Journal of Biological Science and Education

~JBSE~
Website: http://usnsj.com/index.php/biology
Email: [email protected]

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Developing Higher Order Thingking Skills Assesment

Instruments On Invironmental Pollution Material For Class VII

AUTHORS INFO ARTICLE INFO

Asra Indah E-ISSN: 2721-0804

Universitas Bung Hatta P-ISSN: 2723-6838
[email protected] Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2021
+6282283178967 URL: http://usnsj.com/index.php/biology

Azrita
Universitas Bung Hatta
[email protected]
+628116624222

Rona Taula Sari

Universitas Bung Hatta
[email protected]
+6281363353115
Suggestion for the Citation and Bibliography
Citation in Text:
Indah, A., Azrita, & Sari, R.T. (2021)
Bibliography:
Indah, A., Azrita, and Sari, R.T. (2021). Developing higher order thinking skills assesment instruments on
invironmental pollution material for class VII. Journal of Biological Science and Education, 3(1), 1-13.

Abstract

The seventh grade science teacher at MTsN 3 Kota Pariaman has problems in
developing an instrument for assessing higher order thinking skills. In the 2013
curriculum, teachers are required to be able to provide questions in the C4-C6 domain,
namely High Order Thinking Skills (HOTS). This study aim to produce a valid and
practical assessment instrument for higher order thinking skills on environmental
pollution material at the C4-C6 cognitive level. The background of this research is that
the questions made by the teacher are still at the C1-C3 level and there are still obstacles
for teachers in developing higher order thinking skills assessment instruments, while in
the 2013 curriculum teachers are required to be able to provide questions in the C4-C6
domain. This type of research is research development (Research and Development)
which is a research method used to produce certain products. This type of research uses
3 stages of the 4-D model, namely the define, design and develop stages.Based on the
research conducted, a very valid assessment instrument of 3,32 was produced by the
validator, the empirical validity there were 30 valid questions and 10 invalid questions,
the reliability in this study was 0,77 with the category of reliability, 94,79% teacher
practicality and practicality. students amounted to 80,80%, the difficulty level of the
questions was between 0,31 to 0,70 with moderate criteria and the question difference
had sufficient criteria. This research can be used as a reference for other researchers
related to the development of higher order thinking skills assessment instruments.

Keywords : High Order Thinking Skills, Validity

A. Introduction
The curriculum 2013 focuses on students to be able to observe, ask, reason, and
communicate what they have gained after receiving lessons (Budiani et al, 2017). Furthermore,
according to Kunandar (2015), the 2013 curriculum aims to prepare Indonesian people to have
the ability to live as individuals and citizens who are faithful, productive, innovative and
2 JBSE/3.1; 1-13; June 2021
affective and able to contribute to the life of society, nation and state in world civilization. The
2013 curriculum revision emphasizes high order thinking skills (HOTS) in learning. This shows
that learning must provide training not only for basic learning for students to understand
conceptually, but also for higher-order thinking skills.
Thinking skills are divided into three, namely low-level thinking skills (Lower Order
Thinking Skills, LOTS), middle-level thinking skills (Middle Order Thinking Skills, MOTS), and
high-order thinking skills (High Order Thinking Skills, HOTS) (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001 ).
High-level thinking includes three ability criteria that must be mastered, namely analyze,
evaluate, and create. Higher order thinking skills are defined as the use of the mind broadly to
find new challenges (Heong et al, 2011). Critical thinking or high-order thinking skills in science
and technology also play an important role in instilling scientific attitudes in students. High-
level thinking is not only developed in learning, but must also be supported by assessment
instruments that reflect higher-order thinking (Rosidah, 2018).
Knowing the development of higher order thinking skills requires an assessment in the
aspect of knowledge. Based on Permendikbud number 53 of 2015, the assessment of learning
outcomes by educators is the process of collecting information or data about the learning
outcomes of students. Questions about higher-order thinking skills can encourage students to
think deeply about learning material, so it can be said that the higher order thinking skills
assessment instrument can stimulate students to develop higher-order thinking skills (Barnett
& Francis, 2012). The improvement of students' critical thinking skills can be evaluated in the
presence of measuring tools or relevant instruments. The instrument is said to be good if it is
able to evaluate or assess something with results such as the condition being evaluated, to get a
good test instrument, an analysis of the instrument must be carried out (Rosidah, 2018).
In practice, an assessment requires an assessment technique. These techniques consist of
test and non-test assessment techniques. Hamzah (2013) states that the test is a tool and has a
systematic procedure that is used to measure and assess a knowledge or control of a measuring
object of a certain set of content and material. Mardapi (2012) states that the test is a form of
instrument used to take measurements consisting of a number of questions that have a right or
wrong answer, or are all true or partially correct with the aim of knowing the learning
achievements or competencies that students have achieved. for a particular field. Meanwhile,
non-test techniques according to Hamzah (2013), that non-test is one of the evaluation
instruments at the SD education unit level is called an assessment technique to obtain a
description of characteristics, attitudes, or personalities. Non-test evaluation instruments
include: questionnaires, interviews, observations, portfolios and journal rubrics. So far, the non-
test technique is less popular than the test technique.
In the learning process, in general, the assessment activities prioritize test techniques. This is
because the aspects of knowledge and skills play a greater role in the decisions made by the
teacher when determining the achievement of learning outcomes. Teachers as learning
managers are required to be able to prepare and carry out assessments with correct procedures
so that the learning objectives set are achieved. Along with the enactment of the education unit
level curriculum which is based on competency standards, basic competencies, the assessment
technique must be adjusted to the following matters, namely the competence to be measured,
the aspects to be measured (knowledge, skills, or attitudes), the measured student abilities, and
existing infrastructure.
However, the problems that occur in the field are the implementation of High Order Thinking
Skills (HOTS) learning is not easy for teachers to do. The teacher must really master the material
and learning strategies and the teacher is also faced with challenges with the students'
environment. Learning will be intertwined if students can be invited to think at higher levels.
The success of mastery of a concept will be obtained when students are able to think at high
levels, where students can not only remember and understand a concept, but students can
analyze and synthesize, evaluate, and create a concept well. Another problem is that there are
obstacles for teachers in developing higher order thinking skills assessment instruments for
students, the questions given to the medium level (C3) are analyzed according to the bloom
taxonomy. Whereas in the 2013 Curriculum teachers are required to be able to provide
questions in the C4-C6 domain, namely high-order thinking skills (HOTS). Apart from not being
used to using HOTS, other factors that cause students to be in moderate or sufficient criteria are
culture and character. According to Thomas (2012), culture is generally passed down from
parents and children, so that what parents experience will shape the child's personality, so that
for years the habits and culture will be attached to the child. From that, the good and bad things
done by children as individuals are influenced by the prevailing culture in the environment.
JBSE/3.1; 1-13; June 2021 3
Putri's Research (2018) entitled "Development of Instruments for Assessment of Higher
Order Thinking Skills on Biodiversity Materials for Class X SMA/MA Students". This research
produces a higher order thinking assessment instrument for viral material that is valid and
practical. Furthermore, Safitri (2017) entitled "Development of an Instrument for Assessment of
Higher Order Thinking Skills on Virus Materials for Class X SMA/MA Students". This research
produces a higher order thinking assessment instrument for valid and practical viral material.

B. Literature Review
1. Assessment Instruments
The learning outcome assessment instrument is a tool (measuring) used in the context of
collecting and processing information to determine the achievement of student learning
outcomes (Hamzah, 2013). The instrument is a measuring tool used to collect data for student
assessment. This instrument will provide information to the teacher about the circumstances
and achievements achieved by their students. This assessment can be in the form of test
assessments, non-tests, class-based assessments, performance assessments, and also portfolio
assessments (Wati, 2016).
The increase in students' critical thinking skills can be evaluated with the presence of
measuring instruments or relevant instruments. This instrument is said to be good if it is able to
evaluate or assess something with results such as the condition being evaluated, to get a good
test instrument, an analysis of the instrument must be carried out (Rosidah, 2018). In practice,
an assessment requires an assessment technique. This technique consists of test and non-test
assessment techniques.
2. High Order Thinking Skills
Higher order thinking skills are defined as the use of the mind broadly to find new challenges
(Heong et al, 2011). Critical thinking or higher-order thinking skills in science and technology
also play an important role in instilling scientific attitudes in students. High-level thinking is not
only developed in learning, but must also be supported by assessment instruments that reflect
higher-order thinking (Rosidah, 2018).
Anderson & Krathwohl conducted research in 2001 and resulted in improvements to
Bloom's taxonomy. The improvements made were to change Bloom's taxonomy from a noun to
a verb. Anderson & Krathwohl (2001) state that the cognitive domain according to Bloom's
taxonomy has six levels of thought processes, starting from the lowest level to the highest level.
3. Quality of Development Result Based on Validity, Practicality, Reliability, Difficulty Level and
Difference
Validity
Validity is evidence and theory support for the interpretation of test scores in accordance
with the purpose of using the test so that validity is the most basic foundation in developing and
evaluating a test (Mardapi, 2012). Meanwhile Siskandar & Basrowi (2012), state that to be valid
an instrument is not only consistent in its use, but what is important is that it must be able to
measure its target size. A test can have multiple levels of validity: high, medium, low depending
on its purpose.
Reliability
A test is said to be reliable if the test results show consistency. This means that if students
are given the same test at different times, each student will remain in the same order (rank) in
their group (Arikunto, 2012). In line with this Supardi (2015) an item of assessment instrument
is said to be reliable if it is used to measure at different times the results will be the same, thus
reliability can also be interpreted as stability.
Practicality
Practicality means the ease of a test, both in preparing, using, processing, and interpreting, as
well as administering it (Arifin, 2012). Factors that influence the practicality of the evaluation
instrument include ease of administration, time provided for smooth evaluation, ease of scoring,
ease of interpretation and application, availability of an equivalent or comparable form of
evaluation instrument.
Arikunto, (2012) a test is said to be practical if it has the following characteristics:
a) Easy to implement, for example it does not require a lot of equipment and gives students
the freedom to do the parts that are considered easy by the students first.
b) Easy to check, meaning that the test is equipped with both an answer key and a scoring
guide.
c) Equipped with clear instructions.
4 JBSE/3.1; 1-13; June 2021
Difficulty Level
A good question is a question that is not too easy or not too difficult (Arikunto, 2012).
Meanwhile Surapranata (2005), also states that, there are two characteristics of the level of
difficulty, namely:
a) The level of difficulty is a measure of the question which does not indicate the
characteristics of the question
b) The level of difficulty is a characteristic of the item itself and the taking of the test.
Based on the above, the difficulty level is the level of ease of the question. The higher the
difficulty index value, the easier the questions are given and conversely the lower the difficulty
index value, the more difficult the questions are. Good questions are moderate questions that
have a moderate difficulty index, namely 0.30 to 0.70 (Arikunto, 2012).
Difference
The distinguishing power of questions is the ability of questions to distinguish between
students who have mastered the material and students who have not mastered the material
(Kunandar, 2015). In line with this, Arikunto, (2012), states that the distinguishing power of a
question is the ability of a question to distinguish between students who are smart (high ability)
and students who are less intelligent (low ability).

C. Methodology

1. Research Design
This high-order thinking ability assessment instrument was developed using the Four-D-
Models learning tool development model suggested by Thiagarajan, Semmel et al (1974). This
model consists of four stages, namely define, design, develop, and disseminate. Due to time
constraints, this research was only carried out until the develop stage.

Figure 1. Research Procedure for the Development of Higher-Level Thinking Ability Assessment
Instruments

2. Instruments
The instruments used to collect data in this study were a validity test questionnaire and a
practicality test questionnaire.
JBSE/3.1; 1-13; June 2021 5
Validity Questionnaire
The validity questionnaire is filled in by the validator, namely the lecturer. The purpose of
the validity questionnaire is to find out data about the validity of the higher order thinking skills
instrument that will be developed.

Practicality Questionnaire
The questionnaire for the practicality test of the higher order thinking skills instrument was
filled in by teachers and students. This questionnaire contains questions related to the ease of
implementation, examination, and instructions for the assessment of higher order thinking
skills.
The validity test questionnaire and practicality test questionnaire were arranged according
to a modified Likert scale from Riduwan (2012) with a scale of 4 alternative answers, namely:

Table 1. The questionnaire criteria for validity and practicality were compiled by A Likert Scale
Symbol Criteria Skor
SA Strongly Agree 4
A Agree 3
D Disagree 2
SD Strongly Disagree 1

3. Technique of Data Analysis

The research data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. This technique describes the
results of the validity test, practicality test, and item quality test of the higher order thinking
skills assessment instrument. This analysis includes the following matters.
Analysis of the Validity of the High-Level Thinking Ability Assessment Instrument
Validity comes from the word validity which means the extent to which the accuracy and
accuracy of a measuring instrument in performing its measuring function. A test or non-test of a
measuring instrument or measuring instrument is said to have high validity if the tool performs
its measuring function or provides measurement results that are in accordance with the
intended purpose. take that measurement. In this study, the validity used in determining the
assessment instrument was twofold, namely

Logical Validity Analysis

From the results of the media validity obtained, it was analyzed on all aspects presented in
tabular form using a Likers scale, then the mean value was searched using the following
formula:
∑𝑛
𝑖=1 Vij
R= (Muliyardi, 2006)
nm

Information :
R = Average research results from the research results of experts / practitioners
Vij = Score of research results of experts / practitioners to-j criteria i
n = The number of experts / practitioners who judge
m = Number of criteria

Table 2. Criteria for the assessment of validity

Category Range
3,25 - 4,00 Very valid
2,50 - 3,24 Valid
1.75 - 2.49 Invalid
1.00 - 1.74 Not valid
Empirical Validity Analysis
An instrument can be said to have empirical validity if it has been tested from experience.
The internal quantitative characteristics are intended to include the parameters of the difficulty
level, the distinguishing power and the reliability. Especially for multiple choice questions, two
additional parameters are seen from the opportunity to guess or answer the questions correctly
and the function of the answer choices, namely the distribution of all alternative answers from
the tested subjects.
6 JBSE/3.1; 1-13; June 2021
If the dichotomy score is (0.1) then to calculate the correlation coefficient between the item
score and the total instrument score, the biserial point correlation coefficient (rpbis) is used
which uses the formula:

Information :
rpbis = Point biserial correlation coefficient
Mp =The mean score of the subjects who answered correctly the item being sought was
correlated
Mt = Mean total score
St = Standard deviation
p = The proportion of subjects who answered the question correctly
q = 1- p

Reliability Analysis of High-Level Thinking Ability Assessment Instruments

Reliability is the determination of the results obtained from a measurement result. The
reliability used to measure the learning outcome test is to use the Alpha Crownbach formula,
namely:
k ∑σ2
r11 = [ ][ 2 ]
(k − 1) σ t

Information:
r11 = reliability coefficient alpha
k = Number of question items
2 b = The number of score variants for each item
2 t = total variant
The test criteria, if Rcount > Rtable with a significant level (α) = 0.05, the instrument meets
the reliability requirements. Likewise, if Rhcount < Rtable with a significant level of 0.05, the
instrument does not meet the reliability requirements. A test is said to be reliable (high
reliability) if r11 is equal to or greater than 0.70 (Supardi, 2015).

Table 3. The terms of the instrument reliability coefficient

Cronbach's Alpha Value Reliability Criteria
0.81-1.00 Very High
0.61-0.80 High
0.41-0.60 Moderate
0.21-0.40 Low
0.00-0.20 Very Low

Analysis of Practicality Test Instruments for High-Level Thinking Ability Assessment

The practicality test data for the assessment of higher order thinking skills were analyzed by
percentage (%) using the following formula:
The sum of all scores
Practicality value = x 100%
Maximum number of scores

After the percentage is obtained, then grouping is carried out according to the modified
criteria by Purwanto (2009) which is modified as follows:

Table 4. Criteria for practicality assessment

Practicality Value (%) Practicality Criteria
90-100 Very practical
80-89 Practical
60-79 Enough practical
0-59 It's not practical
Difficulty Level Analysis
The level of difficulty of the questions is searched using the following formula:
JBSE/3.1; 1-13; June 2021 7
B
P=
J
Information :
P = level of difficulty
B = Many subjects answered correctly
J = Many subjects took the test
Table 5. Classification of difficulty level
Value of Difficulty Level Criteria for Level of Difficulty
0.00 - 0.30 Hard
0.31 - 0.70 Moderate
0.71 - 1.00 Easy
According to Arikunto (2012), good questions are questions with a difficulty index of 0.31 to
0.70, namely questions in the medium category.

Difference
The formula used to find the difference power is as follows:
BA BB
D =
JA JB
Information :
D = Distinguishing power of the item
BA = The number of upper groups who answered the question correctly
BB = The number of lower groups who answered the question correctly
JA = The number of subjects in the top group
JB = The number of subjects in the lower group
The classification of distinguishing power according to Arikunto (2012) is as follows.
Table 6. Criteria for differentiation
Value Criteria
0.00-0.20 Poor
0.21-0.40 Enough
0.41-0.70 Good
0.71-1.00 Very Good

The instrument for assessing high-order thinking skills that is good is an instrument with
most of the discriminating power which is categorized as sufficient, good and excellent.
Assessment instruments that have sufficient, good, and excellent discriminating power can
differentiate between low and high ability students.

D. Findings and Discussion

1. Findings
The development stage (develope) in this research includes logical validity test, empirical
validity, reliability test, practicality test, difficulty level, and distinguishing power.

1.1 Analysis of the Validity of the High-Level Thinking Ability Assessment Instrument
The logical validity of the higher-order thinking skills assessment instrument
The logical validity of this higher order thinking ability assessment instrument was carried
out by two validators consisting of FKIP Bung Hatta University lecturers using a validation
questionnaire. During the validation phase, there were various suggestions and criticisms
received from the validator so that it became the basis for consideration for making revisions to
the higher order thinking skills assessment instrument made. According to the validator, of the
questions that have been validated, nothing should be discarded, it just has to be a question.
revised so that it can be a valid question according to the criteria for logical validity. Revision of
the questions carried out can be based on the validator's suggestions in a nutshell can be seen in
Table 7.
8 JBSE/3.1; 1-13; June 2021
Table 7. Validators' suggestions for the assessment instrument
Validator Suggestion Corrective
1 Fix questions that have too long sentences The questions have been corrected with
more efficient sentences
2 Look again at the cognitive domain of The problem has been fixed based on
each question or question instrument the cognitive domain of the bloom
taxonomy
Based on suggestions and input from the validator of the higher order thinking skills
assessment instrument, this instrument can be tested on students. The results of the validity
test of the validator can be seen in Table 8.

Table 8. Test results of the logical validity of the assessment instrument

No Assessment Component Validator Total Validity Value Criteria
1 2
1 Theory 33 27 60 3,33 Valid
2 Construction 28 24 52 3,25 Valid
3 Language 12 9 21 3,50 Very valid
4 Higher Order Thinking 17 15 32 3,20 Valid
Total Value of Validity 13,28
Average Value of Validity 3,32 Very valid

The final result of the logical validity of the validator gets an average of 3.33 with very valid
criteria. This shows that the higher order thinking skills assessment instrument that has been
made is very valid, both in terms of material, construction, language and higher order thinking
skills so that it can be used in research. The instrument for assessing higher order thinking skills
is then given to science teachers at MTsN 3 Kota Pariaman for practicality test.

Empirical Validity of Higher-Level Thinking Ability Assessment Instruments

The empirical validity aims to determine the level of reliability of the questions. The results
can be seen in Table 9.

Table 9. The results of the test of the empirical validity of the assessment instrument
No Empirical Validity Total
1 Valid Question 30 Questions
2 Invalid Question 10 Questions
The Total Number Of Questions 40 Questions

Based on Table 9, the empirical validity of the instrument for assessing high-level thinking
skills in environmental pollution material is 30 valid questions and 10 invalid questions with a
total of 40 questions. 10 Invalid questions can not be defended or in other words, they are not
used.

1.2 Instrument Reliability Analysis of High Level Thinking Ability Assessment

The test criteria, if Rhitung>Rtabel with a significant level (α) = 0.05, then the instrument
meets the reliability requirements. Likewise, if Rcount < Rtable with a significant level of 0.05,
the instrument does not meet the reliability requirements. A test is said to be reliable (high
reliability) if r11 is equal to or greater than 0.70 (Supardi, 2015).

Table 10. Results of the reliability of the assessment instrument

Reliability Criteria
0,77 High reliability

Based on Table 10, the reliability of the instrument for assessing high-level thinking skills in
environmental pollution material is reliable because the results obtained are 0.77. Based on
this, the resulting instrument has high reliability. This means that reliability can be used and
provides consistent results for the same measurement.
a. Practicality Analysis of Higher-Order Thinking Ability Assessment Instruments
An instrument for assessing high-order thinking skills that is valid and ready to be tested,
then a practicality test is carried out which aims to determine the practicality level of the
JBSE/3.1; 1-13; June 2021 9
instrument for assessing higher-order thinking skills. The practicality test was carried out by
the science teacher at MTsN 3 Kota Pariaman by filling out a practicality test questionnaire. The
results can be seen in Table 11.

Table 11. The results of the practicality of the teacher's assessment instrument
No The assessment aspect Persentase (%) Criteria
1 Implementation 87,50 Practical
2 Examination 100 Very practical
3 Instructions for questions 100 Very practical
4 Theory 91,67 Very practical
Average 94,79 Very practical

In addition to the practicality test by the teacher, the practicality of the instrument for
assessing the ability to think highly of environmental pollution material was also carried out by
students. The practicality data of students were obtained through the results of a practicality
questionnaire. A total of 36 students of class VII MTsN 3 in Pariaman City conducted a
practicality test by filling out the practicality questionnaire that the researcher had given.
Analysis of practicality questionnaire results by students can be seen in Table 12.

Table 12. The results of the practicality of the assessment instruments by students
No The assessment aspect Persentase (%) Criteria
1 Implementation 81,08 Practical
2 Examination 80,06 Practical
3 Instructions for questions 81,25 Practical
4 Theory 80,79 Practical
Average 80,80 Practical

Based on Table 12, it is known that the practical value of the instrument for assessing the
ability to think highly of environmental pollution material filled by students, in terms of
implementation it is obtained 87.50%, examination is 100%, question instructions are 100%
and in terms of material 91.67%. This shows that, the instrument for assessing the ability to
think highly of environmental pollution material that has been developed is practical for use by
students with an average of 80.80%.

b. Analysis of Difficulty Levels of High-Level Thinking Ability Assessment Instruments

Item analysis is the assessment of test questions in order to obtain a set of questions of
adequate quality. Test items must be known about the level of difficulty, because each test
maker needs to know whether the questions are difficult, medium or easy. The level of difficulty
can be seen from the students' answers. The fewer the number of students who can answer the
question correctly, it means that the question is considered difficult and conversely the more
students can answer the question correctly, meaning that it indicates the question is not difficult
or the question is easy. The results of research conducted for the difficulty level of problems on
environmental pollution material can be seen in Table 13.

Table 13. The results of the difficulty level of the assessment instrument questions
No Item difficulty level Total
1 Easy 11 Questions
2 Medium 19 Questions
3 Hard 10 Questions
Total questions 40Questions

c. Analysis of the Distinctive Power of Higher-Order Thinking Ability Assessment Instruments

The discriminating power analysis examines the items with the aim of knowing the ability of
the questions in distinguishing students who are classified as capable (high achievement) from
students who are classified as poor or weak in achievement. That is, if the questions are given to
capable children, the results show high achievement and achievement. if given to weak students,
the results are low. The results can be seen in Table 14.
10 JBSE/3.1; 1-13; June 2021
Table 14. The results of the difference of the assessment instrument questions
No Distinction of Question Items Total
1 Bad 13 Questions
2 Enough 16 Questions
3 Good 11 Questions
Total Questions 40 Questions

Based on the results of the study, it can be seen that the daily test questions on
environmental pollution material used in MTsN 3 Kota Pariaman class VII are 40 items, there
are 13 items with bad criteria, 16 items with sufficient criteria and 11 items with good criteria.

2. Discussion
2.1 Validity and Reliability
The instrument for assessing high-level thinking skills that was developed was very valid
based on the four aspects validated by the validator, namely aspects of material, construction,
language and high-order thinking skills with an average value of 3.32. In terms of material, the
instrument for assessing higher order thinking skills is categorized as very valid with a
validation value of 3.33. This means that the questions are in accordance with the 2013
curriculum which has been adjusted to the defined core competencies and basic competencies.
These valid results illustrate that the higher order thinking skills assessment instrument
developed is suitable for learning so that it can be used in the assessment process.
Viewed from the construction aspect, the instrument for assessing higher order thinking
skills that has been made is very valid with 3.25 validation. The construction of the questions is
in accordance with the formulation of the questions given clearly and is related to the stated
material so that it does not cause confusion for students. This is in line with Widodo's opinion
(2010) which states that by knowing the learning objectives students will not deviate from the
learning being learned. , due to information about learning objectives.
a validation value of 3.20. The validator suggests that the cognitive level of the question is in
accordance with the cognitive level of the students' high-order thinking ability. According to
Kurniati (2016), he states that high-order thinking questions stimulate students to interpret,
analyze, or even be able to manipulate previous information so that it is not monotonous. The
assessment instrument developed can be used as an instrument that can measure and stimulate
and train students' higher-order thinking skills.
Based on the results of the test items that have been carried out on the 40 items tested on
class VII students of MTsN 3 Kota Pariaman, there were 30 valid questions based on their
empirical validity. Meanwhile, 10 questions are invalid based on empirical data because the
level of correlation is low. According to Sudarmin (2012), it is stated that a good question has a
valid measure for a specific purpose but is not valid for other purposes or even for the same
purpose in the group other. Furthermore, according to Rahayuni (2016) states that basically
validity is a concept related to the extent to which the test has measured what must be
measured.
The resulting high-level thinking ability assessment instrument is reliable, namely the r11 is
0.77. Based on this, the instrument can be said to be reliable with high criteria. The instrument
for assessing high-order thinking skills is said to be reliable if this assessment instrument can
provide the same results if tested in the same group at different times or occasions. Arikunto
(2012) states that a test is said to be reliable if it has a fixed result in the test. Furthermore,
Nurwanah (2019) states that questions that already have reliability above 0.70 are said to be
reliable and there is no need for revision of the item instrument according to the reliability test.

2.2. Practicality of high-order thinking skills assessment instruments

Based on the results of the practicality test analysis, it was found that the instrument for
assessing higher order thinking skills that had been made had very practical criteria. The
practicality average value obtained was 94.79% from four aspects in the practicality test,
namely aspects of implementation, examination, question instructions and material.
In terms of the implementation aspect, the instrument for assessing high-level thinking skills
is considered practical with a practicality value of 87.50%. This means that this assessment
instrument does not require a lot of equipment to work on and gives students the freedom to
answer questions that they feel can be answered first.
Judging from the aspect of examining the questions, the instrument for assessing high-order
thinking skills that has been made is categorized as practical with a value of 100%. Questions
JBSE/3.1; 1-13; June 2021 11
are equipped with answers and answer sheets. This will make it easier for teachers to check
students' answers.
Judging from the aspect of question instructions, the instrument for assessing high-order
thinking skills that has been made is categorized as practical with a value of 100%. This is
obtained because the test is equipped with clear instructions to guide students to be able to
work on the questions.

a. Level of difficulty and Difference

The results of the analysis of the difficulty level of the questions in the research carried out
had a difficulty level of questions between 0.31 to 0.70 with moderate criteria. Arikunto (2012)
states that a good question is a question that is neither easy nor too difficult. Furthermore,
according to Tika et al, (2014) also states that the level of difficulty of an item is marked by the
percentage of students who answered correctly on the item in question. In line with this,
according to Rofiah (2013) states that the easier an item is, the more students will answer the
question correctly, whereas if the question is too difficult, only a few students are able to
answer the item correctly. From some of these opinions, it can be said that a good question is a
question that has a medium difficulty level criterion.
Julistiawati (2013) states that the distinguishing power of a question is the ability of a
question to differentiate between high-ability students and low-ability students. Based on the
results of the analysis of the difference in power obtained at the time of the study, it was found
that the different power of the questions owned was in the sufficient criteria According to
Nofiana (2016) states that the distinguishing power of good questions is the distinguishing
power of questions that are categorized as sufficient, good and excellent. In line with that,
according to Ita (2018) states that an assessment instrument that has sufficient, good and
excellent distinction power can differentiate between low-ability students and high-ability
students.

E. Conclusion
The development of instruments for assessing high-level thinking skills on environmental
pollution material in the 2013 curriculum for grade VII students of MTsN 3 Kota Pariaman
which resulted in this study was stated to be logically valid (3.33) and empirical validity (30
valid questions out of 40 questions), reliable (0.77 with high criteria), practical (94.79%
assessment from the teacher and 80.80% from students), moderate difficulty level and
sufficient differentiation power. This assessment instrument can be used as an assessment
instrument that can measure students' higher order thinking skills. Higher order thinking skills
can be developed if educators use the right assessment. Therefore, higher order thinking
assessment instruments are needed by educators, in this case the teacher, as an evaluation that
can stimulate and measure students' higher order thinking skills. Another part of being able to
stimulate and train students' higher order thinking skills is to carry out activity-based learning
activities, so as to encourage students to build creativity and critical thinking.
The importance of 21st century skills that emphasize HOTS implementation efforts among
students, where these skills are very important to produce human resources who are able to
apply knowledge to face various challenges, have creative and innovative thinking styles and
high competitiveness. Researchers encountered several obstacles during the process of making
this higher order thinking ability assessment instrument. The first difficulty faced is in making a
question stimulus. Sometimes the question stimulus that is made cannot present the questions
and does not function to be able to answer the questions, so that without any stimulus the
questions can be answered by students.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the students and teachers of class VII MTsN 3 Pariaman City
and those who took part in contributing to this research.

F. References

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy of learning, teaching, and assessing. A
revision of bloom’staxonomy of educational objectives, New York Longman. 41(4), 212-218.
Arifin, Z. (2012). Penelitian pendidikan metode dan paradigma baru. Bandung: Remaja Rosda
Karya.
12 JBSE/3.1; 1-13; June 2021
Arikunto, S. (2012). Evaluasi pembelajaran (prinsip, teknik, prosedur). Bandung: Remaja
Rosdakarya Offset.
Barnett, J. E & Francis, A.L. (2012).Using higher order thinking question to foster critical
thinking: a classroom study. Educational Psychology: An International journal of
Experimental Educational Psychology, 3(2), 209-216.
Budiani, S., Sudarmin., & Syamwil, R. (2017). Evaluasi implementasi kurikulum 2013 di Sekolah
Pelaksana Mandiri. Innovative Journal of Curriculum and Educational Technology (IJCET).
6(1), 45-57.
Hamzah, A. (2013). Evaluasi pembelajaran matematika. Jakarta: PT Raja GrafindoPersada.
Heong, M. Y. (2011). The level of marzano higher thingking skills among technical education
students. International Jurnal of Social Science and Humanity, 1(2), 121-125.
Julistiawati., Rini., & Bertha Y. (2013). Keterampilan level C4,C5 dan C6 revisi taksonomi bloom
siswa kelas X.3 SMAN 1 semenep pada penerapan model pembelajaran inkuiri pokok
bahasan larutan elektrolit dan non elektrolit. UNESA Journal of Chemical Education, 2(2),
37-62.
Kunandar. (2015). Penilaian autentik (Penilaian hasil belajar peserta didik berdasarkan
kurikulum 2013). Jakarta : PT Raja GrafindoPersada.
Kurniati, D. (2016). Kemampuan berpikir tingkat tinggi siswa smp di kabupaten jember dalam
menyelesaikan soal berstandar PISA. Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 20(2): 142-155
Mardapi, D. (2012). Pengukuran, penilaian, dan evaluasi pendidikan. Yogyakarta: Nuha Medika.
Muliyardi. (2006). Pengembangan model pembelajaran matematika menggunakan komik di kelas
1 Sekolah Dasar. Surabaya: UniversitasNegeri Surabaya (UNNESA).
Nofiani, M., Sajidan., and Puguh. (2016). Pengembangan Instrumen Evaluasi Higher Order
Thingking Skills Pada Materi Kingdom Plantae. Jurnal Pendagogi Hayati, 1(1), 67-80.
Nurwanah. (2019). Pengembangan Butir Soal Kemampuan Berpikir Tingkat Tinggi Pada Mata
Pelajaran Biologi Kelas XI SMA Negeri 3 Pangkep. Skripsi. Makasar. Universitas Islam
Negeri Alauddin Makasar.
Putri, S. R. (2018). Pengembangan instrumen penilaian kemampuan berpikir tingkat tinggi pada
materi keanekaragaman hayati untuk peserta didik SMA/MA kelas X. Skipsi. Padang.
Universitas Negeri Padang (UNP).
Permendikbud No 53 Tahun 2015. Penilaian Hasil Belajar Pendidik pada Pendidikan Dasar dan
Pendidikan Menengah.
Purwanto. (2009). Evaluasi hasil pembelajaran. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar
Riduwan.2012. Pengantar statistika sosial. Bandung: Alfabeta
Rahayuni, G. (2016). Hubungan Keterampilan Berpikir Tingkat Kritis dan Literasi Sains pada
Pembelajaran IPA Terpadu dengan Model PBM dan STM. Jurnal penelitian dan
pembelajaran IPA, 2(2), 131-146.
Rofiah, Emi, Nonoh, S. A., & Elvin, Y. (2013). Penyusunan Instrumen Tes Kemampuan Berpikir
Tingkat Tinggi Fisika Pada Peserta Didik SMP. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika, 1(2), 17-22.
Rosidah, N. A., Ramalis, T. R., & Suyana, I. (2018). Karakteristik tes kemampuan berpikir kritis
(KBK) berdasarkan pendekatan teori respon butir. Jurnal Inovasi dan Pembelajaran Fisika,
1(3),54-63.
Safitri, W. R. (2017). pengembangan instrumen penilaian kemampuan berpikir tingkat tinggi
pada materi virus untuk peserta didik kelas X. Skripsi. Padang. Universitas Negeri Padang
(UNP).
Siskandar & Basrowi. (2012). Evaluasi belajar berbasis Kinerja. Bandung: Karya Putra Darwati
Sudarmin. (2012). Meningkatkan kemampuan berpikir tingkat tinggi mahasiswa melalui
pembelajaran kimia terintegrasi kemampuan generik sains. Varia pendidikan, 42(1), 97-
103.
Supardi. (2015). Penilaian Autentik Pembelajaran Afektif, Kognitif, Psikomotor. Jakarta: PT Raja
Grafindo Persada.
Supranata. (2005). Analisis, Validitas, Reliabilitas dan Interpretasi Hasil Test Implementasi
Kurikulum 2004. Bandung: Remaja Rosda Karya.
Thiangarajan, S., et al. (1974). Instructional Development for Training Teachers of Exceptional
Children. Indiana: Indiana University
Thomas, L. (2012). Educating for character: Mendidik untuk membentuk karakter. Jakarta: Bumi
Aksara
JBSE/3.1; 1-13; June 2021 13
Tika, D. R., Bambang, H. R., & Sukidin. (2014). The Analyis of Difficulaties and Distinguishing
Power on The Middle Test With From of Multiple Choice on Odd Semester at Economic
Subjects on The Tenth Grade of SMA Negeri 5 Jember in 2012/2013 Academic Year. Jurnal
Edukasi UNEJ, 1(1), 39-43.
Wati, E.R.. (2016). Evaluasi pembelajaran. Yogyakarta: Kata Pena.
Widodo, T., & Kadarwati, S. (2010). Higher order thingking berbasis pemecahan masalah untuk
meningkatkan hasil belajar berorientasi pembentukan karakter siswa. Cakrawala
Pendidikan, 32(1), 161-171.