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. 4, No. 1, April 2022, pp. 101-115 101 English as a Lingua Franca in the Eyes of Indonesian In-service Teachers: Attitudes and Beliefs Reni Kusumaningputri *, Dewianti Khazanah, Riskia Setiarini & Hadi Sampurna Universitas Jember, Jember, Indonesia reni.fib@unej.ac.id ARTICLE HISTORY Received : 2022-02-01 Revised : 2022-04-13 Accepted : 2022-05-18 KEYWORDS Attitudes Beliefs Qualitative study English as a lingua franca Secondary in-service teachers ABSTRACT Based on the premise that teachers are at the forefront of global multilingual cultural awareness agencies, the research on their views toward English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) concepts is critical. This study investigated the attitudes and beliefs of 120 in-service secondary teachers toward ELF in Indonesia. It employed a mixed-method design. Research data was collected using a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. Thematic coding analysis was used to interpret qualitative data. The results indicated teachers' positive changes in attitudes and beliefs in five ELF categories: the presence of multilingual characters and pronunciation model used in the classroom, learning goals, the roles of language and culture, and the language used in the classroom and the assessment. Challenges to welcoming the ELF perspective in classroom practices identified in the study were government policy, parental support, and individual teachers' reflection on the current position of English in the global discourse, primarily since beliefs on the superiority of native English speakers were found to be strong. This study suggests that teachers’ awareness in designing sensitive instructions and materials to welcome lingua cultural varieties would improve the understanding of transpiring changes in the global sociolinguistic landscape. Government intervention is called for to provide cheaper and more accessible materials representing English variations. 1. Introduction English is the world’s primary lingua franca for people who do not share a first language (Kirkpatrick, 2011). Spoken by approximately 817 million speakers in Asia (Bolton & Bacon-Shone, 2020), English has a decisive role in Anglophone and non-Anglophone countries. This position of English requires teachers to be aware of its growth and praxis and critically reflect on today's position of English in their teaching and learning (Schon, 1996). Sifakis and Bayyurt (2018) assert that it is crucial for English teachers to be aware and informed about the changing landscape of English uses and the impacts it has on their teaching and learning objectives as non-native English speakers (NNES) have outnumbered native English speakers (NES). The degree of competence and expertise in English can be essential to better academic and professional opportunities for EFL learners (Curran & Chern, 2017). Thus, communicative competence that acknowledges diverse linguistic variations and cultural backgrounds must be considered. In this regard, reflecting on the challenges and opportunities of this diversity for students is a serious call (Strobbe et al., 2017). The need for having the competence to communicate with global citizens is increasingly irrefutable because people now speak English with other people from diverse cultural backgrounds. Therefore, the experience students obtain while learning English as an additional language must reflect a paradigmatic change from native English speaker code, which highlights students' preparation to communicate with native speakers only into a paradigm that encourages multilingualism where educational policies emphasise the promotion of global ownership of English (Galloway & Numajiri, 2020). Given that Asia is now the centre of gravity of English as a global lingua franca, research on the ELF perspective is required (McArthur, 2003; Sung, 2018) to show how teachers perceive English. Although research on English as a lingua franca (ELF) in Asia has flourished, the research focuses more on students' and pre-service teachers' perspectives (Curran & Chern, 2017; Ke & Cahyani, 2014; Sung, 2018; Suzuki, 2011; Wang & Jenkins, 2016). For instance, only a few studies, Luo (2016) and Young and Walsh (2010), deal with how in-service teachers see English as a lingua franca in their classroom context. These 102 studies revealed teachers' reluctance to introduce English varieties in the classroom as they believed that American and British were the standards. For instance, in Young and Walsh's study (2010), the participants welcomed ELF as a concept but not in classroom practice as they chose the standard over Englishes. In Luo's study (2016), the Taiwanese teachers mentioned that the reluctance was due to the implementation of the ELF paradigm that faced several challenges: lack of materials and learning context for ELF. These findings suggest that native- speakerism is still entrenched firmly and tainted by the attitude of in-service teachers in the expanding circle. Meanwhile, teachers are the front figures in improving the sociolinguistic awareness of multilingual cultural varieties of English uses. Thus, the investigation of in-service teachers' attitudes and beliefs about ELF is urgent to explore what changes are on the way to provide necessary profiles for policy recommendations. In the expanding circle countries where English is used for business, tourism, and educational purposes (Kachru, 1992), discussions encapsulating the voices of in-service teachers toward ELF classroom practices are scarce. It is also the case in Indonesia. To address this gap, this mixed-methods study reports on 120 Indonesian secondary in-service teachers’ beliefs and attitudes toward English as a lingua franca (ELF) to add a discussion in the context of Indonesia and to extend it to the global context, expanding the circle countries, which share similar complexities. The results of the study are expected to showcase in- service secondary teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward five principal categories in classroom practices regarding the ELF paradigm, namely the presence of multilingual characters and pronunciation model used in the classroom, the role of language and culture, the goals of learning, the language used in the classroom, and the assessment. The study further accounts for factors which shape their attitudes and beliefs on the concept of English as a lingua franca. The research questions guiding this study are as follows: a) What are the attitudes and beliefs of English teachers regarding the presence of multilingual characters and pronunciation models used in the classroom? b) What are the attitudes and beliefs of English teachers regarding the role of language and culture? c) What are the attitudes and beliefs of English teachers regarding learning goals? d) What are the attitudes and beliefs of English teachers regarding the language used in the classroom? e) What are the attitudes and beliefs of English teachers regarding the assessment? 2. Literature Review 2.1 Framing Teachers' Attitudes and Beliefs Concerning ELF-Based Perspective in Classrooms With the increasing interest in ELF, some research has investigated teachers' perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs about some ELF concepts. Regarding the issue of this research, Garret (2010) describes that attitude and belief are used interchangeably. The concept of belief also refers to attitudes, perceptions, perspectives, values, and opinions (Pajares, 1992). Alexander and Dochy (1995, as cited in Wenden, 1998) define belief as "individuals' subjective understandings, idiosyncratic truths, which are often value related and characterised by a commitment" (p. 517). It suggests that attitude and belief describe how people feel, intend, and act toward an object. Although what is known may not be true, they include what people know. The concepts also highlight the ideas of underlying personal theories about teaching, learning, and language that teachers uphold (Louw et al., 2014) and what teachers do in practice based on what they believe. Contextualising this current study, research in ELF has investigated phonology, pragmatics, lexis, grammar, and spoken ELF (Churran & Chern, 2017) and how this language system should be called forward by teachers, materials developers, schools, and government (Galloway & Rose, 2015). Therefore, several core characteristics of ELF perspectives toward teaching and learning have been identified: the presence of multilingual characters and pronunciation model used in the classroom, the role of language and culture, goals of learning, language used in the classroom, and assessment. With the objective of preparing students to be successful multilingual users of English, vital components should be present to support this idea. Language teaching materials as resources for relevant and valuable input for learners must reflect how language is used in the real world. However, English language teaching (ELT) materials still rely on the norms of native English speakers, and not many materials incorporate the global Englishes perspective (Galloway & Rose, 2015) that encapsulates the diversity and plurality of communication (Dewey, 2012). Galloway (2018) explains proposals regarding learning materials which should: 1) expose learners to authentic use of language, 2) help learners pay attention to language features of authentic input, 3) provide learners with opportunities to enable learners to achieve communicative purposes, and 4) arouse learners’ curiosity and attention. Materials should be learners' context-sensitive in that the local variety of English should not be avoided. They should increase exposure to a diversity of English use worldwide and promote discussions on the globalisation of English. Following these, the goal of learning reflected in the 103 traditional ELT materials should be re-appropriated (McGarth, 2013) to enable learners to become successful communicators both with non-native English speakers (NNES) and native English speakers (NES) (Jenkins, Cogo, & Dewey, 2011; Galloway & Rose, 2015). Materials should promote intelligibility and mutual understanding as opposed to achieving NES speakers’ proficiency. In terms of the presence of multilingual characters in the textbooks, materials should represent balanced NES and NNES figures and cultural representation and how they are described to guarantee that the textbooks welcome varied speakers globally and avoid the dominance of NES (Rose & Galloway, 2019). Next, they include the use of audio for listening that represents various NNESs (Galloway, 2018). Deterding (2013), for instance, summarises some pronunciation features that are intelligibility- tolerant, of which the communications do not present difficulties for interlocutors. It underlines the notion that English users do not have to pronounce native- like English but internationally intelligible English (Kirkpatrick, 2013). Some strategies, for instance, accommodation repetition, paraphrasing, using no idiomatic expressions (Jenkins 2002, 2007, 2017), and translanguaging (Cenoz, 2019), are strategies to succeed in effective communication. These should be seen in classroom practices where the uses of English should project an awareness of learners' own and their interlocutors' discourse practices and promote flexibility in communication drawing on plurilingual resources (Galloway, 2018). Multilingual and multicultural language users are those who use English as a lingua franca. The fact that ELF communication is characterised by fluidity, hybridity, and diversity as the norms highlight the incorporation of intercultural awareness (ICA) (Baker, 2015a). As communication is a cultural and social practice, it involves the representation of the self within dialogues of transcultural speakers. From the ELF perspective, communication must encourage negotiation of meaning and accept individuals’ cultural identities, such as speaking with a local accent and applying a certain pragmatic set of speech acts. Therefore, building knowledge, skills and attitude of learners' ICA should be promoted in the classroom (Kusumaningputri & Widodo, 2018). The sociolinguistic realities of English used in the world drive assessments to re-appropriate themselves in the nature of language proficiency and assessment (Harding & McNamara, 2018). In listening and speaking, language competence refers to the ability to tolerate and comprehend different varieties, accents, syntactic forms, and discourse styles (Canagarajah, 2006; Harding, 2012). ELF is linguistically understood as a contact language of different first- language speakers; it is obviously not a fixed code where uniformity is the norm. According to ELF, this suggests that language proficiency assessment lies more on the ability to negotiate diversity and be open to more choices than reducing the meaning-making into one set of rules (NES rule). As culture is strongly tied to language and its use, understanding the lingual and cultural differences could be bridged by getting closer to the local backgrounds. This is why sensitive and diverse local cultural representations should be apparent, for example, in reading texts and writing activities. 2.2 English in The Indonesian Secondary School Context As one of the founding members of ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations), Indonesia acknowledges English as the language of communication among the member countries. Consequently, English became an official foreign language as stated in Presidential Decree No 28/1990. Further, in the 2003 National Educational System Act, English is required in grades 7-12 and an optional subject at the primary level (Hamied, 2012). The increasing role of English in Indonesia is strengthened by social mobility, economy and global participation (Zein, Sukyadi, Hamied, & Lengkanawati, 2020). Indonesia’s secondary level of education comprises Sekolah Menengah Pertama (junior high school) (SMP) and Sekolah Menengah Atas (senior high school) (SMA), Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan (vocational high school) (SMK) under the administration of Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology and Madrasah Tsanawiyah and Madrasah Aliyah under Ministry of Religious Affairs. English is typically taught for 2-6 school hours per week. English in Indonesia is situated in a multilingual and multicultural context where some language practices, for instance, code-switching and code- mixing, commonly take place inside and outside classrooms (Kirkpatrick & Sussex, 2012, p.2). However, diverse multilingual and multicultural values within ELT practices are still underrepresented. Research on the representation of multicultural and multilingual values in a nationally adopted English textbook for Grade XII by Setyono and Widodo (2019) revealed that NNESs’ cultures, for instance, Asian and African cultures, were lacking. Although multicultural values from Indonesia are present, the other cultures represented belong to NESs. This finding shows that the goal of presenting intercultural competence in the secondary schools' curriculum is not prioritised as NNES countries are disproportionally represented (Putra, Rochsantiningsih, & Supriyadi, 2020). In speaking and pronunciation areas, Indonesian pre-service teachers in Zacharia's study (2016) believed that native-like pronunciation was preferred because it projected a higher value. In the same vein, the study of Pudyastuti and Atma (2014) with 22 teachers (secondary teachers and upper secondary school 104 teachers who were taking MA) revealed reluctant adoption of the ELF perspective. Although they agreed on the importance of knowing and teaching Englishes to their students, they were unsure that the students were ready. These findings suggest that in the area of assessment, especially in relation to speaking and pronunciation, the NES-oriented perspective is still deeply ingrained. To this date, the exploration of teachers’ responses toward English as a Lingua Franca aspect in expanding circle countries has shown the dynamic, fluid, sensitive (Garret, 2010), and interdependent nature (Jenkins, 2007) with the social context of the environment where attitude is being evaluated. In the context of Indonesia, the environment seems to contradict; the multicultural and multilingual context of the country should enhance the awareness. Nevertheless, native-speakerism seems to be strongly entrenched in educational practices. This study, thus, answers the question of how Indonesian English teachers’ attitudes toward ELF are situated amidst the results of more global attitudinal studies and whether or not specific shifts have taken place in the Indonesian context. 3. Method This study employed the mixed methods design using a sequentially explanatory design (Creswell, Plano Clark, Guttman, & Hanson, 2003; Kim, 2013) to explore the attitudes and beliefs of a cross-section of people (Dornyei, 2007). In this case, 120 English teachers (89 females and 31 males). The study investigates in-service teachers' attitudes and beliefs toward ELF concepts. Hence, the certificate of profession issued by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology was used as the main criterion to comply with while selecting the participants. There were 52 Junior high school and/or Madrasah Tsanawiyah teachers and 68 senior high schools and/or Madrasah Aliyah teachers from 60 different regions in 14 provinces (Table 3.1) in Indonesia participating in this study. Table 3.1 Participants’ origins No. Province 1. Aceh 2. Jawa Timur 3. Jawa Barat 4. Jawa Tengah 5. Nusa Tenggara Barat 6. Sulawesi Tenggara 7. Sulawesi Utara 8. DI. Yogyakarta 9. Banten 10 Kalimantan Timur 11. Kalimantan Barat 12. Sumatra Utara 13. Bali 14. Maluku Based on their educational backgrounds, 97 teachers had an undergraduate degree, and 23 teachers had a graduate degree in TESOL. They have been teaching English for 1-34 years and were between 22 and 61 years old. Table 3.2 ELF-related principles No. Name of category Questionnaire item number 1. Presence of multilingual characters and pronunciation model used in classroom materials 1, 2, 5, 7, 16, 18, 19 2. Goals of learning English 3, 4, 6, 14, 23 3. The role of language and culture in the classroom 8, 9, 15 4. The language used in the classroom 10, 12 5. Assessment 11, 13, 17, 20, 21, 22 The participants for the quantitative data collection stage were recruited using convenience sampling. This sampling technique was used due to the accessibility and the willingness motive of the participants to join the study (Teddlie & Yu, 2007), which enabled the researchers to recruit a proportionate number of participants. The participants in the qualitative stage were recruited using the nested sequential collection method (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2017), where several representative participants were recruited from the participants in the quantitative stage for other facets of investigation (understanding 105 the driving reasons for such attitudes and beliefs). They were representatives of two polarised trends of data (positive and negative ends of the attitudes and beliefs toward ELF concepts). The quantitative strand is used to show frequency, percentage, and beliefs toward the five categories of ELF-related principles, as presented in table 2. The questionnaire used in this study was adapted from Curran and Chern (2017). Initially, it comprised four categories: different models of English, the use of English for communication, the role of language and culture in the English classroom, and the language used in the classroom. In this current study, the questionnaire was adapted and expanded to reveal teachers’ attitudes and beliefs on the presence of multilingual characters in the learning materials and on the assessment. In category 1, we explored participants' perceptions of teaching materials which are exposed to students on the issue of the presence of multilingual characters. Therefore, we modified the items. An item questioning NES as a role model for proficient English speakers was not included, but we asked it in the interviews as an effort to gain further insights. Meanwhile, questions in category five were based on relevant references in the assessment area with the perspective of English as a Lingua Franca. In addition, the qualitative strand was used to explain what and how the factors influence the teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward the concept of ELF based on the quantitative data. The questionnaire was a five-point Likert scale questionnaire containing 23 statements. The participants were asked to rank on a scale of 1 to 5: 1 represents strongly agree, and 5 represents strongly disagree. Prior to the distribution of the questionnaire, a professor who is an expert in curriculum and ELF studies and familiar with Indonesian education was asked to comment and give feedback on the statements used. After gaining the participants' approval, the questionnaire was administered online. The researchers contacted several teachers from each region and asked them to share the questionnaire web address. The questionnaire was open for 3 months. Following the questionnaire is the qualitative strand of this mixed-methods study which will use data from interviews. The participants selected for the interviews were a subset of the participants selected for the questionnaire. They were given questions about factors influencing teachers' attitudes and beliefs toward the concept of ELF and how the factors shape their attitudes. The interview focused on whether their attitude is affected by their own experiences in teaching, their reflection toward language varieties/models phenomena, school policy, and how those factors influenced their attitude in classroom contexts. Using the quantitative data, the interviews were aimed at exploring the reasons underlying the participants' choice of the statements. Using the biography of the participants, we made a list of participants who represented two polarised answer trends of agreeing and disagreeing with the statement in each category. By doing this, we could represent two opposed representatives. Twenty-seven participants agreed to join the interview via face-to- face discussions, phone calls, and online (via WhatsApp). Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes 2-3 times and was carried out in Bahasa Indonesia upon the participants' request. Follow-up interviews were held with the participants for further clarification. All the excerpts of the interview were translated and transcribed into English. The researchers commenced data analysis at the time of data collection. Upon the collection of the questionnaire, statistical analysis was performed to generate the mean score of each statement. Each statement on the five-point Likert scale was scored according to the participants' selection of value, i.e., from 1 to 5 points. The mean and percentages of each statement were used to describe the participants' preferences toward the statements. These data were subjects to close analysis. Using the results obtained from the questionnaire, the researchers carried out interviews to explore the reasons behind their attitudes and beliefs, the intricacies of the pros and cons, and the practices in their classrooms. The interviews were transcribed, tabulated, and coded/ themed. Using thematic coding analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012), the data were classified based on patterned responses or meanings in what factors contribute to the participants’ attitudes and beliefs toward the concept of ELF and how these factors shape their attitudes and what they believe. 4. Results The present study is an attempt to investigate the attitudes and beliefs of Indonesian secondary language teachers toward the issue related to ELF concepts within five categories. The results of descriptive statistical analysis and interview are presented to describe the overall attitudes and beliefs held by the participants about the five categories of ELF-related concepts, namely the presence of multilingual characters and pronunciation model used in the classroom, the role of language and culture, goals of learning, language used in the classroom, and assessment. In reporting the results, examples of participants' responses to the interviews, which are representative and perceptibly deep in each category, are shown in order to clarify and explore the issues. The excerpts of the teachers' responses are presented anonymously. 4.1 Presence of Multilingual Characters and Pronunciation Model Used in Classroom Material 106 Table 4.1 Presence of multilingual characters and pronunciation model used in classroom materials Statements In-service teachers (N=120) Distribution of answers to each statement Mean StD SA A U D SD 1. I think English teaching materials should only use native-speaker models (e.g., native speakers’ model of politeness) 3.00 1.04 Frequency 6 40 28 40 6 Percentage 5% 33.3% 23.3% 33.3% 5% 2. I think English teaching materials should include more characters of non- native speakers of English 2.46 1.08 Frequency 21 52 23 19 5 Percentage 17.5% 43.3% 19.2% 15.8% 4.2% 5. I think students should only listen to pronunciation models produced by native speakers of English 2.88 1.19 Frequency 15 39 21 36 9 Percentage 12.5% 32.5% 17.5% 30% 7.5% 7. I think it is confusing to introduce students to many different English accents in class. 2.82 1.17 Frequency 19 32 27 36 6 Percentage 15.8% 26.7% 22.5% 30% 5% 16. I think it is important that classroom materials provide a single model of English, either American or British. 2.76 1.01 Frequency 21 33 21 44 1 Percentage 17.5% 27.5% 17.5% 36.6% 0.8% 18. I think it is important that students try to sound like native speakers of English. 2.43 1.10 Frequency 22 56 13 26 3 Percentage 18.3% 46.7% 10.8% 21.6% 2.5% 19. I think English teaching materials should only use native speaker characters 3.14 1.05 Frequency 9 23 38 42 8 Percentage 7.5% 19.2% 31.6% 35% 6.6% Referring to Table 4.1, the presence of multicultural characters in the materials was responded to quite positively (statements 2 and 19). At the same time, in the aspect of the pronunciation model, the participants favour the Native English Speaker (NES) model over the Non-Native English Speaker’s (NNES) (statements 1, 5, 7, 16, and 18). In the interviews, the participants explained that the idea of including more multilingual and multicultural characters was not new because English textbooks produced by the government and non-government publishers involved Indonesian characters who were multi ethnics. This leads to their acceptance of the inclusion of NNES figures other than Indonesians, i.e., Koreans, Japanese, Singaporeans, or Malaysians. The notion of promoting NNES' accent was not responded to strongly, as shown in statements 1, 5, 7, 16, and 18. Statements 5 and 16 received 45% agreement on whether students should take listening materials using native English pronunciation only, and statements 7 and 18 showed the participants’ persistence in keeping one model of pronunciation: the NES. These numbers indicate low acceptance of ELF perspectives in the area of accents. One of the participants shared his view. “The prescribed book does not provide varieties of English. The audio materials were always American, British or local Indonesians. It was possible to get a variety of English, but usually, the books cost high. Parents would protest. You know… students usually must have LKS (Lembar Kerja Siswa –Students workbook) to take home. As a win-win solution, teachers chose a workbook that was not expensive, but sadly the audio was usually poor.” (teacher vignette #1) The promotion of Englishes is challenged by the availability and affordability of supporting learning books for students. The audio materials for listening activities in the mandated textbooks were more NES oriented. Parents' ability to provide books where various accents could be exemplified is one of the predicaments. These books cost much because usually they were produced abroad. Teachers were also complicated by the government stating that all schools have to use the textbook, although having non-government published books are also not prohibited. The problem lies on the side of parents and teachers. "Usually, parents reserved to pay for more books because they believed that the textbook is enough, although we know that the book lacks some aspects we could not burden parents, especially those who were financially difficult" (teacher vignette #2) In addition, statement 7 showed some teachers' reluctance to introduce many accents because they believed that students had striven for their 'basic competence' of English, such as to have more vocabulary and to be able to memorise and use it correctly, to apply 'basic grammar' correctly such as the addition of –s for a third person subject in present tense or to memorise the preterite verbs to express events in the past. In the eyes of the participants, Indonesian secondary students faced significant challenges in mastering English grammar and structure because Bahasa Indonesia's structure is different. One of the participants observed. 107 “I think my students would get confused if they listen to many different accents. Getting used to listening to one accent is already difficult. I do not want to add more difficulties. Moreover, they have many more to deal with like grammar and structure". (teacher vignette #3) 4.2 Goals of language learning Table 4.2 Goals of learning The results presented in Table 4.2 show the teachers’ belief that preparing students to communicate with NES is more important than communicating with the NNES. It also shows the teachers' inclination to the use of native-like linguistic norms such as pragmatic patterns as a fixed model to mimic and on the NES speaking model. In the interview, one of them shared his perspective. “Speaking like NES is definitely a goal because if you could sound like them, you will not get any problems talking with anyone in the world” (teacher vignette #4) Another interview revealed the participants' reasons for such favouritism. They mentioned that they were taught to model NES and felt that it was right and that NESs sound more "intelligent, smooth, and valid". However, table 4 also (statement 14, 23) indicates positive attitudes toward the idea of being able to communicate with "all people" (NES and NNES) as a crucial goal. It seems to be conflicting with the result of statement 6, which showed that preparing to converse with NNES was not responded enthusiastically. This may be stemmed from the teachers’ belief about who will be the students’ target interlocutor. In the interviews, some teachers had different views. Teachers from schools where most of the students had the experience of going abroad for holidays and had previous contact with English speakers from Anglophone and Non-Anglophone countries such as China, Germany, the US, and the UK had a more positive attitude toward welcoming Englishes. One of the participants shared stories about her students coming home from having holidays in Hongkong and Singapore and discussed with her about English that they listened to and how the people used English. They realised that English has many variations, and all are used in communication. Reflecting on the experiences, the teacher decided not to impose students to struggle for sounding like NESs. “Well…my English is Javanese English, I could not force my students to sound like native English speakers because I do not. So, I think learning focuses on when you get understood by your interlocutors". (teacher vignette #5) Another goal of language learning (statement 14) relates to the importance of having the ability to interact interculturally. The participants (78.8%) believed that discussions on intercultural differences and the awareness of this notion were significant, although they admitted there was no assessment specific for intercultural competence. "I like it that the textbook touches on differences we (Indonesian and other cultures) have. As teachers, we need to relate to this important core. What I did in the classroom usually I show how things are different in Indonesia and other cultures, such as the US. But there was no specific assessment for it” (teacher vignette #6) Statements In-service teachers (N=120) Distribution of answers to each statement Mean StD SA A U D SD 3. I think students must learn ways to communicate with native speakers. 2.06 1.12 Frequency 45 46 7 20 2 Percentage 37.5% 38.3% 5.8% 16.6% 1.6% 4. I think Indonesian students should look up to native speakers of English as role models to speak and behave linguistically. 2.48 1.08 Frequency 22 66 12 22 4 Percentage 18.3% 55% 10% 18.3% 3.3% 6. I think an important focus of an English program should be to prepare students for communications with people who are not English native speakers. 2.70 0.97 Frequency 11 43 37 27 2 Percentage 9.2% 35.8% 30.8% 22.5% 1.6% 14. I think an awareness of intercultural differences and discussions on the differences are important goals in classroom learning. 2.13 0.97 Frequency 30 61 17 8 4 Percentage 25% 50.8% 14.2% 6.7% 3.3% 23. I think the major focus of an English program should be teaching students to use the language in real- life communication. 2.12 1.18 Frequency 41 53 4 15 7 Percentage 34.2% 44.2% 3.3% 12.5% 5.8% 108 4.3 The Role of The English Language and Culture Table 4.3 Role of English language and culture The results of three statements asking about in- service teachers' attitudes and beliefs toward English and culture are presented in table 4.3. Generally, the teachers revealed positive attitudes and beliefs on the importance of English to express their home culture and mediating the cultural exchanges with both NES and NNES. Statement 8, making use of English to share information about participants’ culture, received the highest means over all five categories. It shows their strong recognition of the role of English at home and target culture exposures. Some participants reflected. “English is very much needed, such as when students interact with foreigners so they can explain and represent their self and culture. This is also important for them to help foreigners understand Indonesian culture to bridge understanding”. (teacher vignette #7) “The more we told the students to write or tell about Indonesia in English, the more they put effort into it. It makes them learn more about the culture of Indonesia and at the same time grow to respect and pride toward themselves as Indonesian citizens". (teacher vignette #8) The interviews suggest that English was seen as an intercultural lingua franca. Students display excitement when using English to promote their culture. It shows that students invest more in it when English is used to articulate their local culture. 4.4 Language used in the classroom Table 4.4 Language used in the classroom Statements In-service teachers (N=120) Distribution of answers to each statement Mean StD SA A U D SD 8. I think it is important that students can use English to share information about their own culture and traditions. 1.9 1.14 Frequency 58 39 3 17 3 Percentage 48.3% 32.5% 2.5% 14.2% 2.5% 9. I think it is important that students become familiar with the culture and traditions of native speakers of English. 2.11 1.02 Frequency 26 61 14 16 3 Percentage 21.6% 50.8% 11.7% 13.3% 2.5% 15. I think it is important that English teachers help students to better understand exchange students or people from other countries with whom they are likely to use English. 2.11 0.93 Frequency 30 61 17 10 2 Percentage 25% 50.8% 14.2% 12% 1.6% Statements In-service teachers (N=120) Distribution of answers to each statement Mean StD SA A U D SD 10. I think English should be used as the only medium of instruction in English language classes. 2.93 1.05 Frequency 7 43 27 37 6 Percentage 5.8% 35.8% 22.5% 30.8% 5% 12. I think a bilingual approach where Indonesian is used as a support in English language classes is more effective for Indonesian students. 2.29 0.97 Frequency 21 64 16 17 2 Percentage 17.5% 53.3% 13.3% 14.2% 1.6% 109 Table 4.4 indicates that teachers' view on the bilingual approach is more effective for classroom communication compared to the monolingual, English only approach. One of the teachers shared the following attitude: "I switched to Bahasa Indonesia whenever I saw my students lost in the concepts. But, I did not do it all the time in all grades. The higher their grade, the more I used English. This was to train them to speak English and get used to listening to English. I also expected that students with good potential could speak the way native English speakers do". (teacher vignette #9) Referring to the interview, teachers showed support for the idea of embracing students' all linguistic resources to create effective and successful learning. However, the interview also indicates that teachers target students reaching native speakers' standards the more proficient they become. It shows that native speakerism is a deeply-rooted culture in Indonesian classroom discourse. Teachers' bias over the native English speakers was manifested in their obsession with making native speakers a standard. 4.5 Assessment Table 4.5 Assessment Table 4.5 recaps the statements which tapped in- service teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward assessment. Generally, more participants expressed their agreement with the ELF category of assessment. Around 62.5% of the participants agreed that the listening test should incorporate many varieties of English, not only that of NESs. Despite these positive attitudes and beliefs, the finding on accent preference was conflicting. A teacher explained. “I guess students’ body of Indonesian schools comprises individuals with low to medium proficiency. So, to have a standard of assessment to have NESs' accents is impossible because I think both students and teachers do not have time to take care of the accents. Teachers focused more on how students would be able to say something in English”. (teacher vignette #10) "In the speaking assessment, we usually focused more on how students communicate their message, not their accents. The accent is number two or three. However, if they could speak English with a native-like accent, students would get better grades". (teacher vignette #11) From the answers, despite teachers' reflection on the reality that imposing an NES accent was impossible, they secretly favoured NES. They were at a crossroads as more participants favoured NES accents in the speaking test but wished for more variations in listening tests. This choice of Statements In-service teachers (N=120) Distribution of answers to each statement Mean StD SA A U D SD 11. I think reading texts in the classroom should promote sensitivity in the choice of cultural content in the text and respect for local culture. 2.16 0.99 Frequency 30 58 17 12 3 Percentage 25% 48.3% 14.2% 10% 2.5% 13. I think materials for listening tests should incorporate varieties other than the ones of the native speakers’. 2.46 0.97 Frequency 14 61 24 18 3 Percentage 11.7% 50.8% 20% 15% 2.5% 16. I think teachers should allow students to use repetition, paraphrasing, code-switching, and adjust their speech to be more intelligible in speaking activities to avoid misunderstanding. 2.13 1.06 Frequency 34 58 10 14 4 Percentage 28.3% 48.3% 8.3% 11.7% 3.3% 20. I think it is important for students to showcase their cultural identity when speaking English. 2.17 1.02 Frequency 32 54 19 12 3 Percentage 26.7% 45% 15.8% 10% 2.5% 21. I think it is important that students are encouraged to use Indonesian cultural products to express their identity in writing. 2.25 1.05 Frequency 29 54 18 16 3 Percentage 24.2% 45% 15% 13.3% 2.5% 22. I think it is important to correct students' accents to comply with native speakers' accents. 2.72 1.08 Frequency 14 44 29 28 5 Percentage 11.7% 36.7% 24.2% 23.3% 4.2% 102 assessment for their students might be because of the easiness of referring to NES standard (Murata & Jenkins, 2009; Sung, 2018) as materials nationally endorsed by MOEC have very few NNES variations other than Indonesian. The non-existence of MOEC has challenged teachers' reflection on this reality approved language assessment, realising the ELF idea. Additionally, for teachers who leaned more toward ELF concepts for accents, their attitude was more caused by their in-classroom students' realities. Having students speak is more important than taking care of accents to suit NES. Statements 11, 17, 20, and 21 showed the participants' strong beliefs and attitudes toward the acceptance of multilingual cultures to be promoted in the reading texts, present in students' product of writing and acknowledged in their speaking. With an average mean of 2.13 – 2.46, these four statements reveal the participants' awareness of the concept of locality and cultural pride in the assessment. With these in the participants' minds, it is more likely that they would act openly to some ELF notions in the assessment. The uses of repetition, paraphrasing, code-switching, and adjusting speech to be more intelligible to overcome misunderstanding received strong preference. In the interview, some participants pinpointed that the code-switching strategy is helpful, especially when working with low-proficient students. 6. Discussion This study discloses Indonesian secondary teachers' positive support to ELF in the areas of the presence of multilingual characters in materials, goals to communicate with international speakers, both Native English Speakers (NESs) and Non- Native English Speakers (NNESs), the bilingual/multilingual approach to language classroom practice, the role of English to mediate intercultural exchanges and ELF-based assessments which cater multilingual and cultural resources to be present and acknowledged in the tests. However, the findings also reveal the resistance toward Englishes, mainly in the area of pronunciation and speaking models. Such a preference to conform to NESs’ pronunciation is commonly found in the context of education in expanding circle countries, such as Sa’d (2018) in Iran and Zhang (2021) in China. Their findings showed that the strong positive evaluation that Iranian and Chinese language users had toward NES pronunciation sources from the fear of negative evaluation by the NESs and their belief that the sole rightful owners of English are NESs making the NESs the legitimate model and NNESs’ model as forever inferior. Such attitudes were also found in studies on the attitudes and beliefs of teachers and other language users in the outer circle (Lai, 2020; Chan, 2019). The findings revealed that NES pronunciation possessed high status in academic and professional contexts. It suggests that NES's pronunciation and accents strongly lingered in the mind of the users in these circles. In this study, though NES pronunciation and speaking model are admittedly unattainable by teachers, they are perceived as ideal because the NESs’ variety is the one used as the anchor for the national examination. Teachers try to cultivate the students with this variety due to its paramount effect on the school's name. The lack of the availability and affordability of lingual and cultural resources of other English varieties in the materials also contributes to this challenge. The books which promote Englishes and multicultural characters are usually imported books; thus, multiple the prices by a lot. This contributes to the lack of exposure to ELF-driven materials. The affordability of materials is critical in encouraging multilingual pronunciation and speaking models. In the category of goals of learning, teachers' attitudes and beliefs reveal less enthusiasm for ELF cores which stress the importance of being able to communicate with diverse multilingual instead of NES only. The interviews indicated that NES was preferred because teachers believed nobody would face difficulties communicating with anyone if they used English as native speakers do. This reflects their belief that NES’s norms have universal intelligibility and comprehensibility that will work in any type of intercultural communication where English is used as a lingua franca. Such belief is misleading because using NES norms as the only model degrades sensitivity to variations that are at play in intercultural interactions, i.e., different speech act functions manifesting in different cultural groups. Jung (2010) stresses the importance of cultural competence and speech act functions to attain comprehensibility. Attitudes which reflect their admiration of English of native speakers stemmed from their past; their teachers-imposed beliefs that the English of the native speakers equals intelligence, valid, and supreme. Positive attitudes and beliefs of ELF cores with learning goals were only apparent from teachers who reflected on the existence of variations of English. Intercultural contacts they made with NNES and the students’ reflections on Englishes conveyed to teachers were sources of openness to welcome Englishes. Awareness of multilingual cultural realities that dynamically shape English uses will not be visible until it is systematically introduced and familiarised. Studies on English textbooks in the expanding circle, for instance, Nguyen, Marlina, and Cao (2020), Setyono and Widodo (2019), and Syrbe and Rose (2018), showed less multilingual cultural representations in the textbooks for, in fact, it is paramount for building on responses toward the changing sociolinguistic realities of English uses. 103 This fact slows down the successful global communication skills of students. Some other complexities driving reasons why ELF perspective is not yet coming to the fruitful results are found to be the acclaimed standardised tests which account for a successful future scholarship which still reflects NES standard (Jenkins & Leung, 2019), and non- welcoming orientation in curriculum and materials (Widodo & Fang, 2019). Despite these challenges, we believe that a strong potential to accelerate Indonesian students’ global communication competence lies in the attitude of high tolerance for differences. Tolerance of diversity is the Indonesian principle stemming from the acceptance of diversity of ethnicities inherited from the founding fathers’ spirit and commitment. This important capital leverages the ELF paradigm to be manifested in social discourse practices. Increasing the importance of noticing multilingual, multiethnic, and multicultural realities would lead to the acceptance of multilingualism as reality and the enhancement of culturally responsive literacy (Porto, 2010). This is to say that promotion of (multi)cultural awareness is a backbone toward an understanding of the diverse, dynamic, hybrid, multilayered culture of the world (Baker, 2015b; Sercu, 2006). As a matter of fact, the expanding circle countries in Asia are usually very rich and diverse in cultural representations (Widodo, Wood, & Gupta, 2017). Thus, intercultural responsive behaviour, skills, and attitude would likely speed up the rise of awareness of social equality (Hu & McKay, 2014) by standing against linguistic imperialism and NES hegemony. This highlights a call for curriculum makers and materials writers to promote the ELF paradigm from the issue of Intercultural Communication. In the role of the English language and culture category, the study recorded the strongest positive attitudes and beliefs of all categories (see table 4.3). Culture is seen as an expression of identity, and English is seen as a tool to connect with different individuals and cultures. Intercultural understanding through home cultures’ description accounts for students’ high English uses, as was reported by teachers during the interviews. This English use in intercultural communication is likely English as a global lingua franca (Ishikawa, 2017) which takes place in a multilingual and multicultural society. Students' joy to share Indonesian cultures can be taken further to prepare them to communicate in actual interactions involving skills to make contact with multilingual users, including their language use/language varieties and cultures, which naturally are fluid, hybrid, and constantly changing (Larsen- Freeman, 2011). In doing so, promotion to acknowledge multilingualism as a norm and consequently to get used to different ways of using English as one of the languages at play in IC should be systematically ensured. In the classroom practices, for instance, student-teacher interactions should practice accommodation strategies such as shuttling between languages in the process of teaching and learning to maximise understanding and language acquisition. Such alternating language strategy is called translanguaging (see Cenoz, 2019; Cenoz & Gorter, 2017). Sifakis (2017) asserts that language and language use awareness are significant components of the building block of efficient interaction with multilingual where English is one of the languages. Knowledge of features of syntax, morphology, lexis, phonology, discourse-pragmatic, and socio-cultural elements of English produced by NNES goes hand in hand with the goal of intercultural communication. In terms of accent in speaking and assessment, the results of this study showed favouritism toward NESs. Although in-service teachers rated NESs' accent as not a must, they believed it was superior. The causes of this entrenched belief are the strong hegemony of native-speakerism and the comparison of standards between NESs and other varieties. We share a view with Harding and McNamara (2018) that the existing assessment is wrongly focused on judging against stable varieties, NES varieties, and legitimised L2 varieties. This is what makes native- speakerism persist, and multilingualism as a property of every speaker is silenced. The problems shall be responded to by altering what to be assessed for speaking skills. Features defining ELF lie in the English used with its linguistic, pragmatic, and cultural flexibility as a means of communication appropriated by the speakers within a specific situation of communication (Seidlhofer, 2011; Mauranen, 2012; Jenkins, 2015). What matters in classroom practice and broader scope, therefore, is preparing language users to be able to operate in contexts with many meaning-making signs (Garcıa & Wei, 2014: 42; Sifakis, 2017), including different accents. A holistic rubric proposed by Harding (2015) includes accommodation, negotiation, and maintaining smooth interaction competence to be facilitated in language assessment, for in fact, these also tap intercultural competence. With in-service teachers’ attitude shown in this study, which is more open toward strategic competence of using code-switching and L1 terms in their students’ language productions, the focus of language assessment will be on the individuals’ ability for language use (Harding & McNamara, 2018). There are two implications which could be drawn from this study. Firstly, teachers' professional development (PD) needs to mediate reflection on the existence of Englishes and empower teachers to design sensitive instructions in classrooms which present lingua cultural differences. PD, which becomes the only formal arena to engage with 104 language and teaching development, should, as Matsumoto's (2011) advice, introduce multi competence differences of not only NES-NNES but also ELF interactions and ELF speakers' accents. They may design tasks that sharpen students' understanding of English varieties in real-world communication with this power. Secondly, more steady and stronger impacts on the beliefs and attitudes of teachers should be warranted by the government by making significant changes to the inclusion of variations (e.g., pragmatics, morphology, syntax, collocation, lexis) of English used by NNESs in the materials and providing an assessment rubric which corresponds to the ELF concepts being highlighted. Materials and instruction should provide sections where the introductions toward different cultures do not only include cultural differences and similarities of locals with NESs and NNESs but also critically examine the cultural differences and similarities to tap into intercultural understanding. This could initiate a greater comprehension and respect for differences which open more spaces for the acceptance of pluralism and hybridity, as noted by Baker (2015b). Additionally, materials and assessments should model students with knowledge and skills to respond to the differences. 7. Conclusion This study contributes to the understanding of attitudes and beliefs of language teachers in expanding circle in regard to ELF concepts. To this date, research conducted in this circle has resounded a similar profile, that the teachers have been in an on and off relationship with ELF. This study shows that the push and pull between teachers’ wants to embody the ideal NES standard and to welcome the use of English based on the global sociolinguistic realities have put them in complexity, i.e. the belief to mimic NESs’ pronunciation that they realised is unattainable; the aspiration to use NESs’ norms in intercultural communication although the reflection of the home culture is desired. A positive trend has been identified in these complexities recorded in the study. Although the hegemony of native-speakerism is still present firmly in the area of pronunciation and speaking models, attitudes and beliefs on welcoming multiculturalism are found in teachers' classroom practices. The willingness and expectation of welcoming more various multicultural characters in the materials, students' excitement to resonate with their home culture in English, and the wants for intercultural exchanges are strong predictors of ELF acceptance. This study contributes to understanding the challenges to adopting ELF as experienced by teachers, including the one factor that has been long overlooked in many studies, which is parents’ affordability to buy ELF driven materials for their children. Another challenge is that teachers’ reflection on the changing landscape of English uses and its consequences are not systematically nurtured; it comes to them sporadically. Consequently, the awareness of the significance of ELF concepts grows slowly. 8. Acknowledgement We thank the participants who voluntarily joined the survey and interviews. This study was sponsored by the Center of Research and Community Service, University of Jember, Indonesia, under Grant 2845. References Baker, W. (2015a). Culture and identity through English as a lingua franca: rethinking concepts and goals in intercultural communication. De Gruyter Mouton. Baker, W. (2015b). Culture and complexity through English as a lingua franca: rethinking competences and pedagogy in ELT. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(1), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2015-0005 Bolton, K., & Bacon-Shone, J. (2020). The statistics of English across Asia. In K. Bolton, W. Botha., & A. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The handbook of Asian Englishes (pp. 49-80). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118791882.ch3 Braun, V, & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic Analysis. In H. Cooper (Ed.), APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology (pp. 57-71). The American Psychological Association. Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Negotiating the local in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190506000109 Cenoz, J. (2019). Translanguaging pedagogies and English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 52(1), 71-85. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0261444817000246 Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2017). Translanguaging as a pedagogical tool in multilingual education. In J. Cenoz, D. Gorter., & S, May (Eds.), Language awareness and multilingualism (pp. 309-321). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 02240-6_20 Chan, J. Y. H. (2019). The choice of English pronunciation goals: different views, experiences and concerns of students, teachers and professionals, Asian Englishes, 21(3), 264- 284. https://10.1080/13488678.2018.1482436 Cogo, A. (2009). Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of pragmatic strategies. In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a Lingua Franca. Studies and Findings (pp. 254- 273). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2015-0005 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190506000109 https://10.0.4.56/13488678.2018.1482436 105 Cogo, A. & M. Dewey. (2006). Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives to lexico-grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 59–93. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Guttman, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences (pp. 209–40). Sage Publications. Curran, J. E., & Chern, C. (2017). Pre-Service’s English teachers’ attitudes towards English as a lingua franca. Teaching and Teacher Education. 66, 136-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.007 Deterding, D. (2013). Misunderstandings in English as a Lingua Franca: An analysis of ELF interactions in South-East Asia. De Gruyter Mouton. Dewey, M. (2012). Towards a post-normative approach: learning the pedagogy of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1). 141–170. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2012-0007 Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press. Galloway, N. (2018). ELF and ELT teaching materials. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, & M. Dewey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 468-480). Routledge. Galloway, N., & Numajiri, T. (2020). Global Englishes Language Teaching: Bottom-up curriculum implementation. Tesol Quarterly, 54(1), 118-145. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.547 Galloway, N & H. Rose. (2015). Introducing Global Englishes. Routledge. Garcı´a, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Palgrave Macmillan. Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge University Press. Harding, L. (2012). Accent, listening assessment and the potential for a shared-L1 advantage: A DIF perspective. Language Testing, 29(2). 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265532211421161 Harding, L. (2015). Adaptability and ELF communication: The next steps for communicative language testing? In J. Mader & Z. Urkun (Eds.), Language testing: Current trends and future needs. IATEFL TEASIG. Harding, L. & T. McNamara. (2018). Language assessment: The challenge of ELF. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, & M. Dewey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 456-467). Routledge. Hu, G., & McKay, S. L. (2014). Multilingualism as portrayed in a Chinese English textbook. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (Eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges (pp. 64–88). Multilingual Matters. Ishikawa, T. (2017). Conceptualising English as a global contact language. Englishes in Practice, 4(2), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.1515/eip-2017- 0002 Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 83-103. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.1.83 Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca: Attitudes and identity. Oxford University Press. 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 Jenkins, J. ( 2015). Repositioning English andmultilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice, 2, 49–85. Jenkins, J. (2017). English as a Lingua Franca in the expanding circle. In M. Filppula, J. Klemola, & D. Sharma (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of World Englishes (pp. 550-566). Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J., & Leung, J. (2019). From mythical ‘standard’ to standard reality: The need for alternatives to standardised English language tests. Language Teaching, 52(1). 86–110. Jung, M-Y. (2010). The intelligibility and comprehensibility of World Englishes to non- native speakers. Journal of Pan–Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 141- 163. Kachru, B. (1992). The Other Tongue: English across cultures. University of Illinois Press. Ke, I.-C. & Cahyani, H. (2014). Learning to become users of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF): How ELF online communication affects Taiwanese learners' beliefs of English. System, 46, 28-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.008 Kim, D. (2013). Mixed methods. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, (pp. 3687- 3695). Blackwell/Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431 Kirkpatrick, A. (2011). English as an Asian Lingua Franca and the multilingual model of ELT. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.007 https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2012-0007 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265532211421161 https://doi.org/10.1515/eip-2017-0002 https://doi.org/10.1515/eip-2017-0002 https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.1.83 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000115 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.008 106 Language Teaching, 43(1), 212-224. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000145 Kirkpatrick, A., & Sussex, R. (2012). Introduction. In A. Kirkpatrick & R. Sussex (Eds.), English as an International Language in Asia: Implications for Language Education (pp.1- 12). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94- 007-4578-0_1 Kirkpatrick, A. (2013). Learning English in ASEAN: Myths and principles. In R. Stroupe & K. Kimura (Eds.), Research and Practice in English Language Teaching in Asia (pp.14-24). Language Education in Asia. Kusumaningputri, R., & Widodo, H. P. (2018). Promoting Indonesian university students' critical intercultural awareness in tertiary EAL classrooms: The use of digital photograph- mediated intercultural tasks. System, 72, 49-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.10.003 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), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2019.1693977 Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). A complexity theory approach to second language development/acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 48–72). Routledge. Louw, S., Todd, R. W., & Jimarkon, P. (2014). Teacher trainers’ beliefs about feedback on teaching practice: Negotiating the tensions between authoritativeness and dialogic space. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 745-764. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu062 Luo, W. H. (2016). Teacher perceptions of teaching and learning English as a Lingua Franca in the expanding circle: A study of Taiwan. English Today, 33(1), 2-11. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078416000146 Matsumoto, Y. (2011). Successful ELF communications and implications for ELT: Sequential analysis of ELF pronunciation negotiation strategies. Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 4781.2011.01172.x Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF. Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge University Press. McArthur, T. (2003). English as an Asian language. English Today, 19(2), 19–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078403002049 McGrath, I. (2013). Teaching materials and the roles of EFL/ESL teachers: Practice and theory. Bloomsbury. Murata, K., & Jenkins, J. (2009). Global Englishes in Asian contexts: Current and future debates. Palgrave Macmillan. Nguyen, T. T. M., Marlina, R., & Cao, T. H. (2020). How well do ELT textbooks prepare students to use English in global contexts? An evaluation of the Vietnamese English textbooks from an English as an International Language (EIL) perspective. Asian Englishes, 1– 17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2020.1717 794. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. T. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281-316. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543062003307 Porto, M. (2010). Culturally responsive L2 education: An awareness-raising proposal. ELT Journal, 64(1), 45-53. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp021 Pudyastuti, Z. E., & Atma, N. (2014). Englishes: Indonesian EFL teachers’ perception. Parole: Journal of Linguistics and Education, 4(1), 76- 82. Putra, T. K., Rochsantiningsih, D, D., & Supriyadi, S. (2020). Cultural representation and intercultural interaction in textbooks of English as an international language. Journal on English as a foreign language, 10(1), 163-184. https://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v10i1.1766 Rose, H., & Galloway, N. (2019). Global Englishes for language teaching. Cambridge University Press Sa’d, S. H. T. (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 Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding ELF. Oxford University Press. Schon, D. A. (1996). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass, Inc. Sercu, L. (2006). The foreign language and intercultural competence teacher: The https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000145 https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2019.1693977 https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu062 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078416000146 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01172.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01172.x https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078403002049 https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2020.1717794 https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2020.1717794 https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543062003307 https://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v10i1.1766 107 acquisition of a new professional identity. Intercultural Education, 17(1), 55–72. Setyono, B., & Widodo, H. P. (2019). The representation of multicultural values in the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture endorsed EFL textbook: A critical discourse analysis. Intercultural Education, 33(4), 383- 397. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2019.1548102 Sifakis, N. C. (2017). ELF awareness in English language teaching: Principles and processes. Applied Linguistics, 40(2), 288-306. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx034 Sifakis, N., & Y. Bayyurt. (2018). ELF-aware teaching, learning and teacher development. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, & M. Dewey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 456-467). Routledge. Strobbe, L., Wildt, A. V., Avermaet, P. V., Gorp, K. V., Branden, K. V., & Houtte, M. V. (2017). How school teams perceive and handle multilingualism: The impact of a school's pupil composition. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.023 Sung, C. C. M. (2018). Investigating perceptions of English as a Lingua Franca in Hong Kong: The case of university students: Insights into complexity of ELF perceptions in the era of globalisation. English Today, 34(1), 38-44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078417000293 Suzuki, A. (2011). Introducing diversity of English into ELT: Student teachers' responses. ELT Journal, 65, 145-153. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq024 Syrbe, M., & Rose, H. (2018). An evaluation of the global orientation of English textbooks in Germany. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(2), 152–163. Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806292430 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), 38–58. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2016-0003 Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515-537. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.515 Widodo, H. P., & Fang, F. (2019). Global Englishes- oriented English language education. In F. Fang & H. P. Widodo (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on Global Englishes in Asia: Language policy, curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (pp. 194- 200). Multilingual Matters. Widodo, H. P., Wood, A., & Gupta, D. (2017). Asian English language classrooms: When theory and practice meet. Routledge. Young, T. J., & Walsh, S. (2010). Which English? Whose English? An investigation of “non- native” teachers’ beliefs about target varieties. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 23(2). 123– 137. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908311003797627 Zacharia, N. T. (2016). Exploring identity construction of student teachers practicing ELF pedagogy in a microteaching course. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 26(2), 321-339. https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.26.2.08zac Zein, S., Sukyadi, D., Hamied, F. A., & Lengkanawati, N. S. (2020). English language education in Indonesia: A review of research (2011–2019). Language Teaching, 53(4), 491- 523. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000208 Zhang, X. (2021). Investigating student teachers’ perceptions of English as a Lingua Franca and Its teaching in Mainland China, Asian Englishes. 1- 16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2021.1926647 https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2019.1548102 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.023 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078417000293 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq024 https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2016-0003 https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.515 https://doi.org/10.1080/07908311003797627 https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.26.2.08zac