ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education Volume 7, Issue 1, December 2018 p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 93 PROBLEMS HINDERING STUDENT TEACHERS’ ELT MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT: A STUDY IN THE INTERNSHIP PROGRAM IN EASTERN INDONESIA Yakob Metboki English Education Study Program, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education Science, Artha Wacana Christian University, Indonesia E-mail: jacobmetboki@ukaw.ac.id APA Citation: Metboki, Y. (2018). Problems hindering student teachers’ ELT materials development: A study in the internship program in eastern Indonesia. English Review: Journal of English Education, 7(1), 93-104. doi: 10.25134/erjee.v7i1.1498. Received: 03-08-2018 Accepted: 13-10-2018 Published: 01-12-2018 Abstract: In the sense of running qualified teaching and learning, teacher education institutions place their student teachers at schools to experience real teaching practices through the internship program. This study aims to give a comprehensive portrait of problems the student teachers of English have when they develop ELT materials and how the problems vary according to different areas. The present study applied qualitative method. It utilized survey as data collection technique. Twenty-five student teachers are recruited as participants. Having conducted the survey, the results showed that most student teachers have several problems in developing ELT materials during internship program. The biggest problem lies on developing material for practicing grammar elements (2.98 level of difficulty). The participants simply felt it easy to develop material for grading and recycling, and supporting materials with ranging from 3.22 and 3.10 level of difficulty. The following problem lies on how the material promotes the development of language skills and communicative abilities. Overall, the present study indicates that the student teachers are still lacking of grounded concepts on what and how to develop ELT materials that fit to students’ needs. Keywords: English language teaching; materials development; internship program; students- teachers’ problems; survey. INTRODUCTION The issue of having well-developed good material for mostly teaching and learning practices has received considerable critical attention in the mainstream platform of endeavor to prospective teachers’ quality improvement, in that, it embraces such an all-inclusive aspects. Far weighting on the complexity the teachers face in preparing learning program is an issue. In 2015, Bolitho undertook a study that attempts to find out the attainment of the educational quality of a teacher-training institute. He emphasized the importance of understanding the key issues that encapsulating the entire educational system in every program of activity is a very important element. The research results show that most of the teacher's students seem not ready. Their teaching performance simply portrays the model of their language teachers. He also suggested that educational institutions should undertake more in-depth study to find out the preparation of prospective teachers and a number of aspects that affect the quality of education. The internship program or PPL (Praktik Pengalaman Lapangan) is organized by most teacher centers at the Faculty of Teachers Training and Education Sciences of higher education institutions in Indonesia. Generally speaking, this program aims to train prospective teachers to develop full and holistic teaching skills (Parveen & Mirza, 2012). While regular training nurtures student teachers with theoretical and technical knowledge from the first year up to the third year studying, the process of Yakob Metboki Problems hindering student teachers’ ELT materials development: A study in the internship program in eastern Indonesia 94 humanizing prospective teachers at teacher- training program will last with teaching placement, where they have real experiences ahead of getting into their own classrooms (Kulkarni & Hanley-Maxwell, 2015). Viewed through the basis of legal foundation of developing well-prepared materials of teaching that accounts for learning has been concerned in the Indonesian Government Regulation (Peraturan Pemerintah) Year 2005 Number 19 on the National Educational Standards, particularly, on the standard of content. Having this basis, teachers training faculties attempt to design the internship program for training student teachers beyond holistic mechanism. Commonly, internship program covers several activities, such as field observation, the formation of skills, and real teaching practices. To undertake the internship program activities, there are requirements for the student teachers to have a set of basic teacher skills that would enable them to reflect tasks and roles of teachers from different unit level, starting from primary school up to high school level. As they are placed at the unit levels, there must be common internship program activities such as field observation and micro skill formation, then, prior to real classroom teaching applications. More extensively, most mentor teachers believe that the student teachers are more capable helpers to whom a number of task are obligated to do, including curriculum and materials development. Their knowledge and skill will also enable them to prepare not only instructional plan, but also classroom teaching applications across the length of period of an internship program at schools. Taking into account the efforts to improve the quality of graduates in higher education in Indonesia, creating competent prospective teachers in their fields requires every teacher training institution to raise the quality control, including efforts to improve the capacity of student teachers according to academic profile. Bearing this motion in mind, it is an essential need to keep this study into two parallel views. On the one hand, being a student-teacher (so called a prospective teacher), having experience in material development is, of course, one of the keys to successful field practice. On the other hand, teachers’ (also supervisor) experiences and understanding of their students is very important in materials development (Patel, 2017). These understanding lay on the fact that good materials are needed for teaching, in that, teachers’ involvement in materials selection and development is necessary (Richards, 2001). Theoretically speaking, materials development refers to “all the processes made use of by practitioners who produce and/or use materials for language learning, including materials evaluation, their adaptation, design, production, exploitation and research” (Tomlinson, 2012, p. 143- 144). While teachers are all required to cope with all these processes, it seems clear that considering them of practice must sound complex for non-native teachers of English, though. Long before, there has been a report on Indonesian English teachers at tertiary to utilize internationally published coursebooks as part of their supplementary materials (Zacharias, 2005, cited in Tomlison, 2012). Mohammadi and Abdi (2014) affirmed that “using only textbooks, from cover to cover, without any supplemental material is not the most satisfactory method for meeting students’ needs.” It can be assumed from this report that the teachers’ dependency on the books is high. To put it another way, their creativity in EFL materials development and/or design is certainly challenging. As recommendation, teachers need to utilize more selected textbooks with adaptation in order to answer learner’s expectation in classroom teaching and learning chunks (Badea & Iridon, 2015; Khodabakhshi, 2014). Turning now to view on the education curriculum framework of Indonesia, there is a number of documents contained in an instructional plan. Two popular documents that hinder most teachers’ nights and days ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education Volume 7, Issue 1, December 2018 p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 95 teaching practice might be syllabus and lesson plan. In addition, they must prepare learning materials that are appropriate to their students’ needs. Considering the importance of understanding to develop learning materials, especially English, becomes important for the writer as a supervisor to conduct an in- depth study of the guidance behavior of the student teachers to prepare a comprehensive instructional plan, including learning materials development for EFL classroom teaching practices. In this sense, Pardo and Téllez (2009, p. 174) summarized that “materials development requires designers to be Reflective, Resourceful and Receptive (RRR) agents with regard to their teaching practice.” This is the premise that promotes this study to presents an instrument for a supervisor to know the readiness of the student teachers in every single internship program. Once the student teachers are in charge of practicing what they have learnt in their home campus, there is always high tendency of expectation from their mentors and supervisors that they would establish good real teaching practices at school, covering good planning of instructional documents as well as successful teaching practices. In this sense, mentoring and advising shapes the student teachers’ teaching practicum plans. In so doing, both mentor and supervisor must work hand in hand in scaffolding student teachers’ projection. Long before, Richards (2001) claims that today’s researchers are much more cautious about the kinds of advice they give. What is more alarming from this claim is stemmed from the fact that there have been numerous amount of general disciplines that most researchers present which might not make the same practice for different others. The present study, therefore, attempts to personalize the problems the student teachers face in ELT materials development and to provide a reliable source of information to the teacher education institution, teachers, supervisors, and in reflecting student teachers’ readiness in taking the internship program at school. Initially, it characterizes an enquiry research under the umbrella of self-study as proposed by Kells (1988) and Carkin (1997) (cited in Richards, 2001) with its main concern in the quality control of a running education program by teacher, students and administrators. Previous studies on complexes in material development have treated student teachers across education settings. The complexes are vary, for example lacking of understanding on teaching materials development, limit amount of time the student teachers spent to consult to both their mentor and their supervisor (Rahayuningsih, 2016; Parveen & Mirza, 2012). The need for survey in this respect is determined by the fact that most student teachers simply focus their teaching practicum on the range of time they would have passed through teaching practices in the classrooms rather than how their instructional material development are well- prepared. To put it another way, this study seeks to shape teacher education institution’ view of agenda to move up from technical to essential and significant maters that hinder student teachers’ professional growth. It is, therefore, the present study aims to demonstrate the problems faced by student teachers in EFL materials development and how the problems are vary according to two different ranks (easy and/or difficult). Stemmed from the background and the overview in relation to student teachers’ material development, this study aims to answer the following research question, “What are the problems hindering student teachers’ ELT Materials Development in the Internship Program?” METHOD This study applied qualitative research (State, 2010), as it puts into importance the participants’ judgment and understanding of the core subject of the study – problems of EFL materials development. Yakob Metboki Problems hindering student teachers’ ELT materials development: A study in the internship program in eastern Indonesia 96 The participants of the present study consist of 25 student teachers of English Education Study Program of Artha Wacana Christian University of Kupang, East Nusa Tenggara Province, Indonesia. They are purposively recruited based on their homogeneity of taking the internship program in the even semester year 2017, where fourteen of them are placed at the secondary level, while eleven others are at senior high level. In an attempt to make each participant feel as comfortable as possible, they are, personally, approached and being convinced with significant aim that is to present a reflection about the underlying problems which attach to their internship projections. Data collection technique is survey, which contains of statements adapted from the checklist for evaluating teaching materials prepared by Cunningsworth (1995) cited in Tsiplakides (2011). The survey required the participants to determine the statements, and how they are virtually vary by range of complexity according to aspects given. Bearing this in mind, the participants marked their choices on Likert scale ranging from 0 (very difficult), 1 (fairly difficult), 2 (difficult), 3 (fairly easy), 4 (easy), 5 (very easy). Every chosen score represents the participants’ personal judgments on their level of complexity in regards of initiatives they might have planned in order to develop English material. Having collected the data, there was a computation on each aspect to gain the average value. The value describes the level of difficulty as figured out in the form of charts. The datum seen from the charts are then analyzed qualitatively (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Having conducted the survey, the results of the present study were shown in the form of charts and discussed according to eight main aspects. First, language content The first aspect embraces four areas, namely: 1. Language form 2. Language function 3. Patterns of communicative interaction 4. Use of various references or sources. The following chart depicts the trend of the participants’ response on language content. Chart 1. Language content The result shown in Chart 1 indicates that the participants have no difficulty in developing language content on the materials. The problem they face simply falls on how to create materials with various references to cope with language elements. Second, grading and recycling On this section, the participants give their response on how they develop materials under two headings, namely: 1. Learning steps 2. Students’ average level of language skills Chart 2 depicts the result. Chart 2. Response on grading and recycling The trend seen from Chart 2 traces that the participants found it moderate to grade and recycle ELT material. Third, presentations and practices of language elements The third aspect contains of two components, namely: ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education Volume 7, Issue 1, December 2018 p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 97 a. Approach of learning material development. 1. The behaviorism theory of learning 2. The cognitivism theory of learning 3. Combination of both underlying theories. 4. Other influences. The survey result on this component is shown in Chart 3. Chart 3. Features of approach of the material The result displayed on Chart 3 shows that to some extent the participants are about to find it easy in internalizing learning approach beyond material development; somehow, the complexes seemed to reveal the fluctuation. b. Characteristics of learning process. In this part, the participants are asked to judge on three areas, namely: 1. Developing learning materials inductively (specific to general) 2. Developing learning materials deductively (general to specific) 3. Combination of the two ways above. Chart 4 figures out the result. Chart 4. Making materials for learning process The easy motion of materials development peaks on only deductive process, while the other two components are turning down. Fourth, practice grammar elements There are three areas to seek for the evidence on how students face problems in developing materials for practicing grammar elements, namely: a. Material management 1. Connecting material with previous learned one 2. Making meaningful material (Meaningful in context) 3. Develop systematic material 4. Introducing grammar rules 5. Adapting the needs and interests of students 6. Regular and easily controlled of its progress in accordance with allocated teaching time (sufficiently controlled) Having the six statements above, the participants’ responses are drawn in Chart 5. Chart 5. Material management The trend of the result shown above figures out two critical points among the statements. This infers that the participants’ complexes in motions related to management of materials development is intertwining. b. Create material for practicing new language structures: 1. Making sufficient material based on the scope 2. Creating material that promotes various learning activities 3. Make meaningful material 4. Developing material in systematic way Yakob Metboki Problems hindering student teachers’ ELT materials development: A study in the internship program in eastern Indonesia 98 5. Introducing grammar rules in the material 6. Adapting the context in the material 7. Adapting the material to the needs and interests of students 8. Preparing material in organized way to easily control the teaching progress. The chart below describes participants’ present ability in material development for practicing new language structures. Chart 6. Practicing new language structures c. Develop material for practicing new words: 1. Develop material that introduces the way of learning English word 2. Develop material that introduces the meaning of new words 3. Develop learning materials that students can use words in several activities 4. Develop material that introduces new words in unit Obviously, the participants found it easy to develop material for practicing new words as shown in the chart below. Chart 7. Practicing new words Developing material for pronunciation 1. That introduced the sound 2. That practice sounds 3. That introduces stress and intonation 4. To practice stress and intonation It seems clear from the chart below that participants felt it difficult to develop materials, which introduce sound and practicing micro skills of speaking. Chart 8. Developing audio based-materials Fifth, develop language skills and communication skills The fifth area contains of three minor components, namely: a. Freely using English 1. Develop learning materials that encourage students to produce the language in a conversation 2. Develop material due to time allocation for language production and practices. Chart 9 figures out the participants’ present ability in developing materials for students to use English as the target language. Chart 9. Material for language production b. Develop material with each single skill: 1. That meets to the nature of reading and its practice 2. That meets to the nature of listening and its practice 3. That meets to the nature of writing and its exercises Chart 10 displays the participants’ choices. ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education Volume 7, Issue 1, December 2018 p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 99 Chart 10. Material with one skill c. Develop material with four integrated skills with: 1. summary of the four skills 2. introduction of real English use 3. exercises for students to recognize English use in immediate context. The trend in Chart 11 shows how hard the participants faced in developing EFL materials with four language skills. Chart 11. Materials with four integrated skills Sixth, supporting materials There are four components under this area, namely: a. Creating material that 1. Introduces Visual (visible) 2. Introduce the recording 3. Introduce native speakers 4. Utilizes teacher's handbook 5. Contains of grammar loads 6. Contains of vocabulary list The result is shown in Chart 12 Chart 12. Creative based-authentic materials b. Create material for: 1. Test before the material begins 2. Progress tests 3. Achievement of learning outcomes The result shows that the participants felt it easy to develop test-based materials. Chart 13. Test Based-materials c. Creating Learning materials for assessment 1. Assessing students’ need of English communication 2. Assessing what has been learnt before The result appears in the Chart 14. Chart 14. Evaluation based-materials d. Other considerations to material development 1. Fit to the standards 2. Appropriate to the teacher's ability 3. Fit to the ability of native teachers 4. Addresses all shortcomings in the classroom. 5. Figure out its characteristics 6. Has summaries Chart 15 exhibits the result with such an unsteady trend. Chart 15. Materials with other considerations Yakob Metboki Problems hindering student teachers’ ELT materials development: A study in the internship program in eastern Indonesia 100 Seventh, create motivational material In this area, the participants are asked on how complex they face in developing materials that, 1. Fit to the background of age, ethnicity, culture, student learning objectives, etc. 2. Answer students’ expectations 3. Has an interesting layout 4. Encourage student participation in private 5. Gives students sense of responsibility in person or group. 6. Promote competition 7. Introduce a particular culture 8. Characterizes British or American culture The trend of participants’ choices is given in Chart 16. Chart 16. Motivation based-material Eight, conclusions and overall evaluation The last area comprises five statements from which the participants have in developing material that: 1. Has learning objectives 2. Answers learning objectives 3. Has advantages for students 4. Introduce problem solving 5. Fits to a particular learning situation. Chart 17 points out the trend. Chart 17. Material for conclusion The participants felt that they got difficulty in developing English materials when taking the internship program. The overall data is shown in Table 1. Initially, this study set out with the aim of demonstrating the problems faced by student teachers in EFL materials development and how the problems are vary according to two different ranks (easy and/or difficult). There are several possible explanations for this result. On the aspect, the participants have difficulty in developing language content on the materials, particularly, how to create materials with various references to cope with language elements. If we now turn to the second aspect, grading and recycling, the participants felt it easy to develop EFL materials that revealed the target students’ average level of competence. The next aspect of the survey was concerned with presentations and practices of language elements. It is somewhat surprising that no data was noted in this aspect to show the participants’ theoretical and pedagogical understanding in developing English materials prior to EFL teaching and learning applications. Leading to the fourth aspect, practice grammar elements, out of the four sub- aspects, the participants simply felt one sub- aspect is easy that is to develop material for practicing new words (easy), while the three other ones are considered difficult. On the fifth aspect of the survey, developing language skills and communication skills, the results of this study did not show any positive remark. While STs found it easy to develop material with each single skill (3.15), it is difficult for them to develop EFL material for freely using English (2.98). The reason must rest heavily on that fact they are unable to integrate four integrated skill on materials development (2.77) in order to promote factual English practices. The next aspect is supporting materials. Overall result shows that the average level of participants’ ability in developing ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education Volume 7, Issue 1, December 2018 p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 101 supporting materials is relatively easy with level of difficulty of 3.08. However, the trend shows that the other two sub-aspects, respectively, range at difficult level with 0.32 points between the lowest easy level and that of difficult level. The study survey on the seventh aspect concerns in participants’ ability in creating motivational materials. The most striking result to emerge from the data is that the participants are familiar with the target learners’ needs; however, they are lacking of ability in introducing cross-cultural barriers; for example, the materials with British and American culture. It is, therefore, the overall response to this aspect was difficult. In the final part of the survey, when the participants were asked to pose their judgments on their complexity in developing materials for conclusions and overall evaluation, the majority of participants responses ranged at the average level of 2.93, which is, of course, difficult. Returning to the question posed at the beginning of this study, it is now possible to state that in general the participants encountered it as of an existing problem if they had to create well-developed materials for contextual EFL teaching applications at schools, mainly, those in the South Eastern part Indonesia. The overall data of the current study is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Overall result Aspects Level Legend C. Presentations and Practices of language elements 2.62 Difficult E. Develop language skills and communication skills 2.77 Difficult G. Create motivational material 2.83 Difficult H. Conclusions and overall evaluation 2.93 Difficult A. Language Content 2.96 Difficult D. Practice grammar elements 2.98 Difficult F. Supporting materials 3.08 Easy B. Grading and recycling 3.22 Easy It is clear that overall aspects are felt difficult in terms of materials development. Rooted from this view, the present study, then, provides additional evidence with respect to the trend of the overall conclusion with a range of fluctuation as shown in the Chart 18. Chart 18. Trend of students’ problem Rooted from the trend above, overall response to this survey was negative. The biggest problem is on materials for Presentation and Practice of new language items with their level difficulty of 2.62, followed by the next five aspects ranging between 2.77 and 2.98 or 36 points upper than the biggest problem. The participants simply felt it easy to develop supporting materials as well as those for grading and recycling. Despite these findings, an empirical study indicated that ST’s unpreparedness of teaching material with solely 8.5% brings problematic source for the classroom management (Merç & Subaşı, 2015). The study, then, described STs’ reflective repent on what they should have been aware of the problems prior to teaching practices. For Holguín and Morales (2014), having dept understanding on student teachers’ problem on materials development provides reliable input to enrich them in materials development for their professional extension. This result may be explained from different factors. One of the influencing factors is their lack of the grounded concepts on ELT materials development. The most Yakob Metboki Problems hindering student teachers’ ELT materials development: A study in the internship program in eastern Indonesia 102 striking result to emerge from the data is that student teachers need an alternative approach to personalize themselves as the ones with ground knowledge and skills, and so, mentoring and/or supervising might manipulate them through such a constructive pedagogic negotiation. It is believed that the negotiation would figure out such an encouragement between supervisors and student teachers to have collaborative planning (Parven, 2012) and appropriateness of instructional materials (Van den Akker, 1998; Ottevanger, 2001) cited in (Gakki, 2012). The second factor is caused by lack of time they spent to share their ideas with both mentor and/or the supervisors. The other supporting factor is the number of incidental tasks from mentors that corrupt their time to work out of their organized instructional. In the same vein, materials design may take time and, so does, the cost to spend for; therefore, course books selection is necessary (Nikoopour & Farsani, 2011); of course, selecting the recommended books and/or materials from schools. The results of this current study, also, brings a reflection of the stated constraints they face prior to develop EFL materials. More importantly, the reflection shapes a picture of need in engagement with strategy (s) that enable the student teachers in decision making processes when planning and/or creating English materials in appropriate to their target students’ need under the atmosphere of teaching practicum settings. CONCLUSION This study found that generally the participants felt that they got difficulty in developing English materials when taking the internship program. The evidence from this study suggests that STs need more scaffolding from both their mentor teachers and supervisors. Findings in this study are subject to at least three limitations. First, these data apply only to needs analysis on student teachers’ competence in EFL materials development for internship program during the period. Second, the sample size is purposively limited. Third, it was not specifically designed to evaluate factors related to academic competences. The current study has gone some way towards enhancing our understanding of equipping the STs with theoretical as well as empirical view about curriculum and materials development that could make noteworthy contributions to EFL materials development. The findings of this study suggest that mentor and supervisor should bring into form of negotiation that help guiding the student teachers to come away with a new perspective on the internship program as whole set of education practices in the mainstream of their placement period at school. Conversely, there would chance to hold a hearing with the student teachers on what short of knowledge and skills they still need and/or what they really want to put into their classroom teaching and learning practices. It is believed that the hearings would account much for such a worth of doing professional adjustment of ideas while preparing instructional documents prior before their teaching practices. More practically, those of STs may be partnered with more capable others to work for materials design and/or development. By way of illustration, Augusto-Navarro (2015) exemplified that joining STs with graduate students, more capable others, brings about development in material designs. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author would thank the twenty-five participants of this study, and to the mentors who have shared their inspiring ideas to support this study. The author addresses his sincere gratitude to English Education Study Program of Teachers Training and Education Science of Artha Wacana Christian University for the grant to conduct the study. Also, the author would appreciate the CONELT 2018 conference for selecting this article for publication. ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education Volume 7, Issue 1, December 2018 p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 103 REFERENCES Augusto-Navarro, H. L. (2015). The design of teaching materials as a tool in EFL teacher education: Experiences of a Brazilian teacher education program. Ilha Desterro, 68(1). doi: 10.5007/2175-8026.2015v68n1p121. Badea, M.., & Iridon, C. (2015). Students’ evaluation of a Romanian language textbook. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 303–309. Retrieved September 15, 2018, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/p ii/S1877042814026196. Bolitho, R. (2015). The ingredients of quality in teacher education. In G. Pickering & P. Gunashekar (Eds), Ensuring quality in English language teacher education. The Fifth international Teacher Educator Conference Hyderabad, India, 27 February-1 March 2015. Retrieved October 10, 2018, from https://www.britishcouncil.in/sites/default/files/t ec15_papers_final_for_web_new.pdf. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6 th ed.). New York: Routledge. Khodabakhshi, M. (2014). Choose a proper EFL textbook: Evaluation of "Skyline" series. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98, 959–967. Retrieved October 15, 2018, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/p ii/S1877042814025968. Kulkarni, S. S., & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (2015). Preservice teachers’ student teaching experiences in east Africa. Teacher Education Quarterly – Fall 2015. Retrieved October 12, 2018, from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1090470. Merç, A., & Subaşı, G. (2015). Classroom management problems and coping strategies of Turkish student EFL teachers. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 6(1). Retrieved October 11, 2018, from: http://dergipark.gov.tr/tojqi/issue/21406. Nikoopour, J., & Farsani, M. A. (2011). English language teaching material development. Journal of Language and Translation, 2(2), 1- 12. Pardo, A. N., & Téllez, M. F. T. (2009). ELT materials: The key to fostering effective teaching and learning settings. PROFILE, 11(2), 171-186. Retrieved February 23, 2018, from https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/profile/art icle/view/11449. Parveen, S., & Mirza, N. (2012). Internship program in education: Effectiveness, problems and prospects. International Journal of Learning & Development, 2(1). doi:10.5296/ijld.v2i1.1471. Patel, D. S. (2017). Significance of materials development in language teaching. A Journal of Teaching English Language and Literature. Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 19 Tahun 2005 tentang Standar Nasional Pendidikan. Retrieved March 2, 2018, from https://kemenag.go.id/file/dokumen/PP1905.pdf Rahayuningsih, D. (2016). Student teachers’ challenges in developing teaching materials during teaching practicum in vocational school. Journal of English and Education, 4(2), 24-34. Retrieved May 23, 2018, from: http://ir- library.ku.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/123456789/11 388/Developing%20instructional%20materials %20that%20address%20challenges%20facing% 20teachers.pdf;sequence=4. Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2), 143-179. doi: 10.1017/S0261444811000528. Tsiplakides, I. (2011). Selecting an English coursebook: Theory and practice. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(7), 758-764. doi:10.4304/tpls.1.7.758-764. http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2015v68n1p121. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814026196.%20on%2015/10/2018 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814026196.%20on%2015/10/2018 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814025968.%20On%2015/10/2018 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814025968.%20On%2015/10/2018 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1090470 http://dergipark.gov.tr/tojqi/issue/21406.%20on%2011/10/2018 https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/profile/article/view/11449.%20On%2023/2/2018 https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/profile/article/view/11449.%20On%2023/2/2018 http://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/123456789/11388/Developing%20instructional%20materials%20that%20address%20challenges%20facing%20teachers.pdf;sequence=4 http://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/123456789/11388/Developing%20instructional%20materials%20that%20address%20challenges%20facing%20teachers.pdf;sequence=4 http://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/123456789/11388/Developing%20instructional%20materials%20that%20address%20challenges%20facing%20teachers.pdf;sequence=4 http://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/123456789/11388/Developing%20instructional%20materials%20that%20address%20challenges%20facing%20teachers.pdf;sequence=4 http://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/123456789/11388/Developing%20instructional%20materials%20that%20address%20challenges%20facing%20teachers.pdf;sequence=4 Yakob Metboki Problems hindering student teachers’ ELT materials development: A study in the internship program in eastern Indonesia 104