71 This lesson plan focused on writing skills. Therefore, the level of thinking
demanded was also high. The participant had designed learning activity in which they experience how to write procedure text. Moreover, the topic they should
write on based on the model that they got. Here, they also experience problem- solving process since they got something that they did not know before. Whatever
the model was, they should write the procedure based on it.
E. The Coherence of the Learning Objectives and the Learning Activities
Kemp 1977 states that successful learning required two things. The first one was learning objective should be clearly stated for students. The second one
was learning activities should be designed to achieve the learning objective. It showed the strong relation of learning objectives and learning activities. After
analyzing the formulation of learning objectives and the learning activities, the researcher analyzed the coherence of both. If the activities designed had presented
the behavior with the level of thinking as what required for each learning domain in learning objectives, it meant that the learning objectives and learning activities
design were coherent.
1. Lesson Plan 1
The learning objectives formulated by the participants fulfilled the criteria of clearly stated learning objectives as proposed by Pasch et al. 1991. The
participant also formulated the learning objectives in all domains, which was cognitive, affective and psychomotor domain as proposed by Bloom 1964. The
72 weakness was only in the different condition which applied for the same expected
behavior in cognitive and psychomotor domain. In this lesson plan, the participant did not apply the six principles proposed
by Pasch et al. 1991 in designing learning activities well. The congruence principle was not fulfilled since there was one learning objective from the
affective domain which did not appear in the learning activities. However, the expected audience, behavior, condition, degree and the level of thinking in other
learning domains presented in the learning objectives appeared in the design of learning activities. Moreover, the learning objective formulated in affective
domain was only enabling objective. It means that the terminal objectives still could be achieved through the learning activities that supported other learning
objectives. Therefore, the researcher considered that there was still coherence between learning objectives and learning activities in this lesson plan.
2. Lesson Plan 2
The learning objectives formulated by the participants did not fulfill the criteria of clearly stated learning objectives as proposed by Pasch et al. 1991.
The participant did not write the degree of learning there. The participant also did not formulate the learning objectives in affective domain.
In this lesson plan, the participant had not applied the six principles proposed by Pasch et al. 1991 in designing learning activities. The congruence,
variety and higher level of thinking were not applied well by the participant. One of the expected behaviors and the level of thinking presented in the terminal
objective, “diberikan sebuah teks contoh berbentuk procedure, siswa mampu
73 mengidentifikasi generic structure yang terdapat pada text tersebut
” did not appear in the design of learning activities. Therefore, the researcher considered
that there was no coherence in this lesson plan.
3. Lesson Plan 3
