i
MICROTEACHING STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION ON THE SUPERVISOR’S FEEDBACK IN IMPROVING STUDENTS’ TEACHING PERFORMANCE
IN MICROTEACHING CLASS
A THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By
Riskisari Restuningtyas Student Number: 061214064
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION
FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA
iv
I dedicate this thesis to:
DEDICATION PAGEAll glory comes from daring to begin.
w
Eugene F. Ware
*
my Beloved Parents, Ita and Kristanta
*
my Big Family, Badran and
Kepatihan family
*
my Lovely Sister, Sekar
*
my Dearest Partner, Dion, and
*
all of my Great Friends.
Wher ever you go, no mat t er
w hat t he w eat her , br ing
you ow n sunshine.
vii ABSTRACT
Restuningtyas, Riskisari. 2010. Students’ Perception on The Supervisor’s Feedback in Improving Students’ Teaching Performance in Microteaching Class. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.
Microteaching is a subject designed to prepare the students of English Language Education Study Program to be qualified teacher candidates. In preparing the students to be able to teach well, feedback is an important factor that could help the students to improve their teaching skills. Feedback shows the students their strengths and weaknesses in the teaching practice so the students could develop the strengths and improve the weaknesses. Moreover, through the feedback, lecturers provide the students with suggestions on how to teach well.
The research was done on the students of English Language Education Study Program who took three different Microteaching classes in academic year 2010/2011. Three problems were discussed on the research. The first is about what the feedback from the lecturers is. Second, it is about the students’ perception on the supervisor’s feedback in improving students’ performance in microteaching class. The last to be discussed is students’ suggestions for the supervisor in giving the feedback. The research was started with the observation which was done on some meetings in Microteaching classes. It was followed by distributing questionnaire to the students of three different Microteaching classes. The writer also interviewed nine students; three students from three different classes, to gain deeper information about the students’ perception on the feedback given by the lecturers.
viii
ABSTRAK
Restuningtyas, Riskisari. 2010. Students’ Perception on The Supervisor’s Feedback in Improving Students’ Teaching Performance in Microteaching Class. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Pendidian Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Mata kuliah Microteaching dirancang untuk mempersiapkan mahasiswa program studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris sebagai calon guru yang berkualitas. Dalam mempersiapkan mahasiswanya untuk dapat mengajar dengan baik, umpan balik adalah suatu sarana yang dapat membantu mahasiswa untuk mengembangkan kemampuan mereka dalam mengajar. Umpan balik memberikan gambaran akan kelebihan dan kekurangan mahasiswa pada saat praktik mengajar, sehingga mahasiswa mampu mengembangkan kelebihan dan memperbaiki kekurangannya tersebut. Selain itu melalui umpan balik, dosen memberikan saran – saran kepada mahasiswa mengenai bagaimana cara mengajar yang baik.
Penelitian dilakukan terhadap mahasiswa program studi pendidikan bahasa inggris yang mengambil mata kuliah di tiga kelas Microteaching yang berbeda pada tahun ajaran 2010/2011. Ada tiga masalah yang dibahas dalam penilitian ini. Yang pertama adalah umpan balik apa yang diberikan oleh dosen. Permasalahan yang kedua adalah persepsi mahasiswa terhadap umpan balik dari dosen dalam meningkatkan penampilan mahasiswa di kelas Microteaching. Masalah terakhir yang akan dibahas dalam penelitian ini adalah saran mahasiswa kepada dosen mengenai cara pemberian umpan balik terhadapa para mahasiswa. Penelitian diawali dengan pelaksanaan observasi pada beberapa pertemuan di kelas
Microteaching. Dilanjutkan dengan pembagian kuesioner kepada mahasiswa dari tiga kelas Microteaching yang berbeda. Untuk mendapatkan informasi yang lebih mendalam mengenai persepsi mahasiswa, penulis melakukan wawancara terhadap sembilan mahasiswa Microteaching, masing – masing tiga mahasiswa dari tiap kelas.
ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to God the Almighty for the blessing, love and strength He has given to me during the completion of my thesis. I believe that this achievement is nothing without Him.
My gratitude also goes to Agustinus Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A. as my major sponsor. I thank him for guiding me in the process of completing this thesis from the beginning until the end, spending his time to read and give beneficial feedback for my thesis, and for always giving me encouragement to finish this thesis. I also thank him for giving me permission to do the research in his Microteaching class.
I am indebted to my lecturers, especially Christina Kristiyani, S.Pd., M.Pd. and V. Triprihatmini, S.Pd., M.Hum., M.A. who gave me permission to observe and conduct my research in their class. I really thank them for being so cooperative. They also gave me valuable suggestions for my thesis.
x
My gratitude extends to my beloved friends, Vita, who always became my partner in finishing the thesis and kept motivating me to do the best, Aldi and Nonok who were my best motivators in doing the thesis, and Anneis and Sarce, who always remind me to live optimistically and taught me many positive lessons of life. I also thank Pupuy, Puput, and Niken to be my good friends in the bad and good times we shared during our study. Many thanks are also addressed to my PBI friends Andre “Kisruh”, Dita, Adi, Alex, Mupet, Tata, Satrio, Thunder, Sari “Buben”, Neisya, Christine, and Susan for the beautiful friendship we have and to those whose names cannot be mentioned one by one.
I am further indebted to all Microteaching students who became my research participants for their cooperation in filling the questionnaires and being my interviewees.
Finally, I would like to express my appreciation for PBI Staffs, Mbak Daniek and Mbak Tary for their assistance in providing information during my study.
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE ... i
APPROVAL PAGES ... ii
DEDICATION PAGE ... iv
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... v
ABSTRACT ... vii
ABSTRAK ... viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... xi
LIST OF TABLES ... xiv
LIST OF FIGURES ... xv
LIST OF APPENDICES ... xvi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION A. Research Background... 1
B. Problem Formulation ... 4
C. Problem Limitation... 4
D. Research Objectives ... 5
E. Research Benefits ... 5
F. Definition of Terms ... 6
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Theoretical Description ... 8
1. Microteaching ... 8
a. The Elements of Microteaching ... 10
1) Patterns of Training ... 10
2) The Supervisor ... 10
3) Microteaching Students ... 12
xii
2. Perception ... 13
a. Factors Influencing Perception ... 13
1) External Factors ... 13
2) Internal Factors ... 13
3) Difficulty Factors in Perception ... 14
3. Feedback ... 15
a. Definition of Feedback ... 15
b. The Purposes of Feedback ... 16
c. Sources of Feedback ... 18
d. Types of Feedback ... 19
e. Forms of Feedback ... 19
4. Teaching Performance and Improvement ... 20
B. Theoretical Framework ... 20
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY A. Research Method ... 22
B. Research Participants ... 23
C. Research Instruments ... 25
D. Data Gathering Technique ... 26
E. Data Analysis Techniques ... 27
F. Research Procedure... 29
CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION A. Research Findings and Data Analysis ... 31
1. Feedback from the Lecturers ... 32
2. The Microteaching Students’ Perception on the Supervisor’s Feedback in Improving Students’ Teaching Performance in Microteaching Class ... 39
xiii
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusions ... 63 B. Suggestions ... 64
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Table 1. The Result of the Closed Response of the Questionnaire ... 28
Table 2. The Result of the Open Response of the Questionnaire ... 29
Table 3. The Way the Lecturers Gave Feedback ... 74
Table 4. The Time the Lecturers Gave Feedback ... 74
Table 5. The Details of the Feedback ... 75
Table 6. The Content of the Feedback ... 75
Table 7. The Feedback Readers ... 76
Table 8. The Result of the Closed Response of the Questionnaire ... 80
Table 9. The Feedback from the Lecturer ... 81
Table 10. The Students’ Perception about the Feedback ... 86
Table 11. The Students’ Perceptions on the Way the Lecturer Gave Feedback .. 91
Table 12. Students’ Improvement after Having the Feedback ... 96
Table 13. The Use of the Feedback ……… 101
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Figure 1. Learning Process Package by Elson and Ray ... 16
Figure 2. Feedback’s being Helpful in Improving Students’ Teaching Performance in Class ... 40
Figure 3. Feedback in Improving Students’ Performance ... 41
Figure 4. Feedback as Motivation for the Students ... 41
Figure 5. Appropriate Way of Giving Feedback ... 42
Figure 6. Not Putting Serious Concern on the Feedback ... 43
Figure 7. The Importance of the Feedback ... 44
Figure 8. The Reliability of Lecturers’ Feedback ... 44
xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendices
Appendix 1. Permission Letters ... 69
Appendix 2. Observation Sheet ... 72
Appendix 3. Raw Data of the Observation Sheet ... 74
Appendix 4. Questionnaire ... 77
Appendix 5. Raw Data of the Questionnaire ... 80
Appendix 6. Interview List ……….. 110
1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter will be divided into six parts. The first part is the background of the study which reveals the reason why the researcher conducted the research. The second part is the problem formulations as the main point to be discussed in the study. The third is the problem limitation which will limit the discussion of the study. The next part is the objectives of the study. The fifth part reveals the benefits of the study and the last part of this chapter is the definition of terms.
A. Research Background
Teaching and learning process is a process in which teachers assist the students in learning by transferring information and facilitating the students to understand it. In other words, teachers have an important role in students’ achievement. Teaching is not simply about transferring information to the students but it is about how to give information to the students so that the students can make use of the information they have got. Teachers need to have the knowledge and skills to be able to teach the students.
teaching is trained from a course named Microteaching (KPE 373). This course is aimed at helping the students understand the concepts and procedure of English language teaching and is able to apply them in a real classroom teaching situation and to evaluate their teaching performance (Panduan Akademik, 2006). Concepts and procedure of English language teaching means the process happened in the teaching process. It includes the procedure of teaching starting from the set induction (how to open the lessons), main activity, and set closure (how to close the lessons) and also the skills used in the process. This course is a prerequisite course for students for PPL (Program Pengalaman Lapangan), a course in which the students practice teaching in the real situation (at school). In Microteaching course, students will learn how to teach and make use of the knowledge of the subjects they already have.
the ones who have experiences related to teaching and also the knowledge of English language teaching. Thus, the feedback from the supervisor can be said as the reliable and more objective feedback rather than the feedback given by their peer.
Students will experience the class teaching three times; the first class teaching (progress test 1), lower semester students class teaching (progress test 2), and the second class teaching (final test). In other words, in the first class teaching, students will practice teaching with little experiences and they teach on their way. Here, the feedback they get from the first teaching will be the evaluation for students on the way they teach. Students will be aware of their strengths and weaknesses. By being aware of their strengths and weaknesses, the students will improve the way they teach by working on the suggestion and improving the weaknesses to perform better in the next class teaching.
B. Problem Formulation
The problems of the research are presented as follows. 1. What is the feedback from the lecturer?
2. What are the students’ perceptions on the supervisor’s feedback in improving students’ teaching performance in Microteaching class?
3. What are the students’ suggestions for the supervisors in giving the feedback?
C. Problem Limitation
D. Research Objectives
Based on the problems stated on the problem formulation, there are three main objectives of the research.
1. The research attempts to find out what feedback that the students got from the lecturers.
2. The research attempts to find out Microteaching students’ perception on the supervisor’s feedback in improving students’ teaching performance in Microteaching class.
3. The research also would like to know what Microteaching students’ suggestions for the supervisors.
E. Research Benefits
As teacher candidates, the students of English Language Education Study Program are required to have competence in teaching. Students will need a long process to have it. Feedback, especially supervisor’s feedback, gives the biggest contribution which can provide comments on the way the students teach and suggestions to improve the way they teach. Hopefully, this research can give contribution to English language Education Study Program especially for the students, supervisors, and other researchers.
1. For students
Students can improve the weaknesses and do the suggestion from the supervisors in order to be better. For this reason, the students will realize that feedback is important for them in their teaching practice and how they deal with it.
2. For Microteaching lecturers or supervisors
This research provides the students’ perception on the supervisor’s feedback. The Microteaching lecturers or supervisors can have the general perception on how the students perceive the feedback given from this research. Moreover, concerning on the research, the lecturers can provide feedback in a better way that they could motivate and encourage the students in teaching.
3. For other researchers
For other researchers, hopefully, this research can be a reference to conduct a research related to the topic. This research provides some information which can be valuable for other researcher in supporting the research.
F.Definition of Terms 1. Microteaching
2. Perception
Perception (Robbins, 2005) is a process by which individuals organize and interpret their sensory impressions in order to give meaning to their environment. In this research, perception is the way students feel and think about the supervisor’s feedback on their teaching performance.
3. Supervisor
The supervisor is one who helps the trainees to do what he should do and let him know what he has done (Allen and Ryan, 1969). In this research, supervisors are the lecturers of Microteaching course. Supervisors and lecturers are interchangeable in this research.
4. Feedback
Feedback is a way for teachers to describe their learners’ language and for learners; feedback is an ongoing form of assessment which is more focused than marks or grades (Lewis, 2002). Thus, in this research, feedback is any form of evaluation of the teaching performance of the students given by the supervisors to the students.
5. Teaching Performance
8 CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
There are two parts discussed in this chapter. They are theoretical
description and theoretical framework. In the theoretical description, the
researcher discusses some theories and research studies which are relevant to
the topic. In the theoretical framework, the researcher relates the theories to
the study.
A. Theoretical Description 1. Microteaching
According to Ryle (1949) and Smith (1969a) as cited by George Brown
(1973), in philosophical terms, teaching is a task word like’ hunting’ or fishing
not an achievement word like winning. It follows from this that in the first
attempt at teaching, a person might want the students to learn what he wants
the pupils to learn but in fact, the pupils may not learn it as he wants. In order
to be able to teach well, teacher candidates should have a kind of teaching
activities which can help them to improve their teaching skills. Microteaching
is what teacher candidates need to have because in Microteaching, the student
teachers have a twofold intention: that his pupils learn while he learns to teach
(Brown, 1975:70).
Microteaching is a series of teaching practice which is designed to develop
new skills and improve old ones (McKnight, 1971). In addition, Allen and
applied at various pre-service and in-service stages in the professional
development of teachers. Microteaching offers teachers a practice situation
which is almost the same as the real classroom teaching but with there will be
some different situation since it is not as complex the real classroom. In
microteaching, a teacher teaches a number of pupils. The teaching will be
recorded and the lecturers, as the supervisors, will observe and analyze their
teaching performance and also give feedback on it.
According to Allen and Ryan (1969), there are five essential propositions
in microteaching:
1) Microteaching is real teaching.
Although teaching in microteaching is conducted in practice situation
where there are teachers and pupils involved in learning process, the real
teaching process takes place.
2) Microteaching lessens the complexities of normal classroom teaching.
Number of students, time allocation, and subject content are reduced.
3) Microteaching focuses on training for the accomplishment of specific
tasks.
These tasks may be the practice of instructional skills, the practice of
techniques of teaching, the mastery of certain curricular materials, or the
4) Microteaching allows for the increased control of practice.
In the practice setting of microteaching, the rituals of time, students,
methods of feedback and supervision can be manipulated. As a result, a high
degree of control can be built into training program.
5) Microteaching greatly expands the normal knowledge-of-results or
feedback dimension in teaching.
After doing the teaching practice, teacher will get feedback on his
performance. He also can observe by himself how he performs and how he
can improve. The feedback can be used to improve their next teaching.
a. The Elements of Microteaching
There are some elements of Microteaching according to Allen and Ryan
(1969) that have been developed at Stanford:
1) Patterns of Training
It is about the activity in microteaching. The patterns of training consist of
the micro-lesson, the micro-class, and the research clinical session (Allen and
Ryan, 1969:38). According to Buku Pedoman Pengajaran Mikro Universitas Sanata Dharma (2008), the activities in microteaching include peer teaching, group teaching, integrated teaching skills 1, lower semester students’ teaching,
and integrated teaching skills 2.
2) The Supervisor
The microteaching supervisor is essentially a teacher (Allen and Ryan,
1969:45). Allen and Ryan also stated that the supervisor has a duty to help the
them understand when the skill should be applied (1969:45). In a previous
research in Standford Microteaching Clinic, supervisors are teaching and
research assistant who normally had a minimum of three years of classroom
experience (Allen and Ryan, 1969). Carl D. Glickman (1985:76) stated that
“most supervisors are former teachers” and he further mentioned that
supervisors mostly make an effort to improve students’ behavior,
achievement, and attitude.
Supervisor has essential roles in microteaching. His roles are to work on
improving trainees’ teaching performance, providing the understanding of
teaching behavior, and when the trainees perform, the supervisor is one who
helps the trainees to do what he should do and let him know what he has done
(Allen and Ryan, 1969).
In providing feedback on the trainees’ teaching performance, the supervisor
knows how to discuss it with the trainees without hurting them with critics.
Besides, it is fine for the supervisor to have an expectation on the trainees to
perform better.
Allen and Ryan (1969) argued that just as a supervisor knows what to
expect from a teacher, the teachers knows what to expect from a supervisor. It
is obvious that supervisor is a reliable source of aid and feedback in helping
the trainees to improve their teaching skill ability.
A study by Switzer (1976) as cited by Turney found that supervisors
contribute much help about knowledge for the student teacher. Furthermore,
attitudes and teaching styles of student teacher” (The International
Encyclopedia of Teaching and Teacher Education [TIETTE], 1987 pp
689&694).
3) Microteaching Students
Students are as the basic element in the microteaching as trainees. The
microteaching students provide the realism in this teaching encounter (Allen
and Ryan, 1969).
b.Skills Components of Teaching
Component skills of teaching are what the teacher candidate need to
develop to be a teacher. Some component skills of teaching based on the
observation sheet of Microteaching of Sanata Dharma University (2006) are:
1)Set induction and closure
Set induction and closure consist of getting students’ attention and drawing
students’ attention, motivating students, giving references, presenting
relevance, making a review, giving psychological/social encouragement, and
giving feedback.
2)Explaining skills and stimulus variation
Explaining skills and stimulus variation consist of orientation, language,
examples or illustration, material organization, feedback, voice, focusing,
pause, eye contact, facial expressions, gestures, movement, interaction style,
3)Questioning skills and reinforcement
Some components in questioning skills and reinforcement are clarity and
relevance, types of questions, speed and pauses, distribution of questions,
teacher’s response, qualified questions, verbal reinforcement, non-verbal
reinforcement, and reinforcement techniques.
The components skills of teaching explained above are the components that
the trainees need to develop in Microteaching class to be a teacher.
2. Perception
a. Factors Influencing Perception
Some factors influence the way people perceive thing differently and those
factors can be classified into:
1)External Factors
These factors come from the perceiver, target, and the situation. (Robbins,
2005:134). Robbins mentioned that the factors in the perceiver include
attitudes, motives, interests, past experience and expectations, while the
factors in the target are like novelty, motion, sounds, size, background,
proximity, and similarity. The last external factor that is important is the
situation such as time, work setting, and social setting.
2)Internal Factors
Altman et al. (1985:86) explained some factors which influence one’s
a) Selection of stimuli
When one see things, one is about to select a small number of the stimuli
exist and that was called selection. People perceive things differently since
they select specific cues and filters, or screens. People use the cues and filters
or screens when they found something distracting. Everyone has different
threshold to filter that distraction.
b) Organization of stimuli
The information that has been selected should be organized. This
organization is aimed at making the information becomes meaningful. The
minds will work to organize the information by selecting items and putting it
together based on experience.
c) Self-concept
Self-concept is the way one feels about and perceives himself. Altman et al.
(1985:90) also stated that the way one sees himself affects his perception of
the world around him. Self-concept is important because the concept in our
mind provides much influence on how we perceive things.
3)Difficulty Factors in Perception
Altman et al. stated that the perception process of one people to another is
different and this difference causes the difficulty (1985:91). The four factors
contributing the difficulty according to Altman are:
a) Stereotyping
Stereotyping is the process of categorizing people or things based on a
people see, hear, and experience from their surrounding like school and mass
media. Stereotyping helps the decision maker simplifies the situation. Another
explanation about stereotyping is that it is when one judges someone on the
basis of his perception of the group which he or she belongs (Robbins,
2005:140).
b)Halo effect
It is closely related to stereotyping. According to Altman (1985:92), Halo
effect refers to the use of a known particular trait as the basis for an overall
evaluation. For example, a student who registers in a university and finds that
the registration committee is friendly, he may decide that the university offers
friendly environment.
c) Perceptual defense
People have tendency to select or attend to information that supports their
viewpoints, and concurrently, to ignore or fail to perceive information that is
contrary to their opinions (Altman et al, 1985)
d)Projection
Projection occurs when one attributes his own feelings to others.
3. Feedback
a. Definition of Feedback
Lewis (2002) stated that feedback is a way for teachers to describe their
all the teaching process and also become the teaching evaluation for their own
teaching.
As cited by Harmer, Paul Black and Dylan William (1998) noted that the
feedback from teachers was the most important factor on students’
achievement. They added that it was important to give appropriate feedback to
the students as well as to the activities they are involved in (Harmer, 2007).
Charles Elson and Charles M. Ray (1983:261) had his thought on how
important the feedback is in learning process. Below was the learning package
by Elson and Ray:
Elson and Ray noted that “practice or hands-on activity is an important part
of any training program”. Feedback that was given immediately could help
students to make a quick response correction or adjustment, explained Charles
and Ray (1983:261).
b.The purposes of Feedback
According to Harmer, feedback on their performance was what the
students wanted and expected from their lecturer (2007:143). Following the
teaching practice, which was quite difficult for the students at the beginning,
Kinicki (2008:249) noted that “students want to know two things: how they
did and how their peers did”. Thus, the purpose of the feedback for
Microteaching students was to achieve their goal to be a qualified teacher
candidate.
Training ↔ Practice ↔ Feedback ↔ Adjustment
Lewis (2002:4) explained that the feedback given to the trainees has its
purposes. The purposes include:
1)Feedback provides information for teachers and students.
Feedback gives information to the teacher about the progress of the
teaching done by the students and as a mean of teaching evaluation. In the
other hand, feedback will provide the strengths and weaknesses of the students
so that they can improve what should be improved to perform better. Besides,
through the feedback which was given, the students become aware of their
own progress.
2)Feedback provides students with advice about learning.
Teacher or supervisor does not provide only about theory of language use
but also provide comments and suggestions in a form of feedback for the
students in their teaching process.
3)Feedback provides students with language input.
The feedback from teacher or supervisor in any form of feedback can
provide students language input. The feedback explains how the language is
used. Teacher or supervisor may also offer higher level of language through
the feedback and it helps the students to increase their vocabulary.
4)Feedback can be a motivation for students.
Students need encouragement to study. The feedback given can be a
motivation for the students. They can do their best by improving the
who understands about their students’ ability and during the course teacher
can encourage the students by giving personal feedback.
5)Feedback can lead students toward autonomy.
One important purpose of giving feedback is leading the students to realize
their own mistake.
The purpose of feedback was also discussed by O.B. Smith. He stated that a
previous research showed a result that “feedback can be effective in
motivating and facilitating behavioral changes” (TIETTE, 1987). According to
Ausubel and Robinson 91969 pp. 299-300), as cited by Smith (TIETTE,
1987), the result of feedback was students became more confident on their
learning and they could focus on how they could pay more attention on the
aspects that need improvement.
c. Sources of Feedback
Students must need to get feedback to improve. Lewis stated that feedback
can be provided by teacher, peer, or oneself (2002).
1)Teacher feedback
The feedback is given by the teacher orally and/or written. It can be in
forms of conferencing, collective feedback, comment orally one by one,
feedback sheet, summarized feedback on the board and checklist.
2)Peer feedback
3)Self-correction
Through the self-correction, students learn to be aware of their mistakes
and they can correct their own work.
d.Types of Feedback
According to Stone and Nielsen (1982) as quoted by Berewot (2001), there
are two types of feedback, namely informational and affective feedback.
Informational feedback refers to the information which functions as the
correction, clarification, evaluation and identification of the incorrect response
produced by the students. Meanwhile, affective feedback refers to the
occurrence of positive reinforcement to the correct response given by the
students. The function of this feedback is to secure the performance and to
strengthen positive emotion to the classroom.
e. Forms of Feedback
Feedback, according to Woolfolk (1987), can be conveyed in oral and
written forms. Oral feedback fits well with the younger students since it can
help the students to pinpoint and correct the misconception immediately,
whereas written feedback is effective for older students.
A recording video of the students’ teaching performance could be very
helpful in giving the feedback to the students. The lecturer could give oral
feedback based on the video and asked students what was their difficulties.
Lecturer could also write down the individual feedback for the students after
4. Teaching Performance and Improvement
The feedback on students’ teaching performance provides information
about how well they teach what they can improve to teach the pupils better.
By means of microteaching, students wish to improve their performance
through the series of activities provided (Allen and Ryan, 1985).
The previous studies at Stanford (Fortune, Cooper, and Allen, 1967;
Cooper and Stroud, 1967) found that over two hundred students found
significant improvements in planning, clarity of explanations, use of pupil
ideas and positive reinforcement (Brown, 1978:17). Every elements of
microteaching like students, the supervisor, and the observers experienced an
improvement on their teaching performance.
B. Theoretical Framework
Considering the idea above, the writer attempted to find the answer of
three research questions that has been stated in Chapter 1. In answering the
first question, the writer referred to a theory of feedback by Woolfolk (1987).
The theory explained that feedback can be conveyed in oral and written
forms. The writer also used the theory of feedback by Lewis (2002) which
explained the way and the forms of feedback. Using the theories, the writer
attempted to see the way the lecturer gave feedback in Microteaching classes.
For the second question, the writer focused on some theories of feedback.
The first was the theory of feedback by Paul Black and Dylan Williams
achievement. The theory was used to observe how the students of
Microteaching classes perceived the feedback. Second, the writer used a
theory by Smith (1987) about how feedback can facilitate behavioral changes
and that the result of feedback facilitates improvements. It was to see how
feedback contributed in students’ teaching performance in Microteaching
class. The writer used supervisor theory by Allen and Ryan (1969), which
explained supervisors are teaching and research assistant that normally had a
minimum of three years of classroom experience. Furthermore, Carl D.
Glickman mentioned that “most supervisors are former teachers” (1985:76).
Another theory that was used in this research was a theory by Switzer (1976)
as cited by Turney that supervisor had influence on the development of the
students. Those theories were to discover how students respond to the
feedback which was given to the students, especially by the lecturers. A
The last research question was what the students of Microteaching classes
suggested to the lecturers in giving the feedback in Microteaching classes. To
answer the question, the writer made use a theory by Harmer (2007) which
clearly mentioned that feedback was what students wanted and expected from
their lecturers. Kinicki (2008) also mentioned that students had an intention to
know how they performed. In brief, students might have some suggestions for
the lecturers to gain the optimal feedback they need. Referring to the theory,
the writer would like to find out what suggestions the students had for the
22 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses the methodology used by the writer in
conducting the study in order to discover the answer of the research questions
stated in chapter I. The methodology will be presented in six sections which are
research method, participants, instruments, data gathering technique, data analysis
technique, and the research procedure.
A. Research Method
The research was intended to answer three research questions. Those three
questions are: “What is the feedback from the lecturers?”, “What are the students’
perceptions on the lecturers’ feedback in improving students’ teaching
performance in Microteaching class?”, and “What are the suggestions for the
lecturers in giving feedback to the students?”.
In this research, the writer used survey method. Survey is used to measure
attitudes, opinions, or achievements-any number of variables in natural settings
(Wiersma, 1995).
“[S]urvey research … is the method of collecting information by asking a set of preformulated questions in a predetermined sequence in a structured questionnaire to a sample of individuals drawn so as to be representative of a defined population.
(Hutton 1990, p.8)
Implementing the survey research, the writer attempted to discover the
students’ teaching performance in Microteaching class by collecting data through
questionnaire. The writer also conducted observation and interview in this
research. The observation was to observe the how and when the lecturers gave
feedback, while the interview was conducted to gain deeper perception of the
students on the feedback. In this research, three students coming from three
different Microteaching classes became the interviewees.
B. Research Participants
The participants of the research were students of English Language
Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University who were taking
Microteaching (KPE 373) class in academic year 2009/2010. The participants were chosen since the writer attempted to find out the Microteaching students’
perception on the lecturer’s feedback in improving their performance in
Microteaching class. This research would reveal the students’ perception on
feedback and how feedback can improve their teaching performance.
There were seven Microteaching classes in academic year 2009/2010. In
order to get the data for the research, the writer did the research on three of seven
classes of Microteaching which were class D, E, and G with three different
lecturers. The other students in the classes, which were class A, B, C, and F, were
not chosen as participants. The writer did not choose Class A because the class
was taught by a lecturer who became microteaching lecturer for the first time and
the lecturer did not give any specific feedback to the students like any other
so the writer decided to choose one of them only. Class C was not included
because this class had the same schedule with class D so that the writer could not
observe the class. Class F and G were taught by the same lecturers so the writer
decided to choose one of them. The classes to be observed were representative
enough to represent the sixth semester students who were taking the
Microteaching class. Researching the students taught by different lecturers, the
writer would get the students’ perception in relation to the way the lecturers give
feedback.
The total number of the participants was 66 students. Moreover, the writer
also interviewed nine students, three students from each class, to get deeper
information on their perception on the feedback by asking for more explanation
related to the questionnaire. Those nine students were chosen using purposive
sampling. The writer selected nine students from each class, one student with
below average performance, one student with average performance, and the other
one with above average performance. Those students were chosen as they
represented the students of each class. Before deciding which students to be
interviewed, the writer asked information about the students which had below,
average, and above average in their performance from the lecturers. The data
obtained from those nine students and the data obtained from the population
C. Research Instruments
In order to obtain the reliable and valid data, this research made use of five
instruments namely observation sheet, interview list, questionnaire, interviews
and recorder. The observation sheet (see Appendix 2) contained some points
about what to be observed. The writer attempted to discover any information
about the Microteaching Class related to how and when the lecturers gave
feedback to the Microteaching students.
The second instrument employed in this research was interview list. The list
(see Appendix 6) contained some questions that should be answered orally. The
questions were designed from the simple to the complex questions to find out
further information about Microteaching students’ perception on the feedback.
Another instrument used was questionnaire. The questionnaire (see Appendix
4) contained some statements related to how students perceived feedback from the
lecturers, whether the feedback improved their second performance in
Microteaching Class and their comments and suggestions for the lecturers on how
feedback should be given to help the students improve their performance. The
questionnaire consisted of two different parts. The first part was close-ended
questions which consisted of a set of statements with the five optional answers in
a form of the degree of agreement of strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree,
strongly disagree that students could choose. The second part was the open-ended
questions which were a set of question where they could give their opinion and
For the interview, the writer employed a recorder to record all the spoken
data from the participants when they were answering the questions stated in the
interview list. In addition to that, the writer also made use of video recording of
students’ teaching performance to observe their improvement.
D. Data Gathering Technique
Having the research instruments, the writer employed some techniques to
obtain the data needed. The first was doing observation on three selected
Microteaching Classes. Those observations were aimed at discovering what the
feedback that the lecturer gave to the students is. In the observations, the writer
used the observation sheet as a guideline of what data was needed. The
observations were done on May 11th, 12th, 17th and April 8th, 9th, 16th, 24th, 30th
2010, on weekly meeting of each Microteaching class.
The next step was distributing questionnaire to discover their perception on
the lecturer’s feedback in improving their teaching performance in Microteaching
Class and their suggestion for the lecturers in giving feedback to the students. The
questionnaire was distributed on May 6th, 7th, and 14th 2010. It was on their last
meeting of Microteaching Class when all of the students had their second class
teaching practice. The students did not fill the questionnaire in class but the writer
asked the students to bring it home because of some reasons. The first reason was
they were exhausted mentally and physically since the class ended at 4 or 6 P.M.
was they would have some times to think to answer the questions in the
questionnaire. Hence, they could provide the best answer they could give.
The writer had an interview with nine students on May 17th – 26th 2010.
Before having the interview, the writer analyzed the questionnaire filled by those
nine students. The writer did the interview to get their deeper perception about the
feedback and their teaching performance after having the feedback. Afterward, to
see whether there was an improvement on their teaching performance and to
check the result of the interview, the writer observed video recordings of three
students’ performance of their progress test 1 and final test. The writer compared
the first and the second video to see the improvement.
E. Data Analysis Technique
All the data gained through some techniques using certain instruments were
analyzed to obtain the result of the research. The first data to analyze were the
data gained from the first observation to three Microteaching classes. The data
provided information about what feedback that the students got from the lecturers.
The data would be categorized to make it easier to observe the time and the way
of every lecturer in giving feedback. The data collected through the observation
on three different lecturers would be compared to show that there were different
ways of giving feedback from one lecturer to another. Each item of the
observation sheet would be presented in a form of table to show the difference.
The data would be analyzed later by elaborating it with the data gained through
The second data to analyze was gained from questionnaire. The result of the
questionnaire provided data about students’ perception on the feedback they got
and how they improved after having one. First, the writer counted how many ticks
were put in the degree of agreement of “strongly agree”, “agree”, “neutral”, “disagree”, and “strongly disagree” for each item. Second, the raw data from the calculation was counted into percentage using the formula below:
∑ : Total
Third, the data from the questionnaire was recorded in the table below.
Table 1. The Result of the Closed Response of the Questionnaires
No. Items
The Degree of Agreement
Table 2. The Result of the Open Response of the Questionnaires
Participant Answer
1. …
63. …
The next data to be analyzed was the raw data from the interview. The
result from the interview was recorded in interview transcript. The data from the
interview and video recording of three students’ performances would be analyzed
to see their improvement by comparing their teaching performance on the first and
final test.
Having all the data needed, the last thing the writer analyzed was about
the final result of how the way the lecturers giving feedback, students’ perception
on the feedback and their improvement, and also their suggestions on the way
supervisor’s giving feedback through the result of the observation, questionnaire,
and interview.
F. Research Procedure
This study conducted some well-organized procedures to be able to obtain the
data of the study effectively. The procedures are:
1. The Review of Library Data
The writer attempted to find related theories to the study to obtain some
information needed about the problems. The data found were classified into some
parts based on the research problem to be analyzed later. The data was used to
2. Survey Study
This method was conducted to collect exact data. The first step of this method
was designing the appropriate instruments namely questionnaire, the interview
list, and the observation sheet to obtain data. Having the instruments, the research
began to do some techniques to collect the data.
3. Analytical Study
The data collected through questionnaires were analyzed by having the
percentage of each data obtained through the close-ended question with five
optional answers.
The data collected through interviews were summarized into lists of main
points of the interviews. Afterwards, the data was then analyzed to discover the
overall students’ perception and suggestions. The data was used to discuss the
relationship between the theory and the data to see whether the research problem
31 CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter is to discuss the result of the research to answer the research questions stated in the previous chapter. The data were analyzed based on the methodology and discussed in a relation with the theories presented in Chapter 2.
A. Research Findings and Data Analysis
1. Feedback from the Lecturer
Feedback from the lecturers dealt with the ways and the time the lecturers gave feedback to the students. The ways mean in what form the feedback was given (spoken or written), in what way the feedback was given (orally or written), how the feedback was given (personally or to the whole class), and how detailed the feedback was (in detailed or general).
Meanwhile, the time means when the feedback was given to the students, whether directly after the students finished teaching or sometime after the teaching.
To find out the feedback that the lecturers gave to the students, the writer had some observations during the Microteaching classes and the observations, the writer observed the lecturers from the observation room. The writer also distributed questionnaires to the students to gain deeper information about their perception on the lecturers’ feedback.
a. Findings and Discussion
Referring to Appendix 3, the result of the observation and interview would be presented in this part. Woolfolk stated that feedback could be given both in oral and written form (1987). The result of the observation showed that the lecturers provided the feedback in some ways (See Appendix 3). In this part, the writer presented the result of the survey in three categories based on the students’ class. 1) Feedback in class D
In class D, the feedback was both in spoken and written form. It was given individually and to the whole class directly after the meeting and in one additional meeting after all of the students have the teaching practice. The feedback was specific and detailed. Further explanation about the feedback given in class D was presented below.
a) The form of the feedback
On the interview, some students explained that the feedback was about what the strengths and the weaknesses of the students are. It was given in spoken form and in the end of the class, they got a piece of paper containing the written feedback on their teaching performance also.
b) The Ways the Lecturer Gave the Feedback
Through the observation and interview (See Appendix 3 and Appendix 5), the students stated that feedback was given individually because after having the teaching practice or some days after that, added by some students, the lecturer asked the students to go to a room and they gathered together to discuss their teaching performance. Before that, the lecturer had a brief meeting with three observers who observed the other students’ teaching. The meeting was to discuss their opinion about their friends’ teaching performance. Afterwards, the lecturer invited the students who had practiced teaching to gather together with the observers. Those students were asked about their opinion on how their practice teaching was. Following that, the lecturer responded to it and gave feedback to them one by one.
c) The Detail of the Feedback
The feedback given by the lecturer was specific. It was clearly seen from the result of the questionnaire that 100% or all of the students agreed with that statement. It covered every detail of their performance. They stated that it was specific when it was given individually and general when it was done in the additional meeting as the writer has explained above. Students also wrote that the lecturer provided affective feedback since the lecturer provided positive encouragement for the students (Stone and Nielsen (1982) as cited by Berewot (2001)), for example: “You have to work hard in your pronunciation and grammar because someday you will become a language teacher, your skill is the main aspect to be a teacher.”
d) The Time the Lecturer Gave Feedback
From the observation, it was obviously seen that the lecturer gave the feedback after the three students have finished teaching. In the interview, they clarified that they got the feedback directly after the class was over and they got the feedback together with their two other friends.
2) Feedback in class E
a) The form of the feedback
The result of the questionnaire showed that the percentage of the students who agreed that the feedback was given in spoken or written form was the same (81% each). In other words, the feedback was not only in a spoken form but also in a written one. It confirms the theory of Woolfolk (1987: 539) which stated that feedback could be conveyed in two ways; oral and written form. From the observation, it could be seen that after having the general feedback orally, the lecturer distributed students’ portfolio during the semester. Based on the observation and explanation from the students in the interview, it was a compilation of what they have made during the course like lesson plans, materials, teaching reflections, and observation sheets which consisted of the written feedback from their friends and the lecturer.
b) The Ways and the Time the Lecturer Gave the Feedback
got the same feedback after the teaching practice because the lecturer only gave the feedback if there was serious mistake made by some students. The lecturer showed one’s mistake to the whole class so that other students, who had not had the teaching practice yet, would not do the same mistake like their friend did.
However, the lecturer also gave the feedback in an additional meeting, which was specially arranged to discuss all students’ teaching performance and to give the feedback to the students. From the observation, the writer observed that the lecturer kept the written feedback and gave it to each student in that meeting. It was a week after all students have finished the teaching practice. In the meeting, the lecturer gave the general feedback to all students. The lecturer explained the general problem that the most of the students had. The feedback was also given to each student.
c) The Detail of the Feedback
clearly what the ‘very good’ or ‘bad’ mean and in what case their good or bad at.
3) Feedback in class G
In class G, the feedback was mostly given in written form. It was given individually directly after the meeting. The feedback was specific and detailed. Below, the writer attempted to explain the feedback the students got in class G.
a) The Form of the Feedback
From the result of the questionnaire, it was obviously seen that 70% of the students stated agree that the feedback given individually. The feedback was given individually that every student got a piece of paper from the lecturer consisting of the feedback for them. It also clarified that about 90% of the students stated they got written feedback. The result of the questionnaire also showed that there were about 40% of the students stated that the feedback was given in front of the class. Based on the interview, one of the students explained that the oral feedback was given in some practices before they practiced the class teaching.
b) The Detail of the Feedback
in general. From the questionnaire, some students gave explanation that when the lecturer gave the feedback orally; he only gave feedback about more general things. In other words, the feedback was in general if it was given orally in front of the class and it was specific and contained individual things if it was given in written form (see Appendix 2 for the general overview of the result)
c) The Time the Lecturer Gave Feedback
From the observation, the writer noticed that the feedback was given directly after the students practiced teaching or after the three students finished teaching. It was all the same with the result of the questionnaire which showed that almost all of the students (90%) stated that the feedback was given directly. The rest of the students stated they were neutral in responding to the statement. On the contrary, in item 2 which stated the feedback was given indirectly, about 72% of the students stated they agreed with that.
2. The Microteaching Students’ Perception on the Supervisor’s Feedback in Improving Students’ Teaching Performance in Microteaching Class
b) The feedback given improves my performance.
Figure 3 shows that most of the students (95%) stated that the feedback they got improved their performance. However, the rest of the students (5%) stated neutral about the feedback.
In the open-response part, in general, most of the students who felt the improvement stated it was because from the feedback they could see their mistake and weaknesses in teaching. Having the feedback, the students learned from it and had more preparation in order to be better in teaching. Students who were neutral stated that it was because feedback did not always improve his performance since personally, he thought that it was difficult to be better.
c) The feedback given motivates me.
The highest percentages of Figure 4 (46% and 46%) showed the number of students who consider the feedback to give motivation to them.
There were only about 2% of the students did not think the same and 6% were neutral.
The result of the questionnaire showed that in general, the students clarified that the feedback motivated them since it offered some advices, suggestions, and the students’ strengths in teaching. The feedback motivated to be better in the next performance. A student stated that the feedback was neutral in improving the performance because he thought that it was not really helpful, without further explanation.
d) The way the lecturers in giving feedback are appropriate.
Figure 5 showed that there were 54% of the students who considered that the way the lecturers in giving the feedback were appropriate and another 30% strongly agreed with that. On the other hands, about 5% of the students thought in the opposite way. While the rest of the students did not think whether it was appropriate or not by being neutral.
30%
54% 11%
5% 0%
Figure 5. Appropriate Way of Giving Feedback
e) I do not put serious concern on the feedback.
It was obviously seen from Figure 6 that 75% of the students put serious concern on the feedback given by the lecturers and there were only 17% who did not. Some other students (17%) preferred to be neutral in responding the statement about the feedback given.
The students gave explanation on the open-response part that they put serious concern on the feedback because of some reasons. First, in their opinion the feedback was helpful. Second, they wanted to have better performance in the next teaching practice. The next reason was that they did not want to do the same mistake from the previous. The last thing was that by the feedback, they wanted to improve their teaching skill. On the other hands, the students being neutral was because they only put a little bit concern and one of them stated that she was accustomed to teach before having Microteaching class.
2% 6% 17%
59% 16%
Figure 6. Not Putting Serious Concern on the Feedback
f) Feedback is important in improving my performance to be better.
Most of the students in Microteaching class considered feedback to be important in improving their performance. It could be seen from Figure 7 above that 49% of the students stated strongly agreed and another 42% of the students stated agreed in responding to the statement. However, the 6% of the students stated neutral about the statement and the rest 3% thought it was not important.
g) The feedback from the lecturers is more reliable than the peer.
The figure above showed that most of the students agreed (44%) and even strongly agreed (17%) that the feedback from the lecturers was more reliable than the peer. About 29% of the students stated neutral and the rest considered that the feedback from the lecturers was not reliable.
42% 49%
6% 0% 3%
Figure 7. The Importance of the Feedback
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
17%
44% 29%
10% 0%
Figure 8. The reliability of Lecturers' Feedback
h) I need feedback from the lecturers to help you to improve my teaching performance.
Figure 9 showed that 95% of the students needed the feedback to help them to improve their teaching performance. There was only a student (2%) who did not need the feedback and the rest 3% were neutral in commenting on the statement.
2) Interview
To gain deeper information about the students’ perception, the writer also conducted an interview to nine students of Microteaching. Referring to Appendix 5, 6, and 7, every student had almost the same opinion about the feedback. In general, they gave explanation that the feedback motivated them to improve their teaching skills. The feedback let them know their weaknesses that they became more careful and tried not to have the same mistake. The feedback provided them the strengths to develop as well. The students explained that they used the feedback as their standard to do better.
In the interview, students told the writer that they could see what she could not see themselves when she was teaching. It helped them to realize what they should and should not do in teaching. The explanation was that the feedback became their concern to have a better performance in the next teaching. The
34% 61%
3% 0% 2%
Figure 9. The Need of Feedback
students added that overall, the way the lecturers gave feedback was appropriate but there were still some weaknesses on it that indirectly influenced their perception.
b. Discussion of the Students’ Perception on the Supervisor’s Feedback Microteaching is a significant subject in ELESP since it aims at helping the students to understand the concepts and procedure of English language teaching and be able to apply them in a real classroom teaching situation and to evaluate their teaching performance (Panduan Akademik, 2006). According to Allen and Ryan (1969), Microteaching is real teaching where students are involved in the real teaching process with a control of practice; time, students, materials, method, etc. Microteaching provides the students feedback and everything they need to be able to teach well at the end. Allen and Ryan also mentioned Microteaching offered a practice, a training of some teaching tasks and also feedback for students (1969).
As a part of Microteaching, feedback was the most important factor on students’ achievement (Black and Williams, 1998). Lewis mentioned that Microteaching provided feedback that could motivate and offer information and advices for the students (2002). In this part, the writer would reveal the Microteaching students’ perception on the supervisor’s feedback in improving their teaching performance in Microteaching class.
work setting, social setting, etc. as explained by Robbins (2005). Altman added that the differences are influenced by one’s self-concept, stereotyping, first impressions, etc (1985). Those factors might influence the students’ perception but overall, the result of the questionnaire showed that the perception of the Microteaching students on the feedback they got from the lecturers was positive.
Feedback was behind the students’ improvement in teaching. The feedback was helpful and important for them. It brought them a lot of knowledge about teaching. Below was the result of the research which showed the students’ perception on the feedback they got from the lecturers.
1) Feedback is helpful in improving students’ teaching performance.
The feedback helped the students of Microteaching to improve their performance since the purpose of feedback, according to Lewis (2002:4), is to lead the student to realize their own mistake. The result of the questionnaire which was presented in Figure 3 clearly showed that 95% of the students agreed with that. The students clarified it in the questionnaire that the feedback showed them their weaknesses as well as the strengths.
appearance, using media, and so on.” The feedback helped them to realize what went well and what went wrong in their performance. As a result, they could both improve or develop it. Lewis noted that feedback provided the students with language input (2002). The language input the students got from the feedback was about any aspects of English teaching, for example, the feedback was about grammar, pronunciation, materials, teaching techniques, time management, appearance etc.
Other purpose of feedback according to Lewis (2002) is that it provides students with advice in learning that makes the feedback was helpful for the students. In the questionnaire, some students mentioned the advice they got from the lecturer, such as “mind your set induction and make sure that it is related with the topic”, “use better modeling for the class”, “prepare the handouts because it helps the students to understand a difficult topic”, etc.
2) Feedback improves students’ teaching performance.
To see the improvement that the students stated in the interview, the writer observed three video recordings of the students’ teaching performance. It could be seen from the video that there were some improvements on their performance after getting the feedback. For example, students 1 stated in the interview that the feedback he got from the progress test 1 was about his being awkward in front of the class. In his video recording of the progress test 1, the writer observed that the student did not make many movements. He also did little communication with the students, but in the second video, he could make movements that he walked here and there and became more communicative.
Next, the writer would discuss how feedback could improve the students’ performance. Smith mentioned that feedback can facilitate behavioral changes and that the result of feedback would help the students to make improvements in some aspects (1987). In Microteaching class, feedback brought about an improvement for it showed the students how language is used and how to teach well. Previous study at Stanford found that students found significant improvements because of the feedback (Fortune, Cooper, and Allen, 1967; Cooper and Stroud, 1967). In the interview, they added that after getting the feedback, they felt the improvement from the first teaching. The students did better and became more confident in the next teaching practice.
3) Feedback motivates students in improving their teaching performance. Motivation was also needed to encourage students in teaching (Lewis, 2002). The motivation itself came from the feedback from the lecturers as their supervisor. Based on Figure 4, it was obviously seen that the majority of the students were motivated by the feedback to perform well in the next teaching practice.
provided advices and suggestions for them to think about and apply in the next teaching practice. It provided evidence for Lewis’ (2002) explanation that students could get learning advices through feedback. It helped the students to raise their confidence in teaching because they could see their strengths through the feedback. The feedback also supported them to improve their teaching performance.
4) The lecturers’ ways in giving the feedback is appropriate.
As Lewis (2002) mentioned, there were some ways in conveying feedback to the students. It could be given individually or in front of the whole class, directly or indirectly, in a spoken or written form, specific or general, or the combination of them. Each lecturer had different way in conveying the feedback one to another.
