Rubric Assessment on Science and Creative Thinking Skills of Students

2nd International Conference on Innovation in Engineering and Vocational Education

工业技术;教育

Ratnasusanti, H.^1 ; Ana, A.^1 ; Nurafiati, P.^1 ; Umusyaadah, L.^1

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung West Java

40154, Indonesia^1

关键词: Assessment criteria;    Creative thinking;    Experimental methods;    Junior high schools;    Monitoring and evaluations;    Performance assessment;    Quasi-experiments;    Thinking skills;   

Others  :  https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/306/1/012051/pdf
DOI  :  10.1088/1757-899X/306/1/012051

来源: IOP

【 摘 要 】

The result of the monitoring and evaluation of the latest Indonesian curriculum (the 2013 curriculum) implementation at junior high school level year of 2014 showed that one of the difficult things that learners had in implementation 2013 curriculum is doing the result. The characteristic of applying the 2013 curriculum is to emphasize the modern pedagogic dimension of learning, which is using scientific approach, which requires learners to have highlevel thinking skills, one of which is creative thinking skills. The aims of this research is to implement performance assessment in measuring the creative thinking of junior high school students on subject Prakarya. The form of the main performance assessment is the task and assessment criteria. The experimental method that been used is the Quasi Experiment with Non-Equivalent Design Group Research. Population in this study is the students of VIII class of junior high school in Bandung, Indonesia which consists of six classes. And two classes are selected for the sample from that six classes and VIII A class were chosen, while VIII F class has been chosen as control class. The result of this research showed that the rubics of performance assessment can be measure or identify the creative thinking skill, its prove by the result of pre-test dan post-test are more dominant. In material of identification student's creative thinking skills are reached an average 85 compare 79 with the control class. while in the presentation the experimental class got an average of 85 bigger than the control class which only reached 79.