The Development of Effective English Teacher Improvement Program Based on a Case Study of English Teaching in Madrasah in Indonesia

Siti Nurul Azkiyah


Teachers play very important roles, yet not all teachers can teach well and hence it is important to develop a teacher improvement program. Therefore, this study observed teaching and learning process to understand current teacher instruction so that priorities could be easily set up. 11 English teachers participated in the study. The eight classroom factors of the dynamic model (Orientation, Structuring, Modeling, Application, Questioning, Assessment, Building Classroom as a Learning Environment, and Time Management) are used as the framework since they are theory-driven and have been empirically proven to lead to better student outcomes. The data on the teaching of reading were descriptively analyzed, the results of which show almost no teachers did orientation and structuring, which could serve as pre-reading activities. Modeling was not really provided and students were left not to have sufficient tasks, hence during reading activities were not well delivered. Questioning was practiced by teachers but was limited to “product” questions. Lastly, collaboration and competition among students were not really promoted. The findings of this study suggest that all eight factors should be trained to teachers. It is expected that when teachers practice those factors, student outcomes will be better. 


Teacher instruction, the dynamic model, teacher improvement program

Full Text:



Antoniou, P. (2009). Using the dynamic model of educational effectiveness to improve teaching practice: building an evaluation model to test the impact of teacher professional development programs. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Cyprus: Department of Education.

CEQDA (2007). Laporan dampak kebijakan akreditasi, BOS, dan sertifikasi terhadap masa depan madrasah di DKI Jakarta. Jakarta: Kerjasama LAPIS dan CEQDA UIN Jakarta.

Cohen, L., and Manion, L., & Morrison, K., (2000) (5th Edition), Research Methods in Education, London: Routledge Falmer.

Cooper, J.D. (1986). Improving Reading comprehension. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Creemers, B.P.M. (1994). The Effective Classroom. London: Cassel.

Creemers, B.P.M. and Kyriakides, L. (2008). The Dynamics of Educational Effectiveness. London: Routledge.

Creemers B.P.M., & Reezigt G.J. (1996). School level conditions affecting the effectiveness of instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(3), 197-228.

Doherty, K.M. (2001, January 11). Poll: Teachers support standards with hesitation. Education Week / Quality Counts, 20(17).

Doyle, W. (1983). Academic Work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159-199.

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. London: Routledge Falmer.

Harris, A. (2002). School Improvement: what’s in it for school?. London: Falmer Press.

Harris, A. & Muijs, D. (2005). Improving schools through teacher leadership. London: Open University Press.

Hunt Jr., J.B, Rizzo, J.A, & White, A.D. (2009). Realizing the promise of standards-based reform. The Hunt Institute’s BLUEPRINT for Education Leadership No. 3. Retrieved from

Kaluge, L., Setiasih, Tjahjono, H. (2004). The Quality Improvement of Primary Children Learning through a School-Based Programme in Indonesia. A Research Paper. East Java: Universitas Surabaya.

Kropiewnicki, M. (2006). An investigation of effective instructional methods to train preservice teachers in reading comprehension strategies. Paper presented for the 2006 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association “Education Research in the Public Interest” at San Fransisco.

Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B.P.M. & Antoniou, P. (2009). Teacher behaviour and student outcomes: Suggestions for research on teacher training and professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25 (1), 12-23.

Marzano, R.J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McKenzie, P., Nugroho, D., Ozolins, C., McMillan, J., Sumarto, S., Toyamah, N., Febriany, V., Sodo, R. J., Bima, L., & Sim, A. A. (2014). Study on Teacher Absenteeism in Indonesia 2014. Jakarta : Education Sector Analytical and Capacity Development Partnership (ACDP).Miller, L.D. & Perkins, K. (1989). ESL reading comprehension institution. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED303779).

Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Hampston, J. M., & Echevarria, M. (1998). The nature of literacy instruction in ten grade 4 and 5 classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 159-191.

Priyanto, A.D. (2009). Maximizing SFL Contriburion to ELT Indonesia. UAD TEFL Conference. Yogyakarta: UAD Press.

Proefriedt, W.A. (2008). High expectations: The cultural roots of standards reform in American Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Richman, S. (2001). Parent power: why national standards won’t improve education. Policy analysis no. 396. Washington, DC.: Cato Institute.

Scheerens, J. (2004). Review of school and instructional effectiveness research. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005, The Quality Imperative. Retrieved online from

Stake, RE. (1994). Case Studies. In NK Denzin & YS Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.

The World Bank. (2012). Teacher certification in Indonesia: a doubling of pay or a way to improve learning. A Policy Brief No. 73264.

Utomo, E. (2005). Challenges of Curriculum Reform in the Context of Decentralization: The Response of Teachers to Competency Based Curriculum (CBC) and Its Implementation in Schools, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

Wise, A. E. & Darling-Hammond, L (1983). Beyond standardization: State standards and school improvement. Washington, DC: Dingle Associates, Inc.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.