Teaching Plan The English Teachers’ Perspectives on the Implementation of 2013
kan, kemudian indikatornya udah jelas per bab kan udah ada, paling kita tinggal rppnya doang, rppnya juga udah ada garis
besarnya.
Peneliti : oh jadi dari pembentukan dan perumusan rpp itu ibu ngambil dari permendikbud atau gimana?
Guru : dari silabus aja langsung, kan udah ada tuh misalnya kan kd 1
masukin tuh di semester 1 ada berapa kd misalnya kita sepakat nih guru kelas 1 ada tiga kd masukin kompetensi dasarnya tiga
kd misalnya. Untuk kognitif misalnya ambil tiga aja, kemudian untuk keterampilan ambil tiga aja misalnya, untuk afektifnya tiga
juga misalnya. Kan gitu.
” Tuesday, 10
th
November 2015 Translation, R: Researcher, T: Teacher
“R : Ok, if relates to the syllabus and lesson plan, I design by your
own self or not? T
: The syllabus and lesson plan are available, already decided, syllabus has been provided we just look at it, because 2013
curriculum system runs like that. The main competence is clear, and also the basic competence, then the indicators are also clear
in each chapter, we just design the lesson plan as the rest, even the lesson has the general big outline.
R : Oh, so how to formulate and design the lesson plan, you took
from government, didn’t you? T
: Directly from the syllabus, because it is available. For instance that KD 1 put into first semester and how many KDs, for
example we are the teacher of first grade agreed that there are three KDs and basic competence is input by three KDs. For the
cognitive we took three KDs, and for psychomotor we also took three, and for affective we also took three KDs for examples.”
From the interview result, it can be argued that teacher A designed the lesson plan based on the syllabus and material in the textbook. As addition,
actually the design of lesson plan is not merely based on syllabus and KI KD, but it should be based on teaching material, instruction process, instruction
assessment, time allocation, and instruction resource.
3
However, in fact, the lesson plan document of English teacher A was different from the characteristic of
2013 curriculum lesson plan which was stated in appendix of the Ministry of
3
Ibid., p. 9
National Education and Culture law number 103 Year 2014.
4
The most crucial aspect that is KI and KD which are as 2013 curriculum lesson plan characteristic
wasn’t stated in teacher’s A lesson plan. Yet, this aspect was in the form of Standard competence and Basic competence which was as the KTSP curriculum
characteristic. Here is the table of lesson plan analysis of English teacher A. Table 15. The table of lesson plan analysis of English teacher A of SMPN 3 South
Tangerang.
No Lesson plan
component Explanation
1 School identity
The identity of school was written in form of educational institution that was SMPN 3 South
Tangerang
2 Subject
Teacher wrote English as a subject of teaching. 3
ClassSemester This lesson plan was designed purposely for
seventh class second semester. 4
Theme “Shopping” was chosen as the theme of learning.
5 Aspectskill
Reading was the skill to be developed in this theme.
6 Time allocation
The time allocation was 2x40 minutes for each meeting.
7 Type of text
Descriptive text was the kind of text focused on. 8
Academic year 20122013 was the year of learning and teaching
activity. 9
Standard competence The formulation of standard competence in this
lesson plan was actually based on previous curriculum that was KTSP. Because in 2013
curriculum, standard competence is substituted by core competence and basic competence which
is conteted in syllabus and formulated into lesson plan based on the topic or theme chosen.
10 Basic competence
Reading skill is the basic competence developed in this lesson plan. This competence also actually
still belonged to KTSP curriculum. In 2013 curriculum, this competence was changed into
more detail.
11 Indicator
Because the KI and KD did not exist in this
4
Ibid., p. 8-9
lesson plan, the indicator developed based on the teacher’s perception on teaching and subject.
12 Learning objective
In general, the objective of learning was developed based on indicator. Only the use of
narration is different.
13 Material of instruction
The material used in this lesson plan was chosen from the descriptive text which talked about
Distro store. Researcher did not recognize where the material taken.
14 Methodtechnique
In this lesson plan teacher used the three phase- technique.
15 Activities
Steps of teaching Unlike with the step of teaching in 2013
curriculum, this lesson plan consisted of three main activities that were opening, main activity,
and closing.
Opening Opening section contained the activities which
were done by teacher and students such as greeting, asking students’ condition, checking the
students’ presence, motivating students, and explaining the topic which will be taught.
Main activity in 2013 curriculum, main activity consists of five
principle activities that belong to scientific approach. However, in this lesson plan the main
activity consisted of explaining the material, and involving the students in the activity of
instruction without stating the specific step.
Closing In closing activity, teacher concluding what had
been learned, asking the difficulties faced by students during learning, and asking students to
find another descriptive text.
16 Learning resource
The learning and teaching resource was taken from text book “
“Effective English 1 B for grade VII of Junior High Schools Second half-
year”, remain curriculum, and script of descriptive text, and
pictures.
17 Assessment
Technique The technique used in this lesson plan was oral
and written test. Form
The question of oral and written.
Instrument Contained list of question related to the
descriptive text above. Assessment guidance
It talked about the guidance of scoring. Assessment rubric
It was about the standard of assessment which was also provided by score of each item assessed.
Based on this fact, it is shown that English teacher A didn’t do what she said in the interview session. Therefore, there was a mismatch between the
interview result and the practice especially in the design of lesson plan. This mismatch could be caused by the teacher’s laziness in designing the lesson plan as
stated in teacher B interview above. So the teacher A probably only copied the lesson plan.
In the other hand, the design of English teacher’s C lesson plan was much closer to what stated in government lesson plan. In this case, researcher wasn’t
able to get interview data because English teacher C was reluctant to do for her private reason. Fortunately, as stated above that English teacher C designed the
lesson plan. Here is the table of lesson plan analysis of English teacher C. Table 16. The table of lesson plan analysis of English teacher C of SMPN 3 South
Tangerang. No
Lesson plan Component Explanation
1 School identity
The school identity was written SMP N 3 of South Tangerang.
2 ClassSemester
Seventh class for second semester. 3
Subject English was the subject of this lesson plan.
4 Main material
The main material which taught was description text.
5 Time allocation
Each meeting spent 2 x 40 minutes. 5
Core competence The core competence was written completely
from K1, K2, K3, and K3. 6
Basic competence Basic competence was written together with
the indicator of instruction. KD 1.1 and KD
2.1 were also written together with the indicators. KD 3.1 and KD 4.9 were chosen to
be write and it was suitable with the main material of this lesson plan that was
descriptive text. 7
Instruction material For the material of the lesson, teacher C took
the social aspect of the text, text structure, language feature and also the topic of the text.
8 Instruction method
Scientific approach was chosen. 9
Instruction activity Opening
In the opening, the teacher started with greeting, asking students’ condition, asking
students’ presence, reciting basmallah, and
warming up by sing a song. Main activity
In main activity, five activities that were observing, questioning, gathering information,
associating, and communicating as the feature of scientific approach were used.
Closing In closing, teacher and students did the
reflection, concluded the material learned, and giving the tasks to students as homework for
next meeting. 10
ResourceTeaching media
Teacher used textbook “When English rings the bell
” and the media used was pictures and slides show.
11 Assessment
The technique used in assessing students’ achievement were writing and oral. Students
were asked to write body part and the function of the human, animal, and thing’s body. The
last was that student asked to mention the
human, animal, and things body.
Based on the table above, the component of lesson plan which was written by English teacher C were school identity, classsemester, subject, main material,
time allocation, core competence, basic competence, instruction material, modelinstruction method, instruction activity, resourceinstruction media, and
assessment. Related to design of lesson plan which English teacher C created, it was
obtained that the design suited to the example in the appendix of the Ministry of National Education and Culture law number 103 Year 2014. All of lesson plan
components were included orderly. The major elements such as school identity, lesson subject, lesson material, core competence, basic competence, indicator of
learning, teaching material, teaching method, detail instruction activity, material resource, teaching media, and completed by assessment technique. Based on the
lesson plan designed, it could be assumed that teacher C designed the lesson plan based on the rule. It means that English teacher C understands how to design the
lesson plan in 2013 curriculum and implemented it into the design of real lesson plan.
Based on the analysis to English teacher’s C lesson plan, teacher C had described the instruction process in scientific approach. In describing the
scientific approach, teacher C described five major steps and completed by clear activity for each step. Majorly, teacher C developed the scientific approach based
on the text book. Actually, the rule stated that the design of teaching material and also the description of teaching activity are developed based on th
e students’ condition and the environment.
5
Therefore, in this case, English teacher C was still less on designing authentic teaching material and also the instruction activity
for the real learning of students contextually.
5
Ibid., p. 9
Still for English teacher C, from the design of lesson plan especially in main activity, it can be seen that she described the five steps of scientific approach
orderly. She started to do observing process, questioning, experimenting, associating, and communicating. Not only the order of those five steps above, she
also completed those steps by exact activities. So in the closing activity, she described what exactly done in this session.
According to the Law Number 14 year 2005 stated that assessment process towards learning result conducted by teachers is kind of teacher’s professional
duty.
6
So that teachers have to assess students’ learning. For this case, as stated in the appendix of the Ministry of National Education and Culture law number 103
Year 2014 that the design of instruction assessment by determining the range, technique, assessment instrument, and scoring guideline.
7
Based on the lesson plan analysis, English teacher A only provided the instrument of assessment by
attaching the list of question in her lesson plan. Different from her, English teacher C provided her lesson plan by attaching assessment technique, scoring
guideline, and also rubric of scoring. However, the instrument of assessment wasn’t attached in her lesson plan.
In lesson plan aspect, it was obtained different facts from three seventh class English teachers. As described above that the implementation of 2013
curriculum especially in lesson plan aspect didn’t run well because still found the mismatch in this aspect. It was quiet ironic considering that this school was
chosen as the model of 2013 implementation from the beginning of 2013 curriculum officially implemented by the minister as what vice headmaster said
below. “Peneliti : terkait dengan kebijakan kurikulum di sekolah ini, sudah berapa
lama atau sejak kapan sekolah ini menerapkan kurikulum 2013 pak?
Guru : ini tahun yang ketiga.
6
Lampiran Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Nomor 104 Tahun 2014: Penilaian Hasil Belajar oleh Pendidik pada Pendidikan Dasar dan Pendidikan Menengah, p. 2
7
Lampiran Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Nomor 103 Tahun 2014. loc. cit.
Peneliti : tahun yang ke tiga? Guru
: iya, jadi berjalan di tahun ketiga jadi sudah dua tahun lebih ya, hampir dua setengah tahun.
Peneliti : alasan apa yang membuat sekolah ini menerapkan kurikulum tersebut pak?
Guru : pertama ditunjuk, alsan utamanya itu.” Wednesday, 18
th
November 2015 Translation, R: Researcher, T: Teacher
“R : Related to the curriculum policy in this school, how long this
school has implemented 2013 curriculum? T
: It is the third year. R
: The third year sir? T
: Yes, so it has already implemented in the third year so it is more than two years, almost two and half years.
R : What was the reason that this school implement this curriculum
sir? T
: The first was because we were ordered, that was the main reason.”
In the other hand, actually those teachers were already partaken to several 2013 curriculum training and also workshop related to its characteristic and
implementation. Hence, logically, those teachers must be more professional and prepared to implement 2013 curriculum especially in lesson plan design which is
as the basic component before starting the instruction.