SavedAdd your journal

Journals / IOJET / 2019 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1

DEVELOPING INSTRUMENTS FOR STUDENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT IN PHYSICS PRACTICUM: A CASE STUDY OF STATE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL OF MAGELANG

Badrun KARTOWAGIRAN
Silvia LUTASARI
Journal
IOJET
Pages
104–114
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In the study, Aiken formula was used for the validation purposes and theresults showed that the instrument had a high degree of content validity with the Alphacoefficient value of 0.948.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Assessment of practicum activities has not been performed maximally in which it islimited to unstructured observations without applying assessment instruments and it onlycovers some skills oriented aspects.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For that reason, this research aimed to developinstruments for student performance assessment in physics practicum in State Senior HighSchool of Magelang.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In the study, Aiken formula was used for the validation purposes and theresults showed that the instrument had a high degree of content validity with the Alphacoefficient value of 0.948.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Assessment of practicum activities has not been performed maximally in which it islimited to unstructured observations without applying assessment instruments and it onlycovers some skills oriented aspects. For that reason, this research aimed to developinstruments for student performance assessment in physics practicum in State Senior HighSchool of Magelang. This research development study was based on the Borg & Gall model.There were three basic steps followed; Phase 1 (problematization), Phase 2 (productcreation), and Phase 3 (product testing) that consists of a limited experiment and a largegroup experiment. In the study, Aiken formula was used for the validation purposes and theresults showed that the instrument had a high degree of content validity with the Alphacoefficient value of 0.948. Based on the Total Variance Explained table, the componentcolumn showed that there were six factors representing the variables. Accordingly, theinstrument of this research was found feasible to be used for high school student performanceassessment in physics practicum.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARTOWAGIRAN, B., LUTASARI, S. (2022). DEVELOPING INSTRUMENTS FOR STUDENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT IN PHYSICS PRACTICUM: A CASE STUDY OF STATE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL OF MAGELANG. IOJET, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1, 104–114. https://ajindex.com/articles/542351

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Aiken, L. R. (1980). Content validity and reliability of single items or questionnaires. Educational and psychological measurement, 40(4), 955-959.
  2. Angelo, T. A. (1991). Ten easy pieces: Assessing higher learning in four dimensions. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1991(46), 17-31.
  3. Arikunto, S., & Jabar, C. S. A. (2004). Evaluasi program pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara, 1-2.
  4. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
  5. Ebel, R. L. (1951). Estimation of the reliability of ratings. Psychometrika, 16(4), 407-424.
  6. Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Hair, J. (2010). Multivariate data analysis, a global perspective. New Jersey. Pearson. Ed, 7, 816. Hamid, A. A. (2011). Pembelajaran fisika di sekolah. Yogyakarta: Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. Hibbard, K. M. (1996). Performance-Based Learning and Assessment. A Teacher's Guide: ERIC. Kartowagiran, B. (2009). Penyusunan Instrumen Kinerja SMK-SBI. Paper presented at the Makalah dalam Workshop Evaluasi Kinerja SMK-SBI P4TK Matematika. Kartowagiran, B. (2014). Penilaian Berbasis Kurikulum 2013.
  7. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & McTighe, J. (1993). Assessing Student Outcomes: Performance Assessment Using the Dimensions of Learning Model: ERIC. Mehrens, W. A. (1992). Using performance assessment for accountability purposes. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(1), 3-9.
  8. Nitko, A. J. (1996). Educational assessment of students: ERIC. Nomor, P. (2013). Tahun 2013 tentang Standar Kompetensi Lulusan. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. Penyusun, T. (2014). Lampiran Permendikbud No. 104 Tahun 2014 tentang Penilaian Hasil Belajar oleh Pendidik. Jakarta: Kemdikbud. Van Der Vleuten, C. P., & Schuwirth, L. W. (2005). Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes. Medical education, 39(3), 309-317.
  9. Wass, V., Van der Vleuten, C., Shatzer, J., & Jones, R. (2001). Assessment of clinical competence. The lancet, 357(9260), 945-949.