A STUDY ON MICROTEACHING STUDENTS
’
ABILITY IN
DESIGNING COHERENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By Meita Enjayani
081214139
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION
FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
i
A STUDY ON MICROTEACHING STUDENTS’ ABILITY IN
DESIGNING COHERENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By Meita Enjayani
081214139
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION
FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
iv
“Be of good cheer. Do not think of today's failures, but of the success that may
come tomorrow. You have set yourselves a difficult task, but you will succeed if
you persevere; and you will find a joy in overcoming obstacles. Remember, no
effort that we make to attain something beautiful is ever lost.”
Helen Keller
I dedicate this thesis to my beloved parents,
my lovely brothers and sister,
vi
ABSTRACT
Enjayani, Meita. 2012. A Study on Microteaching Students’ Ability in Designing Coherent Learning Objectives and Learning Activities. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.
Having a good preparation before teaching is important. Teachers have to prepare a lesson plan before they teach. A good preparation can guarantee the achievement of learning objectives in class and the success of the teaching and learning process. Learning objectives would also be achieved if there were chances for students to experience classroom-learning activities that lead them to those learning objectives. Therefore, the researcher is interested in studying the design of learning objectives and learning activities.
This research intended to see the coherence of learning objectives and learning activities designed by microteaching students and to find out the problems that might occur. There were two research questions presented in this study: (1) Is there any coherence between learning objectives and learning activities designed by microteaching students of English Language Education Study Program? (2) What problems might occur in designing coherent learning objectives and learning activities?
To answer the research questions, the researcher conducted document analysis on seven microteaching students’ lesson plans from different classes. The data would be analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. The qualitative data would be obtained from the lesson plans and the interview. Then, the quantitative data would be obtained from the checklist used to assess the lesson plans.
From the analysis, the researcher found out that there were 5 out of 7 lesson plans or 71.42% showed the coherent learning objectives and learning activities. However, dealing with the second formulation of research question, the researcher still found some problems which could be categorized into the formulation of learning objectives and the design of learning activities. The formulation of learning objectives (1) did not cover the three domains 71.42% (2) did not fulfill the criteria of clearly stated learning objectives 57.14% (3) did not derive from the competence standard 28.57%. The design of learning activities (1) gave unclear instruction 57.14% (2) did not fulfill the congruence principle 42.85% (3) did not fulfill the organization principle 42.85% (4) did not fulfill the variety principle 28.57% (5) did not fulfill the higher level of thinking principle 28.57%.
Most of the lesson plans showed coherent learning objectives and learning activities since the learning activities designed met at least the terminal objectives. The main problem that influenced the failure of designing coherent learning objectives and learning activities was the absence of supporting learning activities. The learning activities designed did not achieve the same level as what is expected in the learning objectives.
vii
ABSTRAK
Enjayani, Meita. 2012. A Study on Microteaching Students’ Ability in Designing Coherent Learning objectives and learning activities. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Memiliki persiapan yang baik sebelum mengajar itu penting. Guru harus menyiapkan rencana pelaksanaan pembelajaran (RPP) sebelum mengajar. Persiapan yang baik menjamin tercapainya tujuan dan kesuksesan proses pembelajaran di kelas. Tujuan pembelajaran akan tercapai apabila siswa diberikan kesempatan untuk mengikuti aktivitas pembelajaran yang mengarahkan mereka pada tujuan pembelajaran itu sendiri. Oleh karena itu, peneliti bermaksud mempelajari rumusan tujuan pembelajaran dan rancangan kegiatan pembelajaran.
Penelitian ini bertujuan melihat kesesuaian antara tujuan pembelajaran dan kegiatan pembelajaran yang dirancang oleh mahasiswa kelas Pengajaran Mikro dan untuk menemukan masalah yang muncul. Rumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini adalah: (1) apakah ada kesesuaian antara tujuan pembelajaran dan kegiatan pembelajaran yang dirancang mahasiswa kelas Pengajaran Mikro Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris? (2) masalah apa yang muncul dalam merancang tujuan pembelajaran dan kegiatan pembelajaran yang sesuai?
Untuk menyelesaikan masalah, peneliti menganalis tujuh RPP dari mahasiswa kelas Pengajaran Mikro yang berbeda. Data akan dianalisis secara kualitatif dan kuantitatif. Data kualitatif diperoleh dari RPP dan wawancara. Data kuantitatif diperoleh dari checklist yang digunakan untuk menilai RPP.
Dari hasil analisis, peneliti menemukan bahwa 5 dari 7 RPP atau 71.4% menunjukkan kesesuaian antara tujuan pembelajaran dan kegiatan pembelajaran. Di sisi lain, berhubungan dengan rumusan masalah yang kedua, peneliti menemukan beberapa masalah yang dapat dikelompokkan berdasarkan perumusan tujuan pembelajaran dan rancangan kegiatan pembelajaran. Rumusan tujuan pembelajaran (1) tidak mencakup tiga ranah 71.42% (2) tidak memenuhi kriteria rumusan tujuan pembelajaran yang jelas 57, 14% (3) tidak sesuai dengan standar kompetensi 28,57%. Kemudian, rancangan kegiatan pembelajaran (1) memberi instruksi yang tidak jelas 51,14% (2) tidak memenuhi prinsip kesesuaian 42.85% (3) tidak memenuhi prinsip organisasi 42,85% (4) tidak memenuhi prinsip keberagaman 28,57% (5) tidak memenuhi prinsip berpikir kompleks 28, 57%.
Sebagian besar RPP menunjukkan kesesuaian antara tujuan pembelajaran dan kegiatan pembelajaran karena kegiatan pembelajaran yang dirancang telah memenuhi setidaknya tujuan pembelajaran utama. Masalah utama yang mempengaruhi kegagalan dalam merancang kegiatan pembelajaran yang sesuai dengan tujuan pembelajaran adalah tidak adanya kegiatan pembelajaran yang mendukung. Kegiatan pembelajaran yang dirancang tidak mencapai tingkat yang sama seperti apa yang diharapkan pada tujuan pembelajaran.
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest gratitude for Jesus Christ for health and His blessing so that I can finish my thesis.
I also express my sincere appreciation for my sponsor, V. Triprihatmini, S.Pd., M.Hum., M.A., who guided me in the process of writing this thesis by giving feedback and suggestions. Then, my next appreciation goes 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., V. Triprihatmini, S.Pd., M.Hum., M.A., and Gregorius Punto Aji S.Pd., M.Hum., for giving me opportunities to conduct research on their students’ work. I would also thank those who became the participants of my study by permitting me to access their lesson plans and giving the information that I needed.
I would also like to express my greatest gratitude for my beloved family: Bapak, Ibu, mas Agus, mas Doni, Risa, mbak Nita and mbak Widy for the support and motivation that encourage me to finish my thesis as soon as possible.
I owe much to my friends, Andre, Ayuk, Anisa, Yeni, Dita, Rean and all PBI students of 2008 academic year who always support and make me laugh in this hard time doing my thesis. Not to forget, my great thankfulness goes to my friends in “kost idjoe”, mbak Ria, Usie, Hita, mbak Dwi, mbak Novi, Ita.
Finally, my deepest thanks go to all who have helped me in finishing my thesis.
x
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... v
ABSTRACT ... vi
ABSTRAK ... vii
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ... viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... ix
1. Lesson Planning in Language Teaching ... 9
2. Learning Objectives in Lesson Planning ... 10
3. Learning Activities in Lesson Planning ... 13
4. The Relation between Learning Objectives and Learning Activities ... 17
5. Writing Skill... 18
xi CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY
A. Research Methods ... 24
B. Research Setting... 25
C. Research Participants ... 25
D. Research Insteruments... 27
E. Data Gathering Technique ... 28
F. Data Analysis Technique ... 29
G. Research Procedure ... 31
CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION A. General Description of Microteaching Students’ Lesson Plans ... 33
B. The Formulation of the Learning Objectives ... 34
C. The Design of the Learning Activites ... 47
D. The Application of Six Principles Proposed By Pasch et al. (1991) in Designing the Learning Activities ... 54
E. The Coherence of the Learning Activities and the Learning Objectives ... 71
F. Problems that might occur in the Design of Learning objectives and learning activities ... 75
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS A. Conclusions ... 81
B. Suggestions ... 82
REFERENCES ... 85
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
There will be six important sections to discuss in this chapter. They are the research background, problem formulations, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits, and definition of terms.
A. Research Background
Nowadays, English is taught from kindergarten to high school. However, the researcher is curious why Senior High School students still have poor ability in English even after they have learned English for many years. The researcher thinks that one of the possible reasons is because of bad teaching preparation among teachers. The ability of the students should be good if the teachers had a good preparation or idea. Teachers’ teaching preparation can be seen from the lesson plan. Therefore, the researcher is interested in observing lesson plans of microteaching students.
The first step taken by microteaching students before doing the teaching performance is designing a lesson plan. The lesson plan becomes the foundation of the teaching since it is a plan of the learning process in class. It will be the guidelines for the teacher on how or what to do, to control the way the learning activities run.
Designing a lesson plans is not easy. In fact, it is still a challenging task for some students. Most of them even do not know what kind of things should be written there, including the arrangement. Moreover, there are many things to consider since a lesson plan consists of some points. As written in Permendiknas no 41 year 2007 on Standar Proses, a lesson plan covers the subject description, competence standard, basic competence, indicator, learning objectives, material, time allotment, teaching method, learning activities, assessment, and learning source. These become important parts which relate to one another. For example, the standard competence and basic competence will be the foundation in determining the learning objective. Then, the objective will be the foundation in determining the learning activities, so on and so forth.
Microteaching students should think carefully before determining the learning activities. Burden & Byrd (1999) recommend three sequences of learning activities which are introductory activities, developmental activities, and closing activities. The learning activities written in the lesson plan should be clear and in a good order so that the material can be delivered well and easily. Besides, the important thing to be considered is that the learning activities should be based on the learning objectives.
By the fact that designing coherent learning objectives and learning activities is important, the researcher wants to know whether there is coherence between learning objectives and learning activities designed by microteaching students of the English Language Education Study Program. It is important since the students are expected to be professional teachers who are successful in teaching after they graduate later. The coherence can be seen from some criteria. They are related to the formulation of learning objectives and the design of supporting learning activities.
B. Problem Formulations
In relation to the topic of the study, the problems of the research can be formulated as follows:
2. What problems might occur in designing coherent learning objectives and learning activities?
C. Problem Limitation
The designs of lesson plans are varied based on the skill focus which is going to be taught. It can be listening, speaking, reading or writing. In this study, the lesson plans analyzed are those that focus on writing skill. The researcher experienced that producing a piece of writing is not easy. There are some sequences to face, such as getting the idea, pre-writing, revising, re-writing and proofreading. From the first sequence, which is finding the idea, it is not easy. Even after the researcher gets the idea, the researcher should consider the vocabulary, grammar or organization to put the idea into a good writing. Because of those phenomena, writing teacher should be careful in choosing the kinds of classroom activities to help the students develop their writing skills. It is obvious that becoming a writing teacher is a big challenge. That is the reason why the researcher chose the lesson plans which focus on writing skill as the data.
There are some parts in a lesson plan which are all important and related to each other. Dealing with the objectives of this study, the focus will be only on the objectives and learning activities written in a lesson plan. The researcher is going to study the coherence of both.
University year 2009 as the participants from different microteaching class. The students have written and implemented them in their microteaching class.
D. Research Objectives
Based on the problem formulations, the objectives of conducting this study are listed as follows:
1. To see whether there is coherence between learning objectives and learning activities designed by microteaching students of the English Language Education Study Program.
2. To know some problems that might occur in designing coherent learning objectives and learning activities.
E. Research Benefits
By conducting research on the coherence of learning objectives and learning activities designed by microteaching students, it is expected to provide contributions for:
1. Students
2. Lecturers
This research gives description for the lecturers on microteaching students’ ability in designing coherent learning objectives and learning activities. If the result is that microteaching students have not designed coherent learning activities, the lecturers can improve their teaching technique and create new methods in teaching designing lesson plan.
By knowing the microteaching students’ problems in designing coherent learning objectives and learning activities, the lecturers are expected to find better solution to help the students solve the problems.
3. Other researchers
This research can help and develop further research on designing similar topics about the coherent learning objectives and learning activities.
F. Definition of Terms
There are some terms which are often used in this study. In order to avoid misunderstanding, the researcher is going to define the terms as follows:
1. Microteaching
2. Coherent
In a piece of writing, there is one principle that is called coherent principle. It means that every sentence in a paragraph should support the idea. As Langan (1996) said, “All the supporting ideas and sentences in a paper must be organized so that they cohere, or stick together” (p.104).
This study is going to see the coherence of learning objectives and learning activities. Coherence here means that the learning activities should be designed to reach the purpose of learning that is formulated in the learning objectives. Learning activities might be varied. However, it should be well organized, set in a logical order, and meet at least one of the learning objectives.
3. Learning Activities
Harmer (2001) states that learning activities are the main body of the lesson plan in which the procedure of teaching process is listed together with the time taken for each activity (p. 315). In this study, the learning activities refer to the learning activity as one of the components of lesson plan designed by microteaching students of the English Education Study Program Sanata Dharma University. Here, the researcher will use the list of activities written by the students in their lesson plans as the main data.
4. Learning Objectives
According to Kemp (1977), “A learning objective is a precise statement that answers the question, “What does the student have to do in order to show that
he or she has learned what you want the students to learn” (p. 28). It means that
also says, “An objective implies direction and goal, cause and effect, process and product” (p. 104).
As written in Permendiknas no 41 year 2007 on Standar Proses, a learning objective describes the process and expected achievement of students learning based on the basic competence. Then, an indicator is observable behavior to indicate the achievement of basic competence. From those two sentences, it is obvious that both learning objective and indicator are related to the target of learning. Therefore, learning objectives and indicators are interchangeable.
9
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
In this chapter, the researcher presents the theoretical description and the theoretical framework. Theoretical description presents some theories which support the study conducted. Theoretical framework presents the logical concept on the use of the theories to answer the problem formulation.
A. Theoretical Description
1. Lesson Planning in Language Teaching
According to McNeil & Wiles (1990), “Lesson plan is a teaching outline of the important points of a lesson for a single class period, arranged in the order in which they are to be presented” (p. 59). From the definition of lesson plan given, it is obviously known that a lesson plan is important to design before the teachers teach in class. They have to plan all of the things related to the teaching and learning process first and write it in the lesson plan. It will be the guidance for the teacher in delivering the lesson, what they have to do is just implementing the designed plan.
Burden & Byrd (1999) present the reason why designing a lesson plan is important:
A lesson plan give the teacher guidelines about things to do in the class; it includes the sequence of learning activities and the time allocated for each activity. In other words, the teacher will have a sense of direction in teaching the students. The lesson plan is also important to guide the learning process to the goal or the objectives of learning. Without the planning, the objectives will be difficult to achieve since there is no rule to control the learning process in class.
As written in Permendiknas no 41 year 2007 on Standar Proses, there are some elements which should be written in the formal lesson plan. They are subject description, competence standard, basic competence, indicator, learning objectives, material, time allotment, teaching method, learning activities, assessment, and learning source. All of those elements should be designed in coherence, showing the logical relation to one another.
2. Learning Objectives in Lesson Planning
One important part that should be written in a lesson plan is the learning objectives. Burden & Byrd (1999) explain that learning objectives are statements of what is hoped from the learning process. In other words, learning objectives are the goal or the direction which is expected to be achieved through the learning process. There will be some instructions during the learning process. Therefore, after the instructions have been done, the students are expected to meet the learning objectives. If the learning objectives can be achieved, we may say that the teaching and learning process succeed (p.30).
of a lesson plan. The first reason is that because learning objectives become the focus of learning process. It is related to the things should be achieved by the students. The second one is that objectives help teacher in determining the task or assignment in class by specified the general goals. The last reason is that objectives assist the teacher in designing the test or evaluate the students’ mastery. The evaluation should be designed so that it can measure the students’ achievement whether it has met the expected goal or not (p.65).
There are three ways of stating objectives as what Burden & Byrd (1999) have described. The first one is called action statement. It is stated in terms of what the student is expected to know or to do using the action verb. The second one is called condition statements. The condition includes the material given to the students, time limits, and the location for the performances. The third objectives statement is criterion statement. It stated the standard in which the students’ successful completion of the objective is measured. It refers to the standard to determine whether the students’ performance is acceptable (pp.66-67).
expected to do, and finally to the criteria or standard to measure the students’
achievement.
Bloom (1987) explains that learning objectives can be written in three learning domains. The first one is the cognitive domain. It is related to those objectives which deal with the recall or recognition of knowledge and the development of intellectual skills. The second learning domain is affective domain which is related to the emotional dimension of the learning process. It includes the objectives which describe changes in interest, attitudes, and values, and the development of appreciations and adequate adjustment. The last one is the psychomotor domain. It is closely related to the physical behavior (p. 7).
In line with Bloom taxonomy, Kemp (1977) writes the verbs that are often used for each level of cognitive domain. It can be seen in Table 2.1.
Level of Cognitive Domain
Verb
1. Knowledge Arrange, define, duplicate, label, list, memorize, name, order, recognize, relate, recall, repeat, reproduce
2. Comprehension Classify, describe, discuss, explain, express, identify, indicate, locate, recognize, report, restate, review, select, tell, translate
3. Application Apply, choose, demonstrate, dramatize, employ, illustrate, interpret, operate, practice, schedule, sketch, solve, use
4. Analysis Analyze, appraise, calculate, categorize, compare, contrast, criticize, diagram, differentiate, discriminate, distinguish, examine, experiment, inventory, question, test
5. Synthesis Arrange, assemble, collect, compose, construct, create, design, formulate, manage, organize, plan, prepare, propose, set up, write
6. Evaluation Appraise, argue, assess, attach, choose, compare, defend, estimate, judge, predict, rate, score, select, support, value, evaluate
According to Brown (2001), there are two kinds of learning objectives. The first one is terminal objective. It is the final outcomes that will be measured after completing the class activities. The second one is enabling learning objectives. It is only learning objectives which actually support or lead the students to the terminal objectives (p.150).
All of those reviews of the learning objectives theory are presented based on some consideration. The definition of learning objectives is presented first in order to give the same perception to the reader about that. Another one, the importance of determining the learning objectives are also presented here to emphasize to the microteaching students that the objectives they will write in the lesson plan are important. It also shows the importance of conducting this study. This study is conducted to see the ability of microteaching students in designing coherent learning objectives and learning activities. Therefore, it is important to present the way of stating the objective which later will help the researcher in analyzing the objectives written by micro teaching students in their lesson plan.
3. Learning Activities in Lesson Planning
task classification. It is proposed by the taxonomy of Bloom which divides human task into three domains as stated in the previous paragraph. They are cognitive, affective and psychomotor domain. Cognitive domain covers the knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation. Affective domain covers receiving, responding, valuing, organization, characterization. In psychomotor domain, skill of movement with certain form guides into some purposeful outcome. The last task analysis is called learning task analysis. It reveals the prerequisite learning in which the students will recall their knowledge (pp. 116-130).
In a different way, Pasch et al. (1991) explains six principles that may be better to implement when designing the learning activities.
a. Congruence Principle
This principle teaches us to make sure that there should be a match among objectives, activities and evaluation. It means that we have to select the activities which later can lead the students to meet the objectives of the learning and to test whether the objectives have been achieved. It is closely related to the research conducted in which the researcher is curious with the learning activities designed in the lesson plan by microteaching students of the English Language Education Study Program Sanata Dharma University whether it is coherent with the learning objectives or not (Pasch et al., 1991, p. 115).
b. Organization and clarity principle
information obvious to students so that the students know how one activity relates to another. Stating directly the relation of the activities will help students focus on the relevant information (Pasch et al., 1991, p. 117).
c. Variety Principle
We have to consider the different students’ learning needs and styles in selecting kinds of activity. Therefore, it is better to plan various activities which later can attract each learner and hold her or his attention throughout the lesson so that the learning objectives can be achieved (Pasch et al., 1991, p. 119).
d. Active Processing Principle
This principle teaches the teacher to design learning activities which can help the students to make the new information more meaningful. This principle covers two things. The first one is called linkage to prior knowledge. Here, the teachers should make sure that the students understand the new information by relating the topic to the previous knowledge in the long-term memory or something the students already know. The second one is active involvement. It means that the learning activities should encourage the students’ participation. That is why teacher should include various activities which enable students to be more active. If they were actively participating in class, they would find it easier to remember the material than those who are passive (Pasch et al., 1991, p. 120). e. Experience Based Learning Principle
experiences, contrived experiences, and dramatized experiences. Another one is learning through observation which covers demonstration, study trips, exhibits, educational television, motion pictures, recordings, radio, and pictures. The last one is learning through abstraction which covers visual and verbal symbols (Pasch et al., 1991, p. 121).
f. Higher level thinking principle
The selection of the learning activities should encourage the higher level thinking in all students. The students are expected to use more information rather than directly recall it. This can be done by placing the students to analyze the causes, effects, motivations, problem solving and decision making in real or simulated situations (Pasch et al., 1991, p. 125).
After we know the principle of designing learning activities, we may start to think about the activities. Burden & Byrd (1999) recommend three sequences of learning activities which are introductory activities, developmental activities, closing activities. Introductory activities are designed to capture students’
instructional strategies selected must help the students achieve the instructional objectives of the lesson. We should also concern with the students characteristics in selecting the instructional strategies. The last learning activity is closing activities in which the teacher will summarize the lesson’s content (p. 63).
As previously stated, this study is mainly conducted to see the coherence of learning objectives and learning activities listed on microteaching students’
lesson plan. Therefore, it is important to review some related theories which later become the guidance for the researcher to analyze the data. The researcher presents the theory on how to design learning activities after doing the task analyzes of the learning objective. It is done to fulfill one of the principles of designing learning activities, which is congruence principle.
4. The Relation between Learning Objectives and Learning Activities
Burden & Byrd (1999) state that “After carefully selecting the precise performance objectives in different levels of the learning domain, you need to select strategies and learning activities that will help students achieve those objectives” (p.32). It means that the first thing to do was defining the learning objectives. These learning objectives will be the foundation of designing the learning activities.
considering the objectives, the goals of learning will not succeed and the teaching and learning process will be considered as a failure. That is the reason why we have to consider the learning objectives when designing the learning activities. As stated by Kemp (1977), “Successful learning is more likely when objectives are clearly stated for students and when learning activities are carefully sequenced in relation to those objectives.”
All of those theories present the relation between learning objectives and learning activities. It shows and emphasizes that designing coherent learning objectives and learning activities is very important in the teaching and learning process. That is why the ability of microteaching students to design coherent learning objectives and learning activities is important to see. As the objectives of this study, knowing the microteaching students ability will give benefit for both the lecturer and the students to know how or what to behave and find the solution for that.
5. Writing Skill
Figure 2.2 writing feature
In every single class, the teacher may emphasize only on some of the features. For example, in one meeting the teacher may only focus on teaching about the organization of a certain text or others.
Students’ writing skill will improve through the process of doing the activities or assignment given in class. Therefore, microteaching students should be able to design and sequence the learning activities to reach the desired learning outcomes. Writing performance that is proposed by Brown (2004, pp. 220-234) might help the students to determine the appropriate assessment in class. There are four types of writing performance, which are:
a. Imitative
1) Tasks in writing letters, words and punctuation
The assignments can be so varied, such as copying, listening close selection task, picture cued tasks, form completion tasks or converting number and abbreviations to words.
2) Spelling task and detecting phoneme-grapheme correspondences.
It can be done through some kind of assignments such as spelling test, picture-cued tasks, multiple-choice techniques or matching phonetic symbols (Brown, 2004, pp. 221-225).
b. Intensive (controlled)
This writing performance considers the context and the meaning of a writing product. The example of the assignments are dictation, grammatical transformation tasks, picture-cued task, vocabulary assessment task, ordering task, short answer and sentence completion task (Brown, 2004, pp. 225-231).
c. Responsive
paraphrasing, guided question and answer, paragraph construction task and strategic option (Brown, 2004, pp. 231-237).
d. Extensive
It used to be called as free writing. This writing performance focuses on achieving a purpose, organizing and developing ideas logically, and drafting to achieve the final product. It takes all the principle of responsive writing. However, the genre of text is the longer one, such as essays, papers, project reports or theses. It implies the successful management of all the process and strategies of writing for all-purpose. The assessments are the same as the one in the responsive writing (Brown, 2004, pp. 231-237).
Brown (2004, p.221) explains that for the imitative and intensive writing performance, it would implement the micro skills, such as:
a. Produce graphemes and orthographic patterns of English b. Produce writing at an efficient rate of speed
c. Produce an acceptable core of words and use appropriate word order patterns d. Use acceptable grammatical system
e. Express a particular meaning in different grammatical form f. Use cohesive devices in written discourse
Then, for the responsive and extensive writing performance, it would implement the macro skills, such as:
a. Use the rhetorical forms and conventions of written discourse
c. Convey links and connections between events
d. Distinguish between literal and implied meanings when writing
e. Correctly convey culturally specific references in the context of the written text
f. Develop and use a battery of writing strategies
B. Theoretical Framework
This study is mainly about document analysis on microteaching students’
lesson plans. Therefore, it is necessary to review some literature theories concerning on lesson planning in language learning which includes the definition, the importance and the elements of lesson plan. Besides, the study is conducted to see the coherence of the learning activities and the learning objectives. Therefore, it is also important to get deeper understanding on learning objectives, learning activities and the relation of both. It is also important to present some theory concerning on writing skills to help the researcher check the effectiveness of the activities designed.
To answer the first research question, the researcher uses the theory dealing with the formulation of learning objectives, such as Bloom taxonomy (1964) and theory of clearly stated learning objectives by Pasch et al. (1991). Another theory used is the six principles of designing learning activities proposed by Pasch et al. (1991). All of those theories help the researcher to determine the coherence of learning objectives and learning activities designed by microteaching students.
24
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, the researcher presents the methodology to conduct this research. It covers the research method, research participants, research instruments, data gathering technique, data analysis technique, and research procedure.
A. Research Method
This study is conducted to find the answer to two formulated problems. The first one is to see whether there is coherence between learning objectives and learning activities designed by microteaching students of the English Language Education Study Program. The second one is to see the problems that might occur in the design of coherent learning objectives and learning activities. For the objectives of the study, the researcher conducted a document analysis on microteaching students’ lesson plans which were designed before they had their teaching practice in class in order to answer those problem formulations. According to Best (1977), “Document analysis deals with the systematic
examination of current records or document as sources of data” (p.129). In this study, the kind of document which was going to be analyzed, was microteaching students’ lesson plans.
(2002), “the goal of qualitative research is to get a description and to gain depth understanding of some groups or some phenomena” (p.25). In this study, the
description would be about the ability of microteaching students of the English Language Education Study Program Sanata Dharma University, as the group represented, in designing coherent learning objectives and learning activities.
To determine the number of lesson plans that had coherent learning objectives and learning activities and to see the percentage of the problems that occurred in the design of coherent learning objectives and learning activities, the researcher should employ quantitative research. It deals with numeric data. According to Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh (2002),” quantitative research uses objective measurement and statistical analysis of numeric data to understand and explain phenomena. In this study, the quantitative data is derived from the quantification of the assessment result toward the lesson plans.
B. Research Setting
This study was conducted in Sanata Dharma University in February until April 2012. It was in accordance with the availability of microteaching class which was offered in the even semester.
C. Research Participants
University of the academic year 2009. This number of participants would be the representative of microteaching students’ ability in designing coherent learning objectives and learning activities. As what Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh (2002) explained that qualitative research tried to obtain sample of observations which believed to be sufficient to provide data and understanding on what the researcher was going to study. In other words, the result of the research conducted would be the representative of the group (p.428).
Microteaching students were required to design a lesson plan first before implementing the teaching practice in microteaching class. In this study, the participants involved should be the one who designed lesson plan for the aim of teaching writing skills. There were around four of five students who did that for each class. For two classes, the researcher got the lesson plans from the lecturers. For other classes, the researcher got the lesson plans directly from the students. The lesson plan that presented the most complete elements and clear instructions would be the main data of this research and be the representative of each class.
the following semester. It was important for them to be able to design the coherent learning objectives and learning activities so that later they would be successful in teaching their students.
D. Research Instruments
To collect the data and find the answer to the formulated problems, the researcher used three research instruments as follows:
1. Participants’ lesson plans
These were the main materials which the researcher was going to analyze in order to answer the problem formulations. The lesson plans needed were the one that aimed at teaching writing skills. The researcher would focus mainly on the learning objectives and learning activities written in the lesson plan. The coherence of those two would be the result of the study. This instrument would provide the qualitative data.
2. Checklist
According to Mertler (2009), the content of checklist is list of characteristics the researcher wants to investigate. It enables the researcher to indicate simply whether the characteristics listed are presented or not. In this study, checklist was used to find the percentage of the problems that occurred in the design of coherent learning objectives and learning activities. The content of the checklist was depending on the problems that occurred. This instrument would provide the quantitative data.
After the lesson plan was analyzed, the researcher conducted an interview. According to Best (1981), interview is just like oral questionnaire. However, by conducting the interview the interviewer could clarify the questions if there was misinterpretation and clarify the verbal information given by the interviewee (p. 165). In this study, the aim of conducting the interview was to confirm the researcher’s understanding about the lesson plan with the participant as the writer. Therefore, the interview questions depended on what information the researcher wanted to know more, dealing with the design of learning activities and the formulation of the objectives. All of the questions delivered were open ended. The result would be recorded by note taking and using recorder. This instrument would provide the qualitative data.
E. Data Gathering Technique
The data gathered in this study was microteaching students’ lesson plan. In microteaching class, the students would have two chances to practice their teaching practice. It meant that the students were also required to make two lesson plans as their guidance before they practice their teaching.
To obtain the data, the researcher asked permission from the microteaching lecturer first to conduct document analysis on students’ lesson
plans. Then, the researcher would collect the students’ lesson plans. After obtaining the data of the research, the researcher would read carefully the lesson plans to see the whole teaching planning. Since this study was mainly to see the coherence of learning objectives and learning activities designed by the students, the researcher would pay attention more on those two aspects.
F. Data Analysis Technique
The researcher would see the detailed activities one by one and then classified them based on the list of the learning objectives. Here, the researcher tried to think and interpret the goal of each activity first. Then, the researcher would again look back to the learning objectives to see whether that activity met one of the objectives listed or not. To confirm the result of the analysis, the researcher would conduct the interview.
According to Kemp (1977), “there is no formula for matching activities to objectives” (p.56). It was because different situations would require different needs. Therefore, the researcher would determine the coherence of both based on the researcher’s observation which later would be confirmed trough the interview.
seen whether it had applied the principles of designing learning activities as proposed by Pasch et al. (1991). The researcher also used the theory of Bloom Taxonomy which would help the researcher identify the students’ performance
which should be reflected later in students learning activities.
After analyzing the formulation of learning objectives and the design of learning activities, the researcher would come to the conclusion about the coherence of learning objectives and learning activities. If all of the learning objectives formulated have been reflected both the performance behavior and the level of learning in the design of learning activities, it meant that the student has designed coherent learning objectives and learning activities. In contrast, if there was learning objective which were not reflected in the design of learning activities, it meant that microteaching students failed to design coherent learning objectives and learning activities.
To answer the second research question, the researcher would study deeper the formulation of learning objectives and the design of learning activities written in lesson plans. The researcher used the checklist to determine the problems found in every lesson plan. The lesson plan would be analyzed whether it has fulfilled every criterion or not. If the lesson plan did not fulfill the criteria written in the checklist, it would be considered that the lesson plan was in trouble. Then, total number of every problem would be counted in percentage using the formulation as follows:
a: number of lesson plans which did not fulfill the criterion b: total number of lesson plans
G. Research Procedure
In order to achieve the objectives of this study, the researcher needed to follow some steps.
1. Reviewing related literature
The researcher tried to find some books which were related to the study being conducted in order to get deeper understanding on the role of lesson planning, especially learning objectives and learning activities.
2. Asking permission from microteaching lecturer
The researcher asked for permission from the microteaching lecturer to know the possibility of doing a document analysis research on students’ lesson plan
in his/her class. 3. Collecting the data
The researcher also asked for permission from the microteaching students academic year 2009 of the English Language Education Study Program Sanata Dharma University who designed lesson plan for the aim of teaching writing skill to conduct research from their document, which was lesson plan. Then, the researcher started to collect the lesson plan from them.
After the data have been gathered, the researcher would analyze the data by classifying the learning activities based on the objectives. The researcher made a table to list the objectives and put the activities where they belonged. 5. Interview
The researcher conducted an interview to make a confirmation about the analysis.
6. Interpret the result
33
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the findings of the research questions. It deals with the coherence of learning objectives and learning activities designed by microteaching students and the lesson plans occurred in that design.
A. General Description of Microteaching Students’ Lesson Plans
All of the lesson plans focused on teaching writing skills. The topics were varied, such as recount, narrative, and procedure. Here, writing performance used by the participants was in the responsive category. Most of them often focused on the generic structure and the process of producing a piece of writing. As written by Brown (2004), in the responsive category, the writer should consider more on the context and meaning. How the writer could connect sentences to create a paragraph and how they create logically sequence of paragraphs into writing product. In this category, the writer should have mastered the sentence-level grammar before performing the responsive writing.
conveyed the connection between events. Some designs of learning activities also developed the writing strategy through providing the feedback.
B. The Formulation of the Learning Objectives
Bloom (1964) has classified learning objectives in three domains which were cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. In designing a lesson plan, it was important to formulate learning objectives in all learning domains. The formulation of learning objectives should also be stated clearly. Pasch et al. (1991) had proposed the criteria of clearly stated learning objective in form of ABCD mnemonic aid. It explained that learning objectives should present the audience, the behavior, the condition and the degree of learning.
The data of this research were obtained from seven microteaching students year 2009. The researcher studied their lesson plans, especially the objectives listed and the learning activities designed to see the coherence of both. For further
explanation, the researcher presented the discussion of each student’s lesson plan.
1. Lesson Plan 1
From the competence standard and basic competence, the participant formulated seven learning objectives. The researcher found that the participant had classified the learning objectives into three domains which were cognitive, affective and psychomotor. In the cognitive domain, the participant had formulated one learning objective as the product of learning and two learning objectives as the process of learning. In the affective domain, the participant had formulated three learning objectives. Then, one learning objective was formulated from psychomotor domain
The formulation of learning objective as the product in cognitive domain was “diberikan waktu 10 menit, siswa mampu menulis teks recount sederhana berdasarkan pengalaman yang pernah dialami dengan baik.” This learning objective was clearly stated since siswa as the audience, menulis teks recount sederhana as the behavior, pengalaman yang pernah dialami as the condition and dengan baik as the degree were presented there. It required the students to be able to write recount text based on their experience in ten minutes. In Bloom Taxonomy, this learning objective was in the high level of thinking. Writing was included in the category of synthesis which was in the fifth level.
students were required to arrange jumble paragraphs. Arrange was included in the category of knowledge, which was in the first level of the taxonomy. Then, the participant wrote “diberikan sebuah cerita recount, siswa mampu menentukan generic structure dari cerita recount yang disusun dengan benar” as the second formulation of learning objectives. It had also fulfilled the criteria of clearly stated learning objective since it presented the audience which was siswa, the behavior which was menentukan generic structure dari cerita recount yang disusun, the condition which was diberikan sebuah cerita recount and the degree which was dengan benar. This learning objective required the students to determine the generic structure of recount text paragraphs. Determine also means identify. This learning objective was in the second level of taxonomy, which was comprehension.
learning objective. It were menghargai guru saat memberikan penjelasan for the first one, bekerja dengan anggota kelompoknya for the second one and memberikan tanggapan terhadap terhadap tulisan siswa lain for the third formulation of learning objective. The condition of learning was also different for each of the learning objective. They are diberikan kesempatan untuk mendengarkan penjelasan guru, diberikan kesempatan untuk mengerjakan soal secara berkelompok and diberikan kesempatan untuk menanggapi tulisan siswa lain for the first, second, and third learning objectives. For the degree, the participant wrote dengan seksama for the first and third learning objectives, and dengan baik for the second one. Therefore, the learning objective formulated in the affective domain had fulfilled the criteria of clearly stated learning objective.
domain, the participant wrote diberikan waktu 10 menit when in the psychomotor domain, the participant wrote diberikan waktu 15 menit. It would be a problem since a lesson plan should help the teacher to manage the time. This case could create misunderstanding for those who applied this lesson plan. When the researcher confirmed about this case, the participant directly laughed and said that the condition of time given should be 10 minutes.
2. Lesson plan 2
The competence standard was “mengungkapkan makna dalam teks tulis fungsional pendek dan esei sederhana berbentuk recount, narrative, dan procedure dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari.” The basic competence was “mengungkapkan makna dan langkah-langkah retorika secara akurat, lancar dan berterima dengan menggunakan ragam bahasa tulis dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari dalam teks berbentuk: procedure”.
The participant formulated three learning objectives based on the competence standard and basic competence. All of them were included in both cognitive and psychomotor domain. The first learning objective was “diberikan sebuah teks cohntoh berbentuk procedure, siswa mampu mengidentifikasi generic structure yang terdapat pada teks tersebut”. The second learning objective was
there. It only presented the audience, behavior and condition of learning. The audience was siswa for all of those three learning objectives. The behavior was different for each learning objective. They were mengidentifikasi generic structure yang terdapat pada teks, mengidentifikasi fitur bahasa yang terdapat pada teks, menulis sebuah teks baru berbentuk procedure for the first, second and third learning objectives. For the condition of learning, the participant wrote diberikan sebuah teks contoh berbentuk procedurefor all the three learning objectives.
From the behavior presented, the first and second learning objectives required the students to identify. Identify was included in the level of comprehension so that it was in the second level of taxonomy. Then, the last learning objective required the students to write. In Bloom Taxonomy, this learning objective was in the high level of thinking. Writing was included in the category of synthesis which was in the level 5.
3. Lesson plan 3
The competence standard of this lesson plan was “mengungkapkan makna dalam teks tulis fungsional pendek dan esei sederhana berbentuk recount, narrative, dan procedure dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari”. Then, the basic competence was “mengungkapkan makna dan langkah-langkah retorika secara akurat, lancar dan berterima dengan menggunakan ragam bahasa tulis dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari dalam teks berbentuk: recount”.
From that competence standard and basic competence, the participants formulated two learning objectives. The first one was “after the meeting, students
second learning objective was “after the meeting, students are able to write a
recount text with appropriate verbs, a good organization and correct spelling and appropriate punctuation correctly”. Those two learning objectives belonged to
both in cognitive and psychomotor domain. As what Kemp (1977) stated, “a single objective can involve learning in two or more domains” (p.27).
The first formulation of learning objective, “after the meeting, students are
able to complete a mind map based on the clues given correctly” was clearly
stated. It presented students as the audience; complete a mind map as the behavior, based on the clues given as the condition and correctly as the degree. However, this learning objective might be questioned since it did not show the relation with the standard competence or basic competence or even writing skill.
The second formulation of learning objective, “after the meeting, students
are able to write a recount text with appropriate verbs, a good organization and correct spelling and appropriate punctuation correctly” was clearly stated. It
4. Lesson plan 4
The competence standard of this lesson plan was “mengungkapkan makna dalam teks tulis fungsional pendek dan esei sederhana berbentuk recount, narrative, dan procedure dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari”. The basic competence was “mengungkapkan makna dan langkah-langkah retorika secara akurat, lancar dan berterima dengan menggunakan ragam bahasa tulis dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari dalam teks berbentuk: narrative”.
From the competence standard and basic competence, the participants formulated three learning objectives. The participants did not classify the learning objectives based on the domain. However, the researcher could determine that the learning objectives included in both cognitive and psychomotor domain. It means that the formulation of learning objectives had not completed yet since there was no learning objective from affective domain.
Tenbrink (2006), it is called as student-oriented activity since it only specifies a certain activity to reach some outcome” (p.24).
For the second formulation of learning objective, the participant wrote “diberikan kumpulan – kumpulan gambar, siswa dapat mengidentifikasi makna dan langkah-langkah retorika pada gambar dalam teks narrative”. This learning objective also did not fulfill the criteria of clearly stated learning objectives since the degree of learning was not presented. It only presented siswa as the audience, mengidentifikasi makna dan langkah-langkah retorika pada gambar dalam teks narrative as the behavior and diberikan kumpulan – kumpulan gambar as the condition. In this case, actually the participant had written two learning behaviors. The first one was mengidentifikasi makna pada gambar dalam teks narrative and the second one was mengidentifikasi langkah-langkah retorika pada gambar dalam teks narrative. It would be better if the participants separated this learning behavior and formulated two learning objectives since makna and langkah-langkah retorika were two different things. Moreover, to identify the meaning and generic structure of pictures was still confusing since it seems that those behaviors have nothing to do with writing skill.
5. Lesson Plan 5
The competence standard was “mengungkapkan makna dalam teks tulis fungsional pendek dan esei sederhana berbentuk recount, narrative, dan procedure dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari”. The basic competence was “mengungkapkan makna dan langkah-langkah retorika secara akurat, lancar dan berterima dengan menggunakan ragam bahasa tulis dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari dalam teks berbentuk: recount”.
The participant designed the lesson plan to teach recount text. This lesson plan was different from the other lesson plans since there were no objectives formulated. However, as what had been explained in chapter one that learning objectives and indicator were interchangeable since both were dealing with the target of learning, the researcher would analyze the indicator listed in this lesson plan.
The indicator listed had covered three learning domains which are cognitive, affective and psychomotor. There were four indicators formulated in the cognitive domain. The participant separated the indicator as the product and process of learning. As the product of learning, the participant formulated “students are able to make a text based on certain picture which is provided using
recount text. Here, the level of thinking expected was in the fifth level of cognitive, synthesis.
As the process of learning in the cognitive domain, the participant listed four indicators. They are (1) “students are able to identify the function of recount text, (2) “students are able to identify the generic structure of recount text”, (3) “students are able to mention the topic of recount text”, and (4) “students are able
to use the language feature”. All of the four formulations of indicators presented
students as the audience. The behaviors presented were identify the function of recount text, identify the generic structure of recount text, mention the topic of recount text and use the language feature for the first, second, third and fourth learning objective. None of the four indicators presented the condition and the degree of learning. The behavior presented in the indicators determined the level of thinking expected. To identify required the second level of cognitive domain that was comprehend. To mention the topic required the first level of cognitive domain which was knowledge. Then, to use language feature required the third level of cognitive domain that was application.
In the affective domain, the participants formulated three indicators. They were (1) “students are able to mention the certain values of the recount text”, (2) “students are able to respond to their teacher’s explanation”, and (3) “students are
able to cooperate in pairs”. All of the three indicators presented students as the
present the condition of learning. The condition of learning presented in the third indicator, which was in pairs. Then, degree of learning did not present in all of the three indicators.
The last indicator was from psychomotor domain. It was “students are able to make a recount text in good order”. It presented students as the audience; make
a recount text as the behavior, and in good order as the degree of learning process. The condition of learning did not present here.
6. Lesson Plan 6
The competence standard was “mengungkapkan makna dalam teks tulis fungsional pendek dan esei sederhana berbentuk recount, narrative, dan procedure dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari”. The basic competence was “mengungkapkan makna dan langkah-langkah retorika secara akurat, lancar dan berterima dengan menggunakan ragam bahasa tulis dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari dalam teks berbentuk: recount”.
second learning objective presented siswa as the audience mengidentifikasi struktur umum dari sebuah teks berbentuk recountas the behavior, and diberikan sebuah teks berisi recount as the condition. The last one presented siswa as the audience, mengidentifikasi fitur bahasadari sebuah teks berbentuk recount as the behavior, and diberikan sebuah teks berisi recount as the condition.
From the behavior presented in the first formulation of learning objective, the students were required to menghasilkan sebuah teks berbentuk recount. The word menghasilkan means produce. Since the product expected was a recount text, produce would be best replaced with the word write. Writing required the fifth level of cognitive domain, which was synthesis.
The second and third formulation of learning objectives required the students to mengidentifikasi or to identify. They should be able to identify the generic structure and language feature of a recount text. Here, the students should achieve the second level of cognitive domain, which was comprehension.
7. Lesson Plan 7
The competence standard was “mengungkapkan makna dalam teks tulis fungsional pendek dan esei sederhana berbentuk recount, narrative, dan procedure dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari”. The basic competence was “mengungkapkan makna dan langkah-langkah retorika secara akurat, lancar dan berterima dengan menggunakan ragam bahasa tulis dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari dalam teks berbentuk: procedure”.
The participant formulated one learning objective based on the competence standard and basic competence. The learning objective covers both the cognitive and psychomotor domain. The formulation was “diberikan contoh dan materi, siswa mampu membuat teks procedure dengan mekanisme yang benar”. This learning objective was clearly stated since it had presented the audience, behavior, condition, and degree of learning. It presented siswa as the audience, mampu membuat teks procedure as the behavior, diberikan contoh dan materi as the condition, and dengan mekanisme yang benar as the degree of learning. From the behavior presented, this learning objective required the students to write procedure text. It means that this learning objective also require high level of thinking since writing involved in the fifth level of cognitive domain which was synthesis.
C. The Design of the Learning Activities
