Pedagogy, Culture & Society

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpcs20

Interculturality, native-speakerism and

authenticity: paradoxes in Indonesia’s EFL
pedagogy

Muhammad Iwan Munandar

To cite this article: Muhammad Iwan Munandar (24 Dec 2023): Interculturality, native-
speakerism and authenticity: paradoxes in Indonesia’s EFL pedagogy, Pedagogy, Culture &
Society, DOI: 10.1080/14681366.2023.2298441

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2023.2298441

Published online: 24 Dec 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpcs20
PEDAGOGY, CULTURE & SOCIETY
https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2023.2298441

Interculturality, native-speakerism and authenticity:

paradoxes in Indonesia’s EFL pedagogy
Muhammad Iwan Munandar
English Department, IKIP PGRI Jember, Jawa Timur, Indonesia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Intercultural language pedagogy goes beyond native speaker and Received 19 July 2023
target culture norms. Using an intercultural lens, this study exam­ Accepted 12 December 2023
ines the extent to which native-speakerism and authenticity inform KEYWORDS
the pedagogic belief and practice of Indonesian high-school tea­ Authenticity; EFL pedagogy;
chers of English as a foreign language (EFL) and in particular how interculturality; native-
first language use shapes the teacher’s instruction and classroom speakerism; NEST/NNEST
discourse. Data were obtained from classroom observations, narra­
tive frames, stimulated-recall, and in-depth interviews with five
teachers, and a focus group discussion involving seven students.
The data were analysed using a qualitative thematic framework.
Findings show that the teachers often used home languages and
lived cultural realities as a springboard to navigate and mediate
between first and target language-and-culture. They displayed
agency in dealing with local aspirations and the situatedness of
EFL pedagogy and interculturality in the multilingual society.
Evidence also revealed that native speaker models of English com­
petence and pedagogic performance and English-speaking West
concepts of authenticity tended to create paradoxes in the class­
room. This paper forefronts the need to work towards a more
culturally-responsive and critically-conscious EFL pedagogy.

Introduction
Principles of intercultural language pedagogy have, from the 1990s, been adopted in
varied socio-educational contexts worldwide. The tenets, among others, attend to the
language-culture nexus, curb native-speakerist tendencies, link host with target culture,
and make the most of linguistic and cultural diversity inside and outside the classroom
(Byram 2021; Liddicoat and Scarino 2013; Newton 2016). Native speaker centric ideas
nevertheless seem to persist in English language teaching (ELT). In Indonesia, the focus of
this study, English is sanctioned as a foreign language (Undang-Undang Republik
Indonesia No 24 Tahun 2009Tentang Bendera, Bahasa, Dan Lambang Negara, Serta
Lagu Kebangsaan 2009), and its use in the wider society is practically limited. With
a population of around 270 million people (Statistics Indonesia 2013), the social fabric
of Indonesia is made up of linguistically and culturally diverse societies where there are
more than 700 living languages spoken by over 400 ethnic and cultural groups (Simons

CONTACT Muhammad Iwan Munandar miwanm75@gmail.com English Department, IKIP PGRI Jember, Jalan
Jawa 10 Jember, Jawa Timur, Indonesia
© 2023 Pedagogy, Culture & Society
2 M. I. MUNANDAR

and Fennig 2017). Indonesian has established itself as the sole ethnically-neutral, fully-
modernised national language that functions well in almost all domains of life without the
need for any European language in an official supporting role (Simpson 2007). It is the
nation’s lingua franca with such vernaculars as Javanese, Sundanese or Balinese mainly
serving to express ethnic identities and fulfil different communicative purposes (Kohler
2019). In classrooms, despite a curriculum priority, English in general continues to be seen
more as a Western language than a social one and is associated with native-speakerness
and cultures of English-speaking community (Zacharias 2014a). Zacharias (2016), for
instance, identifies ambivalence among pre-service teachers over their role in reviving
Indonesian cultures and the hegemonic presence of English in local societies. Although
student-teachers aim to construct professional identity independent of native speaker
norms, they affirm the importance of speaking ‘Standard English’ due to its global
marketability potential and assume detrimental effects of speaking English with local
accent. For Andreani and Dewi (2017), the assumed superiority of English and native
speaker English teachers as expressed by some students may imply post-colonial ideol­
ogies in language education. Recently, Harsanti and Manara (2021) point out a purist
perspective from which in-service teachers define native speakers of English, ownership of
English, and ELT methodology and practices, finding traces of native-speakerism.
However, there has been relatively little discussion from an intercultural perspective
about how the teachers address native-speakerism, especially as it intertwines with
local vernaculars and the concept of authenticity. This study thus sets out to fill the gap
by looking at, first, the extent to which issues relating to native-speakerism and authen­
ticity inform the instructional judgement and decisions of Indonesian high-school EFL
teachers and, second, the ways home or first language (L1) use impacts on the teachers’
instruction and classroom discourse.

L1 in and out of EFL class

Under an intercultural paradigm, language is constitutive of the whole human world that
forms an inherent part of one’s being and doing in that world (Liddicoat and Scarino
2013). It is ‘open, dynamic, energetic, constantly evolving and personal’ (Shohamy
2006, 5). Not only can this view refute language as a closed, static, and finite entity, but
it throws light on the blurred and porous boundaries of language and its infinite varieties
that offer a great many possibilities of meanings. L1 and additional one are seen as equally
valid representations of human life (Liddicoat 2011), and L1 experiences are believed to
lay the basis for raising awareness of student’s linguistic and cultural conceptions,
providing valuable resources for making sense of additional language-and-culture
(Buttjes and Byram 1991; Byram, Gribkova, and Starkey 2002). As Fantini (1997) puts it,
primary language permeates every aspect of people’s lives, embodies cultural experi­
ences, and shapes our communicative behaviour. In spite of this, mainstream theories and
practices of second or foreign language acquisition are generally in favour of exclusivity of
target language; ELT is no exception. It is traditionally associated with classroom instruc­
tion that isolates English from other language in the curriculum and student’s repertoire
(Cenoz and Gorter 2013).
Such practice may work under the assumptions that second language (L2) teaching is
best modelled on L1 acquisition or that L1 and L2 are separate in L2 mind. How
 PEDAGOGY, CULTURE & SOCIETY 3

monolingual children acquire L1 is frequently thought of as the only successful way of

‘acquiring’ another language (Cook 2001). Already acquired language is conceived as
a hindrance, that may end up with avoidance of L1 use in the L2 classrooms. Some also
believe that L1 and L2 form two distinct systems and the success of L2 acquisition lies in
making languages separate from one another. Cook (1999, 2016) underlines that L2
meanings cannot exist separately from L1 as several features of the two languages are
interwoven in L2 user’s mind. That is, instead of being compartmentalised, learners’
existing and additional language systems are active and to a certain degree connected
to each other in their mind. Also, human cognitive capacity is so large that it may help us
to capitalise on linguistic units from two or more languages at our disposal that work as
a single resource (Mahboob and Lin 2016).
Multilingual people can use languages or language varieties together to suit personal
and social purposes, that is by ‘translanguaging’ (Vogel and García 2017). For instance,
Kirkpatrick and Sussex (2012) contend that it is common for multilingual Asians to mix
English with local language and use it as an identity marker and a creative strategy. In ELT,
multilingual classes can seek support from L1 for developing L2/3 proficiency. In the
Indonesia’s context, Cahyani, de Courcy and Barnett (2016), for example, identified
pedagogic and social roles of the code-switching involving English, Indonesian and
Javanese performed by lecturers and students in the context of the English discourse.
The study reported that the teachers shuttled between the languages to co-construct
knowledge and engage in affective interactions. At the same time, in addition to polishing
language, students’ code-switching was mainly concerned with interpersonal relations
and sociocultural necessity. Similarly, Emilia and Hamied (2022) concluded that apart from
having interpretive, interactive and managerial functions, translanguaging offered cog­
nitive, social, and psychological benefits to students, empowering both the teachers and
students. More recently, Liando et al. (2023) looked into a translanguaging involving
Indonesian, Manadonese, and English at a junior high school, proving its usefulness for
cultivating students’ positive attitudes and expanding understandings of learning
materials.
The above studies point to some pedagogic and sociocultural significance of L1 as part
of English L2/3 user’s repertoire, particularly that of Indonesian EFL teachers and learners.
The following outlines theories and empirical studies regarding intercultural English
pedagogy and the intersection between native-speakerism and authenticity.

Intercultural EFL pedagogy: mediating language-and-culture

The pedagogic belief of language teachers usually refers to ‘personal theories the
teachers held regarding the nature of the broader educational process, the nature
of language, how it is learned, and how it may be best taught’ (Breen et al. 2001,
472). Teacher pedagogic beliefs and practices are mutually reinforcing, mediated
by a variety of contextual factors, and situated (Kumaravadivelu 2012; Song 2014).
In intercultural language pedagogy, teachers have latitude in adopting teaching
practices according to certain educational and social circumstances. This is chiefly
because it is more a stance on language, culture and learning than a set of
instructional methods (Liddicoat and Scarino 2013). For Liddicoat (2011, 840),
intercultural language education rests on ‘a set of shared assumptions about the
4 M. I. MUNANDAR

nature of language, culture, and learning that shapes an overall understanding of

what it means to teach language and to do this in an intercultural way’. In this line
of reasoning, intercultural English pedagogy employs a non-essentialist approach
to culture and presents culture as a ‘fluid, creative social force’ that binds any type
and size of groupings with cohesive values and behaviours as well as their
dynamic set of practices in different ways, constructing and constructed by mem­
bers of the group in a piecemeal fashion, resulting in manifold manifestations and
configurations (Holliday, Kullman, and Hyde 2010). Viewed from this perspective,
culture is not about things and static pieces of information, but rather actions and
understandings that are open to variation, mutually-informing and constantly-
changing (Liddicoat 2002).
Such a concept debunks reductionist notions of culture and avoids falling into
an essentialist trap that explains ‘people’s behaviour as the essence of their
culture, and that all people from that culture will behave in that way’ (Holliday
2013, 172). Intercultural English classes holding such a viewpoint would allow
teachers to jointly explore culture with the students and bring the subtlety,
pervasiveness, and variability of culture to the fore. For Newton, Siregar and Tran
(2020), what makes ‘good language teachers’ lies in their becoming co-explorers of
cultures with learners and the possibilities they open up for the pupils to learn
more about cultures themselves. By fostering in learners a reflective stance on tacit
cultural assumptions and encouraging dialogic inquiry, the teachers will enable
learners to go across and over the boundaries of culturally-constructed worlds and
offer them decisive steps towards intercultural knowledge and skills ‘that they can
take with them into their lives beyond the classroom and into the future’ (Newton,
Siregar, and Tran 2020, 29).
Furthermore, cultural mediation skills are of high value under the principles of inter­
cultural language education. In keeping with this idea, EFL pedagogy models learners on
intercultural speakers and develops in them intercultural communicative competence
(ICC), i.e., an ability to communicate across languages and cultures (Byram 2009, 2021).
Central to this idea is that intercultural speakers have the sensitivity, understandings, and
skills of navigating and shuttling between their own linguistic and cultural conceptions
and that of other people of different culture. In classrooms, teachers then need to develop
students’ attitudes and knowledge and equip them with the competences to mediate and
operate between home and target language-and-cultures. Also, while celebrating cultural
diversity, as Dervin (2016) underlines, it is of vital importance that intercultural language
classrooms actively seek commonalities between ethnicities, regions, cultures, religions,
etc., and treat difference and conflict as a potentially fruitful condition for constructive
dialogues between one’s own (Self) and foreign cultures (Other). Here, as Vasquez, Tate
and Harste (2013) remark, teachers need to negotiate spaces for critical literacy in their
own settings, partly by valuing multiple perspectives and integrating students’ diverse
linguistic, cultural and experiential resources and literacies into the classroom. In short,
intercultural EFL pedagogy creates opportunities for both students and teachers to
explore and delve deeper into the elusive concept of culture and the complex interplay
of language and culture in language use and education, facilitating the negotiation and
mediation of similar or alien cultural norms and behaviours in texts and practices.
 PEDAGOGY, CULTURE & SOCIETY 5

Native-speakerism and authenticity in EFL pedagogy

While recognising existing linguistic and cultural conceptions as cognitive and commu­
nicative resources, intercultural EFL teaching and learning benefit from the cultural
contribution of teachers and learners, irrespective of their race, mother tongue, or cultural
background. Home language, knowledge, and practices that they bring into the class­
rooms account for their cultural worlds and are a point of departure for contrasting and
connecting with cultural meanings in the target language (Newton 2016). These notions
may defy ‘cultural disbelief’ that typifies native-speakerism, i.e., ‘the belief that “native-
speaker” teachers represent a “Western culture” from which spring the ideals both of the
English language and of English language teaching methodology’ (Holliday 2006, 385).
Implicit in cultural disbelief is ‘how native speakers valorise the Self and inferioritise the
Other’ (Kumaravadivelu 2015, ix). The disbelief foregrounds ostensibly linguistic and
cultural authorities of native speaker English teachers (NEST) on the basis of idealised
native speaker and essentialised native speaker knowledge and behaviours; on the other
hand, it marginalises and associates non-native speaker English teacher (NNEST) with
perceived linguistic, cultural or professional deficiencies of non-native speaker (Holliday
2015, 2018).
Using native speaker language and cultural content as a yardstick by which to measure
authenticity in English classes can be a minefield (Holliday 2015). Authenticity depends on
various personal and social variables like age, race, ethnicity, gender, occupation, religion,
economic status, etc., so that what is authentic in one context can be inauthentic in
another, even in one speech community (Kramsch 1993, 1998). What may be regarded as
‘authentic native speaker’ communicative patterns can then vary according to the com­
binations of cultural membership, the dynamics of social roles, and situational factors that
can be all at once at play. In this line of argument, Pinner (2016, 4) defines ‘authenticity’ in
ELT in terms of the fluidity and hybrid of global English, i.e., ‘a complex dynamic construct
that can only be understood by examining it from social, individual and contextual
dimensions, in relation to actual people’. Authenticity matters primarily to the teachers
and learners as individuals and their positions within their respective societies and values.
Echoing this view, Lowe and Pinner (2016) assert that such an approach to authenticity
can be more sensitive and inclusive to today’s variety of Englishes and the majority
stakeholders of English for whom it is taught and learned as a ‘disembodied’ foreign
language.
Studies have examined how native-speakerism intersects with authenticity in different
EFL socio-educational landscapes. Fang (2018), for example, documented the native-
speakerism ideology and biases against NNESTs in China. The professional identity and
legitimacy of the local teachers were often benchmarked against the imagined mono­
lingual ‘native speaker’. Fang underscores the importance of going beyond Anglophone
culture-oriented ELT approaches and promoting multilingualism and intercultural aware­
ness against the backdrop of globalisation. In the same vein, Daoud and Kasztalska (2022)
found that ‘native speaker qualification’ is used to assess ELT applicants’ performance and
that a native speaker-oriented ‘knower code’ tends to downplay NNESTs’ language
proficiency and specialised skills, leading to inequalities between ‘native’ and ‘non-
native speaker’ professionals and to discriminatory hiring practices. In the Indonesian
context, Zacharias (2014b) indicates that student-teachers of English found a ‘relocation
6 M. I. MUNANDAR

of culture’ problematic despite their enthusiasm for using local cultures as content and
context. The difficulties arose partly from ambivalence towards local cultures to represent
in the classrooms, that is, whether these are teacher’s cultures, the majority of the
student’s cultures, or local current issues. Likewise, that authenticity could be better
conceptualised in terms of actual users and relevance to learners’ cultural knowledge,
social practices, and community discourse is also supported by Kusumaningputri and
Widodo’s (2018) study into the use of photograph-mediated tasks to heighten critical
intercultural awareness among university students. Findings from the research reiterate
that in addition to fostering critical awareness of constructed cultural realities, it is
important for students to reflect on their own cultural perspectives and experiences
and relate such viewpoints and practices to those of other people in more authentic
ways as the students engage with culture-laden learning materials. To sum up, native
speaker-based ideas of authenticity have far-reaching effects on ELT shareholders. These
include ambiguities in the identity, authority or legitimacy of teachers and (ir-)relevance
of cultures of the English-speaking West, international and local communities to class­
room resources.

Method
Research setting and participant
Five teachers (Table 1) and seven students (Table 2) from general, vocational, and Islamic
high schools participated in this study. In Indonesia, these types of school are called Sekolah
Menengah Atas (General Highschool), Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan (Vocational Highschool),
and Madrasah Aliyah (Islamic Highschool), and are popularly known by their abbreviation as
‘SMA’, ‘SMK’ and ‘MA’ respectively; these are used throughout this paper. SMA students are
oriented towards higher education and equipped with general English, whereas SMK
students are prepared to join the skilled workforce and receive technical education and
vocational English. MA students too learn general English; however, they also study Arabic
and Islam-specific subjects that are absent from the two other schools. While SMA and SMK

Table 1. Research participants.

Teacher School Education Teaching Experience
Ambar SMA Java BA in English Education 15+ years
Ana SMA Java BA in English Education 24+ years
Aris SMA Pari Master’s in Education Design 24+ years
Wati SMK Agri Master’s in Education Design 22+ years
Yanti MA Negeri BA in English Education 12+ years

Table 2. Student participants.

FGD student School Ethnicity
Sdt 1 SMA Java Javanese
Sdt 2 SMA Java Javanese
Sdt 3 SMA Java Javanese
Sdt 4 SMA Java Javanese
Sdt 5 SMK Agri Javanese/Madurese
Sdt 6 SMK Agri Madurese
Sdt 7 MA Negeri Javanese
 PEDAGOGY, CULTURE & SOCIETY 7

are open to teachers and students of any faith, MA is characterised by Islamic values and
admits only Muslim teachers and students. It is therefore common, for example, for the MA
to make an announcement over the loudspeaker in Indonesian, English, and Arabic, whilst
in SMA and SMK it is usually in Indonesian and sometimes also English.
All the schools where teacher participants worked, i.e., SMA Java and SMA Pari, SMK
Agri, and MA Negeri, are in the regency of Pandalungan, Indonesia. The school and
regency names are pseudonyms. In the regency, Javanese and Madurese form the
majority of ethnic and cultural groups. Teachers and students speak Indonesian as the
sole national language, plus Javanese or Madurese, or both, as home language(s). Some
students also speak Arabic, especially the MA students and those who have attended an
Islamic boarding school (pesantren). It is common practice for the students and teachers
to code-switch from and/or mix Indonesian with the vernaculars in and outside the
classroom, depending on their communicative needs and wider social settings.
Participating teachers – presented under pseudonyms Ambar, Ana, Aris, Wati, and
Yanti – responded to my invitation and expressed their willingness to voluntarily take part
in this study. They managed to complete all the data collection procedures conducted
within the 12-week time frame. At the time of the data collection, their experience ranged
from 12 to 24 years.
Seven Year 12 students also voluntarily participated in a focus group discussion (FGD).
Four students were from SMA, the other two were from SMK, and a student was from MA,
presented under pseudonyms ‘Sdt 1’ to ‘Sdt 7’. No specific level of English was required;
however, they were taught by respective participating teachers in order to give relevant
information. Five students identified themselves as Javanese, one as Madurese and one as
half-Javanese half-Madurese. These students formally start learning English at grade 7,
and this may mean that they have generally formed culturally-shaped knowledge struc­
tures and frames of understanding, which develop primarily from socialisation into first
language and culture (Kramsch 1998).

Data collection and analysis

The primary methods of data collection comprised classroom observations, narrative
frame (NF) questionnaires, and stimulated-recall (SR) and in-depth interviews with the
teachers (Table 3). Involving both teachers and students as participants helped me elicit
as detailed information as possible by observing how they did activities in their natural
settings and examining their classroom behaviours. One teaching ‘hour’ for English class
in senior high school is 45 minutes and the number of teaching hours makes up
a minimum of 90 minutes per week, depending on grade and programme. Three teachers
managed to allocate three observation sessions and two others allocated two sessions. In

Table 3. Data collection methods.

Teacher
Method Classroom Observation SR Interview NF In-depth Interview
Ambar 270 min. 40 min. Indonesian 60 min.
Ana 270 min. 45 min. English 70 min.
Aris 180 min. 40 min. Indonesian 70 min.
Wati 180 min. 50 min. Indonesian 60 min.
Yanti 270 min. 50 min. Indonesian 60 min.
8 M. I. MUNANDAR

the first instance, I made 13 naturalistic classroom observations resulting in over 1,100-
minute video recordings available for further analysis and use in SR interviews. Then,
I held SR interviews and generated around 200-minutes of audio recording. I used the
video as stimulus for verbal commentaries to elicit information about the teachers’
thinking and actions and to probe deeper into aspects of cognition lying behind their
instructional judgements and decisions. After this, I administered the NFs to allow the
teachers to reflect on and describe in writing their personal and professional experiences
relevant to the topic in question.
I conducted in-depth interviews to glean insights into the teachers’ beliefs, knowledge,
and assumptions. Important issues arising from the previous data collection methods
provided the basis for the interview guide.
Interviews with each teacher lasted for 60–70 minutes, producing around 300-minutes
of audio recording. Interviews were held in Indonesian to help lower the language barrier
and avert any possible misunderstandings. In addition, I carried out a student FGD that
served as a complementary method and was principally intended to corroborate partici­
pating teachers’ thoughts and classroom actions. The FGD helped gather information
about students’ direct experiences and their perspectives on cultural representations in
the English classes. Then, I transcribed all the interviews and translated the Indonesian
transcription into English for further analysis.
Triangulation within the data set occurred throughout the research process as I made
use of different forms of data, sources of information, methods of data collection, and
theoretical perspectives to offer corroborating evidence and provide a holistic picture of
the socio-educational phenomenon under investigation. I carried out a qualitative case
study to probe the multiple realities and distinctive meanings constructed by participat­
ing teachers and substantiate inquiry into the implications of the construction for the
teachers’ pedagogic beliefs and practices, while paying close attention to the socio­
linguistic, cultural, educational, political, and religious factors that were likely to impact
on their instruction. I used a thematic analysis framework to analyse and interpret
emerging themes (Braun and Clarke 2012). The iterative process and the flexibility of
the qualitative analysis allowed me to move back and forth between data collection and
analysis during the research phases, straddling analysis between inductive and deductive
logic. An inductive reasoning allowed me to coalesce fragments of emergent information
into salient themes and a deductive approach facilitated a data analysis according to the
emerging themes and existing ILT theories (Holliday 2007).

Findings
Home languages as classroom resources
The observed teaching and self-reports of the five teachers showed that classroom
interaction was generally in English and an English-only environment was deemed pre­
ferable. However, home language-and-cultures were often the starting point for the
teachers to explain the lessons and materials and for the students to understand ideas
expressed in English and show their comprehension. The teachers took advantage of their
understandings of home benefit as they shuttled and mediated between the native and
target language-and-cultures. For example, that Aris took account of students’ academic
 PEDAGOGY, CULTURE & SOCIETY 9

and English abilities and their socio-economic backgrounds helps make this point. When
taking food preparation as an example, Aris felt the need to ensure that students had
some familiarity with the food so that the focus would be more on developing students’
English skills than on increasing their background knowledge. To this end, Aris chose
a locally popular instant noodle as an example in preference to ‘foreign’ food during the
practice of writing procedure texts.

It’s about what students are familiar with. I took this [local food] as an example, so that we
could focus on the procedures. (Extract 1, interview with Aris)

Wati used audio-visual materials on food preparation to help her give explanations about
procedure texts. ‘Foreign’ foods such as pizza and crêpe were used as examples of how to
prepare food and describe its steps. Despite this, the students responded to Wati’s
explanation and mentioned locally popular snacks that look roughly like pizza and
crêpe. Similarly, food became a recurring theme when Yanti’s class was discussing making
suggestion. The students responded to her prompts by mentioning, seriously or jokingly,
local foods that are popular in the locality. Ana also drew on her knowledge of Indonesian
and/or Javanese to talk about concepts in English. Indonesian became a necessary part of
Ana’s explanation as she moved between English and Indonesian, clarifying different
expressions. At times, she mixed English with or switched to Indonesian to help students
understand her explanation:

What are the characteristics of statement? Statement is object first, and then auxiliary verb,
and predicate. Subjek dulu! Kalau seperti ini, apakah subjek dulu? Subjek dulu, bukan auxiliary
dulu [Subject comes first! If the structure is like this, will subject come first? Subject, rather
than auxiliary, comes first]. (Extract 2, observation note on Ana’s class)

Ana contrasted some ideas and expressions in English with ones in home languages. She
used differences in tenses and level of politeness to clarify her point. She might imply
culturally-shaped differences in time perceptions between the speakers of Indonesian and
English that are manifested in contrasting grammatical and stylistic features of the two
languages:

Are there speech levels like we do [in local languages]? I gave explanation by [comparing
English with] Javanese [speech styles]. (Extract 3, interview with Ana)

Students also mentioned a productive use of home languages by both the teachers and
students. For the students, some linguistic and cultural components of English could be
more easily understood when equivalents were given in the vernacular. What the stu­
dents reported here may refer to a strategic deployment of existing linguistic repertoire
and to the mental grammars and linguistic practices of bilingual/multilingual people in
the form of translanguaging, which privileges learners’ bilingual performances in ways
that deepen their engagement with and comprehension of complicated content. As
a student illustrated:

When it was first explained in Indonesian, I didn’t really understand. But when it was in
Madurese, I immediately got the point. (Extract 4, Sdt 5)

In IHS Negeri, the classroom interaction did not just involve home knowledge and
practices but intersected with Islamic expressions and traditions as well. Yanti started
10 M. I. MUNANDAR

and ended her classes with the Islamic greeting assalamu’alaikum. She preferred using
EFL classroom materials that both reflected ‘Western culture’ and could be compared with
or related to Islamic values. For instance, when Yanti talked about English expressions for
inviting, students brought up such Islamic local ceremonies or rites of passage as akikah
(baby welcoming) or tahlilan (prayers for the deceased), where formal or informal invita­
tions would normally be made. When practising making an appointment by phone in
English, the students opened and closed their conversation with Islamic greetings, and
used such Islamic terms as Insha Allah (God willing) and alhamdulillah (praise be to God).
As Yanti reported:

When learning the expression of accusing, students half-seriously or half-jokingly said, ‘We
are not allowed to accuse, mam. It’s sinful’. They seemed to relate it to suudzon (prejudice).
(Extract 5, interview with Yanti)

To conclude this section, despite the fact that English was mainly used in classroom
interactions, the initial linguistic, cultural, and religious conceptions – mainly Islamic
teachings – were in some ways drawn on as classroom resources. The teachers and
students benefited from shared understandings of local languages and cultural mean­
ings as they tried to decipher new or different sociolinguistic norms expressed in
English.

Mediating cultures, modelling on native speakers

Findings from the study indicate that despite contextualising classroom materials and
building bridges between primary and additional languages require more than English
proficiency, the teachers measured their English skills and teaching effectiveness against
those of NESTs, stating preferences for native-speakerness and hinting at native-
speakerism. They appreciated the role of culture in English use and mediated between
native and target cultures, and were mindful of the cultural appropriateness of classroom
materials to local cultures. Besides recognising the importance of cultural knowledge and
connecting such an understanding with effectiveness of communication, Ana, for
instance, made personal judgements to decide whether the material contained educa­
tional and cultural messages and whether the messages were rendered culturally fit or
otherwise. She based her considerations on the level of language complexity and how the
characters looked:

My consideration was first the conformity of material with the learning topic. There must be
an educational dimension to it because students may imitate. (Extract 6, interview with Ana)

In the IHS context, Yanti’s conceptions of ‘culture’ and especially ‘Western culture’
affected how she approached the role of the teachers in the classrooms. Yanti saw
the teachers as expected not only to improve students’ English skills but also to
uphold local values and ‘safeguard’ the cultural and religious identity of the stu­
dents. For Yanti, it is part of Indonesian EFL teachers’ duties to inculcate moral,
cultural, and spiritual values into the students, and to protect students against
cultural beliefs and behaviours considered as inconsistent with local knowledge
and practices:
 PEDAGOGY, CULTURE & SOCIETY 11

I touch briefly on how to behave well as an Indonesian, a Muslim, or an Asian. [English]

Teachers have to discuss moral values and assert their value is not shared in our culture.
(Extract 7, interview with Yanti)

Although the teachers showed abilities to address the situatedness of the EFL classrooms,
they espoused the beliefs that NESTs are indispensable resource persons because of their
‘native competence’, and implied that the native speakers or NESTs are intrinsically more
competent and thus the most legitimate and authoritative pedagogic models. Take, for
instance, how Yanti viewed her English skill and pedagogic competence. She sometimes
found it difficult to appropriately translate Indonesian expressions into English, suggest­
ing a lack of personal English competence and the authority of the native speakers to
decide whether English expressions are ‘correct’:

I had questions from students concerning expressions with which their equivalents in English
I was not familiar. [In this situation] I need to ask a native speaker. (Extract 8, Yanti’s NF)

Yanti specifically identified the difficulties in dealing with unexpected English expressions.
Some Indonesian expressions that students asked about deviated from the prescribed
materials. Given a limited knowledge of English, whether real or perceived, she felt that
native speakers could be the only recourse:

What I found difficult is the meanings or pronunciations of daily expressions. But I’m afraid I’ll
end up making the expressions up, which are not correct according to native speakers.
(Extract 9, interview with Yanti)

Similarly, Wati preferred using classroom materials featuring only native speakers because
she wanted students to see native speakers as pedagogic models. Wati measured her
English proficiency against what she called ‘international standards’ and linked the idea of
native-speakerness to accuracy, stating her belief that she was still below the standard.
This perspective convinced Wati of her pedagogic approaches and was practically useful
in that she did not feel the need to double check the ‘accuracy’ of the models. Non-native
speakers’ pronunciation or expression of doubtful accuracy had led her to give primacy to
native speakers. So long as the characters in the materials were native speakers, Wati
believed that they would have the necessary language skills to provide good examples to
students and should then be imitated:

As for the locally-produced materials, sometimes there are problems with their accuracy.
That’s why, I believe more in native speakers. Their pronunciation, expressions, cannot be
wrong, I suppose. (Extract 10, interview with Wati)

The most obvious finding to emerge from this section is that the teachers paid heed to
academic, linguistic, and cultural factors present in the socio-educational setting, which
might entail more than language competence. However, they tended to measure their
English proficiency and teaching effectiveness against those of NESTs, and believed that
native-speakerness goes hand in hand with language competence and that NESTs are
more authoritative pedagogic models.
12 M. I. MUNANDAR

Authenticity and native-speakerness: negotiated concepts

Another salient point is concerned with authenticity and native-speakerness. The teachers
attached authenticity of the teaching-learning materials and activities to those of the
native speakers, yet they differed on ideas of authenticity, native-speakerness, and the
role of native speaker in EFL education. One example of this is how Ana linked authen­
ticity in the professional environment to her cultural identity. She expressly mentioned
‘Javanese speaker/learner of English’ as her ‘authentic self’ by taking account of her
cultural background and that of the students. In Ana’s opinion, there is no need to imitate
native speakers in relation to language competence and teaching role. She emphasised
the need to have good pronunciation of English and maintain one’s own accent and
speaking style. This view seemed to help Ana to see herself as a ‘legitimate’ pedagogic
model and to focus on giving students more realistic examples and more achievable
learning goals. As she said:

I don’t think I need to be like the native speaker. [I] just want to be a Javanese [teacher of
English]. . . . I tell my students just to be themselves. (Extract 11, interview with Ana)

Ana talked about pronunciation skill and connected the skill and accents with speaking
intelligibility. For Ana, so long as her expression is ‘understandable’ and her speaking is
‘intelligible’, it should be acceptable. At the same time, she played down the significance
of modelling on the native speaker:

I always say [to my students] ‘as long as your English is understandable, it’s okay’. . . . Students
will not be afraid of speaking English; they don’t need to emulate native speakers. (Extract 12,
interview with Ana)

Ana, for instance, discussed the topic of expressing care and giving compliments and
showed a video featuring native speaker characters. She also played another one sub­
mitted by former students. It was an assignment that allowed the students to make and
practice their own dialogue in the classrooms. Students were also allowed to upload their
video to YouTube if they wanted to. When asked what her reasons for showing students’
videos were, Ana explained:

Why shouldn’t it be native [speaker]? I just want to show students that if they [former
students] could do it, then you can, too. (Extract 13, interview with Ana)

Nonetheless, unlike Ana’s notion of authenticity that is concerned with the ‘cultural
identity’ of English learners and users, Wati’s conception was closely related with per­
ceived students’ needs, contexts of English use, and the school’s vocational programmes.
Authentic materials were associated with students’ characteristics and the suitability for
their specific needs. Wati seemed assured that her practices had to do with an expected
quality of students/graduates and of their English skills:

The materials must conform to what is covered in the Standard Content. I was giving the
exercises because I was also preparing them for the [national] examination. (Extract 14,
interview with Wati)

Wati also related authenticity to the cultural component of the materials and the larger
context of EFL education. In her opinion, authentic materials are ones that are used by real
people, preferably native speakers, in real situations rather than ones that are originally
 PEDAGOGY, CULTURE & SOCIETY 13

created for educational purposes. All the materials featured native speakers of English
characters. No context of language use referred to local settings. As Wati reported:
I always try to use authentic materials so that [the teaching and learning] won’t become
textbook-oriented. [These are] obtained from original sources, be it [from] stores, receipts, or
any other forms. (Extract 15, interview with Wati)

The evidence presented in this section indicates subtle nuances in authenticity, its
tenuous link to native speakers, and how the teachers developed varying conceptions
of authenticity and native-speakerness. These differences in one way or another impacted
the teachers’ classroom actions, and how they viewed the role of local English teachers,
their cultural and professional identities, as well as instructional goals and methods.

Discussion
The aim of this study was to use an intercultural lens to explore the extent to which
native-speakerism and authenticity inform the Indonesian high-school EFL teachers’
pedagogic beliefs and practice. Specifically, it examined the role of L1 in the teachers’
instruction and classroom discourse. The recurrent themes, however, posed something of
a paradox and deserved further discussion. First, despite the desired English-only envir­
onment, L1 use seemed ineluctable in the classroom. This was generally in the form of
code-switching/mixing or translanguaging involving English, Indonesian, Javanese,
Madurese, and some Arabic. The teachers and students drew on home languages and
practices as they tried and understood ideas in English and navigated the cultural
baggage that comes with it. Consider, for example, how the teachers used locally-
popular foods to explain procedure text in English and connected the students’ familiarity
with the foods with cognitive, economic, and cultural aspects to enhance learning. On
other occasions, the students mentioned ceremonies containing religious and culturally
loaded expressions as they wrote invitations in English, with ‘authentic’ ones using the
Islamic greeting ‘Assalamu’alaikum’. It was common for the classes to exchange this
greeting as they started and closed lessons. This is illustrative of how creative, diverse,
fluid, and porous today’s English and use of English are. The classroom activities may not
only dismiss native speaker-based ideas of ‘authenticity’ in ELT as the multilingual
teachers and students – being actual users of English as an international language
delinked from native speaker norms and cultures of English-speaking countries
(McKay 2012) – harnessing their sociolinguistic literacies and resources to critically
negotiate meanings in their own setting, but also highlighting the pivotal role that
primary languages play in developing English as an additional language (Mahboob and
Lin 2016; Vasquez, Tate, and Harste 2013).
Elsewhere, Poedjiastutie, Mayaputri and Arifani (2021, 110) show that the use of local
vernaculars in tandem with English allows teachers to better fit in with students’ academic
and economic backgrounds in Indonesia’s underdeveloped remote areas, enabling them to
cater for their learning needs and to ‘push the use of English gently’. In a similar vein,
Rasman (2018) confirms the effectiveness of English, Indonesian and Javanese translangua­
ging in facilitating the negotiation of meaning in junior high-school student interactions,
helping them to gain multilingual competencies that include English. It is worth noting here
that developing an additional language ‘does not mean acquiring the self-contained
14 M. I. MUNANDAR

language system of a monolingual but gaining a second language system that fits in with
the first in the same mind’ (Cook 2016, 17). Teachers and students need to be aware that the
primary and additional language systems of multilingual speakers are interconnected and
simultaneously active in their minds, and that initial knowledge structures can serve as
a beginning point for engaging with new cultural concepts and become useful classroom
resources (Cook 2001; Kumaravadivelu 2006). It is therefore important for the EFL classes to
recognise the potential of home knowledge and experiences as cognitive and commu­
nicative resources and make judicious use of L1 conceptions to promote effective English
teaching and learning (Cook 2016; Littlewood and Yu 2011).
Second, consciously and unconsciously the teachers played the role of intercultural
speaker and/or mediator in day-to-day classroom teaching and yet they exhibited ten­
dencies to benchmark teaching skills against those of NESTs, dropping broad hints about
native-speakerism. On the one hand, the teachers used L1/2 for getting a good grasp of
and building links with English, moved back and forth between host and target lan­
guages, and displayed sensitivity to cultural realities beyond the language classroom. This
may well resonate with what Byram (2009) terms savoir comprendre, i.e., skills of inter­
preting and relating. The teachers demonstrated capacities to engage with and reflect on
multiple languages, reconcile cultural gaps, and identify common ground, which together
reside at the heart of the experiences of being an intercultural mediator (Kohler 2015;
Liddicoat and Scarino 2013). On the other, the teachers also stated preferences for NESTs
as pedagogic models. To take one example, the teachers exercised shrewd judgement
about culturally-acceptable classroom materials, whereas they relied on NESTs to provide
English equivalents to local religious – notably Islamic – or culture-laden expressions
merely because of native-speakerness. Such a glorification overlooks how the teachers
localise and contextualise classroom materials and activities to grapple with the complex­
ities of English and culture teaching.
Several studies also indicate the challenges and opportunities faced by Indonesian EFL
teachers and the necessary intercultural knowledge and abilities. Stockton (2018), for
instance, notes that ELT in Indonesia has seen the rise of traditionalist approaches to
education with English being recultured at the service of nationalism and religion and
disidentified with liberal Western values. This was especially evident in the 2013 curricu­
lum and government-endorsed English textbooks. Munandar and Newton (2021) illumi­
nate how national education and language policies have a profound influence on
teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding language, culture and English teaching. Also,
Kidwell (2021) classifies novice Indonesian English teachers by their beliefs regarding
teaching about culture as ‘protectors’ and ‘preparers’. The former viewed culture as
‘inheritance’ and expressed the need for students to adopt appropriate cultural behaviour
and preserve local cultures, the latter emphasised that students need to develop respect
for other cultures and adapt to new cultural concepts and encounters. Hence, native
speaker-oriented ideas of pedagogic abilities could lead to ambiguities since these fail to
capture the situated pedagogic initiatives and cultural mediation skills of the teachers
where in practice they wrestle with a broad range of academic, linguistic, cultural,
economic, religious, and political factors considered relevant to the students’ learning
exigencies, needs, goals, and priorities.
Third, as with teaching skills, the teachers measured their English ability against
that of NESTs, although in reality it was but one of the many factors contributing
 PEDAGOGY, CULTURE & SOCIETY 15

to effective pedagogies. A good example of this is when they assumed the

‘accuracy’ of native speakers’ meanings or pronunciations and expressed doubt in
their own production due to a presumed lack of English. In this respect, Medgyes
(2001) maintains that NNESTs can in some cases feel they are handicapped by their
lack of English skills. However, the nature and processes of language teaching and
learning are too complex to be attributed to a few definite ones. Such non-
language-specific variables as age, experience, gender, aptitude, motivation, train­
ing, and so forth may exert direct, significant impacts on the teaching effective­
ness, and these equally apply to NESTs and NNESTs. Richards (2012, 46) asserts that
in ‘good teaching’ there are ‘dimensions of teacher knowledge and skill that seem
to be at the core of expert teaching competence and performance in language
teaching’, i.e., language proficiency, content knowledge, teaching skills, contextual
knowledge, language teacher identity, learner-focused teaching, pedagogical rea­
soning skills, theorising from practice, membership in a community of practice, and
professionalism. In other words, while recognising the importance of English com­
petency, it is not the single most determining factor in an effective pedagogy.
Moreover, Byram (2015) argues that there is no reason to make a priori assump­
tions that NESTs or NNESTs are better qualified to teach ICC components. This is
partly because some relative pedagogic competencies of NNEST might redress the
privileged knowledge of linguistic norms of NEST, and the NNEST’s privileged
knowledge of learners and their cultural experiences could counterbalance NEST’s
knowledge of a target culture. In intercultural EFL classrooms, the question is not
whether teachers are NESTs or NNESTs, but rather whether they could act as
intercultural speakers and mediators working towards the intercultural goals.
Taken together, the paradoxes existing in the EFL classrooms are broadly con­
sistent with the findings of other studies exploring how English is perceived by the
general public and how it is situated in the national education. The international
prominence of English is well recognised and hence it has long been set
a curriculum priority (Dardjowidjojo 2000). The fact remains that English is compet­
ing for a space in the nation’s contemporary language ecologies, and EFL classes
help illustrate the cultural, political, and economic forces that are at play in the
local, national and global arena (Coleman 2016; Zentz 2017). Here, the dissolution
of the international standard school (SBI) by the Constitutional Court (MK) can be
a case in point (International-Standard School Unconstitutional 2013; Sakhiyya 2011).
The MK ruling stipulates, among other things, that the English-medium SBI violates
Article 36 of the 1945 Constitution, ignores the role of the national language, and
constitutes a threat to local languages as part of Indonesia’s cultural wealth
(Putusan Nomor 5/PUU-X/2012 2013). That is, the ambiguities and tensions sur­
rounding the EFL teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices regarding intercultur­
ality, native-speakerness and authenticity as described in this research cannot exist
in a vacuum and thus be seen in isolation from underpinning mechanisms that
inspire the use of English in local and national settings (Zentz 2016), as well as
from a complex set of ideological, social, economic, and political agendas within
which the language-in-education policy is embedded (Shohamy 2006).
16 M. I. MUNANDAR

Concluding remarks and pedagogic implications

This paper has reported an intercultural perspective on the extent to which native-
speakerism and authenticity feed into Indonesian high-school EFL teachers’ classroom
instruction and the way L1 use affects teaching and learning. Returning to the questions
raised at the beginning of this study, it is now possible to state some apparent paradoxes
emerging from the findings mainly concern, first, the natural use of L1/2 in the classroom
interactions representing the teachers’ and students’ full repertoire despite the desired
English-only environment. Second, that teachers serve as intercultural speakers and
mediators amid Indonesia’s challenging, unique EFL setting despite preferences towards
NESTs as models. Third, they too are inclined to measure their own and student’s English
ability against that of the native speaker whilst the day-to-day work requires more than
mere English proficiency. These socio-educational phenomena are indicative of how
resilient and wide-ranging native-speakerism is as a language-based ideology of inclusion
and exclusion (Houghton and Bouchard 2020). The classroom dynamics attest to a local
sociolinguistic environment where the speakers teach, learn or operate English as
a ‘dismantled’ foreign language. Authenticity in ELT can thus be better construed as
a long continuum that is responsive to individual, social and other contextual elements of
teaching, learning and use of English as a global lingua franca (Pinner 2016). Also,
comparing one’s own English command and being preoccupied with the so-called native
speaker competence can also lead to feelings of inadequacy, insecurity, and inferiority
(Medgyes 2011). EFL pedagogy makes up a multidimensional enterprise and English
proficiency cannot be regarded as the only contributory factor to the competency,
authority, and legitimacy of EFL teachers. Apart from marginalising and constraining the
autonomy of teachers and learners, rigidly linking English skills and authenticity to
members and cultures of English-speaking Western communities can impose unrealistic
targets, deprive them of opportunities to go beyond the target culture and devalue their
‘authentic selves’ as multilingual users of English. This has refocused our attention on the
principles of intercultural language pedagogy that put initial cultural conceptions in
a productive light, reduced native-speakerist tendencies, and allowed greater latitude in
adapting instructional strategies to the immediate and larger socio-educational context.
Integrating the tenets into EFL pedagogies can thus help indigenous teachers and
learners to embrace cultural identities and experiences and to reflect critically and
constructively on their own professional practices.
Overall, the findings of this study have some important pedagogic implications for
future policy and practice. Firstly, EFL pedagogy needs to advocate more widely and
adopt a non-essentialist approach to culture so as to dissociate the instructional goals and
activities from such externally-ascribed, ‘large’ entities as ethnicity, nationality, or inter­
national society (Holliday 1999, 2009). Native-speakerism closely links with an essentialist
view of culture showing reductionist, simplistic understandings of culture and members
of that culture. Members of a cultural group are assumed to be homogenous and lumped
together as if they behave in particularly similar ways. These misconceptions can be
especially prone to cultural prejudice and othering as culturally different people are
reduced to demeaning stereotypes and demonised others (Holliday 2011). By taking
a non-essentialist approach, culture may then no longer be narrowly defined in terms
of particular cultures, communities or geographical blocks. The standpoint helps EFL
 PEDAGOGY, CULTURE & SOCIETY 17

pedagogies abandon the conception of culture as a static and monolithic entity and
liberate classrooms from native speaker and target culture-preoccupied framings
(Alptekin 1993, 2002; Holliday, Kullman, and Hyde 2010). Not only will a non-essentialist
approach dismiss cultural disbelief at ‘non-native speakers of English’, but it acknowl­
edges the cultural contributions of multilingual speakers of English as a foreign or
international language (Holliday 2015, 2018).
Secondly, EFL pedagogy needs to be more responsive to local religio-cultural values
and practices. In some cultures and societies, religion constitutes a fundamental part of
people’s sense of personal, ethnic or cultural identities and makes strong impacts on ways
of thinking and patterns of behaviour of teachers and pupils in and outside the classroom
(Jackson 2014; Wintergerst and McVeigh 2010). In Indonesia, for example, religion is an
integral part of the national education (Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No 20 Tahun
2003Tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional 2003). Key findings of this study reveal that
religious worldviews, chiefly Islamic thoughts and traditions, shape classroom discourse.
The findings of previous studies such as that of Siregar (2016) and Mambu (2017)
demonstrate the place of spirituality and Christian values in the English classes.
Likewise, investigations conducted by Palmer and Chodidjah (2011), Farid and Lamb
(2020), and Munandar (2022), explore the ways Islamic ethics and traditions impact on
a wide spectrum of the EFL teaching and learning in predominantly-Muslim Indonesia.
Factoring in religio-cultural components can therefore be potentially valuable for enact­
ing effective intercultural EFL pedagogies situated within Indonesia’s socio-cultural milieu
as well as broadening the theoretical base of intercultural language education at large.

Acknowledgements
I wish to thank all the teachers and students who made the data collection and this research
possible.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding
This work was part of a larger PhD project supported by the Indonesia’s Ministry of Research,
Technology and Higher Education (Ristek Dikti) under Overseas Postgraduate Study Grant (BPPLN)
no. 462/E4.4/2014.

ORCID
Muhammad Iwan Munandar http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5912-2449

References
Alptekin, C. 1993. “Target-language culture in EFL materials.” ELT Journal 47 (2): 136–143. https://doi.
org/10.1093/elt/47.2.136.
18 M. I. MUNANDAR

Alptekin, C. 2002. “Towards Intercultural Communicative Competence in ELT.” ELT Journal 56 (1):
57–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.1.57.
Andreani, W., and U. P. Dewi. 2017. “English Teaching in Post-Colonialism Discourse: EFL students’
Perception Toward English and Native English Teachers in Indonesia.” Advanced Science Letters
23 (2): 1193–1196. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.7536.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2012. “Thematic Analysis.” In APA Handbook of Research Methods in
Psychology, Vol 2: Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological, and Biological,
edited by H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, and K. J. Sher, 57–71.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Breen, M. P., B. Hird, M. Milton, R. Oliver, and A. Thwaite. 2001. “Making Sense of Language Teaching:
Teachers’ Principles and Classroom Practices.” Applied Linguistics 22 (4): 470–501. https://doi.org/
10.1093/applin/22.4.470.
Buttjes, D., and M. Byram, Eds. 1991. Mediating Languages and Cultures. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. 2009. “Intercultural Competence in Foreign Languages: The Intercultural Speaker and the
Pedagogy of Foreign Language Education.” In The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence,
edited by D. K. Deardorff, 321–332. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Byram, M. 2015. “Culture in Foreign Language Learning – the Implications for Teachers and Teacher
Training.” In Culture and Foreign Language Education: Insights from Research and Implications for
the Practice, edited by W. M. Chan, S. K. Bhatt, M. Nagami, and I. Walker, 37–58. Boston: De Gruyter
Mouton.
Byram, M. 2021. Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence: Revisited. 2nd ed.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M., B. Gribkova, and H. Starkey. 2002. Developing the Intercultural Dimension in Language
Teaching: A Practical Introduction for Teachers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Cahyani, H., M. de Courcy, and J. Barnett. 2016. “Teachers’ Code-Switching in Bilingual Classrooms:
Exploring Pedagogical and Sociocultural Functions.” International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism 21 (4): 465–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1189509.
Cenoz, J., and D. Gorter. 2013. “Towards a Plurilingual Approach in English Language Teaching:
Softening the Boundaries Between Languages.” TESOL Quarterly 47 (3): 591–599. https://doi.org/
10.1002/tesq.121.
Coleman, H. 2016. “The English Language as Naga in Indonesia.” In Why English?: Confronting the
Hydra, edited by P. Bunce, P. R. Phillipson, V. Rapatahana, and R. Tupas, 59–71. London:
Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. 1999. “Going Beyond the Native Speaker in Language Teaching.” TESOL Quarterly 33 (2):
185–209. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587717.
Cook, V. 2001. “Using the First Language in the Classroom.” The Canadian Modern Language Review
57 (3): 402–423. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.3.402.
Cook, V. 2016. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. 5th ed. London: Routledge.
Daoud, S., and A. Kasztalska. 2022. “Exploring Native-Speakerism in Teacher Job Recruitment
Discourse Through Legitimation Code Theory: The Case of the United Arab Emirates.”
Language Teaching Research 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211066883.
Dardjowidjojo, S. 2000. “English Teaching in Indonesia.” English Australia Journal 18 (1): 22–30.
Dervin, F. 2016. Interculturality in Education: A Theoretical and Methodological Toolbox. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Emilia, E., and F. A. Hamied. 2022. “Translanguaging Practices in a Tertiary EFL Context in Indonesia.”
TEFLIN Journal 33 (1): 47–74. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v33i1/47-74.
Fang, F. (Gabriel). 2018. “Native-Speakerism Revisited: Global Englishes, ELT and Intercultural
Communication.” Indonesian JELT: Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching 13 (2):
115–129. https://doi.org/10.25170/ijelt.v13i2.1453.
Fantini, A. E. 1997. “Language: Its Cultural and Intercultural Dimensions.” In New Ways in Teaching
Culture, edited by A. E. Fantini, 3–15. Alexandria: TESOL Publications.
Farid, A., and M. Lamb. 2020. “English for Da’wah? L2 Motivation in Indonesian Pesantren Schools.”
System 94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102310.
 PEDAGOGY, CULTURE & SOCIETY 19

Harsanti, H. R., and C. Manara. 2021. ““I Have to Teach the ‘English’ English”: Native-Speakerism
Ideology Among the English Teachers.” Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 11 (2): 330–340.
https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v11i2.26379.
Holliday, A. 1999. “Small Cultures.” Applied Linguistics 20 (2): 237–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/
applin/20.2.237.
Holliday, A. 2006. “Native-speakerism.” ELT Journal 60 (4): 385–387. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/
ccl030.
Holliday, A. 2007. Doing and Writing Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Holliday, A. 2009. “English as a Lingua Franca, “Non-Native speakers” and Cosmopolitan Realities.” In
English as an International Language: Perspectives and Pedagogical Issues, edited by F. Sharifian,
21–33. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Holliday, A. 2011. Intercultural Communication and Ideology. London: SAGE Publications.
Holliday, A. 2013. Understanding Intercultural Communication: Negotiating a Grammar of Culture.
London: Routledge.
Holliday, A. 2015. “Native-Speakerism: Taking the Concept Forward and Achieving Cultural Belief.” In
(En)countering Native-Speakerism, edited by A. Swan, P. Aboshiha, and A. Holliday, 11–25.
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holliday, A. 2018. “Native-Speakerism.” In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching,
edited by J. I. Liontas, 1–7. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0027.
Holliday, A., J. Kullman, and M. Hyde. 2010. Intercultural Communication: An Advanced Resource Book
for Students. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Houghton, S. A., and J. Bouchard. 2020. “Introduction.” In Native-Speakerism: Its Resilience and
Undoing, edited by S. A. Houghton and J. Bouchard, 1–17. Singapore: Springer.
Jackson, J. 2014. Introducing Language and Intercultural Communication. London: Routledge.
Kidwell, T. 2021. “Protectors and Preparers: Novice Indonesian EFL teachers’ Beliefs Regarding
Teaching About Culture.” Language and Intercultural Communication 21 (5): 631–645. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2021.1913179.
Kirkpatrick, A., and R. Sussex, Eds. 2012. English as an International Language in Asia: Implications for
Language Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Kohler, M. 2015. Teachers as Mediators in the Foreign Language Classroom. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Kohler, M. 2019. “Language Education Policy in Indonesia.” In The Routledge International Handbook
of Language Education Policy in Asia, edited by J. Liddicoat Anthony and A. Kirkpatrick, 286–297.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315666235.
Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. 1998. Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 2006. Understanding Language Teaching: From Method to Postmethod. Mahwah,
NJ: Routledge.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 2012. Language Teacher Education for a Global Society: A Modular Model for
Knowing, Analyzing, Recognizing, Doing, and Seeing. New York: Routledge.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 2015. “Foreword.” In (En)countering Native-Speakerism, edited by A. Swan,
P. Aboshiha, and A. Holliday, viii–xi. Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kusumaningputri, R., and H. P. Widodo. 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.
Liando, N. V. F., R. Dallyono, D. P. Tatipang, and F. Lengkoan. 2023. “Among English, Indonesian and
local language: Translanguaging practices in an Indonesian EFL classroom.” Indonesian Journal of
Applied Linguistics 13 (1): 204–216. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v13i1.58270.
Liddicoat, A. J. 2002. “Static and Dynamic Views of Culture and Intercultural Language Acquisition.”
Babel 36 (3): 4–11.
Liddicoat, A. J. 2011. “Language Teaching and Learning from an Intercultural Perspective.” In
Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, edited by E. Hinkel, 837–855.
Vol. II. New York: Routledge.
20 M. I. MUNANDAR

Liddicoat, A. J., and A. Scarino. 2013. Intercultural Language Teaching and Learning. West Sussex, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Littlewood, W., and B. Yu. 2011. “First Language and Target Language in the Foreign Language
Classroom.” Language Teaching 44 (1): 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444809990310.
Lowe, R. J., and R. Pinner. 2016. “Finding the Connections Between Native-Speakerism and
Authenticity.” Applied Linguistics Review 7 (1): 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-
0002.
Mahboob, A., and A. M. Y. Lin. 2016. “Using Local Languages in English Language Classrooms.” In
English Language Teaching Today: Linking Theory and Practice, edited by W. A. Renandya and
H. P. Widodo, 25–40. Switzerland: Springer.
Mambu, J. E. 2017. “Creatively Negotiating the Place of Spirituality in the ELT Classroom.” TEFLIN
Journal 28 (1): 93–114. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v28i1/93-114.
McKay, S. L. 2012. “English as an International Language.” In The Cambridge Guide to Pedagogy and
Practice in Second Language Teaching, edited by J. C. Richards and A. Burns, 15–22. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Medgyes, P. 2001. “When the Teacher is a Non-Native Speaker.” In Teaching English as a Second or
Foreign Language, edited by M. Celce-Murcia, 3rd ed 415–428. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Medgyes, P. 2011. “Nonnative Speaker English Teachers: Research, Pedagogy, and Professional
Growth.” ELT Journal 65 (2): 190–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr009.
Munandar, M. I. 2022. “Interculturality and Islam in Indonesia’s High-School EFL Classrooms.” IRAL
61 (3): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2021-0200.
Munandar, M. I., and J. Newton. 2021. “Indonesian EFL teachers’ pedagogic beliefs and classroom
practices regarding culture and interculturality.” Language and Intercultural Communication
21 (2): 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2020.1867155.
Newton, J. 2016. “Teaching English for Intercultural Spoken Communication.” In English Language
Teaching Today: Linking Theory and Practice, edited by W. A. Renandya and H. P. Widodo, 161–177.
Switzerland: Springer.
Newton, J., F. L. Siregar, and T. P. T. Tran. 2020. “Intercultural Awareness and Good Language
Teachers.” In Lessons from Good Language Teachers, edited by C. Griffiths and Z. Tajeddin,
28–40. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108774390.006.
Palmer, G., and I. Chodidjah. 2011. “Training the Pesantren: Intercultural Materials for Islamic
Boarding Schools in Indonesia.” In Innovating EFL Teaching in Asia, edited by T. Muller,
S. Herder, J. Adamson, and P. S. Brown, 35–48. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pinner, R. S. 2016. Reconceptualising Authenticity for English as a Global Language. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Poedjiastutie, D., V. Mayaputri, and Y. Arifani. 2021. “Socio-Cultural Challenges of English Teaching in
Remote Areas of Indonesia.” TEFLIN Journal - A Publication on the Teaching and Learning of English
32 (1): 97–116. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v32i1/97-116.
Putusan Nomor 5/PUU-X/2012, (2013). http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/public/content/persi
dangan/putusan/putusan_sidang_5%20PUU%202012-sisdiknas%20-%20telah%20baca%208%
20Januari%202013.pdf.
Rasman, R. 2018. “To Translanguage or Not to Translanguage? The Multilingual Practice in an
Indonesian EFL Classroom.” Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 7 (3): 687–694. https://doi.
org/10.17509/ijal.v7i3.9819.
Richards, J. C. 2012. “Competence and Performance in Language Teaching.” In The Cambridge Guide
to Pedagogy and Practice in Second Language Teaching, edited by J. C. Richards and A. Burns,
46–56. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sakhiyya, Z. 2011. “Interrogating Identity: The International Standard School in Indonesia.” Pedagogy
Culture & Society 19 (3): 345–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2011.607841.
Shohamy, E. G. 2006. Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. Abington: Routledge.
Simons, G. F., and C. D. Fennig, Eds. 2017. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 20th ed. Dallas: SIL
International.
Simpson, A. 2007. “Indonesia.” In A Language and National Identity in Asia, Edited by A. Simpson,
312–336. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 PEDAGOGY, CULTURE & SOCIETY 21

Siregar, F. L. 2016. In Pursuit of Intercultural Communicative Competence: An Investigation into English

Language Policy and Practices at a Private University in Indonesia. [Victoria University of
Wellington]. http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/5258.
Song, S. Y. 2014. “Teacher’s Beliefs About Language Learning and Teaching.” In The Routledge
Handbook of Educational Linguistics, edited by M. Bigelow and J. Ennser-Kananen, 263–275.
New York: Routledge.
Statistics Indonesia. 2013. Indonesia Population Projection 2010-2035. Jakarta, Indonesia: BPS.
Stockton, R. J. 2018. “Recultured Language in Indonesian English Language Teaching.” Indonesian
JELT: Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching 13 (2): 131–153. https://doi.org/10.25170/
ijelt.v13i2.1454.
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 20 Tahun 2003 tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional,
(2003). https://www.setneg.go.id/index.php?option=com_perundanganandid=323andtask=
detailandcatid=1andItemid=42andtahun=2003.
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 24 Tahun 2009 tentang Bendera, Bahasa, dan Lambang
Negara, serta Lagu Kebangsaan, (2009).
Vasquez, V. M., S. L. Tate, and J. C. Harste. 2013. Negotiating Critical Literacies with Teachers:
Theoretical Foundations and Pedagogical Resources for Pre-Service and In-Service Contexts. 1st ed.
New York: Routledge.
Vogel, S., and O. García. 2017. Translanguaging. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. http://
education.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-
9780190264093-e-181 .
Wintergerst, A. C., and J. McVeigh. 2010. Tips for Teaching Culture: Practical Approaches to
Intercultural Communication. New York: Pearson Education ESL.
Zacharias, N. T. 2014a. “Integrating EIL Pedagogy in a Pre-Service Teacher Education Program.”
TEFLIN Journal - A Publication on the Teaching and Learning of English 25 (2): 217–232. https://doi.
org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v25i2/217-232.
Zacharias, N. T. 2014b. “The Relocation of Culture in the Teaching of English as an International
Language.” In The Pedagogy of English as an International Language: Perspectives from Scholars,
Teachers, and Students, edited by R. Marlina and R. A. Giri, 129–141. New York: Springer.
Zacharias, 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.
Zentz, L. 2016. “English on the Rise: Access and Resources in Internationalization.” In The Economics
of Language Policy, edited by M. Gazzola and B.-A. Wickström, 433–468. London: MIT Press.
Zentz, L. 2017. Statehood, Scale and Hierarchy: History, Language and Identity in Indonesia. Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.