Harry Firman, Mustaffa Ahmad, Abu Hassan Kassim



Penelitian ini menguji dampak dari masuknya kimia dalam ujian nasional (UN) sebagai pengujian berisiko tinggi pada beberapa aspek kimia pengajaran serta aspek psikodinamik belajar kimia di tingkat sekolah menengah atas. Kausal-komparatif desain penelitian digunakan untuk penelitian ini. Untuk melakukan studi dua lima-poin Likert-jenis skala yang dikembangkan dan divalidasi, yaitu skala mengajar guru (TT-Scale) dan aspek psikodinamik skala belajar siswa (PSL-Skala). Sampel dalam penelitian ini adalah guru kimia 110 serta 240 siswa jurusan IPA di provinsi Jawa Barat digambar dengan multi-stage cluster sampling prosedur. Analisis data menggunakan t-test dan ANCOVA dilakukan untuk menguji signifikansi perbedaan rata-rata: tindakan pedagogis Guru sebelum vs setelah kimia termasuk dalam UN, aspek psikodinamik belajar siswa kelas 11 (lemah terpapar oleh UN) vs 12 grader (kuat terpapar oleh UN). Ditemukan bahwa perubahan pengujian berisiko tinggi secara signifikan pada berikut: Konten harus diajarkan lebih fokus pada konten pemeriksaan, proses mengajar menjadi lebih berpusat pada siswa, dan masalah latihan pemecahan menjadi lebih dominan dalam mengajar. Berkaitan dengan aspek psikodinamik belajar siswa, terungkap bahwa siswa kelas 12 cenderung memiliki tingkat yang lebih tinggi dalam berikut: Sikap terhadap belajar, motivasi belajar, self-efficacy, dan belajar mandiri. Namun, itu juga menunjukkan bahwa siswa mengembangkan kepercayaan yang tidak pantas pada pembelajaran yang efektif. Namun, efek dari tinggi-saham pengujian pada kecemasan tes siswa tidak dibuktikan.


This study examined the impact of the inclusion of chemistry in national examination (NE) as a highstakes testing on some aspects of teaching chemistry as well as psychodynamic aspects of learning of chemistry at senior secondary school level. Causal-comparative research design was employed for this study. To conduct the study two five-points Likert-type scales were developed and validated, i.e. the teacher teaching scale (TT-Scale) and psychodynamic aspects of student learning scale (PSLScale). Samples for this study were 110 chemistry teachers as well as 240 science stream students in province of West Java drawn with multi-stage cluster sampling procedure. Data analysis using t-test and ANCOVA were conducted to examine the significance of mean differences of: Teacher’s pedagogical actions before vs. after chemistry included in the NE; Psychodynamic aspects of students’ learning of 11th graders (weaker exposed by NE) vs. 12th graders (stronger exposed by NE). It was found that the high-stakes testing changes significantly in the followings: Content to be taught more focused on examination content, teaching processes become more student-centered, and problem solving exercises become more dominant in teaching. With regards to psychodynamic aspects of student learning, it was revealed that 12th grade students tend to have higher level in the followings: Attitudes toward learning, motivation to learn, self-efficacy, and independent learning. Yet, it was also indicated that the students developed inappropriate beliefs on effective learning. However, the effect of high-stake testing on student’s test anxiety was not evidenced.


high-stake testing; ujian nasional; kimia mengajar; psikodinamik aspek pembelajaran; national examination; teaching chemistry; psychodynamic aspects of learning

Full Text:



Amos, S. & Boohan, R. (2002). The changing nature of science education. Dalam S. Amos & R. Boohan (Ed.), Teaching science in secondary schools, (h. 3-21). London: Routledge Falmer

Burger, J. M. & Krueger, M. (2003). A balanced approach to high-stakes achievement testing: An analysis of the literature with policy implications. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 7. http://www.ucalgary.ca/iejll/burger_krueg/

Cizek, G. J. (2005). High-stakes testing: Context, characteristics, critiques, and consequences. Dalam R. P. Phelps (Ed.), Defending standardized testing(h. 23-54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cizek, G. J. & Burg, S. S. (2006). Addressing test anxiety in a high-stakes environment: Strategies for classroom and schools. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Dysthe, O. (2008). The chalelenges on assessment in a new learning culture. Dalam A. Havnes & L. McDowel (Ed.) Balancing dilemmas in assessment and learning in contemporary education (h. 15-28). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.

Eick, J. (2002). Science curriculum in practice: Student teachers’ use of handson activities in high-stakes testing schools. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 86(1), 72-85.

Feuer, M. J. (2008). Future directions for educational accountability: Notes for a political economy of measurement. Dalam K. E. Ryan & L. A. Shepard (Ed.), The future of test-based educational accountability (h. 293-306). New York, NY: Routledge.

Harlen, W. (2006). The role of assessment in developing motivation for learning. Dalam J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (h. 61-80). London: Sage Publications.

Illeris, K. (2005). A comprehensive understanding of human learning. Dalam P. Jarvis & S. Parker (Ed.), Human learning: A holistic approach(h. 87-100). London: Routledge.

Jerald. C. D. (2006, July). ’Teaching to the test’? Just say no. Issue Brief. Washington, DC: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform. Diperoleh 20 January 2011 dari http://www.centerforcsri.org/

Kumar, R. (2005). Research methodology: A step-by-step guides for beginners. London: Sage Publications.

Liying, C. (1997). How does washback influence teaching:? Implications for Hongkong. Language and Education, 11(1), 38-52.

Martinez-Pons, M. (2001). The psychology of teaching and learning: A three-stepsapproach. London: Continuum.

Murphy, S. (2008). Dalam A. Havnes & L. McDowel (Eds.) Balancing dilemmas in assessment and learning in contemporary education (h. 33-49). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.

New York State Education Department (2004). The impact of high-stakes exams on student and teachers. Policy Brief. New York, NY: New York State Education Department.

Phelps, R. P. (2003). The war on standardized testing: Kill the messenger. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

PISA (2003). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Popham, W. J. (2001). Teaching to the test: High crime, misdemeanor, or just good instruction. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 16-20.

Posner, D. (2004). What’s wrong with teaching to the test? Phi Delta Kappan, 85(10), 749-751.

Ramsey, P. A. (2005). The perfect alignment: Standards, curriculum, assessment. Paper presented at The APEC International Colloquium on Educational Assessment, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia, 13-15 September 2005.

Sireci, S. G. (2008). Standardized testing is useful. Dalam D. A. Henningfeld (Ed.), Standardized testing (h. 10-16). Farmington-Hill, MI: The Gale Group.

Stecher, B. M. (2002). Consequences of largescale, high-stakes testing on school and classroom practice. In L. S. Hamilton, B. N. Stecher & S. P. Klein (Ed.), Making sense of test-based accountability in education (h. 79-100).

Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Yeh, S. S. (2005). Limiting the unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(43), 1-21.

Yi-Ching, P. (2009). A review of washback and its pedagogical implications. Vietnam National University Journal of Science, 25, 257-263.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18269/jpmipa.v17i1.36058

DOI (PDF): https://doi.org/10.18269/jpmipa.v17i1.36058.g15440


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2021 Jurnal Pengajaran MIPA

JPMIPA http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/jpmipa/index is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Jurnal Pengajaran Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam (JPMIPA) or Journal of Mathematics and Science Teaching 

All rights reserverd. pISSN 1412-0917 eISSN 2443-3616

Copyright © Faculty of Mathematics and Science Education (FPMIPA) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI)


View JPMIPA Stats