MATERIAL OF TEACHING Write a complete descriptive text by based on the picture below.

F. SOURCE OF MATERIALS

1. Kumalarini, Th., Munir, A., Setiawan S.,Agustiien, H. and Yusak, M. 2008. Bahasa Inggris: Sekolah Menengah Pertama Edisi 4. Jakarta: Pusat Perbukuan, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. 2. Priyana, J., Riandi, and Mumpuni, A. P. 2008. Scaffolding: English for Junior High School Students. Jakarta: Pusat Perbukuan, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. 3. Reid, J. M. 1993. Teaching ESL Writing. United States of America: Prentice Hall Regents

G. MEDIA

Cue Cards

H. EVALUATION

. Technique : Written 2. Form : Essay No . Indicator Technique Instrument Example 1. Writing a descriptive text individually Written Cue Card Write a complete descriptive text by based on the picture below. 2. Filling a table about information of a person Written Table Complete the table below based on the picture given. 3. Writing a descriptive text Written Table Write a descriptive text based on the information in the table. 4. Filling a table about information of a person Written Table Observe one of your friends and then complete the table below. 5. Interviewing a friend to complete a table Written Table If you have filled the table, interview that one friend to fill another table below. 6. Writing a descriptive text Written Table Write a good descriptive text based on the information from the table above.. Rubric for Writing Assessment Score Level Criteria C O N T E N T 30-27 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: knowledgeable ● substantive development of thesis ● relevant to assigned topic 26-22 GOOD TO AVERAGE: sure knowledge of subject ● adequate range ● limited development of thesis ● mostly relevant to topic but still lacks 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 ● OR not enough to evaluate O R G A N I Z A T I O N 20-18 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: fluent expression ● ideas clearly statedsupported ● succinct ● 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 original sequencing and development 9-7 VERY POOR: does not communicate ● no organization ● OR not enough to evaluate V O C A B U L A R Y 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 o wordidiom choice and usage ● word form mastery ● appropriate register 13-10 FAIR TO POOR: limited range ● frequent errors of workidiom form, choice, usage ● meaning confused or obscured 9-7 VERY POOR: essentially translation ● little knowledge of English vocabulary, idioms, word fo rm ● OR not enough to evaluate L A N G U A G E 25-22 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: effective, complex constructions ● few errors of agreement, tense, number, word orderfunction, articles, pronouns, prepositions 21-18 GOOD TO AVERAGE: effective but simple constructions ● 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 agreement, tense, number, word orderfunction, articles, pronouns, prepositions andor fragments, run- ons, deletions ● meaning confused or obscured 10-5 VERY POOR: virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules ● dominated by errors ● does not communicate ● OR not enough to evaluate M E C H A N I C 5 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: demonstrates 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 ● meaning S confused or obscured 2 VERY POO R: no mastery of conventions ● dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing ● handwriting illegible ● OR not enough to evaluate Maximum score of part A is 100 Maximum score of part B is 100 Maximum score of part C is 100 Total score is 300 Student’s maximum score is 300 Yogyakarta, February 15 th 2014 Acknowledged by: Teacher, Miftah Iskandar, S. Pd. NIP - Researcher, Galih Ambarini NIM 10202241043