Developing an Authentic Project-Based Assessment Model on Sociology Learning of Senior High School Students

Ike Sylvia(1*), Syafri Anwar(2), Khairani Khairani(3)
  • (1) Universitas Negeri Padang
  • (2) Universitas Negeri Padang
  • (3) Universitas Negeri Padang
  • (*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

This article aims to describe an authentic project-based assessment model in improving students' Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) on Sociology learning. This study used a mix-method design that applied ADDIE procedural to gain valid and reliable outcomes. Data collection used multiple techniques involving guided-interviews, survey, validity test, item instrument sheet, HOTS multiple questions with students' elicitation and observation sheet. The study results revealed that: (1) A characteristic of the authentic project-based assessment modelrefers toextensive assessments such as performance, attitude, presentation, product, project, and comprehension. Both performance and attitude assessments used during the project assessment. (2) An implementation of the authentic project-based assessment model is valid and reliable after givingan experimental treatmentin the class of X IIS SMAN 1 Padang that related to cognitive, affective and skills area. (3) An authentic project-based assessment model increased students' Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) regarding critical thinking and problem-solving aspects, communication skill aspects, creativity and innovation aspects, and collaboration aspects.

Keywords

sociology learning, authentic assessment, higher order thinking skills (HOTS)

References

  1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
  2. Arends, R. I. (2012). Learning to teach (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  3. Arends, R. I., & Kilcher, A. (2010). Teaching for student learning: Becoming an accomplished teacher. New York: Taylor &Francis.
  4. Bandura, A, (1986). Social foundations of thought and action:A social Cognitive theory: Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
  5. Brown, G., Bull, J. & Pendlebury, M. (1997). Assessing Student Learning in Higher Education, London: Routledge.
  6. Brown, S. & Glasner, A. (1999). Assessment Matters in Higher Education, Buckingham: Open University Press.
  7. Dekdiknas, (2003). Undang-undang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, Jakarta: Badan Peneltian dan Pengembngan Depdiknas
  8. Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1990), The Systematic Design of Instruction, Third Edition, Harper,Collins
  9. Fisher, R. (2010). Thinking Skill. In Arthur, J. & Cremin, T. (Eds.), Learning to teach in the primary school (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
  10. Gulikers, J., Bastiaens, T., & Kirschner, P. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment,Educational Technology Research,and Development, 52 (3), 67-85.
  11. Holbrook,J.&Miia,R.2009.TheMeaningofLiteracy Sains. International Journal of Environmental &SainsEducation,Volume4No.3.Hal275-288.
  12. Kemendikbud,(2017),Panduan Penilaian Oleh Pendidik dan Satuan Pendidikan Sekolah Menengah Atas,
  13. Khaira, H.G. & Yambo, D. (2005).The practicality of authentic assessment. Paper presented at The First International Conference on Enhancing Teaching and Learning Through Assessment. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, June.
  14. Krulik, S., & Rudnick. J. A. (1999). Innovative Task to Improve Critical and Creative Thinking Skill. Dalam Stiff, Lee V. & Curcio, Frances R.(Eds). Developing mathematical reasoning in grades K-12 (pp. 138). Reston, VA: NCTM.
  15. Liu, X. (2010). Essentials of science classroom assessment. Los Angeles: Sage Publication Ltd.
  16. Lombardi, M. 2008. Making the Grade: The Role of AssessmentinAuthenticLearning.NewYork: Educause.
  17. Majid,Abdul,(2015,Penilaian Autentik:Proses dan Hasil Belajar,Bandung:PT RemajaRosdakarya
  18. McMahon, G. P. (2007). Getting the HOTS with what’s in the box: developing higher order thinking skills within the technology-rich learning environment. Doctoral dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Bentley, WestAustralia.
  19. Meyer, J.P., David, J.S., Herscovitch L., & Topolnytsky L. 2002. Affective, Continuance, andNormative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-analysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences.JournalofVocationalBehavior, Volume 61 Hal20–52.
  20. Mueller, J. (2006). Authentic assessment toolbox. Retrieved on 25th,June from the website:http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/whatisit.htm#looklike
  21. Mueller, J ,2014, Authetic Assessmnet Tool,, North Central College, Naperville, IL
  22. Peraturan Pemerintah No. 19 tahun 2005, yang disempurnakan dengan PP no 32, tahun 2013
  23. Permendikbud No. 54 tahun 2013, tentang Standar Kompetensi Lulusan Pendidikan Dasar dan Pendidikan Menengah
  24. Permendikbid No.64 tahun 2013, tentang Standar Isi Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah.
  25. Permendikbud No. 65 tahun 2013,tentang Standar Proses Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah
  26. Permendikbud No.66 tahun 2013 , tentang Standar Penilaian Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah
  27. Permendikbud No. 69 tahun 2013, tentang Kerangka Dasar dan Struktur Kurikulum Sekolah Menengah Atas /Madrasah Alyiah
  28. Prestidge, L. K. & Williams Glaser, C. H. (2000). Authentic assessment: Employing appropriate tools for evaluating students' work in 21st-century classrooms [Electronic version]. Intervention in School & Clinic, 35, 178-182.
  29. Rust, c. (2002) The impact of assessment on student learning: how can the research literature practically help to inform the development of departmental assessment strategies and learner-centered assessment practices?, Active Learning in Higher Education, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 145-158.
  30. Saad, R. & Boujaoude, S. 2012. The Relationship between Teachers’ Knowledge and Beliefs about Science and Inquiry and Their Classroom Practices. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, Volume 8 No. 2. Hal 113-128.
  31. Setiadi,Elly.M & Kolip, Usman, 2011,Pengantar Sosiologi, Jakarta: Kencana, Prenada Media Group
  32. Soekamto,S., 1986, Sosiologi Suatu Pengantar, Edisi ke -2,Jakarta :Rajawali Press
  33. Stiggins, R. (2001). Student-centered classroom assessment (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
  34. Sudijono, Anas. (2011). Pengantar Evaluasi Pendidikan, Jakarta:Raja Grafindo Persada
  35. Tanner, D. E. (2001). Authentic assessment: A solution, or part of the problem? High School Journal, 85, 24-29. Retrieved May 19, 2004 from EBSCO database.
  36. Tombari, M., & Borich, G. (1999). Authentic assessment in the classroom: Applications and practice. Toronto, ON Prentice-Hall.
  37. Undang-undang Pendidikan Nomor 20 Tahun 2003 tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional
  38. Weber, E. (1999). Student assessment that works: A practical approach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  39. Weissinger, P.A. (2004). Critical thinking, metacognition, and problem-based learning. In Tan, O.S. (Eds.), Enhancing thinking through problem-based learning approaches: international perspectives. Singapore: CengageLearning.
  40. Wiggins, G. P. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.29210/2018159

International Conferences on Educational, Social Sciences and Technology

International Conferences on Educational, Social Sciences and Technology

Fakultas Ilmu Pendidikan UNP

978-989-758-296-7

978-602-73537-9-4

April 2018

  View Articles

© 2024 GCI, Global Conferences Index, Lda - All rights reserved.

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