Table 6.2 Codes relating to English departments are not specific Groups of
participants
Codes Frequency of
references
PSET 2 credit points EYL not sufficient English departments too theoretical English departments not practical English departments not specific English departments not sufficient English departments generic
1 2 1 2 2 1 LTE English departments not practical
English departments not specific
English departments need improvement Curriculum very limited
4 1 1 1 MEB English departments lacking update
English departments not sufficient English departments not complex
1 1 1
189
PSP EYL varies in quality
English departments sufficient English departments not sufficient
1 1 1 EC English departments not practical
English departments not specific
1 1
Table 6.2 shows that the inadequacy of pre-service education in preparing English teachers at primary level was distinctively characterized by lack of specificity. Codes emerging from the data show that participants perceived English departments as, for example, ‘not specific’, ‘not sufficient’ and ‘not practical’.
Seven out of nine teachers with an English background expressed dissatisfaction with their pre-service education in English departments; these include PSET1, PSET4, PSET5, PSET6, PSET9, PSET10, and PSET13. They pointed out that their pre-service education was not adequate because it did not specifically prepare them to successfully teach English at primary level. The lack of specificity of English departments here is not exclusive to English Language Education Program but also includes English Study Program (English Language and Literature), because the teachers who stated their dissatisfaction above graduated from these two streams of English departments (See Chapter 5 for details of teachers’ educational background).
As shown in Table 6.2, the participants stated that English departments were “not specific”, “not practical”, “generic”, and “too theoretical”. Both PSET9 and PSET6 who graduated from English Education Program revealed the presently occurring gap between the theory they had received in their pre-service education and the classroom realities, while PSET9 highlighted that during pre-service education he was “not prepared to teach English to children” (PSET9: 292). PSET6 found it confusing when he had to apply his experience of “teaching practice in SMA that” he conducted “during his pre-service teacher education” in the primary school he was teaching (PSET6: 551).
190
The findings show that English programs place a large emphasis on the theoretical aspect of teaching. Teachers such as PSET6, PSET9, and PSET10 believed that English programs neglect the much portion of practical English pedagogy in pre-service education. PSET6 stated that English programs “have ignored the practical components as well as the teaching experience such as classroom management” (PSET6: 558). PSET10 stated that even though she undertook EYL in an English department, it did not provide her with opportunities to “prepare lessons and topics and to design materials that are appropriate for young learners” (PSET10: 214). In addition, PSET9 who graduated from an English department pointed out that “the knowledge we received in IKIP was limited, it was useful yes, but in terms of techniques and methods, it was very limited, very limited” (PSET9: 285-287).
Statements from teachers were consistent with that of participants from other groups of participants who identified English departments as being ‘not specific’, ‘not practical’, and ‘lack of update’. Both English Study Program and English Education Program without EYL are not specifically designed to prepare student teachers to successfully teach English in primary schools. The student teachers in English Education Program in particular are trained to become teachers of English at junior and senior high school levels, and not primary schools. Both MEB2 and EC2 confirmed this in the following:
144 : so, the curriculum of English for Young Learners is
145 : very limited, still limited. Because those who graduate from UNIMA, the undergraduate 146 : students, are projected to become teachers of English in SMP and SMA (MEB2)
26 : Yes= in my view, in LPTK institution, as far as I am concerned, those teaching colleges 27 : prepare their student teachers to become English teachers in SMP and SMA= 28 : =Ah. (R )
29 : not to teach English in primary schools… (EC2)
Participants further suggested that not all graduates of English Language Education Programs that offer EYL (English for Young Learners) are reliable because the programs are varied in terms of quality; not all programs are of exceptional quality. An English Education Program with EYL like the one in State University of Malang was claimed to be “very useful” (PSET11: 321) and “adequate” (LTE1: 211) for student teachers to help
191
prepare them for teaching English to Young Learners, even though it is only offered as an elective unit with four credit points. On the contrary, other English major programs like Kertanegara Academy were found “not specific” (PSET1: 337). PSET10 highlighted the inadequacy of 2 credit point EYL in Galuh University in tackling the complexity of young learner pedagogy. The theoretical base of the EYL unit in PSET10’s preparatory course did not prepare her with psychology of learning, language learning strategies, and children language acquisition. She stated that “with only 2 credit points there are so many things we didn’t cover” because “most of these 2 credit points are theories, very raw” (PSET10: 209-212).
LTE1 stated that teaching English to primary school children is considered “JUST as complicated and as complex as teaching OLDER children, if not MORE so, MORE difficult, MORE challenging” than teaching in high schools (LTE1: 21-22), but practical components that prepare student teachers with hands on experience have not been given strong emphasis in the curriculum of English departments. Furthermore, the programs do not place a large emphasis on methodology units such as “how to teach (.) speaking, how to teach reading, how to teach writing” and provides no specific reference to prepare students teachers with young learner pedagogy (LTE2: 126). Components such as “teaching methods, learning strategies, as well as using learning facilities, and most importantly the contents in language teaching” are the ones that have often been missing in English major programs (MEB1: 149-151).
LTE1 made a remark that during the early years of pre-service teacher education “there’s too much time wasted and not enough time spent on the practical skills of teaching” (LTE1: 170-171). A practical framework of reference to young learner pedagogy has been missing in the early years of initial training, but in replacement irrelevant courses have taken place in the curriculum. During the first year of their pre-service teacher education student teachers “have got to do citizenship”, “religion” and other units that were deemed irrelevant to language pedagogy (LTE1: 31). This explains that even when practical components do exist they are usually provided near the completion of the teacher
192
education program, or in LTE3’s words “it is not until later in their course that they do teaching practice” (LTE1: 31). LTE4 agreed with LTE1 as she stated that many English major programs “are very much focusing on” topics or units “which are not related to the teaching itself” (LTE4: 154-155).
Due to these limitations, EC2 stated that graduates of English programs are not ready to teach English successfully at primary level because “they are lacking practical training during their pre-service education” (EC2: 560). EC1 made a cautionary remark:
30 : do not assume that those who graduate from UPI or other teaching colleges 31 : are capable of teaching English at primary level proportionately (EC1).
Chapter 3 highlighted the absence of a specific Concentration on Teaching English to Young Learners from the current curricula of English departments at pre-service level. The findings generated from this study challenge the current system that only allows those interested in primary school English teaching to come from either one of the three majors: English Language and Literature, English Language Education without EYL, and English Language Education with EYL. As Anderson & Mitchener (1994) argued, many programs on teachers’ professional development do not stipulate consistent conceptual framework of reference that prepares student teachers with specific knowledge and skills pertaining to their occupational needs. It is evident that the current three majors provide inconsistent conceptual framework of reference that would allow adequate preparation for prospective teachers to teach English at primary level.
Relying on the current system that offers no specific preparation to teachers of English at primary level provides no long-term solutions. The present pre-service English departments are insufficient to cater for the particular needs of teaching English at primary level. Even in English Language Education Departments that offer EYL, as in the cases of PSET1 and PSET10, the allocation of 2 credit points of EYL was proven inadequate to tackle the increasing demand of primary English teaching.