How Far Math Teachers Evaluate Attitude Students at Vocational School? Studies Phenomenology in Yogyakarta
Downloads
Importance evaluation attitude students at School Intermediate Vocational often neglected, though matter This own impact on the development of students and preparation for the world of work. Study This aims to understand to what extent the mathematics teacher evaluates the attitude of students at vocational school. With an approach to phenomenology and involving 16 vocational school teachers in Yogyakarta, the research used a questionnaire open and interview for collecting data. Data analysis shows that math teachers evaluate the attitude of students through five stages, including base evaluation attitude, planning, implementation, obstacles, and suggestions. The findings mainly cover the fact that evaluation attitude is not optimal, more teachers focus on the instrument cognitive, and yet There is an instrument valid and reliable attitude. Need exists attention more to evaluation attitude for increase quality education at vocational schools.
Downloads
1. Ardıç, M. A. (2021). Opinions and attitudes of secondary school mathematics teachers towards technology. Participatory Educational Research, 8(3), 136–155. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.58.8.3
2. Asempapa, R. S. (2022). Examining Practicing Teachers’ Knowledge and Attitudes toward Mathematical Modeling. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 10(2), 272–292. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.2136
3. Asli, A., & Zsoldos-Marchis, I. (2022). “Teacher`S Attitudes Towards Teaching Mathematics” Scale: Factor Analysis. INTED2022 Proceedings, 1(March), 10190–10197. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2022.2680
4. Atnafu, M. (2014). Secondary school mathematics teachers’ attitude in teaching mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 9(1–2), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/281
5. Bogdan, dan Biklen, S. (2007). Penelitian Kualitatif untuk Pendidikan: Pengantar Teori dan Metode (A. & Bacon, Ed.; Edisi ke-5). Boston.
6. Bogdan, R. C., & Bilken, S. K. (1992). Quality research for education: An introduction to Theory and Methods. Qualitative Research For Education An Introduction to Theory and Methods : : Allyn and Bacon., 106–156.
7. Buntins, K., Kerres, M., & Heinemann, A. (2021). A scoping review of research instruments for measuring student engagement: In need for convergence. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 2(December), 100099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100099
8. De-la-Peña, C., Fernádez-Cézar, R., & Solano-Pinto, N. (2021). Attitude Toward Mathematics of Future Teachers: How Important Are Creativity and Cognitive Flexibility? Frontiers in Psychology, 12(July), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713941
9. Demirci, C. (2017). The effect of active learning approach on attitudes of 7th grade students. International Journal of Instruction, 10(4), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.1048a
10. Dudung, A. (2018). Penilaian psikomotor. Karima.
11. Evans, D., & Field, A. P. (2020). Maths attitudes, school affect and teacher characteristics as predictors of maths attainment trajectories in primary and secondary education: Predictors of Maths Trajectories. Royal Society Open Science, 7(10). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200975
12. Garrett, T. (2008). Student-centered and teacher-centered classroom management : a case study of three elementary teachers. 43(2004), 34–47.
13. Gerard, L. F., Ryoo, K., McElhaney, k. W., Liu, O. L., Rafferty, A. N., & Linn, M. C. (2016). Automated guidance for student inquiry. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(1), 60–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000052
14. Gunawan, I., & Paluti, A. R. (2017). Taksonomi Bloom – Revisi Ranah Kognitif : Kerangka Landasan Untuk Pembelajran, Pengajaran, dan Penilaian. E-Journal.Unipma, 7(1), 1–8.
15. Hanisah, H., & Noordyana, M. A. (2022). Kemampuan Komunikasi Matematis Siswa pada Materi Penyajian Data di Desa Bojong. Plusminus: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 2(1), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.31980/plusminus.v2i1.1588
16. Hidayad, A., Masrukan, M., & Kartono, K. (2017). Instrumen Asesmen Sikap Siswa Berbasis Konservasi pada Pembelajaran Matematika SMP. Journal of Research and Educational Research Evaluation, 6(1), 30–38.
17. Hidayati, R. (2022). Pengembangan Model 5 S Untuk Mewujudkan Profil Pelajar Pancasila Di SDN Pendem 01 Kota Batu. Jurnal Pendidikan Taman Widya Humaniora, 1(4), 170–193.
18. Hii Bii Hui, M. S. M. (2023). Influence of game-based learning in mathematics education on the students’ cognitive and affective domain: A systematic review. Https://Www.Ncbi.Nlm.Nih.Gov/Pmc/Articles/PMC10086333/.
19. Ibnu Wachyudi, Sukestiyarno, B. W. (2015). Pengembangan Instrumen Penilaian Unjuk Kerja Pada Pembelajaran Dengan Model Problem Solving Berbasis Tik. Journal of Research and Educational Research Evaluation, 4(1), 20–27.
20. Islam, M. A., Haji Mat Said, S. B., Umarlebbe, J. H., Sobhani, F. A., & Afrin, S. (2022). Conceptualization of head-heart-hands model for developing an effective 21st century teacher. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.968723
21. Jailani, J., Retnawati, H., Rafi, I., Mahmudi, A., Arliani, E., Zulnaidi, H., Abd Hamid, H. S., & Prayitno, H. J. (2023). A phenomenological study of challenges that prospective mathematics teachers face in developing mathematical problems that require higher-order thinking skills. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(10), em2339. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13631
22. Jailani, Retnawati, H., Apino, E., & Santoso, A. (2020). High school students’ difficulties in making mathematical connections when solving problems. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(8), 255–277. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.8.14
23. Kalkan, F., & Dağlı, E. (2021). Views of secondary school students on ideal teacher qualifications: A phenomenological analysis. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(1), 317–329. https://doi.org/10.11591/IJERE.V10I1.20565
24. Kemdikbud. (2022). Buku Saku Kurikulum Merdeka; Tanya Jawab. In Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
25. Kholis, N., Kartowagiran, B., & Mardapi, D. (2020). Development and validation of an instrument to measure a performance of vocational high school. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(3), 955–966. https://doi.org/10.12973/EU-JER.9.3.955
26. Koopman, K. J., & Koopman, O. (2020). Phenomenology and educational research: Theory and practice. 3(8), 251–260.
27. Kusaeri, K. (2019). Penilaian Sikap Dalam Pembelajaran Matematika. JPM : Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 5(2), 61. https://doi.org/10.33474/jpm.v5i2.1588
28. Landsverk, N. G., Olsen, N. R., & Brovold, T. (2023). Instruments measuring evidence-based practice behavior, attitudes, and self-efficacy among healthcare professionals: a systematic review of measurement properties. Implementation Science, 18(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-023-01301-3
29. Lara Nieto-Márquez, N., Cardeña Martínez, A., Baldominos, A., González Petronila, A., & Pérez Nieto, M. Á. (2020). Assessment of the Effects of Digital Educational Material on Executive Function Performance. Frontiers in Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.545709
30. León-Mantero, C., Casas-Rosal, J. C., Pedrosa-Jesús, C., & Maz-Machado, A. (2020). Measuring attitude towards mathematics using Likert scale surveys: The weighted average. PLoS ONE, 15(10 October), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239626
31. Lusiana, D., & Lestari, W. (2013). Instrumen Penilaian Afektif Pendidikan Karakter Bangsa Mata Pelajaran Pkn Smk. Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 1–6.
32. Mamolo, L. A., & Sugano, S. G. C. (2023). Digital interactive app and students’ mathematics self-efficacy, anxiety, and achievement in the “new normal.” E-Learning and Digital Media. https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530231167646
33. Marchis, I. (2011). Factors that influence secondary school students’ attitude to mathematics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29(2010), 786–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.306
34. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2009). In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
35. Maryani, I., Prasetyo, Z. K., Wilujeng, I., Purwanti, S., & Fitrianawati, M. (2021). HOTs Multiple Choice and Essay Questions: A Validated Instrument to Measure Higher-order Thinking Skills of Prospective Teachers. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(4), 674–690. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.97
36. Mauleto, K. (2019). Analisis Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Ditinjau Dari Indikator Nctm Dan Aspek Berpikir Kritis Matematis Siswa Di Kelas 7B Smp Kanisius Kalasan. JIPMat, 4(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.26877/jipmat.v4i2.4261
37. Mendikbud. (2014). Peraturan Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia Nomor 104 Tahun 2014 Tentang Penilaian hasil Belajar Oleh Pendidik Pada Pendidikan Dasar dan Pendidikan Menengah. Pedoman Evaluasi Kurikulum, 13, 13,23.
38. Net, W. W. W. P., Rachmaningtyas, N. A., & Kartowagiran, B. (2023). The importance of honing elementary school students’ mathematical talents from an early age. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 13(3), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.13.03.07
39. Nolan, M. M., Beran, T., & Hecker, K. G. (2012). Surveys assessing students’ attitudes toward statistics: A systematic review of validity and reliability. Statistics Education Research Journal, 11(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.52041/serj.v11i2.333
40. Nurrahman, A., Sukirno, S., Pratiwi, D. S., Iskandar, J., Rahim, A., & Rahmaini, I. S. (2022). Developing student social attitude self-assessment instruments: A study in vocational high school. Research and Evaluation in Education, 8(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v8i1.45100
41. Putra, Z. H., Rahmadhani, D., Noviana, E., & Hermita, N. (2022). Prospective elementary teachers’ attitude toward technology-based mathematics assessment. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2279(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2279/1/012007
42. Rohantizani, & Isfayani, E. (2023). Pendampingan Guru Matematika Menyusun Instrumen Penilaian Afektif Dalam Pembelajaran Berbasis Kurikulum 2013. Catimore: Jurnal Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat, 2(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.56921/cpkm.v2i1.40
43. Russo, J., Bobis, J., Downton, A., Feng, M., Hughes, S., Livy, S., McCormick, M., & Sullivan, P. (2023). Characteristics of high enjoyment teachers of mathematics in primary schools. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 35(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00372-z
44. Sabon, Y. O. S., Istiyono, E., & Widihastuti, W. (2022). Developing “Pancasila Student Profile” instrument for self-assessment. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 26(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.21831/pep.v26i1.45144
45. Soriano, R. M., & Co, A. G. (2022). Voices from within: Students’ lived experiences on English language anxiety. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 11(1), 449–458. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v11i1.21898
46. Suharsimi Arikunto. (2016). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik Revisi. Rineka Cipta.
47. Turgut Karakose , Hakan Polat, Ramazan Yirci, Tijen Tülübaş, Stamatios Papadakis, T. Y. O. and M. D. (2023). Beliefs, Academic Amotivation and Attitudes toward the Teaching Profession Using Structural Equation Modelling. Https://Www.Mdpi.Com/2227-7390/11/2/449, 11(2).
48. Uyun, M. F., Haryono, H., & Hudallah, N. (2023). Pengembangan Instrumen Penilaian Pendidikan Karakter Profil Pelajar Pancasila Siswa SD Berbasis Android. Al Qalam: Jurnal Ilmiah Keagamaan Dan Kemasyarakatan, 17(3), 1781. https://doi.org/10.35931/aq.v17i3.2132
49. Wan, K., Kwong, T., Xiao, C., & Wong, E. (2021). Examining the effectiveness between course delivery modes in a teacher training spoc-based flipped course. In B. C., S. M., F. R., & W. T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the European Conference on e-Learning, ECEL (pp. 536–545). Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited. https://doi.org/10.34190/EEL.21.059
50. Wen, R., & Dubé, A. K. (2022). A Systematic Review of Secondary Students’ Attitudes Towards Mathematics and its Relations With Mathematics Achievement. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 8(2), 295–325. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.7937
51. Yigletu, A., Michael, K., & Atnafu, M. (2023). Professional development on assessment for learning and its effect on pre-service teacher’s self-regulated learning. Cogent Education, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2023.2222875
52. Zafar, M. (2025). Leadership strategies for the success of foreign-owned U.S. startups. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management, 13(02), 2321–3418. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v13i02.em07
53. Zamir, S., Yang, Z., Wenwu, H., & Sarwar, U. (2022). Assessing the attitude and problem-based learning in mathematics through PLS-SEM modeling. PLoS ONE, 17(5 May), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266363
54. Zickuhr, B. K. M. (2016). Pengembangan perangkat pembelajaran matematika berstandar NCTM (national council of teachers of mathematics) pada pokok bahasan bentuk akar di SMK kelas X (Issue June). http://repository.unej.ac.id/handle/123456789/75935
55. Zurqoni, Retnawati, H., Rahmatullah, S., Djidu, H., & Apino, E. (2020). Has arabic language learning been successfully implemented? International Journal of Instruction, 13(4), 715–730. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13444a
Copyright (c) 2025 Nuryani Dwi Astuti, Mami Hajaroh, Yuli Prihatni, Ari Setiawan, Heri Retnawati, Slamet Suyanto, Mohd Kasturi Nor Abd Aziz
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
