The mastery of microteaching class students in formulating learning objectives in lesson plans.

IN FORMULATING LEARNING OBJECTIVES IN LESSON PLANS

A THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Leonie Irina Mutiara Student Number: 071214030

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

2011

In His time,

God has made all things beautiful

In His time,

In His own time

Ecclesiastes 3: 11

I dedicate this thesis as a symbol of my

love

for God my savior,

for my beloved parents and sisters,

for my grandma and late grandpa,

for my lovely Surya,

for myself

Mutiara, Leonie Irina. 2011. The Mastery of Microteaching Class Students in Formulating Learning Objectives in Lesson Plans. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

This research aimed to figure out how well Microteaching class students formulated learning objectives in lesson plans as well as to find out what problems might occur in their formulation. There were two research questions presented in this study: (1) How is the students’ mastery in formulating learning objectives? (2) What problems might occur in students’ learning objective formulation?

To answer the research questions, the researcher conducted document analysis. The documents analyzed were students’ lesson plans which were used for their teaching practice in Microteaching class in 2010/2011 academic year. Then, the learning objectives which were found in those lesson plans were categorized based on some requirements of good learning objectives and were judged how well they were. Furthermore, the researcher would also discuss problems that might occur in the learning objectives.

From the analysis, the researcher concluded that students’ mastery in formulating learning objective was various depending on the requirements. Participants’ mastery was good (76.25%) in audience element and insufficient (61.25%) in behaviour element. However, participants did not master learning objective formulation dealing with condition (7.50%) and degree element (27.50%). In another side, their mastery was very good (93.75%) in formulating learning objectives which were derived from the Basic Competence, very good (86.25%) in formulating learning objectives which were relevant with the activities, very good (96.25%) in formulating learning objectives which were relevant with the materials, and good (78.75%) in formulating learning objectives which were relevant with the assessments. Then, the researcher also found some problems in the learning objectives. The formulation was not clear, complete, and well-ordered. Other problems were also caused by the irrelevancy between the learning objectives and the Basic Competence, the learning objectives and the activities, the learning objectives and the materials, and the learning objectives and the assessments. Besides, learning objectives having no activities and assessments were also included as problems in this research.

In brief, participants’ teaching preparation in Microteaching class which was presented from their lesson plans was regarded as good enough, which supported their teaching performance. They were ready to be English teachers. Then, the researcher also addressed some suggestion to lecturers, students, and future researcher.

Keywords: Microteaching class, learning objectives, lesson plans

Mutiara, Leonie Irina. 2011. The Mastery of Microteaching Class Students in Formulating Learning Objectives in Lesson Plans. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui seberapa baik mahasiswa kelas Pengajaran Mikro merumuskan objektif pembelajaran dalam RPP mereka dan untuk menemukan masalah yang mungkin terjadi dalam rumusan tersebut. Ada dua pertanyaan dalam penelitian ini: (1) Seberapa baik penguasaan mahasiswa dalam merumuskan objektif pembelajaran? (2) Masalah apa yang mungkin terjadi dalam rumusan objektif pembelajaran mahasiswa?

Untuk mejawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan tersebut, peneliti mengadakan analisis dokumen. Dokumen yang dianalisis adalah RPP mahasiswa yang digunakan untuk praktek mengajar mereka di kelas Pengajaran Mikro tahun ajaran 2010/2011. Lalu, rumusan objektif pembelajaran yang ditemukan dalam RPP tersebut dikategorikan berdasarkan beberapa syarat objektif pembelajaran yang baik dan dinilai seberapa baik objektif pembelajaran tersebut. Selanjutnya, peneliti juga mendiskusikan masalah-masalah yang mungkin ditemukan dalam objektif pembelajaran tersebut.

Dari hasil analisis, peneliti menyimpulkan bahwa penguasaan mahasiswa dalam merumuskan objektif pembelajaran berbeda-beda, tergantung syaratnya. Penguasaan peserta bagus (76.25%) dalam elemen audience dan tidak cukup (61.25%) dalam elemen behaviour. Tetapi, peserta tidak menguasai objektif pembelajaran yang berhubungan dengan elemen condition (7.50%) dan degree

(27.50%). Di sisi lain, penguasaan mereka sangat bagus (93.75%) dalam merumuskan objektif pembelajaran yang diturunkan dari Kompetensi Dasar, sangat bagus dalam merumuskan objektif pembelajaran yang relevan dengan aktifitas (86.25%) dan materi (96.25%), dan bagus (78.75%) dalam merumuskan objektif pembelajaran yang relevan dengan penilaiannya. Lalu peneliti juga menemukan beberapa masalah dengan objektif pembelajaran. Rumusannya tidak jelas, komplit, dan urut. Masalah lainnya juga disebabkan oleh ketidakrelevanan antara objektif pembelajaran dan Kompetensi Dasar, objektif pembelajaran dan aktifitas, objektif pembelajaran dan materi, dan objektif pembelajaran dan penilaian. Di samping itu, masalah juga timbul karena objektif pembelajaran tidak mempunyai aktifitas pendukung dan tidak menyebutkan penilaianmya.

Secara singkat, persiapan mengajar peserta di kelas Pengajaran Mikro yang direpresentasikan dari RPP yang dibuatnya, cukup baik. Hal ini mendukung performa mengajar mereka. Mereka siap menjadi calon guru bahasa Inggris. Kemudian, peneliti juga memberikan beberapa saran untuk dosen, mahasiswa, dan peneliti lainnya.

Kata kunci: kelas Pengajaran Mikro, objektif pembelajaran, RPP

First of all, I would like to express my greatest gratitude to the Almighty God for always guiding and blessing me. He always gives everything I need. I believe a bright future is prepared for me. Without Him, I will be nothing.

My sincere appreciation goes to my sponsor, Caecilia Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd., for guiding, giving suggestions, and supporting me during my finishing this thesis. I would like also to express my gratefulness to Microteaching lecturers, Ag. Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A., Caecilia Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd., Carla Sih Prabandari, S.Pd., M.Hum., Made Frida Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd., Christina Kristiyani, S.Pd., M.Pd., and V. Triprihatmini, S.Pd., M.Hum., M.A., for giving permission to access the data I needed. Moreover, I thank Microteaching class students of 2010/2011 academic year for their willingness to help me copy their lesson plans.

Sincere love and gratitude is also expressed to my parents, Bapak Drs. Wardani Sugiyanto, M.Pd. and Ibu Dra. Listyawati Sri Rahayuningsih, for their love, prayer, kindness, and support. I also thank my beloved sisters, Nada Dian Sejati and Intan Ayu Nugraha, for making me laugh and always cheerful. Not to forget, my great thankfulness goes to my beloved boyfriend, Surya Adi Prasetya Nugraha, for his love, time, and support.

I owe much to my friends, Adaninggar Septi Subekti and Ariesty Nevryani, for their willingness to share their knowledge. My next appreciation is for Surya 180 crews for our togetherness and for Herdiansari Hayuningrum,

friends and work partner in Nuswantara English Course.

At last, my deepest appreciation also goes for many other names whose names cannot be mentioned one by one. I thank them for helping and supporting me in finishing my thesis. May God bless us.

Leonie Irina Mutiara

Page

TITLE PAGE ………. i

APPROVAL PAGES ………... ii

DEDICATION PAGE ………... iv

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ……….. v

ABSTRACT ……….. vi

ABSTRAK ……….… vii

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ………... viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……….. ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS ……….. xi

LIST OF TABLES ………..… xiii

LIST OF FIGURES ……….... xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES ……….. xv

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION A. Research Background ……….. 1

B. Problem Formulation ………... 3

C. Problem Limitation ………..… 3

D. Research Objectives ………. 3

E. Research Benefits ……….... 4

F. Definitions of Terms ……….…... 4

CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW A. Theoretical Description ……….... 7

1. Defining the Context ………. 8

2. Articulating Beliefs ……… 9

3. Conceptualizing Content ………..… 14

4. Formulating Goals and Objectives ………... 15

5. Assessing Needs ………... 18

7. Developing Materials ………... 20

8. Adapting a Textbook ……… 22

9. Designing an Assessment Plan ………... 23

B. Theoretical Framework ……….. 24

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY A. Research Methods ……….. 26

B. Research Participants ………. 26

C. Research Instruments ………. 27

D. Data Gathering Technique ………. 29

E. Data Analysis Technique ………... 29

F. Research Procedure ……… 33

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION A. Microteaching Students’ Mastery ……….. 34

B. Problems that Might Occur in Students’ Learning Objective Formulation ……… 41

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS A. Conclusions ………...…. 50

B. Suggestions ………...……. 52

REFERENCES ………. 54

APPENDICES ………. 55

Table Page

2.1: Factors to Consider in Defining the Context ……...………...……...…. 8

2.2: Categories of Cognitive Domain ……….………...………..…. 16

3.1: Domain and Level of Difficulty ………..…….. 30

3.2: Audience, Behaviour, Condition, Degree, and Order ………...….. 30

3.3: Basic Competence …………...………..…… 31

3.4: Activities …………...……….... 31

3.5: Material ...………..….... 32

3.6: Assessment ……...………...………..…… 32

4.1: Number of Learning Objectives ………..…….. 35

4.2: Domain and Level Distribution of Learning Objectives ………..….… 35

4.3: Formulation of Learning Objectives ………..…... 37

4.4: Set of Learning Objectives ………...….… 39

4.5: Ordered Set of Learning Objectives ……….….... 39

4.6: Relevancy with Basic Competence, Activities, Materials, and Assessment……….. 40

4.7: The Classifications of Problems ………...…………. 41

Figure Page 2.1: A Framework of Course Development Processes ………... 7

2.2: Goals, Topics, General Purposes, Objectives ………...………...…. 16 2.3: Five Aspects of Organizing a Course ………...… 20

xv

Appendix Page

1. Surat Permohonan Ijin Penelitian ………...…….. 55 2. The Category of Learning Objectives ……… 62

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter consists of six major sections. They are research background, problem formulation, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits, and definitions of terms.

A. Research Background

English Language Education is a study program under Teachers Training and Education Faculty in Sanata Dharma University. This study program, English Language Education Study Program (ELESP), which is known as Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris (PBI), aims to prepare future English teachers who have four competences; professional, pedagogic, personal, and social (Panduan Akademik Program Studi PBI, 2007). The students are expected not only to use the language itself, but also to teach the language to others. They are trained and educated to be English teachers. They have to acquire the language and learn how to teach before they teach it.

For the preparation, the students of ELESP are taught about English language itself to support their professional competence and how to teach it to support their pedagogic competence. Some courses in ELESP are designed to support students’ acquiring English language, such as structure, pronunciation, reading, writing, listening, speaking, vocabulary, etc. Besides, other courses are also designed to provide students theories on how to teach, especially teach

English. Some of the courses are Approaches, Methods, and Techniques (AMT), Language Teaching Media (LTM), Instructional Design (ID), and Curriculum and Material Development (CMD).

However, theories will not be enough for good English teachers. They need to apply what they have learnt. Thus, in the sixth semester, the study program offers a course called Microteaching. It is a class for students to practice teaching and apply what they have learned in the prior semesters.

In that class, Microteaching students have to develop lesson plans for their teaching practice. They are expected to be able to apply the theories that they have learnt, especially on how to develop lesson plans well. In a lesson plan, a teacher should state one or more learning objectives, which are derived from general purposes (Kemp, 1977). In School-based Curriculum, they are called Basic Competence. Learning objectives, in this research referring to learning objectives themselves and learning indicators stated in lesson plans, are learning outcomes or something that students are able to demonstrate at the end of instruction to show that the learning expectation is reached (Gronlund, 1991: 3). They are to measure whether Microteaching students accomplish certain targets.

Each meeting requires a lesson plan. In preparing teaching materials, activities, and assessment, teachers should base on the learning objectives. In other words, the learning objectives lead teachers to what should be taught in a meeting, how to teach it, and how to assess learners. Learning objectives become the measurement whether a teaching reaches its goal or not.

Since learning objective is important to measure learning achievement, it must be formulated well. However, some mistakes are still found. Thus, the study of Microteaching students’ mastery on the formulation of learning objectives is conducted to know how well they master the theories to formulate good learning objectives, which is expressed through their learning objectives formulation and its relevancy with the general purpose, activities, materials, and assessment.

B. Problem Formulation

The formulation of the problems can be stated as follows: 1. How is the students’ mastery in formulating learning objectives?

2. What problems might occur in students’ learning objective formulation?

C. Problem Limitation

In this study, the writer analyzes the learning objectives formulated by Microteaching class students, which are represented by 18 students. The data are taken from their lesson plans. Any mistake in grammar, spelling, and punctuation will be disregarded.

D. Research Objectives

Dealing with the two problem formulation mentioned previously, this study is conducted to achieve these objectives:

1. To figure out the mastery of Microteaching students in formulating learning objectives.

2. To find out problems that may occur in students’ learning objective formulation.

E. Research Benefits

This research is expected to give benefits to both students and lecturers. For the students, the research shows them how well their mastery in formulating learning objectives so that they know which part should be improved. It also lets them know some common problems that may occur in their learning objectives. It is expected that by learning from their problems, students will be more careful in formulating objectives and make some improvements on it later.

Also, by knowing which part of students’ difficulties in formulating learning objectives, lecturers would find it easier to teach them based on their needs and weaknesses.

F. Definitions of Terms

It is important to define some terms used in this study to avoid misunderstanding and to lead readers to a better understanding on the topic being discussed. The terms are as follows:

1. Mastery

According to Hornby (2005: 944), mastery is a great knowledge about something or understanding of a particular thing. In this research, mastery refers to Microteaching students’ understanding of learning objectives, which are observed through their learning objective formulation and its relevancy with the

general purpose, activities, materials, and assessments stated in their lesson plans that they make for teaching practice in Microteaching class. Thus, students master learning objectives if they can show the relevancy between their learning objectives and the general purpose, activities, materials, and assessments in their lesson plans.

2. Learning Objectives

The next term which is important to define is ‘learning objectives’. Gronlund (1991: 3) states that learning objectives, usually called as instructional objectives, are intended learning outcomes or something that students are able to demonstrate at the end of instruction to show that the learning expectation is reached. In this research, learning objectives refer to learning objectives themselves and learning indicators, which are considered as learning expectation or learning outcome stated in lesson plan for Microteaching class students’ teaching purpose.

3. Microteaching Class

In this research, Microteaching class refers to a class or course offered in the sixth semester by ELESP of Sanata Dharma University. The class aims to make students understand English language teaching concepts and procedure, apply the concepts and procedure in real classroom teaching situation, and evaluate the teaching performance (Panduan Akademik Program Studi PBI, 2007: 90). The class should be taken before students do teaching practice in real

classroom teaching situation through Program Pengalaman Lapangan (PPL), which is either in Junior, Senior, or Vocational High School.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, the writer discusses all theories proposed by some experts dealing with lesson plans, which in a bigger scope lesson plans construct a course. There are two major parts called theoretical description and theoretical framework. Those become the basis to answer the research problem formulation.

A. Theoretical Description

This research is about Microteaching class students’ mastery in formulating learning objectives in lesson plans. Hornby (2005: 944) states that someone masters something if he has great knowledge about it or understanding of it. There are nine main parts to discuss in this part. They are parts of the stage of course development processes proposed by Graves (2000) as seen in figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: A Framework of Course Development Processes

There is no sequence or hierarchy in the processes. Teachers may start the process anywhere in the framework as long as it is reasonable. It depends on teachers’ beliefs and understanding, articulated or not, and the reality of the context and teachers’ knowledge about their students. However, articulating beliefs and defining the context are put on the bottom as the foundation for other processes.

1. Defining the Context

Before sketching a course design, teachers need to define the context of the learners. Designing a course requires them to define all possible information about the context as much as they can to make decisions about the course itself (Graves, 2000: 13). Furthermore, Graves proposes various aspects of context that needs to be defined. They are people, time, physical setting, teaching resources, and nature of the course and institution.

People Physical Setting Time

students

how many, age, gender, culture(s), other language(s),

purpose(s), education, profession, experience,

other stakeholders

school administrators, parents, funders, community

location of school: convenience,

setting

classroom: size, furniture light, noise

always same classroom?

how many hours total over what span of time how often class meets

for how long each time

day of week, time of day

where fits in schedule of students

students’ timeliness

Nature of Course and Institution

Teaching Resources

type/purpose of course mandatory, open enrollment

relation to current/previous courses

prescribed curriculum or not required tests or not

materials available required text?

develop own materials? equipment: cassettes video, photocopying clerical support

Those aspects mentioned above are used by teachers as resources and constraints to consider their decisions. It can be seen as part of pre-course needs assessment. More information about the context enables teachers to decide and plan an effective course easier. Furthermore, Richards (2001: 90) talks about the diversity of the contexts for language programs. The success of a program is often determined by the particular variables found in every specific situation.

A teacher wants to design a course, for example. Before he decides the content, objectives, and so on, he needs to know how long the course will be, who the students are, what is their backgrounds knowledge, what the purpose is, where it is conducted, etc. Those are the context that helps and support the teacher in designing a course.

During the observation of the context, Graves (2000: 21) says that challenges may be found. Furthermore, Graves states that more challenges are found when teachers have more information about the context. The challenges may include teacher’s lack of experience, too small class, different level of each learner, and so on. This is called problematizing. Problematizing concerns with making choices and deciding what the best solution to the challenges is. Problematizing helps teachers to design and teach a course better.

2. Articulating Beliefs

Beliefs can come from teachers’ past experience and/or beliefs about learning and teaching that develop from and guide the experience. It can also arise from their work experience and the way that makes things successful or well-done

(Graves 2000: 26). As cited by Graves (2000), Stern proposes four concepts in articulating teachers’ beliefs. They are view of language, view of the social context of the language, view of learning and learners, and view of teaching.

a. Beliefs about Language

Teachers’ views of a language lead them to a way how they teach or how the language should be learned and what they teach (Graves 2000: 28). According to Hutchinson and Waters (1987), there are six main stages of development of language descriptions.

i. Classical or Traditional Grammar

Classical or traditional grammar view believes that all languages are descended from Greek and Latin. Thus, the grammar of the languages should be based on the grammars of those two languages.

ii. Structural Linguistics

According to this stage, language is about fundamental propositions (statement, interrogative, negative, imperative, etc) and notions (time, number, gender, etc) which are carried by the syntagmatic structures. It means that sentences with different meanings can be produced through words within those structural frameworks variations.

iii. Transformational Generative Grammar

In this view of language, Chomsky states that there must be two levels of meaning; they are deep level and surface level. Deep level is about both thoughts and a surface level organization, whereas surface level is the expression of thoughts through the syntax of language. Thus, grammar of a language is seen as

the rules enabling people to produce the surface structures from the deep level of meaning.

iv. Language Variation and Register Analysis

Language varies depending on the context. So the kind of language dealing with a specific context, such as an area of knowledge (medical English, business English, scientific English) can be identified through the language used itself then.

v. Functional/Notional Grammar

This view of language sees language as a mean of communication which conveys social function and people’s attention. Function deals with social behaviour and speaker’s/writer’s intention, like advising, warning, describing, etc. vi. Discourse/Rhetorical Analysis

The meaning of a language is concluded from the context of the sentences. Different context causes different meaning in the same sentence.

b. Beliefs about the Social Context of Language

i. Sociolinguistic Issues

Language should be adapted to the social context. A sentence may be correct grammatically and lexically, but it doesn’t mean that it is acceptable in social context. Learning a language is learning how to use it in social context. In other words, it means learning how to adjust it to contextual factors such as roles and purposes.

ii. Sociocultural Issues

Language use is associated with understanding of each language user’s dimensions of culture. They include social values, attitudes, norms, customs, and “products” (e.g. literature, art).

iii. Sociopolitical Issues

Those issues are concerned with how language used affects one’s relation with other community or social group. Language teaching deals with teach learners how to participate in the community and get access to social systems.

c. Beliefs about Learning and Learners

Hutchinson and Waters (1987) divide theories of learning into five main stages of development.

i. Behaviourism

Language learning is seen as changing behaviour. It is a mechanical process of habit formation in which the basic exercise technique is pattern practice, particularly drills.

ii. Mentalism

Learning is not only forming habits like the previous stage does. Learning is a process of acquiring rules in which learners’ minds formulate hypothesis through their individual experiences.

iii. Cognitive Code

It is often called as constructivism learning. Learners construct their own knowledge from their experience together with other people through making sense of data. Teachers’ role is as facilitator to provide learners experience.

iv. The Affective Factor

Language learning will be well-done if learners have motivation since it is an emotional experience. They must ‘want to think about something’ that they will learn.

v. Learning and Acquisition

According to Krashen (1981) as cited by Graves (2000), learning and acquisition are two different things. Learning is a conscious process, whereas acquisition is an unconscious one.

d. Beliefs about Teaching

Teaching can be viewed in some different things. It can be as knowledge transmission from teachers to learners, knowledge and skills and methods of learning negotiation between teachers and learners, or even the decision maker of the teaching-learning activity. Teaching is also seen as providing problem solving activities, helping learners to negotiate, or a process of shared decision making. However, as it develops, it is the learners who decide the problem to be solved by themselves. Teachers are as language and culture resource.

3. Conceptualizing Content

Conceptualizing content is about making choices. It is a process involving thinking about what teachers want their students to learn, deciding what to include, and organizing the content in a such way that the various elements on it are related each other. The result of the conceptualizing content is in a form of syllabus.

According to Hutchinson and Waters (1987), syllabus can be defined in several different ways. They are:

a. Evaluation Syllabus

Evaluation Syllabus states what learners should know by the end of the course in order to be successful. Thus, a syllabus designer should understand first what his view of language actually is.

b. Organisational Syllabus

This syllabus tells about the order of what should be learnt. The nature of language and of learning is stated implicitly here.

c. Materials Syllabus

Material syllabus contains more assumptions about the nature of language, language learning, and language which are expressed through learning activities.

d. Teacher Syllabus

Teacher syllabus is seen from the teachers’ perspective. It is the teachers who influence the clarity, intensity, and frequency of any material.

e. Classroom Syllabus

Sometimes what is planned goes differently with what really happens in a lesson. What is meant by classroom syllabus is what actually happens in the real class during the lesson.

f. Learner Syllabus

Learner syllabus may be different in each learner. This syllabus takes place in each learner’s mind during the lesson. It is about knowledge developing in learners’ brain and enabling them to comprehend and store the later knowledge.

4. Formulating Goals and Objectives

Goals are statements of the main purpose and intended outcomes of a course. According to Kemp (1977), goals can be created from three sources, which are society, students, and subject areas. Goals related to society involve philosophical and ethical considerations. Goals related to students deal with students’ skill or behaviour concerning their preparation to face the working world. Goals related to subject areas have relation with competencies that enable learners to participate in society well, or may be as the bases for the understanding and skills expected by the society. Formulating goals is based on teachers’ conceptualization of content, beliefs, and/or teachers’ assessment of learners’ needs.

After identifying goals, learning topics are selected based on the goals. Each topic has its own aims or purposes, which are called general purposes. Then, general purposes are broken into some sentences in which they can be measured

and observed. Those are called objectives. Thus, objectives must be related to goals, topics, and general purposes.

Figure 2.2: Goals, Topics, General Purposes, Objectives

According to Kemp (1977), objectives indicate what teachers’ want to teach and whether the objectives are accomplished or not. There are three categories of objectives:

a. Cognitive Domain

Cognitive domain includes some objectives dealing with knowledge or information, thinking, recognizing, predicting, etc. The stage is from simple knowledge to higher levels of mental activity. They are remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create (Anderson et al. (Eds), 2001). The details are shown in table 2.2 below.

Categories Cognitive Processes Alternative Names

Remember Recognizing Identifying Recalling Retrieving

Understand Interpreting Clarifying, paraphrasing, representing, translating

Exemplifying Illustrating, instantiating

Classifying Categorizing, subsuming

Summarizing Abstracting, generalizing

Inferring Concluding, extrapolating, interpolating, predicting

Categories Cognitive Processes Alternative Names

Comparing Contrasting, mapping,

matching

Explaining Constructing models

Apply Executing Carrying out

Implementing Using

Analyze Differentiating Discriminating, distinguishing, focusing, selecting

Organizing Finding coherence,

intergrating, outlining, parsing, structuring

Attributing Deconstructing

Evaluate Checking Coordinating, detecting,

monitoring, testing Critiquing Judging

Create Generating Hypothesizing

Planning Designing Producing Constructing Table 2.2: Categories of Cognitive Domain

b. Psychomotor Domain

It is about skills dealing with physical activities. Usually, this domain is easy to observe. The taxonomy includes gross bodily movements, finely coordinated movements, nonverbal communication, and speech behaviour. However, it is not a sequential taxonomy.

c. Affective Domain

Affective domain includes some objectives dealing with attitudes, appreciations, values, and all emotions. According to Krathwohl (1964) as cited by Kemp (1977), the affective domain is categorized into five sequenced levels; receiving, responding, valuing, organizing, and characterizing by a value

complex. Furthermore, Kemp states that a learning objective can involve one or more domains.

Furthermore, a good formulation of learning objective should include four elements which are known as ABCD. A stands for audience, which indicates who will do the behaviour. B stands for behaviour, defining what audience should be able to do. C stands for condition, telling under what condition the audience should be able to do the behaviour. D stands for degree, indicating standard of how well the audience should be able to do the behaviour (“Developing Course Objectives,” May 20, 2011).

5. Assessing Needs

Needs assessment is a process in which teachers collecting information about learners’ needs and preferences, interpreting the information, and deciding how the course will be in order to meet the needs. Assessing needs can be done before the start of a course to help teachers design the course (pre-course needs assessment), during the beginning stage of a course (initial needs assessment), or throughout the course (ongoing needs assessment). According to Hutchinson and Waters (1987), in assessing learners’ needs, target needs and learning needs should be paid attention.

a. Target needs

Target needs are all skills, knowledge, and ability in order to be able to do or perform well in target situation. Assessing target needs to look at learners’ necessities, lacks, and wants.

i. Necessities

Necessities, or target proficiency, are something that learners need to master in order to act effectively in the target situation.

ii. Lacks

All that learners cannot do are called lacks. They are the gap between the target proficiency and the existing proficiency.

iii. Wants

Target needs are only seen without learners’ perspective, whereas wants are needs from the learners’ perspective.

b. Learning needs

Having known all the target needs, including the necessities, lacks, and wants, a course needs a tool to reach the target needs. It is needed a way how to start from the beginning until the target needs are achieved. This is called learning needs. In other words, learning needs are all that are needed to achieve the target needs.

6. Organizing the Course

Organizing a course is needed to connect the goals and objectives with the actual lessons. It lets us to make decisions about what to study or negotiate aspects of syllabus. Organizing a course includes some processes. Figure 2.3 explains more about the process. The different arrows show that the processes do not follow a specific order.

Figure 2.3: Five Aspects of Organizing a Course

Organizing a course is done depending on some factors. The factors are the course content, teachers’ goals and objectives, teachers’ past experience, learners’ needs, teachers’ beliefs and understanding, the method or text, and the context.

7. Developing Materials

Developing materials is making, choosing or adapting, and organizing materials and activities in such way in which learners can reach the objectives

enabling them to achieve the goals. There are some considerations in developing materials proposed by Graves (2000). Activities should relate with learners’ experience or current situation and be relevant to them and focus on their needs outside class. Activities should also increase learners’ confidence and involve learners in solving, discovering, and analyzing problem. Besides, activities are expected to develop learners’ specific skills and strategies and learners’ specific language and skills for their authentic communication need. They can be integration of speaking, listening, reading, and writing.

Activities should help learners understand how a text is produced. They may involve cross cultural understanding, so learners can improve their social awareness. They should be as authentic as possible (texts or realia, if it is possible) and have variation of roles and groupings. They are also expected to have various types and purposes and include various materials.

However, the way how teachers develop materials differs each other. It is based on their own beliefs, understandings, and experience. It also depends on their goals and objectives, the way the content is conceptualized, the way the course is organized and sequenced, and understanding about learners’ needs.

Moreover, Kemp (1977: 56) also states that teachers should consider the strengths and weaknesses of certain materials and activities so that they match to learners’ characteristics and needs and the objectives formulated.

8. Adapting a Textbook

Adapting a book needs context and type of learners, teachers’ experience, beliefs and understanding, and type of textbook used before as considerations. What is considered as an advantage may be considered as disadvantage by others.

A textbook is like a stimulus or instrument for teaching and learning. It can be adapted by changing, supplementing, eliminating, or re-sequencing the material in it.

a. Adapting the Activity Level

It involves changing, supplementing, or eliminating activities. According to Simone, as cited in Graves (2000), activities, in some ways, sometimes needs to personalize so that they will be relevant to the students.

b. Adapting the Unit Level

It involves adapting textbook at the unit level. The sequence depends on many things, for example teacher’s beliefs and understanding about how learners learn, their views of what language learners need to know, views of how the four language skills interact , and views how activities support one another.

c. Adapting the Book/Syllabus Level

It involves changing, adding, or eliminating parts of syllabus used. According to Mary, as cited in Graves (2000), there are two important things to add while adapting a textbook at the syllabus level, which are community building and cultural understanding.

9. Designing an Assessment Plan

Assessment, or evaluation, is aimed to see improvement of a course (formative evaluation), to get a deeper understanding about the teaching learning process (illuminative evaluation), and to find out the effectiveness and efficiency of a program (summative evaluation) (Richards, 2001). It is in line with what Graves (2000) says about the roles of assessment, which are to assess needs, assess learners’ learning, and evaluate the course itself.

According to Brown (2004), there are various kinds of language assessment.

a. Informal and Formal Assessment

Informal assessment refers to incidental, unplanned feedback to the students; including comments and responses followed by coaching, whereas formal assessment refers to systematic, planned, specifically designed exercise or procedure to measure students’ achievement.

b. Formative and Summative Assessment

Formative assessments are those which evaluate students’ progress in the process of developing their competencies and skills. It aims to help them continue that process better than before. Unlike formative assessment, summative assessment aims to measure what students have grasped in the overall process of a course. It usually occurs at the end of a course, such as final exams.

B. Theoretical Framework

Learning objectives, in this research referring to learning objectives themselves and learning indicators stated in lesson plans, are intended learning outcomes or something that students are able to demonstrate at the end of instruction to show that the learning expectation is reached (Gronlund, 1991: 3). There are three categories of learning objectives; cognitive domain, psychomotor domain, and affective domain.

Learning objectives have important roles in designing a course. Before teachers select learning activities, they need to formulate the learning objectives to define what to be taught (Kemp, 1977: 23-24). Thus, all activities during a course should refer to those objectives. Besides, teachers also need to know the strengths and weaknesses of certain materials in order to match the students’ characteristics, needs, and the objectives formulated. Furthermore, Kemp states that learning objectives also let students know what goals they must accomplish, what ideas and skills will be covered in the next instruction, and what types of behaviour students should perform during evaluation. Thus, seeing the importance of learning objectives, learning objectives must be formulated observably and measurably.

Formulating objectives is developing subsequent planning steps. It requires refinements, changes, and additions as developmental activities. It shows what teacher wants to teach and determines whether it is achieved. It should be stated from simple to more complex and from concrete to more abstract mental levels (Kemp, 1977: 24-25).

Anderson et al. (Eds) (2001) develops a sequenced taxonomy in cognitive domain to categorize objective into six levels, namely remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. In psychomotor domain, the taxonomy includes gross bodily movements, finely coordinated movements, nonverbal communication, and speech behaviour (Kemp, 1977), whereas according to Krathwohl (1964) as cited by Kemp (1977), the affective domain is categorized into five sequenced levels; receiving, responding, valuing, organizing, and characterizing by a value complex. Each objective should be unambiguous, meaning that everyone should have the same interpretation about it, measurable, and observable.

Furthermore, another theory about learning objective proposes that good learning objective formulation includes four components which become characteristics to tell the intent (“Developing Course Objectives,” May 20, 2011). The first component is audience, which indicates who will do the behaviour. The second is behaviour, defining what audience should be able to do. The third is condition, telling under what condition the audience should be able to do the behaviour. The fourth is degree, indicating standard of how well the audience should be able to do the behaviour.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research methodology covering the research method, the research participants, the research instruments, and the data analysis technique.

A. Research Methods

In particular, this research was a document analysis. Ary, Jacobs, and Sorensen (2010: 457) stated that document analysis aimed to identify specified characteristics of written or visual materials. It was used to obtain data which was analyzed.

In this research, the researcher used primary sources since the documents were written by participants who had the firsthand experience with the lesson plan development and teaching practice, especially in the learning objective formulation. The documents analyzed were participants’ lesson plans used for their teaching practices in Microteaching class.

B. Research Participants

The participants of this research were 18 students from six Microteaching classes in ELESP of Sanata Dharma University. Three students represented each classes. They were in 2010/2011 academic year. The students who were joining Microteaching class, which was offered in the sixth semester, were those who had

fulfilled the prerequisite courses; Instructional Design (ID), Approach, Method, and Technique (AMT), and Curriculum and Material Development (CMD) class as the prerequisite courses (Panduan Akademik Program Studi PBI, 2007). As they had taken those classes, they were expected to have sufficient knowledge in developing lesson plans for their teaching.

C. Research Instruments

To obtain in-depth analysis and interpretation about this research, the researcher used two types of instruments, namely documents and interviews. Other instruments used were the researcher herself as the investigator and a proofreader.

1. Participants’ lesson plans

This research used participants’ lesson plans as the documents which were analyzed. They were taken random, to avoid bias, but purposively, which provided complete data including general purpose (Basic Competence), indicators or objectives, material, activities, and assessment. The lesson plans did not need to be transcribed since they were already in written form. They were considered as primary sources as they were written by someone who experienced the phenomena under study directly (Ary et al., 2010: 443). The focus was on the learning objective formulation, Basic Competence, activities, materials, and assessments. Any mistake in grammar, spelling, and punctuation of the lesson plans would be disregarded.

 

2. Interview Questions

Questions were delivered in forms of interviews. Interviews were done after analyzing the documents. Interviews provided in-depth data rather quickly, including participants’ perspectives and clarification of their responses. They were also used to collect data about participants’ opinions, beliefs, and feelings about particular phenomena (Ary et al., 2010). These interviews were semi-structured. The questions delivered varied according to what information the interviewer wanted to dig from the participants’ lesson plans. Specifically, these interviews were used to cross check researcher’s understanding about the lesson plans with the participants as the writers

3. Human as Instrument a. The researcher

Lincoln and Guba (1985) proposed a concept of human-as-instrument in which qualitative researcher played a unique role to capture the complexity of the human experience (as cited in Ary, 2010). The researcher herself obtained data through the documents, then analyzed and interpreted them by the support of the interviews.

b. Proofreader

To validate researcher’s judgment of the data, a proofreader was used to recheck the raw data of the lesson plans. The researcher pointed an expert in lesson planning.

 

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 2010/2011. 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

learning objectives; formulation, Basic Competence, materials, activities, and assessment. Then, those problems were discussed.

F. Research Procedure

The researcher asked for permission to some lecturers teaching Microteaching class to conduct a research in their classes. Having been given permission, she asked for permission to the students in the classes to copy their lesson plans and make them as her instruments in her research. Then, she once more asked three students of each class, whose lesson plans were selected as the research instruments, to be interviewed later.

The learning objectives were put into the table made by the researcher based on some requirements; what domain they belonged to, whether audience, behaviour, condition, and degree element were found, whether they were ordered from the easiest level, whether they related with the general purposes (Basic Competence), and whether they matched with the activities, materials, and assessments. Then, the researcher analyzed the data based on some theories mentioned in the previous chapter. The data were assured by the answers of some questions delivered by the researcher through interviews to the participants and rechecked by an expert as the proofreader.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

B. Problems that might Occur in Students’ Learning Objective Formulation

After knowing participants’ mastery and their strengths and weaknesses in formulating learning objectives, it will also be important to study the problems that occured in students’ learning objective formulation more and their relevancy with the Basic Competence, activities, materials, and assessments. The researcher, then, analyzed the learning objectives which were considered having problem before. From the analysis, the researcher found some different kinds of problem in those learning objectives. The problems are presented in table 4.7 below.

No Problems

Number of Problems

Percentage (%) Formulation

1. The formulation did not mention the

condition. 74 32.31%

2. The formulation did not mention the degree. 58 25.33% 3. The formulation did not mention the

audience. 19 8.30%

4. There were more than one kinds of

behaviour in one formulation. 17 7.42%

5. The behaviour was not appropriate with what

participants’ meant. 14 6.11%

6. The behaviour had many interpretations. 5 2.18% 7. The learning objectives were not

well-ordered. 5 2.18%

8. The behaviour did not include competence or

skill students should achieve. 3 1.31%

Basic Competence

1. The formulation was irrelevant with the

Basic Competence. 5 2.18%

Activities

1. The formulation had no activity. 5 2.18%

2. The formulation had irrelevant activity. 5 2.18%

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 tawaran/ajakan/undangan dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari’. It means that certain audience, which is

siswa, should be able to do certain behaviour, which is merespon

tawaran/ajakan/undangan, 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 idea(s) 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

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

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.

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

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 mengundang/menawarkan’ and ‘merespon ungkapan menyetujui ajakan/tawaran/undangan’. Those two learning objectives do not need to order because they belong to the same level of cognitive domain. Unless, the set of

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

Besides activities, materials are also needed to enable audience to achieve learning objectives through some sequenced activities. However, problem was also found in the relevancy of learning objectives with the materials. There were three problems of their irrelevancy or 1.31% of the total problem. One of the examples was the formulation ‘Siswa dapat membedakan cara menerima dan membatalkan janji’. The material needed for that formulation was actually recording about accepting and canceling appointment. However, material that was provided was a recording about making and canceling appointment. Thus, it did not match with the need of audience to reach the learning objective.

 

5. Assessments

The next problem came from the absence of assessment for learning objective formulation. This problem totaled 11 or 4.80% of the total problem. The formulation ‘Menganalisa topik yang terdapat dalam rekaman yang telah didengar’ (see appendix 2 table 3.6 point 9.i.a) did not have any assessment to measure how well it was accomplished. Assessment should exist to assess audience’s learning and later to help them accomplish the learning objective.

In addition, most learning objectives had had their own assessment, but they were irrelevant. The formulation ‘The students are able to respond and give information’ was irrelevant with the assessment since the assessment was about greeting. Greeting does not have any connection with responding to nor giving information. This problem totaled 5 or 2.18% of the total problem.

18

i. Indicator:

a. Mampu menemukan informasi penting dari teks yang

diperdengarkan.

a. - exercise 1

You will listen to several conversations. You need to listen carefully and write down the expression used in the blank space of each conversation.

1. Lucy : Mr. Thompson will give a speech at tonight’s Canada Day celebration, would you like to come with me?

Larry : ____________. I have to fly back to Calgary this afternoon. 2. Adam : Hey Julia, you know that Fast and Furious 5 is on cinema

today, eh?

Julia : Ye, I won’t forget that. I’ve bought two tickets. Would you like to watch it with me tonight, Adam?

Adam : ____________.

3. Jack : Why don’t you spend your summertime holiday with me and KC in Ibiza?

Emily : ____________!

4. Andres : Brrrr... Whitehorse is definitely the coldest place I’ve been to.

Martha : Sure it is. Would you like some coffee to heat you up? Andres : ____________, I can’t drink coffee.

5. S’s sweetheart : Happy Valentine Day, Seto!

Seto : Happy Valentine Day, too! Would you like to have a dinner with me tonight, sweetheart?

S’s sweetheart : ____________, honey. - exercise 2

Now, you will be a personal assistant of an important person. You have to write down each appointment your boss has to do by filling the table below. Tick the box when your boss has an appointment and write down

√

The assessments are relevant with the learning objectives.

Participant Learning Objectives Assessment Comment

what the appointment is.

Monday to Wednesday

Time Day

Monday Tuesday Wednesday

Morning Afternoon Evening

Thursday to Sunday

Time Day

Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Morning

Afternoon Evening o. Objective:

a. Siswa mampu menemukan informasi dari teks yang diperdengarkan dengan mencari ekspresi menyetujui ajakan/tawaran/undangan

dalam rekaman yang diperdengarkan

a. - exercise 1

You will listen to several conversations. You need to listen carefully and write down the expression used in the blank space of each conversation.

1. Lucy : Mr. Thompson will give a speech at tonight’s Canada Day celebration, would you like to come with me?

Larry : ____________. I have to fly back to Calgary this afternoon. 2. Adam : Hey Julia, you know that Fast and Furious 5 is on cinema

today, eh?

b. Siswa mampu menemukan informasi dari teks yang diperdengarkan dengan melengkapi tabel sesuai rekaman yang diperdengarkan.

Julia : Ye, I won’t forget that. I’ve bought two tickets. Would you like to watch it with me tonight, Adam?

Adam : ____________.

3. Jack : Why don’t you spend your summertime holiday with me and KC in Ibiza?

Emily : ____________!

4. Andres : Brrrr... Whitehorse is definitely the coldest place I’ve been to.

Martha : Sure it is. Would you like some coffee to heat you up? Andres : ____________, I can’t drink coffee.

5. S’s sweetheart : Happy Valentine Day, Seto!

Seto : Happy Valentine Day, too! Would you like to have a dinner with me tonight, sweetheart?

S’s sweetheart : ____________, honey. b. exercise 2

Now, you will be a personal assistant of an important person. You have to write down each appointment your boss has to do by filling the table below. Tick the box when your boss has an appointment and write down what the appointment is.

Monday to Wednesday

Time Day

Monday Tuesday Wednesday

Morning Afternoon

Participant Learning Objectives Assessment Comment Evening

Thursday to Sunday

Time Day

Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Morning

Afternoon Evening

Mutiara, Leonie Irina. 2011. The Mastery of Microteaching Class Students in Formulating Learning Objectives in Lesson Plans. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

This research aimed to figure out how well Microteaching class students formulated learning objectives in lesson plans as well as to find out what problems might occur in their formulation. There were two research questions presented in this study: (1) How is the students’ mastery in formulating learning objectives? (2) What problems might occur in students’ learning objective formulation?

To answer the research questions, the researcher conducted document analysis. The documents analyzed were students’ lesson plans which were used for their teaching practice in Microteaching class in 2010/2011 academic year. Then, the learning objectives which were found in those lesson plans were categorized based on some requirements of good learning objectives and were judged how well they were. Furthermore, the researcher would also discuss problems that might occur in the learning objectives.

From the analysis, the researcher concluded that students’ mastery in formulating learning objective was various depending on the requirements. Participants’ mastery was good (76.25%) in audience element and insufficient (61.25%) in behaviour element. However, participants did not master learning objective formulation dealing with condition (7.50%) and degree element (27.50%). In another side, their mastery was very good (93.75%) in formulating learning objectives which were derived from the Basic Competence, very good (86.25%) in formulating learning objectives which were relevant with the activities, very good (96.25%) in formulating learning objectives which were relevant with the materials, and good (78.75%) in formulating learning objectives which were relevant with the assessments. Then, the researcher also found some problems in the learning objectives. The formulation was not clear, complete, and well-ordered. Other problems were also caused by the irrelevancy between the learning objectives and the Basic Competence, the learning objectives and the activities, the learning objectives and the materials, and the learning objectives and the assessments. Besides, learning objectives having no activities and assessments were also included as problems in this research.

In brief, participants’ teaching preparation in Microteaching class which was presented from their lesson plans was regarded as good enough, which supported their teaching performance. They were ready to be English teachers. Then, the researcher also addressed some suggestion to lecturers, students, and future researcher.

ABSTRAK

Mutiara, Leonie Irina. 2011. The Mastery of Microteaching Class Students in Formulating Learning Objectives in Lesson Plans. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui seberapa baik mahasiswa kelas Pengajaran Mikro merumuskan objektif pembelajaran dalam RPP mereka dan untuk menemukan masalah yang mungkin terjadi dalam rumusan tersebut. Ada dua pertanyaan dalam penelitian ini: (1) Seberapa baik penguasaan mahasiswa dalam merumuskan objektif pembelajaran? (2) Masalah apa yang mungkin terjadi dalam rumusan objektif pembelajaran mahasiswa?

Untuk mejawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan tersebut, peneliti mengadakan analisis dokumen. Dokumen yang dianalisis adalah RPP mahasiswa yang digunakan untuk praktek mengajar mereka di kelas Pengajaran Mikro tahun ajaran 2010/2011. Lalu, rumusan objektif pembelajaran yang ditemukan dalam RPP tersebut dikategorikan berdasarkan beberapa syarat objektif pembelajaran yang baik dan dinilai seberapa baik objektif pembelajaran tersebut. Selanjutnya, peneliti juga mendiskusikan masalah-masalah yang mungkin ditemukan dalam objektif pembelajaran tersebut.

Dari hasil analisis, peneliti menyimpulkan bahwa penguasaan mahasiswa dalam merumuskan objektif pembelajaran berbeda-beda, tergantung syaratnya.

Penguasaan peserta bagus (76.25%) dalam elemen audience dan tidak cukup

(61.25%) dalam elemen behaviour. Tetapi, peserta tidak menguasai objektif pembelajaran yang berhubungan dengan elemen condition (7.50%) dan degree (27.50%). Di sisi lain, penguasaan mereka sangat bagus (93.75%) dalam merumuskan objektif pembelajaran yang diturunkan dari Kompetensi Dasar, sangat bagus dalam merumuskan objektif pembelajaran yang relevan dengan aktifitas (86.25%) dan materi (96.25%), dan bagus (78.75%) dalam merumuskan objektif pembelajaran yang relevan dengan penilaiannya. Lalu peneliti juga menemukan beberapa masalah dengan objektif pembelajaran. Rumusannya tidak jelas, komplit, dan urut. Masalah lainnya juga disebabkan oleh ketidakrelevanan antara objektif pembelajaran dan Kompetensi Dasar, objektif pembelajaran dan aktifitas, objektif pembelajaran dan materi, dan objektif pembelajaran dan penilaian. Di samping itu, masalah juga timbul karena objektif pembelajaran tidak mempunyai aktifitas pendukung dan tidak menyebutkan penilaianmya.

Secara singkat, persiapan mengajar peserta di kelas Pengajaran Mikro yang direpresentasikan dari RPP yang dibuatnya, cukup baik. Hal ini mendukung performa mengajar mereka. Mereka siap menjadi calon guru bahasa Inggris. Kemudian, peneliti juga memberikan beberapa saran untuk dosen, mahasiswa, dan peneliti lainnya.