1 ALTERNATIVE CO-TEACHING IN PRACTICAL LESSON TO TEACH SPEAKING AT SMK - SMTI PONTIANAK AN ARTICLE

ALTERNATIVE CO-TEACHING IN PRACTICAL LESSON TO TEACH
SPEAKING AT SMK - SMTI PONTIANAK

AN ARTICLE
BY
MARWANDI
NIM F2201151030

MASTERS STUDY PROGRAM OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
TANJUNGPURA UNIVERSITY
PONTIANAK
2018

1

2

ALTERNATIVE CO-TEACHING IN PRACTICAL LESSON TO TEACH
SPEAKING AT SMK - SMTI PONTIANAK

Marwandi, Yohanes Gatot Sutapa, Urai Salam
Masters Study Program of English Language Education
Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Tanjungpura University, Pontianak
marwandi81@yahoo.com

Abstract
This paper was a classroom action research aiming at answering and finding out on how the
implementation and how teachers’ collaboration through alternative co-teaching improved the
students’ speaking in grammar, pronunciation, fluency, and process explanation at Vocational High
School (SMK) SMTI Pontianak. This study involved 28 students from Year – 11 students of
academic year 2016/2017. The data were collected through observation, field note, questionnaire
and test. The result indicated that the use of microphone and speaker were needed to avoid noise
level in the workshop and keep the quality of the students’ speaking tests better and clear. The
productive teacher used bilingual during briefing; especially technical words related to parts of the
machine, personal protective equipment, and process of making a product. The students were able
to describe the machine used including parts and its functions, personal protective equipment, and
process of making a product based on the job sheet given by the productive teacher. Alternative coteaching in practical lesson also helped the students to describe process fluently, accurately, and
grammatically. Moreover, the students have more time to practice English orally in practical lesson
where the teaching hour is three times longer than the regular English classroom.
Keywords: Collaboration, Alternative Co-teaching, Practical lesson

plans, expressing different kinds of intention,
understanding
simple
instruction
and
manuals/SOPs, and understanding and writing
short messages, instructions and directions
using correct words and punctuation. All of
those competences are real life use and related
to the skills they need after graduating from the
school to promote their jobs.
However, problems are identified during
English learning at VET. It lies on lack of
speaking skills. There are several reasons why
speaking skills in English language learning
are rather difficult for Year – 11 students of
Class B of SMK-SMTI Pontianak. First, the
use of power point and lecturing model in
delivering materials for the students were
previously preferred by the teacher to achieve

the competencies established in the curriculum.
As the result, 74.01% of the Year – 11 students
of Class B have lack of interest in English due
to the teaching technique used by the teacher.
Second, having lack of vocabularies related to

The curriculum of 2006s was designed in
some approaches; academic, life skills,
competency-based curriculum, broad based
curriculum, and production based curriculum.
The material for basic vocational competency
is adjusted to the need of expertise to meet the
standard of working competency at working
sector. Therefore, SMK SMTI is using the
curriculum of 2006.
Likewise, Vocational Education and
Education Training (VET) requires its students
to learn English inside the classroom. Its
curriculum states seven competences that
should be achieved by Year - 11 students of

Class B in order to complete the course;
understanding simple daily conversations in
professional and non-professional contexts
with non-native speakers, understanding
simple messages through direct and indirect
communication,
describing
jobs
and
background of studies both written and orally,
describing past events and future working

3

the students’ major and lack of opportunity to
practice resulting 37% of the students claimed
that speaking were their main obstacles in
learning English. Meanwhile 25.93% is
listening and 3.7% is writing. It means that
after they graduate from the school, speaking

skill is used more to promote their job than
other language skills; listening and writing.
Therefore, teaching English as a foreign
language requires the use of effective learning
methods, techniques, or activities promoting
the speaking.
Based on the researcher’s observation,
traditionally vocational English language
teaching in SMK-SMTI Pontianak for Year –
11 students of Class B is still based on teachercentered where it sometimes neglects the
students’ participation in the classroom
actively. The demand for speaking skill,
especially English related to the students’
major (92.59%) are needed.
Moreover, the limitation of English
teaching hours based on the national
curriculum for the Year – 11 students of Class
B is four hours of teaching in a week to
complete seven competences in one year; four
competences in first semester and three

competences in second semester. Thus, it will
affect the chance for the students to practice
shorter than usual and even will not achieve
the teaching and learning goals planned. In
speaking test for understanding simple
instruction and manuals/SOPs the teacher
usually asks the students to make a
presentation of power point in a group of 4 or 5
students in the classroom and they are scored
based on the group presentation. In delivering
the presentation, the students tend to see the
power point presented rather than understand
the materials being presented.
Therefore, English language teachers in
this case should create a unique style of
teaching by conducting teachers’ collaboration
through alternative co-teaching between
English teacher and productive teacher during
practical lesson in the workshop or laboratory
in order to have more opportunities to practice

and also prepare the students for ASEAN
Economic Community. The alternative coteaching in this context is partnering of

productive subject teacher and English
language subject teacher who share the class,
the students, instructional materials, and
authority to achieve the goals. The co-teaching
model is conducted in mechanical engineering
workshop during the practical lesson.
Similar research about parent – school
personnel collaboration (McCarthy, Brennan,
& Vecchiarello, 2011), co-teaching between
ESL teacher and general education teacher
(Honigsfeld & Dove, 2010), native English
teacher – non native English teacher
collaboration (You, 2015), NETs and NNETs
in Chinese primary schools (Liu, 2008), had
been conducted where both teachers appear in
the same time in one classroom to deliver the
instructional materials. All of them are

resulting better teaching effect and improve the
students’ achievements. To this researcher’s
knowledge, no studies have been done yet on
teachers’ collaboration through alternative coteaching between English language teacher and
productive teacher in vocational high school
(SMK) in workshop. Thus, this research fills in
this gap in the literature by focusing on such
collaboration for Year – 11 students of Class B
in SMK- SMTI Pontianak.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Researches on teachers’ collaboration
have been conducted for many years to build a
collaborative school culture, improve teachers’
professionalism and the quality of the teaching
learning process. Therefore, the researcher
assumes that it is also appropriate to apply coteaching in SMK-SMTI Pontianak.
Co-teaching occurs when two teachers
collaborate actively to participate in delivering
instruction, sharing responsibility for all the
students. The teachers might be general

education teacher and a specialist, reading
specialist, therapist, or bilingual teacher as a
partner. As a partnership between two
professional with different types of expertise,
co-teaching is considered as a solution to
overcome difficulties for a solo teacher in
classroom. In co-teaching, every teacher may
take part differently for the contribution, but
together they create a learning situation which

4

small groups (Stark, 2015), it is effective when
done well, to have two brains are better than
one in the classroom, focused attention may be
given to subgroups’ unique needs, there is
extensive opportunity for peer learning, it is
ideal for tiered lessons and tasks or other forms
of differentiated instruction in the alternative
approach, and there is consistency with

particular groups. In addition, this kind of
collaboration encompasses team teaching who
shares their expertise, materials, skills,
equipment, techniques of teaching, time, and
physical classroom space to improve student
learning (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2010).
However, it also has some challenges
which should be considered in implementing
co-teaching. Since it may appear as two
separate classes being run in the same room,
the noise level might interfere with information
processing during the teaching and learning
hour. Many teachers are not willing to do it
because it requires extra class and time (Stark,
2015). Teachers need a lot of time to plan and
sometimes to have lack of willingness to share
the teaching/planning process and resources
might sabotage the classroom; especially in
parallel teaching approach. In addition, it needs
a good amount of planning and organization

since co-teaching is like a marriage; some
work and others do not work (Honigsfeld &
Dove, 2010). Thus, it is suitable to be applied
in SMK SMTI Pontianak where all teachers
working hours are from 7 a.m to 4 p.m and of
course they have more time to collaborate one
another. Besides, not only the materials are
authentic to be used by productive teachers,
but also the use of technical English terms
(English for Specific Purposes) in productive
lessons usually happens during the teaching
learning process in the workshop.
The goals of teaching speaking should
enhance students’ communicative skills to
express themselves and learn how to follow the
social and cultural rules in communicative
circumstances required by today’s world
(Kayi, 2006).
Giving students practice with both
accuracy and fluency in speaking are
important. Accuracy refers to the extent of
appropriate
vocabulary
selection
and

cannot be created by a solo teacher (Friend &
Cook, 2010).
Friend & Cook (2010) explains in details
about six approaches of co-teaching applied in
professionals
planning
and
delivering
instruction based on the students needs and the
instructional purposes; 1) one teaches one
observes, in which one teacher is as the leader
of the group instruction while the other is
gathering academic, behavioral, or social data
on specific students or the class group, 2)
station teaching, in which the class is divided
into three groups, rotate from one station to
station in turn, being taught by the teachers at
two stations and working independently at the
third station, 3) parallel teaching, in which the
class is divided into two groups equally, each
with half the class group, delivers the same
material for the main purpose of fostering
instructional differentiation and increasing
student participation, 4) alternative teaching, in
which one teacher teaches with most students
while the other works with a small group for
remediation, enrichment, assessment, preteaching, or another purpose, 5) teaming, in
which both teachers work with large group by
both lecturing and share all the class
instruction including solving the problems in
two ways and so on, and 6) one teaches one
assists, in which one teacher leads instruction
while the other observes, rotates among the
students offering individual assistance.
Co-teaching should have a general
educator or teacher as a partner. There are also
other professionals who might be involved in
co-teaching; English as a second language
(ESL) teacher, high-ability teacher, specialist,
a school psychologist may all be involved in a
co-teaching situation as long as both teachers
are licensed professionals and commit to
collaborate and improve the students outcome
at the end (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2010).
Once teachers have tried to conduct
teachers’ collaboration, there will be great
opportunities for them to fulfill each other in
improving their professionalism as teachers
and solve problems occurred in the classroom.
Many advantages gained through co-teaching;
it has positive feedbacks from colleague whom
we collaborate with, it decreases class size into

5

acceptable learners’ speech grammar. It is
important to correct pronunciation, vocabulary,
and grammar errors either by interrupting
directly or providing feedback after the
learners have finished talking. Meanwhile,
fluency is the extent to acceptable speed with
few false starts and hesitations of the learners
can speak. It is not always focusing on the
accuracy, as long as they can comprehend one
another and they can deliver the message to the
listener (Nunan, 2015). The issues of fluency
and accuracy often brings whether the
speaking technique should be message oriented
or language oriented (Brown, 2000).
Nunan (2015) also found the greatest
challenges in EFL classroom were having lack
of motivation and the students were hard to
speak except they were asked to do so.
Moreover, the use of first language was too
dominant. The number of the students in one
classroom was also large thus it limited the
students’ opportunities to talk and to be given
feedback by the teacher. Most of the research
evidence shows that the students are seldom to
be given opportunities to engage various
spoken language contexts for their regular
school experience (Howe, 2005). Even though
the curriculum has demanded a change in
teaching learning process, the way it is taught
impervious to change. When teaching speaking
skills, EFL teachers need to be skillful to
organize the class activities which are
authentic, motivating, and varied (Lazaraton,
2001). Besides conducting co-teaching in the
practical lesson in the mechanical engineering
workshop, pair and group work are considered
the most effective way to increase students’
talking time. Pair and group work may also
maximize the opportunities for the students to
engage in real life conversation, developing
skills in turn-taking, speaker selection and
change and so on (Nunan, 2015).
Since traditionally vocational English
language teaching in SMK-SMTI Pontianak is
still based on teacher-centered especially in
speaking activities, it sometimes neglects the
students’ participation in the classroom
actively. The single mode of teaching; teachercentered, has lack of individualization and
style (You, 2015). This single style of teaching

has some problems for example it tends to
limit the students’ personality development,
harm students’ interest in English study and
sometimes ignore the existing differences
among students.
In order to solve the problem, co-teaching
was applied at SMK-SMTI Pontianak to teach
speaking about describing process for the
Year- 11 students of Class B. It was applied by
using alternative teaching approach; one
teacher teaches with most students while the
other works with a small group for
remediation, enrichment, assessment, preteaching, or another purpose (Friend & Cook,
2010).
The steps to implement alternative coteaching based on Lassonde & Israel (2010) to
Year – 11 of Class B students at SMK-SMTI
Pontianak are: 1) getting to know; finding a
productive teacher who would like to
collaborate in order to improve the students’
learning either in English or productive subjet,
and decide where and when to meet, 2) sharing
perspectives and talents; sharing each other
about problems faced during teaching learning
process and the efforts to solve them including
the strategy or technique used in the class
including the job distributions when
implementing co-teaching, 3) supporting each
other’s efforts and learning; designing lesson
plan and implementing co-teaching. The first
meeting was in English language class where
the English language teacher explained about
the objectives and the lessons learnt. In the
first meeting as well, the teacher gave the
assigment to the students to do monolog about
describing process including manuals/SOPs of
machine. In the second meeting, it was in the
mechanical engineering workshop during the
practical of productive lesson hour. Before
starting the class, regularly, the students were
given a short briefing about safety induction
and explained about the job sheet and
operation plan for today. The job sheet is a
technical drawing of the product made
including its precision of the measurement.
Meanwhile the operation plan is the working
procedures to make the product designed by
the students from the job sheet. Both teachers;
productive and English language teachers

6

appeared in the same time. After briefing, the
students were seperated into two, 14 students
practiced to make the product with productive
teacher, meanwhile the other 14 students were
handled by the English language teacher for
alternative purposes. During the process of
practice, the students who were handled by
English language teacher had monolog oral test
about
describing
process
including
manuals/SOPs learnt, 4) exploring the
possibilities; reflecting about the co-teaching
process for the next meeting improvement, 5)
ongoing conversation; discussing what both
teachers could continue to offer their coteacher in order to develop understanding how
the research applied the students and also
could learn from the expertise of their coteacher.
Traditionally teachers taught in the
classroom alone and had less or even no
professional discussion with their colleagues
(Ertesvåg, 2011). This is what the researcher
usually does in teaching English language for
Year – 11 students at SMK-SMTI Pontianak.
Teachers are different with one another from
the aspects of knowledge, intelligence
experiences. As a result, there are also
differences in dealing with the choice of
teaching method, teaching strategy, teaching
content, and overall design of teaching.
Creativity created in the classroom is an
alternative solution to solve this problem
during the teaching learning process last. As
Stevick (2010) explains in Maley (2015) that
creativity in the classroom is how the teacher
conducts possible activities for the students to
do, not just by what the teacher does by giving
learning space to create a secure feeling for the
students or learners in the class. Creating
something new, perceiving old things in new
ways is the core for the creativity (Maley,
2003).
Schrage (1990) in Montiel defines
collaboration is the process of creativity shared
between two or more individuals with different
expertise to create a shared understanding that
none had previously possessed or could have
come to on their own. Through a shared vision
and shared objectives, student learning
opportunities are created that integrate subject

content and information literacy by coplanning, co-implementing, and co-evaluating
students’ progress throughout the instructional
process in order to improve student learning in
all areas of the curriculum (Montiel, 2005).
Collaboration creates a shared meaning about
process, a product, or an event. In this sense,
there is nothing routine about it. Something is
there that wasn’t there before. Even though
collaboration can occur with other media, other
people would be the best among others. A
similar definition stated by John-Steiner,
Weber, and Minnis (1998) in Montiel that the
principles in a true collaboration represent
complementary area of expertise. As
collaborators, not only do they plan, decide,
and act jointly; they also think together,
combining independent conceptual schemes to
create original frameworks based on the
learning needs. There is also a commitment to
shared instructional resources, authority, and
strengths.
Through collaboration, teachers can share
their experience, inspire and learn each other,
list their strengths and weaknesses, also
conduct new ideas together to perfect the
teaching learning process. By practicing in
every stage in teaching through collaboration
among teachers, teachers can have their own
unique teaching style to increase the students’
interests for a better teaching effect (You,
2015).
It is important for a teacher to be
professional.
By
conducting
teachers’
collaboration, it leads the teacher to develop
his expertise professionally. McCann and
Radford (1993) in Rhodes, Stokes, and
Hamton (2004) indicated that by involving in
collaboration with their colleagues teachers
reported benefits from this collaborative
activity. The study was also suggested that
teachers felt their communication skills were
improved through collaboration. It gave them a
sharper work-related focus, increased time they
spent to reflect what they had been done, and
enhanced their self confidence and esteem in
teaching. In order to succeed their own work,
teachers are highly motivated to participate
with one another to the level they need. Thus,
collaborative working needs to be seen as part

7

lasting; peer-networking, coaching, and
mentoring, as the process of reflecting for the
teachers who collaborate each other.

of the school or college culture which can
greatly affect the organization development
(Rhodes, Stokes, & Hamton, 2004).
In addition, participation in more
collaborative professional communities will
affect the students’ learning improvement
(Vescio A. & Adams, 2008). Implementing the
collaborative culture among teachers to
improve teaching practice and increase
students’ achievement in schools are regarded
as important role of collaboration and
development (Waldron & McLeskey, 2010).
Since teachers usually teach the students alone
in the classrooms to face the problems in real
condition, conducting collaboration might be a
motivation
factor.
Therefore,
teacher
collaboration is presumed to be the best
learning environment for teachers’ professional
development (Meirink & Verloop, 2007). The
professional development itself aims to raise
the standards of the learners’ achievement for
example improving classroom performance,
preparing teachers for a certain role within the
organization, preparing teachers for roles in
management and leadership, and enabling of
sharing good practice through networking
arrangements among teachers.
One of the unique forms of teacher’s
collaboration is collaborative teaching (coteaching). Co-teaching is defined as the
partnering of general education teacher and
special education teacher or another specialist
for the purpose of jointly delivering instruction
to a vary group of students, including those
with disabilities or other special needs, in
general education setting to meet the learning
needs (Hines, 2009). In addition, by having a
partner in co-teaching it provides opportunities
for professional development of both teachers
merging their different knowledge to produce a
new integrated knowledge. The networks
between the teachers are opened leading the
knowledge sharing becomes easier and more
fluid (Creese, 2005). Applying co-teaching is
not easy for many of us due to co-teaching
requires teachers to reshape their thinking,
modify instructional practice and accept
change (Hines, 2009).
In conducting co-teaching there are three
terms may appear during the process is

RESEARCH METHOD
Classroom action research modified from
Kemmis, McTaggart, & Nixon design (2014)
was used as the research design. Since
classroom action research aims how to
improve the teachers’ own practices (Kemmis,
McTaggart, & Nixon, 2014) especially in the
classroom process, school curriculum,
evaluation, and parent participation (Grey,
2004), the researcher in this case improved the
students’ speaking skills in describing process
through alternative co-teaching in two cycles
in which each cycle consisted of four phases;
planning, acting, observing, and reflecting.
The subject of the study was the Year –
11 students of Class B of SMK-SMTI
Pontianak in academic year 2016/2017
consisted of twenty eight mechanical
engineering male students. The researcher
decided to take this class as a sample because
the students found difficulties in practicing
their speaking from the previous reflection.
In the planning phase, both English
language and productive teachers integrated
the materials which were related to the
syllabus to design the lesson plan. In this phase
also, the field note, posttest and observation
checklist for the teacher and the students were
prepared.
In the acting phase the researcher gathers
evidence needed for the research in the
classroom. In acting phase of classroom action
study, there were three main parts used in the
classroom activity; pre-activity, whilstactivity, and post-activity. The first meeting
was in English language class where the
English language teacher explained about the
objectives of the lessons learnt and gave the
assignment to the students to do a monolog
about simple instruction in describing a
process and manuals/SOPs of machine. In the
second meeting, it was in the mechanical
engineering workshop during the practical of
productive lesson hour. Before starting the
class, the students were given a short briefing
about safety induction and explained about the
job sheet and operation plan to do. Both

8

productive and English language teachers
appeared in the same time. After briefing, the
students were separated into two, 14 students
practiced to make the product with productive
teacher, meanwhile the other 14 students were
handled by the English language teacher for
alternative purposes.
The researcher observed the students’
achievement by using speaking rubric.
Meanwhile the observation checklist was used
by the collaborator to investigate and evaluate
the implementation of alternative co-teaching
during teaching and learning process. The
information obtained from the acting phase
during the teaching and learning process was
very useful to recognize the effect of the
treatment given. The quantitative data covered
the results from teacher’s observation checklist
done by collaborator and the students’ progress
based on the students’ speaking score while the
qualitative data comprised the students’
interest and responses toward English teaching
in preliminary research.
The tools of data collection used were
teacher’s observation checklist, field note,
questionnaire, test and audio video recording.
All data gathered from observation sheet, field
note, and questionnaire were compared,
contrasted, and cross checked to support the
findings of the research. The researcher
designed the procedures of teaching into lesson
plan then implements them in two cycles. The
changing of the procedures in cycles was
reported in the field note. The researcher
conducted inter-rater reliability; the researcher
and the collaborator were the raters for the
students’ speaking test. The classroom
observations in this research were done by
colleague to observe the aspects of teaching
practice and students’ involvement in the
teaching and learning activities. The
observation checklist was modified from
instrument of teaching and learning activity
supervision at SMK-SMTI Pontianak. The
speaking test was conducted in mechanical
engineering workshop individually and used to
find out the students’ progress or change from
cycle to another cycle. Questionnaire was used
before and after the alternative co-teaching
conducted to find out the students’ response.

Meanwhile, audio video recording was used to
record in detail every moment due to the
limitation of the researcher.
After collecting the data, the researcher
analyzed the data of teaching and learning
process. Then, the researcher reflected himself
by seeing the result of the observation, whether
the teaching and learning process of speaking
through alternative co-teaching was good to
apply for Year- 11 students of Class B of
SMK-SMTI Pontianak or not. If the first plan
was unsuccessful, proven by the students’
achievement, the researcher made the next plan
(re-planning) to solve the students’ problems
until the alternative co-teaching improved the
students’ speaking score and the teacher’s
technique in implementing it.
RESEARCH
FINDINGS
AND
DISCUSSION
Research Findings
The research was conducted in two cycles
and every cycle consisted of two meetings; 1
meeting in the classroom and 1 meeting in the
workshop.
In the first cycle, few unexpected things
happened during the implementation of
alternative co-teaching whether in the
classroom or in the workshop. The teacher
missed few things in his teaching practice.
First, the teacher did not explain material
clearly about how to describe process. The
teacher only asked the students to include
about personal protective equipment, the parts
of the machine used, and the process how to
make a product in their explanation without
telling in details how to do it. Second, the
teacher spent too much time in task 2 in the
classroom by reading a loud the text for 3
times so that the students could fill in the
blanks provided. Moreover, the students also
spent too much time to memorize the material
about describing process in the workshop.
Therefore, the time allocation was not very
successfully arranged. Third, the teacher did
not use microphone and speaker for the
students in conducting oral test in the
workshop. The noise level was quite high
during the practical lesson in the workshop.
Thus, it affected the quality of the students’

9

intended in his teaching learning process in the
workshop, such as for the parts of the machine,
job sheet given and the technical terms related
to their major. For the last activity, the teacher
involved the students to summarize the
materials taught.
There were 24 students (88.89%) who
explained in detail covering three aspects:
personal protective equipment and their
functions, parts of the machine and their
functions, and the process. There were only 3
students (11.11%) explaining 2 out of 3 aspects
and none of the students (0%) explaining 1 out
of 3 aspects or only mention one of three
aspects required.
After conducting cycle 2, the researcher
and collaborator teacher reflected on the
practice again. From the reflection, the teacher
and the collaborator teacher found out that the
students had already made some improvements
in their scores. It happened due to the
improvement of the teaching and learning
process from cycle 1 to cycle 2. Based on the
problems identified in cycle 1, the teacher had
revised the process well. Starting with
explaining the material clearly in order to be
understood by the students, arranging tasks
carefully with the activities conducted to help
the students to overcome their problems,
involving the students to summarize the lesson,
using microphone and speaker to make audio
quality better, involving the productive teacher
to use bilingual in the practical lesson and
doing drills and repetitions in every meeting
more often. He did not repeat his mistakes in
cycle 1; not explaining the material clearly,
spending too much time in one activity,
forgetting to involve students in summarizing
the lesson, and not using microphone and
speaker to record the audio.

audio and video. Last, the teacher summarized
the material by himself. The teacher forgot to
involve the students in summarizing the
material learnt and inform the next meeting
material
There were 3 students who were absent in
cycle 1 because of being sick. Therefore, only
25 students were tested. Some students had
also lack of pronunciation for certain words
related to the personal protective equipment,
parts of the machine, and the process how to
make it such as; function, work piece, thread,
machine, wear pack, lathe, and groove. Only 4
students (16%) who explained in detail
covering three aspects; personal protective
equipment and their functions, parts of the
machine and their functions, and the process.
There were 14 students (56%) explaining 2 out
of 3 aspects and 4 students (16%) explaining 1
out of 3 aspects. And there were 3 students
(12%) who only mentioned one of three
aspects required.
After acting out and observing the
teaching practice, the researcher and
collaborator teacher reflected on the practice
and plan for the next cycle. From the
reflection, there were some issues in cycle 1
which should be revised for the betterment of
teaching and learning process in cycle 2. Both
researcher and the collaborator teacher agreed
to solve the following problems found in cycle
1.
In the second cycle, there was only 1
student who was absent in cycle 2 because of
being sick. Therefore, 27 students were
successfully tested. In this cycle, the teacher
had explained the materials clearly and
managed the time very well in every task
conducted. The tasks were designed to help the
students to be easy to describe process in the
workshop. Drills and repetitions related to the
personal protective equipment, parts of the
machine, and the process how to make a
product both in the classroom and in the
workshop were done by the teacher to ease the
students to comprehend the materials. The
teacher also used microphone and speaker in
the workshop to maintain the quality of the
audio during the test and for the scoring. The
productive teacher used bilingual for the words

Table 1. Problems in Cycle 1 and Their
Solutions
Problems
The teacher did
not
explain
material clearly
about how to
describe process.

10

Solutions
The teacher explained
material clearly about
how to describe process
including
personal
protective
equipment

The teacher spent
too much time in
certain activity.
Students’ lack of
time to prepare
and memorize the
material
about
describing
process to be
presented in the
workshop.

The noise level
was quite high in
the workshop to
conduct oral test.
The teacher forgot
to involve the
students
in
summarizing the
material
learnt
and inform the
next
meeting
material.
Students’ lack of
grammar
especially
in
simple
basic
tenses, the use of
modals,
to
infinitive, V1 in
procedure text.
Students’ lack of
pronunciation for
certain
words
related to the
personal
protective
equipment, parts
of the machine,
and the process

and their functions, parts
of the machine and their
functions,
and
the
process how to make a
product.
The teacher arranged the
time well especially in
the classroom from the
first activity to the last
activity.
The teacher designed the
tasks which were related
to the describing process
topic; lathe and milling
machine
parts
and
functions,
kinds
of
personal
protective
equipment
in
the
workshop and their
functions.
The use of microphone
and
speaker
were
needed for a clear and
better quality of the oral
test audio.
The teacher involved the
students in summarizing
the material learnt and
informed next meeting
material.

how to make a productive teacher used
product.
bilingual for the words
intended in his teaching
learning process.
Students’ lack of The teacher designed the
fluency
in tasks which helped the
describing
students to understand
process
materials about parts of
machine including their
functions, and PPE.
Therefore, the teacher and the collaborator
teacher decided to stop in cycle 2 because it
had already revised some weaknesses of cycle
1 and the students had shown well progress in
their speaking especially in describing process.
For example in cycle 1, the students explained
only 2 out of 3 aspects required, but most
students could explain 3 aspects required in
cycle 2. Furthermore, the word count
calculation in cycle 2 showed that most
students spoke more and detail than cycle 1.
Discussion
The researcher found that teachers’
collaboration through alternative co-teaching
improved the students’ speaking about
describing process to Year – 11 students of
Class B at Vocational High School (SMK)
SMTI Pontianak.
First, the students made mistakes
commonly in constructing a sentence based on
the correct tenses in cycle 1 (e.g.: I am here
today is to describing the operation plan for
this ..., Today, I will to tell you about ..., We
feeding the work piece ...). Moreover, the
researcher also found the use of grammar
pattern errors (eg: to + Ving, Modals + Ving,
Modals + to + V1, S + Ving, S + to be + V1).
The other mistakes were about explaining the
procedures (e.g.: First, using safety ... Then,
setting ... ...). In cycle 2, the researcher
designed the tasks which were easily used by
the students to mention and explain the parts,
functions, and the process of how to make a
product orally, including how to construct
simple sentence by using simple tenses to
minimize the mistakes above.
Second, some students mispronounced
especially the words related to parts of the

The teacher designed the
tasks which helped the
students to construct
correct sentence to
explain
about
the
machine and PPE.

The teacher gave drills
and repetitions words
related to the personal
protective
equipment,
parts of the machine,
and the process how to
make a product both in
the classroom and in the
workshop.
The

11

Based on the students’ responses toward
the questionnaire, there were 4 students
(15.38%) who stated that the lesson was
difficult due to the noise level and technical
English. While the other students stated that
the lesson was exciting (23.07%); easy to
explain due to real media use in the workshop,
useful (30.76%); for their job in the future, and
fun (30.76%); presenting in the workshop by
using English. Among the other activities
provided by the teacher during the teaching
learning process, most students (96.15%)
preferred the activity of presenting in the
workshop to learning in the conventional
classroom (3.85%).

machine and personal protective equipment in
cycle 1 (e.g.: thread, machine, lathe, work
piece, cutting, function). But in cycle 2, the
productive teacher had already used bilingual
to help the students’ pronunciation for certain
words related to their materials such as parts of
the machine, personal protective equipment,
and the job sheet given. Drills and repetitions
were also done more often to make students’
pronunciation better in every meeting,
especially for the words related to parts of the
machine and personal protective equipment.
As a result, the students’ pronunciations were
better in cycle 2.
Third, the students were difficult to
describe the process in English due to the time
limitation given to memorize. They needed
extra works to memorize what they wanted to
explain. Therefore, the students had some false
starts, pauses or hesitations during the
speaking test. In cycle 2, the students just
reviewed and looked up their tasks in the first
meeting to remember a bit about what had
been learnt as their materials to describe a
process in the workshop. Besides, the use of
real media such as: real lathe or milling
machine and personal protective equipment in
the workshop helped the students to be fluent
in describing process.
There were 24 students (88.89%)
successfully explained in detail covering three
aspects; personal protective equipment and
their functions, parts of the machine and their
functions, and the process in cycle 2. In this
cycle also, 7 students were improved in
grammar aspect, 5 students were improved in
pronunciation aspect, 6 students were
improved in fluency aspect, 19 students were
improved in content aspect, and 26 students
were improved in their word count when
talking. The more words the students
produced, the more mistakes they made in
grammar, pronunciation, or fluency. So in this
case, there was a correlation between the
students’ mistakes and the students’ word
count as well. Therefore, the researcher should
revise the instruction for speaking test in the
future in order to limit the word count
produced by the students.

Table 2. Schematic Table of Year – 11
Students’ Questionnaire at
SMK-SMTI Pontianak
Question
Number
1

2

3

4

5

12

Answer

Percentage

Difficult
Exciting
Useful
Fun
Presenting in the
Workshop
Learning in the
Classroom
Easy to explain
ESP
Others
Noise level
Time limitation
Text based
Others
Yes (for
working, English
text book etc.)
No
Opening and
closing
presentation
Mentioning parts
of machine and
their functions
Explaining
production
process

15.38% (4)
23.07% (6)
30.76% (8)
30.76% (8)
96.15% (25)
3.85% (1)
53.85% (14)
30.77% (8)
15.38% (4)
19.23% (5)
42.31% (11)
15.38% (4)
23.08% (6)
100% (26)
0%
0%

30.77% (8)
69.23% (18)

students’ abilities to describe process from
cycle to cycle. They are used for the students
to explain and describe about the process when
they are in the real working situation of a
company in the future. During the alternative
co-teaching implementation, the use of
microphone and speaker were needed to avoid
the noise level in the workshop and keep the
quality of the students’ oral tests better and
clear. The productive teacher used bilingual
during the briefing; technical words related to
the parts of the machine, personal protective
equipment, and process.
In this research, alternative co-teaching in
practical lesson helped the students to improve
their speaking skills in describing process. The
students were able to describe the machine
used including the parts and its functions,
personal protective equipment, and the process
of making a product based on the job sheet
given by the productive teacher.
Alternative co-teaching in practical lesson
also helped the students to describe process
fluently, accurately, and grammatically.
Moreover, the students have more time to
practice English orally in practical lesson
where the teaching hour is three times longer
than regular English classroom.

Learning in the practical lesson through
co-teaching had some advantages. As what has
been explained in Chapter 2 that co-teaching is
like a marriage (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2010)
where two heads are better (Stark, 2015). The
co-teaching implemented in fact, helped the
students to improve their speaking ability
which were authentic (Lazaraton, 2001) and
related to their major. During the
implementation in the mechanical engineering
workshop at SMK-SMTI Pontianak, the class
number was smaller than the conventional one
(Howe, 2005). Moreover, the students felt easy
to explain the process (53.85%) since the real
media use in the workshop. The tasks were
aligned with their productive lesson tasks
based on the job sheet given to produce a
product as well. Therefore, the students needed
English for Specific Purpose in the future to
support their job (30.77%).
However,
the
implementation
of
alternative co-teaching in the workshop also
had disadvantages. During the practical lesson
in the workshop, the noise level was high
(19.23%). It was caused by the sound of
machines and other equipment. This noise
level was revised in cycle 2 where the teacher
provided microphone and speaker for the
speaking test to keep the audio quality better.
Some students (15.38%) were still text based
in presenting how to describe a process. While
the others (42.31%) felt the time was not
enough to do. All students (100%) agreed that
English related to their major was useful for
their future job and English textbook
understanding.
In conclusion, the alternative co-teaching
implemented helped the students to improve
their speaking ability which were authentic and
related to their major. Some efforts to revise
the teaching learning process had been done in
order to get better results. Yet, the students
thought that speaking was hard to do but on the
contrary, speaking was needed in the future.

Suggestion
There are several suggestions considered
to enhance the co-teaching effect in teaching
learning process: 1) the job distributions
between English teacher and productive
teacher should be well managed and agreed in
the initial stage of the implementation of coteaching. 2) the teacher should explain more
clearly the material to the students with the
examples and how to do it considering that the
implementation of co-teaching involves two
different subjects and teachers. 3) the teacher
should design the tasks well to help the
students to overcome their problems in
speaking. 4) the teacher should consider the
use of media such as microphone and speaker
to keep the quality of the students’ speaking
audio better in scoring the results and involve
the students’ in summarizing the lesson. 5)
teachers’ collaboration through alternative co-

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
Conclusion
Based on the discussion of the previous
chapter, it can be concluded that alternative coteaching in practical lesson improved the

13

Exploration of Co-teaching Models and
Strategies in the Chinese Primary School
Context. Reflections on English Language
Teaching, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 103–118.
Maley, A. (2003). Creative Approaches to
Writing Materials. Dalam B. Tomlinson,
Developing Materials for Language
Teaching. London: Continuum.
McCarthy, P. J., Brennan, L., & Vecchiarello,
K.
(2011).
Parent
School
Communicationin the Inclusive Room: A
Comprehensive Model of Collaboration in
Education. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science , Vol 1, pp.
55-60.
Meirink, J. M., & Verloop, N. (2007). A
Closer Look at Teachers; Individual
Learning in Collaborative Settinggs.
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and
Practice , pp. 145-164.
Montiel, P. (2005). Toward a Theory of
Collaboration
for
Teachers
and
Librarians. School Library Media
Research , Vol 8, pp. 1-31.
Nunan, D. (2015). Teaching English to
Speakers of Other Languages: An
Introduction. New York: Routledge.
Rhodes, C., Stokes, M., & Hamton, G. (2004).
A Practical Guide to Mentoring,
coaching, and Peer-Networking: Teacher
Professional Development is Schools and
Colleges. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Stark, E. (2015). Co-teaching: the Benefits and
Disadvantages. Journal on Best Teaching
Practices , Vol 2, pp. 7-8.
Vescio A., V. R., & Adams. (2008). A Review
of Research on the Impact of Professional
Learning Communities on Teaching
Practice and Student Learning. Teaching
and Teacher Education , pp. 80-91.
Waldron, N., & McLeskey, J. (2010).
Establishing a Collaborative School
Culture through Comprehensive School
Reform. Educational & Psychological
Consultation , pp. 58-74.
You, H. (2015). Personalized College English
Teaching Based on Collaboration among
Teachers. International Journal of
English Language Teaching , Vol 2, pp.
40-44.

teaching could be used for teaching the other
skill as well, such as writing.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching by Principles:
an Interactive Approach to Language
Pedagogy 2nd Edition. San Fransisco:
Longman.
Creese, A. (2005). Teacher Collaboration and
Talk in Multilingual Classrooms. London:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Ertesvåg, D. S. (2011). Improving Teacher
Collaboration‐The Role of Classroom
Characteristics and Individual Factors on
Teachers' Collaboration: A Latent Growth
Curve Approach. ICSEI Congress (pp. 112). Limassol Cyprus: Centre for
Behavioural Research, University.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2010). Co-teaching:
An Illustration of the Complexity of
Collaboration in Special Education.
Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation , pp. 9-27.
Grey, D. E. (2004). Doing Research in the
Real World. London: Sage.
Hines, R. A. (2009). Co-teach and Universal
Design: Strategies for Collaborative
Classrooms.
Florida:
Universitycof
Central Florida.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. G. (2010).
Collaboration
and
Co-Teaching:
Strategies for English Learners. London:
Corwin A SAGE Company.
Howe, A. (2005). Perspective in Oracy. Dalam
S. Brindley, Teaching English (pp. 3847). New York: Routledge.
Kayi, H. (2006). Teaching Speaking: Activities
to Promote Speaking in a Second
Language. The Internet TESL journal ,
Vol 12, pp. 1-4
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R.
(2014). The Action Research Planner:
Doing Critical Participatory Action
Research. Singapore: Springer.
Lazaraton, A. (2001). Teaching Oral Skills. In
M. Celce-Murcia, Teaching English as a
Second or Foreign Language (pp. 110112). Bosotn: Heinle & Heinle.
Liu, L. (2008). Co-teaching Between Native
and Non-native English teachers: An

14