of what should be measured. It meant that questions items should be based on the indicators of English syllabus as a guideline in teaching-learning process.
Moreover, he constructed the English summative test question items mostly based on material given and confirmed to students’ ability in English
subject. Meanwhile, the material given was not appropriate with the indicators in the English syllabus; it could be seen from the result of the analyzed data
that there were only 7 indicators covered in the question items out of 14 indicators
in the English syllabus. Besides, the students’ ability which was still in low level made the teacher did not too focus on what the syllabus had been
decided. In addition, the interviewer got information also about vocabularies that
were used in the question items still general and easy words. It was not based on the students major.
From the description of the data interview in those three vocational schools, the writer interpreted that the English syllabus was used in those three
vocational school was same, although, there was one of the school that took the syllabus from an internet. Besides, the English teachers in those three
vocational schools still had a minimum comprehension about validity and content validity because most of them constructed the test based on the
material given. In addition, the s tudents’ ability became a consideration in
constructing the test because the teacher guessed whether the question items were too difficult or too easy for the students. Moreover, the three English
teachers also told vocabularies that were used in the question items of the English summative test still general. However, the aim of English subject in
vocational school is to acquire an English knowledge and an English basic skill for supporting the achievement of major competence, and English subject is to
give a preparation for students in daily communication based on the global demand and to develop a communication skill higher.
3
Therefore, the
3
Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan, Standar Isi Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris untuk SMK, Jakarta:2006,p. 384.
vocabularies taught also should be based on the students major, supposed to achieve the major competence.
B. Discussion of the Data
Regarding the preceding description of the data, the writer assumed that the English syllabus that is used as a guideline in teaching-learning process of
three vocational schools SMKN 3, SMKN 1, and SMK Teknologi Informatika YPML Tangerang is same. It had been told by one of the English teacher in
the interview: “Kita pernah buat silabusnya itu di Yuppentek di dalam sebuah seminar.
Artinya guru
yang mata
pelajaran masing-masing
akan bertanggungjawabdalam pengembangan silabus
.” Therefore, the English syllabus whether for vocational schools or general
schools in Tangerang had been decided by English teachers from each vocational school and general school as a guideline in a teaching-learning
process and it will be implemented in all vocational and general schools in Tangerang.
Even though, the English syllabus that is used by those three vocational schools is same, there were different results of the conformity level between
the English summative test question items and the indicators in the English syllabus.
In the first school, SMKN 3 Tangerang has an accreditation A, there were 21 question items that confirmed to the indicators in the English syllabus out of
50 questions. The attainment of the conformity level was 50 . According Arikunto’s criteria, the conformity level of the English summative test items in
the indicator of the English syllabus fell in the level 41-60 which meant “sufficient”.
Second, SMKN 1 Tangerang has a predicate B, there were 27 test items that conformed to the indicators in the English syllabus from 50 test items. The
attainment of the conformity level between the English summative test items
and the indicators in the English syllabus was 35.71 . Based on the Arikunto’s
criteria, it fells in the level 21- 40 which meant “less good”.
Third, a vocational school has a predicate C, it is SMK Teknologi Informatika YPML Tangerang. There were 29 test items which conformed to
the indicators in the English syllabus from 45 test items. From the calculation, the attainment of the conformity level reached 50.Thus, according to
Arikunto’s criteria, the conformity level between the English summative test items and the English syllabus fell into 41-
60 that meant “sufficient”. According to the explanation of the conformity attainment of those three
vocational schools above, SMKN 3 and SMKN Teknologi Informatika YPML Tangerang
got a “sufficient” level, and SMK 1 Tangerang got a “less good” level in the conformity attainment. The indicators of the English syllabus did
not covered 100 percent in the question items of the English summative tests. There were only a half indicators a few indicators that were covered in each
English summative test of those three vocational schools. In addition, there were some question items that told about the indicators at the even semester.
The writer assumed some possibility that caused some question items did not confirm to the English syllabus and the result did not attain a good content
validity. First, the knowledge of the teachers about validity is still low.It could be proved by one of a dialogue between one of an English teacher and the
interviewer. Here the following interview between the interviewer and the teacher:
“Penting, tapi tolong jelaskan apa itu validitas, reabilitas dan praktikalitas.”
“Sebenarnya tiga hal itu adatersebut di..eehhmm apa namanya?apa kalo ini
SKB yaa,
apa yaah
apa?heemm..KBM. Sorry
salah ngomong.Sebenernya tiga hal itu adadalam KBM sehari-hari itu aja.Cuma
mungkinkan dibagi-bagipada waktu tertentu kan, seperti kalo validitas digunakan dalam semesteran, tes semester. Kalau tadi apah? reabilitas itu
mungkin sehari-hari ya..ulangan harian ya..Tapi klo practice berupa dialog
dalam bahasa
inggris, conversation
ya.. karenakan
kanpraktek..praktek.. nilai langsung seperti itu. ”
From the conversation above, the teacher asked the interviewer to explain more about validity and two other the characteristics of a good test. Moreover,
the teacher answered the question hesitantly and the result of analyzed data showed only a few indicators of the English syllabus covered in three English
summative test question items. Second, the spread of question items were not proportional. There were
some indicators that had many question items. In contrast, there were also some items that only had a few question items. It could be seen in each
checklist table of each vocational school table 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. Moreover, the materials at the even semester were tested in some question items.
Third, the English teacher is as a test designer concerned on the materials given rather than the indicators in the English syllabus. This could be happened
because the teacher considered the students’ ability which is different between one to another. As stated by one of the teacher in the interview about how he
constructed the English summative test, he told: “Kalau yang saya pelajari itu harus kita liat dari silabus dulu dan nanti
kita liat bagaimana ketuntasan kita mengajar, dan bab berapa yang sudah selesai. Lalu, kita buat soal sesuai dengan itu. Tapi kisi-kisinya kita lihat
dulu, kisi-kisi sudah kita buat, soal sudah dibuat, dan apakah sudah sesuai dengan silabus. Sesudah itu, kita lihat dari tingkat kesukarannya.Mmm,
misalnya yang sukar 45, trus yang sedang misalnya 20,sisanya yang mudah tuh. Jadi engga semuannya susah, ada tingkatannya.Dalam
membuat soal itu, kita memilahmana soal yang susah, sedang, dan ama yang mudah. Nah, terus kita lihat dulu misalnya dari tahun kemarin,
soalnya juga kita sesuaikan dengan tahun kemarin apakah sudah sesuai apa tidak. Intinya sih, dari silabus, dari buku yang kita punya, terus kita
buat kisi-kisi. Setelah itu, kita sesuaikan dengan bab yang telah kita capai dan kemampuan siswa.Jika sudah sesuai dengan kemampuan siswa, baru
kita laksanakan. Itu saja penjelasan saya.
” Based on the interview above, it could be seen that there was a hesitancy
answer from the teacher in answering the question about how to construct the test. He said that the test should confirm to the syllabus, but the test also should
be based on the material given and the students’ ability. It had approved that, the teacher still confused in designing the test.
Fourth, the teachers also too focused on the difficulty level of the test because he or she had to design the test which was not too difficult or too easy
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.
