T1 112009155 Full text

THE BEST ENGLISH TEACHER ACCORDING TO ENGLISH
DEPARTMENT STUDENTS

THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan

Citra Puspita Dewi
112009155

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2013

THE BEST ENGLISH TEACHER ACCORDING TO ENGLISH
DEPARTMENT STUDENTS

THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan

Citra Puspita Dewi
112009155

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2013
i

ffi

PERPUSTAKAAN UNtvERSITAS
SATY,\ W.\C,{IT"A

LIN IVERSITAS KRISTEN

Jl. Dip,ncq,rr,r

'I'clp.0298

-

5-2

-

50 Srlitigr 5071

I

Jawa l'engab, lndonesia
121212, Fax. 0293 32i,tll

Ernail: library@adm.uksw.crlu ; http://library.uksrv.edu

r?a!r|

7/Ltil,A*|ilMt,fffiJ'f1liNiffi

PERNYATAAN TIDAK PLAGIAT DAN PERSETUJUAN AKSES
Sebagaisivitas akademik Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, saya yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini:

: C \TFA ?uspttn D€nt t
. \[2esg\5S

Nama

NIM

,

kultas

Fa

Juduttugas akhir

FBt

: '\ht, g€sT

Email

; Ci{rapurgita@@grnail'con
Program studi : 9epptotkev 134H'+r+ lPaoe tr
€t,6UsH TEAcLtgF ActoFg\vF To €p6tttI frgPAFTh€t4' JluD€ptt

Dengan ini menyerahkan karya tersebut di atas untuk disimpan dalam Koleksi Digital Perpustakaan Universitas dengan
ketentuan akses tugas akhir elektronik sebagai berikut (beri tanda pada kotak yang sesuai):

Saya mengijinkan karya tersebut diunggah ke dalam aplikasi Koleksi Digital Perpustakaan Universitas,
dan/atau porta I GARU DA.

fi

a.

I

b.Saya tidak mengijinkan karya tersebut diunggah ke dalam aplikasi Koleksi Digital Perpustakaan Universitas,

dan/atau portal GARUDA. *

* poin b harus dilampiri
Yp

ry q.t s! t d!! sn pi !lss !

dengon swot dori Dekon,/ Kaprodi atau pembimbing TA dengon diketohui oleh pimpinon fakultas yong menjeloskon olosan pilihon.
qq.s k h.h9 |9n

q

i

r !!Jt

t

! s!-tylk

Dengan ini saya juga menyatakan bahwa:

1.

Hasil karya yang saya serahkan ini adalah asli dan belum pernah diajukan untuk mendapatkan gelar kesarjanaan baik di
Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana maupun di institusi pendidikan lainnya.

z.

Hasil karya saya ini bukan saduran/ terjemahan melainkan merupakan gagasan, rumusan, dan hasil pelaksanaan

penelitian/ implementasi saya sendiri, tanpa bantuan pihak lain, kecuali arahan pembimbing akademik

dan

narasumber penelitian.

s.

Hasil karya saya

ini

merupakan hasil revisi terakhir setelah diujikan yang telah diketahui dan disetujui oleh

pembimbing.

4.

Dalam karya saya initidak terdapat karya atau pendapat yang telah ditulis atau dipublikasikan orang lain, kecuali yang
digunakan sebagai acuan dalam naskah dengan menyebutkan nama pengarang dan dicantumkan dalam daftar

s.

Saya menyerahkan hak non-eksklusif kepada Perpustakaan Universitas - Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana untuk
menyimpan, mengatur akses serta melakukan pengelolaan terhadap karya saya ini dengan mengacu pada ketentuan
akses tugas akhir elektronik di atas dan norma hukum yang berlaku.

pusta ka.

Pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sesungguhnya. Apabila di kemudian hari terbukti ada penyimpangan dan ketidakbenaran
dalam pernyataan ini maka saya bersedia menerima sanksi akademik berupa pencabutan gelar yang telah diperoleh
karena karya saya ini, serta sanksi lain yangsesuai dengan
ketentuan yang DerlaKu
ngan Ketentuan
berlaku dt
di untversttas
Uniygrsitas Knsl
Kristen Satya Wacana.
.',

2:DlT
20
20 SqN,\

tqN,\ 2c)13

t

' '
,:
i,
...i'.1',;,,"',.,,,5.,,.
"t
.,.".1';,,4'

,

-QusV\TA
C\{FA
, :.. C\{EA'PusVtTA

D€rol

fondo tangon & namo terang mohasiswo

cHTrSTrAp

SrJorAt/To / H. APdiB

fondo tdngdn & nama terong pembimbing ll

PERPIJSTAKAAN UNIVERSJTAS

I

UNIVERSITAS KRISTEN SATYA WACANA

THE BEST ENGLISH TEACHER ACCORDING TO ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
STUDENTS

THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan

Citra Puspita Dewi
112009155

Approved by:

ii

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any course or
accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my
knowledge and my belief, this contains no material previously published or written by any
other person except where due reference is made in the text.
Copyright@ 2013. Citra Puspita Dewi and Nugrahenny T. Zacharias, Ph. D.
All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means without the
permission of at least one of the copyright owners of the English Department, Faculty of
Language and Literature, SatyaWacana Christian University, Salatiga.
Citra Puspita Dewi

iii

PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION
As a member of the (SWCU) Satya Wacana Christian University academic
community, I verify that:
Name

: Citra Puspita Dewi

Student ID Number

: 112009155

Study Program

: English Department

Faculty

: Language and Literature

Kind of Work

: Undergraduate Thesis

In developing my knowledge, I agree to provide SWCU with a non-exclusive royalty free
right for my intellectual property and the contents therein entitled:
THE BEST ENGLISH TEACHER ACCORDING TO ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
STUDENTS
along with any pertinent equipment.
With this non-exclusive royalty free right, SWCU maintains the right to copy, reproduce,
print, publish, post, display, incorporate, store in or scan into a retrieval system or database,
transmit, broadcast, barter or sell my intellectual property, in whole or in part without my
express written permission, as long as my name is still included as the writer.
This declaration is made according to the best of my knowledge.
Made in

: Salatiga

Date

: May 22, 2013
Verified by signee,

Citra Puspita Dewi

Approved by

iv

The Best English Teacher according to English Department Students
Citra Puspita Dewi
Abstract
The study was conducted to analyze who the best English teacher according to
English Department student. The participants of the study were a hundred English
Department students of any semester or year. This study used quantitative research using a
questionnaire, but it was elaborated qualitatively. It focused on the students‟ preference of the
best English teacher whether it is NESTs or non-NESTs. However this study firstly explored
the students‟ understanding of NESTs and non-NESTs in order to make sure that they
understand those two terms so that they could choose which one they considered as the best
English teacher. The first finding showed that the majority of the participants defined NESTs
as those from English speaking country that is countries which use English as the mother
tongue or L1 and/or as the main language. The second finding, related to the counterpart of
NESTs, was almost all participants defined non-NESTs as those from non-English speaking
country which also referred to bilingual users of English. The last finding showed that most
participants preferred NESTs as the best English teacher. The study suggests that NESTs got
more preference for the matter of their speaking skill especially the pronunciation.
Keywords: native English speaker teachers (NESTs), non-native English speaker teachers
(non-NESTs).
Introduction

As an English learner in English Department (ED) of Satya Wacana Christian
University, I had a lot of lecturers in both native speaker teachers and non-native speaker
teachers. In doing courses registration each semester, I had a chance to choose the class and
lecturer that I wanted. I was often confused in choosing the lecturer whether it was the native
speaker teacher or non-native speaker teacher. My consideration was when I was taught by
native speaker lecturer, it forced me to speak English more often because the lecturer only
understand English. So, I could practice my speaking more with the native speaker teacher.
However, I often did not understand the materials or instructions given because they spoke
quite fast and the pronunciation was sometimes not clear enough. When I was taught by nonnative speaker lecturer, I could understand the materials and instructions clearly. However, I
often spoke Indonesian in class or when ask something I did not understand because the
1

lecturer could understand the Indonesian language. So, I often asked myself which English
teacher is the best for me. Then I was curious to know which English teacher that ED
students consider as the best English teacher.

The numbers of people who use English and familiar with English is growing as
Graddol (1997) points out that English is the most popular modern language studied in
expanding circle countries. The spread of English in expanding circle countries is vast and
growing because English is studied in school as the foreign language and even becomes a
must to be taught in school. Indonesia is in the expanding circle area since English is used
and learned as a foreign language. Therefore, the spread of English in Indonesia is vast
because English is studied by almost all students in school. Since the numbers of learners
grows, the number of teachers is also growing. There are a lot of English teachers which both
native speaker teachers and non-native speaker teachers. This study was aimed to know who
the best English teacher according to ED students is.

Since a lot of people and countries in the last few decades consider native speaker
as the better language teacher, there are a lot of assumption in answering why native speakers
are so desirable. Cook (2008) stated that one justification often put forward is that the
students themselves demand native speakers. Cook conducted a survey in England which is
an Inner Circle country. More than 50 per cent learners for both children and adults preferred
natives. By conducting the study about who the best English teacher according to ED
students is, it was worth conducting to give ideas whether it is really true that the students
themselves demand native speaker teacher or not. To be more explicit, it gives ideas about
the demand of students in expanding circle countries that were represented by English
Department students in Indonesia.

2

Today, 80% of English language teaching professionals are non-native speakers
(Canagarajah, 1999). Since the numbers of non-native speakers is vast and growing, the SLA
theory‟s assumption that the learner‟s target of acquisition of English is nativelike
competence may be questionable. Therefore, there are many beliefs and study about the
future of English. In the past, English has been dominated by native speakers in the Inner
Circle countries. There are also beliefs that consider native speaker teacher as the best
English teacher. Chomskyan also think that the native speaker is the ideal model on language
use. However, Languages in contact always undergo change. Graddol (1997) said that there is
a growing belief amongst language professionals that the future will be a bilingual one. So, it
is possible that the non-native speaker teacher is considered as the best English teacher.

So, considering that there are many thoughts and studies about native speaker and
non-native speaker and based on my experience being taught by native speaker teachers and
non-native speaker teachers, one question arose: who is the best English teacher according to
ED students?

Literature Review
A. Kachru‟s categorization of countries in which English is used
According to Kachru‟s categorization of countries in which English used as stated
in Mckay (2002), there are three categorizations which are inner circle, outer circle, and
expanding circle. Inner circle is for countries where English is the primary language,
such as Australia, Canada, and United States. Outer circle is for countries where English
serves as a second language, such as India, Philippine, and Singapore. Expanding circle
is for countries where English is studied as a foreign language, such as Indonesia, Japan,
and Korea. Native speakers of English are usually defined as speakers who are in Inner
3

Circle since English is primarily used there. Non-native speakers of English are usually
defined as speakers who are in Expanding Circle since English is learned as a foreign
language. Moreover, considering the spread of English, Kachru said that the greatest
potential for the continued spread of English is in Expanding Circle countries.

B. Native English Speaker Teachers (NESTs) and Non-Native English Speaker Teachers (
Non-NESTs)

When we want to define native English speaker teachers, we have to take a look
on the words „native speaker‟. This term has various interpretations. “The first language
a human being learns to speak is his native language; he is a native speaker of this
language” (Bloomfield, 1933, p.43). According to Bloomfield‟s definition, we can say
that a native English speaker is he/she who learns English as his/her first language.
Another definition of native speaker from The Longman Dictionary of Applied
Linguistics (Richards, Platt, and Weber, 1985, p.188) is “a person considered as a

speaker of his or her native language”. A native language is then defined as “the
language that a person acquires early in childhood because it is spoken in the family
and/or it is the language of the country where he or she living” (Richards, Platt, and
Weber 1985: 188 cited in Mckay 2002). So, we can say that Native English Speaker
Teachers (NESTs) is teachers who teach using English as their native language. In
contrast, Non-Native English Teachers (Non-NESTs) is teachers who teach using
English as their second language.

C. Strength and Weaknesses of Native English Speaker Teachers (NESTs)

4

A researched was conducted by Benke and Medgyes (Benke and Medgyes, 2005
cited in Cook 2008) showed some top-rated features of teachers by Hungarian students.
The top-features of the Native English Speaker Teachers (NESTs) are:

a.

Focuses primarily on speaking skills;

b.

Is happy to improvise;

c.

Provides extensive information about the culture;

d.

Is interested in learners‟ opinions;

e.

Applies group work regularly in class.

However, Peter Medgyes (1992 cited in Cook 2008) also highlights the
drawbacks of native speakers; who:

a. Are not models of L2 users;
b. Cannot talk about L2 learning strategies from their own experience;
c. Are often not explicitly aware of the features of the language as much as
non-native speakers are;
d. Cannot anticipate learning problems;
e. Cannot empathize with their students‟ learning experience;
f. Are not able to exploit the learners‟ first language in the classroom.
D. Strength and Weaknesses of Non-Native English Speaker Teachers (Non-NESTs)

According to Medgyes (1992), there are some advantages of Non-Native
English Speaker Teachers (Non-NESTs), which are:
a. Only non-NESTs can serve as imitable models of the successful learner of English.
Depending on the extent to which they are proficient as users of English, they are
more or less trustworthy models, too. In contrast, though NESTs can act as perfect
5

language models they cannot be learner models since they are not learners of English
in the sense that non-NESTs are.
b. Non-NESTs can teach learning strategies more effectively.
Non-NESTs have adopted language learning strategies during their own learning
process. In spite of the considerable differences between them in degrees of
consciousness, in theory they all know more about the employment of these
strategies than native colleagues who have simply acquired the English language.
c. Non-NESTs can provide learners with more information about the English language.
During their own learning process, non-NESTs have gained abundant knowledge
about and insight into how the English language works, which might be presumed to
make them better informants than their native colleagues.
d. Non-NESTs are more able to anticipate language difficulties.
This anticipatory skill, which becomes more and more sophisticated with experience,
enables non-NESTs to help learners overcome language difficulties and to avoid
pitfalls.
e. Non-NESTs can be more empathetic to the needs and problems of their learners.
Since they never cease to be learners of English, they encounter difficulties similar to
those of their students, albeit at an obviously higher level. As a rule, this constant
struggle makes non-natives more sensitive and understanding.
f. Only non-NESTs can benefit from sharing the learners' mother tongue.
In a monolingual setting, the mother tongue is an effective vehicle of communication
in the language classroom, which can facilitate the teaching/learning process in
countless ways.

According to Cook (2008), non-native speaker teachers provide:
6

a. A model of a proficient L2 user in action.
b. A model of a person who has successfully learnt a second language.
c. More appropriate training and background.
d. Possible lesser fluency, and so on, in the second language.

E. A Study of The Best English Teacher

A case study was conducted in 2007 by English Department student, Ardi
Haslim, about ED students‟ attitude toward native and non-native teachers. It involved
40 students of ED from the 2nd and 3rd year. The study tried to know how ED students
react toward the issue of NESTs and non-NESTs that would affect their preference in
choosing the teacher and class they wanted to attend. The data was gathered from
questionnaires consisted of 27 questions and interview that focused to get more specific
and deeper data. The result of the study showed that 52.5% of the students agreed that
NESTs are better than non-NESTs in general. When being asked about their preference,
at least 55% of the students agreed that they would prefer to be taught by NESTs. The
reason according to them was because NESTs have the ability to create a fun and
interactive activity and could build a good learning atmosphere in the class.

The Study
Research Question
The study was guided by the following research question:
Who is the best English teacher according to ED students?
Context of the study

The study took place in English Department of Satya Wacana Christian University.
It is located in Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia. English is not actively used by the
7

community in this place. The subject of this study was English Department students who
learn English not as their first language. They learned about everything related to English
and English was used as the medium of instruction in all courses. Moreover, English
Department had a lot of lecturers who are native speaker teachers (NESTs) and non-native
speaker teachers (non-NESTs). In English Department, students were also prepared to be an
English teacher. So students did not only learn English for communication, but also for
teaching.

Participants

The participants of this study were a hundred English Department students of Satya
Wacana Christian University. They could be from any semester as long as they were still
students in English Department. Since I was conducting a study on native English speaker
teachers (NESTs) and non-native English speaker teachers (non-NESTs), I selected my
participants who have been taught by native speaker teacher and non-native speaker teacher.
So, this study used purposive sampling of strategies because the participants were selected
purposefully based on the criteria:
 Students who learned English in English Department of Satya Wacana Christian
University.
 Have ever been taught by NESTs and Non-NESTs.
Instruments of data collection

In order to answer the research question, the instruments of data collection used was
by distributing a questionnaire to a hundred participants. The questionnaire items used were
in the form of close-ended questions and open-ended questions (in appendix). There was only
8

one close-ended question that participants filled by putting a thick for the choice that
represents their answer. There were also three open-ended questions. Two of them were
questioned to make sure that the participants understood the term native English speaker
teachers (NESTs) and non-native English speaker teachers (non-NESTs). One of them asked
the reason for preferring the best English teacher.

Procedures of data collection

The study was analyzed quantitatively. I made the questionnaire and did piloting
first to make sure that the participants could understand the questions and to see whether my
questions are effective or not. Zacharias (2011) stated that in doing piloting, you should give
it to approximately ¼ of your total sample size. So, since my total sample size was a hundred
participants, I piloted my questionnaire to approximately 20 to 25 participants. However, I
found that many participants were confused with my questions and terms so that they did not
really answer my questions. So, I had to revise my questionnaire especially with the language
and the term used. After I was sure that my questionnaire was understandable and effective in
answering my research question, I distributed it to a hundred participants. I gave number for
all questionnaires that were distributed so that I did not lose any questionnaire and made sure
that all questionnaires were collected.

Procedures of data analysis

After the data was collected, I started to analyze the data by making three themes from
the questionnaire items that supported and answered my research question. The three themes
were the English department students understanding of NESTs, the understanding of NonNative English Speaker Teachers (Non-NESTs), and the best English teacher according to
English Department students. The first and second themes were answered from open-ended
9

questions and those had sub-themes based on the participants‟ answers to the questions. Then
I analyzed each participant‟s answers and categorized it into the sub-themes until finally I
counted and got the percentage for each sub-theme. The third theme was answered from a
close-ended question. I just needed to count the participants‟ preference answers and finally
got the percentage as the result of preference of the best English teacher.

Data Analysis and Discussion
This chapter provides an analysis of the data that is aimed to know who the best
English teacher according to English department students is. The data will be analyzed
according the following themes:

1. The understanding of Native English Speaker Teachers (NESTs).
2. The understanding of Non-Native English Speaker Teachers (Non-NESTs).
3. The best English teacher according to English Department students.

The first and second theme will be important because the assumptions given by the
participants about NESTs and Non-NESTs will affect their preference for choosing which
one is better. By understanding about NESTs and non-NESTs, the participants are able to
decide who the best English teacher is.

1.

The understanding of Native English Speaker Teachers (NESTs)

Since English is learned as a foreign language in Indonesia, there are two kinds of
language teachers which are Native English Speaker Teachers (NESTs) and Non-Native
English Speaker Teachers (Non-NESTs). This study was attempted to know the English
department students preference of those two kinds of English teachers. Therefore, it was
important to make sure that the participants have been taught by NESTs and Non-NESTs so
10

that they can answer the question about their understanding of NESTs and Non-NESTs. The
first theme explored students‟ understanding about NESTs. Below I categorized the
understanding given from a questionnaire into four themes.

Figure 1. English Department students' understanding of NESTs

The highest percentage of the English department students‟ understanding of NESTs
was those from English speaking country (67%). The following were the mostly assumptions
given by the participants about NESTs:

a. Use English as their mother tongue/ L1.
b. Born in English country.
c. Come from a country which the L1 is English and use English as their main language.

Fourty eight out of a hundred participants gave assumption from the use of language
as they mentioned that NESTs speak English as their mother tongue or L1. Their assumption
was NESTs acquire English as the first language spoken since they were born. Besides, 3%
of the participants also associated NESTs with the country of birth as they clearly stated that
NESTs are those who were born in an English country. At the same time, there are 24%
assumptions given geographically based on the country they are from. Three of the
11

participants also clearly mentioned particular country which English is used as the primary
language and serves as the L1, such as U.S, Australia, England and other inner circle
countries.

The interesting part of this study is that it does not only try to find out the
understanding of NESTs from English learners but also especially from the student-teachers
of English. The finding from the data that grab my attention is that 55% assumptions of
NESTs given by the participants were mostly related to the linguistic perspective. It referred
to the use of the language relates to the mother tongue or L1 (49%) and the frequency of the
language use (6%).

The understanding of NESTs given by the most participants that related to mother
tongue or L1 (49%) is similar to Medgyes‟ study (2001) that “when defined about who native
speaker is, it is traditionally defined as someone who speaks English as his or her native
language, also called mother tongue, first language, or L1” (p.430). Besides the similarity
with Medgyes, there is also a similarity with Davies that is when the next question came up
about what qualifies someone as a native speaker. Three participants stated that NESTs are
those who were born in an English speaking country which is similar with Davies (1991) who
claimed that one of the criteria of native speakerhood is birth which means NESTs is an
individual who was born in an English speaking country (Davies 1991 cited in Medyes
2001).

Another interesting part of this study is that 6% of the participants defined NESTs in
the broader context which is not only defined traditionally from mother tongue and birth, but
also from how they use the language. It means that they saw how NESTs keep using English
as the main language for communication with others or as the main language of the country.
12

The assumptions emphasized that someone is called as a native speaker not only if he or she
speaks English as the mother tongue or was born in an English-country, but also if he or she
keeps using it actively in a daily life as the primary language. This study is supported by
Medgyes‟ (2001) study about complicated problems of some English speakers from mixed
marriages or those moved to non-English country. Medgyes‟ study showed that mother
tongue and birth do not always become the only things that determine someone as a native
speaker.

Thus, to summarize the result of this theme, the majority (67%) of the participants
saw NESTs as those from English speaking country that is countries which use English as the
mother tongue or L1 and/or as the main language.

2. The understanding of Non-Native English Speaker Teachers (Non-NESTs)
This theme deals with English department students‟ understanding of Non-NESTs.
Besides their understanding of NESTs in theme 1, it is necessary to know if the participants
also understand about Non-NESTs. The understanding of both terms is important so that the
participants can surely choose their preference for the best English teacher which will be
discussed in theme 3. Figure 2 below presents four themes that I have categorized from the
assumptions given by the participants.

13

Figure 2. English Department students' understanding of Non-NESTs

The data shows that the most participants (85%) defined Non-NESTs as those from
non-English speaking country. It was the opposite assumptions from the definition given by
the participants about NESTs in theme 1. Most of the participants stated that Non-NESTs:

a. Are from Indonesia / Indonesian teacher.
b. Learn English not as their mother tongue or L1.
c. Able to speak and/or teach English, but do not use it as the main language.
The three assumptions above are related and belong to the characteristics of “nonEnglish speaking country”. The first assumption from the questionnaire was that Non-NESTs
are those from Indonesia. Ten participants also mentioned the name of their Indonesian
teachers and Indonesia is categorized into expanding circle which is a non-English speaking
country. The second assumption was those learn English not as their mother tongue or L1. It
indicates that non-NESTs learn English as a second language or foreign language. A country
in which English is learned at school as the second or foreign language is categorized into a
non-English speaking country. The last assumption was those use English not as the main
14

language although they are able to speak and/or teach English. We can say that although
someone is able to speak and teach English, that person can not be called as NESTs if he/she
does not speak English as the primary language. One factor why an individual doesn‟t speak
English as the main language is because of their environment in where they lived doesn‟t use
it in daily life as the main language. A country where English is not spoken as the main
language is categorized into a non-English speaking country.

The interesting finding from this theme is that most participants (85%) defined nonNESTs from the same perspective with how they defined NESTs. Both NESTs and nonNESTs were seen from whether they are from English speaking country or not. What makes
this theme different is that it is the opposite of the first theme. Ulate (2011) said that the term
non-NESTs is frequently considered negative comparing to NESTs which is usually thought
of as positive. In this study, when giving assumptions of non-English speaking country, it is
not clearly showed that the participants see it negatively. For example is when 39% of the
participants gave assumption that non-NESTs do not learn English as the mother tongue or
first language also can not be considered negative. The assumption can mean that non-NESTs
learn it as second, third, or foreign language, but it can not be considered as a negative
assumption especially just because it has the prefix non- there. The participants just see nonNESTs as the opposite of the counterpart which is NESTs.

The second interesting finding is that those three assumptions above referred nonNESTs as bilingual users of English as McKay (2002) stated that “bilingual users of English
are individuals who use English as a second language alongside one or more other languages
they speak” (p.27). The first assumption which was „from Indonesia‟ shows that non-NESTs
use English as a second or foreign language since Indonesian people do not speak English as
their first language. The second assumption which was „learn English not as their mother
15

tongue or L1‟ clearly means that non-NESTs use English as a second or foreign language.
The last assumption which was „able to speak and/or teach English, but do not use it as the
main language‟ can also mean that non-NESTs are able to speak English but it can be as the
„not first language‟. Therefore, since most assumptions referred non-NESTs as those speak
English as a second or foreign language, non-NESTs can also be considered as bilingual
users of English.

Finally, from this theme, it can be summarized that the term non-NESTs is the
opposite of NESTs. Non-NESTs were defined as those from non-English speaking country
by the majority of the participants. Besides, Non-NESTs can also be called as bilingual users
of English refer to the assumptions of the participants and the characteristics of bilingual
users of English. The assumptions that non-NESTs are „from Indonesia‟ (21%), „learn
English non as their mother tongue or first language‟ (39%), and „able to speak English but
do not use it as the main language‟ (7%) refer to the characteristic of bilingual users of
English which is those use English as a second language.

3. The best English teacher according to English Department students
If the first and second theme discuss about the English Department students‟
understanding of NESTs and non-NESTs, in this theme I am going to discuss the students‟
preference of the best English teacher. The participants have ever been taught by both NESTs
and non-NEST so that they understood about those two kinds of English teacher and were
able to choose which one they considered as the best English teacher. The number of nonNESTs grows so fast recently and even larger than the number of NESTs. According to
Mydans (2007 as cited in Ulate 2011), the largest English-speaking nation in the world, the
United States, has only about 20 percent of the world‟s English speakers. In Asia alone, an
estimated 350 million people speak English, about the same as the combined English16

speaking populations of Britain, the United States and Canada. This theme shows whether the
students preferred more to the non-NESTs as they are part of it and it grows more these days
or NESTs who are considered as the native speaker of English although the number is
limited. In other words, this theme answers the research question of this study about the best
English teacher according to English department students. Figure 3 below presents the
percentage of the ED Students preference for NESTs and non-NESTs.

Figure 3. The best English teacher according to English Department students

Figure 3 above shows that 57% of the participants preferred NESTs as the best
English teacher. However, the difference with non-NESTs preference is only 14%. It was the
result of the preference from all English department students from the first year students until
the last year students.

The finding that majority of English department students preferred NESTs as the best
English teacher is similar to Cook‟s study (2008) as the result of his survey showed that in
England and Taiwan, native speakers got most preference. In England which is the inner
circle country, children gave 55% preference and adult gave 60% preference for native
speakers. However I would be rather interested in the Taiwan survey result since Taiwan and
17

Indonesia are both categorized as non-English speaking country. In Taiwan, 51% of adults
preferred natives as the more desirable English speaker. It is similar with this study which
was conducted in non-English speaking country that 57% students preferred NESTs as the
best English teacher.

The finding of this study is also similar with a study conducted in 2007 by Ardi
Haslim about ED students‟ attitude towards NESTs and non-NESTs. Haslim‟s (2007) study
showed that 55% of the students preferred to be taught by NESTs and 52.5% said that NESTs
are better than non-NESTs. This study shows that 57% of the students preferred NESTs as
the best English teacher. What makes it interesting is that the participants of both studies are
similar that are English Department students and the result was also similar although both
studies were conducted in different year.

The participants gave reasons for their preference of NESTs. By knowing their
reasons, we could also know in what part they said that NESTs is the best English teacher and
what things that they wanted to learn most from NESTs. It is necessary in order to know to
what extent the participants got advantage of being taught by NESTs. Table 1 below presents
English department students‟ reasons for preferring NESTs as the best English teacher.

18

Figure 4. Reasons for preferring NESTs as the best English teacher

The highest percentage of the data shows that 33% of the participants preferred
NESTs because the believed that NESTs are the good model of English pronunciation.
Nineteen out of fifty seven participants believed that NESTs speaks English well in the extent
of their pronunciation, accent, intonation, and stress. The reason of pronunciation indicates
that the students wanted to develop more their speaking skills in learning English.
The finding from the reasons for preferring NESTs is that most students wrote „a good
model of pronunciation‟ as the matter of their consideration. It is similar with Cook (2008)
who said that the most obvious reason for preferring native speakers is the model of language
that the native can present. From the questionnaire, 33% of the participants who preferred
NESTs considered pronunciation of NESTs as the model of language. It is similar with
Zacharias‟ (2006) study as the data showed that native speakers were more preferable to
teach English, especially, in teaching speaking and pronunciation.

From the preference of the best English teacher and the reasons, it can be summarized
that most participants (57%) preferred NESTs as the best English teacher. The highest reason
19

for that preference was that NESTs is a good model of English pronunciation. Therefore, it
can also be concluded that most participants who preferred NESTs, wanted to develop more
their speaking ability which they believed could be learned better from NESTs.

Conclusion

The aim of this study was to analyze who the best English teacher according to
English Department students is. The findings of the research study revealed important points
related to English Department students‟ understanding of NESTs and non-NESTs, the best
English teacher according to English Department students, and the reason for preferring the
best English teacher. Based on the data gathered and analyzed from the questionnaire, the
first finding showed that the majority of the participants (67%) defined NESTs as those from
English speaking country that is countries which use English as the mother tongue or L1
and/or as the main language. The second finding is interesting since the understanding of
non-NESTs defined by the participants was the opposite of the first finding. The second
finding was almost all participants (85%) defined non-NESTs as those from non-English
speaking country which also referred to bilingual users of English. The third finding showed
that most participants (57%) preferred NESTs as the best English teacher. This finding is
similar with the previous study by Haslim (2007) that also showed more preference for
NESTs. It showed the consistent result from the previous study and this study. This study
also showed that most of participants believed that NESTs serves a good model of English
pronunciation. It means that most participants who preferred NESTs wanted to develop more
of their speaking ability which they believed could be learned better from NESTs.

The implication of this study is that since the result shows that most students preferred
NESTs because they thought NESTs as a good model of pronunciation, the department can
20

see it as the consideration in providing the English teacher for students. For speaking classes,
NESTs can be more preferable among students to learn English especially the pronunciation.

There were several limitations of conducting the study. First, since I used
questionnaire as the instrument of data collection, I had to pilot it first to twenty to twenty
five students in order to make sure that I will get a rich data and the participants understand
all my questions well. I found that the participants were often confused with my questions so
that I had to revise it twice. Second, my questionnaire items had three open-ended questions
to be filled in which means that the participants could be freer to write their answer. I
sometimes got confused in analyzing the data, especially in grouping their answers in themes.

In addition, as suggestions for further research in order to get richer data, firstly the
future studies could use a broader sample population from English Department students of
other universities in Indonesia. Secondly, having an adequate amount of time available, the
instrument of the data collection could also use interview to get richer and more details data.

Finally, in the end of my writing, I would like to re-state that most English
Department students of Satya Wacana Christian University preferred NESTs as the best
English teacher. A good model of pronunciation became the most preference matter for
choosing NESTs.

21

Acknowledgements

I am so grateful that I have finally finished my thesis successfully. First of all, I
acknowledge with my biggest gratitude to my greatest God, Jesus Christ, for always
blessing me through His kindness, guidance and strength. It is only by His grace that I could
finish my study. I also acknowledge with profound gratitude to many great people who had
constant beliefs in me and supports me during my study.
I would like to thank my father, mother, and sister for all the supports, prayers,
beliefs, advices, encouragements, and helps which mean so much for me. I am also
immensely grateful to my thesis supervisor, Nugrahenny T. Zacharias, Ph. D., for having
taught me so much, for the guidance, supports, time, helps, and patience especially during the
consultation. I am thankful for her comments and suggestions that really help me in my thesis
writing. I would also thank my examiner, Christian Rudianto, M.Appling, for his time and
willingness in reading and examining my thesis.
I would also like to express my gratitude to my beloved friends Rowena, Monica, and
Widhy, for the supports, helps, and encouragements. Thank you, Nugroho, for always
reminding me everyday to finish my thesis. Thank you, all ED lecturers and friends,
especially 2009‟ers, for all great time and unforgettable moments we shared in ED.
Finally I wish to acknowledge my participants for being so cooperative during the
process of data collection.

Citra Puspita Dewi

22

References
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Canagarajah, A.S. (1999). Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford;
Oxford University Press.
Cook, V. (2008). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London, UK: Hadder
Education.
Davies, A. (1991). The Native Speaker in Applied Linguistics. Edinburg: Edinburg University
Press.
Graddol, D. (1997). The Future of English. London: The British Council.
Haslim, A. (2007). Ed students’ attitude toward native and non-native teachers: a case study.
Salatiga: English Department, Satya Wacana Christian University.
Maum, R. (2002). Nonnative-English-speaking teachers in the English teaching profession .
Eric Digest. EDO-FL-02-09. Retrieved April 30, 2013, from
http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0209maum.html
McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking Goals and
Approaches. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher . Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Medgyes, P. (2001). Native or Non-Native: Who‟s worth more? ELT Journal, 46 (4), 340349.
Mydans, S. (2007). Across cultures, English is the word. The New York Times. Retrieved
May 1, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/world/asia/09ihtenglede.1.5198685.html?pagewanted=1
Richards, J., P. Platt and H. Weber. (1985). Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics .
London: Longman.

23

Ulate, N.V (2011). Insights towards Native and Non-Native ELT Educators. Bellaterra
Journal of Teaching and Learning Language and Literature vol. 4 (1), Jan-Feb 2011
, 56-79. Costa Rica: Universidad Nacional.

Zacharias, N.T. (2003). A survey of tertiary teachers’ beliefs about English Language
Teaching in Indonesia with regard to the role of English as a global language .

Thailand: Institute for English Language Education Assumption University of
Thailand.
Zacharias, N. T. (2011). Research Method for Qualitative Research. Salatiga: English
Department, Satya Wacana Christian University.

24

Appendix
Dear EDers,
I am conducting a research about “who is the best English teacher according to ED
Students?” I would be very grateful if you would kindly answer this questionnaire. You can
answer it freely because it will not affect any grades.
Please choose the best choices that really represent your answer by putting a thick in the
provided small box in front of the choices. You can also explain and give reasons for your
answers by writing it in the provided lines under the answer. Thank you.
Have you ever been taught by a native speaker teacher?
 Yes

 No

Have you ever been taught by a non-native speaker teacher?
Yes

 No

Time: 10 minutes
Angkatan

: ____________________

1. Who do you think is a native speaker teacher? (give a definition and/or
characteristics)

2. Who do you think is a non-native speaker teacher? (give a definition and/or
characteristics)

3. Which one do you like best?
 Native speaker teacher

 Non-native speaker teacher

25

Why?

4. Is there anything else you‟d like to add?

5. Are you willing to be interviewed further if needed? Please give your phone number
and/or email address.

 Thank You 

26