106
3. Main Product Revision
There are at least three areas of the designed model contents that need to be revised. One of the crucial drawbacks of the designed model contents is the
relevancy between the concept of Indonesian National curriculum 2013 and the functionality of the reflection model. The point of the central tendency out of the
correlation between the product and the concept of curriculum 2013 as shown in table 4.11. is only 3.6 from the overall scale 5.0. It means that there was an
indication that the evaluators were not entirely convinced about the self-reflection model’s concept concerning the curriculum. One of the evaluators suggested that
there should be a more specific reflection section that highlights the teachers’ understanding about the curriculum 2013. In order to revise this particular
problem, the researcher attempted to re-discover information about curriculum 2013.
Priyana 2014 states that according to the Graduate Competence Standard, curriculum 2013 seeks to develop the students’ spirits, attitudes,
knowledge, and skills. As described in Chapter II, this statement is relevant with the fact that students need to be aware of their own culture, such as cultural facts,
events, attitudes and identity, religious views, and many more. Moreover, Priyana 2014 mentions that should be at least three aspects of values that needs to be
carried out in the classroom, involving honesty, cooperation, and responsibility. Based on the re-conducting library study to discover a more complete information
about curriculum 2013, the researcher decided to add new part of
‘the
107
methodology’ main reflection section, called ‘values and cultures’. The revision
regarding the concept of curriculum 2013 enhancement is presented in table 4.14.
Table 4.14. Main Product Revision – ‘Values and Cultures’ Reflection
Section Input No.
Theme Reflection items
1. Values
1. I can promote honesty among the students during learning
activities not telling lies, not cheating, etc.. 2.
I can promote cooperation among the students during learning
activities creating
unity with
friends, participating equally with friends, etc..
3. I can promote cooperation among the students during
learning activities completing tasks on time, doing the best in completing tasks, etc..
2. Culture
4. I can evaluate and select a variety of texts, source
materials and activities which encourage learners’ interest in and help them to develop their knowledge and
understanding of their own and English language culture cultural facts, events, attitudes and identity, religious
views, etc..
5. I can evaluate and select activities role plays, simulated
situations etc. which help learners to develop their socio- cultural competence.
6. I can evaluate and select a variety of texts, source material
and activities which help learners to reflect on the concept of ‘otherness’ and understand different value systems.
7. I can evaluate and select activities which enhance the
learners’ intercultural awareness.
The next significant concern about the designed model contents drawbacks is related to the rationale of the product. There were three evaluators who stated
that there should be more convincing reasons underlying users or teachers’
willingness in using this product. In order to assure that this product is such a helpful instrument for reflective teaching, the researcher improved the product by
providing ‘brief rationale’ in the introduction section of the designed model. The ‘brief rationale’ explains to the users or teachers why it is really necessary to use
108 the product as a means of reflection tool. The revision of the introduction section
is illustrated in the figure 4.10.
Figure 4.10. Main Product Revision – ‘Brief Rationale’ Input
Another area of the designed model contents that need revision is referring to reflection descriptors’ comprehensiveness to the users or teachers. Three
evaluators emphasized that some of the reflection items might be quite difficult for teachers to understand, which might eventually result in the discouragement to
read the product. Therefore, it was suggested that some simplifications on the use of dictions or terms among the reflection statements were necessary to be done for
revision. Through the feedback, the researcher has been informed about particular reflection descriptors that was assumed to be difficult to understand. For instance,
there is one descriptor in the ‘teaching speaking’ main reflection section that uses
rather unfamiliar terms: I can resemble a supportive atmosphere that invites
learners to take part in speaking activities . The researcher replaced the word
resemble into create that the sentence became: I can resemble a supportive
109 atmosphere that invites learners to take part in speaking activities.
Another example of difficult statement was found in the ‘teaching grammar’ main
reflection section: I can use grammatical metalanguage if and when appropriate
to the learners‟ needs. According to the related theories about teaching grammar
elaborated in Chapter II, metalanguage means specific notions that are used in a
specific context in this case teaching grammar to mention the name of a particular terms, such as simple present tense, gerund, and many more. The
researcher has replaced that particular statement into: I can use grammatical
terms simple present tense, conditional sentences, gerund, etc. if and when
appropriate to the learners‟ needs. The last issue that was assumed to be problematic was regarding the grade
rating scale to respond to the self-reflection descriptors. One of the two evaluators stated that the indicator of the grade rating scale was not adequately clear and
formal. Moreover, another evaluator suggested that there should be descriptive definitions for each score in the grading indicators so the teachers will be aware of
the required standard in teaching English. Initially, the researcher provided an indicator which consisted of four rates:
‘poor’, ‘ok’, ‘good’ and ‘excellent’. It
turned out that this kind of grading scale indicator did not sufficiently inform the users or teachers about the required standard in teaching English. To address this
issue, the researcher has improved the instruction of using the reflection model by adding more formal and descriptive rating scales:
‘novice’, ‘developing’, ‘proficient’ and ‘expert’. Each of the scale has been given a descriptive definition
that helped users or teachers visualize and chart their own competence. Novice
110 means ‘I do not do this in my classroom I do not carry this out in my teaching
perceptions. it does have not any effects in my classroom
’. Developing means ‘I
do this in my classroom I carry this out in my teaching perceptions, but only notice positive effects on either student learning and my teaching process
sometimes
’. Proficient means „I do this I carry this out well and notice
consistent positive effects on student learning and my teaching process
’. Expert
means ‘I see this as a strength of mine, I can adapt it to fit my students‟ needs and notice a consistent and significant positive results in the student‟s achievement as
well as my teaching process ’. The revision of the instruction area is illustrated in
the figure 4.11.
Figure 4.11. Main Product Revision – Instruction Improvement
111
4. Main Field Testing
Kategori