115 verbs and change them into verb two. The activity intended that the students
would add their vocabularies of some verbs and know the second form of those verbs. Although there was an addition for the vocabularies, the students
learned about the verb also. Learning about simple past tense did not finish at that point, the verb. There were some other aspects which should be
understood by the students. The adverb of time for past tense, for example, was one of the aspects which should be learnt also, and many more.
Unfortunately, it was stated in the lesson plan that the skills involved are reading and writing but the assessment did not serve those skills. The
assessment result did not represent that at the end of the instruction the students were able to understand a text or article. It had little attention for
writing skill, too. The students were not given sufficient place to improve their reading and writing skills about past tense through the assessment. It could be
concluded that the assessment had low content validity in reading and writing skill of simple past tense but it had moderate content validity for the
understanding of simple past tense.
D. The Second Document of the Second Respondent
a. The Content
The second respondent stated that the instructional content on the second lesson plan was the expression of invitation, especially for listening
and speaking skills. The instructional goals were that the students were able to understand the conversation using the expression of invitation and that the
students were able to use oral language using the expression of invitation. From those goals, the second respondent formulated four objectives, namely
first, the students are able to pronounce some words, phrases, or sentences related to the expression of invitation, second, the students are able to mention
the meaning of some words, phrases, or sentences related to the expression of invitation, third, the students are able to complete the blank parts in the
conversation where the expressions of invitation were involved, and the fourth, the students are able to speak using the expression of invitation. From
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
116 those objective formulations, only the fourth objective stated the learning
outcomes, the other objectives stated only the learning activities the students would be involved. Since there were not any other statements of the learning
outcomes, the writer used the objectives as the basis to analyze the respondent’s documents.
After the instructional process, according to the formulation of the objectives, the students were considered master the content if the students
were able to pronounce and mention some words, phrase, and sentences related to the expression of invitation correctly, they were able to have a
conversation using the expression of invitation acceptably and correctly, and they were able to complete the blank parts from the conversation of invitation.
These outcomes were related to speaking and listening skills in which the expression of invitation became the focus in the process of teaching and
learning. Nevertheless, there was an imbalance skill in the instructional objectives where the speaking skill was given more attention than the listening
skill. Seen from the S.M.A.R.T and clear principles of an objectives
formulation, the objectives stated above were simple, measurable, action- oriented, reasonable, and fairly clear but lacked in time-specification. The first
objectives stated that the students are able to pronounce some words, phrases, or sentences related to the expression invitation. The first objective clearly
pointed that the students had to be able to pronounce the words, phrases, or sentences related to the expression of invitation. The second objectives had the
similar idea in which the students are able to mention the meaning of some words, phrases, or sentences related to the expression of invitation. Those two
objectives could be written in one sentence actually and they were related because the students should pronounce the words of which they knew the
meaning. Mentioning the meaning in the second objective had little correlation with speaking skill so it was better for the second respondent to write them
down in a sentence to have a better objective formulation.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
117 The third objective, the students are able to complete the blank parts
in the conversation of invitation, needed elaboration, too. The ability to complete the blank parts from a recording of the dialogue where the
expressions of invitation were involved was not the intended outcome of an instruction but it was considered as learning activity. The intended outcomes
would come after the students finished doing the procedure. The students would be able to produce and respond the sentences of the expression of
invitation since they had given the opportunities to obtain some examples of the expression of invitation from the conversation.
In case of listening ability, the respondent should specify the parts of a sentence that be blanked. It should be specified that the words or phrases
which were blanked helped the students learn about the expression of invitation. Simple phrases or sentences would be good parts which should be
blanked because the expression was in the phrase or sentence level. If the blank parts were the subject, the object, or the adverb of the sentence or in the
word level, they would not strongly help the students learn about the expression of invitation. They students learned about listening but the content
would not be achieved. The last objective was that the students are able to speak using the
expression of invitation. The objective was simple, measurable, action- oriented, reasonable, and clear enough but it lacked time-specification. The
objective required the students to use the expression of invitation in a conversation. It meant that the students applied the knowledge about the
expression of invitation and its use in a planned or spontaneous conversation. The objective was well formulated with some elaboration in its scoring
criteria. The teachers should have a scoring rubric to measure the student mastery in applying the expression of invitation in a conversation.
b. Content Validation
The second respondent prepared an assessment with two activities for her instruction. The first procedure was completing the crossword and the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
118 second was listening to a tape of conversation to complete the blank parts of a
dialogue. In completing the crossword, the students were asked to complete the crossword with the English words for some Indonesian words. The
students had to translate the words and complete the crossword with those translated words. The writer could conclude that the first assessment
procedure resulted that the students would be able to mention the meaning of some words and translate them into English words. The outcome was not
really sufficient to help the students learn about the expression of invitation. The first procedure did not involve speaking or listening skills since the
students were not given the chance to pronounce the words but its involved the writing skill. The writer could say that the intended outcome of the first
assessment procedure had low content validity since it could not represent the intended instructional content.
The second procedure was filling the blank parts of a dialogue. In this procedure, the students were given the chance to listen a tape of conversation
which involved the expression of invitation. It was called listening cloze task which require the test-taker to listen to a dialogue and simultaneously read the
written text in which selected words or phrases have been deleted H. D. Brown, 2004, p. 126. The task involved the macroskill of listening in which
the students develop and use a battery of listening strategies, such as detecting key words, guessing the meaning of words from context.
As elaborated in the previous part, the listening cloze task needed to be specified which parts of the sentence blanked in order to help the students
learn about the expression of invitation. From the missing part of the dialogue, the writer found that the missing parts were not specified whether they were
the subject, object, or adverb in the sentences. The missing parts were random; they were noun, adjective, or adverb. Unfortunately, the missing part did not
really help the students to learn about the expression of invitation. It would be better if the second respondent made the missing part in a sentence level not in
word level since the expression of invitation was usually in sentence level.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
119 The second procedure resulted that the students were able to complete
the dialogue with some words which, intentionally, were related to the expression of invitation. Nevertheless, the words were not clearly related to
the expression of invitation. Actually, the dialogue was a really good example of the expression of invitation in which there were some examples of the
expression of invitation and its responses for a daily life context. Yet, the second respondent did not use this dialogue optimally. She could ask the
students to pay attention on the expression of invitation by mentioning the example of the sentences which consisted of the expression of invitation or by
underlining the sentences which were the expression of invitation. The second respondent only evaluated the students’ answers and gave the correct answers.
If the dialogue was used optimally, the intended outcomes, which the students were able to understand and respond the expression of invitation, could be
achieved. It was good that the second respondent asked her students to practice the dialogue with their friends. The process helped the students to be
familiar with the expression of invitation. Finally, the writer concluded that the assessment content from the second procedure had high content validity
seen from the objectives formulation but they had low content validity seen from the main instructional content.
E. The First Document of the Third Respondent
