THE IMPLEMENTATION OF BLOOM’S TAXONOMY ON THE ENGLISH SUMMATIVE TEST ITEMS FOR SECOND YEAR SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2015/2016.

(1)

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF BLOOM’S TAXONOMY ON

THE ENGLISH SUMMATIVE TEST ITEMS FOR SECOND

YEAR SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2015/2016

A THESIS

Submitted to Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan

By:

NURUL SORAYA SARAGIH

Registration Number: 2122121049

ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

2017

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

ABSTRACT

Saragih, Nurul Soraya. 2122121049. The Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy on the English Summative Test Items for Second Year Senior High School Students in Academic Year 2015/2016. A Thesis: English Department. Faculty of Languages and Arts. State University of Medan. 2017.

This study aimed to analyze the distribution of cognitive level of Bloom’s Taxonomy in English Summative Test items for reading comprehension in odd and even semesters of second year students in SMAN 1 in Tebing Syahbandar academic year 2015/2016. The method of this research is descriptive qualitative research for collect, analyze and classify reading questions based on revised of

Bloom’s Taxonomy. The data of this study were taken from English Summative Test for eleventh grade of SMAN 1 Tebing Syahbandar. The results of this study are: for odd semester C1 (69.23%), C2 (15.38%), C3 (7.69%), C4 (7.69%), C5 (0%) and C6 (0%); and for even semester C1 (38.89%), C2 (5.56%), C3 (0%), C4 (55.56%), C5 (0%) and C6 (0%). Adapted by Sudjana (2009), these results do not achieve proportion of thinking order skill that the total of C1 and C2 is 30%, C2 and C3 is 40%, C4 and C5 is 30%. It shows that the distribution of of cognitive

level of Bloom’s Taxonomy in English Summative Test items for reading comprehension in odd and even semesters of second year students in SMAN 1 in Tebing Syahbandar academic year 2015/2016 are not appropriate.

Key words: English summative test, reading comprehension questions, revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.

(7)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Praise be to Allah, Lord of the world, for His blessing, mercy, opportunity and helping the researcher to complete this Thesis entitled “The Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy on the English Summative Test Items for Second Year Senior High School Students in Academic Year 2015/2016”. Prayers and peace to the Prophet Muhammad PBUH, his family, his companion, and his adherence who has brought us out from the darkness into the brightness world that full of knowledge and knowledge.

This thesis is compiled to fulfill the requirement for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan (S1) at English Department Faculty of Language and Arts, State University of Medan.

The researcher would like to express gratitude because of guidance, encouragement, suggestion and comment for finishing this thesis and would like to extend her sincere and special thanks to:

1. Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Rector of State University of Medan.

2. Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., the Dean Faculty of Languages and Arts.

3. Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English and Literature Department.

4. Nora Ronita Dewi, S.S., M.Hum., the Head of Education Program of English Department.

5. Indra Hartoyo, S. Pd., M. Hum., the Thesis Advisor.

6. Johannes Jefria Gultom, S. Pd., M. Hum., the Academic Advisor and Thesis Advisor

7. All the Lecturers of English Department who has thought, guided, and advised her throughout the academic years.

8. Euis Sri Wahyuningsih, M.Pd., as the Administration Staff of English Department, for her attention, assistance, and information in completing this Thesis

9. Dr. Joni Walker Manik, MM, the Head of Education Department of Serdang Bedagai.

10.H. Syarial Helmi Lubis, S. PdI, the Head of SMAN 1 Tebing Syahbandar, for the support in the process of completing this Thesis, and the teachers and Administration Staffs for the good cooperation.

(8)

11. Special thanks to her beloved family, beloved parents, her father Sahata

Saragih and her mother Asmah Hasibuan for their great love, prayers, motivation, guidance, support, spirit, and everything that they have given to the writer during the process of completing this Thesis. This Thesis is dedicated to them. And her beloved brothers, Barra Habibi Saragih and Zainul Ashri Saragih, her beloved sister-in-law Citra Rahayu and for her uncle, her aunt and cousins. Big thanks for them, for their support the writer as long as the writer still in her education.

12.DFM family, Ayu Trisna, Djuwi Adiba, Rasyida Hanum, Prafti Sari, Susi Susanti, Selli Tiolita Hasibuan, Ridha Rayyani, Rizka Dalimunthe, Dayanur, and Mersi Jannah. Thank you for every prayer, suggestion and motivation, helping, togetherness, and love for every special moments.

13.My appreciation to Syarfini Y. Aminy S.Pd., and Syarfina Y. Aminy, S. Pd., M. Pd as the Musyrifah (teacher) and beloved sister for support and motivation, and also her beloved friends Nurasiah Lubis, Nikita Sovia, Milna Herti, Sukma Adelina Ray, Roslina and also all of Muslimah in MHTI chapter Unimed, who cannot be mention one by one, thank you for every prayer, spirit, motivation, support, and help for every special moments.

14.All of my classmates in Regular A Anni Marhamah, Dwi Mahartika, Nita Syah Umar and who cannot be mentioned one by one, thank you for sharing knowledge, friendship, helping, kindness and support during spending time in campus.

Finally, the researcher knows that this thesis cannot be considered perfect without critiques, comment and any suggestions to improve this thesis better. She hopes that this thesis can be useful for the readers.

Medan, January 2017 The Researcher,

Nurul Soraya Saragih NIM. 2122121049

(9)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

DECLARATION………..………i

ABSTRACT……….ii

ACKNOWLEGEMENT………..………...………iii

TABLE OF CONTENT ………..….……….………. v

LIST OF TABLES………..…...vii

LIST OF FIGURE………....viii

APPENDIX………...…..ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION A. Background of Study………..…... 1

B. The Problem of the Study……….……… 6

C. The Objective of the Study……….…... 6

D. Limitation of the Study ……….…... 7

E. The Significance of the Study ……..……….…... 7

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERARTURE A. Theoretical Framework………...………...8

1. Test……….. 8

2. Types of Test…………..………..…….…………...9

3. Summative Test………...………….. 11

4. Reading………..……….. .12

5. Cognitive Bloom’s Taxonomy ………..……….…...14

6. The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy ……….... 16

(10)

C. Conceptual Framework………27

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHOD A. Research Design ….………...……….…. 30

B. Source of Data………...……….…………. 30

C. Place and Time of Research …………...………...…….…… 31

D. Object of the Study……….. 31

E. Instruments of Collecting Data……….…………...…31

F. Technique of Collecting Data………….………...…. 31

G. The Technique of Data Analysis………...….………. 32

CHAPTER IV A. Data………..………...35

B. Data Analysis………..………...……… 37

C. Research Finding………...………..43

D. Discussion………...……….45

CHAPTER V A. Conclusions………..………...……….50

B. Suggestion………..……….……….50

REFERENCES ………..……….52

(11)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. The comparison between the original Bloom’s

Taxonomy and the revise Bloom’s Taxonomy and the

Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy………..………..………… 16 Table 2.2. Formulation of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy... 18 Table 2.3. Revised Bloom's Taxonomy key words, model questions,

& instructional strategies that includes of each category...22 Table 3.1. The Cognitive Domain Distribution of Bloom’s Taxonomy………....33 Table 3.2. The frequency and percentage difficulty levels of

cognitive Bloom’s Taxonomyaccording to Sudjana………..……….34

Table 4.1 The Test Items Distribution of English Summative Items of Odd and Even Semesters for Second Year Students

in Academic Year 2015/2016. ………..…..… 35 Table 4.2. The Distribution of Reading English Summative Items

in Odd and Even Semesters for Second Year Students

in Academic Year 2015/2016. ……..……….. 36 Table 4.3 The Distribution of the Reading Questions based on

Cognitive Domains of Bloom’s Taxonomy of odd semester………....43

Table 4.4 The Distribution of the Reading Questions based on

Cognitive Domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy in even semester……...…44 Table 4.5. The frequency and percentage difficulty levels of Reading

Question English Summative test of cognitive Bloom’s

(12)

LIST OF FIGURE

(13)

LIST OF APPENDIX

APPENDIX 1 Reading English Summative Items on Odd Semester of SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Syahbandar for Class XI

in Academic Year 2015/2016……...……….…………54 APPENDIX 2 Reading English Summative Test Items on Even

Semester of SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Syahbandar for

Class XI in Academic Year 2015/2016……..………57 APPENDIX 3 The Categorized of the Reading Questions of Odd

Semester Based on Cognitive Domains of Revised

Bloom’s Taxonomy...62 APPENDIX 4 The Categorize of the Reading Questions in even

Semester Based on Cognitive Domains of Revised

(14)

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

A. Background of Study

Evaluation is one of the important things in teaching and learning process. It is needed to know whether the learning objective has been achieved by the students. After giving the material of teaching, the teacher will give a test as an

assessment for the students to know how far the students‟ understanding of the material. It provides the information about students‟ progress during learning the

lessons which can be used by the teacher to manage learning strategy and students. Stiggins, Arter and Chappuis (2007:37) state,

“We were used to thinking about assessment as the measures of

impact of instructional intervention. We implement a new program or teaching strategy and then use assessment to see how effective it was. In the case of assessment for learning, assessment becomes not only the measurer of impact, but also the innovation that causes change in

student achievement”.

A test is one of the kinds of evaluation that can be collected as data. To get the accuracy of the result, a test must have good quality. A good test is a test which has the criteria of validity, reliability, and practicality. The criteria are so important because it affects the success of the learning process itself. On this study, the researcher just focuses on validity. It can be appropriate to examine the extent to which a test calls for performance that suitable that of the course or unit of study being tested. In other cases, it can be focused on how well a test determines whether or not students have reached an established set of goals or

(15)

For the validity, especially the content validity of the test, it should be in accordance with the basic competencies that have been given to the students. Brown (2003:24) states that the teacher must hold content-related evidence in high deification in the process of covering the validity of classroom test. This is also in line with what Fulcher and Davidson (2007:4) state:

“This view of validity presupposes that when we write a test we have an intention to measure something, that the „something‟ is „real‟, and

that validity enquiry concerns finding out whether a test „actually does

measure‟ what is intended‟‟.

Indicators of competence can be measured and observed to show the

achievement of the basic competencies as the reference of the subjects‟

assessment. The indicator has become a reference for the teachers to create questions. To write the indicators, the teachers use the operational verbs. The

operational verbs are contained in Bloom‟s Taxonomy. The levels of Bloom‟s

Taxonomy are to accomplish the aim and to increase the learning process based on the cognitive level. Anwar and Sohail (2014: 83) explain that Bloom's Taxonomy was initially published in 1956 under the leadership of American academic and educational expert Dr. Benjamin S Bloom. Bloom's Taxonomy model is in three parts; cognitive domain, affective domain and psychomotor domain. The levels of Bloom‟s Taxonomy 1956 Cognitive Domain are Knowledge, Comprehension Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation.

Anderson and Krathwhol in Krathwhol (2002:215) revised the cognitive Bloom‟s

(16)

inverted. Cognitive domain deals with elements like Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating.

The test must interpret what to be measured. It is needed to achieve the good measurement as an indicator that there are the students‟ progresses during leaning process. For the students, they will face the National Examination. They need to master the material to pass the test. Here, the teacher has the responsibility

to improve the students‟ comprehension in learning process. To know the

progress, the teacher needs to measure the students‟ comprehension. One of the

ways is through administering test.

Before administering the test, teachers need to analyze the test item that will be examined to the students. Mohammadi, Kiany, Samar and Akbari (2015: 8) states that it was regarded as the ability to select, design and evaluate tests and assessment procedures as well as to score and grade them on the basis of theoretical knowledge. The purpose is to know the validation of the test that will

measure student‟s comprehension that can be known from the result of the test.

So, it is necessary to analyze the test based on given criteria. These test items below are some examples from class XI SMAN 1 Tebing Syahbandar.

The Travelers and a Big Tree

Once , two men traveled on a dusty and rough road that had no trees on its sides. They were walking to a distant village during daylight to attend a wedding feast.

The summer Sun was so hot that they were sweating a lot. They looked for a shady tree for shelter from the Sun. After some time, they saw a big tree with thick, green leaves and branches spread far and wide like a big umbrella. They make a tree a shelter, put their small bundles on the ground and stretched

(17)

themselves out in the cool shadow of the tree. They felt relieved and rested for a while, talking about the wedding feast.

After about an hour, one of the travelers said to his friend,

”Look! What a useless ugly old tree! So big and yet it bears no

fruits at all!”

On hearing this, the tree felt insulted. Angrily, it yelled, “ You,

ungrateful man! You are enjoying my cool shadow and using it for a shelter, yet you call useless and ugly! Can there be a more wretched creature that you? So now, get up and get away from

here!”

Feeling scarred that a tree could talk, the two mans ran away in horror.

(adapted from Look A Head 2.p.150) 1. _{What is the purpose of the text 1 above?}

a. To tell someone‟s experience

b. To tell about the ways or steps to do something c. To describe a particular lace, person and thing

d. To retell events for the purpose of informing and entertaining

e. To entertain or to amuse and to teach the reads or listeners about moral values

2. _{What does the text 1 above belong to?}

a. narrative d. exposition b. descriptive e. spoof c. procedure

3. _{What is the organization of the text 1 above?}

a. topic materials, and steps b. identification and description

c. orientation, complication, and resolution d. orientation, complication, and resolution

e. title or headline, series of events, and reorientation

4. What is the synonym of the underline word „ungrateful‟

above?

a. Undone d. unhelpful b. Unhappy e. unskillful c. Unthankful

5. What is the synonym of underlined word „ungrateful‟ above?

a. Undone d. unhelpful b. Unhappy d. unskillful c. Unthankful

6. _{Where were the two travelers walking to}

a. To a village during daylight to attend a wedding party b. To a distance village during daylight to attend a wedding

(18)

c. To a river near a forest during moonlight to attend a wedding feast

d. To a cottage by a hillside during the rainy season to attend a birthday party

e. To a distant house during daylight o attend a very important wedding party.

7. _{Why did the tree feel insulted?}

a. Because one of the travelers said that the tree was a useless tree and it bore no fruits at all.

b. Because one of the travelers said that the tree was a useful tree and it bore many fruits on it.

c. Because one of the travelers said that the tree was a useful

tree it didn‟t bear fruits and it didn‟t bear fruits at all.

d. Because the two travelers said that the tree was not a grateful tree and it did not fruits at all.

e. Because the two travelers said that the tree was a useless tree and it did nothing on it.

From the test items above indicate to lower order thinking skill because the exercise question not help the students to use their thinking critically. To answer most of items of the exercise the student just need to remember and understand. Moreover the higher order thinking skill should guide the students to gives more insight into their thinking and learning to answer the questions. It is reasonable step to analyze the English Summative test items that is done at the end of learning process in a semester whether the test suitable with the level of Bloom Taxonomy or not and this research can help the teacher to organize the test question which help the students to think critically.

Teacher as evaluator has authority to do assessment from planning until realization, especially arranging the test. The quality of the test is established by

teacher‟s capability to arrange it. There is a problem if the tests have low accuracy that influences how to manage the students‟ progress. The levels of order thinking

(19)

Because of that, it is needed to analyze the test. The tool to analyze is

Revised Bloom‟s Taxonomy cognitive domain. Reeves (2012:19) states that

Bloom‟s Taxonomy has been applied in education including as a tool to plan examination questions. It is to ensure that assessment includes a range of lower-and higher-level cognition questions.

B. The Problems of the Study

In this study, the researcher discusses the quality of English Summative test items for second year of Senior High School in academic year 2015/2016. More specifically, the problems of this study are formulated as follows:

1. How does the distribution of English Summative test items of second year students in SMAN 1 of Tebing Syahbandar correspond with the cognitive

levels of the revised Bloom‟s Taxonomy?

C. The Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study are as follows:

1. To discover whether the English Summative Test items in odd and even semesters of second year students in SMAN 1 in Tebing Syahbandar academic year 2015/2016 correspond with cognitive level in the revised

Bloom‟s Taxonomy.

2. To categorize and percentage the distribution of cognitive level of Bloom‟s Taxonomy in English Summative Test items in odd and even semesters of

(20)

second year students in SMAN 1 in Tebing Syahbandar academic year 2015/2016.

D. The Scope of the Study

To make this research understood clearly, it is limited the study on the implementation and the distribution of cognitive domain of Revised Bloom‟s Taxonomy of English Summative test items second grade in the academic year 2015/2016 in SMAN 1 Tebing Syahbandar focus on reading skill multiple choice tests.

E. The Significance of the Study

First, the result of this study is expected to be useful for the researcher. It informs how is the fact about the implementation of the cognitive domain of

Revised Bloom‟s Taxonomy of the test. So, the researcher that will be a teacher in

the future can produce a good test to get the accuracy evaluation. The second, through this research, the teacher can know about a good test item for the next evaluation used. The third, this research finding will be useful for other researchers who want to investigate the item analysis, especially dealing with the use of Revised Bloom‟s Taxonomy of the content validity of the test.

(21)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION

A. CONCLUSIONS

Based on the data analysis and discussion in the previous chapter, Reading test items for second year senior high school students of English Summative test in SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Syahbandar academic year 2015/2016 get the percentage of the level of Revised Bloom's Taxonomy cognitive domain of odd semester and even semesters. Those are remembering level (C1) reaches 69.23% and 38.89%; understanding level (C2) reaches 15.38% and 5.56%; applying level (C3) reaches 7.69% and 0%;, analyzing level (C4) reaches 7.69% and 55.56%; and 0% for evaluating level (C5) and creating level (C6). It means that the reading test items have not been appropriate with the good test criteria based on Sudjana theory, where the cognitive ratio of a good test is 3: 4: 3, it means that 30% for easy items, 40% to the fair items, and 30% for difficult items.

B. SUGGESTION

Based on this research can be submitted suggestions as follows.

1. To local office of Education Department (Education Department of Provincial or district or city) is expected to create a policy that contains the necessity for teachers to analyze the items before using the test to measure the ability of students.

(22)

2. To the English teachers are expected to co-ordinate the preparation of the lattice of the test, creating the test and item analysis in order to obtain the test quality. So that the student can improve their critical thinking from the test. 3. For other researchers, this study can be continued in a population of more

(23)

REFERENCES

Ali, Na’ima Mosa. 2010. An Evaluation of the Reading Texts & Exercises in SB

&WB of English for Palestine -Grade 9(A Thesis. Gaza: The Islamic University.

Amer, Aly. 2006. Reflection on Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. Electronic Journal

of Research in Educational Psychology. 4(1), 213-230.

Anwar, Haq Hawaz., and Malik Mohammad Sohail. 2014. Assessing the Learning

Level of Students through Bloom’s Taxonomy in Higher Education in

Punjab. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4 (3), 83-87. Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2009. Manajemen Penelitian. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Ary, Donald,. Lucy Cheser Jacob, Christine K. Sorensen. 2010. Introduction to

Research in Education. USA: Wadswordh.

Ayaturrochim. 2014. The Analysis of Reading Tasks in “English in Focus”

Textbook Based on Cognitive Domain of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. (A

Thesis). Bengkulu: Bengkulu University.

Banchman, Lyle F.. 2003. Fundamental Consideration in Language Testing. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brown, H Douglas. 2003. Language Assesment Principle and Classroom

Practice. San Fansisco: Longman.

Fahmi. 2014. Lokakarya Pelatihan Penulisan Soal HOTS (Higher Order Thinking Skills). Jakarta: PUSPENDIK

Fulcher, Glen., and Fred Davidson. 2007. Language Testing and Assesment (an

advanced resource book. USA: Routledge.

Iliya, Amos. 2014. Formative and Summative Assessment in Educational Enterprise. Journal of Education and Practice, 5 (20), 111-117.

Krathwohl, David. R. 2001. A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview.

Theory Into Practice. 41(4), 212-218.

Kristiana. 2014. An Analysis on the Content Validity of Summative Test for the

second Grade Students of Junior High School (A Thesis). Jakarta: UIN

(24)

Mackey, Allyson, and Susan M. Gass. 2005. Second Language Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher.

Mohammadi, Elham., Gholam Reza Kiany, Reza Ghaffar Samar, Ramin Akbari. 2015. Appraising Pre-service EFL Teachers' Assessment in Language Testing Course Using Revised Bloom's Taxonomy International. Journal

of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 4 (4), 8-20.

Munzenmaier, Cecelia and Nancy Rubin. 2013. Perspectives Bloom’s Taxonomy:

What’s Old is New Again. The eLearning Guild:

www.eLearningGuild.com

Nafis, Ulin, 2009. The Analysis of English UAN 2007 of SMA in the Academic

Year 2006/2007 Based on Cognitive Bloom’s Taxonomy (A Thesis).

Semarang: Semarang State University.

Nayef , Eman Ghanem., Nik Rosila Nik Yaacob and Hairul Nizam Ismail. 2013. Taxonomies of Educational Objective Domain. International Journal of

Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3 (9), 165-175.

Reeves, Cheryl. 2012. Developing a Framework for Assessing and Comparing the

Cognitive Challenge of Home Language Examination. Pretoria: Umalusi.

Shani, Gofur Adrian. 2014. An Analysis on the Cotent Validity of English

Summative Test Items for First Grade of Junior High School in Even Semester 2012/2013 (A Thesis). Jakarta: UIN Syarif Hidayatullah.

Stiggins, Richard. J., Judith A. Arter, Jan Chappuis, Stepphen Chappuis. 2007.

Classroom Assesment for Students Learning. New Jersey: Pearson

Education.

Sudjana, Nana. 2009. Penilaian Hasil Prooses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.

Suskie, Linda. 2009. Assesing Student Learning. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Bloom%27s Taxonomy http://www.center.iupui.edu/ctl/idd/docs/Bloom_revised021.doc

(1)

Because of that, it is needed to analyze the test. The tool to analyze is Revised Bloom‟s Taxonomy cognitive domain. Reeves (2012:19) states that Bloom‟s Taxonomy has been applied in education including as a tool to plan examination questions. It is to ensure that assessment includes a range of lower-and higher-level cognition questions.

B. The Problems of the Study

1. How does the distribution of English Summative test items of second year students in SMAN 1 of Tebing Syahbandar correspond with the cognitive levels of the revised Bloom‟s Taxonomy?

C. The Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study are as follows:

2. To categorize and percentage the distribution of cognitive level of Bloom‟s Taxonomy in English Summative Test items in odd and even semesters of

(2)

second year students in SMAN 1 in Tebing Syahbandar academic year 2015/2016.

D. The Scope of the Study

E. The Significance of the Study

First, the result of this study is expected to be useful for the researcher. It informs how is the fact about the implementation of the cognitive domain of Revised Bloom‟s Taxonomy of the test. So, the researcher that will be a teacher in the future can produce a good test to get the accuracy evaluation. The second, through this research, the teacher can know about a good test item for the next evaluation used. The third, this research finding will be useful for other researchers who want to investigate the item analysis, especially dealing with the use of Revised Bloom‟s Taxonomy of the content validity of the test.

(3)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION

A. CONCLUSIONS

B. SUGGESTION

Based on this research can be submitted suggestions as follows.

(4)

(5)

REFERENCES

Ali, Na’ima Mosa. 2010. An Evaluation of the Reading Texts & Exercises in SB &WB of English for Palestine -Grade 9(A Thesis. Gaza: The Islamic University.

Amer, Aly. 2006. Reflection on Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. Electronic Journal

of Research in Educational Psychology. 4(1), 213-230.

Anwar, Haq Hawaz., and Malik Mohammad Sohail. 2014. Assessing the Learning Level of Students through Bloom’s Taxonomy in Higher Education in Punjab. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4 (3), 83-87.

Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2009. Manajemen Penelitian. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Ary, Donald,. Lucy Cheser Jacob, Christine K. Sorensen. 2010. Introduction to Research in Education. USA: Wadswordh.

Ayaturrochim. 2014. The Analysis of Reading Tasks in “English in Focus” Textbook Based on Cognitive Domain of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. (A Thesis). Bengkulu: Bengkulu University.

Banchman, Lyle F.. 2003. Fundamental Consideration in Language Testing. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brown, H Douglas. 2003. Language Assesment Principle and Classroom Practice. San Fansisco: Longman.

Fahmi. 2014. Lokakarya Pelatihan Penulisan Soal HOTS (Higher Order Thinking Skills). Jakarta: PUSPENDIK

Fulcher, Glen., and Fred Davidson. 2007. Language Testing and Assesment (an advanced resource book. USA: Routledge.

Iliya, Amos. 2014. Formative and Summative Assessment in Educational Enterprise. Journal of Education and Practice, 5 (20), 111-117.

Krathwohl, David. R. 2001. A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice. 41(4), 212-218.

Kristiana. 2014. An Analysis on the Content Validity of Summative Test for the second Grade Students of Junior High School (A Thesis). Jakarta: UIN Syarif Hidayatullah.

(6)

Mackey, Allyson, and Susan M. Gass. 2005. Second Language Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher.

Munzenmaier, Cecelia and Nancy Rubin. 2013. Perspectives Bloom’s Taxonomy:

What’s Old is New Again. The eLearning Guild:

www.eLearningGuild.com

Nafis, Ulin, 2009. The Analysis of English UAN 2007 of SMA in the Academic Year 2006/2007 Based on Cognitive Bloom’s Taxonomy (A Thesis). Semarang: Semarang State University.

Nayef , Eman Ghanem., Nik Rosila Nik Yaacob and Hairul Nizam Ismail. 2013. Taxonomies of Educational Objective Domain. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3 (9), 165-175. Reeves, Cheryl. 2012. Developing a Framework for Assessing and Comparing the

Cognitive Challenge of Home Language Examination. Pretoria: Umalusi. Shani, Gofur Adrian. 2014. An Analysis on the Cotent Validity of English

Summative Test Items for First Grade of Junior High School in Even Semester 2012/2013 (A Thesis). Jakarta: UIN Syarif Hidayatullah.

Stiggins, Richard. J., Judith A. Arter, Jan Chappuis, Stepphen Chappuis. 2007. Classroom Assesment for Students Learning. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Sudjana, Nana. 2009. Penilaian Hasil Prooses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.

Suskie, Linda. 2009. Assesing Student Learning. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Bloom%27s Taxonomy http://www.center.iupui.edu/ctl/idd/docs/Bloom_revised021.doc

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF BLOOM’S TAXONOMY ON THE ENGLISH SUMMATIVE TEST ITEMS FOR SECOND YEAR SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2015/2016.