(OECD, 2013). This three-year cycle assessment focuses on 15,3 – 16,2 years old
ability to apply knowledge and skills to contextual life (Master, 2005; OECD,
2013). As the compulsory education in entire world is completed in age 15, it
assumed those with age 15 have been mastered the basic skills and sufficient
knowledge to start entering adult life (OECD, 2013). It also reflects how well the
education prepares the youth to challenge, compete, and solve real-world
problems they encounter in future work place with the knowledge they have
(OECD, 2013; Tao, 2008).
Includes in PISA surveys started from 2000 to 2012, Indonesian
achievement in PISA, especially in science always below the average score of
OECD’s countries (500) and took the fifth last place among all participants (Hadi
& Endang, 2009 ; Burckhardt, 2014; OECD, 2003; OECD, 2004; OECD, 2006
3
place from 41 participants with average score 393 (OECD, 2003). In second
survey, Indonesia obtained the 38th place from 40 participants in 2003 with mean
score 395 (OECD, 2004). Furthermore, the third survey in 2006 where science
became a major domain of assessment, put Indonesia in the rank 53th from 57
participants (average score 395) (OECD, 2006) and in 2009 with the average
score 383 make Indonesia in the rank 62th from 65 participant countries. The last
survey in 2012 put Indonesia in the rank 64th from 65 countries with mean score
382 (OECD, 2013a).
The finding was also informed that most of students’ were reached the
basic level of scientific literacy. The cognitive load by remembering the simple
facts (like name, fact, term, simple formulation) is categorized at this stage.
Moreover, the students at this level only used the common scientific knowledge
and familiar situations to create or evaluate a conclusion (Rustaman, 2010).
The involvement of Indonesia in this international scale assessment was
drawn interest facts about Indonesia achievement. The data which outlined the
low achievement of Indonesian should be used in further analysis to investigate
the possible factors lowering the 15 years old Indonesian students in PISA
assessment.
There are many factors affected the successful of learning, but several
study reveals that the textbooks is one of factors which determined what students
have learned. The textbook are widely use as the fundamental sources of
information to basic biological concepts, scientific research process, experimental
4
access (National Research Council, 1997; Haury, 2000; Teixeira et al, 2011).
Moreover, the teachers are actively use textbooks as their main instructional tool
and reference sources (Cobanoglu & Sahin, 2009) and to give assignments as well
(Özay & Hasenekoğlu, 2007).
Governor regulation of Education National Standard No. 19 (chapter 42,
2005) states every educational unit must have the supporting material of learning
to create the well-regulated and continuum learning. Furthermore, the regulation
of Ministry of Education No. 11 (chapter 1, 2005) also notes that textbook play an
important role to increase education quality in primary and secondary school
(Masduki et al, 2013).
The data of the use of science textbooks as basis for instruction is reported
by Martin et al (in Oates, 2014). It compared the used of science textbook in
England, Singapore, and Finland. About 4 % the textbook are used in England, 68
% textbooks are used as basis for instruction in Singapore, and 94% in Finland. It
also reported that the less of textbook used as instructional media might relates to
the lower score attain by England compared to those countries. In addition, the
Singapore and Finland always be the top performer in PISA test (Oates, 2014).
Previous study about the quality of the question embedded in students
textbook reveals that evaluation in junior high school textbook of math have the
applying aspect about 66% - 92%, where the reasoning aspect only 0.39% -
11.63% (Masduki et al, 2013). The low percentage of reasoning aspect makes the
students is not accustomed to solve the challenging problem, creative, analytic and
5
In carrying out the survey, PISA measured students’ literacy skills through
a set of questions which arranged in booklets of questions. The textbook also have
the subsets of question to evaluate what students learned through a learning
process. Most of schoolteacher usually had the students to complete the exercise
in textbook as the part of assessment after being taught. The quality of the
question within biology exercises mostly posed to the students, especially in
textbook were presumably be one of the factors determining students’ success in
achieving goals in learning biology. It also expected that the format of the
question was liable in determining students’ success in responses a kind of test.
The tendency to answer the question they get used to face with will help
them minimize the time consumption to answering test which include those
common types of questions. It was presumable that the low achievement of
students in PISA survey caused by the limited familiarity of the students to the
type of PISA question or there are the differences of cognitive level and format of
PISA question with question mostly posed by the students, especially in textbook
(Anagnostopoulou et al, 2012).
The compulsory of education in Indonesia was end in the late of junior
high school. The essence of the matter was taught in the level of junior high
school was estimated influence the result of PISA assessment. Nowadays,
Indonesia is facing the changing of curriculum from KTSP curriculum to 2013
curriculum. The shift to new paradigm in 2013 curriculum pays a focus to
empower and acculturate life-long learning and provide pupils with the key
6
(Kemendikbud, 2014). But the 2013 curriculum is still implemented in some pilot
schools in Indonesia.
The pre-observation about the printed learning material used in teaching
science in Binjai was done in November 2014. It was found that the public junior
high school in Binjai used the various textbooks which released by government
(DEPDIKNAS and KEMENDIKBUD) and private publisher, which utilizing the
both curriculum, 2013 and KTSP curriculum for teaching science.
Since the sampling of respondents is determined based on age at 15,3 -
16,2 years old, the sample in Indonesia with that age are mostly distributed in two
school level namely junior high school students at grade 9 and senior high school
at grade 10. The different level of school was provided the differences in period of
learning science where the senior high school was having more experience with
science compared to junior high school.
Students’ factor such as sex identity was also collected as the crucial
information in PISA survey. The measurement of this factor could give
information about the tendency of how the boys and girls were prepared to
challenging and taking action in future life. Miller et al (2006) examined 79 high
school students and found that the boys were outperformed girls in the subject of
science. The finding were related to sex differences lead most people to believe
that boys are good in mathematics and science related domain, where girls work
best in verbal related subject (Robertson et al, 2003). The result was similar with
Indonesia achievement in PISA survey 2006 where boys outperformed girls in the
7
paradoxically different with Canada which shows that the girls were score better
than the boys (Huang, 2010). Another study was also performed that sex
differences shows the differences in behaviors, characteristics, and abilities. It
summarized that females have higher verbal ability than males, where males were
excel in visual-spatial and mathematical ability (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974).
Students’ sex and school level are large enough to be considered affect the
achievement in learning science, so both of these factors also examined in this
study.
1.2. Identification of Problem
According to the background, the identified problems are:
1. Indonesian achievement in PISA, especially in science always below the
average score of OECD’s countries (500) and took the fifth last place among
all participants.
2. The textbook are widely use as the fundamental sources of information to
basic biological concepts, scientific research process, experimental activities
and very often the only source of knowledge to which the students have
access.
3. The quality of the question within biology exercises mostly posed to the
students, especially in textbook were presumably be one of the factors
determining students’ success in achieving goals in learning biology.
4. Textbooks are widely used in biology education. The studies that were
conducted abroad indicate that 90% of the teachers actively use textbooks as
8
5. It was presumable that the low achievement of students in PISA survey
caused by the limited familiarity of the students to the type of PISA question
or there are the differences of cognitive level and format of PISA question
with question mostly posed by the students, especially in textbook.
6. The more students have familiarity and exercise with the questions resemble
with the PISA assessment there are a tendency to get better score.
7. The students’ sex and school level was also expected influences the
successful of learning science, especially Biology.
1.3. Scope of Study
Based on the background and problem identification have describe, this
research is concern on:
1. The source of PISA assessment was taken from Take the test, Sample
Questions from OECDs PISA Assessment (OECD, 2009: 193-251).
2. The analysis of question within science textbook was limited only for the
question in biology exercises.
3. The analysis of biology question in science textbook follow the same matter
discussed in PISA assessment.
4. The textbook analyzed in this study were limited in the grade 7 for junior
high school.
5. The analysis of PISA items and biology items in science textbook use the
Bloom’s new taxonomy (C1-C6) cognitive level and knowledge dimension,
9
6. Students’ achievement on PISA (scientific literacy and its’ competencies of
identifying scientific issue, explaining phenomena scientifically, and use
scientific evidence) were measured by administered the students with biology
question from PISA assessment.
7. The role of students’ sex to PISA achievement was analyzed by use the
independent sample t-test by comparing the average score of both sample
groups.
8. The role of school level to PISA achievement was analyzed by use the
independent sample t-test by comparing the average score of both sample
groups.
9. Sample of research were limited to most frequent science textbooks used in
teaching science and student in age 15, 3 to 16,2 years old which
approximately in grade 9 and 10 in public school in Binjai.
1.4. Research Question
In accordance with the issues that have been stated, then the problem can
be formulated as follow:
1. How are the designs of PISA test item and biology assessment in junior high
school science textbook in Binjai based on new Bloom taxonomy (C1-C6)
and knowledge dimension?
2. How is the design of PISA test item and biology assessment in junior high
10
3. How are the students’ scientific literacy based on PISA competencies in the
aspect of identifying scientific issues, explaining phenomena scientifically,
and using scientific evidences in Binjai?
4. How are the students’ responses to the questions being tested?
5. Do the sex differences have role to students’ scientific literacy and
competencies in the aspect of identifying scientific issues, explaining
phenomena scientifically, and using scientific evidences in Binjai?
6. Does the school level have role to students’ scientific literacy and
competencies in the aspect of identifying scientific issues, explaining
phenomena scientifically, and using scientific evidences in Binjai?
1.5. Research Objectives This study is aimed to:
1. Reveals the design of PISA test item and biology assessment in junior high
school science textbook in Binjai based on Bloom new taxonomy (C1-C6)
and knowledge dimension.
2. Reveals the design of PISA test item and biology assessment in junior high
school science textbook in Binjai based on the type of question.
3. Reveals students’ scientific literacy based on PISA competencies in the
aspect of identifying scientific issues, explaining phenomena scientifically,
and using scientific evidences in Binjai.
11
5. Examine the sex differences effect to students’ scientific literacy and
competencies in the aspect of identifying scientific issues, explaining
phenomena scientifically, and using scientific evidences in Binjai.
6. Examine the school level effect to students’ scientific literacy and
competencies in the aspect of identifying scientific issues, explaining
phenomena scientifically, and using scientific evidences in Binjai.
1.6. Research Significances 1.6.1. Theoretical Significance
1. Providing information about the cognitive maps of biology PISA assessment
and biology assessment in students’ science textbook.
2. Encouraging the educators and publisher to create better question which
stimulates students to have higher order thinking skills and able to solve the
problem in real-life situation.
3. As a reference to get information about students scientific literacy in Binjai
which measured based on PISA released item and for other researchers who
want to continue and develop this research.
1.6.2. Practical Significance
1. It can be used as a reference to develop a better quality of question in
science textbook for Junior High School.
2. As a reference to educators to make students become familiar with the
question in real life situation, solving complex problem, and initiates them
107
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
1. There were the differences between the items construction in PISA
assessment and items construction in biology assessment inside the textbook.
The PISA item were mostly distributed in the higher order thinking question
(C4-C6) while the three textbook arranged by the 2006 curriculum were
accumulated into low order thinking question (C1-C3). The assessment inside
the book supplemented by 2013 curriculum delineated the most appropriate
type of assessment to stimulate students higher order thinking skills which in
line with PISA, where the assessment were having the complexity and adapt
to suit the real life situations (more contextual). Moreover, this book also
contains two unit of biology content of PISA assessment.
2. The findings for the type of question being asked revealed that the PISA
assessment mainly composed of four types of question including; simple
multiple choice, complex multiple choice, closed constructed responses, and
open constructed responses. The format of complex multiple choice were not
found inside the three textbook with 2006 curriculum and only 1 item inside
the 2013 curriculum. The limited familiarity of the students to the type of
complex multiple choice was assumed affect the result of the study.
3. Students’ scientific literacy based on PISA assessment in Binjai revealed that
the predominantly samples was categorized low literacy (48.92 ± 13.24). The
PISA competencies are composed of identifying scientific issue, explain
108
phenomena scientifically, and using scientific evidence. The score attained
for each competency were 46.77 ± 18.77, 49.48 ± 14.19, and 46.30 ± 18. 69
(low category).
4. The students’ responses to each item revealed that there were 12 items
includes into difficult item, 20 questions includes into moderate level
question and 8 items includes into easy item. The difficult items were
appeared might related to the complexity of the question being asked, the
unfamiliar settings and long text provided inside the unit as the illustration of
the context. Furthermore, the complexity of the diagram, chart, tables,
photographs, and the passage of text need students’ good reading skills to
able solving the issues proposed in the unit of assessment. The Indonesian
students reading literacy was also low in PISA assessment were related to the
result of science literacy.
5. Even though the mean score of male respondents were higher than the female,
the Mann-Whitney U test showed that there were no significant differences
between the male and female attainment in scientific literacy and its
competencies in identifying scientific issue, explaining phenomena
scientifically, and using scientific evidence in both age groups.
6. The Mann-Whitney U test showed the significant differences between the
school level where the senior high school outperformed the junior high school
significantly in the aspect of and using scientific evidence (U =69.801.50; P =
0.000, 1st group data; U = 5.405.00; P = 0.043, 2nd group data) in both age
109
5.2. Implication of Research
The implication of the study are lies in the fact that the books arranged
based on KTSP curriculum still accumulated in the factual knowledge dimension
and assessing students’ lower order thinking skills which might be the one
possible factor in determining students’ success in answering the items. In
addition, the absence of the complex multiple choice item in these three textbook
and students’ limited familiarity with this type of question also estimated affecting
the result of cognitive test. Moreover, the development of the questions in books
which stimulates students higher order thinking skill need to be reconsider.
The effect of international study also drives a changing in curriculum
which shows that Indonesia are in the process of using 2013 curriculum with
emphasizing the scientific learning. The finding of the study concludes that the
book supplemented with 2013 curriculum were the closed one with the PISA
assessment of its format and contextuality. The implementation and the usage of
the books published by Kemendikbud with 2013 curriculum might increase
students’ scientific literacy.
The results of scientific literacy outlines that the predominantly students
were having low level of literacy which measured by PISA questions. The low of
students’ achievement in this case, might related to the construction of the unit
which included the long passages text as the illustration of the context of the unit.
The students’ reading skill and willingness to answer could be viewed as the other
110
5.3. Suggestions
1. Educators and publisher should be reconsidering the arrangement of
questions which stimulates students’ higher order thinking skills and
provide problem in real-life situation.
2. The used of book by Kemendikbud which supplemented with 2013
curriculum need to be implemented in order to providing the more
contextual teaching and scientific activity.
3. For teachers, it need to make the students be accustomed to solving the
issues related to real-life situations so that the knowledge not only being
111
REFERENCE
American Association of Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (2014). The Nature of Science. Benchmark (Online) Project 2061. Retrieved at
http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php?chapter=1
Anagnostopoulou, K., V. Hatznikita, and V. Christidou. (2012). PISA and Biology School Textbok: The role of Visual Material. Social and Behavioral Science 46 (2012) 1839-1845
Anderson, L. W., and D. Krathwohl. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Angelo, T. A., and K. P. Cross. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Arikunto, S. (2009). Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara
Arikunto, S. (2009). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta
Becker, B. J., Chang, L., & Michigan, S. U. (1986). Measurement of science achievement and its role in gender differences. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED270328.pdf
Behringer, F. and M. Coles. (2003). The Role of National Qualification Systems in Promoting Lifelong Learning. OECD Education Working Papers, No.3, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/224841854572\
Bielinski, J., & Malison, M. L. (2001). A sex difference by item difficulty interaction in multiple choice mathematics items administered to national probability sample. Journal of Educational Measurement. Spring 2001, Vol. 38, No. 1. Pp. 51-77.
112
Burckhardt, P. (2014). On the Factors Influencing Performance of Indonesian Students in PISA. Article
Bybee, R., B. McCrae, and R. Laurie. (2009).PISA 2006 : An Assessment of Scientific Literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching Vol. 46, No. 8, PP.865-883 (2009).
Chaiseri. (2010). Mathematical and Scientific Literacy Around The World. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia 2010, Vol. 33 No. 1, 1-16
Chang, S.N., and M. H. Chiu. (2005). The Development of Authentic Assessment to Investigate ninth Graders Scientific Literacy. International journal of Science and Mathematic Education (2005) 3: 117-140. Taiwan
Cobanoglu, E.O., and B. Sahin. (2009). Underlining the Problems in Biology Textbook for 10th Grades in High School Education Using the Suggestions of Practicing Teachers. (J) Turkish Science EducationVol. 6 Issue 2
Cowell, P. E., Sluming, V. A., Wilkinson, I. D., Cezayirli, E., Romanowski, C. A. J., Webb, J. A., Keller, S. S., Mayes, A., & Roberts, N. (2007). Effects of sex and age on regional prefrontal brain volume in two human cohorts. European Journal of Neuroscience, 25(1), 307-318. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.05281.x
Eckes, T., & Trautner, H. M. (Eds.). (2000). The developmental social psychology of gender. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ekohariadi. (2009). Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Literasi Sains Siswa Indonesia Berusia 15 Tahun. Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar, 10:28-41
Fensham, Peter J. (2009) Real world contexts in PISA science : implications for context-based science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), pp. 884-896.
113
Government of Canada. (2013). The Scientific Literacy in PISA. (online) Retrieved from http://www.pisa.gc.ca/eng/science.shtml
Hadi, S. and M. Endang. (2009). Model Trend Prestasi Siswa Berdasarkan Data PISA Tahun 2000, 2003, dan 2006. Laporan Penelitian Pusat Penilaian Pendidikan Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Departemen Pendidikan Nasional
Hatzinikita, V., K. Dimopoulos, and V. Christidou,. (2008). PISA test items and school textbooks related to science: A textual comparison. Science Education, 92(4), 664-687
Haury, D.L. (2000). High school biology textbooks do not meet national standards. Eric Document: ED463949.
Hines, M. (2004). Brain gender. New York: Oxford University Press.
Holbrook, J. and M. Rannikmae. (2009). The Meaning of Scientific Literacy. Estonia: (J) IJSE Vol.4 No.3 (2009) 275-288
Huang, C.I. (2010). A Multilevel Analysis of Scientific Literacy: The Effects of Students Sex, Students’ Interest in Learning Science, and School Characteristics. A Thesis. University of Victoria
Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.
http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.html
Iowa State University. (2012). A Model of Learning Objectives based on A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching. Iowa State University
Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2014). Pembelajaran Saintifik. Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan
114
Lutz, S., & Huitt, W. (2004). Connecting cognitive development and constructivism: Implications from theory for instruction and assessment. Constructivism in the Human Sciences,9(1), 67-90.
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. CA: Stanford University Press.
Manitoba. (2014). Assessment. (online)
Marbach-Ad, G., and P.G. Sokolove. (2000). Good Sciences Begins with Good Questions: Answering the Needs for High-Level Questions in Science. Journal of College Science Teaching Vol. 30 No.3
Masduki, Subandriah, M.R., D. Y. Irawan, and A. Prihantoro. (2013). Cognitive Level of Questions in Middle School Textbook of Math. Yogyakarta: Paper Presented in National seminar of Math and Mathematic Education. (November, 9th 2013)
Masters, G. (2005). International Achievement Studies: Lessons from PISA and TIMMS. Australia: ACER Education Research Development Vol. 13(2005) Article 2
Miller, P. H., Blessing, J. S., & Schwartz, S. (2006). Gender differences in high-school students’ views about science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 363-381. doi:10.1080/09500690500277664
Murphy, P. (1997). Gender differences: Messages for science learning. In K. Harnquist and A. Bergen (Eds.), Growing up with science: Developing early understanding of science. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Murphy, P. (1999). Supporting collaborative learning: A gender dimension. In P. Murphy (Ed.), Learners, learning and assessment. London: Paul Chapman Publishing and Open University.
National Research Council. (1997). National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press
115
Norris S.P., and L.M. Phillips (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=4962#toc
Northern Illionis University.(2012). Formative and Sumative Assessment.
Oates, T. 2014. Why Textbook Count. Britain: University of Cambridge
OECD. (2003). Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow: Further Result From PISA 2000. Paris: UNESCO Institute for Statistic.
OECD. (2004). Learning for Tomorrow’s World: First Result from PISA (online) available at: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/60/34002216
OECD. (2006). Assessing Scientific, Reading, and Mathematical literacy: A Framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD
OECD. (2009a). PISA 2009 Assessment Framework-Key Competencies in Reading, Mathematics, and Science. PISA, OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2009b). Take the Test Sample: Sample Question From OECD PISA Assessments. PISA, OECD Publishing
OECD. (2009c). How do Girls and Boys do in Science?, in Highlights from Education at a Glance 2008, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag_highliths -2008-37-en
OECD. (2013a), PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science (Volume I), PISA, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201118-en
OECD. (2013b), PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264190511-en
116
OECD. 2015. Beyond PISA 2015: a Longer-Term Strategy of PISA. PISA, OECD Publishing
Özay, E. & Hasenekoğlu, İ. (2007). Some Problems in Visual Presentation of
Biology-3 Textbooks. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4 (1), 80-91.
Rahmiati, E. (2014). Analisis Kemampuan Literasi Sains Siswa Kelas XI SMA Negeri Se-Kota Padang Sidempuan. Thesis. Universitas Negeri Medan
Ramadhan, D., Wasis. (2013). Analisis Perbandingan Level Kognitif dan Keterampilan Proses Sains Dalam Standar Isi (SI), Soal Ujian Nasional
Rustaman, N. Y. (2010). Indonesian Student’ Scientific Literacy. Article
Rushton, J. P., & Ankney, C. D. (1996). Brain size and cognitive ability: Correlations with age, sex, social class, and race. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(1), 21-36.
Setiawati, D.M., (2013). Analisis Literasi Sains Guru Biologi SMA dan Penerapannya dalam Proses Mengembangkan LKS Inkuiri. Bandung : Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Shopia, G. (2013). Profil Capaian Literasi Sains Siswa SMA di Garut Berdasarkan Kerangka PISA (The Program for International Student Assessment) Pada Konten Pengetahuan Biologi. Bandung : Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Shortland, M. (1988). Advocating science: Literacy and public understanding. Impact of Science on Society, 38(4), 305-16.
117
Steinkamp, M. W., & Machr, M. L. (1983). Affect, ability, and science achievement: A quantitative synthesis of correlational research. Review of Educational Research, 53(3), 369-96.
Tjala, A. (2007). Potret Mutu Pendidikan Indonesia Ditinjau Dari Hasil-Hasil Studi Internasional. Artikel. Universitas Negeri Jakarta
Teixeira, T.C., Sigulem, D.M., and Correia, I.C. (2011). Assessment for the Nutritional Issues Contained In High School Biology Textbook. Rev Paul Pediatr 2011;29(4):560-6
Thomson, S., Hillman, K., and Bortoli, L.D. (2013) . A teacher guide to PISA scientific literacy. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) Ltd
Turner. R. (2007). PISA- The Program of International Student Assessment – an overview. Article for ACSPRI
Vernon, P. A., Wickett, J. C., Bazana, P. G., & Stelmack, R. M. (2000). The neuropsychology and psychophysiology of human intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence. (pp. 245-264). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wijaya, A., Heuvel-Panhuizen, M.V.D., Doorman, M., & Robitzsch, A. (2014). Difficulties in Solving Context-Based PISA Mathematic Task: An Analysis of Students’ Errors. Montana : (J) TME Vol. 11 No. 3 p.555
Wiliam. (2013) Assessment: The Bridge between Teaching and Learning. Voices from the Middle, Volume 21 Number 2 National council of teacher of English
Yip, D. Y, M.M. Chiu, and E.S.C Ho. (2004). Hong Kong Students Achievement in OECD-PISA Study: Gender Differences in Science Content, Literacy Skills, and Test Item Format. Taiwan. International Journal of Science and Mathematic Education, 2: 91-106, 2004.