79
discourages the designerteacher from using the traditional test types that emphasize knowledge reproduction and that have one answer only to each item. This is also in line
with the assessment suggested in the new curriculum K.2013, which uses test and non-test types for the evaluation of each l
earner’s progress. There are some big assessment problems that have to be solved, such as how to integrate the attitude
components into the whole evaluation system, but this is not addressed in the study.
3. Developing
In this part Developing Stage the writer conducted formative evaluation by asking three lecturers to evaluate the guidelines, and revised the guidelines based on the
feedback given by the evaluators. The following comments, suggestions, and responses.are considered as the results of the validation process done by experts.
a. General Comments The following are the general comments on the guidelines given by the
evaluators. 1 The guidelines are well written because they start from the conceptual level so that
ELESP students who are using the guidelines know why they have to carry out the procedures stated at the operational level.
2 The guidelines are comprehensive enough. They start from theoretical explanation, and then continue with the bridging stage, the lesson plan, and the procedure for
writing a design product implementation.
80
3 The guidelines give enough details of self-actualization language learning principles at the conceptual and bridging stages. The lesson plan at the operational level gives
an example how the principles are applied. b. Strengths of Guidelines
1 The strength of the guidelines lies in the three stages of presentation: conceptual, bridging, and operational stages. They give the reader a wide perspective related to
development of self-actualization language learning. 2 They are supported by current learning theories and a practical lesson plan based on
“Kurikulum 2013”, which indicates that the guidelines to some extent follow the current development of a school curriculum.
3 The guidelines also give the reader a procedure how to design a learning product so that heshe can follow the stages step by step.
c. Weaknesses of Guidelines 1 In general the weaknesses can be concluded from the suggestions d given by the
evaluators. 2 One evaluator states that in the lesson plan there are no explanations of important
technical terms, such as core competence, basic competence, indicator, approach, and method.
3 There is no learning material developed from the lesson plan. d. Suggestions
1 One of the evaluators suggests that in the guidelines the element of evaluation be discussed because it cannot be separated from a learning process, and in K.2013 the
81
three domains of evaluation attitude – social and spiritual, knowledge, and skills
must be included and integrated. This is not easy for ELESP students who are writing and implementing a lesson plan. Operational verbs that are compatible with
the three domains need to be discussed, and the list be put in an appendix. 2 Two evaluators suggest that an example of a lesson plan for the SMP and for the
SMK be included in the guidelines because ELESP students also write lesson plans for those levels.
3 There is a suggestion that the guidelines could be published or disseminated for ELESP students who are going to write RD undergraduate theses with emphasis on
humanistic values that are in line with the core values of Sanata Dharma University as a Jesuit institution. If published, the guidelines should be equipped with various
technical formats, such as evaluation forms, assessment rubrics, and lesson plan formats. A glossary of terms or index should also be added to help the reader to use
and understand the guidelines better. 4 An example of material development could be added at the operational stage.
5 In the lesson plan, the teacher’s activities could contain doing some assessment especially related to the affective domains while students are doing observation and
communication. e. The Writer’s Responses to Suggestions
To respond to the suggestion to include the discussion of evaluation of the three domains, the writer added the basic assumption that is followed in the self-actualization
learning principle that a learning process is as important as a learning result. In a learning process the attitude domain plays a major role e.g., willingness to participate
82
in a game, enthusiasm to do it, and showing appreciation of other learners’ different educationalcultural backgrounds. Therefore, evaluating this domain during a learning
process is considered essential. How the final grade of a learner’s English competence reflects the three domains is still a matter of controversy. Should a final grade show and
reflect the learner’s attitude, knowledge, and skills together? Further studies should be done to map out evaluation tasks.
The suggestion to include two other lesson plans – one of the SMP level, the
other SMK level – would make the guidelines more practical. ELESP students writing a
design product will find them very useful. This may be done at the dissemination stage where the guidelines are published, and besides lesson plans, more practical additions,
such as evaluation formats and a list of operational verbs are included. A glossary of terms needed by ELESP students, such as core competence, basic competence,
indicator , and assessment, is also important and should be added to the guidelines. The
definitions are adapted from K.2013 because those terms are found in a lesson plan format in K.2013.
As suggested by one of the evaluators, an example of material development, though not a complete set, was given in conjunction with the lesson plan. The writer
adapted from a communication activity found in a lesson unit written by an ELESP student. This is an activity for SMP grade VIII students in which each learner is asked
to write another learner a story based on an experience that he had during the last holidays. In the next phase two learners exchange their letters and they should give each
other comments and suggestions in regard to the content and format of the story. The next phase is revision of the letter story by the each writer.
83
In fact, from the first phase to the last phase of the activity above, self- actualization “nuances” can be added. During the brainstorming phase the designer
makes sure that local content is found in the topic a student is going to write, e.g., visiting local places, such as the Gembira Loka Zoo, the Amplaz Mall, and
the Sultan’s Palace, playing local games such as ‘hide and seek’, and watching local shows such as a
Dang-Dut music concert. Next, the students can write individually or collaboratively if they visited the same place. Collaborative learning can then be done here. When
students correct and give comments on others’ works, an effort to empower the learner can be made. Generally, the self-actualization nuances are reflected in the learning
process and made explicit by writing some self-actualization objectives learning indicators. In other words, the designer should be aware of broad self-actualization
learning goals, and try to realize them in more practical, detailed indicators, activities, and material.
The writer tried to improve the assessment process in the lesson plan by explicitly stating what the teacher does related to the assessment of the students’
affective domains while they are doing observation and communication. The affective domains, as the
writer has long believed, should become the students’ driving force to communicate with one another. Without great motivation and purposeful intention, the
students would not do communication practice seriously. However, assessing their motivation and their communication skills cannot be mixed up. Although in K.2013 the
teacher should include affective goals in the overall assessment, how the three domains are integrated in the assessment system is still a big controversy at present.
84
In the self-actualization learning it is assumed that there are two general objectives able to self-actualize and able to acquire communicative competence.
These two major objectives are elaborated into ten or more enabling objectives. Some of them, such as ‘able to express ideas and opinions’ and ‘able to express themselves
spontaneously in oral communication, ’ mostly contain knowledge and skills, while
others, such as ‘able to develop their own learning styles’ and ‘able to have equitable positions,’ contain attitude.
When trying to include some of the enabling objectives, the designerthe teacher develops activities directly and writes relevant indicators. This is the phase where self-
actualization language learning can be carried out in the framework of K.2013. An exa
mple of a relevant indicator is ‘show great tolerance for proficiency level differences in expressing their self-
identity orally,’ which is based on one of the enabling objectives. Here the teacher m
ay assess the degree of the students’ tolerance while they are engaged in group work in ‘associating’ in the lesson plan. The designerthe teacher
develops a tolerance assessment rubric in which four levels of ‘tolerance’ are written: very good, good, sufficient, and insufficient. This attitude assessment meets the
criterion that assessment can be done while students are doing an activity. This can be done separately
from the assessment of the students’ skills, which is done while students are demonstrating orally the use of self-identity exposition appropriately and
contextually in ‘communicating’ of the lesson plan. In short, the writer still believes that assessing the attitude component is an independent activity and is separated from
assessing the knowledge and skills components.
85
4. Disseminating
