DEVELOPING A RUBRIC FOR PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT

IN WRITING OF GRADE VIII STUDENTS AT SMP NEGERI

15 YOGYAKARTA

A Thesis

Presented as Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Attainment of a

Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

By
Novi Ariyani
08202244030

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
YOGYAKARTA STATE UNIVERSITY
2013
 APPROVAL SHEET

DEVtrLOPING A RTIBRIC F'OR PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT IN

WRITING OF GRADE VIII STUDENTS AT SMP NEGERI 15

YOGYAKARTA

Second Consultant,

Dr. Asus Widvantsno. M. Pd. Ari Purnawan. M. Pd. M. A.

flrP 19600308 198s02 1 001 NrP 19710123 200112 I 002
 MOTTO

Allah is more Merciful to you

than you are towards yourself

v
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this thesis to my family and those who love me

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE ........................................................................................................ i
APPROVAL SHEET ................................................................................. ii
RATIFICATION SHEET .......................................................................... iii
PERNYATAAN ........................................................................................ iv
MOTTO ..................................................................................................... v
DEDICATIONS ......................................................................................... vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................... vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................... viii
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................... xv
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................... xvi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1
A. Background to the Research .......................................................... 1
B. Identification of the Problem ......................................................... 6
C. Limitation of the Problem .............................................................. 8
D. Formulation of the Problem ........................................................... 9
E. Objective ........................................................................................ 9
F. Significance of the Problem ........................................................... 9
1. To the School ........................................................................... 9
2. To the Teachers ........................................................................ 9
3. To the Students ........................................................................ 10
4. To Other researchers ................................................................ 10

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................... 11

A. Theoretical Review ........................................................................ 11
1. Writing .................................................................................... 11
a. The Nature of Writing ........................................................ 11
b. The Differences between Writing and Speaking ............... 12
c. Genres of Written Language .............................................. 14

viii
 1) Academic Writing ........................................................ 14
2) Job-related Writing ...................................................... 14
3) Personal Writing .......................................................... 14
d. The Types of Classroom Writing Assessment ................... 15
1) Imitative ....................................................................... 15
2) Intensive ....................................................................... 15
3) Responsive ................................................................... 16
4) Extensive ...................................................................... 16
e. The Writing Stages ............................................................ 17
f. Micro- and Macro-skills of Writing ................................... 18
g. The Teaching of Writing in Junior High Schools .............. 19

2. Assessment ............................................................................... 23
a. Definition of Assessment ................................................... 23
b. The Advantages of Assessment ......................................... 24
c. Types of Assessment .......................................................... 24
1) Assessment Based on the Technique ........................... 24
a) Formal assessment ................................................. 25
b) Informal Assessment .............................................. 25
2) Assessment Based on the Time of Implementation ..... 25
a) Formative Assessment ........................................... 25
b) Summative Assessment ......................................... 26

3. Portfolio Assessment ............................................................... 26

a. The Definition of Portfolio Assessment ............................ 26
b. The Major Phase of Portfolio Organization ....................... 32
c. The Portfolio as a Whole ................................................... 33

4. Scoring Procedures for Writing Performances ........................ 36

5. Definition of Rubric ................................................................. 36
6. Proficiency and Achievement Rubrics..................................... 37
7. Kinds of Rubric ........................................................................ 38

ix
 a. Holistic Scoring Rubric ...................................................... 38
b. Analytic Scoring Rubric ................................................... 39
c. Primary Trait Scoring ........................................................ 40

8. Components of the Rubric ....................................................... 42

a. Criteria ............................................................................... 42
b. Levels ................................................................................. 42
c. Descriptors ......................................................................... 43

B. Relevant Research Studies ............................................................. 43

C. Conceptual Framework .................................................................. 45

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD .................................................... 47

A. Type of the Research...................................................................... 47
B. Research Design ............................................................................. 47
C. Research Procedures ...................................................................... 49
1. Researching and Collecting the Information ........................... 49
2. Planning ................................................................................... 50
3. Developing the Rubric ............................................................. 50
4. Obtaining Expert Judgment ..................................................... 51
5. Field Testing ............................................................................ 52
6. Evaluating and Refining the Rubric ......................................... 52
7. Developing the Final Product of the Rubric ............................ 52

D. Research Respondents ................................................................... 52

E. Setting of the Research .................................................................. 53
F. Instrument of the Research ............................................................ 53
1. Instrument Used in Needs Analysis ......................................... 53
2. Instrument Used in the Review of the Rubric .......................... 54
3. Instrument Used in Rubric Evaluation ..................................... 54

G. Data Collection Technique............................................................. 55

H. Data Analysis Technique ............................................................... 55

x
 I. Validity and Reliability of the Research ........................................ 56

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS ................................................... 58

A. The Result of the Needs Analysis .................................................. 58
1. The Teaching of Writing .......................................................... 59
2. The Students’ Writing Ability ................................................. 59
3. The Writing Task and Genre .................................................... 60
4. The Writing Assessment .......................................................... 61
5. The Rubric of Writing .............................................................. 61
6. The Criteria to Assess Students’ Writing Performance ........... 62
7. Knowledge of Portfolio Assessment ........................................ 62

B. Designing the Rubric ..................................................................... 63

1. The First Draft of the Rubric.................................................... 64
a. Characteristics of the Writer .............................................. 65
b. Characteristics of the Portfolio as a Whole........................ 66
c. Characteristics of Individual Texts .................................... 67
d. Intratextual Features ........................................................... 67

2. Expert Judgment ...................................................................... 69

a. Characteristics of the Writer .............................................. 69
b. Characteristics of the Portfolio as a Whole........................ 71
c. Characteristics of Individual Texts .................................... 74
d. Intratextual Features ........................................................... 76

3. Field Testing ........................................................................... 78

4. Evaluating and Refining the Rubric ......................................... 83
a. Teacher 1 ............................................................................ 84
b. Teacher 2 ............................................................................ 85
c. Teacher 4 ............................................................................ 86
1) Adding More Levels in the Scoring Levels ................. 88
2) Separating the Criteria in the Rubric............................ 89

xi
 5. The Final Product of the Rubric............................................... 91

CHAPTER V CONCLUSSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ........................ 93

A. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 93
B. Suggestions .................................................................................... 96
1. For the English Teachers ......................................................... 96
2. For Other Researchers .............................................................. 97

REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 98
APPENDIX 1 RESEARCH INSTRUMENT ............................................ 101
APPENDIX 2 THE DATA ........................................................................ 110
APPENDIX 3 THE RUBRICS
a. The First Draft of the Rubric.......................................................... 151
b. The Second Draft of the Rubric ..................................................... 156
c. The Final Product of the Rubric..................................................... 161
d. The Separated Criteria of the Rubric ............................................. 166
e. The Second Draft of the Rubric in Bahasa Indonesia .................... 170

APPENDIX 4 LETTERS ........................................................................... 174

xii
 LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1 : The Differences between Spoken and Written language ........ 12

Table 2 : Standard of Competence and Basic Competence for Grade
VIII Semester I ......................................................................... 21
Table 3 : Vocabulary List for Grade VIII Junior High School Students 22
Table 4 : Formative-Developmental Portfolio Information .................... 30
Table 5 : Advantages and Disadvantaged of Holistic Scoring ................ 39
Table 6 : Advantages and Disadvantages of Analytic Scoring ............... 40
Table 7 : Advantages and Disadvantages of Primary-trait Scoring ........ 41
Table 8 : The Organization of the interview ........................................... 49
Table 9 : Characteristics of the Writer .................................................... 65
Table 10 : Characteristics of the Portfolio as a Whole.............................. 66
Table 11 : Characteristics of Individual Texts .......................................... 67
Table 12 : Control of Grammar and Mechanic ......................................... 68
Table 13 : Coherence/flow, Momentum, Sense of Direction .................... 68
Table 14 : The Expert’s Suggestion for the Characteristics of the Writer 70
Table 15 : The Descriptor before and after the Judgment ......................... 70
Table 16 : The Expert’s Suggestion for Characteristics of the Portfolio
as a Whole ................................................................................ 72
Table17 : The Difference between the Descriptor before and after the
Revision ................................................................................... 72
Table 18 : The Expert’s Suggestion for the Characteristics of Individual
Texts ......................................................................................... 75
Table 19 : The Difference between the Descriptors before and after the
Revision ................................................................................... 75
Table 20 : The Expert’s Suggestion for Intratextual Features .................. 77
Table 21 : The Difference between the Descriptors before and after the
Revision ................................................................................... 78

xiii
Table 22 : Descriptive Statistics ................................................................ 80
Table 23 : Pearson Correlation .................................................................. 82
Table 24 : The Questions of the Interview ................................................ 84
Table 25 : The Main Properties of the Final Product of the Rubric .......... 92

xiv
 LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1 : White and Arndt’s process Writing Model ............................... 17

Figure 2 : The Portfolio Cycle ................................................................... 33
Figure 3 : The Four Dimensions of portfolio Assessment ......................... 34
Figure 4 : Research and Development Cycle ............................................. 48
Figure 5 : The model of the Rubric ............................................................ 64

xv
 DEVELOPING A RUBRIC FOR PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT IN
WRITING OF GRADE VIII STUDENTS AT SMP NEGERI 15
YOGYAKARTA

By:
Novi Ariyani
NIM. 08202244030

ABSTRACT
The objective of this research is to develop a rubric for portfolio assessment
in writing of grade VIII students at SMP Negeri 15 Yogyakarta.
This research applied a Research and Development study which adopts the
model of R & D proposed by Dick and Carey in Gall, Gall and Borg (2003). The
data collected were qualitative and quantitative. The qualitative data were in the
form of interview transcript and the quantitative data were in the form of students’
writing scores. These data were used to evaluate and then to revise the rubric. On
the basis of some theories related to the development of effective scoring rubrics
and the result of the needs analysis, the first draft of the rubric was then
developed. The researcher consulted the rubric to a writing expert to know
whether the rubric meets criteria which are appropriate to measure the students’
writing. After the rubric was implemented, an evaluation was then conducted. The
researcher conducted interviews with the English teachers who participated in the
implementation to find out the strengths and weaknesses of the rubric and to ask
the teachers’ suggestion concerning the rubric. The data of the interview were
used to revise the rubric.
The research was conducted through six steps, they are: researching and
collecting the information, planning, developing the rubric, obtaining expert
judgment, field testing and developing the final product of the rubric. The
instrument used in collecting the data was interviews and questionnaires to cross
check the result of the interviews. The finding shows that there are four
dimensions of portfolio assessment in the rubric: (1) characteristics of the writer,
(2) characteristics of the portfolio as a whole, (3) characteristics of individual
texts, and (4) intratextual features. Each dimension is written in three properties of
the rubric: criteria, levels and descriptors. Each dimension has criteria which
indicate good performance on a task. Each criterion is graded in five levels of
performances, and the descriptors tell precisely what the performance looks like at
each level.

xvi
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background to the Research

Writing is an important skill in language learning. Today, the ability to write

has become an indispensable skill in the global literate community. As an advance

in transportation and technology allows people to communicate with people

around the world, the demand of knowledge about languages becomes even more

necessary. As a result, the ability to speak and write in a foreign language

becomes an important skill in academic, business, and personal lives.

Writing is assumed as the most difficult skill to be learned compared with

listening, speaking and reading. Even the native speakers themselves need to learn

writing, as well as the second and foreign language learners. However, the

purposes and the needs of the learning will be different between the foreign

language learners and the native speakers, and the written products themselves

will also be different. Therefore, the definition of the writing skill will vary. It

depends on the purpose, background, needs and experience of learning writing.

Writing, as well as speaking, is a productive skill. It means that people tend to

produce language rather than to receive it. Therefore, it is assumed that learning

writing and learning speaking are more difficult than learning reading or listening,

which is categorized as receptive skills. However, many people say that learning

writing is more difficult than learning speaking, although writing and speaking are

similarly categorized as productive skills. Learning writing is more difficult than

1
 2

learning speaking because writing has its own features and conventions that

differentiate it from speaking (Brown, 2004).

One of the most important distinctions between writing and speaking is that

writing is highly valued in educational setting. Another distinction is that accuracy

in writing is more important than accuracy in speaking (Weigle, 2002). In

educational setting, students are taught to produce writing with a high level of

accuracy. They need to know how to write letters, how to put written reports

together, and how to write using electronics (Harmer, 1998). However, the

students should also be able to respond to writing, for example, how to respond to

an advertisement about job vacancy.

Because writing is assumed to be the most difficult skill to be learnt, students

need more time and practice in mastering it. It is important that students do not

only practice writing inside the class but also outside the class. In addition,

teaching writing should be done step by step. There are some steps in writing:

drafting, structuring, reviewing, focusing, generating ideas and evaluating.

Teachers should guide the students carefully in writing from drafting up to

evaluating.

Some teachers do not apply the steps of writing in teaching writing at schools.

They may do this because they do not understand about the theory of writing or

they feel indolent to apply the theory. Some teachers that the researcher met when

conducting observation seemed that they did not know about this theory. They do

writing by giving an example of a text, giving some exercises to the students and

then asking the students to make their own writing. The exercises are usually in
 3

the form of sentence completion or jumbled sentences. This kind of teaching

cannot support the students to make a good writing.

In addition, teachers cannot finish the whole teaching of writing in class

because of the limited time. In a class, teachers usually give explanation about the

material and some exercises about it. The exercise in the classroom will be done

in groups or in pairs. Then teachers will give homework to be done by the

students individually. In this situation, students can do an underhand way to

complete their assignment. Teachers should give attention to it.

The students’ homework is to be submitted. The teachers will evaluate the

homework and give some mark on it. If the teachers find any suspicion, they will

interview the students. The teachers will give them another task as a replacement

for their previous task, if the students were proved guilty. It is a fair assessment,

but it cannot stop the students from cheating.

However, the task that is given to the students is not always a kind of writing

performance. One of the English teachers said that she gave the tasks based on the

text types. For some types of text, the teacher only assesses the students’ writing

by a multiple-choice test. It means that the task that the teacher gives does not

really measure the students’ ability in writing.

The writing assessment should be appropriate to measure the students’

writing ability, no matter where the writing process takes place. Objective tests

and sentence completion are not suitable to assess the students’ writing ability,

because they cannot measure the students’ deep knowledge of writing. A teacher

needs to know the students’ ability from their writing performance.

 4

However, students still find difficulties in producing their own writing. Some

students often have no idea for the topic that they want to write. Other students

find difficulties in selecting the right words to express their feeling and deciding

what tenses they shall use for the sentences they make. As a result, students tend

to choose a topic that is closely related to the topic of the example given by the

teacher so that they can imitate the words and make a small change in the content.

Another way that students have in the classroom is imitating the students’

work beside them. Students may do this because they do not have any idea about

what to write or they do not understand the instruction or the explanation given by

the teacher. The worst is that they do not do the assignment by themselves but

they copy it from books or other sources. To produce a good paragraph in writing,

students need guidance and it is not enough only by giving them examples. Those

problems can happen because teachers usually assess only the final work of the

students.

This research is conducted at SMP Negeri 15 Yogyakarta. To find out how

the English teachers teach and evaluate writing, the researcher made observation.

Based on the observation that was conducted on the 8th of February 2012 by

interviewing three English teachers, the researcher concludes that there are no

English teachers who assessed students’ works from the beginning of the writing

till the finished product of the writing. This situation gives them a chance to do

cheating. The teachers will give the students another assignment or make them

revise their work if they are caught cheating. However, this method cannot really

solve the problems.

 5

Teachers need a kind of writing assessment that can be used to monitor the

development of the students’ work. The writing assessment that can be adopted by

the teachers is portfolio assessment. Through portfolio assessment, teachers can

observe the students’ writing from the beginning of a course to the end of the

course. In this way, teachers can minimize cheating committed by the students. In

addition, portfolio assessment is an assessment suggested by the government to be

practiced at school.

The interview was aimed at finding out not only how the teachers teach and

evaluate writing, but also what problems they found in teaching writing, what

kinds of assessments they usually use, and what rubric they usually use. From the

interview with some of the English teachers in this school, the researcher found

that most of the teachers did not understand about rubric.

The teachers have used rubrics as the scoring measurement but they do not

know that what they used was a rubric. When the researcher asked them what

kinds of rubric that they usually use, whether it is holistic or analytic, they cannot

answer it either. They make a rubric by copying it from some resources such as

books, other lesson plans or downloadable resources from the internet. From the

RPP (lesson plan) that the researcher saw, most of the rubrics that the teachers use

are analytic rubrics. The rubric is very simple and measures only the basic

components of writing that the teacher wants to assess, for example grammar,

sentence structure, word choice and spelling. The rubric that they use did not

assess the content of the students’ writing. It can be concluded that the teachers do

not have comprehensive knowledge about measurement.

 6

A rubric is important in a language assessment. The rubric is used as a

guidance to score the students’ performance. Without rubrics, teachers cannot

measure the students’ mastery of writing well. In order to get an accurate

measurement, teachers should include a detailed description of the criteria to be

measured in the rubric. The rubric should measure what the students have learned.

Teachers need an appropriate portfolio rubric to evaluate the students’

abilities accurately in portfolio assessment. The rubric should be made based on

the school curriculum and the students’ level of proficiency because the students

have different ability for different grades or classes. The criteria are developed

based on the purpose of the assessment. One of the purposes is to monitor the

students’ progress in writing so that the cheating committed by the students can be

minimized. Based on the observation, the researcher assumed that the teachers are

unable to make an appropriate rubric by themselves. Therefore, this research is

aimed at helping the teachers to make an appropriate rubric and, therefore, careful

research should be conducted in order to find the appropriate criteria of the rubric

for portfolio assessment in writing.

B. Identification of the Problem

As suggested by the curriculum, teachers should conduct classroom-based

assessment. In fact, there are many problems and obstacles faced by the teachers,

which prevent the teaching and learning process from gaining the goal. The

problems include the problems of teaching and learning writing. Some of the

problems are related to the assessment, the teachers, the students, and the time in

teaching writing.
 7

The problem of writing which is related to the assessments is that writing

assessments are not always conducted through a writing performance. Teachers

choose the assessment technique based on the text types that they are going to

assess, for example, teachers will conduct a jumbled sentence test to assess

writing narrative, whereas to assess recount texts, teachers will conduct a writing

performance task. It means that the teaching of writing does not reach the

production of written language.

The problem related to the teachers is that the teachers have different

competences in teaching writing. One teacher may teach the material based on a

course book, another may teach the students based on the skills that she or he

want to teach. The success of teaching writing lies on the teachers’ competence in

teaching writing skills. The more competent teacher is able to design a better

learning instruction than the incompetent one. Therefore, the output that they

produce will also be different.

The next problem in writing is related to the students. Some students do

cheating when they do writing assignments. They tend to imitate their friend’s

work or the example given by the teacher. Some of them even do copy-paste from

books or the Internet. They do this possibly because they get confused of what

they will write, they do not understand the instruction, or even they feel reluctant

to do the assignments. Therefore, teachers should make sure that the students

understand the instruction. In addition, teachers should also practice the steps of

writing in conducting the assignments so that the students know what to write.
 8

The last problem of writing is related to the time. Time to practice writing in

the class is very limited so there is no sufficient opportunity for students to

produce writing. Therefore, teachers usually give homework to the students. The

homework will give the students opportunities to cheat.

In conclusion, the success of teaching writing depends on the success of the

teacher to manage the four problems above. One thing that the teachers can do is

to guide the students to do writing from drafting up to evaluating. By doing so, it

is expected that the students can do the writing by themselves and therefore, it

could minimize the risk of cheating.

C. Limitation of the Problem

In order to monitor the students’ improvement in doing writing, teachers need

a rubric. Brookhart (1999) in Moskal (2000) proposes that scoring rubrics are

descriptive scoring schemes that are developed by teachers or other evaluators to

guide the analysis of the product or processes of students’ effort. Scoring rubrics

are typically employed when a judgment of quality is required and may be used to

evaluate a broad range of subjects and activities. Due to the limited time and the

need of the teachers, the researcher only focuses the research on developing a

portfolio rubric for assessing writing of Grade VIII students at SMPN 15

Yogyakarta.

The researcher chooses Grade VIII students because the participants of the

research are the teachers of Grade VIII. Teachers of Grade VIIB cannot join the

research because they have PPL program in this semester. Besides, Grade VIII

students will be more competent to practice portfolio assessment than Grade VIII
 9

students because they already have more knowledge about writing. Furthermore,

researchers are not permitted to conduct research on the ninth grade students

because they are prepared for the national examination.

D. Formulation of the Problem

Based on the identification and the limitation of the problems above, the

researcher formulates the problem as follows:

How can a rubric for portfolio assessment in writing be developed for Grade VIII

students at SMPN 15 Yogyakarta?

E. Objective

The objective of the research is to develop a rubric for portfolio assessment in

writing of Grade VIII students at SMPN 15 Yogyakarta.

F. Significance of the Research

The researcher expects that this research will give some significance to some

parties such as the English teachers and the school in which the rubric is tried-out,

and to the other researchers.

1. To the School

The writing rubric hopefully will improve the quality of the writing

assessments, especially the portfolio assessment.

2. To the Teachers

The rubric will help teachers to assess the students’ writing fairly so that the

students’ achievement can be measured accurately.

 10

3. To Other Researchers

This research hopefully will be useful as a resource for the next research.

Other researchers can have general knowledge about how to develop a rubric to

assess students’ writing in portfolio assessment.

 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Theoretical Review

1. Writing

a. The Nature of Writing

The definition of a writing skill depends on the purpose, background, needs

and experience of learning writing, which is certainly different between first

language and second language learners. Therefore, the definition of writing for

EFL learners is different from that for ESL learners because the variety of

purposes, backgrounds, needs and experience of learning writing in ESL learners

are much greater than those for EFL learners. For EFL learners, the mastery of

second language enhances their education but is not critical to ultimate

educational success (Weigle, 2002).

Writing involves communicating a message by making sign on a page (Spratt,

Pulverness & Williams, 2005). However, to organize and to generate ideas into a

written language is difficult as well as to translate these ideas into readable text

(Richards and Renandya, 2003). Therefore, writing is considered to be the most

difficult skill for second language learners.

The skills involved in writing are extremely complex. Richards and Renandya

(2002: 309) state that writing consists of many constituent parts: content,

organization, originality, style, fluency, accuracy and appropriate rhetorical forms

of discourse. Writing also has subskills that should be learned by students in order

to be able to communicate in a written language. Some of the subskills of writing

11
 12

are producing graphemes and orthographic patterns of English, and producing

writing at an efficient rate of speed to suit the purpose. Therefore, it is necessary

to decide which parts or which subskills will be the most important for a course.

b. The Differences between Writing and Speaking

Writing as a skill has its own features and conventions, which differentiate it

from other skills. The differences between the four language skills can be seen

from the differences between written and spoken language. Hyland (2002) states

that speech is more highly contextualized, depends far more on a shared situation,

allows less planning, involves real-time monitoring, and relies to a greater extent

on immediate feedback. Brown (2001) proposes that written and spoken language

differ on the features of permanence, production time, distance, orthography,

complexity, formality and vocabulary. The differences between spoken and

written language according to Hyland (2002) can be seen as follows.

Table 1: The Differences between Spoken and Written Language

Speech Writing
a) More hesitation, interruption and a) More subordination and passive
self correction b) Longer sentences
b) No spelling and punctuation c) More explicit coding of logical
conventions relations
c) Relies on gestures and d) Less modal modification
paralanguage e) Structurally elaborate, complex,
d) Concrete, fragmented, informal abstract and formal
and context-dependent f) Characterized by monologue
e) Characterized by turn-taking

In particular, speaking and writing are used in different settings, for

different reasons, and to meet different communicative goals. Furthermore, the

cognitive processes involved in writing differ in important ways from those used
 13

in speaking (Weigle, 2002). As stated by Grabowski in Weigle (2002), “Writing

ordinarily leaves a physical trace, which can later be referred to either by the

writer or by the reader, while speaking does not leave physical trace, unless it is

recorded”. In addition, the physical act of writing takes longer than the physical

act of speaking. Similar to Brown, Grabowski only views the differences between

spoken and written language through the two aspects of permanence and

production time.

Other important aspects to be considered in distinguishing writing and

speaking are the social and cultural contexts in which speaking and writing are

used. Writing is highly valued in educational settings and the standardization of

writing means that accuracy in writing is frequently more important than accuracy

in speaking. It is in line with Spack and Swales’ statements on Weigle (2002) that

say, “The importance of correctness in writing as opposed to speaking is

particularly relevant for writing in academic contexts, where writing is frequently

seen as a key to entry into the academic discourse community”. Students need to

know how to write letters, how to put written reports together, how to reply to

advertisements and how to write using electronics (Harmer, 1998). The

differences between speaking and writing can be seen from some aspects. From

the above statements, it can be concluded that writing is highly valued in

educational settings than speaking and accuracy in writing is more important than

accuracy in speaking.
 14

c. Genres of Written Language

Based on Brown (2004), there are three most common genres of writing that

the second language learners might produce in educational setting, beyond and

within the requirements of a curriculum.

1) Academic Writing

Academic writing is a type of written language that includes papers and

general subject reports, essays, compositions, academic focused journals, short-

answer test responses, technical reports, theses, and dissertations.

2) Job-related Writing

This type of written language includes messages (e.g., phone messages),

letters/emails, memos, reports, schedules, labels, signs, advertisements,

announcements, and manuals.

3) Personal Writing

Personal writing includes letters, emails, greeting cards, invitations,

messages, notes, calendar entries, shopping lists, remainders, financial documents,

forms, questionnaires, medical reports, immigration documents, diaries, personal

journals, and fictions.

Academic writing is the most studied writing at schools. It is demanded that

students are able to write papers, essays and other kinds of writing which are

needed in an educational institution. However, students also need to learn other

kinds of writing that are needed in the daily life and in the work life. Job related
 15

writing will be learned more by vocational students because they are prepared to

apply for jobs.

d. The Types of Classroom Writing Assessment

There are four categories of written performance as stated by Brown (2004),

they are: imitative, intensive, responsive and extensive.

1) Imitative

Imitative writing is the lowest level of writing production. Brown (2001) calls

this type of writing performance as “writing down” in which students simply write

down English letters, words, or sentences. In imitative writing, the students learn

to spell correctly and to perceive phoneme-grapheme correspondences in the

English spelling system. At this stage, forms are the primary if not the exclusive

focus, whereas context and meaning are the secondary concern.

2) Intensive

The next level of writing production is intensive writing. At this stage, the

students are expected to produce appropriate vocabulary within a context,

collocations and idioms, and correct grammatical features up to the length of a

sentence. The tasks are more focus on forms and rather strictly controlled by the

test design.

Brown (2001) also calls this type of classroom writing assessment controlled

writing because it typically appears in controlled, written grammar exercises.

Intensive writing emphasizes writing as opposed to real writing in which students

produce language to display their competence in grammar, vocabulary or sentence

 16

formation and not necessarily to convey meaning. Brown (2001) provides an

example of intensive writing that is asking the students to change all present tense

verbs to past tense.

3) Responsive

At this level, the students are required to perform at a limited discourse level,

connecting sentences into a paragraph and creating a logically connected sequence

of two or more paragraphs. The genres of writing included in the tasks are brief

narrative and descriptive, short reports, lap reports, summaries, brief responses to

reading, and interpretations of charts or graphs. Here, the students should have a

good mastery of grammar, and focus the discourse convention that will achieve

the objective of the written text. This type of writing emphasizes context and

meaning.

4) Extensive

Extensive writing is the highest level of writing production. The students

focus on achieving a purpose, organizing and developing ideas logically, using

supporting details to support main ideas, and creating a coherent paragraph

(Brown, 2004). Extensive writing implies successful management of all the

processes and strategies of writing for all the purposes, up to the length of an

essay, a term paper, a major research project report, or even a thesis.

From the above explanation, it can be concluded that the teaching of writing

is started from imitative up to extensive writing. Elementary students may learn

imitative writing because they are beginners, and extensive writing is mostly
 17

learned by university students. However, junior high school students may also

learn extensive writing, but the level of difficulties in their task must be different

from that for university students. The selection of writing tasks is based on the

students’ level of proficiency.

e. The Writing Stages

Writing is a complex activity. White and Arndt in Harmer (1998) state that

there are five stages in the process of writing, they are drafting, structuring,

reviewing, focusing, and generating ideas and evaluating. The relationship

between the stages can be seen as follows.

Figure 1: White and Arndt’s Process Writing Model

Drafting is making a piece of writing that is not yet finished, and may be

changed. Structuring can be understood as ordering information, experimenting

with arrangement, and the like. Reviewing is checking context, connection,

assessing impact, and editing. Focusing is making sure the writer get the message

across the writer want to get across. Generating ideas and evaluating are assessing

the draft and /or subsequent drafts. Those stages are needed to help the students to
 18

generate ideas and structure their writing because writing is a complex activity

that cannot be done just by one stage.

f. Micro- and Macro-skills of Writing

In the teaching of writing, micro- and macro-skills of writing will help the

teachers to define the ultimate criterion of an assessment procedure (Brown,

2004). The micro- and macro-skills of writing proposed by Brown (2004) are

shown below.

Micro-skills
a) Produce grapheme and orthographic patterns of English.
b) Produce writing at an efficient rate of speed to suit the purpose.
c) Produce an acceptable core of words and use appropriate word order
patterns.
d) Use acceptable grammatical systems.
e) Express a particular meaning in different grammatical forms.
f) Use cohesive devices in a written discourse.

Macro-skills
a) Use the rhetorical forms and conventions of a written discourse.
b) Appropriately accomplish the communicative functions of written
texts according to a form and a purpose.
c) Convey links and connections between events, and communicate
such relations as a main idea, supporting ideas, new information,
given information, generalization, and exemplification.
d) Distinguish between literal and implied meaning when writing.
e) Correctly convey culturally specific references in the context of the
written text.
f) Develop and use a battery of writing strategies, such as accurately
assessing the audience’s interpretation, using prewriting devices,
writing with fluency in the first drafts, using paraphrases and
synonyms, soliciting peer and instructor feedback, and using
feedback for revising and editing.

The micro-skills of writing apply more appropriately to imitative and

intensive writing, while the macro-skills of writing are essential for the mastery of

responsive and extensive writing. In line with the teaching of classroom writing
 19

performance, the micro- and macro-skill of writing will be taught continually

from phase to phase in the technique of teaching writing applied by the teachers.

g. The Teaching of Writing in Junior High School

The purposes of teaching writing are for guiding and facilitating students to

write by giving instructions and providing some sources for learning materials, for

example worksheets, course books and text books. Brown (2000) says that

“teaching is guiding and facilitating learning, enabling the learner to learn, and

setting the conditions for learning”. It means that teaching cannot be separated

from learning. When a teacher teaches writing, she or he does not only teach how

to develop ideas in a language, but also has to give a serious attention for how to

write English sentences grammatically and systematically. Therefore, teachers

have the important role to make the teaching of writing run effectively and to

make the students’ ability improve.

According to Kimble and Garmezy in Brown (2000), learning is a relatively

permanent change in behavioral tendency and learning is the result of reinforced

practice. Their statement means that the teachers have to show and help students

to learn how to write. Teachers have to give instructions, guide students in

writing, and make students understand how to write effectively.

Furthermore, teachers should consider the age of the learner when teaching

writing. How teachers teach junior high school students will be different from

how teachers teach university students, because people of different ages have

different needs, competences, and cognitive skills (Harmer, 1998). Teachers may

teach young children how to acquire a foreign language through games, for
 20

example, whereas for adults, teachers may teach the language through the use of

abstract thoughts.

Teaching writing for junior high school students is important to be done well

because English is one of the compulsory subjects that have to be taught for

students at a junior high school level. English learning in junior high schools is

targeted to make the students reach the functional level, that is, to communicate in

written and spoken language in solving daily problems. One scope of English

learning in junior high schools is that students can understand and produce a short

functional text and short essays in the form of procedure, descriptive, narrative

and recount (Depdiknas, 2006). The gradation of the learning material is shown

by the use of vocabulary, grammar, and rhetorical steps.

The Standard of Competence and the Basic Competency of Curriculum 2006

state that the learning of English should be developed equally in both spoken and

written language. The Curriculum also states that the major aim of the English

lesson at junior high schools is to make the students have certain abilities as

mentioned below.

1) Developing the communicative competence both in written and spoken

language to achieve the functional literary degree.

2) Having sense about the importance of English to increase the notion of

competitive ability in the global society.

3) Developing the students’ understanding about the relationship between

language and culture.

 21

Furthermore, the Standard of Graduate Competence of English for each level

is communicative competence in the form of spoken language accompanying

action for Elementary schools, in the form of spoken and written language for

achieving a functional literacy level for junior high schools, in the form of spoken

and written language for achieving information literacy level for senior high

schools (PERMEN No. 23, 2006). The types of the texts and the SKKD for Grade

VIII junior high school students are shown below (Depdiknas, 2006).

Table 2: Standard of Competence and Basic Competency for Grade VIII,

Semester I

Standard of
Basic Competency
Competence
Writing
6. Expressing 6.1 Expressing meaning in the form of short functional
meaning in a short texts by using various kinds of written language
functional text accurately, fluently, and appropriately to interact
and short simple with the nearest environment.
essays in the 6.2 Expressing meaning and rhetorical steps in the short
forms of simple essays by using various kinds of written
descriptive and language accurately, fluently and appropriately to
recount to interact interact with the nearest environment in the form of
with the nearest descriptive and recount texts.
environment.

In order to know the average length of the writing products for junior high

school students, the researcher asks a writing expert and an English teacher of

SMP Negeri 15 Yogyakarta who participates in this research. According to the

writing expert, the length of writing product for junior high school students is

seventy up to a hundred words. The length of the students’ writing is obtained

from the teachers’ experience in teaching writing. The expert said that there is no

guidance or regulation that shows the maximal number of students’ words in

writing. The teacher of that school also said that the students generally produce
 22

writing up to a hundred words. Therefore, in this research, the researcher and the

teacher determine that the maximum length of the students’ writing product is a

hundred words.

The length of writing produced by junior high school students is different

from that produced by senior high school students. Senior high school students are

certainly able to write more sentences than junior high school students because

senior high school students have more experience in writing. In addition, the

words and sentences produced by junior high school students are different from

those produced by senior high school students. Junior high school students learn

simpler vocabularies than senior high school students. The vocabularies learned

by junior high school students are the vocabulary which is related to the closets

environment. Table 3 is an example of a vocabulary list for Grade VIII junior high

school students (Priyana, Irjayanti and Renitasari, 2008).

Table 3: Vocabulary List for Grade VIII Junior High School Students

Words and the Meaning Words and the Meaning

accusation : tuduhan indeed : sangat
aid : bantuan kinship : kekerabatan
amusing : menyenangkan meet : bertemu
attack : menyerang ownership : kepemilikan
beg : memohon plain : biasa; datar
bravely : dengan berani popularity : kepopuleran
cage : kandang prey : korban, mangsa
coincidence : kebetulan proverb : peribahasa
discover : menemukan pull : menarik
examine : memeriksa recognize : mengenali
fable : fabel release : membebaskan
feel : merasakan shepherd : gembala
fiction : fiksi surprise : kejutan
friendship : persahabatan thorn : duri
heal : menyembuhkan touching : menyentuh
imprisoned : dipenjara value : nilai
 23

The above example of a vocabulary list is one of many vocabulary lists that

are available in the course books. There are many more vocabularies that can be

learned by the students. The choice of words in the vocabulary lists is adapted

from the topic of discussion and the students’ level of proficiency.

2. Assessment

a. Definition of Assessment

In teaching writing, teachers need to monitor students’ improvement so that

they know how far the students master the writing skill. Teachers can monitor

their development through scores that the students get in writing. Teachers get the

scores from an instrument that they use to assess the students. In short, teachers

need kinds of assessment to get the students’ scores in order to monitor the

students’ improvement in writing.

Blaz (2002) defines assessment as any method used to better understand the

correct knowledge that a student possesses. Assessment serves as a monitor of

students’ understanding on a given unit or concept, to give valuable feedback to

students on what progress has been made and what still needs to be improved. In

addition, O’ Malley and Pierce (1996) state that assessment information is needed

by administrators, teachers, staff, developers, students and parents to assist in

determining appropriate program placement and instructional activities as well as

in monitoring students’ progress.

There are two reasons why teachers should conduct writing assessment. The

first is to make inferences about language ability, and the second is to make

decision based on those inferences. Since teachers cannot directly observe a

 24

person’s language ability, they use the students’ responses to test items as data

from which teachers make inferences about the ability that underlies the test

performance. These inferences are then used as data for making a variety of

decisions at an individual, classroom, or program level (Weigle, 2002). In short,

assessment can be defined as any method used to infer the students’ language

ability.

b. The Advantages of Assessment

Assessment has some advantages. As stated by brown (2004), periodic

assessment, both formal and informal, can increase motivation by serving students

progress. Students can measure their achievement from the assessment report.

Besides, assessment can confirm areas of strength and pinpoint areas that need

further work. Assessment can also motivate students to set the goals of writing for

themselves. In addition, assessment can be used by teachers to help them evaluate

the teaching effectiveness.

In short, assessment is not only useful for measuring the students’ ability but

also useful for motivating the students to improve their mastery of writing.

Therefore, it is important that teachers conduct assessment in their teaching and

learning process in order to measure the students’ ability and motivate the

students to improve their mastery in learning English.

c. Types of Assessment

1) Assessment Based on the Technique

Based on the technique, the teacher can apply two kinds of assessment in

class to assess the students’ ability in writing. Formal assessment is a kind of

 25

assessment that is systematically planned to give appraisal for the students’

achievement. Informal assessment is a kind of incidental and unplanned

assessment. It can take a number of forms, for example, comments and responses.

a) Formal Assessment

Formal assessment is an exercise or procedures that are specifically designed

to appraise the students’ achievement (Brown, 2004). Formal assessments can be

a test and non-test, for example portfolio and journal.

b) Informal Assessment

Informal assessment is a classroom task designed to elicit performance

without recording results and making fixed judgments about students’ competence

(Brown, 2004). Teachers can simply say “Did you say “can” or “can’t”?” or

“Good work!” to give comments or responses to the students’ work.

2) Assessment Based on the Time of Implementation

Based on the time of implementation, there are two kinds of assessment:

formative assessment and summative assessment. Formative assessment is a kind

of assessment which occurs in the middle of a course, whereas summative

assessment is a kind of assessment which typically occurs at the end of a course.

a) Formative assessment

Formative assessment is a kind of assessment that evaluates the students’

progress in “forming” their competencies and skills with the goal of helping them

to continue that growth process (Brown, 2004). Furthermore, Clark et al. (2003)

state that formative assessment puts emphasis on “shaping” the students’ writing
 26

while they are still in the process of writing and the goal is to help students to

improve their writing and writing ability.

b) Summative Assessment

Summative assessment usually occurs at the end of a course and aims to

measure, or summarize what students have grasped (Brown, 2004). The goal of

summative assessment is to judge how well students have accomplished the

writing task (Clark et al., 2003). Final exams and general proficiency exams in a

course are examples of summative assessment.

From the definition of formative and summative assessments above, portfolio

assessment in this research can be categorized as formative assessment because

the goal of the assessment is to monitor the students’ progress in writing in order

to minimize any underhand action that is done by students. The portfolio

assessment that was conducted in this research does not only aim at measuring the

finished products of the students’ writing but also the draft or the revised version

of it.

3. Portfolio Assessment

a. Definition of Portfolio Assessment

Portfolios are a collection of students’ papers usually chosen by the student

that will be graded or assessed at the end of the course (Clark et al., 2003). In

addition, Hyland (2002) states that

portfolios are multiple-writing samples which are written over time and
purposefully selected from various genres to best represent a student’
abilities, progress and most successful texts in a particular context.
 27

According to Barton and Collins in Johnson, Mims-Cox, and Doyle-Nichols

(2010), portfolio is:

(1) another method to evaluate the success of a graduate,

(2) a way to give students and faculty the opportunity to reflect on
students progress,
(3) a method to translate the learning from instructors to students, and
(4) a way to allow instructors to evaluate a variety of specific evidence
when making global determinations about learner competency.

Based on the above descriptions, portfolio is described as an appropriate

instrument for monitoring the students’ progress through the collection of their

works. Through the portfolio, teachers can evaluate the students’ work and then

give feedback on it and the students will use the feedback from the teachers to

improve their works.

The interaction between teachers and students can be built from this activity.

From the feedback that the teachers gave, students may feel that the teachers pay

attention to their works. Therefore, they will be motivated to do the assignment

well because they know their weaknesses and they believe that they can improve

it and make their work better.

Furthermore, portfolio is one kind of alternative assessment that is suggested

by the government to be applied at schools. It is stated in The Guideline on

Developing Portfolio Assessment or Pedoman Pengembangan Portfolio untuk

Penilaian (Depdiknas, 2004) that besides a written test, teachers need to apply

another kind of assessment, such as the students’ products, portfolios, the

students’ writing, students’ investigation, performance task, and observation. In

the guideline, portfolio is defined as a collection of students’ works as a product

of performance task, determined by the teacher or by the students and the teacher
 28

as a part of effort to achieve the learning goals or to achieve specified

competencies in the Curriculum (Depdiknas, 2004).

Based on the Guidelines on Developing Portfolio Assessment (Depdiknas,

2004), there are some kinds of students’ products which contain various kinds of

students’ works that can be included in portfolios. They are as follows:

(1) The result of a students’ project, investigation, or practices which is

presented in writing or by a written explanation.

(2) Pictures or students’ observation report in order to carry out a task for a

subject.

(3) The analysis of situation that is related or relevant to a subject.

(4) The description and diagram of solving a problem in the subject concerned.

(5) The report of an investigation on the relationship between concepts in a

subject or among subjects.

(6) The completion of open questions.

(7) The result of a typical homework, for example a students’ homework which

is done by using his or her own way which is different from the way taught

by the teacher or different from other classmates.

(8) The result of a group work.

(9) The students’ works that is achieved by using video recorder, audio recorder

and computer.

(10) Photocopies of charters or awards received by the students.

(11) The students’ woks in a subject which is not assigned by the teacher (based

on the students’ choice but still relevant to the subject).

 29

(12) Stories about the students’ like and dislike toward a subject.

(13) Stories about the students’ effort to overcome psychological barriers or

students’ effort of self improvement in learning a subject.

(14) Reports of students’ attitude toward the lesson.

From the list, it can be seen that there are many kinds of students’ work that

can be included in a portfolio. The students’ works that can be included in the

portfolio are not only the product of classroom activity but also stories and

charters. The students have the right to choose which works that they want to

include in the portfolio. The selection of the portfolio content and the condition

for writing leads to a sense of agency and responsibility (Weigle, 2002). By

having control over their portfolio content, students can develop a sense of

ownership of their writing.

In fact, portfolio is used not only in educational institutions but also in

business. Hartnell-Young and Morriss in Johnson, Mims-Cox, and Doyle-Nichols

(2010) suggest three broad categories of portfolios: (1) formative portfolios,

which are developmental; (2) summative portfolios, which are cumulative and

include final assessments, products, or both; and (3) marketing portfolios, which

are focused on job attainment and career advancement. In an educational

institution, portfolio is usually applied in formative assessment because it allows

students to revise over the entire course rather than just during the process for the

individual paper. Table 4 is brief information about types, purposes, features and

uses of formative portfolios, compiled by Johnson, Mims-Cox, and Doyle-Nichols

(2010).
 30

Table 4: Formative-Developmental Portfolio Information

Type Purpose or Unique Features Use

Goals
1. Comprehensive To store a myriad Contains an up-to-date To select
(Johnson, of artifacts to be resource file with specific artifacts
Mims-Cox & used for career organizational features to develop
Doyle-Nichols, and academic different types of
2006) advancement focus portfolios
2. Resources To store a myriad Contains an ongoing, To select
(Tasktream, of artifacts systematic collection specific artifacts
www.tasktream. of work over time to develop the
com, a presentation
commercial portfolio
Web site)
3. Working To show Contains an ongoing, For self-
(Campbell et professional systematic collection assessment and
al., 2001) growth of work over time goal setting
4. Growth To show growth Looks at development For evaluation
(Mueller, 2008) and change over over time; includes and goal setting
time strength and
weaknesses

From the previous information, the type of portfolio which is suitable to be

used in this research is the growth portfolio suggested by Mueller (2010). It is

because the goal of this portfolio is to show growth and change over time which is

in line with the goal of this research.

In addition, Hyland (2002) states that there are two types of portfolio: a

showcase type and a process type. A showcase portfolio contains only the best

work of the student’s writing, while a process portfolio display a collection of

both draft and final products. However, the practice of the two types of portfolio

are still contain of assembling texts over time, and that can encourages students to

observe changes and discover something about the entries and their learning.
 31

There are some advantages of portfolio assessments in the teaching of

writing. Reid (1993) in Hyland (2002) proposes five advantages of portfolio

evaluation.

a) It reinforces commitment to writing processes and multiple drafts.

b) It establishes the course as developmental and sequential.
c) It establishes a classroom writing environment as the basis for
effective writing.
d) It allows a more complex look at the complex activity of writing.

In addition, Belanoff and Dikson (1991), Purves et al. (1995) in Hyland

(2002) say that portfolio can be used as a way to strengthening learning by

exposing students to a variety of genres, encouraging them to reflect on their

writing process and promoting greater responsibility for writing. Portfolios are

said to enhance learning by increasing teachers and students’ involvement in the

writing-testing process and by engaging students in a variety of tasks.

However, it can be a problem when results of portfolio assessment are used to

evaluate instructions and a curriculum (Weigle, 2002). The teacher may become

more invested in the portfolio and may take on more directive role in the

portfolio, that can reduce the students’ investment in and ownership of the

portfolio. To overcome this problem, Weigle (2002) suggested that the portfolio

should include both timed and untimed writing. It is aimed at making sure that

some independent work is included.

The timed writing is the work that is done in class, while the untimed writing

is the homework or the individual work that is done at home. The timed writing or

the class assignment writing can be used as a comparison for the homework to see

whether there are differences between the homework and the class assignments or
 32

not. In line with Weigle’s (2002) suggestion, in this research the researcher

includes the two kinds of writing, timed and untimed writing, because the

researcher wants to know the development of the students’ writing and whether

the students do cheating or not.

b. The Major Phases of Portfolio Organization

A portfolio is not simply a collection of artifacts to be submitted as a

completion of a program, but rather a dynamic process of planning, reflecting,

collecting, and evaluating that occur throughout the entire program. In this

research, the researcher needs to implement the portfolio cycle in order to gain the

data of reflections and evaluation to be included in the portfolio assessment and it

can be obtained by implementing the portfolio cycle. The cycle is adopted from

Hamp-Lyons and Condon’s cycle of portfolio in Weigle (2002). The researcher

simplifies the cycle because of the limited time. The phases of the portfolio cycle

are explained below.

1) Collection: the writer displays a range of writing performances in different

genres.

2) Reflection and self-assessment: a student must reflect on her/his work in

deciding how to arrange the portfolio and are asked to write reflective essay

about her/his development as writer and how the pieces in the portfolio

represent that development.

3) Delayed evaluation: a student is given opportunity and motivation to revise

written products before a final evaluation is given.

 33

4) Evaluation/Assessment: the final evaluation of the portfolio in which the

portfolio is scored.

The simplified cycle is shown below.

Collection

Evaluation / Reflection and

Assessment Self Assessment

Delayed
Evaluation

Figure 2: The Portfolio Cycle

From the cycle, the scoring of portfolio is on the last phase. Because the

portfolio that was used in this research is a type of process portfolio, the writing

that was submitted is not only the finished product of the students’ writing. The

draft of the writing was also submitted. It is intended to see the progress that the

students made. The rubric that was used should be able to measure the students

writing ability and the students’ progress through the draft and the revision that

are submitted by the students.

c. The Portfolio as a Whole

The criteria on which the portfolio itself is assessed relate directly back to the

purpose for the portfolio and may include additional organization and selection

criteria (Erlandson, 2004). The criteria for the portfolio should reflect those
 34

elements that the teachers have determined are critical to the development of the

portfolio.

Since a portfolio includes a variety of texts, developing scoring criteria

involves making decisions about how to deal with the various parts of the

portfolio in determining an overall score (Weigle, 2002). Hamp-Lyons and

Condon in Weigle (2002) provide four dimensions to be considered in assessing

the portfolio. The dimensions are characteristics of the writer, characteristics of

the portfolio as a whole, characteristics of individual text and intratextual features.

The four dimensions of portfolio assessment are shown below.

Consistently Characteristic of the Writer Consistently

Present or Fit between reflection/evidence in portfolio Absent or
High Metacognitive awareness beyond task at hand Low
Critical distance/Perspective on self as writer/learner
Quality of reflection about work (thoughtful or literal discussion?)
Consistently Characteristics of the Portfolio as a Whole Consistently
Present or Variety of Tasks Absent or
High Variety of modes of thought Low
Awareness of reader/writer context
Sense of task/purpose/conceptualizing the problem
Choice and management of form(s) or genre(s)
Consistently Characteristics of Individual texts Consistently
Present or Engagement with subject matter Absent or
High Significance of subject matter Low
Sense of topical context
Resources brought to bear
Amount of writing (bulk; copia)
Quality of development/sustained depth of analysis
Critical perspective in relation to specific subject matter
Consistently Intratextual Features Consistently
Present or Control of grammar and mechanics Absent or
High Management of tone and style Low
Coherence/flow, momentum, sense of direction
Control of syntactic variety and complexity

Figure 3: The Four Dimensions of Portfolio Assessment

The characteristics of the writer encompass criteria related to evidence of the

writer’s process of reflection and self-awareness. Characteristics of the portfolio

 35

as a whole include criteria related to the range of writing tasks and the writers’

ability to find appropriate strategies for different writing assignments. The last

two dimensions are important for evaluating single samples of writing. The rubric

that was developed in this research was adapted from the four dimensions that

have been explained previously.

However, not all of the criteria above are included in this rubric. The

researcher only chooses some criteria that are relevant to the students’ level of

proficiency. The researcher also makes some modification to the criteria in order

to make the scoring more effective. The criteria for the rubric are mentioned

below.

1) Characteristics of the writer

Criteria: Fit between reflection/evidence in portfolio and metacognitive

awareness beyond task at hand

2) Characteristics of the portfolio as a whole

Criteria: Variety of tasks and variety of modes of thought

3) Characteristics of individual texts

Criteria: Amount of writing and quality of development/sustained depth of

analysis

4) Intratextual features

Criteria : a) Control of grammar and mechanic

b) Coherence/flow, momentum, sense of direction

 36

4. Scoring Procedures for Writing Performances

After teachers design a classroom test, they have to consider how the test will

be scored. Scoring procedures are important things in writing assessment because

the scores are used to make decision and inferences toward the students’

achievements. Defining the type of rubric is the first decision in determining the

final score whether a single score is given to each script or each script is scored

according to several aspects of writing.

5. Definition of Rubric

Zimmaro (2004), states that a rubric is a systematic scoring guideline to

evaluate students’ performance (papers, speeches, problem solutions, portfolios,

cases) through the use of a detailed description of performance standards. It is

used to get consistent scores across all students. A rubric also allows students to

be more aware of the expectations for performance and consequently improve

their performance.

In order to get an accurate measurement, teachers need to consider the

objective of an assessment in order to select the appropriate kind of rubric that

will be used to score the students’ performance. According to Weigle (2002),

there are four factors to consider in designing rubrics. The factors are: (1) the

people who are going to use the rubric, whether they are the constructor, the

assessor or the user of a test, (2) the most important aspects in writing and the way

how they will be divided, (3) the number of scoring levels that will be used, (4)

the way how the scores will be reported. Therefore, the criteria that are included

in scoring rubrics will be different from one writing assessment to another.

 37

At school, the teaching of writing is based on the standard of competence and

the basic competency in the Curriculum. Then, the Standard of Competence and

the Basic Competency will be divided into text types. Therefore, the aspects of

writing that will be measured and the scoring criteria that will be developed are

different between one assessment and the other assessments. The differences

depend on the standard of competence and the basic competence and the text

types that are taught.

6. Proficiency and Achievement Rubrics

When choosing or developing scoring rubrics to measure L2 writing, the

distinction between measuring proficiency and achievement is necessary for

deciding what should be included in the rubric (Becker, 2010). Proficiency rubrics

measure the degree to which language learners have reached some level of

language ability. However, considering that the notion of writing ability is

troubling to define, it is difficult to choose or design scoring rubrics to measure

writing proficiency of students (Weigle, 2002).

Achievement tests target the degree of achievement by individuals on a range

of criteria related to a specific curriculum. An achievement assessment largely

provides information about students’ progress or readiness for subsequent levels

of instruction (Hughes in Becker, 2010). Therefore, the features included in the

scoring rubrics should reflect what students have been taught. Moreover, it is

important that rubrics for measuring writing proficiency are not substituted when

choosing or developing scoring rubrics for classroom-based writing achievement

assessment (Becker, 2010).

 38

The rubric developed in this research is concluded in achievement rubric

because it assesses the students’ writing ability within a semester and based on the

Curriculum. The criteria included in the rubric should measure the students’

writing ability that covers the lesson that has been taught in a semester. Because

this research was conducted within the first semester of the academic year 2012,

the criteria that were included in the rubric should be based on the Standard of

Competence and Basic Competency (Standar Kompetensi dan Kompetensi

Dasar/SKKD) of this semester.

7. Kinds of Rubric

One of the first decisions to be made in determining a system for scoring is

what type of rating scale will be used. A tests designer is commonly uses three

kinds of scoring; they are holistic, primary trait and analytic scoring.

a. Holistic Scoring Rubric

A holistic scoring rubric is used when a test designer wants to make a fast

evaluation. According to Clark (2003), holistic scoring requires readers to read

quickly, seeing the whole essay as greater than the sum of its parts. Holistic

scoring looks at the sample as whole pieces of a discourse and sees that the whole

is greater than the sum of its parts. However, Brown (2004) states that in

classroom instructional purposes, holistic scores provide very little information.

Some advantages and disadvantages of holistic scoring rubric can be seen in table

5 (Becker, 2010).
 39

Table 5: Advantages and Disadvantages of Holistic Scoring

Advantages Disadvantages
Emphasis is on what writers do Scores do not provide diagnostic
well and not on deficiencies information; reliability is reduced (Song &
(Cohen, 1994) Caruso, 1996)
Validity is greater because it Scores can depend more upon the rater than
reflects authentic, personal upon text qualities (Hamp-Lyons, 2003)
reaction of reader (White, 1984) Information for deciding what to target next
Scores are determined quickly is insufficient (nelson & Van Meter, 2007)
(Weigle, 2002)

A holistic scoring is typically used to measure written performance in large-

scale testing situations. Large-scale tests, such as aptitude and placement tests,

typically involve a large concentration of examinees taking the test at a given

time. Therefore, because of its efficacy, holistic scoring is often used to make

quicker, more efficient scoring decisions in these testing situations.

b. Analytic Scoring Rubric

An analytic scoring scores six major elements of writing (content,

organization, discourse, syntax, vocabulary and mechanics) which enable the

students to home in on weaknesses and to capitalize on strength (Brown, 2004).

Clark (2003) states that analytic scoring focuses on traits that tend to be universal

(word choice, punctuation, and the like).

Analytic scoring rubrics typically include several writing components, such

as accuracy, cohesion, content, organization, register and appropriateness of

language conventions (Becker, 2010). Unlike in holistic scoring there is a

description that encompasses several subsets for each scoring category in analytic

scoring. Analytic scoring allows the rater to focus on various aspects of an

 40

individual’s writing and score some traits higher than others (Becker, 2010). From

all the advantages of analytic scoring, Brown (2004) states that analytic scoring is

best serve the classroom evaluation of learning. Below are some advantages and

disadvantages of analytic scoring (Becker, 2010).

Table 6: Advantages and Disadvantages of Analytic Scoring

Advantages Disadvantages
Categories are not collapsed into one Rating on one scale may influence
inflated score; can train raters easily rating on another; scales may not be
(Cohen, 1994) informative for respondents (Myford &
Generalization to different writing Wolfe, 2003)
task is possible (Weigle, 2002) Development can be time consuming
Reliability is improved (Huot, 1996; and expensive (Hamp-Lyons, 2003;
Knoch, 2009) Weigle, 2002)
Can help to identify writers’ Writing subskills cannot be separable
strengths and weaknesses; provides (White, 1984)
diagnostic information (Becha, Raters may judge the scales holistically
2001; Carr, 2000) to match holistic impression (Nakamura,
2004)

In addition, because of its utility in providing diagnostic information, analytic

scoring is often used in diagnostic testing. Analytic rubric provide separate

categories for writing components, therefore, they can help to identify the specific

strengths and weaknesses of writers (Becker, 2010). Furthermore, analytic scoring

is often used in classroom-based achievement tests, because this type of scoring is

helpful in providing more directed feedback to students and teachers (Brown &

Hudson in Becker, 2010).

c. Primary Trait Scoring

A primary trait scoring focuses on how well students can write within a

narrowly defined range of discourse. This type of scoring emphasizes the task at
 41

hand and assigns a score based on the effectiveness of the text’s achieving that

one goal, for example: to persuade the reader (Brown, 2004). Primary trait scoring

offers some feedback but no washback for any of the aspects of the written

production that enhance the ultimate accomplishment of the purpose. Below are

the advantages and disadvantages of primary-trait scoring (Becker, 2010).

Table 7: Advantages and Disadvantages of Primary-Trait Scoring

Advantages Disadvantages
Attention is given to one writing Scales are not integrative (Cohen,
aspect at a time (Cohen, 1994) 1994)
Scale fits specific task at a hand Development is labor intensive
(White, 1985) (Weigle, 2002)

Mellon (1975) and Cooper (1977) in Clark (2003) find that holistic scoring is

a reliable way to measure writing samples when well trained readers from similar

backgrounds use it to evaluate students writing. In addition, Wolcott (1998) and

White (1994, 2000) in Clark (2003) find holistic scoring to be the best method for

scoring because it is reliable and requires each scorer to look at the essay as a

whole. However, on his study, Becker (2010) found that analytic rubrics appear to

be much more informative about students’ writing and these rubrics helped to

guide teachers’ feedback about students’ weaknesses. Therefore, analytic rubric is

the appropriate rubric to be used in this research because the objective of the

rubric is to see the improvement that the students make in their writing.

The design of a scoring rubric is important to analytic scoring. Clark (2003)

states that many researchers including White (1994) and Wolcott (1998) in Clark

(2003) believe that the scorers must develop their own rubric in order to be
 42

successful. Therefore, this study is aimed at helping the teachers to develop an

analytic rubric to assess the students’ writing through portfolio assessment.

8. Components of the Rubric

A rubric contains three important properties; they are criteria, descriptors and

level of scores.

a. Criteria

Criteria are characteristics of good performance on a particular task (Mueller,

2010). Criteria are indicators that the raters or teachers used to identify what the

students know and are able to do. Each aspect of writing has different criteria. The

criteria represent the quality of the performance that the students should carry out.

b. Levels

A level is the description of the degree of proficiency expected for a test taker

to be placed in a certain position on a scale (Richards and Schmidt, 2002).

Students better understand what good (or bad) performance on a task looks like if

levels of performance are identified, particularly if descriptors for each level are

included.

There are some ways to describe levels’ mastery. Some experts use

descriptive scales such as “poor”, “adequate”, “good” and “expert”. However,

numerical scales such as 1-2-3-4-5 can also be applied. Both descriptive scales

and numerical scales aim to describe the students’ performance from none to

complete mastery. In this research, the researcher chooses the numerical scales to

be used in the rubric that she developed.

 43

c. Descriptors

Descriptors are statements of expected performance at each level of

performance for a particular criterion in a rubric (Mueller, 2010). Descriptors

explain the achievement for each level of performance in each aspect of

assessment. Each level of performance has different descriptor and therefore, it

will make the teachers easier in grading the students’ work.

B. Relevant Research Studies

Puspitasari (2011) agrees that writing is the most difficult skill for students to

learn. Therefore, assessments are important in the teaching writing in order to

measure the students’ ability. She developed a writing rubric because in SMK N 5

Yogyakarta, the teachers did not use a rubric to measure the students’ ability. A

rubric is needed in an assessment in order to get a fair and accurate measurement

of the students’ achievement.

From the observation, she found that the teachers only use feeling to judge

the students’ writing. The rubric that was developed by Puspitasari is very useful

for the writing assessment in that school. The teachers then can adapt the rubric

that she made to design another rubric.

The findings of her research show that the designed rubric covers eight aspect

of writing performance, namely relevance and adequacy of content, compositional

organization, cohesion, adequacy of vocabulary for purpose, grammar,

mechanical accuracy I (punctuation), mechanical accuracy II (spelling), and

mechanical accuracy III (capitalization). Each aspect of writing performance is

written in three important properties of rubric, namely (1) criteria, (2) levels of
 44

scores, and (3) descriptors. The criteria represent indicators of good performance

on a task. Similar to this rubric, the rubric which was developed by the researcher

covered the writing performance into the three important properties used by

Puspitasari (2011).

Conrad (2001) conducted a research study about second language portfolio

assessment. The use of portfolios as a means of assessing writing in first and

second language contexts has emerged mainly in response to a general

dissatisfaction with more traditional forms of writing assessment (Conrad, 2001).

The result of his research shows that no form of writing assessment has been

found to be perfect, and the best course of action is to base overall judgments of

writing proficiency on the results of multiple measures, which may include a

portfolio assessment instrument.

Becker (2010) conducted a research study entitled examining rubric used to

measure writing performance in U.S. intensive English programs. The result

shows that a holistic rubric is more often used by teachers in U.S. to assess

students’ writing performance than an analytic rubric. One of the reasons is that

holistic scoring seems to be less time consuming than other scoring approaches.

However, this study is aimed at developing an analytic rubric for portfolio

assessment in writing because an analytic rubric is more informative than holistic

rubric.
 45

C. Conceptual Framework

Based on the literature review described previously, a conceptual framework

is constructed. This conceptual framework is aimed at focusing this research study

on the problem concerned.

English has four language skills namely listening, speaking, reading and

writing. Speaking and writing are categorized as productive skills. Both of those

skills are categorized as difficult skills. However, writing is not a skill that

develops naturally. In order to have a good writing ability, the students need to

practice. Junior high school students are expected to be able to write some kinds

of written texts based on those set in the school Curriculum. Teachers need to

measure the students’ ability in writing in order to know their achievement.

Therefore, there should be an assessment.

An assessment for writing should be the assessment that could measure the

students’ ability in writing, that is, writing performance assessment. Teachers

cannot only use an objective test or a sentence completing task to measure the

students’ ability in writing because that assessment does not represent the

students’ performance in writing.

In fact, there are many problems found at school related to the writing

assessment. One of them is that some students do not do their assignment

originally by themselves. Some students do cheating when they do writing

assignments. Another problem is that there is limited time to teach writing at

school. As a result, there should be homework. Teachers cannot monitor students

when they do the homework. Other problem is that writing is one of the language
 46

skills included in national examination. Therefore, teachers should seriously teach

writing to the students.

Portfolio writing is an assessment technique that can be applied by teachers to

overcome the problem. Through portfolio assessment, teachers can monitor the

students’ progress in writing even though the writing process takes place at home.

However, choosing and designing the scoring guide are important as well as

designing the writing assessment. It is difficult to design a scoring rubric that

contains a set of criteria which can appropriately measure the students’ writing

ability. The scoring rubric should be developed based on the types of assessment

and the writing performance that is measured. Therefore, a deep research should

be conducted to develop the portfolio rubric.

 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHOD

A. Type of the Research

This research is classified into Research and Development (R & D) as the

objective of this study is to develop a product that can be used in an educational

setting. The product is systematically field tested, evaluated, and revised until it

meets specified criteria of effectiveness, quality or standards (Gall, Gall & Borg,

2003). The product of this research is a rubric for portfolio assessment which is

used to assess Junior high School students’ writing performances.

B. Research Design

Educational Research and Development, according to Borg and Gall (1983)

is a process used to develop and validate an educational product. The steps of the

process in R & D is usually referred to as the Research and Development cycle,

which consists of studying research findings pertinent to the product to be

developed, developing the product based on these findings, field testing it in the

setting where it will be used eventually, and revising it to correct the deficiencies

found in the field-testing stage (Borg and Gall, 1983). This cycle was repeated

until the field test data indicate that the product meets the defined objective.

There are some different models of Research and Development. This

research adopts the model of R & D proposed by Dick and Carey in Gall, Gall &

Borg (2003). However, the researcher simplified the model of the R & D cycle in

47
 48

order to make the procedures relevant to her study and to make it more effective.

The simplified model is described below.

Researching and Developing the

Collecting the Planning
Rubric
Information

Evaluating and Obtaining Expert

Field Testing
Refinig the Rubric Judgment

Developing the
Final product of
the Rubric

Figure 4: Research and Development Cycle

The researcher simplified the process of the research in the model into the

following procedures: researching and collecting the information, planning,

developing the rubric, obtaining expert judgment, reviewing the rubric, field

testing, evaluating and refining the rubric and developing the final draft of the

rubric. Conducting the needs analysis belongs to the first step in Dick and Carey’s

model. It was also in the first step in this model. The first, second and third steps

in this model are the same as in Dick and Carey’s model. Expert judgment was

needed to obtain the validity of the product before the field testing. The

suggestions and feedback from the expert was used to review the rubric. In this

model, the researcher only conducted the field testing of the product once. It was

due to the limited time of implementation. After the field test, the researcher made

the main revision of the rubric and developed the final product of the rubric.
 49

C. Research Procedures

1. Researching and Collecting the Information

In this step, the researcher conducted a needs analysis and a curriculum

analysis to fulfill the learning and the students’ needs. The data were collected

through interviewing three English teachers of SMPN 15 Yogyakarta. As a

complementary instrument, the researcher also distributed a questionnaire before

the interview. The data collected from the questionnaire were used to cross check

the data of the interview. The organization of the interview is shown below.

Table 8: The Organization of the Interview

Question
Purpose of Questions Components
Numbers
To find some personal a.The name of the teacher Part I
information about the English b.Class being taught 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
teachers c.Educational background
d.Teaching experience
e.Teaching training or
seminar
To find some information about Description about how Part II
how English is taught in SMPN English is taught 1
15 Yogyakarta
To find some information about Listening , Speaking, Part II
how the English skills are taught Reading, Writing 2,3
and evaluated
To find some information about Writing assessment Part II
the teaching of writing techniques 4,11, 12,
To find some information about Description about the Part II
the students’ writing ability students’ writing ability 5, 6,
To find some information about Kinds of texts and tasks Part II
the writing tasks and genre 7, 8
To find some information about Description about how to Part II
the writing assessment assess students’ writing 9, 10, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18
To find some information about Aspects of writing to Part II
the criteria to assess students’ consider 19
writing performance
(continued)
 50

(continued)
Question
Purpose of Questions Components
Numbers
To find some information about Kinds of rubric Part II
the rubric of writing 20
To find some information about Description about portfolio Part II
portfolio assessment and rubric assessment and rubric 21, 22, 23, 24,
25, 26, 27
To find some information about Information about criteria of Part II
the explicitness of the writing assessment to be 28
performance assessment to the told to the students
students

Step 1 in this modified model involved the exploration of needs followed by

contextual realization of the needs. The needs analysis is used to identify a

product needed by the teacher and students. After the educational product had

been identified, a literature review was undertaken to collect research finding and

other information related to the planned development.

2. Planning

In this step, the researcher used the result of the interview and the curriculum

analysis to design the criteria of rubric needed in a writing assessment. The

researcher also planned the research procedures that were needed in implementing

the research. The researcher should consider the time allocation needed in the

implementation.

3. Developing the Rubric

In this step, the researcher developed the rubric based on the criteria needed.

There are many writing aspects to be measured in portfolio assessment, not only

the textual features of the writing. A variety of goals can be obtained from

portfolio assessment, such as to store a myriad of artifacts to be used for career

 51

and academic advancement, to show professional growth, to show growth and

change over time and to assess and evaluate students and programs (Johnson,

Mims-Cox and Doyle-Nichols, 2010). Therefore, the researcher should find a

theory about portfolio assessment that was relevant to the goal of portfolio

assessment that would be obtained.

The researcher adapted the aspects of portfolio assessment in writing

suggested by Hamp-Lyons and Condon in Weigle (2002). There are four aspects

of portfolio assessment proposed by Hamp-Lyons and Condon: characteristics of

the writer, characteristics of the portfolio as a whole, characteristics of individual

texts and intratextual features. Each aspect has its own criteria to be assessed.

However, the researcher chose only some criteria to be included in the rubric

based on the goal and the students’ level of proficiency.

The aspects of writing were graded into five levels of score. The scores

ranged from one to five in which one was the lowest score and five was the

highest score. Each score has its own description so that the teacher could

determine the students’ score easily.

4. Obtaining Expert Judgment

After the rubric was designed, the researcher conducted an evaluation. The

evaluation involved a writing assessment expert. The expert gave judgment to the

designed rubric. The judgment was used to investigate the content validity, the

concept and the theories underlying the design rubric to assess students’ writing

through portfolio assessment. The researcher made some revision toward the

rubric until it met the standard of writing evaluation.

 52

5. Field Testing

The revised rubric was implemented to all of the participants of the research;

they were the English teachers of the VIII grade students. The researcher asked

them to use the rubric to assess the students’ writing performance.

6. Evaluating and Refining the Rubric

After conducting the implementation, the researcher conducted an evaluation.

The researcher used a semi guided interview to conduct the evaluation. The

researcher interviewed the teachers to get feedback for the rubric and suggestions

to improve the rubric.

7. Developing the Final Product of the Rubric

The final product of the rubric was developed after the evaluation. The

evaluation aimed to find some essential information related to the designed rubric

and some solution which was needed to revise the rubric. The revised rubric is

called the final product of the research.

D. Research Respondents

The respondents of this study were three English teachers of SMP Negeri 15

Yogyakarta and a university student. They were involved in getting the data of a

needs analysis and writing assessment. However, the university student

participated only in the rubric implementation to substitute one of the English

teachers because she was retired. The researcher was also involved in getting the

data of writing assessment. The implementation of the rubric was conducted in

Grade VIII B students of SMP Negeri 15 Yogyakarta.

 53

E. Setting of the Research

This research was conducted at SMP Negeri 15 Yogyakarta from 8th August

2012 to October 2012. SMPN 15 Yogyakarta is located on Tegal Lempuyangan

Street No. 61 Yogyakarta. There are 10 classes for each grade. Class A and B for

each grade are bilingual classes. Each class consists of 34 up to 35 students in

average.

F. Instruments of the Research

The instruments that were used in this research were interviews and

questionnaires. The interviews were used to collect the data of needs analysis and

the evaluation of the rubric. However, questionnaire was used only to support the

data of the interviews: to cross check the responses of the participant when the

researcher conducts the interview. The use of the instruments is described as

follows.

1. Instruments Used in the Needs Analysis

The researcher used interviews and a questionnaire to collect the data of the

needs. However, the questionnaire was used only as a complementary instrument.

The needs analysis was conducted by interviewing three English teachers of SMP

15 Yogyakarta. The researcher chose this technique due to the limited time and

opportunity to contact thirty English teachers from different schools if she used

questionnaires to collect the data. The researcher developed a semi guided

interview to find out the teachers’ expectation about the rubric and the reality

happens at SMPN 15 Yogyakarta in relation to the teaching of writing. The

researcher prepared questions to be asked to the teacher before doing the

 54

interview. She might ask some more questions related to the topic to get deeper

information from the respondents. The researcher distributed a questionnaire

before she did the interview and used the data collected from the questionnaire to

cross check the responses of the interview.

2. Instrument Used in the Review of the Rubric

Before implementing the rubric, the researcher contacted an expert to review

the rubric and had consultation about the rubric. An expert judgment was used to

fulfill the validity of the rubric.

An implementation was needed to measure the reliability of the rubric. After

the implementation, the researcher did an interview with the teachers involved in

the implementation to get their responses about the rubric. The data were used to

revise the rubric.

3. Instrument Used in Rubric Evaluation

The researcher conducted an interview with two English teachers after

writing assessments to evaluate the rubric and to get the teachers’ responses about

the final product of the rubric. One of the teachers who participated in the needs

analysis could not participate in the evaluation of the rubric because she was a

new teacher at that school and she did not have much experience yet in teaching

junior high school students because previously she taught elementary school

students.
 55

G. Data Collection Techniques

The data of this research were collected through implementing the

instruments. The researcher interviewed three English teachers of SMPN 15

Yogyakarta to collect the data of needs about the writing assessment that they

usually do, the kinds of rubric that they usually use, and about their expectation of

the writing assessment and the writing rubric. The data collected from the needs

analysis were used as a consideration to design the writing rubric.

To test the validity of the rubric, the researcher contacted an expert to judge

whether the rubric was valid or not. The reliability of the rubric was measured by

implementing the rubric. The researcher asked the English teachers to use the

rubric to assess the students’ writing performance. After the writing assessment,

the researcher interviewed the teachers about the rubric. The result of the

interview was used to evaluate and revise the rubric.

H. Data Analysis Techniques

The collected data on the R & D were qualitative in nature. However, there

were some quantitative data to support the qualitative data. The qualitative data

such as field notes, interview transcripts and evaluation from the writing expert

and the English teachers which were in the form of semi guide interviews, were

analyzed based on the qualitative data analysis proposed by Miles and Huberman

(1994).

The qualitative data were analyzed in four steps. The first step was collecting

the data. It was followed by data reduction in which the data were selected,

focused, simplified, abstracted and transformed by summarizing or paraphrasing

 56

the interview transcripts and field notes. Data reduction is a form of analysis that

sharpens sorts, focuses, discards, and organizes data in such a way that “final”

conclusions can be drawn and verified. It is supported by Tesch (1990) in Miles

and Huberman (1994) who states that the data reduction can also be seen as data

condensation.

The next step was data display. The data that had been reduced were then

organized and compressed. The data display of this research was in the form of

text: field notes and interview transcripts. Finally, the last step was making a

conclusion drawing and verification.

Meanwhile, the students’ writing performances were scored by using the

designed rubric. The result of the students performances were analyzed by

statistical data analysis, that is, the Pearson Product Moment Correlation

technique to find the reliability coefficients among raters. The mean and standard

deviation of the data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics.

I. Validity and Reliability of the Research

The rubric which was used to assess students’ writing performances should

have criteria of validity. The result of the validity determines the judgment

whether or not the ability can indeed be measured. Validity refers to the

appropriateness, meaningfulness, correctness, and usefulness of the inferences

that a researcher made.

The validity employed in designing this rubric was content validity. Content

validity is determined systematically by conducting a set of operations such as

defining in a precise term the specific content universe to be sampled, specifying

 57

objectives, and describing how the content universe is sampled to develop the

product, in order to judge whether or not the designed rubric has content validity,

specification of the skills or structures that it is meant to cover is needed.

In order to fulfill the content validity the researcher involved a writing expert

to give judgment to the designed rubric. It was intended to measure whether or not

the rubric contained aspects needed to assess students’ writing performance. The

revision of the rubric was conducted when there were some parts in the rubric

which was considered inappropriate or ineffective. In addition, the revision was

done according to the writing expert’s suggestion.

After the rubric was revised, it was implemented in the writing assessment to

get the empirical data of the assessment. Before the implementation, the teacher

should apply some steps of portfolio assessment in order to get various kinds of

tasks and students’ reflections which were needed in the portfolio assessment.

After all of the tasks and reflections are completed, the researcher and two English

teachers conducted the writing evaluation by using the rubric. The researcher then

investigated the teachers’ experiences in using the rubric. The data collected from

the investigation were used as the input to write the final product of the rubric.

In relation to reliability, the researcher applied an inter-rater reliability to

calculate the reliability coefficient among raters in assessing the students’ writing

by using the rubric. Inter-rater reliability refers to the tendency of different raters

to give the same scores to the same scripts. Weigle (2002) points out that inter-

rater reliability is the consistency ratings among different raters.

 CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDINGS

A. The Result of the Needs Analysis

The needs analysis was considered important as it provided inputs for the

researcher to design the rubric. The researcher interviewed the English teachers in

order to get information related to the writing assessment. The interview consists

of two parts. The first part aimed to know the teachers‟ personal information and

the second part aimed to gain the information related to the assessment. The

interview was in the form of semi guided interview in order to get deeper

information from the respondents, in addition the researcher distributed

questionnaires before the interview to cross check the teachers‟ responses. The

form of the interview and the questionnaire of the needs analysis were included in

the appendices.

The needs analysis was conducted on 9th and 11th of August 2012. There were

three English teachers who participated in the interview. Later, the researcher

calls them T1, T2 and T3 in order to make the differentiation of the statements

easy. One of them is a new teacher in SMPN 15 Yogyakarta. In her previous time,

she taught English in an elementary school, therefore she could not give much

information related to the teaching of English in junior high schools because she

did not have much experience.

However, the result of the questionnaires was different from that of the

interview. In the questionnaires, the teacher stated that they know portfolio

assessment and they ever used it in an assessment. However, in the result of the

58
 59

interview, the teachers only have limited knowledge of portfolio assessment and

they never use it in an assessment. Some of the teachers‟ answers in

questionnaires did not suit their responses in the interview. The researcher has

clarified their answer by asking them directly after the interview. The right

answers were the response of the interview. Therefore, the researcher only

presents the result of the interview to analyze the needs. From the needs analysis,

there were some results that the researcher obtained.

1. The Teaching of Writing

The three English teachers at the school have similar problems in teaching

writing. Based on the interview, the main problems that the teachers faced in

teaching writing is in the teaching of grammar and word choice. The teachers said

that the students still found difficulties in creating sentences using the right tenses.

Sometimes, the students can make a complete sentence, but the verb that they use

is inappropriate, for example: a student is expected to make a sentence that

explains a past activity but the verb that he/she uses is in a present tense. In

addition, the sentences that the students make sometimes are meaningless because

they use inappropriate word choice.

2. The Students’ Writing Ability

SMP Negeri 15 Yogyakarta has two types of classes. They are bilingual

classes and regular classes. The bilingual classes are the grade VII, VIII and IX A

and B, whether the regular classes are grade VII, VIII and IX C, D, E, F, G, H, I
 60

and J. therefore, there are various levels of students‟ level of proficiency in SMP

Negeri 15 Yogyakarta.

The teachers said that students of bilingual classes usually have better

mastery of writing than students of regular classes. It is because the quality of the

students themselves is different and the input that they get is also different. The

students of bilingual classes are more familiar with English because they get more

exposure of English in the classroom, every day. Therefore, the students of

bilingual classes have better writing ability than the regular classes‟ students.

3. The Writing Tasks and Genre

From the interview, the researcher knows that the three English teachers

knew what types of texts that they have to teach to the students. When the

researcher asked them what kinds of texts they usually taught to the students, they

mentioned descriptive, narrative, recount and short functional texts. They know

that the choice of texts was based on the curriculum. However, in practice, they

did not know when or in what semester they have to teach a descriptive or recount

text. For them, the importance of the teaching was that they taught all of the text

types included in the curriculum. They did not always check the syllabus to know

when they should teach, for example, descriptive or short functional texts.

In connection with the writing task, the three English teachers have their own

statement. T1 said that she often taught writing up to a sentence level. She focused

the teaching of writing to create simple sentences. Almost similar with T1, T3

said that the teaching of writing in junior high schools was up to a paragraph

level. She taught the students to create sentences and then guided them to arrange
 61

a paragraph from the sentences that they made. The sentences that were usually

learned by the students were mostly in the form of simple sentences.

Different from the two teachers, T2 said that the teaching of writing in junior

high schools was up to creating a simple essay. According to her, the students,

especially Grade VIII and grade IX students were able to write more than two

paragraphs or at least, she would give the students one assignment to write two

paragraphs. However, although the students are able to write many sentences, they

still have problems related to grammar.

4. The writing Assessment

Based on the interview, the three English teachers had a same method for

assessing students‟ writing. They combined multiple choice tests, arranging

jumbled sentences or completing sentences and writing into one assessment for

the final examination. However, for the daily assignment or examination, they use

writing performance.

5. The Rubric of Writing

The English teachers in SMPN 15 Yogyakarta, especially Grade VIII

teachers, already used a rubric in their writing assessments. They developed the

rubric by themselves; they did not copy it or adapt it from books or other sources.

The teachers considered the students‟ level of proficiency when they developed

the rubric. Sometimes, they need to differentiate the level of difficulty of a test for

different classes. Therefore, they also need to differentiate the standard of

measurement for different classes.

 62

6. The Criteria to Assess Students’ Writing Performance

The three English teachers used different criteria for assessing writing. The

criteria of writing assessment for T1 were grammar, word choice and sentence

structure. T1 usually focuses her teaching up to the sentence level; therefore, she

does not need many criteria for the rubric. T2 employed more criteria for her

rubric than that for T2 because she already taught the students to write more than

one paragraph. The criteria for her rubric were grammar, punctuation, spelling and

meaningful sentences. Similar to T1, T3 also did not employ many criteria for the

writing rubric. She only used grammar, word choice and neatness for the criteria

in her rubric.

7. Knowledge of Portfolio Assessment

In the interview for the needs analysis, the researcher also asked the teachers‟

knowledge about portfolio assessment. The question is aimed at knowing how

well the teachers know portfolio assessments. From the interview with the three

English teachers, it could be concluded that the teachers had limited knowledge of

portfolio assessment. All that they know about portfolio assessment was that

portfolio is simply a collection of students‟ works. They did not know the kinds of

works that can be included in the portfolio or how the works are collected. The

teachers did not even know that there are many kinds of portfolios and many goals

that can be achieved through portfolios. Because of their limited knowledge, they

never apply portfolio assessment in their teaching and learning process.

According to the teachers, the criteria included in the rubric for portfolio

assessment were the same as the criteria included in the regular writing
 63

assessment. The criteria that they mentioned were grammar, punctuation, word

choice, spelling and sentence structure. In practice, the criteria for portfolio

assessment should be different from the criteria for the general writing rubric

because portfolio assessment covers more than one kind of students‟ writing.

Therefore, the researcher considered that it was important to develop a rubric for

portfolio assessment because the teachers did not have comprehensive knowledge

of portfolio assessment. In addition, the teachers said that the criteria of

assessment should be informed to the students so that they can prepare themselves

to do the best.

B. Designing the Rubric

After conducting the needs analysis, the researcher started to design the

rubric. She used the data of the needs analysis and relevant theories of writing

assessment as the guideline. The researcher involved four dimensions of portfolio

assessment proposed by Hamp-Lyons and Condon in Weigle (2002), namely

characteristics of the writer, characteristics of the portfolio as a whole,

characteristics of individual texts and intratextual features. Each dimension had

some criteria of assessment and the criteria were described into some levels of

measurement. However, the researcher chose five criteria to be included in her

rubric which were the most important criteria for junior high school students. The

selection of the criteria was aimed at making the assessment more effective. Each

dimension was written in different sheets in order to make the rubric clearer.

Figure 5 presents the model of the rubric.

 64

The Dimension of Portfolio Assessment

Criteria:

Score Descriptor
(the scoring levels which ranges (the description of expected
from 1 to 5) performance in each level)

Figure 5: The Model of the Rubric

Based on that model, the dimension of portfolio assessment was fulfilled by

one of the four dimensions, for example characteristics of the writer. It was

followed by criteria that indicated good performance of the standard of

achievement. Additionally, the table consists of two rows and five columns. The

rows were scores and descriptors. The scores were organized from five to one and

followed by the descriptor of achievement in the descriptor column.

During the process of designing the rubric, the researcher needed to revise it

until the rubric was considered appropriate to be field tested. The process of

revision involved a writing expert. The researcher considered the suggestion and

advice from the expert to revise the rubric. The first designed rubric was called

the first draft of the rubric.

1. The First Draft of the Rubric

In the first draft of the rubric, the researcher employed four dimensions of

portfolio assessment proposed by Hamp-Lyons and Condon (Weigle, 2002). The

four dimensions are: characteristics of the writer; characteristics of the portfolio as

 65

a whole; characteristics of individual texts; intratextual features. Each of the

dimensions has its own criteria. The researcher chose only some criteria from the

model to be included in the rubric. The choice of the criteria was based on the

students‟ level of proficiency and the consideration that fewer criteria to be

included would be more effective. The criteria of the rubric are explained below.

a. Characteristics of the Writer

In the dimension of characteristics of the writer, the researcher combine two

criteria mentioned in Hamp-Lyons and Condon‟s model in Weigle (2002) into one

criterion that is “Fit between reflection/evidence in portfolio and metacognitive

awareness beyond task at hand”. The researcher chose those two criteria because

those criteria are important to be used to measure the writer‟ awareness of the

works. The rubric of the first dimension is shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Characteristics of the Writer

Score
Descriptor
X2
5 Student provides clear and complete reflection for each artifact (the
sentences are legible). There is clear and careful link between
reflection and artifact. Evidence of prewriting, drafting, revising
and editing is present for each artifact.
4 Student provides reflection for most of the artifacts. There is link
between reflection and artifact. Evidence of prewriting, drafting,
revising and editing is present for each artifact.
3 Student provides reflection for some of the artifacts. There is link
between reflection and artifact. There is evidence of prewriting,
drafting, revising and editing for most of the artifacts.
2 Student provides reflection for few of the artifacts. There is unclear
link between reflection and artifact. There is evidence of
prewriting, drafting, revising and editing for few of the artifacts.
1 Student provides limited reflection for the artifacts. There is no link
between reflection and artifact. There is limited evidence of
prewriting, drafting, revising and editing.
 66

b. Characteristics of the Portfolio as a Whole

In this second dimension, the researcher chose the criteria of “Variety of

tasks” and “Variety of modes of thought” in Hamp-Lyons and Condon‟s model in

Weigle (2002) as the criteria. The researcher combined those criteria into one

criterion. The criteria become “Variety of tasks and variety of modes of thought”.

The rubric is shown in Table 10.

Table 10: Characteristics of the Portfolio as a Whole

Score
Descriptor
X2
5 The artifacts consist of all of the class assignment and homework
that the teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts. There
are varieties of topics of the writing that are different from the
example and from other‟s work and student can develop good
paragraphs from those topics.
4 The artifacts consist of all of the class assignment and homework
that the teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts. There
are varieties of topics in the student‟s writing which are different
from the example and form the other‟s work and student can
develop the topics.
3 The artifacts consist of most of the class assignment and homework
that the teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts. There
are varieties of topics in the student‟s writing which most of them
are different from the example and from the other‟s work and few
parts of the content is similar to the example or to the other‟s work.
2 The artifacts consist of some of the class assignment and homework
that the teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts. The
student is unable to make variety of topics of the writing. Most of
the topics are similar to the example or to the other‟s work and the
content is also almost similar the topics that the student imitates.
1 Most of the class assignment and homework are missing. The
artifacts are limited and consist of one or two text types. The
student is unable to make variety of topics and the content of the
topic is similar to the example or to other‟s work.
 67

c. Characteristics of Individual Texts

In the third dimension, that is “Characteristics of individual texts”, the

researcher considered the amount of writing and the quality of

development/sustained depth analysis. The criteria become “Amount of writing

and quality of development/sustained depth of analysis”. The rubric can be seen

below.

Table 11: Characteristics of Individual Texts

Score
Descriptor
X6
5 All of the artifacts consist of more than 100 words. Student can
differentiate between descriptive and recount texts from the content
of the writing. Student demonstrates ability to identify mistakes and
they can make correction for the mistakes.
4 Most of the artifacts consist of more than 100 words. Student can
differentiate between descriptive and recount texts from the content
of the writing. Student demonstrates ability to identify mistakes and
they can correct their mistakes.
3 All of the artifacts consist of 100 words. There is difference
between descriptive and recount texts in the content although the
difference is sometimes unclear. Student demonstrates ability to
identify mistakes and they can make correction for most of the
mistakes.
2 Most of the artifacts consist of 100words. The difference between
descriptive and recount texts in the content is not clear. Student is
unable to correct most of the mistakes he/she made.
1 All of the artifacts consist of less than 100 words. The difference
between descriptive and recount texts is unclear. Student cannot
make correction for the mistakes that he/she made.

d. Intratextual Features

For the fourth dimension of the rubric, the researcher chose two criteria in

Hamp-Lyons and Condon‟s model in Weigle (2002). The criteria are control of

grammar and mechanic and coherence/flow, momentum, sense of direction. The

 68

researcher did not combine those criteria because the separate description will

make the measurement clearer than if the descriptions are joined together. In this

way, the student‟s weaknesses can be identified clearly, whether they lie in the

control of grammar and mechanic or in the coherence/flow, momentum, sense of

direction or even lie in both of them. Below is the description.

Table 12: Control of Grammar and Mechanic

Score
Descriptor
X3
5 All of the texts show accepted standards of format, usage, spelling,
punctuation, and capitalization at development level. 0-20% errors
may be present.
4 In most of the texts, a few errors are made in format, usage,
spelling, punctuation, or capitalization but they do not interfere the
meaning. 20-40% errors may be present.
3 Some errors are made in format, usage, spelling, punctuation, or
capitalization and they may interfere the meaning. 40-60% errors
may be present.
2 Many errors are made in format, usage, spelling, punctuation, or
capitalization and they interfere the meaning. 60-80% errors may
be present.
1 Many errors in format, usage, spelling, punctuation, or
capitalization make the message difficult to understand. 80-100%
errors may be present.

Table 13: Coherence/flow, Momentum, Sense of Direction

Score
Descriptor
X3
5 Text is sufficiently and logically developed. Central idea is clear.
Transitions are effective.
4 The structure leads the reader through the text without confusion.
The central idea is evident and logically developed. There is
evidence of connections and transitions between ideas.
3 The structure may be confusing at times, but there is a
recognizable introduction and conclusion. The connection between
ideas may not always clear.
(continued)
 69

(continued)
Score
Descriptor
X3
2 The structure may be confusing at times. There is introduction but
the conclusion is not clear or even there is no conclusion. The
connection between ideas is not clear.
1 Text lacks a clear sense of direction or development. The ideas are
strung together loosely. There is no introduction and conclusion. It
is hard to determine main point of development.

The first draft of the rubric above then was judged by an expert to know

whether the rubric was appropriate or not. The judgment included the judgment of

content validity, the concept and the theories underlying the design rubric. Based

on the expert judgment, the researcher made some revision to the designed rubric.

2. Expert Judgment

After the first draft of the rubric finished, the researcher conducted an expert

judgment. The revised rubric after the judgment is called the second draft of the

rubric. In the second draft of the rubric, the researcher made some changes to the

descriptions of the criteria. The researcher also needed to add one more descriptor

that can be used to measure the development of the students‟ writing ability.

a. Characteristics of the Writer

The characteristics of the writer included evidence of the writer process of

reflection and self awareness (Weigle, 2002). For the characteristics of the writer,

the researcher did not make a lot of revision. The expert suggested the researcher

to add articles in the descriptor. The suggestion can be seen in Table 14.
 70

Table 14: The Expert’s Suggestion for Characteristics of the Writer

Aspect of
Result of Validation Suggestion
Assessment
Characteristics Perlu penambahan article Menambahkan article the di
of the writer (It is needed to add depan kata student
articles) (Add an article before the word
“student” )

Based on the expert‟s suggestion, the researcher made some changes to the

designed rubric. The changes hopefully made the descriptor clearer. The

difference between the rubric before and after the judgment can be seen below.

Table 15: The Descriptor before and after the Judgment

Score Before After

5 Student provides clear and The student provides clear and
complete reflection for each complete reflection for each
artifact (the sentences are legible). artifact (the sentences are legible).
There is clear and careful link There is a clear and careful link
between reflection and artifact. between reflections and artifacts.
Evidence of prewriting, drafting, Evidence of prewriting, drafting,
revising and editing is present for revising and editing is present for
each artifact. each artifact.
4 Student provides reflection for The student provides reflection for
most of the artifacts. There is link most of the artifacts. There is link
between reflection and artifact. between reflections and artifacts.
Evidence of prewriting, drafting, Evidence of prewriting, drafting,
revising and editing is present for revising and editing is present for
each artifact. each artifact.
3 Student provides reflection for The student provides reflection for
some of the artifacts. There is link some of the artifacts. There is link
between reflection and artifact. between reflections and artifacts.
There is evidence of prewriting, There is evidence of prewriting,
drafting, revising and editing for drafting, revising and editing for
most of the artifacts. most of the artifacts.
(continued)
 71

(continued)
Score Before After
2 Student provides reflection for few The student provides reflection for
of the artifacts. There is unclear few of the artifacts. There is
link between reflection and unclear link between reflections
artifact. There is evidence of and artifacts. There is evidence of
prewriting, drafting, revising and prewriting, drafting, revising and
editing for few of the artifacts. editing for few of the artifacts.
1 Student provides limited reflection The student provides limited
for the artifacts. There is no link reflection for the artifacts. There is
between reflection and artifact. no link between reflections and
There is limited evidence of artifacts. There is limited evidence
prewriting, drafting, revising and of prewriting, drafting, revising
editing. and editing.

b. Characteristics of the Portfolio as a Whole

The characteristics of the portfolio as a whole include criteria related to the

range of the writing task and the writers‟ ability to find appropriate strategies for

different writing assignment (Weigle, 2002). In this dimension, the researcher

considered the variety of task to be collected and the variety of modes of thought

in the artifacts as the criteria. Because this rubric is aimed at measuring the

development of the students‟ writing ability, there should be a statement which

show the development of the students‟ writing ability.

The researcher added one more descriptor for this criterion and also revised

some parts of the descriptor, based on the expert‟s suggestion. The descriptor that

shows the student‟s writing development was added in the last sentence. The

suggestion from the expert is shown in Table 16.

 72

Table 16: The Expert’s Suggestion for Characteristics of the Portfolio as a

Whole

Aspect of
Result of Validation Suggestion
Assessment
Characteristics a. Rubrik yang dibuat belum a. Menambahkan
of the mampu mengukur deskriptor untuk
portfolio as a perkembangan menulis siswa mengukur student‟s
whole (The rubric that was made progrees
cannot measure the students‟ (Add a descriptor to
progress in writing) measure the students‟
progress)
b. Penggunaan kata “the b. -
student‟s writing” dan “the
topic of the writing” kurang
tepat
(The use of “the student‟s
writing” and “the topic of the
writing” is inappropriate)

The difference between the descriptor before and after the revision can be seen

below.

Table 17 : The Difference between the Descriptor before and after the
Revision

Score Before After

5 The artifacts consist of all of the The artifacts consist of all of the class
class assignment and homework assignment and homework that the
that the teacher gave, including teacher gave, including descriptive
descriptive and recount texts. and recount texts. There are varieties
There are varieties of topics of of topics of the artifacts that are
the writing that are different different from the example and from
from the example and from other‟s work and the student can
other‟s work and student can develop good paragraphs from those
develop good paragraphs from topics. The artifacts show much
those topics. development of the student‟s writing.
(continued)
 73

(continued)
Score Before After
4 The artifacts consist of all of the The artifacts consist of all of the class
class assignment and homework assignment and homework that the
that the teacher gave, including teacher gave, including descriptive
descriptive and recount texts. and recount texts. There are varieties
There are varieties of topics in of topics in the artifacts which most of
the student‟s writing which are them are different from the example
different from the example and and from the other‟s work and the
form the other‟s work and student can develop the topics into
student can develop the topics. paragraphs. The artifacts show some
development of the students‟ writing.
3 The artifacts consist of most of The artifacts consist of most of the
the class assignment and class assignment and homework that
homework that the teacher the teacher gave, including descriptive
gave, including descriptive and and recount texts. There are varieties
recount texts. There are of topics of the artifacts and most of
varieties of topics in the them are different from the example
student‟s writing which most of and from the other‟s work and few
them are different from the parts of the content is similar to the
example and from the other‟s example or to the other‟s work. The
work and few parts of the artifacts show a little development of
content is similar to the the students‟ writing.
example or to the other‟s work.
2 The artifacts consist of some of The artifacts consist of some of the
the class assignment and class assignment and homework that
homework that the teacher the teacher gave, including descriptive
gave, including descriptive and and recount texts. The student is
recount texts. The student is unable to make variety of topics for
unable to make variety of topics their writing. Most of the topics are
of the writing. Most of the similar to the example or to the other‟s
topics are similar to the work and the content is also almost
example or to the other‟s work similar to the topics that the student
and the content is also almost imitates. The artifacts show little
similar the topics that the development of the students‟ writing.
student imitates.
1 Most of the class assignment Most of the class assignment and
and homework are missing. The homework are missing. The artifacts
artifacts are limited and consist are limited and consist of one or two
of one or two text types. The text types. The student is unable to
student is unable to make make variety of topics and the content
variety of topics and the content of the topic is similar to the example
of the topic is similar to the or to other‟s work. The artifacts show
example or to other‟s work. no development of the students‟
writing.
 74

c. Characteristics of Individual Texts

There are two points of revision in the third criterion. The first point is about

the number of the students‟ writing. In the first draft of the rubric, the researcher

predicted that the maximum number of the students‟ words would be more than

one hundred words. The prediction was based on the interview with the English

teacher of SMP Negeri 15 Yogyakarta. The teacher said that some students were

able to write more than one hundred words in one or two paragraphs. However,

when the researcher consulted the designed rubric with a writing expert, the

expert said that the length of the writing for junior high school students in general

is one hundred words. The researcher then discussed it with the teacher and the

teacher agreed to use a hundred words as the maximum number of the students‟

words.

The second point of the expert‟s suggestion is about the difference between

descriptive and recount texts. In the first draft of the rubric, the researcher

considered the content of the texts as the distinction between descriptive and

recount texts. However, the expert said that teachers cannot differentiate a

descriptive text from a recount text only from the content of the text. There are

many characteristics of the language that a text should contain which can

differentiate it from another kind of text. Some examples of the characteristics are

tenses, conjunction, and the use of proper nouns. Therefore, the expert suggested

that the content was replaced with language features because it covered more

characteristics than content. The expert‟s suggestion for the characteristics of

individual texts can be seen in Table 18.

 75

Table 18: The Expert’s Suggestion for the Characteristics of Individual Texts.

Aspect of
Result of Validation Suggestion
Assessment
Characteristics a. Anak SMP belum sampai a. Panjang karya
of individual membuat writing lebih dari tulisnya antara 70-100
texts seratus kata kata
(Junior high school students (The length of the
are unable to write more than writing is about 70-
a hundred words yet) 100 words)

b. Untuk membedakan b. Perlu dibedakan

descriptive dan recount tidak language featuresnya
cukup hanya dilihat dari juga
content-nya saja (It is also needed to
(To differentiate between differentiate the
descriptive and recount texts, language features )
it is not enough to look at the
content only)

Because the agreed maximum number of the student‟s words is one hundred

words, the score levels for the amount of words are more various. The difference

between the descriptors before and after the revision can be seen below.

Table 19 : The Difference between the Descriptors before and after the
Revision

Score Before After

5 All of the artifacts consist of Each of the artifacts consists of 70-
more than 100 words. Student 100 words. The student can
can differentiate between differentiate between descriptive and
descriptive and recount texts recount texts from the content and
from the content of the writing. the language features of the writing.
Student demonstrates ability to The student demonstrates ability to
identify mistakes and they can identify mistakes and he/she can
make correction for the make correction for the mistakes.
mistakes.
(continued)
 76

(continued)
Score Before After
4 Most of the artifacts consist of Most of the artifacts consist of 70-
more than 100 words. Student 100 words. The student can
can differentiate between differentiate between descriptive and
descriptive and recount texts recount texts from the content and
from the content of the writing. the language features of the writing.
Student demonstrates ability to The student demonstrates ability to
identify mistakes and they can identify mistakes and they can
correct their mistakes. correct their mistakes.
3 All of the artifacts consist of 100 Few of the artifacts consist of 70-
words. There is difference 100 words. There is difference
between descriptive and recount between descriptive and recount
texts in the content although the texts from the content and the
difference is sometimes unclear. language features although the
Student demonstrates ability to difference is sometimes unclear. The
identify mistakes and they can student demonstrates ability to
make correction for most of the identify mistakes and they can make
mistakes. correction for most of the mistakes.
2 Most of the artifacts consist of Most of the artifacts consist of less
100 words. The difference than 70 words. The difference
between descriptive and recount between descriptive and recount
texts in the content is not clear. texts from the content and the
Student is unable to correct most language features is not clear. The
of the mistakes he/she made. student is unable to correct most of
the mistakes he/she made.
1 All of the artifacts consist of less All of the artifacts consist of less
than 100 words. The difference than 70 words. The difference
between descriptive and recount between descriptive and recount
texts is unclear. Student cannot texts is unclear. The student cannot
make correction for the mistakes make correction for the mistakes
that he/she made. that he/she made.

d. Intratextual Features

In intratextual features, the researcher separated two criteria in two tables.

The first criterion is about grammar and the second criterion is about coherence.

However, the expert only gives comments to the first criterion: control of

grammar and mechanic. There are two revisions in the descriptors of control of
 77

grammar and mechanic. The revision was made based on the expert‟s suggestion.

He said that the explanation of the descriptors was unclear.

Table 20: The Expert’s Suggestion for Intratextual Features

Aspect of
Result of Validation Suggestion
Assessment
Intratextual a. “Accepted standards of format, usage, a. Diperjelas
features spelling, punctuation, and capitalization at deskriptornya
development level” maksudnya “at (Explain the
development level” itu yang bagaimana? descriptor
(“Accepted standards of format, usage, more clearly)
spelling, punctuation, and capitalization at
development level”
What means by “at development level”?)

b. Standard of format, usage, spelling, b. Cari

punctuation and capitalization itu dasarnya sumbernya
dari mana? (Find the
(What is the basis of standard of format, theory)
usage, spelling, punctuation and
capitalization)

Based on the expert‟s suggestion, the researcher revised the descriptor of the

criterion and found another theory. The researcher revised the second point based

on the criteria for writing proposed by Weigle (2002). The difference between the

descriptor before and after the revision is presented in Table 21.

 78

Table 21 : The Difference between the Descriptors before and after the
Revision

Score Before After

5 All of the texts show accepted Each of the artifacts show
standards of format, usage, spelling, accepted standards of grammar,
punctuation, and capitalization at spelling, punctuation, and
development level. 0-20% errors capitalization. 0-20% errors may
may be present. be present.
4 In most of the texts, a few errors are In most of the artifacts, a few
made in format, usage, spelling, errors are made in grammar,
punctuation, or capitalization but spelling, punctuation, or
they do not interfere the meaning. capitalization but they do not
20-40% errors may be present. interfere the meaning. 20-40%
errors may be present.
3 Some errors are made in format, Some errors are made in
usage, spelling, punctuation, or grammar, spelling, punctuation,
capitalization and they may or capitalization and they may
interfere the meaning. 40-60% interfere the meaning. 40-60%
errors may be present. errors may be present.
2 Many errors are made in format, Many errors are made in
usage, spelling, punctuation, or grammar, spelling, punctuation,
capitalization and they interfere the or capitalization and they
meaning. 60-80% errors may be interfere the meaning. 60-80%
present. errors may be present.
1 Many errors in format, usage, Many errors in grammar, spelling,
spelling, punctuation, or punctuation, or capitalization
capitalization make the message make the message difficult to
difficult to understand. 80-100% understand. 80-100% errors may
errors may be present. be present.

After the researcher made some revision to the rubric, the researcher met the

expert. The expert considered and studied the revised rubric once more. Finally,

the expert said that the rubric was appropriate and could be field tested. The

researcher then prepared for the implementation.

3. Field Testing

The field test of the rubric was conducted from 1st October 2012 to 3rd

November 2012. In the field testing, the English teachers were asked to use the
 79

rubric to assess the students‟ writing through portfolio assessment. Before the

implementation, the researcher collected Grade VIII B students‟ writing and

reflections to be copied for the assessment. There were two kinds of texts and two

kinds of assignment included in the portfolio. They were descriptive and recount

texts in the form of classroom assignment and homework.

There should be three English teachers who participated in the field test.

However, one teacher could not participate because she was retired in October

2012. Another English teacher of Grade VIII was a new teacher. In the previous

time, she taught elementary school students and she might have limited

knowledge of writing assessment for junior high school students. Because the

researcher was afraid that the evaluation would not be reliable if the researcher

only conducted the evaluation with the two teachers, the researcher asked for

solution to the research consultant. The research consultant suggested that the

researcher found one more English teacher to participate in the implementation.

However, there were no teachers who were willing to be a participant. All of

them were busy with their job. Therefore, based on the lecturer‟s suggestion, the

researcher asked one of her friends to be a participant. The researcher chose one

of her friends who also had knowledge of portfolio assessment. Because she also

conducted a research about portfolio assessment, the researcher considered that

she was appropriate to be the participant.

The implementation was conducted by evaluating the students‟ writing

collection by using the rubric. Two teachers, one university student and the

researcher participated in the implementation. The researcher prepared two

 80

versions of the rubric for the evaluators; they are the Indonesian and English

versions of the rubric. The researcher did this in order to make the evaluator easy

to comprehend the rubric. The Indonesian version of the rubric can be seen in the

appendices.

The teachers needed a month to finish the evaluation. It was because they had

many activities to do in that time. The researcher waited for a month till the

teachers finish the evaluation. There are thirty four students whom the works were

evaluated and the result of the evaluation shows that each evaluator had her own

scores. The result of the evaluation can be seen in the appendices.

The result of the evaluation shows that the students get different score from

different teachers. From the evaluation, it can be concluded that the score for one

student can be different if the student‟s writing is assessed by different raters. In

the evaluation, Teacher 4 scored the highest and Teacher 2 scored the lowest. The

mean and the standard deviation was analyzed using descriptive statistic and the

inter-rater reliability was analyzed by using the Pearson Correlation in SPSS 16.0.

The descriptive statistics can be seen in Table 22.

Table 22: Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Researcher 34 46.00 80.00 63.7059 9.04041
Teacher1 34 43.00 80.00 63.1471 10.85199
Teacher2 34 41.00 71.00 53.5588 6.33026
Teacher4 34 43.00 84.00 65.6471 10.63409
Valid N
34
(listwise)

From the descriptive statistic in Table 23, column Mean, it can be seen that

the means of the students‟ score are around 5-6. It means that many students
 81

scored under 60. One reason why the students got low scores is that in the

implementation, many students did not submit their works completely. The

writing process was done in some steps before finally the writing products were

submitted. There is a delayed evaluation process in which the students have a

chance to revise and edit their work. In this step, not all of the students did

revision and submit their works. Therefore, the artifacts that they collected in the

portfolio were incomplete and it influences their score.

Another reason was that many of them were unable to write up to a hundred

words. For their homework, many the students can write up to a hundred words,

but for their classroom assignment, almost none of them were able to write up to a

hundred or even seventy words. One problem that they faced in writing was that

they did not have sufficient knowledge about the topic that they were going to

write. Therefore, they could not write many sentences.

The correlation of the teachers‟ scores should be analyzed in order to know

whether there is an agreement between the teachers toward the scoring or not. The

high agreement between teachers in scoring the students‟ work means that the

rubric is appropriate to be used by the teacher in an assessment to measure the

students‟ ability, in other words the rubric is reliable. The reliability of the rubric

was analyzed using the Pearson Correlation. The result of the analysis is shown in

Table 23.
 82

Table 23: Pearson Correlation

Researcher Teacher1 Teacher2 Teacher4

Researcher Pearson
1 .646** .598** .656**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 34 34 34 34
Teacher1 Pearson
.646** 1 .727** .565**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001
N 34 34 34 34
Teacher2 Pearson
.598** .727** 1 .526**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001
N 34 34 34 34
Teacher4 Pearson
.656** .565** .526** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .001
N 34 34 34 34
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 23 shows that there is a correlation between the teachers and the

researcher‟s scores. From Table 23, we can see that:

a. there is a positive relationship between the researcher and Teacher 1,

b. there is a positive relationship between the researcher and Teacher 2,

c. there is a positive relationship between the researcher and Teacher 4,

d. there is a positive relationship between Teacher 1 and Teacher 2,

e. there is a positive relationship between Teacher 1 and Teacher 4, and

f. there is a positive relationship between Teacher 2 and Teacher 4.

Those explanations mean that there are agreements between the raters on the

consistency of the students‟ writing score, although not all of the significant

correlations are high. From Table 23, the highest correlation is between Teacher 1
 83

and Teacher 2, that is, 0.727. It means that there is a strong agreement between

Teacher 1 and Teacher 2 in the scoring of the students‟ writing, although the

agreement with the researcher and teacher 4 is low. It can be caused by the equal

background of Teacher 1 and teacher 2. Teacher 1 and teacher 2 are real teachers,

whether Teacher 4 is a student. Therefore, Teacher 1 and Teacher 2 know the

characteristic of the students, and they know which skill they should give priority

to be scored the most. From the explanation, it can be concluded that the rubric is

suitable to be used by raters with a similar background.

After the teachers finished assessing the students‟ writing, the researcher

interviewed them to get their comment and suggestion toward the rubric. The

teachers‟ suggestions would be used to revise the rubric.

4. Evaluating and Refining the Rubric

After the implementation, the researcher interviewed the evaluators. Two

English teachers of SMP Negeri 15 Yogyakarta and one Yogyakarta State

University student participated in the interview. The interview was aimed at

collecting the evaluators‟ comment and suggestion toward the rubric. There were

six questions that the researcher asked to the evaluators. The questions of the

interview can be seen in Table 24.

 84

Table 24: The Questions of the Interview

No. Questions
1. Apakah rubrik ini mudah digunakan untuk mengevaluasi pekerjaan
menulis siswa (writing)?
(Is the rubric easy to be used to evaluate the students‟ writing?)
2. Bagaimana pemilihan kriteria dalam rubrik ini? Apakah kriteria yang dipilih
sudah memenuhi kebutuhan penilaian?
(How is the selection of the criteria in this rubric? Is the selection of the criteria
appropriate for the scoring needs?
3. Apakah aspek-aspek yang menjadi kriteria penilaian dalam rubrik ini
dideskripsikan dengan jelas?
(Is the aspects of the scoring criteria in this rubric described clearly?)
4. Bagaimana pendapat ibu mengenai skor/level yang digunakan?
(What is your opinion about the scores/levels used in the rubric?)
5. Apa saja masalah atau hambatan yang ibu hadapi dalam pelaksanaan
penilaian pekerjaan menulis siswa (writing) menggunakan rubrik yang saya
buat?
(What were the problems and the obstacle that the teacher faces in
implementing the students‟ writing evaluation using the rubric?)
6. Apa saran ibu jika terdapat kekurangan atau masalah dalam aspek penilaian
tersebut?
(What is your suggestion for the weaknesses in that scoring aspect?)

The interview was done in two days. Each of the evaluator has their own

answers which sometimes different from the other evaluator answer. There should

be three English teacher of SMP Negeri 15 Yogyakarta that participated in the

evaluation, but one teacher (Teacher 3) was retired in October 2012 so she could

not join the evaluation. As a substitute for her, the researcher asked a university

student to join the evaluation. Further, she is called Teacher 4.

a. Teacher 1

Teacher 1 said that the rubric was difficult to be applied in the writing

evaluation. According to her, what made the rubric difficult to be used was that

some of the criteria were joined together. Because of that, the descriptor of the
 85

criteria was also more complex and it made the evaluator difficult to interpret the

level.

To overcome that problem, the teacher suggested that the criteria in each

dimension were separated. In her opinion, it would be easier to measure one

criterion in one rubric than to measure some criteria in one rubric, although there

would be more items to be measured. Teacher 1 preferred adding more items to be

measured to increasing the level of the descriptors. Below is the result of the

interview with Teacher 1.

“Kalau menurut saya tu lebih mudah tu satu rubrik untuk satu kriteria
jadi lebih mudah untuk menilainya, lebih praktis gitu. Lebih mudah cara
berfikirnya kita, kan masksudnya kan banyak, kalau dalam satu rubric itu
ada beberapa criteria kan kita berfikirnya agak rumit ya.”

(“In my opinion, it is easier if one rubric is for one criterion so the

evaluation will be easier, more effective. It will be easier for us to think, I
mean there are many descriptors. If there is more than one criterion in one
rubric, we should think harder.”)

Furthermore, the teacher said that the selection of the criteria was good

enough and the number of the scoring‟ levels were good. Five was enough for the

range of the scoring level and it would make the evaluation easier. The complete

interview transcript can be seen in the appendices.

b. Teacher 2

Teacher 2 said that actually a rubric was very useful in the writing evaluation.

It can help the teacher to determine the students‟ writing ability. However, the

rubric developed by the researcher was rather complicated. The descriptors were

not described clearly. The problem that Teacher 2 faced in applying the scoring
 86

using this rubric was the same with Teacher 1; there was more than one criterion

in some of the dimension that caused the explanation of the descriptor unclear.

However, the solution that Teacher 2 suggested was different from the

suggestion given by Teacher 1. Teacher 2 preferred adding more levels in the

descriptor to separating the criteria. She said that more rubrics would spend more

time to finish the evaluation, and it would bother the teachers. From the interview, it

can be concluded that Teacher 2 prefers adding more levels to separating the criteria.

Below is the Teacher 2‟s opinion about the rubric.

“Jadi memang saya agak setuju dengan Bu Nr hanya dalam satu ini aja,,cuman,
mungkin bisa yang satu sampai sepuluh tadi,,cuman nanti yang dibilang sepuluh
itu,,yang sudah mencakup semuanya,,termasuk grammarnya dan sebagainya
sudah ada di situ. Nanti yang Sembilan, atau empat itu kalau ada salah satu
unsur itu yang tidak dilakukan dan sebagainya.”

(“I partly agree with Mrs. Nr, but only for this criteria,, but, maybe it can be the
One up to Ten like I said before. But latter, the Ten shall cover all of the criteria,
including the grammar and so on. And then the Nine or Four is for the score that
there is one of the criteria missing.”)

That problem was the only problem that Teacher 2 faced in the implementation of the

rubric. The teacher expected that the addition of the levels would make the description

clearer so that the teacher would not confuse to interpret the descriptor. Furthermore, the

teacher said that the selection of the criteria was good and there is no problem with the

other components of the rubric.

c. Teacher 4

In Teacher 4 opinion, the analytic rubric for portfolio assessment designed by

the researcher was easy to be applied as long as the teacher was willing to read

and studied it carefully before using the rubric. For the descriptors, the teacher

said that most of the descriptors were described clearly. Only one criterion had
 87

unclear descriptors. The criteria are “The reflections fit the evidence and the

student has metacognitive awareness beyond the task at hand”. The descriptors of

these criteria could not cover that students provide reflection for most of the

artifacts but the link between the reflections and the artifacts was not clear.

The teacher‟s opinion toward the rubric is shown in the result of the interview

below.

“Ya cukup jelas. Ya mungkin ada kelemahan satu itu,,yang tadi aku kasih tau itu.
Tentang ini: bagaimana kalau siswa membuat refleksi untuk sebagian besar
karya tulis tapi hubungan refleksi dengan karya tulis itu tidak jelas. Refleksinya
itu nggak jelas kan? Walaupun refleksinya dia bikinnya banyak tapi nggak
mengarah kesitu,,mana ininya?Optionnya ?Gitu. Jadi kita bingung mau nilai
yang empat atau tiga kayak gitu.”

(“Well, it is clear enough. But maybe there is one weakness, the one I „ve
told you before. About this: how if the student provides reflections for
most of the artifacts, but the link between the reflections and the artifacts
is not clear. The reflections were unclear, right? Although he/she made
reflections for most of the artifacts but it did not have connection. What is
the option? So I got confused whether to grade four or three.”)

To overcome this problem, the teacher suggested to add “or” in the descriptor

of the level four. The descriptor became: “The student provides reflection for

most of the artifacts. There is link or no link between reflection and artifact.

Evidence of prewriting, drafting, revising and editing is present for each artifact”.

However, the teacher gave the researcher the right to change the descriptor or

not. Teacher 4 did not have problem for the number of the levels and the selection

of the criteria. However she only found that it was rather difficult when she had to

return the evaluation sheet several times to find the appropriate measurement for

the assignment.

From the interview with three evaluators, it can be concluded that the main

problem found in implementing the rubric was in interpreting the descriptors. The
 88

weakness of the rubric was that the descriptors could not cover all the variety of

the students‟ ability in portfolio assessment that causes the difficulty in scoring.

From the three evaluators, one of them suggested revising the descriptor, another

suggested separating the criteria ant the other give freedom to the researcher

whether to revise the rubric or not. Teacher 2 proposed that more criteria would

make the evaluation ineffective because it would spend more time to evaluate the

students‟ writing. Teacher 2 said that separated criteria will make her think easily

in determining the scoring level.

In conclusion, the researcher has two options about how to revise the rubric.

The first is to add more levels in the scoring levels and the second is to separate

the criteria in the rubric. Each of the suggestion has its own strengths and

weaknesses. The discussion of both of the options will be explained below.

1) Adding More Levels in the Scoring Levels

The option of adding more levels in the scoring levels is stated by Teacher 2.

She said that separating the criteria will burden her in assessing the students‟

works because there will be more aspects to be assessed and more scoring rubric

to be used. Therefore, she prefers adding more scoring level to separating the

criteria.

However, adding more level to the scoring has some weaknesses. The first is

that more level will make the limit of each score unclear. For example, the

descriptor for score 9 will have a little difference with the descriptor for score 10

or 8. Therefore, the inaccuracies will be easier to occur in the evaluation.

 89

Second, as the rubric in this research is an analytic rubric, the criteria

included in the rubric should be separated. In analytic scoring, scripts are rated on

several aspects of writing or criteria rather than given a single score (Weigle,

2002). The joined criteria will make it resemble a holistic rubric. Moreover, the

joined criteria will make the teachers difficult to define the exact score of the

students‟ ability.

To sum up, by adding more levels in the scoring levels, the separation of the

criteria could be avoided. The teachers are not burdened with many scoring

rubrics. However, if the addition of the scoring levels will make the notion of

analytic rubric vanish, it cannot be accepted as a solution.

2) Separating the Criteria in the Rubric

This option was stated by Teacher 1. For her, the separated criteria in the

rubric will make her easier to evaluate the students‟ works. Indeed, the separated

criteria will make the descriptor clearer because there will be only one criterion to

be described in one level of scoring. According to T1, although there will be more

scoring rubric to be implemented in the assessment, but it would not burden the

teachers in measuring the students‟ ability.

Many criteria included in the rubrics should not be a problem. Since portfolio

assessment is more complex than essay tests, developing scoring criteria involves

making decisions about how to deal with the various parts of the portfolio in

determining the overall score (Weigle, 2002). In conclusion, the portfolio rubric

will have more scoring criteria than the general writing scoring rubric.
 90

In fact, teachers at school do not have much time to practice using a more

complex scoring rubric than the simple rubric they usually use. The rubric they

usually use in assessing students writing is very simple. The rubrics are developed

by the teachers themselves and the choices of criteria are mostly related to

grammar, word choice, punctuation and vocabulary. The kinds of rubrics that they

usually use are the holistic rubric. However, the choices of criteria to be included

in the rubric are different from one teacher to another. The teachers usually

simplify the rubric to save time in assessing students‟ writing.

In conclusion, the researcher also cannot revise the rubric based on the second

option stated by Teacher 1 because the revised rubric will be more complex than

the rubrics they usually use. Therefore, considering the efficiency of the rubric,

the researcher did not make any revision to the designed rubric.

Based on the inter-rater reliability, this rubric has a significant correlation if it

is used by raters or evaluators who have similar background. Moreover, because

this rubric will be used at the same school and for the students of the same grade,

the results of the assessment should have a significant correlation. Therefore, this

rubric could be used in assessing the students writing in portfolio assessment,

although it does not be revised.

However, this rubric still has weaknesses. The weaknesses are that the

evaluator will find difficulties in determining the right score for the students‟

writing ability and the scoring criteria resemble the holistic rubric because there

are some criteria which are joined together. It will be more appropriate if the

criteria are separated, but it will spend more time to do the evaluation.
 91

To facilitate the teachers who are willing to use the rubric with separated

criteria, the researcher has prepared the rubric. The rubric can be seen in the

appendices. However, the teachers can adapt the designed rubric to suit their goals

in assessing portfolio. They can change or reduce the number of the criteria or

even add it.

5. The Final Product of the Rubric

The final product of the rubric is the revised rubric after the implementation.

Because the researcher did not use the teachers‟ comments to revise the rubric, the

final product of this research is still the same with the second draft of the rubric.

The final product of the rubric can be seen in the appendices.

The researcher did not conduct one more implementation after developing the

final draft of the rubric. The researcher only consulted the finish rubric with the

research consultants. The researcher did not conduct an implementation because

there was limited time to conduct the research. The researcher finished the

research at school on November 2012, a month before the school final exam.

Therefore, the school did not allow the researcher to extend the research.

However, the final rubric after the consultation was assumed to be appropriate to

be applied at school because it had passed the process of product development,

although it has some weaknesses. The main properties of the final product of the

rubric are described in Table 25.

 92

Table 25: The Main Properties of the Final Product of the Rubric

Dimensions Criteria
1. Characteristics of the writer Fit between reflection/evidence in portfolio
and metacognitive awareness beyond task at
hand
2. Characteristics of the Variety of tasks and variety of modes of
portfolio as a whole thought
3. Characteristics of individual Amount of writing and quality of
texts development/sustained depth of analysis
4. Intratextual features a. Control of grammar and mechanic
b. Coherence/flow, momentum, sense of
direction

Some of the criteria in the final product are still joined together in the first

three dimensions. The scoring levels for the rubric range from one to five.

Overall, the final product is the same with the final draft of the rubric, that is, the

rubric which was used in the implementation.

 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

A. Conclusion

The objective of this research is to develop an analytic rubric for portfolio

assessment in writing of Grade VIII students. The research was conducted at SMP

Negeri 15 Yogyakarta. There should be three English teachers of Grade VIII who

participated in this research. Unfortunately, one teacher retired in October 2012,

so she could not join the rubric implementation. However, she had an opportunity

to join the interviews of need analysis. As a data completion for the

implementation, and based on the research consultant’s suggestion, the researcher

included one university student in the implementation of the rubric. This student

also joined the interview of the rubric evaluation. This research was conducted as

a respond to a problem in writing found in that school when the researcher

conducted observation.

The problem found at school related to writing was that sometimes students

do cheating for their assignments or homework. In this case, the teachers would

simply reduce their mark or asked the student to do another assignment. However,

the students did not get lesson from this treatment. They still repeat cheating.

Therefore, the researcher tried to find an alternative assessment which rather

different from the usual assessment employed by the teacher that hopefully could

reduce the habit of cheating.

The researcher found that portfolio assessment was the appropriate

assessment for the students because in portfolio assessments, the students are

93
 94

taught to be autonomous. The students have the right to choose their assignment

and they are also need to do self assessment. This process can teach them

autonomous learning. Furthermore, portfolio assessment is one of alternative

assessment that suggested by the government to be applied at school. The

government proposed that besides conducting writing tests, teachers at school also

apply other kinds of assessments.

However, the teachers at school have limited knowledge of portfolio

assessment. They did not know how to conduct portfolio assessment. All they

know about portfolio assessment was that portfolio is a collection of students’

works. They did not know that there are some processes in portfolio assessment.

They did not know that in portfolio assessment, there are reflections and self

assessment.

In addition, the teachers also have limited knowledge of rubrics for

evaluation. They did not know that there are some kinds of rubrics. However, in

the writing evaluations the teachers already used rubric. They develop the criteria

by themselves. Because they had limited knowledge of portfolio assessment, they

could not design appropriate rubric for portfolio assessment. To develop

appropriate rubric need a careful study. Without portfolio rubric they could not

apply portfolio assessment appropriately. Therefore, the researcher decided to

develop a rubric for portfolio assessment in writing.

There are some processes that the researcher passed in developing the rubric.

They are: researching and collecting the information in the process of needs

analysis, planning, developing the rubric, obtaining expert judgment, field testing,
 95

evaluating and refining the rubric, and developing the final draft of the rubric.

Because of the limited time, the researcher only conducted the implementation

once. The researcher prepared two versions of the rubric: the Indonesian and

English version. It aimed to make the evaluators easy to comprehend the rubric.

The designed rubric had four aspects to be assessed, they are:

1. characteristics of the writer (criteria: Fit between reflection/evidence in

portfolio and metacognitive awareness beyond task at hand),

2. characteristic of the portfolio as a whole (criteria: Variety of tasks and

variety of modes of thought),

3. characteristics of individual texts (criteria: Amount of writing and quality

of development/sustained depth of analysis), and

4. intratextual features (criteria : a. Control of grammar and mechanic, b.

coherence/flow, momentum, sense of direction).

The main problem that the evaluators found in implementing the rubric was

that some of the descriptors were complicated. It was because there were some

criteria which were joined together to be one criterion. The joined criteria made

the descriptor complicated because there were only five levels of descriptors

which were not enough to cover all of the student’s ability in portfolio.

One teacher suggested to separating the criteria in order to make the

categorization clear. Two teachers suggested to adding more levels in the

descriptor so that all of the ability could be covered and the teachers would not be

burdened with many criteria to be assessed. These teachers proposed that too
 96

many scoring criteria would make the evaluation ineffective because it would

spend much time.

Considering the efficiency of the rubric, the researcher did not revise the

rubric because by adding more scoring levels or separating the criteria, the rubric

is still complex for the teacher to be applied at school. It means that the teachers

need more time to analyze the students’ works and to quantify the students’

scores. The finished rubric can be seen in the appendices.

B. Suggestions

From the researcher’ experience in conducting this research, the researcher

have suggestion to the teachers and to the other researchers who will conducted

the similar research with the researcher, or to the other researcher who need the

rubric designed by the researcher. The suggestions are as follows.

1. For the English Teachers

For the English teachers, the researcher suggested that they applied portfolio

assessment for the writing evaluations because the students could get benefits

from the assessment. Furthermore, it is better that the students are given chance to

choose which of their works that they want to be submitted in the portfolio

assessment. By doing this, the students can be motivated to do the best for their

assignment. In addition, the teachers could adapt the rubric to make it suitable

with the students’ level of proficiency. However, the teachers should also learn

about portfolio assessment and find references related to portfolio assessment in

order to deepen their knowledge of portfolio assessment.

 97

2. For other Researchers

Other researchers who want to conduct the similar research should pay

attention to the explanation of the descriptor so that the evaluators would not get

confused to interpret the scoring. It is better that they conduct more that once

implementation so that the appropriateness of the rubric will be more significant.

Whereas for the other researchers who want to use this rubric they can adapt this

rubric to be appropriate with the criteria of writing evaluation that they want to

assess.
 98

REFERENCES

Becker, Anthony. 2010. “Examining Rubrics Used to Measure Writing

Performance in U.S. Intensive English Programs”. The CATESOL journal,
22.1. Accessed on 14th of November 2011 <www.catesol.org>

Blaz, Deborah. 2002. A Collection of Performance Tasks and Rubrics: Foreign

Languages. New York: Eye On Education, Inc.

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. 1983. Educational Research (5th ed.). White Plains,
NY: Longman Inc.

Broad, Bob. 2003. What We Really Value beyond Rubrics in Teaching and
Assessing Writing. Logan, Utah: Utah State University press.

Brown, H. D. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, Fourth

Edition. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to

Language Pedagogy (2nd Ed.). New York: Addition Wesley Longman, Inc.

Brown, H. D. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Language Practice.

New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Clark, Irene L.; with contributors, Betty Bamberg, … [et al.]. 2003. Concept in
Composition: Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associated, Inc.

Conrad, Graig James. 2001. Second Language Portfolio Assessment: The

Infuences of the Assessment Criteria and the Rating Process on Holistic
Scores. Minneapolis: The Center for Advanced Research on Language
Acquisition University of Minnesota.

Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. 2004. Pedoman Pengembangan Portofolio

untuk Penilaian. Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. 2006. Kurikulum SMP Mata Pelajaran Bahasa

Inggris. Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Depdiknas. 2007 Naskah Akademik. Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan

Jenjang Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah. Jakarta: Pusat Kurikulum Badan
Penelitian dan Pengembangan, Depdiknas.

Erlandson, Cheryl. 2004. Portfolios: More than Just a File Folder. Accessed on
19th of June 2012 http://www.education.gov.sk.ca
 99

Fraenkel, Jack R., and Wallen, Norman E. 2008. How to Design and Evaluated
Research in Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fulcher, Glenn and Davidson, Fred. 2007. Language Testing and Assessment: An
Advanced Resource Book. New York: Routledge.

Gall, Meredith D., Gall, Joyce P. and Borg, Walter R. 2003. Educational
Research: An Introduction (7th Ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc.

Harmer, Jeremy. 1998. How to Teach English. Edinburgh Gate, Harlow: Pearson
Education Limited.

Harmer, Jeremy. 2004. How to Teach Writing. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Edinburgh

Gate, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

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

University Press.

Hyland, Ken. 2002. Teaching and Researching Writing. London: Pearson

Education.

Johnson, Ruth S., J. Sabrina Mims-Cox and Adelaide Doyle-Nichols. 2010.

Developing Portfolios in Education: A Guide to Reflection, Inquiu, and
Assessment. California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd Ed).

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Moskal, Barbara M. 2000. Scoring Rubrics: What, When and How? Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation. <http:// PAREonline.net/getvn.asp>.

Mueller, Jon. 2010. Authentic Assessment Toolbox. Accessed on 13th of June 2012
<http:// jonathan.mueller. faculty. Noctrl.edu./toolbox.htm>

Mueller, Jon. 2010. Authentic Assessment Toolbox. Accessed on 13th of June 2012
<http://jfmueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/howstep3.htm>

Mueller, Jon. 2010. Authentic Assessment Toolbox. Accessed on 13th of June 2012
http://jfmueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/glossary.htm

O’ Malley, J. Michael and Pierce, Lorraine Valdez. 1996. Authentic Assessment

for English Language Learners. White Plains, NY: Addison- Wesley
Publishing Company.
 100

Priyana, J., Irjayanti, A. R. and Renitasari, Virga. 2008. Scaffolding: English for
Junior High School Students. Jakarta: Pusat Perbukuan, Depdiknas.

Puspitasari, Inggrita Dewi. 2011. Designing a Rubric to Assess Vocational High

School Students’ Writing. S1 Thesis. Yogyakarta: English Education
Department Program, FBS Yogyakarta State University.

Reid, Joy. 1993. Teaching ESL Writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Regents.

Richards, Jack C. and Renandya, Willy A. 2002. Methodology in Language

Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, Jack C. and Schmidt, Richard with Heidi Kendricks and Youngkyu
Kim. (2002). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied
Linguistics. London: Pearson Education Limited.

Spratt, Marry, Alan Pulverness, and Melanie Williams. 2005. The TKT (Teaching
Knowledge Test) Course. Cambridge: Cambridge ESOL.

Weigle, S.C. 2002. Assessing Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Zimmaro , Dawn M. 2004. Developing Grading Rubric. Austin: The University of

Texas.
 101

Angket Analisis Kebutuhan Pengembangan Penilaian Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris untuk
Guru Bahasa Inggris di SMP Negeri 15 Yogyakarta

Yth : Guru Bahasa Inggris

di SMP Negeri 15
Yogyakarta

Dalam rangka penelitian dan pengembangan penilaian Bahasa Inggris, saya mengharap
kesediaan bapak/ibu guru Bahasa Inggris untuk mengisi angket berikut ini. Angket ini
diperlukan sebagai tahap awal penelitian untuk mengetahui kebutuhan (needs) dalam mata
pelajaran Bahasa Inggris. Angket ini lebih dikhususkan untuk aktifitas menulis (writing)
siswa dalam Bahasa inggris dimana tanggapan dari bapak/ibu guru Bahasa Inggris akan
digunakan sebagai masukan atau bahan pertimbangan dalam pembuatan rubrik penilaian
sebagai alat untuk mengevaluasi hasil tulisan (writing product) siswa.

Angket ini terbagi menjadi dua bagian. Bagian pertama bertujuan untuk mengetahui
gambaran umum mengenai diri bapak/ibu guru dan bagian kedua bertujuan untuk mengetahui
tanggapan bapak/ibu guru mengenai beberapa pertanyaan dalam angket ini.

Angket ini tidak dimaksudkan untuk menguji atau menilai bapak/ibu guru melainkan
untuk mengetahui gambaran tentang aktifitas dan cara penilaian bapak/ibu guru untuk mata
pelajaran Bahasa Inggris, khususnya aktifitas menulis (writing) siswa yang sesuai dengan
kebutuhan di sekolah bapak/ibu guru.

Atas bantuan dan kesedian bapak/ibu guru dalam mengisi angket ini, saya ucapkan
terimakasih.

Novi Ariyani
08202244030
Mahasiswa Pendidikan
Bahasa Inggris
Universitas Negeri
Yogyakarta
 102

Interview Guideline for the Needs Analysis

I Gambaran umum mengenai Bapak/Ibu guru

1. Nama :
2. Kelas yang diampu :
3. Latar belakang pendidikan :
4. Pengalaman mengajar :
5. Seminar/pelatihan yang pernah diikuti :

II Gambaran mengenai pengajaran dan penilaian writing di sekolah

1. Bagaimana pengajaran Bahasa Inggris di SMP? Apakah guru mempunyai hambatan

atau kesulitan dalam mengajarkan Bahasa Inggris di sekolah?
2. Dari keempat skills Bahasa Inggris, manakah yang paling sulit untuk diajarkan?
3. Dari keempat skills bahasa Inggris, manakah yang paling sulit untuk dievaluasi?
4. Apakah guru mempunyai kesulitan dalam mengajarkan writing di sekolah?
5. Bagaimana kemampuan menulis siswa di sekolah?
6. Adakah kelemahan mereka dalam menulis? Jika ada bagaimanakah cara guru
mengatasinya?
7. Teks apa saja yang biasa diajarkan pada siswa?
8. Jenis writing seperti apa yang diajarkan pada siswa? (imitative, intensive, responsive
atau extensive writing)
9. Dari mana guru mendapatkan rubrik untuk penilaian writing?
10. Apa kesulitan guru dalam menilai writing?
11. Apakah guru menerapkan langkah-langkah menulis (drafting, structuring, focusing,
reviewing, focusing, generating ideas and evaluating) dalam mengajarkan writing?
12. Apakah seharusnya guru mengajarkan langkah-langkah menulis dalam mengajarkan
writing?
13. Apakah guru mengevaluasi proses menulis siswa? Jika iya, bagaimanakah caranya?
14. Apakah seharusnya guru mengevaluasi proses menulis siswa? Jika iya, bagaimanakah
caranya?
15. Bagaimana cara guru mengukur kemempuan menulis siswa?
16. Aspek apa saja yang harus guru perhatikan dalam mendesain assessment yang tepat
mengukur kemampuan menulis siswa?
17. Bagaimana cara guru menilai hasil tulisan siswa?
 103

18. Jenis penilaian seperti apa yang biasa guru lakukan?

19. Kriteria apa saja yang dinilai oleh guru dalam writing?
20. Rubrik apa yang biasa guru pakai untuk menilai writing? Kenapa menggunakan
rubrik tersebut?
21. Apakah guru pernah menyusun rubrik penilaian untuk portfolio assessment?
22. Apakah guru akan mengalami kesulitan jika harus menyusun rubrik untuk penilaian
portofolio?
23. Apakah guru tahu portfolio assessment?
24. Apakah guru pernah menggunakan portfolio assessment?
25. Sebutkan langkah-langkah penilaian portofolio yang guru ketahui.
26. Bagaimana tanggapan guru mengenai penilaian portofolio?
27. Dalam penelitian ini, saya akan mengembangkan rubrik untuk penilaian portofolio.
Menurut guru, kriteria apa saja yang harus ada dalam rubrik tersebut?
28. Menurut guru, apakah guru perlu memberitahu siswa tentang cara penilaian dan
kriteria yang menjadi pertimbangan dalam penilaian sebelum memberikan tugas yang
akan diambil nilaianya?
 104

Questionnaire for the Needs Analysis

Isilah questionnaire di bawah ini dengan memberi tanda centang pada kolom Y atau N.

Y, Definitely (Yes) S (Sometimes) N, Not Yet (No)

No. Pernyataan Y S N
1. Writing adalah salah satu skill dalam Bahasa Inggris
yang paling sulit diajarkan.
2. Writing adalah salah satu skill dalam Bahasa Inggris
yang paling sulit dievaluasi.
3. Kemampuan writing siswa di sekolah ini sudah
bagus.
4. Guru mempunyai cara sendiri dalam mengatasi
kelemahan writing siswa.
5. Siswa mengalami kesulitan dalam mengerjakan
writing.
6. Guru mempunyai cara sendiri untuk mengatasi
kesulitan siswa dalam mengerjakan writing.
7. Jenis teks yang diajarkan adalah jenis teks yang
tercantum dalam SKKD.
8. Guru sudah mengajarkan imitative writing (siswa
belajar untuk mengeja dengan benar).
9. Guru sudah mengajarkan intensive writing (siswa
belajar menggunakan vocabulary, collocation dan
idiom, serta grammar yang benar dalam tingkat
kalimat).
10. Guru sudah mengajarkan responsive writing (siswa
belajar menyusun paragraph yang benar dan logis).
11. Guru sudah mengajarkan extensive writing (siswa
sudah mampu membuat essay, paper, laporan
penelitian bahkan tesis).
12. Guru membuat rubrik untuk penilaian writing dengan
mengadaptasi rubrik yang ditemukan dalam buku
atau internet agar sesuai dengan kemampuan yang
akan dinilai.
13. Guru membuat rubrik untuk penilaian writing dengan
pemikiran sendiri.
14. Guru mengalami kesulitan dalam menyusun criteria
untuk penilaian writing.
15. Guru menerapkan langkah-langkah menulis dalam
mengajarkan writing, yang meliputi drafting,
structuring, reviewing, focusing, dan generating ideas
and evaluating.
16. Guru menilai kemampuan menulis siswa berdasar
hasil akhir/hasil jadi tugas menulis siswa.
(continued)
 105

(continued)
No. Pertanyaan Y S N
17. Guru menilai proses menulis siswa.
18. Guru mengukur kemampuan menulis siswa dengan
menggunakan tes yang berupa multiple choices test
atau jumbled sentence or paragraph.
19. Guru mengukur kemampuan menulis siswa dengan
performance test, yaitu menulis.
20. Guru memberi kriteria penilaian writing yang berbeda
untuk kelas VII, VIII, dan IX
21. Guru menggunakan rubrik sebagai pedoman penilaian
22. Aspek yang dinilai dalam writing adalah grammar,
vocabulary, punctuation, spelling dan word choice.
23. Rubrik yang biasa digunakan adalah holistic rubric.
24. Rubrik yang biasa digunakan adalah analytic rubric.
25. Rubrik yang biasa digunakan adalah primary-trait.
26. Guru menggunakan penilaian portofolio
27. Guru tahu langkah-langkah penilaian portofolio.
28. Guru tahu rubric penilaian untuk portfolio
assessment.
39. Guru mengalami kesulitan untuk menyusun rubrik
penilaian portofolio.
30. Penilaian portofolio bagus digunakan dalam writing.
31. Guru memberitahu siswa tentang kriteria penilaian
dalam writing.

Interview Guideline for the Evaluation of the Rubric

No. Questions
1. Apakah rubrik ini mudah digunakan untuk mengevaluasi pekerjaan
menulis siswa (writing)
2. Bagaimana pemilihan kriteria dalam rubrik ini? Apakah kriteria yang
dipilih sudah memenuhi kebutuhan penilaian?
3. Apakah aspek-aspek yang menjadi kriteria penilaian dalam rubrik ini
dideskripsikan dengan jelas?
4. Bagaimana pendapat ibu mengenai skor/level yang digunakan?
5. Apa saja masalah atau hambatan yang ibu hadapi dalam pelaksanaan
penilaian pekerjaan menulis siswa (writing) menggunakan rubrik yang
saya buat?
6. Apa saran ibu jika terdapat kekurangan atau masalah dalam aspek
penilaian tersebut?
 106

STUDENTS SELF-REFLECTION
Name :
..................................................................................................................
Class :
..................................................................................................................
Date :
..................................................................................................................
Reflection for :
the descriptive/recount text, entitle .........................................................
..................................................................................................................
Answer the following question by circling the option.
1. What are the strengths (kelebihan) of this writing?
a. The grammar is good.
b. I have a great knowledge of the topic so I can write many sentences.
c. I did not find difficulties in choosing the right vocabulary.
d. I do proof reading.
e. Other (explain) ....................................................................................................

2. What are the weaknesses (kekurangan) of this writing?

a. I wrote a few sentences for this task.
b. I made many grammatical mistakes.
c. I do not know whether the grammar is right or wrong.
d. There are many inappropriate word choices (pemilihan kata yang kurang tepat).
e. Other (explain) ....................................................................................................

3. What problems did you find in writing this text?

a. I do not know what to write.
b. I do not know the right tense for some sentences.
c. I do not know the right choice for some Indonesian words.
d. I do not know the English words for some Indonesian words.
e. Other (explain) ....................................................................................................

4. How did you solve them?

a. I only write as many as I can.
b. I ask for solution to friend or teacher.
c. I wrote what I think is right.
d. I open a dictionary.
e. Other (explain) ....................................................................................................

5. What level will you value this writing?

a. I write many sentences (70-100 words). The grammar (tenses, article),
punctuation (full stop, comma, and capital letter), vocabulary/words choice and
spelling are good. I made few grammatical, punctuation, vocabulary and spelling
mistakes (0- 25%). I appraise this writing very good.
b. I can write up to 70 words. I made some grammatical, punctuation, spelling and
vocabulary mistakes (25%-50%). I appraise this writing good.
c. I can write up to 70 words. I made many grammatical, punctuation, spelling and
vocabulary mistakes (50% - 100%). I appraise this writing fair.
d. I write less than 70 words. I made some grammatical, punctuation, spelling and
vocabulary mistakes (50%-100%). I appraise this writing poor.
 107

STUDENTS SELF-REFLECTION
Nama : .....................................................................................................................
Kelas : .....................................................................................................................
Hari & Tanggal : .....................................................................................................................
Refleksi untuk : Teks descriptive/recount, berjudul .............................................................

Jawablah pertanyaan berikut ini dengan cara melingkari jawaban yang tersedia.

1. Apakah kelebihah dari teks ini?

a. Grammarnya bagus.
b. Saya tahu banyak tentang topik ini sehingga saya dapat menulis banyak kalimat .
c. Saya tidak mempunyai kesulitan dalam memilih kata yang akan saya tulis.
d. Saya meminta teman untuk membaca dan memberi masukan untuk tulisan saya.
e. Lain-lain, jelaskan ...........................................................................................................

2. Apakah kekurangan dari teks ini?

a. Saya hanya dapat menulis sedikit kalimat dalam teks ini.
b. Saya membuat banyak kesalahan grammar dalam teks ini.
c. Saya tidak tahu apakah grammar yang saya gunakan benar atau salah.
d. Ada banyak pemilihan kata yang kurang tepat dalam teks ini.
e. Lain-lain, jelaskan ...........................................................................................................

3. Apa masalah/hambatan yang kamu hadapi dalam menulis teks ini?

a. Saya tidak tahu harus menulis apa.
b. Saya tidak tahu apa tenses yang tepat untuk beberapa kalimat dalam teks ini.
c. Saya tidak tahu pemilihan kata yang benar untuk beberapa kalimat dalam teks ini.
d. Ada beberapa kata yang saya tidak tahu Bahasa Inggrisnya.
e. Lain-lain, jelaskan ...........................................................................................................

4. Bagaimana kamu mengatasinya?

a. Saya menulis sebisa saya saja.
b. Saya meminta saran/masukan kepada teman.
c. Saya menulis apa yang saya anggap benar.
d. Saya membuka kamus.
e. Lain-lain, jelaskan ...........................................................................................................

5. Seberapa bagus kamu akan menilai teks ini?

a. Saya dapat menulis banyak kalimat (70-100 kata). Grammar (tenses, artikel), tanda
baca (titik, koma, huruf besar, dll), vocabulary/pemilihan kata dan ejaannya benar.
Saya hanya membuat sedikit kesalahan (0-25%) pada grammar, tanda baca,
vocabulary dan ejaan. Saya menilai tulisan ini sangat bagus.
b. Saya dapat menulis hingga 70 kata. Saya membuat beberapa kesalahan (25%-50%)
dalam grammar, tanda baca, ejaan dan vocabulary. Saya menilai tulisan ini bagus.
c. Saya dapat menulis hingga 70 kata. Saya membuat banyak kesalahan (50%-100%)
dalam grammar, tanda baca, ejaan dan vocabulary. Saya menilai tulisan ini cukup
bagus.
d. Saya dapat menulis kurang dari 70 kata. Saya membuat banyak kesalahan (50%-
100%) dalam grammar, tanda baca, ejaan dan vocabulary. Saya menilai tulisan ini
jelek.
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
 116

The Transcript of the Interview

Interview transcript 1
Interviewer : The researcher (R)
Interviewee : Mrs. N.U (NU)/ T1
Day/date : Thursday, August 9th, 2012
Place : SMPN 15 Yogyakarta

R : Selamat pagi Bu, saya Novi dari UNY.

NU : Iya Mbak, bisa saya bantu?
R : Ee,, begini Buk. Saya kan mau penelitian di sini. Penelitian saya tentang R n D. Saya membuat rubrik
untuk penilaian portfolio. Ibu ada waktu sebentar, untuk mengisi kuisioner dan interview sebentar? Saya
butuh partisipasi dari guru kelas dua untuk mengisi kuisioner dan nantinya ikut dalam evaluasi rubrik
yang saya buat.
NU : Wah jangan saya Mbak, saya baru disini, belum lama jadi belum tau cara pengajaran di sini. Sama Pak
A. saja.
R : Nggak apa-apa Buk, saya cuma mau tanya-tanya sedikit, ini untuk kelengkapan data saya. Saya
butuhnya dengan guru kelas dua. Kemarin saya sudah nanya Bu LE, katanya guru kelas duanya Bu LE,
Bu SR sama Bu NU.
NU : Oo gitu, oh Pak A. kelas satu kok ya. Lha tapi saya belum lama di sini Mbak, tadinya saya ngajar di SD.
R : Nggak apa-apa Buk.
NU : Tapi saya belum berani kalau ikut dalam evaluasinya soalnya saya juga masih belajar cara mengajar
anak SMP Mbak.
R : Oiya nggak apa-apa Buk mungkin nanti saya evaluasinya dengan Bu LE dan Bu SR saja, Ibu cukup ikut
mengisis kuisionernya saja.
NU : Oiya Mbak.
R : Nah ini Buk mohon di isi dulu.
NU : Ini tinggal nyentang aja kan Mbak?
R : Iya Buk.
NU : Kelas yang diampu maksudnya gimana?
R : Di tulis kelas satu, dua, atau tiga Buk.
NU : Oiya. Lha kalau latar belakang pendidikan ini?
R : Itu S1 S2 atau lainnya.
NU : Ya. Pengalaman mengajar ini maksudnya tahunnya?
R : Iya Buk.
NU : Imitative writing itu maksudnya yang meniru ya. Lha kalau intensive itu yang gimana Mbak.
R : Eee… ini Buk. Singkatnya ke-empat jenis writing itu pengajaran writing di tahap kata, kalimat, paragraf
dan yang terakhir lebih dari paragraf, contohnya essay Buk. Biasanya yang terakhir itu untuk
mahasiswa, tapi untuk anak sekolah misalnya anak sma itu sudah mulai diperkenalkan, walaupun masih
sederhana.
 117

NU : Oo,, gitu ya. Nah kalau yang holistik dan analitik rubrik itu tadi gimana Mbak? Saya lupa? Maaf ya
Mbak saya malah jadi belajar ini.
R : Oiya nggak apa-apa Buk saya juga masih belajar. Begini Buk. Biasanya kalau dalam writing itu kan
yang dinilai grammar, vocab sama punctuation kan. Nah yang holistic itu, missal nilai tertingginya 4,
yang dapat nilai empat itu yang grammar-nya bagaimana, vocab-nya bagaimana dan punctuation-nya
bagaimana. Kalau yang analytic itu. Grammar, vocab sama punctuation punya rubrik sendiri-sendiri.
Jadi nanti nilai grammar tertinggi itu yang bagaimana, vocab tertinggi itu yang bagaimana, seperti itu
Buk.
NU : Oooo ya,,.Nah kalo portfolio assessment ini gimana Mbak?
R : Ee..nanti saya jelaskan Buk. Ibu tahunya yang bagaimana?
NU : Ya…ini kan Mbak yang mengumpulkan karya-karya gitu kan Mbak?
R : Oiya,,berarti yang ini jawabanya Buk.
NU : Ooo,,berarti ini semua juga sama,,hehe.Ini saja Mbak?
R : Iya Buk. Sekarang interview bentar ya Buk, untuk kros cek jawabannya.
NU : Iya.
R : Mmm,, menurut Ibu bagaimana pengajaran Bahasa Inggris di sekolah ini? Apakah Ibu mengalami
kesulitan dalam mengajarkan Bahasa Inggris?
NU : Mmm,, ya biasa aja si Mbak,, soalnya saya baru 1 kali masuk.
R : Ooo,,, gitu ya Buk. Lalu menurut Ibu dari keempat skills Bahasa Inggris manakah yang paling sulit
untuk diajarkan, speaking, listening, reading atau writing?
NU : Emm,, speaking mungkin ya. Soalnya anak-anak itu kalau di suruh ngomong susah sekali.
R : Oiya. Belum PD untuk ngomong mungkin ya Buk.
NU : Iya Mbak. Soalnya mereka takut kalau ngomongnya salah.
R : Oiya. Nah kalau yang paling sulit untuk dievaluasi atau dinilai yang mana Buk? Speaking, listening
reading atau writing?
NU : Writing. Sulitnya itu untuk menentukan standar penilaiannya itu lho Mbak. Soalnya kemampuan
siswanya kan berbeda-beda. Biasanya mereka masih kesulitan dalam menyusun kalimat.
R : Apakah Ibu mempunyai kesulitan dalam mengajarkan writing?
NU : Ada.
R : Apa kesulitannya Buk?
NU : Kesulitanya itu dalam mengajarkan tenses, soalnya anak-anak masih bingung kalau menyusun kalimat
itu menggunakan tenses apa. Kadang mereka tahu bagaimana menyusunnya, antara subjek dan kata
kerjanya, tapi tensesnya masih salah. Yang lain ya tentang pengajaran kosa kata, karna penguasaan
kosakata anak itu masih minim.
R : Oiya, jadi kesulitannya dalam mengajarkan tenses dan kosa kata ya Buk. Nah kalau menurut Ibu
bagaimana kemampuan menulis siswa di sekolah ini, khususnya untuk kelas dua?
NU : Yang saya liat kemampuan menulisnya sudah cukup baik.
R : Kalau kelemahan mereka dalam menulis dalam hal apa Buk?
NU : Ya tadi itu, tenses sama kosa kata.
R : Lalu cara Ibu mengatasinya bagaimana?
 118

NU : Saya biasanya memberi clue. Misalnya kalimat ini menceritakan kejadian kapan? Sekarang atau lampau,
kalau sekarang pakenya apa kalau lampau pakenya apa, seperti itu.
R : Kalau jenis teks yang diajarkan pada siswa apa saja Buk?
NU : Kemarin saya baru sempat mengajarkan descriptive teks.
R : Nah tentang jenis writing yang diajarkan sudah sampai tingkat yang mana Buk? Sampai tahap kata,
kalimat, paragraf atau lebih dari paragraph?
NU : Mmm,, paling sering sampai bentuk kalimat sederhana,, dalam bentuk present tense biasanya.
R : Kalau untuk rubrik penilaianya Ibu dapat dari mana?
NU : Saya buat sendiri. Kalau siswa bisa menyusun kalimat dengan benar nilainya empat, kalau salah saya
beri nilai satu untuk penghargaan karena dia mau berusaha. Tapi kalau tidak membuat ya nilaianya nol.
R : Kalau kesulitan Ibu dalam menilai writing apa Buk? Apakah kesulitannya dalam menbuat tesnya atau
rubriknya seperti itu?
NU : Dalam membuat tesnya.
R : Kenapa Buk?
NU : Ya karna kan kemampuan siswa itu beda-beda ya. Jadi kita juga kadang susah menyesuaikannya.
R : Jadi soalnya bisa berbeda tergantung kemampuan siswa di kelas itu ya Buk.
NU : Iya Mbak.
R : Nah kalau dalam mengajarkan writing Ibu menerapkan langkah-langkah menulis atau tidak Buk?
Maksudnya siswa dibimbing dari pemilihan topiknya, lalu memberi arahan apa saja yang bisa ditulis,
lalu setelah itu dievaluasi atau guru memberi contoh lalu anak-anak disuruh membuat tulisan seperti di
contoh begitu?
NU : Menerapkan. Jadi biasanya saya memberi pilihan judul begitu, lalu anak-anak memilih salah satu dan
mengembangkannya. Itu ya setelah memberi contoh sebelumya misalnya tentang teks descriptive itu
seperti apa, dari contoh nanti kita analisa kalimatnya satu persatu dan anak mencoba membuat dulu.
R : Apakah menurut Ibu seharusnya guru menerapkan langkah-langkah menulis?
NU : Iya.
R : Apakah guru mengevaluasi proses menulis siswa?
NU : Iya?
R : Caranya bagaimana Buk?
NU : Dengan observasi di kelas, waktu anak mangerjakan.
R : Apakah proses menulis siwa tadi ikut dinilai? Maksudnya dimasukkan juga ke dalam rubrik?
NU : Tidak masuk rubrik.
R : Lalu bagaimanakah cara guru menilai tulisan siswa?
NU : Ya dengan rubrik tadi.
R : Jenis penilaian seperti apa yang biasa ibu lakukan? Apakah dalam bentuk objective test, jumbled
sentences or jumbled paragraph atau dengan menulis?
NU : Ya kombinasi. Artinya ya ada objective tesnya, ada menyusun paragrafnya dan ada menulisnya.
R : Tetap ada soal yang mengharuskan siswa untuk menulis ya Buk?
NU : Iya, tetap ada.
R : kriteria apa saja yang biasanya Ibu nilai dalam writing?
 119

NU : Grammar,,,pemilihan katanya,, dan susunan katanya.

R : Kalau rubrik yang biasa Ibu pakai apa? Holistic atau analytic?
NU : Yang holistic itu yang bagaimana ya Mbak saya lupa,,hehe malah jadi belajar,,
R : Ooh nggak apa-apa Buk, saya juga masih belajar. Seperti ini Buk (peneliti menggambarkan contoh
analityc dan holistic rubrik agar guru mudah memahami). Misalnya kalau tadi Ibu menilai grammar dan
word choice-nya,,kalau yang holistic itu yang nilainya empat itu yang grammar dan word choice-nya
yang bagaimana. Kalau yang analytic itu nanti grammar dan word choice-nya punya nilai sendiri-
sendiri seperti ini.
NU : Oooo,,gitu ya Mbak. Berarti tadi punya saya yang holistic, yang dinilai semuanya sekalian ya.
R : Iya Buk. Kenapa Ibu memilih menggunakan rubrik ini?
NU : Mmm,, ya mungkin karna lebih simpel ya Mbak,,lebih gampang menilainya.
R : Apakah Ibu tau portfolio assessment?
NU : Mmm,,udah lama sekali si Mbak,,udah agak lupa.
R : Nggak apa-apa Buk setahunya saja.
NU : Ya yang saya tahu mengumpulkan tugas-tugas itu kan Mbak.
R : Iya Buk. Ada lagi? Menurut Ibu dinilai atau tidak tugasnya itu?
NU : Ya dinilai.
R : Apakah Ibu pernah menyusun rubrik untuk penilaian portofolio?
NU : Belum.
R : Nah dalam penelitian ini saya kan akan membuat rubrik untuk penilaian portofolio. Nah dalam penilaian
portofolio itu nanti siswa mengumpulkan tugas-tugasnya baik yang di kelas maupun yang PR. Saya
memilih dua jenis tugas itu karena berdasar observasi saya dulu, anak-anak itu suka nyontek atau
sekedar copy paste dari buku atau dari internet. Nah tugas yang di kelas itu untuk membandingkan
dengan PR mereka, apakah ada perbedaan yang jauh atau tidak. Kalau hasilnya sangat berbeda kan ada
kemungkinan PR nya itu bukan garapan siswa sendiri. Nah selain tugas-tugas,,nanti juga ada reflection.
Reflection-nya itu nanti isinya tentang pendapat-pendapat siswa dan self-assessment mereka. Jadi dalam
reflection mereka nanti bisa dilihat apakah mereka bisa menilai diri mereka sendiri atau tidak. Setelah
mereka mengumpulkan tugas-tugas dan reflection-nya, nanti tugas-tugas dan reflectionnya dikumpulkan
untuk dievaluasi. Setelah itu dikembalikan untuk direvisi,,baru nanti hasilnya di kumpulkan untuk di
nilai. Sebenarnya dalam praktek yang sebenarnya, evaluasi sebelum penilaiannya itu lebih dari satu kali,
tapi karena saya cuma mau membuat rubriknya, saya cuma mengadakan satu kali evaluasi dan datanya
nanti untuk menguji apakah rubrik saya sudah layak digunakan atau belum. Dalam rubrik saya, proses
menulis siswa juga di nilai,, apakah mereka mengalami kemajuan atau tidak. Nah lalu bagaimana
tanggapan Ibu mengenai portfolio?
NU : Bagus.
R : Menurut Ibu kriteria apa saja yang perlu saya masukkan ke dalam rubrik yang akan saya buat?
NU : Ya seperti tadi ya, kosa kata, grammar, sama susunan katanya.
R : Oiya. Lalu menurut Ibu apakah kita perlu memberitahu siswa tentang cara penilaian dan kriteria
penilaian sebelum memberikan tugas yang akan dinilai?
NU : Perlu,,agar mereka bisa lebih focus dengan pekerjaannya.
 120

R : Oiya. Cukup sekian interviewnya Buk,terimakasih atas waktunya.

NU : Iya Mbak sama-sama.

Interview Transcript 2
Interviewer : The researcher (R)
Interviewee : Mrs. L.E. (LE)/ T 2
Day/Date : Thursday, 9 August 2012
Place : SMPN 15 Yogyakarta

LE : Gimana?
R : Ini Buk,,,eee,,bisa interview sebentar.
LE : O iya.
R : Sebentar Buk. Oiya,,ini mohon mengisi questionnaire dulu Buk nanti untuk kros cek saya.
LE : Oiya. Sudah Mbak?
R : Oiya Buk. Mm,,ini interviewnya saya rekam ya Buk, biar saya tidak lupa nanti.
LE : iya,,boleh-boleh.
R : Pertama tentang pengajaran Bahasa Inggris. Bagaimana pengajaran Bahasa Inggris di SMP?
LE : Maksudnya apanya? Apanya dari pengajarannya yang ditanyakan?
R : Mmm,,apakah ada hambatan untuk mengajarkan Bahasa Inggris?
LE : Oiya,,he’e..oiya ada. Kalau di SMP itu pengajarannya masih di taraf,,para siswanya itu masih taraf, ee
apa ya,, menghafal,, masih taraf menghafal,, sehingga ketika mereka itu harus memahami konsep.
Padahal konsep dasar itu sudah,, tampaknya sudah diperlukan untuk siswa smp untuk era sekarang.
Sehingga kita, kesulitan kita adalah me,, rubah dari kebiasaan menghafal itu tadi ke konsep dasar.
R : Dulu memang seringnya pake drill ya Buk?
LE : Ya,,dulu pake drilling, sementara kalau sekarang kan,,e kalau kita keseringan drilling juga dengan
mengambil jam pelajaran kan menghabiskan waktu.. begitu.
R : Nah dari keempat skills Bahasa Inggris itu, yang listening, speaking, reading, writing itu yang paling
susah untuk diajarkan yang mana Buk?
LE : Eee,,, kalo dibilang paling susah,, sebetulnya semuanya susah sih. Masalahnya kalau untuk speaking
juga anak-anak tidak terbiasa mengucapkan kata, itu juga ketika dia mengucapkan,, malu. Trus
kemudian kalau untuk listening juga itu ee,, memang perlu berlatih untuk banyak-banyak mendengar,
jadi kesulitannya disitu. Kalo untuk membaca,, itu, ya itu tadi, eee,, setiap siswa itu kan punya talenta
masing-masing, punya bakat masin-masing, jadi ada yang cepat memahami teks ada yang lama. Itu,
kelemahannya kalo membaca disitu. Padahal yang dituntut memahami teks,memahami bacaan, lha itu
susahnya. Kalau writing itu kalau udah kepentok sama yang namanya grammar,, itu sudah mau nggak
mau kan anak-anak sudah harus mengenal grammar itu,, kalimat,, kalau diucapkan waktu yang lalu,
harus seperti apa, sekarang apa, sedanga apa,, nah itu. Biasanya sih memang agak memerlukan waktu
yang lama, untuk grammar.
R : Kalau writing itu, apa,, biasanya hambatannya itu di grammar ya Buk.
LE : Betul. He’em.
R : Nah kalau dari keempat skills itu yang paling susah dinilai yang mana Buk?
 121

LE : Paling susah dinilai itu kalau menurut saya, itu ada pada,, ada pada,, speaking. He’em. Untuk disini lho
ya.. karna anak-anaknya tidak terbiasa dengan itu.
R : Susahnya dimananya Buk?
LE : Eee,,, jadi kalo speaking itu kan punya,,, apa ya,,? kriteria speaking sendiri itu kan,, kalau saya sendiri
juga belum jelas, kalau seperti writing itu ka nada,, ada rubriknya khusus kan ya,, ada,, ada, kalau
grammar-nya betul, kalau penulisannya betul, yak an bisa diliat itu, kalau speaking kan tidak bisa diliat.
Trus kadang-kadang kan, kadang-kadang, kita, kita ajak bicara apa, nyambungnya apa,,. Jadi mungkin
pada tahap apa ya,, daya tangkap mungkin ya,, trus kemudian mereka harus mengungkapkan kembali.
Jadi yang sering di lapangan itu, mereka ngerti dengan yang ditanyakan tetapi untuk menjawabnya, itu
mereka ragu. Sehingga lebing menggunakan ke bahasa Indonesia. Jadi lebih malu kali ya untuk, untuk,
malu kalo-kalo dibilang salah..
R : He’e. mungkin belum PD ya Buk?
LE : Betul. PD-nya yang belum ada.
R : Em,,, kalau untuk pengajaran writing ada kesulitan atau tidak Buk?
LE : Eee,,, kalau writing emang sulit si ya. Sulitnya di grammar tadi, sehingga agak membutuhkan waktu
yang lebih lama,,. Padahal ee,, apa namanya,, jatah jam untuk itu kan tidak ada, tidak,, malah banyak di
membaca. Sehingga kalo writing itu apa lagi kalo kita fokusnya ke ujian nasional,, ujian nasianal kan
tidak memerlukan writing. Dia hanya sekedar membulatkan,, dan itu kan,, biasanya kita aplikasinya ke,,
ujian praktek.
R : Kalau kemampuan menulis siswanya bagaimana Buk?
LE : Eee,,, kemampuan itu memang tidak semua kelas yang diampu itu punya kemampuan yang bagus.
Tetapi sebagian besar sih, boleh dibilang sebagian besar gitu,, eee, bagus. Terutama setelah mereka
mengikuti,, apa, penjelasan, materi trus kemudian diaplikasikan,, biasanya si bagus daya tangkapnya.
R : Kalau kelemahan menulis siswa itu ada di grammar-nya tadi ya Buk?
LE : Ada di grammar betul, he’em. Sama,, apa ya,,, penguasaan kosa kata kali ya he’e. Ya terutama di
grammar itu. Kalo kita tuntut untuk menjawab lengkap lemahnya di grammar itu, tapi kalo sekedar
menjawab pertanyaan,, bisa.
R : Vocabnya yang kurang ya Buk?
LE : Bisa si. Kalo sekedar menjawab pertanyaan misalnya ditanya “what is the purpose of bla bla bla” gitu
dia langsung bisa njawab itu apa, gitu.
R : Kalo kesulitannya mungkin cara menyusun katanya ya Buk?
LE : Menyusun katanya,, betul.
R : Nah cara mengatasinya gimana Buk?
LE : Eeee,,, ya memang kita harus jelaskan. Kita jelaskan dengan pelan gitu dengan memberikan,, apa ya,,
memberikan ciri,, ciri atau clue untuk setiap teks yang harus mereka buat itu.
R : Kalau yang biasa diajarkan kepada siswa,, itu teks apa aja Buk?
LE : Selama tiga tahun atau hanya yang kelas delapan?
R : Mmm,,.
LE : Teksnya kan ada short functional teks,, ada transactional teks,, ada genre of text itu kan, genre of texts
itu, ada tiga itu.
 122

R : Mm,, itu berarti mengacunya pada kurikulum ya Buk?

LE : Iya,, betul,, mengacunya pada kurikulum.
R : Nah kalau tadi jenis writing yang diajarkan pada siswa itu yang apa aja Buk? Yang imitative, intensive,
dari yang tingkat kalimat atau yang lebih dari paragraf. Kalau untuk SMP sampe yang mana Buk?
LE : Untuk SMP sampai semuanya itu sebetulnya iya, sebetulnya. Dari tingkat kata, menyusun kata,
kemudian kalimat, kalimat menjadi paragraf pendek,, kemudian menjadi beberapa paragraph,, memang
kita ajarkan.
R : Sampai beberapa paragraf?
LE : Iya,,minimal dua paragraf.
R : Kalau seperti essai itu?
LE : Iya essay,,essay kan biasanya kalau kita,, misalnya berkaitan dengan teks. Misalnya kalau kelas tiga ini
kan ada yang namanya recount,, ada recount teks itu kita bisa meminta siswa untuk menuliskan
pengalaman mereka. Pada saat liburan misalnya seperti itu, itu kan sudah ada beberapa paragraf.
R : Ee,, itu mungkin untuk kelas tiga,, kalau untuk kelas dua sudah belum Buk?
LE : Ee,, kelas dua,, sudah si,,. He’em. Paling tidak ada satu kali mereka membuat itu,, tetapi ya itu tadi, he’e
grammar-nya,, masih banyak yang harus diperbaiki.
R : Essay sederhana mungkin ya Buk?
LE : Betul,,essay sederhana,, he’e betul.
R : Mm,, kalau untuk rubrik penilaian writing itu Ibu dapat dari mana? Apa membuat sendiri apa,,.
LE : Biasanya kita membuat sendiri sih,, he’em bikin sendiri.
R : Ada sumbernya gitu Buk? Mm,, misalnya mengadaptasi dari buku,, atau dari sumber lain?
LE : Apanya soalnya atau rubriknya?
R : Rubriknya?
LE : Enggak kalau rubriknya biasanya kita membuat sendiri.
R : Untuk kriterianya juga Ibu buat sendiri?
LE : Iya,, tapi biasanya kan patokannya juga kurikulum. Misalnya untuk menuliskan harus jelas misalnya
grammar-nya bagaimana,, itu,, tata bahasanya kan juga harus jelas. Bermakna juga kan gitu.
R : Mm,, kalau untuk menilai writing itu ada kesulitan nggak Buk?
LE : Lumayan sulit juga karna kita kan punya kriteria itu tadi, rubrik itu tadi. Jadi kadang-kadang menjadi
terlalu ideal ketika kita menetapkan rubrik tanpa melihat ke anak gitu. Kesulitannya adalah kita punya
rubrik, kriteria untuk anak, mestinya bisa mengerjakan begini, begini, begini, gitu tapi di lapangan
ternyata ,, waduh kok seperti ini. Kalau rubrik itu kita terapkan full itu memang agak sulit juga
sebetulnya. Dan biasanya, itu kan yang paling ditakuti anak-anak kan, jadi mereka ekstra hati-hati untuk
menulis.
R : Dalam mengajarkan writing,,, Ibu menerapkan langkah-langkah,, kan ada yang drafting dan sebagainya
itu. Misalnya yang dari pemilihan judul,, itu misalnya ada yang brain storming. Misalnya untuk
deskripsi,, misalnya tentang sekolah itu kan bisa macem-macem, bisa deskripsi tentang ruang sekolah,
letak sekolah, kan macem-macem,, tentang guru, teman atau lain-lain seperti itu. Nah itu nanti siwa
diarahkan untuk memilih judul yang mana,, seperti itu atau guru menentukan nanti menulis tentang ini,,
seperti itu. Dan nanti misalnya untuk penyusunan kata, yang perlu mereka tulis itu misalnya untuk
 123

deskripsi ruang kelas, itu misalnya nanti yang ditulis misalnya dari posisinya, dari letak barang-barang
di kelas,, itu nanti mereka dibimbing sampai mereka menyusun satu paragraf atau cukup mereka dikasih
contoh, dikasih tema lalu di suruh menulis?
LE : Biasanya kita pertama mengenalkan materi pelajarannya untuk, pada saat itu apa, kemudian kita beri
gambaran, termasuk apa si unsur-unsur, unsur-unsur teks itu, apa saja yang mereka harus pelajari. Terus
kemudian kalo mereka sudah punya gambaran, sudah punya konsep tentang teks yang mau mereka
pelajari, baru kemudian kita berikan contoh. Setelah kita berikan contoh, nanti eee,, kita kupas itu kan
contoh kita kupas kita coba analisis, apakah contoh yang diberikan sesuai dengan, dengan cirri-ciri yang
diberikan atau tidak gitu. Terus setelah itu yang pertama biasanya setelah diterangkan itu, yang pertama
adalah, kita berikan beberapa contoh teks yang ada dibuku yang mereka pegang, yang paling mudah ya,
itu dari beberapa yang tidak ada tidak ada apasih namanya, ini apa, teks apa, genre-nya teks apa,, kita
minta anak-anak untuk menganalisis manakah contoh teks yang dimaksudkan tadi. Lha kalo sudah
begitu mereka akan kita ajak untuk menbaca, trus dibaca, kalo sudah, dan itu memang beberapa kali
pertemuan. Kalo sudah baru kita minta nanti ee,, berikan tugas tapi biasanya kita tidak menentukan
judul, hanya terarah ke jenis teks yang itu.
R : Jadi mereka ee,, apa,punya kebebasan untuk menentukan.
LE : Betul, he’em. Bahkan mereka bisa mengambil dari internet atau bisa mengambil dari,,,eee,,
R : Untuk sumbernya?
LE : Iya untuk sumbernya.
R : Lha nanti itu sebelum dinilai nanti ada,, misalnya dikumpulkan lalu di koreksi dulu sama ibu,, misalnya
dikasih feedback kalo yang salah itu dicoret bawah di garis bawah, atau,,
LE : Iya dikomentarin.
R : Iya, dan nanti anak-anak suruh merevisi lagi,, ee, atau itu untuk penilaian.
R : Untuk penilaian Mbak,, he’e untuk penilaian.
LE : Tapi kita merefleksi, merefleksi cuman hanya kita minta anu aja,, ini contoh aja,, contoh apa ya,, tapi ini
bukan anu ya, ini hanya short functional teks aja, contoh-contoh yang mereka buat seperti ini. He’em ini
contoh-bontoh yang mereka buat. Memang tiap tahun tidak sama sih. Biasanya saya melihat ke,, apa ya,,
apa sih yang menjadi kelemahan anak-anak ini,, gitu, itu justru yang saya pake untuk,, untuk apa
merefleksi, merefleksi, mereka itu bisa.
R : Nah kalo,, itu tadi kan ada, proses menulis kan agak panjang gitu ya Buk. Nah biasanya Ibu itu, biasanya
itu di observasi. Nah tapi apakah itu nanti dimasukkan untuk nilai plus, misalnya anak ini benar-benar
memperhatikan, terus ada yang, benar-benar mereka serius itu untuk nilai plus dalam nilai penilaianya
atau tidak, atau Ibu hanya menilai hasil jadinya, bagus atau tidak gitu.
LE : Ee,, memang ada nilai plus untuk, untuk mereka yang,, e,, apa ya,, bisa sekali, bisa sekali,, sekali,,
mengaerjakan, kemudian bagus, kemudian memang kita liat prosesnya, prosesnya ketika sedang, ketika
sedang diproses, apa, pembelajaran itu, bagaimana yang pake, ini memang, memang menjadi nilai plus.
Aritinya nanti ada, ada pengayaan bilamana kalau terjadi, e,, kok ini beberapa anak sudah sangat sangat,
sangat-sangat bagus gitu, sementara sebagian kok masih kurang gitu. Nah ini yang dua ini biasanya yang
diberikan nilai tambah atau kita berikan pengayaan dengan teks yang berbeda yang kita upayakan untuk,
apa sih, tingkat kesulitannya agak di atasnya sedikit, bisa apa tidak gitu.
 124

R : Kalau itu misalnya dikasih nilai plus, nilainya itu cukup ditambah begitu kan? Tapi tidak di masukkan
ke rubrik.
LE : O, enggak. He’e, he’e ditambahkan.
R : Kalau dalam membuat apa,, assessment-nya,, mmm, itu,, Ibu memperhatikan aspek apa saja? Dalam
mendesain penilaiannya, lha itu, untuk tasknya atau apanya itu?
LE : Eee,,, yang pertama tentu kita sesuaikan dengan kemampuan anak di kelas itu. Iya dengan kemampuan
anak di kelas itu, terus bisa jadi antara kelas satu dengan yang lain berbeda. Ini saja proses
pembelajarannya saja sudah berbeda to Mbak. Ini saja sudah beda. Nah yang di sini aku berani
memberikan ini, tapi kalo yang di kelas itu aku berani memberikan yang seperti ini, gitu. Mungkin aku
merasa di kelas ini aku nggak perlu menjelaskan ini panjang lebar, cukup dengan begini, ooo,, ternyata
sudah ngerti, sudah. Tapi ternyata di kelas ini aku harus mulai dari nol, harus.
R : Nah itu untuk misalnya kelas yang A itu kelas unggulan, kelas yang B itu kelas yang biasa saja. Itu kan
kemampuannya beda, nah nanti nilai tertinggi untuk kelas A sama kelas B itu, misalnya sama-sama 90
itu kemampuannya beda, atau misalnya nilai tertinggi untuk kelas A itu 90 untuk kelas B itu 80?
LE : Kalau untuk nilainya, kalau untuk nilainya sih,, sama si Mbak. Cuma, cuma memang, ee,, apa ya?
R : Beda kemampuannya?
LE : He’e karna memang terus kemudian,, karna gini Mbak,, kalo, kalo seperti itu memang nanti dengan soal
yang sama,, itu sudah pasti nilainya akan,,akan beda sendiri, dengan soal yang sama. Artinya begini kalo
yang di kelas unggulan itu biasanya sudah bisa mencapai 90 itu belum tentu yang di sini juga 90,, gitu.
R : Nah kalo misalnya nanti,, kan kita membuat assessment itu kan beda-beda ya Buk,, misalnya standarnya
kelas A kan beda dengan standarnya kelas B, nah nanti nilai tertingginya itu sama,, ataukah berbeda
Buk?
LE : Nilai tertingginya,, biasanya sih aku sama.
R : Kan ada dua cara penilaian itu memang kan Buk. Kalau yang sama pake yang ini berarti Buk, norm
reference, standar acuan norma.
LE : Memang biasanya si sama sih. Karna kita kan masih,, kalo saya melihatnya masih sebatas,, eee,, ke
hasil,, kalo harian si memang cuma dari hasil ulangan ini, itu gitu. Cuma nanti kalo di akhir baru proses.
R : Nah kalo ini kan soalnya sama,,tapi kemampuanya beda. Nah nanti kan nilainya beda,,, nah kalo itu tu
pakenya apa ya,, norm apa apa si, pokoknya kalo yang satu nilainya sama kemampuannya beda itu
patokan norma,, iya he’e. Cara Ibu menilai tulisan siswa gimana Buk?
LE : Maksudnya?
R : Hehe…
LE : Itu kan sudah pake rubrik itu kan?
R : Iya pake rubrik. Kalo jenis penilaiannya, misalnya itu,, perfornace test,, itu yang di suruh menulis
ataukah tes, tes yang multiple choice,,itu, itu yang mana Buk?
LE : Ya dua-duanya dipake.
R : Dalam satu kali penilaian?
LE : Iya satu kali ulangan, iya. Tapi kalo proses harian nggak bisa. Menulis. Tapi kalo ulangan nanti ada dua
model itu yang dipake.
R : Kalo kriteria penilaian dalam writing apa saja Buk yang Ibu pake?
 125

LE : Ee,, apa ya,, grammar-nya, tata bahasa, itu,, terus,,, tanda baca, terus penulisannya tepat, penulisan itu
lho huruf itu, spelling-nya, betul, terus kemudian meaningful.
R : Kalo rubrik yang sering di pake,, antara tadi yang holistik sama yang analitik itu yang sering yang mana
Buk?
LE : Ee,, holistik itu tadi yang mana to?
R : Holistik itu yang dijadikan satu,, satu penilaian itu untuk eee,,, grammar-nya bagus, vocab-nya bagus,
punctuation bagus, itu nilainya empat.
LE : Kalo salah satu unsur itu, nilainya tiga,,.
R : Kalo yang analytik itu yang grammar-nya sendiri,,vocab-nya sendiri,,ininya sendiri.
LE : Kalo proses,, selama proses KBM memang sendiri-sendiri. Tapi nanti kalo sudah masuk ulangan, itu
pake yang holistik tadi. Kan, sifatnya kalo harian kan sifatnya masih latian kan Mbak. Hari ini kita latian
ini berarti kita proses penilaian itu,, kan gitu.
R : Masih untuk mengukur prkembangan siswa saja?
LE : He’em, he’em.
R : Mm,, hehe,, Ibu pernah mendengar tentang portfolio assessment?
LE : Portofolio,, setau saya,, setau saya lho, ya kalo saya nggak salah ini. Itu, itu tugas, semacam tugas akhir
ya,, eh bukan tugas akhir si, tugas apa si,, eee,, apa si Mbak,, ada, ada bukti otentik dari,, tugas itu kan.
R : Pengumpulan bukti-bukti?
LE : Pengumpulan bukti-bukti. Cuman selama ini dari pada kita banyak yang dikumpulkan jadi kita memilih
aja lah yang dikumpulkan,, tidak semua kita kumpulkan.
R : Memang,, apa ya, belum banyak dikembangkan Buk.
LE : Ini juga si kalo guru mapele begini nanti jadi banyak sekali kalo mo dikumpulkan. Kalo guru kelas,,
kalo guru kelas lebih enak mungkin ya.
R : Mm,, kalo portfolio itu kan sebenernya banyak macem, banyak tujuan dan itu bisa untuk apa saja. Nah
misalnya,, ee,, itu kan nantinya jadi produk kan Buk, itu bisa untuk satu kali penilaian. Misalnya Ibu
sekarang ngajar teks descriptive, besok narrative atau recount gitu kan buk, Ibu tadi sudah mengajarkan
seperti tadi itu Buk, nah itu nanti tugasnya yang udah final,, bener-bener yang udah jadi itu nanti
dikumpulkan semua. Nah itu nanti jadi satu penilaiannya,, nah dari beberapa teks itu nanti di bikin
reflection, jadi dalam portfolio ini anak-anak juga di tuntut untuk, apakah mereka bisa menilai diri
sendiri atau tidak, nah setelah itu mereka bikin reflection. Nah untuk teks ini nanti mereka disuruh
membuat reflection gitu Buk,, nanti kelemahannya apa, kelebihannya apa, terus apa yang kamu sukai
misalnya seperti itu. Nah itu untuk alasan-alasannya seputar teks ini kan,, nah itu ada semua. Nanti
untuk reflection-nya juga ikut dinilai,, jadi bukan cuma teksnya seperti ini tapi juga,, ee,, apa ya,, apakah
mereka itu bisa menilai diri sendiri,, kan nanti kan keliatan Buk mana yang bisa menilai diri sendiri
mana yang tidak. Itu kan berarti membedakan yang fast learner sama yang slow learner juga. Nah nanti
apakah jumlah writing, banyak sedikitnya jumlah writing mereka, juga bisa dinilai. Untuk yang
summative ini nanti penilaiannya di produk akhir. Nah misalnya Ibu sudah mengajarkan writing untuk
semua teks nanti di akhir pembelajaran semuanya dinilai jadi satu penilaiannya, kalo untuk portofolio.
Sebenernya sama saja si Buk, kalau penilaian yang biasa kan setelah selesai mengajarkan satu teks
 126

misalnya, kita mengadakan penilaian begitu. Jadi ada beberapa kali penilaian, nanti di akhir baru
dijadikan satu.
LE : Jadi cuma dibalik ya. Jadi semua dulu nanti baru jadi satu.
R : Iya. Kalo yang mau saya buat ini kan yang formative, itu nanti untuk mengukur student’ progress. Jadi
nanti yang dikumpulkan bukan cuma yang finish, yang tadi sudah berkali-kali dievaluasi itu bukan,
tetapi dari pertama, dari hasil evaluasinya itu juga sama yang terakhir, nah nanti perkembangan siswa itu
apakah dia bener-bener serius mengerjakan ini, ada perkembangan yang bagus, apakah feedback-nya ini
di washback. Misalnya di kasih feedback sama guru trus,, oiya gini, gini, gini trus dipake untuk
memperbaiki writing mereka,, itu nanti punya nilai tersendiri, sama udah dikoreksi gini dia males-
malesan.
LE : Tidak ada perubahan gitu ya.
R : Iya. Itu nanti punya nilai sendiri juga. Nah itu nanti ikut dinilai, seperti itu. Nah nanti itu juga harusnya
rubriknya beda sama yang writing biasa.
LE : Ooo,, jadi gitu.
R : Iya. Kan ada, tadi ada reflection itu juga dinilai. Seperti itu.
LE : Banyak ya, prosesnya.
R : Hehehe, iya Buk.
LE : Tapi mungkin juga dilapangan juga seperti itu prosesnya, cuma kita tidak tahu,, tidak membuat sebutan
untuk,,.
R : Ya biasanya kalo,, sebenernya kalo portofolio itu bisa untuk semua, bisa untuk speaking, listening,
writing,, reading. Nah itu semua. Nah nanti hasil speaking itu bisa untuk audio dimasukkan kesitu, jadi
semuanya itu dinilai jadi satu gitu, itu juga bisa. Ada juga yang dipakai di bisnis, tapi saya kurang
mempelajari itu. Kalo yang diluar itu ada yang universitas-universitas itu untuk ujian masuknya itu
disuruh mengumpulkan portofolio hasil dari belajar mereka itu. Nah itu untuk seleksinya. Nah jadinya
kan rubriknya beda-beda harusnya. Saya bikin yang ada di writing dan itu menyangkut kurikulum. Nah
kalo menurut Ibu kalo penilaian portofolio ini diterapkan disekolah bagaimana? Bagus atau tidak?
LE : Karena saya belum pernah menconba yang itu,,,, belum bisa jawab juga si,,
R : Oo iya.
LE : Biasanya kita kan proses situ, proses ini selesai kita nilai proses situ selesai kita nilai, baru kita jumlah
kan.
R : Oiya. Kalo menurut ibu,, kan saya mau membikin rubrik,, kriteria apa saja yang sebaiknya saya
masukkan ke dalam rubrik itu? Yang untuk dinilai. Kalo yang selain Ibu nilai tadi itu,, ada kriteria lain
nggak untuk dimasukan? Atau seperti yang tadi?
LE : Kalo secara,,, secara anu,, ya itu sih,,.
R : Itu saja ya?
LE : He’em. Maksudnya penilaian lain itu gimana? Penilaian yang di luar itu ataukah?
R : Misalnya itu, ada anak nyontek,, itu nanti,,.
LE : Ooo, iya. Itu dikurangin,, misalnya itu kan? Atau misalnya harus mengerjakan ulang sendiri,, kan gitu.
R : Nah menurut Ibu,, penilaian yang tadi itu harus disampaikan kepada siswa atau tidak?
LE : Cara penilaian begitu?
 127

R : Ya yang mau dinilai,,.

LE : Apa saja apa saja itu. Iya disampaikan, harus disampaikan. Jadi mereka tau kan. Persiapannya kan
mereka harus tau,, kalo tidak disampaikan nanti mereka nggak ada persiapan.
R : Nah sepertinya cukup dulu.
LE : Okey…
R : Terimakasih Buk.
LE : Sama-sama.

Interview Transcript 3
Interviewer : The researcher
Interviewee : Mrs. S.R (SR)/ T 3
Day/Date : Saturday, 11th of August 2012
Place : SMPN 15 Yogyakarta

R : Selamat pagi Buk.

SR : Pagi.
R : Mm,, Saya datang untuk interview Buk. Tadi pagi saya ke sini katanya Ibu sedang keluar.
SR : Iya tadi saya keluar.
R : Ee,, sebentar Buk.
SR : Mbaknya dulu PPL di sini po?
R : Oh,, enggak Buk. Semester kemaren kan saya ngisi English conversation di sini.
SR : Oo,,, pantesan kok saya kayak pernah liat.
R : Iya,,. Dulu pas ujiannya di keraton kan kita salah masuk lewat pintu depan Buk.
SR : Oiya,, kayak pernah liat di kraton. Lha ini penelitiannya tentang apa?
R : Ee,, saya membuat portfolio rubrik Buk. Interviewnya saya rekam ya Buk ndak saya lupa nanti.
SR : Iya.
R : Oiya, ini kuesionernya mohon di isi dulu Buk, untuk kros cek jawabannya nanti.
SR : Oiya. Sudah Mbak ini saja.
R : Iya Buk. Sekarang kita mulai interviewnya ya Buk. Mengenai pengajaran Bahasa Inggris di sekolah ini,
kira-kira Ibu mengalami kesulitan atau tidak dalam mengajarkannya. Itu kan ada empat skills dalam
Bahasa Inggris, listening, speaking, reading dan writing itu.
SR : Ya banyak.
R : Di apanya Buk kesulitannya?
SR : Pertama, bukunya. Anak tidak boleh membeli buku. Guru tidak boleh menjual buku. Otomatis bukunya
terbatas, akhirnya guru mencari sumber sendiri, itu. Kemudian, listening skill, listening skill itu jugak
sulit, medianya. Trus speaking, karna anak tidak bisa mengucapkan Bahasa Inggris itu dengan baik dan
benar. Tidak mau belajar sendiri, belajar itu kan tidak hanya dari guru, mungkin bisa dari media, dan
televisi itu kan bisa di tirukan begitu. Truss,,, background-nya anak-anak di SMP 15 itu kan,, apa ya,,
background-nya itu banyak anak-anak yang KMS itu kan sulit.
R : KMS itu apa Buk?
SR : Keluarga menuju sejahtera. Backgroun-nya itu membuat,, menjadikan kendala.
 128

R : Oiya, biasanya kan anak-anak ada yang ikut les-les gitu ya Buk.
SR : Ya,, ada yang ikut ada yang nggak. Lha kalo bukunya, dulu paling ya cari dari internet gitu.
R : Kalau dari ke empat skills itu menurut Ibu yang paling susah untuk diajarkan yang mana?
SR : Keempat skills. Yang mana ya,,, listening itu, karena mereka ndak tau artinya.
R : Nggak biasa mendengar kata-kata itu ya Buk?
SR : He’e.
R : Kalau yang paling susah untuk dinilai dari keempat skills itu yang mana Buk?
SR : Paling susah, listening. Kalau writing itu malah sudah jelas itunya,, speaking juga jelas,, speaking kan
bisa misalnya performance, terus,,, ke-PD-ean mereka,, pengucapan,, kalau listening itu,,
pemahamannya anak-anak itu sangat terbatas,, jadi itu sulit untuk dinilai.
R : Mmm,, kalau untuk pengajaran writing ada kesulitan nggak Buk?
SR : Kalau writing itu biasanya anak-anak itu susah untuk membedakan kosa katanya. Subjeknya yang mana,
verbnya yang mana,, itu anak-anak masih banyak yang salah,, idenya itu ada,, tapi untuk membentuk
kalimatnya itu yang susah.
R : Menurut Ibu bagaimana kemampuan menulis siswa di sekolah ini?
SR : Tergantung masing-masing anak. Kalau untuk kelas pilihan bagus, kalau kelas lain yang KMS ya susah,,
bahkan kalau diajarkan membuat karangan itu kadang-kadang anak hanya nyontek dari sumber lain.
R : Kalau kelemahan mereka dalam menulis itu dalam hal apanya Buk?
SR : Kelemahannya,,,dalam grammar dan vocabulary-nya.
R : Emm,, lalu teks apa saja yang biasa diajarkan kepada siswa?
SR : Ya banyak,, descriptive, narrative,,,ya tergantung.
R : Mengacu pada kurikulum ya Buk?
SR : Iya. Harusnya yang diujian itu tematik,, agar sesuai dengan yang diajarkan.
R : kalau jenis writing yang diajarkan seperti apa Buk? Apakah dalam tingkat menyusun kata, kalimat,
paragraf atau lebih dari paragraf?
SR : Tingkat paragraf.
R : Dari mana Ibu mendapatkan rubrik untuk penilaian writing? Apakah nyari dari internet atau
mengadaptasi dari buku?
SR : Saya buat sendiri.
R : Kalau kriteria yang dinilai apa saja Buk?
SR : Isinya, grammar-nya, pemilihan katanya, kerapian.
R : Eee,,, apakah Ibu menerapkan langkah-langkah menulis dalam mengajarkan writing? Itu yang meliputi
drafting, structuring, focusing dan sebagainya itu? Maksud saya,, dalam mengajarkan writing itu apakah
Ibu membimbing mereka dari pemilihan topik, lalu membimbing dalam pembuatan drafnya, apa saja
yang bisa mereka tulis atau kembangkan dari topik mereka itu, lalu mengevaluasi, kemudian hasilnya
direvisi baru kemudian di nilai, ataukah anak-anak diberi penjelasan tentang teks yang mereka pelajari,
diberi contoh lalu mereka disuruh membuat teks?
SR : Membimbing mereka dari membuat kalimat,, misalnya membuat kalimat present itu bagaimana,,
verbnya yang digunakan apa,, lalu anak-anak di beri contoh teks,, dua teks yang berbeda jenisnya,, lalu
mereka disuruh mengidentivikasi,,jenis teks yang dimaksud itu yang mana,, begitu. Diharapkan anak
 129

bisa menyusun kalimat, bahkan paragraf dari situ. Misalnya untuk descriptive teks ya,, susunan
kalimatnya kan ada noun-nya, verb-nya, adjective-nya,, nah nanti untuk adjective-nya itu kan bisa
tentang warna, bentuk dan sebagainya.
R : Apakah Ibu menilai proses menulis siwa?
SR : Iya.
R : Apakah penilaiannya masuk dalam kriteria untuk rubriknya?
SR : Tidak. Ya kalau anaknya rajin ya, bisa untuk nilai plusnya.
R : Kalau untuk penilaian writing-nya bagaimana Buk? Apakah karya tulis siswa setelah jadi langsung
dinilai atau di koreksi dulu?
SR : Ya setelah mereka menulis ya dikoreksi dulu, lalu dikembalikan biar bisa diperbaiki, baru dinilai.
R : Nah, bagaimana cara Ibu menilai writing siswa? Apakah menggunakan multiple choice atau jumbled
sentences atau dengan cara menulis?
SR : Semuanya. Pertama melengkapi kalimat dulu, habis itu menyusun paragraf, baru setelah itu menulis.
R : Jadi penilaiannya ada tiga macam itu Buk?
SR : Iya.
R : Dan tiga-tiganya ikut dinilai ya Buk?
SR : Iya.
R : Eee,,, apakah ibu tau portfolio assessment?
SR : Sudah lama sekali e,, sudah agak lupa.
R : Ndak apa-apa Buk seingetnya Ibu saja.
SR : Mengumpulkan tulisan-tulisan itu to?
R : Ya sederhananya begitu Buk, tapi bukan cuma tulisannya saja yang dikumpulkan. Nah tugas yang
dikumpulkan itu bukan hanya tugas di kelas, tapi juga PRnya, lalu karya tulis mereka sendiri yang selain
tugas dari guru, dan lain-lain. Nah selain tugas-tugas itu anak-anak juga membuat reflection. Isinya
pendapat mereka tentang tulisan yang mereka kumpulkan itu, lalu bagaimana mereka menilai tulisan
mereka. Jadi nanti setiap tugas yang mereka kumpulkan itu dibuat reflection-nya. Setelah semua teks
selesai diajarkan dan siswa sudah membuat reflection-nya, maka semuanya itu dikumpulkan untuk
dikoreksi. Setelah itu di kembalikan lagi untuk direvisi, nah setelah itu baru dikumpulkan lagi untuk di
nilai. Nah disini saya mau membuat rubrik untuk penilaian portfolio tersebut. Nah menurut Ibu kriteria
apa saja yang perlu saya masukkan ke dalam rubrik yang mau saya buat?
SR : Ya seperti tadi ya,, grammar, word choice, susunan dalam kalimatnya, mungkin kerapihan juga,,.
R : Menurut Ibu jumlah kata dalam writing siswa di sini itu berapa Buk rata-ratanya? Apakah mencapai
seratus kata atau lebih?
SR : Ya tergantung anaknya. Kalau untuk kelas bilingual ya sudah bisa menulis seratus kata, tapi kalau yang
lain ya belum.
R : Oo,,ya. Berarti maksimalnya seratus kata ya Buk paling.
SR : Iya.
R : Kalau menurut Ibu sebaiknya kriteria penilaiannya sebaiknya disampaikan pada anak-anak atau tidak
bu?
SR : Ya sebaiknya disampaikan,, biar anak-anak itu hati-hati menulisnya.
 130

R : Oiya. Sekian saja interviewnya Buk. Oiya nanti untuk evaluasi rubriknya saya butuh bantuan dari guru
Bahasa Inggris kelas tiga Buk, jadi Ibu ikut ya. Nanti mungkin cuma Ibu sama Bu LE soalnya Bu NU
masih baru dan background-nya dari mengajar SD, jadi Bu NU juga belum berani.
SR : Iya,, kapan itu?
R : Nanti saya hubungi lagi Buk,, soalnya ini masih nunggu Bu LE selesai mengajarkan writingnya.
SR : Oiya.
R : Sekian dulu ya Buk,,terimakasih.
R : Ya,,.

Interview transcript 4
Interviewer : The researcher (R)
Interviewee : Miss P. W./ T4
Day/date : Tuesday, 30th of October, 2012
Place : Yogyakarta State University

R : Ee,menurut Mbak Petet, apakah rubrik ini mudah digunakan untuk menilai pekerjaan siswa?
Pt : Ya menurut saya, lumayan mudah ya. Ya bisa dikatakan mudah, asal kita teliti aja mbacanya dari tiap-
tiap poin itu, asal memahami pasti bisa. Mudah.
R : Ee, berarti yang penting dipelajari dulu.
Pt : Iya dipelajari dulu.
R : Yang kedua apakah aspek-aspek yang menjadi kriteria dalam rubrik ini dideskripsikan dengan jelas?
Pt : Ya cukup jelas. Ya mungkin ada kelemahan satu itu,,yang tadi aku kasih tau itu. Tentang ini:
“Bagaimana kalau siswa membuat refleksi untuk sebagian besar karya tulis tapi hubungan refleksi
dengan karya tulis itu tidak jelas”. Refleksinya itu nggak jelas kan, walaupun refleksinya dia bikinnya
banyak tapi nggak mengarah kesitu,,mana ininy?Optionnya? Gitu. Jadi kita bingung mau nilai yang
empat atau tiga kayak gitu.
R : Mmm,, lalu saran anda bagaimana?
Pt : Hehe,,saran saya,, saran saya mungkin,,ee,, ditambahkan atau apa ya?
R : Atau? Jadi untuk nilai jelas atau tidak jelas dianngap sama ya, berarti yang penting jumlah reflectionnya
bukan di,, apa? Kualitas didalam reflectionnya?
Pt : Iya,, he’e.
R : Ee,, kalau mengenai skor dan descriptor yang digunakan,, sekor yang ini,,ini kan berbeda, ada yang
empat ada yang lima seperti itu?
Pt : Iya, ya. Poin-poinnya ya, bobotnya. Kalau bobotnya menurut saya udah cukuplah udah bagus. Udah
sesuai juga dengan karakteristik. Iya. Mungkin descriptor atau description ya kalau aku kok lebih cocok
yang description karna mendeskripsikan ini kan, apa yang ada di sini. Tapi ya kalau dosen seneng yang
ini ya nggak tau,,hehehe.
R : Eee, lalu apa saja masalah atau hambatan yang anda temui dalam mengoreksi ini?
Pt : Kalau saya mungkin lebih ke,,bolak-balik kertas ya,,berapa kali kita harus liat,,dan balik lagi ke poin
pertama, poin ke dua kaya gitu. Trus kadang harus baca lagi ininya,,apa? Hasil karya siswa, itu aja sih
problemnya. Dan lebih memakan waktu memang, hehe untuk mengoreksi ini.
 131

R : Mmm,cukup sekian mungkin saja. Terimakasih atas reviewnya dan saran-saran yang telah diberikan.
Pt : Iya sama-sama.

Interview transcript 5
Interviewer : The researcher (R)
Interviewee : Mrs N. U. (Nr) / T1
Day/date : Friday 3th of November, 2012
Place : SMP Negeri 15 Yogyakarta

R : Nah, menurut ibuk apakah rubrik ini mudah digunakan untuk mengoreksi tugas siswa?
Nr : Susah, rumit.
R : Susahnya bagaimana buk?
Nr : Susahnya kadangkan satu rubrik itu ada beberapa kriteria.
R : Eeh,, jadi kalau menurut ibuk sarannya bagaimana?
Nr : Kalau menurut saya tu lebih mudah tu satu rubrik untuk satu kriteria jadi lebih mudah untuk menilainya,
lebih praktis gitu. Lebih mudah cara berfikirnya kita, kan masksudnya kan banyak, kalau dalam satu
rubrik itu ada beberapa kriteria kan kita berfikirnya agak rumit ya.
R : Oh,,iya. Nah ini kan ada lima ya buk, nah ini memang yang tiga itu ada dua kriteria yang saya masukkan
dalam satu rubrik, seperti itu. Nah berarti menurut ibuk mendingan yang tiga itu dipisah sendiri-sendiri.
jadi mungkin enam itu malah lebih mudah ya buk?
Nr : Iya. Iya kalau menurut saya malah lebih mudah.
R : Jadi nggak masalah kalau jumlahnya itu ada lebih dari lima itu nggak masalah ya yang penting nantinya
itu lebih mudah menilainya.
Nr : Iya, kan tinggal ngrekap to nanti kita,, gitu kan.
R : Nah kalau menurut ibuk bagaimana pemilihan kriterianya itu? Sudah sesuai atau belum? Mmm,, itu ka
nada yang menilai satu persatunya, ada yang menilai secara keseluruhan, itu menurut ibu bagaimana
kriterianya?
Nr : Ya kan kalau kriteria biasanya tentang pemilihan kata,,kaya gitu..itu sudah bagus kalau menurut saya.
Cuma, kerumitannya itu kadang dalam satu kriteria itu ada beberapa,,,yang seperti tiga itu. Jadi kadang-
kadang tidak bisa masuk di situ, apa yang menjadi kriteria dari anak-anak tadi.
R : Nah kalau jumlah levelnya itu bagaimana? Ee,, yang satu, dua, tiga, empat, lima itu? Itu apakah perlu,,,
seperti tadi yang banyak dimasukkan kemana, yang sedang dimasukkan kemana. Yang lima ini sudah
cukup ataukah perlu ada tingkatan lagi?
Nr : Kalau menurut saya lima itu lebih mudah. Kalau saya lipatannya paling lima, lima aja karna kalau
pilihannya lebih banyak itu kita lebih susah berfikirnya. Dan juga kalau kita kan, sebagai seorang guru
kan kita menangani banyak anak jadi kita butuh cara yang lebih praktis untuk kita sendiri dan kita juga
tidak merugikan anak gitu.
R : Kalau deskripsinya sudah dideskripsikan dengan jelas belum buk menurut ibuk?
Nr : Itu? Ya sudah, tapi karna cuma tadi, ada beberapa itu. Cukup jelas.
R : Jadi Cuma tadi itu ya buk.
Nr : Iya.
 132

R : Ya, iya sudah buk. Terimakasih buk.

Nr : Iya, sama-sama.

Interview transcript 6
Interviewer : The researcher (R)
Interviewee : Mrs L. E. (LE) / T2
Day/date : Friday 3th of November, 2012
Place : SMP Negeri 15 Yogyakarta

R : Ee,,mengenai rubrik yang sudah ibuk gunakan ini, pertama apakah rubrik ini mudah digunakan untuk
mengevaluasi pekerjaan siswa?
LE : Eee,,sebetulnya rubrik seperti ini sangat membantu. Cumin kalau saya lihat, mungkin kriteria
perrubriknya itu yang kurang, kurang, apa ya? Kurang spesifik. Jadi membuat kita juga agak bingung
dalam menerapkan poinnya untuk tiap rubrik skornya itu. Seperti misalnya, ini kan kriterianya siswa
membuat refleksi yang jelas dan lengkap untuk tiap karya tapi kemudian itu skornya lima. Trus
kemudian di skor Empat siswa membuat refleksi untuk sebagian besar karya tulis gitu. Jadi tampaknya
kurang bisa diterapkan ketika ee,, kriterianya hanya jelas dan lengkap trus kemudian sebagian besar,
sementara disini ada bukti dilakukannya kegiatan prewriting, drafting, editing itu disetiap, apa namanya,
descriptor, deskripsi ya. Artinya kalau Lima itu mungkin sempurna, trus mungkin di empat itu mungkin
dia tidak melakukan salah satu, mungkin dia tidak editing, atau mungkin tidak revising, atau mungkin
apa gitu. Sementara disini itu kan, hampir di setiap skornya, ada proses prewriting,,itu sampai dengan
itu. Jadi mungkin agak sulit untuk kita menerapkan sebetulnya skornya yang tepat berapa, gitu. Karna
anak-anak, oo ini anak-anak nggak melakukan editing nih, sudah di ini tapi dia tidak,,hanya drafting,
prewriting, drafting tapi dia tidak melakukan,,revisingnya revising tetapi dia tidak editing ulang,,
misalnya seperti itu atau dia tidak melakukan revising. Karna dia hanya menyalin aja dari yang kemaren,
itu kan. Jadi mungkin lebih diperbaiki di situnya.
R : Nah kalau menurut ibuk, saran ibuk nanti apakan levelnya yang di tambah, jadi nanti misalnya
nomer,,jadi nanti satu sampe sepuluh ya mungkin, misalnya siswa membuat reflection yang jelas dan
lengkap,,dan sebagainya itu mungkin nanti yang nilainya sepuluh, ynag sempurna ya. Trus nanti yang
nilai Sembilan itu nanti ada reflection yang lengkap tapi bukti prewriting dan sebagainya itu tidak
lengkap, misalnya seperti itu.
LE : Bisa jadi seperti itu, tapi nanti kalau itu dalam bentuk,,ee apa namanya tulisan pendek ya ataupun itu
dalam bentuk teks paragraph pendek misalnya itu bisa aja sampai sepuluh. Tapi nanti kalau Cuma
sebuah kalimat, itu nanti kalau sepuluh terlalu banyak, he’e. Bisa kita terapkan sepuluh, atau lebih dari
sepuluh, dengan catatan yang ditulis makin,,Kriteria penilaiannya memang makin detail dan makin
rumit. Istilahnya gitu. Tapi kalau sekedar deskripsi pendek, tidak usah terlalu banyak mungkin.
R : Atau, ini memang ada satu, dua, tiga kriteria yang memang saya gabung jadi satu ini. Jadi memang
semakin kompleks dan nilai lima itu ada beberapa penilaian itu.
LE : Iya
R : Kalau tadi menurutnya Bu Nr itu malah lebih enakan kalau misalnya ini saya pisah sendiri-sendiri. Jadi
ini kalau ada dua kriteria saya pisah yang sini sama yang sini. Misalnya kalau yang satu itu tentang
 133

refleksi, yang satunya tentang prewriting, drafting, editing dan sebagainya. Itu menurut beliau malah
lebih enakan, tapi nanti levelnya, lima ini sudah cukup soalnya nanti kalau sepuluh itu malah jadi kabur
penilaiannya, seperti itu.
LE : Memang, memang apa ya mbak ya. Kalau ini, kesulitan kita itu dalam menerapkan karna memang ada
beberapa karakteristik ini yang harus kita terapkan, dan untuk tulisan yang sama, jadi itu terlalu berbelit,
terlalu membutuhkan waktu yang lama untuk kita ini. Masalahnya dengan tulisan yang sama, ini kita
harus ngecek grammarnya sendiri, sementara untuk grammarnya saja ada tingkatannya sendiri gitu. Jadi
memang saya agak setuju dengan Bu Nr hanya dalam satu ini aja,,cuman mungkin bisa yang satu
sampai sepuluh tadi,,cuman nanti yang dibilang sepuluh itu,,yang sudah mencakup semuanya,,termasuk
grammarnya dan sebagainya sudah ada di situ. Nanti yang Sembilan, atau empat itu kalau ada salah satu
unsure itu yang tidak dilakukan dan sebagainya.
R : Jadi merinci yang levelnya itu?
LE : Betu, betul, kalau sudah seperti ini kan saya harus melihat tulisan anak sendiri secara global, itu masih
harus dikriteria satu sampai lima, nanti masih ada grammarnya lagi, satu sampai lima, nanti itu jadi
lebih terlalu banyak. Masalahnya untuk tingkat SMP juga, trus kemudian juga tugas anak-anak, kan juga
banyak, latihannya kan juga banyak. Kalau kita harus menerapkan seperti ini kan terlalu membuang
waktu, gitu.
R : Jadi ini nanti mendingan ada rinciannya yang detail tapi jumlahnya tetep lima dari pada nanti ininya
lima tapi jadi tambah banyak yang dinilai.
LE : He’e, he’e.
R : Mmm, kalau menurut ibuk ini kriterianya yang menilai satu-satu dan semuanya itu sudah cukup atau
bagaimana?
LE : Maksudnya?
R : Ini ka nada karakteristik penulis, nah ini pemilihan-pemilihan ininya sudah cukup atau bagaimana? Atau
ada masalah atau gimana?
LE : Ini karakteristik dalam penulisan ini ya? Bukan karakteristik penulis?
R : Ini penulisnya yang ini.
LE : He’em he’em. Kan ini kan, kalau melihat di sini kana pa yang dilakukan penulis,, dari mulai prewriting,
dari drafting itunya kan. He’em. Ya kalau, ini kapasitasnya untuk penelitian ya mungkin, menurut saya
cukup. Tapi kalau kita pakai di lapangan ya itu tadi, terlalu banyak. Terlalu komplek, terlalu sulit ya.
Trus kemudian ya ini, hemat saya ya di, sedikit mungkin ada perubahan karni ini hanya jelas dan
lengkap sementara kriteria di sini sama saja kan dari satu sampai lima. Satu sampai lima sama, jadi agak
membuat kita sulit.
R : Atau menurut ibuk misalnya ini ada kriteria yang tidak terlalu penting lalu ii dihapus saja atau gimana
itu.
LE : Bukan tidak begitu penting, tapi kalau kita niatnya memang mau menganalisa, kita mau memberi
penilaian terhadap karya tulis siswa ya mungkin ini perlu. Kan yang namanya prewriting perlu,
istilahnya coret-coretan perlu, membuat draft perlu, revising perlu, cumin ya itu tadi, untuk di setiap
skornya itu tadi yang kita pilahkan. Kan ada yang itu tadi, ada yang enggan gitu melakukan revisi, ada
yang enggan melakukan prewriting, ini aku langsung nulis aja deh, gitu. Menulis, trus nanti dia Cuma
 134

melakukan dua tahap menulis, dikumpulkan, dikoreksi, kemudian dari hasil koreksiannya itu dia hanya
mau merevisi tok, tanpa dia mau mengedit ulang. Gitu kan, ada yang seperti itu, jadi mungkin ada
sedikit ini aja kriterianya.
R : Jadi ditambah, nanti biar lebih jelasnya diperinci lagi gitu ya buk.
LE : He’e.
R : Oh ya.
LE : Itu aja..ok.
R : Iya,, terimakasih atas waktunya buk.
LE : Sama-sama.
 135

Lembar Penilaian Portfolio

The Result of the Evaluation

Students Teacher Teacher Teacher
Researcher
1 2 4
1 70 61 56 79
2 80 73 55 70
3 68 67 51 63
4 74 80 57 74
5 68 73 57 65
6 56 77 57 63
7 74 62 53 72
8 76 65 61 76
9 55 70 54 70
10 70 66 54 71
11 64 47 51 64
12 46 50 47 64
13 74 79 60 69
14 58 47 46 59
15 56 58 53 45
16 67 74 50 68
17 64 55 50 63
18 74 76 61 75
19 68 77 67 84
20 61 60 50 77
21 58 51 50 56
22 52 50 53 43
23 54 52 51 56
24 67 64 49 84
25 74 77 61 78
26 48 58 48 54
27 57 66 54 73
28 57 47 41 59
29 68 72 71 70
30 53 43 46 56
31 78 69 61 76
32 64 67 50 51
33 55 51 45 53
34 58 63 51 52
Jml 2166 2147 1821 2232
 136

Lembar Penilaian Portfolio

Hari & Tanggal : Sabtu, 20 Oktober 2012

Evaluator : Novi Ariyani

Nilai
No Nama Cr 4 Jumlah
Cr 1 Cr 2 Cr 3
1 2
1 Adia Islami Permono 16 12 18 12 12 70
2 Adisya Resti Rahmadanti 16 16 18 15 15 80
3 Afifa Dewi Larashati 20 12 18 9 9 68
4 Afifah Kusuma A. 16 16 24 9 9 74
5 Albertus Bambang Dian A.A. 16 16 18 9 9 68
6 Alfanda Resta mareta D. D. S. 16 16 12 3 9 56
7 Amanda Regita Maharani 20 12 18 12 12 74
8 Andika Zidane Eldaputra 20 20 18 9 9 76
9 Andreas Ristanto Wibowo 16 12 12 6 9 55
10 Aulia Intan Maghfirotika U. 20 8 18 12 12 70
11 Devia Farida Rahmadanti 16 12 12 12 12 64
12 Dika Semesta 8 8 6 12 12 46
13 Erina Budi Ventadewi 16 16 18 12 12 74
14 Faranisaningrum Kartika A. 16 12 6 12 12 58
15 Gusfikar Yusuf Nurrafif D. 12 8 12 12 12 56
16 Hindun Nur Anisah 16 12 18 12 9 67
17 Jihan Rizka Syafiya L. A. 16 12 12 12 12 64
18 Judanti Cahyaning Tyas 16 16 24 9 9 74
19 Kirana Raditya 16 16 18 9 9 68
20 Muftazar Ilham Yudhistira 16 12 12 12 9 61
21 Muhammad Andy Al-Fariz 16 12 6 12 12 58
22 Muhammad Valentino Al F. 16 12 6 9 9 52
23 Muthi'a Syarifah 16 8 12 9 9 54
24 Nabila Hanum Pertiwi 4 12 24 12 15 67
25 Oktarias Fatmawati 16 16 18 12 12 74
26 Rahmaningrum Niananda M. 4 8 12 12 12 48
27 Raisa Permata Sari 16 8 12 9 12 57
28 Raisah Hulaiamah Nashruddin 16 8 12 9 12 57
29 Regita Cahyani 16 16 18 9 9 68
30 Satya Dhamma 16 4 12 9 12 53
31 Sri Yuwaningtyas Sukma Putri 16 20 24 9 9 78
32 Talia Dika Cahyanisa 16 12 12 12 12 64
33 Yossua Yudita 16 12 6 12 9 55
34 Yudha Epsen Setyawan 20 8 12 9 9 58
Jumlah 2166
Rata-rata 63.706
 137

Lembar Penilaian Portfolio

Hari & Tanggal : Selasa, 30 Oktober 2012

Evaluator : Petet Widyaningrum

Nilai
No Nama Cr 4 Jumlah
Cr 1 Cr 2 Cr 3
1 2
1 Adia Islami Permono 12 16 24 15 12 79
2 Adisya Resti Rahmadanti 12 16 18 12 12 70
3 Afifa Dewi Larashati 16 8 18 12 9 63
4 Afifah Kusuma A. 16 16 18 12 12 74
5 Albertus Bambang Dian A.A. 20 12 18 6 9 65
6 Alfanda Resta mareta D. D. S. 12 12 18 9 12 63
7 Amanda Regita Maharani 16 8 18 15 15 72
8 Andika Zidane Eldaputra 16 12 24 12 12 76
9 Andreas Ristanto Wibowo 16 12 18 12 12 70
10 Aulia Intan Maghfirotika U. 16 16 18 9 12 71
11 Devia Farida Rahmadanti 20 8 12 12 12 64
12 Dika Semesta 16 12 12 12 12 64
13 Erina Budi Ventadewi 12 12 18 15 12 69
14 Faranisaningrum Kartika A. 8 12 12 15 12 59
15 Gusfikar Yusuf Nurrafif D. 8 4 18 6 9 45
16 Hindun Nur Anisah 8 12 24 12 12 68
17 Jihan Rizka Syafiya L. A. 8 16 12 12 15 63
18 Judanti Cahyaning Tyas 8 16 24 15 12 75
19 Kirana Raditya 20 16 24 12 12 84
20 Muftazar Ilham Yudhistira 20 12 18 15 12 77
21 Muhammad Andy Al-Fariz 4 16 12 15 9 56
22 Muhammad Valentino Al F. 8 8 9 9 9 43
23 Muthi'a Syarifah 8 12 12 15 9 56
24 Nabila Hanum Pertiwi 4 20 30 15 15 84
25 Oktarias Fatmawati 8 16 24 15 15 78
26 Rahmaningrum Niananda M. 4 8 18 15 9 54
27 Raisa Permata Sari 12 16 18 15 12 73
28 Raisah Hulaiamah Nashruddin 8 12 12 15 12 59
29 Regita Cahyani 12 16 24 9 9 70
30 Satya Dhamma 12 8 12 12 12 56
31 Sri Yuwaningtyas Sukma Putri 12 16 24 12 12 76
32 Talia Dika Cahyanisa 8 4 12 15 12 51
33 Yossua Yudita 8 12 12 12 9 53
34 Yudha Epsen Setyawan 8 8 12 15 9 52
Jumlah 2232
Rata-rata 65,647
 138

Lembar Penilaian Portfolio

Hari & Tanggal : Jumat, 3 November 2012

Evaluator : Bu Nuri ...........................................................................

Nilai
No Nama Cr 4 Jumlah
Cr 1 Cr 2 Cr 3
1 2
1 Adia Islami Permono 12 16 12 12 9 61
2 Adisya Resti Rahmadanti 16 12 18 15 12 73
3 Afifa Dewi Larashati 16 12 18 12 9 67
4 Afifah Kusuma A. 16 16 24 12 12 80
5 Albertus Bambang Dian A.A. 16 12 18 15 12 73
6 Alfanda Resta mareta D. D. S. 16 16 18 15 12 77
7 Amanda Regita Maharani 8 12 18 12 12 62
8 Andika Zidane Eldaputra 8 12 18 15 12 65
9 Andreas Ristanto Wibowo 16 12 18 12 12 70
10 Aulia Intan Maghfirotika U. 12 12 18 12 12 66
11 Devia Farida Rahmadanti 12 8 6 12 9 47
12 Dika Semesta 12 8 6 12 12 50
13 Erina Budi Ventadewi 16 12 24 15 12 79
14 Faranisaningrum Kartika A. 12 8 6 12 9 47
15 Gusfikar Yusuf Nurrafif D. 8 8 18 12 12 58
16 Hindun Nur Anisah 16 16 18 12 12 74
17 Jihan Rizka Syafiya L. A. 16 12 6 12 9 55
18 Judanti Cahyaning Tyas 16 12 24 12 12 76
19 Kirana Raditya 16 16 24 12 9 77
20 Muftazar Ilham Yudhistira 12 12 12 12 12 60
21 Muhammad Andy Al-Fariz 12 12 6 12 9 51
22 Muhammad Valentino Al F. 12 8 6 12 12 50
23 Muthi'a Syarifah 8 8 12 12 12 52
24 Nabila Hanum Pertiwi 4 12 24 12 12 64
25 Oktarias Fatmawati 16 16 18 15 12 77
26 Rahmaningrum Niananda M. 4 12 18 12 12 58
27 Raisa Permata Sari 12 12 18 12 12 66
28 Raisah Hulaiamah Nashruddin 8 12 6 12 9 47
29 Regita Cahyani 12 12 24 12 12 72
30 Satya Dhamma 4 12 6 12 9 43
31 Sri Yuwaningtyas Sukma Putri 12 12 18 15 12 69
32 Talia Dika Cahyanisa 12 16 18 12 9 67
33 Yossua Yudita 12 12 6 12 9 51
34 Yudha Epsen Setyawan 12 12 18 12 9 63
Jumlah 2147
Rata-rata 63.147
 139

Lembar Penilaian Portfolio

Hari & Tanggal : Jumat, 3 November 2012

Evaluator : Bu Lulut .......................................................................

Nilai
No Nama Cr Cr Cr Cr 4 Jumlah
1 2 3 1 2
1 Adia Islami Permono 12 8 12 12 12 56
2 Adisya Resti Rahmadanti 12 16 12 6 9 55
3 Afifa Dewi Larashati 16 8 12 6 9 51
4 Afifah Kusuma A. 12 12 18 9 6 57
5 Albertus Bambang Dian A.A. 12 12 12 12 9 57
6 Alfanda Resta mareta D. D. S. 12 12 12 9 12 57
7 Amanda Regita Maharani 12 8 12 12 9 53
8 Andika Zidane Eldaputra 12 16 18 6 9 61
9 Andreas Ristanto Wibowo 12 12 12 9 9 54
10 Aulia Intan Maghfirotika U. 12 12 18 6 6 54
11 Devia Farida Rahmadanti 12 12 6 12 9 51
12 Dika Semesta 12 8 12 6 9 47
13 Erina Budi Ventadewi 12 12 18 9 9 60
14 Faranisaningrum Kartika A. 8 8 12 12 6 46
15 Gusfikar Yusuf Nurrafif D. 12 8 12 9 12 53
16 Hindun Nur Anisah 12 8 12 9 9 50
17 Jihan Rizka Syafiya L. A. 12 8 12 9 9 50
18 Judanti Cahyaning Tyas 16 12 18 9 6 61
19 Kirana Raditya 12 16 18 9 12 67
20 Muftazar Ilham Yudhistira 12 8 12 9 9 50
21 Muhammad Andy Al-Fariz 12 8 6 12 12 50
22 Muhammad Valentino Al F. 16 16 6 6 9 53
23 Muthi'a Syarifah 16 8 12 6 9 51
24 Nabila Hanum Pertiwi 4 12 18 6 9 49
25 Oktarias Fatmawati 16 12 18 6 9 61
26 Rahmaningrum Niananda M. 4 8 12 12 12 48
27 Raisa Permata Sari 16 8 12 9 9 54
28 Raisah Hulaiamah Nashruddin 12 8 6 6 9 41
29 Regita Cahyani 16 16 24 6 9 71
30 Satya Dhamma 12 4 6 12 12 46
31 Sri Yuwaningtyas Sukma Putri 12 16 18 6 9 61
32 Talia Dika Cahyanisa 12 8 12 9 9 50
33 Yossua Yudita 16 8 6 6 9 45
34 Yudha Epsen Setyawan 16 8 12 6 9 51
Jumlah 1821
Rata-rata 53.559
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
 151

THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE RUBRIC

A. Characteristics of the Writer

Criteria: Fit between reflection/evidence in portfolio and metacognitive
awareness beyond task at hand
Score
Descriptor
X2
5 Student provides clear and complete reflection for each artifact (the
sentences are legible). There is clear and careful link between
reflection and artifact. Evidence of prewriting, drafting, revising
and editing is present for each artifact.
4 Student provides reflection for most of the artifacts. There is link
between reflection and artifact. Evidence of prewriting, drafting,
revising and editing is present for each artifact.
3 Student provides reflection for some of the artifacts. There is link
between reflection and artifact. There is evidence of prewriting,
drafting, revising and editing for most of the artifacts.
2 Student provides reflection for few of the artifacts. There is unclear
link between reflection and artifact. There is evidence of
prewriting, drafting, revising and editing for few of the artifacts.
1 Student provides limited reflection for the artifacts. There is no link
between reflection and artifact. There is limited evidence of
prewriting, drafting, revising and editing.
 152

B. Characteristics of the Portfolio as a Whole

Criteria: Variety of tasks and variety of modes of thought
Score
Descriptor
X2
5 The artifacts consist of all of the class assignment and homework
that the teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts. There
are varieties of topics of the writing that are different from the
example and from other’s work and student can develop good
paragraphs from those topics.
4 The artifacts consist of all of the class assignment and homework
that the teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts. There
are varieties of topics in the student’s writing which are different
from the example and form the other’s work and student can
develop the topics.
3 The artifacts consist of most of the class assignment and homework
that the teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts. There
are varieties of topics in the student’s writing which most of them
are different from the example and from the other’s work and few
parts of the content is similar to the example or to the other’s work.
2 The artifacts consist of some of the class assignment and homework
that the teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts. The
student is unable to make variety of topics of the writing. Most of
the topics are similar to the example or to the other’s work and the
content is also almost similar the topics that the student imitates.
1 Most of the class assignment and homework are missing. The
artifacts are limited and consist of one or two text types. The
student is unable to make variety of topics and the content of the
topic is similar to the example or to other’s work.
 153

C. Characteristics of Individual Texts

Criteria: Amount of writing and quality of development/sustained depth of
analysis
Score
Descriptor
X6
5 All of the artifacts consist of more than 100 words. Student can
differentiate between descriptive and recount texts from the content
of the writing. Student demonstrates ability to identify mistakes and
they can make correction for the mistakes.
4 Most of the artifacts consist of more than 100 words. Student can
differentiate between descriptive and recount texts from the content
of the writing. Student demonstrates ability to identify mistakes and
they can correct their mistakes.
3 All of the artifacts consist of 100 words. There is difference
between descriptive and recount texts in the content although the
difference is sometimes unclear. Student demonstrates ability to
identify mistakes and they can make correction for most of the
mistakes.
2 Most of the artifacts consist of 100words. The difference between
descriptive and recount texts in the content is not clear. Student is
unable to correct most of the mistakes he/she made.
1 All of the artifacts consist of less than 100 words. The difference
between descriptive and recount texts is unclear. Student cannot
make correction for the mistakes that he/she made.
 154

D. Intratextual Features
Criteria:
1. Control of grammar and mechanic
Score
Descriptor
X3
5 All of the texts show accepted standards of format, usage, spelling,
punctuation, and capitalization at development level. 0-20% errors
may be present.
4 In most of the texts, a few errors are made in format, usage,
spelling, punctuation, or capitalization but they do not interfere the
meaning. 20-40% errors may be present.
3 Some errors are made in format, usage, spelling, punctuation, or
capitalization and they may interfere the meaning. 40-60% errors
may be present.
2 Many errors are made in format, usage, spelling, punctuation, or
capitalization and they interfere the meaning. 60-80% errors may
be present.
1 Many errors in format, usage, spelling, punctuation, or
capitalization make the message difficult to understand. 80-100%
errors may be present.
 155

2. Coherence/flow, momentum, sense of direction

Score
Descriptor
X3
5 Text is sufficiently and logically developed. Central idea is clear.
Transitions are effective.
4 The structure leads the reader through the text without confusion.
The central idea is evident and logically developed. There is
evidence of connections and transitions between ideas.
3 The structure may be confusing at times, but there is a
recognizable introduction and conclusion. The connection between
ideas may not always clear.
2 The structure may be confusing at times. There is introduction but
the conclusion is not clear or even there is no conclusion. The
connection between ideas is not clear.
1 Text lacks a clear sense of direction or development. The ideas are
strung together loosely. There is no introduction and conclusion. It
is hard to determine main point of development.
 156

THE SECOND DRAFT OF THE RUBRIC

A. Characteristics of the Writer

Criteria: Fit between reflection/evidence in portfolio and metacognitive
awareness beyond task at hand

Score
Descriptor
X4
5 The student provides clear and complete reflection for each artifact
(the sentences are legible). There is a clear and careful link between
reflection and artifact. Evidence of prewriting, drafting, revising
and editing is present for each artifact.

4 The student provides reflection for most of the artifacts. There is a

link between reflections and artifacts. Evidence of prewriting,
drafting, revising and editing is present for each artifact.

3 The student provides reflection for some of the artifacts. There is a

link between reflections and artifacts. There is evidence of
prewriting, drafting, revising and editing for most of the artifacts.

2 The student provides reflection for few of the artifacts. There is

unclear link between reflections and artifacts. There is evidence of
prewriting, drafting, revising and editing for few of the artifacts.

1 The student provides limited reflection for the artifacts. There is no

link between reflections and artifacts. There is limited evidence of
prewriting, drafting, revising and editing.
 157

B. Characteristics of the Portfolio as a Whole

Criteria: Variety of tasks and variety of modes of thought
Score
Descriptor
X4
5 The artifacts consist of all of the class assignment and homework
that the teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts. There
are varieties of topics of the artifacts that are different from the
example and from other’s work and the student can develop good
paragraphs from those topics. The artifacts show much
development of the student’s writing.

4 The artifacts consist of all of the class assignment and homework

that the teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts. There
are varieties of topics in the artifacts which most of them are
different from the example and from the other’s work and the
student can develop the topics into paragraphs. The artifacts show
some development of the students’ writing.

3 The artifacts consist of most of the class assignment and homework

that the teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts. There
are varieties of topics of the artifacts and most of them are different
from the example and from the other’s work and few parts of the
content is similar to the example or to the other’s work. The
artifacts show a little development of the students’ writing.

2 The artifacts consist of some of the class assignment and homework

that the teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts. The
student is unable to make variety of topics for their writing. Most of
the topics are similar to the example or to the other’s work and the
content is also almost similar to the topics that the student imitates.
The artifacts show little development of the students’ writing.

1 Most of the class assignment and homework are missing. The

artifacts are limited and consist of one or two text types. The
student is unable to make variety of topics and the content of the
topic is similar to the example or to other’s work. The artifacts
show no development of the students’ writing.
 158

C. Characteristics of Individual Texts

Criteria: Amount of writing and quality of development/sustained depth of
analysis.

Score
Descriptor
X6
5 Each of the artifacts consists of 70-100 words. The student can
differentiate between descriptive and recount texts from the content
and the language features of the writing. The student demonstrates
ability to identify mistakes and he/she can make correction for the
mistakes.

4 Most of the artifacts consist of 70-100 words. The student can

differentiate between descriptive and recount texts from the content
and the language features of the writing. The student demonstrates
ability to identify mistakes and they can correct their mistakes.

3 Few of the artifacts consist of 70-100 words. There is difference

between descriptive and recount texts from the content and the
language features although the difference is sometimes unclear.
The student demonstrates ability to identify mistakes and they can
make correction for most of the mistakes.

2 Most of the artifacts consist of less than 70 words. The difference

between descriptive and recount texts from the content and the
language features is not clear. The student is unable to correct most
of the mistakes he/she made.

1 All of the artifacts consist of less than 70 words. The difference

between descriptive and recount texts is unclear. The student
cannot make correction for the mistakes that he/she made.
 159

D. Intratextual Features
Criteria:
1. Control of grammar and mechanic.
Score
Descriptor
X3
5 Each of the artifacts show accepted standards of grammar,
spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. 0-20% errors may be
present.

4 In most of the artifacts, a few errors are made in grammar,

spelling, punctuation, or capitalization but they do not interfere the
meaning. 20-40% errors may be present.

3 Some errors are made in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or

capitalization and they may interfere the meaning. 40-60% errors
may be present.

2 Many errors are made in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or

capitalization and they interfere the meaning. 60-80% errors may
be present.

1 Many errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or capitalization

make the message difficult to understand. 80-100% errors may be
present.
 160

2. Coherence/flow, momentum, sense of direction.

Score
Descriptor
X3
5 Each of the text is sufficiently and logically developed. Central
idea is clear. Transitions are effective.

4 The structure leads the reader through the text without confusion.
The central idea is evident and logically developed. There is
evidence of connections and transitions between ideas.

3 The structure may be confusing at times, but there is a

recognizable introduction and conclusion. The connection between
ideas may not always clear.

2 The structure may be confusing at times. There is introduction but

the conclusion is not clear or even there is no conclusion. The
connection between ideas is not clear.

1 Text lacks a clear sense of direction or development. The ideas are

strung together loosely. There is no introduction and conclusion. It
is hard to determine main point of development.
 161

FINAL PRODUCT OF THE RUBRIC

A. Characteristics of the Writer

Criteria: Fit between reflection/evidence in portfolio and metacognitive
awareness beyond task at hand
Score
Descriptor
X4
5 The student provides clear and complete reflection for each artifact (the
sentences are legible). There is a clear and careful link between
reflections and artifacts. Evidence of prewriting, drafting, revising and
editing is present for each artifact.
4 The student provides reflection for most of the artifacts. There is a link
between reflections and artifacts. Evidence of prewriting, drafting,
revising and editing is present for each artifact.
3 The student provides reflection for some of the artifacts. There is a link
between reflections and artifacts. There is evidence of prewriting,
drafting, revising and editing for most of the artifacts.
2 The student provides reflection for few of the artifacts. There is unclear
link between reflections and artifacts. There is evidence of prewriting,
drafting, revising and editing for few of the artifacts.
1 The student provides limited reflection for the artifacts. There is no link
between reflections and artifacts. There is limited evidence of prewriting,
drafting, revising and editing.
 162

B. Characteristics of the Portfolio as a Whole

Criteria: Variety of tasks and variety of modes of thought
Score
Descriptor
X4
5 The artifacts consist of all of the class assignment and homework that the
teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts. There are varieties
of topics of the artifacts that are different from the example and from
other’s work and the student can develop good paragraphs from those
topics. The artifacts show much development of the student’s writing.
4 The artifacts consist of all of the class assignment and homework that the
teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts. There are varieties
of topics in the artifacts which most of them are different from the
example and from the other’s work and the student can develop the topics
into paragraphs. The artifacts show some development of the students’
writing.
3 The artifacts consist of most of the class assignment and homework that
the teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts. There are
varieties of topics of the artifacts and most of them are different from the
example and from the other’s work and few parts of the content is similar
to the example or to the other’s work. The artifacts show a little
development of the students’ writing.
2 The artifacts consist of some of the class assignment and homework that
the teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts. The student is
unable to make variety of topics for their writing. Most of the topics are
similar to the example or to the other’s work and the content is also
almost similar to the topics that the student imitates. The artifacts show
little development of the students’ writing.
1 Most of the class assignment and homework are missing. The artifacts are
limited and consist of one or two text types. The student is unable to
make variety of topics and the content of the topic is similar to the
example or to other’s work. The artifacts show no development of the
students’ writing.
 163

C. Characteristics of Individual Texts

Criteria: Amount of writing and quality of development/sustained depth of
analysis
Score
Descriptor
X6
5 Each of the artifacts consists of 70-100 words. The student can
differentiate between descriptive and recount texts from the content and
the language features of the writing. The student demonstrates ability to
identify mistakes and he/she can make correction for the mistakes.
4 Most of the artifacts consist of 70-100 words. The student can
differentiate between descriptive and recount texts from the content and
the language features of the writing. The student demonstrates ability to
identify mistakes and they can correct their mistakes.
3 Few of the artifacts consist of 70-100 words. There is difference between
descriptive and recount texts from the content and the language features
although the difference is sometimes unclear. The student demonstrates
ability to identify mistakes and they can make correction for most of the
mistakes.
2 Most of the artifacts consist of less than 70 words. The difference
between descriptive and recount texts from the content and the language
features is not clear. The student is unable to correct most of the mistakes
he/she made.
1 All of the artifacts consist of less than 70 words. The difference between
descriptive and recount texts is unclear. The student cannot make
correction for the mistakes that he/she made.
 164

D. Intratextual Features
Criteria:
1. Control of grammar and mechanic
Score
Descriptor
X3
5 Each of the artifacts shows accepted standards of grammar, spelling,
punctuation, and capitalization. 0-20% errors may be present.
4 In most of the artifacts, a few errors are made in grammar, spelling,
punctuation, or capitalization but they do not interfere the meaning. 20-
40% errors may be present.
3 Some errors are made in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or
capitalization and they may interfere the meaning. 40-60% errors may be
present.
2 Many errors are made in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or
capitalization and they interfere the meaning. 60-80% errors may be
present.
1 Many errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or capitalization make
the message difficult to understand. 80-100% errors may be present.
 165

2. Coherence/flow, momentum, sense of direction

Score
Descriptor
X3
5 Each of the texts is sufficiently and logically developed. A central idea is
clear. Transitions are effective.
4 The structure leads the reader through the text without confusion. The
central idea is evident and logically developed. There is evidence of
connections and transitions between ideas.
3 The structure may be confusing at times, but there is a recognizable
introduction and conclusion. The connection between ideas may not
always clear.
2 The structure may be confusing at times. There is an introduction but the
conclusion is not clear or even there is no conclusion. The connection
between ideas is not clear.
1 A text lacks a clear sense of direction or development. The ideas are
strung together loosely. There is no introduction and conclusion. It is
hard to determine the main point of development.
 166

THE SEPARATED CRITERIA OF THE RUBRIC

A. Characteristics of the Writer

Criteria:
1. Fit between reflection/evidence in portfolio
Score
Descriptor
X4
5 The student provides clear and complete reflection for each artifact (the
sentences are legible). There is clear and careful link between reflection and
artifact.
4 The student provides reflection for most of the artifacts. There is link between
reflection and artifact, although the link is sometimes unclear.
3 The student provides reflection for some of the artifacts. There is link between
reflection and artifact, although the link is sometimes unclear.
2 The student provides reflection for few of the artifacts. There is unclear link
between reflection and artifact.
1 The student provides limited reflection for the artifacts. There is no link
between reflection and artifact.

2. Metacognitive awareness beyond task at hand

Score
Descriptor
X4
5 Evidence of prewriting, drafting, revising and editing is present for each artifact.
The artifacts show much development of the student’s writing.
4 Evidence of prewriting, drafting, revising and editing is present for each artifact.
The artifacts show some development of the students’ writing.
3 There is evidence of prewriting, drafting, revising and editing for most of the
artifacts. The artifacts show some development of the students’ writing.
2 There is evidence of prewriting, drafting, revising and editing for few of the
artifacts. The artifacts show little development of the students’ writing.
1 There is limited evidence of prewriting, drafting, revising and editing. The
artifacts show no development of the students’ writing.
 167

B. Characteristics of the Portfolio as a Whole

Criteria:
1. Variety of tasks
Score
Descriptor
X4
5 The artifacts consist of all of the class assignment and homework that the
teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts.
4 The artifacts consist of all of the class assignment and homework that the
teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts.
3 The artifacts consist of most of the class assignment and homework that the
teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts.
2 The artifacts consist of some of the class assignment and homework that the
teacher gave, including descriptive and recount texts.
1 Most of the class assignment and homework are missing. The artifacts are
limited and consist of one or two text types.

2. Variety of modes of thought

Score
Descriptor
X4
5 There are varieties of topics of the artifacts that are different from the example
and from other’s work and student can develop good paragraphs from those
topics.
4 There are varieties of topics in the artifacts which most of them are different
from the example and from the other’s work and student can develop the topics
into paragraphs.
3 There are varieties of topics of the artifacts and most of them are different from
the example and from the other’s work and few parts of the content is similar to
the example or to the other’s work.
2 The student is unable to make a variety of topics for their writing. Most of the
topics are similar to the example or to the other’s work and the content is also
almost similar to the topics that the student imitates.
1 The artifacts are limited and consist of one or two text types. The student is
unable to make a variety of topics and the content of the topic is similar to the
example or to other’s work.
 168

C. Characteristic of Individual Texts

1. Amount of writing
Score
Descriptor
X6
5 Each of the artifacts consists of 70-100 words.
4 Most of the artifacts consist of 70-100 words.
3 Few of the artifacts consist of 70-100 words.
2 Most of the artifacts consist of less than 70 words.
1 All of the artifacts consist of less than 70 words.

2. Quality of development/sustained depth of analysis

Score
Descriptor
X6
5 The student can differentiate between descriptive and recount texts from the
content and the language features of the writing in all of the artifacts.
4 The sudent can differentiate between descriptive and recount texts from the
content and the language features of the writing in most of the artifacts.
3 There is differences between descriptive and recount texts from the content and
the language features in most or some of the artifacts, although the difference is
sometimes unclear.
2 The difference between descriptive and recount texts from the content and the
language features in few of the artifacts is unclear.
1 There is no difference between descriptive and recount texts in all of the
artifacts.
 169

D. Intratextual Features
1. Control of grammar and mechanic
Score
Descriptor
X3
5 Each of the artifacts show accepted standards of grammar, spelling,
punctuation, and capitalization. 0-10% errors may be present.
4 In most of the artifacts, a few errors are made in grammar, spelling,
punctuation, or capitalization but they do not interfere the meaning. 10-20%
errors may be present.
3 Some errors are made in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or capitalization and
they may interfere the meaning. 10-20% errors may be present.
2 Many errors are made in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or capitalization and
they may interfere the meaning. 20-80% errors may be present.
1 Many errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or capitalization make the
message difficult to understand. 80-100% errors may be present.

2. Coherence/flow, momentum, sense of direction

Score
Descriptor
X3
5 Each of the text is sufficiently and logically developed. A central idea is clear.
Transitions are effective.
4 The structure leads the reader through the text without confusion. The central
idea is evident and logically developed. There is evidence of connections and
transitions between ideas.
3 The structure may be confusing at times, but there is a recognizable
introduction and conclusion. The connection between ideas may not always
clear.
2 The structure may be confusing at times. There is introduction but the
conclusion is not clear or even there is no conclusion. The connection between
ideas is not clear.
1 A text lacks a clear sense of direction or development. The ideas are strung
together loosely. There is no introduction and conclusion. It is hard to
determine main point of development.
 170

RUBRIK UNTUK PENILAIAN PORTOFOLIO DALAM WRITING

A. Karakteristik Penulis
Kriteria: Refleksi yang dibuat siswa sesuai dengan karya tulis yang telah
dibuatnya dan siswa juga mempunyai kesadaran metakognitive terhadap tugas
yang dibuatnya.
Skor
Descriptor
X4
5 Siswa membuat refleksi yang jelas dan lengkap untuk tiap karya tulis yang
dibuatnya (kalimatnya dapat dipahami). Ada hubungan yang jelas antara refleksi
dan karya tulis. Ada bukti dilakukannya kegiatan prewriting, drafting, revising
dan editing untuk setiap karya tulis yang dibuat.
4 Siswa membuat refleksi untuk sebagian besar karya tulis yang dibuatnya. Ada
hubungan antara refleksi dan karya tulis. Ada bukti dilakukannya kegiatan
prewriting, drafting, revising dan editing untuk setiap karya tulis yang dibuat.
3 Siswa membuat refleksi untuk beberapa karya tulis yang dibuatnya. Ada
hubungan antara refleksi dan karya tulisnya. Ada bukti dilakukannya kegiatan
prewriting, drafting, revising dan editing untuk sebagian besar karya tulis yang
dibuat.
2 Siswa membuat sedikit refleksi untuk karya tulis yang dibuatnya. Hubungan
antara refleksi dan karya tulisnya tidak jelas. Ada bukti dilakukannya kegiatan
prewriting, drafting, revising dan editing untuk sedikit karya tulis yang
dibuatnya.
1 Siswa membuat sedikit refleksi untuk karya tulis yang dibuatnya. Tidak ada
hubungan antara refleksi dan karya tulis yang dibuatnya. Ada sedikit bukti
dilakukannya kegiatan prewriting, drafting, revising dan editing.
 171

B. Karakteristik Portofolio Secara Keseluruhan

Kriteria: Ada bermacam jenis karya tulis dan bermacam pemikiran untuk karya
tulis yang dikumpulkan.
Skor
Descriptor
X4
5 Karya tulis yang dikumpulkan terdiri dari semua tugas di kelas dan PR yang
diberikan oleh guru, yang meliputi teks descriptive dan recount. Ada berbagai
macam topik tulisan di dalam karya tulis yang dikumpulkan, yang berbeda dari
contoh yang diberikan oleh guru maupun berbeda dari pekerjaan siswa lain, dan
siswa dapat mengembangkan topik tersebut menjadi paragraf yang baik. Karya
tulis yang dikumpulkan menunjukkan perkembangan kemampuan menulis siswa
yang sangat bagus.
4 Karya tulis yang dikumpulkan terdiri dari tugas di kelas maupun PR yang
diberikan oleh guru, yang meliputi teks descriptive dan recount. Ada berbagai
macam topic tulisan didalam karya tulis yang dikumpulkan yang sebagian besar
dari topik tersebut berbeda dari contoh yang diberikan oleh guru dan berbeda
pula dari pekerjaan siswa yang lain dan siswa dapat mengembangkan topik
tersebut menjadi beberapa paragraf. Karya tulis yang dikumpullkan
menunjukkan perkembangan kemampuan menulis siswa yang bagus.
3 Karya tulis yang dikumpulkan terdiri dari sebagian besar tugas di kelas maupun
PR yang diberikan oleh guru, yang meliputi teks descriptive dan recount. Ada
berbagai macam topik tulisan didalam karya tulis yang dikumpulkan yang
sebagian besar dari topik tersebut berbeda dari contoh yang diberikan oleh guru
dan berbeda pula dari pekerjaan siswa yang lain dan sebagian kecil isi karya tulis
mereka mirip dengan isi dari contoh tulisan yang diberikan guru maupun mirip
dengan isi dari pekerjaan siswa lain. Karya tulis yang dikumpullkan
menunjukkan perkembangan kemampuan menulis siswa yang cukup baik.
2 Karya tulis yang dikumpulkan terdiri dari beberapa tugas di kelas maupun PR
yang diberikan oleh guru, yang meliputi teks descriptive dan recount. Siswa
tidak mampu membuat variasi topik untuk karya tulis yang dikumpulkan.
Sebagian besar dari topik tersebut mirip dengan contoh yang diberikan oleh guru
maupun mirip dengan pekerjaan siswa lain dan sebagian besar dari isinya hampir
mirip dengan topik yang siswa contoh. Pekerjaan yang dikumpullkan
menunjukkan sedikit perkembangan kemampuan menulis siswa.
1 Siswa tidak mengumpulkan sebagian besar dari tugas dan PR mereka. Jumlah
karya tulis yang dikumpulkan hanya sedikit dan hanya meliputi satu atau dua
jenis teks. Siswa tidak mampu membuat variasi topik untuk karya tulisnya dan
isi tulisannya mirip dengan contoh yang diberikan oleh guru ataupun mirip
dengan pekerjaan teman. Karya tulis yang dikumpulkan tidak menunjukkan
perkembangan kemampuan menulis siswa.
 172

C. Karakteristik Masing-masing Teks

Kriteria: Jumlah tulisan dan kualitas perkembangan/analisis mendalam yang
berkelanjutan.
Skor
Descriptor
X6
5 Masing-masing karya tulis terdiri dari 70-100 kata. Siswa dapat membedakan
descriptive dan recount teks dari isi dan ciri-ciri kebahasaan karya tulisnya.
Siswa menunjukkan kemampuan untuk dapat mengetahui/mendeteksi adanya
kesalahan di dalam karya tulisnya dan dapat membetulkan kesalahannya
tersebut.
4 Sebagian besar karya tulisnya terdiri dari 70-100 kata. Siswa dapat membedakan
descriptive dan recount teks dari isi dan cirri-ciri kebahasaan karya tulisnya.
Siswa menunjukkan kemampuan untuk dapat mengetahui/mendeteksi kesalahan
di dalam karya tulisnya dan dapat membetulkan kesalahannya tersebut.
3 Hanya sebagian kecil dari karya tulisnya yang terdiri dari 70-100 kata. Siswa
dapat membedakan descriptive dan recount teks dari isi dan ciri-ciri kebahasaan
karya tulisnya walaupun perbedaanya kadang-kadang kurang jelas. Siswa
menunjukkan kemampuan untuk dapat mengetahui/mendeteksi adanya
kesalahan dan dapat membetulkan sebagian besar dari kesalahannya tersebut.
2 Sebagian besar karya tulisnya berjumlah kurang dari 70 kata. Perbedaan antara
descriptive dan recount teks dari isi dan ciri-ciri kebahasaan karya tulisnya tidak
jelas. Siswa tidak dapat membetulkan sebagian besar dari kesalahan yang
mereka buat.
1 Semua karya tulisnya berjumlah kurang dari 70 kata. Perbedaan antara
descriptive dan recount teks di dalam tulisannya tidak jelas. Siswa tidak dapat
membetulkan kesalahan yang mereka buat.
 173

D. Ciri-ciri Intratekstual
Kriteria:
1. Kontrol grammar dan mekanik
Skor
Descriptor
X3
5 Setiap karya tulis memperlihatkan grammar, spelling, punctuation dan
kapitalization yang sesuai standar yang berlaku. 0-20% kesalahan masih bisa
diterima.
4 Dalam sebagian besar karya tulisnya terdapat sedikit kesalahan dalam
grammar, spelling, punctuation atau kapitalization, tetapi kesalahan-kesalahan
tersebut tidak mempengaruhi arti. Terdapat 20-40% kesalahan.
3 Beberapa kesalahan terjadi pada grammar, spelling, punctuation atau
kapitalization di dalam karya tulis dan kesalahan-kesalahan tersebut mungkin
mempengaruhi arti. Terdapat 40-60% kesalahan.
2 Banyak kesalahan terjadi pada grammar, spelling, punctuation atau
kapitalization di dalam karya tulisnya dan kesalahan-kesalahan tersebut
mempengaruhi arti. Terdapat 60-80% kesalahan.
1 Banyak kesalahan grammar, spelling, punctuation atau kapitalization di dalam
karya tulis yang menyebabkan pesan yang ingin disampaikan susah untuk
dipahami. Terdapat 80-100% kesalahan.

2. Koheren
Skor
Descriptor
X3
5 Masing-masing karya tulis dikembangkan secara luwes dan logis. Ide
pokoknya jelas. Kata penghubung yang digunakan efektif.
4 Susunan kalimatnya menuntun pembaca untuk memahami karya tulisnya
dengan mudah, tidak membingungkan. Ada bukti penggunaan penghubung
dan transisi antara pokok pikiran yang ingin disampaikan.
3 Susunan kalimatnya kadang membingungkan, tetapi pendahuluan dan
kesimpulannya dapat dikenali. Hubungan antara pokok pikiran yang ingin
disampaikan mungkin tidak jelas.
2 Susunan kalimatnya kadang membingungkan. Terdapat pendahuluan tetapi
kesimpulannya tidak jelas bahkan tidak ada kesimpulan dari ide yang ingin
disampaikan. Hubungan antara pokok pikiran yang ingin disampaikan tidak
jelas.
1 Pokok pikiran yang ingin disampaikan dalam karya tulisnya tidak terarah/tidak
jelas. Tidak ada pendahuluan dan kesimpulan. Sulit memahami ide pokok dari
karya tulis tersebut.
174
175
176
177
178
 179

PHOTOS

Mrs. Lulut Esti Handayani, S. Pd.

Mrs. Nuri Utami