Designing mathematical modeling process worksheets for unifying assessment, instruction, and learning

Bambang Riyanto

doi:10.17509/jik.v21i3.72173

Abstract

The importance of unifying assessment is because current assessment practices are cumulative products of learning theories and measurement models developed to meet social and educational needs at different times. The research aims to produce a valid mathematical model for unifying assessment, instruction, and learning. The research approach is development research, which consists of 3 steps: analysis, design, and evaluation. The analysis step applies student analysis, curriculum, mathematical modeling, and real-world problems. The second step is design and product. In the final step, researchers used a formative evaluation design consisting of self-evaluation, one-to-one, expert review, small group, and field tests. Data were analyzed using descriptive analysis methods: (1) walk-through, analysis based on expert opinions to obtain a valid mathematical modeling process to unify assessment, instruction, and learning; (2) Results Analysis of the one-to-one. Expert validation of mathematical modeling processes in process worksheets can unify assessment, instruction, and learning. One-to-one results are exciting, challenging, and novel. A mathematical modeling process device was obtained as a valid process worksheet for unifying assessment, instruction, and learning. It is necessary to research other subjects using volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity in real-world contexts.

Abstrak

Pentingnya penyatuan asesmen, karena praktik asesmen yang ada saat ini merupakan produk kumulatif dari teori belajar dan model pengukuran yang dikembangkan untuk memenuhi kebutuhan sosial dan pendidikan pada waktu yang berbeda. Tujuan penelitian adalah menghasilkan instruksi pemodelan matematika yang valid untuk penyatuan penilaian, instruksi dan pembelajaran. Pendekatan riset adalah Development research yang terdiri dari 3 langkah yaitu analisis, desain dan evaluasi. Pada langkah analisis diterapkan analisis siswa, kurikulum, pemodelan matematika dan permasalahan dunia nyata. Langkah kedua, desain dan produk. Pada langkah terakhir, peneliti menggunakan desain evaluasi formatif yang terdiri dari evaluasi diri, one-to-one, expert review, small group, dan field test. Data dianalisis dengan menggunakan metode analisis deskriptif: (1) walk through, analisis berdasarkan komentar para ahli untuk memperoleh instruksi pemodelan matematika yang valid untuk menyatukan penilaian, instruksi dan pembelajaran; (2) Menganalisis hasil one-to-one review. Validasi ahli instruksi pemodelan matematika dalam bentuk lembar kerja proses dapat menyatukan penilaian, instruksi dan pembelajaran. Hasil one-to-one masalah pemodelan ini menarik dan menantang serta baru. Diperoleh perangkat instruksi pemodelan matematika berupa lembar kerja proses yang valid untuk penyatuan penilaian, instruksi dan pembelajaran. Perlu dilakukan penelitian pada mata pelajaran lain dengan menggunakan konteks dunia nyata yang volatilitas, ketidakpastian, kompleksitas dan ambiguitas.

Kata Kunci: asesmen; instruksi; lembar kerja proses; pembelajaran; pemodelan matematika; pendesainan

Keywords:

assessment designing instruction learning mathematical modeling process worksheet

References

Alagoz, C., & Ekici, C. (2020). Cognitive diagnostic modeling for mathematical modeling assessment. Mathematical Modeling Education and Sense-Making, 30(1), 349-359.

Al Jupri, Usdiyana, D., Gozali, S. M. (2024). Teaching and learning processes for pre-service mathematics teachers: The case of systems of equations. Eurasia: Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(8), 1-14.

Ambarokah, L., & Sinaga, F. S. S. (2023). Implementation of the peer assessment evaluation model at MTS Ma'arif NU Cilongok. Inovasi Kurikulum, 20(1), 117-128.

Alsina, Á. (2022). On integrating mathematics education and sustainability in teacher training: why, to what end and how? In D. Ortega-Sánchez (Ed.), controversial issues and social problems for an integrated disciplinary teaching. Integrated Science, 8(1), 9-21.

Alsina, Á. (2023). Mathematics Teacher Education for Sustainability (MTEfS): An emerging research agenda. AIEM - Avances de Investigación en Educación Matemática, 23(1), 1-4.

Baidoo-Anu, D., Rasooli, A., DeLuca, C., & Cheng, L. (2023). Conceptions of classroom assessment and approaches to grading: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives. Education Inquiry, 14(1), 1-29.

Baig, M. I., & Shuib, E. & Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2023). Big data in education: A state of the art, limitations, and future research directions. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(44), 1-23.

Balbia, A., Bonillaa, M., Otamendia, M. A., Curionec, K., & Beltrán-Pellicerd, P. (2022). Formative assessment and mathematics education: The perspective of in-service mathematics teachers. Acta Sci. Canoas, 24(6), 236-268.

Barkah, T. (2024). Authentic assessment in intensive training (bootcamp) of higher education students as well as feedback on the learning experience process. Inovasi Kurikulum, 21(1), 267-286.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 551-575.

Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97-140.

Deva, S., Nurpatihah S, F., Ayuni, A. D., Apriana, W. S., & Nahadi, N. (2024). Analysis of performance assessment on Kurikulum Merdeka and Kurikulum 2013. Inovasi Kurikulum, 21(2), 1193-1204.

Dong, A., Jong, M. S. Y., and King, R. B. (2020). How does prior knowledge influence learning engagement? The mediating roles of cognitive load and help-seeking. Front. Psychol, 11(1), 1-10.

Dunlop, P. (2018). Differentiating assessment in high school. BU Journal of Graduate Studies in Education, 10(2), 14-17

Du, X., Chen, C., and Lin, H. (2022). The impact of working memory capacity on collaborative learning in elementary school students. Front. Psych,13(2), 1-12.

English, L. D. (2021). Mathematical and interdisciplinary modeling in optimizing young children’s learning. Exploring Mathematical Modeling with Young Learners, 30(3), 3-23.

Gafny, R., & Ben‐Zvi, D. (2023). Students' articulations of uncertainty about big data in an integrated modeling approach learning environment. Teaching Statistics, 45(1), 67-79.

Gebremariam, H. T., & Gedamu, A. D. (2023). Primary school teachers’ assessment for learning practice for students’ learning improvement. Front. Educ, 8(1), 1-10.

Givvin, K. B., Moroz, V., Loftus, W., & Stigler, J. W. (2019). Removing opportunities to calculate improves students’ performance on subsequent word problems. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 4(2), 1-13.

Guo, W.Y., & Yan, Z. (2019). Formative and summative assessment in Hong Kong primary schools: Students’ attitudes matter. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 26(6), 675-699.

Gordon Győri, J., Fried, K., Köves, G., Oláh, V., & Pálfalvi, J. (2020). The traditions and contemporary characteristics of mathematics education in Hungary in the post-socialist era. Eastern European Mathematics Education in the Decades of Change, 1(1), 75-129.

Hergiansa, G. A. F., Widuri, S. S., & Hadiapurwa. (2020). Pemanfaatan big data dalam lingkup pendidikan. Inovasi Kurikulum, 17(2), 109-116.

Iannone, P., & Simpson, A. (2022). How we assess Mathematics degrees: The summative assessment diet a decade on. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications: an International Journal of the IMA, 41(1), 22-31.

Ihalon, E. C. (2022). Differentiated assessment in Araling Panlipunan 10: Enhanced learning activities. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD), 6(6), 971-986.

Kasmi, H. & Anasse, K. (2023). The status of alternative assessment in Morocco: Teachers’ attitudes and obstacles. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 5(1).300-311.

Khan, M. A., Khojah, M., & Vivek. (2022). Artificial intelligence and big data: The advent of new pedagogy in the adaptive e-learning system in the higher educational institutions of Saudi Arabia. Education Research International,10(1), 1-10.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., & Zambrano R, J. (2018). From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(1), 213-233.

Klein, S., & Leikin, R. (2020). Opening mathematical problems for posing open mathematical tasks: What do teachers do and feel?. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 105(3), 349-365.

Krause, C. M., Di Martino, P., & Moschkovich, J. N. (2021). Tales from three countries: Reflections during COVID-19 for mathematical education in the future. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 108(1), 87-104.

Lam, R. (2019). Teacher assessment literacy: Surveying knowledge, conceptions and practices of classroom-based writing assessment in Hong Kong. System, 81(1), 78-89.

Li, Z., Yan, Z., Chan, K. K. Y., Zhan, Y., & Guo, W. Y. (2023). The role of a professional development program in improving primary teachers’ formative assessment literacy. Teacher Development, 27(4), 447-467.

Lu, X., & Kaiser, G. (2022a). Creativity in students’ modelling competencies: Conceptualisation and measurement. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 109(2), 287-311.

Lu, X., & Kaiser, G. (2022b). Can mathematical modelling work as a creativity-demanding activity? An empirical study in China. ZDM: Mathematics Education, 54(1), 67-81.

Marwa, N. W. S., Pitria, P. R., & Madani, F. (2024). Development of authentic assessment of 21st-century skills in Kurikulum Merdeka. Inovasi Kurikulum, 21(2), 635-646

Nasir, N., Adnan, M., Rajoo, M., Ismail, A. O., & Hidayat, R. (2024). Development and effectiveness of digital classroom assessment document for form one mathematics in secondary school. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 19(3), 1-14.

Nguyen, A. T. T., & Tran, D. (2024). Quantitative reasoning as a lens to examine changes in modelling competencies of secondary preservice teachers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 1(1), 1-28.

Nieminen, J. H., Asikainen, H., & Rämö, J. (2021). Promoting deep approach to learning and self-efficacy by changing the purpose of self-assessment: A comparison of summative and formative models. Studies in Higher Education, 46(7), 1296-1311.

Nieminen, J. H., & Yang, L. (2024). Assessment as a matter of being and becoming: Theorising student formation in assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 49(6), 1028-1041.

Oo, C. Z., Alonzo, D., Asih, R., Pelobillo, G., Lim, R., San, N. M. H., & O’Neill, S. (2024). Implementing school-based assessment reforms to enhance student learning: A systematic review. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 36(1), 7-30.

Riyanto, B. (2022). Kepraktisansoal pemodelan matematika menggunakan konteks biaya parker. Jurnal Santiaji Pendidikan, 12(1), 53-65.

Riyanto, B. (2021). Developing mathematical modeling tasks using parking fee for learning mathematics. Journal of Mathematics and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 40-49.

Riyanto, B., Zulkardi, Putri, R. I. I., & Darmawijoyo. (2019). Senior high school mathematics learning through mathematics modeling approach. Journal on Mathematics Education, 10(3), 425-444.

Saligumba, I. B., & Segumpan, L. (2019). Mathematics performance and self-efficacy of grade 9 students in a differentiated assessments. International Journal of English and Education, 8(1), 477-490.

Sandal, A. K., and Sperle, A. K. (2024). Students’ perspective on feedback in mathematics in high school. Educational Assessment & Evaluation, 11(1), 1-14.

Skulmowski, A. (2023). The cognitive architecture of digital externalization. Educational Psychology Review, 35(4), 101-115.

Syaifuddin, M. (2019). The effect of students’ perception on classroom assessment to students’ attitudes. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1280(4), 1-9.

Thaariq, Z. Z. A., Yulianto, M. F., & Nurdiyanto, R. (2023). Construction of an Adaptive Blended Curriculum (ABC) model in implementing local content curriculum. Inovasi Kurikulum, 20(2), 177-192.

Tsai, Y. C. (2024). Empowering students through active learning in educational big data analytics. Smart Learning Environments, 11(14), 1-21.

Tullis, J. G., and Goldstone, R. L. (2020). Why does peer instruction benefit student learning?. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5(15), 1-12.

van Schijndel, T. J., Jansen, B. R., & Raijmakers, M. E. (2018). Do individual differences in children’s curiosity relate to their inquiry-based learning?. International Journal of Science Education, 40(9), 996-1015.

Wong, H. M., Kwek, D., & Tan, K. (2020). Changing assessments and the examination culture in Singapore: A review and analysis of Singapore’s assessment policies. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 40(4), 433-457.

Wylie, E. C. (2020). Observing formative assessment practice: Learning lessons through validation. Educational Assessment, 25(4), 251-258.

Yan Z., Li, Z., Panadero, E., Yang, M., Yang, L., & Lao, H. (2021). A systematic review on factors influencing teachers’ intentions and implementations regarding formative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 28(3), 228-260.

Yan, Z., & Brown, G. T. (2021). Assessment for learning in the Hong Kong assessment reform: A case of policy borrowing. Journal of Education for Teaching, 47(2), 293-295.

Yan, Z., & Pastore, S. (2022). Are teachers literate in formative assessment? The development and validation of the teacher formative assessment literacy scale. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 74(1), 1-43.

Zhao, X., Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Veldhuis, M. (2018). Chinese primary school mathematics teachers’ assessment profiles: Findings from a large-scale questionnaire survey. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(7), 1387-1407.

Zulkardi, Meryansumayeka, Putri, R.I.I., Alwi, Z., Nusantara, D.S., Ambarita, S.M., Maharani, Y., & Puspitasari, L. (2020). How Students Work with PISA-like mathematical tasks using COVID-19 context. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(3), 405-416.