DEVELOPING ENGLISH SUMMATIVE TEST BASED ON REVISED BLOOM’S TAXONOMY.
DEVELOPING ENGLISH SUMMATIVE TEST BASED ON
REVISED BLOOM’S TAXONOMY
A THESIS
Submitted to English Education Program in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
By:
THERESIA MANALU
REG NUMBER: 2123121054
ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2016
ABSTRACT
Manalu, Theresia. Registration Number: 2123121054. Developing English
Summative Test based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. A Thesis. English
Educational Program, State University of Medan, 2016.
This was a research and development (R&D) study which aimed to evaluate the
English summative test items based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy for grade VIII.
This study focused on the developing the English summative test items according
to the cognitive level of revised Bloom’s taxonomy for grade VIII at SMP Negeri
3 Tebing Tinggi. The data consist of the existing English summative test items
which were directly collected from the English teacher due to analyze the
proportion of cognitive level according to revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Based on
the data analysis, the existing English summative test had not fulfilled the
proportion of cognitive level according to revised Bloom’s taxonomy regulated by
the Ministry of Education and Culture. The inappropriate English summative test
items were then developed according to the proportion demand and suitability to
the syllabus and indicators. The results of the study are 30 developed English
summative test items which had been validated by the experts and tested to 20
students due to get the reliability scores.
Keywords: English summative test, revised Bloom’s taxonomy, R&D research
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researcher would like to express her deepest gratitude to Jesus
Christ, the Almighty and Most Beneficial for His Grace, Guidance, Praise, Honor,
and Mercy that has been given to the researcher so that she finally accomplished
her Thesis.
During the process of accomplishing this Thesis, she would like to express
her deepest gratitude and appreciation to:
Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd.,as the Rector of State University of
Medan.
Arts.
Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., as the Dean of Faculty of Languages and
Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., as the Head of English and Literature
Department, Dra. Meisuri, M. A., the Secretary of English and Literature
Department and Nora Ronita Dewi, S. Pd., S. S., M. Hum., as the Head
of English Education Study Program Faculty of Languages and Arts, State
University of Medan.
Dr. Siti Aisah Ginting, M.Pd., and Indra Hartoyo, S.Pd., M.Hum, her
Thesis Advisors, for the valuable time, knowledge, and guidance with all
their patience and wisdom during the process of accomplishing this
Thesis.
Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M. Hum., and Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning,
S.Pd., M.Hum, her Thesis Reviewers, for the valuable input to furnish
this Thesis.
guidance and suggestion in completing the product of this Thesis.
Prof. Amrin Saragih, M. A., Ph. D., her validator for the valuable
Sabar Manalu and Linda Pasaribu, her beloved parents, Fernandes
Manalu and David Manalu, her older brothers for the endless love,
prayer as well as moral and material support in her whole life.
Verawaty Manalu, her one and only sister for her countless motivation,
love, pray, help, advice, and support in finishing her Thesis and study
through her ups and downs of life.
ii
Bambang Sarianto, S.Pd, the English teacher at SMP Negeri 3 Tebing
Tinggi for giving her a great help during the research process.
of English Department.
Eis Sri Wahyuningsih, M.Pd., and Pak Pantes, the administration staffs
Andika, Anggita, Nurul, Sylvia, and Yeslika, her awesome crayons and
Irma, Naya, Dara, Geby, Rika, and Zhana, her one-step-closer mates
fo0976r the crazy laugh, advice and motivation, Muhammad Arif and
Nanda Aulia Putri, her Thesis partner for the cry, opinion, and idea.
her college senior for the adorable advices and supports.
Fitri Agnes, S.Pd., Rawiyah Damanik, S.Pd., Santika Silalahi, S.Pd,
Tiwarni Febriani Pakpahan and Lusi Rina Sianturi, her beloved old
friends for the smile and motivations, Debby, Melda, and Nirma, her
fantastic roommates for the craziness, support, and togetherness.
Bebeb, Maksel, Bang Momon, and Bang Boy, her crazy friends for the
lovely advice, smile, effort and love, Berman, Citra, Frikson, and
Bertha, her partners in small group (Reconquista) for their togetherness in
Unit Kegiatan Mahasiswa Kristen Protestan (UKMKP).
Regular C 2012, for the togetherness and sad-happy days they have spent
in her four-years of study.
The writer realizes that her Thesis is still far from being perfect, therefore
she warmly welcomes any constructive suggestions that will improve the
quality of this Thesis. She hopes that this Thesis would be beneficial for
further research, particularly in the field of English language teaching.
Medan, September 2016
The writer,
Theresia Manalu
Reg. Number: 2123121054
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
DECLARATION ...............................................................................................
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................ ii
TABLE OF CONTENT .................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................... viii
LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................. ix
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1
A. The Background of the Study ................................................................ 1
B. The Problems of the Study ..................................................................... 5
C. The Objectives of the Study ................................................................... 5
D. The Scope of the Study .......................................................................... 6
E. The Significances of the Study .............................................................. 6
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................ 8
A. Theoretical Framework .......................................................................... 8
1. Tests .................................................................................................. 8
a. Definition of Test ........................................................................ 8
b. Achievement Test........................................................................ 9
c. Formative and Summative Test .................................................. 10
d. The Functions of Test.................................................................. 12
e. The Purpose of Testing ............................................................... 13
f. Designing Classroom Language Tests ........................................ 13
g. Test Construction ........................................................................ 15
h. The Criteria of a Good Test ........................................................ 16
2. Bloom’s Taxonomy........................................................................... 18
a. Original Bloom’s Taxonomy ...................................................... 20
b. Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy ....................................................... 21
c. Why Use Bloom’s Taxonomy..................................................... 24
3. Learning Indicators ........................................................................... 26
a. Definition of Learning Indicators .............................................. 26
b. The Functions of Indicator ......................................................... 27
B. Relevant Studies ...................................................................................... 28
C. Conceptual Framework ........................................................................... 31
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ......................................... 33
A. Research Design ..................................................................................... 33
B. The Data and the Source of Data ............................................................ 33
C. The Instrument of Data Collection.......................................................... 34
D. The Test Development ............................................................................ 35
iv
CHAPTER IV. DATA, DATA ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION ............... 38
A. Data ......................................................................................................... 40
B. Data Analysis .......................................................................................... 40
C. The Development of the Test (Draft) ...................................................... 42
1) Step 1─ Defining the Construct to be Measured .............................. 42
a. The English Summative Test, Syllabus, and Lesson Plan ......... 42
2) Step 2 ─ Defining Target Population ................................................ 46
3) Step 3 ─ Reviewing Related Theories .............................................. 46
4) Step 4 ─ Developing Prototype of English Summative Test Items .. 48
b. Adjusting to the Proportion of Cognitive Level ......................... 48
c. Adjusting to the Learning Instructions ....................................... 49
5) Step 5 ─ Evaluating the Prototype .................................................... 57
6) Step 6 ─ Revising the Test ................................................................ 58
7) Step 7 ─ Collecting Data on Validity and Reliability ....................... 60
1. Validity ......................................................................................... 60
a. The Scores of Validation Given by the Experts .................... 60
b. Result ..................................................................................... 60
2. Reliability ..................................................................................... 61
a. By Using Test-Retest Method ..................................................... 61
D. Students’ Response (Second Revision)................................................... 62
E. Discussion ............................................................................................... 63
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS............................... 68
A. Conclusions ............................................................................................ 68
B. Suggestions ............................................................................................. 69
REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 70
APPENDIX ........................................................................................................ 73
v
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 1.1 The Analysis of Level of Difficulty English Test Items ..................... 3
Table 2.1 The Characteristics of Two Types of Achievement Tests .................. 12
Table 2.2 The Six Characteristics of the Cognitive Process Dimension ........... 23
Table 2.3 The Verbs Listed Linked with each Level of Thinking ..................... 25
Table 3.1 The Proportion of Level of Cognitive based on Revised Bloom’s ..... 36
Table 3.2 Parameters of Test Reliability ............................................................. 39
Table 4.1. Percentage of Cognitive Level based on Revised Bloom’s ............... 41
Table 4.2. Basic Competences of Grade VIII ..................................................... 43
Table 4.3.Learning Indicators of Grade VIII at SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi .. 45
Table 4.4.Items Proportion to Cognitive Level of Revised Bloom’s.................. 48
Table 4.5 Indicators and New English Summative Test Items ........................... 49
Table 4.6 Table of Specification ......................................................................... 57
Table 4.7 Validation Scores from the First Validator ......................................... 61
Table 4.8 Validation Scores from the Second Validator..................................... 61
Table 4.9 Comparison of the English Summative Test....................................... 64
Table 4.10 Comparison of the English Summative Test based on Revised ....... 67
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Pages
Figure 2.1 Four Stages of Test Construction ...................................................... 15
Figure 2.2 Old Version of Cognitive Domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy ............... 21
Figure 2.3 Revised Version of Cognitive Domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy ....... 22
Figure 3.1 The Procedures of Test Development................................................ 35
vii
LIST OF APPENDIX
Pages
Appendix A ......................................................................................................... 73
Appendix B ......................................................................................................... 74
Appendix C ........................................................................................................ 94
Appendix D ......................................................................................................... 137
Appendix E ......................................................................................................... 145
Appendix F .......................................................................................................... 147
viii
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of the Study
The information about students’ achievement is very important in teaching
and learning process. There are many tools for measuring students’ achievement.
One of those is a test. As stated by Hughes (2013:13) a test is intended to measure
students’ achievement and the degree of success of the teaching and learning
program. In addition, Douglas (2004:3) says that a test, in simple terms, is a
method of measuring a person’s ability, knowledge, or performance in a given
domain. Test is first a method. It is an instrument, a set of techniques, procedures,
or items that requires performance on the part of the test-taker. Second, a test must
measure. If an instrument does not specify a form of reporting measurement then
the technique cannot appropriately be defined as a test. Next, a test measures an
individual’s ability, knowledge, or performance. Finally, a test measures a given
domain. By knowing the achievement of the students, teachers can measure how
many the assigned materials are mastered, how well students learn the materials,
and the most important is how well students reach the stated goals or indicators
and objectives.
After collecting the information about students’ achievement whether it is
improved or not, teachers can evaluate the techniques and mediums in teaching,
and can develop the appropriate materials and assessments in teaching.
Adnyayanti et. al. (2013:7) state that making a well prepared syllabus and lesson
1
2
plans is not enough because it does not automatically create a high students’
achievement. Therefore, conducting evaluation to every topic discussed in the
classroom is one of the most important things of teachers’ tasks. This is in line
with the Government Regulation number 5 in 2015 quoted from Nurfiqah
(2015:2) the percentage of assessment given to the teacher is 70% and to the
government is 30%. That is why teachers are demanded to be able to design a
good quality test item. Moreover, Indonesian government applied the proportion
for each level of education based on Bloom’s Taxonomy is surely different based
on the guidance for assessment which is regulated by the Ministry of Education
and Culture. For Junior High School itself the proportion is remembering understanding 20%, applying-analyzing 55%, evaluating 15%, and creating 10%.
Considering the expectations described above, there are still English test
items which do not fulfill the Government Regulation. Nurfiqah, et.al found in
SMAN 5 Pontianak that from 50 multiple choice of English summative test items
for the first semester of Grade XI there are 4 test items which needed revisions.
Based on the data shows that there are 46 items of the test which match to the
indicators, and there are 4 items of the test which do not match to the indicators
are should be revised. Those items is not suitable to the indicator because the
indicator is about changing the sentences based on the tenses while the teacher
made is about choosing a correct sentence. The indicator asks students to find the
change of sentence verb which appropriate to the sentence. In that item, teacher
asked directly to the students to correct the sentence but the teacher did not put the
sentence that will be changed. That is why this item should be revised.
3
Another research finding found by Harjali at SMK PGRI 2 Ponorogo
concluded that from 4 bundles of English summative tests, 20%, 15%, 33%, and
40% are rejected. Then 40%, 15%, 37%, and 35% are revised. It proves that even
questions made by collaboration of some teachers nowadays cannot be
guaranteed. There are still many questions which have been given do not fulfill
the criteria of a good test (2012:7). Moreover, he analyzed the midterm test of
SMK PGRI 2 Ponorogo in order to see whether the items were already good or
not by analyzing the level of difficulty, validity, and reliability. The result of the
analysis can be seen from this table below.
Table 1.1
The Analysis of Level of Difficulty English Test Items Made by Teacher
Class
Total of the test Items
Total
Level of Difficulty
Conclusion
Difficult Average Easy Rejected Revised Accepted
9
21
6
12
12
30
XI a
5
30
10
7
7
31
45
XI b
4
18
8
10
11
9
30
XII a
12
21
12
18
16
11
45
XII b
Harjali (2012)
Considering the research finding above, he said that the instrument of
assessment for standard competency has been attached in lesson plan. But there
are still many items which are not suitable to the indicators. This data is taken
from the lesson plan made by the English teacher.
Moreover, based on the preliminary data at SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi
on Thursday, 10th March 2016, it can be seen the spread of 29 (1 is error) multiple
choice English questions for midterm test. From the observation which has been
done, it shows that the English questions in mid-term examination which would
be administered on March 28th, 2016 are mostly in remembering level. The
4
percentage is 76%, consist of 22 questions from 29 and almost the whole test is in
this level. For the understanding and applying, the percentage is only 10% and
14%, consist of only 3 and 4 questions. Meanwhile, the three less level, analyzing,
evaluating, and creating are nothing. It can be concluded that this test is totally not
appropriate to be tested because it is disposed to the one level. It can be taken one
example of the items at the following explanation.
Last holiday I went to Paris. I visited museums and sat in public
gardens. A friendly waiter taught me a few words of
French………………………..
What was the first place the writer visited?
a. Museum
b. Public garden
c. His room
d. Post office
It is actually is not suitable to the topic and indicators. The topic is about
Oral and written text which states and asks last action/ incident. The indicators are
the students will be able to arrange random words to be cohesive sentence
(sentence building) and the students will be able to write short and simple
sentences based on context. The question above totally does not match to the
indicator. Moreover, the question is only in remembering level. The question can
be revised into evaluating level at the following example.
Choose the correct answer from this random sentence.
Holiday- to- I- Paris- museums- visited- went- last- andThe answer is…
a. Last Holiday I went to Paris and visited museums
b. Last holiday went to museums and visited Paris
c. Holiday I went to Paris and last visited museums
d. Last I went to Paris and Holiday visited museums
5
From all of the errors of analyzed and explained above, the objectives of
teaching and learning process do not achieved so the achievement of students
cannot be measured accurately because those tests do not measure what should be
measured based on the indicators which have been arranged.
Considering the facts above, it is needed to develop a good test based on
the proportion of revised Bloom’s taxonomy in order to get the accurate
information and to develop the students’ competency.
B. The Problems of the Study
Based on the background of the study described above, the research
problems were formulated as follows:
1. How are the existing English summative test items for grade VIII students
at SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi arranged by the English teacher?
2. What are the appropriate English summative test items for grade VIII
students at SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi based on the proportion of
cognitive level of revised Bloom’s taxonomy regulated by the Ministry of
Education and Culture?
C. The Objectives of the Study
Based on the formation of the research problems, the objectives of the
study were:
1. To analyze the English Summative test of Grade VIII students at SMP
Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
6
3. To develop the English summative test of Grade VIII students at SMP
Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi based on the proportion of cognitive level of
revised Bloom’s taxonomy regulated by the Ministry of Education and
Culture
D. The Scope of the Study
In order to give the best result, this research focused on developing
English summative test arranged by English teacher based on Revised Bloom’s
Taxonomy. There are two types of achievement test; formative test and
summative test. Formative test is a test which is administered by the teacher
during the learning process while summative test is a test which is administered at
the end of the course covered more than one chapter or unit of materials.
The scope of this study is grade VIII English summative test arranged by
the English teacher of SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi.
E. The Significances of the Study
The significances of the study are classified into two – theoretically and
practically. Theoretically is expected to add a new horizon towards the test
development theories regarding to the learning objectives or indicators. Also, it is
expected that the users of the theories realize the importance of understanding and
applying the theories appropriately to design appropriate English summative test.
Meanwhile, the practical significances of the study are as follows:
7
1. The English teachers can arrange a good test in order to evaluate the
students’ English acquisition based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.
2. Other researchers who are interested to conduct further research
regarding to the test development
68
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusion
After analyzing the data, the conclusion drawn is that the teacher’s English
summative test has not fulfilled the proportion of cognitive level of Bloom’s
taxonomy regulated by the Ministry of Education and Culture. Then, the 30
multiple choice English summative test items which were inappropriate were then
developed into 30 recommended multiple choice English summative test items
based on the theory of revised Bloom’s taxonomy, the learning indicators, and
also the criteria of a good test which had been fulfilled the proportion of revised
Bloom’s taxonomy regulated by the government in order to get the accurate
information of the students’ competence. The recommended English summative
test items or the product were then validated by two experts, Prof. Amrin Saragih,
M.A., Ph.D as the lecturer and Bambang Sarianto, S.Pd as the English teacher at
SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi. After validating the product, the field testing held
in order to take the reliability of the recommended English summative test items.
It was concluded that the 30 recommended English summative test items as valid
and reliable test items with no significant revisions.
68
69
B. Suggestions
In relation to the conclusions, some suggestions are presented as follows.
1. For the English teachers
The English teachers should pay attention to the government demand in
arranging the English summative test items for students in order to get the
accurate information of the students. The English summative test applied
at the end of semester as the evaluation test of the students whether they
have mastered all the competencies demand. That is why, the appropriate
English summative test is important to be arranged by the teacher so that
the students’ competence can be evaluated accurately.
2.
For other researchers
Hopefully, this research could inspire other researchers who wanted to
conduct a further research related to the test development as the
references.
70
REFERENCES
Adibah. 2012. An Analysis of Questions Used by An English Teacher in
Classroom ( A Case Study at the 10th Grade of SMA AL-Yasini Pasuruan
2011/2012). Journal of Airlangga University. 1(1)
Adnyayanti, Era et.al. 2013. Analysis of Authenticity of Teachers’ Made
Assessment and Its Contribution to the Students’ English Achievement (A
Study in Junior High School in Buleleng Regency). Journal Article .
Singaraja: Pasca Sarjana Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha
Anderson & Krathwohl. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and
Assessing: A Revisio of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
Bloom, Benjamin, et.al. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational
Classification of Educational Goals. Boston: Longman
Objectives:
Borg & Gall. 1983. Educational Research: An Introduction. Boston: Pearson
Education
Brown, Douglas. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroo Practices.
Longman:America
BSNP. 2010. Panduan Pengembangan Indikator
Dick, Walter., Carey, Lou., and Carey, James. O. 2005. The Systematic Design of
Instruction Sixth Edition. Boston: Pearson
Direktorat Pembinaan Sekolah Menengah Pertama. 2014. Panduan Penilaian
Pencapaian Kompetensipeserta Didik Sekolah Menengah Pertama
Emilia, Emi & Safrina, Raden. 2014. When English Rings a Bell. Jakarta:
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan
Forehand, Mary. 2005. Bloom’s Taxonomy: Original and Revised. Georgia:
Unversity of Georgia
Gronlund, Norman E. Constructing Achievement Test. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
70
71
Harjali. 2012. Evaluasi Pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris pada Sekolah Menengah
Kejuruan. International Journal. e-ISSN: 2442-9651,p-ISSN: 1411-3031
12(2)
Heaton, J B. 1975. Writing English Tets. London: Longman
Hughes, Arthur. 2003. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Huitt, W. 2011. Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational
Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University
Kaboody, Mastoor.,Stevens, Rachel. 2015. Developing a Formative Grammar
Test for Intensive English Program Students. Arizona: Northen Arizona
University
Kluitman, Sebastian. 2008. Testing English as a Foreign Language. Germany
Kopriva, Rebecca J. 2008. Improving Testing English Language Learners. UK :
Routledge
Krathwohl, David R. 2002. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview.
Journal Article. College of Education, The Ohio State University. 41(4)
Liao, Yen-Fen. Issues of Validity and Reliability in Second Language
Performance Assessment. Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL
Applied Linguistics. 4(2)
Manferius, Andy et.al. 2015. Item Analysis on English Summative Test at the
Eighth Grade Junior High Schools in Pontianak. Journal Article. Tanjung
Pura University. 4(2)
Mager, Robert. 1977. Writing Goals and Objectives. USA: Northen Illinois
University
Nurfiqah, et.al. 2015. The Analysis on the Items of the English Test Made by the
Teacher. Journal Article. Tanjung Pura University
Orey, Michael. 2010. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and
Technology. Zurich: Jacobs Foundation
72
Rahmawaty, Khoirina Izathy et.al. 2012. An Analysis of Reading Questions
English Textbook Entitled “Interlanguage: English for Senior High School
Students XI” based on RBT. Journal Article. State University of Malang
Rudner, Lawrence., ND Scafer, William D. 2002. What Teachers Need to Know
about Assessment. United States: National Education Association
Weir, Cyril J. 1990. Communicative Language Testing. UK: Prentice Hall
Weir, Cyril J. 2005. Language Testing and Validation- An Evidence-Based
Approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
E4
Wu, Jessica & Hui-Yun Lo. 2011. The YLE Tests and Teaching in the Taiwanese
Context. University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations. 46(2)
Internet Sources
http://brainley.co.id/tugas/2081121/June 13th 2016/05:50 AM
Http://catersigns.co.uk/ June 13th 2016/06:00 AM
REVISED BLOOM’S TAXONOMY
A THESIS
Submitted to English Education Program in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
By:
THERESIA MANALU
REG NUMBER: 2123121054
ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2016
ABSTRACT
Manalu, Theresia. Registration Number: 2123121054. Developing English
Summative Test based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. A Thesis. English
Educational Program, State University of Medan, 2016.
This was a research and development (R&D) study which aimed to evaluate the
English summative test items based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy for grade VIII.
This study focused on the developing the English summative test items according
to the cognitive level of revised Bloom’s taxonomy for grade VIII at SMP Negeri
3 Tebing Tinggi. The data consist of the existing English summative test items
which were directly collected from the English teacher due to analyze the
proportion of cognitive level according to revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Based on
the data analysis, the existing English summative test had not fulfilled the
proportion of cognitive level according to revised Bloom’s taxonomy regulated by
the Ministry of Education and Culture. The inappropriate English summative test
items were then developed according to the proportion demand and suitability to
the syllabus and indicators. The results of the study are 30 developed English
summative test items which had been validated by the experts and tested to 20
students due to get the reliability scores.
Keywords: English summative test, revised Bloom’s taxonomy, R&D research
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researcher would like to express her deepest gratitude to Jesus
Christ, the Almighty and Most Beneficial for His Grace, Guidance, Praise, Honor,
and Mercy that has been given to the researcher so that she finally accomplished
her Thesis.
During the process of accomplishing this Thesis, she would like to express
her deepest gratitude and appreciation to:
Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd.,as the Rector of State University of
Medan.
Arts.
Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., as the Dean of Faculty of Languages and
Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., as the Head of English and Literature
Department, Dra. Meisuri, M. A., the Secretary of English and Literature
Department and Nora Ronita Dewi, S. Pd., S. S., M. Hum., as the Head
of English Education Study Program Faculty of Languages and Arts, State
University of Medan.
Dr. Siti Aisah Ginting, M.Pd., and Indra Hartoyo, S.Pd., M.Hum, her
Thesis Advisors, for the valuable time, knowledge, and guidance with all
their patience and wisdom during the process of accomplishing this
Thesis.
Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M. Hum., and Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning,
S.Pd., M.Hum, her Thesis Reviewers, for the valuable input to furnish
this Thesis.
guidance and suggestion in completing the product of this Thesis.
Prof. Amrin Saragih, M. A., Ph. D., her validator for the valuable
Sabar Manalu and Linda Pasaribu, her beloved parents, Fernandes
Manalu and David Manalu, her older brothers for the endless love,
prayer as well as moral and material support in her whole life.
Verawaty Manalu, her one and only sister for her countless motivation,
love, pray, help, advice, and support in finishing her Thesis and study
through her ups and downs of life.
ii
Bambang Sarianto, S.Pd, the English teacher at SMP Negeri 3 Tebing
Tinggi for giving her a great help during the research process.
of English Department.
Eis Sri Wahyuningsih, M.Pd., and Pak Pantes, the administration staffs
Andika, Anggita, Nurul, Sylvia, and Yeslika, her awesome crayons and
Irma, Naya, Dara, Geby, Rika, and Zhana, her one-step-closer mates
fo0976r the crazy laugh, advice and motivation, Muhammad Arif and
Nanda Aulia Putri, her Thesis partner for the cry, opinion, and idea.
her college senior for the adorable advices and supports.
Fitri Agnes, S.Pd., Rawiyah Damanik, S.Pd., Santika Silalahi, S.Pd,
Tiwarni Febriani Pakpahan and Lusi Rina Sianturi, her beloved old
friends for the smile and motivations, Debby, Melda, and Nirma, her
fantastic roommates for the craziness, support, and togetherness.
Bebeb, Maksel, Bang Momon, and Bang Boy, her crazy friends for the
lovely advice, smile, effort and love, Berman, Citra, Frikson, and
Bertha, her partners in small group (Reconquista) for their togetherness in
Unit Kegiatan Mahasiswa Kristen Protestan (UKMKP).
Regular C 2012, for the togetherness and sad-happy days they have spent
in her four-years of study.
The writer realizes that her Thesis is still far from being perfect, therefore
she warmly welcomes any constructive suggestions that will improve the
quality of this Thesis. She hopes that this Thesis would be beneficial for
further research, particularly in the field of English language teaching.
Medan, September 2016
The writer,
Theresia Manalu
Reg. Number: 2123121054
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
DECLARATION ...............................................................................................
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................ ii
TABLE OF CONTENT .................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................... viii
LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................. ix
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1
A. The Background of the Study ................................................................ 1
B. The Problems of the Study ..................................................................... 5
C. The Objectives of the Study ................................................................... 5
D. The Scope of the Study .......................................................................... 6
E. The Significances of the Study .............................................................. 6
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................ 8
A. Theoretical Framework .......................................................................... 8
1. Tests .................................................................................................. 8
a. Definition of Test ........................................................................ 8
b. Achievement Test........................................................................ 9
c. Formative and Summative Test .................................................. 10
d. The Functions of Test.................................................................. 12
e. The Purpose of Testing ............................................................... 13
f. Designing Classroom Language Tests ........................................ 13
g. Test Construction ........................................................................ 15
h. The Criteria of a Good Test ........................................................ 16
2. Bloom’s Taxonomy........................................................................... 18
a. Original Bloom’s Taxonomy ...................................................... 20
b. Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy ....................................................... 21
c. Why Use Bloom’s Taxonomy..................................................... 24
3. Learning Indicators ........................................................................... 26
a. Definition of Learning Indicators .............................................. 26
b. The Functions of Indicator ......................................................... 27
B. Relevant Studies ...................................................................................... 28
C. Conceptual Framework ........................................................................... 31
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ......................................... 33
A. Research Design ..................................................................................... 33
B. The Data and the Source of Data ............................................................ 33
C. The Instrument of Data Collection.......................................................... 34
D. The Test Development ............................................................................ 35
iv
CHAPTER IV. DATA, DATA ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION ............... 38
A. Data ......................................................................................................... 40
B. Data Analysis .......................................................................................... 40
C. The Development of the Test (Draft) ...................................................... 42
1) Step 1─ Defining the Construct to be Measured .............................. 42
a. The English Summative Test, Syllabus, and Lesson Plan ......... 42
2) Step 2 ─ Defining Target Population ................................................ 46
3) Step 3 ─ Reviewing Related Theories .............................................. 46
4) Step 4 ─ Developing Prototype of English Summative Test Items .. 48
b. Adjusting to the Proportion of Cognitive Level ......................... 48
c. Adjusting to the Learning Instructions ....................................... 49
5) Step 5 ─ Evaluating the Prototype .................................................... 57
6) Step 6 ─ Revising the Test ................................................................ 58
7) Step 7 ─ Collecting Data on Validity and Reliability ....................... 60
1. Validity ......................................................................................... 60
a. The Scores of Validation Given by the Experts .................... 60
b. Result ..................................................................................... 60
2. Reliability ..................................................................................... 61
a. By Using Test-Retest Method ..................................................... 61
D. Students’ Response (Second Revision)................................................... 62
E. Discussion ............................................................................................... 63
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS............................... 68
A. Conclusions ............................................................................................ 68
B. Suggestions ............................................................................................. 69
REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 70
APPENDIX ........................................................................................................ 73
v
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 1.1 The Analysis of Level of Difficulty English Test Items ..................... 3
Table 2.1 The Characteristics of Two Types of Achievement Tests .................. 12
Table 2.2 The Six Characteristics of the Cognitive Process Dimension ........... 23
Table 2.3 The Verbs Listed Linked with each Level of Thinking ..................... 25
Table 3.1 The Proportion of Level of Cognitive based on Revised Bloom’s ..... 36
Table 3.2 Parameters of Test Reliability ............................................................. 39
Table 4.1. Percentage of Cognitive Level based on Revised Bloom’s ............... 41
Table 4.2. Basic Competences of Grade VIII ..................................................... 43
Table 4.3.Learning Indicators of Grade VIII at SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi .. 45
Table 4.4.Items Proportion to Cognitive Level of Revised Bloom’s.................. 48
Table 4.5 Indicators and New English Summative Test Items ........................... 49
Table 4.6 Table of Specification ......................................................................... 57
Table 4.7 Validation Scores from the First Validator ......................................... 61
Table 4.8 Validation Scores from the Second Validator..................................... 61
Table 4.9 Comparison of the English Summative Test....................................... 64
Table 4.10 Comparison of the English Summative Test based on Revised ....... 67
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Pages
Figure 2.1 Four Stages of Test Construction ...................................................... 15
Figure 2.2 Old Version of Cognitive Domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy ............... 21
Figure 2.3 Revised Version of Cognitive Domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy ....... 22
Figure 3.1 The Procedures of Test Development................................................ 35
vii
LIST OF APPENDIX
Pages
Appendix A ......................................................................................................... 73
Appendix B ......................................................................................................... 74
Appendix C ........................................................................................................ 94
Appendix D ......................................................................................................... 137
Appendix E ......................................................................................................... 145
Appendix F .......................................................................................................... 147
viii
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of the Study
The information about students’ achievement is very important in teaching
and learning process. There are many tools for measuring students’ achievement.
One of those is a test. As stated by Hughes (2013:13) a test is intended to measure
students’ achievement and the degree of success of the teaching and learning
program. In addition, Douglas (2004:3) says that a test, in simple terms, is a
method of measuring a person’s ability, knowledge, or performance in a given
domain. Test is first a method. It is an instrument, a set of techniques, procedures,
or items that requires performance on the part of the test-taker. Second, a test must
measure. If an instrument does not specify a form of reporting measurement then
the technique cannot appropriately be defined as a test. Next, a test measures an
individual’s ability, knowledge, or performance. Finally, a test measures a given
domain. By knowing the achievement of the students, teachers can measure how
many the assigned materials are mastered, how well students learn the materials,
and the most important is how well students reach the stated goals or indicators
and objectives.
After collecting the information about students’ achievement whether it is
improved or not, teachers can evaluate the techniques and mediums in teaching,
and can develop the appropriate materials and assessments in teaching.
Adnyayanti et. al. (2013:7) state that making a well prepared syllabus and lesson
1
2
plans is not enough because it does not automatically create a high students’
achievement. Therefore, conducting evaluation to every topic discussed in the
classroom is one of the most important things of teachers’ tasks. This is in line
with the Government Regulation number 5 in 2015 quoted from Nurfiqah
(2015:2) the percentage of assessment given to the teacher is 70% and to the
government is 30%. That is why teachers are demanded to be able to design a
good quality test item. Moreover, Indonesian government applied the proportion
for each level of education based on Bloom’s Taxonomy is surely different based
on the guidance for assessment which is regulated by the Ministry of Education
and Culture. For Junior High School itself the proportion is remembering understanding 20%, applying-analyzing 55%, evaluating 15%, and creating 10%.
Considering the expectations described above, there are still English test
items which do not fulfill the Government Regulation. Nurfiqah, et.al found in
SMAN 5 Pontianak that from 50 multiple choice of English summative test items
for the first semester of Grade XI there are 4 test items which needed revisions.
Based on the data shows that there are 46 items of the test which match to the
indicators, and there are 4 items of the test which do not match to the indicators
are should be revised. Those items is not suitable to the indicator because the
indicator is about changing the sentences based on the tenses while the teacher
made is about choosing a correct sentence. The indicator asks students to find the
change of sentence verb which appropriate to the sentence. In that item, teacher
asked directly to the students to correct the sentence but the teacher did not put the
sentence that will be changed. That is why this item should be revised.
3
Another research finding found by Harjali at SMK PGRI 2 Ponorogo
concluded that from 4 bundles of English summative tests, 20%, 15%, 33%, and
40% are rejected. Then 40%, 15%, 37%, and 35% are revised. It proves that even
questions made by collaboration of some teachers nowadays cannot be
guaranteed. There are still many questions which have been given do not fulfill
the criteria of a good test (2012:7). Moreover, he analyzed the midterm test of
SMK PGRI 2 Ponorogo in order to see whether the items were already good or
not by analyzing the level of difficulty, validity, and reliability. The result of the
analysis can be seen from this table below.
Table 1.1
The Analysis of Level of Difficulty English Test Items Made by Teacher
Class
Total of the test Items
Total
Level of Difficulty
Conclusion
Difficult Average Easy Rejected Revised Accepted
9
21
6
12
12
30
XI a
5
30
10
7
7
31
45
XI b
4
18
8
10
11
9
30
XII a
12
21
12
18
16
11
45
XII b
Harjali (2012)
Considering the research finding above, he said that the instrument of
assessment for standard competency has been attached in lesson plan. But there
are still many items which are not suitable to the indicators. This data is taken
from the lesson plan made by the English teacher.
Moreover, based on the preliminary data at SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi
on Thursday, 10th March 2016, it can be seen the spread of 29 (1 is error) multiple
choice English questions for midterm test. From the observation which has been
done, it shows that the English questions in mid-term examination which would
be administered on March 28th, 2016 are mostly in remembering level. The
4
percentage is 76%, consist of 22 questions from 29 and almost the whole test is in
this level. For the understanding and applying, the percentage is only 10% and
14%, consist of only 3 and 4 questions. Meanwhile, the three less level, analyzing,
evaluating, and creating are nothing. It can be concluded that this test is totally not
appropriate to be tested because it is disposed to the one level. It can be taken one
example of the items at the following explanation.
Last holiday I went to Paris. I visited museums and sat in public
gardens. A friendly waiter taught me a few words of
French………………………..
What was the first place the writer visited?
a. Museum
b. Public garden
c. His room
d. Post office
It is actually is not suitable to the topic and indicators. The topic is about
Oral and written text which states and asks last action/ incident. The indicators are
the students will be able to arrange random words to be cohesive sentence
(sentence building) and the students will be able to write short and simple
sentences based on context. The question above totally does not match to the
indicator. Moreover, the question is only in remembering level. The question can
be revised into evaluating level at the following example.
Choose the correct answer from this random sentence.
Holiday- to- I- Paris- museums- visited- went- last- andThe answer is…
a. Last Holiday I went to Paris and visited museums
b. Last holiday went to museums and visited Paris
c. Holiday I went to Paris and last visited museums
d. Last I went to Paris and Holiday visited museums
5
From all of the errors of analyzed and explained above, the objectives of
teaching and learning process do not achieved so the achievement of students
cannot be measured accurately because those tests do not measure what should be
measured based on the indicators which have been arranged.
Considering the facts above, it is needed to develop a good test based on
the proportion of revised Bloom’s taxonomy in order to get the accurate
information and to develop the students’ competency.
B. The Problems of the Study
Based on the background of the study described above, the research
problems were formulated as follows:
1. How are the existing English summative test items for grade VIII students
at SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi arranged by the English teacher?
2. What are the appropriate English summative test items for grade VIII
students at SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi based on the proportion of
cognitive level of revised Bloom’s taxonomy regulated by the Ministry of
Education and Culture?
C. The Objectives of the Study
Based on the formation of the research problems, the objectives of the
study were:
1. To analyze the English Summative test of Grade VIII students at SMP
Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
6
3. To develop the English summative test of Grade VIII students at SMP
Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi based on the proportion of cognitive level of
revised Bloom’s taxonomy regulated by the Ministry of Education and
Culture
D. The Scope of the Study
In order to give the best result, this research focused on developing
English summative test arranged by English teacher based on Revised Bloom’s
Taxonomy. There are two types of achievement test; formative test and
summative test. Formative test is a test which is administered by the teacher
during the learning process while summative test is a test which is administered at
the end of the course covered more than one chapter or unit of materials.
The scope of this study is grade VIII English summative test arranged by
the English teacher of SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi.
E. The Significances of the Study
The significances of the study are classified into two – theoretically and
practically. Theoretically is expected to add a new horizon towards the test
development theories regarding to the learning objectives or indicators. Also, it is
expected that the users of the theories realize the importance of understanding and
applying the theories appropriately to design appropriate English summative test.
Meanwhile, the practical significances of the study are as follows:
7
1. The English teachers can arrange a good test in order to evaluate the
students’ English acquisition based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.
2. Other researchers who are interested to conduct further research
regarding to the test development
68
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusion
After analyzing the data, the conclusion drawn is that the teacher’s English
summative test has not fulfilled the proportion of cognitive level of Bloom’s
taxonomy regulated by the Ministry of Education and Culture. Then, the 30
multiple choice English summative test items which were inappropriate were then
developed into 30 recommended multiple choice English summative test items
based on the theory of revised Bloom’s taxonomy, the learning indicators, and
also the criteria of a good test which had been fulfilled the proportion of revised
Bloom’s taxonomy regulated by the government in order to get the accurate
information of the students’ competence. The recommended English summative
test items or the product were then validated by two experts, Prof. Amrin Saragih,
M.A., Ph.D as the lecturer and Bambang Sarianto, S.Pd as the English teacher at
SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi. After validating the product, the field testing held
in order to take the reliability of the recommended English summative test items.
It was concluded that the 30 recommended English summative test items as valid
and reliable test items with no significant revisions.
68
69
B. Suggestions
In relation to the conclusions, some suggestions are presented as follows.
1. For the English teachers
The English teachers should pay attention to the government demand in
arranging the English summative test items for students in order to get the
accurate information of the students. The English summative test applied
at the end of semester as the evaluation test of the students whether they
have mastered all the competencies demand. That is why, the appropriate
English summative test is important to be arranged by the teacher so that
the students’ competence can be evaluated accurately.
2.
For other researchers
Hopefully, this research could inspire other researchers who wanted to
conduct a further research related to the test development as the
references.
70
REFERENCES
Adibah. 2012. An Analysis of Questions Used by An English Teacher in
Classroom ( A Case Study at the 10th Grade of SMA AL-Yasini Pasuruan
2011/2012). Journal of Airlangga University. 1(1)
Adnyayanti, Era et.al. 2013. Analysis of Authenticity of Teachers’ Made
Assessment and Its Contribution to the Students’ English Achievement (A
Study in Junior High School in Buleleng Regency). Journal Article .
Singaraja: Pasca Sarjana Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha
Anderson & Krathwohl. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and
Assessing: A Revisio of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
Bloom, Benjamin, et.al. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational
Classification of Educational Goals. Boston: Longman
Objectives:
Borg & Gall. 1983. Educational Research: An Introduction. Boston: Pearson
Education
Brown, Douglas. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroo Practices.
Longman:America
BSNP. 2010. Panduan Pengembangan Indikator
Dick, Walter., Carey, Lou., and Carey, James. O. 2005. The Systematic Design of
Instruction Sixth Edition. Boston: Pearson
Direktorat Pembinaan Sekolah Menengah Pertama. 2014. Panduan Penilaian
Pencapaian Kompetensipeserta Didik Sekolah Menengah Pertama
Emilia, Emi & Safrina, Raden. 2014. When English Rings a Bell. Jakarta:
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan
Forehand, Mary. 2005. Bloom’s Taxonomy: Original and Revised. Georgia:
Unversity of Georgia
Gronlund, Norman E. Constructing Achievement Test. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
70
71
Harjali. 2012. Evaluasi Pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris pada Sekolah Menengah
Kejuruan. International Journal. e-ISSN: 2442-9651,p-ISSN: 1411-3031
12(2)
Heaton, J B. 1975. Writing English Tets. London: Longman
Hughes, Arthur. 2003. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Huitt, W. 2011. Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational
Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University
Kaboody, Mastoor.,Stevens, Rachel. 2015. Developing a Formative Grammar
Test for Intensive English Program Students. Arizona: Northen Arizona
University
Kluitman, Sebastian. 2008. Testing English as a Foreign Language. Germany
Kopriva, Rebecca J. 2008. Improving Testing English Language Learners. UK :
Routledge
Krathwohl, David R. 2002. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview.
Journal Article. College of Education, The Ohio State University. 41(4)
Liao, Yen-Fen. Issues of Validity and Reliability in Second Language
Performance Assessment. Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL
Applied Linguistics. 4(2)
Manferius, Andy et.al. 2015. Item Analysis on English Summative Test at the
Eighth Grade Junior High Schools in Pontianak. Journal Article. Tanjung
Pura University. 4(2)
Mager, Robert. 1977. Writing Goals and Objectives. USA: Northen Illinois
University
Nurfiqah, et.al. 2015. The Analysis on the Items of the English Test Made by the
Teacher. Journal Article. Tanjung Pura University
Orey, Michael. 2010. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and
Technology. Zurich: Jacobs Foundation
72
Rahmawaty, Khoirina Izathy et.al. 2012. An Analysis of Reading Questions
English Textbook Entitled “Interlanguage: English for Senior High School
Students XI” based on RBT. Journal Article. State University of Malang
Rudner, Lawrence., ND Scafer, William D. 2002. What Teachers Need to Know
about Assessment. United States: National Education Association
Weir, Cyril J. 1990. Communicative Language Testing. UK: Prentice Hall
Weir, Cyril J. 2005. Language Testing and Validation- An Evidence-Based
Approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
E4
Wu, Jessica & Hui-Yun Lo. 2011. The YLE Tests and Teaching in the Taiwanese
Context. University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations. 46(2)
Internet Sources
http://brainley.co.id/tugas/2081121/June 13th 2016/05:50 AM
Http://catersigns.co.uk/ June 13th 2016/06:00 AM