ABSTRAK

Chandra, Tania Puspa. 2017. Pengembangan Instrumen Evaluasi Mata Pelajaran Biologi SMA
Kelas X Di SMA PANJURA Kota Malang. Skripsi, Program Studi Pendidikan Biologi,
Jurusan Biologi, Fakultas Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam, Universitas Negeri
Malang. Pembimbing: (I) Drs. Triastono Imam Prasetyo, M.Pd, (II) Agung Witjoro, S.Pd.,
M.Kes.

Kata kunci: Instrumen Evaluasi, Biologi SMA, Kompetensi Dasar 3.4, 4.4, 3.5, 4.5, 3.6 dan 4.6,

Kelas X.

Kurikulum 2013 merupakan kurikulum berbasis kompetensi. Untuk mengukur

kompetensi siswa dalam pembelajaran digunakan instrumen evaluasi. Instrumen evaluasi yang
dikembangkan dalam penelitian ini adalah 34 soal pilihan ganda jawaban tunggal dengan 5 pilihan
jawaban, soal uraian dan 3 asesmen kinerja. Soal pilihan ganda jawaban tunggal mengacu pada
indikator soal yang dikembangkan dari indikator kompetensi. Kompetensi dasar merupakan acuan
perumusan indikator kompetensi. Asesmen kinerja mengacu pada kompetensi dasar. Penelitian ini
bertujuan untuk(1) merumuskan indikator kompetensi dan indikator soal dari kompetensi dasar
3.4, 4.4, 3.5, 4.5, 3.6, dan 4.6, (2) mengembangkan rumusan soal pilihan ganda jawaban tunggal
dan asesmen kinerja dari dari kompetensi dasar 3.4, 4.4, 3.5, 4.5, 3.6, dan 4.6, (3) mengetahui
validitas logis dan validitas empiris soal pilihan ganda jawaban tunggal yang sudah dibuat dari
kompetensi dasar 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, (3) mengetahui validitas logis asesmen kinerja yang dibuat dari dari
kompetensi dasar 4.4, 4.5, 4.6. Pengembangan instrumen evaluasi dilakukan di SMA PANJURA
Kota Malang.
Penelitian pengembangan ini menggunakan model penelitian ADDIE yang terdiri dari 5
tahap yaitu: (1) analisis, (2) perencanaan, (3) pengembangan, (4) implementasi, (5) evaluasi.
Pengumpulan data diperoleh dari (1) hasil validasi logis oleh ahli evaluasi, ahli materi, dan ahli
lapangan (guru), (2) validasi empiris yang meliputi tingkat kesukaran, daya beda, reliabilitas dan
analisis pengecoh. Pengembangan asesmen kinerja berdasarakan hasil validasi logis, sedangkan
pengembangan soal pilihan ganda jawaban tunggal berdasarkan hasil validasi logis dan validasi
empiris. Validasi empiris dilakukan dua kali yaitu, uji coba kelompok kecil dan uji coba kelompok
besar. Uji coba kelompok kecil dilakukan dilakukan pada 16 siswa, sedangkan uji coba kelompok
besar dilakukan pada 41 siswa kelas XI SMA PANJURA Kota Malang.
Berdasarkan analisis validasi logis dilakukan perbaikan pada rubrik penilaian asesmen
kinerja produk poster pada asesmen kinerja. Berdasarkan analisis validasi logis terhadap soal
pilihan ganda jawaban tunggal diketahui validitas konstruk soal sudah sesuai dengan indikator
soal. Sedangkan untuk validitas isi diketahui materi tes sesuai dengan indikator soal. Berdasarkan
program ITEMAN diperoleh hasil uji coba kelompok kecil pada soal pilihan ganda jawaban
tunggal untuk tingkat kesukaran soal mudah 28,23%, soal sedang 41,18%, dan soal sukar 20,59%
dengan rasio soal mudah:sedang:sukar mencapai kurang lebih 4:4:2. Untuk daya beda persentase
14,70% jelek, 11,76% cukup , 52,95% baik, dan 20,59% baik sekali. Untuk analisis pengecoh,
pilihan jawaban berfungsi mengecoh sebanyak 41,17%. Berdasarkan uji coba kelompok kecil
dilakukan revisi. Revisi juga dilakukan berdasarkan hasil analisis pengecoh. Setelah dilakukan
validitas logis dan empiris dilakukan revisi untuk digunakan uji coba kelompok besar. Hasil uji
coba kelompok besar pada soal pilihan ganda jawaban tunggal untuk tingkat kesukaran soal
mudah 35,30%, soal sedang 38,23%, dan soal sukar 26,47% dengan rasio soal mudah : sedang :
sukar kurang lebih 4:4:2. Untuk daya beda jelek diperoleh persentase 11,76%, cukup 17,64%, baik
41,17%, dan baik sekali 29,43%. Reliabilitas instrumen tergolong sangat tinggi dengan nilai 0,855.
Untuk analisis pengecoh, pilihan jawaban berfungsi mengecoh sebanyak 82,36%. Berdasarkan uji
coba kelompok besar dilakukan revisi. Revisi juga dilakukan berdasarkan hasil analisis pengecoh.
Saran yang dianjurkan adalah sebaiknya guru dan peneliti lain terus melakukan validasi agar
diperoleh instrumen evaluasi yang lebih baik.

i
 ABSTRACT

Chandra, Tania Puspa. 2017. Development of Evaluation Instrument of Biology Subject of SMA X
Class In Senior High School PANJURA Malang City. Skripsi, Biology Education
Program, Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, State
University of Malang. Counselor: (I) Drs. Triastono Imam Prasetyo, M.Pd, (II) Agung
Witjoro, S.Pd., M.Kes.

Keywords: Evaluation instruments, Senior high school biology, Basic competencies 3.4, 4.4, 3.5,
4.5, 3.6, and 4.6, Class X

2013 curriculum is a competency-based curriculum. An evaluation instrument is used to

measure the students’ competence in the learning. The evaluation instruments developed in this
research were 34 multiple choice questions with a single answer from 5 answer choices, questions
with description answer, and 3 performance assessments. The multiple choice question with a
single answer refers to the question’s indicator that developed from the competency’s indicator.
Basic competency is a reference for the formulation of competency’s indicators. Performance
assessment refers to basic competencies. This study aims to (1) formulate competency’s indicators
and questions’ indicators of basic competencies 3.4, 4.4, 3.5, 4.5, 3.6, and 4.6, (2) develop the
multiple choice questions with a single answer and performance assessment of basic competencies
3.4, 4.4, 3.5, 4.5, 3.6, and 4.6, (3) know the logical validity and empirical validity of multiple
choice questions with a single answer made from basic competencies 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, (3) know the
logical validity of performance assessments made from the basic competencies 4.4 , 4.5, 4.6.
Development of evaluation instruments conducted in PANJURA Senior High School Malang.
This development research used ADDIE research model which consists of 5 stages: (1)
analysis, (2) planning, (3) development, (4) implementation, (5) evaluation. Data collection is
obtained from (1) logical validation results by evaluation experts, material experts, and field
experts (teachers), (2) empirical validation which includes difficulty level, differentiation,
reliability and distractor analysis. The development of performance assessments is based on logical
validation results, while the development of multiple choice questions with a single answer is
based on the results of logical validation and empirical validation. Empirical validation is done
twice, which is small group trials and large group trials. Small group trial conducted on 16
students, while large group trials conducted on 41 students of the 11th grade of PANJURA Senior
High School Malang.
Based on the logical validation analysis, there is correction in the poster product of
performance assessment in the performance assessment. Based on the logical validation analysis
of multiple choice questions with a single answer is known that the validity of the
questions’construct is compatible with the question’s indicator. As for the validity of the content,
known that the test material is compatible with the question’s indicator. Based on the ITEMAN
program, the small group test’s results on multiple choice questions with a single answer obtained
for easy question is 28.23%, moderate question is 41.18%, and 20.59% for difficult question, with
ratio of easy:moderate:difficult question is approximately 4: 4: 2. For power differentiator
percentage is 14,70% ugly, 11,76% enough, 52,95% good, and 20,59% very good. For the analysis
of distractor, the choice of answers outwit percentage is 41.17%. Based on a small group test, there
is revisions. Revisions are done based on the results of the analysis of distractor. After validity and
empirical validity test is done, there is revision for large group test. Results of large group test on
multiple choice questions with a single answer obtained to easy question is 35.30%, moderate
question is 38.23%, and 26.47% for difficult question with ratio of easy:moderate:difficult
question is approximately 4: 4: 2. For power differenciator percentage is 11,76% ugly, enough is
17,64%, good is 41,17%, and very good is 29,43%. Instrument of reliability is very high with a
value of 0.855. For the analysis of distractor, the choice of answers outwit percentage is 82.36%.
Based on a large group trial, there is revision. Revisions are also done based on the results of the
analysis of distractor. The recommended suggestion is teachers and other researchers should
continue to validate in order to obtain better evaluation instruments.

ii