writer found that only a few teachers concluded the material before closing the program. Based on the above explanation, it can be concluded that the teachers
were on average score in implementing the effective teaching principles but there were some strategies that the teachers have to take much more attention to it.
B. The Factors of Teaching Quality
The result of mean score from each factor of teaching quality could be seen as follows:
Table 4.2 Mean Score of Each Factor of Teaching Quality
As already mentioned in table 4.2, the observer data, the students’ and the
teachers’ questionnaires contained of eight factors, based on those of the dynamic model. These factors were 1 orientation, 2 structuring, 3 modeling, 4
application, 5 questioning, 6 assessment, 7 classroom learning environment, and 8 management of time.
The above table 4.2, it describes several points. From the eight factors, the teachers scored lowest among all of factors on three factors: structuring,
modeling, and assessment. These findings suggested that those three factors were not easy activities for the teachers. Meanwhile, the observer scored higher on the
four factors: application, questioning, classroom as a learning environment CLE, and time management, which means that teachers were more positive on these.
This finding suggested that in general the teachers used these factors in their teaching: application to practice the activity during the lesson, questioning to
assess students’ knowledge, CLE to organize the classroom to create good
Group Orien-
tation Struc-
turing Model-
ing Appli-
cation Ques-
tioning Assess-
ment CLE
Time mana-
gement
Teacher 4
3,3 3,3
3,9 3,7
3,3 3,9
4 Student
3,2 2,9
2,8 3,3
3,3 2,9
3,2 3,3
Observer 2,7
1,9 2,7
3,3 3
2,8 3,1
3,3
interaction either teachers and students or student and other students, and time management to engage students in classroom learning.
The data showed that the teachers and the students were in line because they scored higher than other subscales on five factors: orientation, application,
questioning, classroom learning environment, and management of time. The data was strengthened by independent observer that the teachers did those factors in
the classroom. Nevertheless, considering orientation factor, the observer disagreed with them because the observer found only a few teachers could do orientation
well. Furthermore, the data from students revealed that they were also positive
on four factor s as well as observer’s data. Although it was different on one factor:
orientation that based on s tudents’ data, the teachers were also rated higher on
orientation as well as other four factors. It means that as regards orientation, the observer disagreed with the students and teachers.
In addition, not only the observer and the students but also the teacher gave score other three factors lower than the other ones: structuring, modeling,
and assessment, even with different score. These findings suggested that those three factors were not easy activities for the teachers. Thus, there was agreement
between students and teachers on all factors. Nevertheless, based on observer, there was agreement among all factors except on orientation.
C. The Categorization of the Factors and the Perception of
Teachers, Students, and Observer Both the Similarities and the Differences
In this part, the writer divided the factors of teaching quality into three categories: high, average, and low. The scale of 4-5 could be included as high
category. Furthermore, the scale of 3 could be included as average category and the scale of 1-2 could be included as low category. The categorization would be
useful to elaborate which strategy that teachers have done well or not based on the observer.
According to the observer, there was no factor which was included in the high category. Even there were seven factors such as; orientation, modeling,
application, questioning, assessment, classroom learning environment, and time management that the teachers had quite enough done on those stages, but it still
needed much improvement. In addition, there was a factor which was categorized as low, structuring. For further explanation of describing the practice of effective
teaching strategies in English classroom, it would be explained by the observer. The data of three groups: teachers, students, and observer showed that
application and time management were two factors which were highest among of all factors in each group. These findings indicated that those factors were often
practiced by teachers in the classroom. It could be concluded that all participants argued that the teachers have done well those two factors.
There was similarity from all participants related to the practice of structuring. Structuring was regarded as the lowest score by the three groups.
Even with different score, it was categorized fair in the practice of structuring. It is argued by most teachers that they seldom practiced structuring in the process of
teaching and learning. There was also similarity from all groups related to the practice of
modeling. Based on the table 4.2, even the scores were different; the scores were categorized as fair. Based on the statement, it could be said that the teachers have
been on average score related to this stage. There was also similarity from all groups related to the practice of teacher
role in making classroom a learning environment. Based on the table 4.2, even the scores were different; the scores were in the second top score among other factors.
Based on the statement, it could be said that the teachers have also created classroom learning environment.
Furthermore, there was a compelling difference from the three groups related to orientation stage. The teacher scored highest on this stage, it was
categorized as good. It means that based on the teachers, they have often done this stage. While there was positive result from the teacher
’s score, there was opposite
result from the observer and the students related to this strategy. The observer’s
score was 2.7 meanwhile the students score 3.2 which was categorized as fair. The second difference was in the stage of questioning. Even the scores
were different, both the teachers and the observer had strong difference related to this strategy. The teacher
’s scored 3.7 related to questioning stage, it was categorized as good. The teachers assumed that they did this strategy frequently.
In contrast, the score from the observer related to this strategy was 3, it was categorized as fair. It was argued that the importance of giving question in the last
session was important to check whether the students understand the material not. Finally, on the stage of assessment,
the teacher scored 3.3, it was categorized as fair. It wa
s supported not only by the students’ questionnaires but also the observation instrument; the scores were 2.9 and 2.8 which were
categorized as fair also. It means that based on the teacher, the students, and also the observer, the teachers have done this stage in the process of teaching and
learning. In addition, based on the observer which was supported by the interview of teachers and students, many teachers seldom gave homework for students, most
of them have the target to finish the activity in each meeting. They sometimes gave homework when the material given was quite difficult.
D. The Factors of Teaching Quality in Detail
