158
could meet friends and share ideas with other teachers. However, when it came to the question related to the contribution of CBIT, she rated it very low,
between two and three on a one-to-ten point scale. In particular, she commented on the trainers by saying:
Because the trainers do not really understand the psychology... no, no I mean the philosophy of the curriculum. Only some of them master the
content but not the philosophy. The trainers do not have competence to train actually. Interview
– Tina
5.2.2.2.4 School and collegial supports
Tina said that she got great support from her teacher colleagues and the school. She also commented positively on the school atmosphere where team work ran
very well. She said, ―The teamwork among English teachers is good, they are ready to help the most problems emerge in the teamwork‖.
5.2.2.3 Tina ’s classroom practices
The observations of Tina ‘s classes were done in her year seven sessions. There
were 35 to 40 students in the class, with more girls than the boys. Observations were recorded in a classroom observation schedule.
5.2.2.3.1 Teacher’s use of English
In both classroom observations, the researcher found that Tina tried to speak English most of the time. Although she seemed to be struggling, her confidence
in speaking English in front of the students was fairly high. However, she also spoke Indonesian on some occasions, especially in establishing interpersonal
relationships with the students. Concerning her use of English for instructional
159
purposes, she spoke English in both explaining and giving examples to the students. Some translation into Indonesian, however, was used quite frequently
when she provided alternative explanation or examples.
5.2.2.3.2 Teacher’s uses of instructional strategies
The overall impression held by the researcher was that Tina implemented a rigid procedure in her teaching. She was trying to implement the genre-based
approach, a new approach to teaching that was recommended by CBIT. The rigid presentation of this approach led to a classroom which was predictable.
For example, in both classes, the teaching steps were almost the same, without any significant variation. Classes started with reviewing the previous lessons,
either by doing the homework in front of the class, or questions and answers done to resolve the homework. The following steps were building knowledge of
the text BKOF that mostly done with the teacher explaining the materials, modeling of the text MOT, joint-construction of the text JCOT and then
summing up with students individually constructing the text ICOT. All steps were done in the order that was recommended in the training.
Although there were not many students raised questions or problems, Tina did not seem to invest significant efforts in responding to the problems or questions
raised by students. Everything seemed to go so well in the class that there was an impression that the lesson was too easy for the students. Questions were
mostly raised by the teacher, with the students managing to answer them relatively easily. In addition, Tina seemed to have difficulty in crafting good
160
questions to raise challenges among the students. There was no indication that she used different
types of measurement to measure the students‘ comprehension and there was no indication that the
teacher anticipated students‘ different individual levels of needs.
There seemed to be only one single design of classroom activities for the whole of the student cohort in the classroom, regardless of their individual differences.
Because there were not many students who raised questions or problems there was no significant need for the teacher to provide alternative explanations or
examples. She indeed provided more than one example, and sometimes also provided some translation, but it did not seem that those efforts were necessary.
5.2.2.3.3 Classroom management
