Instructions for ISPACS 2003 Camera-Ready Manuscript Journal of Research and Innovation in Language ISSN (Online): 2685-3906, ISSN (Print): 2685-0818 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31849/reila.vxxx Vol. 5, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 115-131 115 English as a Lingua Franca in an Indonesian Multilingual Setting: Pre- Service English Teachers’ Perceptions Ronald Maraden Parlindungan Silalahi 1*, Wulandari Santoso 1 & Bertaria Sohnata Hutauruk 2 1 Universitas Bunda Mulia, Jakarta, Indonesia 2 Universitas HKBP Nommensen Pematangsiantar, Pematangsiantar, Indonesia bomberrose@gmail.com ARTICLE HISTORY Received : 2023-03-27 Revised : 2023-07-04 Accepted : 2023-07-11 KEYWORDS Pre-service English teachers English as a lingua franca Teacher education programme English language teaching Multilingual Standard English ABSTRACT English as a lingua franca (ELF)-informed teaching emphasises the plurality of English in English language teaching (ELT). However, little is known about how ELF can be applied in ELT in Indonesia. This study examined pre-service English teachers’ perceptions of ELF to evaluate its potential incorporation into ELT in this context. A sequential explanatory design was used to produce more comprehensive results through the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches. A total of 150 participants completed a questionnaire with 19 close-ended items. Subsequently, a group interview was conducted with five participants; they were selected based on their distinct perspectives regarding ELF, as reflected in the questionnaire, to generate in-depth qualitative data. The data analyses comprised descriptive statistics for the quantitative data and thematic analyses for the qualitative data. The quantitative findings revealed that there was a strong belief in the native English speaker as the ideal model (mean value of the questionnaire item: 3.53; standard deviation: 0.78), despite the acceptance of ELF and other varieties of English. However, the qualitative findings demonstrated that the participants’ perceptions of ELF were ideologically constrained due to the unequal power relations among different varieties. These results may indicate that the hegemony of native-speaker norms could be affected by the dominance of standard English in teacher training programmes. Furthermore, the findings suggest a need for integrating ELF into these programmes to equip pre-service teachers with pedagogical strategies to implement ELF. Future research could explore a pedagogical framework of ELF specifically for the Indonesian multilingual setting. 1. Introduction The acceptance of English in nearly all aspects of life has been rapid and exceptionally global. As early as the 18th century, English was predicted to be a global language (Al-Mutairi, 2020; Kachru, 1982; Kachru, 2019). From the 21st century onwards, English has not been the language of anglophone countries; rather, it has become a language used natively by millions of speakers worldwide (Crystal, 2003). It has been suggested that there are approximately 400 million English as a native language (ENL) user and approximately 430 million English as a second language (ESL) users in countries that were affected by British colonisation (Crystal, 2003). In 2008, the growing population of English users across the globe reached two billion (Crystal, 2008). While the statistics are significant, English as foreign language (EFL) users are the ones who have made it the truly global and universal language of the 20th and 21st centuries. In 2003, Crystal (2003) estimated that there were 750 million EFL users, with a medium level of competence. The inevitable use of English was not achieved solely through colonisation; rather, globalisation and the invasion of British and American cultures through the arts, music, and technology have played a part (Graddol, 2006). The expansion of English has been mainly examined from the lens of English as a lingua franca (ELF), an intricate linguistic phenomenon that this paper attempts to address. In general, ELF is defined as the utilisation of English as a channel of communication among mailto:bomberrose@gmail.com 116 speakers from various linguistic identities (Dendenne, 2021; Seidlhofer, 2001; Silalahi, 2019, 2021). The notion of ELF highlights that ELF users could flexibly and creatively use their English to communicate strategically in multilingual environments (Cogo, 2015; Cogo & Dewey, 2012; Jenkins, 2011; Jenkins et al., 2011). During its initial emergence, ELF was viewed as transformative due to its ability to transcend the traditional concept of EFL. This perspective is based on the premise that English users should not be expected to adhere to the norms of native English speakers (Jenkins, 2015a, 2015b). With reference to Kachru’s (Kachru, 1982; Kachru, 2019) categorisation of the different functions of English, NNESs’ use of their own varieties of English should be legitimised. As the proportion of NNESs has expanded, NESs have become the minority not only in terms of English language use but also in terms of the ideologies related to English (Brumfit, 2001). Thus, ELF is seen as a way to legitimise various forms of English for the purpose of intercultural communication (Hülmbauer et al., 2008). Regarding English language teaching (ELT), ELF indicates a new conceptualisation of English use that challenges the raciolinguistic ideology. Hence, the concept of ELF has several pedagogical implications in ELT: (1) The main objective of learning English is no longer to attain native-speaker proficiency. (2) Teaching materials underpinned by the principles of ELF are favourable for teaching intercultural communication (Galloway, 2017; Galloway & Rose, 2014, 2018). (3) Multilingual teachers, rather than native English speakers, play a significant role in providing a space for multilingual language practices in classrooms (Kirkpatrick, 2012; Llurda, 2017). Numerous researchers have called for a framework of an ELF teaching model that is relevant to various educational settings (Dewey, 2012; Kirkpatrick, 2012; Wen, 2016). This would mainly serve as guidance for teachers at the conceptual level of ELF, which can be implemented in their own classrooms. However, recent literature has highlighted a knowledge gap regarding how ELF could be realised in specific teaching contexts (Galloway & Rose, 2018). This study aims to address the aforementioned gap by examining how pre-service English teachers perceive the role of ELF in ELT in Indonesia. Considering the multilingual nature of Indonesia, where hundreds of local languages co-exist, ELF- informed teaching could be a powerful tool in terms of facilitating a transformative pedagogy in which the multilingual identities of English users in Indonesia are recognised and valued. The following research question has been examined in this study: What are Indonesian pre-service English teachers’ perceptions regarding teaching ELF in English classrooms? To address this question, this study used a sequential explanatory design, which gathered and analysed quantitative data in the first phase and qualitative data in the subsequent phase. The use of both quantitative and qualitative approaches was expected to ensure that the research data would have the necessary breadth and depth, which could provide a more holistic understanding of the issue under scrutiny. The findings of this study are expected to offer insights for the relevant stakeholders, including the government and educational practitioners, regarding the current pedagogical paradigm that operates within teacher preparatory programmes in Indonesia. Informed by the research results, the stakeholders could take the necessary measures to reconceptualise the orientation of the curricula, which could accommodate the ELF paradigm to equip pre-service English teachers with relevant pedagogical strategies so that they can implement ELF in their future careers. The novelty of this research lies in how it enriches the literature on pre-service English teachers’ perceptions of ELF in the Indonesian context. The study findings revealing that there was a tendency among the pre-service English teachers to favour native-speaker norms due to the dominant exposure to standard English in their training programmes have improved our understanding of the significant role of teacher training programmes. The results suggest that what is taught in these programmes could either reinforce native-speakerism or challenge it through the incorporation of the ELF paradigm into the curricula. This paper first reviews the conceptual discussion of ELF and ELF-informed teaching in ELT. Following this, it describes the methodological approach as well as the rationale behind the research design, instruments, sampling, and data analysis. It also presents the findings of this study according to certain pre- determined themes and discusses the research results with regard to the literature. Finally, it lays out the conclusions by highlighting the significance and the limitations of this study, in addition to identifying potential directions for future research. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Conceptual Discussion: ELF Present-day usage of English transcends geographical restrictions, occurring at the global scale. In essence, ELF is a communication tool used by speakers with different native languages (Friedrich & Matsuda, 2010). While this definition may be relevant to NNESs, it can be problematic for NESs since English serves as their first language. As Jenkins (2012) argues, ELF does not encompass a traditional view of language and is distinct from ENL; therefore, it needs to be acquired by NNESs as well. Thus, any English user regardless of their linguistic background could be considered an ELF user. In this respect, ELF offers a new way of communication and interaction for both NESs and NNESs (Jenkins, 2012). 117 ELF is deemed to be part of World Englishes (WE) (Seidlhofer, 2005), which aims to challenge the monolithic view of standard English (Pennycook, 2007). It celebrates the diversity of the English language and emphasises that English is not governed by a single norm (Mesthrie & Bhatt, 2008). While the WE paradigm supports the legitimacy of English varieties emerging from local contexts, the theories of ELF address the legitimacy of English as a tool of communication among diverse English speakers (Ishikawa, 2016). In essence, ELF is more concerned with understanding the process of linguistic accommodation involving speakers from different backgrounds who use English to engage in interactions (Lai, 2020). Thus, the notions of WE and ELF are not opposed to each other; rather, they belong under the umbrella term “Global Englishes” (Jenkins, 2015a, 2015b) The ELF paradigm transcends NES variations of English and “nation-based varieties” (Seidlhofer, 2001, p. 134). Thus, ELF is not English that is owned by its native speakers but is extended to include the process of being appropriated for intercultural communication (Hülmbauer et al., 2008). ELF is also viewed as fluid language use, in which speakers could adapt the language to suit the dynamic nature of communication circumstances (Seidlhofer, 2011). ELF users can skilfully use English as a resourceful tool they can freely adapt, exchanging codes in a manner that is different from the norm of native English but remains acceptable (Jenkins, 2011). Therefore, ELF has recently been reconceptualised as English as a multilingua franca, described as the employment of one’s multilingual repertoire in ELF communication (Jenkins, 2015a, 2015b). Jenkins (2015b) states that, in EFL interactions, English can be used as the preferred contact language but is not automatically chosen. Therefore, ELF emphasises the significance of cultural and linguistic differences (Galloway, 2017; Kirkpatrick, 2012; Xu, 2018), which allows speakers to creatively and flexibly use their entire multilingual repertoire according to specific communication needs (Cogo, 2015; Mendoza, 2023). ELF should not be viewed as an English variation but as a way of using it (Jenkins, 2012; Seidlhofer, 2011). Thus, ELF cannot be categorised in relation to nation-states, which are often conceptualised as having a fixed named language. Moreover, several ELT practitioners interpret ELF as a simplified form of English, implying that NNESs are exhibiting a linguistic deficiency in terms of adhering to the norm of ENL (Jenkins, 2012). From the ELF perspective, the linguistic agenda of NESs should no longer dominate ELF communication (Jenkins, 2009), which is increasingly dynamic, intercultural, and multilingual (Galloway & Rose, 2015; Jenkins, 2015a). Following Jenkins (2012), ELF is better understood from the perspective of “communities of practice” (Seidlhofer, 2011, p. 87). This approach may comprise ELF communication in terms of its regularities and variability in a specific context, as speakers with diverse resources mutually develop their shared repertoire to achieve their communicative purposes on a particular occasion. 2.2 ELF-Informed Teaching The development of ELF as an emerging paradigm has contributed to the field of ELT. As ELF transcends the traditional ways of conceptualising language ownership by its native speakers, the main learning objective is not attaining native-speaker competence but aiming for intercultural competence (Byram, 2021). Kirkpatrick (2012) argues that the shift from native English-based teaching to a multilingual orientation must take contextual and cultural factors into account. In a similar vein, McKay (2009) maintains that reliance on native-speaker models has to be reduced on occasion. Therefore, it is crucial to revisit the English- teaching model that reflects the ideologies of the inner circle. When integrated into ELT, ELF brings a new way of seeing present-day linguistic realities, which should be accommodated in the classroom by valuing and teaching the real usage of English in local contexts (Boonsuk & Ambele, 2020). In ELF interactions, diverse sociocultural factors may affect how speakers utilise their multilingual repertoire, which may encompass patterns that are different from those of NESs. In the EFL paradigm that primarily manifests ENL-based teaching, failing to produce native varieties of English is viewed as an error on the part of English learners; in contrast, ELF takes a critical perspective that involves legitimising the utilisation of learners’ linguistic repertoire (Rose & Galloway, 2019). In English classrooms, native-like accuracy does not serve as a benchmark for measuring learners’ English proficiency (Zhang, 2022). Rather, the emphasis is on effective and intelligible communication among multilingual interlocutors in multilingual contexts (Jenkins, 2015b; Seidlhofer, 2011). Recent developments in the incorporation of ELF into ELT have demonstrated the need for a more pluralistic approach to ELT practices (Park, 2022). ELF-informed teaching is thus seen as a way to develop learners’ understanding of the existence of English varieties (Lopriore & Vettorel, 2015). However, embracing the ELF paradigm does not mean prescribing which language features should be introduced to learners (Dewey & Jenkins, 2010). As Jenkins et al. (2011) state, the ELF paradigm is not about selecting certain language elements to be included in teaching materials or selecting certain English varieties to be taught to learners. Instead, adopting a pluralistic view of ELF means enabling learners to value and reflect on their own sociolinguistic reality according to each local context of use. Therefore, it is essential to regard learners as possessing the capacity to maximise their multilingual 118 communicative resources and to provide them with the representation of the pluralities of English existing in real-world communication contexts (Lopriore & Vettorel, 2015). The pedagogical shift towards ELF in ELT would inevitably require support from different stakeholders; however, as Dewey (2012) argues, it begins with teachers and, thus, with teacher education. Recontextualising ELF in teacher education courses is considered a crucial beginning to transform student teachers’ knowledge of the use of English in multilingual environments. A useful step would be to introduce them to the roles of ELF and English varieties through diverse teaching materials and critical discussions (Cogo & Dewey, 2012). These methods may allow student teachers to challenge their own beliefs regarding English and reflect upon various teaching strategies to create classroom activities that aim to promote ELF awareness (Lopriore & Vettorel, 2015). Furthermore, the reconceptualisation of communicative competence, which is commonly perceived as the ability to adhere to native-speaker norms, must be critically discussed. Thus, trainee teachers could develop a renewed understanding of multilingual competence, which focuses on developing one’s ability to use languages for different functions rather than on teaching how to master each language (Canagarajah, 2011). 2.3 A Critical Review of Previous Studies Several previous studies that align with this research focused on the perceptions of ELF in Asian multilingual countries. Underpinned by the ELF perspective, Yu (2019) investigated the literacy skills of secondary English language education students and found that the education system in Taiwan offered learning literacy skills that needed to focus on reading skills rather than writing. This study concluded that Taiwan’s secondary English education was not in line with the need to develop literacy skills for international communication. This research shows that learning literacy skills has no direct link with communication, which implies a loose relationship between learning English under the English language education system and communicative use (e. g. Lin, 2012; Seilhamer, 2015). Sung (2019) investigated international students’ perceptions of the use of their language at a multilingual English-medium international university in Hong Kong, paying particular attention to the use of ELF. The findings showed that the students adhered to a pluralistic conceptualisation of ELF. Some students emphasised the importance of ELF for academic and social integration at the university, while the local students felt resistance towards the use of ELF. This research suggests that there is a monolingual view of ELF, which has an impact on social exclusion and linguistic disadvantage. The aforementioned two studies emphasise students’ perceptions of ELF implementation in two different contexts. In the monolingual context, the problem of implementing ELF is oriented towards students’ linguistic competence, which is not evenly distributed in each language ability. In a multilingual context with NES and NNES, the tension arises from the perceived rejection of the policies built by policymakers to facilitate language norms. The present study is oriented towards investigating pre-service English teachers’ views regarding ELF to make an academic contribution to the development of ELF in the Indonesian multilingual context. This research is in line with Zhang’s work (2021), which investigated student teachers’ perceptions of implementing ELF in mainland China. Learning in a monolingual context means prospective teachers do not have a comprehensive understanding of ELF and its implementation in the classroom. This could impact the rejection of the ELF model in ELT due to the contextual challenges faced in ELF-informed teaching. Therefore, deliberate efforts are needed to promote ELF awareness and develop ELF-informed teaching. 3. Method 3.1 Research Setting and Participants The study participants comprised pre-service English teachers in several Indonesian private universities that offered an English education programme in their faculties. The number of the sample was obtained using purposive sampling, with the sample measurement tool referring to the Cochran formula (Cochran, 1963): where n = sample size z = precision level (95%) with a value of 1.96 p = correct level (50%) q = wrong level (50%) The Cochran formula (1963) was used in this study because the population size (i.e. the specific number of pre-service English teachers) was not precisely known (Sugiyono, 2021). Using this formula, the number of respondents was calculated as follows. The result of the calculation revealed 97 participants to be the minimum number needed for the sample. Data collection was conducted based on this calculation, and 150 respondents were obtained. Referring to the formula proposed by Cochran’s (1963), 119 150 respondents are considered sufficient to represent a population whose number is not precisely known. The inclusion criteria were as follows: pre-service English teachers who (1) understood English variations; (2) had teaching experience in either professional careers or micro teaching programmes offered by the universities; and (3) were expected to graduate with adequate English proficiency and acquire the English-teaching skills necessary for teaching primary and secondary students. Table 3.1 shows the demographic information of the participants. Table 3.1 Participant Information Demographic N Percentage Gender Female 118 78,7% Male 32 21,3% Age 18-25 26-39 ≥40 148 1 1 98,7% 0,7 % 0,7 % Semester 1 - - 2 1 0,7% 3 70 46,7% 4 - - 5 41 27,3% 6 - - 7 37 24,7% 8 - - 3.2 Research Design and Instruments This was sequential explanatory research consisting of a two-phase data-collection process, focusing on quantitative data and qualitative data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Quantitative data were collected first, followed by qualitative data (Ivankova et al., 2006). This research design was chosen to ensure more comprehensive findings would be obtained via the use of both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The qualitative results were used to further explain the quantitative results. In the first phase of data collection, 19 close-ended questionnaire items adapted from Curran & Chern (2017) and Zhang (2022) were distributed to 150 participants through Google Forms. The participants were required to identify their stance on a five-point Likert scale, which covered statements regarding (1) the implementation of different learning models; (2) the exposure to different English varieties in ELT; (3) language and culture in ELT; and (4) the utilisation of English as a medium of instruction. Drawing on the research results from the first phase of the data collection, a group interview (GI) was used to perform data triangulation, facilitate deeper explorations, and validate the findings from the previous research phase. The GI was conducted virtually for approximately 120 minutes with five participants who had previously filled out the questionnaire. They were selected because they had demonstrated different views regarding ELF and had taken compulsory teaching courses in the third and fifth semesters. It was assumed their nuanced perspectives and knowledge of core teaching skills would facilitate in-depth discussion regarding ELF. The GI data were then recorded and transcribed to support the results obtained from the quantitative data. 120 Table 3.2 GI Participants Participants Gender Semester Teaching Experience S1 Female 3 1 S2 Female 3 1 S3 Male 5 1 S4 Female 5 2 S5 Female 5 2 3.3 Data Analysis Procedure This study obtained both quantitative and qualitative data, which were analysed separately using different methods. Descriptive statistics were used to look for “a summary picture of a sample” based on the pre-determined themes (Gray, 2014, p. 626) to discern the general patterns of the participants’ views regarding ELF. Subsequently, thematic analysis was employed on the qualitative data. It followed the phases of the coding analysis, namely (1) creating the initial codes, (2) categorising the codes into potential themes, and (3) describing patterns as demonstrated in the data (Robson & McCartan, 2016). 4. Result This study aimed to investigate pre-service English teachers’ perceptions regarding teaching ELF in English classrooms. Based on the findings obtained from the quantitative and qualitative data, the research results are divided into several sections: Native- Speaker Norms in the English Learning Model, Views Regarding English Varieties, Use of L1 and Sociocultural Contexts in ELT, and Students’ Understanding of ELF-Informed Teaching. 4.1 Native-Speaker Norms in the English Learning Model This section presents the research results regarding the participants’ views about native-speaker models in English classrooms. The participants ranked Statement 1 the highest (M = 3.64, SD = 0.76): “Materials in English classrooms should refer to native-speaker models only” (see Table 4.1). Furthermore, they strongly believed that the English programme should mainly focus on teaching students how to communicate with NESs (M = 3.54, SD = 0.72). The participants’ perceptions were also relatively positive in relation to the importance of speaking like native speakers of English (M = 3.34, SD = 0.82) and imitating them in communication (M= 3.3, SD = 0.78). Statement 6, which concerned whether students with a high level of English proficiency should behave like NESs, ranked the lowest (M = 3.14, SD = 0.85). Table 4.1 Participants’ Views towards Native Speaker Norms in English Learning Model No Statement Mean SD 1 Materials in English classrooms should refer to native-speaker models only 3.64 0.76 2 Materials should be based on native speakers only. 3.28 0.73 3 Learning how to interact with native speakers should become the main emphasis in the English program 3.54 0.72 4 Students should speak like native speakers 3.34 0.82 5 Students should imitate native speakers in communication 3.33 0.78 6 Students with high level of English proficiency should behave like an English native speaker 3.14 0.85 The GI results revealed disparate findings regarding the participants’ views. Some of the participants did not aim to imitate NESs and did not want to teach their future students how to speak like NESs: 121 S1: “The most important thing is that we can speak English fluently and other people can understand what we are saying.” (1:08:53–1:08:58) S3: “We know we have different accents in Indonesia. As long as we can understand each other.” (1:17:56–1:18:06) Excerpt 1 However, one of the participants expressed concern about the accuracy of pronunciation, although she did not want to speak like NESs: S2: “But I train myself to pronounce words so that other people can understand what I am saying. I will not ask my students to imitate native speakers because it will be too difficult for them. But I will teach them how to pronounce words in English correctly.” (1:10:27–1:10:36) Excerpt 2 While several participants clearly stated that they did not force themselves to acquire native-speaker competence, other participants seemed to consider the contextual circumstances in which they would teach in the future: S4: “It depends on the methods we use. If I use the oral approach [to teach English], of course I will ask my students to speak like [English] native speakers. If I teach in international schools, I will also adjust my accent and the way I speak [like native English speakers].” (1:11:38– 1:12:17) S5: “It also depends on the teaching context. If the learning objective is to learn pronunciation, we have to be native-like so that our students will imitate us. But if I teach high school students [in mainstream schools], I will not force myself to be like [English] native speakers.” (1:15:45–1:16:22) Excerpt 3 The results of the questionnaire revealed that NESs were considered the only model with regard to learning English. Although some of the participants in the GI refused to emulate native English speakers, they seemed to favour native-like fluency and accuracy. S1: “To make our students fluent in speaking English… help our students use correct grammar. If students already have an ability to use correct grammar and speak English fluently, it means that we have achieved the learning goals.” (0:22:23–0:23:10) S5: “I think it is important to teach our students how to communicate with ‘bule’ [native English speakers]. So we can convey the message clearly just like what they do.” (0:26:10–0:26:50) Excerpt 4 The aforementioned findings demonstrate the participants’ beliefs regarding “the best way of teaching English” to students, which still reflects the ideal learning model of native English speakers. 4.2 Views Regarding English Varieties The participants were required to identify their perceptions about the exposure to different English varieties. With regard to the inner circle varieties, the participants strongly believed that students should know the differences between the varieties of English spoken by NESs (M = 4.14, SD = 0.71). This finding also corresponds to the participants’ responses concerning Statement 7: “Students should recognise English native varieties” (M = 3.77, SD = 0.74). Table 4.2 Inner Circle Varieties No Statement Mean SD 7 Students should recognise English native varieties 3.77 0.74 8 Students should be aware of the differences in English spoken by native English speakers. 4.14 0.71 The participants also agreed that students needed to understand the English spoken by NNESs (M = 3.80, SD = 0.67) and be exposed to different varieties of English spoken by NNESs (M = 3.62, SD = 0.90). The responses to Statement 9 (M = 2.82, SD = 1.02) demonstrated that the participants showed less agreement regarding whether introducing different English accents to students would be confusing. Table 4.3 Outer Circle Varieties No Statement Mean SD 9 Showing students with different English accents need to be clarified for students. 2.82 1.02 10 Understanding English spoken by foreign speakers is essential for students 3.80 0.67 11 Introducing students to a variety of non-native English (India, Singapore, Africa, etc.) is necessary for class. 3.62 0.90 122 Furthermore, the qualitative data showed how the students had been primarily exposed to standard English during their studies: S5: “Our textbooks are from English-speaking countries… We also learn grammar like what native speakers use in their communication.” (0:13:41–0:14:43) S4: “I think there is no suggested accent or form [to learn]… For example, in the phonology test, the lecturer asked me to choose between American or British English… We can choose which accent and standardised forms that we want [to use].” (0:30:46–0:31:02) S1: “I think our lecturers mostly use American English. [But] we are free to choose whether we want to use American or British English.” (0:34:50–0:35:38) S2: “But in the listening class, we usually watch videos with British accent.” (0:36:47–036:53) Excerpt 5 These findings may indicate that the participants’ preferences regarding the inner circle varieties might have been influenced by how they were substantially exposed to American and British English during their studies. It is also intriguing that, despite their strong orientation to the “established” representations of English, the quantitative results demonstrate the participants’ positive stance towards ELF and other varieties of English. However, the qualitative data seem to indicate a contrasting finding: S2: “We cannot hide our Batak (local) accent.” (0:36:30– 0:36:30) S5: “I always use the Indonesian accent while speaking English. ... I think my students are more native-like than me. I feel incompetent to be a teacher.” (1:25:06–1:27:29) Excerpt 6 Although the participants encouraged the introduction of different English varieties to English classrooms, they had a tendency to favour standard English and attribute less value to other varieties of English. 4.3 Use of L1 and Sociocultural Contexts in ELT The participants were asked about the medium of instruction in the class and the incorporation of traditions and cultures into ELT. As demonstrated in Table 4.4, the participants agreed that code-switching strategies should be taught to students (M = 3.82, SD = 0.70) and that Indonesian and local languages should be used in English classrooms (M = 3.39, SD = 0.86). They also realised that the use of other languages in addition to English will not pose difficulties to students in terms of communicating effectively (M = 3.05, SD = 0.94). Table 4.4 Participants’ Views towards Language Used in the Classroom No Statement Mean SD 12 Using Indonesian and local languages as the language of instruction makes the learning process more effective 3.39 0.86 13 Using Indonesian and local languages as the language of instruction does not make it difficult for students to communicate effectively 3.05 0.94 14 Teachers should teach code-switching strategies 3.82 0.70 With regard to the aspects of traditions and cultures in ELT, the participants’ approval ratings for the importance of helping students understand language users from various sociocultural backgrounds were higher than those for the importance of familiarising students with the cultures and traditions of NESs (M = 4.02, SD = 0.71 and M = 3.62, SD = 0.76, respectively). This finding is supported by the participants’ agreement that teachers should raise students’ awareness of intercultural differences through critical discussions (M = 3.85, SD = 0.68). Furthermore, the participants expressed a high level of agreement with the statement that the utilisation of English in the real world should become the main emphasis in the English programme (M = 3.82, SD = 0.73). In contrast, they exhibited a relatively low level of agreement with the statement that English should be used exclusively when discussing local traditions and cultures (M = 3.24, SD = 0.80). 123 Table 4.5 Participants’ Views towards Traditions and Cultures In ELT No Statement Mean SD 15 Using English in authentic communication should be the teacher's primary focus. 3.82 0.73 16 When talking about their traditions and culture, students should use English. 3.24 0.80 17 Teachers should help students understand people from different linguistic and cultural 4.02 0.71 18 Familiarizing the culture and traditions of native English speakers is essential for students 3.62 0.76 19 Teaching intercultural differences is essential for teachers 3.85 0.68 4.4 Students’ Understanding of ELF-Informed Teaching The participants seemed to have relatively inadequate knowledge of ELF, as illustrated below: S2: “I haven’t heard about ELF before. I only know EFL.” (0:01:01–0:01:18) S1: “I once heard about English as a lingua franca, but I don’t know what it is.” (0:01:27–0:01:46) Excerpt 7 Furthermore, the participants were confused about the concepts of ELF and EFL. Some of them perceived ELF as having similar characteristics to EFL, as illustrated below: S2: “… I think, ELF and EFL is similar in terms of their functions. Both are used in communications between native speakers and non-native speakers.” (0:17:17–0:17:27) Excerpt 8 However, one participant stated the definition of ELF: S5: “As far as I know, [a] lingua franca means that… for example, A is from China, and B is from Indonesia. So we use English to communicate with each other.” (0:01:56– 0:02:35) Excerpt 9 She also compared the notions of EFL and ELF, stating the following: S5: “EFL is identical to standardised English, but ELF is much broader. It can cover Singaporean English, Indian English, African English. For me, they are different.” (0:19:22–0:19:56) Excerpt 10 It is apparent that this participant merely focused on the function of ELF, which serves as a tool to bridge English speakers worldwide. However, none of the participants discussed how the principles of ELF are manifested in ELT. During the GI, the moderator highlighted some core principles of ELF-informed teaching (Si, 2019), which include the emphasis on (1) using appropriate language to fulfil communicative purposes, (2) understanding the use of English in multilingual environments, (3) focusing on effective communication strategies instead of native-like competence in communication, (4) fostering capable ELF users rather than native-like English use, and (5) utilising teaching materials containing linguistic and cultural diversities. Notably, all of the participants expected to learn about ELF during their current studies: S5: “I expect that ELF can be considered as a compulsory course or a seminar so that we can learn more about ELF.” (1:41:34–1:42:04) S2: “I think ELF is interesting, so maybe there is a programme that could discuss ELF in depth.” (1:39:33– 1:39:53) Excerpt 11 In the final stage of the GI, it could be seen that the participants’ understanding of ELF-informed teaching had developed; however, it was not possible for the researchers to cover all the main attributes of ELF. 5 Discussion This study examined pre-service English teachers’ perceptions of incorporating ELF into English classrooms in the Indonesian context. Furthermore, it focused on four pre-determined themes, which could portray the participants’ views regarding the notion of ELF, namely native-speaker norms, English varieties, use of other languages in ELT, and ELF-informed teaching. On the one hand, the quantitative findings showed that the participants were in favour of native- speaker norms in teaching English. On the other hand, the participants also highlighted the importance of introducing other varieties of English and being able to communicate with English speakers from different sociocultural backgrounds. These contradictory findings could be explained by the qualitative results 124 indicating the dominant exposure to standard English in the programmes the participants were enrolled in. The participants seemed to face a dilemma: adhering to the “ideal” norm or embracing the pluralistic English reflected in the authentic use of English in multilingual settings. Furthermore, the results also showed the participants’ lack of understanding of ELF, as ELF principles had not been introduced to the teacher preparatory programmes. Therefore, it is necessary to deliberately incorporate ELF into the curricula to prepare future English teachers with ELF-informed teaching. This investigation also revealed that the participants held a strong belief in the native English- oriented teaching paradigm in ELT. This could be seen from their positive views regarding NESs as the role model in learning. Although the results also demonstrated that the participants regarded the exposure to English from the outer and expanding circles as well as the utilisation of Indonesian and local languages as essential in supporting students’ English learning, they seemed to perceive that native varieties of English were the ideal norm compared to ELF- informed teaching. It is also evident that the participants had not been equipped with sufficient knowledge of ELF in their teacher training programmes, which failed to develop students’ awareness of ELF-informed teaching. Regarding the results, some important aspects must be discussed to situate the present study within the context of the existing literature. The discussion is expected to add new insights regarding the current state of how Indonesian pre-service teachers view the teaching of ELF. 5.1 Native English Speakers as a Target Model The findings of this study showed that the participants favoured native-speaker norms in ELT. This could be seen from their relatively strong agreement regarding ELT material and styles of communication and interaction referring to native English speakers. These results support previous studies that were conducted in similar contexts, including those in Indonesia (Kusumaningputri et al., 2022; Ubaidillah, 2018), Iran (Moradkhani & Asakereh, 2018; Sa’d & Hatam, 2018), and China (Zhang, 2022). Kusumaningputri et al. (2022) found that their participants showed strong favouritism towards imitating a native-like communication model as they believed that modelling NES was the only “correct” way of using English. Similarly, the research conducted by Sa’d & Hatam (2018) and Zhang (2022) indicated that English was only owned by NESs, making them the legitimate English speakers. In relation to native-oriented teaching materials, Ubaidillah (2018) and Moradkhani & Asakereh (2018) found that Indonesian and Iranian English users preferred materials published by the inner circle countries for different reasons. While the Indonesian pre-service teachers showed some distrust towards locally published materials, the Iranians highlighted the issue of intelligibility that arose when using ELF- informed materials. The research results revealing the dominance of native English speakers as a target model may stem from the EFL paradigm, which has been commonly applied in ELT policies and practices, particularly in the expanding circle countries. In this sense, EFL still encompasses ENL-informed teaching that takes NESs and their cultures as the target (Hülmbauer et al., 2008). Accepting native English as the norm is not merely about being able to imitate native speakers’ behaviours; it also involves accepting their ideology, which could lead to linguistic discrimination among English speakers from diverse sociocultural backgrounds (Wang & Fang, 2020). According to the ELF paradigm, ENL is not applicable to English learners since NNESs are more likely to communicate using English with NNESs, rather than with NESs, for the purpose of intercultural communication (Akkakoson, 2019; Jenkins, 2009; Sung, 2013). In ELF interactions, intelligibility is not solely determined by a native-like accent (Jenkins, 2000). Therefore, using native-speaker judgements in ELF contexts is problematic since what may be regarded as errors based on standard English could be considered understandable by ELF users (Seidlhofer, 2001). The results of this study also indicate the importance of developing local teaching materials that incorporate local English varieties. Some scholars have called for the promotion of learners’ contextual and cultural realities when designing pedagogical materials to relate them to learners’ real-world situations (Ambele & Boonsuk, 2021; Guerra & Cavalheiro, 2018). Nevertheless, developing ELF-aware materials is not an easy task, as teaching materials have traditionally been based on British or American English. Research has also demonstrated that ELF is still underrepresented, particularly in textbooks (Matsuda, 2012; Vettorel & Lopriore, 2013). Even when resources that promote other English varieties are available, they are usually imported and, thus, less affordable (Kusumaningputri et al., 2022). It is important to note that an ELF perspective is needed not only for published materials but also for classroom practices that value language differences (Lopriore & Vettorel, 2015). For example, using audio or visual materials that reflect real-life contexts could be an effective learning tool for introducing English users from other linguacultural backgrounds (Kirkpatrick, 2015). 5.2 English Varieties The study results indicate that the student teachers held a monolithic view regarding established English norms despite their acceptance of other varieties of 125 English. For instance, they showed significant agreement with regard to introducing English varieties from the inner circle countries and the differences among the English varieties spoken by native speakers; however, they also highlighted the importance of exposing students to other varieties of English. This finding corresponds to those of prior studies (e.g. Pudyastuti & Atma, 2014; Ramadhani & Muslim, 2021), which demonstrated that there was a complex perspective among the participants with regard to which English varieties should be prioritised in ELT. In these studies, although the participants acknowledged that imposing the standard norms was unavoidable in terms of achieving the prescribed learning objective in the EFL setting, they placed a greater emphasis on effective communication among different English speakers in the global community. The aforementioned findings are also reflected in the present study. Despite their acceptance of the promotion of English from the outer and expanding circles, the participants demonstrated a strong inclination towards the established norms of English. This conflicting finding may indicate that, while they were aware of their identities as multilingual individuals who could use their rich linguistic repertoire to communicate effectively, they seemed to perceive their multilingual competence as something to be ashamed of. In addition, the participants’ preferences for the inner circle varieties might have been influenced by the exposure to standard English during their study, as stated by some of the participants in the GI. In the context of teacher preparatory programmes, what student teachers have learnt during the course of their study may affect how they perceive “the best practices” of teaching the language (Lortie, 1975) Consequently, such experiences may shape their preconceptions about teaching, which may influence their future teaching careers (Borg, 2004). In essence, what they have experienced as a student may shape their idealised view of which English should be taught in English classrooms. If they are not provided with alternative ways of using English, the dominant exposure to standard varieties of English will strengthen the legitimacy of native-speaker models among the participants. Given the status of English as a lingua franca in this globalised era, adhering to native-speaker standard English for communicative purposes is deemed irrelevant as it does not equip students with the diverse English varieties that currently exist (Boonsuk & Ambele, 2020; Wang & Jenkins, 2016). The advance of globalisation and the increasingly multilingual settings in anglophone countries have significantly shifted from communication that occurs mainly in monolingual speech communities to the utilisation of English among people across the globe who speak English creatively to fulfil their communicative goals (Boonsuk & Ambele, 2020; Cogo & Dewey, 2012; Prabjandee, 2020). Regarding the current trend and use of English, the orientation towards NESs cannot portray the authentic usage of English in multilingual environments and is thus irrelevant (Galloway & Rose, 2015). Moreover, imposing a single English variety with the aim of achieving native-like proficiency is unrealistic and impractical (Jindapitak, 2019; Tantiniranat, 2019). As Pennycook (2014) argues, in the context of the outer and expanding circles, acquiring native-like English is impossible regardless of the teaching method adopted. Thus, it is important for non-native English teachers to operate within the ELF perspective, as it could liberate them from the tendency to use native-speaker standard English as a gauge (Blair, 2015; Kirkpatrick, 2012). 5.3 The Role of Other Languages and Cultures in ELF-Informed Teaching According to the findings of this study, the participants strongly endorsed the incorporation of other languages and cultures into ELT. For example, they showed a positive response regarding the effectiveness of using Indonesian and local languages for communication. With regard to the cultural aspects of ELT, they highlighted the importance of understanding intercultural differences. The results of this study are in line with those of previous studies in similar contexts (Khairunnisa & Lukmana, 2020; Kusumaningputri et al., 2022; Rasman, 2018; Santoso, 2020). Despite the participants’ firm belief in NES supremacy, observational data from the studies focusing on the participants’ language practices revealed that the use of other languages was inevitable even when the policy was against it (Rasman, 2018; Santoso, 2020). Contextualising their studies in the Indonesian multilingual setting, these scholars have suggested that the country’s linguistic ecology and rich cultural diversity should be considered in both policy- making and pedagogical practices. In the present study, the participants’ agreement regarding the role of other languages and intercultural communication may indicate the presence of multilingual and multicultural awareness among the participants. However, this view is often associated with English being the only means of communication with people from different languages and cultures due to its role as the global lingua franca (Ishikawa, 2016). In the context of a multilingual society, this perspective is not always relevant, as one may have other shared languages with the interlocutor that can be flexibly utilised to achieve communicative purposes. Hence, the reconceptualisation of ELF that describes English as a multilingua franca supporting both linguistic and cultural differences is arguably more compatible with the multilingual reality (Jenkins, 2015a, 2015b). Concerning the shift in the multi-lingua-cultural approach, multilingual ELF users could use their plurilingual repertoire to communicate strategically and show their plurilingual identity to better relate themselves to other cultures (Jenkins, 2012). 126 Concerning classroom contexts, it is necessary to promote providing a space for students’ multilingual practices, with English serving as one of the linguistic resources available. This method allows students to scaffold their learning, signal their multilingual competence, and transform their identities (García & Li, 2014). Such dynamic language practices are called translanguaging (García & Li, 2014), flexible bilingualism (Creese & Blackledge, 2011), or pedagogical translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2020). ELF and translanguaging researchers focus on similar topics, namely the communicative and negotiation strategies embodied in one’s resourceful semiotic repertoire (Canagarajah & Wurr, 2011). Having a shared stance, ELF and translanguaging legitimise all language users’ actual communicative practices that are dynamic, hybrid, and creative (Mendoza, 2023; Seltzer & García, 2020). 5.4 ELF-Aware Teacher Education According to the findings of this study, the participants showed a lack of understanding of ELF- informed teaching. Furthermore, they admitted that an explicit introduction to ELF pedagogy was absent in their teaching courses, resulting in them being unaware of its legitimacy in English classrooms. This result is in line with the research in the expanding circle (e.g. Rahayu, 2019; Soruc, 2015) revealing that the ELF paradigm had yet to be promoted within teacher education programmes. However, this finding contradicts the recent research conducted by Ramadhani & Muslim (2021) in the Indonesian context; in their study, the majority of the participants had sufficient knowledge of ELF. This discrepancy may be caused by the different exposures to ELF the participants had during their studies and ELF communication. The research result seems to demonstrate that the current curricula in teacher education programmes have yet to include ELF as one of the pedagogical concepts that must be promoted among pre-service English teachers. The development of ELF-aware teacher education has been reiterated by scholars in various contexts (e.g. Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2015; Blair, 2015; Dewey, 2012; Sakhiyya et al., 2018) as it can be a powerful tool for facilitating a shift away from the prevailing orientation in ELT that is driven by the NES model. In essence, if the conceptualisation of ELF that celebrates “dynamic pluralistic manifestations of linguistic resources” is to be promoted (Park, 2022, p. 583), a crucial step is transforming pre-service teachers’ beliefs during “the apprenticeship of observation” (Borg, 2004, p. 274). For any transformative changes in ELT pedagogy to occur, individual teachers’ mindsets should be considered (Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2015). Following Widdowson (2012, p. 5), the significance of ELF lies in helping us “to consider its effect as a catalyst for change in established ways of thinking.” There are no fixed norms since they are continuously changing and evolving (Seidlhofer, 2008). Thus, teacher education programmes need to adapt by incorporating ELF-aware instruction; this may include rethinking Western- minded teaching approaches, which still commonly comply with the use of standard English, and incorporating ELF-aware pedagogy that reflects present-day linguistic realities (Galloway & Rose, 2015; Jenkins, 2015a, 2015b). When immersed in ELF- informed teacher education, future teachers are given opportunities to reflect on their own convictions regarding teaching, think critically about established teaching models, and finally transform their perspectives about the role of English in contemporary times. This study suggests that teacher education programmes in Indonesia should look into an alternative pedagogical model in ELT. Considering the multilingual nature of Indonesia, the status of English must be repositioned within the nation’s linguistic ecology (Santoso, 2020; Santoso & Hamied, 2022). Therefore, the ENL teaching model should not be promoted as the only “correct” teaching approach. This requires pre-service English teachers to be made aware of other varieties of English that characterise multilinguals’ linguistic repertoire and are legitimate to be used in communication among speakers from different linguacultural backgrounds (Rerung, 2015, 2017). Furthermore, future English teachers should understand that learning should be more focused on meeting communication needs rather than on revealing the advantages and superiority of a model (Baumgardner & Brown, 2003). Drawing on the principles of ELF, Kirkpatrick (2012) has proposed a lingua franca approach for advancing ELT, particularly in the Asian context. The main concepts of this model are summarised below: (1) The ultimate aim is to exploit English effectively in multicultural ELF settings. (2) The teaching curriculum covers local/regional literature and cultures. (3) Classroom activities enable students to embrace their own values and cultures in English. (4) Teaching materials encompass linguistic variations, which reflect the speech styles employed by ELF users in Asian countries. This pedagogical approach could arguably serve as general guidance for teachers with regard to implementing ELF in their classrooms. This research provides practical implications for teacher education programmes and policy-making in the Indonesian context. Introducing ELF to teacher education programmes and incorporating ELF into the curricula are required to develop pre-service English teachers’ competence in teaching English using the ELF paradigm (Deniz et al., 2020). This can be realised by 127 exposing students to other varieties of English through the use of authentic materials. Furthermore, the integration of local values and cultures could raise students’ intercultural awareness, leading to them accepting the pluralistic nature of English in diverse sociocultural contexts. Moreover, providing students with opportunities to interact with English users from diverse sociocultural backgrounds could make them aware of the importance of intelligibility over accuracy. Therefore, they may notice the irrelevance of imitating the NES model when interacting in a multilingual environment. Nevertheless, the implementation of ELF-based teaching requires considerable effort from the relevant stakeholders, including governments, practitioners, and researchers, to find the ELF best practices suitable for a particular context. In essence, the availability of qualified teachers, teaching materials, and assessment strategies underpinned by ELF should be ensured. In this manner, the pluricentric view of English could be strategically realised in the field of ELT while taking into account the complexity and reality of present-day English use. 6 Conclusions This study revealed that the English teacher education programmes in Indonesia are still oriented towards the traditional EFL paradigm. Furthermore, it demonstrated the strong reliance on the native English speaker model in Indonesia; nevertheless, the participants were accepting of ELF and other varieties of English. Ideological rankings between native English and other varieties constrained the participants’ perceptions of ELF. The student teachers did not receive sufficient support from teacher education programmes in developing their understanding of ELF. These findings have significant implications for educational policy-making and practice, highlighting the need to integrate ELF into teacher training courses to enhance future teachers’ professional competence in implementing ELF-informed teaching. The orientation towards ELF can be realised by allowing educational institutions the option of using learning materials that expose students to different varieties of English, thereby improving their ability to use English without focusing on the NES model. With regard to teacher preparatory programmes, the results of this study suggest that such programmes need to revise their curricula to foster ELF awareness and develop teachers’ professional competence. Moreover, a critical evaluation of English-teaching methods and approaches that favour the NES learning model must be introduced into teacher training programmes to raise student teachers’ awareness of the importance of implementing the English-teaching approach suitable for local contexts. The participants in this study were limited to pre-service English teachers. Future studies could involve other educational stakeholders, such as in-service teachers and faculty members. This would allow the research in this field to benefit from multiple perspectives regarding ELF, which could enrich the discussion about the potential and challenges of implementing ELF in a specific context. Future research could also employ additional instruments, such as observation, to investigate how teachers and students use their multilingual practices with regard to ELF. Furthermore, investigating naturally occurring language practices in ELF communication could provide useful examples of how English users utilise their language repertoire to communicate strategically. 5. Acknowledgement This article is fully funded by the research grant programme at Bunda Mulia University. References Akkakoson, S. (2019). Thai language learners’ sense of English ownership. PASAA, 58, 235–263. Al-Mutairi, M. (2019). Kachru's Three Concentric Circles Model of English Language: An Overview of Criticism & the Place of Kuwait in It. English Language Teaching, 13(1), 85-88. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n1p85 Ambele, E. A., & Boonsuk, Y. (2021). Voices of learners in Thai ELT classrooms: A wake up call towards teaching English as a lingua franca. Asian Englishes, 23(2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2020.1759248 Baumgardner, R. J., & Brown, K. (2003). World Englishes: Ethics and pedagogy. World Englishes, 22(3), 245-251., 22(3), 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00294 Bayyurt, Y., & Sifakis, N. C. (2015). ELF-aware in- service teacher education: A transformative perspective. In H. Bowles, & A. Cogo (Eds.) International perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 117–135). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137398093_7 Blair, A. (2015). Evolving a post-native, multilingual model for ELF-aware teacher education. In Y. Bayyurt & S. Akcan (Eds.) Current perspectives on pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 89–102). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110335965.89 Boonsuk, Y., & Ambele, E. A. (2020). Who ‘owns English’ in our changing world? Exploring the perception of Thai university students in Thailand. Asian Englishes, 22(3), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2019.1669302 Borg, M. (2004). The apprenticeship of observation. ELT Journal, 58(3), 274–276. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.3.274 Brumfit, C. (2001). Individual freedom in language teaching. Oxford University Press. Byram, M. (2021). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n1p85 https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2020.1759248 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00294 https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137398093_7 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110335965.89 https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2019.1669302 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.3.274 128 Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800410251 Canagarajah, A. S., & Wurr, A. J. (2011). Multilingual communication and language acquisition: New research directions. The Reading Matrix, 11(1), 1–15. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ930309 Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2(2011), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110239331.1 Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2020). Teaching English through pedagogical translanguaging. World Englishes, 39(2), 300–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12462 Cochran, W. G. (1963). Sampling techniques. Wiley. Cogo, A. (2015). English as a lingua franca: Descriptions, domains and applications. In H. Bowels & A. Cogo (Eds.), International perspectives on English as a lingua franca: Pedagogical insights (pp. 1–12). Palgrave Macmillan. Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a lingua franca: A corpus-driven investigation. Continuum. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2011). Separate and flexible bilingualism in complementary schools: Multiple language practices in interrelationship. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1196–1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.006 Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, D. J. (2018). Research design (5th ed.). Sage Publication. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (2008). Two thousand million? English Today, 24(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078408000023 Curran, J. E., & Chern, C. (2017). Pre-service English teachers’ attitudes towards English as a lingua franca. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.007 Dendenne, B. (2021). Telecollaborative writing within an Algerian EFL context: Insights from the ibunka2019 project. Language Related Research, 12(3), 151–186. https://doi.org/10.29252/LRR.12.3.6 Deniz, E., Kemaloglu-Er, E., & Ozkan, Y. (2020). ELF-aware pre-service teacher education: Practices and perspectives. ELT Journal, 74, 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaa040 Dewey, M. (2012). Towards a post-normative approach: Learning the pedagogy of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1, 141– 170. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203819159 Dewey, M., & Jenkins, J. (2010). English as a Lingua Franca in the global context: Interconnectedness, variation and change. In M. Saxena and T. Omoniyi (Eds.) Contending with Globalization in World Englishes (pp. 72–92). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692764-007 Friedrich, P., & Matsuda, A. (2010). When five words are not enough: A conceptual and terminological discussion of English as a Lingua Franca. International Multilingual Research Journal, 4(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313150903500978 Galloway, N. (2017). ELF and ELT teaching materials. In J. Jenkins, M. Dewey, & W. Baker (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 468–480). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315717173 Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2014). Using listening journals to raise awareness of Global Englishes in ELT. ELT Journal, 68(4), 386–396. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu021 Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2015). Introducing Global Englishes. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315734347 Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2018). Incorporating Global Englishes into the ELT classroom. ELT Journal, 72(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx010 García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765_4 Graddol, D. (2006). Why global English may mean the end of “English as a Foreign Language. British Council. Gray, D. E. (2014). Doing research in the real world. Sage. Guerra, L., & Cavalheiro, L. (2018). When the textbook is not enough: How to shape an ELF classroom? In Nicos, Sifakis and Natasha T. (Eds.), English as a Lingua Franca for EFL contexts (pp. 117–131). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788921770-009 Hülmbauer, C., Böhringer, H., & Seidlhofer, B. (2008). Introducing English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) precursor and partner in intercultural communication. Syneriges Europe, 3, 25-36. Ishikawa, T. (2016). World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca: Conceptualising the legitimacy of Asian people’s English. Asian Englishes, 18(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2016.1171672 https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800410251 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ930309 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110239331.1 https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12462 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.006 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078408000023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.007 https://doi.org/10.29252/LRR.12.3.6 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203819159 https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692764-007 https://doi.org/10.1080/19313150903500978 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315717173 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu021 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315734347 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx010 https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765_4 https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788921770-009 https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2016.1171672 129 Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Design: From Theory to Practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260 Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2009). Exploring attitudes towards English as a Lingua Franca in the East Asian context. In K. Murata & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Global Englishes in Asian contexts (pp. 40–56). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230239531_4 Jenkins, J. (2011). Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 926–936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.011 Jenkins, J. (2012). English as a Lingua Franca from the classroom to the classroom. ELT Journal, 66(4), 486–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs040 Jenkins, J. (2015a). Global Englishes: A resource book for students (3rd ed.). Routledge. Jenkins, J. (2015b). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), 49–85. https://doi.org/10.1515/eip-2015-0003 Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), 281–315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000115 Jindapitak, N. (2019). English as an ASEAN Lingua Franca and the role of nativeness in English education in Thailand: Moving toward the ASEAN economic community (AEC). English Today, 35(2), 36–41, 35(2), 36–41. Kachru, B. (1982). The other tongue: English across cultures. University of Illinois Press. Kachru, B. (2019). World Englishes and Culture Wars. In C. L. Nelson, Z. G. Proshina, D. R. Davis (Eds.), The Handbook of World Englishes (pp. 447–471). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119147282.ch25 Khairunnisa, & Lukmana, I. (2020). Teachers’ attitudes towards translanguaging in Indonesian EFL classrooms. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan, 20(2), 254–266. Kirkpatrick, A. (2012). English as an Asian Lingua Franca: The ‘Lingua Franca approach’ and implications for language education policy. JELF, 1(1), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2012- 0006 Kirkpatrick, A. (2015). English as a Lingua Franca and educational impact in Asia. In G. Leitner, A. Hashim, & H. Wolf (Eds.), Communicating with Asia (pp. 282–295). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107477186.01 9 Kusumaningputri, R., Khazanah, D., Setiarini, R., & Sampurna, H. (2022). English as a Lingua Franca in the eyes of Indonesian in-service teachers: Attitudes and beliefs. REiLA : Journal of Research and Innovation in Language, 4(1), 101– 115. https://doi.org/10.31849/reila.v4i1.9538 Lai, M. L. (2020). “English as a Lingua Franca”: Rhetoric or reality? Attitudes of prospective English teachers in post-colonial Hong Kong. Asian Studies Review, 44(3), 494–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2019.1693977 Lin, H. (2012). Local responses to global English: Perceptions of English in Taiwan: Personal responses toward the spread of global English and its impact in Taiwan. English Today, 28(3), 67- 72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078412000119 Llurda, E. (2017). English language teachers and ELF. In J. Jenkins, M. Dewey, & W. Baker (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca (pp. 518–528). Routledge. Lopriore, L., & Vettorel, P. (2015). Promoting awareness of Englishes and ELF in the English language classroom. In H. Bowles & A. Cogo (Eds.), International perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 13–34). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137398093_2 Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. University of Chicago Press. Matsuda, A. (2012). Teaching materials in EIL. In L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu, & W. A. Renedy (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as an international language. (pp.168- 185). Routledge. McKay, S. L. (2009). Pragmatics and EIL pedagogy. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), English as an international language (pp. 227–253). Multilingual Matters. Mendoza, A. (2023). Translanguaging in the plurilingual, English-as-a-Lingua Franca classroom. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800413443 Mesthrie, R., & Bhatt, R. M. (2008). World Englishes. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791321 Moradkhani, S., & Asakereh, A. (2018). EFL teachers’ attitudes toward accent and culture in light of EIL: The case of Iranian public schools and private institutes. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1489336. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1489336 https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260 https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230239531_4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.011 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs040 https://doi.org/10.1515/eip-2015-0003 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000115 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119147282.ch25 https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2012-0006 https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2012-0006 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107477186.019 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107477186.019 https://doi.org/10.31849/reila.v4i1.9538 https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2019.1693977 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078412000119 https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137398093_2 https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800413443 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791321 https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1489336 130 Park, Y. (2022) ‘Your pronunciation is really good’: the construction of linguistic identities in ELF interactions among multilingual speakers. International Journal of Multilingualism, 19(4), 583-604, https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2020.1781131 Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. Routledge. Pennycook, A. (2014). Principled polycentrism and resourceful speakers. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 11(4), 1–19. Prabjandee, D. (2020). Teacher professional development to implement Global Englishes language teaching. Asian Englishes, 22(1), 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2019.1624931 Pudyastuti, Z. E., & Atma, N. (2014). Englishes: Indonesia EFL teachers ’s perception. Parole: Journal of Linguistics and Education, 4(1), 76– 82. https://doi.org/10.14710/parole.v4i1 Rahayu, G. (2019). Indonesia EFL teachers’ perceptions about English as Lingua Franca. LangEdu Journal, 1-14. Ramadhani, S. A. F., & Muslim, A. B. (2021). Investigating teachers’ attitudes towards teaching and learning of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) in Indonesian EFL context. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan, 21(2), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.17509/jpp.v21i2.35131 Rasman, R. (2018). To translanguage or not to translanguage? The multilingual practice in an Indonesian EFL classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(3), 687. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i3.9819 Rerung, M. K. T. (2015). Evaluating translanguaging practices in bilingual classrooms. Journal of English Language and Culture, 5(1), 133-147. http://dx.doi.org/10.30813/jelc.v5i2.280 Rerung, M. K. T. (2017). Reflecting translanguaging in classroom practices: A case study. Journal of English Language and Culture, 7(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.30813/jelc.v7i1.1019 Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research (4th ed.). Wiley. Rose, H., & Galloway, N. (2019). Second Language Learning Theory and GELT. In H. Rose, & N. Galloway (Eds.), Global Englishes for Language Teaching: Introducing Global Englishes for Language Teaching (pp. 60–78). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316678343.004 Sa’d, T., & Hatam, S. (2018). Learners’ views of (non)native speaker status, accent, and identity: an English as an international language perspective. Journal of World Languages, 5(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/21698252.2018.1500150 Sakhiyya, Z., Agustien, H. I. R., & Pratama, H. (2018). The reconceptualisation of knowledge base in the pre-service teacher education curriculum: Towards ELF pedagogy. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v8i1.11464 Santoso, W. (2020). Translanguaging through the lens of sociocultural approach: Students’ attitudes and practices. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa, 9(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.31571/bahasa.v9i1.1707 Santoso, W., & Hamied, F. A. (2022). Towards multilingual education : Pre-service English teachers’ perceptions of translanguaging pedagogy. Prosiding Konferensi Linguistik Tahunan Atma Jaya (KOLITA), 20(20), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.25170/kolita.20.3817 Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a Lingua Franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 133–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.00011 Seidlhofer, B. (2005). Key concepts in ELT: English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59(4), 339–341. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci064 Seidlhofer, B. (2008). Of norms and mindsets. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.2104/aral0833 Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford University Press. Seilhamer, M. F. (2015). The ownership of English in Taiwan. World Englishes, 34(3), 370-388. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12147 Seltzer, K., & García, O. (2020). Broadening the view: Taking up a translanguaging pedagogy with all language minoritized students. In Z, Tian, L. Aghai, P. Sayer, & J. L. Schissel (Eds.) Envisioning TESOL through a translanguaging lens: Global perspectives (pp. 23–42). http s://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47031-9_2 Si, J. (2019). English as a Lingua Franca: A New Approach for English Language Teaching in China? Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 42(1), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL- 2019-0007 Silalahi, R. M. P. (2019). Linguistic imperialism : Native-speakerism from the perspective of non- native English learners. Journal of ELT Research, 4(1), 73–84. https://journal.uhamka.ac.id/index.php/jer/article /view/3022 Silalahi, R. M. P. (2021). Nativespeakerism and world Englishes: Teacher perception towards non- https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2020.1781131 https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2019.1624931 https://doi.org/10.14710/parole.v4i1 https://doi.org/10.17509/jpp.v21i2.35131 https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i3.9819 http://dx.doi.org/10.30813/jelc.v5i2.280 http://dx.doi.org/10.30813/jelc.v7i1.1019 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316678343.004 https://doi.org/10.1080/21698252.2018.1500150 https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v8i1.11464 https://doi.org/10.31571/bahasa.v9i1.1707 https://doi.org/10.25170/kolita.20.3817 https://doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.00011 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci064 https://doi.org/10.2104/aral0833 https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12147 https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2019-0007 https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2019-0007 131 native English varieties. Journal of English Language and Culture, 11(2), 143–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.30813/jelc.v11i2.2609 Soruc, A. (2015). Non-native teachers’ attitudes towards English as a Lingua Franca. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30(1), 239–251. http://www.efdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/yonetim/icer ik/makaleler/33-published.pdf Sugiyono, P. D. (2021). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D. Alfabeta. Sung, C. C. M. (2013). English as a lingua franca and its implications for English language teaching. JALT Journal, 35(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTJJ35.2-2 Tantiniranat, S. (2019). Stars & stripes and union jack: Exploring the presence of native-speaker cultures in an English major program. Journal of Language and Culture, 38(2), 202–221. Ubaidillah, M. F. (2018). The Pedagogy of English as an International Language : Indonesian Pre- Service Teachers’ Beliefs. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 15(4), 1186–1194. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2018.15.4.23.11 86 Vettorel, P., & Lopriore, L. (2013). Is there ELF in ELT course-books? Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 483–504. Wang, L., & Fang, F. (2020). Native-speakerism policy in English language teaching revisited: Chinese university teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards native and non-native English-speaking teachers. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1778374 Wang, Y., & Jenkins, J. (2016). “Nativeness” and intelligibility: Impacts of intercultural experience through English as a Lingua Franca on Chinese speakers’ language attitudes. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 39(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2016-0003 Wen, Q. (2016). Teaching culture(s) in English as a lingua franca in Asia: dilemma and solution. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 5(1), 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2016-0008 Widdowson, H. G. (2012). ELF and the inconvenience of established concepts. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2012-0002 Xu, Z. (2018). Exploring English as an International Language – Curriculum, Materials and Pedagogical Strategies. RELC Journal, 49(1), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688217753848 Yu, M.H. (2019). Literacy skills education from the perspective of English as a Lingua Franca: A case study on Taiwanese students’ secondary English language education experience. In B. Reynolds, & M. Teng, (Eds.) English literacy instruction for Chinese speakers. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6653-6_11 Zhang, X. (2022). Investigating Student Teachers’ Perceptions of English as a Lingua Franca and Its Teaching in Mainland China. Asian Englishes, 24(3), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2021.1926647 http://dx.doi.org/10.30813/jelc.v11i2.2609 https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTJJ35.2-2 https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2018.15.4.23.1186 https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2018.15.4.23.1186 https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1778374 https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2016-0003 https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2016-0008 https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2012-0002 https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688217753848 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6653-6_11 https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2021.1926647