DEVELOPING ENGLISH SUMMATIVE TEST BASED ON REVISED BLOOM’S TAXONOMY.

(1)

DEVELOPING ENGLISH SUMMATIVE TEST BASED ON

REVISED BLOOM’S TAXONOMY

A THESIS

Submitted to English Education Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan

By:

THERESIA MANALU

REG NUMBER: 2123121054

ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

i

ABSTRACT

Manalu, Theresia. Registration Number: 2123121054. Developing English

Summative Test based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. A Thesis. English

Educational Program, State University of Medan, 2016.

This was a research and development (R&D) study which aimed to evaluate the English summative test items based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy for grade VIII. This study focused on the developing the English summative test items according to the cognitive level of revised Bloom’s taxonomy for grade VIII at SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi. The data consist of the existing English summative test items which were directly collected from the English teacher due to analyze the proportion of cognitive level according to revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Based on the data analysis, the existing English summative test had not fulfilled the proportion of cognitive level according to revised Bloom’s taxonomy regulated by the Ministry of Education and Culture. The inappropriate English summative test items were then developed according to the proportion demand and suitability to the syllabus and indicators. The results of the study are 30 developed English summative test items which had been validated by the experts and tested to 20 students due to get the reliability scores.

(7)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The researcher would like to express her deepest gratitude to Jesus

Christ, the Almighty and Most Beneficial for His Grace, Guidance, Praise, Honor,

and Mercy that has been given to the researcher so that she finally accomplished

her Thesis.

During the process of accomplishing this Thesis, she would like to express

her deepest gratitude and appreciation to:

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

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

 Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., as the Head of English and Literature Department, Dra. Meisuri, M. A., the Secretary of English and Literature

Department and Nora Ronita Dewi, S. Pd., S. S., M. Hum., as the Head

of English Education Study Program Faculty of Languages and Arts, State

University of Medan.

 Dr. Siti Aisah Ginting, M.Pd., and Indra Hartoyo, S.Pd., M.Hum, her Thesis Advisors, for the valuable time, knowledge, and guidance with all

their patience and wisdom during the process of accomplishing this guidance and suggestion in completing the product of this Thesis.

 Sabar Manalu and Linda Pasaribu, her beloved parents, Fernandes Manalu and David Manalu, her older brothers for the endless love, prayer as well as moral and material support in her whole life.

 Verawaty Manalu, her one and only sister for her countless motivation, love, pray, help, advice, and support in finishing her Thesis and study

(8)

iii

 Bambang Sarianto, S.Pd, the English teacher at SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi for giving her a great help during the research process.

 Eis Sri Wahyuningsih, M.Pd., and Pak Pantes, the administration staffs of English Department.

 Andika, Anggita, Nurul, Sylvia, and Yeslika, her awesome crayons and Irma, Naya, Dara, Geby, Rika, and Zhana, her one-step-closer mates fo0976r the crazy laugh, advice and motivation, Muhammad Arif and

Nanda Aulia Putri, her Thesis partner for the cry, opinion, and idea.  Fitri Agnes, S.Pd., Rawiyah Damanik, S.Pd., Santika Silalahi, S.Pd,

her college senior for the adorable advices and supports.

 Tiwarni Febriani Pakpahan and Lusi Rina Sianturi, her beloved old friends for the smile and motivations, Debby, Melda, and Nirma, her

fantastic roommates for the craziness, support, and togetherness.

 Bebeb, Maksel, Bang Momon, and Bang Boy, her crazy friends for the lovely advice, smile, effort and love, Berman, Citra, Frikson, and

Bertha, her partners in small group (Reconquista) for their togetherness in Unit Kegiatan Mahasiswa Kristen Protestan (UKMKP).

 Regular C 2012, for the togetherness and sad-happy days they have spent in her four-years of study.

The writer realizes that her Thesis is still far from being perfect, therefore

she warmly welcomes any constructive suggestions that will improve the

quality of this Thesis. She hopes that this Thesis would be beneficial for

further research, particularly in the field of English language teaching.

Medan, September 2016 The writer,

Theresia Manalu

(9)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. The Background of the Study

The information about students’ achievement is very important in teaching

and learning process. There are many tools for measuring students’ achievement.

One of those is a test. As stated by Hughes (2013:13) a test is intended to measure

students’ achievement and the degree of success of the teaching and learning

program. In addition, Douglas (2004:3) says that a test, in simple terms, is a

method of measuring a person’s ability, knowledge, or performance in a given

domain. Test is first a method. It is an instrument, a set of techniques, procedures,

or items that requires performance on the part of the test-taker. Second, a test must

measure. If an instrument does not specify a form of reporting measurement then

the technique cannot appropriately be defined as a test. Next, a test measures an

individual’s ability, knowledge, or performance. Finally, a test measures a given

domain. By knowing the achievement of the students, teachers can measure how

many the assigned materials are mastered, how well students learn the materials,

and the most important is how well students reach the stated goals or indicators

and objectives.

After collecting the information about students’ achievement whether it is

improved or not, teachers can evaluate the techniques and mediums in teaching,

and can develop the appropriate materials and assessments in teaching.

Adnyayanti et. al. (2013:7) state that making a well prepared syllabus and lesson

(15)

2

plans is not enough because it does not automatically create a high students’

achievement. Therefore, conducting evaluation to every topic discussed in the

classroom is one of the most important things of teachers’ tasks. This is in line

with the Government Regulation number 5 in 2015 quoted from Nurfiqah

(2015:2) the percentage of assessment given to the teacher is 70% and to the

government is 30%. That is why teachers are demanded to be able to design a

good quality test item. Moreover, Indonesian government applied the proportion

for each level of education based on Bloom’s Taxonomy is surely different based

on the guidance for assessment which is regulated by the Ministry of Education

and Culture. For Junior High School itself the proportion is remembering -

understanding 20%, applying-analyzing 55%, evaluating 15%, and creating 10%.

Considering the expectations described above, there are still English test

items which do not fulfill the Government Regulation. Nurfiqah, et.al found in

SMAN 5 Pontianak that from 50 multiple choice of English summative test items

for the first semester of Grade XI there are 4 test items which needed revisions.

Based on the data shows that there are 46 items of the test which match to the

indicators, and there are 4 items of the test which do not match to the indicators

are should be revised. Those items is not suitable to the indicator because the

indicator is about changing the sentences based on the tenses while the teacher

made is about choosing a correct sentence. The indicator asks students to find the

change of sentence verb which appropriate to the sentence. In that item, teacher

asked directly to the students to correct the sentence but the teacher did not put the

(16)

3

Another research finding found by Harjali at SMK PGRI 2 Ponorogo

concluded that from 4 bundles of English summative tests, 20%, 15%, 33%, and

40% are rejected. Then 40%, 15%, 37%, and 35% are revised. It proves that even

questions made by collaboration of some teachers nowadays cannot be

guaranteed. There are still many questions which have been given do not fulfill

the criteria of a good test (2012:7). Moreover, he analyzed the midterm test of

SMK PGRI 2 Ponorogo in order to see whether the items were already good or

not by analyzing the level of difficulty, validity, and reliability. The result of the

analysis can be seen from this table below.

Table 1.1

The Analysis of Level of Difficulty English Test Items Made by Teacher

Class Total of the test Items Total

Level of Difficulty Conclusion

Difficult Average Easy Rejected Revised Accepted

XI a 9 21 - 6 12 12 30

from the lesson plan made by the English teacher.

Moreover, based on the preliminary data at SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi

on Thursday, 10th March 2016, it can be seen the spread of 29 (1 is error) multiple

choice English questions for midterm test. From the observation which has been

done, it shows that the English questions in mid-term examination which would

(17)

4

percentage is 76%, consist of 22 questions from 29 and almost the whole test is in

this level. For the understanding and applying, the percentage is only 10% and

14%, consist of only 3 and 4 questions. Meanwhile, the three less level, analyzing,

evaluating, and creating are nothing. It can be concluded that this test is totally not

appropriate to be tested because it is disposed to the one level. It can be taken one

example of the items at the following explanation.

Last holiday I went to Paris. I visited museums and sat in public gardens. A friendly waiter taught me a few words of French………..

What was the first place the writer visited? a. Museum

b. Public garden c. His room d. Post office

It is actually is not suitable to the topic and indicators. The topic is about

Oral and written text which states and asks last action/ incident. The indicators are

the students will be able to arrange random words to be cohesive sentence

(sentence building) and the students will be able to write short and simple

sentences based on context. The question above totally does not match to the

indicator. Moreover, the question is only in remembering level. The question can

be revised into evaluating level at the following example.

Choose the correct answer from this random sentence. Holiday- to- I- Paris- museums- visited- went- last- and- The answer is…

(18)

5

From all of the errors of analyzed and explained above, the objectives of

teaching and learning process do not achieved so the achievement of students

cannot be measured accurately because those tests do not measure what should be

measured based on the indicators which have been arranged.

Considering the facts above, it is needed to develop a good test based on

the proportion of revised Bloom’s taxonomy in order to get the accurate

information and to develop the students’ competency.

B. The Problems of the Study

Based on the background of the study described above, the research

problems were formulated as follows:

1. How are the existing English summative test items for grade VIII students

at SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi arranged by the English teacher?

2. What are the appropriate English summative test items for grade VIII

students at SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi based on the proportion of

cognitive level of revised Bloom’s taxonomy regulated by the Ministry of

Education and Culture?

C. The Objectives of the Study

Based on the formation of the research problems, the objectives of the

study were:

1. To analyze the English Summative test of Grade VIII students at SMP

(19)

6

3. To develop the English summative test of Grade VIII students at SMP

Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi based on the proportion of cognitive level of

revised Bloom’s taxonomy regulated by the Ministry of Education and

Culture

D. The Scope of the Study

In order to give the best result, this research focused on developing

English summative test arranged by English teacher based on Revised Bloom’s

Taxonomy. There are two types of achievement test; formative test and

summative test. Formative test is a test which is administered by the teacher

during the learning process while summative test is a test which is administered at

the end of the course covered more than one chapter or unit of materials.

The scope of this study is grade VIII English summative test arranged by

the English teacher of SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi.

E. The Significances of the Study

The significances of the study are classified into two – theoretically and

practically. Theoretically is expected to add a new horizon towards the test

development theories regarding to the learning objectives or indicators. Also, it is

expected that the users of the theories realize the importance of understanding and

applying the theories appropriately to design appropriate English summative test.

(20)

7

1. The English teachers can arrange a good test in order to evaluate the

students’ English acquisition based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.

2. Other researchers who are interested to conduct further research

(21)

68

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

A. Conclusion

After analyzing the data, the conclusion drawn is that the teacher’s English

summative test has not fulfilled the proportion of cognitive level of Bloom’s

taxonomy regulated by the Ministry of Education and Culture. Then, the 30

multiple choice English summative test items which were inappropriate were then

developed into 30 recommended multiple choice English summative test items

based on the theory of revised Bloom’s taxonomy, the learning indicators, and

also the criteria of a good test which had been fulfilled the proportion of revised

Bloom’s taxonomy regulated by the government in order to get the accurate

information of the students’ competence. The recommended English summative

test items or the product were then validated by two experts, Prof. Amrin Saragih,

M.A., Ph.D as the lecturer and Bambang Sarianto, S.Pd as the English teacher at

SMP Negeri 3 Tebing Tinggi. After validating the product, the field testing held

in order to take the reliability of the recommended English summative test items.

It was concluded that the 30 recommended English summative test items as valid

(22)

69

B. Suggestions

In relation to the conclusions, some suggestions are presented as follows.

1. For the English teachers

The English teachers should pay attention to the government demand in

arranging the English summative test items for students in order to get the

accurate information of the students. The English summative test applied

at the end of semester as the evaluation test of the students whether they

have mastered all the competencies demand. That is why, the appropriate

English summative test is important to be arranged by the teacher so that

the students’ competence can be evaluated accurately.

2. For other researchers

Hopefully, this research could inspire other researchers who wanted to

conduct a further research related to the test development as the

(23)

70

REFERENCES

Adibah. 2012. An Analysis of Questions Used by An English Teacher in Classroom ( A Case Study at the 10th Grade of SMA AL-Yasini Pasuruan 2011/2012). Journal of Airlangga University. 1(1)

Adnyayanti, Era et.al. 2013. Analysis of Authenticity of Teachers’ Made Assessment and Its Contribution to the Students’ English Achievement (A Study in Junior High School in Buleleng Regency). Journal Article . Singaraja: Pasca Sarjana Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha

Anderson & Krathwohl. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and

Assessing: A Revisio of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.

Bloom, Benjamin, et.al. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Classification of Educational Goals. Boston: Longman

Borg & Gall. 1983. Educational Research: An Introduction. Boston: Pearson Education

Brown, Douglas. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroo Practices. Longman:America

BSNP. 2010. Panduan Pengembangan Indikator

Dick, Walter., Carey, Lou., and Carey, James. O. 2005. The Systematic Design of Instruction Sixth Edition. Boston: Pearson

Direktorat Pembinaan Sekolah Menengah Pertama. 2014. Panduan Penilaian Pencapaian Kompetensipeserta Didik Sekolah Menengah Pertama

Emilia, Emi & Safrina, Raden. 2014. When English Rings a Bell. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan

Forehand, Mary. 2005. Bloom’s Taxonomy: Original and Revised. Georgia: Unversity of Georgia

Gronlund, Norman E. Constructing Achievement Test. New Jersey: Prentice Hall

(24)

71

Harjali. 2012. Evaluasi Pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris pada Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan. International Journal. e-ISSN: 2442-9651,p-ISSN: 1411-3031 12(2)

Heaton, J B. 1975. Writing English Tets. London: Longman

Hughes, Arthur. 2003. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Huitt, W. 2011. Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University

Kaboody, Mastoor.,Stevens, Rachel. 2015. Developing a Formative Grammar Test for Intensive English Program Students. Arizona: Northen Arizona University

Kluitman, Sebastian. 2008. Testing English as a Foreign Language. Germany

Kopriva, Rebecca J. 2008. Improving Testing English Language Learners. UK : Routledge

Krathwohl, David R. 2002. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Journal Article. College of Education, The Ohio State University. 41(4)

Liao, Yen-Fen. Issues of Validity and Reliability in Second Language Performance Assessment. Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL Applied Linguistics. 4(2)

Manferius, Andy et.al. 2015. Item Analysis on English Summative Test at the Eighth Grade Junior High Schools in Pontianak. Journal Article. Tanjung Pura University. 4(2)

Mager, Robert. 1977. Writing Goals and Objectives. USA: Northen Illinois University

Nurfiqah, et.al. 2015. The Analysis on the Items of the English Test Made by the Teacher. Journal Article. Tanjung Pura University

(25)

72

Rahmawaty, Khoirina Izathy et.al. 2012. An Analysis of Reading Questions English Textbook Entitled “Interlanguage: English for Senior High School

Students XI” based on RBT. Journal Article. State University of Malang

Rudner, Lawrence., ND Scafer, William D. 2002. What Teachers Need to Know about Assessment. United States: National Education Association

Weir, Cyril J. 1990. Communicative Language Testing. UK: Prentice Hall

Weir, Cyril J. 2005. Language Testing and Validation- An Evidence-Based Approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

E4

Wu, Jessica & Hui-Yun Lo. 2011. The YLE Tests and Teaching in the Taiwanese Context. University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations. 46(2)

Internet Sources

http://brainley.co.id/tugas/2081121/June 13th 2016/05:50 AM

DEVELOPING ENGLISH SUMMATIVE TEST BASED ON REVISED BLOOM’S TAXONOMY.