presenting it in whiteboard. Almost the same as affective assessment, English teacher C conducted this assessment more comprehensive and detail and also
provided by scoring guideline. In this case, English teacher C was better because she also assessed students speaking not only their writing.
However, actually the instrument of assessment used by those three English teachers to assess students’ cognitive was suitable and stated in Ministry
of National Education and Culture law number 104 Year 2014.
48
Nevertheless, English teacher A and B were still lack of scoring guideline. Therefore, English
teacher A and B cognitive assessment process was still not maximum.
c. Psychomotor
The concept of psychomotor assessment is clearly stated in the appendix of Ministry of National Education and Culture law number 104 Year 2014. In this
case, the object of psychomotor assessment are the steps in scientific approach that are observing, questioning, experimenting, associating, and communicating.
49
In this session, teacher A also assessed it for students. For this matter, the process and technique of assessment was same as in affective assessment. Based on the
observation, the technique and model used to assess affective side had double objective of assessment. In the affective assessment, the technique of giving star
was purposely to gain students’ motivation and self confidence in learning. However, in the psychomotor assessment was purposely to give appreciation for
student who could create or answer question creatively and correctly. Based on the result of observation, English teacher B used work
assessment and project assessment to assess students’ psychomotor. It was seen in observation table that teacher B assessed students’ psychomotor through their
creativity of designing the miniature. The technique of scoring was based on the group work, not individual work.
48
Ibid., p. 15
49
Ibid., p. 9
According to the result of interview, teacher B assessed stude nts’
psychomotor based on their creativity in making sentences. In this case, teacher B took the descriptive text as the example of text. This statement was stated in
interview transcript below. “Guru : Keterampilannya itu tadi, menyusun atau membuat kalimat itu
terampil kan, terampil membuat kalimat teks deskriptif. ”
Thursday, 12
th
November 2015 Translation, T: Teacher
“T : So for the psychomotor aspect is to arrange or create the sentence,
it is a creative, isn’t it? Creative to create descriptive text.”
Based on the interview above, teacher B probably assessed the students’ psychomotor through how students created the question in another meeting. In
other side, teacher B often gave students the homework. Teacher B also gave students chance to present their works. For the examination, students agreed that
teacher B often gave them examination and also showed them the score. It based on the result of students’ questionnaire for number 12-16 that most of them agreed
with the statement. Based on the assessment observation, it showed that teacher C also
assessed students’ psychomotor. According to the guideline of assessment, teacher C focused on two major skills of psychomotor to be assessed that were
writing skill and speaking skill. For two main skills here, teacher C took the writing skill from the project of group and also individual work. As observed that
the project at that time was about descriptive text, therefore, teacher scored students’ writing from this project whether in group or individual. Whether for
speaking skill, teacher C also assessed it. Based on the observation table of assessment above that teacher C assessed students speaking through checking
vocabularies orally and the presentation of project in front of the class. Related to the guideline of assessment of psychomotor aspect which
contained two major skills that were writing and speaking, teacher C had the scoring rubric as well. Teacher C used the scale of scoring 1-4 for each skill.
Almost the same as previous aspect, there wasn’t students got below 3 for each skill. For writing skill, it was obtained that there were twenty-one students got 4
and eight students received 3. For speaking skill, the data said that there were twenty students got 4 and nine students got 3. As addition that in the last part of
assessment guideline stated the final assessment. The format of scoring was that affective had 30, cognitive had 30, and for psychomotor aspect had 40. For
this fact, it showed that psychomotor aspect had major contribution of final assessment.
Looking at what those English teachers did in psychomotor assessment, it could be seen that they used difference instrument each other. As described above,
what English teacher A did represented questioning step, what English teacher B did represented questioning and experimenting, and what English teacher C did
represented experimenting and communicating. Therefore, what they did actually appropriate to what stated in the appendix of Ministry of National Education and
Culture law number 104 Year 2014. Relating to the instrument of cognitive assessment, both English teacher A
and C used speaking and writi ng instrument. Actually, speaking wasn’t stated in
the psychomotor assessment instrument, however, English lesson is about language skill, so that speaking can be compared with writing skill. Writing was
one of psychomotor instrument as stated in appendix of the Ministry of National Education and Culture law number 104 Year 2014.
50
English teacher B also conducted this assessment as explained above. Based on the finding, English
teacher B assessed students’ psychomotor through students’ presentation of project. Even though English teacher B didn’t assess this aspect when researcher
observed, but the teacher would assess the students’ work on miniature project
through their presentation in front of the class. The instrument used was also stated in the appendix of the Ministry of National Education and Culture law
50
Ibid., p. 21
number 104 Year 2014.
51
Therefore, over all, in the use of assessment instrument, those English teachers already did based on the rule.
Relating to the scoring guideline, not all of teacher provided it. As resulted in observation of assessment, only English teacher C who provided the scoring
guideline and also rubric. This condition showed that in the term of professionalism, English teacher C was more professional rather than English
teacher A and B especially in administrative aspect. As also stated in the Law number 14 year 2005 about teacher and lecturer that teacher is professional
educator whose duty is not merely teach but also full fill the administrative requirement such as designing lesson plan, designing the scoring guideline and
etc.
52
In this case, it can be concluded that English teacher A and B were still less of professionalism.
4. The Challenges Faced During the Implementation of 2013 Curriculum
Related to the challenges faced by the teacher in implementing 2013 curriculum at SMPN 3 South Tangerang, the data was obtained from interview to
three interviewees. Two interviewee were English teacher A and English B, and the last interviewee was the vice headmaster of curriculum. Here is the table of
challenges which was taken from interview. Table 18. The table of challenges in 2013 curriculum implementation of SMPN 3
South Tangerang.
Interviewee Challenges
Solution from teacher Vice headmaster of
curriculum
- Instruction process in the beginning of 2013
curriculum implemented. -
The computerization of assessment. -
Inputting the score into students’ report. -
How to change students’ paradigm from ancient to the recent paradigm.
- -
Young teacher assisted the senior teacher in
processing the students’ score.
- Junior teacher assisted
the senior teacher in the
51
Ibid., p. 18-19
52
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 14 tahun 2005, Tentang Guru dan Dosen, p. 56
