PERFORMANCE BASED ASSESSMENT ON YOUNG LEARNERS’ SPEAKING SKILL.
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration page ... i
Approval page ... ii
Abstract ... iii
Preface... iv
Acknowledgement ... v
Table of contents ... ix
List of tables ... xiv
List of figures ... xx
I. Introduction ... 1
1.1 Research Question ... 6
1.2 Purpose Statement ... 6
1.3 Objective of the study ... 6
1.4 Scope of the study ... 7
1.5 Significance of the study ... 7
1.6 Assumption ... 7
1.7 Hypotheses ... 8
1.8 Definition of key terms ... 8
II. Literature Review ... 10
2.1 Performance based assessment ... 10
2.1.1 The nature of performance based assessment ... 11
2.1.1.1The definition of performance assessment ... 11
2.1.1.2Why performance assessment is needed ... 14
2.1.1.3Previous study on performance based assessment ... 16
2.1.1.4Advantages of performance based assessment ... 18
2.1.1.5The benefit of performance assessment for teachers ... 21
2.1.1.6Creating performance based assessment task ... 22
(2)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
2.1.1.8Validity and performance based assessment learning recommendations ... 26
2.1.2 Performance based assessment and speaking skill ... 28
2.1.2.1Performance based assessment’s possible contribution to English learning ... 28
2.1.2.2Performance based assessment’s possible contribution to speaking skill ... 31
2.1.3 Performance based assessment to Young Learners ... 34
2.1.3.1Performance based assessment’s possible contribution to YL’s learning ... 34
2.1.3.2Performance based assessment’s possible contribution to YL’s speaking ability 36 2.2 Speaking ability for Young Learners ... 38
2.2.1 The definition of speaking ... 38
2.2.2 The necessary to be able to speak for young learners ... 39
2.2.3 Criteria in assessing student’s speaking skill ... 40
2.2.4 Practical consideration for young learners in speaking class ... 43
2.3 Factors to consider in assessing young learners ... 45
2.3.1 Issues in assessing children’s language learning ... 45
2.3.2 Principles in assessing young learners’ language ... 47
2.4 Teacher’s perception ... 48
2.4.1 The definition of perception ... 49
2.4.2 Process of perception ... 54
2.4.3 Factors influencing the perception ... 55
2.4.3.1The doer of perception ... 55
2.4.3.2Target/object of perception ... 56
2.4.3.3Situations ... 57
III. Research Methodology ... 58
3.1 Design of the research ... 58
3.2 Site and participant ... 61
3.3 Technique of collecting data ... 62
3.3.1 Test ... 62
3.3.1.1Pretest ... 63
3.3.1.2Progress test ... 63
3.3.1.3Posttest ... 63
3.3.1.4Scoring ... 64
3.3.2 Questionnaire ... 67
(3)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
3.4 Procedure ... 70
3.5 Research instruments ... 71
3.5.1 Validity ... 71
3.5.1.1The validity of Pretest ... 74
3.5.1.2The validity of Progress test 1 ... 75
3.5.1.3The validity of Progress test 2 ... 76
3.5.1.4The validity of Posttest ... 76
3.5.2 Reliability ... 77
3.5.2.1The difficulty index of pretest ... 77
3.5.2.2The difficulty index of progress test 1 ... 79
3.5.2.3The difficulty index of progress test 2 ... 79
3.5.2.4The difficulty index of posttest ... 80
3.5.2.5The discrimination index of pretest ... 81
3.5.2.6The discrimination index of progress test 1 ... 83
3.5.2.7The discrimination index of progress test 2 ... 83
3.5.2.8The discrimination index of posttest ... 83
IV. Findings and Discussion ... 85
4.1 Findings ... 85
4.1.1 The effect of performance based assessment on YL’s speaking skill ... 85
4.1.2 Teacher’s perception on YL’s speaking skill after using the PBA ... 97
4.2 Discussion ... 99
V. Conclusion and Suggestion ... 103
5.1 Conclusions ... 103
5.2 Suggestions ... 104
References ... 105
(4)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
(5)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Improving English language skills of children is one important thing in English learning. Teachers are required to have a learning strategy and ability to measure young learners’ achievements so they understand well how far the ability of their students is. Teachers would agree if the evaluation of young learners’ learning is one important factor in English language learning (Linn & Grunlund, 1995). Thus, the assessment would be one of the important foundations in learning English. Another important factor of assessment is the importance of teachers' knowledge about the precise form of measurement for their students. So far, many assessment methods have been applied by teachers to measure young learners’ abilities, but not many teachers are familiar with the form of modern assessment to assess the ability of students.
There are two forms on assessing young learners’ ability which were divided into two parts, namely the traditional and the modern assessment or often called as an alternative assessment (Brown, 2001:405). Traditional assessment is a form of conventional measurements that have long been applied in nearly all assessment activities in the classroom. On a national scale, for example, the traditional assessment was more often used in assessment activities and the national exam in the
(6)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
2 form of paper and pencil test, multiple choice, true false answer, product oriented etc. Modern assessment is used in the form untimed-free response format, an open-ended, creative answer, and focusing on process oriented (Armstrong, 1994 & Bailey, 1998: 207) in Brown (2001). Both of assessment choices have obvious advantages and disadvantages of each others. Although the modern assessment usage seems more time-consuming but students will be tested in accordance with what has been performed and the form of judgments tends to be natural and objective for students.
Performance based assessment is considered as a meaningful form of measurement in assessing young learners’ speaking ability. This is indicated by its spread of use which has been crowded applied in variety of ability measurement. Several studies have shown that the performance based assessment is considered effectively applied in measuring young learners’ abilities. Performance based assessment used to measure young learners’ ability to speak or write well and valued in the form of linguistic character (Brown, 2004: 92).
Teacher’s concerning toward the importance of speaking in English learning
should be increased. By concerning the speaking skills, students are able to share meaning using verbal and nonverbal symbols in various contexts (Chaney, 1998: 13). Speaking also made extensive reference of one's knowledge of the language, yet speaking is considered as one of the most important parts of learning a language that must be mastered for the ability to communicate in a second language. To speak clearly and efficient can contribute to the success of students at the school and in
(7)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
3 society. Thus, teachers need to pay a great attention to the importance of speaking skill in learning the English language.
In assessing young learners’ speaking skill achievement, some linguistic characteristics of students will be demonstrated to determine the extent of young
learners’ speaking skill achievement using performance based assessment. This type of assessment requires students to demonstrate their ability in speaking, so this type of assessment will clearly measure and monitor the success of students in order to identify the outcomes achieved by students (http://www.pgcps.org/ ~ ELC / clt.html ). It is said that performance based assessment is more contextually applied, when the assessor or teacher does not impose their wish to students, but rather students are asked to apply knowledge in their favored context so that teachers can determine which is the preferred learning for students and which one they do not like (Brualdi, 1998 & Wiggins, 1993).
This research will focus on how the performance based assessment contributes positively to the ability of young learners speaking skill achievement. It has described previously that the performance based assessment is one form of modern assessment that measures young learners’ skills in speaking directly (considering that young learners’ speaking skill will be appropriate being assessed orally). The next interesting thing is how children become the main subject of the research. Children learn something of course different from the adult learners, they are different from the way of obtaining knowledge. Children are active learners, they
(8)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
4 built their knowledge based on their experiences (Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992). Some research suggests that language is an important part in children's cognitive development (Vygotsky, 1978; Bruner, 1983). Introducing language learning for children as early as possible will allow the growth of the cognitive ability of children at an early age and will be beneficial for them in the future when grew up. Teaching speaking skill for children is very important in the early stages of children's cognitive development in order to achieve the competencies in English learning specially the speaking skill achievement. Another interesting aspect why this study focused on Young Learners is that performance based assessment advocated the performance of students, and young learners are characterized as faster, active learners and have many interactions with the object of learning. They are very different from adult learners who seem more embarrassed if talking in a new language, so they are considered as passive learners (Cameron, 2001: 1).
Some studies in the field of performance-based assessment (Brualdi, 1998; Elliot and Stephen, 1995; Moskal 2003) showed that the performance based assessment is one meaningful form of assessment. Although many research have been conducted even the result have shown that performance based assessment is good for
today’s evaluation system also its use have broadened in many countries, but there are still many teachers who are still hesitant to apply it in the classroom. This is possibly caused by the lack of teacher competence in understanding the performance based assessment and its contributions that can be generated if implemented properly.
(9)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
5 Another possible thing is the teacher’s lack of understanding of how they should measure young learners’ performance (Airasian, 2004).
Based on the researcher’s observation, through scientific and documentation
studies, performance based assessment has not been widely applied in Indonesia, especially for speaking in English learning. Whereas, as has been described previously that speaking is an important part of English learning, and the assessment must be based on the spoken performance of students. While, performance measurement would be very appropriate if using a performance based assessment guide. This encourages the researcher’s curiosity about performance based assessment and its contribution to the achievement of students speaking skill. Not much different from other areas, the Ternate city as one of the main town in North Maluku province has organized an international education unit start at the elementary school level, so this intriguing author's curiosity to identify what is the effect of performance-based assessment to young learners’ speaking skill and how is the teacher's perception towards young learners’ speaking skill achievement after using performance based assessment.
(10)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
6
1.1 Research Question
1. What is the effect of performance based assessment to young learners’ speaking skill achievement in English?
2. How does the teacher perceive the young learners’ speaking skill achievement in English after using performance based assessment?
1.2 Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the performance based assessments of students in one RSBI Elementary School in Ternate and their achievement in speaking skill and how does the teacher perceive this achievement.
1.3 Objective of the study
1. To find out the effect of performance based assessment in enhancing young
learners’ speaking skill achievement.
2. To describe how the teacher perceives the young learners’ speaking skill achievement in English after using performance based assessment.
(11)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
7
1.4 Scope of the Study
Many factors can affect the language teaching especially in a classroom situation, but performance based assessments should be taken into consideration. However this study only focuses on performance-based assessment and its implications towards young learners’ speaking skill achievement and teacher’s perception towards this achievement in learning English.
1.5 Significance of the study
This study will highlight the effect of performance assessment on young
learner’s speaking skill achievement and how does the teacher perceive the young
learner’s speaking skill achievements. These will offer some theoretical basis for the performance assessment in the classroom application.
1.6 Assumption
The assumptions in this study will be:
1. The performance based assessment is one of meaningful assessment for students. This type of assessment will help teacher to conduct better instruction and assessment at school.
2. A good performance based assessment will contribute to student learning achievement specially to speaking skill achievement.
(12)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
8
1.7 Hypothesis
Based on the research question and the assumption of the research above, the hypothesis in this study is:
H0 : There is no difference on speaking skill achievement after using performance based assessment between control and experimental group of students in one RSBI elementary school Ternate-North Maluku.
H1 : There is a difference on speaking skill achievement after using performance based assessment between control and experimental group of students in one RSBI elementary school Ternate-North Maluku.
1.8 Definitions of Key Terms
Performance based assessment (sometimes refer to Performance assessment
or PBA) A performance assessment is an assessment that presents a task requiring students to do an activity that requires applying their knowledge and skill from several learning targets and uses clearly defined criteria to evaluate how well the student has achieved this application (Nitko, A.J., Brookhart, M.S, 2007).
Speaking is the verbal use of language to communicate with others (Fulcher,
2003)
Young Learners are learners in Elementary School are aged 9-10 years old
(13)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
9
Achievement can be defined as the final accomplishment of young learners’
effort in spite of discouragements.
(14)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
58
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter will outline the design of the research, site and participants of the study, and data collection techniques. The method presented is expected to serve supporting and valid data in order to help the researcher to directional to the study. The maximum result is expected to be able in answering the research questions.
3.1 Design of the Research
The researcher plans to do the research based on principal quantitative and qualitative research. To answer the research question number one, the study will focus on an experiment design as long as researcher will conduct the research more than just observing the subject but measuring the performance of students This study attempts at testing an idea (practice or procedure) to determine whether it influences an outcome or dependent variable (Creswell, 2008: 299). The type of experimental design of this research will be a quasi-experimental assignment because of inability of the experimenter to randomly assign the existing class. Randomly assigning students to the new group will disrupt classroom learning (Creswell, 2008: 134). To answer the research question number two, the study will descriptively analyze how is
the teacher’s perception towards students speaking skill achievement after using performance based assessment. In order to find the answer of the two research
(15)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
59 questions above, some data collection techniques with research tools are delivered to obtain the appropriate data. There were pre-test and post-test and also questionnaire will be employed in order to answer the research questions. Through this methodological and some additional aspect within hopefully will support the research finding more reliable.
The treatment to the experimental group will be the material of speaking therefore the form of experimental design will be:
Table 3.1 Experimental design
Group Pre-test Treatment Post-test
Progress
test-1
Progress
test-2
Control O1 X1 X2 O2
Experiment O3 X1 X2 O4
Explanation:
O : Pretest and posttest of speaking skill material
X1 : Progress test
(16)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
60 The experimental design used in this study is in the form of quasi-experimental. The participant firstly will be pre tested both control and experimental group but treated differently and at the end they will be given the post test. Both pretest and posttest are given the same instrument of test specifically as below.
Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 CONTROL GROUP EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
PRETEST PROGRESS
TEST 1 & 2
POSTTEST
Same Material
Experimental: Performance Based Assessment Same Material
Control : Traditional Assessment
Same Material
Same Assessment
Same Material
Same Assessment
Effect/outcome (Dependent Variable) Cause (Independent Variable)
(17)
61
3.2 Site and Participant
The researcher plans to conduct this research in one RSBI elementary school in Ternate. This site is chosen because this school was one of popular school in
Ternate, and located in researcher’s hometown. Therefore it is possible for the researcher to gain more information related to this research. Other interest coming from the researcher’s problem stated in this research problem that researcher wants to
find out the performance based assessment on young learner’s speaking skill. The participants will be students from the forth and fifth grade of that school. Because students at this stage are already familiar with English teaching and for the extent that at this stage it is proper to assess their performance, and the second participant will be the English teacher from that school. In this research, the researcher will observe how
is teacher’s perception toward the effect of performance based assessment to young learners’ speaking skill achievement. To get more information on young learners’ speaking skill achievement in English after treatment especially in their performance assessment, researcher will give questioners for teachers.
In this study there will be two classes, grade 5 will be the control group and grade 4 will be the experimental group, under consideration that grade 5 is one level higher in learning English, so it is possible to set the students as control group. The participants will be at least 35 students which has the same material to be treated, it is speaking subject. From the two groups, the control group will be assessed using non performance based assessment (traditional assessment) and the experimental group
(18)
62 will be assessed using performance based assessment. In pretest both two group will be served same material and assessed in same way. In progress test and posttest there will be different assessment but still given the same material. The control group will be assessed using non performance based assessment (traditional assessment) and experimental group will be assess using performance based assessment.
3.3 Techniques of collecting the data
To collect the data, some possible techniques will be used in this research, for example test and delivering a questionnaire. But the supplementary tools also take into account in order to get more specific information.
3.3.1 Test
Test is a group of questions or exercises or other instrument that used to measure skill, intelligence development or achievement of an individual or group. Test may be constructed primarily as devices to reinforce learning and to motivate the students or primarily as a means of assessing the young learners’ performance in the language (Heaton, 1995: 5).
Testing the ability to speak is a most important aspect of language testing. However, at all stages beyond the elementary level of mimicry and repetition it is an extremely difficult to test (Heaton, 1995: 88). The speaking test will be gathered from textbook for students in grade 4. In order to meet the validity and reliability, the test item will be tested and delivered to students at higher level.
(19)
63
3.3.1.1 Pre-test
The pretest is carried out to detect the starting skill of the student before the trial test of the appointed teaching model is conducted. The data taken from the result of pre-test represents the controlled variable to see the speaking skill equity in the control class as well as experimental class through the matching test. Both the material and assessment given to control and experimental group are the same.
3.3.1.2 Progress-test
The progress test is given to both control and experimental group in order to examine the assessment. The material given is still the same, but the treatment it self then differ from other treatment model because this experiment is willing to test the effectiveness of performance based assessment. Under the consideration that the performance based assessment is an assessment that has positive effect on learning (Moskal: 2003 ), so the treatment to the groups will be based on the assessment. The control group will be assessed using traditional assessment (paper and pencil test) and the experimental group will be assessed using performance based assessment (PBA).
3.3.1.3 Post-test
The post-test is principally conducted similarly as the pre-test. The difference lays only the test conducted on posttest. Both groups are tested using the same assessment, for example the paper and pencil test. The data in this post-test is used to test the hypothesis of the research. The implementation of this post-test is conducted
(20)
64 after the treatment on performance has been completed. This is intended to find out the extent of the performance based assessment implementation and its contribution to young learners’ speaking skill. The control group and the experimental group will be assessed using traditional assessment (paper and pencil test). The differentiation of the test is aiming at finding how well the performance assessment will contribute to
young learners’ speaking skill achievement as they have tested in progress test 1 and 2.
3.3.1.4 Scoring
The instruments use in the research is intended to find and elicit the whole relevant data. The instruments are the speaking test and questionnaire form. The speaking test made in this research based on the principles of performance based assessment which requires young learners’ to produce their skill naturally. In order to avoid the bias, some reflection of document analysis will be conducted, for example the researcher will study the lesson plan and the textbook used by the teacher and how the standardized assessment criteria usually used in order to avoid young
learners’ confuse.
The component scoring of young learners’ ability in speaking as suggested by Hadley (2001) will be used in this research;
(21)
65
Table 3.2 Scoring
1. Accuracy
A show exceptional control of required grammar concepts and correctness in variety of context
B make some grammar mistakes that do not effect meaning C makes more serious mistakes that often give unintended
meaning, although generally adequate
D meaning generally obscured by grammar mistakes, very poor control of a wide range of concepts
E meaning completely obscured by grammar mistakes, totally inadequate control
2. Fluency
A normal, ‘thoughtful’delay in formulation of thought into
speech, language flows, extended discourse
B take longer than necessary to organize thought, say more than required
C speech somewhat disjointed because of pause, language is very halting
D painful pauses make speech hard to flow, say less than required
E speech totally disjointed, long pause interrupt flow of thought and meaning
3. Vocabulary
A very conversant with vocabulary required by given context(s), excellent control and resourcefulness
B vocabulary mistakes generally do not affect meaning (wrong gender, wrong preposition, etc), attempts at resourcefulness
(22)
66 C adequate, although more serious mistakes give unintended
meaning (wrong preposition, incorrect word choice, mangled word, etc)
D meaning frequently obscured by minimal/inadequate of vocabulary
E meaning totally obscured, inadequate vocabulary
4. Pronunciation
A correct pronunciation and intonation, very few mistakes, almost native-like
B some mispronunciation, meaning still clear
C pronounced foreign accent requiring extra-symphataetic-listening comprehensible
D meaning frequently obscured by poor pronunciation, minimally comprehensible
E no effort at all and sound often incomprehensible
Weighting of Grades
A = 4,5 – 5,0 Accuracy_____________x6 =
B = 4,0 – 4,4 Fluency______________x3 =
C = 3,5 – 3,9 Pronunciation_________x4 =
D = 3,0 – 3,4 Vocabulary ___________x7 =
E = below 3,0
For this kind of appraisal it is determined that the highest grade is 100 and the lowest is 0. The grading formula mentioned above is sufficient for the collecting of data needed in the completion of this research.
(23)
67
3.3.2 Questionnaire
Questionnaires are an inexpensive way to gather data from a potentially large number of respondents. Often they are the only feasible way to reach a number of large enough reviewers and the result being analyzed statistically. There are two types of questionnaire construction, a closed ended or open ended question. In open questions respondent use their own words to answer the questions, whereas in closed questions prewritten response categories are provided (Dawson, 2009: 89). There are some advantages and disadvantages which then as the consideration for the researcher
to choose the most appropriate design for this research’s questionnaire. Table 3.3
The advantages of questionnaire
Advantages Disadvantages
Closed questions Closed questions are quick
to complete and
straightforward to code, and how articulate the respondents are does not affect the data.
They do not enable respondents to add any
comments and
explanations to the responses they choose and there is a risk that these responses may not be exhaustive.
Open-ended questions Open-ended questions could invite honest, personal comments from
The responses of open-ended questions are difficult to code and to
(24)
68 the respondents in addition
to simply ticking boxes in the given options
classify.
However, some experts proposed to use the combination of the two approaches such as (Stone, 1993; Leung, 2001), but on researcher’s opinion, it will be appropriate to use the close-ended question. Related to this research, Likert scale was
used to measure the teacher’s perception toward young learners’ speaking skill achievement after treated by performance based assessment method and it based on three factors such as (1) the sensory of nature stimulus, (2) personal feelings, attitudes, drives and goals (3) previous related sensory experience (Sperling: 1987 in Fransisca: 2000). The first factor was related to teacher’s response towards students
behavior in using spoken language, the second factor was focused on teacher’s
feeling whether or not those students have used the spoken language in the classroom
(concerning the opinion on ‘happy’, not ‘happy’) listening and seeing students
performing the language, attitudes (concerning her opinion on ‘motivated’ or ‘not motivated’) listening and seeing the students performing the language, drives (concerning the teacher’s opinion on ‘excited’ and ‘not excited’) listening and seeing
the students performing the language, goals (focusing on teacher’s opinion on ‘facilitated’ or not ‘facilitated’). The last factor was associated with the teacher’s
opinion on the previous young learners’ use of English Language. In order to make the questionnaire more complete and reliable, researcher will circulated the
(25)
69 questionnaire to some of friends do research on Magister degree with different subject with researcher.
3.3.2.1 Questionnaire’s scoring criteria
In order to understand how the scoring criteria of the questionnaire being
applied, here is the presentation of questionnaire’s scoring criteria which will be used in analyzing the teacher’s perception in this research;
Questionnaire’s Scoring Criteria
A. Sensory of the stimuli
Hearing
1. word : 25%
2. phrase : 25%
3. sentence : 25%
4. text : 25%
---100%
Sight
1. word : 25%
2. phrase : 25%
3. sentence : 25%
4. text : 25 %
---100%
B. Teacher’s personal feelings, attitudes, drives and goals
Feelings
1. word : 25%
2. phrase : 25%
3. sentence : 25%
4. text : 25%
---100%
Attitudes
1. word : 25%
(26)
70
3. sentence : 25%
4. text : 25%
---100%
Drives
1. word : 25%
2. phrase : 25%
3. sentence : 25%
4. text : 25%
---100%
Goals
1. word : 25%
2. phrase : 25%
3. sentence : 25%
4. text : 25%
---100% C. Previous related sensory experience
---100% Decisions:
91% - 100% : Very good
81% - 90% : Good
71% - 80% : Sufficient
61% - 70% : Poor
50% - 60% : Very poor
3.4 Procedures
This study will firstly analyze the literature and site of the research object, for example the syllabus and the lesson plan used in the teaching and learning process. The purpose of reviewing the lesson plan is, it will shape the understanding of how far do the students have learn by using the current assessment model especially for speaking subject. This will also shapes the understanding of what type of assessment
(27)
71 will best require to students and researcher could find the best solution relevant to the research. The use of textbook will be very important to learning process in the
classroom, but it won’t if the textbook material is not relevant to current regulation set by the government as it mentioned on the syllabus and the content standard, so the researcher will also reviewing the textbook. The last two materials will be reviewed are the test and questionnaire.
As mentioned before that this experimental research will be divided into two groups, the control and experimental group. Both groups will be served the pretest and the same speaking material subject. The experimental group will be assessed using the performance based assessment. After the treatment both two groups will be tested in posttest and later questionnaire will be delivered to the teacher in order to
discover teacher’s response of whether or not the performance based assessment will
affect students speaking skill achievement.
3.5. Research Instruments
The instruments used to get the data were test (pretest and posttest) and questionnaire. The questionnaire is used only to get the information from the teacher. It is important to test the instrument before being delivered to the subject of research.
3.5.1 Validity
It is important to note that the good data and instrument will provide a good research evaluation. A good data is valid if it is appropriate with the real condition
(28)
72 (Arikunto: 2010). The most simplistic definition of validity is that it is the degree to which a test measured what it is supposed to measured (Gay, 1983: 110) or in general we could understand the meaning of validity by asking does the instrument measure what it is supposed to measure? (Kerlinger, 2000: 189) in Arikunto (2010).
There are two important concepts in interpreting the validity, those are accuracy and relevancy. The concept of accuracy dealing with how accurate the instrument is to identify the measuring aspects or in other words how accurate the instrument is in describing the real condition. While the concept of relevance dealing with how the instrument is able to use as it intended to measure.
The validity of this research will be the content validity of the test. Before the test is delivered to the students of control and experimental group, first it has been recheck whether or not the test is suitable for students at that stage. Researcher takes the experimental group as sample base which its test and criterion should be compatible with the curriculum stated. This test first will be delivered to student in other higher classes, under the assumption that those higher classes have taken up with this material and English subject.
The test itself has been taken from the textbook and rematch with the curriculum and syllabus stated of the institute. In order to avoid biases, the component of the test is also recheck by the teacher using lesson plan which has been
(29)
73 made by the teacher. Based on the given statement, form of the test is attached in attachment page.
There are two important points to note on content validity: the validity of the grain, and the validity of the sampling. The validity of items related to the question how far the instrument items reflect the entire contents of the aspects or domains to be measured. The validity of sampling related to the question how far the instrument items are become a representative sample of the whole or a material aspect or domain being measured.
In order to make sure that the item of the test is valid or not, this research will apply an item analysis. Item analysis is aiming at identifying the good and bad items of the test. By applying this method, it will gives us information on how bad is the item test so as a testee or teacher we could fix it. The item test analysis will use Pearson Product Moment formula. To obtain the data, researcher will use Microsoft Excel as the tool to compute the item analysis using Pearson Product Moment formula in t Microsoft Excel. The formula will be
� = � XY –
[� X2−( X)2][N Y2 − ( Y)2]
� = correlation coefficient = item score
(30)
74 = total of the item score
N = Subject
The value of r will be confirmed to the Pearson product moment table correlation coefficient with level of significance α = 0,05 and the df = N-2
3.5.1.1 The Validity of Pretest Item
The interpretation of the coefficient correlation is shown on the table below
Table 3.4
The interpretation of the coefficient correlation
No of Item df= n-2 r value r table value Decision
1 68 0, 399 0,24 valid
2 68 0,522 0,24 valid
3 68 0,182 0,24 not valid
4 68 0,336 0,24 valid
5 68 0,305 0,24 valid
6 68 0,381 0,24 valid
7 68 0,263 0,24 valid
8 68 0,378 0,24 valid
9 68 0,317 0,24 valid
10 68 0,413 0,24 valid
11 68 0,481 0,24 valid
12 68 0,340 0,24 valid
Based on the table shown above item number 3 is not valid because r value is 0,182 < 0,25 of r table. Item number 1,2, 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, and 12 are valid. So the invalid item will be ignored.
(31)
75
3.5.1.2 The Validity of Progress-test 1 Item
Table 3.5
The interpretation of the coefficient correlation
No of Item df= n-2 r value r table value Decision
1 68 0,290 0,24 valid
2 68 0,149 0,24 not valid
3 68 0,294 0,24 valid
4 68 0,400 0,24 valid
5 68 0,262 0,24 valid
6 68 0,305 0,24 valid
7 68 0,340 0,24 valid
8 68 0,488 0,24 valid
9 68 0,545 0,24 valid
10 68 0,065 0,24 not valid
11 68 0,205 0,24 valid
12 68 0,357 0,24 valid
Based on the table shown above item number 2 and 10 is not valid because r value is 0,149 and 0,065 < 0,25 of r table. Item number 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,,11, and 12 are valid. So the invalid item will be ignored.
3.5.1.3 The Validity of Progress test 2 Item
Table 3.6
(32)
76 No of Item df= n-2 r value r table value Decision
1 68 0,310 0,24 valid
2 68 0,417 0,24 valid
3 68 0,236 0,24 valid
4 68 0,066 0,24 not valid
5 68 0,465 0,24 valid
6 68 0,401 0,24 valid
7 68 0,189 0,24 not valid
8 68 0,304 0,24 valid
9 68 0,281 0,24 valid
10 68 0,318 0,24 valid
11 68 0,294 0,24 valid
12 68 0,454 0,24 valid
13 68 0,147 0,24 not valid
14 68 0,417 0,24 valid
15 68 0,356 0,24 valid
Based on the table shown above item number 4,7 and 13 is not valid because r value is lower than the r table. Item number 1,2,3,5,6,8,9,11, 12, 14and 15 are valid. So the invalid item will be ignored.
3.5.1.4 The Validity of Posttest Item
Table 3.7
The interpretation of the coefficient correlation
No of Item df= n-2 r value r table value Decision
1 68 0,211 0,24 not valid
2 68 0,369 0,24 valid
3 68 0,241 0,24 valid
4 68 0,451 0,24 valid
5 68 0,277 0,24 valid
6 68 0,130 0,24 not valid
7 68 0,385 0,24 not valid
8 68 0,514 0,24 valid
9 68 0,426 0,24 valid
(33)
77
11 68 0,175 0,24 not valid
12 68 0,213 0,24 valid
13 68 0,414 0,24 valid
14 68 0,250 0,24 valid
15 68 0,120 0,24 not valid
3.5.2 Reliability
Reliability of the data is an assumption behind all statistical procedures to inform the readers or researchers about how reliable the data are (Hatch and Lazaraton, 1991:529). The reliability of test in this research will include the difficulty index and distracter analysis.
3.5.2.1The Difficulty Index of Pretest
It is important to note that the good test item isn’t depending on how easy and
difficult the test is. So teachers should able in arranging those test items appropriately. The difficulty index is marked between the number 0,00 --- 1,0. Items with the difficulty index 0,00 show that the items is too difficult and items with the difficulty index of 1,0 means that the items is too easy.
Here is the illustration
0,0 --- 1,0
The formula will be used is
�= �
(34)
78 P = index of difficulty
B = students who answer the right items
JS = amount of students
The classification of P according to Arikunto (2010)
a) 0,0 – 0,30 = difficult b) 0,30 – 0,70 = medium
c) 0,70 – 1,00 = easy
Based on the table (attachment pg….), researcher could define some illustrations
below;
Table 3.8 The difficulty index
No of Item Right Answer The difficulty index
Decision
1 49 70,00 Medium
2 60 85,71 Very easy
3 52 74,29 Easy
4 38 54,29 Medium
5 55 78,57 Easy
6 55 78,57 Easy
7 47 67,14 Medium
8 41 58,57 Medium
9 66 94,29 Very easy
10 58 82,86 Easy
11 46 65,71 Medium
(35)
79
3.5.2.2The Difficulty Index of Progress test 1
The formula used in analyzing the difficulty index of progress-test is the same as pretest. The difficulty index of progress test will be illustrates as follow.
Table 3.9 The difficulty index
No of Item Right Answer The difficulty index
Decision
1 48 0.685714 Middle
2 62 0.885714 Easy
3 52 0.742857 Easy
4 29 0.414286 Middle
5 56 0.8 Easy
6 49 0.7 Middle
7 50 0.714286 Easy
8 33 0.471429 Middle
9 59 0.842857 Easy
10 59 0.842857 Easy
11 54 0.771429 Easy
12 39 0.557143 Middle
3.5.2.3The Difficulty index of Progress test 2
Table 3.10 The difficulty index
No of Item Right Answer The difficulty index
(36)
80
1 51 0.728571 Easy
2 51 0.728571 Easy
3 50 0.714286 Easy
4 42 0.6 Middle
5 52 0.742857 Easy
6 50 0.714286 Easy
7 46 0.657143 Middle
8 38 0.542857 Middle
9 58 0.828571 Easy
10 46 0.657143 Middle
11 52 0.742857 Easy
12 42 0.6 Middle
13 46 0.657143 Middle
14 51 0.728571 Easy
15 52 0.742857 Easy
3.5.2.4The Difficulty index of Posttest
The formula used in analyzing the difficulty index of posttest is the same as pretest and progress-test. The difficulty index of progress test will be illustrates as follow.
Table 3.11 The difficulty index
No of Item Right answer Value of P Categorization
1 43 0.614286 Middle
2 58 0.828571 Easy
3 55 0.785714 Easy
4 35 0.5 Middle
5 55 0.785714 Easy
6 58 0.828571 Easy
7 45 0.642857 Middle
8 27 0.385714 Middle
9 66 0.942857 Easy
10 56 0.8 Easy
11 57 0.814286 Easy
(37)
81
13 40 0.571429 Middle
14 44 0.628571 Middle
15 54 0.771429 Easy
3.5.2.5Discrimination index of Pretest
Generally, students who did well on the exam should select the correct answer to any given item on the exam. The Discrimination Index distinguishes for each item between the performance of students who did well on the exam and students who did poorly. For each item, researcher subtracts the number of students in the lower group who answered correctly from the number of students in the upper group who answered correctly. The result will be divided by the number of students in one group. The Discrimination Index is listed in decimal format and ranges between -1 and 1. The classification of discrimination index is based on Arikunto (2010:213)
0,0 - 0,20 : poor
0,20 – 0,40 : satisfactory 0,40 – 0,70 : good 0,70 – 1,00 : excellent
Based on the table on attachment (appendix…) the illustration will be as follows:
Table 3.12 Discrimination index
(38)
82 Discrimination
1 16 9 7 36,84 Satisfactory
2 19 11 8 42,11 Good
3 18 12 6 31,58 Satisfactory
4 13 7 6 31,58 Satisfactory
5 19 13 6 31,58 Satisfactory
6 17 10 7 36,84 Satisfactory
7 16 10 6 31,58 Satisfactory
8 16 8 8 42,11 Good
9 19 15 4 21,05 Satisfactory
10 18 12 6 31,58 Satisfactory
11 17 6 11 57,89 Good
12 16 7 9 47,37 Good
3.5.2.6Discrimination index of Progress test 1
Table 3.13 Discrimination index
No of Item Upper Lower Difference Index of Discrimination
Decision
1 24 24 0 0 Poor
2 32 30 2 0.057143 Poor
3 34 18 16 0.457143 Good
4 18 11 7 0.2 Poor
5 30 26 4 0.114286 Poor
6 30 19 11 0.314286 Good
7 27 23 4 0.114286 Good
8 24 9 15 0.428571 Good
9 35 24 11 0.314286 Good
10 31 28 3 0.085714 Excellent
11 29 25 4 0.114285 Poor
12 26 13 13 0.371428 Satisfactory
3.5.2.7Discrimination index of Progress test 2
Table 3.14 Discrimination index
(39)
83 No of Item Upper Lower Difference Index of
Discrimination
Decision
1 28 23 5 0.142857 Poor
2 27 24 3 0.085715 Poor
3 27 23 4 0.114286 Poor
4 22 20 2 0.057142 Poor
5 32 20 12 0.342857 Satisfactory
6 28 22 6 0.171429 Poor
7 26 20 6 0.171428 Poor
8 25 13 12 0.342857 Satisfactory
9 20 38 -18 -0.51429 Poor
10 31 15 16 0.457143 Good
11 27 25 2 0.057143 Poor
12 28 14 14 0.4 Poor
13 26 20 6 0.171428 Poor
14 30 21 9 0.257143 Satisfactory
15 30 22 8 0.228572 Satisfactory
3.5.2.8Discrimination index of Posttest
Table 3.15 Discrimination index
No of Item Upper Lower Difference Index of Discrimination
Decision
1 23 20 3 0.085714 Poor
2 34 24 10 0.285715 Satisfactory
3 30 25 5 0.142857 Poor
4 22 13 9 0.257142 Satisfactory
5 30 25 5 0.142857 Poor
6 31 27 4 0.114285 Poor
7 28 17 11 0.314286 Satisfactory
8 22 5 17 0.485714 Good
9 35 31 4 0.114286 Poor
10 32 24 8 0.228572 Satisfactory
11 30 27 3 0.085714 Poor
12 27 18 9 0.257143 Satisfactory
13 25 15 10 0.285715 Satisfactory
14 23 21 2 0.057143 Poor
(40)
(41)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
103
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
This chapter concludes the research report. The significance of this research in the immediate context of performance based assessment is examined and the recommendations for further research in the end the chapter. The scope of the following conclusions is limited to the performance based assessment and its
implication towards the young learners’ speaking skill achievement and the teacher’s
perception towards the effect of performance based assessment on young learners’ speaking skill achievement.
5.1 Conclusion
From this study, statistically, it can be concluded that the performance based
assessment has a positive impact on the young learner’s achievement in speaking skill.
The use of performance based assessment in this experimental study showed that students of the experimental groups were better compared to the control group. The result of the questionnaire also strongly showed that the teacher has a positive perception towards the young learners’ speaking skill achievement after using the performance based assessment. The perception from the teacher proved that this type of assessment could be useful to the English learning.
(42)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
104 This research will at least have the impact not only for students specially the
young learners’speaking skill but also for the teachers. The information about how
the progress of the achievement of the students and the teachers’ perception in this
research hopefully will useful for students, educators, and the evaluators.
5.2Suggestion
From the description of the research results, below are several suggestions to be proposed;
First, the performance based assessment is an innovation which have improved
students’ speaking skill achievement. Therefore this kind of assessment is strongly
recommended to be implemented in classroom.’
Second, a large scale research in this kind of assessment is highly recommended. This is because the data from this research input have been to small to make a strong claim.
Third, in retrospect, the researcher realized that conducting a research in perception is difficult and complicated. Therefore, it is recommended that a more detailed and through examination in this aspect be connected both qualitatively and quantitatively.
(43)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
105
References
Allport GW (1996). Pattern and growth in personality. London: William Clowes and Sons, Ltd.
Airasian, P.W. (1991). Classroom assessment. New York; McGraw-Hill.
Arikunto, S. (2010). Dasar DasarEvaluasi Pendidikan (Edisi Revisi).Jakarta.Bumi Aksara. Armstrong, C.L. (1994). Designing assessment in art. Reston, VA: National Art Education
Association.
Aschbacher, P. A. (1991). Performance assessment: State activity, interest, and concerns. Applied Measurement in Education, 4(4), 275-288.
Bachman, L. F. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 453-476.
Bachman, L. F. (1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baily, K.M. 1998. Learning about Language Assessment: Dilemmas, Decisions, and Directions. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Baker, D. P. & Dismukes, R. K. (2002). A framework for understanding crew performance assessment Issues. International Journal ofAviation Psychology, 12 (3), 205-222. Baker, J., & Westrup, H. (2003). Essestial Speaking Skill: A Handbook for English
language Teachers. London: Continuum.
Brandt, R. (1998). Understanding by Design (pp. v-vi). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Bredekamp, S., & Rosegrant, T. (Eds.). 1992. Reaching Potentials: Appropriate curriculum and assessment for young children (Vol 1). Washington. DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Brindley,G. (1994). Task-centred assessment in language learning: The promise and the challenge. In N. Bird, P. Falvey, A. Tsui, D. Allison & A. McNeill (Eds.), Language and learning: Papers presented at the Annual International Language
(44)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
106 Education Conference, Hongkong, 1993 (pp. 73-94). Hongkong: Hongkong Education Department.
Brown, D.J. (2004). Performance Assessment: Existing Literature and Direction for Research. Journal of Second Language Studies, 22(2), Spring 2004, pp. 91-139. Brown,G.T.L. (2002). Teacher’s Conceptions of Assessment. University of Auckland. Brown,G. (2001). Assessment:A Guide for Lecturers. York: LTSN generic Centre.
Brown,H.D (1994).Teaching by Principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewoodcliff, NJ: Prentice Hall Regent.
Brualdi, A. (1998) Implementing Performance Assesment in the Classroom: .Practical Asessment Research and Evaluation Journal ISSN 1531-7714.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child's talk: Learning to use language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bruner, J. and Haste, H. (1987). Making sense. London: Routledge.
Caban, H. L. (2003). Rater Group Bias in the Speaking Assessment of Four L1 Japanese ESL Students. Second Language Studies, 21(2), Spring 2003, 1-43.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press
Carey, J. W. (1993) Linking qualitative and quantitative methods: integrating cultural factors into public health. Qualitative Health Research, 3, 298-318.
Chalhoub D, M. (2001). Task-based assessments: Characteristics and validity
evidence. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 210-228). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Chaney, A.L., and T.L. Burk. (1998). Teaching Oral Communication in Grades K-8. Boston: Allyn&Bacon.
Cohen, P. (1995). Designing Performance Based Assessment Tasks. vol 37. No 6. Copyright © 1995 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. http://www.ascd.org/publications/newsletters/education-
(45)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
107 Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education (5th
Edition). London: Routledge/Falmer.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle Creek, NJ: Pearson
Education.
Cunningham, G. K. (1998). Assessment in the Classroom: Constructing and Interpreting Tests. USA. Palmer. Press.
Dawson, C. 2009. Introduction to Research Methods: a practical guide for anyone
undertaking a research project 4th ed. United Kingdom; How to Book ltd.
Eggen, P.,& Kauchak, D. (2001). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms. New Jersey Prentice Hall, Inc.
Eisner, E. W. (1999). The uses and limits of performance assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 658-660. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from Education Research Complete database.
Elliot., & Stephen. N. (1995). Creating meaningful performance assessment: Fundamentl Concepts. ERIC Digest Journal E531.
Fransisca, S. (2000). on EBE Bandung; Unpublished Thesis of Indonesia University of Education.
Ferman, Irit. (2005). Implementing Performance-Based-Assessment in the EFL Classroom. ETAI Forum English Teachers' Association of Israel, Vol. XVI No. 4, Fall 2005. Forgus, R. H.( 1966). Perception: The basic process in cognitive development.
Mc’Graww-Hill. USA.
Fodor, J. (1983). "The modularity of the mind." Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fulcher, G., (1996). Testing tasks: issues in task design and the group oral. Language Testing, 13, 23- 51.
(46)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
108 Gardner, H. (1993). "Multiple Intelligences: The theory in practice." New York: Basic
Books.
Gronlund.N.E.,& Linn.R.L.(1990). Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching. (6 ed). New York. MacMilan
Gruber, H. (1985). Giftedness and moral responsibility: Creative thinking and human survival. In Horowitz, F., & O'Brien, M., (Eds.), "The gifted and the talented: Developmental perspectives." Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). Perceptions of Authentic Assessment: Five Dimensions of Authenticity. Paper presented at the Second Biannual Joint Northumbria/European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction SIG Assessment Conference, Bergen, Norway. Retrieved December 7, 2008,fromhttp://www.ou.nl/Docs/Expertise/OTEC/Publicaties/judith%20gullikers/ paper%20SIG%2 02004%20Bergen.pdf
Hadley, A.O. (2001). Teaching language in context. (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Hart, D. (1994). Authentic Assessment: A Handbook for Educators. Addison-Wesley Pub.
Co. New York, NY.
Harvey, J.H & Smith, W.P. (1997). Social Psychology: An Attributional Approach. Saint Louis. Mosby.
Hatch,E., & Lazaraton,A. (1991). The Research Manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. New York:Newburry House.
Heaton, J. B. (1995). Writing English Language Tests. London and New York: Longman.
Herrington, J., & Herrington, A. (1998). Authentic Assessment and Multimedia: How University Students Respond to a Model of Authentic Assessment [Electronic version]. Higher Education Research and Development, 17(3), 305-322. Retrieved November 6,
2008, from
(47)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
109 Hibbard, K. M. and others. (1996). A teacher's guide to performance-based learning and assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hill, K. (1998). The effect of test-taker characteristics on reactions to and performance on an oral English proficiency test. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), Validation in language assessment (pp. 209-229). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hughes, A. (2003) Testing for language teachers (second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hughes, A. (2001). Testing for Language Teachers 2nd. United Kingdom: Cambridge. Hughes, A. (1989) Testing for Language Teachers Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Indonesia National Education. (2003).Act No. 20 Article 50 Paragraph 3. about national education system.
Ishii, D. N., and Baba, K. (2003). Locally Developed Oral Skills Evaluation in ESL/EFL Classroom: A Checklist for Developing Meaningful Assessment Procedures. TESL Canada Journal, Vol 21, Issue 1.
Kenyon, D. M. (1998). An investigation of the validity of task demands on performance based tests of oral proficiency. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), Validation in language assessment (pp. 19-40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kahl, S. (2009). The Assessment of 21st Century Skills: Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers 38th National Conference on Student Assessment, Orlando, FL.
Kitao, S. K., & Kitao, K. (1996). Testing speaking (Report No.TM025215). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED398261)
Leung, W.C. (2001). How to design a questionnaire. Student BMJ. Vol 9.187-189
Liskin. G, J. (1997). Comparing Traditional and Performance-Based Assessment. Paper presented at the Symposium on Spanish Second Language Acquisition, Austin, TX.
Retrieved December 30, 2008, from
(48)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
110 Linn, R.., Baker, E., & Dunbar, S. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment:Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20, 15-21.
Linn, R.L., & Gronlund, N.E. (1995). Measurement and Assessment in Teaching. Merril-Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey.
Luoma, S. (2003). Assessing Speaking. Cambridge University Press.
Lynch,B.K. (2003).Language Assessment and Programme Evaluation. Edinburg University Press. Edinburg.
Lyman, H. B. (1998). Test Scores and What They Mean (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Malderez, A. and Bodoczky, C. (1999). Mentor Courses: A Resource Book for Trainer-Trainers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
McNamara, T. F. (1996). Measuring second language performance. London: Longman McNamara, T.F. and Lumley, T. 1997. The effect of interlocutor and assessment mode
variables in overseas assessments of speaking skills in occupational settings.
Language Testing 14, 142–51.
McKay, P. (2006). Assessing Young Language Learners. Cambridge University Press Meyer, C.A. (1992). What’s the difference between “authentic” and “performance”
assessment? Educational Leadership, 49(8), 39-40.
Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: what, when and how?Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation, 7(3). Retrieved December 12, 2011 from
http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=3 .
Moskal, B. M. (2003). Recommendations for developing classroom performance assessments and scoring rubrics. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,
8(14). Retrieved January 13, 2009, from
http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=14
Nitko, A.J, & Brookhart, S.M. 2007. Educational assessment of students (5th ed). Uppler Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
(49)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
111 Norris, J. M., Brown, J.D., Hudson, T.D., & Yoshioka, J. K. (1998). Designing second
language performance assessment. Honolulu: University of Hawai Press.
O’Sullivan, B. (2000). Notes on Assessing Speaking. from http://www.lrc.cornell.edu/events/past/2008-2009/papers08/osull1.pdf
Palm, T. (2008). Performance Assessment and Authentic Assessment: A Conceptual Analysis of the Literature. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 13(4), 1-11. Retrieved December 29, 2008, from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v13n4.pdf
Payne, D. A. (2003). Applied Educational Assessment (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Paulonis, M.A., & Cox, J.W. (2002). A practical approach for large-scale controller performance assessment, diagnosis, and improvement. Journal of Process Control 13 (2003), pp 155-168.
Perkins, D. (1981). "The mind's best work." Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Randhawa, B. S., & Hunter, D. M. (2001). Validity of Performance Assessment in
Mathematics for Early Adolescents [Electronic version]. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science,33(1), 14-24. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa 717/is_200101/ai_n8945122
Rea-Dickins, P. & Rixon, S. (1999) Assessment of young learners of English: Reasons and means. In S. Rixon (Eds.). Young learners of English: Some research perspectives (pp. 89-101). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Reeves, T. C., & Okey, J. (1996). Alternative assessment for constructivist learning environments. In B. Wilson, (Ed.). Constructivist learning environments (pp. 191-202). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Robins, S. P. (2001). Organisas Perilaku i (Indonesian version).Jilid I Edisi kedelapan. PT Prenhallindo.Jakarta.
Rookes, P.,& Willson, J. 2002. Perception: Theory, development, and organization. Routledge. London.
Sheppard, L., S.L Kagan & E. Wurtz. 1998. Priciples and Recommendation for Early Childhood Assessment. Washington DC: National Education Goals Panel.
(50)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
112 Stone DH (1993). “Design a questionnaire”. British Medical Journal, 307:1264–1266 Skehan,P., (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sternberg, R. (1988.). "The nature of creativity." New York: Cambridge University Press. Thoha, M. 2002. Organisasi Perilaku: Konsep Dasar dan Aplikasinya. Manajemen PT
Grahalindo Persada. Jakarta.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in the middle school : One school's journey. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(2), 77-114.
Torrance, H. (1995) Introduction: Evaluating authentic assessment.Buckingham, UK, Open University Press.
Walgito, B. (1999). Psikologi Sosial: Suatu Pengantar. PT ANDI. Jakarta.
Wren, G. D (2009). Performance assessment: A key component of balanced assessment system. Department of Research, Evaluation and Assessment, 1-12 ( number 2). Retrieved March 4 2009.
Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessment: Authenticity, context and validity. Phi Delta Kappan,
75(3), 200–214.
Wiggins, G. (1992). Creating Tests Worth Taking. Educational Leadership, 49(8), 26-33. Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi
Delta Kappan, 70, 703-713.
Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14(1), 85–106.
Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
(1)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
107
Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education (5th Edition). London: Routledge/Falmer.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle Creek, NJ: Pearson Education.
Cunningham, G. K. (1998). Assessment in the Classroom: Constructing and Interpreting Tests. USA. Palmer. Press.
Dawson, C. 2009. Introduction to Research Methods: a practical guide for anyone undertaking a research project 4th ed. United Kingdom; How to Book ltd.
Eggen, P.,& Kauchak, D. (2001). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms. New Jersey Prentice Hall, Inc.
Eisner, E. W. (1999). The uses and limits of performance assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 658-660. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from Education Research Complete database.
Elliot., & Stephen. N. (1995). Creating meaningful performance assessment: Fundamentl Concepts. ERIC Digest Journal E531.
Fransisca, S. (2000). on EBE Bandung; Unpublished Thesis of Indonesia University of Education.
Ferman, Irit. (2005). Implementing Performance-Based-Assessment in the EFL Classroom. ETAI Forum English Teachers' Association of Israel, Vol. XVI No. 4, Fall 2005. Forgus, R. H.( 1966). Perception: The basic process in cognitive development.
Mc’Graww-Hill. USA.
Fodor, J. (1983). "The modularity of the mind." Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fulcher, G., (1996). Testing tasks: issues in task design and the group oral. Language Testing, 13, 23- 51.
(2)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
108
Gardner, H. (1993). "Multiple Intelligences: The theory in practice." New York: Basic Books.
Gronlund.N.E.,& Linn.R.L.(1990). Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching. (6 ed). New York. MacMilan
Gruber, H. (1985). Giftedness and moral responsibility: Creative thinking and human survival. In Horowitz, F., & O'Brien, M., (Eds.), "The gifted and the talented: Developmental perspectives." Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). Perceptions of Authentic Assessment: Five Dimensions of Authenticity. Paper presented at the Second Biannual Joint Northumbria/European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction SIG Assessment Conference, Bergen, Norway. Retrieved December 7, 2008,fromhttp://www.ou.nl/Docs/Expertise/OTEC/Publicaties/judith%20gullikers/ paper%20SIG%2 02004%20Bergen.pdf
Hadley, A.O. (2001). Teaching language in context. (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Hart, D. (1994). Authentic Assessment: A Handbook for Educators. Addison-Wesley Pub.
Co. New York, NY.
Harvey, J.H & Smith, W.P. (1997). Social Psychology: An Attributional Approach. Saint Louis. Mosby.
Hatch,E., & Lazaraton,A. (1991). The Research Manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. New York:Newburry House.
Heaton, J. B. (1995). Writing English Language Tests. London and New York: Longman.
Herrington, J., & Herrington, A. (1998). Authentic Assessment and Multimedia: How University Students Respond to a Model of Authentic Assessment [Electronic version]. Higher Education Research and Development, 17(3), 305-322. Retrieved November 6,
2008, from
(3)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
109
Hibbard, K. M. and others. (1996). A teacher's guide to performance-based learning and assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hill, K. (1998). The effect of test-taker characteristics on reactions to and performance on an oral English proficiency test. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), Validation in language assessment (pp. 209-229). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hughes, A. (2003) Testing for language teachers (second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hughes, A. (2001). Testing for Language Teachers 2nd. United Kingdom: Cambridge. Hughes, A. (1989) Testing for Language Teachers Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Indonesia National Education. (2003).Act No. 20 Article 50 Paragraph 3. about national education system.
Ishii, D. N., and Baba, K. (2003). Locally Developed Oral Skills Evaluation in ESL/EFL Classroom: A Checklist for Developing Meaningful Assessment Procedures. TESL Canada Journal, Vol 21, Issue 1.
Kenyon, D. M. (1998). An investigation of the validity of task demands on performance based tests of oral proficiency. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), Validation in language assessment (pp. 19-40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kahl, S. (2009). The Assessment of 21st Century Skills: Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers 38th National Conference on Student Assessment, Orlando, FL.
Kitao, S. K., & Kitao, K. (1996). Testing speaking (Report No.TM025215). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED398261)
Leung, W.C. (2001). How to design a questionnaire. Student BMJ. Vol 9.187-189
Liskin. G, J. (1997). Comparing Traditional and Performance-Based Assessment. Paper presented at the Symposium on Spanish Second Language Acquisition, Austin, TX.
Retrieved December 30, 2008, from
(4)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
110
Linn, R.., Baker, E., & Dunbar, S. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment:Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20, 15-21.
Linn, R.L., & Gronlund, N.E. (1995). Measurement and Assessment in Teaching. Merril-Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey.
Luoma, S. (2003). Assessing Speaking. Cambridge University Press.
Lynch,B.K. (2003).Language Assessment and Programme Evaluation. Edinburg University Press. Edinburg.
Lyman, H. B. (1998). Test Scores and What They Mean (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Malderez, A. and Bodoczky, C. (1999). Mentor Courses: A Resource Book for Trainer-Trainers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
McNamara, T. F. (1996). Measuring second language performance. London: Longman McNamara, T.F. and Lumley, T. 1997. The effect of interlocutor and assessment mode
variables in overseas assessments of speaking skills in occupational settings. Language Testing 14, 142–51.
McKay, P. (2006). Assessing Young Language Learners. Cambridge University Press Meyer, C.A. (1992). What’s the difference between “authentic” and “performance”
assessment? Educational Leadership, 49(8), 39-40.
Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: what, when and how?Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(3). Retrieved December 12, 2011 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=3 .
Moskal, B. M. (2003). Recommendations for developing classroom performance assessments and scoring rubrics. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,
8(14). Retrieved January 13, 2009, from
http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=14
Nitko, A.J, & Brookhart, S.M. 2007. Educational assessment of students (5th ed). Uppler Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
(5)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
111
Norris, J. M., Brown, J.D., Hudson, T.D., & Yoshioka, J. K. (1998). Designing second language performance assessment. Honolulu: University of Hawai Press.
O’Sullivan, B. (2000). Notes on Assessing Speaking. from http://www.lrc.cornell.edu/events/past/2008-2009/papers08/osull1.pdf
Palm, T. (2008). Performance Assessment and Authentic Assessment: A Conceptual Analysis of the Literature. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 13(4), 1-11. Retrieved December 29, 2008, from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v13n4.pdf
Payne, D. A. (2003). Applied Educational Assessment (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Paulonis, M.A., & Cox, J.W. (2002). A practical approach for large-scale controller performance assessment, diagnosis, and improvement. Journal of Process Control 13 (2003), pp 155-168.
Perkins, D. (1981). "The mind's best work." Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Randhawa, B. S., & Hunter, D. M. (2001). Validity of Performance Assessment in
Mathematics for Early Adolescents [Electronic version]. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science,33(1), 14-24. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa 717/is_200101/ai_n8945122
Rea-Dickins, P. & Rixon, S. (1999) Assessment of young learners of English: Reasons and means. In S. Rixon (Eds.). Young learners of English: Some research perspectives (pp. 89-101). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Reeves, T. C., & Okey, J. (1996). Alternative assessment for constructivist learning environments. In B. Wilson, (Ed.). Constructivist learning environments (pp. 191-202). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Robins, S. P. (2001). Organisas Perilaku i (Indonesian version).Jilid I Edisi kedelapan. PT Prenhallindo.Jakarta.
Rookes, P.,& Willson, J. 2002. Perception: Theory, development, and organization. Routledge. London.
Sheppard, L., S.L Kagan & E. Wurtz. 1998. Priciples and Recommendation for Early Childhood Assessment. Washington DC: National Education Goals Panel.
(6)
Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012
Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
112
Stone DH (1993). “Design a questionnaire”. British Medical Journal, 307:1264–1266 Skehan,P., (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sternberg, R. (1988.). "The nature of creativity." New York: Cambridge University Press. Thoha, M. 2002. Organisasi Perilaku: Konsep Dasar dan Aplikasinya. Manajemen PT
Grahalindo Persada. Jakarta.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in the middle school : One school's journey. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(2), 77-114.
Torrance, H. (1995) Introduction: Evaluating authentic assessment.Buckingham, UK, Open University Press.
Walgito, B. (1999). Psikologi Sosial: Suatu Pengantar. PT ANDI. Jakarta.
Wren, G. D (2009). Performance assessment: A key component of balanced assessment system. Department of Research, Evaluation and Assessment, 1-12 ( number 2). Retrieved March 4 2009.
Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessment: Authenticity, context and validity. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(3), 200–214.
Wiggins, G. (1992). Creating Tests Worth Taking. Educational Leadership, 49(8), 26-33. Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi
Delta Kappan, 70, 703-713.
Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test
discourse. Language Testing, 14(1), 85–106.
Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.