61 Continued
Before the Revision After the Revision
1
‘.......................... dan
sering menampakkan keterbatasan kemampuan
lexical ketika berusaha menyelesaikan tugas.’
‘siswa membuat dan menggunakan kalimat dengan penataan grammar
yang buruk serta tidak menguasai kata- kata arti dan part of speech dalam
bahasa Inggris.’
In this part, considering the additional notes given by the expert about the overall rubric which still had some difficult and segmented terms, the researcher
determined to change some diction and sentences. She ommited the words „syntax‟, „syntactical‟ and „lexical‟ from the description and changed it into other
explanation that considered equal yet clearer.
5. The Expert Judgement
After the rubric designed, the rubric then evaluated by the expert. The evaluation was conducted by distributing questionnaires to the expert. The items
of the questionnaires were adapted from Stevens and Levi 2005 about rubric for rubric.
There are 4 aspects that had evaluated which were dimension, descriptor, overall rubric and fairness. The following explanations describe the result of the
expert judgment
62
a. The Dimension of the Rubric Table 12.
The Evaluation Result of the Dimension of the Rubric No.
Statements Scores
ƒ
Expected Score N
Percentage P
1. Each dimension covers important parts
of the final student performance. 5
5 100
2. The dimensions are clear.
4 5
80 3.
The dimension distinctly different from each other.
3 5
60 4.
The dimensions represent skills that the student
knows something
about already.
4 5
80
Total score 320
Average score 80
Table 12 shows that the mean value related to the dimension aspect of the rubric was 80. It means that the dimension of this rubric is good.
b . The Descriptions of the Rubric
Table 13. The Evaluation Result of the Descriptions of the Rubric
No. Statements
Scores
ƒ
Expected Score N
Percentage P
1. The descriptions match the dimensions.
5 5
100 2.
The descriptions are clear and different from each other.
3 5
60 3.
The descriptions are equal with the scores.
4 5
80 Total score
240 Average score
80
