Kesesuaian Label Higher Order Thinking Skills pada LKS Bahasa Inggris Fase B: Analisis Konten Berdasarkan Taksonomi Bloom Revisi

Penulis

  • Mia Novita Sari Universitas Tangerang Raya, Indonesia
  • Salwatul Ulaa Nasywaa Universitas Tangerang Raya, Indonesia, Indonesia
  • Sonya Trikandi Universitas Tangerang Raya, Indonesia, Indonesia
  • Vicky Hidantikarnillah Universitas Tangerang Raya, Indonesia, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59698/afeksi.v7i5.1037

Kata Kunci:

Asesmen Bahasa Inggris, HOTS, Lks, Pendidikan Dasar, Taksonomi Bloom Revisi

Abstrak

Pelabelan Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) pada bahan ajar tidak selalu mencerminkan tuntutan kognitif yang benar-benar harus dilakukan peserta didik. Penelitian ini bertujuan memetakan proses kognitif dan menilai kesesuaian label HOTS pada 12 paket tugas yang secara eksplisit diberi label HOTS dalam LKS Bahasa Inggris Cerdas: My Next Words untuk Fase B. Penelitian menggunakan analisis konten terarah dengan Taksonomi Bloom revisi sebagai kerangka pengodean. Setiap tugas dianalisis berdasarkan operasi mental esensial yang diperlukan untuk menyelesaikannya, bukan hanya berdasarkan kata kerja instruksional, bentuk soal, atau penggunaan bahasa Inggris. Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa satu tugas (8,33%) berada pada level C1 (mengingat), sembilan tugas (75,00%) pada C2 (memahami), dan dua tugas (16,67%) pada C3 (menerapkan). Tidak terdapat tugas yang secara memadai menuntut C4 (menganalisis), C5 (mengevaluasi), atau C6 (mencipta). Dengan demikian, seluruh paket tugas yang ditelaah belum memenuhi kriteria HOTS. Ketidaksesuaian terutama muncul karena aktivitas mengidentifikasi benar–salah, mengelompokkan fungsi ruang, dan menyusun kalimat sederhana diperlakukan sebagai HOTS, padahal penyelesaiannya masih bersifat rutin dan berjawaban terbatas. Temuan ini menegaskan perlunya pembedaan antara kesulitan bahasa dan kompleksitas kognitif. Pengembang LKS disarankan menggunakan stimulus kontekstual, perbandingan alternatif, permintaan alasan, masalah terbuka, serta kriteria produk agar asesmen benar-benar mengaktifkan analisis, evaluasi, dan kreasi. Penelitian terbatas pada satu LKS dan tidak mengukur performa siswa di kelas.

Referensi

Airasian, P. W., & Miranda, H. (2002). The role of assessment in the revised taxonomy. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_8

Anasy, Z. (2016). HOTS (Higher Order Thinking Skill) in reading exercise. TARBIYA: Journal of Education in Muslim Society, 3(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.15408/tjems.v3i1.3886

Arisman, A., Maisarah, I., Yunita, W., Sujarwati, I., & Sofyan, D. (2024). An analysis of higher order thinking skill (HOTS) in Merdeka Curriculum English textbook “Pathway to English” published by Erlangga for grade X of senior high school. Jurnal Bilingual, 14(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.33387/j.bilingual.v14i1.7904

Astrid, A., Hasanah, A., & Syafryadin, S. (2022). Integrating higher order thinking skills (HOTS) into English language teaching for elementary school students: Teachers’ perspectives and challenges. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 28(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2022-2803-14

Atiullah, K., Fitriati, S. W., & Rukmini, D. (2019). Using revised Bloom’s taxonomy to evaluate higher order thinking skills (HOTS) in reading comprehension questions of English textbook for Year X of high school. English Education Journal, 9(4), 428–436. https://doi.org/10.15294/eej.v9i4.31794

Bakhtiari Moghadam, Z., Haddad Narafshan, M., & Tajadini, M. (2023). The effect of implementing a critical thinking intervention program on English language learners’ critical thinking, reading comprehension, and classroom climate. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 8, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-023-00188-3

Budiarta, L. G. R. (2021). Developing HOTS-based students’ worksheet for fifth-grade elementary school. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 5(4), 468–488. https://doi.org/10.33369/jeet.5.4.468-488

Crowe, A., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2008). Biology in Bloom: Implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 7(4), 368–381. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024

DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy: A review of international standards and measures. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9233-6

Dempster, E. R., & Kirby, N. F. (2018). Inter-rater agreement in assigning cognitive demand to Life Sciences examination questions. Perspectives in Education, 36(1), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v36i1.3586

Erdiana, N., & Panjaitan, S. (2023). How is HOTS integrated into the Indonesian high school English textbook? Studies in English Language and Education, 10(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v10i1.26052

Febriyani, R. A., Yunita, W., & Damayanti, I. (2020). An analysis on higher order thinking skill (HOTS) in compulsory English textbook for the twelfth grade of Indonesian senior high schools. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 4(2), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.33369/jeet.4.2.170-183

Fulcher, G. (2012). Assessment literacy for the language classroom. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(2), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.642041

Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664

Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

Karpen, S. C., & Welch, A. C. (2016). Assessing the inter-rater reliability and accuracy of pharmacy faculty’s Bloom’s taxonomy classifications. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 8(6), 885–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.08.003

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher order thinking. Theory Into Practice, 32(3), 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849309543588

Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 226–232. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_4

Miri, B., Ben-Chaim, D., & Zoller, U. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2

Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., Wyse, S. A., & Ebert-May, D. (2010). Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate biology courses focus on low-level cognitive skills. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9(4), 435–440. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-01-0001

Nourdad, N., Masoudi, S., & Rahimali, P. (2018). The effect of higher order thinking skill instruction on EFL reading ability. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 7(3), 231–237. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.7n.3p.231

O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220

Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3

Popham, W. J. (2009). Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental? Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577536

Rahayu, S., Ladamay, I., Wiyono, B. B., Susanti, R. H., & Purwito, N. R. (2021). Electronics student worksheet based on higher order thinking skills for grade IV elementary school. International Journal of Elementary Education, 5(3), 453–460. https://doi.org/10.23887/ijee.v5i3.36518

Riwayatiningsih, R., Setyarini, S., & Putra, R. A. A. (2021). Portraying teacher’s metacognitive knowledge to promote EFL young learners’ critical thinking in Indonesia. International Journal of Language Education, 5(1), 552–568. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v5i1.13043

Setyowati, Y., Susanto, S., & Munir, A. (2022). A revised Bloom’s taxonomy evaluation of formal written language test items. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 14(5), 1317–1331. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v14i5.7296

Shabrina, D. B., Basthomi, Y., & Zen, E. L. (2025). Exploring higher order and lower order thinking skills in Indonesian junior high school ELT textbooks. Englisia: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities, 12(2), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.22373/ej.v12i2.29201

Stanny, C. J. (2016). Reevaluating Bloom’s taxonomy: What measurable verbs can and cannot say about student learning. Education Sciences, 6(4), Article 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci6040037

Sukmawijaya, A., Yunita, W., & Sofyan, D. (2020). Analysing higher order thinking skills on the compulsory English textbook for tenth graders of Indonesian senior high schools. JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 5(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v5i2.10565

Surono, S., Pratolo, B. W., & Hanun, S. L. (2022). Analysis of HOTS and LOTS of instructional questions in the English textbook “When English Rings a Bell” for grade VIII. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 5(3), 240–252. https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v5i3.8168

Willingham, D. T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review, 109(4), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32

Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010

Yeung, S. S. (2015). Conception of teaching higher order thinking: Perspectives of Chinese teachers in Hong Kong. The Curriculum Journal, 26(4), 553–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2015.1053818

Zohar, A., & Cohen, A. (2016). Large scale implementation of higher order thinking (HOT) in civic education: The interplay of policy, politics, pedagogical leadership and detailed pedagogical planning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.003

Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145–181. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_1

Warna Mukti Grafika. (2024). Cerdas: My Next Words for Elementary School Grade III Semester Dua [Lembar kerja siswa].

Unduhan

Diterbitkan

2026-07-22

Terbitan

Vol 7 No 5 (2026)

Bagian

Articles

Citation Check

Lisensi

Hak Cipta (c) 2026 Mia Novita Sari

Creative Commons License

Artikel ini berlisensiCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

An author who publishes in  AFEKSI agrees to the following terms:
  • Author retains the copyright and grants the journal the right of first publication of the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal
  • The author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book) with the acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  • The author is permitted and encouraged to post his/her work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Read more about the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.