padang, 21 april 2018, vol 4 no.1, issn : 2443-1257 prosiding

Prosiding Semnas Mat-PMat STKIP PGRI Sumatera BaratPadang, 21 April 2018, Vol 4 No.1, ISSN : 2443-1257

ii

PROSIDINGSEMINAR NASIONAL

MATEMATIKA DAN PENDIDIKAN MATEMATIKA

“Hot Skill in Mathematics Education”

PROGRAM STUDI PENDIDIKAN MATEMATIKASEKOLAH TINGGI KEGURUAN DAN ILMU PENDIDIKAN

(STKIP) PGRI SUMATERA BARAT

Editor:

Dewi Yuliana Fitri, S.Si., M.Pd (STKIP PGRI Sumatera Barat)Sofia Edriati, S.Si., M.Pd (STKIP PGRI Sumatera Barat)Ratulani Juwita, M.Pd (STKIP PGRI Sumatera Barat)

Siskha Handayani, M. Si (STKIP PGRI Sumatera Barat)Zulfitri Aima, M,Pd (STKIP PGRI Sumatera Barat)

Penyunting Ahli:

Dr. M Imran (Universitas Riau)Prof. Dr. Ratu Ilma Indra Putri, M.Pd (Universitas Sriwijaya)

Dr. Admi Nazra (Universitas Andalas)Prof. Dr. Yaya S. Kusumah ( Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia)

Zulfaneti, M.Si (STKIP PGRI Sumatera Barat)

STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT PRESS


iii

KATA PENGANTAR

Puji syukur kita ucapkan atas kehadirat Allah SWT sehingga Prosiding

Seminar Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika ini dapat diselesaikan.

Prosiding ini bertujuan mendokumentasikan dan mengkomunikasikan hasil

presentasi makalah pada Seminar Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika

yang terselenggara pada Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika STKIP PGRI

Sumatera Barat. Jumlah makalah yang masuk 150 makalah dari 24 Perguruan

Tinggi dan Institusi yang terkait. Makalah-makalah tersebut telah

dipresentasikan di Seminar Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika pada

tanggal 21 April 2018.

Terima kasih disampaikan kepada pemakalah yang telah berpartisipasi

pada desiminasi hasil kajian/penelitian yang dimuat pada Prosiding ini. Terima

kasih juga disampaikan kepada Tim Prosiding dan segenap panitia yang

terlibat. Semoga Prosiding ini bermanfaat.

Ketua Panitia,

Dra. Sefna Rismen, M.Pd


iv

DAFTAR ISI

Halaman Judul ................................................................................................. ii

Kata Pengantar ................................................................................................. iii

Daftar Isi .......................................................................................................... iv

No. Pemakalah Utama Judul Halaman1 Prof. H. Dr. Yaya S.

Kusumah, M.Sc., Ph.DMeningkatkan Kemampuan Berpikir TingkatTinggi Siswa dalam PembelajaranMatematika di Sekolah Menengah

1-8

2 Prof. Dr. Ratu Ilma IndraPutri, M.Si

Soal Hots dalam Jumping Task 9-18

3 Sri Imelwaty, Ph.D The Practice of Higher Order Thinking Skills(HOTS) in Indonesian Teacher Education: tobe or not to be, that is the question

19-28

No No. Id Pemakalah Judul Halaman1. 3 Majidah Khairani

Siregar

Pengembangan Bahan Ajar Mata KuliahMatematika Diskrit BerbasisKonstruktivisme

29-40

2. 14 Yuni Rhama Yanti Pengaruh Pembelajaran MelaluiPendekatan Matematika Realistik(PMR) dan Kemampuan Awal Siswaterhadap Kemampuan PemodelanMatematika Siswa SMP

41-54

3. 23 Helma Mustika,Wulan GusfahmiFardian

Pengaruh Penggunaan MultimediaPresentasi Terhadap PemahamanKonsep Matematika Siswa

55-64

4. 33 Sri Jumainisa,Darmawijoyo,Yusuf Hartono

Pengembangan Soal MathematicalModelling Menggunakan KonteksKesehatan Terhadap KemampuanMatematika Siswa Tingkat SMP

65-71

5. 61 Yossi Melia Putri,Rina Febriana,Hafizah Delyana

Pengaruh Penerapan Model ProblemBased Learning (PBL) terhadapKemampuan Pemecahan MasalahMatematis Siswa

72-80

6. 83 Sepli Narto,Zulfaneti, LitaLovia

Penerapan Strategi Pembelajaran AktifTipe Quiz Team terhadap Hasil BelajarMatematika Siswa

81-87

7. 90 Elfa Rafulta Perbedaan Model Kooperatif StrukturFan-N-Pick Dengan Teknik KelilingDalam Pembelajaran Matematika

88-95

8. 104 Alvia Eka Putri,Hamdunah, DewiYuliana Fitri

Pengaruh Penerapan Model MissouriMathematics Project (MMP) terhadapHasil Belajar Matematika Siswa

96-105

9. 127 Usmadi Dalil Phytagoras ( Suatu Analisis ProsesPembelajaran di Sekolah)

106-115

10. 128 Ergusni Pendekatan Konstruktivis Sosial untukPembelajaran di Sekolah

116-132


v

11. 136 Siskha Handayani,Radhya Yusri,Hafizah Delyana

Validitas Lembar Kerja MahasiswaBerbasis Karakter

133-141

12. 137 Rahmi Ramadhani Problem-Based Learning denganKarakteristik Budaya Lokal SebagaiSalah Satu Alternatif untukMeningkatkan Kemampuan BerpikirStatistik Siswa

142-150

13. 141 Netty Herawati,Zulkardi, DarmoWijoyo

Desain Pembelajaran MatematikaMenggunakan Konteks Pola Busana diSMK

151-159

14.

140

Reny Shinta Sari,Ratu Ilma IndraPutri, YusufHartono

Konteks Makanan Ringan Pada MateriNetto, Bruto, Tara Menggunakan PMRI 160-168

15. 198 Putri Fadillah,Rahmi, Hamdunah

Pengaruh Penerapan Model MissouriMathematics Project (MMP) terhadapHasil Belajar Matematika Siswa

169-176

16. 158 Nur HasanahPahlepy, Ratu IlmaIndra putri. YusufHartono

Desain Pembelajaran Program LinierSMK Menggunakan Konteks ServisKendaraan Sepeda Motor

177-184

17. 194 Surya AkbarFebrianto, SofiaEdriati, MuliaSuryani

Penerapan Strategi Pembelajaran AktifTipe Everyone Is A Teacher Here (ETH)terhadap Hasil Belajar MatematikaSiswa

185-190

18.233

Wildawati, AinilMardiyah, AudraPramitha Muslim

Pengaruh Penerapan Model ProblemBased Learning (PBL) terhadapPemahaman Konsep Matematis Siswa

191-197

19. 145 Yulian Rahmadani,Rahima, LuckyHeriyanti Jufri

Penerapan Model PembelajaranKooperatif Teknik Dua Tinggal DuaTamu terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa

198-204

20. 163 Respi Novita Sari,Rina Febriana,Ratulani Juwita

Pengaruh Penerapan ModelPembelajaran Kooperatif TeknikBerkirim Salam dan Soal terhadapPemahaman Konsep Matematis Siswa

205-212

21. 164 Evie Nurmala Dewi,FNU Zulkardi,Yusuf Hartono

Desain Pembelajaran MateriPerbandingan dengan MenggunakanKonteks Tekwan di Sekolah MenengahPertama

213-219

22. 175 HardiyantiIndriani, Ratu IlmaIndraPutri, Darmawijoyo

Lintasan Belajar Barisan dan DeretAritmatika dengan Pendekatan PMRIMenggunakan Konteks Kain SongketPalembang

220-227

23. 315 Putri Permata Sari,Sefna Rismen,Audra PramithaMuslim

Pengaruh Pembelajaran Kooperatifdisertai Strategi Hollywood SquaresReview terhadap Aktivitas dan HasilBelajar Matematika Siswa

228-235

24. 304 Arlina Friska,Melisa Melisa,Lucky HeriyantiJufri

Pengaruh Penerapan StrategiPembelajaran Aktif Tipe GivingQuestion and Getting Answer terhadapHasil Belajar Matematika Siswa

236-241


vi

25. 302 Rima Putri Melaty Pengaruh Penerapan StrategiPembelajaran Aktif Tipe Everyone Is ATeacher Here terhadap PemahamanKonsep Matematis Siswa

242-250

26. 357 Jazwinarti Kemampuan Komunikasi MatematisMahasiswa Jurusan MatematikaDalam Perkuliahan Pengantar OperasiRiset

251-257

27. 362 Haida Fitri,Aniswita, Charles

Analisis Keterkaitan Faktor-Faktor MasaPenyelesaian Skripsi Dengan MetodeChaid

258-271

28. 370 Vivi Handayani,Zulfaneti, AinilMardiyah

Pengaruh Penerapan ModelPembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe TeamsGames Tournament (TGT) terhadapHasil Belajar Matematika Siswa

272-27

29. 265 Jamilah, SefnaRismen, LuckyHeriyanti Jufri

Pengaruh Penerapan ModelPembelajaran Talking Stick terhadapHasil Belajar Matematika Siswa

279-285

30. 219 Zul Futria Wati,Yulia Haryono, LitaLovia

Pengaruh Penerapan StrategiPembelajaran Aktif Tipe QuestionStudent Have (QSH) terhadapPemahaman Konsep Matematis Siswa

286-295

31. 122 SandromedoChrista Nugroho

Desain SBox 4 Bit pada AlgoritmaBlock Cipher

296-305

PROSIDING SEMINAR NASIONAL STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT

SRI IMELWATY

19

The Practice of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in Indonesian Teacher Education: To be or not to be, that is the Question

Sri Imelwaty STKIP PGRI Sumatera Barat

[email protected]

Abstract Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) has been inculcated by educators to increase students’ critical, logical, reflective, metacognitive, and creative thinking. The skills could be used by individuals when encounter unfamiliar problems, uncertainties, questions, or dilemmas. Thus, HOTS are regarded as the surviving skills for the 21st century. The aim of this study is to explore the practice of HOTS in Indonesian higher education particularly in Teacher Education Program. To this end, the lecturers’ reported lesson activities were identified andtheir course plans for one semester were analysed.A total of 191 lecturers who serve at one of the Teacher Education Programsin Padang, West Sumatra Indonesia became the respondents for this study. Data was collected via a questionnaire developed based on the checklist for teaching creativity and critical thinking (Teacher Checklist for Creative and Critical Thinking Instruction-TC-C2TI) and analysed for the items frequency and mean. The documents of the lecturers’ course plans were collected and then specifically, the action verbs in their lesson learning outcomes were analysed within the cognitive taxonomy level categories. The results show the discrepancy between the lecturers’ reported activities and their documented lesson learning outcomes. They informed that they have highly practiced HOTS during the teaching and learning process. On the other hand, the percentage of the action verbs used for HOTS were low indicating fewer activities for exploration and experimentation involving HOTS. Further study is needed to explore the practice of HOTS in the real teaching and learning process and supports for increasing awareness of HOTS in both of the lecturers’ cognition and practices. Keywords: Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS), Teacher education program

Abstrak Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) telah dipraktekkan oleh para pendidik untuk meningkatkan cara berfikir siswa agar menjadi kritis, logis, reflektif, matakognitif dan kreatif. Keterampilan berfikir ini dapat membantu mereka dalam menghadapi permasalahan baru, ketidakpastian, pertanyaan dan dilemma dalam hidup mereka di masa depan. Sehingga keterampilan berfikir ini dianggap menjadi keterampilan untuk bertahan hidup di abad 21. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengungkapkan praktek HOTS pada pendidikan tinggi khususnya di Lembaga Pendidikan Tenaga Kependidikan (LPTK) di Indonesia. Untuk itu kegiatan para dosen yang mereka laporkan diidentifikasi dan Sub-CPMK (Capaian Pembelajaran Mata Kuliah) yang ada pada Rencana Pembelajaran Semester (RPS) dianalisa. Sebanyak 191 dosen di salah satu LPTK di Sumatera Barat, Indonesia menjadi responden dalam penelitian ini. Data dikumpulkan dengan angket Teacher Checklist for Creative and Critical Thinking Instruction-TC-C2TI, kemudian dianalisa frekuensi dan mean nya. Dokumen RPS dosen juga dikumpulkan dan dianalisa kata kerja pada Sub-CPMK nya. Hasil penelitian memperlihatkan adanya ketidaksesuaian antara kegiatan yang dilaporkan oleh dosen dengan RPS yang dirancang. Para dosen mengakui sudah menggunakan HOTS dengan intensitas tinggi dalam proses pembelajaran, namun pada RPS mereka belum terlihat adanya penggunaan HOTS secara konsisten. Penelitian lebih lanjut perlu dilakukan untuk mengeksplorasi kegiatan pembelajaran mereka dengan mahasiswa dan perlu pendampingan untuk peningkatan pengenalan HOTS dari segi pemahaman dan prakteknya. Kata kunci: Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS), LPTK

VOL.4 NO.1 APRIL 2018

ISSN: 2443-1257

20

Introduction Indonesian ministry of higher education has committed to increase the quality of teaching and learning process in higher education institutions. Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) has been promoted to be inculcated as they compass critical, logical, reflective, metacognitive, and creative thinking skills. Thus, HOTS are aimed to produce higher education graduates who can survive and compete globally with persistence, self-monitoring, and open-minded, and flexible attitudes (King, Rohani& Goodson, 2009). Within Teacher Education Program as one of the type of higher education institutions in Indonesia, HOTS has been mentioned and discussed amongst educators. This is due to the condition that HOTS has also become one of the required aspects in recent school curriculum implementation besides character building i.e. religious, nationalist, independent, mutual cooperation, integrity; literacy i.e. basic literacy, library literacy, media literacy, technology literacy, visual literacy;4C (Creative, Critical thinking, Communicative, Collaborative). Character building, literacy and 4C are regarded as 21st century skills. Those aspects have been declared by Indonesian ministry of lower and middle education as the newest revision into their school curriculum implementation (Permendikbud No. 20, 21, 22, and 23, 2016). A number of definitions in literature are assigned to higher order thinking skills. For this study, the definitions by Brookhart (2010) are taken as they refer to the main goal of education. In addition, they are modest, practical and closely related to teaching and learning objectives. Those definitions are falling into three categories. The first category is defined higher order thinking in terms of transfer. The second one is defined in terms of critical thinking and the third one is in terms of problem solving. Each of them is explained in the following paragraphs. The definition in the transfer category is explained by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001, p. 63) that they define the meaning of transfer is different from retention as follow:

‘Two of the most important educational goals are to promote retention and to promote transfer (which, when it occurs, indicates meaningful learning) … retention requires that students remember what they have learned, whereas transfer requires students not only to remember but also to make sense of and be able to use what they have learned’.

What they mean in this context is that learners who acquire knowledge and skills are encourage to apply them in new life situations and do not only recall them. This idea is supported by Brookhart (2010) claiming that ‘a series of transfer opportunities (rather) than as a series of recall assignments to be done’ may be applied by the students’ thinking characteristic. The general approach for higher order thinking consist into two types of learning i.e. learning for recall and learning for transfer which Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) consider as the ‘meaningful learning’. Later on, they revise the top end Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy: Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation into: Analyse, Evaluate, and Create. In other word, this learning for transfer approach has informed Anderson and Kratwohl (2001) to revise Bloom’s taxonomy in constructing the cognitive dimension.


SRI IMELWATY

21

This cognitive dimension has helped teachers operationalising the higher order thinking which is approached as in the three top end of the Bloom’s taxonomy. The general goal of education is to preparelearners to be able to think which means applying their knowledge and skills they developed in their learning into the contexts or environments that they have never thought of them before. To this end, higher order thinking is conceived as the teaching goal to empower learners to do the transfer. This idea is manifested in educational context that teachers are encouraged not only providing a number of recall assignments but also preparing their learners to encounter transfer opportunities. In the critical thinking category, the definition refers to ‘reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do’ (Norris & Ennis, 1989, p.3). This definitionalso describe the goal of education that in this context ‘being able to think’ means being able to apply wise judgement or produce a reasoned critique. For this goal, learners should be equipped with the abilities that could make them to reason, to reflect,to be wise and to make sound decisions.They should be guided on how to exercise reasoned judgement. Collins (2014) states that the valuable skills for them comprise the ability to judge the credibility of a source; identify assumptions, generalisation and bias; identify connotation in language use; understand the purpose of a written or spoken text; identify the audience; and to make critical judgments about the relative effectiveness of various strategies used to meet the purpose of the text. To enhance critical thinking, a project developed in the context of learning from visual art by Barahal (2008) is helpful to approach other critical thinking tasks such as in the study of literature, history or science. The ‘artful thinking’(Barahal, 2008, p.299) includes reasoning, questioning and investigating, observing and describing, comparing and connecting, finding complexity, and exploring viewpoints. These dispositions may train learners to be able to think critically. While in problem solving category, Nitko and Brookhart (2007) propose the definition that can be seen as a broad goal of education as follow:

“A student incurs a problem when the student wants to reach a specific outcome or goal but does not automatically recognize the proper path or solution to use to reach it. The problem to solve is how to reach the desired goal. Because a student cannot automatically recognize the proper way to reach the desired goal, she must use one or more higher-order thinking processes. These thinking processes are called problem solving.” (Nitko& Brookhart, 2007, p. 215)

In such thinking process, Bransford and Stein (1984) point out several activities are involved in it. They are remembering information, learning with understanding, critically evaluating ideas, formulating creative alternatives, and communicating effectively. [A problem-solving] model can be applied to each of these problems … to help you to continue to learn on your own. (Bransford & Stein, 1984, p. 122). Therefore, problem solving can be defined broadly as the skills that enable an individual to find a solution for the problem. This cannot be done only by simply memorizing as problems are not only close problems but also open ended ones. Even sometimes they have more than one solution or problems that the answers are not yet


ISSN: 2443-1257

22

known or open ended problems that the solutions change as the contexts or the circumstances change. Bransford and Stein’s (1994) mechanism in learning for understanding is similar to Anderson and Krathwohl's (2001) discussion of "meaningful learning." Ironically, problem solving is the mechanism behind all the thinking because to recall something, the problem must be identified and then the solution can be defined. In other words, Bransford and Stein also stress out thatto driving both recall and learning, problem solving is necessary for critical thinking, creative thinking, and effective communication. To this end,Brookhart, (2010) explain that problem solving has the role in critical thinking (for example, "How well did this movie director accomplish his purpose with this film?") and communication (for example, "How can I write this review so that readers will be interested in seeing the movie?"). In the context of education, Brookhart (2010) also argue that when teachers regard higher order thinking as problem solving, they have to equip students with the lesson goals with the ability to identify and solve problems both in academic works and in life. In addition she says that teachers should also set lessons in which their students could create something new as the solution. Thus ‘being able to think’ means students can solve problems and work creatively. From those definitions of transfer, critical thinking and problem solving categories, it seems that they are overlap. However, when explore each of them deeply, it can be seen the interconnection amongst them. To perceive higher order thinking skills in educational context, they could involve in the ‘top end’ of Cognitive Taxonomy namely analysis, evaluation, and creation. Within those higher thinking process, the logical reasoning, judgment, critical thinking, problem solving, creativity and creative thinking are also administered. Considering the importance of HOTS in education, a huge number of studies have been conducted all over the world. Studies of HOTS in the Indonesian context are also growing in numbers. To mention a few of them, there are applied research in instructional design (Tanujaya, 2016; Apino&Retnawati 2017; Margana,. Widyantoro, 2017), and in higher education (Muchsini, 2016; Yusuf & Widyaningsing, 2018; Mahardi & Erlisnawati, 2018). However, there is a dearth of literature focusing onthe basic research of HOTS which investigate and explore the practice of HOTS in Teacher Education Program particularly studies on its faculty members. In the similar veinwithin the context of Teacher Education Program, Balakrishnan et.al, (2016) emphasize that the candidate of teachers should be enhanced with the effective problem solving skills and critical thinking skills which could be achieved by HOTS components in educating students for surviving in the 21st century. They also assert that Teacher Education Program should prepare the educational environment which equips the pre-service teachers with the skills and approaches to incorporate HOTS in teaching and learning process. To reveal the presence of HOTS in educational practices, this study was undertaken to explore the practice of HOTS in Indonesian higher education particularly in Teacher Education Program. Such this basic research is needed as it could gather information


SRI IMELWATY

23

naturally to improve our understanding in certain context. This study could be the foundation on which applied research is conducted in order to create innovations and improvements in Indonesian Teacher Education Program. Due to its limitations, this current study was only able to focus on the lecturers’ reported activities and their documented course plans. Further research is suggested to explore and validate their practices in order to have a full understanding. Method In the current study, the aim is to explore the practice of HOTS in Indonesian higher education particularly in Teacher Education Program. This study is a descriptive study that employed a survey research design using a set of questionnaires developed based on the Teacher Checklist for Creative and Critical Thinking Instruction-TC-C2TI (Hamza & Griffith, 2006). 191 lecturers who serve at one of the private teacher education programs in West Sumatra Province, Indonesia, completed the questionnaire. 95% out of 191 lecturers are having master degree and 5% are having doctoral degree. Around 41% of them have been teaching for six to ten years and 42% lecturers have been teaching for one to five years. 40% out of them are in social studies, 28% in mathematics and science, and 20% in language studies respectively. The distribution of their teaching experience and their field of study are seen as follow: Chart 1: Teaching Experience

Chart 2: Field of Study

For measuringthe frequency ofactivities and practices of HOTS as perceived by the lecturers in their teaching, a 5-point scale Likert was used to measure. The scale used was: 1-Once in a while/Very rarely (less than 20% of the time), 2-Rarely (between 20% - 40% of the time), 3-Sometimes (between 40% - 60% of the time), 4-Usually (between 60% - 80% of the time), and 5-Always (more than 80% of the time). In addition, the interpretation of the mean score, with reference to Abdul (2003);


ISSN: 2443-1257

24

Kamarudin, et.al (2016), range from very low (1.00 to 1.50), low (1.51 to 2.50), moderate (2.51 to 3.50), high (3.51 to 4.50) and very high at the score of 4.51 to 5.00. The lecturers’ course plans for one semester were collected. There were about 268different types of courses running for a semester in this teacher education program. Three courses were excluded in this study i.e. teaching practice, internship and final task for thesis as these courses only have course learning outcomes. Thus, the documents of 265 courses comprising compulsory and elective courses were analysed. To identify the level of cognitive process in the lesson learning outcomes (Bin, 2015), content analysis (Franzosi, 2007) was employed for counting the use of the action verbs in the lesson learning outcomes as stated in each of the courses. Anderson and Krathwohl’sCognitive Taxonomy (2001) was used for the coding scheme. Thefrequency of the words used in each of the coding category was counted. The distribution of the action verbs used in each category were then put into the percentage. Results and Discussion From Table 1, it shows the mean for the reported practice of HOTS in exploration and experimentation is high at the score of 3.51 to 4.50 and very high at the score of 4.51 to 5.00. Item number 3,4,5,6, 8 are high and three items number 1, 2, 7 are very high. Table 1. Descriptive statistics for lecturers’ support for practicing HOTS in exploration

and experimentation Items

SE = Support of Exploration and Experimentation

Mean Frequency and Percentage

1 2 3 4 5 1. Provided chances for

students to think, learn, and discover

4.53

0 0 6

(3%) 75

(40%)

106

(57%) 2. Fostered self-initiated

learning 4.56

0 0 8

(4%) 66

(35%) 113

(60%) 3. Helped students examine

issues from different points of view

4.12

0 3

(2%) 30

(16%)

94

(50%) 59

32%) 4. Engaged students to learn by

exploring, manipulating, experimenting, risking, testing, and modifying ideas

4.15

3

(2%) 2

(1%) 26

(14%)

89

(48%) 67

(36%) 5. Discouraged conformity and

allowed students to explore 3.90

9

(5%) 4

(2%) 33

(18%) 90

(48%) 50

(27%) 6. Encouraged student to use a

variety of approaches to solving problems and produce many ideas

4.41

0 0 9

(5%) 92

(49%)

85

(46%) 7. Encouraged fact-finding and

information gathering 4.53

0 0 7

(4%) 73

(39%) 106

(57%) 8. Encouraged students to

examine issues, values, and feelings from different perspectives

4.19

1

(0.5%) 1

(0.5%) 18

(10%)

108

(58%) 59

(32%)


SRI IMELWATY

25

Item number 2 is the highest mean level with 4.56. It measured lecturers’ practice of HOTS byfostered self-initiated learning. 113 (60%) respondents stated always, 66 (35%) respondents reported usually and only 8 (4%) respondents stated that they sometimes fostered self-initiated learning to their students. Meanwhile, item number 5 is the lowest mean of all items with 3.90 which measure lecturers’ practice of HOTS by discouraged conformity and allowed students to explore. There were 50 (27%) respondents stated always, 90 (48%) respondents claimed usually, 33 (18%) respondents reported sometimes, 4 (2%) respondents stated rarely and 9(5%) respondents claimed they very rarely discouraged conformity and allowed students to explore. Based on the findings of this survey, the faculty members of the Teacher Education Program have seen their students as active learners in developing the knowledge. These lecturers implicitly claim that their activities during teaching and learning process have not focused on Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) which are suitable for knowledge acquisition. There is a trend among them declaring supports for the practice of HOTS particularly for knowledge deepening and creation. The content analysis results of the lecturers’ usage of the action verbs in their documented lesson learning outcomes shows the distribution of the percentage from each of the cognitive taxonomy [remember, understand, apply, analyse, evaluate, create] which was revised by Anderson and Karthwohl (2001) from Bloom (1956). The percentage of the cognitive process level is shown in Table 2. Table 2. The level of cognitive process in lesson learning outcomes

The Cognitive Process Level C1

Remembering

C2 Understanding

C3 Application

C4 Analysing

C5 Evaluating

C6 Creating

15% 54% 4% 15% 6% 0.5%

The Action Verbs Used in the Lesson Learning Outcomes State Show Identify Name Define Arrange

Explain Differentiate Classified Describe Comprehend Distinguish

Apply Demonstrate Use Operate Measure

Analyse Compare Categorise

Evaluate Predict Conclude

Create Design Formulate Develop

Surprisingly, the results show that the lecturers constructed their lesson learning outcomes in the lower cognitive process levels. The highest percentage is in the comprehension level with 54% following with knowledge level with 15% and analysis level with 15%. The lowest level is in the synthesis level with 0.5%, evaluation 6% and application 4% respectively. These results indicate that HOTS are rarely practiced on the assumption that those lecturers follow their documented lesson learning outcomes. The results also implicitly exhibit that the lecturers are still exceedingly focusing on LOTS i.e. knowledge acquisition [remembering and understanding] and they are


ISSN: 2443-1257

26

beginning to exercise knowledge deepening [applying and analysing]. However, practicing of HOTS on knowledge creation [evaluating and creating] is still beyond their actions. The results of the content analysis also show that the variation of the action verbs used for each of the lesson learning outcome within the cognitive taxonomy level does not vary indicating lack of attentiveness of HOTS. Overall, the results of this study show the discrepancy between the lecturers’ reported practice of HOTS and their lesson learning outcomes. While the survey results indicate the highly practiced of HOTS in the teaching and learning process, the content analysis results of the course plans documents indicate the inadequacy practice of HOTS. This inconsistency should not be seen as the shortcomings within the Teacher Education Program as other possible factors may contribute to the existing condition. Further study should be conducted with more detailed research methods such as interviews and direct observations in order to give more detailed information, particularly to the exercises of HOTS in their classroom practices. Nevertheless, to run qualified education, educators need to inculcate HOTS in the process of teaching in learning. To be failed or to be success with respect to the practice of HOTS in higher educational contexts, it depends on the efforts of both educators and learners, curriculum developers, policy makers, government and other related parties. Conclusion The study of HOTS practices among lecturers in Teacher Education context is important for enhancing the quality of learning outcomes. The ambivalent findings in this study [the reported high practice of HOTS and the high practice of LOTS in the course plan documentations] imply the need of cautious plans which should be followed up by the higher educational institution authorities. HOTS should be transformed explicitly in the lesson learning outcomes and the lecturers should be encourage to carry out activities that practice HOTS such as exploration and experimentation. To this end, the lecturers should be provided with more knowledge and exposure on how to exercise HOTS in their teaching and learning activities. Therefore, professional development programs for the lecturers in Teacher Education is needed to increase awareness of HOTS in the lecturers’ cognition and practices. This preliminary study has also indicated that there is a need to explore further what lecturers are doing in their teaching and learning activities to see whether or not HOTS are being practiced. This is significant to ensure that educators’ efforts to generate creative and critical thinkers as the main goal of education will be successful over the distant future. References Abdul Ghafar, M. N. (2003). Reka bentuk tinjauan soal selidik pendidikan. Skudai:

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. A. (2001). Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and

Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.


SRI IMELWATY

27

Apino, E., Retnawati,H. (2017). Developing Instructional Design to Improve Mathematical Higher Order Thinking Skills of Students. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 812 012100. 1-7.

Barahal, S. (2008), Thinking about Thinking: Pre- Service Teachers Strengthen their

Thinking Artfully, Phi Delta Kappan 90 Balakrishnan, M., Nadarajah, G. M., Vellasamy, S., Gnanam, E., & George, W. (2016).

Enhancement of Higher Order Thinking Skills among Teacher Trainers by Fun Game Learning Approach. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 10(12), 3817–3821.

Bin, J. O. (24 Desember, 2015). Living Better. (AUN-QA Network) Retrieved 2016 Maret, 2016, from http://livingbetterforhappiness.blogspot.co.id/2015/12/the-tenprinciples-behind-aun-qa-model.html

Bloom B. S. (1956), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive

Domain, New York: David McKay Co Inc. Brookhart, S. (2010), How to Assess Higher Order Thinking Skills in Your Classroom,

ASCD, http://www.ascd.org/Publications/Books/Overview/How-to-Assess-Higher-Order-Thinking-Skills-in-Your-Classroom.aspx

Bransford, J., & Stein, B. (1984). The IDEAL problem solver. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Collins, R. (2014). Skills for the 21st Century: teaching higher-order thinking retrieved fromhttp://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/teaching_higher_order_thinking,37431.html?issueID=12910

Franzosi, Roberto. (2007). Content Analysis: Objective, Systematic, and Quantitative Description of Content. In Roberto Franzosi (ed.), Content Analysis, xxi–l. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Hamza, M., & Griffith, K. (2006). Fostering Problem-Solving & Creative Thinking in the Classroom: Cultivating a Creative Mind. National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal-Electronic, 19, 1-30. http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Hamza,%20Mohammed%20Fostering%20Problem%20Solving%20&%20Creative%20Thinking%20in%20the%20Classroom.pdf

Kamarudin, M. Y., Yusoff, N. M. R. N., Yamat@Ahmad, H., & Ghani, K. A. (2016). Inculcation of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in Arabic Language Teaching at Malaysian Primary Schools. Creative Education, (7), 307–314. http://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.72030

King, F.J.; Goodson, L.; Rohani, F. (2009). Higher order thinking skills. Center for Advancement of Learning and Assessment. Retrieved from


ISSN: 2443-1257

28

http://www.cala.fsu.edu/files/higher_order_thinking_skills.pdf on 26th Januari 2015.

Norris, S. & Ennis, R. (1989), Evaluating Critical Thinking, Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications

Nitko, A.J. and Brookhart, S.M. (2007). Educational Assessment of Students (5th Edition). Upper Saddle River ,NJ: Pearson Education.

Margana, Widyantoro, A. (2017). Developing English Textbooks Oriented to Higher Order Thinking Skills for Students of Vocational High Schools in Yogyakarta Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 26-38, http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0801.04

Marhadi, H., Erlisnawati. (2018). Peningkatan Kemampuan Berfikir Tingkat Tinggi/

Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) mahasiswa PGSD FKIP UR. PedagogikVol. VI, No. 1. 69-78.

Muchsini, B. (2016). Integration of Higher Order Thinking Skills in Assessment

Instrument Accounting Computer at Higher Education. PROSIDING ICTTE FKIP UNS 2015Vol 1, No.1, 332-336.

Permendikbud No. 20, 21, 22, dan 23 Tahun 2016 tentang Standar Kompetensi Lulusan,

Standar Isi, Standar Proses dan Standar Penilaian. Tanujaya, B. (2016). Development of an Instrument to Measure Higher Order Thinking

Skills in Senior High School Mathematics Instruction.Journal of Education and Practice. Vol. 7, No. 21, 2016. 144-148

Yusuf,I. Widyaningsing, S.W. (2018). Profil Kemampuan Mahasiswa dalam

menyelesaikan Soal HOTS di Jurusan Pendidikan Fisika Universitas Papua. Jurnal Komunikasi Pendidikan, Vol2 No1, 42-49

STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARATSTKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMA

















STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARATSTKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMBARAT STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMA




























STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARATSTKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI S



STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARATSTKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP PGRI SUMATERA BARAT STKIP

PROGRAM STUDI PENDIDIKAN MATEMATIKA

Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan

(STKIP) PGRI Sumatera Barat

Sertifikat Nomor : 016/PAN-SEMNAS-MAT/STKIP/PGRI-SB/2018

Diberikan Kepada

Sri Imelwaty, Ph.D SEBAGAI PEMATERI

Pada Kegiatan

Seminar Nasional Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika Tema :

HOT Skills in Mathematics Education Tanggal 21 April 2018 di Padang

Ketua STKIP PGRI Sumatera Barat Ketua Prodi Pendidikan Matematika Ketua Pelaksana

Dr. Zusmelia, M.Si. Dra. Rahmi, M.Si Sefna Rismen, M.Pd

padang, 21 april 2018, vol 4 no.1, issn : 2443-1257 prosiding

Documents