ANALISIS KUALITATIF LITERASI ASESMEN MATEMATIKAGURU SEKOLAH DASAR MELALUI PANDITA

Authors

  • Mira Amelia Amri Universitas Negeri Jakarta
  • Yurniwati Universitas Negeri Jakarta
  • Novi Andri Nurcahyono Universitas Negeri Jakarta
  • Wily Wandari Universitas Negeri Jakarta
  • Sani Sahara Universitas Negeri Jakarta

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24260/vrrs0g33

Keywords:

Literasi Asesmen Matematika, Analisis Kualitatif Komparatif, Guru Sekolah Dasar, PANDITA

Abstract

Literasi asesmen matematika diperlukan agar guru mampu menghubungkan bukti pemikiran siswa, interpretasi kesulitan, dan tindak lanjut pembelajaran. Penelitian ini bertujuan mendeskripsikan pola perubahan literasi asesmen matematika guru sekolah dasar sebelum dan setelah penggunaan PANDITA; penelitian tidak dimaksudkan untuk menguji efektivitas atau hubungan kausal PANDITA. Penelitian menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif deskriptif-komparatif dengan sumber data berupa dokumen respons pretest dan posttest 12 guru dari empat sekolah dasar di Kecamatan Sukamakmur. Sepuluh pasangan indikator dipilih berdasarkan kesamaan konstruk dan dikelompokkan ke dalam lima dimensi: diferensiasi adaptif, penggunaan data, tindak lanjut matematika, integrasi TPACK, dan keputusan berbasis bukti. Data dianalisis melalui pemetaan respons, pengodean berbasis kriteria, perbandingan dalam setiap kasus, dan analisis lintas kasus. Kebaruan penelitian terletak pada analisis berpasangan pada guru yang sama untuk membaca konfigurasi hubungan bukti-interpretasi-tindakan lintas lima dimensi, bukan mereduksinya menjadi satu skor total. Respons yang sesuai meningkat pada seluruh dimensi, terutama tindak lanjut matematika; sembilan guru menunjukkan pola penguatan, dua pola stabil dengan konfigurasi berubah, dan satu pola campuran. Temuan menunjukkan bahwa perkembangan literasi asesmen dapat berupa penguatan maupun reorganisasi antardimensi. Implikasinya, pengembangan profesional asesmen matematika perlu menyediakan scaffolding kognitif, ruang refleksi, dan latihan keputusan berbasis bukti agar guru mampu menghubungkan indikator, data, dan tindak lanjut secara konsisten.

References

Anantharajan, M. (2020). Teacher noticing of mathematical thinking in young children’s representations of counting. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 51(3), 268–300. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresemtheduc-2019-0068

Copur-Gencturk, Y., & Rodrigues, J. (2021). Content-specific noticing: A large-scale survey of mathematics teachers’ noticing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 101, 103320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103320

Copur-Gencturk, Y., & Tolar, T. (2022). Mathematics teaching expertise: A study of the dimensionality of content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and content-specific noticing skills. Teaching and Teacher Education, 114, 103696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103696

Gotch, C. M., & McLean, C. (2019). Teacher outcomes from a statewide initiative to build assessment literacy. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 62, 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.04.003

Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine, 292, 114523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523

Lamberg, T., Gillette-Koyen, L., & Moss, D. (2020). Supporting teachers to use formative assessment for adaptive decision making. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 8(2), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.5951/mte-2019-0005

Li, M., Vale, C., Tan, H., & Blannin, J. (2025). A systematic review of TPACK research in primary mathematics education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 37, 281–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-024-00491-3

Li, Z., Yan, Z., Chan, K. K. Y., Zhan, Y., & Guo, W. Y. (2023). The role of a professional development program in improving primary teachers’ formative assessment literacy. Teacher Development, 27(4), 447–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2023.2223595

Maskos, K., Schulz, A., Oeksuez, S. S., & Rakoczy, K. (2025). Formative assessment in mathematics education: A systematic review. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 57, 679–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-025-01696-x

Meijer, K., Baartman, L., Vermeulen, M., & de Bruijn, E. (2023). Teachers’ conceptions of assessment literacy. Teachers and Teaching, 29(7–8), 695–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2023.2190091

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

O’Connor, B., & Park, M. (2023). Exploring the influence of collaborative data-based decision making among teachers in professional learning communities on teaching practice. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 5, 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-023-00086-1

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

Pastore, S., & Andrade, H. L. (2019). Teacher assessment literacy: A three-dimensional model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 84, 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.05.003

Petko, D., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2025). TPACK in context: An updated model. Computers and Education Open, 8, 100244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100244

Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Sayac, N., & Veldhuis, M. (2022). Mathematics assessment practices of primary school teachers in France. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20, 1595–1610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10229-3

Schildkamp, K., van der Kleij, F. M., Heitink, M. C., Kippers, W. B., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2020). Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 103, 101602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101602

Schons, C., Obersteiner, A., Reinhold, F., Fischer, F., & Reiss, K. (2023). Developing a simulation to foster prospective mathematics teachers’ diagnostic competencies: The effects of scaffolding. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 44, 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13138-022-00210-0

See, B. H., Gorard, S., Lu, B., Dong, L., & Siddiqui, N. (2022). Is technology always helpful? A critical review of the impact on learning outcomes of education technology in supporting formative assessment in schools. Research Papers in Education, 37(6), 1064–1096. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2021.1907778

Vattøy, K.-D., & Gamlem, S. M. (2025). Navigating formative assessment as professional development in digital contexts: Insights from teachers’ experiences. Teacher Development, 29(2), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2024.2382956

Veldhuis, M., & van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2020). Supporting primary school teachers’ classroom assessment in mathematics education: Effects on student achievement. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32, 449–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-019-00270-5

Yan, Z., & Pastore, S. (2022). Are teachers literate in formative assessment? The development and validation of the Teacher Formative Assessment Literacy Scale. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 74, 101183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101183

Downloads

Published

2026-06-30

Issue

Vol. 5 No. 1 (2026)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Mira Amelia Amri, Yurniwati, Wily Wandari, Nina Nurhasanah, Apit Dulyapit

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

ANALISIS KUALITATIF LITERASI ASESMEN MATEMATIKAGURU SEKOLAH DASAR MELALUI PANDITA. (2026). Al-’Adad: Jurnal Tadris Matematika, 5(1), 136-154. https://doi.org/10.24260/vrrs0g33