This sub-section presents and discusses: 1) PSETs responses to question: Did you have any difficulties in planning a lesson? and 2) The responses of LTEs and MEBs to questions: What are the needs of primary school English teachers in terms of their skills? What are they lacking?
All teachers in this study, except PSET12, claimed to have developed lesson plans. Although they stated that they had no particular difficulty in creating lesson plans, various reasons however had hindered them from executing their plans successfully. Often teachers had to deviate from their lesson plan because their classroom was chaotic and “the condition was not conducive” (PSET10: 125). PSET3 added that
250 : … My lessons have always deviated. Because what we had already planned 251 : was virtually impossible to work out in class, because there were too
252 : many problems going in class. That’s why my lessons have always deviated. Sometimes I had a 253 : lesson just to have a pep talk with them and not teach them English (PSET3)
The disruptive classroom in the case of PSET3 and PSET10 was mainly due to the large number of students. While PSET3 had 43 students in his classroom, PSET10 had 41 students. Fieldnotes from classroom observation show that the two teachers often had to stabilize their classroom from noisy students or the troublesome ones. PSET3 confessed that he often lost his teaching time because he had to have a pep talk to discipline disruptive students. Teachers who had smaller classes, on the other hand, did not experience such difficulty. PSET4 who only had 20 students claimed that her lesson ran well and that she felt she had accomplished the objectives of her lesson.
158
Other teachers such as PSET9 and PSET7 stated time was as a major constraint. PSET7 stated that “the time is very limited, 1 x 35 minutes per week” (PSET1: 175). In teaching English lessons she found it difficult because often she had already run out of time before completing all the activities. This required her to ask her students to “do the activities as homework” (PSET7: 178).
The findings above suggest that teachers did not find lesson planning difficult but felt it was executing the lesson plans that became an issue. Both teachers with pre-service training in English education (e.g. PSET10) and teachers who did not undertake one (e.g. PSET3) had created a lesson plan. They did not find lesson planning worrying but what worried them was the classroom that had not been conducive for them to be able to carry out their lesson successfully. They highlighted that classroom atmosphere was influential in determining whether or not they were able to accomplish the objectives of their lesson. They argued that the unconducivity of the classroom impeded their carrying out their lesson.
This however interestingly reveals the teachers’ lack of awareness of the classroom situations when planning a lesson. The unconducivity of the classroom may be detrimental to teachers in successfully executing their lesson but it is not the sole factor. As they were planning, the teachers might have not taken into account the situations in their classroom and the constraints they might be having when teaching. Had they had taken into account the large number of students or the limited time, they would not have planned a lesson that would not be successful. They should have planned a lesson that would accommodate the time constraints as well as the vast number of students. Teachers might have known how to create a lesson plan but seemed to have forgotten or have missed the situational constraints that might occur in their lesson.
The finding above is in line with LTE4’s contention who stated that classroom awareness when developing lesson planning is “actually what, what our teachers are usually lacking” (LTE4: 58). Furthermore, teachers were lacking the courage in “analyzing or breaking
159
down the curriculum into the syllabus or into the activities in the classroom” (LTE4: 63). She stated that the major factor that has caused the issue is “simply because they don’t have the knowledge of it” (LTE4: 64).
The problematic situations arising above can be traced back to the pre-service teacher education. Teachers might not have been prepared well enough to develop knowledge on lesson planning and how to utilize classroom awareness when creating lesson plans that match the situations of their classroom as well as the needs of individual students. The importance of creating classroom situations as a positive learning environment for catering for the needs of individual students is closely related to the concept of Zone Proximal Development. Vygotsky (1978, p. 33) defined Zone Proximal Development as “the distance between actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving, and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers”. An essential feature of learning is the creation of situation in which learning awakens a variety of developmental processes that are only able to be operated only when children’s interaction with people in their environment is established as well as when peer-cooperation occurs.
Since the ability of children to carry out language tasks successfully in various classroom and school contexts is the primary objective of the KTSP curriculum, the role of teachers’ skill in planning lessons that correspond to this objective is vital. How teachers are able to plan lessons that fully consider the classroom settings to tailor to the needs of the students is an important issue. This means teachers are expected to be able to extrapolate the needs of individual students, understand the diverse classroom settings, and eventually align these two aspects to create successful learning process. This indicates the importance of awareness-raising tasks based on second language data to encourage teachers to make the link between technical and practical knowledge in teacher education as suggested by Ellis (2010). The provision of awareness-raising tasks as well as Zone Proximal Development focusing on the alignment of the needs of students and the
160
settings of the classroom for the creation of positive learning environment must be made in language teacher education for primary school English teachers.
Another issue with lesson planning is closely related to syllabus and curriculum. As shown in Chapter 3, teachers are now expected to extend their roles at the school level by developing the KTSP curriculum and to swiftly move their role to be more engaged in curriculum design and planning. Unfortunately evidence generated from the study demonstrates that teachers were constrained when it comes to exercising their roles to create a lesson plan that well reflects the syllabus and curriculum. For example, PSET13 did not have the opportunity to design both the KTSP curriculum as well as syllabus for English lessons in his school because they were designed by the Educational Unit at the District Level with minimal input from teachers. He raised his concern as follows:
153 : (2.0) this is quite confusing. In other words, difficult. Our RPP (lesson plan) needs to adjust 154 : to what is required in the syllabus. But the skills of the learners may not match with it. Yes, 155 : this makes me confused and I find it difficult. Which one are we going to follow?
156 : Is it to adjust to the students’ needs or RPP that is based on the syllabus. If the RPP is created 157 : independently, in other words it is only guidance but the implementation has to be situated 158 : according to the school contexts, it may be accurate. But this RPP is based on syllabus, it does not 159 : meet the students’ needs, so teachers always feel they are under
160 : the pressure of a deadline. Eh, what is it, maybe, yes, under the pressure of a deadline. (PSET13)
The fact that teachers were not fully empowered to exercise their authority and autonomy in classroom design and planning is parallel to the contention put forward in Chapter 3. The policy initiative to bestow teachers with more authority and autonomy in curriculum and syllabus design is meritorious but the immediate environment for the implementation of the policy has not been successfully created. PSET13’s confusion also indicates the overwhelming demand on the part of the teachers when it comes to the decentralization of education. Teachers are now burdened with new tasks such as determining the contents of the curriculum, creating syllabi that reflect the SKL prescribed by the government, and communicating program design and implementation to the community; but they have not been provided with conducive working environment.
161 5.2.6 Material selection and adaptation
This sub-section presents and discusses: 1) PSETs’ responses to question: Did you have any difficulties in selecting and adapting materials from coursebooks? and 2) The responses of LTEs and MEBs to questions: What are the needs of primary school English teachers in terms of their skills? What are they lacking?
Eight teachers, namely PSET1, PSET2, PSET3, PSET6, PSET8, PSET9, PSET10, and PSET13 stated their difficulty in selecting and adapting coursebook materials. Teachers from non- English major (PSET2, PSET3, and PSET8) and those from English major (PSET1, PSET6, PSET9, PSET10, and PSET13) pointed out their lack of confidence in coursebook adaptation and selection. Some of them provided commentary in the following:
49 : If it’s about difficulty, then I have so many difficulties in adapting materials (PSET3) 139 : E:hhh, in terms of coursebook adaptation I am still bad at it (PSET1)
135 : Yeah. I need to improve it. (PSET13)
Teacher educators provided answers that are parallel to the teachers’ confession above. LTE2 stated that “teachers are not confident in using coursebooks, not to mention to adapt them” (LTE2: 46-47). LTE4 stated that “teachers in Indonesia do not really focus on how to adapt the materials” but “focus very much on how to teach, to teach the textbook.” (LTE4: 59-60). This demonstrates that the ability to adapt coursebooks is a skill that teachers need to develop. For this reason, LTE3 pointed out that teachers of English at primary level need to “be able to select and adapt” the currently existing learning materials into “materials that are suitable to the needs of their students” (LTE3: 96-98).
These findings confirm the results of the study by Ernidawati (2002) who found that the teachers in Medan, North Sumatera, had major difficulties in selecting and adapting learning materials and practical activities for young learners. She argued that the cause of such phenomenon is primarily because teachers were not specifically trained to teach EYL. When it comes to teachers in this study, the data indicates that coursebook and material adaptation might have not been given a large emphasis on pre-service level teacher education. This rings true especially because two teachers with adequate preparation in
162
teaching English to Young Learners (PSET11 PSET12) did not state their difficulty in selecting or adapting learning materials in coursebook. The lack of uniformity in pre- service teacher education has again been the major cause for the diversity of practice of primary school English teachers in delivering quality English lessons.
This poor condition was however enmeshed by the fact that the quality of coursebooks produced is questionable. PSET11 found no particular difficulty in adapting coursebooks in general but she stated that the book she used in her school, English for Kids, was written by some members of the educational board at the local level in her city. Even though the book was prescribed by the educational unit, it did not meet the desired quality. She highlighted that the book was “far” from her “expectations” because most of the contents were not relevant to the needs of the students. She revealed the fact that “the ones who wrote the coursebooks were several incompetent educational administrators, and the selection of these administrators was not based on merit” (PSET11: 125-129). Alteration to the situation was beyond her capacity because the tender to write and publish the book was given to the members of the educational board.
The problem with the quality of coursebooks is however not exclusive to PSET11. PSET8 had a similar issue because she had found that “often the books were not accurate” due to misspelled words or illogical sentences (PSET8: 240). This forced her to select and combine materials from several different books.
Another issue is that it was hard to find coursebooks that perfectly match the KTSP curriculum and the needs of the students. PSET4 stated that she had “several books to use and they are all in different topics” (PSET4: 193). PSET10 lamented the fact that the coursebook she was using “does not suit the needs and conditions” of her students (PSET10: 24). Some teachers complained about the inappropriateness of the coursebooks with the level of the students. PSET3 pointed out that the level of the coursebook he was using was over-challenging because “the contents are suitable for SMP learners” instead
163
of SD learners (PSET3: 185), whereas PSET6 highlighted that the coursebook he was using “are too low for RSBI students” (PSET6: 168).
These findings indicate that the domain of book publication has been managed by incompetent people, both in bureaucracy and publishing domains. This suggests that the issue with English coursebook publication in Indonesia is not only related to the cultural and linguistic appropriateness as pointed out by Marcellino (2008) and Aydawati (2005). The intrusion of educational bureaucrats and coursebook writers with no proper qualifications or relevant expertise to also join the business is another issue enmeshing the implementation of primary school English teaching in Indonesia.