Microteaching students` perception on the supervisor`s feedback in improving students` teaching performance in microteaching class.

i

MICROTEACHING STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION ON THE SUPERVISOR’S FEEDBACK IN IMPROVING STUDENTS’ TEACHING PERFORMANCE

IN MICROTEACHING CLASS

A THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Riskisari Restuningtyas Student Number: 061214064

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

iv

I dedicate this thesis to:

DEDICATION PAGE

All glory comes from daring to begin.

w

_{Eugene F. Ware}

*

my Beloved Parents, Ita and Kristanta

*

my Big Family, Badran and

Kepatihan family

*

my Lovely Sister, Sekar

*

my Dearest Partner, Dion, and

*

all of my Great Friends.

Wher ever you go, no mat t er

w hat t he w eat her , br ing

you ow n sunshine.

vii ABSTRACT

Restuningtyas, Riskisari. 2010. Students’ Perception on The Supervisor’s Feedback in Improving Students’ Teaching Performance in Microteaching Class. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

Microteaching is a subject designed to prepare the students of English Language Education Study Program to be qualified teacher candidates. In preparing the students to be able to teach well, feedback is an important factor that could help the students to improve their teaching skills. Feedback shows the students their strengths and weaknesses in the teaching practice so the students could develop the strengths and improve the weaknesses. Moreover, through the feedback, lecturers provide the students with suggestions on how to teach well.

The research was done on the students of English Language Education Study Program who took three different Microteaching classes in academic year 2010/2011. Three problems were discussed on the research. The first is about what the feedback from the lecturers is. Second, it is about the students’ perception on the supervisor’s feedback in improving students’ performance in microteaching class. The last to be discussed is students’ suggestions for the supervisor in giving the feedback. The research was started with the observation which was done on some meetings in Microteaching classes. It was followed by distributing questionnaire to the students of three different Microteaching classes. The writer also interviewed nine students; three students from three different classes, to gain deeper information about the students’ perception on the feedback given by the lecturers.

Based on the data analysis, lecturers had a different way in giving the feedback to the students. Through the observations and the questionnaire, in Class A, feedback was given directly after the class, individually and generally whether in a spoken or written form. In class B, feedback was given in an additional meeting; after all the students had practiced teaching. The feedback was given to all students in general and in spoken form. Feedback in class C was given after each students had practiced teaching in a written for. Although the lecturers gave the feedback in many ways, the perceptions of all the students in Microteaching class were positive. Students considered the feedback to be helpful in improving their performance in Microteaching class as it provides the description of the students’ strengths and weaknesses on their teaching. Through this research, the students stated that they put serious concern on the feedback for their teaching improvement in Microteaching class.

viii

ABSTRAK

Restuningtyas, Riskisari. 2010. Students’ Perception on The Supervisor’s Feedback in Improving Students’ Teaching Performance in Microteaching Class. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Pendidian Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Mata kuliah Microteaching dirancang untuk mempersiapkan mahasiswa program studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris sebagai calon guru yang berkualitas. Dalam mempersiapkan mahasiswanya untuk dapat mengajar dengan baik, umpan balik adalah suatu sarana yang dapat membantu mahasiswa untuk mengembangkan kemampuan mereka dalam mengajar. Umpan balik memberikan gambaran akan kelebihan dan kekurangan mahasiswa pada saat praktik mengajar, sehingga mahasiswa mampu mengembangkan kelebihan dan memperbaiki kekurangannya tersebut. Selain itu melalui umpan balik, dosen memberikan saran – saran kepada mahasiswa mengenai bagaimana cara mengajar yang baik.

Penelitian dilakukan terhadap mahasiswa program studi pendidikan bahasa inggris yang mengambil mata kuliah di tiga kelas Microteaching yang berbeda pada tahun ajaran 2010/2011. Ada tiga masalah yang dibahas dalam penilitian ini. Yang pertama adalah umpan balik apa yang diberikan oleh dosen. Permasalahan yang kedua adalah persepsi mahasiswa terhadap umpan balik dari dosen dalam meningkatkan penampilan mahasiswa di kelas Microteaching. Masalah terakhir yang akan dibahas dalam penelitian ini adalah saran mahasiswa kepada dosen mengenai cara pemberian umpan balik terhadapa para mahasiswa. Penelitian diawali dengan pelaksanaan observasi pada beberapa pertemuan di kelas Microteaching. Dilanjutkan dengan pembagian kuesioner kepada mahasiswa dari tiga kelas Microteaching yang berbeda. Untuk mendapatkan informasi yang lebih mendalam mengenai persepsi mahasiswa, penulis melakukan wawancara terhadap sembilan mahasiswa Microteaching, masing – masing tiga mahasiswa dari tiap kelas.

Berdasarkan analisis data, setiap dosen Microteaching memberikan umpan balik dengan cara yang berbeda. Berdasarkan observasi dan hasil kuesioner di kelas A, umpan balik diberikan setelah kelas selesai secara individu maupun secara umum dengan lisan dan tertulis. Umpan balik di kelas B diberikan pada satu pertemuan tambahan, yaitu setelah semua mahasiswa mendapatkan giliran mengajar. Umpan balik diberikan secara umum dan lisan kepada semua siswa. Di kelas terakhir, yaitu kelas C, umpan balik diberikan setelah mahasiswa selesai mengajar dalam bentuk tulisan. Bagaimanapun cara dosen dalam memberikan umpan balik, persepsi mahasiswa mengenai umpan balik yang diberikan dosen adalah positif. Mahasiswa beranggapan bahwa umpan balik sangat membantu mereka dalam meningkatkan kemampuan mereka dalam mengajar karena umpan balik menunjukkan kelebihan dan kekurangan mereka dalam mengajar. Dari hasil penelitian, mahasiswa menyatakan bahwa umpan balik menjadi sesuatu yang penting untuk diperhatikan demi kemajuan mereka di kelas Microteaching.

ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to God the Almighty for the blessing, love and strength He has given to me during the completion of my thesis. I believe that this achievement is nothing without Him.

My gratitude also goes to Agustinus Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A. as my major sponsor. I thank him for guiding me in the process of completing this thesis from the beginning until the end, spending his time to read and give beneficial feedback for my thesis, and for always giving me encouragement to finish this thesis. I also thank him for giving me permission to do the research in his Microteaching class.

I am indebted to my lecturers, especially Christina Kristiyani, S.Pd., M.Pd. and V. Triprihatmini, S.Pd., M.Hum., M.A. who gave me permission to observe and conduct my research in their class. I really thank them for being so cooperative. They also gave me valuable suggestions for my thesis.

My wholehearted thanks go to my family, especially my father, Kristanta and my mother, Ita for their prayer, support, and encouragement in every step I took in completing my thesis. I thank them for putting their trust on me to finish this thesis in my way. I am also grateful to my sister, Sekar for giving me motivation not to give up whenever I was down. I’d like to express my special thanks to Dion, whose greatest support and affection kept me struggling for my thesis. I also thank him for his being patient whenever I was distressed during the process of my thesis completion and for the knowledge he has shared.

x

My gratitude extends to my beloved friends, Vita, who always became my partner in finishing the thesis and kept motivating me to do the best, Aldi and Nonok who were my best motivators in doing the thesis, and Anneis and Sarce, who always remind me to live optimistically and taught me many positive lessons of life. I also thank Pupuy, Puput, and Niken to be my good friends in the bad and good times we shared during our study. Many thanks are also addressed to my PBI friends Andre “Kisruh”, Dita, Adi, Alex, Mupet, Tata, Satrio, Thunder, Sari “Buben”, Neisya, Christine, and Susan for the beautiful friendship we have and to those whose names cannot be mentioned one by one.

I am further indebted to all Microteaching students who became my research participants for their cooperation in filling the questionnaires and being my interviewees.

Finally, I would like to express my appreciation for PBI Staffs, Mbak Daniek and Mbak Tary for their assistance in providing information during my study.

Riskisari Restuningtyas

xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ... i

APPROVAL PAGES ... ii

DEDICATION PAGE ... iv

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... v

ABSTRACT ... vii

ABSTRAK ... viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... xi

LIST OF TABLES ... xiv

LIST OF FIGURES ... xv

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xvi

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION A. Research Background... 1

B. Problem Formulation ... 4

C. Problem Limitation... 4

D. Research Objectives ... 5

E. Research Benefits ... 5

F. Definition of Terms ... 6

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Theoretical Description ... 8

1. Microteaching ... 8

a. The Elements of Microteaching ... 10

1) Patterns of Training ... 10

2) The Supervisor ... 10

3) Microteaching Students ... 12

b. Skills Components of Teaching ... 12 Page

xii

2. Perception ... 13

a. Factors Influencing Perception ... 13

1) External Factors ... 13

2) Internal Factors ... 13

3) Difficulty Factors in Perception ... 14

3. Feedback ... 15

a. Definition of Feedback ... 15

b. The Purposes of Feedback ... 16

c. Sources of Feedback ... 18

d. Types of Feedback ... 19

e. Forms of Feedback ... 19

4. Teaching Performance and Improvement ... 20

B. Theoretical Framework ... 20

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY A. Research Method ... 22

B. Research Participants ... 23

C. Research Instruments ... 25

D. Data Gathering Technique ... 26

E. Data Analysis Techniques ... 27

F. Research Procedure... 29

CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION A. Research Findings and Data Analysis ... 31

1. Feedback from the Lecturers ... 32

2. The Microteaching Students’ Perception on the Supervisor’s Feedback in Improving Students’ Teaching Performance in Microteaching Class ... 39

3. Suggestions for the Supervisor in Giving Feedback to the Students ... 56

xiii

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

A. Conclusions ... 63 B. Suggestions ... 64

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Tables

Table 1. The Result of the Closed Response of the Questionnaire ... 28

Table 2. The Result of the Open Response of the Questionnaire ... 29

Table 3. The Way the Lecturers Gave Feedback ... 74

Table 4. The Time the Lecturers Gave Feedback ... 74

Table 5. The Details of the Feedback ... 75

Table 6. The Content of the Feedback ... 75

Table 7. The Feedback Readers ... 76

Table 8. The Result of the Closed Response of the Questionnaire ... 80

Table 9. The Feedback from the Lecturer ... 81

Table 10. The Students’ Perception about the Feedback ... 86

Table 11. The Students’ Perceptions on the Way the Lecturer Gave Feedback .. 91

Table 12. Students’ Improvement after Having the Feedback ... 96

Table 13. The Use of the Feedback ……… 101

Table 14. Students’ Suggestion(s) for the Lecturer ………... 105 Page

xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures

Figure 1. Learning Process Package by Elson and Ray ... 16

Figure 2. Feedback’s being Helpful in Improving Students’ Teaching Performance in Class ... 40

Figure 3. Feedback in Improving Students’ Performance ... 41

Figure 4. Feedback as Motivation for the Students ... 41

Figure 5. Appropriate Way of Giving Feedback ... 42

Figure 6. Not Putting Serious Concern on the Feedback ... 43

Figure 7. The Importance of the Feedback ... 44

Figure 8. The Reliability of Lecturers’ Feedback ... 44

Figure 9. The Need of Feedback ... 45 Page

xvi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendices

Appendix 1. Permission Letters ... 69

Appendix 2. Observation Sheet ... 72

Appendix 3. Raw Data of the Observation Sheet ... 74

Appendix 4. Questionnaire ... 77

Appendix 5. Raw Data of the Questionnaire ... 80

Appendix 6. Interview List ……….. 110

Appendix 7. Raw Data of the Interview ……….. 111 Page

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter will be divided into six parts. The first part is the background of the study which reveals the reason why the researcher conducted the research. The second part is the problem formulations as the main point to be discussed in the study. The third is the problem limitation which will limit the discussion of the study. The next part is the objectives of the study. The fifth part reveals the benefits of the study and the last part of this chapter is the definition of terms.

A. Research Background

Teaching and learning process is a process in which teachers assist the students in learning by transferring information and facilitating the students to understand it. In other words, teachers have an important role in students’ achievement. Teaching is not simply about transferring information to the students but it is about how to give information to the students so that the students can make use of the information they have got. Teachers need to have the knowledge and skills to be able to teach the students.

As teacher candidates, the students of English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) of Sanata Dharma University are required to have competence in teaching. In fact, most of ELESP students have less or no experience in teaching. Besides the knowledge to be transferred, ELESP students must have the ability of how to transfer it. The knowledge the students need has been achieved through series of courses aimed at deepening knowledge, whereas the skill in

teaching is trained from a course named Microteaching (KPE 373). This course is aimed at helping the students understand the concepts and procedure of English language teaching and is able to apply them in a real classroom teaching situation and to evaluate their teaching performance (Panduan Akademik, 2006). Concepts and procedure of English language teaching means the process happened in the teaching process. It includes the procedure of teaching starting from the set induction (how to open the lessons), main activity, and set closure (how to close the lessons) and also the skills used in the process. This course is a prerequisite course for students for PPL (Program Pengalaman Lapangan), a course in which the students practice teaching in the real situation (at school). In Microteaching course, students will learn how to teach and make use of the knowledge of the subjects they already have.

In Microteaching, there will be a series of teaching practices, namely peer teaching, group teaching, class teaching, and low semester-students teaching. Whenever the students have the teaching practice, they will gain feedback from their peer and also the supervisor, especially in class teaching. In this research, the writer focuses on the supervisor’s feedback and students’ teaching performance in Microteaching class. Feedback is a way for teachers to describe their learners’ language and for learners; feedback is an ongoing form of assessment which is more focused than marks or grades (Lewis, 2002). The feedback is as the evaluation for students on the overall performance of their teaching. To be aware of students’ strengths and weaknesses in teaching, supervisor’s feedback is one important thing for the students to have to evaluate themselves. Supervisors are

the ones who have experiences related to teaching and also the knowledge of English language teaching. Thus, the feedback from the supervisor can be said as the reliable and more objective feedback rather than the feedback given by their peer.

Students will experience the class teaching three times; the first class teaching (progress test 1), lower semester students class teaching (progress test 2), and the second class teaching (final test). In other words, in the first class teaching, students will practice teaching with little experiences and they teach on their way. Here, the feedback they get from the first teaching will be the evaluation for students on the way they teach. Students will be aware of their strengths and weaknesses. By being aware of their strengths and weaknesses, the students will improve the way they teach by working on the suggestion and improving the weaknesses to perform better in the next class teaching.

Supervisors are those who could provide feedback for students. Supervisors have different way of giving feedback to the student. The difference is in a matter of time, form, and way of giving the feedback. The feedback given to the students are usually various in a matter of the time, form, and way of giving the feedback. Students have their own perception about the feedback given and how it helps them in their teaching practice. In this research, the writer attempts to find out how and when supervisors gave feedback, the Microteaching students’ perceptions on supervisor’s feedback in improving students’ teaching performance in Microteaching class and what the students suggest to the supervisors in giving feedback to the students.

B. Problem Formulation

The problems of the research are presented as follows. 1. What is the feedback from the lecturer?

2. What are the students’ perceptions on the supervisor’s feedback in improving students’ teaching performance in Microteaching class?

3. What are the students’ suggestions for the supervisors in giving the feedback?

C. Problem Limitation

In order to make the research specific, there are some limitations in this research. First, the research is about students’ perception. Lewis stated that feedback is a form of assessment for students (2002). In this research, the writer would like to find out how students perceive supervisor’s feedback in improving their teaching performance in Microteaching class. Second, the research is limited only on the students of English Language Education Study program of Sanata Dharma University, especially those who were taking Microteaching in academic year 2009/2010. Third is about the feedback. According to Lewis (2002), feedback can be provided by the teachers, their peers, and their own self. The feedback given to the students also can be in some ways, oral or written form. In this research, the writer concerns on the perception of the students on any kinds of feedback given by the supervisors because every student has their own perception in perceiving the feedback. The last is about teaching performance. The research will be limited on the students’ teaching performance in Microteaching class.

D. Research Objectives

Based on the problems stated on the problem formulation, there are three main objectives of the research.

1. The research attempts to find out what feedback that the students got from the lecturers.

2. The research attempts to find out Microteaching students’ perception on the supervisor’s feedback in improving students’ teaching performance in Microteaching class.

3. The research also would like to know what Microteaching students’ suggestions for the supervisors.

E. Research Benefits

As teacher candidates, the students of English Language Education Study Program are required to have competence in teaching. Students will need a long process to have it. Feedback, especially supervisor’s feedback, gives the biggest contribution which can provide comments on the way the students teach and suggestions to improve the way they teach. Hopefully, this research can give contribution to English language Education Study Program especially for the students, supervisors, and other researchers.

1. For students

Through this research, students will be aware of how they perceive feedback as an evaluation in improving their teaching performance in teaching. The students will understand that feedback is aimed at motivating them to do their best.

Students can improve the weaknesses and do the suggestion from the supervisors in order to be better. For this reason, the students will realize that feedback is important for them in their teaching practice and how they deal with it.

2. For Microteaching lecturers or supervisors

This research provides the students’ perception on the supervisor’s feedback. The Microteaching lecturers or supervisors can have the general perception on how the students perceive the feedback given from this research. Moreover, concerning on the research, the lecturers can provide feedback in a better way that they could motivate and encourage the students in teaching.

3. For other researchers

For other researchers, hopefully, this research can be a reference to conduct a research related to the topic. This research provides some information which can be valuable for other researcher in supporting the research.

F. Definition of Terms 1. Microteaching

Microteaching is a course aimed at helping the students to understand the concepts and procedure of English language teaching and to apply them in a real classroom teaching situation and to evaluate their teaching performance (Panduan Akademik, 2006). In this research, Microteaching is a course where the students learn how to teach and at the same time evaluate their teaching performance through the feedback given by the supervisors.

2. Perception

Perception (Robbins, 2005) is a process by which individuals organize and interpret their sensory impressions in order to give meaning to their environment. In this research, perception is the way students feel and think about the supervisor’s feedback on their teaching performance.

3. Supervisor

The supervisor is one who helps the trainees to do what he should do and let him know what he has done (Allen and Ryan, 1969). In this research, supervisors are the lecturers of Microteaching course. Supervisors and lecturers are interchangeable in this research.

4. Feedback

Feedback is a way for teachers to describe their learners’ language and for learners; feedback is an ongoing form of assessment which is more focused than marks or grades (Lewis, 2002). Thus, in this research, feedback is any form of evaluation of the teaching performance of the students given by the supervisors to the students.

5. Teaching Performance

By means of microteaching, students wish to improve their performance through the series of activities provided (Allen and Ryan, 1985). In this study, performance is students’ teaching performance; how students perform as a teacher in their teaching practice in Microteaching course.

8 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

There are two parts discussed in this chapter. They are theoretical description and theoretical framework. In the theoretical description, the researcher discusses some theories and research studies which are relevant to the topic. In the theoretical framework, the researcher relates the theories to the study.

A. Theoretical Description 1. Microteaching

According to Ryle (1949) and Smith (1969a) as cited by George Brown (1973), in philosophical terms, teaching is a task word like’ hunting’ or fishing not an achievement word like winning. It follows from this that in the first attempt at teaching, a person might want the students to learn what he wants the pupils to learn but in fact, the pupils may not learn it as he wants. In order to be able to teach well, teacher candidates should have a kind of teaching activities which can help them to improve their teaching skills. Microteaching is what teacher candidates need to have because in Microteaching, the student teachers have a twofold intention: that his pupils learn while he learns to teach (Brown, 1975:70).

Microteaching is a series of teaching practice which is designed to develop new skills and improve old ones (McKnight, 1971). In addition, Allen and Ryan (1969: 1) stated that microteaching is a training concept that can be

applied at various pre-service and in-service stages in the professional development of teachers. Microteaching offers teachers a practice situation which is almost the same as the real classroom teaching but with there will be some different situation since it is not as complex the real classroom. In microteaching, a teacher teaches a number of pupils. The teaching will be recorded and the lecturers, as the supervisors, will observe and analyze their teaching performance and also give feedback on it.

According to Allen and Ryan (1969), there are five essential propositions in microteaching:

1) Microteaching is real teaching.

Although teaching in microteaching is conducted in practice situation where there are teachers and pupils involved in learning process, the real teaching process takes place.

2) Microteaching lessens the complexities of normal classroom teaching. Number of students, time allocation, and subject content are reduced. 3) Microteaching focuses on training for the accomplishment of specific tasks.

These tasks may be the practice of instructional skills, the practice of techniques of teaching, the mastery of certain curricular materials, or the demonstration of teaching methods.

4) Microteaching allows for the increased control of practice.

In the practice setting of microteaching, the rituals of time, students, methods of feedback and supervision can be manipulated. As a result, a high degree of control can be built into training program.

5) Microteaching greatly expands the normal knowledge-of-results or feedback dimension in teaching.

After doing the teaching practice, teacher will get feedback on his performance. He also can observe by himself how he performs and how he can improve. The feedback can be used to improve their next teaching.

a. The Elements of Microteaching

There are some elements of Microteaching according to Allen and Ryan (1969) that have been developed at Stanford:

1) Patterns of Training

It is about the activity in microteaching. The patterns of training consist of the micro-lesson, the micro-class, and the research clinical session (Allen and Ryan, 1969:38). According to Buku Pedoman Pengajaran Mikro Universitas Sanata Dharma (2008), the activities in microteaching include peer teaching, group teaching, integrated teaching skills 1, lower semester students’ teaching, and integrated teaching skills 2.

2) The Supervisor

The microteaching supervisor is essentially a teacher (Allen and Ryan, 1969:45). Allen and Ryan also stated that the supervisor has a duty to help the trainee to increase their ability in practicing their teaching skill and also help

them understand when the skill should be applied (1969:45). In a previous research in Standford Microteaching Clinic, supervisors are teaching and research assistant who normally had a minimum of three years of classroom experience (Allen and Ryan, 1969). Carl D. Glickman (1985:76) stated that “most supervisors are former teachers” and he further mentioned that supervisors mostly make an effort to improve students’ behavior, achievement, and attitude.

Supervisor has essential roles in microteaching. His roles are to work on improving trainees’ teaching performance, providing the understanding of teaching behavior, and when the trainees perform, the supervisor is one who helps the trainees to do what he should do and let him know what he has done (Allen and Ryan, 1969).

In providing feedback on the trainees’ teaching performance, the supervisor knows how to discuss it with the trainees without hurting them with critics. Besides, it is fine for the supervisor to have an expectation on the trainees to perform better.

Allen and Ryan (1969) argued that just as a supervisor knows what to expect from a teacher, the teachers knows what to expect from a supervisor. It is obvious that supervisor is a reliable source of aid and feedback in helping the trainees to improve their teaching skill ability.

A study by Switzer (1976) as cited by Turney found that supervisors contribute much help about knowledge for the student teacher. Furthermore, supervisors are considered to have influence on “the developing professional

attitudes and teaching styles of student teacher” (The International Encyclopedia of Teaching and Teacher Education [TIETTE], 1987 pp 689&694).

3) Microteaching Students

Students are as the basic element in the microteaching as trainees. The microteaching students provide the realism in this teaching encounter (Allen and Ryan, 1969).

b. Skills Components of Teaching

Component skills of teaching are what the teacher candidate need to develop to be a teacher. Some component skills of teaching based on the observation sheet of Microteaching of Sanata Dharma University (2006) are: 1)Set induction and closure

Set induction and closure consist of getting students’ attention and drawing students’ attention, motivating students, giving references, presenting relevance, making a review, giving psychological/social encouragement, and giving feedback.

2)Explaining skills and stimulus variation

Explaining skills and stimulus variation consist of orientation, language, examples or illustration, material organization, feedback, voice, focusing, pause, eye contact, facial expressions, gestures, movement, interaction style, and media.

3)Questioning skills and reinforcement

Some components in questioning skills and reinforcement are clarity and relevance, types of questions, speed and pauses, distribution of questions, teacher’s response, qualified questions, verbal reinforcement, non-verbal reinforcement, and reinforcement techniques.

The components skills of teaching explained above are the components that the trainees need to develop in Microteaching class to be a teacher.

2. Perception

a. Factors Influencing Perception

Some factors influence the way people perceive thing differently and those factors can be classified into:

1)External Factors

These factors come from the perceiver, target, and the situation. (Robbins, 2005:134). Robbins mentioned that the factors in the perceiver include attitudes, motives, interests, past experience and expectations, while the factors in the target are like novelty, motion, sounds, size, background, proximity, and similarity. The last external factor that is important is the situation such as time, work setting, and social setting.

2)Internal Factors

Altman et al. (1985:86) explained some factors which influence one’s perception and three of the most important are:

a) Selection of stimuli

When one see things, one is about to select a small number of the stimuli exist and that was called selection. People perceive things differently since they select specific cues and filters, or screens. People use the cues and filters or screens when they found something distracting. Everyone has different threshold to filter that distraction.

b) Organization of stimuli

The information that has been selected should be organized. This organization is aimed at making the information becomes meaningful. The minds will work to organize the information by selecting items and putting it together based on experience.

c) Self-concept

Self-concept is the way one feels about and perceives himself. Altman et al. (1985:90) also stated that the way one sees himself affects his perception of the world around him. Self-concept is important because the concept in our mind provides much influence on how we perceive things.

3)Difficulty Factors in Perception

Altman et al. stated that the perception process of one people to another is different and this difference causes the difficulty (1985:91). The four factors contributing the difficulty according to Altman are:

a) Stereotyping

Stereotyping is the process of categorizing people or things based on a limited amount of information. Such stereotyping can be formed of what

people see, hear, and experience from their surrounding like school and mass media. Stereotyping helps the decision maker simplifies the situation. Another explanation about stereotyping is that it is when one judges someone on the basis of his perception of the group which he or she belongs (Robbins, 2005:140).

b)Halo effect

It is closely related to stereotyping. According to Altman (1985:92), Halo effect refers to the use of a known particular trait as the basis for an overall evaluation. For example, a student who registers in a university and finds that the registration committee is friendly, he may decide that the university offers friendly environment.

c) Perceptual defense

People have tendency to select or attend to information that supports their viewpoints, and concurrently, to ignore or fail to perceive information that is contrary to their opinions (Altman et al, 1985)

d)Projection

Projection occurs when one attributes his own feelings to others.

3. Feedback

a. Definition of Feedback

Lewis (2002) stated that feedback is a way for teachers to describe their learners’ language. Feedback can provide information for the teachers about

all the teaching process and also become the teaching evaluation for their own teaching.

As cited by Harmer, Paul Black and Dylan William (1998) noted that the feedback from teachers was the most important factor on students’ achievement. They added that it was important to give appropriate feedback to the students as well as to the activities they are involved in (Harmer, 2007).

Charles Elson and Charles M. Ray (1983:261) had his thought on how important the feedback is in learning process. Below was the learning package by Elson and Ray:

Elson and Ray noted that “practice or hands-on activity is an important part of any training program”. Feedback that was given immediately could help students to make a quick response correction or adjustment, explained Charles and Ray (1983:261).

b. The purposes of Feedback

According to Harmer, feedback on their performance was what the students wanted and expected from their lecturer (2007:143). Following the teaching practice, which was quite difficult for the students at the beginning, Kinicki (2008:249) noted that “students want to know two things: how they did and how their peers did”. Thus, the purpose of the feedback for Microteaching students was to achieve their goal to be a qualified teacher candidate.

Training ↔ Practice ↔ Feedback ↔ Adjustment Figure 1. Learning Package Process 

Lewis (2002:4) explained that the feedback given to the trainees has its purposes. The purposes include:

1)Feedback provides information for teachers and students.

Feedback gives information to the teacher about the progress of the teaching done by the students and as a mean of teaching evaluation. In the other hand, feedback will provide the strengths and weaknesses of the students so that they can improve what should be improved to perform better. Besides, through the feedback which was given, the students become aware of their own progress.

2)Feedback provides students with advice about learning.

Teacher or supervisor does not provide only about theory of language use but also provide comments and suggestions in a form of feedback for the students in their teaching process.

3)Feedback provides students with language input.

The feedback from teacher or supervisor in any form of feedback can provide students language input. The feedback explains how the language is used. Teacher or supervisor may also offer higher level of language through the feedback and it helps the students to increase their vocabulary.

4)Feedback can be a motivation for students.

Students need encouragement to study. The feedback given can be a motivation for the students. They can do their best by improving the weaknesses that the teacher shows through the feedback. Teacher is the one

who understands about their students’ ability and during the course teacher can encourage the students by giving personal feedback.

5)Feedback can lead students toward autonomy.

One important purpose of giving feedback is leading the students to realize their own mistake.

The purpose of feedback was also discussed by O.B. Smith. He stated that a previous research showed a result that “feedback can be effective in motivating and facilitating behavioral changes” (TIETTE, 1987). According to Ausubel and Robinson 91969 pp. 299-300), as cited by Smith (TIETTE, 1987), the result of feedback was students became more confident on their learning and they could focus on how they could pay more attention on the aspects that need improvement.

c. Sources of Feedback

Students must need to get feedback to improve. Lewis stated that feedback can be provided by teacher, peer, or oneself (2002).

1)Teacher feedback

The feedback is given by the teacher orally and/or written. It can be in forms of conferencing, collective feedback, comment orally one by one, feedback sheet, summarized feedback on the board and checklist.

2)Peer feedback

3)Self-correction

Through the self-correction, students learn to be aware of their mistakes and they can correct their own work.

d. Types of Feedback

According to Stone and Nielsen (1982) as quoted by Berewot (2001), there are two types of feedback, namely informational and affective feedback. Informational feedback refers to the information which functions as the correction, clarification, evaluation and identification of the incorrect response produced by the students. Meanwhile, affective feedback refers to the occurrence of positive reinforcement to the correct response given by the students. The function of this feedback is to secure the performance and to strengthen positive emotion to the classroom.

e. Forms of Feedback

Feedback, according to Woolfolk (1987), can be conveyed in oral and written forms. Oral feedback fits well with the younger students since it can help the students to pinpoint and correct the misconception immediately, whereas written feedback is effective for older students.

A recording video of the students’ teaching performance could be very helpful in giving the feedback to the students. The lecturer could give oral feedback based on the video and asked students what was their difficulties. Lecturer could also write down the individual feedback for the students after observing the students mistakes in the video (Harmer, 2007:46).

4. Teaching Performance and Improvement

The feedback on students’ teaching performance provides information about how well they teach what they can improve to teach the pupils better. By means of microteaching, students wish to improve their performance through the series of activities provided (Allen and Ryan, 1985).

The previous studies at Stanford (Fortune, Cooper, and Allen, 1967; Cooper and Stroud, 1967) found that over two hundred students found significant improvements in planning, clarity of explanations, use of pupil ideas and positive reinforcement (Brown, 1978:17). Every elements of microteaching like students, the supervisor, and the observers experienced an improvement on their teaching performance.

B. Theoretical Framework

Considering the idea above, the writer attempted to find the answer of three research questions that has been stated in Chapter 1. In answering the first question, the writer referred to a theory of feedback by Woolfolk (1987). The theory explained that feedback can be conveyed in oral and written forms. The writer also used the theory of feedback by Lewis (2002) which explained the way and the forms of feedback. Using the theories, the writer attempted to see the way the lecturer gave feedback in Microteaching classes. For the second question, the writer focused on some theories of feedback. The first was the theory of feedback by Paul Black and Dylan Williams (1998) which stated that feedback was the most important factor on students’

achievement. The theory was used to observe how the students of Microteaching classes perceived the feedback. Second, the writer used a theory by Smith (1987) about how feedback can facilitate behavioral changes and that the result of feedback facilitates improvements. It was to see how feedback contributed in students’ teaching performance in Microteaching class. The writer used supervisor theory by Allen and Ryan (1969), which explained supervisors are teaching and research assistant that normally had a minimum of three years of classroom experience. Furthermore, Carl D. Glickman mentioned that “most supervisors are former teachers” (1985:76). Another theory that was used in this research was a theory by Switzer (1976) as cited by Turney that supervisor had influence on the development of the students. Those theories were to discover how students respond to the feedback which was given to the students, especially by the lecturers. A

The last research question was what the students of Microteaching classes suggested to the lecturers in giving the feedback in Microteaching classes. To answer the question, the writer made use a theory by Harmer (2007) which clearly mentioned that feedback was what students wanted and expected from their lecturers. Kinicki (2008) also mentioned that students had an intention to know how they performed. In brief, students might have some suggestions for the lecturers to gain the optimal feedback they need. Referring to the theory, the writer would like to find out what suggestions the students had for the lecturers.

22 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the methodology used by the writer in conducting the study in order to discover the answer of the research questions stated in chapter I. The methodology will be presented in six sections which are research method, participants, instruments, data gathering technique, data analysis technique, and the research procedure.

A. Research Method

The research was intended to answer three research questions. Those three questions are: “What is the feedback from the lecturers?”, “What are the students’ perceptions on the lecturers’ feedback in improving students’ teaching performance in Microteaching class?”, and “What are the suggestions for the lecturers in giving feedback to the students?”.

In this research, the writer used survey method. Survey is used to measure attitudes, opinions, or achievements-any number of variables in natural settings (Wiersma, 1995).

“[S]urvey research … is the method of collecting information by asking a set of preformulated questions in a predetermined sequence in a structured questionnaire to a sample of individuals drawn so as to be representative of a defined population.

(Hutton 1990, p.8) Implementing the survey research, the writer attempted to discover the Microteaching students’ perception on the supervisors’ feedback in improving

students’ teaching performance in Microteaching class by collecting data through questionnaire. The writer also conducted observation and interview in this research. The observation was to observe the how and when the lecturers gave feedback, while the interview was conducted to gain deeper perception of the students on the feedback. In this research, three students coming from three different Microteaching classes became the interviewees.

B. Research Participants

The participants of the research were students of English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University who were taking Microteaching (KPE 373) class in academic year 2009/2010. The participants were chosen since the writer attempted to find out the Microteaching students’ perception on the lecturer’s feedback in improving their performance in Microteaching class. This research would reveal the students’ perception on feedback and how feedback can improve their teaching performance.

There were seven Microteaching classes in academic year 2009/2010. In order to get the data for the research, the writer did the research on three of seven classes of Microteaching which were class D, E, and G with three different lecturers. The other students in the classes, which were class A, B, C, and F, were not chosen as participants. The writer did not choose Class A because the class was taught by a lecturer who became microteaching lecturer for the first time and the lecturer did not give any specific feedback to the students like any other Microteaching lecturers. Class B had the same way of giving feedback as Class E

so the writer decided to choose one of them only. Class C was not included because this class had the same schedule with class D so that the writer could not observe the class. Class F and G were taught by the same lecturers so the writer decided to choose one of them. The classes to be observed were representative enough to represent the sixth semester students who were taking the Microteaching class. Researching the students taught by different lecturers, the writer would get the students’ perception in relation to the way the lecturers give feedback.

The total number of the participants was 66 students. Moreover, the writer also interviewed nine students, three students from each class, to get deeper information on their perception on the feedback by asking for more explanation related to the questionnaire. Those nine students were chosen using purposive sampling. The writer selected nine students from each class, one student with below average performance, one student with average performance, and the other one with above average performance. Those students were chosen as they represented the students of each class. Before deciding which students to be interviewed, the writer asked information about the students which had below, average, and above average in their performance from the lecturers. The data obtained from those nine students and the data obtained from the population would be complementary.

C. Research Instruments

In order to obtain the reliable and valid data, this research made use of five instruments namely observation sheet, interview list, questionnaire, interviews and recorder. The observation sheet (see Appendix 2) contained some points about what to be observed. The writer attempted to discover any information about the Microteaching Class related to how and when the lecturers gave feedback to the Microteaching students.

The second instrument employed in this research was interview list. The list (see Appendix 6) contained some questions that should be answered orally. The questions were designed from the simple to the complex questions to find out further information about Microteaching students’ perception on the feedback.

Another instrument used was questionnaire. The questionnaire (see Appendix 4) contained some statements related to how students perceived feedback from the lecturers, whether the feedback improved their second performance in Microteaching Class and their comments and suggestions for the lecturers on how feedback should be given to help the students improve their performance. The questionnaire consisted of two different parts. The first part was close-ended questions which consisted of a set of statements with the five optional answers in a form of the degree of agreement of strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree that students could choose. The second part was the open-ended questions which were a set of question where they could give their opinion and suggestion about the way the lecturer gives feedback.

For the interview, the writer employed a recorder to record all the spoken data from the participants when they were answering the questions stated in the interview list. In addition to that, the writer also made use of video recording of students’ teaching performance to observe their improvement.

D. Data Gathering Technique

Having the research instruments, the writer employed some techniques to obtain the data needed. The first was doing observation on three selected Microteaching Classes. Those observations were aimed at discovering what the feedback that the lecturer gave to the students is. In the observations, the writer used the observation sheet as a guideline of what data was needed. The observations were done on May 11th, 12th, 17th and April 8th, 9th, 16th, 24th, 30th 2010, on weekly meeting of each Microteaching class.

The next step was distributing questionnaire to discover their perception on the lecturer’s feedback in improving their teaching performance in Microteaching Class and their suggestion for the lecturers in giving feedback to the students. The questionnaire was distributed on May 6th, 7th, and 14th 2010. It was on their last meeting of Microteaching Class when all of the students had their second class teaching practice. The students did not fill the questionnaire in class but the writer asked the students to bring it home because of some reasons. The first reason was they were exhausted mentally and physically since the class ended at 4 or 6 P.M. and that Microteaching was the last course they had in a day. The second reason

was they would have some times to think to answer the questions in the questionnaire. Hence, they could provide the best answer they could give.

The writer had an interview with nine students on May 17th – 26th 2010. Before having the interview, the writer analyzed the questionnaire filled by those nine students. The writer did the interview to get their deeper perception about the feedback and their teaching performance after having the feedback. Afterward, to see whether there was an improvement on their teaching performance and to check the result of the interview, the writer observed video recordings of three students’ performance of their progress test 1 and final test. The writer compared the first and the second video to see the improvement.

E. Data Analysis Technique

All the data gained through some techniques using certain instruments were analyzed to obtain the result of the research. The first data to analyze were the data gained from the first observation to three Microteaching classes. The data provided information about what feedback that the students got from the lecturers. The data would be categorized to make it easier to observe the time and the way of every lecturer in giving feedback. The data collected through the observation on three different lecturers would be compared to show that there were different ways of giving feedback from one lecturer to another. Each item of the observation sheet would be presented in a form of table to show the difference. The data would be analyzed later by elaborating it with the data gained through the second observation, interview and questionnaire.

The second data to analyze was gained from questionnaire. The result of the questionnaire provided data about students’ perception on the feedback they got and how they improved after having one. First, the writer counted how many ticks were put in the degree of agreement of “strongly agree”, “agree”, “neutral”, “disagree”, and “strongly disagree” for each item. Second, the raw data from the calculation was counted into percentage using the formula below:

∑ : Total

SD : The number of “Strongly Disagree” D : The number of “Disagree”

N : The number of “Neutral” A : The number of “Agree”

SA : The number of “Strongly Disagree” n : Number of Students

Third, the data from the questionnaire was recorded in the table below. Table 1. The Result of the Closed Response of the Questionnaires

No. Items

The Degree of Agreement

SD % D % N % A % SA % 1. …

16. …

∑ SD

∑ n X 100 % (1)

∑ SA

∑ n X 100 % (5)

∑ D

∑ n X 100 % (2)

∑ N

∑ n X 100 % (3)

∑ A

∑ n X 100 % (4)

Table 2. The Result of the Open Response of the Questionnaires

Participant Answer 1. … 63. … The next data to be analyzed was the raw data from the interview. The

result from the interview was recorded in interview transcript. The data from the interview and video recording of three students’ performances would be analyzed to see their improvement by comparing their teaching performance on the first and final test.

Having all the data needed, the last thing the writer analyzed was about the final result of how the way the lecturers giving feedback, students’ perception on the feedback and their improvement, and also their suggestions on the way supervisor’s giving feedback through the result of the observation, questionnaire, and interview.

F. Research Procedure

This study conducted some well-organized procedures to be able to obtain the data of the study effectively. The procedures are:

1. The Review of Library Data

The writer attempted to find related theories to the study to obtain some information needed about the problems. The data found were classified into some parts based on the research problem to be analyzed later. The data was used to support the study.

2. Survey Study

This method was conducted to collect exact data. The first step of this method was designing the appropriate instruments namely questionnaire, the interview list, and the observation sheet to obtain data. Having the instruments, the research began to do some techniques to collect the data.

3. Analytical Study

The data collected through questionnaires were analyzed by having the percentage of each data obtained through the close-ended question with five optional answers.

The data collected through interviews were summarized into lists of main points of the interviews. Afterwards, the data was then analyzed to discover the overall students’ perception and suggestions. The data was used to discuss the relationship between the theory and the data to see whether the research problem had been answered.

31 CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter is to discuss the result of the research to answer the research questions stated in the previous chapter. The data were analyzed based on the methodology and discussed in a relation with the theories presented in Chapter 2.

A. Research Findings and Data Analysis

The data were gathered from students of English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University who were taking Microteaching class in 2009/2010 Academic Year. The number of the participants was 66 students coming from three different classes. The writer employed observation sheet, questionnaires, and interview to collect the data. In collecting the data from the observation, the writer recorded the result of observation which was recorded on the observation sheet (See Appendix 2) and presented in a table (See Appendix 3). The writer also distributed a questionnaire (See Appendix 4) in which the result was put in a table (See Appendix 5). From 66 questionnaires which were distributed to the students, there were only 63 questionnaires which were returned. Hence, the total number of the participants was 63 students. The data are presented in the following.

1. Feedback from the Lecturer

Feedback from the lecturers dealt with the ways and the time the lecturers gave feedback to the students. The ways mean in what form the feedback was given (spoken or written), in what way the feedback was given (orally or written), how the feedback was given (personally or to the whole class), and how detailed the feedback was (in detailed or general).

Meanwhile, the time means when the feedback was given to the students, whether directly after the students finished teaching or sometime after the teaching.

To find out the feedback that the lecturers gave to the students, the writer had some observations during the Microteaching classes and the observations, the writer observed the lecturers from the observation room. The writer also distributed questionnaires to the students to gain deeper information about their perception on the lecturers’ feedback.

a. Findings and Discussion

Feedback is important for students to improve their teaching performance in class. In Microteaching class, students would get feedback from the lecturers. Different lecturers had different way in giving the feedback. Through the observation, questionnaire distribution, and the interview, the writer found out that the three lecturers from three different classes had a different way in providing the feedback.

Referring to Appendix 3, the result of the observation and interview would be presented in this part. Woolfolk stated that feedback could be given both in oral and written form (1987). The result of the observation showed that the lecturers provided the feedback in some ways (See Appendix 3). In this part, the writer presented the result of the survey in three categories based on the students’ class. 1) Feedback in class D

In class D, the feedback was both in spoken and written form. It was given individually and to the whole class directly after the meeting and in one additional meeting after all of the students have the teaching practice. The feedback was specific and detailed. Further explanation about the feedback given in class D was presented below.

a) The form of the feedback

On the interview, some students explained that the feedback was about what the strengths and the weaknesses of the students are. It was given in spoken form and in the end of the class, they got a piece of paper containing the written feedback on their teaching performance also.

b) The Ways the Lecturer Gave the Feedback

The result of the questionnaire showed that the majority of the students stated that the feedback was given individually and only some did not. In addition to that, there were about 32% of the students stated that the feedback was given in front of the class. In other words, the feedback was given both individually and in front of the class.

Through the observation and interview (See Appendix 3 and Appendix 5), the students stated that feedback was given individually because after having the teaching practice or some days after that, added by some students, the lecturer asked the students to go to a room and they gathered together to discuss their teaching performance. Before that, the lecturer had a brief meeting with three observers who observed the other students’ teaching. The meeting was to discuss their opinion about their friends’ teaching performance. Afterwards, the lecturer invited the students who had practiced teaching to gather together with the observers. Those students were asked about their opinion on how their practice teaching was. Following that, the lecturer responded to it and gave feedback to them one by one.

The writer found that the feedback was also given in front of the class. The three students interviewed by the writer explained in the interview that there was an additional meeting a week after all of the students finished the teaching practice. In the meeting, the lecturer gave general feedback on the students’ teaching performance to the whole class. Having the general feedback, the lecturer asked the students to work in a group based on the skill they teach on their teaching practice and shared their experience in teaching a skill. After that, the lecturer asked the students, one by one, about what they thought about their own performance and commented on each student’s teaching performance specifically. The groups were to make it easier for the students to learn from others’ mistake in teaching a skill since each group would also tell other groups about their teaching experience.

c) The Detail of the Feedback

The feedback given by the lecturer was specific. It was clearly seen from the result of the questionnaire that 100% or all of the students agreed with that statement. It covered every detail of their performance. They stated that it was specific when it was given individually and general when it was done in the additional meeting as the writer has explained above. Students also wrote that the lecturer provided affective feedback since the lecturer provided positive encouragement for the students (Stone and Nielsen (1982) as cited by Berewot (2001)), for example: “You have to work hard in your pronunciation and grammar because someday you will become a language teacher, your skill is the main aspect to be a teacher.”

d) The Time the Lecturer Gave Feedback

From the observation, it was obviously seen that the lecturer gave the feedback after the three students have finished teaching. In the interview, they clarified that they got the feedback directly after the class was over and they got the feedback together with their two other friends.

2) Feedback in class E

In class E, the lecturer had a quite different way of giving the feedback with the previous class. The feedback was frequently given in spoken form. It was given to the whole class after all the students had the teaching practice. The lecturer gave general feedback to the students. Below was further explanation of the feedback in class E.

a) The form of the feedback

The result of the questionnaire showed that the percentage of the students who agreed that the feedback was given in spoken or written form was the same (81% each). In other words, the feedback was not only in a spoken form but also in a written one. It confirms the theory of Woolfolk (1987: 539) which stated that feedback could be conveyed in two ways; oral and written form. From the observation, it could be seen that after having the general feedback orally, the lecturer distributed students’ portfolio during the semester. Based on the observation and explanation from the students in the interview, it was a compilation of what they have made during the course like lesson plans, materials, teaching reflections, and observation sheets which consisted of the written feedback from their friends and the lecturer.

b) The Ways and the Time the Lecturer Gave the Feedback

From the observation, students did the teaching practice for couple of weeks and during those weeks, the way the lecturer gave feedback was different in one to another meeting. The result of the questionnaire showed that there were only 29% percent of the students stated that the feedback was given individually. In contrast, the 42% of the students stated it was given in front of the class. The explanation that could be drawn from the observation and interview was that in some meetings, the lecturer gave the feedback directly after the class and discussed some points related to the students’ performance in teaching, and in another meeting the lecturer did not. Having the feedback directly, one of the students stated in the interview that not all of the students

got the same feedback after the teaching practice because the lecturer only gave the feedback if there was serious mistake made by some students. The lecturer showed one’s mistake to the whole class so that other students, who had not had the teaching practice yet, would not do the same mistake like their friend did.

However, the lecturer also gave the feedback in an additional meeting, which was specially arranged to discuss all students’ teaching performance and to give the feedback to the students. From the observation, the writer observed that the lecturer kept the written feedback and gave it to each student in that meeting. It was a week after all students have finished the teaching practice. In the meeting, the lecturer gave the general feedback to all students. The lecturer explained the general problem that the most of the students had. The feedback was also given to each student.

c) The Detail of the Feedback

The feedback given in front of the class was quite specific. The lecturer discussed the problem that the students mostly had in their teaching and pointed to some students’ weaknesses to let other students knew how the teaching should be done. It was informational feedback for the students as it referred to correction, evaluation, and incorrect response as explained by Stone and Nielsen (1982) as cited by Berewot (2001). In contrast, in the written form, the feedback was not that specific because the lecturer only stated simple feedback for example very good, well done, good, etc. Some of the interviewees revealed that having a simple feedback, they could not catch

clearly what the ‘very good’ or ‘bad’ mean and in what case their good or bad at.

3) Feedback in class G

In class G, the feedback was mostly given in written form. It was given individually directly after the meeting. The feedback was specific and detailed. Below, the writer attempted to explain the feedback the students got in class G.

a) The Form of the Feedback

From the result of the questionnaire, it was obviously seen that 70% of the students stated agree that the feedback given individually. The feedback was given individually that every student got a piece of paper from the lecturer consisting of the feedback for them. It also clarified that about 90% of the students stated they got written feedback. The result of the questionnaire also showed that there were about 40% of the students stated that the feedback was given in front of the class. Based on the interview, one of the students explained that the oral feedback was given in some practices before they practiced the class teaching.

b) The Detail of the Feedback

The written feedback they got was specific. It was clearly seen in the questionnaire that 90% of the students agreed with that. The lecturer mentioned all the strengths and weaknesses of the students in detail and specific. One of the interviewees gave details that the lecturer did not only give a simple comment, but made clear all the point he wrote in the observation sheet. However, there were 70% of the students assumed that the feedback was given

in general. From the questionnaire, some students gave explanation that when the lecturer gave the feedback orally; he only gave feedback about more general things. In other words, the feedback was in general if it was given orally in front of the class and it was specific and contained individual things if it was given in written form (see Appendix 2 for the general overview of the result)

c) The Time the Lecturer Gave Feedback

From the observation, the writer noticed that the feedback was given directly after the students practiced teaching or after the three students finished teaching. It was all the same with the result of the questionnaire which showed that almost all of the students (90%) stated that the feedback was given directly. The rest of the students stated they were neutral in responding to the statement. On the contrary, in item 2 which stated the feedback was given indirectly, about 72% of the students stated they agreed with that.

2. The Microteaching Students’ Perception on the Supervisor’s Feedback in Improving Students’ Teaching Performance in Microteaching Class

The Microteaching students’ perception is related to how students perceive the feedback they got from the lecturers after they practiced teaching. To obtain their perceptions, the writer made use of two instruments namely questionnaire and interview.

b) The feedback given improves my performance.

Figure 3 shows that most of the students (95%) stated that the feedback they got improved their performance. However, the rest of the students (5%) stated neutral about the feedback.

In the open-response part, in general, most of the students who felt the improvement stated it was because from the feedback they could see their mistake and weaknesses in teaching. Having the feedback, the students learned from it and had more preparation in order to be better in teaching. Students who were neutral stated that it was because feedback did not always improve his performance since personally, he thought that it was difficult to be better.

c) The feedback given motivates me.

The highest percentages of Figure 4 (46% and 46%) showed the number of students who consider the feedback to give motivation to them.

46% 49%

5% 0%

0%

Figure 3. Feedback in Improving Students'  Performance

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

46% 46%

6% 2% 0%

Figure 4. Feedback as Motivation for Students

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

There were only about 2% of the students did not think the same and 6% were neutral.

The result of the questionnaire showed that in general, the students clarified that the feedback motivated them since it offered some advices, suggestions, and the students’ strengths in teaching. The feedback motivated to be better in the next performance. A student stated that the feedback was neutral in improving the performance because he thought that it was not really helpful, without further explanation.

d) The way the lecturers in giving feedback are appropriate.

Figure 5 showed that there were 54% of the students who considered that the way the lecturers in giving the feedback were appropriate and another 30% strongly agreed with that. On the other hands, about 5% of the students thought in the opposite way. While the rest of the students did not think whether it was appropriate or not by being neutral.

30% 54%

11%

5% 0%

Figure 5. Appropriate Way of Giving Feedback

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

e) I do not put serious concern on the feedback.

It was obviously seen from Figure 6 that 75% of the students put serious concern on the feedback given by the lecturers and there were only 17% who did not. Some other students (17%) preferred to be neutral in responding the statement about the feedback given.

The students gave explanation on the open-response part that they put serious concern on the feedback because of some reasons. First, in their opinion the feedback was helpful. Second, they wanted to have better performance in the next teaching practice. The next reason was that they did not want to do the same mistake from the previous. The last thing was that by the feedback, they wanted to improve their teaching skill. On the other hands, the students being neutral was because they only put a little bit concern and one of them stated that she was accustomed to teach before having Microteaching class.

2% 6% 17% 59%

16%

Figure 6. Not Putting Serious Concern on the  Feedback

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

f) Feedback is important in improving my performance to be better.

Most of the students in Microteaching class considered feedback to be important in improving their performance. It could be seen from Figure 7 above that 49% of the students stated strongly agreed and another 42% of the students stated agreed in responding to the statement. However, the 6% of the students stated neutral about the statement and the rest 3% thought it was not important.

g) The feedback from the lecturers is more reliable than the peer.

The figure above showed that most of the students agreed (44%) and even strongly agreed (17%) that the feedback from the lecturers was more reliable than the peer. About 29% of the students stated neutral and the rest considered that the feedback from the lecturers was not reliable.

42% 49%

6% 0% 3%

Figure  7.  The Importance of the Feedback

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

17% 44% 29%

10% 0%

Figure  8. The reliability of Lecturers' Feedback

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

S7 : Ya uda cukup tapi sebenernya mungkin kalau itu diobrolin secara empat mata itu lebih bakalan mendalam.

RS : Terus kamu kan disini bilangnya kan cara ngasinya very objective? Maksudnya objective tu gimana disini?

S7 : Aku malah lupa e mbak, iya objective, ya maksudnya sesuai dengan kenyataan yang terjadi pas itu gitu lho. Jadi kalau menurutku gini, e, dosen C tu sering memberi pujian sama aku, cuman ga ga terus dia tu membuaiku dengan puji - pujian lain biar aku, apa, pokoknya habis tu dia tetap melihat mana yang kurang dan diperbaiki lagi, gitu.

RS : Oh, iya. Terus kamu ada saran ga, maksudnya tentang cara pemberian nya dan feedback nya dalam bentuk tentang apa aja ada saran ga? Saran - saran untuk dosen - dosen laen mungkin terutama untuk dosen C ini.

S7 : Mungkin kertas feedback nya jangan sekecil itu soalnya mungkin apa ya, terutama yang buat dosen itu tu sebenernya mereka tu pengen ngasi kita feedback yang lebih banyak gitu lho. Ga cuma segede gini dan itu mungkin, ehm feedback nya tu bisa dikasi tabel kek, misalnya setiap kriteria itu harus ada komennya misalnya dalam hal apa si introductionnya itu kurang apa atau sudah bagus. Terus dalam hal teaching performance secara overall itu gimana, terus ehm, set closure itu kurang apa, apa bgs apa, terus jadi setiap detail itu harus dikomentarin menurutku, heeh.

RS : Kalau caranya sendiri, maksudnya setelah ngajar apa ... kan ada yang 1 minggu setelah.

S7 : Ehm, ngasinya si ga ngaruh ya mbak, menurutku tapi yang kaya kemaren tu dah bagus kok, langsung dikasiin kok, gitu aja ga apa – apa, soalnya kan kalau semakin lama dikasiin, semakin lama ditunda kan mungkin lupa tho. Heeh.

RS : Oy sudah, makasih.

8. Code : S8 (Student 8)

Class : G

Lecturer : C

Interview topic : Perception Interview Date of Interview : May 25th 2010 Interviewer ID : RS

Transcriber : Riskisari Restuningtyas

RS : Kalau dikelas micro ngajarnya yang dikelas sendiri berapa kali? S8 : Yang dikelas dosen C itu? 3.

RS : Itu apa, e, feedbacknya kelompok - kelompok gitu apa sendiri – sendiri? S8 : Ngajar kelas besar.

RS : Terus kamu waktu yang pertama ngerasa sukses ga? S8 : Ehm, ga de kayanya.

RS : Ga, kenapa?

S8 : Tu kan baru latian yang pertama kali terus nyoba gitu terus ya banyak nervousnya.

129

RS : Terus kamu dari ngajarnya itu dapet feedback kan dari dosen C ya? Itu dia ngasi feedback apa tentang ngajarmu?

S8 : Ehm, apa ya mbak. Apa ya? Kayanya tu dikasi feedback nya tu yang kedua tu lho yang diksi kertas.

RS : Na, itu apa?

S8 : Itu tu katanya si harus bisa manage time nya soalnya kan waktunya pendek, terus ini apa, harus menyesuaikan, harus adjust bahasanya kalau ngadepin anak SMA, terus apa lagi ya, ehm.

RS : Kalau cara ngajarnya? S8 : Apanya tu ya, lupa mbak. RS : Terus itu dalam bentuk apa? S8 : Writing.

RS : Terus itu dikasiny kapan?

S8 : Langsung habis ngajar kan langsung dikasi. RS : Berarti ga oral/ jadi langsung dikasi tertulis ya? S8 : Iya.

RS : Terus menurutmu gimana feedbacknya? Bikin kamu termotivasi apa jadi bkin kamu ...?

S8 : Iya sih, soalnya kan dosen C kan slain ngasi kaya apa, apa si tu, ngasi saran - saran tu kan jadi kita dikasi segi, eh apa positif nya dari kita, apa, jadinya kita termotivasi buat o iya ya, o iy ya, o iy ya.

RS : Terus kalau yang, sekarang kan dah dapat feedback, terus kamu ngerasa yang ngajar ke-2 sukses ga?

S8 : Yang kedua kan ini, apa, oh iya dheng ya, yang kedua yang final test kemarin ya, hihiihi, ga de kayanya, mbak.

RS : Kenapa?

S8 : Kan persiapannya kan sehari sebelum final kan baru dapat materinya. RS : Kamu nya, apa dari ...

S8 : Aku nya. Terus ya kan dosen C nya ga ada kan, terus anak - anaknya tu pada rame - rame gitu lho, pada uuuu, hi miss, hi miss, kaya gitu. Kacau. RS : Oh, gitu. Tapi ada yang berubah ga dari yang pertama itu?

S8 : Ehm, iya si kaya nya tu kita jadi lebih santai ngajarnya, ya ga kaya pertama kali.

RS : Tapi feedback nya berpengaruh ga? Itu buat kamu jadi lebih berubah dari sebelumnya?

S8 : Iya kan kemaren ak ngajarnya SMA, terus yang terakhir kemaren SMK. Jadi kan kita ngomongnya, e, jadi kan pertama kali tu ngomongnya pake Bahasa Inggris semua kan, terus dosen C nya gini, “Kamu kan harus adjust bahasa kamu kalau ngadepin anak SMA.” trus kemaren, ya kemaren separo Bahasa Inggris separo Bahasa Indonesia, kaya gitu.

RS : Kalau dari secara performanceny, kamu kan kemaren dinilai dari dosen C dapat feedback, ada yang berubah ga? Mungkin cara ngajar kamu atau metodenya atau apa?

S8 : Ya itu tadi, kayanya apa ya, manage time nya juga kan, kita heeh kita bikin, apa RPP nya, eh heeh, tu kan jadi kita harus bisa nyesuain, harus sama kaya yang di lesson plan itu.

RS : Paling ga kamu yang time management itu kamu uda jadi berubah itu. S8 : Heeh.

RS : Terus habis itu e, ni sudah to, terus kalau feedback, berarti feedback yang pertama itu mempengaruhi ga secara langsung? Kamu jadi berubah jadi berbeda dari sebelumnya.

S8 : Ehm.

RS : Apa mungkin biasa aja, ga ada perubahan?

S8 : Kalau langsung si mungkin ga, ya soalnya kan kalau langsung kan habis dikasi feedback kita ngajar lagi, jadi kita, soalnya ak kan langsung feedback dikasi, terus beberapa minggu lagi gitu, baru ngajar lagi.

RS : Terus menurutmu isi feedbacknya sendiri dah pas belum? Jadi tentang itu - itu yang dikasi dari dosen C gitu uda pas belum?

S8 : Ehm, sudah de kayanya.

RS : Terus kalau cara ngasinya, misalnya waktu sama formatnya, menurutmu sudah pas belum kalau kaya gitu?

S8 : Ehm, kalau dosen C, formatnya?

RS : Kan formatnya tertulis ya? Menurut mu tertulis terus dikasinya setelah ngajar itu sudah pas belum? Kan ada dosen laen yang kasinya berapa minggu kaya gitu.

S8 : Kayanya si pas ya, soalnya kan kita jadi tau, kita kan masi inget. Kalau dikasi directly kan masi inget jadi ngajarnya gimana. Terus oiya ya kita, terus ada video nya itu kan, terus jadi bisa bandingin, oh iya, dosen C bisa bilangin. RS : Terus kamu ada ga saran untuk dosen - dosen kedepannya kalau misalnya ngasi feedback harusnya dalam bentuk apa, terus kapan ngasinya atau isinya feedbacknya?

S8 : Hihihi. RS : Apa?

S8 : Ya tertulis aja kayanya, soalnya kan kita bisa inget kan. Kalau soal evaluasinya kan bisa oral, cuma kalau feedbacknya kan better kan ditulis. RS : Oh gitu, tapi kalau menurutmu oral bisa lebih itu g? Kena gitu ga? S8 : Ehm, kalau kemaren dosen C tu yang oral tu yang kaya cuma evaluasi, ee kaya gitu.

RS : Tapi cuma general gitu ya? Ga perorangan? Berarti kalau menurutmu, tertulis aja dah cukup?

S8 : Iya si kayanya sudah mewakili, tapi kalau tambah oral juga ga apa - apa si.

RS : Jadi menurutmu ya tertulis aja bagus, tambah oral juga y. Ok, thanks ya. 9. Code : S9 (Student 9)

Class : G

Lecturer : C

Interview topic : Perception Interview Date of Interview : May 26th 2010 Interviewer ID : RS

131

RS : Kalau dikelas prakteknya ngajar berapa kali? S9 : 2x.

RS : Terus waktu ngajar yang pertama kali ngerasa sukses ga?

S9 : Ga, karena yang pertama itu time management nya itu, e apa, ga pas dengan waktunya. Aku kan fokus pada exercise nya sehingga ketika time, e, waktunya habis, e, set closurenya tu belum. Jadi aku harus berhenti.

RS : Terus feedback yang didapat dari mengajar itu apa?

S9 : Feedback yang aku dapat dari mengajar itu, e, lebih pada materi, tingkat kesulitan materi dan time management.

RS : Berarti 2 masalah itu ya? Terus feedbacknya tu dalam bentuk tertulis atau oral?

S9 : Tertulis.

RS : Terus dikasinya kapan? S9 : Setelah saya habis praktek itu.

RS : Berarti setelah sekelas itu ngajar y? E, terus menurut anda feedbacknya gimana? Uda cukup? Maksudnya, apa yang ada di pikiran anda setelah dapat feedback itu?

S9 : Menurut saya feedback itu ya membantu memotivasi saya dalam mengembangkan keterampilan mengajar itu sendiri.

RS : Bikin semangat apa bikin, ah ini apa. S9 : Mestinya bikin semangat.

RS : Terus kan dapat feedback yang ke-2 saya ngerasa sukses ga?

S4 : Ya, karena materinya tu lebih bisa dimengerti oleh siswanya trus time nya tu pas, bisa di manage dengan baik.

RS : Berarti pokoknya dari kemaren tu ada perubahan ya? S9 : Iya. Iya.

RS : E, berarti secara ga langsung feedbacknya tu jadi salah satu faktor sukses nya ya?

S9 : Iya – iya.

RS : Terus menurut anda feedback yang dikasi dosen sudah cukup? Isinya tentang materi, gesture, apa - apa itu sudah cukup?

S9 : Ehm, menurut saya si feedback itu butuh lebih si feedback nya. Maksudnya ga hanya segitu aja.

RS : Lebih detail gitu ya. S9 : Iya, lebih detail.

RS : Terus kalau cara, waktu pemberian dan bentuk dari feedbacknya tu sudah pas belum?

S9 : Menurut saya sih sudah pas lah karena diberi pada saat setelah performance nya.

RS : Terus anda ada ga saran - saran untuk dosennya kedepannya biar feedbacknya ngajarnya bagus?

S9 : Ya untuk kedepanya tu baiknya dikasi lebih detail supaya mahasiswanya tu tau gimana kelemahannya, dimana, di materi atau apa lah performancenya gitu.

vii ABSTRACT

Restuningtyas, Riskisari. 2010. Students’ Perception on The Supervisor’s Feedback in Improving Students’ Teaching Performance in Microteaching Class. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

Microteaching is a subject designed to prepare the students of English Language Education Study Program to be qualified teacher candidates. In preparing the students to be able to teach well, feedback is an important factor that could help the students to improve their teaching skills. Feedback shows the students their strengths and weaknesses in the teaching practice so the students could develop the strengths and improve the weaknesses. Moreover, through the feedback, lecturers provide the students with suggestions on how to teach well.

The research was done on the students of English Language Education Study Program who took three different Microteaching classes in academic year 2010/2011. Three problems were discussed on the research. The first is about what the feedback from the lecturers is. Second, it is about the students’ perception on the supervisor’s feedback in improving students’ performance in microteaching class. The last to be discussed is students’ suggestions for the supervisor in giving the feedback. The research was started with the observation which was done on some meetings in Microteaching classes. It was followed by distributing questionnaire to the students of three different Microteaching classes. The writer also interviewed nine students; three students from three different classes, to gain deeper information about the students’ perception on the feedback given by the lecturers.

Based on the data analysis, lecturers had a different way in giving the feedback to the students. Through the observations and the questionnaire, in Class A, feedback was given directly after the class, individually and generally whether in a spoken or written form. In class B, feedback was given in an additional meeting; after all the students had practiced teaching. The feedback was given to all students in general and in spoken form. Feedback in class C was given after each students had practiced teaching in a written for. Although the lecturers gave the feedback in many ways, the perceptions of all the students in Microteaching class were positive. Students considered the feedback to be helpful in improving their performance in Microteaching class as it provides the description of the students’ strengths and weaknesses on their teaching. Through this research, the students stated that they put serious concern on the feedback for their teaching improvement in Microteaching class.

viii

ABSTRAK

Restuningtyas, Riskisari. 2010. Students’ Perception on The Supervisor’s Feedback in Improving Students’ Teaching Performance in Microteaching Class. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Pendidian Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Mata kuliah Microteaching dirancang untuk mempersiapkan mahasiswa program studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris sebagai calon guru yang berkualitas. Dalam mempersiapkan mahasiswanya untuk dapat mengajar dengan baik, umpan balik adalah suatu sarana yang dapat membantu mahasiswa untuk mengembangkan kemampuan mereka dalam mengajar. Umpan balik memberikan gambaran akan kelebihan dan kekurangan mahasiswa pada saat praktik mengajar, sehingga mahasiswa mampu mengembangkan kelebihan dan memperbaiki kekurangannya tersebut. Selain itu melalui umpan balik, dosen memberikan saran – saran kepada mahasiswa mengenai bagaimana cara mengajar yang baik.

Penelitian dilakukan terhadap mahasiswa program studi pendidikan bahasa inggris yang mengambil mata kuliah di tiga kelas Microteaching yang berbeda pada tahun ajaran 2010/2011. Ada tiga masalah yang dibahas dalam penilitian ini. Yang pertama adalah umpan balik apa yang diberikan oleh dosen. Permasalahan yang kedua adalah persepsi mahasiswa terhadap umpan balik dari dosen dalam meningkatkan penampilan mahasiswa di kelas Microteaching. Masalah terakhir yang akan dibahas dalam penelitian ini adalah saran mahasiswa kepada dosen mengenai cara pemberian umpan balik terhadapa para mahasiswa. Penelitian diawali dengan pelaksanaan observasi pada beberapa pertemuan di kelas Microteaching. Dilanjutkan dengan pembagian kuesioner kepada mahasiswa dari tiga kelas Microteaching yang berbeda. Untuk mendapatkan informasi yang lebih mendalam mengenai persepsi mahasiswa, penulis melakukan wawancara terhadap sembilan mahasiswa Microteaching, masing – masing tiga mahasiswa dari tiap kelas.

Berdasarkan analisis data, setiap dosen Microteaching memberikan umpan balik dengan cara yang berbeda. Berdasarkan observasi dan hasil kuesioner di kelas A, umpan balik diberikan setelah kelas selesai secara individu maupun secara umum dengan lisan dan tertulis. Umpan balik di kelas B diberikan pada satu pertemuan tambahan, yaitu setelah semua mahasiswa mendapatkan giliran mengajar. Umpan balik diberikan secara umum dan lisan kepada semua siswa. Di kelas terakhir, yaitu kelas C, umpan balik diberikan setelah mahasiswa selesai mengajar dalam bentuk tulisan. Bagaimanapun cara dosen dalam memberikan umpan balik, persepsi mahasiswa mengenai umpan balik yang diberikan dosen adalah positif. Mahasiswa beranggapan bahwa umpan balik sangat membantu mereka dalam meningkatkan kemampuan mereka dalam mengajar karena umpan balik menunjukkan kelebihan dan kekurangan mereka dalam mengajar. Dari hasil penelitian, mahasiswa menyatakan bahwa umpan balik menjadi sesuatu yang penting untuk diperhatikan demi kemajuan mereka di kelas Microteaching.