The Contribution of Test Type and Curriculum Difference on the Effect of the National Test Score at International Mathematic Test Score: The Challenge of IR 4.0 Curriculum

Abstract

Purpose: The students’ competencies of math are required to be assessed by using an international scale of evaluation. Thus, education policies and learning evaluation are developed by educational policymakers to improve the education system and result quality. Hence, the purpose of this research was to investigate The Contribution of International Mathematics Test Type and Curriculum Difference on the Effect of the National Test Score on International Mathematics Test Score.

Research Methods: This study employed 600 students of private and public Junior High Schools in Indonesia. The Mathematics Test Types included were PISA-like and TIMSS-like. They were used to represent the type of test. The model of curriculums applied in Junior High School in Indonesia used in this study was KTSP and K13. The multiple regression was used to analyze the data.

Findings: The National Test Score had a stronger effect on International Mathematics Test Score for KTSP curriculum implementation rather than K13 curriculum, and National Test Score had a stronger effect on International Mathematics Test Score for PISA type of International mathematic test rather than TIMSS one. These results showed that the different curriculum used at the mathematics learning process and test types had a moderate effect of National on International test score in a mathematics course.

Implications for Research and Practice: It implies an increase in the policymakers to pay more attention to the curriculum design and type of learning evaluation. It is suggested that future research should include learning and teaching types to find out a deeper behavioral and attitudinal understanding of learning and teaching of mathematics.

Keywords

• Learning evaluation,educational policy

References

1. Amat Jaedun, V. Lilik Hariyanto, Nuryadin, E. R. (2014). An evaluation of the implementation of Curriculum 2013 at the building construction department of vocational high schoos in Yogyakarta. Journal of Education, 7(1), 14–22.
2. Argina, A. W., Mitra, D., Ijabah, N., & Setiawan, R. (2017). INDONESIAN PISA RESULT : WHAT FACTORS AND WHAT SHOULD BE FIXED ? Proceedings Education and Language International Conference, 1(1), 69–79.
3. Carnoy, M., Khavenson, T., Loyalka, P., Schmidt, W. H., & Zakharov, A. (2016). Revisiting the Relationship Between International Assessment Outcomes and Educational Production : Evidence From a Longitudinal. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 1054–1085. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216653180
4. Chow, J. C., & Ekholm, E. (2018). Language domains differentially predict mathematics performance in young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.011
5. Coşkun, S., Kayıkcı, Y., & Gençay, E. (2019). Adapting Engineering Education to Industry 4.0 Vision. Technologies, 7(10), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies7010010
6. Dekant, K., Sungur, S., & Yerdelen, S. (2018). Predicting Science Engagement with Motivation and Teacher Characteristics : a Multilevel Investigation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(1), 67–88.
7. Fung, D. (2019). Re-thinking the higher education curriculum: Challenges, possibilities, and dreams. Places of Engagement, 82–87.
8. Hayes, A. (2013). PROCESS model templates. New York, NY: Guilford. https://doi.org/978-1-60918-230-4

9. Ilma, Z., & Pratama, R. K. (2015). Transformation in Indonesian Language Curriculum: Pros and Cons between KTSP 2006 and Curriculum 2013 in Indonesia, 2013–2016. https://doi.org/10.15242/icehm.ed0315007
10. Jansen, M., Schroeders, U., Lüdtke, O., & Marsh, H. W. (2019). The dimensional structure of students ’ self-concept and interest in science depends on course composition. Learning and Instruction, 60(October 2018), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.11.001
11. Kaleli-Yılmaz, G., & Hanci, A. (2015). Examination of the 8th grade students ’ TIMSS mathematics success in terms of different variables. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Technology, 47(5), 674–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2015.1102977
12. Lam, T. Y. P., & Lau, K. C. (2014). International Journal of Science Examining Factors Affecting Science Achievement of Hong Kong in PISA 2006 Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2463–2480. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.879223
13. Lan, T., & Vu, A. (2018). Building CDIO Approach Training Programmes against Challenges of Industrial Revolution 4 . 0 for Engineering and Technology Development, 11(7), 1129–1148.
14. Lieu, T. T. B., Duc, N. H., Gleason, N. W., Hai, D. T., & Tam, N. D. (2018). Approaches in Developing Undergraduate IT Engineering Curriculum for the Fourth Industrial Revolution in Malaysia and Vietnam. Creative Education, 9(December), 2752–2772. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2018.916207
15. Martin, M. O., & Mullis, I. V. (2016). TIMSS: Purpose and design. Dalam S. J. Howie & T. Plomp (Eds.), Contexts of learning mathematics and science—Lessons learned from TIMSS. In Contexts of learning mathematics and science—Lessons learned from TIMSS. Routledge.
16. Mcconney, A., & Perry, L. B. (2010). Science and mathematics achievement in Australia : the role of school socioeconomic composition in educational equity and effectiveness. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 429–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9197-4
17. Moyer-packenham, P. S., Lommatsch, C. W., Litster, K., Ashby, J., Bullock, E., Roxburgh, A. L., … Symanzik, J. (2018). How Design Features in Digital Math Games Support Learning and Mathematics Connections. Comupter in Human Behavior, 91, 316–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.036
18. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2011). TIMSS 2011 International Results in Mathematics. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College Chestnut Hill, MA, USA.
19. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Ruddock, G. J., Sullivan, C. Y. O., & Preuschoff, C. (2009). TIMSS 2011 Assessment Frameworks. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
20. OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy. OECD.
21. OECD. (2015). PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education, PISA (Vol. I). OECD Publishing, Paris.
22. Retnawati, H. (2017). Why are the Mathematics National Examination Items Difficult and What Is Teachers ’ Strategy to Overcome It ?, 10(3), 257–276.
23. Retnawati, H., Hadi, S., & Nugraha, A. C. (2016). Vocational High School Teachers ’ Difficulties in Implementing the Assessment in Curriculum 2013 in Yogyakarta Province of Indonesia. International Journal of Instruction, 9(1), 33–48.
24. Scheerens, J. (2019). School self-evaluation : Origins , definition , approaches , methods and implementation. In School-based evaluation: An international perspective (pp. 35–69).
25. Stacey, K. (2011). The PISA View of Mathematical Literacy in Indonesia. Journal on Mathematics Education, 2(2), 95–126. Trisnawati, Gunawan, & Nongkeng, H. (2016). Perbandingan implementasi kurikulum tingkat satuan pendidikan (KTSP) dan kurikulum 2013 di SMAN 1 Sinjai Utara. Jurnal Mirai Management, 1(1), 1–9.
26. Wu, M. (2010). Comparing the Similarities and Differences of PISA 2003 and TIMSS. OECD Education Working Papers, (32).