This study is intended to understand teaching quality of English student teachers when they conduct their teaching practicum. Teaching quality is conceptualized based on the principles of effective teaching resulted by teacher effectiveness studies. Thes IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 58 Are Trainee Language Teachers Autonomous in Developing Their Own Language Skills? CLAUDIA MOLNAR 1 Abstract This study presents the findings of a mixed method study exploring how autonomous 33 in- service and 10 trainee EFL teachers were in the amount of exposure to authentic English language they present themselves. This study investigated the extent to which L2 English TTs were autonomous in their exposure to the target language and how they valued such exposure. Ten university teacher trainees took part in the project. The amount of time they exposed themselves to authentic English was measured using an input application developed specifically for this study. The exposure had to be outside of their teaching and learning domain. The research question was: How autonomous are trainee language teachers in developing their own language skills? Data were collected from an in-service teacher questionnaire, a trainee teacher two-month study, and a focus group discussion. The focus group discussion data were analyzed qualitatively while the quantitative data were analyzed using the SPSS software. The main findings of the study showed that the participants did expose themselves to authentic English but were not aware of the learning value of this exposure. Implications and recommendations are also discussed. Keywords Autonomy, confidence, language maintenance, training 1 Multilingualism Doctoral School, the University of Pannonia, Hungary; claudia.molnar13@gmail.com mailto:claudia.molnar13@gmail.com IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 59 Introduction The idea of the autonomous individual was associated with liberal political traditions over two hundred years ago (Raya, 2017). The concept of learner autonomy first appeared in language teaching in the early 1970‟s and was initially linked to self-access learning, learner training, learner- centeredness, self-management and self-assessment. Autonomous learning within the field of language education has now emerged within the „mainstream of research and practice‟ (Benson, 2011). For the purpose of this study, the focus was on aspects of the learners‟ assuming greater control over their own learning (Holmes & Ramos, 1991 as cited in James & Garrett, 1991, p.198). Holec (1981) suggested that autonomy is the ability to take charge of one's own learning. His report was a contribution to the Council of Europe‟s work in adult education, which strove to develop the abilities of the learner, in order to „enable them to act more responsibly in running the affairs of the society in which they live” (Holec, 1981). In the context of this study, society can be considered as that of English language education, a global domain with more non-native than native English speaker teachers, as it exists predominantly in non-English speaking environments. With this in mind, teacher training, being part of adult education acts as an instrument for increasing a sense of awareness and independence in its learners, and, in some cases, for changing the learning environment itself. Learner autonomy, thus, belongs to the notion that „one of the functions of (adult) education is to equip learners to play an active role in participatory democracy‟ (Little, 2007). Understandably, the Hungarian learner may not be prepared for the situation in which the learner is totally responsible for all the decisions concerned with his [or her] learning and the implementation of those decisions (Dickinson, 1987). This is the first study of its kind in Hungary; therefore there is little literature to fully support the arguments. Thus, this is considered an exploratory study in order to pave the way for more research into learner autonomy within a teacher education context, beginning with the research question: How autonomous are trainee language teachers in developing their own language skills? The rationale for the study came about from feedback received from teachers during workshops and training sessions across the country. This mainly referred to why the teaching of pronunciation and micro and macro skills, particularly within the domains of listening, was so avoided in many of the language classrooms in Hungary. The same answer kept recurring: „We don’t have the confidence to do it’. ‘We don’t have the knowledge of how to’. Many of these teachers had very good, if not native like pronunciation. In her 2016 plenary speech at IATEFL International conference, Silvana Richardson stated that “more than 8o% of the EFL teachers in the world are non-native English speakers” many of whom do not shy away from the teaching of pronunciation, it motivated the onset of this study. The question arose whether it was the teachers‟ learning and training that lay behind this phenomenon rather than their language competence. IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 60 Literature Review Learner autonomy is a contemporary theme, with it being placed within the 21 st century required skills. In the Hungarian context, autonomous learning is often viewed as being a „teacher free‟ approach to learning. Benson (2011) suggests that learner autonomy is “the learner‟s approach to the learning process” (p. 2). However, Holec (1979) describes the autonomous learner as „taking responsibility for the totality of his learning situation‟ and being able to carry out by himself the various steps in the learning process. If this is the case, there is a greater demand for the need to support trainee teachers (TTs) in higher education (HE) and teacher education programs, in Hungary, in actively engaging with their interdisciplinary subject material as a source of their own language development. Due to Hungary‟s dominating didactic, frontal teaching methods, which include directing, rather than facilitating learning (Morrison & Navarro, 2014), learners are continuously dependent on their teachers. With the additional “severely systematic constraints on autonomy in compulsory education systems” (Benson, 2011, p.56), little engagement with the broader aspects of learning and an overly strong focus on assessment criteria, limits the learning outcomes to merely achieving a qualification. What is at stake here is the nature of higher education itself (Boud, 2005), as HE is the sector which further develops critical thinking and independent learning (research) skills. As it is the assessment grade itself that has the greatest influence on the students‟ motivation for learning, and which additionally acts as a directive for more or less study requirements, it remains the directive of highest importance. Assessment grades also play a significantly decisive role in what students do as they communicate learners‟ abilities and areas for improvement, while building their confidence for future employment, for many others it reveals how inadequate they are as learners and undermines their self-confidence in their future potential (Boud, 2005). McCombs and Whisler (1997) posit that these traditional approaches refuse students the opportunity to be “enriched by teaching materials” as they are unable to find any connections with their own lives. Roger‟s (2013) theories on teaching and learning approaches also stem from the field of humanistic psychology and urges the notion of teacher as facilitator stating that “…teaching is a vastly overrated function and only the facilitation of learning is important” (p. 17) in order for learners to become self-realizing in their pursuit of achievement. He suggests that a curious, secure environment, where learners can make mistakes will evoke a nostalgic natural approach to learning as within childhood. Vygotsky‟s (1987) „Zone of Proximal Development‟ (ZPD) theory, clearly defined as “the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level if potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with capable peers.” Vygotsky (1987) assumes that “learning begins from the starting point of the child‟s existing knowledge and experience” ( p.86). Shabani et al (2010) offer a notion of Vygotsky‟s ZPD within the field of language teacher development and suggest “an operational view of the learners‟ actual level of development” (p.1) as well as the IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 61 measurement of any emerging growth in learning stating that “the learner‟s zone of proximal development is assessed through interaction or collaboration with a learner because it provides an opportunity for imitation” (Shabani et al., 2010, p.1). Vygotsky (1978) posited that learners will be able to do in the future, what they can collaboratively or independently, with support, do today‟. In order to reach autonomy learners must go through a complex and difficult process, both cognitively and affectively. Throughout this process learners will, at some point during the stages of reflection, recognize that a shift in attention towards the learning process itself is required, in order to become „self-organizing‟ (Little, 1991, p.21). This is reflected in Boud‟s (1988) statement pointing out that “as long as autonomy remains an abstract concept, {} it can be an ideal to which we can aspire” (Boud, 1988, p. 20), however, in reality, this is not what we would expect to naturally occur from any course of study. Therefore, learner autonomy is unlikely to occur without the assistance and in collaboration with a skilled teacher (Benson, 2011). Nunan and Lamb‟s (1996) concept of learner centeredness highlight the importance of shared teacher- student power‟ emphasizing the continuous and collaborative engagement of learners in all spheres of their democratic life in the classroom (Cirocki, 2016). However, the sharing of this power within the classroom is essential. With the gradual shifting of learning responsibility from the teacher to the learner (Guskey & Anderman, 2008), and an additional necessity of self- assessment, which can take the form of teacher led then self- directed reflective journals and targets, autonomy thus, becomes a pivotal aspect of classroom practice. Learners will then evolve into true judges of their own output (Cirocki, 2016). This practice encourages reflective awareness, a fundamental aspect of learner autonomy. Boud (1995) states that “the act of questioning is the act of judging ourselves and making decisions about the next step” (p.1). Benson (2007) suggests that autonomy be recognized as the rights of learners within educational systems. This would then give rise to the recognition of students having the right to lessons which interest them and fit in with their lifestyle and not just their learning styles (Morrison & Navarro, 2014). Additionally, the implementation of student generated study skills, which enable students to actively engage with their access to authentic and academic materials, and their language development away from the teacher and the classroom setting, can only foster widened participation and enhanced communication skills. Activities based on authentic texts also enhance learning potential through the promotion of “intellectual, aesthetic and emotional engagement, stimulating both hemispheres of the brain” (Cirocki, 2016, p.66). Fundamentally, knowledge gained within and through a learner‟s lifestyle becomes the learner‟s own, or what Benson (2011) calls “action knowledge” (p. 40) and then informs the foundations of the learner‟s continued life choices and lifestyle, which, when made through self- assessment, also allow for the possibility of seeing oneself and the options which lay before one in a radically different way (Boud, 1995). All of these experiences then contribute to the semantic memory, which is reflected in the mental lexicon, which is not strictly linguistic since it contains the mental representation of the individual‟s knowledge of the world (Navracsics, 2007). This exploratory study investigated the extent to which L2 English TTs were autonomous in their exposure to the target language and how they valued such IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 62 exposure. This study is unique to this context as there have been no similar studies in this field in Hungary. Methodology Research design, participants, and locale of the study An exploratory study was compiled, examining two groups; one of 33 in- service teachers‟ active engagement in maintaining and developing their English language skills. In order to obtain this information, a diverse group of Hungarian in- service, primary, secondary, private and tertiary sector teacher participants, completed a questionnaire asking about the amount of time they actively exposed themselves to authentic English, via the four skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) outside of their teaching domain. The results acted as an indicator of the commonality of intentional continuous development of target language skills. The second group was 10 TTs, on a Hungarian Higher Teacher Education Program. The study examined how actively and consciously they took measures to develop their own target teaching language skills, in order to be more confident teachers and how much of an emphasis is placed on teachers to develop these skills during training, and, to what extent they are supported in this. The research question was: How autonomous are trainee language teachers in developing their own language skills? Two groups of participants were invited to take part in the studies. In study 1, the group consisted of 33 non-native in-service English language teachers, practicing in Hungary, across many sectors with a range of QTS (some with the Hungarian M.Ed. TEFL, some with the Master‟s plus a CELTA and or DELTA, although this was not specified during the study). In study 2, the group consisted of 10, final year TTs, on the Hungarian M.Ed. TEFL, from a Transdanubian (TD) University of Hungary. These groups were selected on the basis of them being graduating TTs about to embark on their in-school practice the following semester. Permission of participation and the sharing of the data were asked from all participants prior to the study and it was agreed that only their initials would be used as opposed to their full names or numbers. The in-service teachers were asked to complete a questionnaire (Appendix 1) measuring the amount of exposure they had to authentic English, outside of their professional domain. 33 teachers took part in the study and the data received serves purely as an indicator. Below is a sample of the questions the participants were asked. Please note all these questions refer to exposure not related to your work or studies: How many books in/translated into English have you read in the last 6 months? How often do you read English magazines, newspapers articles etc. (including online) How often do you listen to English speaking radio broadcasts (including online radio)? And How often do you have real time conversations in English? (including Skype video call, messenger video etc.) The TTs were graduating TTs, on a M.Ed. TEFL at the same TD University in Hungary. They were 5 th year students, comprising three years of English and American studies (literature, history, culture and international communications), with 2 x 90 minutes of IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 63 language improvement per week in the first and third years. This was then followed by two years on the Master‟s program, comprising of pedagogy subjects and research methodology. See table 1 for a clearer breakdown of the participant information. Table 1. Participant information No. of participants Hours of English per week Program of study Expected Language level on Exit 10 final year TTs. 4 (2 x 90 minutes) in first and third years of study 3 years of English and American Studies (Bachelor‟s level) C1 2 years of pedagogy and research methodology (master‟s level) They completed their BA studies with a supposed C1 (according to the CEFR) level language exam. Including their compulsory education, they would have been learning English for a minimum of 9 years. Participants were asked to input the amount of exposure they had to authentic English, outside of their teaching and studying domain. 10 learners took part in the study and the data was measured using an input data application created by Kovacevic and Kovacevic (2015), over a 2- month period with a minimum data input target of twice weekly (Appendix 2). Figure 1. Flow chart of procedure Researcher met participants to discuss research Participants record amount of exposure to authentic English (in minutes)in all four skills areas Paricipants record their supposed learning value of the exposure( in minutes). Researcher accessed data twice weekly No reminder was sent in the event of no input Focus group discussion Discussion recorded Data analysed using spss software Figure one presents the procedure of the study. Prior to the study, the participants and the researcher met to discuss the process of the research. The application has two scales, one for minutes of exposure for each skill (reading, writing, listening, and speaking), and the second scale is for participants to record the considered value of that exposure. The researcher had access to their data through the „master‟ application and was able to monitor who input data when and how often. The data was monitored twice weekly, on Wednesdays and Sundays. No reminders were sent to the participants throughout the two- month research period. If any participant failed to input, fell out of the study or chose to input more than twice weekly, this was considered a measure of their motivation. Participants were also asked to calculate the value, on a scale of 1 to 10 (ten being the most valuable) of each IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 64 exposure session in terms of their own language learning potential (Appendix 3). The conditions of the study were that this exposure had to be outside of their teaching and learning domain and had to be to authentic, English language; that being material not designed for language learning purposes. Following the exposure research period, the participants took part in a focus group, carried out in English, in small groups (one participant was alone) to discuss the amount of language development they had received as part of their teacher training and how supported they had felt during that time. The participants were asked six questions (Appendix 4). Data collection and analysis This section presents the finding of the above preliminary study exploring whether TTs expose themselves to authentic English outside of their teaching and learning domain. Data was collected through the modes of a questionnaire, input data from an on- line application and through focus group discussions. This application was specifically designed for this purpose and had previously been piloted and used in 2015 by Kovacevic and Kovacevic. All the recorded quantitative data results were calculated using SPSS software and the focus group discussions were recorded, with the consent of all participants, and transcribed. The audio recordings are available. Findings In -service teacher exposure to authentic English The results for the in -service teacher exposure to authentic English is presented in Figure 2 below, which presents the outcomes for the 33 participants on a four- point likert scale. Figure 2. Exposure to authentic English materials or usage 4. Daily 3. A couple of times a week 2. Once a week 1. Less than weekly Scale of scores 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 READ LISTEN FILM TV SPEAK WRITE IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 65 Receptive exposure, in terms of listening and watching television and films, dominated at more than once a week. However, reading, at once a week, was slightly lower than speaking at a couple of times a week. Written exposure proved to be the lowest at between less than and once a week. It is also not clear in what capacity this exposure took place and the familiar and lifestyle choices of the participants, which could be considered variables in another context. Trainee teacher exposure to authentic English Table one presents the number of times the TTs input data over the measured two- month period. As can be seen, there is a range of inputs from 9 to 26 with a mean of 14.1 inputs. Table 2. Number of inputs per participant Participants Number of inputs NS 9 AG 10 AT 10 DS 12 VP 12 DV 13 VS 13 JT 15 PV 21 TK 26 The results of the TTs reveal a pattern of more exposure to receptive rather than productive language. Figure three presents the number of minutes of exposure over the two- month period. Figure 3. Number of minutes of exposure over two- month period 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 JT VP TK PV DV AT NS VS DS AG 1270 3410 1985 2890 2165 1450 1320 2995 1060 385 IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 66 The three highest figures are from those students who input more often than the others. However, the participants who input the highest number of times (TK) only had the sixth highest number of minutes of exposure. Table three presents the correlation between exposure time and presumed value. Table 3. Correlation between exposure and presumed value R P N RT AND RV .411 .238 10 WR AND WV .584 .076 10 LT AND LV .519 .124 10 ST AND SV .541 .106 10 Table three clearly demonstrates that there is no correlation exposure time (R) and presumed value (P). Table four presents the number of minutes of exposure, over the two- month period, by skill and the value on language improvement potential, from 1 to 10, of that exposure. Table 4. The number of minutes of exposure, over the two- month period by skill, and the value on language improvement potential Writing Time Writing Value Reading Time Reading Value Listening Time Listening Value Speaking Time Speaking Value JT 50 1 360 3 850 4 10 2 V 580 5 950 6 1085 7 795 6 TK 365 7 125 7 1075 9 420 10 PV 150 9 550 6 1920 8 270 10 DV 135 6 360 8 1415 9 255 4 AT 100 1 275 1 970 2 105 3 NS 165 5 625 7 500 7 30 7 VS 360 8 655 10 1655 10 325 8 DS 0 0 500 10 560 10 0 0 AG 30 2 125 2 210 1 20 2 IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 67 Table 5. Mean times of exposure WT RT LT ST N 10 10 10 10 Mean 193.50 452.50 1024.00 223.00 Median 142.50 430.00 1022.50 180.00 SD 184.437 256.723 531.856 251.022 Min 0 125 210 0 Max 580 950 1920 795 The statistics in Table 5 reveals that participants time spent on productive skills was significantly lower (193.50) than receptive skills (223). The mean reading time was 452.50 minutes and listening time was 1024 minutes. Writing time was 193.5 minutes and speaking time was 223 minutes over the 2 month period. Focus group discussion Following the two- month exposure period, all 10 participants took part in a focus group discussion. The first three discussion points posed questions around the participants‟ exposure to real language use and the final three to the support and guidance they had received on their training course. Some answers included: “I am always conscious about learning languages. With this app I was more conscious-1 day I did the listening and then I realized I needed to do the reading and writing” I need to be exposed to language day by day” and “On this training, our language abilities are not taken into account only our teaching skills.” The full transcript can be found in Appendix 4. In answering to the first question, regarding the consciousness of their exposure, 6 of the students commented that although they felt that their exposure was adequate, they were not conscious of it. However, the study raised their awareness of the need for this. When discussing the benefits of the study, which for them was the exposure, 7 of the students commented on awareness raising of the skills they needed to spend more time on, plus the fact that they were not actively engaging in the exposure in order to develop their own language skills. The third discussion point was the difficulties that participants encountered throughout the study. The first noted difficulty was in how to rate the value of the exposure as well as becoming more aware of how to find the right level of exposure to meet their needs. The second most salient factor was that of remembering to input, which is also evident in the data, in terms of number of inputs over time of exposure. When analyzing the feedback on the importance of language teachers‟ development of their own target teaching IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 68 language skills, it was evident that the participants had a clear understanding and recognition of the importance of this factor. Eight of the students stated that their own language competence was rarely considered and that it was a „neglected area‟, with not enough guidance and most of it “focusing on receptive language skills.” All participants unanimously recognized a need to develop their own language skills to levels above those of their students, who proved, in the main, to be the driving force behind their motivation. The extracts support Dörnyei and Kubanyiova‟s (2014) claims that „L2 motivation, in terms of language identity, (in this case as a language teacher) offers a new perspective on motivational teaching practice‟ (p.22). Discussion The main objectives of the study were to determine whether TTs actively and autonomously work on developing their own (English) target language teaching skills and the learning value they placed on the exposure they had to authentic English language use. An initial questionnaire was completed by 33 in -service teachers, to discover the amount of exposure to authentic English language they present themselves. Following this, a two- month investigative study of the amount of time trainee teachers exposed themselves to authentic English language followed and how much they valued this exposure. Yin‟s (2015) study of the effects of exposure to authentic language on listening skills discovered a positive relationship between metacognitive awareness and self-efficacy and considered this to be an important contributor to language development. The results of the TT study were not surprising insomuch as there was an ample exposure to authentic English but it is not known how much of this was „useful‟. The reason for this was that it is also not clear in what capacity this exposure took place and the familiar and lifestyle choices of the participants, which could be considered variables in another context. In future studies this would also be pertinent to measure, in order to act as a true control variable. In terms of why written exposure presented as the lowest time exposure, it is only possible to speculate, as reasons for the amount of exposure in each field was not measured. Again this would prove a valid variable in future, more detailed research. It is possible that the participants do not write in English, outside of their studies. At the time of the study, there had been no similar studies conducted in this field and in this context to compare the results with, hence the need to view this as an exploratory study. The two month exposure study was then followed up by a focus group, discussing the amount of support and encouragement the TTs had received as part of their teacher education, in terms of their own language development. The reason for combining these two methods was to use the qualitative insights to shed light on the quantitative data (Wallace, 2008, p.38). It is clear from the discussion that, within the context of these TTs‟ education, they are motivated to develop their language skills but are not conscious about the extent to which they are required to, are able to, and do, do this. Additionally, TTs did expose themselves to the target teaching language, which came as no real surprise, however they were not actively engaging with it in order to develop their own language. In their eyes, the IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 69 teacher education course did not explicitly encourage autonomous language development. Additionally, not only is there no correlation between the time spent and the perceived value but the participants themselves did not see the value in their exposure. What was striking from the data, was that from the 40 incidents of exposure, 13 were deemed non valuable (scoring >5) and 6 as only mildly valuable (scoring 5 or 6). Again, it is only possible to speculate on why this occurred, perhaps due to a lack of implicit learner training in this area, yet again, this is a limitation of this study and recommended for deeper probing in future research incidents. In one case, the participant stated that there had been no productive exposure throughout the study at all, which is an unfortunate outcome, particularly as the university in question has English speaking clubs, events and activities, not to mention a number of international students, with whom communication in English is possible. Kozhevnikova (2013) states that “language learners hardly ever interact with people from other countries,” (p.1) making their language teacher their only source of input, which is not the case in this context. Considering that teachers play “a crucial role in mediating ideas on language learning to their students” (Benson, 2011, p.185), it is evident that this aspect of learner training is absent from this course and the implementation of support and guidance on how students can effectively use their exposure to their target teaching language, outside of the classroom, in order to develop their own language skills would be a valuable and welcome addition to the program. The results of the focus group discussion were the most indicative from the entire study. Some limitations to the study include the lack of knowledge about at which point some of the participants chose to leave the study and their reasons for doing so, and as mentioned earlier on in the chapter, the familiar and conditions within which the in service teachers expose themselves to their target teaching languages was also not examined and would have yielded results pertaining to the scope and effectiveness in their own language maintenance. It is known that improving receptive skills strengthens productive skills; however, by not activating the production it is not possible to measure the effectiveness of the reception. The implications are that changes are required for the teaching of methodology and course design modules of this teacher education course, beginning with the implementation of the development of learner autonomy through learner training, reflection and target setting. Results will be measured through the feedback given during peer teaching, the teaching of all four skills, use of reflection during teaching and levels of confidence. Conclusion and Recommendations This section presents an overarching conclusion to the above study and offers implications and considerations for future teacher education program. The outcomes of this exploratory study demonstrate that TTs do expose themselves to authentic language, although they did not always see the learning value in that exposure. This is concerning as they would be language teachers themselves and would be required to develop autonomous IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 70 learning skills in their future students. Teacher education programs do not place enough emphasis on the importance of a high level of language proficiency and do not explicitly encourage and train learners in autonomous practices of this development. Moreover, the tendency towards teaching proficiency seems to lack a 21 st century approach. In today‟s 21 st century language learning world, where foreign language learning (FLL) is high on both educational and employment agendas, not to mention English‟s place as the lingua franca, communicative competence must take precedence over „native like‟ accuracy. Native English speakers are in the minority and as language evolves at a rate of knots, saying what is really accurate, and by whose‟ standards, in today‟s world is becoming more and more difficult. We need to develop classrooms, which foster safe learning environments, which expose our learners to real language use and encourage them to learn from their mistakes and communicate with one another. Teacher education courses need to be remodeled to ensure that, in addition to the pedagogical aspects of the program, the language improvement aspects are also delivered in a more communicative manner. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on meeting the needs of the learners; encouraging and demonstrating how they can engage with the material and teaching them how to learn in the most effective manner, in order for them to reach their full potential. By implementing learner training to encourage and support autonomous language development, teacher education programs can then prepare TTs to implement these strategies in their own future language classrooms. I would suggest that modifications be implemented into all language teaching programs, not just English, in order to create a form of standardization and a firm focus on the importance of language development as well as pedagogical competencies. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. Acknowledgments I would like to thank the head of the Doctoral school of Multilingualism, Professor Judit Navracsics and my supervisor Professor Marjolijn Verspoor for their on-going support and guidance. I would also like to thank Dr. Szilvia Bátyi for all her help and advice. Finally, I would like to thank my children for allowing me the freedom to carry out this research. References Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy. UK: Pearson Education Limited. Benson, P. (2011). What‟s new in autonomy? The Language Teacher, 35(4). Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.) (2005). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London: Rutledge Flamer. Cirocki, A. (2016). Developing learner autonomy- through tasks. UK. Linguabooks. IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 71 Council of Europe. (2000/2004). European language portfolio (ELP): Principles and guidelines. with added explanatory notes. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. (DGIV/EDU/LANG (2000) 33 rev.1). Council of Europe. (2001). Common european framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment. UK. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learning. UK. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z., & Kubanyiova, M. (2014). Motivating learners, motivating teachers. UK. Cambridge University Press. Guskey, T. T., & Anderman, E. M. (2008). Students at bat. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 8-14. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. UK. Oxford: Pergamon. Holec, H. (1979). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED192557 Retrieved on: 2 nd November 2019. Holmes, J. L., & Ramos, R. (1991). Talking about learning: Establishing a framework for discussing and changing learning processes. In James, C. and Garrett, P. (eds.). Language Awareness in the Classroom. (1991, p. 198- 212). Kovacevic, C. K., & Kovacevic, M. (2015). Monitoring speakers‟ l2 maintenance effort. In Navracsics, J. and Bátyi, Sz. (2015). First and second language: Interdisciplinary approaches. Studies in Psycholinguistics 6. Hungary, Budapest. Tinta Könyv Kiadó. Kozhevnikova, E. (2013) Exposing students to authentic materials as a way to increase students` language proficiency and cultural awareness. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116( 2014 ) 4462 – 4466. Elsivier Ltd. Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik. Little, D. (2007). Learner autonomy: Drawing together the threads of self-assessment, goal setting and reflection. (http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/Elp_tt/Results/DM_layout/00_10/06/06%20Supple mentary%20text.pdf) Retrieved on: 22 nd February 2018 McCombs, B.L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-centred classroom and school: Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. In Raya, M.J., Ramos, J,J. and Tassinari, M.G. (Eds.) (2017). Learner Autonomy in Higher Education: Perspectives from Modern Language teaching. Germany. Peter Lang. Morrison, B., & Navarro, D. (2014). The Autonomy approach. UK: Delta Publishing. Navracsics, J. (2007). Word classes and the bilingual mental lexicon. In Lengyel.Zs., and Navracsics. J. (Eds.) (2007). Second Language Lexical Processes: Applied Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Perspectives.UK. Multilingual Matters. Nunan, D., & Lamb, C. (1996). The self-directed teacher. Managing the learning process. UK. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Raya, M.J., Ramos, J. J., & Tassinari, M.G. (Eds.) (2017). Learner Autonomy in Higher Education: Perspectives from Modern Language teaching. Germany. Peter Lang. Richardson, S. (2016) The native factor. https://iatefl.britishcouncil.org/2016/session/plenary-silvana-richardson https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED192557 http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/Elp_tt/Results/DM_layout/00_10/06/06%20Supplementary%20text.pdf http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/Elp_tt/Results/DM_layout/00_10/06/06%20Supplementary%20text.pdf https://iatefl.britishcouncil.org/2016/session/plenary-silvana-richardson IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 72 Rogers, C. R., Lyon, H. C. Jr., & Tausch, R. (2014). On becoming an effective teacher: Person-centered teaching, psychology, philosophy, and dialogues with Carl R. Rogers and Harold Lyon. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Shabani,K., Khatib,M. and Ebadi,S. (2019). Vygotsky's zone of proximal development: instructional implications and teachers' professional development (10) (PDF) Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development: Instructional Implications and Teachers' Professional Development. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47807505_Vygotsky's_Zone_of_Proxim al_Development_Instructional_Implications_and_Teachers'_Professional_Develop ment Retrieved on: 2 nd Nov 2019. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (eds.)., The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology (pp. 39-285). New York: Plenum. Wallace, M. J. (2008). Action research for language teachers. UK. Cambridge University Press. Yin, M. (2015). The effect and importance of authentic language exposure in improving listening comprehension. Culminating Projects in English. Paper 33. Biographical notes CLAUDIA MOLNÁR was born and raised in North London and moved to Hungary. She did her initial CELTA training in 1998 and has been teaching EFL/ESOL since then. She went on to study for DELTA, PGCE and a Master‟s in Education (TESOL). She is currently studying for a PHD in Multilingualism through instruction with the main area of her research being developing confidence and learner autonomy in a teacher training context. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47807505_Vygotsky's_Zone_of_Proximal_Development_Instructional_Implications_and_Teachers'_Professional_Development https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47807505_Vygotsky's_Zone_of_Proximal_Development_Instructional_Implications_and_Teachers'_Professional_Development https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47807505_Vygotsky's_Zone_of_Proximal_Development_Instructional_Implications_and_Teachers'_Professional_Development IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 73 Appendix 1. Exposure to authentic language questionnaire PLEASE NOTE ALL THESE QUESTIONS REFER TO EXPOSURE NOT RELATED TO YOUR WOK OR STUDIES. 1 How many books in/translated into English have you read in the last 6 months? a. 0-2 b. 3-4 c. 5-6 d. More than 6 2 How often do you read English magazines, newspapers articles etc. (including online) a. Daily b. A couple of times a week c. Once a week d. Less than weekly 3 How often do you listen to English speaking radio broadcasts (including online radio)? a. Daily b. A couple of times a week c. Once a week d. Less than weekly 4 How often do you watch English speaking films (with or without subtitles)? a. Daily b. A couple of times a week c. Once a week d. Less than weekly 5 How often do you watch English speaking television films (with or without subtitles)? a. Daily b. A couple of times a week c. Once a week d. Less than weekly 6 How often do you have real time conversations in English? (including Skype video call, messenger video etc.) a. Daily b. A couple of times a week c. Once a week d. Less than weekly 7 How often do you write in English? a. Daily b. A couple of times a week c. Once a week d. Less than weekly IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 74 Appendix 2. Application data over 2 month period © 2016 | Developed by Matej Kovačević http://prowebex.com/ IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 75 Appendix 3. Participants and number of inputs © 2016 | Developed by Matej Kovačević http://prowebex.com/ IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 76 Appendix 4. Results of the focus group discussion (Audio files available) 1. How conscious were you of the amount of exposure you have to English before the project? I am always conscious about learning languages. With this app I was more conscious-1 day I did the list and then I realised I needed to do the reading and writing My exposure hasn’t changed because of the project just I am more conscious of it now Before the project I wasn’t that conscious I wasn’t either but since the project I have become more so 2. How have you benefitted from taking part in this project? I realised that one day I have to use more skills or maybe I can concentrate on one skill but with more time. I can only meet my language teacher so the interaction was only once a week but after a while I inputted daily I personally think I have as when I input after a few days I realised I hadn’t read enough or spoken enough and it made me then read more or interact more I feel the same I hadn’t been conscious through all of this stuff before I watched a movie in English and just enjoyed it whereas now I think this is a good way of practicing Eng. I also realised that I don’t really use the language outside the classroom only watching filme or series and no interaction at all so now I got conscious and I think I should do this or find a way to 3. What difficulties did you have with this study and why? The listening was hard to find the level. Remembering to input Same for me if I forgot I tried to catch up After a while it was easier because at the start at the end of the day I had to remember how much I had spoken etc…. 4. How important is it for language teachers to continue to develop their own language skills and why? From my point of view I always know that if I don’t use the language day by day I just forget the grammar, vocab… and I need to be exposed to language day by day. One of the most important parts IRJE |Indonesian Research Journal in Education| |Vol. 4| No. 1|June|Year 2020| |E-ISSN: 2580-5711|https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index| 77 Very as language is a changing system and if we don’t catch up we won’t be modern teachers and we won’t know Our students will always have new language and new words you won’t know and then you cannot help them And you can always extend your knowledge if you think you have no more to learn you can learn better English or ESP 5. Do you feel you receive enough guidance on your own language improvement during your teacher training and if so how and if not wha not?? It’s a not, Throughout this training session I didn’t have the method how to teach PS or PC-or how I should improve their vocabulary to reach the B2 level and it was hard for me to find a balance and a method for that and I just feel that only the history or the background of how we teach EFL is the only source of my help. On this training our language abilities are not taken into account only our teaching skills We don’t have enough lessons to improve our language-we only learn about teaching qualities and our language and competencies are not at the same level We are studying in the past- I feel that I listen to the theory of LT every day all day long but I can’t take advantage of it as we don’t practise enough-the past is important 6. What do you do to develop and retain your own language skills and what motivates you to do that? My students-some of them are really motivated and they come up with new ideas, words and topics and they boost me. That is how I motivate myself in order to help them improve their skills and I should be on the upper level of them. I read articles that are interesting for me or if I see an article which is one of my students topics. I read authentic text books too and I only watch movies in the original language. I usually just do everyday stuff- watching series, reading consciously, if there is an option between Hungarian and English I always choose English- I can get it from my personal life not through the university but in our own way There are several applications, resources for this like ‘5 Minutes English’ or through my smartphone and now it is erettségi (Matura exam) time and so I downloaded the tacks. I think the students are the maximum motivation for us as if they have a problem I can’t explain. I always check it and make sure I know it properly so during practice we can pick up on this.