Main Field Testing MODEL OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER REFLECTION

111

4. Main Field Testing

After conducting some revisions based on the feedback and suggestions from the respondents of evaluators validation, the learning model was then implemented to the targeted user, which were eight English language teachers derived from several schools. Initially, the researcher personally introduced the product to the targeted teacher participants about what the product was all about. After the participants have understood about the product and its purposes, the participants were asked to administer self-reflection by using the product. The participants were provided around one month to give a try filling out the reflection tool product according to the instructions. After the participants have finished using the product, the researcher distributed a user validation questionnaire. Distributing the user validation was the end of the main field implementation as it was included into the evaluation phase of ADDIE model. User validation aimed to evaluate the designed model and to obtain feedback and suggestions that would be useful to revise and develop the designed model into a final model. User validation was conducted by distributing user validation questionnaire to the eight English language teachers derived from several schools as the targeted users of the designed model. Data from the user validation questionnaire is used to revise the learning model to be developed into the final model. The user validation questionnaire was divided into two parts. For the first part of the questionnaire, ten statements were presented. Those statements aimed to find out whether the participants experienced the benefits of the reflection tool model in terms of the content and applicability, ease 112 of use, and interactivity. The rules aim to gain scores of the participants ’ answer for each item provided using the Likert Scale. The number of the respondents was eight teachers to give opinion on the use of the reflection model. The description of the main field testing of the designed model respondents is presented in the table 4.15. Table 4.15. The Description of the Main Field Testing of the Designed Model Respondents Sex Teaching Experience in year F M ≤ 5 ≥ 5 Junior High School Teacher 1 - 1 - Senior High School Teacher 2 3 4 1 Vocational High School Teacher 2 - 2 - Subsequently, the scores of the designed model were represented from 5 as the highest score to 1 as the lowest score in order to make clear distinction in the result. The scores are used to analyze how the technical issue and the functional issue matter for the users or teachers. Table 4.16. The Rules of Answer Weight Standard In order to make the data presentation which is based on the rule in table 4.16 clearer to understand and to read, the score interpretation of the questionnaire result is presented in table 4.17. The questionnaire result is the interpreted based on the score criteria which are obtained from the rules in table 4.14 and the score criteria is presented in table 4.17. No. CRITERIA SCORE 1 Strongly disagree 1 2 Disagree 2 3 Not sure 3 4 Agree 4 5 Strongly Agree 5 113 Table 4.17. The Meaning of Score Criteria No. CRITERIA SCORE MEANING 1 Very High 4.51 – 5.0 Most respondents strongly agree with the statement 2 High 3.76 – 4.50 Most respondents agree with the statement 3 Fair 3.26 – 3.75 Most respondents are not sure with the statement 4 Low 2.51 -3.25 Most respondents disagree with the statement 5 Poor 00 – 2.50 Most respondents strongly disagree with the statement In the first part of the questionnaire, the respondents were required to state their degree of agreement on each of the presented statement. It could be inferred that the more the respondents agreed with the statements, the better the learning model was. The complete statements of the first part of the questionnaire can be seen in Table 4.18. Table 4.18. The Interpreted Questionnaire Result No . Statements Frequency of points of agreement Central Tendency 1 2 3 4 5 N M 1. The product helps me to think about different aspects of teacher education. - - - 5 3 8 4.4 2. The product helps me to understand what competences a teacher of foreign languages should have. - - 2 3 3 8 4.1 3. The product helps me to be aware of the competences I have developed as well as those I still need to develop. - - - 2 6 8 4.7 4. The product helps me to understand the relationship between underlying knowledge and practical skills in the process of teaching. - - 2 4 2 8 4 5. The product is a good instrument for the self- assessment of my competences. - - 1 3 4 8 4.4 6. The product is a good instrument for developing my language teaching skills - - - 5 3 8 4.4 7. The product helps me monitor my language teaching progress. - - - 3 5 8 4.6 114 8. The product is interesting and easy to read. - - 3 3 2 8 3.9 9. The product ’s instructions and ‘can-do’ descriptors are clear and complete. - - - 5 3 8 4.4 10. The product is quite practical to be used by an English language teacher. - - - 3 5 8 4.6 Total - - 8 36 34 Mean 4,3 Good The table above implied that the teachers agreed that the designed model made them experience some benefits such as exploring and reflecting on different aspects of teacher education. Teachers also agreed that the product has helped them to be aware of the competences they have developed as well as those I still need to develop. The score which is interpreted in table 4.16. comprises five categories: very high, high, fair, low, and poor. The score is categorized high when most of the respondents agree with the statements provided in the questionnaire. In order to support the findings and analysis, the data from the open questionnaire are used in the discussion. Their answers were then summarized into some categories to ease the analysis of the obtained data. 1 Content and Applicability The first part of the questionnare asked about the content and applicability of Moodle. A good self-reflective teaching does not only include how teachers manage to have good lesson activities in the classroom. Reflection should involve the whole aspects of teaching such as teaching context, teaching methodology and conducting a lesson. Therefore, the reflection model in this study is designed as effective as possible to help teachers explore various aspects of teaching English language. The result of the questionnaire indicated that most of the teachers agree that they already well-informed about the various aspects of English language 115 teaching. Regarding the contents and applicability of the product, the participants mostly stated that the reflection tool was a worth-administering model. It is supported by the teachers’ statements: “This reflection tool is very good. This tool can be such a good guideline for English teacher in doing reflection as well self-assessing lesson in the classroom …”. Teacher 1-open-ended questionnaire-T1-Q1 “This reflection tool is good. The reflection items are already provided so I do not have to think about issues that I need to reflect. It really helps considering that teachers are busy doing administrative works …” Teacher 2-open-ended questionnaire-T2-Q1 These statements are in line with Brno’s 2010 argument that reflection can be either intuitive or systematic and organized, it enables teachers to become aware of their weak and strong points. Most of the teachers also agreed that the reflection tool was helpful in monitor their progress in teaching English. It is indicated by the close-ended questionnaire statement item number seven that gained score 4.6. The contents of the product were designed also to encourage teachers in reflecting on teaching competences, such as teaching methodology. Most teachers did not have any doubts regarding the function of the product, which is intended to let teachers comprehend various teaching competence in terms of teaching the English language skills. The following statements are supporting the mentioned findings: ‟Teachers are able to reflect the aspects that they need to pay attention to in their teaching …” Teacher 3-open-ended questionnaire-T3-Q3 “The advantage of administering this reflection tool is that it can help me to become a better English language teacher. I can reflect my self starting from the initial phase until the evaluation phase. The main advantages of this reflection tool is dedicated to the main contents. The reflection items provided are very complete.” Teacher 4-open-ended questionnaire-T4-Q3 116 2 Ease of Use Then the questions shift to ask the designed model’s practicality to be used by the teachers. In administering such informal self-evaluation, teachers would be highly challenged to investigate every aspect of teaching that they should consider. Meanwhile, beside teachers have to take the responsibility to teach their students, they have to be dealing with a lot of administrative works that might constraint their teaching development. This fact corresponds to Pollard et al. 2005 stating that reflective teaching is applied in a cyclical or spiralling process, in which teachers monitor, evaluate and revise their own practice continuously. Therefore, the designed product seeks to provide a problem solving solutions towards this issue. The reflection items were clearly provided in order that the teachers do not need to be bothered thinking about what aspects of teaching that they really need to reflect. This particular discussion is related to the close-ended questionnaire statement item number nine, which highlights the teachers’ participants’ opinion on the ‘can-do’ descriptors provided in the reflection section. Statement point number 9 reaches score 4.4., which means that the reflection items are clear and complete. Most of the teachers did not find serious difficulty in administering the reflection model as well. It is supported by the teachers’ statements: “I do not find any difficulties. I could understand every instruction and every statement question inside the contents of the reflection tool .” Teacher 5- open-ended questionnaire-T5-Q2 “I did not find any difficulties in doing that. It is easy to be understood not complicated. ” Teacher 3-T3-Q2 117

5. Evaluation