2. Basic Competence
Besides in the formulation itself, problem was also found in the relevancy between learning objectives related and the Basic Competence. Some learning
objectives did not relevant with the Basic Competence in which they derived from. One of the examples was ‘Merespon makna dalam teks monolog sederhana
dengan menggunakan ragam bahasa lisan secara akurat, lancar dan berterima dalam berbagai konteks kehidupan sehari-hari dalam teks: recount’ as the Basic
Competence. The formulation ‘Siswa dapat mengidentifikasi main idea dari rekaman teks fungsional pendek dan teks monolog sederhana berbentuk recount’
was not appropriate with the Basic Competence since the formulation dealt with ‘teks fungsional pendek’ and ‘teks monolog sederhana berbentuk recount’,
whereas the Basic Competence only dealt with ‘teks monolog sederhana teks: recount’. This problem totaled 5 or 2.18 of the total problems.
3. Activities
Activities are needed to provide audience chances to learn and experience in order to support the achieving of learning objectives. However, some learning
objectives did not have any activity to support its achievement. The formulation ‘Siswa mampu menunjukkan penggunaan simple past tense dalam suatu teks
recount dengan menjawab pertanyaan yang berhubungan dengan simple past tense tersebut’ see appendix 2 table 3.4 point 2.o.b had no activity dealing with
simple past tense. The activities stated only dealt with the other learning
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
form titled How to make fruit salad”. That formulation did not clearly mention an observable, measurable action verb which had certain measurement.
“…….Respond tu ya -- maksudnya ngerti dan tau maksudnya isi teksnya itu.” P11
…….Respond is -- is to know and to understand the content of the text.
According to participant 11, ‘To respond a dialogue’ was to know and to understand what it was in a text. If that so, there was no clear statement of
behaviour to determine whether audience knew and understood the text or not. The formulation still had many interpretations about how to measure if the
audience knew or understood the text and what kind of ‘respond’ it was. It could be ‘identify the meaning of difficult words’, ‘identify the main idea of the
dialogue’, ‘identify the steps of making fruit salad’, ‘produce another dialogue to continue the previous dialogue’, or many other alternatives. This kind of problem
totaled 5 or 2.18 of the total problem. The same amount of problem also transpired for not well-ordered learning
objectives problem. It was 2.18 of the total problem. A set of learning objectives that should be ordered are those which have more than one learning objective and
they are in the different level except for psychomotor domain. Learning objectives in the different domain do not need to order. For example, a set of
learning objective consists of some formulation like ‘merespon ungkapan mengundangmenawarkan’
and ‘merespon ungkapan menyetujui ajakantawaranundangan’. Those two learning objectives do not need to order
because they belong to the same level of cognitive domain. Unless, the set of
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
objectives, which were about reading comprehension. This problem totaled 5 or 2.18 of the total problems.
The same amount of problem also happened to the relevancy of learning objectives with the activities. Five problems of their irrelevancy were found. It
was about 2.18 of the total problem. The formulation ‘Siswa dapat menyebutkan lima contoh kalimat menerima dan membatalkan janji dengan benar rekaman
yang didengar’ see appendix 2 table 3.4 point 8.o.b was categorized in this kind
of problem since the activity stated was about discussion of text meaning which dealt with listening comprehension. There was no statement of activity for the
behaviour ‘menyebutkan lima contoh kalimat menerima dan membatalkan janji’.
4. Materials
Kategori