THE ANALYSIS OF CLASS
OBSERVATION, CLASS DOCUMENTS,
AND DEPTH INTERVIEWS TO CONSTRUCT
A NEW MODEL OF TEACHING
Jozef Bambang Tri Joga*)
Joko Nurkamto**)
*) Jurusan Administrasi Niaga
Politeknik Negeri Semarang
Jl. Prof.H.Sudarto, SH,
Tembalang,Kotak Pos 6199/SMS Semarang 50061
**) Program Studi Pendidikan
Bahasa Ingggris, Universitas Sebelas Maret
Jl. Ir.Sutami 36A, Kentingan, Surakarta
ABSTRAK
Fokus
penelitian ini pada pengembangan model yang baru dan sesuai untuk pengajaran
bahasa Inggris di SD. Oleh karenanya,
penelitian ini menggunakan model Penelitian dan Pengembangan, cara yang
dikembangkan Borg dan Gall (1983). Dari
10 siklus yang merupakan langkah-langkah yang berkelanjutan, Sukamadinata
(2008: 184-191) membuatnya menjadi skala Penelitian dan Pengembangan yang lebih
singkat, hanya dengan tiga tahapan: 1) tahap eksplorasi, 2) tahap pengembangan
prototipe, dan 3) tahap validasi.
Tujuan
penelitian ini adalah 1) mengetahui kualitas model yang sekarang digunakan
dalam pengajaran bahasa Inggris di SD seperti yang direfleksikan dalam analisa
profil, 2) mengetahui kebutuhan akan model yang baru, 3) mengetahui bagaimana
model pengajaran berbasis siswa aktif dikembangkan berdasar analisis kebutuhan,
4) mengetaqhui bagaimana implementasi model berbasis siswa aktif di SD kelas 4.
Data
dicari melalui pengamatan kelas, kuesioner, wawancara mendalam, dan analisis
dokumen. Dalam rangka menganalisis data
yang terkumpul tersebut, digunakan metoda perbandingan yang konstan. Itu merupakan pedekatan analisis data kualitative,
yang bisa digabungkan dengan prosedur analitis, prosedur pengkodean yang jelas,
dan gaya dari teori pengembangan guna mengembangkan grounded theory. Guna
pengembangan model yang baru, penelitian ini mengaplikasikan 1) pendekatan
kualitative (pada tahap Eksplorasi), 2) konsultasi dengan pakar dan FGD (pada
tahap pengembangan model dan implementasi di kelas), dan 3) validasi pakar
tentang buku petunjuk (pada tahap validasi)
Kata Kunci: model
yang ada, pengamatan kelas, wawancara mendalam, analisis kebutuhan
INTRODUCTION
The idea of the teaching of English to young
learners of Elementary School (ES for short) started quite a long time
ago. There were both agreement and disagreement aired by experts on this
matter. Some researchers had analyzed the readiness of all components (the human resource, the facilities, the finance
and other components of the program) - which were not the same to all schools, the minimum criteria for the
authors of English textbooks to write the materials in line with the
requirements relevant to the users, teaching materials which did not represent socio - cultural aspects with the consideration of basic
thinking, content of the materials, organization of the materials, development
of the materials, presentation and evaluation (Retmono, 1992; Kasihani, 2004; Faridi, 2008).
The recommendations coming from the
researchers were that the government upgrade the quality of teaching
English at Junior High through the teachers’ mastery of English. Teaching English, at the early age would, otherwise,
confuse the students who were trying to master Bahasa Indonesia, the national
language. If at all possible, however, teaching
English
to the students of years IV, V and VI of ES should be made
simple, such as through games, songs and other
fun activities.
Minimum criteria
should be stated for the authors of English textbooks to write the materials in
line with the requirements relevant to the users. English should be taught interestingly by (1) the application of varied practical
techniques, such as songs, stories, games with the appropriate teaching media
such as flash cards, puppets, etc., (2) upgrading the
teachers’ mastery of English for children, especially those who do not have English
educational background through workshops and trainings, (3) socializing
guidance, teaching approaches/methods to English ES teachers, (4) holding
a national gathering to reconstruct the
English lessons for ES so as to achieve the minimum requirement standard
of teaching, such as topics, reference,
activities and so on.
Teacher should concentrate on preparing the
materials in ES, which was claimed did not represent socio cultural
aspects with the consideration of basic thinking, content of the materials,
organization of the materials, development of the materials, presentation and
evaluation. Several issues may be established, such as
(1) holding special trainings to prepare teachers of English to ES, (2) working
together with LPTK to increase the teaching knowledge and English mastery of
the teachers, (3) monitoring and evaluating the designed teaching material model to get the
tested model to be the resource material to develop English teaching and
learning in ES.
Table 1.
Comparative Findings of
Previous Studies
|
NO
|
RETMONO (1999)
|
SUYANTO (2004)
|
FARIDI (2008)
|
|
1
|
Good
facilities should be provided for English teaching in ES
|
Textbook
should be composed by certified
writers
|
Textbook
should contain local values and wisdom
|
|
2
|
Upgrading Junior
High English Teachers’ teaching capability
|
The period
of teaching English would be longer; teaching should be done
interestingly
|
The organization is based on: Building Knowledge of
the Field, Modeling of Text, Joint Construction of Text and Independent
Construction of Text
|
|
3
|
Teachers as
good models
|
Teaching
should be done in varied practical techniques
|
The four
skills are treated equally
|
|
4
|
Not to teach English too early to kids
|
The mastery of English should be upgraded
|
Evaluation
in accordance with the learned skills
|
|
5
|
English
Teaching should be fun
|
Socialize
the components of English Teaching material to ES teachers
|
English
mastery of the teachers should be upgraded
|
|
6
|
Flexible
not rigid law on teaching English in ES
|
Reconstruct
the lecture material of EYL in LPTK
|
Special
training for preparing teachers for TEYL
|
|
7
|
English
mastery is a must for the teachers
|
|
|
|
8
|
Insert TEYL
in the curriculum of LPTK
|
|
|
Source: Retmono (1992), Suyanto (2004), Faridi(2008)
With respect to the
constraints of teaching English at ES, Indonesian government, introduced English on the basis of the 1994
curriculum for the ES. It is in accordance with the policy of Department of
Education and Culture of R I No 0487/1992 Chapter VIII stating ES may have additional extra lessons in
their curriculum as long as they do not contrast to the objectives of national education. The policy is, then, supported by the Decree
of the Minister of Education and Culture No. 060/U/1993 dated 25 February 1993
enabling English Language to be put as a local content at Year 4 of ES.
The main purpose of teaching English in ES is to give the communication
skill especially spoken English in simple sentences. An English teacher at ES is required to
include the four language skills while carrying out every step of teaching. In other words, teaching English at ES has
to be integrated in such a way that no single skill is exclusively presented.
This is not an easy task, considering that most of the ES teachers still
maintain the tradition of ‘teacher-centered approach’.
However, without heeding of the success or
failure of English teaching and learning at ES, the Central Government of
Indonesia is going to issue a new curricula for basic and high school
education, totally dismantling the old curricula as of 2013-2014 academic year
in which English is stripped off from ES.
In this respect, the current study (this dissertation) shall go on. The
researcher is still confident that the findings are still relevant to the need
of English education for young learners.
Unless
it is stipulated otherwise, English will still be offered at possibly Private
ES as intra-curricular activities in addition to Play Group, Kindergarten,
Toddlers, and some other bilingual schools.
METHOD
This study was conducted on the basis of Borg
and Gall’s Research and Development method.
Borg and Gall (2003: 569) stated that R & D is an industry-based development model in which the findings of the
research are used to design new products and procedures, which then are
systematically field-tested, evaluated, and refined until they meet specified
criteria of feasibility, quality, or similar standard.
In accordance with
the above definition, Borg dan Gall (1983: 772) considered Educational R & D as:
... a process used to develop and validate educational products. The
steps of this process are usually referred to as the R & D cycle, which
consists of studying research findings pertinent to the product to be
developed, developing the product based on these findings, field testing it in
the setting where it will be used eventually, and revising to correct the
deficiencies found in the field-testing stage. In more rigorous programs of R
& D, this cycle is repeated until the field-test data indicate that the
product meets its behaviorally defined objectives.
Borg dan Gall explained (1983: 772) that the term of product do
not only refer to material object, such as text books, learning films, and
others, but also procedures and processes, such as a learning method, or a
method for organizing the learning.
At least, there are
three reasons why a model is developed.
First, there have not been any models, second, the models have been
available, yet they are not functioning well, and third, as a variant for the
existing models which probably have been functioning well.
Borg dan Gall
(1983: 775-776) described that the steps in the cycles of R & D in
educational research are as follow:
1.
Research and information collecting – Includes
review of literature, classroom observations, and preparation of report of
state of the art.
2.
Planning – Includes defining skills, stating
objectives determining course sequence, and small scale feasibility testing.
3.
Develop preliminary form of product – Includes
preparation of instructional material, handbooks, and evaluation devices.
4.
Preliminary field testing – Conducted in from 1 to 3
schools, using 6 to 12 subjects. Interview, observational and questionnaire
data collected and analyzed.
5.
Main product revision – Revision of product as
suggested by the preliminary field-test results.
6.
Main field testing – Conducted in 5 to 15 schools
with 30 to 100 subjects. Quantitative data on subjects’ precourse and
postcourse performance are collected. Results are evaluated with respect to
course objectives and compared with control group data, when appropriate.
7.
Operational product revision – Revision of product
as suggested by main field-test results.
8.
Operational field testing – Conducted in 10 to 30
schools involving 40 to 200 subjects. Interview, observational and
questionnaire data collected and analyzed.
9.
Final product revision – Revision of product as
suggested by operational field-test results.
10. Dissemination and
implementation – Report on product at professional meetings and in journals.
Work with publisher who assumes commercial distribution. Monitor distribution
to provide quality control.
However, according to Sukmadinata (2008: 184-191), the ten steps can be simplified
by putting them into three phases, namely (1) exploration phase, (2) prototype
development phase, and (3) testing phase.
In the current study, the researcher applied the steps of model
development as outlined below.
(1)
Exploration.
It was to explore every bit of information related to the current study. The
data were presented in descriptions as the basis of needs analysis or need
assessment. In line with that description, the current study aimed at examining
the quality of the existing model being practiced in every class observed.
(2)
Model
Development. It aimed at (1) to propose a model of teaching EFL to ES students
in response to the current need of a new model, and (2) to try out the new
model in classroom implementation. In
line with the above description, the current study aimed at developing the
model, adding and re-energizing the components, before the proposed model was
carried out.
(3)
Validation.
It was to request some educational experts and practitioners to comment and
criticize the newly-developed model for revision and improvement. In line with that description, the current
study aimed at developing the more effective model, which is engaging students’
participation in instructional activities.
Research Approach of the study is qualitative
in nature. The data were collected from
the involved people, such as teachers, students, and educational documents. The data depicted how the educational process
ran, how educational documents were implemented, how the educational
interaction took place. This approach which is adopted from Samsudi
(2009:64-65) stating that all the problems will be meaningful when the study is
done qualitatively.
The exploration phase has the research
objective of finding the quality of the existing model, and finding the need
toward the new model. The phase was
carried out at four ES, while the choice of the schools was based on the result
of accreditation level as the result from the survey of Semarang Education
Office located at Dr Wahidin street in the year of 2011. Those, which got A (score ≥ 90), were listed
and were taken 4 out of them consisting of 2 state schools and 2 private
schools. The next considerations were
accessibility of the location and the agreement from the foundation (for the
private schools) and the agreement from the principals of all the schools.
The researcher got the data through
observations, in-depth interviews, and questionnaires. The results of the observation were field
notes. The collected data in this
exploration phase of R & D Method consists of two kinds. The first kind of data is concerning with the
quality of the existing model of TEFL in the observed ES which was gathered
through class observation and the teaching documents study. The documents being studied were such as
lesson plan (RPP) and review paper. The
arrangement of the students’ seating implemented in the TEFL was also
studied
The second kind of data is the opinion of the
English teachers of the observed schools related to the need for developing a
new model of Activity based Learning Model for TEFL in ES. The researcher interviewed four teachers of
the observed classes and with four other practitioners, they were also asked to
fill in the questionnaire. To get the
information from the users, four students from every school observed were
interviewed.
The four ES observed were (1) SDN Kalicari 01
Semarang (KES 01), (2) SDN Lamper Kidul 02 Semarang (LKES 02), (3) SD Kristen
Tri Tunggal Semarang (KTTES) and (4) SD
Pangudi Luhur Xaverius Semarang (PLXES).
The class observations were carried out four to five times: KES01 on 10,
17, 24, and 24 September 2012, LKES01 on 9, 9,11, and 11 October 2012, KTES on
13 and 25 September 2012, 3 and 3
October 2012, and at PLXES on 11 and 21 September 2012 and 2, 2 and 5
October 2012. By observing four or five times, the observer could conclude the
general pattern of the classroom activities.
The objectives of this research were (1) to find out the quality of the
existing model for teaching English in ES, (2) to find out the needs toward the
new model, (3) to find out how the new model should be developed on the basis
of needs analysis. In line with the research objectives, the topics of the
interviews done to English teachers were
(1) the model of teaching, (2) the classroom management, (3) the
strategy to activate students in instructional activities, (4) the needs to
develop the existing model to be a revised and be a better model. The
interviews, which involved four English teachers, were carried out during the
break-time at teachers’ room, and sometimes at the sitting room of the
principals’, or at classroom.
Four students of each school observed, who were taken randomly, were also
interviewed with the topics of (1) the model their teacher usually used, (2) t
the need to get new model, (3) being active in the teaching and learning
activities. The interviews were carried
out during the class-break, before or after the class observations.
Questionnaires
were distributed to the observed teachers and four-colleague teachers to know
the information about teachers’ need of a guideline for developing Activity
Based Learning Model, a new model that will be much beneficial for the teaching
of English to young learners in ES.
In order to analyze the data collected by
different instruments used in this research, the researcher used Constant
Comparative method. There are (1) Open
Coding, (2) Axial Coding, (3) Selective Coding (Straus and Corbin (2007). The explanation of the steps are (1)
identifying the unit of information which can be in the forms of ideas,
concepts, terms, phrases, keywords. Open coding represents the operations by
which data are broken down, examined, compared, conceptualized, and categorized. (2) In the Axial coding phase, the researcher made connections
among categories, therefore data that the researcher got through class
observation, interviews, and questionnaire were connected. (3) While in the process of selective coding,
the categories and subcategories were combined to shape “a storyline” from
which they describes what happened in the phenomenon that is being
studied.
To analyze the teaching documents collected
for the purpose of knowing the quality of the existing English teaching
activity, the researcher used The Nine Gagne’s Theory of Instruction and the
Regulation of Minister of Education and Culture No 42 in the year of 2007.
Model development phase has research objectives of (1) What were the
needs toward the new prototype model? (2) How should Activities-Based Learning
model of English teaching in Year 4 of Elementary School be developed on the
basis of needs analysis? (3) How were the draft of Guideline constructed? (4)
What was the feasibility of the new model in classroom setting?
The draft of Guideline was constructed on the basis of the input from the
exploration phase that had been taken place before. Those were (1) the theories of teaching
English to young learners, (2) the evaluation of the implementation of the
existing model, (3) the expert consultation.
The expert involved in the development of the new model was Drs. Muchlas
Yusak, Dipl.Appl.Ling., Educational Consultant for School
Improvement/Effectiveness, who is now the Head of English Education Department
at Unisnu, Jepara. The new model adopted
The Whole Brain Teaching implementation, a model of teaching which invites
students to be engaged actively in the learning activities done by teacher.
The implementation were carried out in two stages. The first stage was the socialization of the
model, the practiced of the model by the model designer in classroom setting.
At the second stage, the implementations, which were carried out by model
teachers, were carried out three times and, were observed by the colleagues as
observers.
The class implementations were taken place at PLXES on 14, 17 and 21 May
2013. The location is easy to reach for every participant: expert, curriculum
consultant, and practitioners. After every implementation, there was a FGD meeting,
discussing on the weaknesses and strengths of the implementation, offering
recommendation on good things to be inserted in the model for the next class
implementation, therefore the new model was developed every time.
The classes used for the implementation were IVA and IVB. The model teachers were the English teachers
of the school, they were: Esther Dwinastiti Esti Mahanani and Valentina Inneke.
Table 2.
The Timetable of Class Implementation
|
NO
|
ACTIVITIES
|
DATE
|
PARTICIPANTS
|
|
FIRST STAGE
|
|||
|
1
|
Socialization, training of the new model, implementation of WBT at class setting by
model designer
|
10 May 2013
|
Model designer/expert, model teacher, practitioners
|
|
SECOND STAGE
|
|||
|
2
|
First Class implementation
|
14 May ‘13
|
Model designer/expert, model teacher, practitioner, curriculum
counsellor
|
|
3
|
Second Class implementation
|
17 May ‘13
|
Model designer/expert, model teacher, practitioner, headmaster
|
|
4
|
Third Class implementation
|
21 May ‘13
|
Model designer/expert, model teacher, practitioner, curriculum
counsellor
|
Resource:
Researcher’s note 2012
Validation of the guideline was carried out
both internally and externally. The internal validation was carried out by the
promoters, while the external validation were carried out by experts from Tidar
Magelang University. Professor Dr Sukarno, who acted as the University Adviser
for Decentralized Basic Education, USAID during 2005-2010, and participated in
TOT for National ALFHE (Active Learning for Higher Education in 2010, TOT
National Active Learning in School in 2010 and Dr Farikah, MPd, the
practitioner of ES English teacher, besides her work as a lecturer in Tidar
Magelang University
They evaluated the model which has been
described in the guideline through the evaluation instrument in which every
element of each chapter was presented, identified and commented. First, the validation was carried out by
putting the check on a certain number, ranging from 1 to 5 showing the least to
the best possible of the items being questioned. Then, second, they put the
written comments for the reason why they ticked those particular numbers.
The Guideline
consisted of five chapters. Those are:
chapter 1 about Introduction, chapter 2 about the Definition,
Assumption, and Characteristics of Activity Based Learning Model, chapter 3 about
the Planning for Learning English using Activity Based Learning Model, chapter
4 about the Application of Activity Based Learning Model, and chapter 5 about
the Evaluation using Activity Based Learning Model.
The output of this
research will be an Activity Based Learning, a model for Teaching English in
elementary school which activates students to repeat the topics in teaching and
learning activities, which are in chunks
by teaching them to the friends, through peer teachings. The model has been validated in terms of
feasibility.
Table 3.
The synthesis of Teaching Stages at KES01 and LKES02
Source:
Researcher’s note 2012
FINDINGS
AND DISCUSSION
The Quality of
Existing Teaching Activity at The Schools Observed
With the Nine Gagne’s Theory of instruction,
the phases of teaching instructional activities at the four school observed
were listed. The data of the four classes observed were tabulated in the
synthesis tables. In the Table 3, from
the teaching stages at KES 01 and LKES 02, we can see that teachers carried out
each stage of Pre-Teaching, While Teaching, and Post Teaching with appropriate
instructional activities. The important things here are teacher should keep
students motivated and invite them to get involved and active in the instructional
activities which has been directed to be free, pleasing, and challenging by the
teacher. Further more, the teacher should also be able to manage class well,
which enables the teaching can take place.
The teacher from KES 01 said that she applied
Jigsaw model, while the teacher from LKES applied Communicative Approach. In those learning and teaching instructions,
the teachers put the students into groups of 4 or 5, each of which were
assigned to do a task. It can be stated that from the activities that the
teacher provided for the children, the children get active and learn the
materials given.
It can be concluded that teachers considered
that assigning tasks for students to do is a way to keep students motivated and
be active in the teaching process. This is in line with the statement uttered
by the students of LKES02, who said in the interview, that the reason they like
English, because the English teacher provides
free, pleasing, and challenging atmosphere for them to intervene, to be
active in the instructional activities. They like when the teacher gives them
some assignments. They said that the
different and contrary things happen when the class teacher teaches the other
lessons. At LKES02, throughout his
teaching activities, the teacher used a mike, which makes his voice loud and
clear to every student and this tool seems very helpful for him to manage the
class well.
Table 4.
Comparisons among RPPs of Four
Schools Observed
|
No
|
Components According to the
Government Regulation 41/2007
|
KES01
|
LKES02
|
KTTES
|
PLXES
|
||||
|
NA
|
A
|
NA
|
A
|
NA
|
A
|
NA
|
A
|
||
|
1
|
Identity of the lesson
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
|
2
|
Standard Competency
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
|
3
|
Basic Competency
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
|
4
|
Indicators of achieving Competency
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
|
5
|
The Objectives of Teaching-Learning
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
|
6
|
Teaching Material
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
7
|
Time Allocation
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
|
8
|
Teaching Method
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
|
9
|
Teaching-Learning Activities
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
|
|
10
|
The Evaluation of Learning Outcome
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
|
11
|
Learning Resources
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
√
|
-
|
|
Source:
Data from Researcher 2013
NA = Not Available A
= Available
From the other class observations in the two
private schools, KTTES and PLXES, the researcher found that KTTES has a method
to make the noisy class to be silent and ready to get a lesson from the
teacher. The teacher applies a five-zero technique in which when he says “five”
the students will respond by bringing their five fingers up and when the
teacher says “zero”, the students will fold the arms, put them down on the
table and sit silently. To make the
students ready to get a lesson from the teacher, the teacher will repeat this technique
several times until the students really sit silent and be ready to get the
lesson. While in PLXES, teacher explored
much varied material to the students, such as watching films in video taken
from www.DreamEnglish.com, singing songs with power point, playing
together with games. By doing so, the
teacher invites the students to join in the instructional activities.
Analyzing the result of class observation, it
can be noted that teacher has to have certain techniques, varied material to
provide supportive and challenging learning atmosphere in class to make
students active and be participant in learning activities. Students should be
kept active and be participant, enjoy the atmosphere to make them learn the
material.
The Analysis of RPP
The Table 4 shows what components of RPP which have
been in the RPP of the four schools observed.
As we know that there were two state ES, KES
01 and LKES 02, and two private ES, KTTES and PLXES. Group one prepared RPP with almost all elements stated by the Regulation of
Minister National Education No 41/2007 were there. Teaching Method
was written in the RPP, but when it was read carefully it was not telling about
the method. It only stated the stages
that were supposed to be performed by teacher and students.
While the RPPs from KTTES and PLXES were minimalist with only four elements: the Identity of the Lesson, the Teaching
Material, the Teaching-Learning Activities, and the Learning Resources. The
other elements such as Standard Competency, Basic Competency, The Objective of
the Teaching-Learning Activities, The Indicator of the Achievement of Learning
Result, Time Allocation, Teaching Method, The Evaluation of Learning Result
were not available.
The idea of
writing RPP in a complete and systematic way is that when the concerned teacher
is away, i.e. the teacher cannot teach, the other teacher who substitutes her
will have the idea of what needs to be presented along the teaching and
learning period, then, the substitute teacher can replace the concerned
teacher. Furthermore, when it is written
in a complete and systematic way, there is no other way, teach it as it is, no
major deviations.
Even though, the
RPPs of the two observed private schools were minimalist, it revealed that the teachers could encourage
learning, involved class to participate actively from the beginning up to the
end of the lesson. Yet, if we refer back
to the Regulation of National Education Ministry No 41/2007, the RPP should be
written in a more complete and more systematic way.
Model of Teaching
The teachers, as the respondents, mentioned
in the interview that they needed a model which enables students to be active
in learning new material, while practicing their language skills. They need a model which involves student’s
whole brain in learning, and as it happens, there is not any mental area left
for challenging behavior. Disruptive
children break rules, distract classmates, bond with other rebels, retreat into
walled silence, are nourished by resisting their instructor’s best intentions
because their brains demand activity which the classroom does not provide
(Biffle: 2013). It is clear that the
teacher has to prepare materials that will tie up the students with the
classroom’s activity.
Some characteristics which color the new
model of teaching which is really in accordance with the desire of the teachers
for better model are as the following:
1)
Fun and
pleasing atmosphere for students to learn; students really like fun and amusing
atmosphere
2)
Challenging
atmosphere in the instructional activities for students to learn the lesson
topics; the challenged students will work better with spirit, since their brain
demand activities
3)
Varied
teaching material to let students experience full linguistic sense and get
fully involved in class activities; students will not get bored
4)
Proper
and varied techniques to attract students to follow teacher’s instruction;
students are obedient toward teacher’s instruction
5)
Proper
and varied techniques to keep class in teacher’s control
6)
Varied
and attracting activities to bind students’ attention to class activities
The
next step was to construct the model.
All the above characteristics would be included in the model. The model
of teaching was adopted from Power Teaching which is also known as Whole Brain
Teaching. The model has been designed by Chris Biffle, who was aided by Chris
Rekstad and Jay Vanderfin in 1995 in America.
It is a model which invites students to be engaged in class. The students will be engaged when they are
emotionally involved in lessons that requires seeing, saying, hearing and
physically moving.
The guideline for the
model was, then, written. The draft
consisted of 5 chapters (1) Introduction, (2) Comprehension, Assumption,
Characteristics of the model, (3) Planning, (4) Model of Classroom
Implementation, (5) Learning Evaluation, (6) Closing Remarks. In introduction section discussion is about
the background, the objectives, the target, the function, and the output of the
draft model for teaching English in ES, especially in class four.
The output of this subsection is designed from the findings of the
exploration, the analysis of the data collected through the instruments of the
research and chosen as the model to invite students’ active participation in
instructional process at the class setting.
It is used due to the appropriateness with the objectives of this
research and the practicality of the model.
To get an overview of the new model, Whole
Brain Teaching’s learning strategies, the following are the seven, powerful
teaching techniques which are also called The Big Seven (Biffle, 2013):
1)
Class-Yes. This attention-getter activates the students’
brain. The part of the brain, which is
prefrontal cortex, controls decision making, planning, and focus of attention.
Students only will learn a little, when the prefrontal cortex is not
engaged.
2)
Teach-Okay. Brain and learning research indicates that
students learn the most when they are involved in teaching each other. By emphasizing energetic, instructional
gesturing teacher engages, during Teach-Okay sessions, five of the brain areas:
visual cortex (seeing gestures), motor cortex (making gestures), Broca’s area
(verbalizing a lesson), Wernicke’s area (hearing a lesson) and the limbic
system (giving emotional content to a lesson).
In this season,
teacher must speak briefly before asking students to rehearse the lesson with
each other. Short term memory has limited capacity, conversely, the more
students repeat lesson to each other, especially while using descriptive
gesture, the more students are engaged, and the more thoroughly lessons are
embedded in long term memory.
3)
The Five
Classroom Rules. The five classroom rules not only efficiently activate five
areas of every students’ brain (visual cortex, motor cortex, Broca’s area,
Wernicke’s area, and limbic system) but also, because they are frequently
rehearsed, involve the brain’s mirror
neurons. Orderly behavior creates the
mirroring of orderly behavior, which caused teachers and students to mirror
each other’s happy faces.
4)
The
Scoreboard. The scoreboard is rewarding or punishing toward students’
achievement. When the teacher marks a Smiley or a Frowny on the Scoreboard,
students feel a small, positive or negative, emotional jolt. By enlivening the
marking routine with a “mighty oh yeah” or a “mighty groan” the reward
circuitry in the limbic system is activated.
5)
Hands
and Eyes. When teacher makes an
important thing, he wants students to pay attention on what he is saying. Hands and eyes creates instant silence,
eliminating all learning distractions:
the prefrontal cortex takes control of brain activity focusing the
visual cortex and the auditory cortex on the instructor’s lesson.
6)
Switch. Some students talk easily, often too
easily. Other students fall into the
role of passive listeners. In terms of
brain structure, classes are often divided between those who are Brocaians (speaker) and Wernikites (listeners). By using Switch, the teacher can easily teach
listening skills to the speakers and speaking ability to the listeners
7)
Mirror.
Many brain scientists believe that people learn by mirroring the gestures and
activities of others. They have identified mirror neurons scattered throughout
the brain that are activated by mimicking the behavior they observe. The
experience in ABL classrooms indicates that when a class mirrors
teacher’s gestures and, when appropriate repeats teacher’s words, a powerful
learning bond is created as the teacher and students’ visual and motor cortex
engage each other.
In the class
implementation, the model teacher applied the recommended things based on the
result of Focus Group Discussion and they were concerning about: 1) playing
video showing a song and the students imitated teacher’s movement following the
song, 2) sitting formation with a group
of 3-4 students who were sitting face to face, 3) putting the class into “Boys
Group” and “Girls Group”, therefore when the teacher addressed only to the male
students, she said, “Boys”, and when she addressed only to female students, she
would say: “Girls”, and sometimes the teacher used the usual greeting “Class”,
4) inserting a suitable game in class activities which would make students
attracted.
The students’
response when they were asked about the feeling after attending the class
implementation for several times showed that they liked the activity, since
they felt that they were playing games. They enjoyed the playing atmosphere the
teacher built in implementing the new model..
CONCLUSION
This research has
focused in developing a new model for teaching English to ES through R and D
process. The result showed that through class observation, teaching documents,
and depth interviews with some research phases, the characteristics of the new
model can be described and then, the construction of the model can follow. The output is the guideline of the model.
After some time of
class implementation and through the FGD, playing video, reformatting sitting
location, changing the calling from “Class” to be “Boys” and “Girls”, and
playing a game were implemented with the model. By applying The Big Seven: Class-Yes, Teach-Okay, The Five Classroom
Rules, The Scoreboard, Hands and Eyes, Switch, and Mirror class becomes fun and
pleasing atmosphere to learn and teacher can attract students to concentrate
fully on the topic taught in the instructional process.
REFERENCES
Biffle,
Chris, 2013. Whole Brain Teaching for Challenging Kids, California: San
Bernardino
Boyce,
Caroline, and Neal, Palena. 2006. Conducting
In-Depth Interview: A guide for Designing and Conducting In-Depth Interview for
Evaluation Input in
Pathfinder International Tool Series
Cameron, Lynne, 2001, Teaching Languages to Young Learners, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Faridi, Abdurrahman, 2008. Pengembangan
Model Materi Ajar Muatan Lokal Bahasa Inggris di Sekolah Dasar Jawa Tengah yang
Berwawasan Sosiokultura (The Development of English Teaching Material Model
with Sociocultural content at Elementaru School in Central Java ) A
Dissertation.
Gagne, Robert M and Leslie Briggs.
1974. The Principles of Instructional Design 2nd edition, New
York: Holt, Rinehard and Winstons
Suyanto, Kasihani, E..2004. Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris di
Sekolah Dasar: kebijakan, implementasi,
dan kenyataan (Teaching English at Elementary
School: Policy, Implementation, and
Reality). The Inaugural Speech.
Reigeluth, Charles M, 1983.
Instructional – Design Theories and Models, An Overview of Their Current
Status, London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers
Retmono, 1992, Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris di Sekolah Dasar di
Indonesia: Asumsi Dasar, Kemungkinan
Pelaksanaan dan Kendala-Kendalanya,
Pidato Pengukuhan pada Penerimaan Jabatan Guru Besar pada Fakultas Pendidikan
Bahasa dan Seni IKIP Semarang.