means that more of half question items in the English summative does not cover the indicators in the syllabus. Finally, the writer gives some assumptions
regarding to the result of analysis above: It can be assumed that the spread of question items in the test were not
proportional. There were some indicators that have many question items, while there are some indicators, which are not being questioned in the test. For example
as we can see in the data of SMPN 12 South Tangerang point 29, there were 5 questions confirm with the indicators. In contrast, point 23, 24, 25, 28, 31, 32, 33,
34, 35, and 35 were not item confirm to the indicators.
38
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A.Conclusion
Based on the research findings, the English summative tests from three Junior High schools have good content validity. Futhermore they presentage,
SMPN 12 South Tangerang have attained 33,3. It means that the result of summative test at the odd semester of SMPN 12 South Tangerang is categorized
into “Insufficient” level of a content validity in contructing English summative test. SMP UTAMA have attained 20. It means SMP UTAMA is categorized
into “Poor” level of a content validity. However, 20 of the question items that confirmed to English syllabus at SMP IT MADANI 8. It showed that SMP IT
MADA NI 8 is included into “Poor” level of a Content Validity.
B. Suggestion
From the conslusion above, the writer provide some suggestions. There are two suggestion from the writer to next researcher. There are:
1. The teacher should pay attention in making test. Because there are some
items where are not approppriate with syllabus. While the test should agree with syllabus.
2. There should be a supervisor for checking the test items, before it is
managed to the students. By using this analysis procedure, it is hoped that a good summative test which is in line with the syllabus can be developed
easily by teachers at schools. 3.
English summative test item needs intruction that are direction to Listening and Speaking.
REFERENCES
Ahmann, J.Stanley and D. Glock, Marvin Evaluating pupil growth: Principles of Tests Measurement United Stated of America: Allyn and Bacon, 1971.
Brown, H.Douglas language assessment principles and classroom practices, Sanfransisco: Longman, 2004.
Gronlund, Norman E. Measurement and Evaluation in teaching, fourth edition . New York: Mcmillan Publishing Co., 1981
Gearheart, Bill R Application Pupil Assessment Information: for the special Education teacher. Los Angeles: Love Publishing company, 1974.
Hopkins, Kenneth D. Educational and Psycological Measurement and Evaluation US, A Viacom Company, 1998.
Airasian, Peter W and Russel, Michael K. Classroom Assessment. New York, McGraw-Hill, 2008.
Heaton, J.B. Writing English Language Test. London: Longman Group, 1998. New edition.
Hughes, Athur. Testing for language Teacher. Newyork: Cambridge, 2003. Dean Brown, James. Testing in Language Programs. Newyork: McGraw-Hill,
2005. Tambunan, Wilmar. Evaluation of Student Achievement. Jakarta: Depdikbur,
1988. Thorndike, Robert L and Hagen, Elizabeth. Measure and Evaluation in Psycology
and Education. Newyork: John Wiley and sons, 1961. D. Gareis, Christopher and Grant, Leslie W. How to Connect Curriculum,
Instruction, and students learning. Newyork: Taylor and Francis, 2008. Prof. Dr. Nasution, S. M.A. Asas-Asas Kurikulum. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara, 1995.
Dr. Mulyasa, M.Pd. Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan. Bandung: Rosda. Abdul Majid, Abdul. Perencanaan Pembelajaran. Bandung, Rosda.
