For (Elbaz, 1983; Clandinin, 1986). Other recent literature suggests

For the past 30 years, there the
terminology of teacher education has been shifting. By the mid-1980s, research
findings on this issue focus on how the teachers engage in complex thinking and
interpretation when they teach their students in the classroom (Elbaz, 1983;
Clandinin, 1986). Other recent literature suggests that the term ‘teacher
education’ becomes the superordinate term of the two other terms (i.e. teacher
training and teacher development). In this concept, teacher training and
teacher development should no longer be dichotomous and sequential programs,
but they should serve as complementary and integrated strategies
(Larsen-Freeman, 1983; Freeman, 1989). The knowledge base of L2 teacher education,
according to Johnson (2009), covers at least three broad areas, i.e. 1)
knowledge about what L2 teachers need to know, 2) knowledge about how L2
teachers should teach, and 3) knowledge about how L2 teachers learn to teach.
All three types of knowledge should be transmitted to students of L2
pre-service teacher training in order that they can prepare themselves as
professional L2 teachers after they graduate. Researchers who focus on L2
teachers and activities of L2 teaching find that the essential knowledge which
is important for L2 teachers includes contents of L2 teaching (Freeman &
Johnson, 1998); pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987); or practitioner
knowledge (Hiebert et al,  2002). The
contents of L2 teaching have been for a long time associated with the
disciplinary knowledge about SLA theories and how to apply these to language
instruction in the classroom. Many research findings have long asserted a claim
that SLA plays an important role in how L2 is taught (Chaudron 1988; O’Malley
& Chamont 1990; VanPatton 1989). Pedagogical content knowledge is
methodological knowledge in L2 teaching, which is classified by Freeman et. al.
(2009) as the pedagogical content
knowledge (capacity to transform content into accessible or learnable forms
– curriculum/syllabus) and the pedagogical
practical knowledge (teaching itself—teaching methods, classroom
management, and evaluation). Practitioner knowledge refers to the knowledge
that is generated by L2 teachers who get more experiences in the real practices
of L2 teaching and learning. There are more research findings (Burns 1999;
Cochran-Smith & Lytle 1999; Edge & Richards 1993; Freeman 1998) which
have legitimated practitioner knowledge as important for L2 teacher
education. 

Since the field of TESOL emerged in the 1960s, the core
curriculum in L2 teacher education generated a debate on the two strands, i.e.
content and delivery (Burns & Richards, 2009), or practical teaching skills
and academic knowledge (Johnson, 2009). However, arguing against the ideas emerging
from the debates on the two strands, more recent literatures on L2 education
say the main goals of L2 teacher education should now center on examination of
students’ mental processes and the situated and social nature of L2 learning
(Lave & Wenger, 1991). Therefore, L2 teachers have to consider the target
language as a means of mediating thinking (Vygotsky, 1978; Leont’ev, 1981); or
what Gee (1996) labeled ‘social language’ which means language can serve
different functions in society; or, in line with what Bakhtin (1981) said, that
any L2 utterance creates contexts of use and genre.
In addition, Freeman & Johnson (1998) asserts that the focus of teaching
and learning in L2 teacher education should be on how language learners acquire
L2, rather than on how L2 is practiced and learned. In this mode of learning,
L2 teacher education should stress the importance of teacher proficiency and
professional development (Pasternak & Bailey, 2004), language proficiency
(Lavender, 2002), or a language skills maintenance program that engages L2
teachers-in-preparation in independent language tasks (Barnes, 2002). In this
perspective, according to Burns & Richards (2009), L2 teacher education is
not viewed as translating knowledge and theories into practices but rather as
constructing new knowledge and theory through participating in specific social
contexts and engaging in particular types of activities and processes.
Consequently, L2 teaching and learning should be seen to emerge through social
interaction within a community of practice.

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


order now

There
is a number of definitions of intercultural sensitivity in which different but
related disciplines are used as their basic frames. For instance, Hammer, et.al. (2003) refers
to it as “the ability to discriminate and experience relevant cultural
differences”; while Chen & Starosta (1997) views it as “an individual
ability to develop emotion towards understanding and appreciating cultural
differences that promotes appropriate and effective behavior in intercultural
communication”; or others, like Neuliep & McCroskey (1997) defines intercultural communication apprehension
as “the fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated interaction
with people from different groups, especially different cultural or ethnic
groups”, using a term which is closely related to intercultural sensitivity
(Lin & Rancer, 2003; McCroskey & Richmond, 1987, 1991). Among the
various definitions, this current study understands intercultural sensitivity
as it has been constructed using Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
or DMIS (Bennett, 1993; Paige, et. al., 2003; Hammer, et.al, 2003; Olson &
Kroeger, 2001). In DMIS, intercultural sensitivity consists of six
stages: denial, defense, and minimization (stages referred to as ethnocentric),
and acceptance, adaptation, and integration (labeled ethnorelative).

The notion that nonnative English
speaking teachers (NNESTs) and native English speaking teachers (NESTs) are
different in terms of linguistic knowledge, proficiency, and teaching competence has
been proved by several studies (e.g. Stern, 1983; McNeill, 1993;
Milambiling, 1999; Samimy & Brutt-Griffler, 1999); therefore the NESTs who
have for a long time been given the right to be strong cultural resources are
often assumed to be able to efficiently teach L2 to learners of other language
(e.g. Árva & Medgyes, 2000; Carless, 2006). However, as English teaching
throughout the world is now dominated by nonnative speakers of English
(Alptekin, 2002; Jenkins, 2000; Kirkpatrick, 2006), the existence of NNEST is
unavoidably becoming very crucial in EFL teaching. Moreover, the rapid
development of internet, technology,
and media has widely changed the ways people learn and use English as a means
of global communication. This obviously creates different circumstances of
English learning in every corner of the globe. English has been widely used in
social media as a means of virtual communication, which has been becoming a
need for everybody across state borders. This apparently brings about changes
in the teaching and learning of English as an international language. Richards (2015) predicts that there is a ‘growing range of
opportunities and resources available to support out-of-class learning’. In
his further explanation, he emphasizes that out-of-class activities are
beneficial for teachers since they enable teachers to create learning
opportunities that are difficult to organize in the classroom; this
consequently generates both challenges and opportunities for teachers and
learners, which may bring about different a classroom situation. This different situation of learning unavoidably requires teachers to treat their
students differently in the classroom in order that they can put more effort
into maximizing beyond-the-class
learning to help improve the in-class
achievements. What goes beyond the class really becomes potential
opportunities for learners to enrich their learning environment.

Second language acquisition’s (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, et.al. 1997), or extent of daily L2 vs. L1 usage (e.g.,
Jia et al., 2002). These show the importance of the relationship between L2
exposure and the attainment of L2 proficiency, which has been demonstrated by
many studies: for instance, the relationship between the age at which a learner
is exposed to L2 and the ultimate L2 attainment level (e.g., Birdsong, 2005;
Birdsong & Molis, 2001; Johnson & Newport, 1989); the benefits of the
degree to which a learner is immersed in L2 (e.g., Carroll, 1967; Flege et al.,
1999); the extent of L2 exposure (e.g., Birdsong, 2005; Genesee, 1985; Kohnert,
et.al., 1999; Weber-Fox & Neville, 1999); and the extent of on-going L2 use
(e.g., Flege, MacKay, & Piske, 2002; Jia et al., 2002). L2 exposure has
evidently been assumed efficient in order for non-native English learners to
increase their L2 proficiency. In the context of inner circle or outer
circle environment (Kachru’s concept of world Englishes), L2 exposure has
been easy to achieve; however, in the context of the expanding circle environment,
getting enough L2 exposure has not been that easy. This is due to the fact that
in the expanding circle context, EFL learners are not engaged in a real
experience environment, such as living in English-speaking community, as their
rich exposure in the target language; thus, the only way to get the target
language exposure for them is to gain more access to authentic
materials, such as newspapers, magazines, movies, films, or broadcasting
programs in the target language. To attain such access, the roles of teachers
and environment are paramount. Furthermore, Sodnomdarjaa
(2006) classifies foreign culture
exposure into two parts, i.e. exposure occurring in a real environment, such as
studying abroad, or staying in a host family of native speaking persons, and
exposure occurring in an unreal environment, like authentic materials, movies,
or newspapers. In theoretical
terms, many authorities view teaching skill as one which is broken down
into parts: e.g. Kyriacou (2007) classifies it into three different elements,
i.e. knowledge, decision-making, and action; Burns & Richards (2009)
perceives teaching skill as knowledge how
consisting of pedagogical
knowledge and practical knowledge; Ur (2010) views teaching skill as a part of
teacher education which includes explaining and presenting new materials,
providing practices, and testing; while in Hedge’s (2000) definition, teaching
skill involves 1) the nature of input, 2) the process of intake, and (3)
classroom interaction; and Cooper (2011) argues that teaching skill
incorporates three basic elements of the reflective decision-making model, i.e.
to plan, to implement, and to evaluate. Empirically, various studies of
teaching have proved how teaching skills differ between 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).

Method

Participants 

Participants of the current
study were 156 pre-service teachers (i.e. students in the faculty of teacher
training and education) taken from three local universities in Indonesia, i.e. Mulawarman,
Borneo Tarakan University, and Widyagama Mahakam University. Each university
was represented by 52 students who were chosen randomly from the population of
all students in L2 teacher education who met certain criteria (see table 1).
The criteria were: 1) those who have teaching experiences in schools or English
courses, 2) those who have taken the micro
teaching course, and 3) those who have taken the internship program as a part of the prerequisite credits for
accomplishing undergraduate program of English language education. In addition,
the participants have provided their informed consent in accordance with
research ethics.

Table
1: Distribution of sample

No.

Name of University

Number of Participant

1
 

Mulawarman
University

52

2

Borneo
Tarakan University

52

3
 

Widyagama
Mahakam University

52

Total

156

Instrument

There were three instruments used in the present study,
i.e. 1) observation scaling checklist, 2) questionnaire, and 3)
TOEFL-equivalent test. The observation scaling checklist was used for assessing
the respondents’ performance when they were doing teaching practice internships
in schools. Each respondent was assessed by the researchers’ team using the
checklist in which four scales (1 – 4) were used as the options of performance
in each aspect of teaching. It was designed by firstly developing concept of
teaching skills (Cooper, 2011; Burns
& Richards, 2009; Hedge, 2008; Ur, 2010); then divide the concept into
three aspects, i.e. teaching preparation, teaching action and teaching
evaluation (see appendix 2). Meanwhile, the questionnaire was designed
by developing concepts of L2 Exposure to foreign culture was
developed from Norries & Gillespie (2009) and Sodnomdarja
(2006). In the mean time, the concept of intercultural sensitivity was adapted
from Bennett’s
Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity or DMIS (Bennett, 1993; Paige,
et. al., 2003; Hammer, et.al., 2003; Olson & Kroeger, 2001; Jeon, & Lee, 2017). The
questionnaire consisted of 20 close-ended questions with four-point Likert
scale (i.e. strongly agree, agree, disagree and strongly disagree), including
12 items asking about intercultural sensitivity, and
8 items asking about exposure to foreign culture.

Internal consistency of each concept in the
questionnaire was examined by using Cronbach Alpha (see Cronbach Alpha indices
per concept in table 2).

Table 2:
The concepts of variables of the study

Teaching
skills

Exposure to
foreign culture

Concepts

Cronbach Alpha for internal consistency

indicators

Concepts

Cronbach Alpha for internal consistency

indicators

Teaching
preparation

0.761

Having the lesson plans
before teaching

Within
real environment
 

0.932

1. Living in
English speaking countries

Teaching
Action

 0.964

Applying
a good classroom management
Motivating
learners in learning beyond the classroom
Driving
L2 acquisition in the classroom 

Under unreal environment

0.977

1. Getting
opportunities to be involved in a program where English is used as
instructional language
2. Getting
opportunities to empower L2 exposure (English) in any activities such as
watching movies, TV programs, conversation club or speaking with native
speakers

Evaluation

0.928

Using
product-oriented assessments
Doing
ongoing assessment while teaching

 

 

 

 

Before being distributed for
completion, the questionnaire was piloted to 20 fourth-semester students of the
faculty of teacher training, Mulawaman University for the purpose of
identifying unclear or ambiguous items. Based on the results of the piloting, the
questionnaire was revised before it was launched for data collection. In order
to obtain the complete comprehension of the participants, the L1 of Indonesia
was used for the wording of the questionnaire. The
scores of English proficiency was taken from the students’ TOEFL scores as a
result of TOEFL-equivalent test conducted prior to the study.

Data
Collection and Analysis

For collecting the data of intercultural sensitivity, and exposure
to foreign culture, the questionnaire was distributed to the respondents; while
for the data of respondents’ teaching skills were elicited by using scaling
checklist; and in collecting the data of English proficiency, respondents’
scores on TOEFL-equivalent tests were used. The process of completing the
questionnaire was done under the close supervision of enumerators to ensure the
respondents’ seriousness in answering the questions and to avoid
misinterpretation. The data analysis was done quantitatively, i.e. by using the
SPSS program. Descriptive statistics (i.e. to know the minimum and maximum
score and the mean of the items answered in the questionnaire), and a series of
one-way ANOVA) were used. 

Hypothesis of the study

There were 4 research
hypotheses (Ha) used in the study, namely:

1.     
There
are differences in teaching skills performed by NNES pre-service teachers from
three in-campus L2 learning environments of English teacher education
institutions

2.     
There
are differences in intercultural sensitivity possessed by NNES pre-service
teachers from three in-campus L2 learning environments of English teacher
education institutions

3.     
There
are differences in exposure to foreign culture gained by NNES pre-service
teachers from three in-campus L2 learning environments of English teacher
education institutions

4.     
There
are differences in English proficiency achieved by NNES pre-service teachers
from three in-campus L2 learning environments of English teacher education
institutions