77 Another problem came from the formulation of learning objectives that were
not derived from the competence standard. There were 2 lesson plans or 28.57 of the total number. The example was the learning objective formulated in lesson
plan three. Here, the participant wrote, “students are able to complete a mind map
based on the clues given correctly”. It seemed that this formulation of learning
objective was only the objective of a certain learning activity. In other words, it is only one activity which is designed to help the students achieve the learning
objectives. That was not the essence of learning objective because every learning activity could be formulated as learning objectives then. As stated by Cooper at al.
2011 that it is called as student-oriented activity since it specify an activity designed to help the students reach a certain outcome p.24. Therefore, the
researcher tried to analyze this learning objective more. Here, the students are required to complete mind map based on the clues given. The clues could be seen
from the m aterial attached in this lesson plan. The title of the mind map was “my
weekend in last week”. From that title, the students should define “who, when, where, what, how and personal comment”. In this case, the researcher thought that
the participants tried to teach the students about the content of a recount text or what should be written in a recount text. If that was so, it was better to formulate
the learning objective by stating that students are able to describe the elements should be written in a recount text.
2. Learning Activities
Besides problems in the formulation of learning objectives, the researcher also found some problems in the design of learning activities. There were 4 lesson
78 plans or 57.14 of the total number whose instructions of the learning activities
was unclear. These lesson plans may create misunderstanding for those who applied. In fact, a lesson plan should be the guidance of what will run in class. As
an example, the researcher found the statement “memberi penjelasan pada siswa
tentang apa yang harus dikerjakan ” in the developmental activities written in
lesson plan 1. After conducting the interview, the researcher found that this instruction meant that the teacher asked the students to arrange the paragraph into
a good order. Then, the second learning activity that also gave unclear statement was
“memberikan kesempatan kepada siswa tentang apa yang harus dikerjakan”. This statement meant that the teacher asked the students to determine the generic
structure of the paragraph, which have been arranged in a good order. When the researcher asked the reason why the participant wrote the instruction like that, the
participant explained that the purpose of designing the lesson plan was for the exam in microteaching class. Therefore, the participant did not think or consider
other people that might apply the design of lesson plan. Besides, the design of learning activities that did not fulfill the congruence
principle also became the problem of the learning activities designed. There were 3 lesson plans or 42.85 of the total number. For example, in lesson plan two, the
participant wrote “siswa mampu menulis sebuah teks baru berbentuk procedure”.
However, there was no activity designed to support the achievement of that formulation of learning objectives. The students did not get the opportunity to
experience how to write procedure text. The participant explained that the learning objective would be achieved through activity two, how to operate
79 computer. However, in this activity, it could be seen that it did not facilitate the
students with writing experience. What the students should do in this activity was only choose the best procedural verb for every step in the procedure of operating
computer. It means that the design of learning activities did not give the students opportunity to achieve the learning outcomes.
The next problem was the design of learning activities did not fulfill the organization principle. There were 3 lesson plans or 42.85 of the total number.
For example, in lesson plan six, the participant did not design the set induction activity. After greeting, the students were directly asked to identify the generic
structure and language feature of recount text. In this case, the organization of the learning process would not be apparent for the students. It was better to design
some activities in the introductory activities so that it could attract the students’ attention on the topic and help the students realize how every single step in class
activities help them achieve the learning objectives. Another problem came from the design of learning activities that did not
fulfill the variety principle. There were 2 lesson plans or 28.57 of the total number. The example was the design of learning activities in lesson plan two and
four. The variety principle was not applied well in those two lesson plans since all of the activities required the students to work in group. It would be better if the
participant also designed the individual work because not all students were comfortable to work in group.
The last problem came from the design of learning activities which did not fulfill the criteria of higher level of thinking. There were 2 lesson plans or 28.57
80 of total number. The example of this problem was found in lesson plan four.
Based on the learning objective, the students should be able to write narrative text. However, in the learning activities the students only experienced to describe a
picture which would be part of recount text. Some of them might write the orientation, the crisis or the re-orientation. They did not experience writing the
complete narrative text, starting from the orientation, the crisis and the re- orientation. It seemed that they only experience writing to describe a picture. In
other words, the formulation of the learning objective required the students to achieve the fifth level of the cognitive domain. However, the learning activities
designed only required the students to use the second level of cognitive domain. That was why the learning activities designed were considered as did not fulfill
higher level of thinking principle.
81
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter consists of two major sections. In the first part, which was conclusions, the researcher presents the summary of the research finding. The
second part was suggestion as the benefit of this research.
A. Conclusions
The first problem was dealing with the coherence of learning activities and learning objectives. Based on the study which investigate the lesson plans
designed by seven students from different microteaching classes, the researcher found that five out of seven lesson plans being analyzed reflects the coherence of
learning activities and learning objectives. The coherence could be seen from two things. The first one was the formulation of learning objective, whether it had
been derived from basic competence, covered three learning domains as proposed by Bloom 1964, and fulfilled the criteria of clearly stated learning objectives as
proposed by Pasch et al. 1991. The second one was the design of learning activities whether it had fulfilled the six principal as proposed by Pasch et al.
1991. The researcher analyzed again the design of learning activities and
learning objectives to answer the second problem. It deals with the problems that might occur in designing coherent learning activities and learning objectives. The
researcher found out some problems as follows:
