March 2007, Volume 3

My Life Before, During, and After the Dissertation

by Trikartikaningsih Byas

The Dissertation -– Supervisory Conferences in EFL Teacher Development Programs within the Indonesian Non-formal Sector of Education.

Introduction

Life is a voyage…Seven years ago I docked my boat of nine-year graduate studies, culminated by the two year dissertation voyage, to embark on the employment as an EFL teacher in Indonesia.  Here I am standing on the deck of yet another and bigger ship facing the vast water ahead, reflecting on that dissertation voyage to learn from how I braved the waves and storms then so that I can prepare myself for the challenges and calmly navigate my current voyage on this ship of Composition Teaching in the U.S. higher education ocean.

The Dissertation Voyage Begins

When exactly did my dissertation voyage begin? Was it when I went to Indonesia to collect the data, or was it when I defended the dissertation proposal? I think my dissertation journey began when I decided on a topic to explore. To some people this can be the most challenging decision to make. For me, it was relatively easy. Before I completed the doctoral coursework, I already knew the topic of my dissertation—teacher development—an interest that grew since my early teaching years. My own insecurity with my knowledge of teaching and of the subject matter I was teaching as well as of my teaching performance instilled the importance of learning—developing personally and professionally. Not always sure of how to undergo the learning, I would join any activity that came my way. Having the opportunity to learn about the ‘what’, ‘why’, and ‘how’ of teacher development sparked my interest to learn more. Further, planning to return to and work in Indonesia after completing my graduate studies, I decided to study the development of EFL teachers in Indonesia. Doing so, I believed, would make my dissertation experience beneficial to my future career as well as would contribute to the field of teacher development in Indonesia. One year prior to my dissertation study I contacted and received approval to conduct my study at the Lembaga Bahasa LIA (LBLIA - LIA Language Institute) an institution offering non-formal English courses, whose teacher development programs resembled, but were not as complicated as, the programs in the formal sector.

Having a topic and a study site did not guarantee smooth sailing; I had to overcome problems such as choosing the term ‘education’ or ‘development,’ the pre-service or in-service stage; the training, supervision, or classroom observation activities; and the views of the teachers, teacher educators, supervisors, students, or management. Considering LBLIA conditions, I focussed on supervision because it occurred in both pre-service and in-service stages, it involved various development activities, and its conferences provided a context for the supervisors and teachers to interact professionally. In addition, supervision had been a shared concern for administrators, supervisors, and teachers at LBLIA, if not at every educational institution.

Choosing to focus on supervision allowed me to limit the study while also seeing the big picture of teacher development at LBLIA. My aim was to learn about supervision and supervisory conferences as means of teacher development, and I hoped to discover the language of EFL teacher supervision practices as well as explore the culturally defined characteristics of supervision and teacher development activities through which I could analyze other settings.

 Unlike studies on supervisory conferences conducted outside Indonesia, which focused only on post-observation conferences at the pre-service stage, my study looked at both pre-observation and post-observation conferences at both the pre-service and in-service stages. In addition, it also described the larger context of LBLIA teacher development activities in which the supervisory conferences occurred. Using the frameworks developed by Blumberg (1968, 1970, 1980), Waite (1990, 1992a, 1992b), and Arcario (1994), I tried to understand three aspects related to supervision: (1) the nature of interaction between supervisor and teachers, (2) the participants’ beliefs and practices of supervision, and (3) the participants’ opinions on supervision as a means of teacher development.

The study site. As my study was to be centered within a complex culture with a long history of development, much of my early efforts were to formalize, build on and confirm my previous knowledge of the research site. In the next few pages I describe the setting in some detail, mostly because I believe that it was (and still is) important to understand the complexity of the site where the research was to be carried out.

            The study site, LBLIA, at the time of the study was still the biggest institution that offered non-formal English courses in Indonesia, with nine branches and twenty affiliates all over Indonesia. LBLIA originated from the United States Information Service (USIS) in Indonesia in 1959 and after a series of changes in the government regulations, the English teaching activities were conferred to Perhimpunan Persahabatan Indonesia-Amerika (Indonesia-America Friendship Association), and later in 1980 to Yayasan LIA (LIA Foundation). Yayasan LIA delegated the English teaching activities—the backbone of Yayasan LIA finance—to LBLIA (Soewarsono, Fauzi, and Alhaziri, 2000).  LBLIA provided various English instructions including General English, English for Academic Purposes, and English for Specific Purposes. To provide English instruction appropriate for Indonesian settings, unlike other language institutes, LBLIA developed its own textbooks and testing instruments.

            Up to 1997, Indonesia was a unitary state with a highly centralized governmental administration. Such centralization was deemed necessary to create stability in a fragmented geographical and highly plural ethnic setting with a history of regional and ethnic rebellion (http://countrystudies.us/indonesia/81.htm). Education was under the control of the Department of National Education and it’s Regional Offices (at the provincial level). Both offices were responsible for the formal and non-formal education.  Formal education referred to public schooling from elementary to university levels organized and controlled by the government. Non-formal education referred to out-of-school education programs, which did not offer degrees and the main purpose was to support the formal education.

In the formal sector, the Department and its Regional Offices developed, implemented, and monitored the education programs and the teacher development programs. To become an English teacher, a person can take the pre-service teacher education program offered by IKIPs (Institute of Teacher Training and Educational Sciences) which offered two, three, and four-year programs. Once joining the public school system, teachers were involved in in-service teacher development programs organized and funded by the government. There were three major programs. First, the Department conducted Pengayaan Kerja Guru program, an upgrading program to introduce EFL teachers to the Communicative Approach. Second, the government offered scholarships to further their studies in English speaking countries for varied periods of time. Third, state-run IKIPs and the Department organized seminars and workshops on issues related to EFL teaching. Such programs could be at the local, regional, or national levels.

LBLIA belonged to the non-formal education. Similar to the formal counterpart, LBLIA conducted two types of teacher development programs: pre-service and in-service. The pre-service teacher development program was called “Trends and Techniques in the Teaching of English” (T3E for short)—an eight month program comprised of four month of theory and four month of practicum segments. Upon admission in the program, participants took the theory segment, which they had to pass before continuing to the practicum segment. The practicum required the participants to do six practice teachings. Participants with satisfactory performance in the program would receive a diploma which allowed them to join the LBLIA teaching staff. However, some T3E graduates ended up teaching at other institutions. The in-service teacher development programs, on the other hand, are more loosely structured. They included teaching observation by supervisors (once a year for senior teacher and once a term for junior teachers), up-grading courses, sharing programs and biannual seminars.

As a result of 350 years of occupation by the Dutch before gaining its Independence in 1945, Indonesian educators unsystematically adopted educational theories from other countries, mainly European (Semiawan, 1996), causing inconsistencies in practice. Similar random adoption of theories occurred in the field of supervision. Probably borrowed from the school monitoring system left by the Dutch colonial government, the practice of teaching supervision served mainly as a means to monitor conformity of teacher actions to the government regulations. And due to the highly bureaucratic political system in the country, supervision was often viewed as another bureaucratic job for administrative rather than for teacher development purposes, similar to what Salek (1975) and Hunter (1980) found in the U.S.

In the mist of these educational theories adopted from other countries existed LBLIA within the larger Indonesian educational system which was influenced by its social and cultural values. While not wanting to over-generalize, it is reasonable to say that Indonesians generally hold to their adat (custom) strongly. The adat teaches every Indonesian to be observant of three things—social status, interpersonal relations, and social interaction—in their social life which must follow the principles of rukun (harmony) and tatakrama (etiquette). Rukun, requires Indonesians to avoid open confrontation, and tatakrama, requires “the observance of speech, demeanor and behavior of respect towards all those whose position in society demands it” (Magnis-Suseno, 1997, p. 42). The adat also determines the appropriate attitudes and behaviors that would maintain harmonious interpersonal relationship. Each Indonesian is supposed to know her place in the world and behave accordingly. When interacting with others, she should adjust her speech and behavior according to her relative relationship with the interlocutors. Each individual is expected to maintain politeness and show respect to her interlocutors, especially when she interacts with people of a higher rank (older in age or higher in social status), by using polite language, softer voice, and submissive behaviors. These main values along with Ki Hadjar Dewantara’s principles of education—culture, family, and among (care and guidance)—affect how education is carried out in Indonesia. Culturally, educators are leaders (of higher social status), hence, should be respected. However, they bear the responsibility for providing proper guidance to the learners according to the among principles: tut wuri andayani (from behind, give support and encouragement), ing madya mangun karsa (among the learners, boost the spirit), and ing ngarsa sung tulada (in front, model appropriate behavior and attitude).

A qualitative paradigm. In my attempt to study the complex phenomenon of supervision in LBLIA within the Indonesian context, I selected a qualitative paradigm which had strategies were appropriate for the exploratory, explanatory and descriptive nature of the study. The study was exploratory because it investigated little-understood phenomenon, identified important variables, and generated hypotheses for further research. Up to the time of the study, EFL teacher supervision in Indonesia and in LBLIA was still unexplored. It was also explanatory because I aimed to explain a plausible network of forces that possibly accounted for how supervision was accomplished within a complex context. In presenting vignettes from the observed supervisory actions, for example, I included details to allow the readers to understand the forces behind the events. Finally, it was descriptive in that it documented and described the phenomena as they occurred. In describing an event, I included different sources to triangulate each description (Marshall & Rossman, 1995).

In line with the qualitative paradigm, I employed multiple data collection methods—observation, interview, and document collection—because I believed they would “contribute to the trustworthiness of the data” (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992, p. 24). In addition, different types of data often require different collection strategies. For example, to get a broad picture of how the community members view supervision, the questionnaire and group interview proved more effective than classroom observation. On the other hand, to know what happened in a supervisory conference, observing a live or video-recorded conference might be better than a survey.

I divided the study into initial and core phases. The initial phase consisted of a survey employing questionnaires and follow-up interviews in six locations: five branches in Jakarta and one branch in Bogor. There are three parallel questionnaires, each for different category of participants: Management, Supervisors and Teachers. Two hundred ninety three people participated in the initial phase stage—200 respondents, and 93 interviewees representing LBLIA management, supervisors, in-service, and pre-service teachers—which made the Additional Participants. The core phase focused on the five branches in Jakarta. Employing the three main data collection strategies—observation, interview, document collection—I gathered data from fifteen participants.  One supervisor paired with one pre-service teacher and one in-service teacher under her supervision represented each branch. These fifteen participants, summarized in Table 1, constituted the Core Participants of the study.

 Table 1 - Core Participants  

Note    F = Female                                           M = Male

          PT = Pre-service teacher                        IT = In-service teacher

R = Repeating the practicum

          Findings. LBLIA community members expressed their views on teacher development, especially supervision, quite eloquently. Although not always fluent in defining the terms, the various participant groups—management, supervisors, and teachers—agreed on the importance of teacher development and the existence of various ways that teachers could develop. They stated that teachers were responsible for their own development while also stressing the management’s responsibility to provide necessary supports. They were aware of the various teacher development activities available—upgrading programs, sharing program, supervision (and classroom observation), and biannual seminar. However, they pointed out that activities other than supervision rarely took place and often only occurred in certain branches, leaving out many teachers in other branches and affiliates. They further argued that limited opportunity, insufficient support from management, and supervisor’s lack of knowledge slowed teacher development at LBLIA. They then suggested that the management provide more scholarship for teachers, build multi-media language labs for teachers, establish teaching library, facilitate video-recording of teacher’s teaching, and schedule more program at different times and places (branches and affiliates).

Many participants viewed supervision as an important teacher development activity, which not only served the academic demand of developing teachers, but also the administrative purpose of evaluating teachers. This double function of supervision; however, was at the same time problematic. Many teachers disapproved a supervisor who spent more attention and time for the administrative (evaluation) function than the academic function. Unfortunately, the data showed that supervisors did have many administrative tasks which often took away the time for academic function. Their administrative tasks include scheduling and assigning teachers, scheduling exam time and proctors, checking the utilization of video programs and periodic assessment, checking teachers’ attendance and monthly report, compiling and creating assessment materials. The participants suggested that in addition to reducing the administrative activities, supervisors should focus on developing teachers rather than evaluating them, which could be done by applying a combination of supervisory styles—prescriptive, collaborative, or non-directive—depending on the teachers they were assisting.

The problems of supervision at LBLIA also included lack of time to develop interaction with teachers (in other context from observation and conferences), unclear standard of actions, low competence and absence of in-service supervisor development programs. The participants believed that management must provide necessary support to help develop ideal supervisors, i.e. supervisors who focused on developmental aspect of supervision by satisfying the prerequisite (having the knowledge, interpersonal communication skills, and technical skills) and applying this knowledge and these skills in their tasks (providing direct assistance, group development, curriculum development, professional development, and action research) to enable teachers to teach in a collective and purposeful manner uniting organizational and teacher needs to reach the goal of improving student learning (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon; 1998). Many participants believed that peer-observation might impact the development of in-service teachers more than observation by supervisors because teachers would be more open to and accepting of peers comments but reject supervisors whom they regarded mostly as evaluators.

In conducting an observation of both the pre-service and in-service teachers, supervisors would schedule a conference before and after the observation. The pre-observation conference was generally shorter than the post-observation, except when conferencing with pre-service teachers. The data showed that several supervisors spent more than one pre-observation conference to assist the pre-service teachers construct their lesson plans. The pre-observation conference focused on the teacher’s lesson plan, while the post-observation on the teacher’s in-retrospect and supervisor’s evaluation. The participants viewed the conferences as a means of making sure that the teacher’s plan conform to the format and principles of LBLIA lesson plans and of evaluating how well the teacher executed his/her teaching plans. The conferences were characterized by a pattern that consisted of an opening sequence, followed by the evaluation sequence, and concluded with a closing sequence. The common structure and content of the conversation in supervisory conferences can be summarized as follows in Table 2:

Table 2

The conference data supported the additional participants’ opinion that supervisors led the discussion in the conferences. Also, supervisors dominated the conversation by taking more than half of the conversation time and interrupting the teachers’ talk to ask for clarification, explanation, additional information, or answers. Furthermore, the supervisors focused their communication on the problems: unclear or inappropriate activities or strategies in the teacher’s plan (pre-observation) or in the teacher’s teaching and in-retrospect (post-observation). This focus on problems was translated in the number of negative evaluations both the teacher and especially the supervisors gave during the conferences. In the pre-observation conferences, the teachers rarely evaluated their own plans, while the supervisors made an average of 1.2 positive and 8.8 negative evaluations. In the post-observation conferences, some teachers did gave an average of .8 positive and 2.6 negative evaluations of their own teaching; while the supervisors gave over four times negative (9.3) than positive evaluations (2) of teachers’ teaching.

            Another interesting feature of the conference was the hazy distinction between actual and real representation. Both the supervisors and the teachers often regarded their notes (and in-retrospection)—the representation of actual events—and their interpretation of the events as what really happened. In one post-observation conference the supervisor referred to the time during her observation when some students came late and did not greet the teacher and the teacher did not do anything to address the late comers. At the conference, she interpreted the students’ not greeting the teacher as indication of impoliteness and the teacher’s not addressing the issue as inability to discipline the students. The supervisors did not ask what the teacher thought of the incident, thus, regarded her interpretation of the actual event as reality.

            Most supervisors in the study employed directive and collaborative supervisory styles (Gebhard & Malicka, 1991), which they believed was appropriate in ensuring students’ welfare. The students were promised to learn from the class they were taking; thus, supervisors had to monitor that the teachers deliver those promises. Furthermore, most supervisors thought that supervisory conferences had positive effects on teachers. All teachers in the Core participant group agreed to this opinion, while those in the Additional participants were divided on this issue. The latter group also stated that teachers might need different types of suggestions and supervisory styles at different times. One teacher stated:

When the supervisors tell me to do things, I don’t have to explore. But if the supervisors give

me alternatives, I have to think which one will be suitable for the class. If I am not busy with

other things, I prefer the second options but if I am busy, I will prefer the first option. I think

it is OK to combine both options. (Lisa – 1^st – 11/7)

Only one supervisor in the Core Participants demonstrated some features of nondirective supervision where she acted as a facilitator for the teacher by imposing little formal structure or direction for both the in-service and pre-service teachers she was supervising.

As can be seen, the supervisory conference in LBLIA shared several features with those in the ESL or mainstream education in the US. However, there were also differences which might relate to the cultural values. The four principles of tatakrama (etiquette)—assuming behaviors that correspond to the interlocutor’s rank; indirection especially in face threatening acts; dissimulation of true feelings; and the avoidance of utterances pointing to lack of self-control—and the three leadership principles (in front, be a model; in the middle, engender the spirit and actions of your fellowmen; and at the rear, support and encourage) might explain some unique features of supervisory conference in Indonesia. Some of the cultural influences can be seen in the following:

Unlike the straightforward opening sequence in other settings (Arcario, 1994), the opening sequence in the observed conferences were relatively longer, which might result from the tendency of Indonesians to have extended greetings. The extended opening served the purpose of interpreting the condition of the other party so that each could avoid utterances that might be face threatening or indicate a lack of self-control. The extended opening occurred more frequently in the post-observation conference where evaluation abounded. Furthermore, as discussed earlier, supervisors controlled the conversation, which might result from the perceived higher status supervisors had over the teachers. Perceiving a lower status than the supervisor, many teachers would not state their disagreement with the supervisors directly. Instead, they would ask for clarification rather than confront the supervisors.

Finally, despite their different statuses, both supervisors and teacher did not express their true feelings openly. For example, one supervisor was surprised when the in-service teacher came to the conference with no lesson plan. Instead of reprimanding the teacher, the supervisor restated the plan that she mentioned in their telephone conversation prior to the meeting in the hope that the teacher would understand her dissatisfaction. This indirectness, which might result from the tendency to avoid saying things that would indicate lack of self-control, also affected the length of the conferences.

The Learning: Reflections on my Dissertation Experience

Being a researcher. As a researcher, I learned from the many stages of doing research and what I can explore further in designing and conducting my future research. To begin, a dissertation depends on data—qualitative or quantitative—collected for a period of time. However, I went through more learning than just collecting data. Before going to the study site to collect data, I learned to write a research proposal and present it to the dissertation committee, as well as to contact several institutions as possible study sites for access. In addition, I also developed, pilot-tested, and revised the survey questionnaire, and applied for the IRB clearance for using human subjects. Then, after the proposal was approved, the access granted, the instruments finalized, and IRB clearance received, other challenges occurred while collecting the data in Indonesia. I had to visit six different locations, which were about a one- to three-hour drive from each other. Therefore, I learned to carefully plan my activities and schedule to maximize every visit to any location. I learned to schedule multiple activities—observations, interviews, and document collection—in every visit. I also learned to utilize the travel time to review my plan or notes from the observations and interviews. As time went on and the data piled up, I learned to categorize them. After seven months of collecting data, I was tempted to continue due to uncertainty of whether or not I had sufficient data, but I learned to tell myself to stop and continue the dissertation journey.

The journey had more learning in store for me. Arriving back at Indiana, I was inundated by the boxes of data consisting of videotapes, audiotapes, stacks of questionnaires, and photocopies of artifacts. Despite the initial categorization I developed while collecting the data, the magnitude of the data still overtook me. I decided to begin by analyzing the questionnaire; however, the sight of the untouched stacks of tapes and document always scared me. Realizing that my fear did not help, I learned to commit some time of everyday to work on the various types of data. I added transcribing the audiocassette to my routine, from which I learned that for some participants I needed verbatim transcription while for others topical transcription sufficed. As I went along with the transcription, ideas and patterns started to emerge. At the same time, I continued to read and collect more references, besides fulfilling other responsibilities, such as teaching. Important to my dissertation project, I learned that I needed a routine: I generally started my day visiting the computer lab to printing what I worked on the day before. On my teaching days, I would then go to class. On other days, I would check on interlibrary loans, make copies, read and add to my notes.

Having some data transcribed and analyzed and more sources to refer to, I began drafting my dissertation. At the beginning, I had little idea what my dissertation would look like, other than it would have four or five chapters: Introduction, Review of Literature, Methodology, Findings and Discussion. The drafting was a big challenge, since I never saw myself as a writer. I started by opening three new documents: Review of Literature, Methodology, and Findings. I tried adding sentences to each document every day. It was painful since every sentence I added seemed awkward and irrelevant. Despite the fear of not being able to complete the dissertation, I persisted. I continued transcribing, analyzing the data, reading more sources, and adding to the drafts.

It was around that time that I realized the meaning and benefit of peer response and multiple drafting.  Some friends offered assistance by reading and commenting on my drafts. The comments I received helped me not only in shaping my ideas more clearly but also in developing my English. My advisor was another important support. In my disarray, my advisor reminded me that I would not be able to explore everything there was in the data, that I needed to concentrate on the issues that I already discovered. He would say, “You will continue to learn from your data throughout your career.” That reminder helped me to complete my dissertation writing. With the dissertation completed, I still had to defend what I wrote. Despite my nervousness, I finally defended my dissertation and officially completed my study on August 24, 1999.

Being a teacher. What I found from the data has impacted my life as a teacher and educator.  First, returning to my full-time position at YARSI University I was assigned the Director of YARSI Language Center (YLC), which was responsible for providing credit-bearing and non-credit English courses for all students. Culturally, being the director and being the only Ph.D. at the Center, I would have a higher status than the other members, meaning I had to ‘model’ appropriate behavior. I decided to model a collaborative and collegial atmosphere at the Center.  

Besides my fulltime position at YLC, I was appointed Academic Consultant at LBLIA, and my main activities were divided between working with the Education and Training Center (Pusdiklat) and assisting the LBLIA Academic Director. At Pusdiklat, I was involved in five projects. First, I was involved in developing the new T3E program (called T3E 2000) by adding a Teacher Development component to introduce pre-service teachers to the concept of and the ways to conduct teacher development.

 Second, one finding of the dissertation indicated that supervisors needed to focus more on their academic function and to continue their professional development. Thus, I assisted Pusdiklat in developing and in delivering its pre-service Supervisory Training to include topics such as ‘The Academic Supervisor’ (focused on balancing academic and administrative function), ‘Supervisory Conferences’ (discussed the patterns of supervisory conference and ways to learn and grow from them), and ‘Professional Development’ (covered various ways that supervisors can continue their development). In addition, I participated in developing the in-service Supervisor Workshop where the in-service supervisors learned and practiced several ways that they could develop professionally.

 In regard to the third project, several research participants lamented the unavailability of development programs at the Affiliates. Pusdiklat addressed this by launching teacher development activities at the affiliates, and I was lucky to be assigned to conduct teacher development workshops in several Affiliates outside Jakarta.

The fourth project concerns curriculum development. This project was indirectly related to my dissertation and more directly related to my exposure to composition theory and teaching in the doctoral program and through my work as a writing teacher while at IUP, as well as my observation and teaching experience at the American Language Institute. However, it is worth highlighting here. In working with the LBLIA Academic Director, I was involved in LBLIA curriculum development. I encouraged and supported the committee to work on integrating the four-skills into the curriculum from the very beginning levels, and I took a predominate role in integrating wiring into this curriculum.

Fifth, my dissertation study also took me to contexts other than YLC and LBLIA. I was often asked to share my experience and findings on teacher development and supervision with colleagues in various institutions. I was involved in developing Supervision of Teaching at Intensive English Course (IEC)—another non-formal English course provider. In IEC system, I shared the concept of Academic Supervisor, the importance of Supervisor professional development, and ways that supervisors can develop.  In addition, I was invited to develop and conduct teacher development programs at the Global Islamic School. Moreover, I had the opportunity to combine my interest in teacher development and my experience of using language labs. In 2001, based on my recommendation, YARSI purchased a Language Lab for YLC, which has been utilized to enhance English teaching and learning. In 2003, I was involved in designing the language lab for the Training Department of BAPPENAS (National Development Planning Board). Then, in 2004 I was participating with the team that designed the Technology Center, including a language lab, for State Islamic University of Yogyakarta as part of the grant from the Islamic Development Bank. Finally, I was invited to share my language lab experience in an upgrading program for the English teachers of 54 Madrasah Aliyahs (Islamic High schools) throughout Indonesia on the use of Language labs.

Being a scholar. In the seven years after the dissertation, I have been busy participating in many different activities, mainly teaching, and have been lagging behind on publication. I did have some publications, but none of them directly related to my dissertation. First, I published two articles on English learning strategies for students in magazines (2001a, 2001b). I also developed English teaching materials for the students of YARSI School of Medicine. However, although my professional life in Indonesia limited my ability to publish, a more recent turn of events might change that. I am now back in the US and starting a career in the field of Composition at Queensborough Community College.

I have to admit that I am nervous. The majority of my education and work experience has mainly been in the field of EFL or ESL. I had some 18 years of experience in EFL/ESL contexts as compared to only two years of teaching composition as a teaching associate with the English Department at IUP. Thus challenges abound. First, I have to function well in the world of teaching composition (employing and incorporating strategies of teaching and developing writing) while at the same time learn to know the field better by reading and joining professional activities that will help bringing my knowledge to a functional level, as well as participate in the discourse of the field through presentation and publication.

Second, similar challenges exist for my immersion to the U.S. academia. Being a new tenure track assistant professor at a U.S. community college, I have to learn much about the culture as well as of the subject matter and its teaching. Within the academic context of the US, I have to fulfill three requirements to maintain the position: teaching, service and scholarly activities. The scholarly activities—publication, academic presentation and the like—will hopefully ‘force’ me into reflecting on my dissertation and publish from it, learning more about the composition field while drawing from my exposure to composition theory and practice at IUP, writing grant proposals, and conducting research in composition.  In regard to my dissertation, my advisor was right; my learning about the data continues. There are many issues in the data which I did not have the time to explore, and it is now the time for me to go back to my dissertation and explore the data more deeply. More thorough exploration of the data might allow me to develop several publications. Also, after conducting a dissertation research, I am now more informed and experienced in designing a research in my future, especially about composition teaching

At present, aboard this composition teaching ship, I have to decide what, where, how to incorporate my existing knowledge of and experience in the EFL/ESL, teacher development and supervision, and in designing and conducting research to my current work and responsibilities as a composition teacher. Despite my nervousness, I am determined to proceed with the voyage to become a responsible teacher. The water ahead looks calm, but I know there will be storms along the way. However, having survived the storms during the doctoral studies including the dissertation research and writing, I know I will be able to navigate my way in the tenure track composition teaching ocean.

References

Arcario, P. J. (1994). Post-observation conferences in TESOL teacher education programs.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Blumberg, A. (1970). Supervisor-teacher relationship: A look at the supervisory conference.

Administrator’s Notebook, XIX (1), September, pp. 1-4.

Blumberg, A. (1980). Supervisor and teacher: A private cold war. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Blumberg, A., & Amidon, E. (1965). Teacher perception of supervisor-teacher interactions.

Administrator’s Notebook, 14, 1-4.

Blumberg, A., & Cusik, P. (1970). Supervisor-teacher interaction: An analysis of verbal

behavior. Education, 9, 126-34.

Blumberg, A., & Weber, W. A. (1968). Teacher morale as a function of perceived supervisor

behavioral style. The Journal of Educational Research, 62 (3), 109-113.

Country Studies. accessed August 10, 2006. http://countrystudies.us/indonesia/81.htm

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Gebhard, J. G., & Malicka, A. (1991). Creative behaviors in teacher supervision. Prospect, 6 (3),

40-49.

Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White

Plains, NY: Longman.

Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1998). Supervision of instruction: A

developmental approach. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Magnis-Suseno, F. (1981). Javanese ethics and world-view: The Javanese idea of the good life.

Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research 2^nd ed. Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Applied social

research methods series, vol. 41.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Salek, C. J. (1975). Helping teachers vs. Evaluating teachers. NASSP bulletin, 34-38.

Semiawan, C. (1996). Pendidikan sebagai cabang ilmu [Education as a field of study]. Paper

presented at the Third Convention of National Education, Ujung Pandang, Indonesia.

Soewarsono, Fauzi, M., & Alhaziri, W. (2000). Sekelumit Karya Mencerdaskan Bangsa: Sejarah

lia 1959-1999. Jakarta, INDONESIA: Pusat Penerbitan LIA.

Trikartikaningsih (2001a). Creating Vocabulary Cards. Contact Magazine, 8 (51),

April-May 2001. Jakarta: PP-LIA, INDONESIA.

Trikartikaningsih (2001b). Sing It Out! Using Songs in learning English. C’nS Magazine, 1 (2),  

August-September 2001. Jakarta: PP-LIA, INDONESIA.

Waite, D. E. (1990). Behind the other set of eyes: An ethnographic study of instructional

supervision. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.

Waite, D. (1992a). The instructional supervisor as a cultural guide. Urban Education, 26 (4),

423-439.

Waite, D. (1992b). Instructional supervision from a situational perspective. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 8, 319-332.