37 teaching. The lesson plan became the first document in this study. The second
document was the assessments which should be in accordance with the lesson plans prepared especially in the content being taught.
D. Data Gathering Technique
The writer gathered the data from five students of Practice Teaching subject. The writer collected the data by compiling the lesson plans along with
some assessments for each lesson plan they produced during Practice Teaching period. From every student, the writer asked for two lesson plans along with some
assessments prepared for the lesson plan. It was done to have more accurate analysis about the students’ ability in producing content valid assessments. A
single lesson plan with some assessment items was not considered sufficient to represent the respondents’ ability. It was better for the writer to have two
documents to be analyzed to support the findings about how the respondents established content validity in their assessments.
E. Data Analysis Technique
The writer analyzed how the content validity is established from the data that had been collected. The analysis was done by adapting the question offered
by Brown 2004, p. 32, “Does the procedure demonstrate content validity?” The question is divided into two questions, namely 1 Are classroom objectives
identified and appropriately framed? 2 Are lesson objectives represented in the form of test specifications? The first question did not merely analyze about the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
38 respondents’ ability in formulating the objectives but it was aimed at knowing or
determining the content of the instruction planned by the respondents in their lesson plan. The second question dealt with the comparison of the instructional
content with the intended result or the content of the assessment. The interpretation of the intended result of the assessment was analyzed based on the
instructional content, not merely the assessment tasks or procedures. The first thing that should be considered was the objectives of the
classroom activities or instructions because the instructional content was specified in some objectives. The objectives should be clearly stated and identified in the
lesson plan in which the assessment was based. The objective, as stated by Price at al. 2011, pinpoints the destination, not the journey. The objective stated the
outcomes the students should achieve after the course or instruction. Nevertheless, the writer found that some respondents formulated learning objectives which did
not state the outcomes of the instruction but they only stated the learning activities the students would be involved. Therefore, in conducting the analysis, the writer
would first examine the objectives of the course to determine the outcomes which were intended by the respondents. The outcomes could be found in Learning
Objectives, “Tujuan Pembelajaran” or they could be found in indicator, “indicator” statements. In the analysis, the writer used the word “objective”
which referred to the learning outcomes whether they found in the Learning Objectives or Indicators part. The analysis of the objective formulation used the
principle of S.M.A.R.T Simple, Measurable, Action-oriented, Reasonable, and Time-specified.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
39 The second one was the assessment which should measure the intended
outcomes stated in the objectives. It meant that the instructional objectives should be the base of the assessment. The intended result of the assessment should clearly
match with the outcomes stated in the instructional objectives. The analysis of the instructional content and its validation in the assessment involved the analysis of
the microskills and macroskills of the four basic language skills. As stated in chapter two that validity is best considered in terms of
categories that specify the degree, namely high validity, moderate validity, and low validity Miller et al., 2009, p. 72, the analysis result of the assessment
content validity of the respondents were categorized in that ways. The writer would classify in which categories the respondents’ assessment was included by
examining the content of the assessments. The categorization explanation of the assessment content validity degree was explained in the appendix.
F. Research Procedure
