English Standar Kompetensi, Kompetensi Dasar, & Ujian Nasional of SMA in Revised Bloom`s Taxonomy

Putri Kamalia Hakim* -  Karawang Singaperbangsa University

DOI : 10.24903/sj.v2i2.133

Abstract: This study was conducted to investigate the coverage of Revised Bloom’s taxonomy in the English Standar Kompetensi (SK), Kompetensi Dasar (KD) and the English test items of Ujian Nasional for SMA. Content analysis method was chosen as the research design for this study. The writer analyzed the data by categorizing the verbs and the nouns of the data in relation to the categories and dimension of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. The results of this study revealed that 53% of SKs and KDs cover Understand category and the rest cover Analyze category. All of the SKs and KDs cover conceptual knowledge and other knowledge dimensions are not covered. Moreover, the coverage of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy in English test items of Ujian Nasional for SMA is not aligned with the coverage of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy in English SK and KD. The SKs and KDs only cover Remember, Understand, Apply and Analyze categories while the test items were associated with Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, and Evaluate categories. More than 90% of English test items of Ujian Nasional for SMA only covered low order of cognitive categories (Remember, Understand, and Apply). Most of the test items covered factual knowledge and the rest of them covered conceptual knowledge and none of them covered procedural and metacognitive knowledge. 

Keywords
revised Bloom`s taxonomy, national exam, English test item
  1. Anderson, et. al. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York , NY: Longman
  2. Ayvaci and Turkdogan (2010). Analysing “Science and Technology Course Exam Questions” According to Revised Bloom Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://www.tused.org/internet/tused/sayilar/defaultarchive.asp?islem=git2&id=184
  3. Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives - Handbook 1. Cognitive domain. London: Longman.
  4. Brown, H. Douglas. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. New York: Pearson Education Inc.
  5. Brown, James Dean. (1996). Testing in language programs. Upper Saddle River. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents
  6. BSNP. 2010. Ujian NasionalTahun Pelajaran 2009/2010 Bahasa Inggris SMA/MA (A). Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional
  7. BSNP. 2009. Ujian NasionalTahun Pelajaran 2008/2009 Bahasa Inggris SMA/MA (A). Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional
  8. Boyd, Nicola. (2009). A Creative Writing Research Methodology. Taken from “Griffith University”Burns, Robert B. Introduction to Research Methods. Malaysia: Pearson Education Australia
  9. Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia (Edisi Ketiga). (2001) Jakarta: Balai Pustaka
  10. Fraenkel, Jack. R and Wallen, Norman. E. (2006). How to Design and Evaluate Research Education. New York: Mc.Graw-Hill
  11. Genesee, Fred and Upshur, John A. (1996). Classroom-based Evaluation in Second Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Haryanti (2006) Analisis Soal Soal Biologi Kelas VII SMP Semester Gasal Pada Buku Pegangan Guru Se-Kabupaten Pati. Retrived from http://digilib.unnes.ac.id/gsdl/collect/skripsi/archives/HASHc02f.dir/doc.pdf
  13. Hughes, Arthur. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Second Edition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press
  14. Krippendorf, Klaus. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. New York: Sage Publications
  15. Nunan, David. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Tileston, Donna Walker. (2004). What Every Teacher Should Know About Student Assessment. California : Corwin Press

Full Text:
Article Info
Submitted: 2017-09-10
Published: 2017-10-08
Section: Articles
Article Statistics: 252 54