The Brief Description of Research Subject

the reason that I was lazy to design. So I just came to the class without lesson plan. Then the consequence that the teaching usually suited to the scientific approach and sometimes based on my own way. Because most of us are lazy, so that was the consequence, we come to the class, giving the material, no not material, but teaching, done and just leaving the class, that’s all because of the laziness. Whereas, actually will be better using lesson plan, implement it, and will get better result. R : So, during this semester you come to the class without lesson plan, don’t you? T : I come to the class without lesson plan, but it is inside of my mind, and I adjust it with 2013 curriculum. R : So you don’t have the written form, don’t you? T : No I don’t, it exists in my mind, hehe.” From the result of interview above, it is assumed that t eacher B didn’t formulate and design the lesson plan in written form. He just used his own way based on his knowledge of 2013 curriculum features to teach in class. So the consequence that the instruction sometime suited with the scientific method, sometim es not, and even it wasn’t structurally well planned. In this case, it was clearly recognized that there were only two English teachers who designed the lesson plan which mean they did what supposedly to do in 2013 curriculum implementation especially in lesson plan matter. However, English teacher B didn’t go with the rule of 2013 curriculum implementation in this case. Stepping to the next session that was how the teacher designed the lesson plan. In this case, teacher A and C had different way in designing the lesson plan. As stated above about the lesson plan design refers to the syllabus or material, actually English teacher A referred to the syllabus and also textbook as stated in the interview result as below “Peneliti : ok, kalo terkait dengan silabus dan rpp itu ibu mendisain sendiri atau gimana? Guru : silabus sama rpp itu kan sudah ada, sudah ditentukan, silabus kan sudah ada tinggal dilihat itu udah ada, k 13 kan sistemnya kaya gitu. Ada kompetensi dasarnya udah jelas, kemudian kdnya iya kan, kemudian indikatornya udah jelas per bab kan udah ada, paling kita tinggal rppnya doang, rppnya juga udah ada garis besarnya. Peneliti : oh jadi dari pembentukan dan perumusan rpp itu ibu ngambil dari permendikbud atau gimana? Guru : dari silabus aja langsung, kan udah ada tuh misalnya kan kd 1 masukin tuh di semester 1 ada berapa kd misalnya kita sepakat nih guru kelas 1 ada tiga kd masukin kompetensi dasarnya tiga kd misalnya. Untuk kognitif misalnya ambil tiga aja, kemudian untuk keterampilan ambil tiga aja misalnya, untuk afektifnya tiga juga misalnya. Kan gitu. ” Tuesday, 10 th November 2015 Translation, R: Researcher, T: Teacher “R : Ok, if relates to the syllabus and lesson plan, I design by your own self or not? T : The syllabus and lesson plan are available, already decided, syllabus has been provided we just look at it, because 2013 curriculum system runs like that. The main competence is clear, and also the basic competence, then the indicators are also clear in each chapter, we just design the lesson plan as the rest, even the lesson has the general big outline. R : Oh, so how to formulate and design the lesson plan, you took from government, didn’t you? T : Directly from the syllabus, because it is available. For instance that KD 1 put into first semester and how many KDs, for example we are the teacher of first grade agreed that there are three KDs and basic competence is input by three KDs. For the cognitive we took three KDs, and for psychomotor we also took three, and for affective we also took three KDs for examples.” From the interview result, it can be argued that teacher A designed the lesson plan based on the syllabus and material in the textbook. As addition, actually the design of lesson plan is not merely based on syllabus and KI KD, but it should be based on teaching material, instruction process, instruction assessment, time allocation, and instruction resource. 3 However, in fact, the lesson plan document of English teacher A was different from the characteristic of 2013 curriculum lesson plan which was stated in appendix of the Ministry of 3 Ibid., p. 9

Dokumen yang terkait

A Descriptive study of the students' vocabulary achivement through puzzles of the pre elementary one class at Eddy's English Center Jember in the 2002/2003 Academic Year

0 6 67

The Effect of Using Slow Beat English Songs on the Eight Year Students’ Listening Comprehension Achievement at SMPN 3 Jember in The 2011/2012 Academic Year

0 4 15

The Effect of Using Slow Beat English Songs on the Eight Year Students’ Listening Comprehension Achievement at SMPN 3 Jember in The 2011/2012 Academic Year

0 5 52

The Effect of Using Slow Beat English Songs on the Eight Year Students’ Listening Comprehension Achievement at SMPN 3 Jember in The 2011/2012 Academic Year

0 4 15

The Effect of Using Slow Beat English Songs on the Eight Year Students’ Listening Comprehension Achievement at SMPN 3 Jember in The 2011/2012 Academic Year

0 7 14

An analysis on the errors made by students in forming plural of nouns ( a case study at the second grade students of SMPN 17 Tangerang Selatan)

0 4 79

Analysis on the problems faced by English teachers in teaching speaking : (a case study at second grade Islamic Junior High School of Ruhama)

1 7 58

Students’ anxiety in learning english: a case study at the 8th grade of SMPN 9 South Tangerang

0 9 74

English teachers' perspectives on the implementation of 2013 curriculum (a case study at seventh class of SMPN 3 South Tangerang in Academic Year 2015/2016)

1 13 196

Item analysis of English summative test of Junior High School : (a case study at SMPN 11 Depok)

0 3 57