Teaching Method Media, Tool and Sources Teaching and Learning Process

250 average  Loosely organized but main ideas stand out  Limited support  Logical but incomplete sequencing Fair to Poor 13 - 10  Non-fluent  Ideas confuse or disconnected  Lacks logical sequencing and development Very Poor 9 - 7  Does not communicate  No organization, or  Not enough to evaluate VOCABULARY Excellent to Very Good 20 - 18  Sophisticated range  Effective wordidiom choice and usage and usage  Word form mastery  Appropriate register Good to Average 17 - 14  Adequate range  Occasional errors of wordidiom form, choice, usage but meaning not obscured Fair to Poor 13 - 10  Limited range  Frequent errors of wordidiom form, choice, usage  Meaning confused or obscured Very Poor 9 -7  Essentially translation  Little knowledge of English vocabulary, idioms, word form, or  Not enough evaluate LANGUAGE USE Excellent to 25 - 22  Effective complex constructions 251 Very Good  Few errors of agreement, tense, number, word orderfunction, articles, pronouns, prepositions Good to Average 21 - 18  Effective but simple construction  Minor problems in complex constructions  Several errors of agreement, tense, number, word orderfunction, articles, pronouns, prepositions but meaning seldom obscured Fair to Poor 17 - 11  Major problems in simplecomplex constructions  Frequent errors of negation, agreement, tense, number, word orderfunction, articles, pronouns, preposition andor fragments, run- ons, deletions  Meaning confused or obscured Very Poor 10 - 5  Virtually n mastery of sentence construction rules  Dominated by errors  Does not communicate, or  Not enough to evaluate MECHANICS Excellent to Very Good 5  Demonstrates mastery of conventions  Few errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing Good to Average 4  Occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, 252 paragraphing but meaning not obscured Fair to Poor 3  Frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing  Poor handwriting  Meaning confused or obscured Very Poor 2  No mastery of conventions  Dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing  Handwriting illegible, or  Not enough to evaluate Bantul, February 16 th 2015 The English teacher, The researcher, Heni Purwaningsih, S.Pd Murni Putriani NIP. 198103122009032001 NIM. 10202244050

Dokumen yang terkait

AN ANALYSIS OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN WRITING DESCRIPTIVE PARAGRAPH MADE BY THE SECOND YEAR STUDENTS OF SMP MUHAMMADIYAH 06 DAU MALANG

44 306 18

AN ANALYSIS ON GRAMMATICAL ERROR IN WRITING MADE BY THE TENTH GRADE OF MULTIMEDIA CLASS IN SMK MUHAMMADIYAH 2 MALANG

26 336 20

PENERIMAAN ATLET SILAT TENTANG ADEGAN PENCAK SILAT INDONESIA PADA FILM THE RAID REDEMPTION (STUDI RESEPSI PADA IKATAN PENCAK SILAT INDONESIA MALANG)

43 322 21

REPRESENTASI CITRA PEREMPUAN DALAM IKLAN DI TELEVISI (ANALISIS SEMIOTIK DALAM IKLAN SAMSUNG GALAXY S7 VERSI THE SMARTES7 ALWAYS KNOWS BEST)

132 481 19

KONSTRUKSI MEDIA TENTANG KETERLIBATAN POLITISI PARTAI DEMOKRAT ANAS URBANINGRUM PADA KASUS KORUPSI PROYEK PEMBANGUNAN KOMPLEK OLAHRAGA DI BUKIT HAMBALANG (Analisis Wacana Koran Harian Pagi Surya edisi 9-12, 16, 18 dan 23 Februari 2013 )

64 565 20

ANALISIS PROSES PENYUSUNAN PLAN OF ACTION (POA) PADA TINGKAT PUSKESMAS DI KABUPATEN JEMBER TAHUN 2007

6 120 23

AN ANALYSIS OF DESCRIPTIVE TEXT WRITING COMPOSED BY THE HIGH AND THE LOW ACHIEVERS OF THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS OF SMPN SUKORAMBI JEMBER

11 83 16

AN ANALYSIS OF LANGUAGE CONTENT IN THE SYLLABUS FOR ESP COURSE USING ESP APPROACH THE SECRETARY AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM BUSINESS TRAINING CENTER (BTC) JEMBER IN ACADEMIC YEAR OF 2000 2001

3 95 76

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY ON THE TENTH YEAR STUDENTS’ RECOUNT TEXT WRITING ABILITY AT MAN 2 SITUBONDO IN THE 2012/2013 ACADEMIC YEAR

5 197 17

A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ON “SPA: REGAIN BALANCE OF YOUR INNER AND OUTER BEAUTY” IN THE JAKARTA POST ON 4 MARCH 2011

9 161 13