131 Seen from the instructional objective formulated, the assessments
prepared by the fifth respondent possessed high content validity. The assessments required the students to be able to answer the questions correctly
and write the answers in correct spelling. Nevertheless, since the objectives were not formulated the intended outcomes for the learning of the expression
of invitation and recount text appropriately, the assessments had low validity for the main instructional content which were the learning of the expression of
invitation and recount text.
J. Second Document of the Fifth Respondent
a. The Content
The fifth respondent stated the Competence Standard which was understanding the meaning of short functional written text and simple essay in
the form of recount, narrative, and procedure in daily life context and to access knowledge. The Competence Standard was responding the meaning and
rhetoric steps of written essay text accurately, smoothly, and acceptably in daily life context and to access knowledge in the texts of: recount, narrative,
and procedure. From the CS and BC, the respondent focused on the narrative text, especially for reading skill. She wanted her students to learn English
through the understanding of narrative text. The fifth respondent stated two objectives to specify the main
instructional content, namely first, the students are able to answer the questions related to narrative text, and second, the students are able to identify
a narrative text [in her lesson plan, she wrote recount text] entitled “The Smartest Parrot.” In order to know that the students could ‘arrive at the
destination’ stated, the respondent also wrote down three indicators, namely first, the students are able to respond simple monologue text in the form of
narrative, second, the students are able to explain the function of narrative text, and third, the students are able to identify the structure of narrative text.
The objectives stated were simple, measurable, action-oriented, reasonable, and clear, but it also lacked in time specification. The first
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
132 objective was clear that the students were supposed to be able to master the
reading ability of narrative text if they could answer some questions related to the narrative text given by the teacher. The students were assumed that they
could understand the meaning of narrative text and find some specific information from the text. The second objective was clear and specific enough
that the respondent clearly stated that the students should be able to identify a narrative text entitled “The Smartest Parrot.” Identifying in this case was
about identifying the generic structures and language features of narrative text. It could be concluded that the fifth respondent’s instructional content
was narrative text reading. The respondent wanted to teach and wanted her students to learn English through narrative text reading. She gave her students
the handout about the explanation of narrative text and prepared two assessment procedures for the students.
b. Content Validation
As stated above, the fifth respondent prepared two assessment procedures for her instruction. The first assessment was about identifying the
narrative text. After explaining about the theory of narrative text, the respondent gave a narrative text entitled “The Smartest Parrot” for her
students. The students were asked to read and analyze the generic structure of the text with their friends and afterwards, they discussed the result together
with the teacher. This assessment intended a result that the students were able to analyze about the generic structure of the narrative text.
This procedure gave a good and effective chance for the students to learn about identifying or analyzing the generic structure of narrative text as it
has been explained by the teacher before. The assessment intended result for this procedure was match with the formulation of the second objective, which
was that the students are able to identify a recount text entitled “The Smartest Parrot.” Nevertheless, the identification was only about the generic structure.
The respondent missed the other aspects of narrative text, namely the language features, the moral value which existed in narrative text, and many more. It
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
133 could be concluded that this assessment content had moderate content validity
compared with the second objective formulation. The second assessment asked the student to continue producing a
narrative text form some pictures given. The students were given an initial paragraph to be continued by them in a group of three students. Each group
could have different story. This assessment procedure was nothing to do with improving the students’ reading skill which became the focus of the
instructional process. It involved mainly the writing skill. The writer could conclude that the second assessment prepared by the fifth respondent
possessed low content validity compared to the instructional content and the objective formulations.
It was also interesting for the writer that the first objective did not given a specific assessment. It was stated that the students are able to answer
some questions related to narrative text. In both of the assessment procedures prepared by the respondent, there were not any questions related to the
narrative text. The students were not given the opportunity to answer some questions related to “The Smartest Parrot” text and they were not given some
questions which required the students to find some specific information from the text. The first objective formulation was not assessed.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
134
APPENDIX C
H. D. Brown’s List of Microskills and Macroskills of the Four Basic Language Learning Skills
