Hasil (
Bahasa Indonesia) 1:
[Salinan]Disalin!
INTRODUCTION Students’ competency is a problem which is still faced by the National Education of Indonesia. The students’ competency is the “estuary” of the long and complex process encountered by the students in learning for a range of time. Many perception still regard competency as the students’ result of learning in answering achievement or cognitive test. Instead, competency is not just cognitive, but also psychomotor and affective (Undang- Undang No. 20 tahun 2003 tentang SISDIKNAS). Operationally, competency covers knowledge, skill, and values. In the context of foreign language instruction, i.e English, students’ competency is how the students can communicate by using English. It is based on the nature of the language itself as a tool for communication. Depdiknas (2003) states that language has central role in intellectual, social, and emotional development. To construct students’ competency in English, the teachers should direct the English instruction to constructivist paradigm viewing that knowledge contsruction occurs through individual operation (Piaget in Elliot et al., 1996) and social interaction (Vygotsky in Elliot et a.l, 1996). The students must be given ample opportunity to participate actively during learning process. Besides the area of learning process, the role of assessment can not be ignored. It is because there is a close relationship between learning and assessment context (Gagne et al.,2005). The assessment method should be directed to be able to measure students’ competency covering three domains, namely: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Here, the assessment can be directed to the implementation of authentic assessment which attempts to measure performance in real-life contexts (McAlpine, 2000). However, the condition in real situation is on the contrary. The paradigm of constructivist and authentic assessment are not implemented well yet. It is based on the result of empirical study through pre- observation done in SMAN 1 Mengwi. Teaching reading was still dominated by explaining materials (genre) and translating text. Then, the students were assigned to answer the questions relating to the text. The students worked individually. Next, the answers were discussed by the teacher. In assessing students’ reading, multiple- choice test, matching, true-false and sometimes essay tests were used. It seems that the test types just measure students’ cognitive. Meanwhile teaching writing was done after reading. Here, the teacher explained again the concept of genre to make the students get deeper understanding. Then, the students were assigned to write genre. To score students’ writing, a rubric was used. Theoretically, assessing students’ writing by rubric is good. However, it was not done ideally. The teacher just assessed the students’ writing from linguistic aspects, such as: grammatical structure, vocabulary, spelling, and mechanic. It was done because the working time of the teachers. In one week, the teacher should teach 24 hours. Since English is taught 5 hours in a class, the teacher should teach 5 classes. It can be imagined if in the class consists of 30 students. As the result of this condition, 80% of the students got score less than 70 for reading and 76% of the students got score less than 70 for writing in pre-test given by the researcher. These results were absolutely dissatisfied. It made teaching model and assessment type used by the teacher should be reviewed again. By analyzing the instruction and assessment in reading and writing, it is expected that the teacher should be creative in designing instruction and assess
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
