Summative examination in the 2013 curriculum is called the final semester examination. In this examination, all questions are made by the teacher. In making the questions the teachers refer to the assesment guidelines described in the 2013 curriculum. According to the guidelines, there are three types of assessment, namely: knowledge, application, and reasoning. Reasoning refers to high-level abilities of the student in thinking, ussually called higher order thinking skills or HOTs. In assessment guidelines, HOTs are defined as a transfer, contextual, critical thinking, and PISA assessment. Then, they are completed by Brookhart with creative thinking, problem solving, logic and reasoning. Unfortunately, implementation of HOTs questions are not yet known in the formative and summative examination questions for chemistry classes. Therefore, this research aims to study the implementation of HOTs questions in the summative examinations in chemistry classes in senior high schools in the City of Malang. The research used descriptive qualitative approaches consisting of content analysis methods. The data were obtained by documentation techniques. The data were taken from summative examination questions in the 2015/2016 to the 2017/2018 academic years. The relliability of the result was tested using interrater reliability procedure to obstain a reliability of Cohen-Kappa by manual calculation. Result of the analysis showed that 12,50% of the test contained HOTs. The reliability test results of Cohen-Kappa indicated an agreement of the analysis of chemistry summative examination questions, with acategory of “strong agreement” (0.65-0.87). The HOTs aspects were also found in this study such as tranfer, contextual assessment, critical thinking, and PISA.

1.
S.
Arikunto
,
Research Procedure :A Practical Approach
(
Aneka Cipta
,
Jakarta
,
2014
)
2.
M.S
Brookhard
, How to Assess Higher-Order Thinking Skills in Your Classroom (
ASCD
,
Virginia USA: Alexandria
,
2010
)
3.
M. L.
Crawford
, Teaching Contextually : Research, Rationale, and Techniques for Improving Student Motivation and Achievement in Mathematics and Science. :
CCI Publishing Inc.
,
Texas
,
2001
)
4.
Direktorat SMA Depdikbud. Modul Penyusunan Soal HOTs
(
Pusat Perbukuan Nasional
,
Jakarta
,
2019
)
5.
Direktorat SMA Depdikbud. Panduan Penilaian SMA
(
Pusat Perbukuan Nasional
,
Jakarta
,
2017
)
6.
S.
Elo
and
H.
Kyngas
,.
The Qualitative Content Analysis Process
.
Journal of Advanced Nursing
,
62
(Scientific Research Publishing Inc., China,
2007
) (
1
),
107
115
.
7.
General Accounting Office (GAO)
. Content Analysis : A Metodology for Struckturing and Analyzing Written Material (
US
:
Program Evaluation and Methodologi Division
,
1989
)
8.
General Accounting Office (GAO)
. Content Analysis : A Metodology for Struckturing and Analyzing Written Material (
US
:
Program Evaluation and Methodologi Division
,
1996
)
9.
I.
Machali
,
Curriculum Change Policy in Welcoming The Golden Indonesa in 2045
(
Faculty of Education and Teacher Training
, UIN Sunan Gunung Djati, Bandung,
2014
),
3
(
1
),
71
94
.
10.
OECD PISA
.
PISA for Development Assesment and Analytical Framework
(
OECD
,
Paris
,
2017
)
11.
P.S.
Rahmat
,
Qualitatife Research
(Economic Education Study Program, Madiun,
2009
)
5
(
9
),
1
8
.
12.
S.
Stemler
,
An Overview Of Content Analysis. Practical Assessment
,
Research & Evaluation
(PareOnline,
2001
)
7
(
17
),
1
6
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.