Materials
1. The formulation had irrelevant materials. 3
1.31
Assessments
1. The formulation had no assessment.
11 4.80
2. The formulation had irrelevant assessment.
5 2.18
Table 4.7: The Classifications of Problems
1. Formulation
The most problem which was found in the learning objectives was that the formulation did not mention the condition element. There were 74 problems or
32.31 of the total problem. Most of the formulation did not mention under what condition audience should be able to do the behaviour within the formulation. One
of the examples is ‘
Siswa dapat
menyusun paragraf acak secara urut’. The formulation only includes the audience, which is siswa, the behaviour, which is
menyusun paragraf acak secara urut, and the degree, which is secara urut. To be a good learning objective, certain condition should be applied, for example
dengan cara berpasangan. Under the problem about the existence of condition element, there was
also problem about degree element. It was found that 58 learning objectives did not mention the degree. It was about 25.33 of the total problem. Degree should
be mentioned to tell the audience how well they are required to perform the behaviour. In other words, degree states a standard which audience should qualify
to achieve minimum acceptable performance “Developing Course Objectives,” May 20, 2011. The example is ‘Siswa dapat merespon tawaranajakanundangan
dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari’. It means that certain audience, which is siswa, should be able to do certain behaviour, which is merespon
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
tawaranajakanundangan, in a certain condition, which is dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari. However, the formulation does not mention how well or
minimum requirement of performance the audience should perform the behaviour in order to determine that the learning objective formulation is reached.
Another problem came from the existence of audience element in learning objective formulation. Nineteen problems of not mentioning audience in learning
objective formulation were found. It was about 8.30 of the total problem. Audience is needed to tell who should perform certain behaviour in a learning
objective, for example in the formulation ‘Menggunakan ekspresi-ekspresi dalam menerima undangan dengan intonasi yang tepat dalam konteks role playing’, the
audience is not stated. It is not clear who are expected to perform the behaviour, menggunakan ekspresi-ekspresi dalam menerima undangan.
Besides that, to be a good learning objective, it should have one formulation of behaviour, which contains a verb which can be seen or heard to
indicate what the audience will be able to do after in the end of a lesson “Developing Course Objectives,” May 20, 2011. However, there were some
participants’ learning objectives which did not meet this requirement. Seventeen problems were found in their formulation regarding this. It was about 7.42 of
the total problem. One of the examples is ‘Read a descriptive text aloud and analyze the main ideas of a descriptive text’. It was totally an unacceptable
learning objective since it included two verbs, which were ‘read’ and ‘analyze’, in one formulation. Another example is ‘Mengidentifikasi perbendaharaan kosakata
sulit yang terdapat dalam undangan resmi dan tak resmi’. Although the learning
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
objective has one action verb in a formulation, it includes two kinds of behaviour, which are ‘Mengidentifikasi perbendaharaan kosakata sulit yang terdapat dalam
undangan resmi’ and ‘Mengidentifikasi perbendaharaan kosakata sulit yang terdapat dalam undangan tak resmi’. It is better to separate it into two learning
objectives since undangan resmi and undangan tak resmi are something different. In another side, the statements of behaviour within participants’ learning
objective formulation were sometimes not in accordance with what they meant. It did not represent what participants meant the audience to do in a formulation, for
example in the formulation ‘Siswa dapat menganalisa topik yang terdapat dalam rekaman yang telah didengar’, menganalisa was not something like examining
the nature of a topic deeply. Menganalisa in that formulation referred to mentioning the topic of a text after listening to the recording.
“…….Jadi intinya lebih ke ide pokok secara -- surat undangan ide pokoknya apa sih, teks ini tentang apa.” P6
…….So the essence is on the main idea like -- what is the main idea of the invitation, what is the text about.
This problem was found in 14 learning objectives or 6.11 of the total problem. The next most problem found in participants’ learning objective
formulation was that the statement of behaviour had many interpretations. This problem arose because the action verb in the behaviour was not clearly stated. It
was not obvious what audience should do in order to accomplish that learning objective, for example in the formulation “To respond a dialogue in procedural
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
learning objective consisting of ‘Siswa dapat membedakan cara menerima dan membatalkan janji’, ‘Siswa dapat menyebutkan contoh kalimat menerima dan
membatalkan janji’, and ‘Siswa dapat menemukan informasi penting dalam dialog menerima dan membatalkan janji’ needs to order since they are not in
different domain and belong to different level of cognitive domain. The first formulation belongs to the second level, the second formulation belongs to the
second level, and the third formulation belongs to the first level. So, the third formulation should be put on the first order.
The least problem came from not mentioning competence or skill in the behaviour formulation. Although an action verb was stated in the behaviour, it
was neither competence nor skill that audience should achieve. It was a kind of a way to measure that competence or skill. The formulation ‘Siswa mampu
menjawab pertanyaan yang berhubungan dengan makna dalam suatu teks recount’ was not appropriate since menjawab pertanyaan did not represent certain
competence. It should be clarified to determine what competence audience had been able to do if they could menjawab pertanyaan, for example the behaviour
menjawab pertanyaan indicated that the audience was able to identify specific information. Then something that should be written as the behaviour was ‘to
identify specific information’, not ‘menjawab pertanyaan’. This problem totaled 3 or 1.31 of the total problem.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
2. Basic Competence
