•  
  •  
 

Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan

Keywords

national examination, items characteristics, methods of cheating

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui: (1) karakteristik butir soal Kimia Ujian Nasional berdasarkan teori tes klasik dan teori respon butir; (2) besarnya kecurangan yang terjadi dengan menggunakan Metode Angoff's B-index, Metode Pair1, Metode Pair2, Metode Modified Error Similarity Analysis (MESA) dan Metode G2; (3) metode yang lebih banyak mendeteksi adanya kecurangan dalam pelaksanaan UN Kimia tingkat SMA/MA Negeri tahun pelajaran 2011/2012 di Provinsi Maluku. Hasil analisis dengan pendekatan teori tes klasik menunjukkan 77,5% butir memiliki tingkat kesulitan butir berfungsi baik, 55% butir daya bedanya belum memenuhi syarat, dan 70% butir memiliki pengecoh berfungsi baik dengan indeks reliabilitas tes 0,772. Analisis dengan pendekatan teori respons butir menunjukkan 14 (35%) butir cocok dengan model, fungsi informasi maksimum 11,4069 pada θ = -1,6, dan besarnya kesalahan pengukuran 2,296. Jumlah pasangan yang diduga curang adalah: menurut Metode Angoff's B-index ada 13 pasangan, menurut Metode Pair1 ada 212 pasangan, menurut Metode Pair2 ada 444 pasangan, menurut Metode MESA ada 7 pasangan, dan menurut Metode G2 ada 102 pasangan. Metode yang paling banyak mendeteksi kecurangan secara berturut-turut adalah: Metode Pair2, Metode Pair1, Metode G2, Metode Angoff's B-index, dan Metode MESA.

Kata kunci: ujian nasional, karakteristik butir, metode kecurangan

______________________________________________________________

AN ANALYSIS OF METHOD OF CHEATING ON LARGE TEST SCALE Abstract This study aimed to reveal: (1) the characteristics of items of Chemistry Test in National Examination by using the classical test theory and item response theory; (2) the amount of cheating which occured by using Angoff's B-index Method, Pair 1 Method, Pair 2 Method, Modified Error Similarity Analysis (MESA) Method, and G2 Method; (3) the methods that detected more cheating in the implementation of the Chemistry Test in National Examination for high schools in the academic year 2011/2012 in Maluku Province. The results of the analysis with the classical test theory approach show that 77.5% items have item difficulty functioning well, 55% items have discrimination that has not met the requirement yet, and 70% items have distractor that works well with the index reliability test of 0,772. The analysis using the item response theory approach shows that 14 (35%) items fit with the model, the maximum function information is 11,4069 at θ = -1,6, and the magnitude of the error of measurement is 2,296. The number of pairs who are suspected of cheating is as follows: 13 pairs according to Angoff's B-index Method, 212 pairs according to Pair 1 Method, 444 pairs according to Pair 2 Method, 7 pairs according to MESA Method, and 102 pairs according to G2 Method. The most widely detecting cheating in a row is a Pair 2 Method, Pair 1 Method, G2 Method, Angoff's B-index Method, and MESA Method. Keywords: national examination, items characteristics, methods of cheating

First Page

115

Last Page

128

Issue

1

Volume

18

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.21831/pep.v18i1.2128

References

Anderman, E. M., Griesinger, T., & Wester- field, G. (1998). Motivation and cheat- ing during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology. 90, 84-93.

Anderman, E. M., Pamela, K. C., & Derek,

L. (2010). Impulsivity and academic cheating. Journal of Educational Psycho- logy. 90, 84-93.

Aziz, Deden Abdul. (September 2012). Soal Ujian Nasional SMP Diduga Bocor. Tempo Online diakses pada tanggal 30 September 2012, dari: http://www. tempo.co/read/news

Bogle, K. D. (2000). Effect of perspective, type of student, and gender on the attribution of cheating. Proceedings of Oclahoma Academic Science. Ocla- homa City, 80, 91-97.

Chula, G. K., Roger, W.G., & Chris, P. (2009). Online exams and cheating: an empirical analysis of business stu- dents’ views. The Journal of Educators Online, 6, 1.

Cizek, G. J. (1999). Cheating on tests: How to do it, detect it, and prevent it. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

. (April 2001). An overview of issues concerning cheating on large- scale tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, in Seattle, WA.

Depdiknas (2003). Undang-Undang RI Nomor 20, Tahun 2003, tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional.

.(2005). Peraturan Pemerintah RI Nomor 19, Tahun 2005, tentang Standar Nasional Pendidikan.

Eisenberg, J. (2004). To cheat or not cheat: effects of moral perpective and situa- tional variables on students’ attitudes. Journal of Moral Education, 33, 2, 163-178.

Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: principles and applications. Boston, MA: Kluwer Aca- demic Publishers.

Lama, M. Al. (2008). Student’s attitudes toward cheat and relation to demo- graphyc factors. European Journal of Social Science. 7, 1, 140-146.

Lewkowicz, A. B. (2007). Teaching emotional intelligence, California: Corwin Press.

Lim, V. K. G., Sean, K. B. S. (2001).

Attitudes toward, and intentions to report, academic cheating among stu- dents in Singapure. Ethnic & Behavior, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 11(3), 261-274

Mardapi, Djemari. (1999). Estimasi kesalah- an pengukuran dalam bidang pen- didikan dan implikasinya pada ujian nasional. Yogyakarta: UNY.

McCabe, D. L., Linda K. T., & Kenneth,

D.B. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: a decade of research. Ethnic & Behavior, 11(3), 219-232.

Shapiro, E. S. (2011). Academic skill problems (4th Ed.). New York: The Guildford Press.

Strom, P. S., & Strom R., D. (2007) Cheating middle school and high school. The Edu- cation Forum, 71, 104-116

Widiatmo, H. (2009). Metode untuk men- deteksi penyontekan jawaban pada tes pilihan ganda: studi kasus SMP di Ka- bupaten Garut. Pusat Penelitian Pen- didikan, Balitbang Diknas. 219-226.

Williams, J. B. (2002). The plagiarism prob- lem: are students entirely to blame. Proceedings of ASCILITE. Australia

Williams, K., M., Craig N., Delroy L.P. (2010). Identifying and profiling scho- lastic cheaters: their personality, cog- nitive ability, and motivation. Journal of Experimental Psycology. 16 (3), 293-307.

Download

Share

COinS