26
CHAPTER 1V RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter presents detailed information about the data gathered in this study. The discussion involves data analysis based on the research questions: what
student teachers’ of English Language Study Program’ perception on the role of supervising teachers and supervising lecturers in PPL is, and what student
teachers’ suggestion on the role of supervising teachers and supervising lecturers in PPL is .
A. Student Teachers of English Language Education Study Program’s Perception on the Role of Supervising teachers and Supervising lecturers
in PPL
In order to answer the research questions, the researcher used questionnaire and interview. The questionnaire items which were used to answer the first
research question what student teachers’ of English Language Study Program’ perception on the role of supervising teachers and supervising lecturers in PPL is
were Part A and the interview items which were used to answer this research question was number three up to number 12.
1. Data Presentation
The researcher used two instruments, interview and questionnaire. Therefore the data would be divided into two parts. The first part is the data
27
presentation of the questionnaire and the second part is the data presentation of interview.
a. Data Presentation of the Questionnaire
In this study, the questionnaire consisted of 16 items. The purpose of questionnaire here was to find out whether supervising teachers and supervising
lecturers carried out their role or not. The questions on this questionnaire were based on Pedoman Pelaksanaan Program Pengalaman Lapangan FKIP, 2007
page 12 and page 15 which consisted of job description of supervising lecturers and supervising teachers. The researcher focused on the role of supervising
lecturers and supervising teachers related to the activities of student teachers in school during PPL, so some roles provided on the book was not included in this
questionnaire. For supervising teachers there were ten job descriptions included and for supervising lecturers there were five job descriptions included on the
questionnaire. There were four responses to be chosen on the questionnaire: 1. Strongly Disagree SD, 2. Disagree D, 3. Agree A, and 4. Strongly Agree
SA. The following table showed the percentage result of part A:
28
Table 4.1 The Percentage Result of Questionnaire Part A
No. Statements
SD D
A SA
1 The supervising teacher explained to you
about the situation in the school and the subject that will be taught.
15 45
40 2
The supervising teacher explained about what you should do during PPL.
7.5 67.5
25 3
The supervising teacher guided you in arranging the programs.
2.5 25
65 7.5
4 The supervising teacher helped you to
prepare the equipments needed during PPL. 5
45 32.5
17.5 5
The supervising teacher gave you a learning model to be observed.
2.5 20
62.5 15
6 The supervising teacher gave you some tasks
to do, such as giving the students home work, etc.
10 20
42.5 27.5
7 The supervising teacher helped you to make
the lesson plan, syllabus, etc. 17.5
22.5 50
10 8
The supervising teacher monitored and
evaluated your teaching practice. 7.5
52.5 40
9 The supervising teacher supervised you
directly after your teaching practice. 5
20 60
15 10
The supervising teacher monitored your activeness during PPL.
10 25
42.5 22.5
11 The supervising teacher checked your final
report. 7.5
22.5 47.5
22.5 12
The supervising lecturer gave instructions to you before you do the PPL.
7.5 17.5
60 15
13 The supervising lecturer monitored your
activities and held some meetings for consultation periodically.
2.5 52.5
40 5
14 The supervising lecturer observed your
teaching practice. 7.5
15 55
22.5 15
The supervising lecturer checked all of your report.
5 40
40 15
16 The supervising lecturer gave you an oral
test about your PPL’s report. 22.5
60 15
2.5
29
On this part, the researcher used this kind of answer rather than yes-no, in order to gain further data. By using Likert Scale; strongly agree, agree, disagree
and strongly disagree, the researcher not only wanted to know whether the supervising teachers and the supervising lecturers did their role or not, but also
could know how deep the supervising teachers and the supervising lecturers involved themselves in their role.
From the result of the questionnaires, the researcher categorized the result as follows:
Strongly disagree : Student teachers really sure that the supervising teachers
or the supervising lecturers never did the role. Disagree
: The supervising teachers or the supervising lecturers did not do the role.
Agree : The supervising teachers or the supervising lecturers did
the role. Strongly Agree
: The supervising teachers or the supervising lecturers did the role very well.
The researcher also looked for student teachers’ perception on the role of the supervising teachers and the supervising lecturers by asking them to give score
to the supervising teachers and the supervising lecturers from 1 to 10
Questionnaire Part B number one and two. 1 meant very bad and 10 meant very good. The researcher then looked for the mean and categorized the mean into five
classifications:
30
1 – 2.8 = very bad perception
2.9 – 4.6 = bad perception
4.7 – 6.4 = enough perception
6.5 – 8.2 = good perception
8.3 - 10 = very good perception
Question number one asked student teachers to give score to the role of supervising teachers. From forty student teachers, they gave various score based
on their perception ranged from 1-10, the total score was 315 and from this total score the researcher looked for the mean by using
=
and the mean was 7.875. This mean was categorized as good perception. So in student teachers’
perception, the role of supervising teachers in PPL was good. Question number two asked the student teacher to give score to the role of
supervising lecturers. From forty student teachers, they gave various score based on their perception range from 1-10, the total score was 292.5 and from this total
score the researcher looked for the mean by using =
and the mean was
7.3125. This mean was categorized as good perception. So in student teachers’ perception, the role of supervising lecturers in PPL was good.
b. Data Presentation of Interview
There were eight out of the 13 questions which would be used to answer what the role of supervising teachers and supervising lecturers was. Those
questions were number three, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, and 12. Question number three asked student teachers about their experiences
during the PPL process related to their supervising teachers and supervising
31
lecturers. Three out of four student teachers said that their supervising teachers gave them a big help during the PPL process such as give them many advises,
easily to be contacted, and friendly while all of them said that their supervising lecturers did not give them significant help during the PPL process.
Question number six asked student teachers whether supervising teachers or supervising lecturers helped them solve their problem or not and two out of
four student teachers told that supervising teachers usually gave them advices; while the other student teachers told that heshe did not consult their problem to
their supervising teachers or supervising lecturers and tried to solve it by themselves.
Question number seven asked student teacher on the role of supervising teachers and supervising lecturers that could not be fulfilled by supervising
teachers and supervising lecturers. All of the interviewees had the same answer that supervising teachers and supervising lecturers did not observe them.
Supervising lecturers was too busy so that he she could not match the schedule with student teachers’ teaching practice, while the supervising teachers sometimes
did not observe student teachers in order to make them become more independent and because the supervising teachers had other important business to do.
Question number eight asked about when the student teachers want to meet the supervising teachers and what they were talking about. Two of them held daily
meeting with the supervising teachers while the other two held meeting before their teaching practice. Those who held the meeting every time before their
teaching practice discussed the teaching material and how to handle the student as
32
quoted by the researcher: “I always meet my teacher before I start my teaching practice in order to ask the teaching material for today’s lesson” Student teacher
1 and “I meet the supervising teachers before I teach in order to discuss how to get student’s attention at class” Student teacher 3. Two other student teachers
who met the supervising teachers everyday usually discussed everything with the supervising teachers except their teaching practice, as quoted from the interview
sheet one of the student teachers said “I shared everything that I felt and experienced in PPL” Student teacher 2, while the other one said that she often
discussed some matters outside the teaching practice. Question number nine asked the student teacher when they met the
supervising lecturers and what they discussed. Most of them were seldom met with their supervising lecturers. The student teachers usually met the supervising
lecturers not more than 2- 3 times during PPL. They usually met only on the beginning and the end of the PPL to discuss about the observation schedule, ask
for the supervising lecturers’ signature and discuss the PPL report. Question number 10 asked the student teacher whether they had
difficulties to communicate with the supervising teachers or not, and how they tried to solve the problem. From 4 student teachers, all of them said that there was
no communication problem between them and supervising teachers. They could easily communicate with the supervising teachers both inside and outside school.
When the supervising teachers were not at school, the student teacher could communicate with the supervising teachers by sending an SMS Short Message
Service or by phone.
33
Question number 11 asked the student teacher whether they had difficulties to communicate with the supervising lecturers or not, and how they
tried to solve the problem. From four student teachers, 2 of them said that it was difficult to meet the supervising lecturers.
It was hard to match my schedule with the lecturer’s. In a week we just met 2- 3 times because I must came to the school where I did PPL in the morning and
attend another class at Sanata Dharma University in the evening. Student teacher 2
Even though, the student teacher had difficulties to meet the supervising lecturers but she could communicate with the supervising lecturers by phone or SMS and
made an appointment to meet, then. Another student teacher also had difficulty to communicate with the supervising lecturers because in the beginning of PPL, her
supervising lecturers were on duty to another city for several months. There was no communication at all. When the supervising lecturers were off of the duty, the
student teachers directly asked for signature and gave the PPL report. Even though there was no communication at all, but the supervising lecturers still
observed her from the student teacher’s lesson plan and evaluation sheet from the teacher. Two other student teachers did not find difficulties to communicate with
the supervising lecturers. They usually sent a SMS to the supervising lecturers, made an appointment, and then came to meet the supervising lecturers by him
herself or together with the other student teachers. Question number 12 showed about student teacher’s perception on the role
of the supervising teachers and supervising lecturers in PPL. From four student teachers all of them agreed that the supervising teachers did their role better than
the supervising teachers. It could be proven by their argument ‘Supervising
34
teachers is quiet helpful and often give me guidance whether the supervising lecturers seldom to give me advice because she was busy’ Student teacher 1. It
meant that for student teachers, the supervising teacherss were quite helpful for them while most of the supervising lecturerss were busy with other business.
2. Discussion
After getting the data presentation, the researcher then analyzed the data from the results of the questionnaire with the result from the interview in order to
answer the first research question; what is student teachers’ perception on the role of supervising teachers and supervising lecturers in PPL was, as follows.
Supervising teachers explained to student teachers about the situation in the school. From the data of the questionnaire, 45 out of 40 student teachers
agreed that their supervising teachers did this role and 40 agreed that their supervising teachers did this role very well. This result was also complemented by
interview result from question number three in which one of student teachers said that she got many guidance and instructions from her supervising teachers. Based
on the result of the questionnaire and the interview, it could be inferred that most of supervising teachers explained to student teachers about the situation in the
school. Supervising teachers explained about what student teachers should do
during PPL. From the result of the questionnaire 6.5 student teachers agreed that their supervising teachers did this role and 25 student teachers agreed that
their supervising teachers did this role very well. This result was complemented by interview result from question number three. “My supervising teacher was
35
graduated from Sanata Dharma University so she gave me many guidance and instructions in PPL” Student teachers 2 and “My supervising teacher gave me
instructions on how to teach and how to control the students” Student teacher 3. Based on the result of the questionnaire and the interview, it could be inferred that
most of supervising teachers explained about what student teachers should do during PPL.
Supervising teachers guided student teacher in arranging the programs during PPL. Based on the result of the questionnaire 65 out of 40 student
teachers agreed that their supervising teachers did this role and 7.5 agreed their supervising teachers did this role very well. This result was complemented by the
interview result from question number 3 “My supervising teacher gave me many guidance and instructions” Student teacher 2 and from question number 14 “My
supervising teacher was quite helpful for me in which she often gave me instructions” Student teacher 1. Based on the result of the questionnaire and the
interview, it could be inferred that most of supervising teachers guided student teacher in arranging the programs during PPL.
Supervising teachers helped student teachers prepare the equipments needed during PPL. Based on the result of the questionnaire, 45 out of 40
student teachers disagreed with this statement and felt that supervising teachers did not do this role. This result was complemented by interview result that none of
student teachers said that supervising teachers helped them in preparing the equipments needed during PPL. From the interview result, it could be inferred
36
that most supervising teachers did not directly help student teachers in preparing all the equipments needed in PPL.
Supervising teachers gave student teachers a learning model to be observed. Based on the data of the questionnaire, 62.5 out of 40 student teachers
agreed that their supervising teachers did this role and 15 agreed that their supervising teachers did this role very well. The interview result from question
number three complemented this fact “In the first week, my supervising teacher had private business and was absent from school for a week, so I taught every day
in a week after 3 times of observation” Student teacher 1. From this statement it could be inferred that supervising teachers gave enough learning model to be
observed by student teachers. Supervising teachers gave student teachers some tasks to do such as giving
the students homework. Based on the data of the questionnaire 42.5 out of 40 student teachers agreed that their supervising teachers did this role and 27.5
agreed that their supervising teachers did this role very well. The interview result from question number 4 showed that student teachers were given many tasks by
supervising teachers such as teaching, making lesson plans, making report, and substituting teachers who were absent to teach in the class. One of the student
teachers said that “My supervising teacher asked me to make lesson plans for three years, and after I had finished this task, I could start to teach in the class”
Student teacher 2. From the date resulted from questionnaire and interview, it could be inferred that supervising teachers gave enough tasks for student teachers
in PPL.
37
Supervising teachers helped student teachers make the lesson plan and syllabus. Based on the data of the questionnaire, 50 out of 40 student teachers
agreed that their supervising teachers did this role and 10 agreed that their supervising teachers did this role very well. The interview result from question
number 8 showed that student teacher often came to their supervising teachers in order to consult about the teaching material and the lesson plan. Based on the
result of the questionnaire and interview, it could be inferred that supervising teachers helped student teacher make the lesson plan, syllabus, and other teaching
guidelines. Supervising teachers monitored and evaluated student teachers teaching
practiced. Based on the data of the questionnaire, 52.5 out of 40 student teachers agreed that their supervising teachers did this role and 40 agreed that their
supervising did this role very well. The interview result showed that 2 out of 4 student teachers always came to meet their supervising teacher everyday and 2 of
them always came to meet their supervising teacher every time they were going to teach. Based on the result of the questionnaire and the interview, it could be
inferred that supervising teachers monitored and evaluated student teachers’ teaching practice frequently.
Supervising teachers supervised student teachers directly after their teaching practice. Based on the data of the questionnaire, 60 out of 40 student
teachers agreed that their supervising teachers did this role and 15 agreed that their supervising teachers did this role very well. The interview result showed that
there was none of student teacher who said that their supervising teachers did not
38
supervise them directly after their teaching practice. Based on the percentage result of the questionnaire and the interview, it could be inferred that most of
supervising teachers supervised student teachers directly after their teaching practiced.
Supervising teachers monitored student teachers activities during PPL. Based on the data of the questionnaire, 42.5 out of 40 student teachers agreed
that their supervising teachers did this role and 22.5 agreed that their supervising teachers did this role very well. The interview result of number 8
showed that two out of four student teachers came to meet their supervising teacher everyday and the other two came to meet their supervising teachers every
time they were going to teach. Based on the result of the questionnaire and the interview, it could be inferred that the frequency of supervising teachers and
student teachers met each other was high, so supervising teachers could directly monitor and evaluate student teachers’ activities during PPL.
Supervising teachers checked student teachers’ final report, 47.5 out of 40 student teachers agreed that supervising teachers did this role and 22.5
agreed that supervising teachers did this role very well. The interview result from question number 8 also showed that in the end of PPL, student teachers came to
supervising teachers for consulting and discussing their PPL report. Based on the result of the questionnaire and the interview, it could be inferred that supervising
teachers checked student teachers’ final report. Supervising lecturers gave instructions on what student teachers should do
in PPL before they did the PPL. Based on the questionnaire result, 60 out of 40
39
student teachers agreed that supervising lecturers did this role and 15 student teachers agreed that supervising lecturers did this role very well. So, it could be
inferred that most of supervising lecturers gave instructions to student teachers before they did the PPL.
Some supervising lecturers did not monitor student teachers’ activities and did not hold some meetings periodically. Based on the data of the questionnaire,
2.5 out of 40 student teachers were really sure that their supervising lecturers never did this role and 52.5 agreed that their supervising lecturers did not do
this role. The interview result from question number seven showed that supervising lecturers never came to school and did not observe student teachers.
Question number nine of the interview also showed that student teachers were seldom met with their supervising lecturers. Three out of four student teachers
said that they only came to their supervising lecturers in the beginning and in the end of PPL. Based on the result of the questionnaire and the interview, it could be
inferred that most of supervising lecturers did not monitor student teachers’ activeness and did not hold some meetings for consultation periodically in PPL.
Supervising lecturers observed student teachers teaching practice. Based on the data of the questionnaire, 55 out of 40 student teachers agreed that their
supervising lecturers did this role and 22.5 agreed that their supervising lecturers did this role very well. The interview result from question number eleven
showed that one of student teachers was observed by his supervising lecturers through his lesson plan and his supervising teachers’ evaluation sheet. Based on
the result of the questionnaire and the interview, it could be inferred that most of
40
supervising lecturers observed student teachers teaching practice directly, but some of them observed student teachers teaching practice by using media such as
lesson plan and teacher’s evaluation sheet. Supervising lecturers checked all of student teachers PPL report. Based on
the data of the questionnaire, 40 out of 40 student teachers agreed that their supervising lecturers did this role and 15 agreed that their supervising lecturers
did this role very well. The interview result from question number 9 showed that PPL report was one of matters which usually discussed by student teachers and
supervising lecturers. Based on the result of the questionnaire and the interview, it could be inferred that most of supervising lecturers checked all of student teachers
PPL report and some of them did not do this role. Most supervising lecturers did not give an oral test about student teachers
PPL report. Based on the data of the questionnaire, 22.5 out of 40 student teachers really sure that their supervising lecturers never did this role, and 60
agreed that their supervising lecturers did not do this role. It could be inferred that most of supervising teachers did not give an oral test to student teachers.
B. Student Teachers’ Suggestions on the Role of Supervising teachers and Supervising lecturers in PPL in order to improve their Role
On the questionnaire, questions which were used to look for student teachers’ suggestion on the role of supervising teachers and supervising lecturers
was Part B number three.
41
The third question or the last question on the open-ended questionnaire asked the student teachers their suggestion for the supervising lecturers,
supervising teachers and the PPL committee for the next PPL and the researcher concluded the answer become 21 answers See Appendix 2. It meant that from
forty student teachers some of them had the same suggestions with other student teachers.
Question in the interview which was used to answer this research question was question number 13 or last question of the interview. Question number 13
last question showed about student teacher suggestion for the other student teachers who have not taken PPL, supervising teachers, supervising lecturers and
PPL committee for the next PPL program. For the supervising lecturers, the student teacher hoped that the supervising lecturers could allocate more time,
monitor the process of PPL by themselves, give more attention to student teacher’ activities in PPL, and be more active. For the student teacher, they should prepare
themselves well before and during PPL and be more active. Last, for the PPL’s committee should have a good communication with the school because there was
a complaint that there was no guidance for the supervising teachers to give evaluation to student teacher.
Based on the data gathered from the questionnaire and the interview it could be inferred that there were some suggestions from student teachers.
Supervising lecturers should allocate more time to observe them and monitor their activities in PPL, and supervising lecturers should communicate with student
42
teachers by using media such as e-mail or SMS rather than no communication at all.
43
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Kategori