Students’ Perception toward Teaching Strategies of Native and Nonnative English-Speaking Teachers: A Case Study in Indonesia

Q3 Social Sciences Education Research International Pub Date : 2023-05-13 DOI:10.1155/2023/7827917
Fathor Rasyid, Prodhan Mahbub Ibna Seraj, Abd. Ghofur, Andi Asrifan
{"title":"Students’ Perception toward Teaching Strategies of Native and Nonnative English-Speaking Teachers: A Case Study in Indonesia","authors":"Fathor Rasyid, Prodhan Mahbub Ibna Seraj, Abd. Ghofur, Andi Asrifan","doi":"10.1155/2023/7827917","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aimed to investigate the students’ insights toward native English-speaking teachers’ (NESTs) and nonnative English-speaking teachers’ (NNEST) teaching strategies and to examine the reasons for their insights. Fifty-eight English students, 30 females, and 20 males, with prior experience of learning from both NESTs and NNESTs in East Java, Indonesia, participated in the study. They were purposively selected. A set of questionnaires was used to elicit quantitative data on students’ perceptions and focus group discussion was used to elicit qualitative data on the underlying reasons for their perceptions. Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive and inferential statistics, whereas qualitative data were analyzed based on themes. The finding revealed that the students perceived NESTs slightly better than NNESTs, with a grand mean of 9.92 and 3.74. Another finding indicates that the perception percentage for NESTs is 75%, while NNESTs achieved 63.8%. However, when the grand means of both groups are tested statistically using a correlated sample t-test, it reveals that there is no significant mean difference (\n \n p\n <\n 0.05\n \n ). This means that the mean difference of 3.92 and 3.74 occurred by chance only, and it is not considered different statistically. This suggests that the students perceived NESTs and NNESTs the same. The qualitative data were classified into six themes: explanation, class interaction, teaching strategy, improvization, and ideal teachers. The data indicated that students have more or less similar reasons for these themes. Eventually, the results of qualitative and quantitative data analysis suggest that NESTs and NNESTs are not two distinct groups, one necessarily better or more qualified to be teachers than the other.","PeriodicalId":45901,"journal":{"name":"Education Research International","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education Research International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7827917","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the students’ insights toward native English-speaking teachers’ (NESTs) and nonnative English-speaking teachers’ (NNEST) teaching strategies and to examine the reasons for their insights. Fifty-eight English students, 30 females, and 20 males, with prior experience of learning from both NESTs and NNESTs in East Java, Indonesia, participated in the study. They were purposively selected. A set of questionnaires was used to elicit quantitative data on students’ perceptions and focus group discussion was used to elicit qualitative data on the underlying reasons for their perceptions. Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive and inferential statistics, whereas qualitative data were analyzed based on themes. The finding revealed that the students perceived NESTs slightly better than NNESTs, with a grand mean of 9.92 and 3.74. Another finding indicates that the perception percentage for NESTs is 75%, while NNESTs achieved 63.8%. However, when the grand means of both groups are tested statistically using a correlated sample t-test, it reveals that there is no significant mean difference ( p < 0.05 ). This means that the mean difference of 3.92 and 3.74 occurred by chance only, and it is not considered different statistically. This suggests that the students perceived NESTs and NNESTs the same. The qualitative data were classified into six themes: explanation, class interaction, teaching strategy, improvization, and ideal teachers. The data indicated that students have more or less similar reasons for these themes. Eventually, the results of qualitative and quantitative data analysis suggest that NESTs and NNESTs are not two distinct groups, one necessarily better or more qualified to be teachers than the other.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
学生对母语和非母语英语教师教学策略的认知:以印度尼西亚为例
本研究旨在探讨学生对英语母语教师和非英语母语教师教学策略的看法,并探讨其原因。58名英国学生参加了这项研究,其中30名女性和20名男性,他们之前曾在印度尼西亚东爪哇的nest和nnest学习过。他们是有意挑选的。采用问卷调查的方式获取学生认知的定量数据,采用焦点小组讨论的方式获取学生认知背后原因的定性数据。定量数据采用描述统计和推理统计进行分析,定性数据采用主题分析。结果显示,学生对网络环境的感知略好于非网络环境,均数分别为9.92和3.74。另一项发现表明,nest的感知百分比为75%,而nnest的感知百分比为63.8%。然而,当使用相关样本t检验对两组的大均值进行统计检验时,发现没有显著的均值差异(p < 0.05)。这意味着3.92和3.74的平均差异只是偶然发生的,在统计上不认为是不同的。这表明学生对网络环境和非网络环境的认知是相同的。定性数据分为六个主题:解释、课堂互动、教学策略、即兴和理想教师。数据表明,学生对这些主题或多或少有相似的原因。最后,定性和定量数据分析的结果表明,nest和nnest并不是两个截然不同的群体,其中一个一定比另一个更好或更有资格成为教师。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Education Research International
Education Research International EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
212
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊最新文献
Challenges of Employing the Underlying Tenets of English as an International Language in Iran Adapting to the Digital Age: An Evaluation of Online Learning Strategies in Public Health and Social Care Education Ethiopian Early Grade English Teachers’ Preparedness to Teach Basic Reading Skills Competence Assessment of Team of Specialists under the Organization and Personnel Department at Public Universities in Vietnam The Contribution of Using Cooperative Learning Methods on Students’ Achievement and Retention in Secondary Schools during Chemistry Lesson
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1