First Document of the First respondent

105 Analyzing the Content Validity of the Assessment

A. First Document of the First respondent

a. The Content

The first respondent stated in his lesson plan that he taught about narrative text for the XI grade of Senior High School. Especially, he taught narrative for reading and writing skills. It could be concluded here that the content of the first respondent teaching was narrative text. He wanted the students to learn about the narrative text, especially he wanted the students to be able to read and write narrative text. In the handouts that were distributed to the students, the first respondent explained about the social function, they types, the generic structure, and the language features of narrative text. The material was used to help the students understand the narrative and help them write narrative text. In order to specify the content of his teaching, which is narrative text reading and writing, he stated four objectives in his lesson plan. The first objective is that the students are able to arrange jumbled sentences to become a narrative text. Second, the students are able to decide whether the statements are true or false after reading the narrative text. Third, the students are able to answer questions related to narrative text. Fourth, the students are able to write narrative text. From those objectives, the respondent stated five indicators, namely the students are able to first, identify the social function of narrative text, second, identify the main idea of narrative text, third, identify the generic structure of narrative text, fourth, identify the language features of narrative text, and fifth, write a narrative text. From the objectives formulation stated above, the writer found that the respondent’s objectives formulation did not state the learning outcomes, except the fourth objective, the students are able to write narrative text. The first, second, and third objectives stated about the learning activities the students would have during the instruction. Therefore, those objectives could not be the basis for the assessments. Fortunately, the respondents stated the PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 106 indicators which actually used to indicate that the objectives were achieved by the students by stating some performances or behaviors the students should represent after the instruction. In the respondent’s document, the indicators stated the learning outcomes or the objectives of the instruction. Therefore, the writer used the indicators as the basis to analyze the content validity of the respondent’s assessments. Later on, the writer used the word “objective” instead of “indicator” for this document since the learning objectives were stated in the indicators. The first objective of the first respondent’s instruction was that the students are able to identify the social function of narrative text. The objective was simple, action-oriented, and reasonable, but was not measureable and lacked of time specification. Actually it was not enough for the students that they were able to identify the social function of narrative text since the social function could be found in the explanation given by the teacher. It would be better that the students were expected to be able to mention and explain the social function of narrative text. The writer would like to say that the second objective needed elaboration. The objectives stated that the students are able to identify the main idea of narrative text. It was better that the students were not only able to identify and explain the main idea of the text, but also they could identify the specific information from the text. It was expected that when the students read the narrative text, they could identify the main idea of each paragraph and they could identify the specific information from the text, too. The third and fourth objectives were simple, measureable, action- oriented, reasonable and clear, but they lacked of time specification. The objectives were clearly stated the outcomes the students should achieved after the instruction. Those objectives could also help the students write narrative text since in writing the narrative, the students should know about the generic structure and language features of narrative text. The last objective was that the students are able to write narrative text. The objective clearly stated the PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 107 final outcome for the writing skill which that the students should be able to write narrative text. In brief, the content of the first respondent’s teaching is about narrative text, especially for reading and writing skills. The content is specified to five objectives as stated above which were derived from the formulation of the indicators. The analysis of the content validity of the first respondent’s assessment is based on the content and the objectives.

b. Content Validation

The first assessment task was giving the students three paragraphs which were not in correct order. The students should correct the order to make a story about Cindersmella. In the process of correcting the order of the paragraphs, the students should read and know the story of each paragraph to obtain the idea which paragraph would be the first paragraph of the story and so on. The assessment task gave the students the chance to identify the time connectives of the story, which was one of the language features of narrative text. The next assessment task was deciding whether the statements given in the assessment are true T or false F based on the arranged-story. This truefalse sentence identification was used to represent the macroskill of reading that the students would be able to distinguish between literal and implied meaning. It was not the outcome of the instruction that the students are able to decide whether the statements given are true or false but the point that the students were able to decide whether the statements were true or false represented that the students were able to identify the specific information from the text. The assessment task intended the students to be able to identify the idea or the specific information found in the text. The next procedure required the students to answer some questions related to the arranged-story. It was a cloze-answer comprehension questions task. The task was used to represent the macroskills of reading that the students would be able to recognize communicative functions of written text, PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 108 according to form and purpose, and that the students would be able to infer links and connections between events, deduce causes and effects, and detect such relations as main idea, supporting idea, new information, given information, generalization, and exemplification. There were six questions which should be answered by the students. Four of them required the students to identify specific information from the text and the rest were related to the language features and the generic structure of narrative text. Similar to the previous task, it was not the learning outcome that the students could answer the questions but the point that the students could answer the questions represented that the students were able to find specific information from the text and they were able to identify the generic structure of the text. The first respondent also gave another text for the students to read and the respondent provided four questions related to the text. The first question required the students to identify the generic structure of the text while the next three questions asked about the specific information from the text. For the last objective, in which the students are expected to be able to write narrative text, the first respondent did not prepared specific worksheet for the students to write their narrative text. Yet, the process was stated in learning activities part in the lesson plan. The first respondent asked the students to make short narrative text based on the topics given by him and the students should present their short narrative text in front of the class. Afterwards, the students were asked to make another narrative text started by writing the draft of their narrative text which would be submitted on the next meeting. From the explanation above, the writer could conclude that the assessment prepared by the first respondent possessed high content validity for reading skill but it had low content validity for writing skill since the assessments were bias to assess reading skill only. The assessment for writing skill was not provided explicitly since the process of writing narrative text was involved in the learning activities without apparent assessments tasks or PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 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