CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter consists of two major sections. The first section A is to answer the first problem formulation, which deals with Microteaching students’
mastery in formulating learning objectives. The second section B concerns problems that might occur in students’ learning objective formulation, which
answer the second problem formulation. Each section includes both data presentation and discussion of the research findings.
A. Microteaching Students’ Mastery
As stated in chapter 2, learning objective is important to define what learners are able to do in the end of an instruction and to indicate that the learning
expectation is reached Gronlund, 1991: 3. Thus, learning objective, which is derived from general purposes Basic Competence, is also important to determine
what should be taught in a meeting materials, how to teach it activities, and how to assess the learners assessment.
The data of this research were obtained from 18 students of Microteaching classes. The researcher studied the lesson plans they made for their peer teaching
practice in that class. In order to give a clear presentation of the data, some tables are shown below.
34
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Learning Objectives Number of Indicators
Number of Objectives
44 36 Total: 80
Table 4.1: Number of Learning Objectives
From the lesson plans that participants made, there were 80 learning objectives. They consisted of 44 indicators and 36 objectives. The distribution of
domain and level of difficulties of those learning objectives are shown in table 4.2 below.
Domain Level Learning Objectives
Total Percentage
Number of Indicator
Number of Objective
Cognitive 1
28 24 52 65.00
2
6 4 10
12.50
3 4 6
10 12.50
4 - - - -
5 - - - -
6
2 2 4 5.00
Psychomotor 1
- - - -
2 - - - -
3
- - - -
4 11 10 21
26.25
Affective 1
- - - -
2 - - - -
3 - - - -
4 - - - -
5 - - - -
one learning objective may belong to more than one domain
Table 4.2: Domain and Level Distribution of Learning Objectives
Most learning objectives were in the first level of cognitive domain, which was remembering. There were 52 learning objectives or 65.00 of the total
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
learning objectives belonging to this level. Most participants still focused their learning objective formulation on the easiest level, such as mengidentifikasi,
menemukan, and menyebutkan. Under the first level of cognitive domain, there were 21 learning objectives or 26.25 of the total learning objectives which
belonged to psychomotor domain. Those learning objectives related with speech behaviour, such as menirukan and merespon ungkapan.
The second and third level of cognitive domain included 10 learning objectives each or 12.50 of the total learning objectives. The second level of
cognitive domain deals with the level of understanding. Verbs that were usually used were menjelaskan, menyebutkan contoh, etc. The third level of cognitive
domain is about understanding. Menggunakan ekspresi and merespon ungkapan were some of the verbs that were used to indicate this level. The least learning
objectives were in the last level or the sixth level of cognitive domain. It included four learning objectives or 5.00 of the total learning objective formulation. This
level is the most difficult one in cognitive domain. Verbs which were used were membuat cerita secara lisan and menyampaikan monolog secara lisan.
However, there were some levels in those three domains which were not covered in participants’ learning objective formulation. There were two levels in
cognitive domain, which were the forth level, dealing with analyzing, and the fifth level, dealing with evaluating. In the psychomotor domain, level number 1 to
number 3 was not covered by any learning objective. Those levels concern gross bodily movements, finely coordinated movements, and nonverbal communication.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
While all levels in the affective domain were not covered by any leaning objective at all.
Moreover, good learning objective formulation is indicated by the presence of the four elements. They are audience indicating who will do the
behaviour, behaviour defining what audience should be able to do, condition telling under what condition the audience should be able to do the behaviour,
and degree indicating standard of how well the audience should be able to do the behaviour “Developing Course Objectives,” May 20, 2011.
The analysis of participants’ learning objective formulation is shown in table 4.3 below.
Formulation Learning Objectives
Total Percentage
Number of Indicators
Number of Objectives
Audience 30 31 61
76.25
Behaviour
29 20 49 61.25
Condition 4 2 6
7.50
Degree 10 12 22
27.50
Table 4.3: Formulation of Learning Objectives
From the total number, there were 61 learning objectives 76.25 included the audience who performed the learning objectives, which were
students, within the formulation. It was regarded as good. Forty nine learning objectives or 61.25 of the total learning objectives
contained the behaviour which showed what competence or skill students should able to do, for example mengidentifikasi. The percentage shows the mastery of the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
participants in formulating behaviour within learning objective formulation was insufficient.
Then the condition element was found in only six learning objectives or 7.50 of the total formulation. Condition tells in under what circumstance
students should able to do the behaviour “Developing Course Objectives,” May 20, 2011. Some of the examples were dalam konteks role playing and
berdasarkan rekaman yang telah didengar. Since it was only 7.50 from the total number, it can be said that the participants did not master learning objective
formulation dealing with condition element. Moreover, a good learning objective formulation should also include
degree of accuracy, such as dengan tepat dan lancar, that students should reach in performing certain behaviour. Twenty two learning objectives or 27.50 of the
total number contained this degree element. It means that the participants did not master learning objective formulation dealing with degree element.
The next is about the order of those learning objective formulation. According to Kemp 1977 learning objectives should be stated from simple to
more complex and from concrete to more abstract mental levels. However, not all learning objectives needed to order. It was because the formulation only contained
single learning objective, the formulation contained more than one learning objective which belonged to the same level of cognitive domain, or the learning
objectives within one set belonged to different domain.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
From the total set of learning objectives, which was 36, there were 25 sets which did not need to order. So there were only 11 sets of learning objectives to
order. The table is shown in table 4.4 below.
Learning Objectives Indicator Objective
Number of Sets
No Need to Order containing single
indicator or belong to different domain
Number of Sets
No Need to Order containing single
objective belong to different domain
18 12 18 13
Total Set of Learning Objectives to Order: 11
Table 4.4: Set of Learning Objectives
There were six ordered-sets of learning objectives or 54.55 of the total set of learning objectives to order. It means that participants’ mastery in ordering
learning objectives within one set was insufficient, as seen in table 4.5 below.
Sets of Learning Objectives Total
Percentage Number of Ordered
Sets of Indicator Number of Ordered
Sets of Objective
3 3 6
54.55
Table 4.5: Ordered Set of Learning Objectives
The measurement of how well learning objective formulation is not only seen from the audience, behaviour, condition, and degree element within the
formulation or the order of learning objectives within one set. According to Kemp 1977, a good learning objective should be relevant with the goal since the goal
itself, usually called as Basic Competence, derives the learning objective. A good
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
learning objective should also have relevancy with the materials, activities, and assessment. The percentage of the relevancy of participants’ learning objectives
with Basic Competence, activities, materials, and assessment is shown in table 4.6 below.
Relevancy Learning Objectives
Total Percentage
Number of Indicators
Number of Objectives
Basic Competence 41 34
75 93.75
Activities 38 31
69 86.25
Materials
42 35 77
96.25
Assessments 34 29
63 78.75
Table 4.6: Relevancy with
Basic Competence, Activities, Materials, and Assessment
From the total learning objective formulation, 75 of them or 93.75 were relevant with the Basic Competence. The formulation was derived from the Basic
Competence. Thus, participants’ mastery in formulating learning objectives which were relevant with Basic Competence was very good.
Moreover, participants’ mastery in formulating learning objectives having relevancy with activities was also very good. Sixty nine learning objectives were
relevant with the activities. That amount of formulation was 86.25 of the total. The same level of mastery was also acceptable for the relevancy of
learning objective with materials. There were 77 learning objectives which were relevant with the materials. It was about 96.25 of the total amount.
However, participants’ mastery in formulating learning objectives which were relevant with assessments was good. This achievement was lower than of the
previous; Basic Competence, activities, and materials. There were 63 learning objectives or 78.75 of the total which were relevant with the activities.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
B. Problems that might Occur in Students’ Learning Objective