Investigating Learning Questions Used in SMA Negeri 5 Kota Bukittinggi: A Cognitive Level Analysis

Gema Millenia Pani; Hamzah Hamzah

doi:10.24036/jelt.v11i1.116317

Investigating Learning Questions Used in SMA Negeri 5 Kota Bukittinggi: A Cognitive Level Analysis

Gema Millenia Pani⁽¹⁾, Hamzah Hamzah⁽²⁾,
(1) Universitas Negeri Padang

Indonesia
(2) Universitas Negeri Padang

Indonesia

Corresponding Author
Copyright (c) 2022 GEMA MILLENIA PANI

DOI : https://doi.org/10.24036/jelt.v11i1.116317

Full Text:

Language : en

Abstract

This study aims to find out the distribution of cognitive levels on questions used for learning in SMA Negeri 5 Kota Bukittinggi. Additionally, the findings of LOTS and HOTS questions proposed for learning in SMA Negeri 5 Kota Bukittinggi are analyzed and then described. The analysis in this study is based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. The informants of the research are 3 English Teachers who teach in grade X, XI and XII. To answer all questions, a descriptive research is conducted to describe the result of the research. The results of the study show that there are significant imbalances in the distribution of different level of questions during the learning process. In most cases, the teachers across all grades are more inclined to propose LOTS-based questions than its HOTS counterpart. Specifically, this research found that remembering (C1) and understanding (C2) level of questions dominated the distribution of questions in SMA Negeri 5 Bukittinggi with the combined overall percentage of more than 50%. Despite this, there was a pattern of increase in the percentage of HOTS questions as the grade increases. Grade XII shows higher percentage of HOTS-based questions compared to the other grades. However, the percentage of HOTS-based questions given in learning is found to be higher than LOTS questions.

References

Adler, M. (1982). The Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto. NewYork: MacMillan.

Ahmad, K. (2018). The Implementation of Teaching LOTS and HOTS in English Teaching-Learning Process in Senior, 121–128.

Anderson, L. ., & Krathwohl, D. . (2001). REVISED Bloom ’ s Taxonomy Action Verbs.

Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. In Cognitive Domain. New York: David Mckay.

Brookhart, S. M. (n.d.). IN YOUR CLASSROOM.

Brookhart, S. M., & Nitko, J. A. (2009). Educational Assessment of Students, 1–16.

Bungin, B. (2006). Metodologi Penelitian Sosial: Format Kuantitatif dan Kualitatif. Surabaya: Universitas Airlangga Press.

Gall, M. (1984). Synthesis of Research on Teachers â€TM Questioning.

Gattis, K. (2002). A Look at Productive Tutoring Techniques User’s Guide. Raleigh North Carolina State University, 42.

Gay, L. R. (1992). Education Research Competencies for Analysis and Application. London: Charles E. Milton Keynes Philadelphia Company.

Goodson, L., & Rohani, F. (2012). Higher Order Thinking Skills • Definition • Teaching Strategies • Assessment.

Moseley, D., & Dkk. (2006). Frameworks for Thinking. Camridge: Camridge University Press.

Prabowo, K. A., & Alfiyanti. (2013). An Analysis of Teachers’ Questioning Strategies During Interaction in The Classroom: A Case Of The Eight Grade SMP PGRI 01 Semarang.

Thompson, T. (2008). Mathematics Education, 3(2).

Wilson, O., & Ed, D. (2016). The Second Principle.

Wiyaka, W., Prastikawati, E. F., Prabowo, A. B., & Adi, K. (2020). Higher-Order Thinking Skills ( HOTS ) -based Formative Assessment : A Proposed Model for Language Learning Assessment, 9(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.21580/vjv9i25859

Zainil, Y., & Rosa, R. N. (2020). An Analysis of Reading Comprehension Questions in English Textbooks for SMAN Kota Padang : HOTS, 463, 76–80.

Zaiturrahmi, Kasim, U., & Zulfikar, T. (2017). Analysis of Instructionsl Questions in English Textbook for Senior High Schools. English Educational Jaournal, (125).