The theoretical testing model to measure communicative written English competence of elementary school students of Indonesia.

ABSTRACT

DWI WIDIYANTI. 2013. The Theoretical Testing Model To Measure Written Communicative English Competence of Elementary School Students in Indonesia . Yogyakarta: English Language Studies. Graduate Program. Sanata Dharma University.

This research is conducted as a scientific research in English measurement in the elementary school level of Indonesia. The research was intended to provide the testing model which hopefully can be an instrument that enables educational stakeholders in Indonesia to acquire enough data to appropriately predict the language ability of the elementary school students. Such data would be critically needed in the policy making for a better improvement in the English language learning system in Indonesia.

The research has two research questions to be answered. They are: (1) what is the written English competence of elementary school students of Indonesia like? (2) what is the measurement instrument of the written English competence of elementary school students of Indonesia like?

To find the answers to those research questions, the researcher used the first five phases of the Research and Development method that were: research and information collection, planning, development of preliminary form of product, preliminary field testing, and main product revision. Two groups of respondents that were TEYL professionals and sixth grade students in the elementary school were involved in the process of construct validation of the testing model.

From the result of literature review and improvement feedbacks from the respondents it was discovered that the communicative written English competence of elementary school students of Indonesia was theoretically formulated into two categories. The first one was the competence of text understanding (reading) that was their ability to know and comprehend the meaning of written English texts organizationally and pragmatically that they found in daily life, such as at home, at school, and in public places. The second one was the competence of text production (writing) that was their ability to create written English text organizationally and pragmatically in daily life, such as at home, at school, and public places.This was all at once answering the first research question. The blue-print and the test prototype which were the answers to the second research question were developed based on those formulated language competence and aspects of test development by considering the unique characteristics of elementary school students of Indonesia.

This research was limited to the development of the theoretical model which was still considered as a preliminary form of product in the R&D cycle. Therefore a further study on this research is highly recommended to make the testing model perfectly operational.

ABSTRAK

DWI WIDIYANTI. 2013. The Theoretical Testing Model To Measure Written Communicative English Competence of Elementary School Students in Indonesia. Yogyakarta: English Language Studies. Graduate Program. Sanata Dharma University.

Riset ini dilakukan sebagai sebuah riset ilmiah dalam hal pengukuran bahasa Inggris di tingkat sekolah dasar di Indonesia. Riset ini dimaksudkan untuk menyediakan sebuah model test yang diharapkan mampu menjadi sebuah instrumen yang memungkinkan para pemangku kepentingan pendidikan di Indonesia untuk mendapatkan data yang memadai dalam memprediksi kemampuan bahasa Inggris siswa sekolah dasar secara tepat. data semacam ini sangat diperlukan dalam rangka membuat kebijakan yang betul-betul dapat memberikan perbaikan terhadap sistem pendidikan bahasa Inggris di Indonesia.

Riset ini mengusung dua pertanyaan, yaitu: (1) Seperti apakah kemampuan bahasa Inggris tertulis yang komunikatif dari siswa sekolah dasar di Indonesia? (2) seperti apakah bentuk instrumen untuk mengukur kemampuan bahasa Inggris tertulis yang komunikatif dari siswa sekolah dasar di Indonesia?

Untuk memnemukan jawaban dari pertanyan-pertanyan tersebut, peneliti menggunakan lima tahapan awal dari metode Riset dan Pengembangan, yaitu: riset dan pengumpulan informasi, perencanaan, pengembangan produk awal, pengujian awal di lapangan dan revisi produk awal. Proses validasi konstruk terhadap model test melibatkan dua kelompok responden, yaitu ahli Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris Pembelajar muda dan siswa kelas enam sekolah dasar.

Dari hasil review pustaka dan masukan untuk perbaikan instrumen, diperoleh konsep bahwa kemampuan bahasa Inggris tertulis dari siswa sekolah dasar di Indonesia secara teoritis dibagi menjadi 2 kategori, yaitu: (1) Kemampuan pemahaman teks (membaca) yaitu kemampuan siswa untuk mengetahui dan memahami teks bahasa Ingrris tertulis secara organisasional dan secara pragmatis dalam kehidupan mereka sehari-hari seperti di rumah, sekolah dan tempat2 publik lainnya. (2) Kemampuan produksi teks (menulis) yaitu kemampuan siswa untuk membuat teks tertulis secara organisasional dan pragmatis dalam kehidupan mereka sehari-sehari seperti di rumah, sekolah dan tempat2 publik lainnya. Konsep ini sekaligus menjawab pertanyaan riset yang pertama. Kisi-kisi soal dan contoh model test awal dibuat berdasarkan konsep tersebut dan aspek-aspek pengembangan instrument test dengan mempertimbangkan keunikan dari karakter siswa sekolah dasar Indonesia merupakan jawaban dari pertanyaan yang kedua.

Pelaksanaan dari riset ini terbatas hanya pada pengembangan model teoritis yang masih merupakan produk awal dari tahapan Riset dan Pengembangan. Oleh karena itu, study lebih lanjut dari riset ini sangat disarankan untuk dilakukan untuk menjadikan instrumen ini operasional secara sempurna.

THE THEORETICAL TESTING MODEL

TO MEASURE COMMUNICATIVE WRITTEN ENGLISH

COMPETENCE OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

OF INDONESIA

THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain theMagister Humaniora(M.Hum) Degree

in English Language Studies

by

DWI WIDIYANTI 106332009

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA 2013

A THESIS

THE THEORETICAL TESTING MODEL

TO MEASURE COMMUNICATIVE WRITTEN ENGLISH

COMPETENCE OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

OF INDONESIA

by Dwi Widiyanti

106332009

Approved by:

F.X. Mukarto, Ph.D. __________________________

A THESIS

THE THEORETICAL TESTING MODEL

TO MEASURE COMMUNICATIVE WRITTEN ENGLISH

COMPETENCE OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

OF INDONESIA

Presented by Dwi Widiyanti

Student Number: 106332009

Defended before the Thesis Committee and Declared Acceptable.

THESIS COMMITTEE

Chairperson : F.X. Mukarto, Ph.D. __________________

Secretary : Dr. B.B. Dwijatmoko, M.A. __________________

Member : Dr. J. Bismoko __________________

Member : Markus Budiharjo, M.Ed., Ed.D. __________________

Yogyakarta, January 21, 2014 The Graduate Program Director Sanata Dharma University

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

This is to certify that all the ideas, phrases, and sentences, unless otherwise stated, are the ideas, phrases, and sentences by the writer. The writer understands the full consequences including degree cancellation if she took somebody’s ideas, phrases or sentences without a proper reference.

Yogyakarta, November 20, 2013

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS

Yang bertandatangan dibawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:

Nama : Dwi Widiyanti

Nomor Mahasiswa : 106332009

Dengan perkembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

THE THEORETICAL TESTING MODEL

TO MEASURE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIVE ENGLISH COMPETENCE OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

OF INDONESIA

beserta perangkat yang diperlukan. Dengan demikian, saya memberikan hak kepada Universitas Sanata Dharma untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikannya secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupun memberi royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.

Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya. Dibuat di Yogyakarta.

Pada tanggal: 20 November 2013 Yang menyatakan,

“

In order to succeed, your desire for success

should be greater than your

fear

of failure.”

–

Bill Cosby

This thesis is dedicated to:

Allah S.W.T., my beloved husband and daughters, my parents, and

my beloved country, Indonesia

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My greatest gratitude goes to Allah SWT for showering me with His greatest love and blessings so that I can stand to complete my thesis. With the huge stuffs I was obliged to handle, completing my thesis was like an unreachable dream to me __and I almost gave it up many times. Yet, He blesses me and makes it reachable.

My endless thanks are addressed to F.X. Mukarto, Ph.D. and Dr. J. Bismoko, my major advisors for their patience and understanding, valuable guidance, and great support during the research.

My sincere thanks are also addressed to ibu Pipin, ibu Lusi, ibu Hening, and ibu Ani for being the expert respondents of my research on checking the construct validation. A bunch of thanks are also delivered to ustadz Maryanto and ustadzah Kipti, the head and English teacher of SDIT Prambanan of Yogyakarta for their incredible supports to let their students work for the trial test of the preliminary product of my research.

Thanks to mbak Atiek and Ucik, my co-researchers in doing the research who are always generous and humbly share their ideas for me to make better improvements in my thesis.

My deepest love and respect also go to my beloved husband, Muhammad Muttaqin, for his love and generous supports during my study and completing my thesis. My greatest love also goes to my two wonderful daughters, Nada Khansa Nabila and Jihan Tasbih Adha, who have let their mother take their precious time to be ‘alone’ and ‘busy’ with her study and thesis. You all are the life of my life and the spirit that makes me strong. Thank you and I love you full!

TABLE OF CONTENT

TITLE PAGE………. APPROVAL PAGES ……… STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY………. LEMBAR PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ILMIAH ………. MOTTO PAGE ……… ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ……… ABSTRACT ………

TABLE OF CONTENT ……… LIST OF TABLES ………... LIST OF FIGURES ……… LIST OF APPENDICES...

i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x xi CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION ..………..

A. Research Background ………... B. Research Position ……… ... C. Problem Identification ………... D. Research Focus ……….. E. Research Limitation ... F. Research Questions ……….... G. Research Benefits ………... H. Product Specification ………..

1 4 6 7 8 8 9 9 10 CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ………...

A. Theoretical Review... 1. Elementary School Students ……….... a. Cognitive Growth ……… b. Social and Emotional Growth ………. c. Physical Growth ... d. Literacy (reading and writing ability) ... e. Vulnerability ...

11 11 11 13 16 17 18 21 2. English Testing ...

a. Philosophy ... b. Concept of English Testing ... 1) Definition ... 2) Classification ... 3) Types of test Items ... 4) Meaning of Test Results ... 5) Criteria ...

24 24 27 27 29 31 35 37 3. Written Communicative English Competence ...

a. Role and Function of English ... b. Concept and Models of English Communicative

Competence ... c. Concept and Models of Written Communicative

English Competence ... 1) Reading ... a) Concept of Reading ...

38 38 43 49 49 49

b) Framework for Reading Competence of Young Language Learners as Theoretical Construct ... 2) Writing ... a) Concept of Writing ... b) Framework for Writing Competence of

Young Language Learners as Theoretical Construct ...

51 54 54

56 4. English Education in Elementary Schools of

Indonesia ... a. Role and Position of English in Indonesia ... b. English Education in Elementary School of

Indonesia ...

59 59 62

B. Theoretical Framework ... 1. Elements of the Development ...

a. Underlying Philosophy ... b. Characteristics of Elementary School English

Learners ... c. English Education of Elementary Schools in

Indonesia ... d. Written Communicative English Competence of

Elementary School Students of Indonesia ... 2. Development of the Preliminary Product ... 3. The Preliminary Product ...

65 67 67 68 75 75 85 89 85 CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...

A. Research Method ... 1. Research and Information Collection ... 2. Planning ... 3. Development of the Preliminary Form of the

Product ... 4. Preliminary Field test ... 5. Main Product Revision ... B. Research Setting and Respondents ... C. Research Instruments ... D. Data Gathering and Analysis Techniques ...

92 92 93 94 95 98 99 99 101 102 CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION....

A. Result of Evaluation on the Preliminary Product ... 1. Formulation of Indicators of Language Competence . 2. Congruence of Indicators of Language Competence

with the Test Items ... a. Reading Comprehension Section ... 1) Indicator 1 ... 2) Indicator 2 ... 3) Indicator 3 ... 4) Indicator 4, 5,6 ... b. Writing Section ...

104 105 106 107 108 108 111 114 116 120

1) Indicator 7 ... 2) Indicator 8 ... 3) Indicator 9 ...

120 123 126 3. Overview of the Design of the Testing Model ...

a. Overview of the Time Duration ... b. Overview of the Design from the experts’ Points

of View ... c. Overview of the Design from the Test Takers

Candidates (Students) ...

128 128 130 135 B. Preliminary Product Revision ...

1. Revision of the Blue Print ... a. Indicator 1 ... b. Indicator 2 ... c. Indicator 3 ... 2. Revision of the Test Prototype ...

a. The Purpose of the Test Making ... b. Test Design ... c. Test Instructions ... d. Test Duration ... e. Test items ... 1) Reading Comprehension Section ... a) Indicator 1 ... b) Indicator 2 ... c) Indicator 3 ... d) Indicator 4, 5, 6... 2) Writing Section ... a) Indicator 7 ... b) Indicator 8 ... c) Indicator 9 ...

137 138 138 139 139 140 142 143 143 143 144 144 144 147 149 152 156 156 156 162 C. Formulation of the Final Product ...

1. Theoretical Model of Language Competence ... a. Standard Competence ... b. Criteria Competence ... c. Indicators ... 2. Blue-Print and the Iconic Model or the Prototype ...

165 165 166 167 167 168 CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS...

A. Conclusions ... B. Suggestions ...

176 177 182 BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 183 APPENDICES ... 187

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Widely held expectations of literacy development (Puckett

and Black, 2000, 100) cited by Penny Mc Kay (2006: 12) ... 18 Table 2.2: Penny Mc Kay’s framework of young language

learners’ reading ability (Mc Kay, 2006:227) ...52 Table 2.3: Weigle’s Groups of Second language writers adapted from

Bernhard ( Wegle, 2002: 6)...55 Table. 2.4. Penny Mc Kay’s framework of young language learners’ writing

ability (Mc Kay, 2006:227)...58 Table 2.4: Mc Kay’s examples of indicators of language ability of

reading and writing ...76 Table 2.5: Mc Kay’s examples of indicators of language ability

of reading and writing adjusted to Indonesia elementary school

level of education ...78 Table 2.6. The preliminary blue-print of the testing model ...91 Table 3.1: Classification of the student respondents ...103 Table 4.1: Students’ response on Text understanding Part 1, indicator 1,

item no 1 and 2 ...108 Table 4.2: Conformity between students’ response and experts’ judgment for

manifestation of indicator 1, item 1-2 ... 110 Table 4.3: Students’ response on Text understanding Part 2, indicator 2,

item no 3 up to 7 ... 111 Table 4.4: Conformity between students’ response and experts’ judgment for

manifestation of indicator 2, item 3-7 ... 110 Table 4.5: Students’ response on Text understanding Part 3, indicator 3,

item no 8 up to 12 ... 111 Table 4.6: Conformity between students’ response and experts’ judgment for

manifestation of indicator 3, item 8-12 ... 116 Table 4.7: Students’ response on Text understanding Part 4, indicator 4-5,

item no 13 up to 22 ... 117 Table 4.8: Conformity between students’ response and experts’ judgment for

manifestation of indicator 4-6, item 13-22 ...119 Table 4.9: Students’ response on Text production, Writing Part 1, indicator 7,

item no 24 up to 28 ...121 Table 4.10: Conformity between students’ response and experts’ judgment for

manifestation of indicator 7, item 24-28 ...122 Table 4.11: Students’ response on Text production, Writing Part 2, indicator 8,

item no 29 up to 34 ...123 Table 4.12: Conformity between students’ response and experts’ judgment for

manifestation of indicator 8, item 29-34 ...125 Table 4.13: Students’ response on Text production, Writing Part 1, indicator 9,

item no 35 up to 39 ...126 Table 4.14: Conformity between students’ response and experts’ judgment for

manifestation of indicator 9, item 35-39 ...127 Table 4.15: Time consumption of completing the test tasks...129

Table 4.16: Improvement feedback from expert respondents ...130 Table 4.17: Student respondents’ opinion on the testing model ...136 Table 4.18: The hyphotezied standard competence of communicative written

English competence of elementary school students of Indonesia ...168 Table 4.19. The revised blue print ...173

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Asian countries rank in the level of English proficiency... 3

Figure 2.1: Tiffany Davis’ Ilustration of Piaget’s four cognitive development stages ... 13

Figure 2.2: Aspects of characteristics of elementary school language learners ... 23

Figure 2.3: Aspects of Testing ... 28

Figure 2.4: Types of test items (Lamprianou, 2009: 200) ... 31

Figure 2.5: Example of multiple choice ... 32

Figure 2.6: Example of true-false items (Reynolds, 2009: 211) ... 33

Figure 2.7: Example of true-false items (Reynolds, 2009: 217) ... 33

Figure 2.8: Example of essay items (Reynolds, 2009:228) ... 34

Figure 2.9: Example of short-answer item (Reynolds, 2009: 237) ... 34

Figure 2.10: Stanford-Binet Intelligence scales (Reynolds, 2009: 85) ... 36

Figure.2.11: Behaviour assessment system for children (Reynolds, 2009: 85) .. 36

Figure 2.12: Kachru’s The Outer Tongue: English across cultures (1992) ... 42

Figure 2.13: Evaluation of model of communicative English competence ... 47

Figure 2.14: Examples of Genres cited from education department of Western Australia 1997 (Mc Kay, 2006: 246) ... 57

Figure 2.16: Process of development of the testing model ... 66

Figure 2.17: Diagram of formulating cognitive aspects of young learners (age 10-11) ... 69

Figure 2.18: Diagram of formulating physical aspects of young learners (10-12 ) ... 70

Figure 2.19: Diagram of formulating emotional and social aspects of Young learners (age 10-12) ... 71

Figure 2.20: Diagram of formulating literacy aspect of young learners (age 10-12) ... 72

Figure 2.21: Diagram of formulating literacy aspect of young learners (age 10-12) ... 73

Figure 2.22: The summary of characteristics of young learners of age 10-12 ... 74

Figure 2. 23: Framework of development of the testing instrument ... 80

Figure 2. 24: Adjustment tasks’ characterization to children’s characteristics and need: cognitive aspect ... 81

Figure 2.25: Adjustment tasks’ characterization to children’s characteristics and needs: physical aspect ... 81

Figure 2.26: Adjustment tasks’ characterization to children’s characteristics and needs: social-emotional aspect ... 82

Figure 2.27: Adjustment tasks’ characterization to children’s characteristics and needs: Vulnerability aspect ... 82

Figure 2.28: adjustment tasks’ characterization to children’s characteristics and needs: literacy aspect ... 83

Figure 2.29: Tasks’ mapping adjusted to children’s characteristics and needs ... 84

Figure 2.31: Example of test item of the prototype ... 87

Figure 2.32: Simplified reading skills ... 89

Figure 2. 33: Simplified writing skills ... 89

Figure 3.1: The research design of the development of the testing instrument .. 94

Figure 3.2: The test development process (Geneese, 2007: 159) ... 95

Figure 3.3: The development process of the testing instrument ... 96

Figure 4.1: Trend line of students’ response for reading Part1, item no 1 ... 109

Figure 4.2: Trend line of students’ response for reading Part 1, item no 2 ... 110

Figure 4.3: Trend line of students’ response for reading Part 2, item no 3-7 .... 112

Figure 4.8: Trend line of students’ response for reading Part 3, item no 8-12 .. 115

Figure 4.13: Trend line of students’ response for reading Part 4, item no 13-22 ... 117

Figure 4.23: Trend line of students’ response for writing Part1, item no 24-28...121

Figure 4.29: Trend line of students’ response for writing Part2, item no 29-34...124

Figure 4.34: Trend line of students’ response for writing Part2, item no 35-39...126

Figure 4. 35: Analysis on the improvement feedback for revision ... 141

Figure 4.36: Improvement feedback for indicator 1, item 1 ... 145

Figure 4.37: Revisions for item format, indicator 1, item no 1 ... 146

Figure 4.38: Improvement feedback for indicator 2, item no 3-7 ... 148

Figure 4.39: Revisions for item format, indicator 2, item no 3-7 ... 149

Figure 4.40: Improvement feedback for indicator 3, item no 8-12 ... 150

Figure 4.41: Revisions for item format, indicator 3, item no 8-12 ... 152

Figure 4.42: Improvement feedback for indicator 4,5,6, item no 18-22 ...154

Figure 4.43: Revisions for item format, indicator 4,5,6, item no 18-22 ... 155

Figure 4.44: Improvement feedback for indicator 8, item no 29-33... 157

Figure 4.45: Revisions for item format, indicator 8, item no 29-33 ... 161

Figure 4.46: Improvement feedback for indicator 8, item no 34 ... 161

Figure 4.47: Revisions for item format, indicator 8, item no 34... 162

Figure 4.48: Improvement feedback for indicator 9, item no 35-39 ... 163

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: The final products of the theoritical model Appendix 2: The questionnaires of construct validation

Appendix 3: The questionnaire of students’ response on the model Appendix 4: The preliminary (draft) product of the testing model Appendix 5: Referenced testing model from Cambridge

ABSTRACT

DWI WIDIYANTI. 2013.The Theoretical Testing Model To Measure Written Communicative English Competence of Elementary School Students in Indonesia . _{Yogyakarta: English Language Studies. Graduate Program. Sanata}

Dharma University.

This research is conducted as a scientific research in English measurement in the elementary school level of Indonesia. The research was intended to provide the testing model which hopefully can be an instrument that enables educational stakeholders in Indonesia to acquire enough data to appropriately predict the language ability of the elementary school students. Such data would be critically needed in the policy making for a better improvement in the English language learning system in Indonesia.

The research has two research questions to be answered. They are: (1)what is the written English competence of elementary school students of Indonesia like?

(2) what is the measurement instrument of the written English competence of elementary school students of Indonesia like?

To find the answers to those research questions, the researcher used the first five phases of the Research and Development method that were: research and information collection,planning,development of preliminary form of product,preliminary field testing, and main product revision. Two groups of respondents that were TEYL professionals and sixth grade students in the elementary school were involved in the process of construct validation of the testing model.

From the result of literature review and improvement feedbacks from the respondents it was discovered that the communicative written English competence of elementary school students of Indonesia was theoretically formulated into two categories. The first one was the competence of text understanding (reading) that was their ability to know and comprehend the meaning of written English texts organizationally and pragmatically that they found in daily life, such as at home, at school, and in public places. The second one was the competence of text production (writing) that was their ability to create written English text organizationally and pragmatically in daily life, such as at home, at school, and public places. This was all at once answering the first research question. The blue-print and the test prototype which were the answers to the second research question were developed based on those formulated language competence and aspects of test development by considering the unique characteristics of elementary school students of Indonesia.

This research was limited to the development of the theoretical model which was still considered as a preliminary form of product in the R&D cycle. Therefore a further study on this research is highly recommended to make the testing model perfectly operational.

ABSTRAK

DWI WIDIYANTI. 2013.The Theoretical Testing Model To Measure Written Communicative English Competence of Elementary School Students in Indonesia. _{Yogyakarta: English Language Studies. Graduate Program. Sanata}

Dharma University.

Riset ini dilakukan sebagai sebuah riset ilmiah dalam hal pengukuran bahasa Inggris di tingkat sekolah dasar di Indonesia. Riset ini dimaksudkan untuk menyediakan sebuah model test yang diharapkan mampu menjadi sebuah instrumen yang memungkinkan para pemangku kepentingan pendidikan di Indonesia untuk mendapatkan data yang memadai dalam memprediksi kemampuan bahasa Inggris siswa sekolah dasar secara tepat. data semacam ini sangat diperlukan dalam rangka membuat kebijakan yang betul-betul dapat memberikan perbaikan terhadap sistem pendidikan bahasa Inggris di Indonesia.

Riset ini mengusung dua pertanyaan, yaitu: (1) Seperti apakah kemampuan bahasa Inggris tertulis yang komunikatif dari siswa sekolah dasar di Indonesia? (2) seperti apakah bentuk instrumen untuk mengukur kemampuan bahasa Inggris tertulis yang komunikatif dari siswa sekolah dasar di Indonesia?

Untuk memnemukan jawaban dari pertanyan-pertanyan tersebut, peneliti menggunakan lima tahapan awal dari metode Riset dan Pengembangan, yaitu:riset dan pengumpulan informasi, perencanaan, pengembangan produk awal, pengujian awal di lapangandanrevisi produk awal. Proses validasi konstruk terhadap model test melibatkan dua kelompok responden, yaitu ahli Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris Pembelajar muda dan siswa kelas enam sekolah dasar.

Dari hasil review pustaka dan masukan untuk perbaikan instrumen, diperoleh konsep bahwa kemampuan bahasa Inggris tertulis dari siswa sekolah dasar di Indonesia secara teoritis dibagi menjadi 2 kategori, yaitu: (1) Kemampuan pemahaman teks (membaca) yaitu kemampuan siswa untuk mengetahui dan memahami teks bahasa Ingrris tertulis secara organisasional dan secara pragmatis dalam kehidupan mereka sehari-hari seperti di rumah, sekolah dan tempat2 publik lainnya. (2) Kemampuan produksi teks (menulis) yaitu kemampuan siswa untuk membuat teks tertulis secara organisasional dan pragmatis dalam kehidupan mereka sehari-sehari seperti di rumah, sekolah dan tempat2 publik lainnya. Konsep ini sekaligus menjawab pertanyaan riset yang pertama. Kisi-kisi soal dan contoh model test awal dibuat berdasarkan konsep tersebut dan aspek-aspek pengembangan instrument test dengan mempertimbangkan keunikan dari karakter siswa sekolah dasar Indonesia merupakan jawaban dari pertanyaan yang kedua.

Pelaksanaan dari riset ini terbatas hanya pada pengembangan model teoritis yang masih merupakan produk awal dari tahapan Riset dan Pengembangan. Oleh karena itu, study lebih lanjut dari riset ini sangat disarankan untuk dilakukan untuk menjadikan instrumen ini operasional secara sempurna.

CHAPTER I

THE INTRODUCTION

This research is a study on English testing which concentrates on the concept and the development of the theoretical testing model to measure communicative written English competence of Indonesian elementary school students.

This chapter is an initial part which will review the background of the research, research position, problem identification, research focus, research questions, research benefits,andproduct specification.

A. RESEARCH BACKGROUND

The globalization era which enables all countries around the world to plant business and trades without any country boundaries that is legitimated by International convention of World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994 has impact on English as the language of the world or commonly known as lingua franca. English becomes the language of the internet, motion pictures, science and sports. It is also the language which is spoken for business and political power. Employers on a national as well as on an international scale pay attention to the English skills of their future employees. Therefore, millions of learners around the world seek the ability to communicate in English as the passport to economic prosperity, social mobility and educational improvement. People’s need to function in today’s world pushes them to learn English. They devote both time

and money to have their English skills assessed and tested to get the recognition of their English skill as well as improvement on their English learning process.

Indonesia, as one of the biggest ASEAN countries also joins the driven spirit of acquiring English as a communicative language for its people, especially for its young generations. Indonesian government, as if they do not want to be left behind, put English as a compulsory subject in the curriculum and put it as one of the only compulsory foreign language being tested in the National education examination. Even, nowadays, there has been a rush trend of teaching the language from the earlier age. Parents are eager to introduce English to their children as early as possible by sending their children to the institutions that state themselves as putting English into their curriculum.

Unfortunately, the strong motivation of mastering English in Indonesia has not yet came to the effectiveness and productivity of the result. Teaching English in Indonesia has been in place for years up to now and various evaluation on the curriculum and methods have been developed to improve students’ English competence, yet the result is still far from being optimally achieved as to make students able to communicate in English. Indonesia’s English proficiency is considered as very low. A commercial site of EF, an international English course institution, shows the result of their research on world English mastery in 2011. The result shows that from 13 Asian countries, Indonesia is in the 10th rank. It is shown in the figure below:

Figure 1.1. Asian countries rank in the level of English proficiency ( http://www.ef.co.id/epi/country-profiles/indonesia/)

The researcher realizes that the result may be intended for commercial, yet she thinks that, at least, it can be taken as a slight picture of what Indonesia has achieved so far in the English profeciency in the world English mastery. Such a result, however, has led to a doubt about the English achievement in Indonesian elementary school. Suyanto (2001) stated English teaching in Indonesia elementary school was considered as not yet successful due to the fact that there was not yet a national standard on the curriculum. Every province was allowed to make their own curriculum that one province might have different curriculum concept from another. He further explained that English curriculum as a local load curriculum had many handicaps, among of which was that it was not suitable for the development of children of 6-12 years old. The future condition of English teaching and learning in this stage, now, may even worse. The media has broadcasted the news that Deputy Education Minister, Musliar Kasim, has announced that English is abolished for lower elementary pupils in the next school year beginning July 2013 as part of a curriculum restoration. The policy making is due to goverment’s concern that English learning in the early age can be a burden and endangers the foundation of the pupils’ nationalism. With such a concern, the government determines the subject to be taught and learnt within the next level of

education started from the junior high school level as the earliest. Yet, lately, Musliar, after the few months debate, finally has announced that English will not be abolished after all. Schools are allowed to offer the subject but as an elective subject. It should not be made compulsory.

Many people disagree with the government’s policy. Ignoring the dispute, parents keep sending their children to institutions which put English in their curriculum. And educational institutions, both government and private elementary schools and English course institutions, keep introducing English to the pupils in their curriculum but in a different strategy.

Such an uncertain situation, however, was not conducive for the pupils’ English learning atmosphere and later on may have bad impact to the pupils’ future English learning. If elementary schools are formally not allowed to include English into their curriculum, and the schools keep conducting it in their own way, the format of English teaching and learning in elementary school level will be uncontrolly designed. The impact which may come along with the situation is the uncontrolled quality assurance on the outcome. The people’s high expectation of preparing their children a weapon (by acquiring English well) to compete for good careers in the future will be unfulfilled.

In fact, the reason why the government decides to dismiss English from the elementary school curriculum is actually highly questionable. An emprical results in favor of the positive effects of early English education has been found by Katsuyama, Nishigaki and Wang (2008) in their research on 1466 elementary school children in Japan that students who took English lesson in elementary

school had more “aptitude and interest towards learning English that those who did not receive any English” (Kim, 2004:26). The result also showed that positive impression and attitudes with ‘regard to early language learning experiences are likely to fuel the learners’ desire for further language learning” (Kim, 2004:26). Another study also showed that the power to learn language is so great in the young child that it does not seem to matter how many languages they are willing to learn. The children have the capacity and there is no detriment to develop several languages at the same time. Therefore, learning English for the elementary school students actually means no burden for them (Kim, 2004:26).

Elementary School is considered as the basic level of education. Therefore an effectiveness English teaching method in this level is very critical for the students’ future acceptance on the English learning. The uncertain condition for the English learning in the elementary school level will mean more disadvatages for the aim of national education to produce qualified human resources. Therefore, an educative instrument which can act as a scaffolding for the people to control the quality of their children’s English learning achievement is critically needed.

An effective measurement and definition of the English competence of Indonesian elementary school students are necessary. A good testing instrument is critical to get a right picture of the outcome of the teaching and leraning process which has been conducted. The result of an effective test can be used to make an effective evaluation so that the improvement of teaching learning could effectively be formulated. An effective instrument should be able to give information about the aspects of students’ weakness and strength in order to make

decisions on what should be done for the improvement. Such reason has driven the writing of this thesis. With the intention to create an effective blue-print of English testing model, the thesis is written to formulate a blue-print and its prototype for an effective testing model which enables us to make a right decision in the improvement of English teaching and learning in elementary school of Indonesia.

B. RESEARCH POSITION

This research is conducted as a scientific research in English measurement in Indonesia in the elementary school level. The research will deal with Indonesian elementary school students and the development of the right theoretical testing model to measure their communicative written English competence.

Some studies have been conducted to do research in English test in the International scale, among of them are:

(1) A study on Measures of Language Proficiency from the Learner’s Perspective which was done in 1982 by Hossein Farhady from University of California, Los Angeles, University for Teacher Education, Tehran, Iran.Here, he examined the importance of learner characteristics in relation to learner performance on ESL tests. He argued that test taker characteristics were not included in the design of most ESL tests. In the research, he also provided the empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that performance on various ESL tests was closely related to test takers’ educational and language backgrounds and that in order to account for those factors, so as to reduce test bias, the theoretical

definition of language proficiency should be modified. The result of the research was a suggestion on the guidelines to dealing with test taker’s characteristics.

(2) A study on English Test-Taking Strategy Use and Students’ Test Performance by Wenxia Zhang, Meihua Liu, Shan Zhao, Qiong Xie from Tsinghua University, China. They reported on a study of the use of English test-taking strategy and its effect on students’ test performance.

There are, actually, many studies conducted in the international scale that deal with English testing, Yet, it is really rare to find any in the national scale, especially the one which deals with English testing for Indonesian young English learners. This may because there are still many people who are still sceptical about the importance of introducing English to Indonesian young English learners. Moreover, testing itself, is also still considered as a complicated stuff for young learners. With such assumption, the researcher is sure that this research can be stated as a new step in the study of English testing for Indonesian young English learners. Therefore, this research can be stated as original and, hopefully, can provide more contribution to the development of language testing literature. C. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

The primary concerns of most language educators, are the process of instruction and measurement which can improve the quality of the service being delivered to the learners. Since testing is the most applied method of measurement as an integral part of educational system that gives vital value in maintaining and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning, a right testing instrument is really critical. Therefore, a good and right testing instrument needs a strong concept as the underlying theory.

In order to formulate a right concept and design of a testing instrument to measure the written English competence of elementary school’s students, this research will work on four key problems noted to clarify, that are: Elementary School English Learners, English Testing, Communicative Written English Competence, and English Teaching and Learning in Elementary Schools of Indonesia.

D. RESEARCH FOCUS

The former parts of this chapter have explored the problems which might reveal in formulating a testing model for written English competence of elementary school students. Within the ‘revealed’ problems, the focus of this research will be limited specifically to the communicative written English competence of Indonesian elementary school students and the development of its theoretical testing model.

E. RESEARCH LIMITATION

This research will use Research and Development method in formulating the concept so as developing the instrument. In the Research and Development procedure, a researcher should conduct a cicly which containts 10 phases. Yet, due to the limitation of time available for the researcher, this research will only be limited to five phases of the required ten phases. The validation of the product will be conducted through a construct validation by four TEYL professionals and a ‘semi’ trial test conducted in a small number of the test taker candidates as the supplement to the experts’ improvement feedbacks.

F. RESEARCH QUESTION

The previous part of this chapter has identified the rationale behind the conducting of the research, the research position, the problem identification and the

research focus of the intended research. The following are the problems of the research which are formulated into two research questions:

(1) What is the written English competence of Indonesia elementary school students like?

(2) What is the measurement instrument of the written English competence of Indonesia elementary school students like?

G. RESEARCH BENEFIT

Measurement as a part of evaluation is critical to improve the quality of the teaching and learning system. Measurement in a form of testing is probably considered as the most applied evaluation method in language education. Meanwhile, language competence is something which is abstract. To empirically see it, people mostly prefer language testing as the method of gathering information as it is considered to have more objective result. The result will enable the educational stakeholders to see how far the goal or objective of the learning and teaching process is successfully conducted. Thus, developing an effective testing model which can measure the achievement of the learning teaching process is really interesting and critical.

This research is conducted in order to formulate the theoretical testing model to measure the communicative written English competence of Indonesian elementary school English learners. Hopefully, the result of this research can provide an alternative measurement instrument that can contribute to the improvement of quality of English teaching in the level of elementary education.

H. PRODUCT SPECIFICATION

The product of this research will hopefully be the theoretical testing model (blue print) and its prototype of Test of Communicative English for Elementary School Students of Indonesia (TOESI). The product is theoretically developed based on the concept of English teaching and measurement which is suitable for Indonesian elementary school students and eliminated from the influences of any changes on the national curriculum policy.

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter mainly discusses about theories which will be used to build a synthesized understanding to answer the previously set research questions so as to develop the design and the operational of the theoretical testing model for evaluating the written English competence of elementary students of Indonesia. The discussion contains two sections. Section (1) is the theoretical review which covers three main constructed theories underlying the research concept: firstly,

Elementary school students which will cover the discussion on elementary school students as young English learners. Secondly, English testing which will discuss about the philosophy, the definition and the criteria of a good testing. Thirdly,communicative written English competencewhich will cover the role and functions of English language and exploration on communicative English competence and the written English competence in general and for young learners and lastly, English education in elementary schools of Indonesia. Section (2) is the theoretical framework which covers the formulation of the testing model and the hypotheses/assumptions of written English competence of Indonesian young learners.

A. THEORETICAL REVIEW

1. Elementary School Students

Elementary school students are categorized as young learners. Therefore, in order to develop an effective testing instrument for Indonesian elementary school students, the knowledge about what is meant by young learners and their

characteristics is importantly acknowledged. Mc Kay (2006: 288) states that the demand of tasks of the test should be appropriate to children’s age and their related abilities and should not extend beyond the children’s capacity.

The term ‘young learners’ usually is referred to catch all terms for students who are not yet adults. The term is often interpreted in different ways. It is used by some institutions and language providers to refer to any student who has not yet reached their maturity. In this sense, the term ‘young learners’ includes the whole range of ages and developmental stages of children from infants, young children and older children, through to adolescent teenagers and young people. Slattery (2001: 4) uses the term ‘young learners’ for children aged 7 to 12 and ‘very young learners’ for those aged under 7.

As the object of the research is students of elementary school, the ‘young learners’ mentioned in this research is the one which refers to children of their beginning of first year of formal school that is when they are 7 years old up to their last of first year of formal school that is when they are about 11-12 years old. There are several things to be noticed in developing testing/assessment for young learners. They are :

a. Cognitive Growth

In studying the cognitive development of children and adolescents, Piaget (1896-1980) identifies four major stages: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational and formal operational. He believes that all children pass through these phases to advance to the next level of cognitive development. In each stage, children show new intellectual abilities and increasingly complex understanding

of the world. “Stages cannot be ‘skipped’; intellectual development always follows this sequence” (Berk, 2008: 208). The figure below illustrates the stages of young learners based on Piaget’s theory:

Figure 2.1. Tiffany Davis’ illustration of Piaget's four cognitive development stages cited from Meghan Hummel, and Kay Sauers (2006)

As it is shown in the above figure, the first stage, sensorimotor, begins at birth and lasts until 18 months-2 years of age. This stage involves “the use of motor activity without the use of symbols”. Knowledge is limited in this stage, because it is based on physical interactions and experiences. The second stage,

preoperational usually occurs during the period between toddlerhood (18-24months) and early childhood (7 years). During this stage children begin to use language and develop their memory and imagination. In this stage, children engage in make believe and can understand and express relationships between the past and the future. More complex concepts, such as cause and effect relationships, have not been learned. Intelligence is egocentric and intuitive, not logical. The third stage,concrete operationalstage typically develops between the ages of 7-11 years. Intellectual development in this stage is shown by the use of logical and systematic manipulation of symbols, which are related to concrete objects. Thinking becomes less egocentric with increased awareness of external events, and involves concrete references. The period from adolescence through adulthood

is the formal operational stage that typically develops above 12 years. Adolescents and adults use symbols related to abstract concepts. Adolescents can think about multiple variables in systematic ways, can formulate hypotheses, and think about abstract relationships and concepts.

A description of children’s cognitive development and language learning is presented by Mc Kay (2006, 6-7). She states that in the early years of schooling children’s attention span is short. They are easily unfocused and distracted by others. They can easily drop out the task when they find it difficult. From age 5 to 7, children learn continuously direct from experience. They develop their understanding of cause and effect, such as “I can have a pet if I take care of it.” They start developing the use of their first language to clarify thinking and learning. They understand the meaning of the words ‘tomorrow’ or ‘yesterday’ but they may still be unsure about length of time. Before the age of 8, children do not find it easy to use language to talk about language, such as grammar and discourse. As children move into older age or upper eelementary grades, they start developing into more objective thought and being able to recognize things. At the age of 11 to 13, children begin to develop the ability to ‘manipulate’ thoughts and ideas. The use of language has developed to the ability of predicting, hypothesizing, and classifying. Their understanding of cause and effect also expand. At the age of 12, children’s understanding of time has developed to “the point where they can talk about recent events, plans for the future and career aspirations” (Mc Kay, 2006: 7).

The object of the research is the students of elementary school. Therefore, ‘young learners’ mentioned in this research is the ones which refer to children of their end of first year of formal school that is when they are 7-12 years old. In Piaget’s theory, it is in the stage of between the concrete operational and formal operational stage. The character of this age young learner can be summed up as: first, ready to use logical and systematic manipulation of symbols which related to concrete objects. Second, begin to think less egocentrically with increasing awareness of external events. Third, start to involve concrete references, and fourth, they start to be able to think about cause and effect. Another theory is from Mc Kay’s which defines it as a period in which children begin to develop: first, their ability to ‘manipulate’ thoughts and ideas. Second, develop their use of language to the ability of predicting, hypothesizing, and classifying. Third, develop their understanding of cause and effect and fourth, their understanding and ability to talk about recent events, plans for the future and career aspirations.

b. Social and Emotional Growth

Children also are growing socially and emotionally as they enter formal school. Mc Kay (2006: 8) states that as children enter formal school, they gradually develop from a main interest in self towards greater social awareness and understanding of the self in relation to others and ability to function in groups. Their need for love, security, recognition and belonging gradually shifts from dependence on adults to peer group support and approval.

When children are 5 to 12 years of age, socially, they gain in confidence and reduce dependency. During their school time, their contact with peers expands

greatly. They learn to interact with peers, to deal with hospitality and dominance, to learn to be leader so as to lead others, to deal with social problem and to develop a concept of self.

At the age between 5 and 7, children develop their ability to take part in small group task by which they learn to cooperate and share and take turns with others. At this period, they might start to develop feelings of independence but they still feel anxious when separated from familiar people or places.

When children are around 11 years of age, they have become sociable and like to spend time with friends of the same sex and their ability to work and play with other keep developing. They appear relatively calm, with short-lived moments of anger, sadness or depression. They often are able to hide feeling of their anxiety that they behave and act over confident. At this period, they are defining themselves in terms of their physical characteristics and their likes and dislikes. They are sensitive to criticism and their feeling of success or failure is dependent on how adults and peers respond to them.

Children of the age 5 to 12 years are in a sensitive and unstable emotional condition, therefore the assessment or test should be familiar and use texts of familiar content, such as home and family, school, and simple genre like children’s stories and folktales (Mc Kay, 2006: 10).

c. Physical Growth

Children physical growth is characterized by continuing and rapid development of gross and fine motor skills (Mc Kay, 2006: 10). From the age of

5 to 7, they develop their ability to move around, such as climbing, balancing, running and jump. Their fine motor skill which involves developments in hand– eye coordination such as handling writing tools, using scissors is also increasing. In on going development progress, children, at this age, develop their ability to hold thinner pens, drawing finer pictures and building intricate models. They are very active, tiring easily and recovers quickly. Therefore, they may tire more easily from sitting than from running. They love physical activities, are enthusiastic and lively that they enjoy to play and to engage in fantasy and fun.

By the time they are 9 to 12 years age, children’s hand-eye coordination grows better than when they are 7 or 8 years old. Their large muscle coordination develops gradually to speed and accuracy in running, climbing, throwing and catching activities.

Physical development needs to be considered particularly with regard to tiredness, ability to sit still during and hand-eye coordination the test or assessment. Tasks which involve physical activity to accompany the language related response such as moving, pointing, circling or coloring in a picture will help to encourage children to complete the task, especially for those in the early grades. Children in the upper elementary school are more able to respond without such requirement (Mc Kay, 2006: 10).

d. Literacy (reading and writing ability)

The most noticeable characteristic of young learners in language learning compared to older learners is that they are still learning literacy skills and

understandings at the same time as they are learning the target language. Literacy skills include children’s writing and reading ability.

The general expectations of literacy development of a child in learning their first language can be seen in figure below:

5–7 years _ Are continuing to develop a sense of how writing and reading work

 Combine drawing and writing to convey ideas

 Understand that ‘prints’ tells the story

 Develop a basic vocabulary of personal words

 Read slowly and deliberately

 Will substitute words that makes sense when reading 7–9 years _ Begin to understand and use writing and reading for

specific purpose

 May combine drawing and writing but writing can stand alone to convey meaning

 Develop a rapidly increasing vocabulary of sight words

 Begin to self-correct errors

 Develop the ability to read silently

 Increase ability to read aloud fluently and with expression

9–11 years _ Can expand thinking more readily through writing and reading

 Continue to increase reading vocabulary

 Continue to self-correct errors

 Read silently with increased speed and comprehension (silent reading speed greater than oral speed may result in oral reading difficulties)

11–13 years _ Continue to expand thinking readily through writing and reading

 Continue to increase silent reading rate and time spent at reading

 Continue to increase ability adjust rate and reading to suit purpose (skim, scan, select, study)

 Continue to broaden their interests in a variety of

Table 1.1. Widely held Expectations of literacy development (Puckett and Black, 2000, 100 cited by Mc Kay (2006: 12)

fiction and non-fiction

 Begin to understand that people may interpret the same material in different ways

Mc Kay (2006: 11) states that a defining characteristic of literacy development is that children should have developed their understanding about how reading and writing work before they start school. These understandings establish the foundation of literacy. She gives an example that as skills of decoding and whole word recognition and knowledge discourse organization start to develop from reading slowly to read aloud and silently then to ability of reading for information or pleasure. In the early years, they convey messages through writing with the help of drawing and catch messages through pictures. The development of children’s writing skill counts on their progress in fine-motor skills, ability to remember words and spelling, and ability to combine words in sentences and paragraphs.

When children are in age of between 7 and 9, they start to do self-correct and convey messages through writing.

By the end of elementary school or about 12 years old, children are able to write in ways that expand their thinking and to write in required form or genre. They are also able to read various fiction and non-fiction and start to develop their critical literacy skills.

An interesting point which is shown by the outline of expected progress in table 1.1, is that children have started reading and writing when they are between 5 and 7 with well-developed oral abilities in their first language. Children’s oral

language underpins their literacy development in their first language. During their elementary school, they develop their ability to interact conversationally with many people in different situations, goal and topics. They have developed to an ability of talking and discussing about familiar topics such as home, family, school and broaden topics as they experience more with the world which require greater cognitive and linguistic abilities than conversational interaction such as narrative, argument, description, instruction and opinions.

For second/foreign language learners, literacy knowledge from their first language is a big support in their learning of reading and writing in the target language, although sometimes a different script can contradict this advantage. Therefore, Ioannou (2003: 68) says that writing in a foreign language for young learners is difficult. It requires a mastery of a number of language areas such as spelling, grammar, vocabulary and other skills such as handwriting and punctuation. For most young learners writing is usually not a favorite activity. Therefore, writing activities should be made creative, communicative and enjoyable. It is very crucial for young learners whose primary motivation for learning foreign or second language is not passing an exam as the adults’. They are ‘moved’ because they are interested in the language that is on what they can do with it, and how much fun they have in their language learning. With such characterization, Ioannou (2003:69) suggests that tasks for assessing young learners’ writing abilities should represent realistic and authentic situation and generate interest and enjoyment. Mc Kay (2006:14) also points out that the knowledge children’s literacy skill is important to determine appropriate choice of

tasks such as the texts which are used for reading, the expectations in writing and the judgments about the nature of progress of student’s performance in the tasks.

e. Vulnerability

Young learners have an extra vulnerability that requires careful attention. At the elementary school period, children have a keen sensitivity to praise, criticism and approval and their self-esteem is strongly influenced by experiences at school. Children need experiences that help them to succeed and feel good about themselves. Such experiences are significant to help them maintain their enthusiasm or motivation and creativity. On the reverse, if they lack of positive self concept, they will loose their motivation, self esteem and sometimes this can have a long-term consequences. Therefore, the assessment or test tasks should enable children experience overall success and sense of progression. As children’s development may vary, an extreme care should be taken “to ensure that there is some flexibility in assessment or testing tasks (e.g. tasks catering for all levels or passes for all at different levels) so that a degree of success can be experienced by all children” (Mc Kay, 2006: 14).

To sum up the above explanation, the understanding of elementary school students’ characteristics is crucial in developing an effective testing instrument for them so that the demand of tasks of the test can be appropriate to their age and their related abilities and are not extend beyond their capacity. The understanding requires knowledge on the cognitive growth, emotional and physical growth, vulnerability, need and literacy of children in their beginning of first year of formal school (when they are 7 years old) up to their last of first year of formal

school (when they are about 11-12 years old). The following figure will visualize it:

2. English Testing a. Philosophy

According to Richards (2002) it is very essential to take or choose a basis theory to underlie the education process. As a building needs a foundation to make it strong and ‘safe’ to live at, a basis theory is also needed to have an ideal system of education. The philosophy of education becomes important when educators recognize the need for thinking clearly about what they are doing and to

Figure 2.2. Aspects of characteristics of elementary school language learners Characteristics of

elementary school language learners (children of 7 & up

to 12 years old)

Social and emotional growth

Physical growth Vulneribility

Literacy Cognitive growth

see what they are doing in the larger context -- how far they contributes to society. Educational philosophy is not only a basis for generating educational ideas, but also a basis for how to provide the desired instruction, such as: instructional methodology or curricula and the evaluation methods being chosen. Therefore, when we want to formulate a right testing method, a right educational philosophy as the underlying theory is also crucial.

Among many different value systems in education, the writer of this thesis classifies them into four different value systems: Classical Humanism, Reconstructionism, Progressivism, Postmodernism. andAccountability.

Classical Humanism (Richard & Renandya, 2002: 71) focuses more on the content of the curriculum which is universal, unchanging and absolute. In English language teaching which takes Classical Humanism as the foundation, the grammar-based curriculum in which the syllabus focuses on the grammar and vocabulary is underpinned. In Richard’s definition of curriculum, the purpose is to transfer knowledge of the language system to the students with their mastering grammar rules and vocabulary as the indicator. The teaching procedures and learning experiences deal with drilling of grammatically correct sentences, explanation of theory and memorization of list of vocabulary. And the assessment is done based on the students’ ability to produce grammatically accurate language (Renandya, 2002: 71) or in other words, the measurement focused on the knowledge about the material. It means that the value assigned, either to a program, a component, or goal achievement, is in how the goals of the education program are stated appropriately to the rule, how the content of materials are structured fits the rule, how the processes of transmitting the material are in

accordance to the rule, to what extent learners acquire knowledge about materials, etc.

While Classical Humanism focused on the knowledge about the material,

Reconstructionismbringsabout some kind of social change. It’s not focusing on the

content but the objective of the teaching-learning process. It views education as the scientific management of “observable changes in behavior which can be measured.” (Renandya, 2002:72). R.W. When social life changes, the educational program should be reconstructed to meet the change. The process of education is fulfilled only when the students understand why they do things. Schools foster the habits of thought, invention, and initiative which assist the student in the desired direction. The teacher, in this philosophy, is required to be aware of the background, interests, and motivations of the students. They also should look at the learners’ cognitive, physical, emotional, and other factors in the education process. The measurement in this philosophy is focused on the performance of the materials. It means that the value assigned, either to a program, a component, or goal achievement, is in terms of performance such as how appropriate the goals of the education program are stated, how appropriate are the process of reconstructing the unproductive behaviors to be productive ones, to what extent learners acquire the wanted performance, etc.

Progressivism sees education as having a purpose to enable students to

progress towards self-fulfillment. It deals with the development of understanding, not only a passive reception of knowledge or acquisition of specific skills, but in terms of the ‘processes’ and ‘procedures’ by which students develops understanding and awareness and create possibilities for the future learning. The

model focuses on three aspects: concepts of learner needs, interest and development processes (Richards and Renandya, 2002: 73). Finney (Richards and Renandya, 2002: 74) explains that this method is increasingly accepted due to the expand of research in the field of developmental psychology. The measurement with this philosophy is concentrated more on the competency, such as how appropriate the goals (in terms of competency of self fulfilling) are stated, how appropriate are the process of enabling learners to develop his/her capacity to extend and adapt what is learnt in the face of varied and emerging demands, etc.

According to Kelly (1989: 45-46)Classical Humanismis “inadequate as the basis for curriculum design”. Absolute, universal and unchanging characters of this philosophy are no longer able to handle the discussion of the wider purposes of education. The globalization era and the growth of multicultural societies have created more complexities of the learning process that the individual learner cannot be ignored. The ethos of ‘one education for all’ is no longer able to “take account of the widely differing needs of a massive student population” as the ‘educated’ people are no longer limited to some ‘elite’ people. Therefore, according to Kelly, today, ‘the foundation of universal knowledge is no longer secure and an educational philosophy based on this foundation is no longer acceptable”. Although Reconstructionism no longer focuses on the content, some strong criticisms reveal which are summarized by Kelly as ‘it reduces people to the level of automatons who can be trained to behave in particular ways and precludes such concepts as autonomy, self-fulfillment and personal development.

Post modernismis a little bit closer to Progressivism but with the emphasis more on the promoting equity and that there is no such thing as absolute, pure

truth. Fiharsono (2010: 10) mentions that ” in Bismoko’s words, education in the point of view of Post modernism improves life quality in terms of both physiological needs and growth needs (humanizing needs).” Therefore, he further explains that in post modernism, education is to help learners be more productive and self fulfilling while evaluation is to give value on the competency of productivity and self actualization such as how appropriate the goals of the education program are stated, to what extent the resources play roles in enabling learners develop competency, etc.

In the era of globalization within which English is determined as a lingua franca - “serving as a regular means of communication between different linguistic groups in a multilingual speech community” (Holmes, 1997: 86), and as Kelly (1989: 45-46) said in the previous paragraph of this thesis that globalization era and the growth of multicultural societies has created more complexities of the learning process that the individual learner cannot be ignored, according to the writer of this thesis, the Postmodernism is the appropriate basis theory to underlie the formulation of the testing instrument. Yet, the researcher thinks that the Post modernism is better not to stand alone as the underlying theory. The concept of Post modernism which admits that there is no such thing as absolute, pure truth has aroused a problem that it leaves people without absolute foundations for determining absolute truths about how they should think and live wisely on earth. United States faced the problem in education when the philoshopy underlying the autonomy of the education bureaucracy and professional. The failuire of the system highlighted by low student achievement scores, high costs and a growing disparity in educational opportunities among

different social classes as the impact. Such phenomenon, then, has been responded by the people’s demand for more school accountability. The demand for accountibility requires the authority to set the standards of how to maintain the service to the society. The standards which are set as the system to raise schools’ productivity (Hague, 1995:103).

Hence, the researcher decides to develop the testing instrument, the postmodernism which is accountable is choosen as the underlying theory in order to create an accountable system which help learners be more productive, and self fulfilled but accountable.

b. Concept of English Testing

1) Definition

Testing,according to Genesee (2007: 141) can be defined in three aspects: First, in the aspect of content, it is about intelligence. Second, in the aspect of method, it is not a single method of collecting information. And third, in the aspect of measurement, it tells scores that reflects attributes or characteristics of individuals and has a frame of reference.

English Testing is a part of evaluation system which (Genesee, 2007:4) is primarily about decision making with the purpose of improving English teaching and enhance English learning. The decision is formulated based on informed judgment which of components to be considered are: information, interpretation and decision making as it is illustrated below:

The above figure shows us the significant role of testing in making decision for the student’s education future. Therefore, as a part of evaluation, according to Mc Kay (2007, 20) effective testing instrument should be designed to ensure valid and fair information on the students’ abilities and progress. A testing is validif it measures what it is supposed to measure and it is fair when it provides meaningful and appropriate information about students’ language use ability. She further explains that the cost of making wrong decision as the result of wrong testing can be low stakes or high stakes in which the former ones are relatively minor and relatively easy to correct, on the other hand, the last ones are likely to affect students’ lives and are difficult to correct”(Mc Kay, 2007: 20). But, as she cites Bachman’s words, most of wrong decisions are more high stakes than we think since many decisions that teachers and schools make have a cumulative effect on students’ future. (Mc Kay, 2006: 20).

Figure 2.3. Aspects of testing

Interpreting Information

Decision making The Purpose

2) Classification

Testing, especially language testing, has been classified in many ways. Among which Genesee (1997: 152) classifies it according to whether they focus on. They are (1) underlying linguistic competence, (2) specific aspects or sub-skills of language, (3) a specific testing methods, (4) a particular kind of informationand (5)certain kinds of decisions.

Underlying linguistic competence is the underlying linguistic abilities or language knowledge that a learner has acquired. It is abstract that it cannot be observed directly. Linguistic competence is inferred on the basis of linguistic performance which is an individual’s ability to use language appropriately or correctly in a variety of situations such as grammatical competence, pragmatic competence, sociolinguistic competence, strategic competence, and communicative competence.

Specific Linguistic sub-skills usually refer to the test content. These are often described in terms of the grammatical features of language, such as spelling, vocabulary, grammar (or syntax), pronunciation, etc. Genesee (1997: 152) says that tests are seldom truly isolated points in nature because no test or test item depends only on one sub-skill to elimination of all others. Performance on a grammar test, for instance, can also reflect learner’s spelling, vocabulary or discourse structure. Therefore, according to him, “what a test is actually called depends on what the tester chooses to focus on, that is, what he chooses to score” (Genesee, 1997: 153).

Specific testing methods test is a testing refers to the testing method being used. A close test, for instance, is a testing method in which words of a written

text have been deleted and replaced by blanks that the test taker is supposed to fill in with appropriate words. According to Genesee (1997: 153), this test type tells nothing about the general linguistic competence or specific skills that are being tested.

Achievement, proficiency and performance tests refer to the types of information provided by the test. Results of the test give information about student’s attainment related to instructional objectives or a defined domain of language. For instance, a proficiency test tells information about student’s ability to use language in certain way.

The last is test type that describes certain kinds of decision made by using the test results. Placement test is one of the examples of this kind of test. It is conducted to identify appropriate levels or types of instruction for individual students.

Genesee (1997;154) says that he cannot make generalizations about the use of the kinds of test, because the use of a test type depend on the need of the language class which are unique.

3) Types of Test Items

Another important decision in developing testing instrument includes the types of test items. Reynolds (2009: 183) said that historically the popular approach has been to classify tests items as either ‘objective’ or ‘subjective’ which usually referred to how the items were scored. (2009: 183). This approach is proposed by Lamprianou (2009: 200) as follows:

Figure 2.4. Types of test items (Lamprianou, 2009: 200)

The test items should be easily scored “correct or incorrect” according to the scoring criteria. They can be scored in objective manner and are classified as objective. Everyone agrees on which answers keyed as correct or incorrect. On the contrary, the subjective scoring test items involve subjective judgment on the part of the individual grading the test. Therefore, Reynolds (2009: 183) said that it is not surprising that two graders might assign different grades to the same test item.

Another more direct approach classifies items as eitherselected-responseor

constructed-response items (Reynolds, 2009: 183). With this approach, an item which requires a student to select a response from available alternative is classified as a selected-response item. Multiple-choice, true-false, and matching items are included in the selected response items. If an item requires students to create or construct a response, it is classified as a constructed-response item. Fill-in- the blank, short answer and essay are included in the constructed response items.

To identify which test items will be used in the development of the testing instrument, the researcher digs out the information about these test items:

Restricted essay Extended essay Project

Assignment Case study TYPES OF TEST ITEMS

OBJECTIVE SCORING SUBJECTIVE SCORING Short answer

Completion Identification

True-False Multiple Choices Matching

Multiple-Choice items

Multiple choice items (Reynolds, 2009: 196) are considered as the most popular of the selected response items. They can be used in a variety of content area and can assess both simple and complex learning outcomes. It takes the general forms of a question or an incomplete statement with a set of possible answers, one of which is correct. These are referred to as the stem. The stem can be in the form of a direct question or an incomplete sentence. The possible answers are referred to as alternatives. The correct answer is the answer and the incorrect alternatives are referred to as distracters. Example of Multiple choice items are below:

Example 1 Direct –Question Format

1. Which river is the largest in the United States of America? A. Mississippi

B. Missouri C. Ohio D. Rio Grande

Example 2. Incomplete-Sentence Format

2. The largest river in the United States of America is the ---A. Mississippi

B. Missouri C. Ohio D. Rio Grande

Figure 2.5. . Example of Multiple Choice (Reynolds , 2009: 196)

True-False Items

True-False items (Reynolds, 2009: 211) are considered the second most popular items after the multiple-choice items. These items involve a statement or question that a student marks as true or false, agree or disagree, correct or

incorrect, yes or no, fact or opinion and soon. Yet, the most common form used is true and false (Reynolds, 2009: 211). Below is an example of true-falseitem:

Carefully read each of the following statements. If the statemen is true, underscore the T. If the statement is false, underscore the F.

1. T F In recent years, malaria has been eliminated worldwide

2. T F The ozone layer protects us from harmful ultraviolet radiation.

Figure 2.6. Example of true-false items(Reynolds, 2009: 211)

Matching Items

Matching items (Reynolds, 2009: 215) usually contain two columns of words or phrases. One column contains words or phrases for which the students seek a match. Traditionally, this column is placed on the left and the phrases are referred to as premises. The second column contains words which are available for selection. The items in this column are referred to as responses. The premises usually are numbered and the responses are identified with letters. Here is an example of the matching items:

Column A Column B

___ 1. Helps initiate and control rapid a. basal ganglia movement of the arms and legs b. cerebellum ‘2. Serves as a relay station connecting c. thalamus

different parts of the brain

Figure 2.7. Example of True-false items (Reynolds , 2009: 217)

Essay Items

An essay item (Reynolds, 2009: 224) is a test item that has a question or problem for the student to respond in a written format. As a constructed response item, Essay items require students to respond by constructing a response, not by

S

tar

ters

Re

ading & W

riting

C

ambridg

e

Y

o

u

n

g

Le

arners

E

ngli

sh

Tests

3

2

This is a bike.

3

This is a pineapple.

4

This is a television.

5

This is a guitar.

2

Part 1

– 5 questions –

Look and read. Put a tick (4) or a cross (8) in the box. There are two examples.

Examples

This is a flower.

4

This is a goat.

8

Questions

1

This is a lizard.

S tar ters Pa Le arners E ngli sh Tests

S

tar

ters

Re

ading & W

riting

5

s

t

r

u

r

_o

_e

s

a

g

_a

d

n

_b

h

e

r

s

_s

_d

s

a

n

_j

_e

e

_s

h

o

s

c

_e

k

t

j

a

d r e s s

Look at the pictures. Look at the letters. Write the words. Example Questions 1 2 3 4 5 4

– 5 questions – Look and read. Write yes or no.

Examples

A boy is reading a book.

_...

yes

A monkey is sitting on the big elephant.

_...

no

Questions

1 There are two children in the sea.

_...

2 The duck is walking behind the

two elephants.

_...

3 The girls are playing with a ball.

_...

4 The woman in the boat has got

a camera.

_...

5 The crocodile is eating a coconut.

_...

S

tar

ters

Re

ading & W

riting

C

ambridg

e

Y

o

u

n

g

Le

arners

E

ngli

sh

Tests

6

Part 4

– 5 questions –

Read this. Choose a word from the box. Write the correct word next to numbers 1–5. There is one example.

A horse

I’ve got four

_...

legs

, two ears, two eyes and long (1)

_...

on my head. I’m a big animal. I don’t live in a (2)

_...

or a garden. I like eating

(3)

_...

and apples. I drink (4)

_...

. A woman, a (5)

_...

or a child can ride me.

What am I? I am a horse.

example

legs hippo water carrots

hair man house piano

S

tar

ters

Pa

Le

arners

E

ngli

sh

Tests

S

tar

ters

Re

ading & W

riting

8

2 Who is holding the cat?

a

...

3 What is the teacher doing now?

_...

4 Where is the cat now?

at the

...

5 How many children are looking

at the cat?

_...

Starters

_{Reading & Writing}

Marking Key

Part 1

_{5 marks}

1 ✘

2 ✔

3 ✔

4 ✘

5 ✔

Part 2

_{5 marks}

1 yes

2 no

3 no

4 yes

5 no

Part 3

_{5 marks}

1 jeans

2 shoes

3 jacket

4 handbag

5 trousers

Part 4

_{5 marks}

1 hair

2 house

3 carrots

4 water

5 man

Part 5

_{5 marks}

1 fish

2 (school)girl/student/child/pupil 3 writing

4 window

5 5//five ( ) = Acceptable extra words are placed in brackets

/ = A single slash is placed between acceptable alternative words within an answer

// = A double slash is placed between acceptable alternative complete answers