




































 

EDUCATIO : Journal Of Education 
Volume 2, Number 2, November 2017 

 ISSN : 2579-8383 (Print) ISSN : 2579-8405 (Online)  

 zzzzzz z 

  z 

   

EFL Education And Teacher Developments: The Implementation 

Of CLC And Teachers’ Teaching Style Preference 

 
Nasmah Riyani 

3University of Sembilanbelas November, Kolaka, Indonesia 

nasmahriyani@ymail.com 

 

Accepted: 

August 10, 2017 

Reviewed: 

September 5, 2017 

Published: 

November 20, 2017 

 

Abstract: Teachers’ teaching style preferences is undoubtedly being an essential thing in dynamic 
classroom language teaching. This study aimed to investigate Indonesian EFL teachers’ teaching 
style and their beliefs in the implementation of communicative language competence. 
Additionally, this study also explored students’ speaking competence. Fifty teachers were 
involved based on purposive sampling from one of regency of the Capital city, Kolaka 
Indonesia. The respondents cooperatively supported the study, then they filled Grasha (1996) 
Teaching Style Inventory (TSI). The descriptive statistic showed that the respondents mostly 
implement formal authority styles and personal model respectively. The students’ speaking 
competence was still categorized low. Regarding the nominal preference of authority styles, since 
the purpose of language teaching on basis of curriculum based teaching, the teacher believed that 
giving students space to explore their flexibility in communicating would not help them to pass 
the national examination. 

 

Keywords:  Teaching Style, Formal Authority, Curriculum, Personal Model 

 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 The educational concept nowadays is linked to be more meaningful rather than 

overwhelming linguistic competence as the target. The notion of communication lies to on how 

communication naturally flows to the learning peripheral environment. The communication 

process deals with all spectrums of teaching and learning context.  Since learning a target language 

is a complex thing, which involving psychomotor, cognitive and affective, it demands the 

practitioners to lead communication beyond the complexity of enabling learners to actively 

participate using target language as medium to communicate. Focusing interaction as the priority, 

the practitioner readiness in setting up the teaching and learning process and devices. Yet 

impromptu TCL will probably affect negative interpretation of the earners of what the language 

input is about1. 

 Stimulating and guiding the students are expected to maintain effective communication 

among students and also students to teachers, they are undoubtedly put as the center of attention 

of learning in which most of learning activities are dominated by them. For high motivated 

                                                 
1 Muh Barid Nizarudin Wajdi, ―Metamorfosa Perguruan Tinggi Agama Islam,‖ AT-Tahdzib: Jurnal Studi 

Islam dan Muamalah 4,  no. 1 (2016): 92–109.  

mailto:nasmahriyani@ymail.com


  

 
Nasmah Riyani 

EFL Education and Teacher Developments…  

 

 

  

Volume 2, Number 2, November 2017 | 176  

 zzzzzz  

   

teachers, they will be brave to take risks creating activities which are sometimes beyond of their 

lesson plan, to construct good environment for students to explore their ideas. What comes as 

the fact, that the intensity and motivation of students to learn is needed to be foster. As a result, 

the CTL input is more focus on natural setting with pedagogical means for communication in 

real life context2. Then, the shifted of the teacher center approach into learners centered 

interaction is meant to develop specific purposes. Teaching English across difference cultures 

and backgrounds needs to consider students level. The issues of student difficulties in learning 

continually grow hence the teachers not only feed them with the materials but also need to seek 

problem solving of severe conditions. To the optimal self-perfomance, Richard and Farrel (2005) 

assert four frames of the developmental process in terms of ―conceptualization‖ of teaching 

learning; skill learning, cognitive process, personal construction and reflective practice.3  

 Furthermore, the good language teachers consider the quality of their professionalism in 

teaching. In 1980, Harold B. Allen in Brown (2007)4 suggest the characteristics of good language 

teachers; competent in deciding preparation on a degree in English teaching, have passion in 

language learning, critical thinking upgrade their knowledge, self-subordination, readiness to 

teach in multi situations, cultural adaptability, professional characters being goo, the teacher also 

doffers on their beliefs and styles. Therefore, it affects their successfulness in teaching and even 

in reaching the goal of communicative competence. Often, the teachers tend to rely on their own 

teaching style based on their context without attempting to reach the professionalism purpose 

that is the development of their teaching and the objectivity of their teaching. Accordingly, this 

study would be provided description on the development of teaching style on EFL context in 

terms of communicative language competence. 

 

RESEARCH PROBLEM 

The CTL in formal education is designed as curriculum-based learning in which the 

indicator of successfulness of teaching learning is on basis of what has been set up in curriculum. 

Consequently, the teachers’ teaching creativity is restricted based on the system instruction. 

Some of previous related studies showed from some EFL countries, the teachers’ teaching styles 

were different in terms of different gender, age or experience, preference and beliefs. In 

Indonesia itself, since the curriculum was changed over years it probably affecting teachers’ 

teaching styles. Unfortunately, this changed of curriculum and teaching’ styles might not meet 

students’ need, and teachers’ teaching styles on basis of their preference  and students’ speaking 

competence is needed to provide the description of teacher of how their teaching styles affect 

students’ speaking competence, whether they really fulfill the students’ needs for being capable 

to communicate or not. This also important to make them notice and analyze their own teaching 

development5.  

                                                 
2 Muh Barid Nizarudin Wajdi, ―Paradigma Pergeseran Educational Technology Menuju Instructional 

Technology‖ (2017).  
3 J. Richards and T. Farrel,  Professional Development for Language Teachers: Strategies for Teacher Learning 

(Cambridge: UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005).  
4 H. Douglas Brown, Teaching by Principles: An Interactive to Language Pedagogy (3rd Ed) (White Plaints, New 

York: Pearson Education, 2007).  
5 Muh Barid Nizarudin Wajdi, ―Kawasan Teknologi Pembelajaran‖ (2017).  



  

 
Nasmah Riyani 

EFL Education and Teacher Developments…  

 

 

  

Volume 2, Number 2, November 2017 | 177  

 zzzzzz  

   

Based on the issue elaborated before, the following questions were formulated: 

1. What are teachers’ teaching styles I teaching speaking? 

2. How do teachers’ belief in their teaching styles? 

Teaching development is an essential issue in nowadays that needs to be considered. 

However, the teachers’ perspective o their own teaching development and professionalism are 

differ. Analysis of teachers teaching development is important to be done. The development is 

generally associated on how the teachers carry out their classroom teaching and management. 

The reason why this study worthwhile is to provide description on how teacher teaching styles 

preference in teaching dynamic might be affect students’ speaking competence. The quality of 

teaching process is a key to successful classroom environment. Accordingly, the findings of this 

research will provide new concept on teacher awareness on their teaching development and the 

adaptation of their teaching styles basis of the purpose of TCL focusing on CLC6.  

 

RESEARCH METHOD 

The population of this study was the English teachers who teach English in different 

schools in one of regency of the capital city, Kolaka, South east Sulawesi, Indonesia. The total 

population is 100. To be the sample of this study, they were purposively selected, hence 50 

teachers from the total of population were involved. 

To obtain the personal information related to background of their study, age, teaching 

experience and so on and schools that they teach, the questionnaire were designed and 

distributed. After identifying their personal data, the inventory of Grasha (1996)7 covering 5 

subscales of teaching styles; formal authority teaching, expert, personal model, delegator and 

facilitator were distributed. The teachers’ belief on theirs was also qualitatively e analyzed. 

The design of this research used mix method research design, the combination of 

descriptive quantitative and qualitative analysis. Data obtained from inventory Grasha (1996) 

based on original instruction was rated on 5 points Likert scale to determine level of agreement 

of each statement. Furthermore, the result of Grasha inventory was tabulated using SPSS; 

frequency counts, percentage, mean scores and standard deviation. 

Conducting classroom based research focused on teacher teaching style or teaching 

process was hoped to contribute to the development of language teaching. Practical ly, the result 

of this study would provide the descriptions of teaching pedagogy on how mostly EFL teachers 

adopted the knowledge, materials, activities, strategy, methodology and approach to their 

classroom teaching. The exploration of this study would show the implication of curriculum 

based teaching on teaching dynamic how the teachers dealt with the curriculum. The result of 

this study would also guide teachers on how they develop to be the good practitioners. 

 

 

 

                                                 
6 Muh Barid Nizarudin Wajdi, ―Landasan Historis  Perkembangan Teknologi‖ (2017).  
7 A. F. Grasha, Teaching with Styles: A Practical Guide to Enhance Learning by Understanding Learning and Teaching 

Styles (New York: Alliance Publisher,  1996).  

 



  

 
Nasmah Riyani 

EFL Education and Teacher Developments…  

 

 

  

Volume 2, Number 2, November 2017 | 178  

 zzzzzz  

   

RESULT AND DISCUSSION  

The descriptive statistics were used to examine the dominant of EFL teachers’ teaching 

styles preference. In output of descriptive statistics which is tabulated using SPSS, the data 

revealed that teachers were predominantly categorized as formal authority (M=4.26), personal 

style (M=3.6), expert (M=3.7), delegator (M=2.6), and facilitator (M=2.2). 

 

 

Table. 1 The Descriptive Statistics of Teachers’ Teaching Styles 

Descriptive Statistics 

 

N Range Minimum Maximum Sum Mean 
Std. 

Deviation 
Varience 

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic 
Std. 

error 
Statistic Statistic 

Expert 50 4.00 1.00 5.00 137.00 2.7400 .12717 .89921 .809 

Formal-

authority 
50 2.00 3.00 5.00 213.00 4.2600 .10618 .75078 .564 

Personal-

style 
50 4.00 1.00 5.00 182.00 3.6400 .13018 .92051 .847 

Facilitator 50 3.00 1.00 4.00 110.00 2.2000 .12778 .90351 .816 

Delegator 50 4.00 1.00 5.00 132.00 2.6400 .16601 1.17387 1.378 

Valid N 

(listwise) 
50         

  

 From the interview, the teacher mainly believes that teacher-centered approach was more 

applicable to direct students in gaining the specific goals. The learning goals itself was generally 

not coming from students’ own ideas but more than the indicator of overall learning process 

based on syllabus and curriculum. Therefore, the students’ creativity in doing the task was 

restricted on the instruction of each teaching process. Compatible with the description of 

teaching style based on the data, the interview results also displayed that the teacher were less in 

terms of facilitating interaction among students to students also teacher to students. They rigidly 

concerned on how to cultivate reading comprehension and grammatical aspects on writing in 

teaching language. Then, accuracy in all subject matters was being the central focused. Although, 

the concept of teaching language must be integrated in all of skills and communicative 

competence was still being one of the objective written in syllabus. However, reading skill was 

likely taking a part to the entire learning process and practices. Consequently, the students’ 

speaking competence was identified still low.   

 This study defined the EFL teacher developments in terms of their teaching style 

preference aimed at fulfilling the students’ needs. The objective of teaching language was not 

originally based on the students’ needs but most for the standardized result which requires 

students to pass the national examination. 

 The pedagogy of teaching language and all the compulsory subjects was the same in 

nature. Furthermore, the practice of language teaching was then being over generalized as the 

same as teaching the other subjects. The development of teachers in teaching remains the same, 

since their perspective in teaching the language was affected by the curriculum and national 

examination demand. 



  

 
Nasmah Riyani 

EFL Education and Teacher Developments…  

 

 

  

Volume 2, Number 2, November 2017 | 179  

 zzzzzz  

   

 From the data and interview result, it highlights the fact that the teachers mostly created 

such dependent teaching learning environment and goals to students. As the result, the material 

and learning process were designed to be more inflexible. They also assumed that teaching 

speaking was not really important since speaking was not considered as one of the subjects 

which was examined in national examination. On the other hand, there were still some teachers 

who believe that the principle of teaching language was to enable students to communicate using 

target language in meaningful way. Therefore, they facilitate students to interact in natural 

setting. For further study, it needed to put lots of emphasize on examining the overall teaching 

styles and students’ speaking competence to get the absolute conclusion on this field. 

 

 

REFERENCES 

 

Brown, H. Douglas. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive to Language Pedagogy (3rd Ed). White Plaints, 

New York: Pearson Education, 2007. 

Dogruer, N., Menevis, I. and Eyyam, R. ―EFL Teachers’ Beliefs on Learning English and Their 

Teaching Styles.‖ ELT Journal 3 (2010): 83-87. 

Grasha, A. F. Teaching with Styles: A Practical Guide to Enhance Learning by Understanding Learning and 

Teaching Styles. New York: Alliance Publisher, 1996. 

__________. The Dynamic of One-on-One Teaching. College Teaching, 50 (4th Ed). 2002. 

Heaton, J. B. Writing English Language Test. New York: Longman Handbooks for Language 

Teachers, 1998. 

Kazemi, A. and Soleimani, N. ―On Iranian EFL Teachers’ Dominant Teaching Styles in Private 

Language Centers: Teacher-Centered or Students-Centered.‖ Language Learning and 

Applied Linguistics 1, no. 4 (2013): 193-202. 

Rahimi, M. and Asadollahi, F. ―Teaching style of Iranian EFL Teachers: Do Gender, Age, and 

Experience Make Difference.‖ Journal of English Linguistics 2, no. 2 (2012): 157-161. 

Richards, J. and Farrel, T. Professional Development for Language Teachers: Strategies for Teacher Learning. 

Cambridge: UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 

Sheikh, A. and Mahmmod, N. ―Effect of Different Teaching Styles on Students’ Motivation 

Towards English Language Learning at econdary Level. EFL‖ Journal 26, no. 2 (2014): 

825-830. 

Wajdi, Muh Barid Nizarudin. ―Kawasan Teknologi Pembelajaran‖ (2017). 
Zhou, M. ―Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in College English Teaching.‖ Canadian ELT 

Journal 1, no. 4 (2011): 73-77. 

———. ―Landasan Historis Perkembangan Teknologi‖ (2017). 
———. ―Metamorfosa Perguruan Tinggi Agama Islam.‖ AT-Tahdzib: Jurnal Studi Islam dan 

Muamalah 4, no. 1 (2016): 92–109. 
———. ―Paradigma Pergeseran Educational Technology Menuju Instructional Technology‖ 

(2017). 
 


