Site Loader

The effects of in-campus L2 learning environments of English teacher education
institutions on NNES
pre-service teachers’ teaching skills, intercultural sensitivity, exposure
to foreign culture, and English proficiency

A
one-way ANOVA was conducted to know whether there are differences in NNES pre-service teachers’ teaching skills, intercultural
sensitivity, exposure to foreign culture, and English proficiency from the three in-campus L2 learning environments of English teacher education institutions. First, in terms of
teaching skills, the result shows that the main effect of in-campus L2
learning environments of English
teacher education institutions was not significant F (2) = 2.831, p = 0.062. Furthermore,
Unmul (M = 31.53,
SD = 3.35), Uwgm (M = 32.96, SD = 3.44), and Ubt (M =
31.88, SD = 2.68) did not differ significantly on their NNES pre-service teachers’ teaching skills.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Table
3: Descriptive Statistical Result of the NNES pre-service
teachers’ teaching skills

 

Table
4:  The results of one-way ANOVA on NNES pre-service teachers’ teaching skills from three in-campus L2 learning environments of English
teacher education institutions

 

Sum
of Squares

df

Mean
Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

57.282

2

28.641

2.831

.062

Within Groups

1548.154

153

10.119

 

 

Total

1605.436

155

 

 

 

 

Thus, the research hypothesis 1 (Ha1) was rejected or in other words,
the null hypothesis was accepted because the number of probability was 0.062,
which is greater than 0.05 (table 4). It
means that there was no significant difference among teaching skills performed by NNES pre-service teachers
from the three in-campus L2
learning environments of English teacher education
institutions.
Further information that can be drawn from this result is that the different
systems of university governance represented by the three in-campus L2 learning environments of English teacher education institutions under study do not imply
different teaching skills given to the NNES pre-service teachers since they share the same
curriculum structure.

Second, in terms of intercultural sensitivity, the result shows that the main effect of different in-campus L2 learning environments of English teacher education
institutions was not
significant F (2) = 4.991, p = 0.008. Furthermore,
Unmul (M = 34.11,
SD = 3.22), Uwgm (M = 36.03, SD = 3.41), and Ubt (M =
35.26, SD = 2.67) did not differ significantly on their NNES
pre-service teachers’ intercultural sensitivity.

Table 5: Descriptive
Statistical Result of the NNES pre-service teachers’ Intercultural
Sensitivity

Table 6:  The results of one-way ANOVA on NNES pre-service teachers’ intercultural
sensitivity from three in-campus
L2 learning environments of English teacher education institutions

 

Sum
of Squares

df

Mean
Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

97.436

2

48.718

4.991

.008

Within Groups

1493.462

153

9.761

 

 

Total

1590.897

155

 

 

 

 

Thus, research hypothesis 2 (Ha2) was rejected (p= 0.008) or the null hypothesis
was accepted (see table 6). It means there was no significant difference in the intercultural
sensitivity possessed by NNES pre-service teachers from three in-campus L2 learning environments of English
teacher education institutions. The rejected null
hypothesis drew the result that the different systems of university governance
represented by the in-campus L2
learning environments of English teacher education
institutions
under study do not imply differences in intercultural sensitivity obtained by the NNES pre-service teachers. This
might be due to the fact that contents of courses which are culture-bound are
almost the same in all English teacher education institutions in Indonesia.

Third, the result shows that the
main effect of different in-campus L2 learning environments of English
teacher education institutions was not significant F (2) =
1.577, p = 0.210. Furthermore, Unmul (M = 19.288, SD = 3.19), Uwgm (M = 20.34, SD
= 3.23), and Ubt (M = 19.67, SD = 2.77) did not differ
significantly on their NNES pre-service teachers’ exposure to foreign culture.

Table 7: Descriptive
Statistical Result of the NNES pre-service teachers’ exposure to foreign culture

Table 8:  The results of one-way ANOVA on NNES pre-service teachers’ exposure to
foreign culture from in-campus
L2 learning environments of English teacher education institutions

 

Sum
of Squares

df

Mean
Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

29.808

2

14.904

1.577

.210

Within Groups

1445.885

153

9.450

 

 

Total

1475.692

155

 

 

 

 

Thus, research hypothesis 3 (Ha3) was rejected
(p= 0.210)
or the null hypothesis was accepted (see table 8). It means that there was no significant difference among NNES pre-service
teachers’ exposure to foreign culture when the three different in-campus L2 learning environments of English
teacher education institutions are compared. Hence, the different systems of
university governance represented by the in-campus L2 learning environments of English
teacher education institutions under study do not imply different exposure
to foreign culture
obtained by the NNES
pre-service teachers since they live in almost the same foreign-rich atmosphere
in and outside campus.

Fourth, the result shows that the main effect of in-campus L2 learning environments of English
teacher education institutions was
not significant F (2) = 56.153, p = 0.000. Furthermore,
Unmul (M = 487, SD
= 29.34), Uwgm (M = 424, SD = 19.50), and Ubt (M =
445, SD = 39.35) differ significantly on their NNES
pre-service teachers’ English Proficiency.

Table 9: Descriptive
Statistical Result of the NNES pre-service teachers’ English Proficiency

Table 10: The results of
one-way ANOVA on NNES
pre-service teachers’ English proficiency from three different in-campus L2 learning environments of English
teacher education institutions

 

Sum
of Squares

df

Mean
Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

104447.474

2

52223.737

56.153

.000

Within Groups

142293.115

153

930.020

 

 

Total

246740.590

155

 

 

 

 

Thus, as seen in table 10, research hypothesis 4 (Ha4) was
accepted (p= 0.000) or the null was rejected. It means that there
was significant difference
in the English proficiency level possessed by NNES pre-service teachers from
the three in-campus L2 learning
environment of English teacher education institutions. Interestingly, different from
the three other results above, the extent of English proficiency accomplished by the NNES pre-service teachers varies amongst the three
institutions; this variance might have been caused by the fact that the three
institution involved in the research differ in terms of the intensity of the
English accelerating programs on campus that they each offer.

Discussion

The finding
reveals that there is
no significant effect of differences in the in-campus L2 learning environments of English teacher education
institutions on NNES pre-service teachers’ teaching skills, intercultural sensitivity, and exposure to foreign culture. Regarding this
finding, various explanations can be proposed in connection with these three
variables. First, in the context of Indonesian higher education, even though every university has the freedom to create the content of
the curriculum in order that their graduates can be competitive in the labor
force, curricula
used by all universities in general follow the standardized learning outcomes
stipulated by Indonesian Qualification
Framework (Susilo, 2015). Obviously,
faculties of teacher training educations have to set up common contents
of teaching skill courses, implying common L2 environments for the
pre-service teachers. Furthermore, a short of teaching skills are proved to be
different from novice
teachers and experienced teachers; e.g. studies highlighting the typical ways
in which such skills are developed and displayed by beginning teachers and how
experienced teachers think about the skills they use in teaching (Wragg, 2005;
Day, 2004; Pollard et al., 2005). Therefore, it is not surprising that teaching skills from
the NNES pre-service teachers from teacher
educations under study are not significantly different.

Second,
in respect of intercultural sensitivity, even though courses containing intercultural
sensitivity have not been formally stipulated in the curricula
of all teacher training faculties, almost all L2 content courses of the EFL
teacher training curriculum encapsulate authentic materials which are foreign-culture
bound. Therefore, Littlewood’s
(2005) four aspects of learning environments – opportunities to use L2,
emotional climate of learning situation, learner’s linguistic input, and formal
instruction – are similarly designed institutionally in accordance with such foreign-cultural bound materials. As a consequence, this leads
to the fact that all NNES pre-service teachers have relatively the same
understanding of intercultural sensitivity. In addition, research findings asserts that it is the learning
motivation on which the effect of learning environments significantly give, not
the intercultural sensitivity (see Chua, et al, 2011; Ghenghesh, 2010; Lamb,
2011; Wang, 2010). Besides,
regarding the exposure to foreign culture, since the English teacher education
institutions under study are located in relatively the same EFL
environments (i.e. the location of ELT in an expanding circle context),
then the exposure to foreign culture gained by the NNES pre-service teachers is
relatively the same. Obviously, NNES pre-service teachers’ intercultural sensitivity and exposure to foreign culture under
study are not significantly different even though they learn under different institutional managements.

However,
for the English
proficiency, this study finds a different result, i.e. there is a significant effect of
different institutional
locality on
pre-service teachers’ English proficiency. This result is in line with the notion that NNES pre-service teachers’ English proficiency is
basically dependent on many things: among others are human resources (teaching
staff or administration staff), teaching facilities (such as laboratory, media,
or teaching materials), which vary among institutions. Theoretically, SLA variability has been to some
extent dependent on a number of factors, such as modes of L2 acquisition –
immersion vs. classroom (e.g., Carroll, 1967), length of L2 immersion (e.g.,
Flege, Frieda, & Nozawa, 1997), or extent of daily L2 vs. L1 usage (e.g.,
Jia et al., 2002). L2 exposure has been assumed efficient in order for
non-native English learners to increase their L2 proficiency. Furthermore,
evidently L2 exposure and the attainment of L2 proficiency have been
demonstrated by many studies, e.g. the relationship between the age at which a
learner is exposed to L2 and the ultimate L2 attainment level (Birdsong, 2005;
Birdsong & Molis, 2001; Johnson & Newport, 1989); the benefits of the
degree to which a learner is immersed in L2 (Carroll, 1967; Flege et al.,
1999); the extent of L2 exposure (Birdsong, 2005; Genesee, 1985; Kohnert,
Bates, & Hernandez, 1999; Weber-Fox & Neville, 1999); and the extent of
on-going L2 use (Flege, MacKay, & Piske, 2002; Jia et al., 2002). Therefore,
it is presumable that different human resources and the quality of teaching
staff in these in-campus
L2 learning environments of English teacher education institutions influence
differences of the English proficiency achieved by their pre-service teachers.

Conclusion

There are four conclusions
which can be drawn from the result. Firstly, in terms of teaching skills, the result shows that the main
effect of in-campus L2 learning
environments of English
teacher education institutions was not significant F (2) = 2.831, p = 0.062. Secondly,
for intercultural
sensitivity, the result of the study reveals that
the main effect of different in-campus L2 learning environments of English
teacher education institutions was not significant F (2) =
4.991, p = 0.008. Thirdly, the finding tells that the main effect of different in-campus L2 learning environments of English teacher education
institutions was not
significant F (2) = 1.577, p = 0.210. Finally, the main effect of in-campus
L2 learning environments of English teacher education institutions was not significant F (2) = 56.153, p = 0.000. 

Post Author: admin

x

Hi!
I'm Erica!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out