LOWER ORDER THINKING SKILLS AND HIGHER ORDER

THINKING SKILLS IN SUMMATIVE TEST ITEMS

Ani Fuziati
IAIN Syekh Nurjati Cirebon
Anifuziati@yahoo.co.id

Tedi Rohadi
IAIN Syekh Nurjati Cirebon
b.syahid@gmail.com

Hendi Hidayat
IAIN Syekh Nurjati Cirebon
hendilegowo86@gmail.com

Abstract : Giving students a test is one of the teacher’s duties for examine their
students’ ability. A test supposed to be able to measure learning outcome which
distinguish the every single student’s ability between students already mastered and
not yet the learning material. The use of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy can help
teachers in designing the good test. Moreover, Revised Bloom Taxonomy is believed
to give theories for teachers to do their activity in the classroom including
administrating a test. The aims of this research are to find out whether the test
appropriately match or not with the basic competence/indicators in the curriculum and
to identify the thinking levels to which the formative tests items developed by the
teacher meet the HOTS and LOTS on the summative test items made by an English
teacher for eleventh grade. The methodology of this research is qualitative method.
Furthemore, the data collected are qualitative data because the data are collected in the
form of words which is the summative test items. The results of relevant of the
curriculum is 91% item number from 45 numbers of the summative test item is
relate to the basic competence. Whereas the result of the distribution of cognitive
domain are remembering 51%, understanding 27%, applying 7%, analyzing 13%,
evaluating 2%, and creating was nothing. It means that the test has not fulfilled the
proportion of each cognitive level of revised Bloom’s taxonomy based on the
proportion of assessment which applied in the curriculum 2013.

Keywords : Summative test, Lower Order Thinking Skills, Higher Order

Thinking Skills

BACKGROUND
Testing is one of the powerful tools to measure students’ abilities as well as
enhance their attitudes towards learning. This notion is supported by Hughes (2003)
stated that a test is a tool to measure language proficiency of students. Brown (2004)
stated that a test is a method of measuring a person’s ability knowledge, or
performance in a given domain. In short, a test as an instrument of evaluation is a
systematic procedure of description, collection and interpretation in order to measure

1
the test taker’s achievement ability, knowledge, and performance what they have been
learned in learning process.
In language teaching, there are several types of tests based on some criteria.
For instance, formal and informal test, formative and summative test, discrete-point
and integrative test, and classroom-based test and standardized test. This study focuses
centrally on summative test. Summative assessment normally has a formal summative
test which is applied by national curriculum and also called assessment of learning.
This assessment is used for the purpose of classification of students. According to this
assessment teachers evaluate their learners as to what they know and do not (Black, et
al. 2003). As summative assessment has a formal them so there is not any feedback to
students. Heritage (2007) defined the summative assessment as a tool for summarizing
what students have learned and students’ learning always been measured with ranks
and grades.
The assessment instrument used by the teacher to test the learning outcomes of
students in the cognitive domain is generally taken from various books or a collection
of test questions for the test. But, the fact is that questions of the test tend to test more
aspects of memory. Many books present material by inviting students to active
learning, presenting concepts that are very systematic, but often terminated with tests
that lack training in high-level thinking skills. Training students to be skilled, can be
done by the teacher by using practice tests that are inviting students to think in the
level of analysis, synthetics and evaluation. Then, to construct good questions of the
test, the teacher can use the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. But, some teachers did not
really taking care the quality of their test.
In learning and teaching process, evaluating the students is important because
it is to know their ability. The teacher can give them some questions in the test to
know how far the students’ understanding of the material. The test must be relate to
the learning objective that stated in the curriculum and it is also important to design
the questions based on the levels of thinking.
Curriculum means a specific learning program. It describes the teaching,
learning and assessment materials which available for a given course of study. It is
used to transmit or deliver knowledge to students in teaching learning process by some
effective methods. In this sense curriculum is not a physical thing, but rather the
interaction of teachers, students and knowledge. In other words, curriculum is what
actually happens in the classroom and what people do to prepare and evaluate.
Curriculum 2013 was implemented in the school year 2013/2014 on specific
schools (limited). Curriculum 2013 was officially launched on July 15, 2013 in
ministry of Education and Culture. While, in Ministry of Religion it was begun in
July 2014. Something new would have differences with the old curriculum.
Basically the curriculum in 2013 is similar with curriculum 2006. However, it has
differences with Curriculum 2006 or Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan ( KTSP).
Curriculum 2013 is arranged and developed by seeing the potential students,
the developing of era, and the students’ needs. And the important thing is curriculum
2013 offer some models of teaching. Three models are suggested by the curriculum
2013, but not only three models, the government also gives special approach that is
called scientific approach, (Pemendikbud 81A: 2013). In the assessment teachers must
use the authentic assessment. It will be helpful for teachers so that they do not use
false assessment since in curriculum 2013, they will also assess the affective aspect.

2
The former curriculum does not give the way how to assess the affective, but the
curriculum 2013 has been existed the way how to assess it.
The use of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy can help teachers in designing the
good test. That statement supported by Bloom, Anderson, Krathwhol (2001), the use
of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy is to inform or guide the development of assessments
(test and other evaluations of students learning), curriculum (units, lesson, project, and
other learning activities), etc. In 1990s, Bloom’s Taxonomy had been revised by Lorin
Anderson, one of the Bloom’s student. The result of the revised was published at 2001
by the name of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. The revised taxonomy improves the
original by adding a two-dimensional framework. The two dimensions are Cognitive
Process Dimension and Knowledge Dimension. According to Anderson (2001),
Bloom provides the six cognition levels. The original levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy in
the cognitive domain ordered from simple to complex: knowledge, comprehension,
application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Additionally, in the revised Bloom’s
Taxonomy, the levels of cognition become remembering, understanding, applying,
analyzing, evaluating and creating.
In the cognitive domain of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, there are two
classifications of thinking levels: Higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) and Lower-
order thinking skills (LOTS). Levels at the top of the list are often considered as
higher order thinking skills (HOTS) such as analyzing, evaluating and creating, while
those near the end of the list are considered lower order thinking skills (LOTS) such as
remembering, understanding, applying.
Cognitive levels of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy deal with students’ thinking,
these cognitive levels include low order thinking and high order thinking. The highest
three levels are included in high order thinking. It means the top three of cognitive
processes in Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy are considered as higher order thinking
skills (analyzing, evaluating, and creating). This also means that the low order
thinking occupies the three lowest levels of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
(Remembering, Understanding, and Applying). This Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy is
often used in formulate the educational objective that we known as C1 until C6.
There are potential activities; instructional verbs and questioning stems that
includes of each category of thinking levels. Such as Remembering (Choose, Cite,
Define, Find, Match, Memorize, Relate, Give, Reproduce, Repeat, Label, and so on),
Understanding (Explain, Identify, Retell, Translate, Give example, and so on),
Applying (Make, Practice, Apply, Operate, Change, Use, etc), Analyzing (Analyze,
Assume, Categorize, Classify, Compare, Distinguish, Conclusion, etc), Evaluating
(Agree, Appraise, Assess, Choose, Rate, Criticize, etc), and Creating (Build, Change,
Combine, Compile, Compose, Construct, Create, etc).
Lower order thinking is the foundation of skills required to move into higher
order thinking. These are basic skills that are taught very well in school systems and
include activities in reading and writing (Wilson, 2000). In lower order thinking,
information does not need to be applied to any real life examples, it only needs to be
recalled and slightly understood. Meanwhile, various definitions of the term HOTS
were provided by several specialists who are interested in the field. McDavitt (1993, p.
20) says that "Higher Order Thinking Skills include analysis, synthesis, and evaluation
and require mastery of previous levels, such as applying routine rules to familiar or
novel problems". In addition, Tomei (2005) defines HOTS as: HOTS involve the
transformation of information and ideas. This transformation occurs when students

3
analyze, combine facts and ideas and synthesize, generalize, explain, or arrive of some
conclusion or interpretation. Manipulating information and ideas through these
processes allows students to solve problems, gain understanding and discover new
meaning.
A number of related studies were found. Humos (2012) who analyzed reading
comprehension questions’ levels of difficulty in English for Palestine 12th grade
English student’s textbook in terms of their categorization according to Barretts’
reading comprehension higher thinking skills taxonomy. Through descriptive analysis,
the researcher found that the largest proportion of the questions in the 12th grade
textbook were literal level questions represented by around 60% of the textbook total
number of questions exceeding the syllabus objectives with 29.9%.
The other researcher was done by Razmjoo & Madani (2013) analyzed
University Entrance Exam (UEE) items, in terms of Bloom’s revised taxonomy, to
find out which levels of this taxonomy were more reflected in these items. To this end,
UEE items in three years, 2001, 2006, 2011, in three fields, Mathematics, Natural
Sciences, and Humanities, and in two Universities, State, and Azad, were codified
based on the coding scheme designed by Razmjoo and Kazempourfard.
Lan and Chern (2010) conducted a study in which they aimed at investigating
the cognitive process levels and knowledge types measured on the English reading
comprehension tests of college entrance examinations administrated based on the
revised Bloom’s taxonomy from 2002 to 2006 in Taiwan. Thus, a descriptive analysis
was conducted to examine the similarities and differences of the content and cognitive
skills intended to be assessed between the two tests, hoping to serve as a reference for
English teachers while helping learners develop the needed cognitive skills in reading
and test preparation.
Thompson (2014) analyzed Higher-Order Thinking on Algebra I End-of
Course Tests. This research provides insight into one US state‘s effort to incorporate
higher order thinking on its Algebra I End-of-Course tests. To facilitate the inclusion
of higher-order thinking, the state used Dimensions of Thinking and Bloom’s
Taxonomy (Anderson: 2001).
There is also the researcher that analyze the cognitive domain of bloom’s
Taxonomy in the English workbook, she is Pratiwi (2015) analyzed English workbook
for SMP/MTsN by using revised bloom taxonomy. Her study is a descriptive
qualitative that purposed for knowing the appropriateness of the workbook’s content
with the cognitive dimension of revised bloom taxonomy and for knowing the
dominant cognitive dimension, they are remembering, understanding, applying,
analyzing, evaluating, and creating.
Lathifah (2016) analyzed thinking skills in questions of english national exam
for senior high school. She analyze which levels of the Barrett taxonomy were more
reflected in English National Exam (ENE) items. The researchers adopted the
descriptive analytical approach using a content analysis card built upon the suggested
criteria and constructed upon the taxonomy.
Juhanda (2016) analyze the occurrence of the Revised-Bloom’s cognitive level
questions in high school Biology Electronic Book (BSE). Research subject was 1,650
questions from BSE 2009 edition. Research instrument was documents’ analysis sheet
in which it contains information such as question's code, descriptions, and its cognitive
level type. The data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively.

4
 The last previous study is from Manalu (2017) analyzed developing english
summative test based on revised bloom’s taxonomy for grade VIII. Her study focused
on the developing the English summative test items according to the cognitive level of
revised Bloom’s taxonomy for grade VIII at SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi.

METHOD
This research will employ a content analysis using the qualitative method. The
purpose of this research is to find out the category of LOTS and HOTS of test items
analyzed considering the use of revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and relate it to the
learning objectives in the curriculum, to reveal the result of this research and the scope
of this research is summative test items made by the English teacher of eleventh grade
in SMAN 1 Sumber.
The participants of this research will be an English teacher of SMAN 1 Sumber
at eleventh grade. It will be considered from taking the representative of the existing
English teachers in Indonesia, especially in Cirebon. Therefore, one teacher from each
grade is selected to become the representative of English teachers for supporting the
research. The selection is considered by the existence of the English teachers of the
school at eleventh grade.
According to Creswell (2009), the subject selection in qualitative research is
purposeful: participants are selected who can best-inform the research questions and
enhance understanding of the phenomenon under study. It means that the quality
considers the selection of the schools and the participants.
The researcher used document analysis as an instrument of the research. In
collecting the data, analyzing the document of summative tests will be the main point
of this collecting data, this instrument will be used to reveal the first and the second
answer of the research questions.
The researcher used table form to analyze the relevance with the basic
competence and indicator stated in the curriculum and the distribution of thelower
order thinking skills and higher order thinking skills and clustered the questions of the
summative test items into the type of assessment task according to Brown (2001). The
researcher formed the test items according to their assessment task in reading
assessment task such as scanning task, skimming task, gap-filling task, short answer
task, and so on. To finish the research, the conclusion from all that have already
discussed considering the collected data are provided. In the end, it shows the category
of the level of the test items analyzed.

DISCUSSION
The number of test items are 45 questions consist of 40 multiple choices and 5
essay. The way to do this analysis is by mention the basic competence and the
indicator first then analyze it in which the items belong to the thinking levels of
Bloom’s Taxonomy revised by Anderson 2001. There are 9 chapters from the first and
second semester for eleventh grade. Consist of offer and suggestions, opinion and
thought, invitation, exposition analytic text, scientific text, letter, cause and effect,
explanation text, and meaning through music. To make it easier, the analysis can be
done by using column of each basic competence. So here are some examples of the
whole analysis:

5
Question Number Basic Competence Levels of Information
/Indicators Thinking

1. The sentence that 3.1 Menerapkan fungsi sosial, Siswa

expresses an offer
struktur teks, dan unsur menentukan
is...
a. Are you Ok, kebahasaan teks interaksi C1 - sebuah
Bill?
transaksional lisan dan tulis Remembering kalimat
b. Do you need any
help? yang melibatkan tindakan saran
c. What should i
memberi dan meminta
do?
d. Why don’t you informasi terkait saran dan
use mine?
tawaran, sesuai dengan konteks
e. You’re welcome
penggunaannya. (Perhatikan
unsur kebahasaan should, can)
- Mengidentifikasi ungakapan-
ungkapan memberi dan
meminta informasi terkait
saran dan tawaran

10. From the dialog, 3.2 Menerapkan fungsi Siswa

we know that...
sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur menyimpulk
a. Tanti is against
the new rules kebahasaan teks interaksi C2 - an maksud
b. Faris like the
transaksional lisan dan tulis Understanding dialog
new rules
c. Tanti has no yang melibatkan tindakan
opinion on the
memberi dan meminta
new rules
d. Tanti makes the informasi terkait pendapat dan
new rules
pikiran, sesuai dengan konteks
e. Faris doesn’t
understand penggunaannya. (Perhatikan
announcement
unsur kebahasaan I think, I
suppose, in my opinion)
- Mengidentifikasipernyataan
pendapat dan pikiran yang
benar sesuai konteks

6
38. “JK Rowling 4.5. Menyusun teks lisan Siswa
wrote the Harry
dan tulis yang melibatkan C3 - Applying mengubah
Potter books”.
The suitable tindakan memberi dan kalimat aktif
passive
meminta informasi terkait menjadi
interrogative
sentence for the keadaan/tindakan/kegiatan/ pasif
answer is ...
kejadian tanpa perlu
a. “Harry Potter
books were menyebutkan pelakunya dalam
being writen by
teks ilmiah, dengan
JK Rowling”.
b. “Who did write memperhatikan fungsi sosial,
the Harry Potter
struktur teks, dan unsur
books?”
c. “By whom were kebahasaan yang benar sesuai
the Harry Potter
konteks
books writen?
d. “Who was the - Mengubah kalimat dengan
writer of Harry
kata kerja aktif menjadi pasif
Potter books?”
e. “JK Rowling is dengan memperhatikan
the writer of
grammar yang benar
Harry Potter
books”.

4. How does a cell 4.8.2 Menyusun teks Siswa

phone work? Draw
eksplanation dengan memformula
up in your own
words memperhatikan fungsi sosial, C4 - Analyzing sikan
struktur teks, dan unsur bagaimana
kebahasaan yang benar dan cara
sesuai konteks handphoe
- Menjelaskan informasi bekerja
dari teks eksplanation dengan
benar

5. Do you think cell 4.8.2 Menyusun teks Siswa

phone is the best
eksplanation dengan menjelaskan
communication
tool? Why? memperhatikan fungsi sosial, C5 - alasan
struktur teks, dan unsur Evaluating handphone

7
 kebahasaan yang benar dan menjadi alat
sesuai konteks komunikasi
- Menganalisis informasi terbaik
dari teks eksplanation dengan
benar

C1: Remembering C3: Applying C5: Evaluating

C2: Understanding C4: Analyzing C6: Creating

There are four basic competence for each chapter in the syllabus. The first
basic competence is about spiritual (1.1 Mensyukuri kesempatan dapat mempelajari
bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa pengantar komunikasi international yang diwujudkan
dalam semangat belajar)
The second is about social (2.1 Menunjukkan perilaku santun dan peduli dalam
melaksanakan komunikasi interpersonal dengan guru dan teman)
The third and the fourth is about knowledge, such as: 3.1 Menerapkan fungsi
sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan teks interaksi transaksional lisan dan tulis
yang melibatkan tindakan memberi dan meminta informasi terkait saran dan tawaran,
sesuai dengan konteks penggunaannya.(Perhatikan unsur kebahasaan should, can).
The last basic competence is 4.2 Menyusun teks interaksi transaksional, lisan dan
tulis, pendek dan sederhana, yang melibatkan tindakan memberi dan meminta
informasi terkait pendapat dan pikiran, dengan memperhatikan fungsi sosial, struktur
teks, dan unsur kebahasaan yang benar dan sesuai konteks.
Question number 1 is remembering level, this question ask the students to
mention an advice expression. The question is skimming tasks, means that it is a
prediction strategy used to give a reader a sense of the topic and purpose of the text,
the organization of the text, the perspective or point of view of the writer, it is easy or
difficulty, and/or its usefulness to the reader. And it also included to remembering of
thinking level because exhibit memory of previously learned material
by recalling facts, terms, basic concepts, and answers.
Question number 10 included to understanding of thinking level, because
demonstrate understanding of facts and ideas by organizing, comparing, translating,
interpreting, giving descriptions, and stating main ideas. Those questions are skimming
tasks, means that it is a prediction strategy used to give a reader a sense of the topic
and purpose of the text, the organization of the text, the perspective or point of view of
the writer, it is easy or difficulty, and/or its usefulness to the reader.
Question number 38 is applying level and it is changing the sentence from active
into passive voice. It is applying because we need to remember and understand to be a
new situation by applying.
Question number 4 is asking how a cell phone can work. It is analyzing of
thinking level. The question is skimming tasks, means that it is a prediction strategy

8
used to give a reader a sense of the topic and purpose of the text, the organization of
the text, the perspective or point of view of the writer, it is easy or difficulty, and/or its
usefulness to the reader.
Question number 5 is the evaluating of thinking levels in the term of short answer
assessment task. In the short answer tasks, a text or reading passage is presented, and
the students read the questions that must be answered in a sentence or more. It is
evaluating because the question asks our opinion about cell phone whether it is the best
communication or not, and gives the reason.
The question number mentioned above is relate to the basic competence but all of
the questions does not totally match to the basic competence, because some of the
questions are not suitable to the basic competence and indicators. Such as the item test
number 33-36, it has no basic competence or indicator in the syllabus because the text
is not included in the topic of the syllabus. The text of the question for number 33-36
is:

A Skill Piece of Work

Once, Birmingham and Sheffield, two of the largest towns in England, began
to quarrel. The quarrel started when each of them claimed to be able to prodice
the most skillful piece of work. A special jury was chosen to decide which city
would show the greatest skill.
The day arrived. A steel spider with long thin legs was produce by
representatives of sheffield. The spider was made by the best workers. It was as
small as a pea. It ran about on the table as if it were alive. A wonderful
mechanism had been put in that little body. Everybody was sure that the first
place would be given to Sheffield.
Than a sewing needle was laid on the table by representatives of
Birmingham. A smile appeared on the lips of the jury when the needle was
noticed.
Than the top of the needles were drawn out, one from another. The first
needle, as it was, had been the case of the four other needles. The needles were
handed over to each member and examined with great interest.
In whose favor did the jury decide?
The data were analyzed per items. There are 45 numbers of test item are
analyzed. The activities spread 23 numbers remembering, 12 understanding, 3
applying, 6 analyzing, 1 evaluating, and nothing for creating.

CONCLUSION
The researcher had discussed about the introduction of the studythe method of
the research, the analysis, and the result. Then presented the conclusions were derived
from analyses and discussions which had conducted in the previous session.
Based on the finding of the research, the researcher concludes that:
- In term of relevance of the curriculum
After analyzing the data, the conclusion drawn is that 91% item number

9
 from 45 numbers of the teacher’s English summative test item is relate to the
basic competence. Means that four of them is not match to the basic competence
because the question of the text is about narrative text but narrative text does not
include to the topic of eleventh grade, it is the topic of tenth grade.
However there are also basic competencies which include the lower order
thinking skills category but the teacher makes a question for summative test in the
form of higher order thinking skills analysis, the basic competence is 4.8
Menangkap makna secara kontekstual terkait fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan
unsur kebahasaan teks explanation lisan dan tulis, terkait gejala alam atau sosial
yang tercakup dalam mata pelajaran lain di kelas XI. For example question
number 5:
II-5. Do you think cell phone is the best communication tool? Why?
- In term of the composition of the LOTS and HOTS in summative test items
Government had regulated the proportion of assessment according to the
Bloom’s taxonomy specifically for schools which applied curriculum 2013. For
remembering and understanding was 20%, applying-analyzing 55%, evaluating
15%, and creating 10%. With a total proportion of each level which was arranged
by the English teacher; remembering 51%, understanding 27%, applying 7%,
analyzing 13%, evaluating 2%, and creating was nothing. The complete
description, remembering 23 questions, understanding 12 questions which
accumulated be 35 questions, applying 3 questions, analyzing 6 questions which
accumulated be 9 questions, evaluating 1 questions, and creating is nothing, then
it can be concluded that the test has not fulfilled the proportion of each cognitive
level of revised Bloom’s taxonomy.

REFERENCES

Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., Airasian, P. et al. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning,
Teaching, and Assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives. New York: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
Black, P. & Harrison, C. & Lee, C. & Marshall, B. & Wiliam, D. 2003. Assessment for
Learning, putting it into Practice. Open University Press.
Brown, D. H. 2004. Language Assessment Principles and Classroom Practices. San
Fransisco State University: Longman.
Creswell, Joohn, W. (2009). Research Design:Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches.
London: Sage Publications.
Heritage, M. 2007. Formative Assessment, What Do Teachers Need to Know and
Do?. Phi Delta Kappan.
Hughes, Arthur. 2003. Testing for language teachers. (Second Ed.). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Humos. (2012). An Evaluative Analysis of Comprehension Questions’ Level of
Difficulty: A case of 12th Grade Palestinian English Student’s Textbook. An –
Najah Univ. J. Res. (Humanities). Vol. 26(3)
Juhanda. 2016. Analisis Soal Jenjang Kognitif Taksonomi Bloom Revisi Pada

10
 Buku Sekolah Elektronik (BSE) Biologi SMA. Universitas Muhammadiyah
Sukabumi.
Lan, W.H., & Chern, C.L. 2010. Using Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy to Analyze
Reading Comprehension Questions on the SAET and the DRET. Contemporary
Educational Research Quarterly, 18(3), 165-206.
Manalu, T. 2017. Developing English Summative Test Based on Revised
Bloom’s Taxonomy. University of Medan.
McDavitt, D. (1993). Teaching for Understanding: Attaining Higher Order Learning
and Increasing Achievement through Experimental Instruction. Unpublished
Thesis.
Pratiwi, N. 2015. Analysis of English Workbook for SMP/MTsN by Using Revised
Bloom Taxonomy. UIN Syarif Hidayatullah, Jakarta.
Razmjoo, S.A., & Madani, H. 2013. A Content Analysis of the English Section of
University Entrance Exams based on Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. Shiraz
University.
Thompson, T. 2014. An Analysis of Higher-Order Thinking on Algebra I End-of
Course Tests. East Carolina University.
Tomei, L. (2005). Taxonomy for the Technology Domain. London.
Wilson, V. (2000). Can thinking skills be taught?
--, 2006. Panduan Pengembangan KTSP-BNSP, Silabus SMA & RPP. Puskur
2006. Jakarta : Depdiknas

11