st
The 61 TEFLIN International Conference, UNS Solo 2014
The Participants of the Study
The participants of the study are six EFL pre service teachers who are conducting their pre service teacher training programs in a formal school in one of the cities in West Java. They are in their final year of
studying English in a higher learning institution and are obligued to complete a four month period of pre service teacher training. The study was conducted from February to June, 2014. The participants and the school were
chosen based on the feasibilities of the locations and also of the training schedules.
The data for this study were collected using three techniques: questionnaire, classroom observations and interview. The questionnaire was given to obtain information regarding the student teachers’ preparations and
details in their teaching practices. The questionnaire consists of five open-ended questions dealing with the preparations before teaching, the problems during the preparations and how to handle them, the problems found
during the teaching sessions and how to handle them, student teachers’ follow up activities after teaching sessions and their biggest challenges and or difficulties in conducting the teaching sessions. The classroom
observations were conducted to investigate student teachers’ performances in their teaching practices. The researchers were present during the observations and conducted field notes to capture the phenomena of the
teaching practices. while the interview was conducted after classroom observations to find out more about the details of the teaching practices that needed further elaboration.
Results and Discussion
The results presented below are the results from the questionnaire, classroom observations and the interview. The interview was conducted to the student teachers based on the necessitity of further details after
the calssroom observations.
A. The results of the questionnaire is as follows:
x Regarding the preparations before teaching, all the student teachers admitted that they prepared the RPP
lesson plan and the material for teaching before hand. Three of them prepared the RPP one day before the teaching practice, one of them admitted to prepare the RPP two days in advance and one of them
needed one week to prepare the RPP and the materials.
x Asked about the problems faced during the teaching sessions and how they handled the problems, three
of them faced the problems on how to motivate the students in order to be interested in and get involved in the teaching and learning activities. One of them had problems dealing with students’
behavior in which the students did not pay attention to the teacher by chatting with their friends or by being busy with their gadgets. One student teacher admitted to often forget the points of teaching in the
classroom, and the other faced a probem of being nervous and tense before going into the classroom. Regarding how they handled the problems, they came up with interesting answers: to get the students’
interests they would resort to the use of games during the teaching sessions which they thought could motivate students to learn the subject, to deal with students who did not pay attention to the teacher,
they would ask the students to give a summary of the material previously learned and also would take away their gadgets to be returned after the class had finished, in order to help them back on track when
they forgot the points of the teaching, a particular student teacher admitted to have tried to do some improvisations on the teaching points to help her continue the activities, and in dealing with the feelings
of being nervous and tense, the student teacher tried to stay calm by taking a deep breath in order to make the situation better.
B. The Result of Classroom Observations
The researchers used the observation checklists in conducting the classroom observation in order to measure the student teachers’ teaching performance in the class. The observation checklists consists of four main
indicators and the sub-indicators with each sub-indicator using scoring scales of 1-4. The bench marks of the scores are as follows: score 1 is poor, 2 is fair, 3 is good and 4 is very good. The student teachers are represented
as alphabets A, B, C, D, E, and F. The following tables one table represents one indicator and the sub indicators represent the results of the classroom observations:
Table 1 Pre-Teaching Activites
No Sub-Indicators
Student Teachers Scores 1-4 1
2 Able to conduct classroom, teaching materials and media preparations
Able to check students’ preparations A2 B3 C3 D2 E4
F3 A3 B3 C3 D1 E3
F3
1306
st
The 61 TEFLIN International Conference, UNS Solo 2014
From the table above, it can be seen that for sub indicator number one students 1 and 4 had the score of fair, students 2, 3 and 6 got the score of good while student 4 got the score of very good in terms of classroom
preparations. As for the second sub indicator, student 4 had the lowest score of poor while the others got the score of good in terms of checking the students’ preparations. This aspects included their preparations of the
teaching tools, the material of the lessons like books, handouts, etc as well as the media used for the activities including realias, cards, slides, tape recorders, etc. The students’ preparations in this case referred to the
students’ readiness of books, notes, handouts, etc that could assist them during the learning activities.
Table 2 Opening the Teaching Activities
No Sub-Indicators
Student Teachers Scores 1-4 1
2 Able to do a warming up session
Able to explain the objective of the lesson and the teaching activities A1 B3 C1 D1 E3 f1
A3 B1 C1 D1 E3 F1
The table above shows that for sub indicator 1, students 1, 3, 4 and 6 had the score of poor in terms of apersepsi while students 2 and 5 got the score of good. It is drawn from the observations that the four of them
did not conduct opening activities that would have led the students to the lesson at hand. They just opened the lesson by greeting, the the students’ attendance and directly mentioned what the students were going to learn.
The other two with the score of good did conduct the opening and led the students to the lesson at hand. As for the sub indicator number 2, students 1 and 5 got the score of good while the rest had the score of poor in terms of
introducing the objective of the lesson. All of them did introduce the objective of the lesson. The difference is the student teachers with the good score explicitely explained the objective of the lesson, while the others did not
mention it explicitely.
Table 3 a Whilst-Teaching
Teaching material competence
No Sub-Indicators
Student Teachers Scores 1-4 1
Able to show the use of English fluently and accurately A1 B1 C1 D1 E2 F1
2 Able to show the mastery of the teaching material
A2 B2 C1 D1 E2 F1 As for the teaching material competence, the table above indicates that in terms of language fluency and
accuracy most student teachers got poor score 5 of them. Surprisingly only one student teacher got fair score. This was captured during the observations, they used the target language as the medium of instructions very little
and when they used the target language, they made several mistakes in spelling, pronunciation, grammar, structure and word choice. They used Bahasa Indonesia L1 too often in the classrooms. On the teaching
material competence, three of them got poor score and the rest got the score of fair. It was drawn from the observations that they made mistakes in explaining concepts of English, they did not show that they had ample
knowledge when they explained the lesson, when they gave examples, especially of grammar and structure. They also had problems when dealing with students’ difficulties in understanding the lesson.
C. The Result of Student Teachers Interview The results of the interviews are as follows:
