Site Network: Lembaga Publikasi Uniflor |

 



Majalah Ilmiah INDIKATOR, Volume XIII, Nomor 2, September 2011
Kamis, 26 April 2012


ON USING ENGLISH TO TEACH ENGLISH:
The Case of Senior High School EFL Teachers in NTT

Agustinus Semiun
Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, FKIP, Universitas Nusa Cendana,
Jln. Adisucipto, Kupang, Telepon 081339432544

Abstract
The use of English to teach English is now strongly suggested to non-native EFL teachers in High Schools through out Indonesia due to ability to communicate in English for various purposes is becoming serious motivation for Indonesian people. Therefore teachers have been strongly suggested to maximize the use of English, if not totally use it as a medium, to teach English. However, it has been so far criticizing that teachers use code switching, if not totally use Indonesian, to teach English. The present article is focusing on the problematic factors in teaching English successfully and particularly reasons why the High School EFL teachers in NTT fail to maximize, let alone to use English, to teach English.
Key Words:
Using English,  teaching English, Senior High School, EFL Teachers

Introduction
In the world of current EFL teaching, English has shifted from international language to global language and normal classrooms to global classrooms because of global pressure (Cortazzi, 2000; Samuel, 2000). Because of the shift, teaching English use rather than knowledge is the only choice to prepare students with communicative competence. To establish this goal, the English teaching professionals have done innovations in terms of designing curriculum and syllabus with communicative teaching-materials and proposing communicative teaching approaches. The innovations seem to require the EFL teachers to use English to teach students to communicate in English. Theoretically, the use of target or learned language by speakers is to provide language exposure for learners’ comprehensible input. That is the theoretical reason why teachers of English are suggested to maximize, if not to use English as a medium during classroom instruction.
However, looking specifically at EFL classrooms in Indonesia in general and in NTT in particular, the teachers fail to implement the communicative curriculum and communicative approach to prepare the students with communicative competence. The reason is the teachers seem to favor to use code switching where the use of Indonesian is over English. Their excessive use of Indonesian during their teaching has evidently made English lacking in language exposure, and therefore the students are insufficiently prepared with language input for their interlanguage development. The coming up discussions are about a brief description of teaching English in NTT followed by  the reasons why the teachers of Senior High Schools fail to maximize or to use English as a medium to teach English. 

EFL Teaching in NTT
Teaching English as a foreign language in NTT began to be a serious need after the local government promoted and assigned a number of graduates of English education of Nusa Cendana University to public secondary schools. With little English knowledge and a number of teaching methods they had learned, such as the grammar translation method, direct method, and audio-lingual method, they taught English to the students.
Meanwhile, in most common private secondary schools, the teachers of English were of various education backgrounds. Many of them who were placed in public schools were also recruited as part-time teachers in private schools. Many others were graduates from senior high schools who know little English. Some others were non-English graduates of tertiary education, including priests and Ex-High Seminary graduates who were teaching at private Catholic schools. In brief, they did not specialize in English education but they were recruited to teach English due to the lack of teachers of English at that time.
Until the year of 1980s, the junior and senior high schools, mostly public schools, increased in number. By producing only BA graduates, the University of Nusa Cendana seemed unable to fulfill the teacher demands. Since 1980s the university of Nusa Cendana and its Branch in Ende Flores ran a national innovation in tertiary education in terms of qualification degrees including, Strata one (S1), Diploma three (D3), Diploma two (D2) and Diploma one (D1) to supply teacher demand and overcome lack of teachers in secondary schools. The graduates were promoted as state teachers placed mostly in public schools. They taught English as it was required by the 1984 curriculum where lesson plan was made based on a syllabus so termed “Graris-Garis Besar Program Pengajaran” (GBPP). The classroom teaching is concentrated on general instructional aims so termed “Tujuan instruksinal Umum” (TIU) and specific instructional aims so termed “Tujuan Instruksional Khusus” (TIK). The outputs were supposed to have been well prepared with English knowledge and knowledge about the 1984 curriculum.
Then the 1994 curriculum was implemented until the current 2004 curriculum was released. It was designed with meaning-based principles aiming at preparing students to be able to speak English (Saukah, 1997). The teachers were strongly required to have adequate competence to speak or use English to teach students. The University of Nusa Cendana went also with such urgent need and prepared students with ability to comprehend and implement the curriculum. The teachers who graduated before the implementation of 1994 curriculum definitely knew nothing about this curriculum, so the local government supplied a budget to give them an in-service training to implement the curriculum. That indicated that the teachers of English graduated before the implementation of 1994 curriculum were insufficiently prepared. The main thing to fulfill is to respond the high demand of teachers of English in schools.
That is the reason since then that many sides have been complaining about the low quality of education, including low quality in English proficiency and low quality of the teachers. To take for an example, the general condition of EFL teaching in NTT until 2004. In terms of education quality, the ex-governor of NTT Piet A. Tallo said that the low quality of education was barrier to the development of NTT (Tans, 2003). Similarly, the ex-rector of Undana, Benu (2004), claimed that the output quality of SMU/SMK of NTT during the period of 1998-2003 fail to prepare the graduates to compete globally. Another key person, the Ex-Head of “Dinas Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan NTT”, Manulangga (2001), said that the big problem faced by NTT was the low quality of education of the NTT people. He noted two main reasons, that is, so many were uneducated people, and so many were unqualified graduates.
The following is about the education condition in NTT until the year of 2007. This is presented on the “Potret Pendidikan dan Kebijakan Pemerintah dalam Upaya Meningkatkan Mutu Pendidikan di Propinsis Nusa Tenggara Timur” (Min, 2007). The important information from this is about (1) the number of teachers according to degrees of qualification (certification),  (2) the percentage of students who pass national examination of senior high school students, and (3) the achievement scores in national subjects tested according to social, language, and science departments of students. Min noted 3.919 senior high school teachers of all subjects are teaching SMA students in NTT province. Of the amount, 928 (24%) teachers are considered unqualified because they are of SLTA (136), D1 (23), D2 (62), and D3 (707) qualifications, and they are categorized as uncertified teachers according to “Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 14 Tahun 2005” and “Peraturan Mendiknas Nomor 11 Tahun 2005”. It is definitely that a number of them are teachers of English.
In addition to the comments presented, the following is about the average scores of English subject in 2007’s national examination, recapitulated from Min (2007). Of the language students, the highest score in English is 9.80 and the lowest is 2.40. Of the science students, the highest score in English is 10.00 and the lowest is 1.60. Meanwhile, of the social students, the highest score is 9.80 and the lowest is 1.60. The lowest scores indicate the failure in teaching and learning English.
To conclude, the implementation of the EFL teaching in NTT in particular does not reflect global requirement; the teachers still fail to implement the communicative curriculum and communicative approach or methods. The teacher factor is considered key factor that needs special attention of all sides to increase the quality of English teaching in particular. As indicated by the data presented above, a certain number of teachers who  might be incompetent to teach English since many were of D1, D2, and D3 graduates, and few others might be of non-English educational background or of SLTA ones (Semiun, 2009).

General problematic factors faced in teaching English
In terms of using English to teach English, Willis (1985: 1), based on his own teaching experience, argues that
Language is much better learnt through real use than through pattern drills and exercises. The students get used to hearing English all the time. What they hear is voice and tones and what they see is teacher’s gestures to demonstrate in terms of how to pronounce and use words, phrases, or sentences according to context accurately. Through that way the students get very soon to understand and later can say the words, phrases, or sentences themselves contextually correctly.


Willis observed that with items the students have got in the last meetings they can unconsciously learn a number of language skills being taught, learn how to listen and to pick up words, phrases or sentences. In that way the students are also learning how to think in English and get ready to say in English in two-way communication such as asking-answer questions. During the communication they are indeed practicing the use of structures they have been taught, recognizing and acquiring new patterns or words they have not specifically been taught. However, the teaching of English through English indeed sounds idealistic for classes where the teachers are not competent in oral use and therefore incapable for it. Such incompetent teachers cannot be models of speaking English.
To look it in detail, a teacher in a classroom is supposed to use English very often to teach rules, ask questions, express feelings, inform news or experiences, organize dialogues, say jokes and critics, and so on. These are what to mean verbal behavior categories (Willis, 1985; Thomas, 1987). The use of English for such purposes, the students’ attention is drawn to listening to the teacher, to understanding what the teacher is saying, and to picking up how sentences, phrases or words are used in certain context, and to correcting mistakes of the students’ use. With the limited ability of English, the students try to say something or reply to what the teacher speaks about. For such a case, the teachers should be of those who are adequate, if not perfect, in oral use of English and willing to use it during their teaching.
However, it is not easy for the teachers to (always) use English during their teachings due to considerably of many reasons. The psychological factors, as presented in Brown (1987) or in Prawat (1992) are the general reasons that many researchers have proved to be dominant factors for teaching and learning success of both the teachers and students. Specifically the factors on the teachers’ side are identified as self-esteem in terms of self-confidence and belief on capabilities they have possessed, or anxiety, or motivation, or attitudes and so forth. In addition to this, Diem (1998) reports the teachers- self-concepts and teacher effectiveness factors that support the use of English by a number of teachers. An important point to be taken into account in terms of these factors is that it is not always certain that the competent teachers always find it easy to use English during classroom instructions due to a number of learner’s individual differences in learning an L2 or foreign language, such as: age, sex, personality factors, language aptitude, attitudes and motivation and so on (Altman in Altman & James, 1980). This implies that the better the teachers are with these factors the better they are to use English to teach it.
Richards (2001: 373-412) present four program factors that can impact on the success of language teaching programs: institution, teachers, teaching process, and learning process. The substantial factors the institution dealt with are the organizational culture in terms of school ethos and environment, communications and decision making, and management and staffing. Another factor the institution deals with is quality indicators in terms of a sense of mission, strategic plan, quality assurance mechanism, a sound curriculum, flexible organizational framework, good internal communication, professional treatment of the teachers, and opportunities for teacher development. The last factor dealt with by the institution is the teaching context dealing with size and staff structure, equipment, support staff, teacher work space, teacher resource room, teaching facilities, and class size.
According to Richards (2001), the substantial factors the teacher factor deals with are skills and qualifications in teaching English as a second language (TESL) or teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) and support factors for teachers. The support factors in particular deal with orientation, adequate materials, course guides, division of responsibilities, further training, teaching release, mentors, feedback, rewards, and review. Meanwhile, the substantial factors the teaching process deals with are teaching model and principles dealing with approaches selected and used; maintaining good teaching dealing with monitoring, observation, identification and resolution of problems, shared planning, documentation and sharing of good practices, and self-study of the program; and evaluating teaching dealing with developing the appraisal system, the focus of appraisal, and conducting the appraisal. Lastly the substantial factors the learning process deals with are about understanding of the course, views of learning, learning styles, motivation, and support.
The four factors as well as their substances presented can also be seen as challenges for the teaching professionals or educators to overcome on one side, and as sources of obstacles or hindrances that proportionally cause the learning process as well as learning output of a second or a foreign language teaching in classrooms to fail on the other. These challenges and obstacles could definitely trigger a number of the following factors to cause the process of learning and teaching of a second or a foreign language to fail or to succeed: (1) unwillingness to learn dealing with attitude of the learners, (2) learner’s expectations are too low that causes to progress much, (3) unrealistic aims that the students hard to reach, (4) off-set teaching dealing with teaching something else beyond the students’ expectations, (5) physical and organizational impediments just like fatigue, heat, or cold, noise or distraction, (6) insufficient time for learning and teaching dealing with deficiency of total quantity of time for organized instruction, (7) gross incompetence in teaching dealing with language teachers who are incompetent to manage their students’ learning or the teachers who are inadequate in command of the language being taught, (8) the teachers/materials equation is not solved out dealing with the equation standard of teachers and the materials, and (9) teachers inadequately prepared dealing with the capability of the teachers in terms of competence and teaching skills (Strevens in Brown, Yorie & Crymes, 1977).  
Differently, in their study on “Teacher Professionalism in Local School Contexts”, Talbert and McLaughlin (1994) present problematic bases of professionalism in teaching differentiated into challenges to professionalism in teaching and multiple contexts of teacher community. The challenges deal with service ethic, a highly variable in teaching, and weak professional commitment and control in teaching. In terms of service ethic, studies on student tracking by McLaughlin and Talbert (1993b) for example, report that it is a challenge for teachers. Many teachers involved in the study assert that students in low-track classes are not capable of learning course material, so the teachers tend to water down the curriculum (make it less important) or write off the students (erased them from the list). The weak professional commitment and control in teaching on the other side are also found as other challenges in terms of constraints of how to face insular or low-minded character of classroom teaching. It is common for the teachers that “bad teaching and, even harmful classroom practices, typically are noticed silently” (Little 1990, in Talbert and McLaughlin, 1994).
Another problematic base is multiple contexts including sector differences dealing with workplace differences associated with teaching in public or private schools; district differences dealing with, among others, difference in the type and amount of resources available to education; school differences dealing with, among others, departments within the same school which often vary substantially in terms of expectations about teachers’ classroom activities, critical examinations of practices, and involvement of curriculum development; and teacher networks deal with a context for professional community that can significantly influence teachers’ work (Little and McLaughlin, 1992 in Talbert and McLaughlin, 1994). The network is to do innovation and change by the teachers, in terms of instructional development and curriculum.
Based on the problematic factors presented, this article deals with more practical and observable factors which are also found in teaching English as a foreign language in NTT especially in schools in West Timor land. The factors can be categorized into seven factors which are presumed as the obstacles for the teachers based on a number of research reports successfully traced. They are school locations, teaching experience, class sizes, majoring classes, teacher training, graduation institution, and teacher sex. The factors are believed to play different roles that support the teachers to maximize or to minimize the use of English during their teachings. The factors are described next.

(1) Teacher communicative competence
References have figured out characteristics of communicative competence in various ways depending upon the perspectives viewed. Bachmann (1987) for example views communicative competence from an ideal speaker of a language in terms of correctly and properly using language as a tool for any purposes, while Canale and Swain (1980) views it from second or foreign language teaching and learning process in terms of students’ or learners’ stages of discourse competences called interlanguage competence. Thus in short, communicative competence deals with competence of a speaker to use language grammatically correct and socio-linguistically proper. This is relevant with the eleven characteristics of native-like proficiency (Stern, 1984) of a speaker, five of them are presented next.
(1) Knowing the rules and being able to speak the language fluently. (2) Intuitively grasping linguistic, cognitive, affective, and socio-cultural meanings expressed by language forms, (3) Spontaneously use language for the purpose of communication as well as intuitively understand socio-linguistic functions of language, (4) Good communicative competence of a teacher is measured by means of his language behaviors, and (5)  A teacher, even a learner of a language can creatively use it like its native speakers.

Based on the characteristics of a proficient speaker of a language there are four important points need worth arguing in foreign language teaching. Firstly, it is unarguable that language proficiency a teacher has can affect the frequency of use of language learned by a teacher. In other words, the better the language communicative competence a teacher has the more highly or frequently he can use the language as a medium of instruction. Secondly, the more frequently a teacher uses a language as a medium of instruction the more he provides language exposure for students’ language inputs. Thirdly, in relevance with education background, the higher the degree a teacher has specialized in a second or foreign language learned, the higher his language proficiency is. Fourthly, the higher the proficiency of second or foreign language the better his communicative competence is.
In English language teaching the communicative competence is very much required for teachers to teach through English in terms of implementing communicative teaching and learning applying communicative approach (David Nunan in Das, 1987). Activities such as working in pairs or groups, role playing, organizing language games, note-taking while listening, student repeating teacher cue, and free writing exercises are communicative activities to put communicative approaches into practice. The purpose of performing communicative activities is to prepare the students with communicative competence. It is no choice therefore that, teachers of second or foreign language should be of adequate communicative competence too, meaning besides teaching skills, they have adequate oral performance. In line with this argument, the EFL teachers should have adequate ability to use English as a means to put communicative teaching recommended by communicative curriculum or syllabus into practice. It is impossible that teachers of English are able to implement communicative teaching activities without having adequate if not perfect communicative competence in terms of linguistic competences and socio-cultural competence. Specializing in English education as well as great teaching experience is sufficient to have and increase communicative competence of the teachers. Failing to have or to prepare with communicative competence the teachers favor to use code switching or code mixing to teach English (Semiun, 2009).

(2) Teaching Experience
The length of teaching experience is presumed to be also an obstacle for the teachers particularly those of short teaching experience (Semiun, 2009). It is a believed that the longer a teacher’s experience in teaching, the more he finds practical problems or difficulties in his teaching process, and the better he prepares everything before coming to classes to teach. In addition, the longer his teaching experience is, could be, the better his use of English in terms of language components and language skills.
(3) Class size
The number of students in a class is also a factor for a teacher to teach effectively. The smaller the number of students in a class is, the more effective a teacher executes his job particularly in terms of communicative language teaching. A class of at most 40 students is rational in schools in Indonesia. The amount exceeds the one (15 students) suggested according Richards (2001). Such excessive number sometimes can happen because of being out of control that makes the teachers fail to manage in terms of implementing communicative approach during classroom instruction.
(4) Class Majoring
It is likely common in schools in NTT that fast learning students in all subjects major or are majored in science classes (Semiun, 2009). The social class is the second choice and language class is the third choice. As presented in the front school differences dealing with departments within the same school often vary substantially particularly in terms of teachers’ classroom activities and involvement of curriculum development. Majoring classes by placing faster learning students in science department for instance could be a tradition in certain schools in certain districts. However majoring classes as such does not guarantee that the teachers always speak English to the faster students during their teachings and so the students are ensured to be good in oral use of English because what they focus for is their major subjects.
(5) Training
Among other teacher factor as said by Richards (2001) is further training to be professional in knowledge and skills to independently develop their career and teaching and learning process. For so doing the teachers are given opportunities to join, for example conference participation, workshops, in-service seminars, action research oriented to being capable of developing teaching material, teaching skills, class management, as well as English language skills. It is assumed that the more they join such trainings the better they are competent in language skills and teaching skills. It is not guaranteed however that the more training the teachers join can teach more successfully.
(6) School Location
Based on the sector, district, and school differences the schools can be differentiated into the school location into schools at cities and in villages (Little (1990) in Talbert and McLaughlin, 1994). The schools at cities are assumed better in terms of facilities and therefore the students and possibly the teachers are better than those in villages in terms of teaching and learning process. It is presumed that the obstacles available in schools in villages can cause the weak professional commitment and control to face the students of possibly low track classes on the part of the teachers, and therefore the teachers tend to let bad teaching process is noticed silently. Due to this condition the teachers tend to implement the strategy they think easy for them, ignoring the use of English being taught.
(7) Institution Graduation
Until recently LPTKs in universities still faced problems of various kinds (Djiwandono, 1999). Teaching facilities, outdated references and library books, poor cooperative relationship with schools, weak educational research, and inadequate accreditation system are factors that support the success or failure of over all efforts of preparing qualified outputs. It could be  believed that all study programs even English studies at universities in Kupang until recently are facing these problems, not to mention things like staff development, curriculum development, qualified lecturing process, and students’ teaching practice at schools, that all of which definitely lead to the failure to preparing capable prospective teachers. Based on the national accreditation standard, only the English study program at state university of Nusa Cendana is accredited B. However it could be an important point which is worth noting in relevance with these problems is that the English study programs of state universities which are assumed better than those in private ones do not always produce qualified outputs. This is the reason why the graduation institution of the practicing teachers is also concerned.


Why Teachers in NTT Fail to Use English to Teach English
This section presents especially the reasons why the teachers of English in NTT particularly of those spreading over the West Timor land including one Kota i.e. Kota Kupang and four regencies i.e. Kupang, TTS, TTU, and Belu (Semiun, 2009). It is worth noting that few of the teachers are of non-English education. The reasons are displayed in the following Table.
Categories
Use more English
Use more Indonesian

Students
Good English
Poor English
Small Class
Big class
Language students
Non language students
Science students


Teachers
Easy topic
Difficult topic
Teaching conversation

Feeling confident
Feeling unconfident
Higher classes
Fresh students
Loosing face


Others
Profession

Curriculum

Institutional mission

Debate competition


As we can see from the Table, the reasons are classified into three categories: students, teachers, and others; each has subcategories of using more English and more Indonesian. The teachers use more English when they teach the students of good English background, small class, and language students. It is interesting that the teachers also use more English to science students because according to them most fast learning students are directed to enroll for science department including those good at English. Further, the teachers use more English when they teach easy topics, conversation or speaking in the lab (usually in state schools), feeling confident, higher classes (grade two and three). In terms of feeling confident, the teachers agree that they are more confident to use English if they have longer teaching experience or graduated from S2. It is interesting that the teachers of non-English education speak English in order to avoid loosing face before the students, or they encourage themselves to speak more English to ensure the students that they are able to teach English.


Conclusion
Teaching English as a foreign language to non-native students is not as easy as it sounds. To be more specific, using English to teach it is found a serious problem for teachers of various English backgrounds to prepare the non-native students with communicative competence in the sense the students can use it for various purposes when they leave senior high schools. The teachers of English in NTT general and in West Timor land in particular are not yet adequately prepared with communicative competence to use English as a medium of instruction. In other words they favor to mix English with Indonesian during classroom instruction due to a number of serious factors. The factors, as discussed in the front, are classified into teacher factor, student factor and other relevant factors. The teacher factor in particular deals with the oral ability to teach English through English. The shaky communicative competence has made the teachers unconfident and unable to use English to explain difficult topics dealing with, for example, grammar, vocabulary, and reading. They are also unable to use English in such a way to students of poor English background, and to students of big classes. This relates to adequate or perfect communicative competence that makes the teachers to use English in whatever conditions and situations. The ability to communicate as such deals with English teacher profession required by the curriculum being used.
The inability to use English of the teachers indicates that the students or graduates are not or have not been adequately provided with English exposure for the students’ interlanguage input during the learning period, and so they are not well prepared with communicative competence for further purposes as required by global competition era.
Such problematic factors imply that there should be continuous innovations particularly of the tertiary education as well as government’s sides. The serious evaluation for the innovations intended needs to be done continuously for university teachers to make innovations in instructional process on one side, and for government to find out more effective ways on how to train practicing teachers on the other.



References
Altman, H.B. 1980. “Foreign Language Teaching: Focus on the learner.” In H.B.Altman & C.V.James (Eds.). Foreign Language Teaching: Meeting Individual Needs. Oxford: Pergamon Press LTD.
Bachman, L. F. 1987. Fundamental Considerations in Language Teasting. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Benu, A. January 13th, 2004. “Mutu Lulusan SMU/SMK NTT 1998-2003.” Pos Kupang, pg. 15.
Brown, H.D. 1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs.
Canale, M. & M. Swain. 1979. Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Toronto: The Minister of Education.
Cortazzi, M. 2000. “Languages, Cultures, and Cultures of learning in the Global Classroom.”  In H.W.Kam and C.Ward  (Ed.), Language in the Global Context: Implications for the Language Classroom (pg.75 -102). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Diem, C.D. 1998. “Teacher Self-Concept and Teacher Effectiveness as Perceived by Teachers of English and Students of Enior High Schools.”  Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan. Agustus 1998. Jilid 5, 3: 154-166.
Djiwandono, M.S. 1999. “English Language Teacher Education: Rewriting S-1 National Curriculum.”  TEFLIN Journal, August 1999, Volume X, 1: 17 - 30
Government of Republic of Indonesia. 2006. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 14 Tahun 2005 Tentang Guru dan Dosen & Peraturan Mendiknas Nomor 11 tahun 2005.Bandung: Penerbit Citra Umbara
Manulangga, J. 2001. “Paradigma Baru Pendidikan Nasional Menyerap Potensi Lokal untuk Mengurangi Pengangguran Output Pendidikan Formal.” Makalah Disajikan pada Seminar Sehari Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia Jurusan Bahasa dan Seni FKIP Undana. Kupang: Dinas Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan  Propinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur.
Min, A. 2007. “Potret Pendidikan dan Kebijakan Pemerintah dalam Upaya Meningkatkan Mutu Pendidikan di Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur.” Kupang: Dinas Pendidikan Nasional NTT.
Nunan, D. 1987. “Communicative Language Teaching: The Learner’s View.”  In B.K. Das (Eds.). Communication and Learning in the Classroom Community. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional language Centre.
Prawat, R.S. 1992. “Teachers’ Belief about Teaching and Learning: A Constructivist Perspective.”  American Journal of Education, May 1992, pg. 354-395.
Richards, J.C. 2001. “Program Factors In Effective Foreign And Second Language Teaching.”  Journal of Southeast Asian Education, 2001, Vol. 2, 2:  373-412
Samuel, M. 2000. “Problematizing Globalization: Implications for Teaching Global English.”  In H.W.Kam and C.Ward (Eds.). Language in the Global Context: Implications for the Language Classroom. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Saukah, A. 1997. “The 1994 English Curriculum of Secondary Schools and Its Implications to the Teaching of English in Indonesia.” THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, December 1997, Volume 4, Special Edition: 293 - 304.
Semiun, A. 2009. The Use of English as Medium of Instruction by Senior High School EFL Teachers in NTT. Malang: Universitas Negeri Malang.
Stern, H.H. 1984. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
Strevens, P. 1977. “Causes of Failure and Conditions For Success in the Learning and Teaching of Foreign languages.”  In H.Douglas Brown, Carlos A.Yerie & Ruth H. Crymes (Eds.).  Teaching and Learning English as a Second language: Trends in Research and Practice. Washington: TESOL 455 Nevils Building.
Talbert, J.E. & McLaughlin, M.W. 1994. “Teacher Professionalism in Local School Context.”  American Journal of Education 102. (February 1994), pg.: 123-153.
Tans, F. 2003. May 5th 2003. “Tentang Pendidikan Bermutu.” Pos Kupang, pg. 4.
Thomas, A.M. 1987. Classroom Interaction. (Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 14 Tahun 2005 tentang Guru dan Dosen dan Peraturan Mendiknas Nomor 11 Tahun 2005. Bandung: Citra Umbara
Willis, J. 1985. Teaching English Through English. Hongkong:Longman. *

posted by Jurnal Online Uniflor @ 11.54,

0 Comments:

Posting Komentar

<< Home