T1 112008060 Full text

Eight Student-teachers’ Development in Understanding
English as an International Language Pedagogy
Abstract
With the wide spread of English as an international language, attention has been paid to
the application of EIL pedagogy in TESOL education. There have been many studies and
suggestions concerning how to teach EIL. However, there is still lacking of research about EIL
pedagogy in Indonesia. This study investigates how eight Indonesian student-teachers develop
their understanding of EIL pedagogy throughout a Microteaching class. The data were collected
from teaching journals, lesson plans, and portfolios. The study found that the participants have
different perceptions about implementing EIL approach into the teaching due to their different
ways in gaining knowledge about EIL. At first, they only knew about „source culture‟ and „target
culture‟, and then they tried to improve their knowledge by seeking in some sources like from
lecture, friends, and internet. As time goes by, their understanding was not limited to „source
culture‟ and „target culture‟ but also the use of „international target culture‟. All of them give
positive attitudes toward the application of EIL approach as the alternative approach to learn
English.

Key words: English as an international language, student-teachers, culture.

Introduction
English as an International language (EIL) has been a major research topic of applied

linguistics and Teaching English to Speakers of Other Language (TESOL) education since the
last decade (McKay, 2002; Matsuda, 2003; Liurda, 2004). I firstly heard the issue of EIL when I
was in my Micro teaching course and I did not have any idea about what EIL was. McKay
(2010), in her article, used the term English as international language as an umbrella term to refer
the use of English between any two L2 speakers of English, whether sharing the same culture or
6

not, as well as between L2 and L1 speakers of English. In other words, EIL is used in the
situation where the communication happened between bilingual English speakers, as well as
bilingual and monolingual English speakers. It is suggested that English is widely spread all
around the world and used by many bilingual English speakers as the medium of communication
across cultures.
As the growing number of English speakers in the world, English is used in various
contexts, such as academic field, workplace, international trade, global media, tourism, business,
technology, and on diplomatic occasions. It means that many learners of English today have
specific purposes in learning English. McKay (2002) clearly stated that many individuals learn
English not because English is promoted by English-speaking countries, but rather because these
individuals want access to scientific and technological information, international organizations,
global economic trade, and higher education. Starting from that point, new pedagogies have been
proposed to fulfill that demand.

When I took Microteaching course in my fourth-year of study, I was introduced to a new
pedagogy called EIL approach. At that time, my classmates and I were required to apply this
approach in our mini lessons. It was kind of challenge for me because EIL is new approach and I
did not have any background knowledge about it. I have known some teaching techniques from
the Teaching Learning Strategies (TLS) course such as Grammar Translation Method, Direct
Method, Total Physical Response, Communicative Language Teaching, and many others;

however, I did not learned about EIL approach. My classmates also had the same problem with
me because that was also their first time heard about EIL approach. Honestly, I faced difficulties
in understanding EIL pedagogy because the lack of knowledge about it. That is why I am curious

7

how my classmates gain and develop their understanding of EIL pedagogy in Microteaching
class.
Besides my curiosity of my classmates‟ development in understanding EIL, there is
another thing that encourages me to conduct this study. While I was looking for some references
to gain knowledge about EIL, I realized that there is lack of research about EIL pedagogy in
Indonesia, so it gave me more motivation to do this small research. Although English is studied
as foreign language in Indonesia, English plays an important role because it is one of courses in

the national examination beside Indonesian and Mathematic, especially in high schools. As the
students of the pre-service education program, knowing the development of ELT is crucial
because they are prepared to be English teachers in future so they should be aware of the current
landscape of English (Matsuda, 2003; Renandya; 2011; Zacharias, 2002).
All in all, because of the lack research about EIL pedagogy in Indonesia, this study is
conducted. The study will answer the research question “how does these eight students-teachers‟
understanding of EIL pedagogy develop?”, and contribute to the clearer understanding EIL
pedagogy by analyzing the student-teachers‟ perceptions, feelings, difficulties, benefits, and
progress in integrating EIL approach into the teaching. I hope that this small study will give
contribution in the development of ELT, especially in Indonesia. However, EIL approach is still
in progress of its development so that the understanding of these student-teachers may have
improvement after the study conducted.

8

Theoritical Framework
EIL pedagogy
Graddol (2006) convincingly argued that the traditional model of EFL teaching based on
nineteenth century premises has failed in many aspects, and only a new approach based on
English as an international language can contribute to the improvement of English language

learning worldwide. There have been numerous studies and suggestions how to teach English as
an international language, one of them is by using EIL approach. Integrating EIL approach into
the teaching can be done by looking from some aspects below:

English role model

In the nineteen seventies the target of learning was assumed to be a native-speaker variety
of English and it was the native-speakers‟ culture, perceptions, and speech that were crucial in
setting goals for English language teaching (Richards, 2001). It is supported by Graddol (1997,
in Zacharias, 2003) who suggested that native speakers “the source of models of correctness, the
best teachers as well as the source of goods and services for those in the outer and expanding
circle”. In this sense, all of the English teaching was referred to the inner circle countries.
However, today many experts criticize this assumption due to the different purposes in learning
English. Widdowson (1994) stated that bilingual teachers are born with local advantages, and this
cannot be replaced by native speakers‟ teachers who are foreign to local teaching cultures and
contexts. McKay (2003) also has the same view when she investigated the attitudes of Chilean
teachers of English towards EIL and found that the drawback about native speakers is that they are not
familiar with the local context. So in summary, implementing EIL approach in the teaching will give

the understanding that English role model nowadays is not necessarily refer to native speakers

9

anymore because English is demanded to meet the specific need of the learners which is not to
achieve native-like competence but more on communication ability.

Varieties of English accent and pronunciation

Cook (1999) claimed that non-native accents were often seen as a failure of learning the
English language. However, McKay (2002) criticized this statement as „native speaker fallacy‟
because it reinforces a narrow definition of expertise in language teaching, one in which great
deal of prestige is given to native-like pronunciation and intuition. It is also supported by Jenkins
(1998, in Talebinezhad, 2001) who asserted that the acquisition of native like accent is no longer
the ultimate objective of the majority of learners. I personally agree with the last two statements
because every country has different accent. Indonesia, although its location is very close to
Malaysia, they have different accent of speaking. So does Malaysia with Singapore or Thailand,
they also have its own accents. English, as its spread widely in the world, there is no necessity to
follow native speakers‟ accent because imitate others‟ accent is unnecessary. Canagarajah (1999,
in McKay, 2002) noted:
Many periphery professionals feel compelled to spend undue time repairing their
pronunciation or performing other cosmetic changes to sound native. Their

predominant concern is in effect "How can I lose my accent?" rather than “How I
can be a successful teacher?” The anxiety and inhibitions about their
pronunciation can make them lose their grip on the instructional process or lack
rapport with their students.
As many experts realized that teaching English is not necessarily get along with its accent, EIL
approach is started to be applied in many countries, especially expanding circle like India
10

(Canagarajah, 1999), Japan (Matsuda, 2003; Kubota, 2009), Taiwan (Liou, 2009), Indonesia
(Zacharias, 2012), and many others because EIL approach could expose the variety of English
accents.
Another phonological issue in EIL context is about teaching pronunciation. As I have
mentioned before, it was commonly believed that the main purpose of learning a new language
was to communicate with its native speakers. Zacharias (2003) in her research about teachers‟
belief of ELT in Indonesia found that native speakers were preferable as the model for teaching
pronunciation because of the assumption those native speakers have appropriacy, accuracy, and
naturalness in speaking English. The same finding also shared by Liou (2009) who conducted
research about EIL in Taiwan which the majority of the teachers believed that teaching standard
pronunciation to students is essential in their teaching practice. However, English is learned for
different purposes today which the native speakers‟ proficiency will not be the goal of learners‟

linguistic production. Richards (2002) stated that in the context where EIL approach is applied, it
is not necessary to try to eradicate the phonological influences of mother tongue nor to seek to
speak like a native speaker. It means that speak English as perfect as native speakers are not the
main goal of integrating EIL approach. Even EIL approach gives kind of freedom to English
speakers to speak with the phonological influence of their mother tongue as long as it can be
understood by the both speakers and listeners.

Cultural materials

It is acknowledged that language and culture are intertwined (Hofstede, 1991; Brake,
1995; Peterson & Coltrane, 2003; William, 2010). Politzer (1959, in Zacharias, 2003) mentioned
that if we teach language without teaching at the same time the culture in which it operates, we
11

are teaching meaningless symbols or symbols to which the student attaches the wrong meaning.
So it is clear that teaching language is always alongside with teaching culture because those two
things are inseparable. However, as the growth of English as an international language, there is a
change in a way of teaching language together with its culture. McKay (2002) argued that some of
the cultural contents in teaching English (teaching target culture) may be irrelevant to students‟
concerns; sometimes they may even present cultural conflicts. So, whose culture that should be

taught in the context of EIL? To answer this question, Jin & Cortazzi (1999) distinguished three
types of cultural information that can be applied in English language teaching:
-

„source culture‟ that draw on the learners‟ own culture.

-

„target culture‟ that focused on the culture from inner circle countries, and

-

„international target culture‟ that use the culture from both native and non-native
English countries.

Different from traditional model of EFL teaching which usually used the target culture,
EIL approach could accommodate all of the types‟ cultural information above as the teaching
material. Then, McKay (2002) proposed that the used of „source culture‟ in EIL context seemed
the most appropriate because it provides students with an opportunity to learn more about their
own culture and to learn the language needed to explain these cultural elements in English. I

agree with this statement because the learners are more familiar with their own culture so that it
can ease them to receive the lesson. Moreover, „international target culture‟ also suggested as the
teaching material because it can demonstrate cross-cultural pragmatic by which bilingual users of
English can demonstrate their own rules of social appropriateness while they are also learning to
understand the appropriateness of other cultures and I think it will be interesting if we can learn
many unique cultures from other countries. All in all, it must be remembered that English
12

teachers should always have in mind when teaching culture is the need to raise the students‟
awareness of their own culture and the target culture.

Problems in applying EIL pedagogy
EIL is considered as a new pedagogy so that there still many debates among educational
experts about the strengths and weaknesses of this approach. Common problem that usually
appears in accommodating EIL approach is:
Question of Standard English

The wider spread of English on the world has resulted in the development of many new
English varieties which led to the discussion about the standards that should be presented in the
English language teaching. McKay (2006) stated that there should be different standards for

different contexts of use and that definition of each Standard English should be determined
locally rather than determined outside its context of use. The problem is that if different place
has different standard of English, there will be many standards English according to where the
English is used. In addition, different Standard English will lead to what McKay refers as lack of
intelligibility among speakers of English. So based on this case, the confusion will appear among
the English teachers who want to apply EIL approach because they are bewildered with the
different standard of English that should be presented in their teaching.
After gaining the knowledge about the aspect of EIL pedagogy and knowing the common
problem that appeared in applying EIL approach, the next section will present about the setting
and the subject of the study, also the process of conducting this research.

13

The Study
Context of the study
The setting of the study is an English Department of Satya Wacana Christian University.
It is located in a small town of Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia. English is the medium of
instruction in the classroom. Moreover, this faculty has several native teachers so that the
students can still have an opportunity to use English outside the class to interact with them. It
gives an advantage for both students and native teachers to have a communication across culture.

In this major the students are prepared to be English teacher so that they are introduced with
some courses related to English Language Teaching (ELT).
One of the courses that I selected to conduct this study is Microteaching course.
Microteaching is a course where the students teach fellow students. This course is a two-credit
course conducted for 14 weeks in a semester with approximately 12 students in a class.
Throughout the semester, each student needs to do 3 mini lessons. The mini lesson should be
noticed as a learning experience of designing lesson plans, developing materials and teaching
techniques for a 15-20 minutes lesson. According to the course syllabus of Microteaching in
Satya Wacana Christian University, the purpose of Microteaching course is to develop a
community of beginning teachers who are able to:
1. Critically and constantly reflect their own teaching and their profesional identities as a teacher
of English;
2. Situate their teaching according to the local context; and
3. Be sensitive towards the students‟ learning needs, affects, and bilingual identities.
Actually there are several Microteaching classes that opened in this department but I
choose Microteaching C class since this class requires its students to apply EIL approach in their
14

mini lessons. Besides, I also enrolled in this class so I have a benefit to know more about the
situation of the class.

Participants
The participant of this study is eight student-teachers from Microteaching. Actually, there
are twelve students but I only choose eight students who are selected purposively based on the
completeness of the participants‟ data (lesson plans, teaching journals, and portfolio) from mini
lesson 1 until mini lesson 3, and the appropriateness of the data content with my research topic
about the development of understanding EIL pedagogy. Besides, I also use „sample of
convenient‟ strategy (Blackledge, 2001, in Zacharias, 2011) which mean that the participants are
accessible to be met or asked in case I find difficulties about their data. Moreover, the names of
the participants are pseudonyms.

Instruments of data collection
The data for the study is collected from the participants‟ :
 Lesson Plan
As stated in the course syllabus (Zacharias, 2011), the students are required to design
lesson plan before teaching. The lesson plan consist of some aspects related to the
teaching, such as, the reason in choosing topic & activity (how it relates with EIL),
teaching information (subject, grade, skill, time allocation), teaching objectives &
indicators, teaching procedures / teaching orders (pre-teaching, whilst-teaching, postteaching), and attachment (teaching material). Since the eight participants had done 3
mini lessons, so there were 24 lesson plans altogether.
15

 Teaching Journal
Besides designing lesson plan, the students also had to write pre and post teaching
journal. This teaching journal was developed by Zacharias (2011) following Burns
(2010) and Richards (1994) action research cycle of topic, planning, action,
observation, and reflection. There were two sections in pre teaching journal, topic and
planning, where the students should explain their reason in choosing topic, how it
connected to EIL approach, what the teaching activity they planned, also the
preparation for the teaching. It was done before the teaching.
Moreover, in the post teaching journal there was action, observation, and reflection
section where the students should reflect their own teaching since it was done after
the teaching. In the action section, the students explained about how their teaching
was going. It was done right after the teaching. In the observation, the students
interpreted their teaching by viewing their teaching video. The last section, reflection,
the students were required to mention their weaknesses, their strengths, what aspects
worked well and what did not, their overall impression about the teaching, also the
reflection of their teaching. There were 24 teaching journal collected from the
participants with approximately 1000-1500 words for each journal.
 Portfolio
Portfolio was the final assignment that should be done by the students in the end of
the course which aimed to document the students-teachers‟ teaching artifacts and
illustrate their journey of Microteaching course. This portfolio has three important
parts which are reflective focus, argument, and artifact. In the reflective focus, the
student-teachers should mention at least three themes that illustrate their journey in
16

Micro teaching course also what they have learned during that process, particularly
they had a theme which focus on their experience in integrating EIL approach. Then,
in the argument section, the student-teachers gave elaboration and explanation about
their reflective focus. Meanwhile, artifact was the proof of the student-teachers‟
argument, it could be lesson plan, teaching materials, or teaching journals. Each
participant submitted one portfolio with approximately 10-20 pages, so there were 8
portfolios collected.
In short, the instruments of data collection can be summarized as follow:
Table 1. Instruments of data collection
Number of Data from

Total Number of

Total Words of each

each participant

Data

data (average)

Lesson plan

3

3 x 8 = 24

300-500 words

Teaching journal

3

3 x 8 = 24

1000-1500 words

Portfolios

1

1x8=8

2500-3000 words

Kind of data

Data collection procedures
To get the data from the participants, I just simply contacted them to ask about their data
from Microteaching class. To make it easier, I asked their data in form of soft-file because the
data are too many to be printed. At first, I made an appointment with the participants to meet and
copy the data. If there was no chance to meet, I asked the participants to send their data through
email so I could download it. Second, after getting all of the data, I categorized them into three
parts based on its kind (Lesson plan, teaching journal, portfolio) to ease me when doing the
analysis. This process of gathering data took about 2 weeks.

17

Data analysis procedures
After getting all of the data from the participants and categorizing by its kind, I started to
analyze the data by reading the portfolio first because in the portfolio I could see clearly how the
participants explain their own development of understanding EIL. Then, I continued to read the
teaching journals and the lesson plans. I highlighted some important themes on the data related to
EIL, such as the participants‟ perception, feeling, and difficulties in understanding EIL
pedagogy. For this data analysis process, I used „thematic analysis approach‟ (Greg, 2012) which
means that I would examine the data collected from various participants and would identify
themes (and label them as codes or categories) as they emerge when examining the data, as the
same themes continue to emerge I grouped the data together. The analysis included the
participants‟ perception toward EIL, the participants‟ confusion in dealing with EIL, the
participants‟ effort in applying EIL, and the participants‟ progress in understanding EIL. Based
on that analysis, I elaborated how the participants‟ understanding of EIL pedagogy was
developed then drew a conclusion.

Findings and discussion
In this section, I would give brief explanation how the development of student-teachers‟
understanding EIL pedagogy. Because it talked about progress of understanding, it would be
better if I explained it chronologically from mini lesson 1, mini lesson 2, and mini lesson 3.

Mini lesson 1: EIL approach is about accommodating target culture and source culture
By looking at the participants‟ data in their first mini lesson, the basic understanding of
EIL approach that perceived by the student-teachers is about accommodating target and source
18

culture (Cortazzi & Jin, 1999) into the teaching. In this case, target culture is English (western
culture), then source culture is Indonesian (local culture, e.g Javanese). This understanding they
got from the lecture‟s presentation entitled “Developing materials for your student - teaching
using an EIL approach” made by Zacharias (2011) in the second meeting of Microteaching

course. For the first mini lesson, Arumi and Lili shared the same topic about „shopping lifestyle‟
and they implemented EIL approach by accommodating both English and Indonesian culture.
From Lili‟s lesson plan dated 02/10/2011 it can be seen that she started her teaching by exposing
„bargaining‟ as Indonesian shopping habit then „going to auction‟ as American shopping habit.
She had an expectation that the students will tend to be more active when talking about what
they have experienced before (bargaining) than talk about other experienced that they never feel
before (auction).
Arumi shared the same case as Lili which exposed about „shopping lifestyle‟. From her
teaching journal dated 02/10/2011 she began her teaching by giving a text about how Americans
sell their old stuffs via internet, then showing some pictures of second-hand markets in Indonesia
to represent the local culture. It is different from Lili who exposed Indonesian culture first then
American culture later. Arumi stated in her teaching journal that she wanted to find out whether
her students will be more motivated to use English which contained Indonesian culture, instead
of western culture. The similar case also found in Denny and Febri‟s teaching who brought topic
about „engagement‟. Both of them integrated EIL by comparing two different engagement
traditions from western and local culture. Looking from the teaching materials, it can be seen
that Febri accommodated Javanese culture while Denny exposed two local cultures all at once
from Javanese and Bataknese. Denny stated in her teaching journal dated 10/10/2011 that

19

Indonesia is a multicultural country which has various local cultures, so it would be interesting to
expose more than one Indonesian culture in his teaching.
Different from other student-teachers who exposed western and local tradition as the
implementation of EIL approach, Ranthi had strong belief that EIL approach also could be done
by accommodating local voice (Javanese accent) as teaching material. It was shown on her mini
lesson when she assessed students‟ listening skill by giving a recording made by her and her
friend; both of them are Javanese, talked about Indonesian food. Ranthi is one of the opinions
that non-native English speakers also could be good English teachers as she stated in her
teaching journal that:
English as an international language is varieties English used today within
different cultural background. I can combine my own culture with teaching English. I
used local people in my recording because they can be a proper model of English
speaker. (Ranthi, teaching journal, reflection, 18/10/2011)
Ranthi‟s confidence in saying that proper model of English speakers could come from non-native
speakers is supported by Philipson (1992) who claimed that non-native teachers can be better
qualified than native teacher because they have been through the complex process of acquiring
English, have insights on learners‟ linguistic and cultural needs, aware of the difficulties and the
difference between L1 and L2. Cook (2001) strengthened the feasibility of non-native speakers
as English role models by noted that bilingual teachers may be a better model than the model
embodied by native speakers.
Besides accommodating Javanese voice in the recording, Ranthi also exposed „source
culture‟ by providing a text entitled “I love Indonesian food” which contained some special food
terms that may be only exist in Indonesia. The text can be seen in the box below:
20

By mentioning the names of Indonesian food such as Tongjie tea (famous tea brand), fermented
soybean, fresh salad with peanut sauce, ginger syroup, cassava bread, chayotte stew, and sour
cucumber salad, it appears that Ranthi wanted to expose the culture that close to the students.
Ranthi acknowleged that her students didn‟t know the English term for Indonesian food before
she gave the explanation, therefore, she thought that this activity could arise the students‟
awareness of some vocabularies, especially that related to their own culture (Ranthi, teaching
journal, observation, 18/10/2011). It is confirmed with McKay‟s statement (2003) that the
cultural content of EIL materials should not be limited to native English-speaking cultures, EIL
materials could provide students the vocabulary and informationn by including local culture
content.
However, apart from what the student-teachers have believed about EIL approach, the
process of their understanding of EIL approach was not easy. Some of them faced difficulties
when they were trying to look for the definition of EIL approach and how to accommodate it in
21

their teaching. One of the significant difficulties was found in Arumi‟s teaching journal dated
02/10/2011 which expressed her confusion related to Standard English pronunciation and
grammar. At that time, Arumi was bewildered about how applying EIL approach to teach
speaking skill. She questioned about the use of standard pronunciation and grammar while she
included Indonesian culture on her material. Her confusion was clearly seen from her statement
below:
What makes it difficult and makes me feel unsure is that I also use material and
example from Indonesian culture context while I still use standard grammar and
pronunciation. I have questions in my mind like Is it okay if I do not pronounce English
words correctly as the British do? Do I have to teach my students to always use correct
grammar? … . Honestly, I still not sure whether in EIL approach I have to use standard
British pronunciation or not. (Arumi, teaching journal, topic, 02/10/2011)
Actually, what happened to Arumi is a common confusion in applying EIL approach since the
different beliefs among English teachers regarding the view of standard pronunciation and
grammar. The survey conducted by Liou (2009) showed that majority of English teachers
believed that teaching standard pronunciation and grammar is very important:
The majority of the teachers (98%) believed that teaching standard pronunciation
to students is essential in their teaching practice. Equally important is to teach correct
grammar in the classroom with 96% of the teachers agreeing that English teachers should
be able to teach correct grammar in the classroom.
On the other hand, some English teachers argued that they do not need to imitate and pronounce
the English words as perfect as native speakers due to the influence of their mother tongue. As
what Jenkins (2000) suggested that it is important for English users, including teachers, to
22

develop a greater tolerance of difference, and the ability to adapt and adjust their expectations
according to the interlocutors and settings.
Overall, in this first mini lesson, most of the participants‟ basic understanding about EIL
approach is about accommodating target culture as well as source culture. Either they used both
western and local cultures as the implementation of EIL approach or focused on local culture
only. However, they also faced the difficulties about the implication of EIL approach such as the
question of Standard English pronunciation and grammar.

Mini lesson 2: Different perceptions about EIL approach
If in the first mini lesson most of the participants had similar opinion that accommodating
culture is part of the implementation of EIL approach, in the second mini lesson, various
perceptions received by the participants due to their improvement in understanding EIL. For
example, in the teaching journal dated 14/11/202, Ranthi wrote that she has gained more
knowledge about the application of EIL approach from her friends‟ mini lesson:
At this time, I learned further than before how to apply EIL framework in
teaching English from my friends and my own mini teaching.... From those examples I
can perceive that beside of varieties English used today, EIL concept also bring several
cultural background in teaching. Hence, I am able to use either the students own culture
or comparing the target language culture to another as a content of the material. (Ranthi,
teaching journal, planning, 14/11/2011)
From the statement above, it can be analyzed that Ranthi learned about the application of EIL
framework from her friends‟ mini lesson. At first, she only thought that EIL was about exposing
English varieties that appears because the wide spread of English today, then she knew that EIL
23

also could be done by exposing students‟ culture or comparing target culture with others. It is
reflected in her second mini lesson when she used a video of wayang (traditional Javanese
puppet) as a teaching material. She chose wayang to prepare the students to be able to use
English to talk about their own cultures and issues which are important to them, as Mckay (2002)
said that using the source culture is a way of empowering the students and making them practice
using English to express their own culture and identity.
A similar case happened to Lili who also felt that her understanding of EIL approach is
improved. It was seen in Lili‟s teaching journal dated 16/12/2011, she knew her understanding
was improved in the way of applying EIL approach as she wrote that:
Entering my 2nd mini-teaching, my understanding about EIL was improved. Let‟s
look at my Grading sheet from my lecture. She said that I have taught EIL-ly. I also feel
that I started to deeply understand what the meaning of EIL is. EIL means English is our
language too. The owner of English is not only British, American and Australia, but
Indonesia also has English (Lili, portfolio, 16/12/2011)
Frm the statement above, Lili made sure her understanding of EIL was improved by positive
comment from her lecture that said she was successfully accommodating EIL approach in her
teaching. At that time Lili exposed the different accent of English by providing a song entitled
“Price Tag” which sung with two different accents, American and Thai. After hearing the song,
Lili encouraged her students to sing the song together with their own accent without necessarily
imitate the accent from the song. Here, Lili wanted to urge the students to be more confidence
with their own accent so that they can appreciate their accent, as well as others‟ accent.
Furthermore, she would like to shape students‟ perception that different English accent was

24

acceptable; there was nothing wrong with diversity of English accent in the world (Lili, teaching
journal, topic, 31/10/2011).
If Ranthi perceived EIL approach by bringing students‟ culture as the teaching content
and Lili introduced different kind of English accents, Denny taught EIL approach by exposing a
national heritage which was Komodo Island. At that time Komodo Island became a familiar
issue in the society because it was included in the “Seven Wonders Candidates”. In Denny‟s
teaching journal dated 08/10/2011 he wrote that choosing Indonesian cultural site would be more
EIL friendly rather than exposing other places outside Indonesia. He also stated his purpose in
choosing Komodo Island:
In this lesson plan I chose Komodo Island as my topic because the issue has
become hot news in our society. … I also consider EIL concept that I have to follow in
my lesson plan. So I choose Indonesian place (Komodo Island), instead of another place
in the world. Perhaps, by choosing Indonesian place, the student will be more familiar to
the topic and easier to understand the material that I give later. (Denny, teaching journal,
topic, 08/11/2011)
Actually there were many candidates for Seven Wonders besides Indonesia such as Malaysia and
Thailand, however, Denny chose Komodo Island because it is located Indonesia so that the
students would be familiar with the site. Denny‟s purpose in choosing topic was pretty similar
with Ranthi who also expected that bringing familiar topic into the class would make the
students easier in understanding the material.
Another perception come from Dhanik who believed that EIL approach could be applied
by providing an authentic material from inner circle countries. From the lesson plan dated
14/11/2011, it can be seen that Dhanik used a recording from VOA entitled words and their
25

story: fireworks as the teaching material. Although it was taken from American program, the

content of the recording was not only talked about American culture but also the culture from
France, India, Australia, and China which also used fireworks for a certain occasion. She thought
that an event which held annually could be seen as part of the culture from that country, for
example, New Year celebration and French Revolution celebration (Dhanik, teaching journal,
topic, 14/11/2011). However, Dhanik was surprised when she got feedback from her peers who
said that her material was not EIL as she expressed in her teaching journal below:
However, two of my friends think that my material is not too EIL because it‟s
taken from VOA. I think American is part of the EIL so it is fine to bring VOA as my
material in the class moreover the content of this recording is not only talk about
America, but my peer may think that EIL tends to be not American or carry another
culture rather than American and British culture. It‟s still confusing for me. (Dhanik,
teaching journal, reflection, 14/11/2011)
From the statement above, I can see that the difference EIL perceptions among the participants
may affect someone‟s belief. Dhanik believed that EIL could take material from inner circle
country as long as the content also exposed the culture from outer or expanding circle, on the
other hand, her friends considered that EIL approach were likely be to done with the culture
outside inner circle. From that moment, Dhanik understanding of EIL became blurred.
From all of the explanation above, some of the participants confidently said that their
understanding of EIL was improved in the second mini lesson if compared to the first mini
lesson. The development can be seen from the lecture and friends‟ feedback. As Lili had
experienced that she got feedback from her lecture that she was successfully accommodated EIL
in her teaching resulted in her improvement of understanding EIL, meanwhile, Dhanik‟s belief in
26

understanding of EIL becomes loose because the comments from her friends that said her
material was not too EIL. Moreover, in the second mini lesson, the participants‟ understanding of
EIL is more varied. One of the participants said that EIL approach can be applied by
accommodating students‟ culture, other opinion said that EIL approach enabled teachers to teach
about variety of English accents, another perception said that EIL could be done by exposing
national heritage which familiar for the students. Nonetheless, whether it is positive or negative,
whether they have the same or different perception toward EIL, it is part of the participants‟
process in understanding EIL.

Mini Lesson 3: Satisfaction in understanding EIL approach
In this last mini lesson, the development of participants‟ understanding of EIL pedagogy
can be clearly seen in their teaching journal and portfolio. I do not find any statement that
express the participants‟ confusion or difficulties in applying EIL approach. However, they still
have various understanding of EIL. Here, I highlighted three perceptions that appear in this last
mini teaching. First, the perception that accommodating „source culture‟ in the teaching material,
it is reflected in four participants‟ last teaching. Second, the opinion that perceived by two
participants who brought a recent cultural event into the class. Third, one of the participants
believed that EIL approach could be implemented by exposing multiculturalism around the
world.
By seeing the participants‟ teaching material, most of them still believed that exposing
„source culture‟ is the best way to accommodate EIL approach in the teaching. For example,
Febri exposed Indonesain traditional snacks, Lili gave the students a text about Javanese name
and its meaning, Dhanik explored the students‟ knowledge about the famous places around them,
27

and then Widya brought Jamu (herbal Javanese beverage) as the teaching material. They had an
assumption that bringing „source culture‟ will be able to raise the students‟ awareness to respect
their own culture although they are learning foreign language (Febri, Lili, Dhanik, Widya, lesson
plan, 16/11/2011).
Moreover, there are two participants who have a perception that EIL also could be done
by bringing real cultural event that happened recently in their surroundings as material. For
instance, Arumi brought the issue about SEA Games which recently held in Indonesia as she
stated in her teaching journal below:
Sea Games was still a hot issue at that time. My understanding about EIL had also
improved. As I said in my pre-teaching journal, teaching using EIL approach means
bringing real recent event happening in Indonesia as well as culture which Indonesian
people talk about it using their Indonesia-English, and creating material and activity for
teaching by our selves. (Arumi, portfolio, 29/11/2011)
From the statement above, Arumi clearly stated that her understanding of EIL was improved by
knowing that EIL approach also could be applied by bringing recent cultural event happening in
Indonesia. Besides that, Arumi also used a recording which contained a conversation between
four Indonesian people talking about SEA Games. Indirectly she introduced an English variety
what she called it Indonesian-English to the students.
A similar view conveyed by Rina who took the advantage of the cultural event which
recently happened in Central Java called “Mas & Mbak Jawa Tengah” as her teaching material.
If Arumi brought SEA Games which talked universally by Indonesian as well as Asian, Rina
brought the cultural event that closer to the students that only focused in Central Java.

28

I feel the material that I gave to my students had already entered into EIL because
I taught one particular culture which is Javanese culture. I make my students promoting
tourist attractions in Central Java so they could learn to love their own culture. When they
were given the task about describing and promoting tourist attractions, they are very
enthusiastic to keep up with the activities. (Rina, teaching journal, action, 07/12/2011)
Rina confidently said that she was successfully applied EIL into her teaching because she picked
the culture that close to the students so that the students could learn their own culture. In her
teaching, Rini asked her students to pretend to be the winner of “Mbak & Mas Jawa Tengah”
then they should to promote some places in Central Java to the foreigners. It is interesting since
the students are encouraged to describe the local places using English. It is supported by McKay
(2002) who stated that EIL encourages the learners to gain a deeper understanding of their own
culture so that they can share these insights when using EIL with individuals from different
cultures. In addition, ”Mas & Mbak Jawa Tengah” activity could make the students eager to do
the task.
Furthermore, another perception was carried by Ranthi who apply EIL approach by using
„international target culture‟ which means use great variety of cultures in English- and nonEnglish-speaking countries around the world (Cortazzi & Jin, 1999). In this very last teaching,
Ranthi taught about procedure text and chose „tea‟ as her teaching topic simply because she
thought that tea is a popular beverage in the world.
Every country has different kind of “tea” which cultural traditions have been built
around it. Therefore I apply this topic through procedure text in my last mini teaching. I
will share varieties of tea in the world… the students will arrange the jumbled picture

29

based on the video of making refreshing Indian tea (chai). This activity related with EIL
because the speaker of the video is come from India. (Ranthi, lesson plan, 14/12/2011)
It is true that every country has different kind of tea even there is a „tea ceremony tradition‟ from
several countries in the world, such as Cha-no-yu tradition from Japan, Darye tradition from
Korea, and Tea Time from England. So it is a great idea to bring the multiculturalism to the
class. In her teaching Ranthi used pictures of tea from different countries in the world and an
Indian video about making tea. Ranthi had said that the used of pictures could grab the students‟
interest and the video would be a good example to teach procedure text. In addition, Ranthi
selected Indian video in order to make the students aware of English accent variety. She told that
when she played the video, her students acknowledged the way the Indian said „tea‟ was
different from native speaker.
Regardless the different perceptions of EIL among the participants, the last mini lesson is
their satisfaction in understanding EIL approach, they are no longer facing confusion or
difficulty related the implementation of EIL into the teaching. Most of them confidently stated
that they have understood the concept of EIL:
I think that my understanding about EIL framework is getting focused. (Widya,
teaching journal, reflection, 16-12-2011)

Overall, I felt satisfied with my last mini teaching. I have shown my development in
making the materials and activities with EIL approach. (Ranthi, teaching journal,
reflection, 16-12-2011)

I think that I have shown my understanding development of teaching using EIL
approach through my mini lessons this semester. (Arumi, teaching journal, reflection,
16/11/2011)
30

I started to try my capacity to understand EIL by my last mini teaching and finally I
really understood what was called by EIL. (Rina, portfolio, 16-12-2011)

Finally in my third mini-teaching, my understanding about EIL is improved. With EIL,
I could be explored with a variety of many cultures, many identities, many sounds and
many more. Lili, portfolio, 16/12/2011)

Finally, in this stage I came with a clear understanding through what an EIL material is.
In the last mini teaching I didn‟t think too much to decide what kind of material I
should give to my students. (Dhanik, portfolio, 16/11/2011)
Finally, this last mini lesson was a kind of great achievement from the participant in
understanding EIL approach by stating that they were no longer had difficulties in applying EIL
approach. They also said that their understanding of EIL was better/improved/developed.
However, they still had various perceptions toward the implementation of EIL approach. First,
most of the participants believed that exposing „source culture‟ was the best way to
accommodate EIL approach in the teaching because it would increase the students‟ awareness to
respect their own culture. Second, the opinion that EIL approach could be done by bringing
recent cultural event that happened in the surrounding. Last, there is a participant who perceived
that EIL approach is one of the ways the way to expose various kind of culture from around the
world. Thus, these different perceptions resulted in the participants‟ development of
understanding EIL approach since they already knew how to accommodate EIL approach
without any confusion again.

31

Conclusion
This study is aimed to find out how the process of student-teachers‟ development in
understanding EIL pedagogy in a Microteaching course. The result reveals that the participants
have different perceptions toward EIL and they have their own way to implement EIL approach
in their teaching. Since this study analyzes the process of development, I chronologically analyze
the data from mini lesson 1, mini lesson 2, and mini lesson 3.
In the first mini lesson, most of the students perceived EIL as a medium to accommodate
both „source culture‟ and „target culture‟ in the teaching material. This understanding is derived
from the lecture‟s presentation in the beginning of the course. However, there is a participant
who has different opinion toward EIL, she had an understanding that EIL approach also could be
done by accommodating local voice (Javanese accent) as teaching material in order to raise the
students‟ awareness about the thought of English role model. In this stage, some participants are
still seeking about the notion of EIL itself so that they faced kind of confusion, for example they
questioned the standard pronunciation that should be used in EIL context.
Then, in the second mini teaching the participants‟ understanding of EIL approach are
developed in more varied way. First opinion is about the use of students‟ culture as the point of
teaching EIL approach. Second opinion is that teaching English variety accents is also part of
EIL approach. Third, the opinion that EIL approach means the use of authentic material from
inner circle countries. The last is the opinion that EIL approach can be a bridge to introduce the
national heritage to the students. The participants perceived EIL in a various way as a result of
their effort to gain knowledge about EIL such as, learning from friends‟ teaching, considering
lecture and friends‟ feedbacks, asking other friends outside the class, looking at friends‟ teaching
material, and browsing the information about EIL from the internet. However, one of the
32

participants faced a confusion regarding her different opinion with their friends. She questioned
the use of authentic material from inner circle countries is part of EIL or not.
Eventually, the third mini lesson is the satisfaction of participants‟ understanding of EIL;
they are no longer face confusion or difficulty in implementing EIL approach. Nevertheless,
there is still different perception among the participants; even some of the participants build new
perception about EIL approach. Those new beliefs are the accommodating recent cultural event
that happened recently in the students‟ environment, then the belief that bringing „international
target culture‟ is a good way to expose the students with different variety of culture that exist in
the world.
The most important limitation lies in the fact that I only investigated student-teachers in
the Microteaching course in English Department Salatiga. Further study perhaps can investigate
students-teachers from other courses or faculties even it will be better from another university in
Indonesia because there will be more variation of stud