PERFORMANCE BASED ASSESSMENT ON YOUNG LEARNERS’ SPEAKING SKILL.

(1)

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

Performance Based Assessment On Young Learners’ Speaking Skill Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu

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

(6)

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

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

(7)

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

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

(8)

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

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

(9)

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

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

(10)

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

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

(11)

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

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

(12)

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

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

9

 Achievement can be defined as the final accomplishment of young learners’

effort in spite of discouragements.

(14)

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

(15)

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

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)

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

(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

(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

(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

(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

(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

(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

(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

(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

(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

(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

(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

(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

(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

[image:30.612.125.491.219.596.2]

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

(31)

75

[image:31.612.135.491.211.522.2]

3.5.1.2 The Validity of Progress-test 1 Item

Table 3.5

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.

[image:32.612.134.488.110.370.2]

3.5.1.4 The Validity of Posttest Item

Table 3.7

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

[image:34.612.114.525.223.657.2]

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

[image:35.612.125.490.283.562.2]

as pretest. The difficulty index of progress test will be illustrates as follow.

Table 3.9 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

(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

[image:36.612.114.509.106.705.2]

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

[image:37.612.158.485.112.155.2]

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

8 16 8 8 42,11 Good

11 17 6 11 57,89 Good

12 16 7 9 47,37 Good

[image:38.612.107.535.111.602.2]

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

(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

[image:39.612.111.534.107.691.2]

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

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

(42)

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

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

(43)

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

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.),

(44)

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

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.

http://www.ascd.org/publications/newsletters/education-

(45)

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

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

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

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

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

(49)

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

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

(50)

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

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

PERFORMANCE BASED ASSESSMENT ON YOUNG LEARNERS’ SPEAKING SKILL.

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

References ... 105

CHAPTER I

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

1.2 Purpose Statement

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

1.5 Significance of the study

1.6 Assumption

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

1.8 Definitions of Key Terms

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

CHAPTER III

3.1 Design of the Research

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

Table 3.1 Experimental design

PRETEST PROGRESS

3.3 Techniques of collecting the data

3.3.1.1 Pre-test

3.3.1.2 Progress-test

3.3.1.3 Post-test

3.3.1.4 Scoring

Table 3.2 Scoring

Weighting of Grades

Table 3.3

3.3.2.1 Questionnaire’s scoring criteria

B. Teacher’s personal feelings, attitudes, drives and goals

3.4 Procedures

3.5. Research Instruments

3.5.1.1 The Validity of Pretest Item

3.5.1.2 The Validity of Progress-test 1 Item

3.5.1.3 The Validity of Progress test 2 Item

3.5.1.4 The Validity of Posttest Item

3.5.2.1The Difficulty Index of Pretest

Table 3.8 The difficulty index

Table 3.9 The difficulty index

3.5.2.4The Difficulty index of Posttest

3.5.2.5Discrimination index of Pretest

Table 3.12 Discrimination index

3.5.2.7Discrimination index of Progress test 2

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

CHAPTER V

5.1 Conclusion

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

5.2Suggestion

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

Applied Measurement in Education, 4(4), 275-288.

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

Caban, H. L. (2003). Rater Group Bias in the Speaking Assessment of Four L1 Japanese

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

University Press.

Kenyon, D. M. (1998). An investigation of the validity of task demands on performance

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

McNamara, T.F. and Lumley, T. 1997. The effect of interlocutor and assessment mode

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012

Suhaimi Tegamuni, 2012