ANALYSIS OF PHYSICS TEACHERS' UNDERSTANDING IN IMPLEMENTING OF ASSESSMENT AT SEVERAL
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL IN MEDAN
By: Risdo Gultom
408121082
Physics Bilingual Study Program
THESIS
Submitted to fulfill the requirement for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
PHYSICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
iv
PREFACE
Praise and thanks to Jesus Christ who has give a flood of merci and guidance to writer. Salam to Bunda Maria for Her help in writer life, hopefully God Blessing will abundant.
This thesis which titled is “Analysis of Physics teacher Understanding in Implementing of Assessment at Several Senior High School 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 Drs. Eidi Sihombing, MS, Dr. Derlina, M.Si and Drs. J.H Panggabean, 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 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 Marsaulina Butarbutar and Beloved father Jatan Gultom for grow me up and educate me in this life. Special thank you for my love sister Pestauli Gultom and my warmest love GreenMai (FKGL).
Thank you so much to my brothers and sisters in UK KMK St.Martinus Unimed (specially for Willy F Sitanggang as chairman of UK KMK St. Martinus Period 2011/2012, Mr. Thoms and Riduan Situmorang) for all of your support to writer to finish this thesis. Thanks a lot to GELORA CHOIR. My memories will never die with you. You always in my heart
v
Febri, Laila, Laurent Febrina, Luqmanul Hakim, Nurul Hasanah, Rahmat Nawi, Ruth Fricilia, and Sartika Rhamadani.
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, August 2012
Risdo Gultom
vi
CONTENT
Page
Legalization Page i
Biography ii
Abstract iii
Preface iv
Contents vi
Table List ix
Figure List x
Appendix List xi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background 1
1.2. Problems Identification 3
1.3. Limitation of the Study 4
1.4. Problem Statements 4
1.5. Objective 4
1.6. Advantages of Research 5
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1. Theoretical Framework 6
2.1.1 Educational Assessment 6
2.1.2 Types of Assessment 8
2.1.2.1 Formative versus Summative Assessment 9
2.1.3 Assessment Standard 9
2.1.4 Assessments’ Techniques according BSNP 11
2.1.5 Assessment based on KTSP 13
2.1.5.1 Authentic Assessment 13
2.1.5.2 Performance Assessment 14
vii
2.1.5.4 Essay Test 16
2.1.5.5 Portfolio Assessment 17
2.1.6 Assessment Principles 17
2.1.7 Assessments’ Purpose 18
2.1.8 Assessment by Teacher 21
2.1.8.1 Why Teacher Should Know about Assessment 21
2.2 Qualitative Research 31
2.2.1 Social Situation 33
2.2.2 Survey Research 34
2.2.3 Classification of Studies by Purposes 35
2.2.4 Conducting Survey Research 36
2.2.4.1 Survey Research Strengths 39
2.2.4.2 Survey Research Weakness 40
2.2.5 Data Collection Techniques in Survey 40
2.2.5.1 Observation 40
2.2.5.2 Questionnaires 41
2.2.5.3 In-depth Interview 42
2.2.5.3.1 The Process for Conducting In-depth Interview 43
2.2.5.3.2 The Advantages and Limitation of In-depth Interview 45 2.3 Conceptual Framework 46
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 48
3.1. Research Method 48
3.2. Location and Time Research 48
3.3. Instruments of Research 48
3.4. Data Resources 48
3.5. Data Collection Techniques 49
3.5.1. Observation 49
3.5.2. Questionnaires 50
3.5.3. In-Depth Interview 50
3.6. Data Analysis 50
viii
3.6.2. Analysis during Conducting Research 51
3.6.2.1. Data Reduction 53
3.6.2.2. Data Display 53
3.6.2.3. Conclusion Drawing/Verification 53
3.7. Planning of Data Validity Testing 55
3.7.1. Credibility Testing (Internal Testing) 55
3.7.2. Transferability Testing (External Testing) 55
3.7.3. Dependability Testing 55
3.7.4. Confirmability Testing 55
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION 56
4.1. Result 56
4.1.1. Setting of Research 56
4.1.2. Round down of Research 57
4.1.3. Confirmability 57
4.1.4. Informant’s identities and data display 57
4.2. Discussion 60
4.2.1. The conformity of assessment’s implementation by teacher With KTSP demanded 60
4.2.2. Behavior of Physics Teacher in Implementing of Assessment’s Mechanism 68
4.2.3. Factors that inhibiting of Physics Teacher did not Implement standardized assessment 72
4.2.4. School that implement own assessment standard 73
4.3 The obstacles factors in conducted of research 74
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 75
5.1. Conclusion 75
5.2. Suggestion 76
REFERENCES 77
viii
TABLE LIST
Table 4.1a Professional Physics Teacher 59
Table 4.1b Physics Teacher 59
Table 4.2 Professional physics teacher qualification 61
Table 4.3 Physics teacher qualification 65
Table 4.4 The discrepancy of assessment that conducted
ix
FIGURE LIST
Figure 2.1 Self-evaluation component 16
Figure 2.2 Teacher Evaluations (OECD, 2009) 30 Figure 2.3 Research process using qualitative research by
(Du Plessis, 2004) 32 Figure 2.4 Social Situation 33 Figure 2.5 A typical design for an ethnographic study by Ulhoi, 2007 34 Figure 2.6 Scheme of program evaluation by teacher 47
Figure 3.1 Data collection techniques 49
Figure 3.2.a Components of Data analysis (Flow model) 52 Figure 3.2.b Components of data analysis (interactive model) 52 Figure 3.2.c Illustration: data reduction, data display, and verification 54 Diagram 4.1a Professional physics teacher’s experiences
in implementing of assessment 60
Diagram 4.2b Physics teacher’s experiences in implementing
of assessment 60
Diagram 4.3 Percentage of assessment indicator’s attainment
by professional physics teacher 63 Diagram 4.4 Percentage of assessment indicator’s attainment
xi
APPENDIX LIST
Page
Appendix 1 Initial Questioners for Teacher 81
Appendix 2 Observation Sheet 86
Appendix 3 Observation’s Result 87
Appendix 4 Questionnaire’s Guideline 88
Appendix 5 Data Reduction Result 91
Appendix 6 In-Depth Interview Guidelines 92
Appendix 7 Description of Student’s progressing in Learning Progress 94
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Education is one of the main pillars in the running of a nation. The better education of a nation will produce higher quality of Human Resources (HR). Human resources will be a valuable asset in developing the nation's progress. The quality of character of human resources can be built and set up in schools that have a high quality. Therefore every country has identified improving education quality as one of its highest national priorities. Education quality progressing is respond to the demand for increased school access, developing more effective school planning, and implementing massive training programs for teachers and administrators which each component has a standardization.
In Undang-Undang No.20 Tahun 2003 Chapter 1, Subsection 17 about National Education System as stipulated in PP. 19 Tahun 2005 Chapter 1, Subsection 1 stated that the scope of the National Education Standards include 8 standards, they are: (i) Contents Standard, (ii) Process Standard, (iii)Competency
Standards, (iv) Teaching staff and educational Administrator Standards,
(v)Facilities and Infrastructure Standards, (vi)Management Standards,
(vii)Financial Standards, and (viii)Assessment Standards. National Education Standards serve as the basis for the planning, implementation, and supervision of education in order to realize the quality of national education.
Assessment standard is one of the important standards in National Education Standard because it is needed to improve the quality of education. Assessment standard is one part of the National Educational Standards, are intimately associated with the mechanisms, procedures, and assessment instruments learners learning outcomes. Based on Permendiknas No.20 Tahun 2007, government regulations mandated on three types of assessment, namely: (a)
Assessment by educators conducted on an ongoing basis to monitor the process,
progress, and improvement of learning outcomes, (b) Assessment by the education
2
according to the program as a form of transparency, professional, and
accountable institutions, (c) Assessment by the government aims to assess the
competency of national achievement in specific subjects. Implementation assessment by government in is submitted to National Education Standards Agency (BSNP).
Curriculum of the unit level of education (KTSP) also gives school facility to expand, creative and innovative. With this facility expected happened a competition in concurrence to compete to reach educator quality in accordance with National Education Standards Agency (BSNP) according to PP No.19 Tahun 2005. Paradigm in KTSP that base on this interest emphasizes that teacher is not just a duty conveyor to participant information to educate, however also must become facilitator, undertake amenities learns to give the whole participant to educate.
To know student achievement, government was seriously in national assessment conducted by the national pass test (UN). The UN result is used as one consideration in determining the graduation of students in the selection into the next education level and become one of the considerations in the development and provision of assistance to the education unit in an effort to improve the quality of education (BSNP). Schools also perform final testing (UAS) to find out the students achievement in all subjects. However, this result has not yet depicted study quality and accurate process for all levels of education in each area. For that must conducted circumstantial study relation between UN result and process, quality, and mastery study matching with national standard education.
3
In conducting a valid assessment teacher should develop any instrument containing any dimension of competency will be measured. Assessment of learning outcomes by educators conducted continuously, aims to monitor the process and learning progress of students as well as to enhance the effectiveness of learning activities. In conducting of assessment student’s learning outcomes, teachers should adhere to and follow the foundation and standard of assessment. Assessment base and assessment standards have been set forth in Permendiknas No.20 Tahun 2007.
From preliminary research, researchers get information by observe and interview several teachers especially Physics Teacher from several schools in Medan that teachers do not know the Education Act. They are tending to ignore it. In addition, in carrying out an assessment of students learning outcomes, they do not know and do not understand the assessment standards that have been set up by the government in the Permendiknas No.20 Tahun 2007. Of course this is a problem that must be solved by conducting a research. This research is important because if teacher do not conducting a valid assessment, so teacher do not know the degree of student material’s attainment, then teacher can’t arrange the report of student’s learning progression, and finally the most apprehensive teacher can’t improve of their teaching and learning process.
1.2 Problem’s Identification
Based on the background of the issues outlined above, some problems can be identified are matters relating to the conduct of the evaluation in the field / in school by teachers in the study of physics. These problems can be identified include physics teachers at several senior high school in Medan do not know the education act. They do not know and do not understand the assessment standard that set up by government in Permendiknas No.20 Tahun 2007.
1.3 Limitations of the Study
4
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 teacher is Physics teacher.
2. The data will be gathering from the target school.
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 assessment that conducted by physics teacher in senior high schools in Medan accordance with national education standards? 2. Are physics teacher already arrange and concerting the assessment
using a valid mechanism?
3. What are the factors abandoning the physics teachers not yet implementing of assessment based on assessment standard?
4. Is there any school in Medan already evolving own assessment standard?
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 conformity of assessment by physics teacher at several senior high schools in Medan with the assessment standard that set up by government.
2. Knowing the mechanism of arrange and concerting the assessment by physics teacher.
3. Knowing the factors are inhibiting the physics teachers in implementing standardized assessment.
5
1.6 Advantages of Research
The researchers are expected to be useful for:
1. Providing information about the uniformity of implementation of assessment that conducted by physics teacher with assessment standards and curriculum set up by the government at several senior high schools in Medan.
2. Providing information about the school is already evolving own assessment standard.
75 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 CONCLUSION
Based on the results of research can be concluded that:
1. Generally, assessment that conducted by physics teachers (even have educators certificate or not) in several SMA in Medan is less accordance with demands of KTSP. This happens because of a lack of understanding of physics teachers about the assessment standards that described in Permendiknas No.20 tahun 2007. Therefore it is very necessary to conduct a socialization and training about the implementation of authentic assessment from the government.
2. Mechanisms and technical assessment that conducted by professional physics teachers and physics teacher have not changed. Physics teachers still tend to use traditional assessment and achievement of learning outcomes which are seen from the test results without a description of the progress of learners in the learning process.
3. The factors that inhibiting physics teachers did not implement standardized assessment are :
Teachers' understanding is not good enough to develop and implement standardized assessment.
Socialization and guidance from the government about implementation authentic assessment that required by curriculum is very minimal.
A schools supervisory and regulatory system is not maximum.
Size of class.
Interest and motivation of students in the following of physics subjects is still very low.
76
5. Of the twelve units of senior high school (SMA) which is the object of research there is no school has own assessment, but SMA SU already develop their own assessment.
5.2 SUGGESTION
There are some suggestion in this research, they are:
1. Planning and designing learning should be conducted by teachers so that the results of better quality and learning achievement.
2. Government should conduct a guidance and socialization for teacher especially for physics teacher about the implementation of authentic assessment.
3. In qualitative research is needed researchers who are competent in a variety of information gathering. Competencies that can be had by making a good planning, diligent and tenacious in data reduction and data verifying then taking discussion or sharing with supervisor and member-check in data validation.
4. In-depth interview techniques are very important in data gathered so that researchers have diligently studied to become speaker in qualitative research. 5. The data obtained must be diverse. Therefore, researchers should be to reduce the
77
REFERENCES
Airasin,W. Peter. 1996. Assessment in the classroom: A concise approach. USA: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Arifin, Zainal. 2009. Evaluasi Pembelajaran, Prinsip, Teknik, Prosedur. Bandung: PT.Remaja Rosdakarya.
Atkinson, Clair. 2009. North Carolina Teacher Evaluation Process. North Carolina: NC Public Schools.
Barret, R. Jannet. 2007. The researcher as instrument: learning to conduct qualitative research through analyzing and interpreting a choral rehearsal. Music Education research. Vol. 9, No. 3, pp 417-433. USA: Northwestern University School of Music, Evanston, IL.
Berry, Rita. 1999. Collecting data By In-depth Interviewing. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Sussex at Brighton, September 2 - 5 1999.
Dave, R. 1967. Psychomotor Domain. Berlin: international Conference of Educational Testing.
Diamond. 2009. Assessment in schools Fit for purpose? A Commentary by the Teaching and Learning Research Program. London: Oxford Centre.
Glasow, Priscilla 2005. Fundamentals of Survey Research Methodology. Virginia: Washington C3 Center McLean.
Good, Robert. 2011. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation. A peer-reviewed electronic journal. Formative Use of Assessment Information: It’s a Process, So Let’s Say What We Mean. Denver Public Schools Journal. ISSN 1531-7714. Volume 16, Number 3. http://pareonline.net/genpare.asp?wh=0&abt=12. Accessed on March 19th, 2012.
Gultom, Syawal. 2012. Sertifikasi Guru Dalam Jabatan Tahun 2012. Kementerian Pendidikan Dan Kebudayaan Badan Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia Pendidikan Dan Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan 2012.
78
http://pareonline.net/genpare.asp?wh=0&abt=12. Accessed on March 19th, 2012.
Kraemer, Pinsonneault. 1990. Survey Research Methodology In Management Information Systems: An Assessment. University of California: École des Hautes Études Commerciales de Montréal.
Krathwohl R, David. 2002. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy. College of Education, The Ohio State University.
Marhaeni, Istri A. 2007. Asesmen Otentik Dalam Rangka KTSP. Suatu Upaya Pemberdayaan Guru dan Siswa. Makalah disampaikan pada pelatihan KTSP bagi guru SMP/MTs di Kabupaten Tabanan tanggal 10-14 September 2007.
Mathias, Craddock. 2009. Assessment & Evaluation In Higher Education. ISSN 0260-2938. Volume 34, Number 2. http://www.informaworld.com. Accessed on April 15th ,2012
Neale, Boyce. 2006. INTERVIEWS: A Guide for Designing and Conducting In- Depth Interviews for Evaluation Input. Path finder International.
OECD. 2009. Teacher Evaluation A Conceptual Framework and examples of Country Practices.This paper was prepared for presentation at the OECD-Mexico Workshop Towards a Teacher Evaluation Framework in Mexico: International Practices, Criteria and Mechanisms, held in Mexico City on 1-2 December 2009.
Palm, Torulf. 2008. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation. A peer-reviewed electronic journal. Performance Assessment and Authentic Assessment: A Conceptual Analysis of the Literature. ISSN 1531-7714. Volume 13, Number 4.
http://pareonline.net/genpare.asp?wh=0&abt=12. Accessed on March 19th, 2012.
Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional No.20 Tahun 2007. Standar Penilaian. Jakarta: Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan.
Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 19 tahun 2005. Tentang Standar Nasional Pendidikan.
Popham james. W. 1995. Classroom Assessment ,What teacher need to Know. USA: Nancy Forsyth.
79
Standards-Based Assessment. ISSN 1531-7714. Volume 12, Number 18.
http://pareonline.net/genpare.asp?wh=0&abt=12. Accessed on March 19th, 2012.
Pengembangan Instrumen Penilaian Pembelajaran Matematika SD/SMP. Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional Badan Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia Pendidikan Dan Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan Pusat Pengembangan Dan Pemberdayaan Pendidik Dan Tenaga Kependidikan (Pppptk) Matematika 2011.
Susetyo, Budi. 2009. Penilaian hasil belajar. Disampaikan dalam kegiatan Three Days National Training ”Desain RPP dan Analisis Butir Soal” Tanggal 12 – 14 April 2009 diselenggrakan lembaga pendidikan dan pelatihan Sentral Edukasia Kota Banjar.
Sugiono. 2009. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. (Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D). Bandung: ALFABETA.
Taylor et all. 1996. Program development and evaluation, collecting evaluation data: direct observation. Madison: Cooperative Extension Publications.
The Health Communication Unit. 1999. Conducting Survey Research. The Health Communication Unit at the Centre for Health Promotion University of Toronto 100 College Street, Room 213. The Banting Institute Toronto, Ontario M5G 1L5. This workbook was developed as a resource guide to accompany a one-day seminar.
Thomas, Ken. 2005. Learning Taxonomy In The Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor Domain. Version 2.1 White Paper: Rocky Mountain Alchemy
Ulhoi, Neergaard. 2007. Handbook of Qualitative Research Method in Interpreneurship. USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
UNDANG-UNDANG REPUBLIK INDONESIA NOMOR 20 TAHUN 2003 TENTANG SISTEM PENDIDIKAN NASIONAL . Bidang DIKBUD KBRI Tokyo.
80
Western and Northern Canadian Protocol. 2006. Rethinking Classroom Assessment with Purpose in Mind Assessment for Learning, Assessment as Learning, Assessment of Learning . Canada: Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth Cataloguing in Publication Data.
