ASSESSMENT OF YOUNG LEARNERS OF ENGLISH : A Case Study in a Public Primary School in Bandung.

(1)

Assessment of Young Learners of English

(A Case Study in a Public Primary School in Bandung)

A Thesis

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master’s degree in English

Education

By:

Dewi Selviani Yulientinah (0908075)

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(2)

ASSESSMENT OF YOUNG LEARNERS OF ENGLISH

(A CASE STUDY IN A PUBLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL IN

BANDUNG)

Oleh:

Dewi Selviani Yulientinah S.S. Universitas Padjadjaran, 1997

Sebuah Tesis yamg diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Magister Pendidikan (M.Pd.) pada Sekolah Pasca Sarjana

©Dewi Selviani Yulientinah 2014 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Mei 2014

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

(3)

APPROVAL PAGE

Assessment of Young Learners of English

(A Case Study in a Public Primary School in Bandung)

by:

Dewi Selviani Yulientinah

0908075

Approved by:

Prof. Dr. H. Didi Suherdi, M.Ed.

Main Supervisor

Prof. Dr. Didi Sukyadi, M. A.

(4)

Dewi Selviani Yulientinah, 2014

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.4 Significance of the Study ... 6

1.5 Scope of the Study... 6

1.6 Organization of Thesis ... 6

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Young Language Learners (YLLs) ... 8

2.1.1. Definition of YLLs ... 8

2.1.2. The Characteristics of YLLs ... 9

2.1.2.1. Cognitive, Social and Emotional, and Physical Growth 10 2.1.2.2. Literacy ... 10

2.1.2.3. Vulnerability ... 12

2.1.3. How Children Learn the First Language ... 12

2.1.4. How Children Learn a Foreign Language ... 13

2.1.5. Creating Optimal Conditions for Foreign Language Learning for YLLs ... 15

2.2 Definition of Assessment ... 15

2.3 Assessment Procedures for YLLs ... 16

2.4 Purposes of Assessment... 17

2.5 Different Sorts of Assessment for Different Reasons ... 20

2.5.1. Formal and Informal Assessment ... 20

2.5.2. Formative and Summative Assessment ... 21

2.5.2. Criterion-Referenced and Norm-Referenced Assessment... 22

2.6 Assessment Techniques ... 22

2.6.1. Observation ... 23

2.6.2. On-the-run Assessment ... 24

2.6.3. Conferences ... 25

2.6.4. Portfolio ... 26

2.6.5. Contracts of Work and Projects ... 28

2.6.6. Self- and Peer-assessment ... 29

2.6.7. Classroom Tests ... 31

(5)

2.7.1.Assessment of Listening... 32

2.7.1.1. Assessment of Phonemic Awareness ... 32

2.7.1.2. Assessment of Listening Comprehension ... 33

2.7.2. Assessment of Speaking ... 34

2.7.2.1.Assessment of Vocabulary ... 36

2.7.2.2. Assessment of Pronunciation ... 37

2.7.2.3. Assessment of Grammar ... 37

2.7.3. Assessment of Reading ... 38

2.7.4. Assessment of Writing ... 40

2.8 Assessment Standards for Elementary Level in Indonesia ... 41

2.9 English Competency Standards of Elementary Level in Indonesia 44 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Design ... 47

3.2 Research Site and Participants ... 47

3.3 Data Collection Techniques ... 47

3.3.1. Observation ... 47

3.3.2. Interview ... 48

3.3.3. Document Analysis ... 48

3.4 Data Analysis Techniques ... 49

3.4.1.Data from Observation ... 49

3.4.2. Data from Interview ... 49

3.4.3. Data from Documents ... 49

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Purposes of Assessment ... 51

4.1.1. Formative ... 51

4.1.2. Summative ... 53

4.1.3. Informative ... 57

4.1.4. Diagnostic ... 61

4.1.5. Evaluative ... 62

4.2 Assessment Techniques ... 64

4.2.1. On-the-run Assessment ... 66

4.2.2. Self- and Peer-assessment ... 72

4.2.3. Classroom Tests ... 77

4.3 Language Skills Assessed ... 85

4.3.1. Assessing Listening ... 86

4.3.2. Assessing Speaking ... 90

4.3.3. Assessing Reading ... 96

4.3.4. Assessing Writing ... 98

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Conclusions ... 104

(6)

BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 An example of Transcript of Classroom Observation Appendix 2 Interview Form

Appendix 3 Transcripts of Interview

(7)

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2.1. Characteristics of Younger and Older Learners...………. 9

Table 2.2. Widely Held Expectations of Literacy Development………… 11

Table 2.3. A simple self-assessment tool ……… 29

Table 2.4. Student’s Oral Language Obsevation Matrix………..… 35

Table 2.5. Some Characteristics of Reading Ability....……… 38

Table 4.1. The Frequency of Assessment Techniques...……… 64

(8)

LIST OF PICTURES

Page

Picture 2.1. An example of a teacher-constructed observation checklist…... 24

Picture 2.2. A class recording sheet for incidental or planned observation…... 24

Picture 2.3 An example of sample criteria for a portfolio ………….……... 27

Picture 2.4. An axample of a contract ...………….……... 28

Picture 2.5. Self-assessment sheet... ...………….……... 30

Picture 2.6. An example of peer-evaluation sheet...………….……... 31

Picture 2.7. An example of a simple phonemic awareness assessment sheet ... 32

Picture 2.8. A group of pictures of different fruit... 33

Picture 2.9. An example of a vocabulary network... 36

Picture 2.10. An example of Story Elements Map... 39

Picture 2.11. An example of Sequence of Events Story Map... 40

Picture 4.1. An example of middle term exam questions of first grade... 55

Picture 4.2. Assessment record of fourth grade... 58

Picture 4.3. An example of classroom test of the first grade... 77

Picture 4.4. An example of classroom test of the second grade...79

Picture 4.5. An example of classroom test of the fifth grade... 81

Picture 4.6. An example of classroom test of the third grade... 83

Picture 4.7. An example of classroom test of the fourth grade... 84

Picture 4.8. An example of reading assessment of the fifth grade...97

Picture 4.9. An example of writing assessment of the first grade... 98

Picture 4.10. An example of writing assessment of the second grade... 99

Picture 4.11. An example of writing assessment of the third grade... 101

Picture 4.12. An example of writing assessment of the fourth grade... 101

(9)

ABSTRACT

This study aims to investigate real assessment practice in Young Language Learners (YLLs)’ classrooms. The purpose of this study is to investigate the purposes of assessment in English language teaching of YLLs, assessment techniques used, and language skills assessed. The research design of the study is a case study. The data were collected through 30 clasroom observations, interviews with 5 English teachers and document analysis on students’ work and assessment records. There were three results of the study. First, the study indicates that teachers of YLLs conducted assessment for five purposes. The purposes are: (1) formative purpose, (2) summative purpose, (3) informative purpose, (4) diagnostic purpose, and (5) evaluative purpose. Second, the study also reveals that teachers conducted three assessment techniques, namely on-the-run assessment, self- and peer-assessment, and classroom tests. The most frequently conducted assessment technique was on-the-run assessment, followed by classroom tests and self- and peer- assessment. Third, the study indicates that all four language skills, namely listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills were assessed by the teachers of YLLs. The most frequently assessed language skill by the five teachers was the writing skill, followed by speaking, and then reading and listening. The conclusion is that assessment conducted in the YLLs’ classroom still does not fulfill assessment standards stated both in theories and government regulations about assessment for YLLs.

(10)

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

In this introductory section, background of the study is provided along with a brief

theoretical overview. In this chapter, research questions that the study aims to answer are

proposed. Purpose of the study, scope of the study, and siginificance of the study to the

educational fields are also included.

1.1. Background of the Study

In recent years, the number of children that learn English as a second or foreign

language has been growing considerably (Brewster, Ellis, Girard, 2003: 1; Alderson and

Bachman in McKay, 2006). Introducing early English learning is caused by the “strong „folk‟ belief” that “young children learn languages better and more easily than other children” (Brewster, Ellis, Girard, 2003: 1). By starting English language learning since early grade in

primary school, the duration for English language learning will be longer. Theoretically, this

longer period of learning will result in better English language acquisition since students will

get much more English exposure. It is also believed that mastering English since early age

will give more opportunities for children to gain economic, cultural or educational

advantages (Brewster, Ellis, Girard, 2003: 1; Alderson and Bachman in McKay, 2006). It is

important to master English, both speaking and writing skills because it is one of key factors

that may lead academic success and socioeconomic success may follow after that (Verdugo

and Flores, 2007: 184).

This growing trend puts pressure on the governments around the world to introduce

early English learning (Pinter, 2006: 3). In some countries, English has not been introduced

until secondary schools but in many countries, English has been included in the curriculum

since primary school.

In Indonesia, English language teaching for elementary level has been held for about

10 years. The English teaching policy is based on Education and Culture Department policy

No. 0487/4/1992 Chapter VIII concerning Local Content Curriculum which states that

(11)

aim of national education. This policy is also strengthened by the decree of Ministry of

Education and Culture Number 060/U/1993, 25 February 1993 concerning elementary

curriculum (www.depdiknas.go.id) which enables English teaching and learning to be

conducted since fourth grade. These policies have been responded positively (Suyanto, 2005).

Elementary schools that have the capabilities to hold English subject programs and feel the

urgent need of it, compete to hold English language teaching and learning programs. Since

the issuance of the decrees, the number of district and city governments all over the country

that offer English classes at the elementary school level, has increased (Musthafa, 2010: 120).

In some schools, English subject is not given until the fourth grade but in some schools,

English subject has been given since the first grade. English subject in elementary school is

listed as a local content (muatan lokal) subject. At the beginning English subject has been

positioned as an optional local content subject but along the way, in many provinces, now

English subject has become an obligatory local content.

This growing trend of early English teaching and learning may lead to a great concern

that is teachers may have to teach the young language learners (YLLs) and assess them

without any special training both on teaching YLLs and assessing them (Hasselgreen, 2005:

340). It is a general knowledge that most teachers for YLLs are not equipped with adequate

training or education background in teaching YLLs (Hasselgreen, 2005: 353) let alone

adequate training or education in language assessment (Alderson and Bachman in McKay,

2006; Hasselgreen, 2005: 353).

These facts are shown by some surveys carried out in Norway, Taiwan, and Indonesia.

The survey in Norway shows that 65% of English teachers in primary schools have no formal

competence in it (Hasselgreen, 2005: 353). Same thing happens in Taiwan. From a

questionnaire-based survey on 166 primary English teachers in Taiwan, only 46,27% of the

respondents that have qualification specific to the English teaching and 41,25% of them do

not have either a qualification specific to the English teaching or general primary teaching

qualification (Wang, 2008). The case in Indonesia is no difference. Survey shows that 80%

of teachers in 10 regions in Java and Sumatra are still not qualified in teaching English for

YLLs (Suyanto, 2005). This is also supported by the research conducted by Chodidjah (in

(12)

qualified. The results of the surveys raise an important issue that is whether those teachers

who are considered unqualified are capable in assessing YLLs well.

Teacher factor is one of the most important roles in the success of any English

teaching and learning (Richards and Rodgers, 2001: 29; Pinter, 2006: 3; Nunan, 1998: 7;

Lewis, 2002: 41). Teachers have an important role to create and manage the conditions in

which students can learn effectively (Richards and Rodgers, 2001: 29; Moon, 2000: 148). In

order to know whether learning has run effectively, teachers conduct assessment. Assessment

enables teachers to get feedback on their teaching and students to get feedback on their

learning in order to develop further (Moon, 2000: 148). Assessment also functions as a tool to

know whether learning is taking place, whether YLLs are developing and making progress,

and to what extent teachers are achieving their teaching goals or intentions (Moon, 2000:

148). Assessment is an important aspect of teaching and learning (Lang and Evans, 2006:

132). It is inseparable from teaching and learning process (Pinter, 2006: 131). Assessment is

a critical aspect in promoting “more powerful learning” (Marsh, 2008: 261) and recording students‟ performance (Lang and Evans, 2006: 161). Language assessment has the potential to ensure that English language learning students “are on course to becoming literate and able participants in English language classroom settings” (O‟Malley & Pierce, 1996: 3). When conducted appropriately, assessment can appropriately identify students‟ ability, and help teachers and other related parties to monitor students‟ progress and design proper programs for the students. Assessment can help students to learn (Tomlinson, 2005: 39). Therefore, in

term of assessment, teachers play a very important role. It is their role to interpret “assessment principles and frameworks” by making assessment decisions based on their knowledge of the teaching and learning process and their knowledge on YLLs (McKay,

2006: 5).

However, as the result of the lack of training both in teaching YLLs and language

assessment, most English for YLLs teachers in many parts of the world use „paper and pencil tests‟ as major tools of assessment (Rea-Dickins and Rixon, 1999 in Pinter, 2006: 132). Teachers conduct these kinds of test because they are relatively easy to conduct (Pinter, 2006:

132; Cameron, 2001: 218). Another reason why most young learner teachers prefer to choose

paper and pencil tests is that they think their work is already overload without additional

(13)

“new skills, new knowledge, and possibly more time” (Hills, 1999). That is why eventhough most teachers do not believe in those kinds of tests, they still conduct them anyway.

Traditional assessment methods like paper and pencil tests can be problematic

forYLLs (Pinter, 2006: 131). They are also generally inappropriate for YLLs

(Notari-Syverson, Losardo and Lim, 2003: 41). The activities that YLLs do during teaching and

learning process cover activities like singing songs, participating in stories, participating and

games and those activities are not easy to assess objectively (Pinter, 2006: 133). Assessing

those activities by using paper and pencil tests will only result in inaccurate assessment. By

inaccurate it means that the tests will not be able to show that YLLs are learning and the

progress they are making. Inappropriate assessment leads to “inaccurate identification”, “inadequate monitoring of student progress”, and eventually leads to bigger problem, that is “the long-term failure of instruction” (Cummins 1984 in O‟Malley & Pierce, 1996: 3).

In order to avoid ineffective and inappropriate assessment for YLLs, teachers need to

be have adequate knowledge of language assessment that fits the characteristics of YLLs.

According to Hasselgreen (2005: 338-339), assessment procedures for YLLs should follow

the following demands:

1. Tasks should be appealing to the age group, interesting and captivating, preferably with

elements of game and fun.

2. Many types of assessment should be used, with the pupil‟s, the parents‟ and the teacher‟s

perspectives involved.

3. Both the tasks and the forms of feedback should be designed so that the pupil‟s strengths

(what he or she can do) are highlighted.

4. The pupil should, at least under some circumstances, be given support in carrying out the

tasks.

5. The teacher should be given access to and support in understanding basic criteria and

methods for assessing language ability.

6. The activities used in assessment should be good learning activities in themselves.”

It is also a must that assessment to be conducted by people who are “adequately trained”, and have adequate experience in using the assessment tools (Espinosa and Lopez, 2007: 25). However, as mentioned earlier, in reality, most teachers for YLLs in Indonesia are

(14)

(Suyanto, 2005; Musthafa, 2010: 120). English for YLLs teachers are often teachers who are

forced by the headmasters to teach English (Suyanto, 2005). Without adequate training and

education background these teachers have to teach English for YLLs since very often, there is

limited number of teachers (Suyanto, 2005). A research conducted by Suyanto shows that

practice in English for YLLs classrooms. This study attempts to investigate the purposes of

assessment in English language teaching of young language learners (YLLs), assessment

techniques used, and language skills assessed in elementary level in Indonesian context. The

study does not attempt to capture the whole phenomenon of assessment practice in the whole

year of English language teaching. It focuses on the phenomenon captured through 6

observations in each class and document analysis on the assessment process in 6 meetings.

1.2. Research Questions

The study is conducted to answer the following questions:

1. What are the purposes of assessment in English language teaching for YLLs?

2. What assessment tehcniques are used?

3. What language skills are assessed?

1.3. Purpose of the Study

The study investigates how YLLs in a public primary school in Bandung, are

assessed. In particular, the purpose of this study is addressed to:

1. Investigate the purposes of assessment in English language teaching of YLLs. The

purposes of assessment are viewed from three points of view: the teachers‟ point of view,

the relevant theories, and curriculum for English teaching for elementary level in

Indonesia.

2. Investigate assessment tehcniques used in English for YLLs teaching and learning

(15)

analysis which then are viewed from the theories of assessment techniques for YLLs and

curriculum for English teaching for elementary level in Indonesia.

3. Investigate language skills assessed in English for YLLs teaching and learning process.

The language skill focus in the assessment are viewed from the theories of language

skills assessment for YLLs and curriculum for English teaching for elementary level in

Indonesia.

1.4. Significance of the Study

The study has significances for three aspects, namely theory development, the

educational practice and the professional development of English education especially of the

English for YLLs teaching in Indonesia. For the theory development, this study has the

potential to enrich the literature of English for young learner teaching, especially of

assessment of English for YLLs. For the educational practice, the study results in the portrait

of YLLs‟ assessment which can be the foundation in making better policy concerning English

for YLLs teaching eventhough the portrait captured here is only a small part of the whole

English for YLLs teaching. Lastly, for the professional development of English education

especially of the English for YLLs teaching, this study is expected to enhance teachers‟

performance in assessing YLLs.

1.5. Scope of the Study

The study investigates 5 classes in a public primary school in Bandung. The study

investigates what the purposes of assessment in English language teaching for YLLs are,

what assessment techniques are used, and what language skills are assessed in elementary

level in Indonesian context. The study, however, does not attempt to capture the whole

phenomenon of assessment practice in the whole year of English language teaching. It limits

the scope of the study on the phenomenon captured through 6 observations on 6 meetings in

(16)

in 6 meetings. All the data found and and discussed is the representative of the assessment

practice during that period of time only.

1.6. Organization of the Thesis

The organization of this thesis is framed as follows. Chapter I consists of background

of the study, research questions, purpose of the study, significance of the study, scope of the

study, and the organization of the thesis. Chapter II presents relevant literature concerning the

theories that have given shape to this study particulary to do with Young Language Learners

(YLLs), definition of assessment, assessment procedures for YLLs, purposes of assessment,

different sorts of assessment for different reasons, assessment techniques, assessment of

language skills, assessment standard based on Indonesian elementary curriculum and English

competency standard for elementary level in Indonesia. Chapter III outlines the design and

the research methodology. It includes research design, research site and participants, data

collection techniques and data analysis techniques. Chapter IV discusses the findings and

discussion of the study. Finally, this thesis is concluded with Chapter V which provides

conclusions drawn from the discussion in Chapter IV as well as recommendations for further

(17)

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses some aspects related to the methodology. It includes research

design, research site and participants, data collection techniques and data analysis techniques.

3.1. Research Design

This study employed qualitative case study research design. Case study design was

chosen because it was similar to the nature of a case study, that is a study focusing on a

bounded system comprised of an individual, institution, or entity and the site and context in

which social action takes place (Hood, 2009: 69). This study was conducted in a public

primary school in Bandung.

3.2. Research Site and Participants

The study was conducted in Grade 1, Grade 2, Grade 3, Grade 4, and Grade 5 of a

public primary school in Bandung. This school was chosen because it was a national standard

school. As Verdugo and Flores (2007: 186) state that school quality has direct effects on

student achievement and that the better the school quality, the better the student performance,

it was assumed that teaching and learning process in a national standard school had been

conducted effectively. It was also assumed that the quality of English teaching and learning

in the school was also good. That is why the school was chosen as the participant.

3.3. Data Collection Techniques

The methods used in collecting research data were observation, interview and

document analysis.

3.3.1. Observation

In doing the observation, direct observation was conducted. It means that the

researcher was at the site but completely observed and took notes, without getting involved

(18)

1, 6 times in Grade 2, 6 times in Grade 3, 6 times in Grade 4, and 6 times in Grade 5, so there

were 30 observations. Each observation lasted 80 minutes (2x40 minutes). The observation

was guided by an observation sheet. In recording the observation, the researcher took notes

and used a video camera.

Observation was conducted to find out what assessment techniques were used

(research question number 2) and what language skills were assessed (research question

number 4). The data obtained from the observation were transcribed, dated and coded.

3.3.2. Interview

In this study, there were 5 teachers to be interviewed. They were English teacher of

Grade 1, English teacher of Grade 2, English teacher of Grade 3, English teacher of Grade 4,

and English teacher of Grade 5. All the English teachers were female. In interviewing the

respondents, semi-structured interview was conducted. The interview was meant for

obtaining information which was impossible to obtain from observation (Alwasilah, 2006:

154). The researcher prepared an interview guide which consists of topics to be covered and

to a large extent what questions needed to be asked (Richards, 2009: 185-186). There were 18

questions in the interview guide. The questions were to do with assessment purposes,

techniques, and language assessment focus. Even though there were prepared questions, the

researcher also led the participants’ response in the same way as in an open interview, in which questions were not pre-determined (Richards, 2009: 185). The interview was

conducted in Bahasa Indonesia, so both the researcher and the participants could obtain better

understanding. The interview with each teacher lasted around 40 minutes. The interview was

recorded using a recorder.

The interview was carried out to find out what the purposes of assessment in English

language teaching of YLLs were (research question number 1), what assessment techniques

were used (research question number 2), and what language skills were assessed (research

question number 3). Just as the data obtained from the observation, the data from interview

was also transcribed and then coded.

(19)

Documents analyzed included students’ task sheets, students’ test results that had been assessed, sylabus, lesson plan (rencana pelaksanaan pembelajaran= RPP) and teacher’ assessment record. The analysis was conducted to find out what assessment techniques were

used (research question number 2) and what language skills were assessed (research question

number 3).

3.4. Data Analysis Techniques

Data analysis was conducted during the research and at the end of the research. The

data analyzed was the data obtained from observation, interview and document analysis. The

analysis of data from each data collection technique was elaborated in the following sections.

3.4.1. Data from Observation

First, the data from the observation was transcribed. Then, the transcription was read

carefully and repeatedly so that accurate data could be obtained. After that, the data

transcribed was analyzed to capture the same phenomenon (Alwasilah, 2006: 159). The same

phenomenon was then coded consistently (Alwasilah, 2006: 159). Next, the coded data was

grouped into some categories by referring to the theories in Chapter II (Alwasilah, 2006:

161). The data was categorized based on the assessment techniques: observation, on-the-run

assessment, conferences, portfolios, contract of work and projects, self- and peer-assessment,

and classroom tests (McKay, 2006: 152-168); language skill assessed: assessment of

listening, assessment of speaking, assessment of reading, and assessment of writing; and

assessment techniques stated in decree of Ministry of National Education number 20, year

2007, 11 June 2007 (Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Nomor 20 tahun 2007 11 Juni

2007). Finally, the data from the observation was analyzed by comparing the findings to the

theories presented in Chapter II.

3.4.2. Data from Interview

First, the data from the interview was transcribed. Next, the transcription was read

carefully in order to allow the researcher to obtain accurate information. The data transcribed

was used to verify the data from the observation. In this case, the data from the the interview

(20)

purpose, summative purpose, informative purpose, diagnostic purpose, and evaluative

purpose (Brewster, Ellis and Girard, 2003: 245).

3.4.3. Data from Documents

Documents analysed in this study covered students’ task sheets, students’ test results that had been assessed and teacher’ assessment record. First, the documents were coded. Then the data coded was categorized based on the theories of assessment techniques:

observation, on-the-run assessment, conferences, portfolios, contract of work and projects,

self- and peer-assessment, and classroom tests (McKay, 2006: 152-168); and language skill

assessed: assessment of listening, assessment of speaking, assessment of reading, and

assessment of writing; and assessment techniques stated in decree of Ministry of National

Education number 20, year 2007, 11 June 2007 (Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional

(21)

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter discusses the conclusions and recommendations of this study. This

chapter is divided into two parts – conclusions and recommendations for further research.

The conclusions are described based on the data which have been analyzed in interpreted in

Chapter Four. The following is the descriptions of two parts of the chapter in detail.

5.1. Conclusions

The conclusions described here are made based on findings of the study which are

obtained from the data from classroom observations, document analysis and interviews with

five English teachers. The following is the description of each research question outlined in

Chapter one, followed by the conclusion of each research question.

The first reseach question is what the purposes of assessment in English language

teaching of YLLs are. The data obtained from the interview of five teachers, from the

observation and document analysis indicate that teachers of YLLs conducted assessment for

five purposes. The purposes are: (1) formative purpose, (2) summative purpose, (3)

informative purpose, (4) diagnostic purpose, and (5) evaluative purpose. The first purpose of

assessment is fomative purpose. Teachers conduct assessment because they believe that

assessment can motivate learners. The second purpose of assessment is summative purpose.

Teachers conduct assessment to assess students’ achievement at a particular point in time, in

this case in one term. The summative assessment is conducted through the formal tests which

include middle term exam (UTS) and final term exam (UAS). The third purpose of

assessment is informative purpose. Teachers conduct assessment to provide teachers, students

and parents with the information of students’s progress or achievement in learning. The

fourth purpose of assessment is diagnostic purpose. Teachers conduct assessment to identify

(22)

assessment is evaluative purpose. Teachers conduct assessment to check students’ level of

achievement.

From the data above, it can be concluded that all teachers observed have the same

perception on the purposes of assessment for YLLs. They realize the importance of

assessment and how assessment is inseparable from teaching learning process. However, it

can also be concluded that even though they are aware how important assessment is, they are

lack of knowledge and training on how to assess YLLs. They have never had any training on

assessing language, let alone training on assessing YLLs. In relation with the theories and

government regulation of assessment purpose in English teaching for YLLs, it can be

concluded that the purposes stated by the teachers and supported by observation and

document analysis are in line with the theories and assessment standard stated in decree of

Ministry of National Education number 20, year 2007, 11 June 2007 (Peraturan Menteri

Pendidikan Nasional Nomor 20 tahun 2007 11 Juni 2007).

The second research questions is what assessment tehcniques are used. Based on the

data obtained from the observation and document analysis, it is found that teachers conducted

three assessment techniques, namely on-the-run assessment, self- and peer-assessment, and

classroom tests. T#2, T#3, T#4, and T#5 conducted on-the-run assessment, self- and

peer-asssement, and classroom tests while T#1 conducted on-the-run assessment and classroom

tests.

The data also shows that the most frequent assessment technique conducted by the

five teachers observed is on-the-run assessment which is conducted 166 times. Teachers

conduct classroom tests 113 times and self- and peer-assessment 19 times. Among five

teachers observed, T#1 is the one that conducts on-the-run assessment most frequently. T#1

conducts this technique 72 times. The next teacher who conducts this technique most

frequently is T#3 who conducts it 32 times. T#2 conducts it 25 times and T#4 conducts is 22

times. T#5 only conducts this technique 15 times.

The second assessment technique most frequently used by five teachers observed is

classroom tests. This technique is conducted 112 times. Among the five teachers observed,

T#3 conducts this technique most frequently (38 times), followed by T#5 who conducts it 28

times. Next, T#2 conducts it 18 times, T#4 conducts it 16 times, and the last, T#1 conducts it

(23)

Self- and peer-assessment is the least frequent assessment technique conducted by

five teachers observed. Total frequency of this technique is 20 times. T#4 is the one who

conducts this technique most frequently (16 times), followed by T#3 who conducts it 2 times.

T#2 conducts it for 1 time. T#1 and T#5 do not implement this technique.

From the data above, it can be concluded that all teachers observed are aware that

YLLs cannot be assessed only through one technique. They conduct three assessment

techniques but they only have record on the result of assessment on classroom test technique.

Therefore, the assessment record is not able to present the ability and the progress that the

students have made during the learning process. In relation with the theories and government

regulation of assessment techniques in English teaching for YLLs, it can be concluded that

various and appropriate assessment techniques for YLLs have not been implemented

thoroughly.

The third research question is what language skills are assessed. Based on the data

obtained from the observation and document analysis, it is found that all four language skills,

namely listening, speaking, reading, and writing are assessed by teachers of YLLs. Among

the five teachers observed, T#3 and T#5 assess all the language skills. While T#1, T#2 and

T#4 assess speaking and writing only.

The data also shows that the most frequent language skill assessed by the five teachers

is writing (163 times). T#3 was the one who assessed writing skill most frequently (65

times), followed by T#4 who assessed writing skill 43 times. T#5 and T#2 assessed writing

skill 20 times. T#1 assessed writing skill 15 times.

The next most frequent language skill assessed by the five teachers observed is

speaking skill. The total frequency of speaking skill conducted by all 5 teachers observed is

126. T#1 assesses speaking skill most frequently (70 times), followed by T#2 who assesses

speaking skill 24 times. T#3 assesses speaking skill 14 times, T#4 assesses it 11 times, and

T#4 assesses it 7 times.

The next language skill that is most frequently assessed is reading skill. The total

number of reading skill assessment is 9 times. Only one teacher conducts reading skill

(24)

The language skill that is least frequently assessed is listening skill. Listening skill

assessment is conducted only 9 times and only by two teachers, T#3 and T#5. T#5 conducts

listening skill assessment 7 times while T#3 conducts it 2 times.

From the data above it can be concluded that even though all teachers conduct

assessment of all language skills, they mainly focus on the grammar and vocabulary aspects.

So, instead of making grammar and vocabulary assessment only as supporting parts in

assessing the 4 language skills, teachers make grammar and vocabulary assessment as the

main focus. Again, the main reason behind this is practical and degree of easiness reasons. In

relation with the theories and government regulation of assessment of language skills in

English teaching for YLLs, it can be concluded that assessment still has not covered all the

four language skills maximally.

5.3. Recommendations for Further Research

The results of the study show that there are many aspects of the assessment of YLLs

that are still not in line with the characteristic of YLLs and the assessment procedures for

YLLs. Based on the aim and the results, the study has the implication, that is all teachers have

to get regular training on YLLs and assessment of YLLs. These trainings hopefully will be

able to improve teachers’ knowledge on the two main topics. The improvement in YLLs and

assessment of YLLs lead to better assessment process. Better assessment process eventually

leads to better teaching and learning process.

This study has some limitations. The first limitation is that regarding the school that

becomes the sample in this research. Because of the limited time and limited access to

elementary schools, researcher could only pick one elementary school which even though is

considered to be a school with national standard, is still far from ideal English language

teaching and assessment process and assessment for YLLs. The study may be able to show

the reality of assessment in YLLs’ classroom but the results are not be able to become role model for assessment of YLLs implementation. That is why, it is suggested that other

(25)

like school with A accreditation or bilingual school in the hope that the study will result in

the profile of ideal assessment for YLLs.

The second limitation of this study is that the reseacher only observed and conducted

the study on first – fifth grade classes. It is suggested that further research to conduct the

study on all grades in elementary level, that is from first to sixth grade. In that way, a more

(26)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alwasilah, A. C. (2006). Pokoknya Kualitatif. Jakarta: PT Dunia Pustaka Jaya.

Bostock, S. (2004). Student Peer Assesment. The Higher Education Academy. Available at: www.reading.ac.uk . Retrieved in December 2013.

Brewster, J., G. Ellis, & D.Girard. (2003). The Primary English Teacher’s Guide. London: Pearson Education Limited.

Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (2nd Edition). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Brumen, M., Cagran, B., & Rixon, S. (2009). Comparative Assessment of Young Learners’ Foreign Language Competence in Three Eastern European Countries. Educational Studies Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 269-295. Routledge.

Brown, H.D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practice. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Burnett, P.C. (2002). Elementary Students’ Preferences for Teacher Praise. Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 36 No.1, pp. 16-23. Charles Sturt University, Australia.

Burnett, P. C. (2002). Teacher Praise and Feedback and Students’ Perceptions of the Class Environment. Educational Psychology Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 5-16. Carfax Publishing.

Butler, Y.G, J. Lee. (2010). The Effects of Self-Assessment among Young Learners of English. Language Testing, 27: 5, pp. 4-31. SAGE Publications.

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Espinosa, L.M. & M. L. López. (2007). Assessment Considerations for Young English Language Learners Across Different Levels of Accountability. Paper Prepared for The National Early Childhood Accountability Task Force and First 5 LA.

(27)

Gebhard, J.G. (1996). Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.

Grace, C. (2001). Assessing Young Children. Available at:

http://www.pbs.org/teachers/earlychildhood/articles/assessing.html. Retrieved in April 2013.

Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Hasselgreen, S. (2005). Assessing the Language of Young Learners. Language Testing, 22: 37, pp. 337-354. SAGE Publications.

Hillier, H. (2004). Analysing Real Texts: Research Studies in Modern English Language. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hills, T. W. (1999). Critical Issue: Assessing Young Children's Progress Appropriately. Available at http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/earlycld/ea500.htm. Retrieved in May 2013.

Hood, M. (2009). Case Study. In Heigham, J. and R.A. Croker (eds). Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistic: A Practical Introduction (page 66-90). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lang, H.R. & Evans, D.N. (2006). Models, Strategies, and Methods for Effective Teaching. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Lewis, M. (2002). Classroom Management. In Richard, J.C. & Renandya, W.A. (Eds.). (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice (pp. 40-48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Linse, C. (2005). Practical English Language Teaching: Young Learners. New York: McGraw-Hill ESL/ELT.

Marsh, C. 2008. Becoming a Teacher: Knowledge, Skills and Issues. Sydney: Pearson Education Australia.

McKay, P. (2006). Assessing Young Language Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

(28)

Musthafa, B. (2010). Teaching English to Young Learners in Indonesia: Essential Requirements. Educationist Vol. IV No.2, pp. 120-125.

Notari-Syverson, A., A. Losardo & Y.S. Lim. (2003). Assessment of Young Children from Culturally Diverse Backgrounds: A Journey in Progress. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29: 39, pp. 39-51.

Nunan, D. (1998). Language Teaching Methodology (3rd edition). New Jersey: Pearson Education Ltd.

O’Malley, J.M., & Pierce, L.V. (1996). Authentic Assessment for English Language Learners: Practical Approaches for Teacher. New York: Longman

Paul, D. (2003). Teaching English to Children in Asia. Hongkong: Pearson Education Asia Limited

Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Nomor 23 tahun 2006

Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Nomor 20 tahun 2007 11 Juni 2007.

Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Sugiono. 2008. Memahami Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: CV Alfabeta.

Reece, I., & Walker, S. (2003). Teaching, Training, and Learning: A Practical Guide Incorporating FENTO Standards, 5th edition. Sunderland: Business Education Publishers Limited.

Richards, J.C. & T.S. Rodgers. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, K. 2009. Interviews. In Heigham, J. and R.A. Croker (eds). Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistic: A Practical Introduction (page 182-199). New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

(29)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu Suyanto, K.E. (2005). Speech : Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris Di Sekolah

Dasar: Kebijakan, Implementasi, Dan Kenyataan. Available at:

http://library.um.ac.id/images/stories/pidatogurubesar/PidatoGuruBesarProf.KasihaniE.S uyanto,M. A.,Ph.pdf. h. 2. Retrieved in November 2012.

Tomlinson, B. (2005). Testing to Learn: A Personal View of Language Testing. ELT Journal Volume 59/1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tompkins, M. (2009). In Praise of Praising Less. Supporting Young Learners 2. Available at: http: //membership.highscope.org./. Retrieved in November 2013.

Verdugo, R. R., & Flores, B. (2007). English-Language Learners: Key Issues. Education and Urban Society 39: 167, pp. 167-193. Available at:

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/earlycld/ea5lk1.htm. Retrieved in June 2013.

Wang, W. (2008). Teaching English to Young Learners in Taiwan: Issues Relating to Teaching, Teacher Education, Teaching Materials and Teaching Perspectives. (Thesis, University of Waikato, 2008). Available at http://waikato.researchgateaway.ac.nz./ Retrieved in February 2013.