58 Larrivee and Cooper‟s 2006 self-reflections directions as well as the other
relevant theories related to reflective teaching and teaching methodology. As mentioned earlier in Chapter II, the design model would refer to
Larrive and Cooper‟s 2006 self-reflections directions. Firstly, the researcher set up the beginning of teaching reflection so-called personal statement. This section
elaborated reflection items for the teachers to reflect on aspects related to teaching in general and to think about questions that may be important for the teacher
education. Secondly, after providing the section which developed a capacity to be reflective, the researcher generated self-reflection section. This section elaborated
reflection items for the teachers to reflect on the teaching context and methodology pedagogical reflection as well as teaching resources and
conducting a lesson surface reflection. The teaching context reflection section was subdivided into curriculum, aims and needs, the role of the English language
teacher, and institutional resources and constraints . The methodology reflection
section consists of teaching speaking, teaching listening, teaching reading, teaching writing, and teaching grammar
. The conducting a lesson reflection section involves using a lesson plan, content, interactions with learners,
classroom management, and language classroom .
4. Preliminary Field Testing
A preliminary field testing provides an initial qualitative evaluation of the product Borg, 1983. This step required verification to analyze the product
therefore, this phase was called as validation. For this product, the evaluation was
59 done by distributing questionnaires to fourteen students in the Graduate Program
of English Language Studies of Sanata Dharma University. All the evaluators were quite experienced in teaching English and believed to be able to provide
sufficient feedback for the product improvement. The objective of preliminary field testing was to get feedback in form of opinions, comments, suggestions or
critics on the product as an evaluation. The result is used as a guideline to revise and improve the designed materials. The information included in preliminary field
testing asked whether: a.
The designed model has a low or high relevancy between The English teaching development and the teacher competences defined by the self-
reflection sections. b.
The self-reflection sections provided in the contents of the designed model were necessary to be revised or improved.
c. The self-reflection sections provided in the contents of the designed model
were applicable to be used by English language teachers. d.
The designed model was an easy-to-use reflection instrument to be used by English language teachers.
5. Main Product Revision
In this step, the writer used the feedback gained from the preliminary field testing to evaluate the weakness and strength of the designed model. The
suggestions for the improvement obtained as recommended by the evaluators.
60 Hence, the data from the preliminary field testing would be used as the basis to
obtain the final form of the physical model.
6. Main Field Testing
After the product was validated and revised according to the feedback suggested any the evaluators, the learning model prototype was implemented to
eight English language teachers who were derived from several schools. As explained earlier in Chapter I, the participants to implement the designed model
were limited to English language teachers ranging from Junior High School up to Senior High School and equivalent. The researcher did not make any criteria in
selecting which particular teacher to implement the product since the researcher did not conduct any experiment or measurement on the usage of the product and
the effect towards teachers‟ reflection. This designed model was not intended for Elementary School English teachers since the level of applicability was different.
Preparation of the participants included brief explaining them on how to use the product. After the implementation was done, then the researcher distributed the
users validation questionnaire with the eight English language teachers to investigate participants
‟ response toward the implementation.
7. Final Product Revision
