A STUDY ON THE QUALITY OF LESSON PLANS ON GENRE DEVELOPED BY A Study On The Quality Of Lesson Plans On Genre Developed By SMA Muhammadiyah English Teachers Of Surakarta.
SMA MUHAMMADIYAH ENGLISH TEACHERS OF SURAKARTA
PUBLICATION ARTICLES
Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for Getting Bachelor Degree of Education
in English Department
by:
ARWIN ADIN PRASETYO
A 320 080 223
SCHOOL OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA
(2)
A STUDY ON THE QUALITY
OF LESSON PLANS ON GENRE DEVELOPED BY
SMA MUHAMMADIYAH ENGLISH TEACHERS OF SURAKARTA
PUBLICATION ARTICLES By:
ARWIN ADIN PRASETYO
A 320 080 223
Accepted by the Examiners Board of School of Teacher Training and Education Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta
Team of Examiners:
1. Dra. Siti Zuhriah Ariatmi, M. Hum. ( ) (Consultant I)
2. Dra. Dwi Haryanti, M. Hum. ( )
(Consultant II)
Surakarta, March 2012
School of Teacher Training and Education Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta
Dean
(3)
Arwin Adin Prasetyo
Dra. Siti Zuhriah Ariatmi, M. Hum Dra. Dwi Haryanti, M. Hum
English Department, FKIP-UMS
Jl. A. Yani Pabelan Kartosuro Tromol Pos 1 Surakarta 57102 Telp. (0271) 7177417 Fax. (0271) 715448
ABSTRACT
This research purposes to describe the quality of lesson plans of genre developed by English teachers in Surakarta. The research type is descriptive evaluative research. The data are lesson plans of genre and the data source of this research is document.
The writer employs documentation as the method of collecting data with steps: seeking, collecting data, and giving code. In analyzing the data, the writer identifies three main components of lesson plans such indicators, teaching learning process, and evaluation from English teachers in Surakarta.
Based on the PERMEN 41, the percentage of indicator in narrative, hortatory exposition, and spoof are 30, 99%. The percentage shows that the quality of the design of indicators is bad quality based on the theory of Suharsimi. The percentage of teaching learning process in narrative, hortatory exposition, and spoof are 62, 59%. The percentage shows that the quality of teaching learning process is good quality based on the theory of Suharsimi. The percentage of evaluation in narrative, hortatory exposition, and spoof are 24, 77%. The percentage shows that the quality of the design of evaluation is bad quality based on the theory of Suharsimi.
Keywords: lesson plans, indicators, teaching learning process, narrative, hortatory exposition, spoof, social function, language feature, generic structure, operational verbs.
(4)
A. Introduction
Lesson plans are developed to facilitate the teaching and learning process under the direction and guidance of school, college, or university and its staff member. In an Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy by Brownstated that lesson plans are set of activities that cover a period of class room time, usually ranging from forty to ninety minutes (2001: 149).
It shows that lesson plans are a planning of learning system in a period of class room time. That time is from forty to ninety minutes. The lesson plan is arranged by some activities in class room.
From all statements, it can be inferred that lesson plans are planning of teaching in a time and contains the activities. Lesson plans are made by a teacher which is suitable with students need and condition of class.
On the other hand, all lesson plans must be standardized based on the regulation of the government. It relates to the process and quality of lesson plans itself. The standard of lesson plans here refers to PERMENDIKNAS (Peraturan Mentri Pendidikan Nasional) number 41 in 2007. The decision of education ministry of Indonesia as regulation could be seen from the quoted statement below.
Process standard is a part of standard rules to improve the development of education. These standards are provided to be used by the teachers in developing lesson plans arrangement, implementing learning process, assessing the result of learning, and maintenance learning process. Process standards are provided to be used by the teachers in learning, and maintenance learning process. The teachers should use these standards. Those are also intended to achieve the effective and efficient learning process.
Later on, the writer found that the teachers’ lesson plans are not based on
government regulation even they do not find difficulties in teaching. The work of lesson plans created by teachers of English especially in SMA Muhammadiyah
senior high school are not suitable with the standard of lesson plans, mainly in genre of text.
(5)
Supported by government regulation about lesson plans, there are three main functional texts in XI grade of second semester SMA Muhammadiyah of Surakarta. They are narrative, hortatory exposition, and spoof.
The writer is interested in conducting research related to the lesson plans in
SMA Muhammadiyah of Surakarta because first, many lesson plans made by English teachers do not have standard on genre. Second, there are many mistakes in part of lesson plans on genre. Third, the English teachers could not mix and match how to make the lesson plans on genre. Fourth, there are some gaps in part of lesson plans on genre. Fifth, there have not qualities in English lesson plans on genre.
From all reasons, the writer researches the quality of lesson plans. The writer looking for the weaknesses and the strengths in Lesson plans. The writer hopes that the results of this research encourage the teachers to improve their lesson plans.
Related to the background of the study, the problems which are proposed by the writer as how are the qualities of the indicator on genre formulated by the teachers of SMA Muhammadiyah, How are the qualities of the design of learning activities on genre by the teachers of SMA Muhammadiyah, and how are the qualities of the design of evaluation on genre by the teachers of SMA Muhammadiyah.
In this research, the writer proposes three major objectives to be described as to describe the qualities of the indicator on genre formulated by the teachers by the teachers of SMA Muhammadiyah, to describe the qualities of the design of learning activities on genre by the teachers of SMA Muhammadiyah, and to describe the qualities of the design of evaluation on genre by the teachers of SMA Muhammadiyah.
Those are three previous studies from the author. The first, Hadi analyzed the development of curriculum at national standard school at SMP N 40 Semarang. He describes the curriculum development model of NSS. The main informants or research are the principle, vice principal of the curriculum and teachers.
(6)
The second previous study, Aziza explained the teachers’ lesson plans with the principle of school level-based curriculum in SMPIT Nurhidayat Surakarta. They compare the teachers’ lesson plans with the principle of school level-based curriculum.
The third previous study, Sukiran described the implementation of KTSP in the teaching of English in SMK Negeri 2 Surakarta . The implementation of
KTSP has some supporting factors from the syllabus and creativities of teachers’
teaching strategy. The teachers have rights to arrange their syllabus which are
appropriate to the school’s need and the condition and the teachers are free to improve and apply any teaching strategy which is the most appropriate and effective for the students to learn.
B. Research Method 1. Data and Data Source
The data of the research are lesson plans written by English teachers. The data source of the research is taken from SMA Muhammadiyah 1 Surakarta, SMA Muhammadiyah 3 Surakarta, and SMA Muhammadiyah 5 Surakarta.
2. Method and Collecting Data
The methods of collecting data are (1) the writer seeks the data from English teachers at SMA Muhammadiyah 1 Surakarta, SMA Muhammadiyah 3 Surakarta, and SMA Muhammadiyah 5 Surakarta. (2) The writer collects the data from English teachers at SMA Muhammadiyah 1 Surakarta, SMA Muhammadiyah 3 Surakarta, and SMA Muhammadiyah 5 Surakarta then are classified based on their type. (3) The writer gives data code. To give the reader easier in understanding about the information related the data, the writer would like to encode the data by using formulation as bellow.
Instance/Skill/Text/Number of Lesson plan
From the formulation above, it clearly can be read as follow
Lesson plan in SMA Muhammadiyah 1 Surakarta (M01) is on listening skill (Lst.) of narrative text (07) in first meeting (1).
(7)
3. Method of Analyzing Data
The process of analysis is done together with the process of collecting data. According to Sutopo (2002: 91), there are three components of analysis by using the rest of time. They are (1) reduction of the data, (2) presentation/display the data, and (3) verification/drawing conclusion.
C. Findings and Discussion 1. Finding
a. Indicators
Table 1
Percentage Indicators of Narrative
Genre/
Aspect SKILL TOT LP.
ASPECTS INDICATOR
Aspect of genre Criteria of PERMEN 41 Social Function Generic structure Language Feature OP. VERB Numb. of indi.
Suita ble Goal
Speci fic
Narrative
Listening 5 - 4 2 1 1 8 7 -
Percentage strd. Indi.
(15 =100%) 0% 26,8% 13,4% 33,3% 33,3% 53,6
% 46,9
% 0%
Speaking 7 - - 7 2 2 14 14 -
Percentage strd. Indi.
(21 =100%) 0% 0% 33,6% 66,6% 66,6% 67,2
% 67,2
% 0%
Reading 5 - 7 - 2 3 9 9 -
Percentage strd. Indi.
(15 =100%) 0% 46,9% 0% 66,3% 100% 60,3
% 60,3
% 0%
Writing 4 - 4 1 3 2 8 8 -
Percentage strd. Indi.
(12 =100%) 0% 33,2% 8,3% 100% 66,6 % 66,4
% 66,4
% 0%
Note: operational verb and numberof indicators are 3 = 100%
In table indicators of narrative (table1), four skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) have not indicators that focus on social function. Speaking skill also has not indicators in generic structure as (orientation, complication, and resolution).
Indicators of narrative text just have one operational verb in listening skill, two operational verbs in speaking skill, two operational verbs in reading skill, and three operational verbs in writing skill. As the example:
1) Describe the social function of narrative text. 2) Identify the generic structure of narrative text.
(8)
The numbers of indicators have one indicator in listening skill, two indicators in speaking skill, three indicators in reading skill, and two indicators in writing skill. As the example:
1) The learners identify the generic structure of narrative text. 2) The learners apply past tense in narrative text.
Four skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) have not indicators in specific purpose as “social function, generic structure, and language
feature”.
From the data above, it means that the indicators in narrative text are not complete. The teachers should develop the indicators in aspect of genre and indicator criteria.
Table 4
Indicator of Hortatory Exposition
Genre/
Aspect SKILL TOT LP.
ASPECTS INDICATOR
Aspect of Genre Indicator criteria Social Function Generic Structure Generic structure OP. VERB Indi. In one LP Suita ble Goal
Spec ific Hortato ry exposit ion
Listening 4 1 3 1 3 2 7 7 -
Percentage strd. Indi.
(12 =100%) 8,3% 24,9% 8,2% 100% 66,6% 58,1
% 58,1
% 0%
Speaking 3 - - 2 2 2 5 5 -
Percentage strd. Indi.
(9 =100%) 0% 0% 22,22% 66,6% 66,6% 55,5
% 55,5
% 0%
Reading 5 - 7 1 2 2 10 10 -
Percentage strd. Indi.
(15 =100%) 0% 46,9% 6,7% 66,6% 66,6% 67% 67% 0%
Writing 4 - 5 2 4 3 8 8 1
Percentage strd. Indi.
(12 =100%) 0% 41,5% 16,6% 133,2% 100% 66,4
% 66,4
% 8,3%
Note: operational verb and number of indicators are 3 = 100%
In table indicators of hortatory exposition (table 4), three skills (speaking, reading, and writing) have not indicators that focus on social function. Speaking skill also has not indicators in generic structure as (Thesis, argumentative 1, argumentative 2, and recommendation). As the example: 1) The learners listen the purpose of hortatory exposition text.
(9)
Indicators of hortatory exposition text just have three operational verbs in listening skill, two operational verbs in speaking skill, two operational verbs in reading skill, and four operational verbs in writing skill. As the example: 1) Analyze the social function of hortatory exposition text.
2) Identify the generic structure of hortatory exposition text.
The numbers of indicators have two indicators in listening skill, two indicators in speaking skill, two indicators in reading skill, and three indicators in writing skill. As the example:
1) The learners classify the generic structure of hortatory exposition text. 2) The learners repair present tense in hortatory exposition text.
Three skills (listening, speaking, and reading) have not indicators in
specific purpose as “social function, generic structure, and language feature”.
As the example:
1) The learners retell problems of story in hortatory exposition text.
From the data above, it means that the indicators in hortatory exposition text are not complete. The teachers should develop the indicators in aspect of genre and indicator criteria.
Table 7
Indicators of Spoof Text
Genre/
Aspect SKILL TOT LP.
ASPECTS INDICATOR
Aspect of Genre Criteria PERMEN 41 Social Function Generic Structure Language Feature OP. VERB Indi. in One LP Suit able Goa l Specifi c Spoof
Listening 2 - 2 1 3 2 4 4 2
Percentage strd. Indi.
(6 =100%) 0% 33,4% 16,7% 100% 66,6 % 66,8
% 66,8
% 33,4%
Speaking 3 - - 3 2 2 6 6 -
Percentage strd. Indi.
(9 =100%) 0% 0% 33,3% 66,6% 66,6% 66,7
% 66,7
% 0%
Reading 4 1 3 2 1 2 6 6 1
Percentage strd. Indi.
(12 =100%) 8,3% 24,9% 16,6% 33,3% 66,6% 49,8
% 49,8
% 8,3%
Writing 5 - 2 4 4 2 10 10 2
Percentage strd. Indi.
(15 =100%) 0% 13,4% 26,8% 133,2% 66,6% 67% 67% 13,4%
(10)
In table indicators of spoof (table 7), three skills (listening, speaking, and writing) have not indicators that focus on social function. Speaking skill also has not indicators in generic structure as (orientation, event 1, event 2, and twist). As the example:
1) The learners read the social function of spoof text.
Indicators of spoof text just have three operational verbs in listening skill, two operational verbs in speaking skill, one operational verb in reading skill, and four operational verbs in writing skill. As the example:
1) Explain the social purpose of story in spoof text. 2) Arrange the generic structure of spoof text.
The numbers of indicators have two indicators in listening skill, two indicators in speaking skill, two indicators in reading skill, and two indicators in writing skill. As the example:
1) The learners describe the generic structure of spoof text. 2) The learners analyze past tense in spoof text.
Speaking skill has not indicators that specify in specific purpose as “social
function, generic structure, and language feature”. As the example:
1) The learners listen problems of story in spoof text. 2) The learners use noun phrase in spoof text.
From the data above, it means that the indicators in spoof text are not complete. The teachers should develop the indicators in aspect of genre and indicator criteria.
b. Teaching Learning Process
Table 2
Teaching Learning Process of Narrative Text
Activities SKILL Suitable with
indicators Listening Speaking Reading Writing
Introduction:
(11)
2. Giving question 4 1 3 5 V
3. Explain the purpose 2 1 1 4 V
Exploration:
4. Finding information about topic
2 1 - 1 V
5. Use media - - - - -
6. Interaction 5 4 1 4 V
7. Active 4 3 1 4 V
Elaboration:
8. Write & read 5 5 4 3 V
9. Discussion 4 3 5 2 V
10. Analyzing & problem solving
3 - 2 3 V
11. Cooperative & collaborative
1 1 - - V
12. Competence - - - 1 V
13. Make result - - - - -
14. Show the result - 2 - - V
Confirmation:
15. Giving feedback 4 5 1 3 V
16. Confirmation the result
2 1 1 6 V
17. Reflecting the material
6 2 1 5 V
18. Exercising 2 1 3 4 V
Closing:
19. Summarizing in learning activity
1 2 1 3 V
20. Reflecting activity 3 4 3 2 V
21. Response - 1 - 3 V
Sum of activities (1 activity = 4,76%
16 17 14 17
Percentage 76,16% 80,92% 66,64% 80,92%
Note: 1 percentage activity = 100%: 21 (sum of activity in TLP) = 4, 76% Based on table 2 (teaching learning process of narrative), four skills (listening, peaking, reading, and writing) have not activities as “using media
and make result”. The teachers should make the activities as “facilitate the learners with tape recorder or television in narrative text” and “the teachers suggest the learners to make the result about the narrative text”.
(12)
Table 5
Teaching Learning Process of Hortatory Exposition
Activities SKILL Suitable with
indicators Listening Speaking Reading Writing
Introduction:
1. Preparing 3 3 2 2 V
2. Giving question - - 2 1 V
3. Explain the purpose - - 1 - V
Exploration:
4. Finding information about topic
- - - - -
5. Use media - - - - -
6. Interaction - - - - -
7. Active 1 2 2 1 V
Elaboration:
8. Write & read 2 2 4 2 V
9. Discussion 4 2 2 2 V
10. Analyzing & problem solving
- 2 2 2 V
11. Cooperative & collaborative
1 - - 1 V
12. Competence - - 2 - V
13. Make result - 2 1 - -
14. Show the result - 1 - - V
Confirmation:
15. Giving feedback 2 2 - 1 V
16. Confirmation the result
- - - 1 V
17. Reflecting the material
3 2 2 3 V
18. Exercising 4 1 3 3 V
Closing:
19. Summarizing in learning activity
- 1 1 - V
20. Reflecting activity 1 1 5 1 V
21. Response 1 - - - -
Sum of activities 10 11 13 12
Percentage
(1 activity = 4,76%
47,6% 51,37% 61,88% 57,12%
Note: 1 percentage activity = 100%: 21 (sum of activity in TLP) = 4, 76% Based on the table 5 (teaching learning process of hortatory exposition), four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing)
(13)
interaction, and response”. The teachers should give some activities such like
“the learners read the definition of hortatory exposition”, “the teachers give simple question about the material”, and “the teachers give positive response to the learners”.
Table 8
Teaching Learning Process of Spoof Text
Activities SKILL Suitable with
indicators Listening Speaking Reading Writing
Introduction:
1. Preparing 3 1 - 3 V
2. Giving question 1 2 3 2 V
3. Explain the purpose 1 1 1 1 V
Exploration:
4. Finding information about topic
- - - - -
5. Use media - - - - -
6. Interaction - - - - -
7. Active 2 2 1 - V
Elaboration:
8. Write & read 1 1 3 3 V
9. Discussion 1 2 3 3 V
10. Analyzing & problem solving
2 2 2 3 V
11. Cooperative & collaborative
- 1 - - V
12. Competence - - - - -
13. Make result - - - - -
14. Show the result - 1 - 2 V
Confirmation:
15. Giving feedback 1 2 - 1 V
16. Confirmation the result
2 - 1 2 V
17. Reflecting the material
2 1 4 3 V
18. Exercising 2 1 1 2 V
Closing:
19. Summarizing in learning activity
- - - 1 V
20. Reflecting activity 2 - 1 1 V
21. Response - - - 1 V
Sum of activities 12 12 10 14
Percentage
(1 activity = 4,76%
(14)
Note: 1 percentage activity = 100%: 21 (sum of activity in TLP) = 4, 76% Based on the table 8 (teaching learning process of spoof), four skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) have not activities as “finding information about the material, using media, interaction, competence, make
result”. The teachers should make activities such like “the learners discuss about spoof text” and “the learners make result in spoof text”.
c. Evaluation
Table 3
Evaluation Base on the Language Feature and Generic Structure on Narrative Text
Evaluation of Narrative listening speaking reading writing
1. Contain nouns as pronouns, animals, and certain things in the story, such as maid, stepsister, housework, etc.
V V - V
2. Adjective extending noun phrases, such as long
black hair, two red apple, etc. V - - V
3. Time connectives and conjunctions to make events sequence, such as then, before that, soon, next, etc.
V V - V
4. Adverbs and adverbial phrases to show events sequences, such as here, in the mountain, happily, ever, before, etc.
- - - -
5. Use of past tense V V - V
6. Action verbs such as in past tense: stayed,
climbed, jumped, etc. V V - V
7. Response verbs indicating utterance such as promised and thinking verbs identifying thought, perception of characters in the story, such as thought, understood, felt, and seemed.
V V - V
8. Use adverbial of time such as once upon time,
after a while, first, then. - - - -
9. Generic structure of narrative text V V - V
Sum of evaluation 7 6 0 7
Percentage (1 evaluation = 11,11% 77,78% 66,67% 0% 77,78%
1 percentage of evaluation = 100%: 9 (sum of evaluation) = 11, 11%
Based on the data above, reading skill has not the evaluation in narrative text. Three language skills (listening, speaking, and writing) has not the
(15)
teachers should make the evaluation as “the teachers check the adverbial of
time”.
Table 6
Evaluation Base on the Language Feature and Generic Structure on Hortatory Exposition Text
Evaluation of hortatory exposition listening speaking reading writing
1. Abstract noun; policy, advantage
2. Action verb
3. Thinking verb
4. Modal adverb: certainly, surely,
5. Temporal connective: firstly, secondly
6. Evaluative words; important, valuable, trustworthy
7. Passive voice
8. Simple present tense
9. Generic structure of hortatory exposition text
Sum of evaluation 0 0 0 0
Percentage (1 evaluation = 11,11% 0% 0% 0% 0%
1 percentage of evaluation = 100%: 9 (sum of evaluation) = 11, 11%
Based on the data above, there are no evaluations of hortatory exposition text especially in four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). The teachers should give evaluation such like evaluate in present tense.
Table 9
Evaluation Base on the Language Feature and Generic Structure on Spoof Text
Evaluation feature of spoof listening speaking reading writing
1. Focusing on people, animals or certain things V
2. Using action verb: ate, ran, V
3. Using adverb of time and place
4. Generic structure of spoof text V
Sum of evaluation 0 0 0 3
Percentage (1 evaluation = 25% 0 0 0 75%
(16)
Based on the data above, there are no evaluations that focus on “focusing people, action verb, adverbial of time, and generic structure” especially in three language skill (Listening, speaking, and reading). The teachers should
make the evaluation such like “correct the generic structure of spoof text, evaluate in adverbial of time, and give simple question about past tense”. 2. Discussion
a. Indicators
From the analysis above, the writer finds the total percentage of indicators below:
= (tot. Narrative + tot. Hortatory exposition + tot. Spoof) / 3 = (36, 98% + 45, 48 % + 41, 52%) / 4
= 123, 98 / 4 = 30, 99%
The total amount of percentage is 30, 99%. It means that the quality of indicators in SMA Muhammadiyah of Surakarta is categorized as bad result.
b. Teaching Learning Process
From the analysis above, the writer finds the total percentage of teaching learning process below:
= (narrative + hortatory exposition + spoof): 3 = (76, 16% + 54, 49% + 57, 12%
= 187, 77%: 3 = 62, 59%
The final percentage is 62, 59%. It means that the quality of teaching learning process in SMA Muhammadiyah of Surakarta is categorized as good result.
(17)
c. Evaluation
From the analysis above, the writer finds the total percentage of evaluation that could be seen below:
= (narrative + hortatory exposition + spoof): 3 = (55, 56% + 0% + 18, 75%): 3
= 74, 31%: 3 = 24, 77%
The result is 24, 77%. It means that the quality of evaluation in SMA Muhammadiyah of Surakarta is categorized as bad result.
d. Lesson Plans
From the analysis above, the writer finds the total percentage of lesson plans. It is below:
= (Total indicators + total TLP + total evaluation): 3 = (31, 31% + 62, 59% + 24, 77%): 3
= 118, 67%: 3 = 39, 56%
The percentage of lesson plans is 39, 56%. It means that the quality of lesson plan in SMA Muhammadiyah Surakarta is categorized as bad result based on the theory of Suharsimi.
D. Conclusions and Implications
From all percentages, the last part for the discussion is lesson plans. This obtains 39, 56% that shows bad result of lesson plans developed by English teachers in SMA Muhammadiyah of Surakarta.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 1993. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Edisi Revisi. Cetakan 8. Rineka Cipta: Bandung.
Ary, Donald et. al. 2002. Introduction to Research in Education. USA: Wadsworth Group.
(18)
Aziza. 2010. A Study on Teacher’sLesson Plan in SMPIT Nurhidayah, Surakarta Viewed from School Level-Based Curriculum. Unpublished Research Paper. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
Callaghan M; Knapp P & G Noble (1993) "Genre in practice" in Cope B and Kalantzis M (eds.) The powers of literacy: a genre approach to teaching writing. The Falmer Press London.
Cuningsworth, Alan.1995. Choosing Your Course Book. Oxford: Henemann.
Douglas, H. Brown. 2001. An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy Second Edition. San Francisco: Logman.
Douglas, H. Brown. 2004. Language Assessment Priciple and Classroom Practices. San Francisco: Logman.
Ghofur, Abdul and all. Pola Induk Pengembangan Sistem Penilaian.
Hadi, M. Utomo. 2009. Development Curriculum of National Standards School (Site Study in SMP N 40 Semarang. Unpublished Research Paper. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
Halliday, M. A. K & Hasan, R. 1989. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hutchison, T. and Walter, A. 1987. English for Specific Purpose. A Learning Centered Approach: Cambridge University Press.
Kusuma, Dharma and all. 2011. Pendidikan Karakter. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.
Macken-Horarik, M. 1997, 'Exploring the requirements of critical school literacy: a view from two classrooms', in S. Muspratt, A. Luke & P. Freebody (eds) Constructing Critical Literacies: Teaching and Learning Textual Practice, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
Martin, James R. (1985) Factual Writing: exploring and challenging social reality (Sociocultural Aspects of Language and Education). Geelong, Victoria, Aus.: Deakin University Press.
Muslich, Masnur. 2007. “KTSP (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan) Dasar Pemahaman dan Pengembangan”. Malang: Bumi Aksara.
(19)
PERMEN, No. 42. 2007. Standar Proses untuk Satuan Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah.
Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Saodih, Nana. 2007. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung: Rosdakarya.
Sutopo, H. B. 2002. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret Univerity Press.
Sukiran. 2010. The Implementation of Kurikulum Ttingkat Satuan Pendidikan in the Teaching of English (A Naturalistic Study in SMK Negeri 2 Surakarta). Unpublished Research Paper. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
Suwarno, Wiji. 2009. Dasar-Da sar Ilmu Pendidikan. Jogjakarta: Ar-Ruzz.
Widodo, Ari. 2007. Lesson Study” Dalam Peningkatan Kemampuan Mengajar
Mahasiswa calon Guru. Unpublished Research Paper. Bandung: FPMIPA UPI Bandung.
Winecoff, Larry. 1988. Curriculum Development and Instructional Planning.
Bandung: University of South Carolina.
Zuhriah. A. Siti. 2011. Reading on English Text. Surakarta: Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta.
VIRTUAL REFERENCE
http://www.mumstudents.org/~matkinson/index.html. Accessed on 14 of March 2012 at 10.35 a.m.
http://www.slideshare.net/cougar35/what-is-a-lesson-plan. Accessed on 14 of march 2012 at 11.50 a.m.
(1)
Note: 1 percentage activity = 100%: 21 (sum of activity in TLP) = 4, 76% Based on the table 8 (teaching learning process of spoof), four skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) have not activities as “finding information about the material, using media, interaction, competence, make result”. The teachers should make activities such like “the learners discuss about spoof text” and “the learners make result in spoof text”.
c. Evaluation
Table 3
Evaluation Base on the Language Feature and Generic Structure on
Narrative Text
Evaluation of Narrative listening speaking reading writing 1. Contain nouns as pronouns, animals, and certain
things in the story, such as maid, stepsister, housework, etc.
V V - V
2. Adjective extending noun phrases, such as long
black hair, two red apple, etc. V - - V
3. Time connectives and conjunctions to make events sequence, such as then, before that, soon, next, etc.
V V - V
4. Adverbs and adverbial phrases to show events sequences, such as here, in the mountain, happily, ever, before, etc.
- - - -
5. Use of past tense V V - V
6. Action verbs such as in past tense: stayed,
climbed, jumped, etc. V V - V
7. Response verbs indicating utterance such as promised and thinking verbs identifying thought, perception of characters in the story, such as thought, understood, felt, and seemed.
V V - V
8. Use adverbial of time such as once upon time,
after a while, first, then. - - - -
9. Generic structure of narrative text V V - V
Sum of evaluation 7 6 0 7
Percentage (1 evaluation = 11,11% 77,78% 66,67% 0% 77,78% 1 percentage of evaluation = 100%: 9 (sum of evaluation) = 11, 11%
Based on the data above, reading skill has not the evaluation in narrative text. Three language skills (listening, speaking, and writing) has not the activities of narrative text as “adverbial phrase and adverbial of time”. The
(2)
teachers should make the evaluation as “the teachers check the adverbial of time”.
Table 6
Evaluation Base on the Language Feature and Generic Structure on
Hortatory Exposition Text
Evaluation of hortatory exposition listening speaking reading writing
1. Abstract noun; policy, advantage
2. Action verb
3. Thinking verb
4. Modal adverb: certainly, surely,
5. Temporal connective: firstly, secondly 6. Evaluative words; important, valuable, trustworthy
7. Passive voice
8. Simple present tense
9. Generic structure of hortatory exposition text
Sum of evaluation 0 0 0 0
Percentage (1 evaluation = 11,11% 0% 0% 0% 0%
1 percentage of evaluation = 100%: 9 (sum of evaluation) = 11, 11%
Based on the data above, there are no evaluations of hortatory exposition text especially in four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). The teachers should give evaluation such like evaluate in present tense.
Table 9
Evaluation Base on the Language Feature and Generic Structure on Spoof Text
Evaluation feature of spoof listening speaking reading writing 1. Focusing on people, animals or certain things V
2. Using action verb: ate, ran, V
3. Using adverb of time and place
4. Generic structure of spoof text V
Sum of evaluation 0 0 0 3
Percentage (1 evaluation = 25% 0 0 0 75%
(3)
Based on the data above, there are no evaluations that focus on “focusing people, action verb, adverbial of time, and generic structure” especially in three language skill (Listening, speaking, and reading). The teachers should make the evaluation such like “correct the generic structure of spoof text, evaluate in adverbial of time, and give simple question about past tense”. 2. Discussion
a. Indicators
From the analysis above, the writer finds the total percentage of indicators below:
= (tot. Narrative + tot. Hortatory exposition + tot. Spoof) / 3 = (36, 98% + 45, 48 % + 41, 52%) / 4
= 123, 98 / 4 = 30, 99%
The total amount of percentage is 30, 99%. It means that the quality of indicators in SMA Muhammadiyah of Surakarta is categorized as bad result.
b. Teaching Learning Process
From the analysis above, the writer finds the total percentage of teaching learning process below:
= (narrative + hortatory exposition + spoof): 3 = (76, 16% + 54, 49% + 57, 12%
= 187, 77%: 3 = 62, 59%
The final percentage is 62, 59%. It means that the quality of teaching learning process in SMA Muhammadiyah of Surakarta is categorized as good result.
(4)
c. Evaluation
From the analysis above, the writer finds the total percentage of evaluation that could be seen below:
= (narrative + hortatory exposition + spoof): 3 = (55, 56% + 0% + 18, 75%): 3
= 74, 31%: 3 = 24, 77%
The result is 24, 77%. It means that the quality of evaluation in SMA Muhammadiyah of Surakarta is categorized as bad result.
d. Lesson Plans
From the analysis above, the writer finds the total percentage of lesson plans. It is below:
= (Total indicators + total TLP + total evaluation): 3 = (31, 31% + 62, 59% + 24, 77%): 3
= 118, 67%: 3 = 39, 56%
The percentage of lesson plans is 39, 56%. It means that the quality of lesson plan in SMA Muhammadiyah Surakarta is categorized as bad result based on the theory of Suharsimi.
D. Conclusions and Implications
From all percentages, the last part for the discussion is lesson plans. This obtains 39, 56% that shows bad result of lesson plans developed by English teachers in SMA Muhammadiyah of Surakarta.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 1993. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Edisi Revisi. Cetakan 8. Rineka Cipta: Bandung.
Ary, Donald et. al. 2002. Introduction to Research in Education. USA: Wadsworth Group.
(5)
Aziza. 2010. A Study on Teacher’sLesson Plan in SMPIT Nurhidayah, Surakarta Viewed from School Level-Based Curriculum. Unpublished Research Paper. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
Callaghan M; Knapp P & G Noble (1993) "Genre in practice" in Cope B and Kalantzis M (eds.) The powers of literacy: a genre approach to teaching writing. The Falmer Press London.
Cuningsworth, Alan.1995. Choosing Your Course Book. Oxford: Henemann.
Douglas, H. Brown. 2001. An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy Second Edition. San Francisco: Logman.
Douglas, H. Brown. 2004. Language Assessment Priciple and Classroom Practices. San Francisco: Logman.
Ghofur, Abdul and all. Pola Induk Pengembangan Sistem Penilaian.
Hadi, M. Utomo. 2009. Development Curriculum of National Standards School (Site Study in SMP N 40 Semarang. Unpublished Research Paper. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
Halliday, M. A. K & Hasan, R. 1989. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of
Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hutchison, T. and Walter, A. 1987. English for Specific Purpose. A Learning Centered Approach: Cambridge University Press.
Kusuma, Dharma and all. 2011. Pendidikan Karakter. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.
Macken-Horarik, M. 1997, 'Exploring the requirements of critical school literacy: a view from two classrooms', in S. Muspratt, A. Luke & P. Freebody (eds) Constructing Critical Literacies: Teaching and Learning Textual Practice, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
Martin, James R. (1985) Factual Writing: exploring and challenging social
reality (Sociocultural Aspects of Language and Education). Geelong,
Victoria, Aus.: Deakin University Press.
Muslich, Masnur. 2007. “KTSP (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan) Dasar
(6)
PERMEN, No. 42. 2007. Standar Proses untuk Satuan Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah.
Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Saodih, Nana. 2007. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung: Rosdakarya.
Sutopo, H. B. 2002. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret Univerity Press.
Sukiran. 2010. The Implementation of Kurikulum Ttingkat Satuan Pendidikan in the Teaching of English (A Naturalistic Study in SMK Negeri 2 Surakarta). Unpublished Research Paper. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.
Suwarno, Wiji. 2009. Dasar-Da sar Ilmu Pendidikan. Jogjakarta: Ar-Ruzz.
Widodo, Ari. 2007. Lesson Study” Dalam Peningkatan Kemampuan Mengajar Mahasiswa calon Guru. Unpublished Research Paper. Bandung: FPMIPA UPI Bandung.
Winecoff, Larry. 1988. Curriculum Development and Instructional Planning. Bandung: University of South Carolina.
Zuhriah. A. Siti. 2011. Reading on English Text. Surakarta: Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta.
VIRTUAL REFERENCE
http://www.mumstudents.org/~matkinson/index.html. Accessed on 14 of March 2012 at 10.35 a.m.
http://www.slideshare.net/cougar35/what-is-a-lesson-plan. Accessed on 14 of march 2012 at 11.50 a.m.