65 The main problem as the sources of invalidity was that the assessment could not
clearly represent the intended result or outcomes of the instructional content. Furthermore, the writer found some other problems which influenced the degree
of content validity from the assessment prepared by the respondents. After stating the problems, the writer stated some suggestions to overcome the problems.
1. Problems Influencing the Content Validity Degree of the Assessment
After analyzing the respondents’ documents, the writer could draw some problems which influence the content validity degree of the respondents’
assessments. The first problem was that the objective formulation was ambiguous and not clear. An aspect which became the source of ambiguity and unclearness
was that the respondents actually did not state the learning outcomes in their objective formulations but they only stated the learning activities. Objective
defines the destination or the outcomes the students should achieve after the instruction. Stating clear objectives meant that the teachers stated the outcomes or
the destination of the instruction. The clear and unambiguous objective formulations would help the teachers and the students know what they will obtain
after the instruction. The teachers could prepare some procedures to help their students achieve the intended skills or knowledge while the students could know
what to do in order to achieve the outcomes intended from the instruction. Therefore, if the formulation of the objective was not clear and ambiguous, the
teachers and the students would be confused. The outcomes would be unclear, too. Furthermore, the assessments prepared which were based on the unclear and
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
66 ambiguous objectives would assess the different outcomes from what were stated
in the instructional content. It could influence the degree of content validity of the assessment.
There were too many objectives in a meeting. Objective was made to specify the content of the instruction but stating too many objectives in a meeting
was not a sound decision. Too many objectives could make the instruction and the people involved, the teachers and the students, to be out of the focus. Stating too
many objectives required that the teachers should also prepare the same amount or more assessments’ tasks or procedures. The availability of the time constraint
should be in consideration also. Although there was not specific number of objectives for an instructional content, the teachers as the conductor of the
instructional process could manage the sufficient objectives as the statement of the outcomes of the instruction. Stating sufficient objectives for an instructional
content in a meeting would help the teachers and the students achieve and focus on the outcomes of the instruction. The assessment would be more useful and
meaningful in case of measuring the students’ intended knowledge mastery and the skill performance as the teachers were given sufficient time to measure the
students’ achievements. The problem above could be one of the reasons that the assessment did
not measure all objectives. The writer found from the documents that there were some objectives which were not assessed directly by one or any assessment tasks
or procedures. Since the assessment was purposed to measure that the students achieved the objectives stated, the assessment was supposed to assess all
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
67 objectives. When the objectives were not given the assessment to measure the
students’ achievement toward the objectives, the teachers could not know or obtain the information about the students’ progress and achievement.
The next problem was that the assessment tasks or procedures did not represent the content skills. Besides assessing the students’ knowledge or mastery,
the assessments were supposed to be able to represent the intended performance from the students in the form of skills, namely listening, writing, speaking, and
reading. The respondents stated in their lesson plan that they also involved the skills in their instructions. The writer found that the assessment tasks or
procedures prepared by some respondents did not represent the intended skills outcomes. For example, the respondents wanted to teach writing skill for a
recount text production. Nevertheless, in their assessments, the tasks or the procedures were intended to assess the reading skill.
The writer also found that the intended result of the assessment had little correlation with the instructional content. There were some assessment procedures
prepared by the respondents which were used out of the context of the instructional content. The assessment procedures were purposed to measure the
intended outcomes of the instructional content yet they had very little contribution with the content. For example, the respondent wanted to teach about the
expression of invitation and the respondent used crossword as the assessment procedure. The students should complete the crossword with the words which
were related to the expression of invitation. Nevertheless, the words which were related to the expression of invitation were not specific and somehow general. The
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
68 task or the procedure then did not have clear and strong relation to measure about
the students’ intended performance in mastering the content validity of the expression of invitation.
2. Possible Recommendations to Overcome the Problems
