BERBAGI ARTIKEL PENGEMBANGAN INSTRUMEN AFEKTIF

Pengirim: Tri Endang Purwaningsih.

The Development of Instrument for Assessing Students’ Affective Domain Using Self- and Peer-Assessment Models

INTRODUCTION

Many studies show that student learning is positively influenced by the assessment(Wen, Tsai, & Chang, 2006).Student learning is influenced by assessment (Foley, 2013).

Assessment informs students about their abilities, strengths and weaknesses of students and shows the strategies used for the learning process(Gullickson, 2007). Active involvement of students in the learning process is an important requirement in the assessment(van Gennip, Segers, & Tillema, 2010). Assessment is used as a means to obtain information about student learning progress, the learning process, and improve student learning outcomes(Pandra & Mardapi, 2017). Assessment is used to investigate what is already known and can be done by students and to make decisions about achieving the expected goals(Baird, Andrich, Hopfenbeck, & Stobart, 2017).

Primary education serves as the main foundation and social environment in building children’s affective domain (social behaviors). In other words, the basic foundation to build such behavior is done in this stage. It is due to the quite long years of studying in primary school. This is also because social behavior is a part of learning result(McCoach et al., 1986). The instilling of the behavior can be done through the curriculum design, learning process and the appropriate assessment.

Based on the information collected, the researcher found that the instrument of affective domain is limited. The existing instruments do not cover all the aspects suggested in the core competence of the curriculum. Besides, the assessment uses only one type of method or model.

The research problem is limited to the development of instrument for assessing affective aspects covering honest, discipline, responsible, polite, caring and confident using self- assessment (SA) and peer-assessment (PA) models. The aim of the problem limitation to make the research focused and applicable based on the proposed limitation.

METHOD

This research aims to develop instrument for assessing primary students’ affective domain using SA and PA models. The instrument developed was in non-test form. The development of the instrument covered some components; they are honest, disciplined, responsible, polite, caring and confident. In developing the instrument the researcher employed McCoach et al., (1986) modified procedures which cover 13 steps.

Sample and sampling Technique

The sample used in this research was elementary student in Yogyakarta Province. The sampling technique used in this research was cluster random sampling. The sampling process done by taking some of district randomly, then taking some ofschools randomly and taking elementary student randomly.

Instrument

The instrument used in this research is a questionnaire. The questionnaires that have been developed are then validated by experts. The questionnaires consists of Affective Domain using self-assessment (SA) and peer-assessment (PA) models employs the modified model of development by Mccoach.

Data Analysis Technique

The analysis covered items validation using CFA and LISREL8.80(Jöreskog, Olsson, & Wallentin, 2016). This was done to get the amount of the valid items. To measure the reliability of the developed instrument, cronbach alpha was employed, while the reliability coefficient was measured using SPSS 20.0.

Findings and discussion

The development of instruments for assessing affective domain which employed Mccoach approach has resulted instrument construct for assessing students’ affective domain, covering honest, disciplined, responsible, polite, caring, and confident. The result has served as the initial or early step for developing affective domain instrument. Questionnaires were used as the form of development, employing self- and peer- assessment models.

 The result showed all of the indicators and items had Aiken index which ranged from 0,750-1,000. The result showed that the value is >0,7 which means the indicators and items proposed were all valid (Heri Retnawati, 2016). Aiken index was chosen because of its accuracy in revealing the content validity of an instrument. On the PA-based model of instrument, the result is:  Chi-Square  = 151,55, df = 126, P-value = 0,06015, Root RMSEA = 0,034. On the items estimation, the value of loading factor was 0,31-0,99 (>0,30) which means that the items in the instruments based on SA and PA are valid. The instruments reliability reached 0,788-0,886 which means that all the instruments developed were valid. 

Conclusion

Based on the discussion, it can be concluded as follows: construct of the assessment instrument for affective domain which covered honest, disciplined, responsible, polite, caring, and confident was developed in 2 models: self assessment (SA) and peer assessment (PA). The further research is expected to be able to find the new indicator about peer-assessment and self-assessment through more in-dept research using qualitative research.

Sumber: Ari Setiawan (UST), Djemari Mardapi (UNY), Supriyoko (UST), Dedek Andrian (Univ Riau).

REFERENCES

Andrian, D., Kartowagiran, B., & Hadi, S. (2018). The Instrument Development to Evaluate Local Curriculum in Indonesia. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2016.9115a

Baird, J. A., Andrich, D., Hopfenbeck, T. N., & Stobart, G. (2017). Assessment and learning: fields apart? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 24(3), 317–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1319337

Burton, L. J., & Mazerolle, S. M. (2011). Survey Instrument Validity Part I: Principles of Survey Instrument Development and Validation in Athletic Training Education Research. Journal of Athletic Training Education, 6(1), 27–35.

Dwyer, C. A. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning: theory and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice (Vol. 5). https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050109

Evans, R., Elwyn, G., & Edwards, A. (2004). Learning in practice Review of instruments for peer assessment of physicians, 328(May), 1–5.

Foley, S. (2013). Student views of peer assessment at the International School of Lausanne. Journal of Research in International Education, 12(3), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240913509766

Gullickson, A. M. (2007). Review of Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, Volume 10. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 3(4), 199–203.

Hadi, S., & Andrian, D. (2018). 2018. The New Educational Review, 53(3), 250–260.

Jöreskog, K. G., Olsson, U. H., & Wallentin, F. Y. (2016). Multivariate Analysis with LISREL. Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1080/00210860108702002

Kanioglou, A., Tsorbatzoudis, H., & Barkoukis, V. (2005). Socialization and Behavioral Problems of Elementary School Pupils With Developmental Coordination Disorder. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 101, 163–173.

Kritikos, V. S., Woulfe, J., Sukkar, M. B., & Saini, B. (2011). Intergroup peer assessment in problem-based learning tutorials for undergraduate Pharmacy students. American   Journal                                   of                 Pharmaceutical                    Education,        75(4). https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe75473

Logan, B., & Ed, D. (2015). Reviewing the value of self-assessments: Do they matter in the classroom ? Research in Higher Education Journal, 29(September), 1–11. McCoach, D. B., Gable, R. K., & Madura, J. P. (1986). Instrument Development in the Affective Domain. New York: Springer.

Mistar, J. (2011). A Study of the Validity and Reliability of Self-Assessment. TEFLIN Journal, 22(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.15639/TEFLINJOURNAL.V22I1/45-58

Noonan, B., & Duncan, C. R. (2005). Peer and Self-Assessment in High Schools. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10(17), 1–8. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2017.09.089

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Ltd.

Pandra, V., & Mardapi, D. (2017). Development of Mathematics Achievement Test for Third Grade Students at Elementary School in Indonesia. International Electronik Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(8), 769–776.

Ross, J. A. (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 11(10), 1–13.

Sluijsmans*, D. M. A., & George Moerkerke*, J. J. G. van M. and F. J. R. C. D. (2001). Studies in Educational Evaluation IN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27(1), 153–173.

Stiggins, Richard, J. (1999). Assessment , Studen Confidence , and Scho. The Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 191–198.

Tooth, J. A., Nielsen, S., & Armstrong, H. (2013). Coaching effectiveness survey instruments: Taking stock of measuring the immeasurable. Coaching, 6(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2013.802365

van Gennip, N. A. E., Segers, M. S. R., & Tillema, H. H. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning                                         and                Instruction,               20(4),               280–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.010

Wen, M. L., Tsai, C. C., & Chang, C. Y. (2006). Attitudes towards peer assessment: A comparison of the perspectives of preservice and inservice teachers. Innovations in Education                                    and          Teaching         International,         43(1),          83–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290500467640

Wright, P. M., & Craig, M. W. (2011). Tool for assessing responsibility-based education (TARE): Instrument development, content validity, and inter-rater reliability. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 15(3), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2011.590084