D. Data Gathering Technique
To answer the first problem, the researcher obtained the data from the lesson plans developed by Microteaching students in the even semester of the
academic year 20102011. The researcher gathered the learning objectives, Basic Competence, activities, materials, and assessments stated in each lesson plan.
To answer the second problem, the researcher studied more on the lesson plans, dealing with problems that occurred in participants’ learning objectives.
Some questions were delivered to the participants through interviews to cross check.
E. Data Analysis Technique
The writer analyzed the learning objectives based on theories stated in the theoretical framework in chapter 2. Based on those theories, the requirements for
good learning objectives in this research were possessed. The learning objectives were analyzed then. Spelling and grammatical errors were disregarded.
First of all, the researcher made six tables. The first table was about the domain and level of difficulty of each learning objective. It contained some spaces
for the researcher to write any comment about the learning objectives dealing with the domain and level of difficulty. This table table 3.1 helped the researcher to
judge whether some learning objectives were ordered from the simplest or not.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Participant Learning
Objectives Domain
Cognitive Psychomotor
Affective 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5
Comment: Comment:
Table 3.1: Domain and Level of Difficulty
The researcher put the learning objectives formulated by each participant in the second column. Each number in the ‘domain’ column represented a level of
difficulty of learning objective. The sequence was like what she had stated in chapter 2. Then, she ticked
√ which domain and level of difficulty that the learning objective belonged to, except for the psychomotor domain there was no
sequence level for learning objective. The second table table 3.2 was about audience, behaviour, condition,
degree, and order. Every learning objective was put in the second column. If it contained a subject, the researcher put it on the next table and gave a tick
√ on the small column inside it. The same rule also applied for the behaviour,
condition, and degree column. The researcher might also give a tick √ in ‘order’
column if the learning objectives formulated by each participant were ordered from the simplest, which referred to table 3.1. Some spaces to write comment
were also provided in the table.
Partici pant
Learning Objectives
Formulation Com
ment Audience Behaviour
Condition Degree
Order
Table 3.2 Audience, Behaviour, Condition, Degree, and Order
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
The third table table 3.3 was about Basic Competence. Skill, Basic Competence, and learning objectives listed in every lesson plan were put in this
table. The researcher gave a tick
√ in the fifth column if the learning objectives were relevant with the skill and Basic Competence. She might write any comment
in the last column.
Table 3.3 Basic Competence
Participant Skill
Basic Competence
Learning Objectives
Relevant with Basic
Competence Comment
The fourth table table 3.4 was about activities. The learning objectives were put in the second column. Then, the third column was to put the activities
listed in the lesson plans. A small column inside ‘activities’ column might be ticked
√ if the activities were relevant with the learning objectives. Comment could be written in the last column. The same rule also applied for table 3.5 about
material and table 3.6 about assessment.
Table 3.4 Activities
Participant Learning Objectives
Activities Comment
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Table 3.5 Material
Participant Learning Objectives
Material Comment
Table 3.6 Assessment
Participant Learning Objectives
Assessment Comment
Participants’ mastery was regarded as very good if it reached 81 percent above, while it was determined as good if it reached 71-80 percent. It was
regarded as sufficient if it ranged from 61 to 70 percent, insufficient for 51 to 60 percent, and poor for 41 to 50 percent. Moreover, it could be said that students
did not master learning objectives if the percentage was 40 percent below. The
table containing the least mistakes was the one which the participants mastered most. While the table containing the most mistakes was the one which the
participants mastered least. Then, some questions were delivered to the participants in form of
interviews. Those interviews were to cross check researcher’s understanding about the lesson plans with the participants as the writers.
After that, the researcher identified problems that might occur in participants’ learning objective and categorized them into some aspects of good
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
learning objectives; formulation, Basic Competence, materials, activities, and assessment. Then, those problems were discussed.
F. Research Procedure
Kategori