assessment process of this teacher. In affective assessment, based on the table of assessment observation, actually teacher assessed students’ affective through oral
process. As stated in the table above that teacher assessed s tudents’ confidence by
asking the vocabularies before entering the class. This technique used to test their knowledge of vocabulary and also their confidence to say the vocabulary. The
other way which teacher C did to assess students’ affective was that in the looking at students’ presentation, how did they present their work, were they confident,
and clear or not. From the scoring guideline which had been full filled by teacher C, it was
obtained the data of students’ score. Based on this guideline, teacher C focused on two attitudes that were responsibility and self-
confidence. Researcher didn’t know was the attitude assessed different from other subject or not. For the score of this
aspect, teacher C used the scale 1-4. 1 = never, 2 = sometime, 3 = often, 4 = always. From twenty-nine students, teacher C majorly gave them 4 for
responsibility, there were only four students got 3, and for self-confidence teacher C only gave 3 for one students while the rest got 4.
From the English teachers above, only two teachers that were English teacher A and C who conducted the affective assessment when observation
conducted. However, in conducting this assessment, both of them had different way. From the explanation above, it is seen that English teacher C more detail and
structured than English teacher A. This finding could be caused by the presence of scoring guideline which has specific criteria to be assessed, whether English
teacher A didn’t have it. In this case, actually what English teacher C did was suitable to the appendix of the Ministry of National Education and Culture law
number 104 Year 2014 that the assessment should have the standard of criteria.
44
As addition, the rubric of scoring is important to support meaningful self- assessment as well as criterion-referenced assessment by teachers and peers.
45
44
Ibid., p. 4
45
Joel R. Montgomery. 2008. Authentic Assessment Rubric for SIOP Lesson Plan. University of Phoenix: This working paper was originally created to meet the requirements of a
graduate education class at the University of Phoenix, p. 3
However, both of them had the same way to assess this that was through observation process as the instrument. This instrument was one of several
instruments which can be used to assess affective aspect as stated in appendix of the Ministry of National Education and Culture law number 104 Year 2014 that
there are four instruments could be used in assessing affective aspect. They are observation, self-assessment, peer assessment, and anecdotal record.
46
In this case, actually English teacher B did this process that probably in other previous
meeting. English teacher B assessed students’ affective through conducting self- assessment which was in form of students’ portfolio. This instrument was also
stated in appendix of the Ministry of National Education and Culture law number 104 Year 2014.
47
What English teacher did in assessment process suited to his statement in interview process that he assessed students’ responsibility. Related to
the criteria and rubric of assessment, they weren’t available because they were in
the soft file.
b. Cognitive
Based on the observation, t eacher A assessed students’ cognitive through
written test, and short answer test. The form of written test was about the answering the question in textbook related to the material. And for short answer
test was also in form of answering task in textbook. Beside the both of tests above, teacher also gave students another task such as homework. At that time,
teacher A asked the students to do another exercise in textbook as their homework. However, sometimes teacher A didn’t take the score from students’
homework. Based on the same observation, teacher A scored students’ work based on
their answer on the exercise. At that time, the scoring process was conducted to the group of discussion. Therefore, the scoring process based on group work,
instead individual. The scoring process was conducted at the end of lesson after
46
Ibid., p. 13-15
47
Ibid., p. 13
the presentation of each group about their answers, and teacher A corrected the answer.
After the presentation ended, teacher A ordered each group to take note of the score obtained. Then each group collected the member name of the group together
with score of group. Beside the paper score which came from students, teacher A also had the scoring sheet to record the score. So, teacher calculated the score and
put it into students’ score sheet as well. Based on the observation of assessment table above, the score scale was about 70-95.
Almost the same as English teacher A, English teacher B also assessed students’ cognitive through correcting students’ answer on the assignment in text
book. Actually in the beginning of instruction process, teacher B already given the groups the project to create a miniature. For this project, teacher B would assess
their work for next meeting. Based on the interview result about assessment process, teacher B also
explained the process and the detail how to assess students’ cognitive. He said that to assess students cognitive was just simple way. For instance, it could be done in
way of asking the somebody’s part of body if the material is describing the people physically. This statement was conveyed in the interview transcript as below.
“Guru : penialaiannya banyak, ada tiga. Pengetahuan, sikap, dan keterampilan. Nah yang pengetahuan yang tadi ada soal. Si Anu
rambutnya bagaimana? Terus si guru ini memiliki rambut, memili badan yang? Nah itu pengetahuannya. Jadi dalam hal
pengetahuan itu apa, menyebutkan macam-macam rambut, tinggi badan terus postur, wajah, mata, hidung, telinga eh telinga ga
mungkin. Jadi itu aja kan, nah itu pengetahuannya.
” Thursday, 12
th
November 2015 Translation, T: Teacher
“Guru : There are many assessments, exactly there are three that are cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. For cognitive side, it can
be done by giving question. How is that man’s hair? Then the teacher has hair and body which is? So that for cognitive. So for
cognitive aspect by mentioning the kinds of hair, body hight,
posture, face, eyes, nose, ears, oh no for ears is impossible. That is it, that is the cognitive.”
That was how teacher B did the cognitive assessment in example. Actually it will be more beneficial if teacher B prepared the printed scoring guidelines
which is usually put together with lesson plan. So, from lesson plan, researcher would be able to detect the exact activity of assessing students’ cognitive.
Unfortunately, teacher B didn’t prepare even didn’t make the lesson plan for
whole of his teaching. Looking at the result of assessment observation of English teacher C, it
showed that teacher C assessed students cognitive. Based on the table above, teacher C did the cognitive assessment through the group project presentation
which had been prepared as homework. The project was about the text descriptive which was given to group discussion and each member of group had to memorize
the text to present it. So the way how they present the project was assessed as affective assessment, and the product of project was assessed as the cognitive
assessment. It was suitable to what stated in the table above that teacher C asked students to create descriptive poster which would be assessed as cognitive aspect.
Based on the assessment guideline which was made by teacher C, it contained the criteria of cognitive assessment. Fortunately, the guideline was full
filled by students’ score. There were four main criteria in this guideline as the rubric of students scoring. The criteria of scoring was about product of students,
was it suitable with the concept arrangement, creatively designed, original work, on time, neatness, and very well done. For each criteria, teacher C used the
scoring number. Teacher used 1-4 as the scale of assessment. The highest score was 4 and the lowest score was 1. In the practice, teacher C appreciated students’
work by giving them 4 and 3 for the project. From the guideline obtained that there were twenty students got 4 and nine students got 9. Then the score will be
calculated into form 44x100. As discussed above that both English teacher A and B had the same way to
assess students cognitive that was through doing the exercise in text book and
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
