42 However, the interview result differed from the other results. Its difference
was due to the respondents’ persistence. They assumed that the setting of the chairs or tables in the classroom still disturbed the learning process. Though the
respondents, in fact, could make contact with students sitting at the corner of the class with narrow and crowded chairs and tables. Furthermore, result which was
shown by Figure 4.2 showed that the setting of chairs or tables did not disturb classroom activity.
In accordance with Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2, the student teachers employed seating arrangement as ordinary row in the teaching activity as space
management and it did not disturb the teaching activity. The teacher preferred to choose ordinary row since the teacher had consideration for not wasting time.
According to Clark and Starr 1991, a teacher can arrange the classroom based on the classwork the students are to do so that it is easy for the students to work in p.
102. Therefore, it is a student teacher’s decision to arrange the classroom as long as teacher’s decision on arranging classroom does not disturb the teaching activity
as theory presented by Clark and Starr 1991.
b. Managing Material
Managing materials encompasses how teacher distributes the materials, whether or not the teacher explains the materials given, and the sources and
appropriate materials are provided by the teacher. Figure 4.3 to Figure 4.9 would present the results of material management conducted by the ELESP student
teachers as follows.
43 1
Teacher distributed the materials
Figure 4.3 All of the Students Obtained the Handout
Figure 4.3 showed a handout distribution. From Figure 4.3, it was obviously seen that management of materials, especially all of the students
obtained the handout, was perfectly conducted. It was proven by a perfect percentage 100 for each of the three instruments: observation, questionnaire,
and interview. All students obtained handout provided by the respondents. It was due to the respondents’ anticipation by observing and counting the exact number
of students in the class before conducting the teaching practice. 2
Teacher gave example or description about the materials given
Figure 4.4 Teacher Provided ExampleDescription about the Material Given
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Observat ion Quest ionnaire
Interview 100
100 100
Conducted Is not Conducted
0,00 10,00
20,00 30,00
40,00 50,00
60,00 70,00
80,00 90,00
100,00
Observation Questionnaire
Interview 87,50
100 87,50
12,50 12,50
Conducted Is not Conducted
44 The results in Figure 4.4 were different since 12.5 of the respondents
was sure that the respondent gave example or description of the activity. Nevertheless, the data gained through the interview revealed that the respondent
did not give any example on the activity. The respondent assumed that the activity did not require any example since the respondent’s activity was filling in the
cross-word which was familiar to the students. On the other hand, the result of observation and interview showed the same percentage as many as 87.5.
It meant that the teacher gave example or description about the material given even though 12.5 of the respondents did not conduct it. Meanwhile, the
questionnaire result supported the observation and interview results by 100 of the respondents gave example or description about the material given. Therefore,
Figure 4.4 showed that the ELESP student teachers conducted example or description about the material given.
3 Teacher planned appropriate time to do the activity
Figure 4.5 The Time to Do the Activity was Appropriate
Corresponds to the appropriateness of the time to do the activity, appropriate meant that the task given was finished as the time allocated, while
inappropriate meant that the students required additional time to the time given.
0,00 10,00
20,00 30,00
40,00 50,00
60,00 70,00
Observation Questionnaire
Interview 62,50
37,50 50
37,50 62,50
50
Conducted Is not Conducted
45 Based on the result from the observation as shown in Figure 4.5, as many
as 62.5 of the respondents conducted the appropriate time to do the activity. Meanwhile, 37.5 of the respondents did not conduct appropriate time in the
learning process. It happened because of some reasons, such as the teachers consumed more time in conducting pre-activity rather than the main teaching.
In addition, teacher gave much more time allocation for reading since teacher assumed that the students would find problems in understanding the story
therefore the teacher provided much time. In contrast, the questionnaire and interview results showed different percentage. The difference was caused by the
respondents’ assumption that the time to do activity was inappropriate. Although the results were different, the appropriate time to do activity as in Figure 4.5 was
conducted by the ELESP student teachers. It was proven by 62.5 and 50 of the respondents.
Figure 4.6 There was not any Time Left 5-10 minutes after the Materials and Tasks were Given
Further, Figure 4.6 showed that the component of classroom management corresponds to the time management was conducted by the ELESP student
0,00 10,00
20,00 30,00
40,00 50,00
60,00 70,00
80,00 90,00
Observation Questionnaire
Interview
87,50
37,50 62,50
12,50 62,50
37,50
Conducted Is not
Conducted
46 teachers as many as 87.5. The result of this was supported by 62.5 of the
respondents from the interview gained. On the contrary, the questionnaire result differed from others. The
respondents considered that the time management in teaching remained more than five minutes after the tasks and materials were given. In fact, the respondents
completed that time to do other activities related to the material, such as making reflection and giving feedback. Even though the result from the questionnaire was
different from other results, the respondents conducted appropriate time after the materials and tasks were given as shown by Figure 4.6.
4 Teacher provided sources of the materials
Figure 4.7 Teacher Provided Sources of the Materials
Figure 4.7 illustrated the materials management, whether the teacher provided the sources of materials or not. From the three kinds of instruments, the
researcher found that as many as 62.5 of the respondents provided sources from where the materials were taken into the handouts. As a result, the percentage was
more than 50 which led into calculation that teacher provided source of materials was conducted by the ELESP student teachers. Meanwhile, 37.5 of the
respondents did not provide the sources of the material.
0,00 10,00
20,00 30,00
40,00 50,00
60,00 70,00
Observation Questionnaire
Interview
62,50 62,50
62,50
37,50 37,50
37,50
Conducted Is not Conducted
47 Through the interview, it was revealed that the respondents continued with
the previous teacher’s materials. It led the respondent not to provide the source of material. In addition, the respondent did not know where the sources were taken
from since they obtained the material from the lecturer. Harmer 2007 suggests that teachers can direct students to a library or a
website where the students can find the materials p. 31. In line with the result of Figure 4.7, it confirms the theory presented by Harmer 2007 that the teachers
provided sources of the materials. Further, Figure 4.8 and Figure 4.9 illustrated a materials management
related to whether the materials or tasks given were appropriate or not. There were two criteria. The first was whether the students could do the task to the time given
or not. While the second was whether the students did not require additional time to do the tasks more than 10 minutes or not. These criteria would be presented in
Figure 4.8 and Figure 4.9. 5
Teacher provided appropriate materials for the students Figure 4.8 showed that observation percentage was 62.5. It means that
the students could do the task to the time given. While there was 37.5 of the respondents who did not conduct the classroom management of students could do
the task by the time given. It happened because the respondents’ students required much more time to do the task such as to understand the story and listen to the
recording. The results from the observation and questionnaire were different from interview result. It was because the respondents were not sure whether the
students could do the task by the time given or not. On the other hand, the result
48 showed that students could do the task by the time provided was conducted by the
ELESP student teachers.
Figure 4.8 Students could Do the Task by the Time Given
Figure 4.9 showed that students did not require additional time more than 10 minutes as many as 75 through the observation. Meanwhile, the
questionnaire and interview results were different from the observation in the percentage.
Figure 4.9 Students did not Require Additional Time more than 10 Minutes
The respondents considered that the students required more than 10 minutes as the additional time. In fact, the students could finish the tasks in less
than 10 minutes. However, there was only 25 of the respondents whose students
0,00 10 ,00
20 ,00 30 ,00
40 ,00 50 ,00
60 ,00 70 ,00
Observation Questionnaire
Inte rvie w 62,50
62,50 50
37,50 37,50
50
Conducted Is not Conducted
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90
Observation Questionnaire
Interview 75
12,50 37,50
25 87,50
62,50
Conducted Is not Conducted
49 required more than 10 minutes. Despite the variation in the percentage, the result
showed that the students did not require more than 10 minutes was conducted by the ELESP student teachers.
In line with the results shown in Figure 4.3 to Figure 4.9, the student teachers indeed conducted materials management. Borich 1996 states that during
the initial days in the classroom, the teacher chooses content activities that everyone can successfully complete p.499. Borich 1996 also suggests example
of first-day activities, such as demonstrating a procedure and providing an interpretation. In accordance with the results in Figure 4.3 to Figure 4.9, the
findings on student teachers distributed the materials, such as distribute the handout to all students, teachers gave example or description of the material, and
teachers planned the time activity confirm the theory presented by Borich 1996. In addition, teachers provided sources of materials and provided
appropriate materials in which the students could do the task by the time given and did not require additional time of more than 10 minutes as in Figure 4.5 to
Figure 4.9. Therefore, the teachers chose content activities that everyone can successfully complete since students could do the task by the time given. As a
result, Figure 4.5 to Figure 4.9 confirm the theory presented by Borich 1996.
c. Managing Equipment
