Managing the Movement of People

54

d. Managing the Movement of People

Clark and Starr 1991 mention that management movement of people dealt with how teachers manage his or her own movement, the flow of the lesson or activity, students’ movement, and his eye contact to monitor the students. Furthermore, in managing the movement of people, Harmer 2007 states that most successful teachers move around the classroom to some extent. Motionless teachers can bore students and those who are constantly in motion can make students feel uncomfortable p. 35. In line with theory presented by Clark and Starr 1991 and by Harmer 2007, Figure 4.15 and Figure 4.16 showed how the respondents manage the body movement during the teaching activity. 1 Teacher managed body movement appropriately Figure 4.15 Teacher did not Tend to Come Closer to A StudentA Group when Explaining The same percentage was obtained through the observation, questionnaire, and interview as in Figure 4.15. These similar results mean that teacher did not tend to come close to a student or a group when explaining. Nevertheless, 25 of 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Observat ion Quest ionnaire Int erview 75 75 75,00 25 25 25,00 Conducted Is not Conducted 55 the respondents tended to come closer to a student or a group when explaining. They did so in order to get a clearer understanding and to focus on the students’ questions. Because the results from each instrument: observation, questionnaire, and interview were 75, it means that the teachers did not tend to come closer to a student or a group when explaining was conducted by the ELESP student teachers. Figure 4.16 showed whether the respondents were moving around the class very often while the students were working or the respondents were explaining. From the observation result obtained, 75 of the respondents did not move around very often when they conducted teaching. Figure 4.16 Teacher did not Move around Very Often As seen from the result, respondents conducted appropriate movement since the respondents did not move around the class very often. Nevertheless, the result from the questionnaire distributed showed an opposite result. The respondents considered that they moved around very often in the class. In line with Figure 4.15 and Figure 4.16, those figures showed that the student teachers move to some extent appropriately. The respondents did not tend 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Observat ion Quest ionnaire Int erview 75 25 75 25 75 25 Conducted Is not Conducted 56 to come closer to a student or a group when explaining and respondents did not move very often during the teaching activities. Therefore, the theory presented by Harmer 2007 which states that most successful teachers move around the classroom to some extent. Motionless teachers can bore students and those who are constantly in motion can make students feel uncomfortable p. 35 was conducted by the ELESP student teachers. Related to the management people’s management, the next criterion was about whether the teachers or respondents conducted teaching in a hurry or not. The result would be presented in Figure 4.17 up to Figure 4.22. 2 Teacher ran the teaching activity carefully Figure 4.17 Teacher Made Sure that the Students were Ready to Hear Through the observation and interview in Figure 4.17, the results showed that the ELESP student teachers made sure that the students were ready to hear as many as 87.5. The result was supported also by as many as 75 of the respondents from the questionnaire. First, the respondents made sure that the classroom atmosphere would not disturb the activity. Afterwards, the respondents conducted the activity. 0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00 60,00 70,00 80,00 90,00 Observat ion Quest ionnaire Interview 87,50 75 87,50 12,50 25 12,50 Conducted Is not Conducted 57 Figure 4.18 showed that 100 and 87.5 of the respondents who conducted the run of the activity management. All respondents finished the activity before continuing to the next activity. Figure 4.18 Teacher Finished One Activity before Starting next Activity The result from the questionnaire showed that there was one respondent or 12.5 who mentioned that the criterion in Figure 4.18 was not conducted. This result was caused by the respondents’ uncertainty whether the respondent finished the activity one by one or not. Figure 4.19 showed that 100 of the respondents delivered the teaching smoothly. It means that the teachers did not start other activities or topics and then jumped back to the unfinished previous activity or topic. In addition, the result from the interview also supported the observation result. As a result, the teaching, which was delivered one by one, was conducted by the ELESP student teachers. On the contrary, the result from the questionnaire differed from others. The respondents, as many as 62.5, were not sure if they delivered the teaching activity in sequence. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Observat ion Quest ionnaire Interview 100 87,50 100 12,50 Conducted Is not Conducted 58 Figure 4.19 Teachers Did not Start another Topic or Activity then Jumped Back to the Unfinished Previous One Teacher avoided distracter caused by irrelevant happening in Figure 4.20 was conducted by the student teachers. The result of observation was supported by interview result as many as 75 of the respondents who avoided distracter. Figure 4.20 Teachers Avoided Distracter Caused by Irrelevant Happening Meanwhile, 25 of the respondents could not avoid the distracter caused by irrelevant happening. The respondents expressed their illness spontaneously when the respondents hit table or a chair. On the other hand, as many as 50 of the respondents through the questionnaire was unsure if they could avoid irrelevant happening in the classroom. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Observat ion Quest ionnaire Int erview 100 37,50 100 62,50 Conducted Is not Conducted 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Observat ion Quest ionnaire Int erview 75 50 75 25 50 25 Conducted Is not Conducted 59 Figure 4.21 Teachers Gave Brief Explanation Figure 4.21 showed that teachers conducted brief explanation in the teaching practice. It was proven by more than 60 of each result: observation, questionnaire, and interview. Meanwhile, there were some respondents who did not conduct brief explanation. The respondents considered that by giving more explanation, it was students’ bonus and students’ additional information. Moreover, it was intended to create a friendly atmosphere. Figure 4.22 Teacher Avoided Going into Much Detail Teacher avoided going into much detail as in Figure 4.22 was conducted by the student teachers. The respondents did not call the students’ name several 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Observat ion Quest ionnaire Interview 75 62,50 87,50 25 37,50 12,50 Conducted Is not Conducted 0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00 60,00 70,00 80,00 Observat ion Quest ionnaire Interview 62,50 25,00 62,50 37,50 75,00 37,50 Conducted Is not Conducted 60 times in the teaching activity. On the other hand, students who were close to the respondent obtained more than once time to be called. Nevertheless, the result of questionnaire was different from others. It was because the respondents were not aware if they avoided going into much detail. Therefore, based on the results, avoided going into much detail by the teacher was conducted. Figure 4.23 Teacher Involved Students Participation As many as 87.5 of the respondents conducted the involvement of the students in the learning activity as in Figure 4.23. The observation result was also supported by the interview result as many as 75 and questionnaire result as many as 50. The respondents involved students’ participation, such as to help the distribution of the handout and to volunteer themselves in answering or discussing the answer. Consequently, the component of classroom management in involving students’ participation was conducted by the ELESP student teachers. Nevertheless, 50 of the respondents was unsure whether they involved students’ participation. Next, Figure 4.24 up to Figure 4.28 were related to the criteria whether or not the respondents managed the movement of the people in the classroom. 0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00 60,00 70,00 80,00 90,00 Observat ion Quest ionnaire Int erview 87,50 50 75 12,50 50 25 Conducted Is not Conducted 61 3 Teacher managed the movement of people in the class Figure 4.24 Teacher Called Up A Group at Once and did not Call Them Up One by One The component of classroom management in calling up a group at once was conducted by the student teachers. It was shown in Figure 4.24. The result of it was supported by 62.5 from the observation and interview. On the contrary, the result from the questionnaire was different from others. It happened because the respondents were not aware whether they called up a group at once. The data from the observation in Figure 4.25 showed that 87.5 of the respondents conducted the instruction clearly. The supporting result of it was the interview result as many as 75. On the other hand, the questionnaire result was different since the respondents were not sure whether they explained instruction clearly or not as many as 50. Therefore, as many as 50 of the respondents from the questionnaire supported the observation and interview results that clear instruction was conducted by the ELESP student teachers. 0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00 60,00 70,00 80,00 Observation Questionnaire Interview 62,50 25 62,50 37,50 75 37,50 Conducted Is not Conducted 62 Figure 4.25 Teacher Explained the Instruction Clearly so that the Students did not Make Disturbance during the Activity It was obviously seen from Figure 4.26 respondents’ movement control toward students’ movement was conducted. All results supported the category of conducted. In spite of that, 37.5 of the respondents was unsure if they managed students’ movement. However, there was no person who moved around very often during the teaching process. Figure 4.26 No Person Moved Around very Often during Teaching Activity According to Kounin, movement management is the technique of guiding the class smoothly through its activities and from activities to another. The movement management can be obtained by avoiding interrupting the progress of the class as follows. 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 50 75,00 12,50 50 25,00 Conducted Is not Conducted 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 0 Observation Questionnaire Ite rview 100 62,50 100 37,50 Conducted Is not Conducted 63 a Be sure that students are ready to hear before making announcements, issues, orders, or make statement. b Finish one activity before starting on the next activity. c Do not start another topic or activity and then jump back to the unfinished previous one. d Avoids distracters caused by irrelevant happenings or thoughts. e Explain what should be explained. f Avoid going into much detail, such as call up a group at once, not one by one as cited in Clark Starr, 1991, p. 106. In line with Kounin’s theory, Figure 4.17 to Figure 4.26 presented the theory of Kounin that the student teachers conducted the movement management in which the class ran smoothly through activities by avoiding interrupting the progress of the class as cited in Clark Starr, 1991, p. 106. In relation to the management of people’s movement, the next criterion was whether the respondents monitored the students’ activity. The result of it would be presented in Figure 4.27 and Figure 4.28. Figure 4.27 Teachers Kept an Eye on Entire Class at Once to Make Class Aware 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Observation Questionnaire Interview 75 100 75 25 25 Conducted Is not Conducted 64 Figure 4.27 showed that the component of classroom management in keeping an eye on entire class was conducted by the ELESP student teachers. It was proven by 75 from the observation and interview results and 100 from the questionnaire. Nevertheless, 25 of the respondents did not keep an eye on entire class. It was due to a big class with many students and ran out of time which led the respondents to focus on one side of the class. Figure 4.28 Teachers Listened to One Student while Monitoring other Students Figure 4.28 showed that the percentage between teachers who listened to one student while monitoring other students and those who did not was balanced. There was 50 of the respondents who focused on some of the students due to some reasons. The examples of the reasons were the class was big, there was a lecturer, and to focus on the students. Meanwhile, the observation differed from others in its percentage. The variation of it happened because the respondents were not sure if they listened to one student while monitoring other students or not. Therefore, Figure 4.27 showed that movement management was conducted by the ELESP student teachers confirms theory presented by Kounin. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Observation Quest ionnaire Int erview 50 37,50 62,50 50 62,50 37,50 Conducted Is not Conducted 65 Kounin mentions that other techniques are withitness and overlapping. Withitness is the ability to keep an eye on the entire class at once, making the class aware that the teacher is alert to the students. Meanwhile, overlapping is to do two things at once, such as listening to one student while keeping tabs on the progress of another as cited in Clark Starr, 1991, p. 106.

e. Managing the Lesson