58 Although the assessment could not apparently represent and measure the
intended outcomes stated in the objective formulation, the assessment was used well to achieve those objectives. Therefore, the writer could conclude that the
assessment prepared by the fourth respondent possessed moderate content validity since the intended result of the assessment fairly matched with the instructional
content.
c. Low Content Validity Assessment
The assessment possessed low content validity if the content of the assessment could not clearly represent what was intended by the instructional
content or it could not represent the intended performance or mastery the students should be able to perform or master after the instruction. The assessment could
represent the intended result of the objectives formulation but it could not represent that the intended outcomes matched with the formulation of the main
instructional content. It could happen because the formulation of the objectives could not specify the main instructional content.
The example of an assessment which had low content validity was the assessment prepared by the second respondent on her second lesson plan. The
second respondent stated that the instructional content on the second lesson plan was the expression of invitation, especially for listening and speaking skills. The
instructional goals were that the students were able to understand the conversation using the expression of invitation and that the students were able to use oral
language using the expression of invitation. From those goals, the second
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
59 respondent formulated four objectives, namely first, the students are able to
pronounce some words, phrases, or sentences related to the expression of invitation, second, the students are able to mention the meaning of some words,
phrases, or sentences related to the expression of invitation, third, the students are able to complete the blank parts in the conversation of invitation, and the fourth,
the students are able to speak using the expression of invitation. The second respondent prepared an assessment with two activities for her
instruction. The first procedure was completing the crossword and the second was listening to a tape of conversation to complete the blank parts of a dialogue. In
completing the crossword, the students were asked to complete the crossword with the English words for some Indonesian words. The students had to translate
the words and complete the crossword with those translated words. The writer could conclude that the first assessment procedure resulted that the students would
be able to mention the meaning of some words and translate them into English words. The outcome was not really sufficient to help the students learn about the
expression of invitation because the expression is better presented in the form of sentences and the words chosen have little relationship with the intended
expression. Moreover, the respondent involved speaking and listening, but the
students were not given the chance to, at least, pronounce the words. The procedure involved writing skill which was not the intended skill content. The
writer could say that the intended outcome of the first assessment procedure had
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
60 low content validity since it could not represent the intended outcomes of
speaking and listening skills. The second procedure was filling the blank parts of a dialogue. In this
procedure, the students were given the chance to listen a tape of conversation which involved the expression of invitation. It was called listening cloze task
which require the test-taker to listen to a dialogue and simultaneously read the written text in which selected words or phrases have been deleted Brown, 2004,
p. 126. The task involved the macroskill of listening in which the students develop and use a battery of listening strategies, such as detecting key words,
guessing the meaning of words from context. As elaborated in the previous part, the listening cloze task needed to be
specified which parts of the sentence blanked in order to help the students learn about the expression of invitation. From the missing part of the dialogue, the
writer found that the missing parts were not specified whether they were the subject, object, or adverb in the sentences. The missing parts were random; they
were noun, adjective, or adverb. Unfortunately, the missing part did not really help the students to learn about the expression of invitation. It would be better if
the second respondent made the missing part in a sentence level not in word level since the expression of invitation was usually in sentence level.
The second procedure resulted that the students were able to complete the dialogue with some words which, intentionally, were related to the expression of
invitation. Nevertheless, the words were not clearly related to the expression of invitation. Actually, the dialogue was a really good example of the expression of
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
61 invitation in which there were some examples of the expression of invitation and
its responses for a daily life context. Yet, the second respondent did not use this dialogue optimally. She could ask the students to pay attention on the expression
of invitation by mentioning the example of the sentences which consisted of the expression of invitation or by underlining the sentences which were the expression
of invitation. The second respondent only evaluated the students’ answers and gave the correct answers. If the dialogue was used optimally, the intended
outcomes, which the students were able to understand and respond the expression of invitation, could be achieved. It was good that the second respondent asked her
students to practice the dialogue with their friends. The process helped the students to be familiar with the expression of invitation. Finally, the writer
concluded that the assessment content from the second procedure had high content validity seen from the objectives formulation but they had low content validity
seen from the main instructional content. The next example of low content validity assessment was the first
assessments of the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent taught the ten grade of Senior High School students. The materials were recount text and the expression
of invitation. The skill which wanted to be taught was listening skill. The writer stated that the fifth respondent wanted her students to be able to respond and
understand the simple monologue in the form of recount text and the expression of invitation. The fifth respondent taught two materials in a meeting. Actually, the
fifth respondent did not taught about those material, but she conduct evaluation for the materials. She discussed only about the expression of invitation and she
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
62 continued the instruction with listening test in which the dialogue of the
expression of invitation and a recount text were involved. The fifth respondent stated two objectives, namely first, the students are
supposed to be able to answer the questions based on what they have heard from the Podcast, and second, the students are able to write down the words they heard
in correct spelling. Those objectives were simple, measurable, action-oriented, and reasonable but they were lack in time specification and were not clear derived
from the instructional content. As intended for an evaluation, the students were supposed to be able to answer the questions and write down their answers in
correct spelling. Nevertheless, if the instruction was intended to help the students learn about the expression of invitation and recount text, the objectives were not
appropriately specified the intended outcomes. The objectives only stated the activities the students would be involved during the assessment process.
The fifth respondent started her assessment by giving three initial questions to be discussed by the students before they listened to the recording or
podcast. Those initial questions were intended to prepare the students to learn about the expression of invitation through listening. The questions asked the
students about their experience in inviting their friends to their birthday party. The students were given the chance to share their experience about an occupation in
which they invited someone or some people. Those questions served as an introduction for the students to learn more about the expression of invitation.
The next part was completing or filling the blank parts from a given dialogue by listening the dialogue recording, in this case the respondent took the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
63 podcast. The dialogue gave very good examples of the expression of invitation.
The expression of invitation was involved clearly in the dialogue so that the students could learn and identify which sentences were the expressions of
invitation. Nevertheless, the procedure only asked the students to complete the blank parts from the sentences. The part of the sentences which were blanked
were random or they were not specified, whether they were the noun, verb, or adverb of the sentences. The respondent made fifteen blank parts from the
dialogue to be completed by the students. In case of listening, the procedure was fair, it required the students to listen carefully to the dialogue and fill in the blank
parts in correct spelling but in case of learning about the expression of invitation, the procedure did not serve the objective appropriately.
The next procedure was giving the students five comprehensive questions related to the dialogue they heard. As stated in the assessment instruction, the
students should answer the questions while they were hearing and completing the dialogue. It was better for the students if they answered the questions right after
they finished completing the dialogue, although the questions could be answered without completing the dialogue first. The questions were about finding specific
information from the dialogue. Those assessment procedures above were well applied for the listening
practice, yet they did not serve well for the learning of the expression of invitation. The assessment should not finish that way. The respondent should give
more activities to help the students learn about the expression of invitation through listening. The students could be asked to identify and mention in which
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
64 sentence the expression of invitation existed or which sentence showed the
expression of invitation. The students would learn not only to listen to a dialogue and find the information from the dialogue, but also to identify the expression of
invitation and its responses through the listening passage given. The writer could conclude that the intended result of the assessment had high validity for listening
skill but it had low content validity for learning the expression of invitation. Afterwards, the students should listen to a monologue about the man who
told about his experience in taking a road trip with his family. The procedure was about filling in the blank parts, too. Again, the blank parts were random and in the
word level. After the students finished listening and completing the monologue, the students should decide whether the statements given were true or false based
on the monologue. 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 assessment had low validity for the main instructional content which were the learning of the expression of invitation and recount text.
B. The Problems in Producing Content Valid Assessments
After analyzing the documents, the writer could state some problems which influenced the degree of content validity of the respondents’ assessments.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
