Article Sidebar

Download
Pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 3540 Download : 3355

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Penelitian ini bertujuan mengetahui persepsi guru terhadap pemanfaatan ChatGPT dalam merancang soal literasi membaca dan mengkaji prompt yang digunakan guru untuk merancang soal. Penelitian ini menerapkan instrumen kuesioner dan wawancara dengan melibatkan 120 guru Bahasa Indonesia yang ada di Provinsi Riau. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa persepsi guru terhadap pemanfaatan ChatGPT dalam merancang soal literasi membaca rata-rata bersifat positif. Dengan menggunakan prompt yang telah didesain dengan baik, guru dapat membuat soal literasi membaca yang kompleks. Namun demikian, peran esensial guru tidak dapat digantikan dengan adanya ChatGPT. Kesimpulan, di tengah respon positif terhadap kemanfaatan ChatGPT, guru harus terampil dalam mengevaluasi soal literasi membaca yang dihasilkan dari ChatGPT dan menyesuaikan dengan tujuan pembelajaran dan kebutuhan siswa.

Keywords

persepsi guru prompt ChatGPT soal literasi membaca teknologi pendidikan

Article Details

How to Cite
Mukhlis, M. (2024). Persepsi Guru terhadap Pemanfaatan ChatGPT dalam Mengembangankan Soal Literasi Membaca: Studi Kasus pada Sekolah Menengah di Provinsi Riau. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Kebudayaan, 9(1), 1 - 19. https://doi.org/10.24832/jpnk.v9i1.4873

References

  1. Ali, J.K.M., Shamsan, M.A.A., Hezam, T.A., & Mohammed, A.A.Q. (2023). Impact of ChatGPT on learning motivation. Journal of English Studies in Arabia Felix, 2(1), 41–49. doi.org/10.56540/jesaf.v2i1.51
  2. Astuti, D.P., & Raudhoh, R. (2021). Menanamkan karakter gemar membaca pada anak melalui gerakan literasi sekolah (GLS) di SD Negeri 131 Kota Jambi. Baitul ’Ulum: Jurnal Ilmu Perpustakaan Dan Informasi, 5(1), 12–30. doi.org/10.30631/baitululum.v5i1.110
  3. Badrasawi, K.J.I., & Kassim, N.L.A. (2020). Reading skill among Malaysian ESL lower secondary students: Which girls and which boys are achieving and underachieving? IIUM Journal of Educational Studies, 8(2), 88–111. doi.org/10.31436/ijes.v8i2.329
  4. Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023). Education in the era of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4337484
  5. Basyiroh, I. (2017). Program pengembangan kemampuan literasi anak usia dini. TunasSiliwangi, 3(2), 120–134. doi.org/10.22460/ts.v3i2p120-134.646
  6. Bonsu, E.M., & Baffour-Koduah, D. (2023). From the consumers’ side: Determining students’ perception and intention to use ChatGPT in Ghanaian Higher Education. Journal of Education, Society & Multiculturalism, 4(1), 1–29. doi.org/10.2478/jesm-2023-0001
  7. Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 1–10. doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206
  8. Chan, C.K.Y., & Luo, J. (2020). A four-dimensional conceptual framework for student assessment literacy in holistic competency development. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(3), 451–466. doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1777388
  9. Chinonso, O.E., Theresa, A.M.E., & Aduke, T.C. (2023). ChatGPT for teaching, learning and research: Prospects and challenges. Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(02), 33–40. doi.org/10.36348/gajhss.2023.v05i02.001
  10. Dahlan, D., Permana, L., & Oktariani, M. (2020). Teacher’s competence and difficulties in constructing hots instruments in economics subject. Cakrawala Pendidikan, 39(1), 111-119. doi.org/ 10.21831/cp.v39i1.28869
  11. Fan, P., Gong, H., & Gong, X. (2023). The application of ChatGPT in translation teaching: Changes, challenges, and responses. International Journal of Education and Humanities, 11(2), 49-52 doi.org/10.54097/ijeh.v11i2.13530
  12. Fergus, S., Botha, M., & Ostovar, M. (2023). Evaluating academic answers generated using ChatGPT. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(4), 1672–1675. doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00087
  13. Firat, M. (2023). What ChatGPT means for universities: Perceptions of scholars and students. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 57–63. doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.22
  14. Fischer, C., Bol, L., & Pribesh, S. (2011). An investigation of higher-order thinking skills in smaller learning community social studies classrooms. American Secondary Education, 39(2), 5-26. doi.org/http://www.jstor.org/stable/23100399
  15. García Sánchez, O.V. (2023). Uso y Percepción de ChatGPT en la Educación Superior. Revista de Investigación En Tecnologías de La Información, 11(23), 98–107. doi.org/10.36825/ riti.11.23.009
  16. Geske, A., & Ozola, A. (2008). Factors influencing reading literacy at the primary school level. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 6, 71–77.
  17. Gilson, A., Safranek, C.W., Huang, T., Socrates, V., Chi, L., Taylor, R.A., & Chartash, D. (2023). How does ChatGPT perform on the united states medical licensing examination? The implications of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment. JMIR Medical Education, 9. doi.org/10.2196/45312
  18. Halaweh, M. (2023). ChatGPT in education: Strategies for responsible implementation. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(2), ep421. doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13036
  19. Harsiati, T. (2018). Karakteristik soal literasi membaca pada program PISA. Litera, 17(1), 90–106. doi.org/10.21831/ltr.v17i1.19048
  20. Hasanah, U., & Warjana. (2019). Pengembangan pembelajaran literasi membaca untuk meningkatkan daya baca siswa. Media Pustakawan, 26(2), 129 - 139.
  21. Hock, M., & Mellard, D. (2005). Reading comprehension strategies for adult literacy outcomes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(3), 192–200. doi.org/10.1598/jaal.49.3.3
  22. Huda, N., Rizki, A., Oktavia, L., & Ramadhan, S. (2023). Pengembangan instrumen penilaian sikap disiplin menggunakan skala likert untuk mengukur sikap disiplin siswa di Madrasah Ibtidaiyah. Elementary School Journal PGSD FIP Unimed, 13(2), 136-151. doi.org/10.24114/esjpgsd.v13i2.42178
  23. Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, riset, dan teknologi. (2020). Desain pengembangan soal AKM. Pusat Asesmen dan Pembelajaran, BSKAP Kemendikbudristek.
  24. Kaufmann, K., & Peil, C. (2020). The mobile instant messaging interview (MIMI): Using WhatsApp to enhance self-reporting and explore media usage in situ. Mobile Media and Communication, 8(2), 229 –246. doi.org/10.1177/2050157919852392
  25. Kilic, S. (2016). Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient. Journal of Mood Disorders, 6(1). doi.org/ 10.5455/jmood.20160307122823
  26. Klymkowsky, M.W., Garvin-Doxas, K., & Zeilik, M. (2003). Bioliteracy and teaching efficacy: What biologists can learn from physicists. cell biology education, 2(3), 155–161. doi.org/10.1187/cbe.03-03-0014
  27. Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B.L., & Zou, D. (2023). ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. RELC Journal, 54(2), 537-550. doi.org/10.1177/00336882231162868
  28. Koyuncu, Ý., & Fýrat, T. (2020). Investigating reading literacy in PISA 2018 assessment. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 13(2), 263-275. doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2021.189
  29. Kusmana, S. (2017). Pengembangan literasi dalam kurikulum pendidikan dasar dan menengah. Diglosia: Jurnal Pendidikan, Kebahasaan, dan Kesusastraan Indonesia, 1(1), 140–150. doi.org/ 10.31949/diglosia.v1i1.520
  30. Lai, J.W.M., & Bower, M. (2020). Evaluation of technology use in education: Findings from a critical analysis of systematic literature reviews. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(3), 241-259. doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12412
  31. Lan, X., & Yu, Z. (2023). A bibliometric review study on reading literacy over fourteen years. In Education Sciences, 13(1) 17. doi.org/10.3390/educsci13010027
  32. Leon, A.J., & Vidhani, D. (2023). ChatGPT needs a chemistry tutor too. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(10). doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00288
  33. Librea, N.K., Luciano, A.M., Sacamay, M.L., Libres, M.D., & Jr., A.C. (2023). Low reading literacy skills of elementary pupils in the Philippines: Systematic Review. International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, 11(4), 1978–1985. doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2023.49480
  34. Lin, W.Y., & Chang, Y.J. (2019). Construct validation of the multiple-choice items of the English subtest of the advanced subjects test in Taiwan. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 16(1), 80–94
  35. Linnakyla¨, P., Malin, A., & Taube, K. (2004). Factors behind low reading literacy achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48(3), 232–249. doi.org/10.1080/ 00313830410001695718
  36. Maeng, W., Ahn, H., Yoon, J., & Lee, J. (2016). Can mobile instant messaging be a useful interviewing tool? A comparative analysis of phone use, instant messaging, and mobile instant messaging. 45–49. doi.org/10.17210/hcik.2016.01.45
  37. Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2020). Understanding and supporting literacy development among english learners: A deep dive into the role of language comprehension. AERA Open, 6(1), 1–7. doi.org/10.1177/2332858420912198
  38. McGaw, B. (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow: Further results from PISA 2000 Publications 2000. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
  39. McGaw, B. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world first results from PISA 2003. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
  40. McGaw, B. (2007). PISA 2006: Sciences competecies for tomorrow’s world: Volume 1 analysis. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
  41. McGaw, B. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What students know and can do: Volume 1 analysis. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
  42. McGaw, B. (2013). PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can do: Volume 1 analysis. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
  43. Mills, A., Bali, M., & Eaton, L. (2023). How do we respond to generative AI in education? Open educational practices give us a framework for an ongoing process. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1). doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.34
  44. Mondal, H., Marndi, G., Behera, J.K., & Mondal, S. (2023). ChatGPT for teachers: Practical examples for utilizing artificial intelligence for educational purposes. Indian Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, 10(3), 200-205. doi.org/10.4103/ijves.ijves_37_23
  45. Morze, N., Vember, V., & Boiko, M. (2019). Using of digital technologies for formative assessment. Open Educational E-Environment of Modern University, Special Edition. doi.org/10.28925/2414-0325.2019s19
  46. Mudra, H. (2018). Metacognitive online reading strategies among pre-service EFL teachers in Indonesia. Educational Process: International Journal, 7(2), 151–164. doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2018.72.5
  47. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K.T. (2012). PIRLS 2011 International Results in Reading. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
  48. Nurahma, G.A., & Hendriani, W. (2021). Tinjauan sistematis studi kasus dalam penelitian kualitatif. Mediapsi, 7(2), 119–129. doi.org/10.21776/ub.mps.2021.007.02.4
  49. Owan, V.J., Abang, K.B., Idika, D.O., Etta, E.O., & Bassey, B.A. (2023). Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence tools in educational measurement and assessment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(8), em2307. doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/ 13428
  50. Prawira, M.J., Cahyana, U., & Bagaskorowati, R. (2018). Influence of ICT media and critical thinking ability to the ability of literacy science literacy students elementary school. International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Current Research, 6(04). doi.org/10.14741/ijmcr/v.6.4.2
  51. Prihatsanti, U., Suryanto, S., & Hendriani, W. (2018). Menggunakan studi kasus sebagai metode ilmiah dalam psikologi. Buletin Psikologi, 26(2), 126 – 136. doi.org/10.22146/ buletinpsikologi.38895
  52. Puspita, G.A., & Irwansyah, I. (2018). Pergeseran budaya baca dan perkembangan industri penerbitan buku di Indonesia: Studi kasus pembaca e-book melalui aplikasi iPusnas. BIBLIOTIKA/ : Jurnal Kajian Perpustakaan dan Informasi, 2(1), 13–20. doi.org/10.17977/um008v2i12018p013
  53. Qumillaila, Q., Susanti, B.H., & Zulfiani, Z. (2017). Pengembangan augmented reality versi android sebagai media pembelajaran sistem ekskresi manusia. Cakrawala Pendidikan, XXXVI(1), 57-69. doi.org/10.21831/cp.v36i1.9786
  54. Rathod, K.D. (2023). A review of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management, 07(07), 1–8. doi.org/ 10.55041/ijsrem24976
  55. Ristanto, R.H., & Darmawan, E. (2020). Biology reading literacy: Measurement and empowerment through CIRC learning model. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(4), 1305–1318. doi.org/10.17478/JEGYS.679378
  56. Ristanto, R.H., Djamahar, R., Heryanti, E., & Ichsan, I.Z. (2020). Enhancing students’ biology critical thinking skill through CIRC-Based Scientific Approach (Cirsa). Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(4A), 1–8. doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081801
  57. Ristanto, R.H., Zubaidah, S., Amin, M., & Rohman, F. (2017). Scientific literacy of students learned through guided inquiry. International Journal of Research & Review, 4(5), 23–30. doi.org/https://www.ijrrjournal.com/IJRR
  58. Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). War of the chatbots: Bard, Bing Chat, ChatGPT, Ernie and beyond. The new AI gold rush and its impact on higher education. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 364–389. doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.23
  59. Schleicher, A. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. OECD. doi.org/10.1787/ b25efab8-en
  60. Setiawan, A., & Luthfiyani, U.K. (2023). Penggunaan ChatGPT untuk pendidikan di era Education 4.0: Usulan inovasi meningkatkan keterampilan menulis. Jurnal PETISI, 4(1), 49–58. doi.org/10.36232/jurnalpetisi.v4i1.3680
  61. Silinskas, G., Ahonen, A.K., & Wilska, T.A. (2021). Financial literacy among Finnish adolescents in PISA 2018: The role of financial learning and dispositional factors. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 9(1), 24. doi.org/10.1186/s40536-021-00118-0
  62. Smith, M.C., Mikulecky, L., Kibby, M.W., Dreher, M. J., & Dole, J.A. (2000). What will be the demands of literacy in the workplace in the next millennium? Reading Research Quarterly, 35(3), 378–383. doi.org/10.1598/rrq.35.3.3
  63. Stutz, P., Elixhauser, M., Grubinger-Preiner, J., Linner, V., Reibersdorfer-Adelsberger, E., Traun, C.,Wallentin, G.,Wöhs, K., & Zuberbühler, T. (2023). Ch(e)atGPT? An anecdotal approach addressing the Impact of ChatGPT on teaching and learning GIScience. GI_Forum, 11(1), 140–147. doi.org/10.1553/giscience2023_01_s140
  64. Supriyadi, E. (2022). Eksplorasi penggunaan ChatGPT dalam penulisan artikel pendidikan matematika. Papanda Journal of Mathematics and Science Research, 1(2), 54–68. doi.org/10.56916/pjmsr.v1i2.255
  65. Tan, Y., Fan, Z., Wei, X., & Yang, T. (2022). School belonging and reading literacy: A multilevel moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–11. doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2022.816128
  66. Thompson, T. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ interpretation of higher-order thinking in Bloom’s Taxonomy. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(2), 96-109. doi.org/ 10.29333/iejme/221
  67. Veddayana, C., Romadhon, S., Aldresti, F., & Suyono, S. (2023). Rasionalitas implementasi ChatGPT dalam pembelajaran keterampilan menulis karya ilmiah. GHANCARAN: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia. doi.org/10.19105/ghancaran.vi.11778
  68. Waltzer, T., Cox, R.L., & Heyman, G.D. (2023). Testing the ability of teachers and students to differentiate between essays generated by ChatGPT and high school students. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2023, 1–9. doi.org/10.1155/2023/1923981
  69. Wood, J. (2021). A dialogic technology-mediated model of feedback uptake and literacy. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(8), 1173–1190. doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1852174
  70. Xames, M.D., & Shefa, J. (2023). ChatGPT for research and publication: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 390–395. doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.20
  71. Xiao, C., Xu, S. X., Zhang, K., Wang, Y., & Xia, L. (2023). Evaluating reading comprehension exercises generated by LLMs: A showcase of ChatGPT in education applications. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. doi.org/10.18653/ v1/2023.bea-1.52
  72. Yadav, P.V., Kollimath, U.S., Giramkar, S.A., Pisal, D.T., Badave, S.S., & Dhole, V. (2023). Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in talent acquisition process: A study with reference to IT industry. 2023 International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Technologies in Computing, Electrical and Electronics (IITCEE), Bengaluru, India, 2023, (885-889), doi: 10.1109/IITCEE57236.2023.10090973.
  73. Yandola, K.O. (2023). Using the Chatgpt in the educational process. Innovate Pedagogy, 2(57),261-265. doi.org/10.32782/2663-6085/2023/57.2.53