e. The students correct and give feedback other groups’ work in groups.
f. The students revise their work based on the feedback given by other
groups. g.
Applying three minute review in which she gives a short time for the group members to review what has been said, ask clarifying questions or
answer some questions during the discussion.
MEETING 3 2x45 minutes D.
Independent Construction of the Text
a. The students develop and make a draft of narrative story “a greedy dog”
b. The students write the narrative text individually.
c. The students exchange their narrative text to the other students.
d. The students do praise-question-polish on other students’ writing
e. The students revise and rewrite their work based on the feedback they get.
3. Post-Activites
Closing a.
The students and the researcher make a summary of the teaching and learning process together.
b. The students and the researcher make a reflection towards the teaching
and learning process together. c.
The researcher gives feedback towards the process and the result of the teaching and learning process.
d. The researcher leads the prayer and says goodbye.
H. ASSESSMENT
a. BKOF MOT
Task 1 – Task 5 Student’s score x 100 = Score
Max. score
b. JCOT ICOT Writing Scoring Rubric by Jacob et al. 1981 in
Weigle 2002 Task 6 –Task 7
Aspect of Writing The range
of the score
Level
CONTENT 30-27
Excellent to Very good: knowledgeable – substantive – thorough
development of thesis – relevant to assigned topic
26-22 Good to Average :
some knowledge of subject – adequate range – limited development of thesis – mostly
relevant to topic, but lacks of detail
21-17 Fair to Poor :
Limited knowledge of subject – little substance – inadequate development of topic
16-13 Very poor :
does not show knowledge of subject – non- substantive – not pertinent – not enough to
evaluate
ORGANIZATION 20-18
Excellent to Very good: Fluent expression – idea clearly
statedsupported – well-organized – logical sequencing – cohesive
17-14 Good to Average :
Somewhat choppy – loosely organized but main ideas stand out – limited support –
logical but incomplete sequencing
13-10 Fair to Poor :
Non-fluent – ideas confused or disconnected – lacks logical sequencing and development
9-7 Very poor :
Does not communicate – no organization – not enough to evaluate
VOCABULARY 20-18
Excellent to Very good : Sophisticated range – effective wordidiom
choice and usage – word form mastery – appropriate register
17-14 Good to Average :
Adequate range – occasional errors of wordidiom form, choice, usage, but meaning
not obsecured
13- 10 Fair to Poor :
Limited range – frequent errors of wordidiom form, choice, usage meaning confused or
obsecured
9-7 Very poor :
Essentially translation –little knowledge of English vocabulary, idioms, word form – not
enough to evaluate
LANGUAGE USE 25 -22
Excellent to Very good: Effective complex construction – few errors
of agreement, tense, number, word orderfunction, articles, pronouns,
prepositions.
21 – 18 Good to Average :
Effective but simple construction – minor problems in complex constructions – several
errors of agreement, tense, number, word
orderfunction, articles, pronouns, prepositions, but meaning seldom obscured
17 -11 Fair to Poor:
Major problems in simplecomplex, constructions – frequent errors of negation,
agreement, tense, number, word orderfunction, articles, pronouns,
prepositions andor fragments, run-ons, deletions – meaning confused or obscured.
10 -5 Very good:
Virtually no mastery of sentence construction rule – dominated by errors – does not
communicate – not enough to evaluate
MECHANICS 5
Excellent to Very good: Demonstrated mastery of conventions – few
errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing
4 Good to Average :
Occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing, but meaning not
obscured
3 Fair to Poor :
Frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing, poor handwriting
but meaning not obscured
2 Very poor:
No mastery of conventions – dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization,
paragraphing – handwriting illegible – not enough to evaluate
I. LEARNING SOURCES AND MEDIA
1. Board markers
2. Pictures
3. Priyana, Joko. 2008. Interlanguage: English for Senior High School
Students XI Science and Social Study Program. Jakarta: BSE. 4.
Students’ worksheet 5.
shortshories.net
6. Weigle, S. C. 2002. Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge
University.
