or the students. It can be seen from one of the teacher’s answer in the interview
about the difficult in constructing the test: “Eeeehh, sulitnya menentukan soal mana yang sulit dan mudah karena
kemampuan siswa berubah-rubah. Kesulitan yang pertama Apakah soal ini mampu dijawab dan dipahami oleh siswa atau tidak. Artinya
kesulitannya mencari soalyang seragam untuk mengukurkemampuan siswa. Karena jika soal yang terlalu sulit itu tidak bagus atau soal yang
terlalu mudah juga tidak bagus. Oleh karena itu, kami juga masih merasa sulit untuk membuat soal yang tidak seperti itu.
” The transcription of the interview above was a consideration for the writer
assumed that the difficulty level of the test became an effect of unconformity between the question items with the indicators in the English syllabus.
Fifth, the writer found that there were four basic skills listening, reading, speaking, reading, and writing in the question items of English summative test
for odd semester of the second grade technology major in two vocational schools based on the analyzing data. Initially, the indicators of the English
syllabus for the second grade technology vocational school students was focused on kinds of expression; in other word is a speaking ability and writing
ability which related to the students’ major, and increasing the specific vocabularies. In addition, the aim of an English subject purposes is to provide
students in English communication ability based on students’ major competence whether in spoken or written.
Sixth, some causes of the unconformity between the English summative test and the indicators of the English syllabus in those three vocational schools,
the writer also found vocabularies that were used in the question items of three vocational schools, did not use specific words for the technology major
students. According to the content standard of English subject, a teaching English subject is to acquire an English knowledge and an English basic skill
for supporting the achievement of major competence.
4
Besides, the English teachers in those three vocational schools also still has a low abilityin constructing the test which had a good content validity,
because they were too focused on the English material in a textbook , students’
4
Ibid.
ability in English, the difficulty level of the test, and the four basic skills to be covered in the test.
It can be concluded by the writer that the English summative tests of SMKN 3 Tangerang and SMK Tangerang Informatika YPML Tangerang for
the second grade of technology major at odd semester had a sufficient level of a content validity. However, the English summative test of SMKN 1
Tangerang had a less good level. In other word, the English summative tests of vocational schools in Tangerang had a content validity, but they did not reach a
good content validity because the question items did not represent all the indicators that should be covered. Moreover, three vocational schools in
Tangerang did not attain a good content validity yet.
51
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
Regarding the research findings, the English summative tests at the odd semester of both vocational schools SMKN 3 Tangerang which has grade A
and SMK Teknologi Informatika YPML Tangerang which has grade C have attained 50 that felt into a “sufficient” level of a content validity in
constructing the English summative test. It could be happened because the English summative tests had only represented a half of the indicators in the
syllabus at an odd semester. However, SMKN 1 Tangerang which has grade B had only 35.71 the question items that conformed to the English syllabus. It
felt into an insufficient level. Therefore, the writer would like to conclude that three vocational schools
in Tangerang that have accredited A up to C still had not attained a good content validity yet because it did not represent all the indicators in the English
syllabus at the odd semester. However, there were SMKN 3 Tangerang and SMK Teknologi Informatika YPML Tangerang which attained sufficient level
of a content validity in the English summative tests. Besides, the test quality was not based on the accredited of the school. It could be approved from the
conformity attainment level of the English summative tests in those three vocational schools.
In addition, the English teacher of each vocational school also still had a low ability in constructing the English summative test items that have a good
content validity. It was approved by the result of semi-structured interviews towards three English teachers at those vocational schools.
B. Suggestion
From the conclusion above, the writer would like to give some suggestion for the test designer and the school.
These are some suggestion: 1. There should be socialization about how to create proportional test items
which conform to all the indicators in the syllabus. 2. The teacher has to choose the proper materials as suggested in the
syllabus. It supposes if the teacher design the test items based on the material given, the test items will be appropriate with the syllabus.
3. The teacher in the vocational school should also concern on designing the vocabularies of the test items based on the students major. It supposes
measure the students’ vocabulary relating to their major. Moreover, it also has been stated in the content standard of KTSP curriculum that the
teaching-learning process in vocational school should be more specific. 4. There should be a supervisor for checking the test items before it is
administered to the students.
53
REFERENCES
Ahmann, J. Stanley., and D. Glock , Marvin. Evaluating Pupil Growth: Principles of Tests and Measurement. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
3
rd
Edition, 1967. Alderson, J. Charles., et al., Language Test Construction and Evaluation. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Allison, Desmond. Language Testing and Evaluation An Introductory Course.
Kent Ridge Crescent: Singapore University Press, 1999. Arikunto, Suharsini. Manajemen Penelitian. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 2005.
Bachman, Lyle. F. Statistical Analyses for Language Assessment. New York: Cambridge University Press,2004.
_______________. Fundamental Consideration in Language Testing. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan BSNP. Standar Isi Mata Pelajaran Bahasa
Inggris untuk
SMK. Jakarta:2006.
http:www.bsnp.org.indonesia.id .
____________________________________. Standar Isi Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris untuk SMA, Jakarta:2006.
Brown, H. Douglas. Teaching by Principles An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. 2
nd
Edition, 2001. C. Ornstein, Allan., and P. Hupkins, Francis. Curriculum: Foundations,
Principles, and Issues, Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 2
nd
Edition, 1993. C. Richards, Jack. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2001. Coombe, Christine., et al., editor. The Cambridge Guide to Second Language
Assessment. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. D. Hopkins, Charles., and L. Antes, Richard. Classroom Measurement and
Evaluation. Illinois: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc. 3
rd
Edition, 1990. D. Hopkins, Kenneth. Educational and Psychological Measurement and
Evaluation. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 8
th
Edition, 1998.
David Newhouse and Daniel Suryadarma, The Value of Vocational Education High School Type and Labor Market Outcomes in
Indonesia. Policy Research Working Paper. 5035, 2009.
E. Gronlund, Norman. Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc, 1981.
Etika, Surya, “An Analysis on the Content Validity of the Summative Test
for the Fisrt Year Students at SMA DUA MEI, Skripsi of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta: 2012. Unpublished.
Harmen Schaap, Liesbeth Baartman, and Elly de Bruijn. Students’
Learning Processes during School-Based Learning and Workplace Learning in Vocational Education: A Review,
Journal of Vocations and Learning.5, 2012.
Harmer, Jeremy. The Practical of English Language Teaching. New York: Longman Publishing, 1991.
Heaton, J.B. Writing English Language Test. London: Longman Group. New Edition, 2000.
Hughes, Arthur. Testing for Language Teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
J. Posner, George. Analyzing the Curriculum. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies,Inc,2004,3
rd
Edition
. Khodirin, “Content Validity of the English Summative Test in the First Year of
SMK Lingga Kencana Depok”, Skripsi
of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta: 2013. Unpublished.
Pengembangan Silabus dan Rencana Pelaksanaan Pembelajaran dalam KTSP. Jakarta: Direktorat Tenaga Kependidikan, Direktorat
Jenderal, Peningkatan
Mutu Pendidik
dan Tenaga
Kependidikan, dan Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, 2008. Popham, W. James. Educational Evaluation,. Boston: Allyn and Bacon,
1993. R. Gareis, Christopher., and W. Grant, Leslie. Teacher-Made
Assessments: How to Connect Curriculum, Instruction, and Student Learning. New York: Eye On Education, Inc, 2008.
Stephen, G. Sireci. The Construct of the Content Validity. JSTOR Journal of Social Indicator Research. 45, 1998.
Sudira MP, Putu. Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan SMK. Jakarta: Departemen
Pendidikan Nasional
Direktoral Jenderal
Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah Direktorat Pembinaan Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan Subdit Pembelajaran, 2006.
Sudijono, Anas. Pengantar Statistik Pendidikan,. Jakarta: PT. RajaGrafindo Persada, 2011.
