109 procedures. Therefore, the writer concluded that the assessments prepared by
the first respondent possessed moderate content validity.
B. Second Document of the First respondent
a. The Content
The first respondent wrote down in his second lesson plan that the materials were about report text, especially in reading and writing skills. He
stated the basic competence the students should master was to respond meaning and rhetoric steps in essays that use kind of written language
accurately, smoothly, and acceptably in daily life context and to access knowledge in text: report. As stated above, the teaching was about reading and
writing skills, so the content of the teaching was to enable the students to read understand and write produce report text in English language accurately,
smoothly, and acceptably. At the end of the study, the students had to be able to understand report text, both for its language features and information, and
to produce report text. The first respondent stated five learning objectives. The first objective
was that the students are able to find the specific information in the report text that is given by the teacher. Second, the students are able to decide whether
the statements are true or false after reading the report text. Third, the students are able to answer comprehension questions related to the reading text that is
given by the teacher. Fourth, the students are able to make a draft for their report text. Fifth, the students are able to write a report text. The respondent
also stated six indicators in the lesson plan, namely the students are able to first, identify the main idea of report text, second, identify the specific
information of report text, third, identify the social function of report text, fourth, identify the language features of report text, fifth, identify the generic
structure of report text, and sixth, write report text. There was a similar case for the learning objectives formulated by the
first respondent for his two documents in which the learning objectives did not actually stated the learning objectives or the outcomes of the instruction but
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
110 they stated the learning activities. Therefore, for this second document, the
writer preferred using the indicators which stated the learning outcomes to the learning objectives formulation which actually only stated about the learning
activities. Having the similar case, the writer used the word “objective” which referred to the indicators of this document.
The first, second, fourth, and fifth objectives were simple, measurable, action-oriented, measureable, and clear but they lacked of time specification.
Those objectives dealt with the reading skill of the students. The outcome intended that the students were able to understand the text by knowing the
main idea and some specific information from the text, and to identify the generic structure and language features of report text. Although those
objectives were intended for reading skills, those objectives also served as the basis for the students to write their own report text by applying the theory of
the generic structure and language features of narrative text which became the last objective of the instruction.
The third objective needed elaboration. The respondent should revise the objective since the process of identifying the social function of the report
text could be done without reading an example of report text but the students could obtain the function by paying attention at the teacher’s explanation and
from the theory given by the teacher. It was better that the objective was added by not only identifying but also explaining. The students should also be able to
explain the social function of report text compared to that of the other texts. The last objective was simple, action-oriented, reasonable, but it was
not clear and measurable, and was lack of time-specific aspect. It was not clear and not measureable because it did not specify the criteria of a report text. It
should be specified that the intended report text should be correct in its language features and grammatical order and should have at least fair content,
or it could be more. It can be concluded that the content of the second assessment of the first respondent was report text which involved the reading
and writing skills.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
111
b. Content Validation
The first respondent prepared an assessment of a report text along with two activities. The assessment was supposed to be done in a group of
some students. The first activity was about deciding whether the statements given were true or false after reading the report text. The second activity was
about answering some questions related to the text. It was about the main idea of each paragraph and about the language features of report text.
The activities mentioned above intended that the students could perform their understanding toward the text they had read. The students
should be able to find specific information and the main idea from the text. Deciding whether the statements were true or false and answering some
related questions required the students to read the text and know some specific information offered by the text. As stated in the analysis of the first
assessment of the first respondent, the truefalse sentence identification was used to enable the students to distinguish between literal and implied
meaning. The cloze-answer comprehension question task provided the students
with some questions relating to report text, which became the content of the instructional process. The questions asked about the generic structure of
report text which means that if the students were able answer those questions; they were considered to be able to identify the language features and generic
structure of a report text. The task involved the macroskills of reading which enabled the students to recognize the communicative function of written text,
according to form and purpose and enabled the students to infer links and connections from the idea of the text. Indirectly, the students were supposed
to be able to write a report text based on their understanding of the language features and generic structure of report text. It could be concluded that the
intended result of the assessment prepared by the first respondent had high content validity seen from the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth objectives.
The sixth objective did not have assessment procedure. The first respondent only stated that the students should make a draft for their own
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
112 report text, while the revised result of report text might be submitted later.
Actually, the first respondent did not prepare the specific assessment to assess the students’ mastery of report text production. The students, as stated in the
lesson plan, were only asked to make a draft. It could be concluded that the second content skill in this instructional process could not be measured since
there was no apparent assessment for the writing skill. Overall, the second assessments prepared by the first respondent had moderate validity since the
intended result could fairly represent that the students would be able to understand the theory, language features, and specific information of recount
text but it gave a little time for the students to practice producing report text
in which the students could perform their ability in writing the text.
C. First Document of the Second Respondent
