Question Level Analysis based on the Observed Taxonomy of Learning Outcome Structures in the 2013 Elementary School Mathematics Curriculum Book-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Question Level Analysis based on the Observed Taxonomy of Learning Outcome Structures in the 2013 Elementary School Mathematics Curriculum Book

Published:2023-02-27 Issue: Volume:21 Page:
ISSN:2598-991X
Container-title:Indonesian Journal of Education Methods Development
language:
Short-container-title:ijemd

Author:

Uyun Luluk Muflikhatul,Wardana Mahardika Darmawan Kusuma

Abstract

This study aims to describe the level of questions on math story problems in the 2013 curriculum book by calculating the percentage of each level of Unistructural, Multistructural, Relational, and Expanded Abstract. This study uses a qualitative approach with a check list method. The SOLO taxonomy is an evaluation tool to determine the quality of the response to a problem. The results of this study contained 230 questions overall and 32 questions SOLO Taxonomy. Unistructural question level percentage 6.24% SOLO Taxonomy questions. The percentage at the level of Multistructural questions is 3.24%, while at the level of relational questions is 90.62%, and the percentage at Expanded Abstract is 0%. From the results of the data obtained, it appears that at the level of the Relational question has the highest percentage with a result of 90.62%. This shows that the 2013 curriculum fifth grade mathematics book is in accordance with the theory of SOLO Taxonomy.

Publisher

Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo

Subject

General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Environmental Science

Reference11 articles.

1. S. D. Putranti and R. C. I. Prahmana, “Kemampuan Siswa Dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Matematika Berbasis Masalah,” JNPM (Jurnal Nas. Pendidik. Mat., vol. 2, no. 1, p. 86, 2018, doi: 10.33603/jnpm.v2i1.943.

2. R. Amelia and Oktapiyanti, “Analisis Kesalahan Siswa Smk Dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Materi Persamaan Lingkaran Berdasarkan Taksonomi Solo Plus Ditinjau Dari Kemampuan Matematika Dasar,” J. Pembelajaran Mat. Inov., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 35–48, 2020, doi: 10.22460/jpmi.v3i1.p35-48.

3. R. Lusiana, “Analisis kesalahan mahasiswa dalam memecahkan masalah pada materi himpunan ditinjau dari gaya kognitif,” J. Penelit. dan pembelajaran Mat., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 24–29, 2017, doi: 10.30870/jppm.v10i1.1290.

4. A. Fitri, N. Kurniawati, and Z. Mubaroh, “Respon Peserta Didik dalam Memecahkan Masalah Matematika Berdasarkan Taksonomi SOLO (Structure of Observed Learning Outcome),” … J. Mat. dan …, vol. 4, no. September, pp. 153–159, 2021, [Online]. Available: http://ejurnal.unim.ac.id/index.php/majamath/article/view/1099

5. Y. Nurmalasari and R. Erdiantoro, “Perencanaan Dan Keputusan Karier: Konsep Krusial Dalam Layanan BK Karier,” Quanta, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 44–51, 2020, doi: 10.22460/q.v1i1p1-10.497.