ANALYZING THE MULTIPLE-CHOICE ITEMS OF THE READING TEST IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL NATIONAL EXAMINATION A Thesis Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  

ANALYZING THE MULTIPLE-CHOICE ITEMS

OF THE READING TEST IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

NATIONAL EXAMINATION

A Thesis

  

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

  

By

Hana Dyah Merina

Student Number: 041214086

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

  

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

2009

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  

Hidup dan nasib bisa tampak berantakan, misterius, fantastis,

dan sporadis, namun setiap elemennya adalah subsistem dari

sebuah desain holistik yang sempurna.

Menerima kehidupan berarti menerima kenyataan

bahwa tak ada hal sekecil apa pun terjadi karena kebetulan.

  Ini fakta penciptaan yang tak terbantahkan.

  (

  Interpreted from a great idea of Harun Yahya)

  Dedicated to My Heavenly Father, My late father Yohanes Baptista Sudi Hananto, My beloved mother Maria Margareta Sri Supadmi, and my lovely brother Fransiskus Xaverius Harris Dwi Prasetyo.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY

  I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the references, as a scientific paper should.

  Yogyakarta, May 14, 2009 The Writer

  Hana Dyah Merina 041214086

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS

  Yang bertandatangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma: Nama : Hana Dyah Merina Nomor Mahasiswa : 041214086

  Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

  

Analyzing the Multiple-Choice Items of the Reading Test in Senior High School

National Examination

  beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di Internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupun memberikan royalty kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis. Demikian pernyataan in saya buat dengan sebenarnya. Dibuat di Yogyakarta Pada tanggal : 25 Juni 2009 Yang menyatakan

  (Hana Dyah Merina)

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  

ABSTRACT

  Merina, Hana Dyah. (2009). Analyzing the Multiple-choice Items of the Reading

  

Test in Senior High School National Examination. Yogyakarta: Faculty of

  Teachers Training and Education, Department of Language and Arts Education, English Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

  As an evaluation, National Examination had to be a tool in order to present an accurate result of students’ achievement. Due to that reason, the researcher conducted a study toward the National Examination. This study aimed to discover whether the examination measured the objectives stated in Kurikulum Tingkat

  

Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP) covering the items, the written texts, and the question

  types. The focus of this research was limited on the reading test of the English subject since reading provides many contributions in public, in school, and in English learning.

  The researcher applied some theories related to this study. The theories needed were those related to evaluation concepts (Mehrens and Lehman, 1973 and Gronlund, 1968), reading comprehension (Brown, 2001), language test theories, such as the validity of a test (Hughes, 1989), reading comprehension tests (Brown, 2004), and multiple-choice items (Marshall and Hales, 1972 and Harris, 1969), and taxonomy theory (Anderson et al, 2001)

  This study belonged to content analysis research which used qualitative approach since the primary data sources were from the National Examination and

  

KTSP document. Those primary data sources were supported by interviews as the

  secondary source. The researcher employed two instruments to collect the data needed, namely, the researcher and the interview guidelines. The data gathering techniques were documentary and interview method.

  Firstly, the researcher conducted an analysis toward the National Examination items. The items were listed and classified based on the English reading objectives stated in KTSP. Then, the researcher analyzed the items based on taxonomy theory (Anderson et al, 2001) since the cognitive aspect developed in KTSP was based on Bloom’s taxonomy (1979 as cited by Haryati, 2008). After analyzing the items, the researcher classified the written texts based on the types of the written texts mentioned in KTSP. The data obtained from the analysis above, was, then supported by the data obtained from the interview results.

  After the analysis process, the findings revealed that the National Examination items measured the first Basic Competence related to students’ reading comprehension to the meaning of the short functional texts and the second Basic Competence related to students’ reading comprehension to the meaning of the simple essays. However, there were no items which measured the second Basic Competence related to students’ understanding toward the rhetorical steps of the simple essays. Furthermore, based on Anderson taxonomy theory (2001), the items measuring reading comprehension only measured two cognitive processes of the taxonomy, remember and understand. It was not appropriate with the requirements mentioned in KTSP that all the cognitive processes should be

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  achieved. The findings also mentioned that the National Examination had employed the two types of the written texts mentioned in KTSP, short functional texts and simple essays. The question types employed in the National Examination could be categorized into four types: main idea, details, implied details, and vocabulary questions. The vocabulary mastery was measured explicitly and implicitly although the vocabulary mastery was not a requirement in KTSP .

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  

ABSTRAK

  Merina, Hana Dyah. (2009). Analyzing the Multiple-choice Items of the Reading

  

Test in Senior High School National Examination. Yogyakarta: Fakultas

  Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Jurusan Bahasa dan Pendidikan Seni, Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

  Sebagai sebuah bentuk evaluasi, Ujian Nasional harus bisa menjadi sebuah alat yang dapat menyajikan hasil akurat tentang hasil belajar siswa. Berdasarkan alasan tersebut, peneliti melakukan sebuah studi pada Ujian Nasional. Studi ini bertujuan untuk mencari tahu apakah Ujian Nasional mengukur tujuan pembelajaran seperti yang tertulis dalam Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP) yang meliputi soal-soalnya, jenis-jenis teksnya, dan tipe-tipe pertanyaannya. Fokus utama dari studi ini adalah tes membaca dalam mata pelajaran Bahasa Inggris. Tes membaca dipilih karena membaca memberikan banyak sumbangan secara umum, baik di sekolah maupun dalam mata pelajaran Bahasa Inggris itu sendiri.

  Dalam studi ini, peneliti memakai beberapa teori. Teori tersebut antara lain teori yang berhubungan dengan konsep evaluasi (Mehrens and Lehman, 1973 dan Gronlund, 1968), teori tentang tes bahasa, seperti kevalidan sebuah test (Hughes, 1989), tes pemahaman bacaan (Brown, 2004), dan soal-soal pilihan ganda (Marshall and Hales, 1972 dan Harris, 1969), serta teori taxonomi (Anderson et al, 2001).

  Studi ini merupakan analisa dokumen dengan pendekatan kualitatif karena sumber data primernya adalah soal-soal Ujian Nasional dan dokumen KTSP. Data utama tersebut didukung oleh wawancara sebagai sumber sekunder. Peneliti memakai dua instrument untuk mengumpulkan data yang diperlukan, yaitu peneliti sendiri dan panduan wawancara. Teknik pengumpulan data yang digunakan adalah metode dokumentasi dan wawancara.

  Pertama-tama, peneliti melakukan analisa pada soal-soal Ujian Nasional. Soal-soal tersebut dibuat daftar dan diklasifikasikan berdasarkan tujuan pembelajaran seperti yang tertulis dalam KTSP. Kemudian, peneliti menganalisa soal-soal tersebut berdasarkan taxonomi teori (Anderson et al, 2001) karena penyusunan KTSP didasarkan pada taxonomy Bloom (1979 seperti dikutip oleh Haryati, 2008). Setelah menganalisa soal-soal ujian, peneliti menganalisa teks bacaan yang dipakai apakah sudah sesuai dengan jenis-jenis teks bacaan seperti yang disyaratkan dalam KTSP. Data-data dari analisa tersebut kemudian dikuatkan dengan data dari hasil wawancara.

  Dari proses analisa, peneliti menemukan bahwa tidak semua Kompetensi Dasar yang menjadi tujuan pembelajaran diukur dalam soal-soal Ujian Nasional. Kompetensi Dasar yang diukur adalah Kompetensi Dasar pertama yaitu pemahaman siswa terhadap teks tulis fungsional pendek dan Kompetensi Dasar kedua yang berhubungan dengan pemahaman siswa terhadap esai sederhana. Sedangkan Kompetensi Dasar kedua yang berhubungan dengan pemahaman siswa terhadap langkah-langkah retorika esai sederhana tidak diukur. Berdasarkan teori taxonomy Anderson (2001), soal-soal Ujian Nasional yang mengukur pemahaman

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  siswa terhadap teks bacaan hanya mengukur dua tingkat proses kogntif, yaitu

  

remembe r dan understand. Padahal dalam KTSP, semua tingkatan kognitif harus

  bisa diterapkan dan diukur. Peneliti juga menemukan bahwa Ujian Nasional sudah menerapkan jenis-jenis teks seperti yang disebutkan dalam KTSP, yaitu teks fungsional pendek dan esei sederhana. Tipe-tipe pertanyaan yang digunakan dalam Ujian Nasional dapat dikelompokkan menjadi empat macam, yaitu pertanyaan tentang topik bacaan, penarikan kesimpulan, pencarian jawaban detail, dan kosakata. Selain itu, penguasaan kosakata juga diukur secara explisit dan implisit dalam Ujian Nasional meskipun penguasaan kosakata tidak menjadi salah satu tujuan pembelajaran dalam KTSP.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

  First of all, I would like to thank my Lord Jesus Christ for letting me to be the architect in His great plan. This experience teaches me to be patient and always trust Him that everything will be beautiful at its moment.

  I thank Mrs. Dr. Retno Muljani, M.Pd. very much as my sponsor who always helps me during the thesis making. I thank her for her guidance, patience, and support. One year is not a short time to pass this exhausting but joyful process. I thank Mr. Agustinus Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A. who always gives signatures in many letters of permission. It is very helpful to me. I also thank Mbak Dani and Mbak Tari who help me in administration.

  I would like to thank my lovely mother, Maria Margareta Sri Supadmi, for her support and pray. I am sorry that it needs a longer time to make this thesis complete. I also thank my grandfather and all of families for the supports.

  I would also express my gratitude for Brother Yanu and Yeni who provided me the very helpful informants. Many thanks I give to Bu Yanti in

  

Pangudi Luhur Senior High School and Pak Dana in 10 State Senior High School

for sharing helpful information in order to finish this thesis.

  My gratitude also goes to Sariani Putranti, Yuni Astuti, and Theresia Rita. I thank for the support and the time we have shared together. It is a wonderful five- year time I will never forget. I also thank my big family of KKN Siluk I 2008, Defifani, Beni, Ipung, Tere, Dika, Aster, Widya, Ita, and Cylas. I say sorry that I can not make our promise comes true. Special thanks for PBI students Jody, Ani,

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  Novi, Riska, Nina, Alin, Nanda, Rina, Tutik, Evi, Bishop, Albert, Putri, Oon. I thank Pius, Ahmed, Indri, and Tika for sharing and supporting me.

  I also would like to give my never-ending thanks to Mitra Perpustakaan and PUSD staff. Thanks for Budhe Asih, Amik, Cicik, Santi, Iin, Ruri, Yosep, Prima and Mbak Sandra. You all are my new family. I thank Mas Risanto, Mas Wid, Mas Bimo, Mas Drajad, Mbak Ita, Mbak Ine, and Mbak Amel for giving me the best experience for my last days in the library.

  I thank to Mas Rinto for being the father of our sweet daughters, Mbak Santi for reflecting her spirit for me, and Finza for being my lovely friend. I also thank Tika Deutch for sharing time together.

  I also thank Sr. Benedicte who always supports me in writing this project. I thank for the help in Stella Duce Senior High School. I thank very much to

  

Syantikara ’s friends Boel2, Laura, Lani, Ike, Itjha, Elis, Veni, Sisca, Berta, Cindy,

  Endah, Rany, Tata, Reena Ray, Mary Moru, Trisna for the supports. Special thanks to Silvia Krisnawati. Finnaly, I won this war.

  Finally, my gratitude goes to Sr. Margareth FCJ. Thanks for being the reader of my thesis and praying for me. I also thank everyone who supports me but I can not mention them one by one in this page.

  The Writer Hana Dyah Merina

  041214086

  PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI TABLE OF CONTENTS

  Page

  TITLE PAGE ............................................................................................. i APPROVAL PAGES .................................................................................. ii DEDICATION PAGE................................................................................. iv STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ........................................ v LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PUBLIKASI ................................................ vi

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................. vii

ABSTRAK .................................................................................................... ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................... xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................... xiii

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................... xvi

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................... xvii

LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................ xviii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................... xix

  CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION............................................................... 1 A. Research Background........................................................................ 1 B. Problem Limitation ........................................................................... 4 C. Problems Formulation....................................................................... 5 D. Research Objectives .......................................................................... 5 E. Research Benefits.............................................................................. 6 F. Definition of Terms........................................................................... 7

  

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...................... 9

A. Theoretical Description .................................................................... 9

  1. Evaluation ............................................................................... 9

  a. Definition of Evaluation ……………………………… 9

  b. The Relationship between Evaluation and Objectives .. 10

  2. Reading Comprehension ......................................................... 12

  3. Language Test ......................................................................... 13

  a. Characteristic of a Good Test ........................................ 13

  b. Reading Comprehension Test ......................................... 14

  c. Test of Multiple-choice Format ..................................... 15

  4. Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan ................................... 17

  5. Taxonomy Theory ................................................................... 24

  B. Theoretical Framework .................................................................... 33

  

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY .......................................................... 35

A. Research Method .............................................................................. 35 B. Sources of Data ................................................................................ 36 C. Research Instruments ....................................................................... 37 D. Data Gathering Techniques .............................................................. 38 E. Data Analyzing Techniques ............................................................. 39 F. Research Procedures ........................................................................ 42

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ............. 44

A. Preliminary Analysis of the National Examination .......................... 44

  

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  B. Data Presentation ............................................................................. 46

  1. The Items ................................................................................. 46

  2. The Written Texts .................................................................... 50

  3. The Interview Results .............................................................. 51

  C. Discussion ........................................................................................ 53

  D. Other Findings .................................................................................. 62

  

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ........................ 66

A. Conclusions ...................................................................................... 66 B. Suggestions ...................................................................................... 68 C. Implication ........................................................................................ 69

REFERENCES............................................................................................ 70

APPENDICES ............................................................................................ 74

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  LIST OF TABLES

  Page

Table 2.1 The Comparison of the Cognitive Process

  Based on Bloom (1956) and Anderson et al (2001) …… 26

Table 2.2 The Anderson Taxonomy Table (2001) ………………… 33Table 3.1 Points of Interview ……………………………………… 39Table 3.2 The Classification of the National Examination Items

  Based on the English Reading Objectives Stated in KTSP 40

Table 3.3 The Anderson Taxonomy Table (2001) …………………. 40Table 3.4 The List of the Written Texts ……………………………. 41Table 4.1 The Identification Result of the Question Types………… 47Table 4.2 The Classification Result of the National Examination

  Items Based on the English Reading Objectives …………48

Table 4.3 The Classification of the National Examination Items

  Based on Anderson Taxonomy Theory (2001) ………… 49

Table 4.4 The Simplified Classification of the National Examination

  Items Based on Anderson Taxonomy Theory (2001) …... 49

Table 4.5 The Anderson Taxonomy Table (2001) Applied for the National Examination Items National Examination … 50Table 4.6 The Result of Identifying the National Examination

  Written Texts Based on the Written Text Types Stated in KTSP ………………………………………….. 51

Table 4.7 The Findings of the Interviews …………………………... 52

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  LIST OF FIGURES

  Page

Figure 2.1 The Relationship Among Instruction, Objectives, and Evaluation (Furst, 1958: 3) ……………………………...

  11 Figure 3.1 The Data Gathering Techniques ……………………………… 41

Figure 3.2 The Research Procedures ……………………………………. 43

  PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

LIST OF APPENDICES

  Page Appendix 1 The Classification of the National Examination Items

  Based on the English Reading Objectives Stated in KTSP ............. 75 Appendix 2 The Classification of the National Examination Items

  Based on Anderson Taxonomy Theory........................................... 79 Appendix 3 Interview Result with the English Teachers.................................... 81 Appendix 4 Ujian Nasional ................................................................................ 88 Appendix 5 The Competence Standard and Basic Competence of the Senior High School English Reading.................................... 155

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  KTSP Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan

  BC Basic Competence (Basic Competence is equivalent to

  Kompetensi Dasar which is the English reading objectives

  stated in KTSP)

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In this chapter, the researcher discusses six major parts, namely, the

  background of the study, problem limitation, problem formulation, objectives of the study, benefits of the study, and definition of terms.

A. Background of the Study

  Reading plays an important role in the everyday life of a human being. A fact which proves that reading is essential is the existence of visual media which operates its function by using written words. The written media such as newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, announcement or even a translated dialogue in foreign movies is used to convey information, to entertain us, and to fulfil other functions (Brown, 2004). Although there are translators, computer language, or non verbal communication systems which are created by human beings, it is a fact that much information is still locked up in the written words (Setyaka, 2002).

  To respond to the texts in written media, people need to understand the language of the text, vocabulary, sentence types, and the whole-text type. In other words, reading involves responding to a text rather than producing the text. It is necessary, then, that anyone has reading skills.

  In school, reading is a skill that teachers basically expect students to acquire. Brown (2004) supports it by arguing that reading is the most essential skill for success in all educational contexts. Most subjects require students to read

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  2 many books in order to master the subjects. By reading, students acquire more information and knowledge, in addition to what they learn from their teachers to master the subjects.

  In learning English, reading skills provide an important contribution. Fiharsono (2005) states students may get inputs for the development of listening, speaking, and writing skills through reading. They can gain knowledge of speaking expressions, writing techniques, or deep comprehension in listening through printed texts. Further, basic grammar and vocabulary may be introduced through reading.

  Concerning the contribution of reading skills which is elaborated above, it is a fact that reading is an important skill at school. Students’ comprehension toward what they read needs critical attention. The attention can be carried out by conducting a test to measure reading skills. Further, Alderson (2004) supports it by arguing that measuring of students’ reading skills is necessary in education.

  Apart from that, teachers will not see to what extent students’ reading mastery is by teaching only. By conducting a test, teachers can measure students’ reading skills and gain an input about students’ learning outcomes. The result of the test can show to what extent the students have mastered the reading skills over a certain period of time. Besides, the teacher can have reflection concerning their teaching learning process in the classroom.

  Harris (1969) discovers that there is always the same general type of reading tests. The test consists of short passages of varying styles and contents.

  Brown (2004) also states the same argument that ‘read a passage and answer some

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  3 questions’ technique is the oldest and the most common reading test. In many reading tests, each passage is followed by a series of multiple choices of comprehension items, short answer, matching words, or long answer, etc.

  National Examination is an example of evaluation to measure students’ ability. The ability measured is represented in three main subjects: English, Indonesian language, and mathematics. This evaluation implies a written test which uses multiple-choice format items. National Examination is essential for students to pass since this examination determines whether students will graduate or not from senior high school.

  In the last two years the existence of the National Examination brings about controversy. The achievement standard that students must achieve is considered higher than the students can attain. Apart from that, some people and educational experts viewed the National Examination invalid (Kompas, 29 Mei 2006). The tests, seemingly, cannot be used to measure what students have learned for three years.

  One of the criteria of a good test which Hughes (1989) stresses is the validity of the test. A test should have validity because the test should be an accurate tool to measure what it is supposed to measure. Bloom et al (1981: 182 as cited by Setyaka, 2002) support it by saying that the starting point in test item writing is the instructional objectives to achieve. Due to the importance of objectives, the reading items in National Examinations should also measure students’ ability based on the objectives of the reading skills stated in Kurikulum

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  4 Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP) , the new curriculum which has been implemented since 2006.

  In this study, the researcher will analyze the multiple-choice items of the reading test in the National Examination for senior high school. The researcher has an interest in whether the reading test has reflected the English reading objectives stated in KTSP or not. The result of the study can provide test designers an input in designing the following tests for National Examination. The English senior high school teachers can also obtain an input in recognizing the item models of the National Examination.

B. Problem Limitation

  To limit the discussion, this study is limited to three aspects. First, this study focuses on the reading test of English in National Examination for senior high school students using the multiple-choice format items. Second, this study analyzes the 2007/2008 National Examination by using KTSP as the parameter of reading curriculum. KTSP is implemented due to the fact that teaching-learning processes in schools are aimed at achieving the objectives stated in KTSP. Third, the National Examination is also analyzed based on Bloom’s taxonomy revised and proposed by Anderson et al (2001) since the KTSP construction is based on Bloom’s theory (Haryati, 2008).

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  5 C. Problems Formulation The problems of the study can be formulated as follows:

  1. Did the multiple-choice reading items of the National Examination test for senior high school students measure the objectives of English reading skills as stated in KTSP?

  2. Did the texts used in the National Examination test for senior high school students represent the written text types mentioned in KTSP?

  3. Did the question types used in the multiple-choice reading items of the National Examination test for senior high school students measure the students’ comprehension through various question types?

D. Research Objectives

  The objectives of the study can be formulated as follows:

  1. To discover whether the multiple-choice reading items of the National Examination test for senior high school students measured the objectives of English reading skills as stated in KTSP.

  2. To discover whether the texts used in the National Examination test for senior high school students represented the written text types mentioned in

  KTSP.

  3. To discover whether the question types used in the multiple-choice reading items of the National Examination test for senior high school students measured the students’ comprehension through various question types.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  6 E. Research Benefits This study may provide benefits which are stated as follows:

  1. For teachers By using the results of this study, English senior high school teachers may direct the teaching-learning product toward the objectives stated in KTSP, not merely toward the National Examination items. The teachers can develop the teaching materials not only related to reading comprehension but also related to features of written texts and vocabulary.

  2. For schools This study can provide an input to carry out school programs such as conducting mid semester or final tests. The tests can be designed to really measure the objectives stated in KTSP.

  3. For test designers This study can be used as a reference to know whether the National Examination items have fulfilled the requirements as stated in KTSP or not. The test designers can also improve and develop their own test materials in the future.

  4. For curriculum designers This study may be used as a feedback on whether the objectives stated in

  KTSP have been achieved or not. The curriculum designers may obtain an

  input if they need to reformulate the objective statements in order to state the clearer objectives.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  7

  5. For future researchers The study benefits for future researchers because it can be used as a basis for conducting further research related to language assessments for high school.

F. Definition of Terms

  This section presents the definition of terms, namely, National Examination, Reading test, Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP), and Senior High School students.

  1. National Examination National Examination is an evaluation that is conducted nationally at the last grade of certain stage education. In this study, National Examination is defined as an evaluation for English subject, reading skills particularly, by using multiple-choice format items which is conducted nationally at the end of school years for XII grade students.

  2. Reading test According to Samana (1982 as cited by Fiharsono, 2005), a reading test is an evaluation instrument which measures to what extent students achieve reading comprehension of texts. In this study, a reading test is defined as a test which is composed of some written texts followed by two to four multiple-choice questions and used to measure students’ reading skill based on the English objectives stated in KTSP.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  8

3. Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP)

  Muslich (2007) defines KTSP as an operational curriculum which is constructed and conducted by each education level. In this study, KTSP is defined as an operational curriculum which is constructed and conducted by senior high schools.

  4. Senior High School Students Senior high school students mean students from grade X to XII. Those who join National Examination are grade XII students. In senior high school, the specification of the study field is given when the students are in the XI grade. There are three specifications, namely IPA, IPS, and Bahasa.

  For those three specifications students join the same National Examination tests for Indonesian and English subjects.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL REVIEW There are two major points to be described in this chapter. The first deals

  with the Theoretical Description, while the second discusses the Theoretical Framework which is used in this research.

A. Theoretical Description

  In this section, there are four topics to be discussed. They are (1) Evaluation, (2) Reading Comprehension, (3) Language Test, (4) Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP) , (5) Taxonomy Theory.

1. Evaluation

a. Definition of Evaluation

  The terms test, measurement, and evaluation might be confused because they may be involved in one single process. Mehrens and Lehmann (1973) state that the definition of test is a presentation of a standard set of questions to be answered, measurement is a result of a person’s answers to such a series of questions, and evaluation is determination of the congruence between performance and objectives.

  Evaluation has a broader concept than measurement and measurement has a broader definition than a test. If we ask students to answer a series of questions concerning English, obtain their scores by counting the number of

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  10 correct answers, and conclude that those students are making good learning progress, we are concerned with all those three concepts. The test is the set of questions to be answered. The measurement is the students’ test result according to specific rules. The evaluation deals with the value judgement whether the students are achieving instructional objectives or not.

  Gronlund and Linn (1990) conclude that evaluation is a systematic process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting information to determine the extent to which instructional objectives are achieved by pupils. The process may include either measurement procedures, such as a test or non- measurement procedures, such as informal observation.

b. The Relationship between Evaluation and Objectives

  Gronlund (1968) says that the first step of evaluation learning outcomes is determining what is to be measured. He adds what are to be measured in education are instructional objectives. Instructional objectives provide focus and direction for guiding to educational planning and evaluation process.

  Gronlund (1968) states that objective is defined as a description of outcomes, abilities, or qualities expected from each student. The purpose of educational objectives is to give direction not only to the development of the students but also the planning of the educational program. It means that the materials, the assignments, the instructional methods, and all aspects of educational experiences must be chosen to achieve the objectives.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  11 Mehrens and Lehmann (1973: 10) say that there is a relationship among instruction, objective, and evaluation. They cited a diagram from Furst (1958: 3). The diagram is presented as follows.

  Objectives Instruction Evaluation

  Procedures

Figure 2.1 The Relationship among Instruction, Objective, and Evaluation (Furst, 1958: 3)

  The diagram shows that objectives, instruction, and evaluation process are involved in one process. Instruction refers to the means that the teachers employ to help students realize the objectives of study. Objectives mean kinds of changes in students that teachers wish to obtain. Evaluation means determining the extent to which the instruction has been effective.

  Objectives help to determine the instructional procedures to be used in teaching learning and the method to be used to evaluate. The results of evaluation provide feedback on the effectiveness of the teaching experienced and the attainability of the objective. Both evaluation and educational experiences help to clarify the objective.

  Mehrens and Lehmann (1973) add that the evaluation helps the teacher in (1) providing them with knowledge concerning the students’ entry behaviour, (2) setting, refining, and clarifying realistic goals for each student,

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  12 (3) evaluating the degree to which the objectives have been achieved, (4) determining, evaluating, and refining the instructional technique.

2. Reading Comprehension In English language learning, there are some skills to be developed.

  The term ‘skills’ in English language learning can be defined into two levels- macro and micro skills (Dudley-Evans and John, 2006). Macro skills consist of reading, listening, speaking, and writing. Each macro skill consists of a number of micro skills.

  According to Grabe (2002), reading comprehension skill is defined as an ability to understand information in a text and interpret it appropriately.

  According to Brown (2001), in reading skill, the micro skills may involved:  Recognizing grammatical word classes (nouns, verbs, etc.), patterns, and rules.

   Recognizing that a particular meaning may be expressed in different grammatical form.

   Recognizing the rhetorical forms of written discourse.  Recognizing the communicative functions of written texts according to form and purpose.

   Inferring context that is not explicit by using background knowledge.  Inferring connections between events or ideas, identifying cause and effect models, detecting such relation as main ideas, supporting ideas, new information, given information, generalization.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  13  Distinguishing between literal and implied meanings.

   Developing and using reading strategies such as scanning and skimming, guessing the meaning of words from context.

3. Language Test

a. Characteristic of a Good Test

  A test, according to Nunnally (1964), is a standardized situation that provides an individual with score. Nunnally (1964) explains that there are two points in the definition. Firstly, standardized means all procedures of testing where all students are tested with same questions in the same way. Then secondly, score means numerical indication of a student’s performance.

  According to Marshal and Hales (1972), a test must have reliability, validity, and practicality. They also state that validity is the single most important aspect of a test. Hughes (1989) states that a test has validity if the test measures accurately what is to be measured. According to Hughes (1989), there are four kinds of validity that can be observed in a test.

  a) Content Validity A test is said to have validity which is viewed from its content. The content composes a representative sample of the language skill or structures. Heaton (1975) says that the relationship between the test items and the course objectives always being apparent. In other words, content validity also measures how the test item meets the course objectives. For example, finding the main idea or searching for implicit

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  14 information from a text is able to measure students’ reading comprehension.

  b) Criterion-related Validity Criterion-related validity refers to instrumental validity. It is used to demonstrate the accuracy of a measure or procedure by comparing it with another measure or procedure which has been demonstrated to be valid.

  c) Construct Validity A test is said to have validity which is viewed from test construction.

  The word ‘construct’ refers to any underlying ability which is included in a theory of language ability. For example, the ability to read includes the ability in meaning guessing or scanning the general ideas.

  d) Face Validity A test is said to have face validity if it looks right as if it measures what it is supposed to measure (Hughes, 1989). For example, a test measures pronunciation ability by speaking or a test measures reading comprehension by reading texts.

b. Reading Comprehension Test

  According to Grabe (2002), reading comprehension is defined as an ability to understand information in a text and interpret it appropriately. To measure the ability, methods are offered in order to present the accurate result. Alderson (2000) states that among the methods, there is no one best method

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  15 for testing reading. No single test method can fulfil the reading purposes for which a teacher might test.

  However, Alderson (2000) mentions that multiple-choice items are common device for testing students’ text comprehension. There are some advantages in implementing this kind of test. Test designers are allowed to control the range of possible answers to comprehension questions. The test designers can also control the students’ thought processes when they are responding. In addition, multiple-choice questions can be marked by machine.

  ‘Reading a passage and answer some questions’ technique is the oldest and the most common reading test used (Brown, 2004). A set of questions is usually used for covering reading comprehension. The questions are related to the main idea (topic), expressions/idioms/phrases in context, conclusion (implied detail), detail (scanning for specifically detail), unwritten facts supporting ideas, and vocabulary in context of texts.

c. Tests of Multiple-choice Format

  A multiple-choice item is generally recognized as the most widely applicable and an useful type of objective test items (Gronlund and Linn 1990). This type is the most popular and often used by classroom teachers.

  Marshall and Hales (1972) describe the strengths of this item. Firstly, multiple-choice item is flexible and versatile of all selection type examinations. Gronlund and Linn (1990) explain versatility in multiple-choice means that multiple-choice can be used to measure a variety of learning

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

  16 outcomes from simple to complex. Secondly, multiple-choice can be scored rapidly, accurately, and objectively by all individuals who are unqualified to teach the subject area examined. Thirdly, the scoring of multiple-choice is not influenced by all outside performances. It means that the multiple-choice items have range control of students’ way of thinking through the provided alternative answers. Students have to know exactly what the items ask about then they will choose the correct answer to answer the items.