Increasing Teacher Professional Competence in Developing Procedural Abilities Using the Application of Assessment of Integrated Science Using Mobile Learning on Android Platform Gadgets

Allesius Maryanto, Science Education Study Program, Faculty of Mathematics and Science, Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia
Dadan Rosana, Science Education Study Program, Faculty of Mathematics and Science, Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia
Didik Setyawarno, Science Education Study Program, Faculty of Mathematics and Science, Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia

Abstract


The development of smart mobile phone terminals, mobile learning has become an effective and efficient way for teachers to learn, so that the continuous development of teacher competency development can take place in a fun way. From the aspect of integrated science learning material, it is very clear that science learning in the 2013 curriculum is carried out on an integrated basis. Integrative science has the meaning of combining various aspects, namely the domains of attitudes, knowledge and skills. Therefore, the assessment system developed in science learning must also be able to develop four dimensions of knowledge (factual, conceptual, procedural). In this study, procedural knowledge was specifically developed using the assessment of integrated science application using mobile learning on gadgets with the android platform. The methodology developed in this study is a Research and Development spiral model as referenced by Cennamo and Kalk (2005: 6). In this spiral model, there are 5 (five) development phases, namely: (1) definition, (2) design, (3) demonstration, (4) develop, and (5) presentation (deliver). The research results that have been achieved are; (1) A model for enhancing the professional competence of teachers in the development of procedural ability tests through the design of an assessment of integrated science using mobile learning on gadgets with a proper android platform based on expert judgemnet, (2) Practicality tests of the model have been carried out based on the results of training involving junior high school teachers in the MGMP area of science teachers, Mlati District, Sleman Regency, (3) The model is effective in improving students' procedural abilities

Keywords


teacher professional competence, procedural skills, metacognitive abilities, android-based mobile learning

Full Text:

PDF

References


Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. New York: Longman.

Allyn & Bacon (1995). Assimilation and Accomodation in Cognitif Development. http://www.abacon.com/slavin/ill.html diakses 16 Desember 2008

Aman, C., et.al. (2007). Student Learning Teams: Viepoints of Team Members, Teachers and an Observer. Vol 2 isuue| 2007, engineering education, pp. 1-12. Tersedia : garypoole@ubc.ca. [19 Maret 2008]

Asmin. 2014. Implementasi Teori Responsi Butir dan Fungsi Informasi Butir Tes dalam Pengujian Hasil Belajar Akhir di Sekolah. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, X (48): 234-245.

Barnard. John. J. (1996). In Search for Equity in Educational Measurement: Traditional Versus Modern Equating Methods. Makalah: Disampaikan pada ASEESA National Conference di HSRC Conference Centre. Pretoria: Afrika Selatan.

Camilli, Gregory, dan Lorrie A. Shepard. (1994). Methods for Identifying Biased Test Items. California: Sage Publication.

Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT). (2011). A model of learning objectives. Iowa State University. Retrieved March 2011, from http://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/RevisedBlooms1.html.

Clark, D. (2010). Bloom's taxonomy of learning domains: The three types of learning. Big Dog & Little Dog's Performance Juxtaposition. Edmonds, WA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html.

Cracolice, M.S., Deming, J.C. & Ehlert, B. (2011). Concept learning versus problem solving: a cognitive difference. Journal of Chemical Education. 85 (6), 873-878.

Chong Ho Yu dan Sharon E. Osborn. (2015). Test Equating by Common Items and Common Subject: Concepts and Applications. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. X (4): 187-198.

Crocker, Linda, & Algina, James. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Dorans, N. J. (2004). Equating, concordance, and expectation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28 (4),227-246.

Grinnel, Jr., Richard M. (1988). Social Work Research and Education. Thirt Edition.Canada: F.E. Peacock Publisher, Inc

Gronlund, Norman. E. 1985. Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching. New York: MaAssessment of Integrated Science using Mobile Learning pada Gadget Ber-platform Androidllan Publishing Company.

Hambleton, Ronald K, Swaminathan, H., dan Jane Rogers, H. 1991. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. London: SagePublications.

Hambleton, Ronald K., dan Swaminathan, H. 1985. Item Response Theory: Principle and Applications. Boston: Kluwer Nijhoff Publishing.

Holland, P. W., & Dorans, N. J. (2006). Linking and equating. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.),Journal of Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 187{220). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Jihad, Asep, Abdul Haris. 2011. Evaluasi Pembelajaran. Multi Pressindo: Yogyakarta.

Kim, S., von Davier, A. A., & Haberman, S. (2008). Small-sample equating using a synthetic linking function. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45, 325{342}

Kolen, Michael J., dan Robert L. Brennan. 2004. Test Equating, Scaling, and Linking: Methods and Practices. New York: Springer.

Kolen, Michael J., dan Robert L. Brennan. 1995. Test Equating. New York: Springer Verlag.

Kumaidi. 2000. Standardisasi Butir Soal. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. V(5): 132-143.

Livingstone, S. A., Doran, N. J. dan Wright, N. K. 1990. What Combination of Sampling and Equating Methods Work Best?. Applied Measurement in Education. III (2): 73-95.

Livingston, S. A., & Kim, S. (2009). The circle-arc method for equating in small samples. Journal of Educational Measurement, 46, 330{343}

Lord, F. M. (2009). The standard error of equipercentile equating. Journal of Educational Statistics,7, 165{174}

Lord, Frederick, M.1990. Aplications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Mary J.Allen and Wendy M Yen, 1989, Introduction to Measurement Theory, California: Broke.

McDonald, Roderick P. 1991. Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associatiates Publisher.

Naga, Dali, S. 1992. Pengantar Teori Sekor Pada Pengukuran Pendidikan. Jakarta: Besbats.

Nitko, Anthony. J. 1992. Criterion Reference Testing Workshop: Handouts and Reading Material Tidak dipublikasikan). Cipayung, Bogor: Examination Development Unit (Puslitbang Sisjian).

Miyatun, Erna., dan Djemari Mardapi. 2000. Komparasi Metode Penyetaraan Tes Menurut Teori Responsi Butir. Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi. II (3): 124-132.

Peraturan Pemerintah No. 19 Th 2005 Tentang: Standar Nasional Pendidikan (SNP). Bandung: Citra Umbara.

Peterson, N.S., Kolen, M.J., dan Hoover, H.D. 1989. Scaling, Norming, and Equating. In R.L. Linn (Ed), Educational Measurement. New York: MaAssessment of Integrated Science using Mobile Learning pada Gadget Ber-platform Androidllan.

Rahayu, Wardani. 2008. Pengaruh Metode Linking Terhadap Banyak Butir False Positive pada Pendeteksian DIF Berdasarkan Teori Responsi Butir. Disertasi. Jakarta: Universitas Negeri Jakarta.

Ridho, Ali. 2007. Karakteristik Psikometrik Tes Berdasarkan Pendekatan Teori Tes Klasik dan Teori Respon Aitem. Jurnal Insan Media. II (2): 1-28.

Setiadi, Hari. 1998. Bank Soal yang Dikalibrasi dengan Konsep IRT Memecahkan Permasalahan Ujian-ujian Sistematik yang Diadakan pada Periode-periode Tertentu, Jurnal Kajian Dikbud IV (13).

Setiadi, Hari. 2009. Permasalahan dan Solusinya dalam Pelaksanaan Ujian Nasional di Masa Mendatang, Matahari: Jurnal Penelitian dan Pendidikan. X (1): 66-74.

Skaggs, G. (2005). Accuracy of random groups equating with very small amples. Journal of Educational Measurement,42, 309{330}

Susongko, Purwo. 2005. Penyetaraan Parameter Butir Secara Konkuren untuk Menguji Secara Statistik Keberadaan Item Function (DIF). Makalah: Disampaikan pada Seminar Nasional Hasil Penelitian tentang Evaluasi Hasil Belajar serta Pengelolaannya. Pascasarjana UNY Didukung oleh Direktorat P2TK & KPT dan HEPI, Yogyakarta, 14-15 Mei 2005.

Sukirno, D. S. 2007. Penyetaraan Tes UAN: Mengapa dan Bagaimana. Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan. XXVI (3): 305-321.

Syarifah. 2007. Persyaratan Analisis Instrumen Sebagai Prasyarat Ketepatan Hasil Analisis Dalam Penelitian Pendidikan. Cakrawala Pendidikan. XXVI (2): 15-27.

Swediati, Nonny. 1997. Metode untuk Penyetaraan (Equating) Sekor Tes Secara Klasik. Pusat Pengujian Balitbang Dikbud: Jakarta.

Tumilisar, A.V.J. 2006. Akurasi Relatif Penyetaraan Sekor Tes untuk Sampel Berukuran 300 Ditinjau dari Metode Penyetaraan dan Teknik Penghalusan. Jurnal Pendidikan Penabur. V (6): 1-19.

Zhu, W. 1998. Test Equating: What, Why, How?. Research Quarterly for Exercises and Sport. Wayne State University.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/jser.v4i2.35716

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Based on a work at https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/jser/index

Accepted and published papers will be freely accessed in this website and the following abstracting & indexing databases:


   

=============================================================================================================

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.