Profil Diagnostik Literasi Membaca Peserta Didik Kelas VII pada Transisi SD–SMP: Pemetaan Tingkat Pemahaman dan Pola Kesulitan Membaca di SMP Negeri 5 Kuta Selatan
Abstract
Transisi dari sekolah dasar ke sekolah menengah pertama menuntut peserta didik membaca teks yang lebih panjang, padat konsep, dan beragam genre, sementara profil kemampuan membaca mereka jarang dipetakan secara rinci. Penelitian ini bertujuan memetakan tingkat pemahaman bacaan dan pola kesulitan membaca peserta didik kelas VII pada awal tahun ajaran. Penelitian menggunakan desain deskriptif dengan pendekatan campuran. Subjek berjumlah 96 peserta didik kelas VII di SMP Negeri 5 Kuta Selatan yang berasal dari 14 SD. Data dikumpulkan melalui tes diagnostik literasi membaca yang mencakup pemahaman literal, inferensial, dan evaluatif, tes kosakata kontekstual, asesmen kelancaran membaca, angket kebiasaan membaca, serta wawancara guru. Data kuantitatif dianalisis secara deskriptif dan inferensial, sedangkan pola kesulitan dianalisis melalui analisis kesalahan tematik. Hasil menunjukkan bahwa 21,9% peserta didik berada pada tingkat mandiri, 45,8% instruksional, dan 32,3% frustrasi. Pemahaman literal memperoleh rerata tertinggi (74,2), sedangkan pemahaman inferensial dan evaluatif lebih rendah (58,6 dan 52,4). Pola kesulitan dominan meliputi penarikan inferensi tersirat, penilaian isi teks, dan pemaknaan kosakata kontekstual. Temuan ini menegaskan perlunya asesmen diagnostik berkelanjutan dan pembelajaran membaca berdiferensiasi pada kelas VII.
Downloads
References
Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012
Alexander, P. A. (2005). The path to competence: A lifespan developmental perspective on reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(4), 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3704_1
Betts, E. A. (1946). Foundations of reading instruction. American Book Company.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31
Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(2), 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023)
Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. McGraw-Hill.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5
Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25–S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage–environment fit on young adolescents' experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48(2), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.
https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799
Kemendikbudristek. (2022). Capaian pembelajaran mata pelajaran Bahasa Indonesia fase A–fase F (Keputusan Kepala BSKAP Nomor 008/H/KR/2022). Badan Standar, Kurikulum, dan Asesmen Pendidikan.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.3
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 297–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51009-2
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(4), 342–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00238.x
Nilsson, N. L. (2008). A critical analysis of eight informal reading inventories. The Reading Teacher, 61(7), 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.7.2
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90019-X
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
Quinn, J. M., Wagner, R. K., Petscher, Y., & Lopez, D. (2015). Developmental relations between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension: A latent change score modeling study. Child Development, 86(1), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12292
Rasinski, T. V. (2004). Creating fluent readers. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 46–51.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. RAND Corporation.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children's motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420
Copyright (c) 2026 Yunita Ratna Alfin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
By submitting the article/manuscript of the article, the author(s) agree with this policy. No specific document sign-off is required.
License
The use of the article will be governed by the Creative Commons Attribution license as currently displayed on Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Author(s)' Warranties
The author warrants that the article is original, written by the stated author(s), has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author(s).
User/Public Rights
Under the Creative Commons license, users are allowed to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work. Users will also need to attribute authors on distributing works in the journal and other media of publications. Unless otherwise stated, the authors are public entities as soon as their articles got published.
Rights of Authors
Authors retain all their rights to the published works, such as (but not limited to) the following rights;
- Copyright and other proprietary rights relating to the article, such as patent rights,
- The right to use the substance of the article in own future works, including lectures and books,
- The right to reproduce the article for own purposes,
- The right to self-archive the article,
- The right to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the article's published version (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
Co-Authorship
If the article was jointly prepared by more than one author, any authors submitting the manuscript warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to be agreed on this copyright and license notice (agreement) on their behalf, and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this policy. The journal will not be held liable for anything that may arise due to the author(s) internal dispute. The journal will only communicate with the corresponding author.
Royalties
Being an open accessed journal and disseminating articles for free under the Creative Commons license term mentioned, author(s) aware that the journal entitles the author(s) to no royalties or other fees.
Miscellaneous
The article will be published in the journal if the article’s editorial process is successfully completed. The editors may modify the article to a style of punctuation, spelling, capitalization, referencing, and usage that deems appropriate. The author acknowledges that the article may be published so that it will be publicly accessible and such access will be free of charge for the readers.
