21
compu tational device” Sarasvati, 229. As stated previously, since 2003, the
students must pass certain grade in order to graduate from certain level of study Sarasvati. If students failed the examination, they could
“join a remedial examination” Sarasvati, 230. It was “held a week after the notice” Sarasvati,
230. If students still failed, up to 2012, Sarasvati stated that there was no clear procedure that the students could follow in order to pass the examination.
Sometimes the students were suggested to keep continuing the study in the higher level as long as in the first year they could get certificate showing they had passed
the examination Sarasvati. Sometimes they are suggested to join PKBM and finish their study there Sarasvati.
This part elaborates concepts related to National Examination. It is divided into three parts: national assessment, national assessment in Indonesia before 2015,
and the 2015 national examination in Indonesia.
3. National Examination
a. Research on the National Examination
Previous research on the National Examination and the English National Examination discussed washbackimpact, validity, authenticity, practicality,
reliability, interactiveness, administrability, student‟s action and teachers‟ voices. All topics were discussed by six researchers. Three of them used Merina, 2009;
Thipani, 2013; Widyaningrum, 2014 content analysis method. One of the three Thipani, 2013 used both content analysis and sample survey. One Siswanti,
2010 used progressive qualitative approach. One research Fiharsono, 2011 used phenomenology and another one used Subagyo, 2014 case study. I will describe
all those research reports not one by one but per topic. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
22
Research on the National Examination washback was conducted by Subagyo 2014. In his research he had two questions: 1 “What washback do the twelfth
graders of a private religion-based vocational high school in Yogyakarta experience in response to the National Examination preparation
?” and 2 “How does the washback happen to the students,
teachers, and the school?” Subagyo, vii. In his research he found that secondary students were more aware of the
impacts of the National Examination. He also found that the National Examination en
couraged the students to be more prepared with “potential challenges such as pre
ssure and time constraints” Subagyo, vii. His research also showed that teachers could “comprehend the phenomenon faced by their students”
Subagyo, vii. In my research on 2013 I also discussed it even though I used the term „impact‟. My research showed that “the test developer goals were in accord
with the societyeducation goals” but “did not bring significant impact to the stud
ents and teachers” Thipani, vii. Fiharsono‟s research also showed the National Examination washback to his participant. The washback was seen from
the participant‟s action to study previous tests and predictions 2011. Research reports on the National Examination validity were conducted by
Merina 2009, Fiharsono 2011, Thipani 2013, and Widyaningrum 2014. In her research Widyaningrum showed that 98.8 of the 2012 English National
Examination content was valid. My research on 2013 showed that the 2012 English National Examination was unconstructively valid. Not only discussed
validity in general like the two previous research reports, Merina 2009 specifically discussed content validity in her research. In her research she asked
three questions: 1 “Did the multiple-choice reading items of the National PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
23
Examination test for senior high school students measure the objectives of English reading skills as stated in KTSP?”, 2 “Did the texts used in the National
Examination test for senior high school students represent the written text types ment
ioned in KTSP?”, and 3 “Did the question types used in the multiple-choice reading items of the National Examination test for senior high school students
measure the students‟ comprehension through various question types?” Merina, 5. The research showed that the National Examination only covered two
cognitive processes of Anderson taxonomy remember and understand and did not cover all cognitive processes as required in KTSP. However, the National
Examination had covered two types of written text in KTSP short functional text and simple essays. The research also showed that vocabulary mastery was
measured even though it was not required in KTSP. Quite different from Merina, through the description of student‟s understandings and student‟s beliefs
Fih arsono 2011 explained not only the English National Examination‟s content
validity, but also the English National Examination‟s criterion-related validity in his research. According to Fiharsono, the English National Examination did not
represent all English competencies listed in the curriculum. Its content validity was low. He also showed that the result of the English National Examination was
significantly different from other measurements conducted either at the same time or in the future. Thus, the criterion-related validity was low.
Three research reports Fiharsono, 2011; Thipani, 2013; Widyaningrum, 2014 discussed authenticity. Fiharsono‟s research showed that the competencies tested
in the English National Examination are not relevant to English competencies needed in real life. Thus, the examination authenticity was low. My research also
24
showed that the 2012 English National Examination was “not utterly authentic” Thipani,
vii. Meanwhile, Widyaningrum‟s research showed that the 2012 English National Examination was 79.5 authentic.
My research in 2013 discussed the 2012 English National Examination practicality, reliability, and interactiveness. The research showed that the
examination was “practical in the context of human resources and time allocation availability but impractical in the context of mater
ial resources availability” Thipani, vii.
It also showed that the exam was “reliable in the context of inter- rater and not reliable in the context of student, test administration, and test”. The
research also indicated that the examination could be considered interactive because the students‟ level and type of general education, their types and amount
of preparation, and their language ability helped them to be involved in the test. However,
it could also be considered not interactive because the students‟ family background, topical knowledge, affective schemata, and strategic competence did
not help them to be involved in the test. Fiharsono‟s research discussed the National Examination administrability and
student‟s action 2011. There were dishonest practices during test administration. One of them was student buying test leak. Discussion on student‟s action include
Fiharsono‟s participant which did all intentions he had during the National Examination.
Siswanti discussed teachers‟ voices regarding the National Examination in her research 2010. Two of her participants had different opinion regarding how the
National Examination should be conducted. One of them thought the National Examination should be conducted the way it had been conducted meanwhile
25
another one thought the National Examination should be conducted by adjusting to vocational high school students‟ competencies. However, both of them thought
