199
they could be proud of and showed high levels of work engagement. Furthermore, the fact that teachers rated their dedication to their profession as
the highest among the three factors of work engagement provided evidence that teachers in this region sustained good morale. Second, the teaching profession is
still respected by the society as being a morally good profession. From this point of view, there was an indication that teachers‘ good morale and high
social status were important factors that kept teachers‘ self-perception of their ability high. These two factors also made the participants feel committed to the
profession.
6.3.1 Teachers’ efficacy for English
Because the teachers in the sample were English teachers, investigating their confidence in their ability in both spoken and written English was important to
determine. In this regard, the investigation of the teachers‘ efficacy for English
was not limited to the confidence in using English for instruction in the classroom, but also for more general communication in an English language
communicative context.
Base d on the data, the average score of the teachers‘ efficacy for English was
4.25 see Table 6.1, or a 61 confidence level. Although it was still above the mid-point, this was the lowest score among the five subscales. The fact that
participants rated their confidence in English as the lowest was cause for concern. It is reasonable to argue that, with such a level of confidence in the
200
subject matter it would be hard for teachers to help their students secure a high level of achievement.
In addition, when lo oking carefully at the seven items in the teachers‘ efficacy
for English subscale Table 6.2, I found that teachers were more confident in their instructional English, that is, the English they spoke in the classroom, but
were less confident in speaking English for communication. The participants scored the highest means in the two items measuring the teachers‘ ability in
instructional English; the efficacy for instructional English speaking and instructional English writing, which meant they were quite confident in
speaking English to explain and give examples in the classroom. They were also fairly confident in using written instructional materials in the classroom.
Table 6.2. Means and Standard Deviations of T eachers’ Efficacy for
English
Subscales Efficacy for ...
Means Level of
confidence Efficacy for
English instructional English speaking
4.85 65
English for communication 4.39
63 understanding movies on TV
3.95 56
understanding books written in English 4.48
64 English songs
4.11 59
instructional English writing 4.87
70 English journalpublication writing
3.08 44
Overall 61
On a seven-point scale However, the findings also suggested that the t
eachers‘ efficacy for English for communication was only number four in the rank. Besides, t
eachers‘ efficacy for journal or publication writing was the lowest, with the mean score of below
mid-point on a seven-point scale indicating a level of confidence of only 44.
201
This very low score has important implications for the development of the profession among the participants. For example, publishing a journal article is
an important aspect in the evaluation to achieve a certain level in the profession. Failure to publish such an article would also prevent teachers from pursuing
leadership positions as school principals.
The findings reflected the general situation of English teaching in Indonesia, where English was spoken only inside the classroom. One possible explanation
was due to the fact that English was a foreign language. Although teachers spoke English in the classroom, they did not usually communicate in English
even with the other English teachers in the school. Therefore, there were not many English teachers, who were confident in their English for communication.
The situation was even worse because these teachers had limited opportunities for teachers to practice speaking English outside of the school context and little
opportunity to use English in the school context with other colleagues. In addition, although the local government occasionally provided opportunities for
teachers to attend a professional development program which focused on improving teachers‘ English communication skills, such opportunities were far
from being sufficient.
Another possibility was due to the high demand of the new curriculum. As discussed in the previous section, the curriculum required the teachers to be able
to help students produce both spoken and written texts. This was to some extent too demanding because many teachers have had little exposure to native
202
speakers of English who could model them the language in use. The demand of producing students capable of speaking English for communication, while at the
same time lacking the capacity to support the task, might have been so overwhelming that
in the end it diminished the level of teachers‘ efficacy.
6.3.2 Teachers’ efficacy for instructional strategy
