UKPPPG common mistakes
UKPPPG · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing lesson objectives that describe teacher activity ("explain the water cycle", "show a video about photosynthesis") rather than measurable student behaviour with condition and degree.
Candidates copy activity lists from the lesson plan template they used during teaching practice, so the objective column becomes a schedule of what the teacher will do. Indonesian PPG materials stress ABCD (Audience, Behaviour, Condition, Degree), but many candidates only remember the acronym and never check whether the verb is observable.
What to do instead
Before finalising, apply a two-question test to each objective: can I observe a student doing this, and how would I know it was achieved? Rewrite verbs into observable ones (menganalisis, membandingkan, menyimpulkan, menyusun) and add a condition and a minimum criterion (e.g. 'given two data tables, students identify at least three differences with correct justification'). Cap the plan at 2-3 objectives per meeting so each can be assessed.
Treating the question as a single 'correct' answer when the stimulus is a classroom dilemma, and giving a personal opinion instead of reasoning through the pedagogical options.
Candidates prepare by memorising definitions of learning theories, so when a situational item appears they reach for a label ("it's constructivism") rather than analysing the case. Situational items reward choosing the action that is most consistent with the stated learning goal and the students' needs, not the most familiar-sounding theory.
What to do instead
Practise case stems: identify the concrete problem (motivation, misconception, mixed ability, classroom management), then eliminate options that are teacher-centred when the goal is student-centred, or that solve the problem by avoidance (skipping the activity, giving the answer). Write a one-line justification for the option you choose and for why the runner-up is weaker.
Designing a lesson plan whose steps, media, and assessment do not align with the stated indicators, so the assessment measures something the lesson never taught.
Candidates assemble the plan section by section from different templates and run out of time, so the assessment section is written last and generically ("give a quiz"). The core-planning logic, constructive alignment from objective to activity to assessment, is exactly what assessors look for.
What to do instead
Build a one-page alignment table first: objective, indicator, learning activity, assessment instrument, and scoring rubric in one row. Then write the prose of the plan from the table. If an activity cannot be traced to an indicator, cut it; if an indicator has no assessment, add one.
Submitting a reflective portfolio that narrates what happened chronologically ("on day one I taught X, then on day two...") without analysing causes, decisions, or evidence of change.
Candidates confuse reflection with a diary. The performance-assessment rubric rewards analysis: what went wrong, why, what alternative was considered, and what was changed and verified later. Chronology feels safe because it is easy to write.
What to do instead
Use a fixed structure per incident: context, the problem with evidence (student work, observation notes, feedback), my decision and its rationale, the alternative I rejected, what I changed next time, and the observed result. Keep each entry to 300-500 words and make sure at least half is analysis, not description.
Writing assessment instruments with no rubric, or with a rubric whose criteria are vague labels ("good", "quite good", "less good") that cannot be applied consistently.
Candidates focus on the test items and treat the scoring section as a formality. Without explicit criteria and performance levels, the instrument cannot be defended as valid or reliable, which is precisely what the pedagogical-competence assessment probes.
What to do instead
For every instrument, write the criteria as observable descriptors and define 3-4 performance levels with concrete differences (e.g. 'identifies all three variables and explains each relationship' versus 'identifies variables without explaining relationships'). Include the scoring formula and the conversion to a final grade, and pilot the rubric against two sample responses.
Confusing the definitions of assessment of learning, assessment for learning, and assessment as learning, and then mislabelling formative and summative functions in the plan.
The terms overlap in Indonesian practice (penilaian formatif, sumatif, diagnostik) and candidates learn them as vocabulary rather than as decisions about when and why evidence is collected. Exam items test the function, not the label.
What to do instead
Anchor each term to a decision: diagnostic (before teaching, to plan), formative (during teaching, to adjust), summative (after a unit, to certify). For each assessment in your plan, state which decision it feeds and what you will do with the result. If you cannot name the follow-up action, it is not formative.
Answering subject-content items from general teaching intuition, or answering pedagogy items with subject content, instead of separating what the item is testing.
The exam mixes content mastery with pedagogical content knowledge, and candidates under time pressure default to whichever they know better. Content items often hinge on a misconception students typically hold, and pedagogy items often hinge on how to represent that content.
What to do instead
Before answering, classify the stem: is it asking what is true in the discipline, or how to teach it? Then use the matching evidence. For content, rehearse the standard misconceptions in your field (e.g. in science: mass versus weight, current 'used up' in a circuit; in mathematics: treating fractions as two whole numbers). For PCK, rehearse representations and their trade-offs.
Choosing the 'friendliest' answer on personality and social items, for example always selecting the option where the teacher accommodates everyone, avoids conflict, or agrees with colleagues.
Candidates read these items as a likeability test. The competence being measured is professional integrity and social maturity, which sometimes means raising a concern through the right channel, giving honest feedback, or maintaining boundaries rather than pleasing people.
What to do instead
For each option, ask: does this show responsibility, honesty, and appropriate use of the professional channel? Eliminate options that hide a problem, gossip, bypass the proper procedure, or sacrifice student learning for adult comfort. The strongest option is usually the one that addresses the issue directly and constructively.
Producing a teaching-practice or micro-teaching performance without a clear opening, closure, or check for understanding, so the assessor cannot see the intended structure.
Under time pressure candidates spend all preparation on content and rush the structure. In a short performance, the opening and closing are the most visible evidence of planning and of whether learning was checked.
What to do instead
Script three fixed moments: a 60-second opening that states the goal and activates prior knowledge, at least one check for understanding mid-lesson with a named follow-up action, and a 90-second closure that summarises and links forward. Rehearse these until they fit the time limit, then fill the middle.
Ignoring the differentiation requirement, planning one activity for an assumed average student and addressing mixed ability only by adding 'for students who finish early, give extra questions'.
Candidates plan for the class they remember from practice, and differentiation is treated as an add-on rather than a design decision. Fast-finisher tasks extend quantity, not learning, and do not address students who are behind.
What to do instead
Name the range in your plan: which students need scaffolding (worked example, sentence starters, guided steps) and which need extension (open-ended task, transfer to a new context). Show both in the activity and in the assessment, and state how you will monitor and move students between the two groups.