Indonesian EFL Teachers Competence in Constructing

Lots and Hots-based Test:

A Case Study in an Indonesian Secondary School

Maryam Fachrunnisa, Nia Kurniawati, Sajidin and Dian Ekawati

English Education Department, UIN Sunan Gunung Djati, Jl. A.H. Nasution No. 105 Cipadung Bandung, Indonesia

Keywords: Teacher Pedagogical Competence; Formative Test; HOTS; LOTS; Indonesian EFL MTs Teachers.

Abstract: As a part of pedagogical competence, the teachers’ ability in constructing formative test needs to be

investigated. This research is to analyze and classify EFL teachers’ formative test from two Madrasah

Tsanawiyah Negeri (MTsN) in Bandung, Indonesia based on Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) and

Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS). This research employed qualitative study through the descriptive

analysis of the formative test provided by the teachers. Two MTsN teachers were selected purposively

based on their experiences in teaching. Moreover, document analysis, questionnaire and interview were

used as the instruments to gain the data. After all of formative tests were analyzed, most items fall into

category of revealing the students’ LOTS: Remembering (C1), Understanding (C2), and Applying (C3).

Meanwhile, the teachers also developed formative test that belong to HOTS level: Analyzing (C4),

evaluating (C5) and creating (C6); however, the number is very limited. Data from questionnaire and

interview show that the teachers had actually basic knowledge about LOTS and HOTS, but they lacked

practices of using them in constructing formative tests. This study is significant in informing the policy

makers regarding the importance of developing teachers’ skill in constructing formative test which is based

on LOTS and HOTS.

1 INTRODUCTION

One of teacher duties is gradually evaluating their

students’ skill of what they have taught, for instance,

giving students some tests. That is one of many

ways to examine their ability. Teachers’ ability in

constructing questions for an examination is needed.

Thus, it is important to know the real teachers’

ability of in constructing questions for evaluating

students’ skill.

Teachers’ understanding of how to construct

good test items is important because this related with

one of teacher's competence, that is pedagogical

competence. According to the National Standard of

Education in chapter 28 verse 3: “Teacher

pedagogical competence is an ability in the

management of learning activity at least the

following: an or understanding of the educational

foundation; b) understanding of learners; c)

developing curriculum or syllabus; d) designing

learning; e) implementation of educational learning

and dialogue; f) the use of technologies in learning;

g) evaluation of learning outcomes, and h)

development of a variety of learners to actualize its

potential.”

Based on the explanation above, one of the

teacher’s abilities in pedagogical competence is an

evaluation of learning outcome. To evaluate

student’s competence, a teacher can give them some

tests.

Therefore, every teacher needs to understand

Bloom’s Taxonomy for the activities in the

classroom and the guidance to evaluate the students’

ability in the form of test. In addition, testing is one

of the powerful tools to measure students' abilities as

well as to enhance their attitudes towards learning.

Brown and wickrama support that statement (as

cited in Tran, 2012) said that “tests as a way of

measuring a person’s skill, understanding, or

performance in a specific domain.” In short, testing

is one of ways or instruments to know how far the

468

Fachrunnisa, M., Kurniawati, N., Sajidin, . and Ekawati, D.

Indonesian EFL Teachers Competence in Constructing Lots and Hots-based Test: A Case Study in an Indonesian Secondary School.

DOI: 10.5220/0008220400002284

In Proceedings of the 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference (BELTIC 2018) - Developing ELT in the 21st Century, pages 468-476

ISBN: 978-989-758-416-9

students have understood the teaching materials that

have been given.

According to Davis (2002), there are nine kinds

of test: Multiple choice tests, True-false tests,

Matching tests, Essay tests, Short answer tests,

Problem sets, Oral exams, Performance tests,

"Create-a-game" exams. However, this research is

more focus on the multiple choice and essay test;

those are packed into daily-test.

Moreover, to construct good questions of the

test, the teachers have to consider the level of

thinking that exist in Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. It

can help the teachers decide the best level of the

questions of a test. Moreover, Revised Bloom’s

Taxonomy is believed to give theories for teachers

to do their activity in the classroom including

administrating a test (Bloom, Krathwohl, Engelhart,

Furst, & Hill, 1956).

Furthermore, there are six thinking levels in

revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956);

Remembering C1, Understanding C2, Applying C3,

Analizing C4, Creating C5 and Evaluating C6.

Moreover, they are divided into two categories,

LOTS and HOTS. The first three include to LOTS

while the rest ones include to HOTS, Anderson

(2001). Therefore, this study is aimed to investigate

the Indonesian teachers’ competence in constructing

HOTS questions on tests.

Several researchers have conducted research on

HOTS and LOTS. First, the research was conducted

by Mansory (2013) which explains about the

analysis of test items in grade seven of math about

Bloom’s Taxonomy. Second, the research was

conducted by Gezer, Sunkur, & Sahin (2014) which

explains about the evaluation of exam questions of

social studies at the elementary schools.

Different from the previous researchers, this

research takes a different case. Knowing the

problem, this research concerns in explaining about

analyzing of English test items (daily test) in grade

seven of MTsN in Bandung. Then, this is interesting

to know which categories of cognition level that

appropriate with each question in test items. Based

on the explanation, the research is taken titled

“Indonesian EFL Teachers Competence in

Constructing Lots and Hots-Based Test”.

2 PEDAGOGIC COMPETENCE,

REVISED BLOOM’S

TAXONOMY AND LOTS AND

HOTS

2.1 Pedagogical Competence

Pedagogical competency is one of the competencies

that should be had by a teacher since it deals with

the learning activity. The teachers should know it

theoritically and practically. According to Rahman

(2014), Teachers' pedagogical competency is the

ability to manage the learning activity.

Furthermore, according to the National Standard

of Education in Chapter 28 verse 3, pedagogical

competence is the capability to be developed by the

teachers including students’ development, theories

and principles of learning, curriculum development,

educational learning activities, and development of

potential learners, communication with students, and

assessment and evaluation.

Factually, there are some components of

pedagogical competence should teachers mastered.

According to Asmani (in Hakim, 2015) those are:

1. Adjusting the students’ characteristics, from the

physical aspect, the spiritual moral, social-

cultural, emotional and intellectual.

2. Guiding the learning theories and principles of

learning that educates.

3. Developing curriculum that related to the

subject matter.

4. Conducting the educational learning system.

5. Developing information and communication

technology for the sake of learning.

6. Facilitating the development of potential

learners to actualize their potential.

7. Communicating effectively, empathetic, and

manner with the students.

8. Guiding the assessment and evaluation

processes and learning outcomes.

9. Developing the assessment and evaluation for

the sake of learning.

10.

Taking action to improve the quality of

reflective learning.

Thus, teachers should grasp all of them in order

to make the teaching and learning process succeed

by considering the all components.

Based on the explanation above, this research is

focused on teachers’ evaluation and assessment

because it explains the quality of testing that

teachers provide to evaluate their students.

Indonesian EFL Teachers Competence in Constructing Lots and Hots-based Test: A Case Study in an Indonesian Secondary School

469

2.2 Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (RBT)

In 1956, a group of educational psychologists,

headed by Benjamin Bloom, developed a

classification of different learning objectives that

educators set for students. There are six levels in the

original taxonomy, namely, knowledge,

comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and

evaluation, moving from the bottom to the top,

which is known as the old version of Bloom’s

Taxonomy.

In 1990s, another group of cognitive

psychologists, led by a former student of Bloom,

Anderson and friends updated the taxonomy,

reflecting relevance to the 21st century. The six

levels in the revised taxonomy include, from the

lowest to the highest. Those levels changed become

remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing,

evaluating and creating. Note that the top two levels

are essentially exchanged and the nouns are changed

to verbs as well. From six levels divided into two

part, the three levels down are LOTS (Lower Order

Thinking Skills) Categorize and the three levels up

are HOTS (High Order Thinking Skills) categorize,

( bloom, in Wang,2012).

2.3 Cognitive Domain Of Revised

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Cognitive domain is mental skill (knowledge).

According to Bloom et al.,(1956), cognitive domain

of Bloom’s Taxonomy is one of the three domains

that were introduced by Benjamin Bloom in 1950.

The cognitive domain of Bloom’s original taxonomy

has six levels organized.

Figure 2.1.1. Changes in Bloom’s Taxonomy of

Educational Objectives

Nevertheless, the terms of thinking levels in

original taxonomy created by Bloom were revised.

Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) revised Bloom’s

Taxonomy, including exchanging the names of the

levels from nouns to verbs. The lowest-order level

(Knowledge) became remembering, in which the

student is asked to recall or remember the material.

Comprehension became Understanding, in which

the student would describe the concepts.

Application became Applying, using the

information in some new ways, such as choosing,

writing, or interpreting. The highest-order level

(Analysis) was revised became Analyzing,

requiring the student to distinguish between

different components or relationships,

demonstrating the skill to compare and contrast.

Synthesis became creating to reflect better nature

of thinking described by each category, Synthesis

(creating) and evaluation (evaluating) interchanged

creative thinking more complex form of thinking

than critical thinking (evaluating).

In cognitive domain, there are two classifications of

thinking levels: Higher order thinking skills

(HOTS) and Lower order thinking skills (LOTS).

Based on Anderson (2001), levels at the top of

the list are often considered as higher order

thinking skills (HOTS) such as analyzing,

evaluating and creating, while those near the end

of the list are considered Lower order thinking

skills (LOTS) such as remembering, understanding,

applying.

These are six levels of cognitive domain which

developed by Bloom (1956) and revised by

Anderson (2001):

2.3.1 Remembering (C1)

This level is known as recalling of data. It refers to

'rote learning' or 'memorization.' This level assists as

the lower level or the beginning level of the Revised

Bloom Taxonomy. It is a level where students

remember or memorize facts or recall the knowledge

they learn before (bloom,1956).

The sample verbs of this level are memorize,

define, recite, cite, count, draw, recall, list, name,

record, repeat.

2.3.2 Understanding (C2)

Bloom (1956) describes this level as grasping

the meaning of information. The ability to

interpret, translating, extrapolating, classifying,

explaining are the concepts of these levels. The

sample verbs of this level are elate, interpret,

classify, summarize, discuss, describe, explain,

conclude, compare/contrast.

BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference

470

2.3.3 Applying (C3)

Application is defined by applying the concept to a

certain scenario (Starr et al., 2008).The sample verbs

of this level are employ, execute, implement,

practice, calculate, show, demonstrate, translate,

illustrate, and model.

2.3.4 Analyzing (C4)

This level requires students to breakdown

information into simpler parts and analyze each

of it. This may imply drawing a relationship,

assumptions, distinguish or classifying the parts. The

sample verbs of this level are distinguish, contrast,

scrutinize, dissect, separate, discriminate, analyze,

examine, and survey.

2.3.5 Evaluating (C5)

In the student should be able to integrate and

combine ideas or concepts by rearranging

components into a new whole (a product, plan,

pattern or proposal) (Bloom, 1956).The sample

verbs of this level are argue, decide, validate,

appraise, evaluate, judge, measure, rank, criticize,

rate, select, consider.

2.3.6 Creating (C6)

This is a final level where judging, criticism,

supporting or depending own stand involves.

Thompson et al. (2008) discuss this level in Bloom's

Taxonomy for CS Assessment. The sample verbs of

this level are generate, plan, produce, develop,

construct, organize, propose, invent, formulate.

2.4 Definition of LOTS

According to Bloom et al.,(1956) Lower order

thinking is the foundation of skills required to move

into higher order thinking. These are skills taught

very well in school systems and include activities

like reading and writing. In lower order thinking

information does not need to be applied to any real

life examples, it only needs to be recalled and

slightly understood. Therefore, the thinking levels

are categorized as Lower Order Thinking Skills.

2.5 Definition of HOTS

Higher order thinking skills (HOTS) is the next

thinking level after the previous one. According to

Yee et al.,(2015) Higher order thinking skills

(HOTS) is an imperative aspect in teaching and

learning especially at higher education institutions.

Students with higher order thinking skills are able to

find new ways to solve their daily problems and

make appropriate decisions.

Moreover, According to Anderson (2001)

Higher-order thinking is commonly typified as the

three top levels (Analyzing, Evaluating, Creating) of

Bloom's Revised Taxonomy. At the higher levels of

thinking it is said that students are involved in

designing, constructing, planning, producing,

inventing, checking, hypothesizing, critiquing,

experimenting, judging, comparing, organizing,

deconstructing, interrogating and finding.

According to Bloom et al.,(1956), HOTS

represent critical, logical, reflective, metacognitive,

and creative thinking that is activated by

encountering unfamiliar problems and questions.

Furthermore high order thinking is using the

thinking widely to find new experiment. Higher

order thinking demands someone to apply new

information or knowledge that he has got and

manipulates the information to reach possibility of

answer in new situation. Brookhart (2010) stated

that higher-order thinking conceived of as the top

end of the Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy. The

teaching goal behind any of the cognitive

taxonomies is equipping students to be able to do

transfer.

To conclude, this level is more complex than

LOTS. This level provides high thinking levels so

that students are able to increase their thinking skills

3 METHODOLOGY

This research was the qualitative research which

takes specific case study. The purpose of this

research is to find out the category of LOTS and

HOTS of formative test items analyzed.

Additionally, the scope of this research is daily tests.

The participants of this research are the English

teachers of Mts Negeri 1 and MTs Negeri 2

Bandung at grade seven. It is considered from taking

the representative of the existing English teachers in

Indonesia, especially in Bandung. Therefore, one

teacher of each school is selected to become the

representative of English teachers for supporting the

research.

This research uses a purposive sampling

method to determine the required participants of the

research. According to Creswell (2012), the subject

selection in qualitative research is purposeful:

participants are selected who can best-inform the

research questions and enhance understanding of the

Indonesian EFL Teachers Competence in Constructing Lots and Hots-based Test: A Case Study in an Indonesian Secondary School

471

phenomenon under study. It means that the quality

considers the selection of the schools and the

participants. The data were taken from

interview, questionnaire, and document.

4 RESULTS

In this point, the results of test analyzed is revealed.

By considering the level of cognitive domain of

Bloom’s Taxonomy, the researcher analyzes the

category of each number of questions between

HOTS and LOTS. Moreover there are supportive

data, questionnaire and interview strengthen the

results.The following is the data that has been

already analyzed.

Table 4.1: The Conclusion of Daily Test 1 of Teacher 1

Six Levels of

Cognitive

Item

Number

Total

Additional

Informatio

(Remembering)

Multiple

Choice :

1,3,5,6,8,9

, 10,11,13,

14,15,16,1

18,19,20

Essay :

1,2,3,4

Mc:

Essay

: 4

The

choice of

question

number 4

is not

complete

(Understanding)

Multiple

Choice :

2,12

Essay : 5

Mc : 2

Essay

(Applying)

- -

(Analyzing)

Multiple

Choice : 7

Essay : 6

Mc : 1

Essay

: 1

(Evaluating)

- -

(Creating)

- -

Total 25

*Note: Mc stands for Multiple Choice

The table shows that in the Daily test 1 made by

teacher 1, there are 19 questions typed multiple

choice and 6 questions typed essay. Furthermore, the

level of thinking of each questions are found through

analysis. In fact, there are 16 questions of multiple

choice and 4 questions of essay categorized as

Remembering (C1) for example the question number

8 of multiple choice (What is the color of her skin?)

The question asks the students to recall the

information provided in the text. According to

Bloom (1956), remembering (C1) is the level where

students remember or memorize facts or recall the

knowledge they learn before.

Additionally, there are 2 questions of multiple

choice and 1 question of essay categorized as

Understanding (C2) for example, the question

number 2 of multiple choice (What is the text

about?) The question asks the students to conclude

about the text.. Thus, all of them are labelled as

LOTS.

On the other hand, there are 1 question of

multiple choice and 1 question of essay categorized

as Analyzing (C4) for example question no 7 of

multiple choice (Which statement is NOT true about

Mrs. Dina?) The question asks the students to

analyze the wrong statement of four provided

sentences. These 2 questions are labelled as HOTS.

All in all, the questions with LOTS category

dominate the test item of daily test 1 of teacher 1

than HOTS questions.

Table 4.2: The Conclusion of Daily Test 2 of Teacher 1

Six Levels of

Cognitive

Item Number Total

(Remembering)

Multiple Choice :

3,45,6,7

8,910,11,

12,1314,15

Essay II :

1,2,3,4,5

Mc: 13

Essay : 5

(Understanding)

(Applying)

Essay III, IV

Essay: 2

(Analyzing)

MC: 2

(Evaluating)

- -

(Creating)

- -

Total 22

The table shows that in the Daily test 2 made

by teacher 2, there are 15 questions typed multiple

choice and 7 questions typed essay. Furthermore, the

level of thinking of each questions are found through

analysis. In fact, there are 13 questions of multiple

choice and 5 questions of essay categorized as

Remembering (C1), for example the question

number 11 (If today is Friday, so….is Thursday).

BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference

472

The question asks students memorization of what

they have learned.

Additionally, there are 2 questions of essay

categorized as Applying (C3) for example, the

questions of essay part IV (Write you identity?) The

question asks students to write the many sentences

based on the command, it means that the students

practice of what they have learned. Thus, all of them

are labelled as LOTS. Besided, there are 2 questions

of multiple choice categorized as Analyzing (C4) for

example the questions of multiple choice number 1

(Which statement is FALSE according to the text

above). The question asks the students to analyze the

wrong statement of four provided sentences. These 2

questions are labelled as HOTS. All in all, questiona

with LOTS dominate the test item of daily test 1 of

teacher 1 than HOTS questions.

Table 4.3: The Conclusion of Daily Test 1 of Teacher 2

Six Levels of

Cognitive

Item Number Total

(Remembering)

Multiple Choice :

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,

12,14,16,18,19,20

(Understanding)

15 1

(Applying)

Essay III, IV

(Analyzing)

Multiple choice:

11,13,17

(Evaluating)

- -

(Creating)

- -

Total

The table shows that in the Daily test 1 made by

teacher 2, there are 20 questions typed multiple

choice. In fact, there are 16 questions of multiple

choice categorized as Remembering (C1) for

example the question number 1 (They have a new

netbook.

This

netbook). The question asks

students memorization of what they have learned to

complete the sentence.

Moreover, there is only 1 question of multiple

choice categorized as Understanding (C2) the

example of question number 15 (The above text is

called ). The question asks the students to

conclude the information provided in the text. Thus,

according to Anderson’s explanation, all of them are

labelled as LOTS.

However, there are 3 questions of multiple

choice categorized as Analyzing (C4) for example,

the question number 17 (Which sentence is wrong?).

The question asks the students to analyze the wrong

sentence of four provided sentences. These 2

questions are labelled as HOTS. Again, it can be

concluded that LOTS questions dictate the level of

thinking in the test item 1 made by teacher 2 than

HOTS.

Table 4.4: The Conclusion of Daily Test 2 of Teacher 2

Six Levels of

Cognitive

Item Number Total

(Remembering)

Multiple Choice :

1,2,3,4,5,8,11,12,13

,14,15,17,18,19,20,

21,22,23,24,25,26,

27,28,29,30

(Understanding)

6,9,10

(Applying)

(Analyzing)

Multiple choice:

7, 16

MC: 2

(Evaluating)

- -

(Creating)

- -

Total

The table shows that in the Daily test 2 made by

teacher 2, there are 30 number of questions typed

multiple choice. Furthermore, after analyzing the

category of each question, it can be seen that there

are 25 number of questions categorized as

Remembering (C1), for example, the question

number 1 (How many sharpeners does Budi have)

The question asks the students to recall the

information provided in the table. Furthermore 3

number of questions categorized as Understanding

(C2) for example, the question number 6 (The song

suggests that anyone is encourage to ?). The

question asks the students to conclude about the

song suggest Therefore, these questions are labelled

as LOTS.

Additionally, there are 2 questions of multiple

choice. However, there are 2 questions of multiple

choice categorized as Analyzing (C4) for example

the question number 7 (In the text above Vita is.........

girl. She is ready to help her father anytime). The

question asks students to analyze implicit

information from the dialogue. These 2 questions are

labelled as HOTS. Therefore, the test item is

dominated by LOTS rather than HOTS questions.

Furthermore to support the results, here is

provided the supportive data, questionnaire and

interview.

Indonesian EFL Teachers Competence in Constructing Lots and Hots-based Test: A Case Study in an Indonesian Secondary School

473

4.1 Questionnaire Result

4.1.1 Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

To prove the teachers’ understanding on Revised

Bloom’s Taxonomy including HOTS and LOTS

category, they are provided a questionnaire. The

questionnaire consists of ten statements and divided

into four categories. Those are: Revised Bloom’s

Taxonomy, Evaluation, LOTS and HOTS, and

Teachers’ motivation. The following explanations

are the results of the questionnaire.

In point of revised bloom’s taxonomy, there are

two statements. Moreover, both of teachers answer

yes. The teachers say yes in the first statement

means that they understand and know well about

Revised Bloom’s taxonomy especially in cognitive

domain. Furthermore, in the second statement of the

questionnaire, the researcher gave the question

related to whether or not the teachers know the

function of Revised Bloom’s taxonomy in making

questions for test. The answers of both teachers are

“Yes”. Moreover, she knows about the function of

Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy itself.

4.1.2 Evaluation

Evaluation is a teacher activity to know the students’

understanding about the material. Moreover,

teachers must evaluate their students. One way to

evaluate the students is giving them some tests, like

daily test, mid test and final test. In point evaluation,

there are three statements that are being asked to the

teachers. Based on the answer of both of teachers, in

statement one, they say “yes”. It means they

evaluate their students periodically; therefore, the

teachers want to know the students’ achievements.

Moreover, in statement two, they answer “No”. In

making test item to evaluate the students both of the

teachers mixing the use of questions existed in

source book and internet by considering the

suitability with the material and the basic

competence required. Then, in statement three, they

said “yes”. It means that the questions that the

teachers made to evaluate the students mostly are

made by themselves.

4.1.3 LOTS and HOTS

Based on the answer of the questionnaire related to

the understanding of HOTS and LOTS questions,

both of teachers said “yes” to the three statements.

They can differentiate between HOTS and LOTS

questions. Moreover, when they construct the

question for the items test, they also considered the

use of HOTS and LOTS category. Fundamentally,

they can make the question in level HOTS. They

said that, HOTS questions in first grade is still

process, they still adjusted with the students’ ability.

They also still practice to know clearly how to make

HOTS questions. However, over all they know and

understand about HOTS and LOTS categories in

making test item.

4.1.4 The Teachers’ Motivation in

Constructing The Good Item Test

The last category of this questionnaire is about

Teacher’s motivation in constructing good item test.

The one way to increase the good quality of teachers

in making test, the teachers should follow the

training about how to make good questions. In the

first statement, teacher one said “yes”, while teacher

two said “no”. The teacher one has followed to the

training. She wants to join the training about how to

make good questions specifically. Furthermore, the

teacher two has not joined the training yet. She

wants to join the training about how to make good

questions. It supposed to be better in making test

item. Moreover, in the statement two, both of

teachers said “yes” that means they know the

benefits and need trainings in order to develop their

skills. Thus, they are trying to be better in making

good test items; moreover, in constructing HOTS

questions.

All in all, based on the answers of questionnaire,

it shows that both of the teachers know about revised

bloom’s taxonomy in general and its thinking level

categories. Then, they know and could make the

questions regarding LOTS and HOTS category, by

adjusting the students’ ability.

4.2 Interview Result

To prove the teachers’ understanding on Revised

Bloom’s Taxonomy and LOTS and HOTS category,

they are provided an interview. This technique was

done by having the interview with both the teachers

from two different schools. The interview section is

divided into four categories: Evaluation, Revised

Bloom’s Taxonomy, LOTS and HOTS, and

Teachers’ motivation. The explanations below are

the results of the interview.

4.2.1 Evaluation

Based on the result of interview above, the questions

are related with the evaluation categories. The

teacher 1 from school 1 said that she is evaluating

the students periodically. She evaluates the students

BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference

474

by giving them some tests in the last of learning

activity. She want to know how far the

understanding of the material and the students’

progress, it means she gives the formative

assessment. According to Hanna and Dettmer (2004)

Formative assessment provides feedback and

information during the instructional process, while

learning is taking place, and while learning is

occurring. Formative assessment measures student

progress but it can also assess the teacher progress as

an instructor.

After wards, she always analyzed the result of

tests by using “Anates”, it is supposed to make the

teacher know about the level of difficulties in every

question, if the questions are too high for students,

so the teacher revised it, and changed it to easier

questions than before. Giving the evaluating to

students is included to the component of teachers’

pedagogical competence. According to the National

Standard of Education in Chapter 28 verse 3,

pedagogical competency is the ability to be

developed by the teachers include student

development, theories and principles of learning,

curriculum development, educational learning

activities, and development of potential learners,

communication with students, and assessment and

evaluation. There are nine components that include

to pedagogical competency, only two components

that used in this research: assessment and evaluation.

Furthermore, the teachers 2 from school two said

that she evaluating the students periodically, she

evaluates the students by giving them some tests in

the end of the chapter, sometimes she gives some

tests the students spontaneous, in the last of learning

activity, sometimes she gives the test in the

beginning of learning activity (pre-test), it is

supposed to know the ability and readiness the

students. It means the teacher give the formative

assessment, According to Hanna and Dettmer (2004)

Formative assessment provides feedback and

information during the instructional process, while

learning is taking place, and while learning is

occurring. Formative assessment measures student

progress but it can also assess the teacher progress as

an instructor. in addition the teacher sometimes give

the diagnostic assessment, the one example of

diagnostic tests is pre-test, according to diagnostic

assessment can help to identify the students’ current

knowledge of a subject, their skill sets, and

capabilities, and to clarify misconceptions before

teaching takes. Thus this is for knowing students’

strengths and weaknesses

4.2.2

Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

Based on the result of interview above, for concept

of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, teacher 1 said that

she knew about bloom taxonomy, she said that the

teacher must know about it. Because the function of

Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy is as the reference in

making the item tests. That answer supported by

Anderson (2001) the use of revised bloom’s

taxonomy is to inform or guide the development of

assessments (test and other evaluations of students

learning), curriculum (units, lesson, project, and

other learning activities), etc. It means that revised

bloom’s taxonomy is important for teacher, because

it can be used as references for teachers when they

make test item for evaluate the students. Moreover,

the teacher one only know the general of bloom’s

taxonomy, actually she did not know well about the

level of revised bloom’s taxonomy.

It is different from teacher 1, the teacher 2 has

lack of understanding the revised bloom’s

taxonomy, when the researcher asked her about

revised bloom taxonomy. She did not know well

revised bloom’s taxonomy.

4.2.3 LOTS and HOTS

Based on the answer of interview, both of the

teachers can make the LOTS and HOTS questions.

The item test of both of the teachers by modifying

mixed sources, they made the question is from

many references like internet, and other books. But,

fifty percent they made the questions by

themselves. When they made the questions, they

considered the LOTS and HOTS categorize of their

test item. They said that in the both of school,

HOTS questions in seventh grade are still in

process, because they still adjusted with the

students’ ability. But overall they knew and

understand about HOTS and LOTS categorize.

Furthermore, teachers need to consider the use

of HOTS level of questions for their students in

order to gain good critical thinking. On the

other hand, they are afraid if all questions are in

HOTS level, the students’ score will be low. It

is better if the questions are mixed between

HOTS and LOTS. However, the question is

considered with the students’ ability and the topic.

4.2.4 Teacher’s Motivation

The one way to increase the good quality of teachers

in making test, it should be held the training about

how to make good questions. The teacher 1 has

Indonesian EFL Teachers Competence in Constructing Lots and Hots-based Test: A Case Study in an Indonesian Secondary School

475

RESP

ONDE

Daily Test 1

TOT

Daily Test 2

TOT

T 1

20 3 2 25 18 2 2 22

T 2

6 1 3 20 25 3 2 30

followed to the training. However, the teacher 2 has

not followed to the training yet. They are expecting

the held for the focus training of making good

questions considering HOTS questions. So, they can

learn to make it.

5 CONCLUSION

After analyzing all test items provided by the two

teachers, there are various level existed in it. By

considering Anderson’s statement about the

classification of thinking level and LOTS and

HOTS, it can be concluded that LOTS level on the

questions mostly dominated than HOTS. This case

should be a reminding to all teachers especially the

two teachers for reconsidering the level of thinking

in each question of the test items they made.

The following table represents all data analysis

in committing the level of cognitive domain.

According to Anderson (2001), the level of

remembering (C1), understanding (C2) and applying

(C3) are categorized as LOTS, while analyzing (C4),

evaluating (C5) and creating (C6) are categorized as

HOTS.

Table 5.1 The Conclusion of all tests of Teacher 1 and

Teacher 2

Based on the table 5.1, most of questions of daily

tests that made by two teachers are only commit

with the C1, there are 79 numbers of 100 questions.

There are 5 numbers of 100 questions commit with

C2. There are 2 numbers of 100 questions commit

with C3. However, from all tests item analyzed,

there are only 9 numbers of 100 questions commit

with C4 means HOTS level. Furthermore, this

research is suggested for all teachers in order to

develop their competence in constructing good

questions in test items by considering the thinking

levels of cognitive domain.

REFERENCES

Anderson, L. W. &Krathwohl, D.R., et al 2001

A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A

revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational

objectives. New York : Longman

Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D. R., Engelhart, E., Furst, E. J.,

& Hill, W. H 1956. Taxonomy of

Educational Objectives Handbook 1 Cognitive

Domain.

Brookhart, S.M 2010. How to assess higher-order

thinking skills in your classroom. United States of

Amerika: ASCD Member Book

Cresswell, J. W 2012. Educational Reseacrh: Planning,

Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and

Qualitative Research - 4th ed. Boston:

Pearson Education.

Davis, B. G 2002. 'Quizzes, tests, and exams'.

University of California, Berkeley. From Teaching

Tips on Honolulu Community College, University

of Hawai (Http://Honolulu. Hawaii. Edu/Intranet/).

Rahman, M. H 2014. 'Professional Competence,

Pedagogical Competence and The Performance of

Junior High School of Science Teachers'. Journal of

Education and Practice, 5(9), 75–80.

Tran, T. H 2012. 'Second language assessment for

classroom teachers'. Online Submission.

Yee, M. H., Md Yunos, J., Othman, W., Hassan, R.,

Tee, T. K., & Mohamad, M. M 2015. 'The

effectiveness of

higher order thinking skills for generating idea

among technical students'.

Mansory, A 2013. 'A case study of exam test items from

different perspectives in Afghanistan: Analysis of

test items of math in grade seven in relation to

Bloom’s Taxonomy'.

Gezer, M., oner sunkur, M., & Sahin, I. F 2014. An

evaluation of the exam questions of social

studies course according to revized bloom’s

taxonomy.Education Sciences & Psychology, 28(2).

Departemen Pendidikan Nasional 2005. Undang-Undan

Nomor 14 Tahun 2005, Tentang Guru dan

Dosen, Jakarta: Depdiknas

BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference

476