cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Mahsup
Contact Email
paedagoria.ummat@gmail.com
Phone
+6281805211294
Journal Mail Official
paedagoria.ummat@gmail.com
Editorial Address
Universitas Muhammadiyah Mataram Jln. KH. Ahmad Dahlan, No. 1, Pagesangan, Kota Mataram, 83127, Indonesia
Location
Kota mataram,
Nusa tenggara barat
INDONESIA
Paedagoria : Jurnal Kajian, Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kependidikan
Published by Universitas Muhammadiyah Mataram
ISSN : 20866356     EISSN : 26143674     DOI : https://doi.org/10.31764/paedagoria.v15i2.20547
Core Subject : Education,
Education
Theoretical studies, research and development of teaching materials, activities, models or learning media in the field of education include mathematics and natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, science, ICT, and its applications); (2) social science, history, geography, culture and economy; (3) language and literature, and (4) basic education; Research actions to increase motivation, activities, interests or learning outcomes in solving learning problems; Development or design of creativity, innovation, and technology based on software, online or e-learning; Development of curriculum, management, programs, and other education policies.
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Pendidikan
Articles 522 Documents
 49   50   51   52   53 
Comparing Paper-Based and Computer-Based Testing: A Systematic Literature Review on Their Effectiveness in Performance Assessment Meili Yanti; Irmawati M; Dea Santika Rahayu; Niken Yuni Astiti
Paedagoria : Jurnal Kajian, Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kependidikan Vol 17, No 4 (2026): October
Publisher : Universitas Muhammadiyah Mataram

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31764/paedagoria.v17i4.39449

Abstract

The rapid advancement of technology has significantly influenced various aspects of human life. While these developments offer substantial convenience, they also present certain challenges, particularly during the early stages of adoption. In the field of education, technology integration is not only evident in instructional processes but also in assessment practices. One prominent example is the implementation of Computer-Based Tests (CBT), which provide several advantages; however, their effectiveness in evaluating student performance requires further examination. Accordingly, this study aims to compare the traditional Paper-Based Test (PBT) with CBT in terms of their effectiveness in performance assessment within the learning process. This study employs a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) approach guided by two research questions: (P1) How does the effectiveness of Paper-Based Test (PBT) compare with Computer-Based Test (CBT)? and (P2) How do student performances differ between PBT and CBT? The findings from the SLR indicate mixed results. Several studies reveal that students tend to show a higher preference for CBT over PBT, accompanied by increased motivation. Nevertheless, both assessment methods appear to have no significant impact on students’ performance outcomes. Additional findings and analyses are further elaborated in this study.
A Service Work Order-Based Assessment for Learning Model to Improve Practical Competence and Work Readiness of Automotive Vocational School Students Erwin Komara Mindarta; Syarif Suhartadi; Dani Irawan; Dino Oktavia Femanda; Fitriani Fitriani; Muhammad Farhan Naufal Yanuar Rohmat Rizqillah; Nike Aulia Septianis
Paedagoria : Jurnal Kajian, Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kependidikan Vol 17, No 4 (2026): October
Publisher : Universitas Muhammadiyah Mataram

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31764/paedagoria.v17i4.41633

Abstract

This study aimed to develop a Service Work Order (SWO)-based Assessment for Learning (AfL) model and examine its validity, practicality, and association with automotive students’ practical competence and work readiness. Research and development comprised needs analysis, instrument design, expert validation, a limited trial with 36 students, and a quasi-experimental nonequivalent pretest–posttest comparison involving 72 students in two intact classes. The intervention involved eight periodic light-vehicle maintenance sessions. Expert validity was rated 92.53%, with teacher and student practicality ratings of 90.40% and 89.50%. Mean competence rose from 64.17 to 86.39 in the experimental group and from 63.72 to 74.11 in the control group. The reported ANCOVA indicated a baseline-adjusted difference (F = 52.846, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.433), with an experimental-group N-gain of 0.62 and a between-group Cohen’s d of 1.73. Experimental-group work-readiness scores increased descriptively from 65.22 to 86.11, but the supplied data did not permit an inferential work-readiness test. The model uses a traceable cycle of work evidence, safety checks, feedback, correction, verification, and reflection. Findings support its practical promise while warranting multiclass replication and fuller instrument-reliability reporting.

Page 53 of 53 | Total Record : 522

 49   50   51   52   53 

Filter by Year

2013 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol 17, No 4 (2026): October Vol 17, No 3 (2026): July Vol 17, No 2 (2026): April Vol 17, No 1 (2026): January Vol 16, No 4 (2025): October Vol 16, No 3 (2025): July Vol 16, No 2 (2025): April Vol 16, No 1 (2025): Januari Vol 15, No 4 (2024): Oktober Vol 15, No 3 (2024): Juli Vol 15, No 2 (2024): April Vol 15, No 1 (2024): Januari Vol 14, No 4 (2023): Oktober Vol 14, No 3 (2023): Juli Vol 14, No 2 (2023): April Vol 14, No 1 (2023): Januari Vol 13, No 2 (2022): September Vol 13, No 1 (2022): April Vol 12, No 2 (2021): September Vol 12, No 1 (2021): APRIL Vol 11, No 3 (2020): September Vol 11, No 2 (2020): Juli Vol 11, No 1 (2020): April Vol 10, No 2 (2019): September Vol 10, No 1 (2019): April Vol 9, No 2 (2018): September Vol 9, No 1 (2018): April Vol 8, No 2 (2017): September Vol 8, No 1 (2017): April Vol 7, No 2 (2016): September Vol 7, No 1 (2016): April Vol 6, No 2 (2015): September Vol 6, No 1 (2015): April Vol 5, No 2 (2014): September Vol 5, No 1 (2014): April Vol 4, No 2 (2013): September More Issue