J00529
This art icle was downloaded by: [ Nugrahenny Zacharias]
On: 14 May 2013, At : 02: 57
Publisher: Rout ledge
I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered
office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK
Current Issues in Language Planning
Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions f or aut hors and
subscript ion inf ormat ion:
ht t p: / / www. t andf online. com/ loi/ rclp20
Navigating through the Englishmedium-of-instruction policy: voices
from the field
Nugrahenny T. Zacharias
a
a
Facult y of Language and Lit erat ure , Sat ya Wacana Christ ian
Universit y , Salat iga , Indonesia
Published online: 10 May 2013.
To cite this article: Nugrahenny T. Zacharias (2013): Navigat ing t hrough t he Englishmedium-of -inst ruct ion policy: voices f rom t he f ield, Current Issues in Language Planning,
DOI: 10. 1080/ 14664208. 2013. 782797
To link to this article: ht t p: / / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14664208. 2013. 782797
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE
Full t erm s and condit ions of use: ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm s- andcondit ions
This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any
subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing,
syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warrant y express or im plied or m ake any represent at ion
t hat t he cont ent s will be com plet e or accurat e or up t o dat e. The accuracy of any
inst ruct ions, form ulae, and drug doses should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, act ions, claim s, proceedings,
dem and, or cost s or dam ages what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or
indirect ly in connect ion wit h or arising out of t he use of t his m at erial.
Current Issues in Language Planning, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2013.782797
Navigating through the English-medium-of-instruction policy: voices
from the field
Nugrahenny T. Zacharias*
Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga, Indonesia
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
(Received 13 August 2012; final version received 5 March 2013)
The aim of this paper is to explore the practice of English-medium-of-instruction (EMI)
education in Indonesia implemented within the backdrop of a governmental macrolanguage planning policy known as International Standards Schools (ISSs) between
2007 and 2013. Twelve teachers teaching at two candidates of ISSs were interviewed
to examine their agentive behaviors in responding to the EMI policy. The findings
showed that all teachers attempted to use English as much as possible despite their
lack of agreement with the policy. In the present study, teachers’ agentive behaviors
appear to be affected by the social setting in which the policy takes place. These
societal factors are influenced by the complex interplay between teachers’ English
competence, students’ perceived English competence, and the lack of socialization of
the EMI policy. At the end of this paper, pedagogical implications for pre-service
teacher education are discussed.
Keywords: International Standard Schools; Indonesia; English medium of instruction;
local actors; language policy and planning
Introduction
The effects of globalization and the global spread of English have created a phenomenal
demand for the mastery of English around the world. In fact, Hamid (2011) notes that discourses connecting globalization, English and national development have led developing
nations to enhance their commitment to English. In Indonesia, this commitment was
reflected in the establishment of International Standards School (ISS) policy in 2007.
The policy generally aimed to transform selected or the ‘best of the best’ public schools
(Coleman, 2011) to meet international standards. The goal of the ISS policy was ultimately
to produce globally competitive students at the primary and secondary levels.
International education is not a new phenomenon in Indonesia. Prior to the ISS policy,
there were at least three types of international schools. The first and perhaps the oldest one is
one that Coleman (2009a) has termed as ‘true international schools’ (p. 2) or TISs, for short.
TISs serve the pedagogical needs of children of expatriates working in Indonesia. The teachers and students are all expatriates. They rarely open their doors to Indonesian nationals
(Coleman, 2011), although recently, Indonesian students were allowed to apply. The second
type of international schools were Indonesian private international schools (Coleman, 2011)
or IPISs. IPISs serve children of the extremely wealthy Indonesians as well as expatriate
children. The third type of international schools is national plus schools. As the name indicates, these schools combine the national curriculum with an international curriculum of
*Email: ntz.iup@gmail.com
© 2013 Taylor & Francis
2
N.T. Zacharias
their choice. The number of national plus schools has grown substantially in the past 10
years (Forde, 2006), but how graduates of these schools perform in terms of national and
global competitiveness remains unknown to the general public.
Due to the different types of international school in Indonesia, the notion of ‘international’ attached to public school under ISS policy needs to be defined. The government
has defined ISS as
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
A national school that prepares the students based on the national educational standards and
offers an international standard by which the graduates are expected to have international/
global competitiveness. (‘Sistem Penyelenggaraan’, 2007, p. 3)
Here, the concept ‘international’ means meeting the national and international standards.
What constitutes international standards is not mentioned in detail other than teaching students to acquire skills and knowledge to compete globally. In another government document, the concept of international standard was elaborated as
…the education standards of one member nation of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and/or another advanced nation which has particular strengths
in education such that is achieves competitive advantage in the international forum. (Depdiknas, 2007, p. 7 cited in Coleman, 2009a, p. 10)
Similar to the previous excerpt, the educational standards that Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development countries and/or other ‘advanced nation’ have are unclear
nor is it clear if those standards are compatible to one another. Another important point
is the extent to which local resources can meet these standards provided that these standards
can be clearly defined and measured. To make it more complex, Kustulasari (2009) argues
that at present, there is no international organization that can guarantee accreditation of an
international school and thus, the accreditation is more likely to be defined and determined
nationally. In other words, it is arguable as to whether a school that is accredited as international by government standards might, in fact, have international qualities in the global
job market.
The process of awarding ISS status was relatively straightforward. Potential public
schools were nominated by the district government and then were promoted to be candidates of ISSs. In 2010, it was estimated that the total number of ISSs at all levels was
874 (Kemendiknas, 2009), which according to Coleman (2011) constitutes only 0.46%
of the 190,000 public schools in Indonesia. The development of ISSs indicated that the government expected that creating public schools at an international standard would generate
more globally competitive graduates who would eventually boost Indonesian’s economy
and national development.
Compared to regular public schools, the budgetary allocations for ISSs were quite generous. These schools were given financial support over six years from the district, provincial, and central governments (Republik Indonesia, 2010, article 144 clause 5, and article
146 clause 5). The length of support varied depending on the type of school. If, by the
end of the period of support, a candidate of ISS was unsuccessful in fulfilling the required
standard, then its status returned to national standard school (Coleman, 2011). Over the
period of six years, candidates of ISSs needed to transform their school based on nine
key areas as indicated in Table 1.
A language policy that stipulates the use of English as a medium of instruction appears
to be the most prominent factor separating ISSs from regular public schools. Thus, in 2009,
Current Issues in Language Planning
3
teachers of core vocational subjects began to teach what was familiar to them, that is, the
content, in a language unfamiliar to them, English. The English-medium-of-instruction
(hereafter, EMI) policy was supposed to be implemented in stages (Dharma, 2007) using
a somewhat simplified and vague set of guidelines:
.
.
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
.
First year: English (25%) and Indonesian (75%)
Second year: English (50%) and Indonesian (50%)
Third year: English (75%) and Indonesian (25%)
While the guidelines may work well for students from a small dominant elite group who are
well placed to acquire English, it presents enormous challenges for the majority of Indonesian students and their teachers who live in rural areas where English is rarely used. It is
unclear how the model would fill the English gap as there might be students who come
from regular schools and/or rural areas where English is not the medium of instruction.
The assumptions underlying the model need be problematized on several levels. First, it
is unclear how the 25% or 75% can be neatly measured. Also, the model assumes that all
students come to school with an active mastery of Indonesian, which is not the case. In
2000, Gordon (2005) estimated that there were approximately 11% of Indonesians who
spoke Indonesian as the first language and 68% who spoke it as a second language.
Provided that Gordon’s estimation is correct, then, there are approximately 21% of the
population who only speak their local languages. Since ISSs were implemented in every
district in Indonesia, it remains questionable how the EMI guidelines can be implemented
in schools with a significant number of students who might only speak minority languages.
The EMI guidelines’ assumptions for ISS teachers are also unfounded. For a teacher to
be able to manage teaching in English and Indonesian according to the strict measures set
by the guidelines entails an advanced level of competence in using both languages, which is
Table 1. Nine areas for quality assurance for ISSs (taken from Depdiknas, 2007, cited in and adapted
from Coleman, 2011).
No.
Areas for quality
assurance
1.
Accreditation
2.
Curriculum
3.
4.
Learning–teaching
process
Evaluation
5.
Teachers
6.
Head teachers
7.
Facilities and
resources
Management
Financing
8.
9.
a
Example of quality indicators
…school is also accredited by a school accreditation body in an
OECDa member nation
…lesson content equivalent to or higher than that taught in an OECD
member country
Science, mathematics and core vocational subjects are taught using
English
…‘enriched’ with modes of evaluation employed in an OECD
member country
Teachers of science, mathematics and core vocational subjects are able
to deliver lessons through English
Head teachers have active mastery of English … possesses
international, vision, capable of developing international links
Internet access
School is multicultural
Achieves Indonesian National Education Standard for school
financing
OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
4
N.T. Zacharias
quite rare for English–Indonesian bilinguals. As English used by bilinguals is negotiated
around interlocutor and contexts (Zacharias, 2012), such a strict rule of the pedagogical
use of English/Indonesian might be unrealistic as students come to ISSs with different
levels of mastery of English and Indonesian.
The EMI model also assumes that there are a sufficient number of teachers in every ISS
who have an adequate balanced bilingualism in English and Indonesian. Unfortunately, the
literature on ISS policy has shown that these assumptions are far from reality. In one of the
national leading newspapers, Kompas (Ina, 2012), for example, Muhamad Husnan stated
that there were a limited number of ISS teachers who could speak English fluently. Hadi
Purnomo (Ina, 2012), an English teacher at Purbolinggo, explained that in his school
among the four Mathematics teachers, only one was fluent in English and among four
natural science teachers, only two were confident in their English. Among content teachers
who spoke English, there were even fewer who were able to teach in English. A study by
Stephen Bax from the University of Bedfordshire, England, found that the use of EMI was
not effective because only 25% of ISS teachers have the capability to teach in English
(Kompas, 2010). This finding is supported by the Head of English Development of
British Council, Danny Whitehead. He argued that fluency in English did not positively
correlate to competence and skills for using English to teach and manage the classroom.
Finally, the ISS policy has subjected ISS teachers to unpleasant and unwanted attention.
ISS teachers suddenly found themselves to be considered incompetent and their previous
education inadequate. Therefore, they were trained in countless English ‘boot camps’ so
that their English teaching competence could meet the standards of ISS. Despite the substantial efforts to upgrade ISS teachers, it remains unknown to what extent these training
sessions contribute to teachers’ overall English competence and teaching skills.
To date, studies on ISS policy have focused on macro-level policy perspectives
(Coleman, 2009a, 2009b; Kustulasari, 2009). Liddicoat and Baldauf (2008) argue that
studies on actors in language policy and planning (LPP) are in fact needed as ‘it is often
local contextual agents which affect how macro-level plans function and the outcomes
that they achieve’ (p. 4). One of those local contextual agents is the ISS classroom teachers.
Yet, despite their determining roles, studies focusing on ISS teachers are still relatively
scarce. Even when they are done, these studies tend to focus on the English production
of these teachers (Astika & Wahyana, 2010; Astika, Wahyana, & Andreyana, 2008). Therefore, there is a need to understand how the policy influences ISS teachers’ classroom practice as well as how teachers respond to and enact the policy.
Focusing on the ISS teachers from two candidates of ISS in Indonesia, SMP X (junior
high school X) and SMA X (senior high school X), this paper discusses the classroom practice that is the result of EMI policy. It is my position that it is both useful and productive to
try to unravel and to examine what the voices of these ISS teachers have to say as they navigate and adapt their teaching to meet the EMI policy. The major research question that the
present article addresses is, how do ISS teachers navigate their way through the EMI
program and how do they adapt their teaching as a response to the EMI policy guidelines?
Data from the present study were collected through semi-structured interviews with 12 participating ISS teachers working in two candidates of ISSs in a small town in Central Java,
Indonesia.
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework for this paper is based on a recent trend in LPP emphasizing the
role of the teachers’ agency and the need to study language policy implementation at the
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
Current Issues in Language Planning
5
micro-level or in a localized context (Chua & Baldauf, 2011; Liddicoat & Baldauf, 2008;
Martin, 2005; Zhao, 2011; Zhao & Baldauf, 2012). Traditionally, Zhao and Baldauf (2012)
maintain that studies of LPP often highlighted teachers as recipients of and submissive to
LPP. Their roles were simply as enactors of macro-level policy initiatives. Even when their
roles were addressed, they were impersonalized, aggregated, and left in general terms
(Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997), thereby, leaving little room for and attention to individual teachers’ voices and how these teachers realized LPP at the local context.
The attention given to teachers’ roles in mediating language policy is important because
no policy is ‘transmitted directly and unmodified to local contexts’ (Liddicoat & Baldauf,
2008, p. 11). In reality, Bamgbose (2004) notes that when a macro-level decision ‘trickles
down to the bottom, contradictory policies are adopted at different levels and what is
implemented at a lower level is often different from what is prescribed at a higher level’
(p. 61). To this end, teachers are ‘gatekeepers’ (Liddicoat & Baldauf, 2008, p. 12) and
their roles are transformative, even within the highly constraining policy environment
(Hornberger & Skilton-Sylvester, 2000). Therefore, Liddicoat and Baldauf (2008) note
that investigating the ways teachers produce a particular language policy in the classroom
should be ‘fundamental and integrated part of the overall language planning process’
(p. 15). Tollefson (2006) goes even further arguing that since teachers experience the consequence of language policy the most, they should have a major role in contributing to
policy decisions.
According to Hornberger and Skiton-Sylvester (2000), teachers’ gatekeeping role is
exercised based on the extent to which they possess or display agency. Pickering (1995)
defines agency as ‘the ability of individuals to exercise choice and discretion in their everyday practices’ (cited in Ollerhead, 2010, p. 609). For Giddens (1984), teachers activate their
agency when they are able to ‘make a difference to a pre-existing state of affairs or course of
events’ (p. 14). In the present study, the ‘pre-existing state of affairs’ is contextualized
within the EMI policy and following Ollerhead (2010) teachers’ agency is seen as conscious efforts by the teacher to overcome and resist ‘feelings of powerlessness and negativity’ (p. 609) experienced as the by-product of the EMI policy.
It is through the lenses of these theoretical frameworks that the agentive behavior of 12
ISS teachers in response to the EMI policy is explored.
The study
I individually interviewed 12 ISS teachers teaching in two ISSs in a small town in Central
Java. In an open-ended interview, I asked the teachers about their perceptions of the ISS
policy, their experiences in implementing the policy, the extent of different training that
they had participated in, and how they coped and navigated through the EMI program
and adapted their teaching in response to the ISS language policy. I asked them whether
they preferred to be interviewed in English or Indonesian before the interview began. All
agreed to use Indonesian as the main medium, with the option of using English when it
was appropriate. With open-ended semi-structured interviews, I aimed to understand the
way the participants framed the events and the strategies they used to navigate amidst
the EMI policy. A protocol was used although the participants were encouraged to elaborate
and move the interview in the direction of their choice. Interviews were audiotaped and
transcribed.
The data from the 12 teacher interviews were analyzed using content analysis. The
content analysis was conducted in the following way. A preliminary read-through for the
purpose of generating some starting themes was done looking for moments in which
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
6
N.T. Zacharias
factors constituting teacher identities appeared to emerge in their discourse (Bogdan &
Biklen, 1992). Themes emerged throughout the process, requiring a significant amount
of backtracking and recoding to ensure that the entire information in the data was reflected.
Then, gathering together all the different segments of the themes, I looked for patterns in the
way they narrated their experiences, feelings, and opinions surrounding the EMI policy.
There are limitations to the data analysis for this particular case study. With only one
interview per participant, contact was brief with each individual teacher. And, although
teacher background data were collected, the sample size and sampling method do not
allow the study to draw any reasonable conclusions that connect teachers’ background
and their experiences to their perceptions or their self-described practice of English use
in the classroom. Furthermore, although I had planned to conduct classroom observations
for each teacher, at the point when the research was conducted, the teaching and learning
process had already been completed as the last two months were allocated for practice
test sessions to prepare students for the national exam.
Teacher voices toward the ISS policy
The majority of teachers were ambivalent when asked if they were excited to have the
opportunity to use English in their lessons for reasons such as limited English proficiency
and additional workload. Only two teachers, Mr Maman and Ms Sinta were totally excited
by the EMI policy. Ms Sinta has been teaching Mathematics in her present school for 11
years. She labeled herself as a strong advocate of EMI and was held up as a model ISS
teacher by other ISS teachers and school officials. For her, the use of English to teach Mathematics helped to reconstruct the image of Mathematics and Mathematics teachers:
All these years Math subjects are considered old-fashioned … meaning the subject is static. For
example factorisation is always taught and learned in a certain way. Math is considered ‘readymade’ knowledge. Consequently, the Math teachers are also considered as old-fashioned. …
Through EMI, students know that math is a dynamic subject and teachers are not the only
source of knowledge. They can learn Math from the Internet. Easier. Before ISS policy,
when I taught the width of parallelogram, I only used a ruler and a cutter. Since in ISS we
need to use ICT, I learn flash, power point so I can teach the width of parallelogram faster
using animation. It becomes more exciting. The students like it even more. (Ms Sinta, 18
July 2012)
From Ms Sinta’s comments it can be inferred that traditionally Mathematics was taught
in a reductionist model wherein the teacher acted as an authority of the ‘ready-made
knowledge’ passing on information to students. Here, the use of English as a
medium of instruction has shifted the role of both the students and teachers. Students
are no longer passive recipients of knowledge and empirical information but are now
expected to join in the process of making meaning of the knowledge. Teacher’s roles
also have shifted from the utmost source of knowledge to one of the sources of knowledge. The dramatic shift of Mathematics teachers from the only authority to one of the
sources of knowledge is significant in Indonesia, where teachers continue to be viewed
as transmitters of knowledge.
Despite the majority of teachers’ being ambivalent to or in strong disagreement with the
EMI policy, all of them feel obligated to implement the policy. Concepts such as ‘a moral
duty’ and ‘a responsibility’ were often cited by teachers when they were asked why they
enact the policy. Accompanying the concepts were obligatory verbs such as ‘must’, ‘obligated’, and ‘have to’; positioning themselves as having little, if not no, option and freedom
Current Issues in Language Planning
7
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
to act in other opposing ways. When describing their reaction to the policy, all the
participants opted for negative words such as ‘lumpuh’ (crippling), ‘cemas’ (worried),
‘takut’ (afraid); simply because all of the teachers are doubtful of their English oral proficiency, but somewhat confident of their (passive) English competence related to the subject
matter.
Among all the participants, perhaps, Mr Yono voiced the strongest opposition to the
policy. He feared the use of English might threaten national unity and professional
authority:
If we talked about the EMI policy, it relates to the dignity of our nation. I don’t think international quality needs to be in English. One of the purposes of ISS is to open doors for
foreigners to study here [in Indonesia]. That’s fine but the foreigners need to learn Indonesian
so they know Indonesian culture. So foreigners need to obey our rules not us serving them with
the use of English. Even if we use English, the foreigners will make fun of our English. They
won’t understand our English. Therefore, foreigners need to study Indonesian. The content
subjects need to be delivered in Indonesia but that’s just my personal opinion. (Mr Yono, 25
June 2012)
What I found interesting from his comments is that, despite the growing literature promoting English as an Asian language (Graddol, 2006; McArthur, 2003) or the language of its
users (Jarvis, 2005; Norton, 1997), Mr Yono continues to perceive English as the other
language. He sees the use of English in teaching as equal to ‘serving’ foreigners. Even if
he did teach in English, he was doubtful if his English would be acceptable to these
foreigners. In addition, he viewed teaching Physics in a language other than Indonesian
as a threat to his professional authority as a Physics teacher. He felt his competence in teaching physics would be threatened and obscured by his Indonesian-accented English, which,
he believed, would be ridiculed by foreigners.
Despite Mr Yono’s uneasiness about the policy, he not only attempted to implement the
policy but used English as much as possible in the lesson. When asked why he enacted the
policy, he responded:
EMI policy is just a policy. So, it can be said that I am just trying to fulfill my responsibility as a
civic servant. If the government says we need to be like this, I try my best to do so. If we have to
teach in this way, I try to teach in that way. I try to teach as expected [using English]. I try my
best even though I do not support it wholeheartedly but like I say, it is a policy so just do it. Try
to give my best as expected by the government. It’s as simple as that so just keep on trying….
(Mr Yono, 25 June 2012)
For Mr Yono, using English in teaching Physics is a part of enacting his civil servant
responsibilities, that is, following the directions of the central government (‘if the government says we need to be like this, I try my best to do so. If we have to teach in this way, I try
to teach in that way’). Therefore, he defines his ‘best’ effort not in terms of improving the
teaching and learning process, but behaving according to the government standards and
expectations (‘Try to give my best as expected by the government’), although it goes
against his own belief.
For those who are hesitant to follow the EMI policy, they respond in a way that avoids
drawing attention to themselves. Ghazali, Hafidz, and Saliwangi (1986) note that one of the
strategies of government employees to respond to unwanted policy is not to challenge the
policy openly but to remain quiet and unobtrusive. This is evident in the case of Ms Warni, a
Mathematics teacher. Ms Warni has only been in the present school for less than a year. She
was relocated from another state school in a similar town. When she heard, she was being
8
N.T. Zacharias
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
moved to the present school, she was terrified because she knew she would be expected to
teach Mathematics in English.
Her fear was exacerbated because she did not receive any guidelines from the principal explaining when and how much English she was expected to use. She, then,
took the initiative to ask the vice principal and voiced reservations about the EMI
policy. To her surprise, the vice principal stated that simply sandwiching the lesson
with a greeting and a closing was sufficient. In the interview, she honestly stated that
she made an effort to use English much more than expected. For her, simply sandwiching
the lesson with an English greeting and closing was not what she believed the EMI policy
should be.
During the first three months, she admitted feeling stressed out to the point that she lost
a significant amount of weight. That critical incident led her to make a conscious decision to
redirect her energy from English to teaching and assisting the students:
I was still confused why I was being reallocated to this school. So I just teach. Just that. If I am
not good enough [in teaching], because of my limited English use, I am ready to be reallocated
to another state school. Pasrah. … that thinking comforts me. There were times when I was
stressed out thinking about how and when I should use English … the first 2–3 months I
was here. But then, I was thinking I cannot continue my life like this … it negatively affects
my teaching. I decide to focus on my teaching and less on the use of English. The important
thing is the students understand. (Ms Warni, 15 June 2012)
Ghazali et al. (1986) note that civil servants are often concerned that if they make a mistake
or considered unfaithful, they will be transferred to a less desirable location or position. In
the case of Ms Warni, her fear of not measuring up to the government standards of English
use has taken its toll on her personally (i.e. weight loss) and on her teaching. The use of the
word ‘pasrah’, a Javanese cultural concept illustrating self-reliance, despite one’s best
effort, to wherever destiny brings them, positions herself as having no control over her
destiny; thus, she is ready to be reallocated if deemed unfaithful and unloyal by the
central government for not using English as much as expected.
The narratives of teachers in this section illustrate that the majority of teachers found
themselves under considerable moral pressure to enact the policy based not on their own
best judgment of the policy but solely on preconceptions of what they perceived as acceptable to the school and/or the government.
Teachers’ stated teaching strategies in negotiating the EMI policy
Coleman (2009b) states that the practice of English use across ISSs varies. Interestingly, the
data collected through the interviews show that the stated classroom practice with regard to
English use is highly varied even within the same school. The teachers have different ideas
on how much English they were expected to use in the classroom. The socialization that
they received from the principals of each school seems to be hazy. All of them understood
that they were expected to use English as much as possible, although not necessarily
exclusively.
Despite the poor dissemination of the policy, ISS teachers seem to navigate their way
under a shared and generally understood language policy that exists in tacit classroom practices and the interactions between teacher and students. Under such conditions, teachers
develop creative strategies negotiated around teachers’ English oral proficiency, students’
English competence, the role of ISS teachers, and the purpose of learning. The following
are the strategies that teachers stated they used in coping with the policy.
Current Issues in Language Planning
9
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
Centralizing English input through the use of ICT
Other than the use of English, another requirement of ISSs is the need to incorporate internet and communication technology (ICT) in teaching. Since the establishment of the ISS
policy, both the junior and senior high schools were able to facilitate teaching in the classroom with an LCD projector and a laptop. The government at both the district and national
levels hold training sessions in the use of power points, blogs, and other software to
enhance the teaching and learning of content subjects. Prior to receiving the ISS grant,
almost all teachers in the two state schools admitted to barely ‘using’ a computer, much
less educational software or the Internet. The audio-visual aids commonly found in the
classroom were whiteboards. After the policy, all the teachers indicated that they made
their best effort so that the inputs (worksheet, power point slides, and assessment) were
in English. When the present study was conducted, all the teachers claimed that all the
written input in their classes were in English.
For many of these teachers, they said they compensated for their lack of English by
providing notes in English on the power point slides. These power point slides appeared
to be the major English inputs used in the classroom. During the first year of implementing the ISS policy, many teachers used their spare time, in the words of Mr Yono,
‘working like a horse’ summarizing, paraphrasing, and translating the textbooks onto
power point slides. These teachers are also able to navigate their way through ICTs in
ways that benefit them. Mr Yono, for example, was aware that rather than writing
points in his slides, he wrote more elaborated points so that he did not need to recall
words in English. Both Mr Maman and Mr Yono consciously tried to write as little as
possible on the whiteboard to avoid misspellings which were more likely to occur
when they wrote in English.
Many teachers use translating gadgets such as Google Translate or ‘Alfalink’ (a calculator-like bilingual dictionary) when summarizing the textbook in a power point. Mr Eko, a
teacher of Basic Computer Science, perhaps, is the only teacher who made a personal technology leap by buying a Samsung X2 so that he could install the Google Translate application, although he could barely afford it on his current salary. When asked how technology
aided his English use, he explained:
When I teach, I open google translate in my desktop. So whatever I want to say to the students, I
type it into the google translate. I like google translate because it also includes the pronunciation. So, it helps me. Especially when the electricity is down and I cannot use my desktop.
That’s why I buy this phone. Too expensive for me, actually. So I can just type the phrase/
word I wanna say in Indonesian and then, I can see and listen how to say it. For example
‘pindah ke atas’ [let’s move upstairs]. But the problem is when there is a connection
problem, then I use Indonesian. (Mr Eko, 2 April 2012)
Here, I found Mr E’s buying Samsung X2, a phone that is way above his pay grade, as an act
in activating his agency in surviving the EMI policy. It helps him to navigate his teaching
around the expectation to use English as well as local constraints (occasional power
blackouts).
Surviving the EMI policy through code-switching into Indonesian
Teachers claimed that students do not have the necessary English competence to cope with
the EMI policy. Therefore, it is a common practice for teachers to provide a glossary at the
beginning of a new topic. During the interview, Ms Grace stated that by introducing new
vocabulary before teaching a topic, she expected learners would understand when new
10
N.T. Zacharias
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
words occurred in context. Other than using a glossary, teachers commonly provide students with a summary in English and then shared it through the power point slides.
However, the way teachers scaffolded these English summary varied. Some teachers
conduct the lesson entirely in Indonesian with the only English being chunks of text
read from the slides or occasionally slipping in English terminology. Others used English
for classroom use such as greetings and closings, collecting papers, and reprimanding
unwanted behavior. Only a very few teachers used English all the time.
What they all have in common is that they switched into Indonesian to scaffold understanding and important concepts. This is best summarized by Mr Yono when I asked him to
explain his reasons for choosing Indonesian to reinforce concepts in Physics:
The target of the policy is to use English all the time. But we teach concept and we cannot teach
it wrong. So, concepts need to be delivered in Indonesian. Must be in Indonesian … concept.
When using jargons, yes, we can use English. But when we highlight concepts it needs to be in
Indonesian. Because if we use English, we are afraid we represent the concept inappropriately.
So each time I teach concepts such as Archimedean. If I use English, it is even difficult for me,
let alone, the students. So I might be teaching the wrong concept. (Mr Yono, 25 June 2012)
Mr Yono seems to perceive his lack of proficiency in English as a barrier to knowledge. He
was aware that when teaching, the wrong choice of words in the foreign language may lead
to comprehension issues. Since language is the carrier of content (Tatzl, 2011), teachers’
linguistic competence is crucial in the success of EMI policy.
Code-switching into Indonesian is not without its drawbacks. As a consequence of
extended clarification in the students’ mother tongue, the EMI policy tends to accommodate
less content compared to native language lectures. One participant, Ms Rani, a Chemistry
teacher in the senior high school, mentioned that teaching in a foreign language involved a
slower acquisition rate for the content delivered:
EMI is good but we need to finish the scheduled material for the national examination. Since
we need to explain the materials twice. Giving input in English and then, translated them into
Indonesian. So materials that were usually can be covered in one hour. Now we need at least
two hours. Longer. Also, if we want to use all English that means more preparation time of the
teacher. That is difficult because we are teaching twenty four hours per week in addition to
other administrative work. (Ms Rani, 16 July 2012)
Ms Rani’s comment was echoed by all teachers when they were asked why they did not use
English. Inferred from her comment is that teaching and learning through the medium of a
poorly acquired medium of instruction is time-consuming. As a result, she frequently did
not complete the syllabus set by the national government (Othman & Saat 2009; Probyn,
2005; Tatzl, 2011).
Ball (1994) notes that language policies are often ‘introduced into contexts where other
policies are in circulation, and that the enactment of one may inhibit or contradict or influence the possibility of enactment of others’ (p. 19). Through Ms Rani’s comment, it is clear
that she was caught between her allegiance to her institution and her moral responsibility to
the students. On the one hand, she needed to use English. As a civil servant, she felt obliged
to do what her institution has decided to do, that is, enacting the EMI policy. On the other
hand, she felt a moral responsibility to help students pass the national examination written
in a language different from the medium of instruction. In Indonesia, students are assessed
through national examination at the end of every academic year. The grades obtained from
the national examination will later be used for further education and/or in the job market.
Current Issues in Language Planning
11
And thus, she felt that her continued use of English may hamper students’ understanding of
the course content and eventually might sacrifice students’ success in the national examination. For this reason, she made a conscious decision to limit her English use and opt for the
use of Indonesian, the language she felt students would be more comfortable with.
It is interesting to note that these teachers use Indonesian strategically. All teachers
admitted to using far less of the national language when they are being observed by government/school officials (Probyn, 2002). This is best summarized by Ms Nani, a Biology
teacher, at the senior high school:
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
When we were supervised, I used almost all English. So I picked the materials that are easy. For
example, about nitrate recycling process. So I usually used visual with English words so it
guided me when I explained the materials although I was not fluent. But that was when I
was supervised. More English. Usually I just slipped English words/jargons into my teaching.
(Ms Nani, 1 July 2012)
Implied in her comment is the assumption that ideal EMI classes employ all English and
that the use of first language in the EMI policy is often seen as bad practice by the
policy-makers. In the case of Ms Nani, she made a deliberate decision to adjust the
content to her English competence and used visuals that allowed her to use more
English. Her decision seems to be informed by political reasons rather than educational
ones. She felt it was her moral responsibility to satisfy the supervisor with what she perceived as an ideal situation for the EMI classroom. Although many might question Ms
Rani’s strategy in surviving the supervised EMI classes (e.g. Martin, 2005), Brock-Utne
(2005) argues ‘while we are waiting for ideal situation to happen, teachers must be
allowed to code-switch because their speech behavior is sometimes the only possible communicative resource there is for the management of learning’ (p. 190).
Negotiating the EMI policy through expressing linguistic vulnerability
Not only were the teachers well aware of their limited English, but they were also honest
about it in front of their students. In fact, they made it one of their strategies to keep on
reminding the students of their inadequacy in speaking English. During the first weeks,
when the EMI policy was implemented, Ms Warni said ‘We are learning together. Like
you, my English is not good.’ The way Ms Warni positions herself as a learner of
English is a common strategy used by many teachers. As in the case of Ms Grace:
My problem when I speak English in the classroom is sometimes my mind goes blank. Suddenly, I am struggling to find the English words of something. I totally forgot even the simplest
thing. Then, I just asked my students ‘What is this in English?’ And then, one or two students
will say, ‘Eraser, Mam.’ The students are great. They are smart. Their English sometimes are
better than the teachers. (Ms Grace, 7 May 2012)
This narrative shows that in an attempt to survive the EMI policy, ISS teachers have made a
conscious choice to make students collaborators in creating linguistic input. In the case of
Ms Grace, she saw students, who she believed as ‘great’ and ‘smart’, as learning partners
who she might resort to from time to time when she needs linguistic guidance.
However, not all teachers were confident in making students’ their linguistic learning
partners. Mr Dono, for example, often felt frustrated because when he spoke English, the
students often laughed at him. This certainly made him hesitant in using English. When
asked how he overcame his English inadequacy, Mr Dono shared the following:
12
N.T. Zacharias
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
Before starting the lesson, I often say to my students ‘My grammar is terrible. That’s why I will
just talk and not focus on my grammar. The important thing is you know what I am saying.’
That’s what I often said. Just to let them know. I understand English related to Physics, I
just do not know how to say it in English. … the students are better in speaking English. Sometimes when I wrote test items, students laughed at my English and said ‘Sir, the grammar is
wrong. I usually said jokingly, “Didn’t I say not to focus on my grammar? The important
thing you understand the meaning.”’ (Mr Dono, 25 June 2012)
Here, it can be seen that Mr Dono’s strategies in navigating the EMI policy are by shifting
the focus from teaching to communication. He was well aware of his limitations in teaching
Physics in English and thus attempted to refocus students’ attention from correct language
use to meaning-making. He felt if the students’ understand the meaning, then he was successful in achieving the purpose of the lesson despite his poor command in English
grammar.
What these narratives have in common is that the EMI policy has created a feeling of
solidarity on the part of the students, which in turn has been reinterpreted and appropriated
as a resource for language reinforcement for the teachers’ lack of English proficiency. By
doing so, it has transformed the relationship between students and teacher from a perceived
vertical relationship into a more participatory type of interaction. In other words, the policy
allows the teacher and students to co-construct the lesson and the language used in it.
Conclusion
Through a content analysis of the interview transcripts of 12 teachers, the study offers
insights into how 12 ISS teachers implemented a macro-language policy in two candidates
of ISSs in Indonesia. This study purposely places an emphasis on local actors, because the
literature on ISS policy in Indonesia largely focuses on the macro-level perspective. Even
when local actors are addressed, they are usually seen reductively, based on their lack of
teaching competence, English skills, and low TOEFL scores. Indeed, Baldauf, Li, and
Zhao (2008) note that when it comes to implementing language policy, it is the language
teachers who are ‘gatekeepers’ (p. 234) of the policy and not the language planners or
policy-makers.
The interview data illustrate that teachers’ attempts to use English in the classroom
should not be mistakenly interpreted as indicative of support for the EMI policy. Rather,
it is a way to enact their civic duty as government officials. Bjork’s (2005) ethnographic
fieldwork in six junior high schools in East Java showed that public servant teachers primarily are evaluated based on their allegiance and obedience to the central government and not
on the education they provide. Bjork (2005) argues that civil servant teachers have learned
from experience that the emphasis up to now has been on teachers as government employees rather than as professional educators. Consequently, personal voices and opinions are
seen as irrelevant and even unnecessary because with regard to educational policy, ‘the
system did not value their opinions … the basic educational functions of schools were determined in Jakarta [central government] and would not be modified based on the suggestions
of classroom instruction’ (Bjork, 2005, p. 101). Therefore, civil servant teachers have been
conditioned to follow orders (or policy) from the central government rather than to actively
participate in shaping them.
In the light of Bjork’s study, teachers’ efforts to implement the EMI policy in the present
study might seem to be best interpreted as agentless. In fact, the act of reproducing the
policy can be seen as an act of activating agency in itself. As pointed out by Mr Maman,
Ms Grace, and Ms Warni, their efforts to implement the policy were ways to increase the
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
Current Issues in Language Planning
13
economic stability of their workplace, the schools, and ensure the sustainability of their
jobs. As government officials, they were all aware that failure to at least show initiative
to implement the policy might jeopardize their future careers.
From the interviews, teachers’ agentive behaviors appear to be affected by the social
setting in which the EMI policy takes place (Ollerhead, 2010; Toohey, 2007). Here, the
societal factors are influenced by the complex interplay between teachers’ English competence, students’ perceived English competence, and the lack of socialization of the EMI
policy. It seems that the poor, if not absent, socialization process ISS teachers received
from the principal of the school and/or the government provided them with the pedagogical
freedom to develop their own classroom teaching techniques to meet the needs of the students and to survive the EMI policy.
One of those teaching techniques is the use of Indonesian to compensate for the lack of
English of both teachers and students. Martin (2005) labels the strategy as ‘safe’ practices
(p. 89), that is, ‘practices that allow the classroom participants to be seen to accomplish
lessons’ (p. 89). The safe practice that many of the teachers use to annotate crucial
subject-related concepts is a convenient way to negotiate their limited English proficiency
that might otherwise be sacrificed if teachers insisted on using the required medium of
instruction. Although the safe practices are the common stated classroom practices,
Martin (2005) argues that safe practices such as the one Mr Yono and most teachers in
this study used might undermine the policy and can hamper the acquisition of English,
denying the very essence of EMI policy. Othman and Saat (2009) claim that teachers’
code-switching into a language they have a greater access to might indicate a lack of competence both in the language of instruction or in pedagogical knowledge of using the
language of instruction in integrating content and knowledge.
The finding is not surprising as these teachers did not receive sufficient training on how
to integrate the teaching of English as a second language with science instruction at high
schools. The training that they received was only dealt with daily English and
On: 14 May 2013, At : 02: 57
Publisher: Rout ledge
I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered
office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK
Current Issues in Language Planning
Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions f or aut hors and
subscript ion inf ormat ion:
ht t p: / / www. t andf online. com/ loi/ rclp20
Navigating through the Englishmedium-of-instruction policy: voices
from the field
Nugrahenny T. Zacharias
a
a
Facult y of Language and Lit erat ure , Sat ya Wacana Christ ian
Universit y , Salat iga , Indonesia
Published online: 10 May 2013.
To cite this article: Nugrahenny T. Zacharias (2013): Navigat ing t hrough t he Englishmedium-of -inst ruct ion policy: voices f rom t he f ield, Current Issues in Language Planning,
DOI: 10. 1080/ 14664208. 2013. 782797
To link to this article: ht t p: / / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14664208. 2013. 782797
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE
Full t erm s and condit ions of use: ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm s- andcondit ions
This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any
subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing,
syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warrant y express or im plied or m ake any represent at ion
t hat t he cont ent s will be com plet e or accurat e or up t o dat e. The accuracy of any
inst ruct ions, form ulae, and drug doses should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, act ions, claim s, proceedings,
dem and, or cost s or dam ages what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or
indirect ly in connect ion wit h or arising out of t he use of t his m at erial.
Current Issues in Language Planning, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2013.782797
Navigating through the English-medium-of-instruction policy: voices
from the field
Nugrahenny T. Zacharias*
Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga, Indonesia
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
(Received 13 August 2012; final version received 5 March 2013)
The aim of this paper is to explore the practice of English-medium-of-instruction (EMI)
education in Indonesia implemented within the backdrop of a governmental macrolanguage planning policy known as International Standards Schools (ISSs) between
2007 and 2013. Twelve teachers teaching at two candidates of ISSs were interviewed
to examine their agentive behaviors in responding to the EMI policy. The findings
showed that all teachers attempted to use English as much as possible despite their
lack of agreement with the policy. In the present study, teachers’ agentive behaviors
appear to be affected by the social setting in which the policy takes place. These
societal factors are influenced by the complex interplay between teachers’ English
competence, students’ perceived English competence, and the lack of socialization of
the EMI policy. At the end of this paper, pedagogical implications for pre-service
teacher education are discussed.
Keywords: International Standard Schools; Indonesia; English medium of instruction;
local actors; language policy and planning
Introduction
The effects of globalization and the global spread of English have created a phenomenal
demand for the mastery of English around the world. In fact, Hamid (2011) notes that discourses connecting globalization, English and national development have led developing
nations to enhance their commitment to English. In Indonesia, this commitment was
reflected in the establishment of International Standards School (ISS) policy in 2007.
The policy generally aimed to transform selected or the ‘best of the best’ public schools
(Coleman, 2011) to meet international standards. The goal of the ISS policy was ultimately
to produce globally competitive students at the primary and secondary levels.
International education is not a new phenomenon in Indonesia. Prior to the ISS policy,
there were at least three types of international schools. The first and perhaps the oldest one is
one that Coleman (2009a) has termed as ‘true international schools’ (p. 2) or TISs, for short.
TISs serve the pedagogical needs of children of expatriates working in Indonesia. The teachers and students are all expatriates. They rarely open their doors to Indonesian nationals
(Coleman, 2011), although recently, Indonesian students were allowed to apply. The second
type of international schools were Indonesian private international schools (Coleman, 2011)
or IPISs. IPISs serve children of the extremely wealthy Indonesians as well as expatriate
children. The third type of international schools is national plus schools. As the name indicates, these schools combine the national curriculum with an international curriculum of
*Email: ntz.iup@gmail.com
© 2013 Taylor & Francis
2
N.T. Zacharias
their choice. The number of national plus schools has grown substantially in the past 10
years (Forde, 2006), but how graduates of these schools perform in terms of national and
global competitiveness remains unknown to the general public.
Due to the different types of international school in Indonesia, the notion of ‘international’ attached to public school under ISS policy needs to be defined. The government
has defined ISS as
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
A national school that prepares the students based on the national educational standards and
offers an international standard by which the graduates are expected to have international/
global competitiveness. (‘Sistem Penyelenggaraan’, 2007, p. 3)
Here, the concept ‘international’ means meeting the national and international standards.
What constitutes international standards is not mentioned in detail other than teaching students to acquire skills and knowledge to compete globally. In another government document, the concept of international standard was elaborated as
…the education standards of one member nation of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and/or another advanced nation which has particular strengths
in education such that is achieves competitive advantage in the international forum. (Depdiknas, 2007, p. 7 cited in Coleman, 2009a, p. 10)
Similar to the previous excerpt, the educational standards that Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development countries and/or other ‘advanced nation’ have are unclear
nor is it clear if those standards are compatible to one another. Another important point
is the extent to which local resources can meet these standards provided that these standards
can be clearly defined and measured. To make it more complex, Kustulasari (2009) argues
that at present, there is no international organization that can guarantee accreditation of an
international school and thus, the accreditation is more likely to be defined and determined
nationally. In other words, it is arguable as to whether a school that is accredited as international by government standards might, in fact, have international qualities in the global
job market.
The process of awarding ISS status was relatively straightforward. Potential public
schools were nominated by the district government and then were promoted to be candidates of ISSs. In 2010, it was estimated that the total number of ISSs at all levels was
874 (Kemendiknas, 2009), which according to Coleman (2011) constitutes only 0.46%
of the 190,000 public schools in Indonesia. The development of ISSs indicated that the government expected that creating public schools at an international standard would generate
more globally competitive graduates who would eventually boost Indonesian’s economy
and national development.
Compared to regular public schools, the budgetary allocations for ISSs were quite generous. These schools were given financial support over six years from the district, provincial, and central governments (Republik Indonesia, 2010, article 144 clause 5, and article
146 clause 5). The length of support varied depending on the type of school. If, by the
end of the period of support, a candidate of ISS was unsuccessful in fulfilling the required
standard, then its status returned to national standard school (Coleman, 2011). Over the
period of six years, candidates of ISSs needed to transform their school based on nine
key areas as indicated in Table 1.
A language policy that stipulates the use of English as a medium of instruction appears
to be the most prominent factor separating ISSs from regular public schools. Thus, in 2009,
Current Issues in Language Planning
3
teachers of core vocational subjects began to teach what was familiar to them, that is, the
content, in a language unfamiliar to them, English. The English-medium-of-instruction
(hereafter, EMI) policy was supposed to be implemented in stages (Dharma, 2007) using
a somewhat simplified and vague set of guidelines:
.
.
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
.
First year: English (25%) and Indonesian (75%)
Second year: English (50%) and Indonesian (50%)
Third year: English (75%) and Indonesian (25%)
While the guidelines may work well for students from a small dominant elite group who are
well placed to acquire English, it presents enormous challenges for the majority of Indonesian students and their teachers who live in rural areas where English is rarely used. It is
unclear how the model would fill the English gap as there might be students who come
from regular schools and/or rural areas where English is not the medium of instruction.
The assumptions underlying the model need be problematized on several levels. First, it
is unclear how the 25% or 75% can be neatly measured. Also, the model assumes that all
students come to school with an active mastery of Indonesian, which is not the case. In
2000, Gordon (2005) estimated that there were approximately 11% of Indonesians who
spoke Indonesian as the first language and 68% who spoke it as a second language.
Provided that Gordon’s estimation is correct, then, there are approximately 21% of the
population who only speak their local languages. Since ISSs were implemented in every
district in Indonesia, it remains questionable how the EMI guidelines can be implemented
in schools with a significant number of students who might only speak minority languages.
The EMI guidelines’ assumptions for ISS teachers are also unfounded. For a teacher to
be able to manage teaching in English and Indonesian according to the strict measures set
by the guidelines entails an advanced level of competence in using both languages, which is
Table 1. Nine areas for quality assurance for ISSs (taken from Depdiknas, 2007, cited in and adapted
from Coleman, 2011).
No.
Areas for quality
assurance
1.
Accreditation
2.
Curriculum
3.
4.
Learning–teaching
process
Evaluation
5.
Teachers
6.
Head teachers
7.
Facilities and
resources
Management
Financing
8.
9.
a
Example of quality indicators
…school is also accredited by a school accreditation body in an
OECDa member nation
…lesson content equivalent to or higher than that taught in an OECD
member country
Science, mathematics and core vocational subjects are taught using
English
…‘enriched’ with modes of evaluation employed in an OECD
member country
Teachers of science, mathematics and core vocational subjects are able
to deliver lessons through English
Head teachers have active mastery of English … possesses
international, vision, capable of developing international links
Internet access
School is multicultural
Achieves Indonesian National Education Standard for school
financing
OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
4
N.T. Zacharias
quite rare for English–Indonesian bilinguals. As English used by bilinguals is negotiated
around interlocutor and contexts (Zacharias, 2012), such a strict rule of the pedagogical
use of English/Indonesian might be unrealistic as students come to ISSs with different
levels of mastery of English and Indonesian.
The EMI model also assumes that there are a sufficient number of teachers in every ISS
who have an adequate balanced bilingualism in English and Indonesian. Unfortunately, the
literature on ISS policy has shown that these assumptions are far from reality. In one of the
national leading newspapers, Kompas (Ina, 2012), for example, Muhamad Husnan stated
that there were a limited number of ISS teachers who could speak English fluently. Hadi
Purnomo (Ina, 2012), an English teacher at Purbolinggo, explained that in his school
among the four Mathematics teachers, only one was fluent in English and among four
natural science teachers, only two were confident in their English. Among content teachers
who spoke English, there were even fewer who were able to teach in English. A study by
Stephen Bax from the University of Bedfordshire, England, found that the use of EMI was
not effective because only 25% of ISS teachers have the capability to teach in English
(Kompas, 2010). This finding is supported by the Head of English Development of
British Council, Danny Whitehead. He argued that fluency in English did not positively
correlate to competence and skills for using English to teach and manage the classroom.
Finally, the ISS policy has subjected ISS teachers to unpleasant and unwanted attention.
ISS teachers suddenly found themselves to be considered incompetent and their previous
education inadequate. Therefore, they were trained in countless English ‘boot camps’ so
that their English teaching competence could meet the standards of ISS. Despite the substantial efforts to upgrade ISS teachers, it remains unknown to what extent these training
sessions contribute to teachers’ overall English competence and teaching skills.
To date, studies on ISS policy have focused on macro-level policy perspectives
(Coleman, 2009a, 2009b; Kustulasari, 2009). Liddicoat and Baldauf (2008) argue that
studies on actors in language policy and planning (LPP) are in fact needed as ‘it is often
local contextual agents which affect how macro-level plans function and the outcomes
that they achieve’ (p. 4). One of those local contextual agents is the ISS classroom teachers.
Yet, despite their determining roles, studies focusing on ISS teachers are still relatively
scarce. Even when they are done, these studies tend to focus on the English production
of these teachers (Astika & Wahyana, 2010; Astika, Wahyana, & Andreyana, 2008). Therefore, there is a need to understand how the policy influences ISS teachers’ classroom practice as well as how teachers respond to and enact the policy.
Focusing on the ISS teachers from two candidates of ISS in Indonesia, SMP X (junior
high school X) and SMA X (senior high school X), this paper discusses the classroom practice that is the result of EMI policy. It is my position that it is both useful and productive to
try to unravel and to examine what the voices of these ISS teachers have to say as they navigate and adapt their teaching to meet the EMI policy. The major research question that the
present article addresses is, how do ISS teachers navigate their way through the EMI
program and how do they adapt their teaching as a response to the EMI policy guidelines?
Data from the present study were collected through semi-structured interviews with 12 participating ISS teachers working in two candidates of ISSs in a small town in Central Java,
Indonesia.
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework for this paper is based on a recent trend in LPP emphasizing the
role of the teachers’ agency and the need to study language policy implementation at the
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
Current Issues in Language Planning
5
micro-level or in a localized context (Chua & Baldauf, 2011; Liddicoat & Baldauf, 2008;
Martin, 2005; Zhao, 2011; Zhao & Baldauf, 2012). Traditionally, Zhao and Baldauf (2012)
maintain that studies of LPP often highlighted teachers as recipients of and submissive to
LPP. Their roles were simply as enactors of macro-level policy initiatives. Even when their
roles were addressed, they were impersonalized, aggregated, and left in general terms
(Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997), thereby, leaving little room for and attention to individual teachers’ voices and how these teachers realized LPP at the local context.
The attention given to teachers’ roles in mediating language policy is important because
no policy is ‘transmitted directly and unmodified to local contexts’ (Liddicoat & Baldauf,
2008, p. 11). In reality, Bamgbose (2004) notes that when a macro-level decision ‘trickles
down to the bottom, contradictory policies are adopted at different levels and what is
implemented at a lower level is often different from what is prescribed at a higher level’
(p. 61). To this end, teachers are ‘gatekeepers’ (Liddicoat & Baldauf, 2008, p. 12) and
their roles are transformative, even within the highly constraining policy environment
(Hornberger & Skilton-Sylvester, 2000). Therefore, Liddicoat and Baldauf (2008) note
that investigating the ways teachers produce a particular language policy in the classroom
should be ‘fundamental and integrated part of the overall language planning process’
(p. 15). Tollefson (2006) goes even further arguing that since teachers experience the consequence of language policy the most, they should have a major role in contributing to
policy decisions.
According to Hornberger and Skiton-Sylvester (2000), teachers’ gatekeeping role is
exercised based on the extent to which they possess or display agency. Pickering (1995)
defines agency as ‘the ability of individuals to exercise choice and discretion in their everyday practices’ (cited in Ollerhead, 2010, p. 609). For Giddens (1984), teachers activate their
agency when they are able to ‘make a difference to a pre-existing state of affairs or course of
events’ (p. 14). In the present study, the ‘pre-existing state of affairs’ is contextualized
within the EMI policy and following Ollerhead (2010) teachers’ agency is seen as conscious efforts by the teacher to overcome and resist ‘feelings of powerlessness and negativity’ (p. 609) experienced as the by-product of the EMI policy.
It is through the lenses of these theoretical frameworks that the agentive behavior of 12
ISS teachers in response to the EMI policy is explored.
The study
I individually interviewed 12 ISS teachers teaching in two ISSs in a small town in Central
Java. In an open-ended interview, I asked the teachers about their perceptions of the ISS
policy, their experiences in implementing the policy, the extent of different training that
they had participated in, and how they coped and navigated through the EMI program
and adapted their teaching in response to the ISS language policy. I asked them whether
they preferred to be interviewed in English or Indonesian before the interview began. All
agreed to use Indonesian as the main medium, with the option of using English when it
was appropriate. With open-ended semi-structured interviews, I aimed to understand the
way the participants framed the events and the strategies they used to navigate amidst
the EMI policy. A protocol was used although the participants were encouraged to elaborate
and move the interview in the direction of their choice. Interviews were audiotaped and
transcribed.
The data from the 12 teacher interviews were analyzed using content analysis. The
content analysis was conducted in the following way. A preliminary read-through for the
purpose of generating some starting themes was done looking for moments in which
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
6
N.T. Zacharias
factors constituting teacher identities appeared to emerge in their discourse (Bogdan &
Biklen, 1992). Themes emerged throughout the process, requiring a significant amount
of backtracking and recoding to ensure that the entire information in the data was reflected.
Then, gathering together all the different segments of the themes, I looked for patterns in the
way they narrated their experiences, feelings, and opinions surrounding the EMI policy.
There are limitations to the data analysis for this particular case study. With only one
interview per participant, contact was brief with each individual teacher. And, although
teacher background data were collected, the sample size and sampling method do not
allow the study to draw any reasonable conclusions that connect teachers’ background
and their experiences to their perceptions or their self-described practice of English use
in the classroom. Furthermore, although I had planned to conduct classroom observations
for each teacher, at the point when the research was conducted, the teaching and learning
process had already been completed as the last two months were allocated for practice
test sessions to prepare students for the national exam.
Teacher voices toward the ISS policy
The majority of teachers were ambivalent when asked if they were excited to have the
opportunity to use English in their lessons for reasons such as limited English proficiency
and additional workload. Only two teachers, Mr Maman and Ms Sinta were totally excited
by the EMI policy. Ms Sinta has been teaching Mathematics in her present school for 11
years. She labeled herself as a strong advocate of EMI and was held up as a model ISS
teacher by other ISS teachers and school officials. For her, the use of English to teach Mathematics helped to reconstruct the image of Mathematics and Mathematics teachers:
All these years Math subjects are considered old-fashioned … meaning the subject is static. For
example factorisation is always taught and learned in a certain way. Math is considered ‘readymade’ knowledge. Consequently, the Math teachers are also considered as old-fashioned. …
Through EMI, students know that math is a dynamic subject and teachers are not the only
source of knowledge. They can learn Math from the Internet. Easier. Before ISS policy,
when I taught the width of parallelogram, I only used a ruler and a cutter. Since in ISS we
need to use ICT, I learn flash, power point so I can teach the width of parallelogram faster
using animation. It becomes more exciting. The students like it even more. (Ms Sinta, 18
July 2012)
From Ms Sinta’s comments it can be inferred that traditionally Mathematics was taught
in a reductionist model wherein the teacher acted as an authority of the ‘ready-made
knowledge’ passing on information to students. Here, the use of English as a
medium of instruction has shifted the role of both the students and teachers. Students
are no longer passive recipients of knowledge and empirical information but are now
expected to join in the process of making meaning of the knowledge. Teacher’s roles
also have shifted from the utmost source of knowledge to one of the sources of knowledge. The dramatic shift of Mathematics teachers from the only authority to one of the
sources of knowledge is significant in Indonesia, where teachers continue to be viewed
as transmitters of knowledge.
Despite the majority of teachers’ being ambivalent to or in strong disagreement with the
EMI policy, all of them feel obligated to implement the policy. Concepts such as ‘a moral
duty’ and ‘a responsibility’ were often cited by teachers when they were asked why they
enact the policy. Accompanying the concepts were obligatory verbs such as ‘must’, ‘obligated’, and ‘have to’; positioning themselves as having little, if not no, option and freedom
Current Issues in Language Planning
7
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
to act in other opposing ways. When describing their reaction to the policy, all the
participants opted for negative words such as ‘lumpuh’ (crippling), ‘cemas’ (worried),
‘takut’ (afraid); simply because all of the teachers are doubtful of their English oral proficiency, but somewhat confident of their (passive) English competence related to the subject
matter.
Among all the participants, perhaps, Mr Yono voiced the strongest opposition to the
policy. He feared the use of English might threaten national unity and professional
authority:
If we talked about the EMI policy, it relates to the dignity of our nation. I don’t think international quality needs to be in English. One of the purposes of ISS is to open doors for
foreigners to study here [in Indonesia]. That’s fine but the foreigners need to learn Indonesian
so they know Indonesian culture. So foreigners need to obey our rules not us serving them with
the use of English. Even if we use English, the foreigners will make fun of our English. They
won’t understand our English. Therefore, foreigners need to study Indonesian. The content
subjects need to be delivered in Indonesia but that’s just my personal opinion. (Mr Yono, 25
June 2012)
What I found interesting from his comments is that, despite the growing literature promoting English as an Asian language (Graddol, 2006; McArthur, 2003) or the language of its
users (Jarvis, 2005; Norton, 1997), Mr Yono continues to perceive English as the other
language. He sees the use of English in teaching as equal to ‘serving’ foreigners. Even if
he did teach in English, he was doubtful if his English would be acceptable to these
foreigners. In addition, he viewed teaching Physics in a language other than Indonesian
as a threat to his professional authority as a Physics teacher. He felt his competence in teaching physics would be threatened and obscured by his Indonesian-accented English, which,
he believed, would be ridiculed by foreigners.
Despite Mr Yono’s uneasiness about the policy, he not only attempted to implement the
policy but used English as much as possible in the lesson. When asked why he enacted the
policy, he responded:
EMI policy is just a policy. So, it can be said that I am just trying to fulfill my responsibility as a
civic servant. If the government says we need to be like this, I try my best to do so. If we have to
teach in this way, I try to teach in that way. I try to teach as expected [using English]. I try my
best even though I do not support it wholeheartedly but like I say, it is a policy so just do it. Try
to give my best as expected by the government. It’s as simple as that so just keep on trying….
(Mr Yono, 25 June 2012)
For Mr Yono, using English in teaching Physics is a part of enacting his civil servant
responsibilities, that is, following the directions of the central government (‘if the government says we need to be like this, I try my best to do so. If we have to teach in this way, I try
to teach in that way’). Therefore, he defines his ‘best’ effort not in terms of improving the
teaching and learning process, but behaving according to the government standards and
expectations (‘Try to give my best as expected by the government’), although it goes
against his own belief.
For those who are hesitant to follow the EMI policy, they respond in a way that avoids
drawing attention to themselves. Ghazali, Hafidz, and Saliwangi (1986) note that one of the
strategies of government employees to respond to unwanted policy is not to challenge the
policy openly but to remain quiet and unobtrusive. This is evident in the case of Ms Warni, a
Mathematics teacher. Ms Warni has only been in the present school for less than a year. She
was relocated from another state school in a similar town. When she heard, she was being
8
N.T. Zacharias
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
moved to the present school, she was terrified because she knew she would be expected to
teach Mathematics in English.
Her fear was exacerbated because she did not receive any guidelines from the principal explaining when and how much English she was expected to use. She, then,
took the initiative to ask the vice principal and voiced reservations about the EMI
policy. To her surprise, the vice principal stated that simply sandwiching the lesson
with a greeting and a closing was sufficient. In the interview, she honestly stated that
she made an effort to use English much more than expected. For her, simply sandwiching
the lesson with an English greeting and closing was not what she believed the EMI policy
should be.
During the first three months, she admitted feeling stressed out to the point that she lost
a significant amount of weight. That critical incident led her to make a conscious decision to
redirect her energy from English to teaching and assisting the students:
I was still confused why I was being reallocated to this school. So I just teach. Just that. If I am
not good enough [in teaching], because of my limited English use, I am ready to be reallocated
to another state school. Pasrah. … that thinking comforts me. There were times when I was
stressed out thinking about how and when I should use English … the first 2–3 months I
was here. But then, I was thinking I cannot continue my life like this … it negatively affects
my teaching. I decide to focus on my teaching and less on the use of English. The important
thing is the students understand. (Ms Warni, 15 June 2012)
Ghazali et al. (1986) note that civil servants are often concerned that if they make a mistake
or considered unfaithful, they will be transferred to a less desirable location or position. In
the case of Ms Warni, her fear of not measuring up to the government standards of English
use has taken its toll on her personally (i.e. weight loss) and on her teaching. The use of the
word ‘pasrah’, a Javanese cultural concept illustrating self-reliance, despite one’s best
effort, to wherever destiny brings them, positions herself as having no control over her
destiny; thus, she is ready to be reallocated if deemed unfaithful and unloyal by the
central government for not using English as much as expected.
The narratives of teachers in this section illustrate that the majority of teachers found
themselves under considerable moral pressure to enact the policy based not on their own
best judgment of the policy but solely on preconceptions of what they perceived as acceptable to the school and/or the government.
Teachers’ stated teaching strategies in negotiating the EMI policy
Coleman (2009b) states that the practice of English use across ISSs varies. Interestingly, the
data collected through the interviews show that the stated classroom practice with regard to
English use is highly varied even within the same school. The teachers have different ideas
on how much English they were expected to use in the classroom. The socialization that
they received from the principals of each school seems to be hazy. All of them understood
that they were expected to use English as much as possible, although not necessarily
exclusively.
Despite the poor dissemination of the policy, ISS teachers seem to navigate their way
under a shared and generally understood language policy that exists in tacit classroom practices and the interactions between teacher and students. Under such conditions, teachers
develop creative strategies negotiated around teachers’ English oral proficiency, students’
English competence, the role of ISS teachers, and the purpose of learning. The following
are the strategies that teachers stated they used in coping with the policy.
Current Issues in Language Planning
9
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
Centralizing English input through the use of ICT
Other than the use of English, another requirement of ISSs is the need to incorporate internet and communication technology (ICT) in teaching. Since the establishment of the ISS
policy, both the junior and senior high schools were able to facilitate teaching in the classroom with an LCD projector and a laptop. The government at both the district and national
levels hold training sessions in the use of power points, blogs, and other software to
enhance the teaching and learning of content subjects. Prior to receiving the ISS grant,
almost all teachers in the two state schools admitted to barely ‘using’ a computer, much
less educational software or the Internet. The audio-visual aids commonly found in the
classroom were whiteboards. After the policy, all the teachers indicated that they made
their best effort so that the inputs (worksheet, power point slides, and assessment) were
in English. When the present study was conducted, all the teachers claimed that all the
written input in their classes were in English.
For many of these teachers, they said they compensated for their lack of English by
providing notes in English on the power point slides. These power point slides appeared
to be the major English inputs used in the classroom. During the first year of implementing the ISS policy, many teachers used their spare time, in the words of Mr Yono,
‘working like a horse’ summarizing, paraphrasing, and translating the textbooks onto
power point slides. These teachers are also able to navigate their way through ICTs in
ways that benefit them. Mr Yono, for example, was aware that rather than writing
points in his slides, he wrote more elaborated points so that he did not need to recall
words in English. Both Mr Maman and Mr Yono consciously tried to write as little as
possible on the whiteboard to avoid misspellings which were more likely to occur
when they wrote in English.
Many teachers use translating gadgets such as Google Translate or ‘Alfalink’ (a calculator-like bilingual dictionary) when summarizing the textbook in a power point. Mr Eko, a
teacher of Basic Computer Science, perhaps, is the only teacher who made a personal technology leap by buying a Samsung X2 so that he could install the Google Translate application, although he could barely afford it on his current salary. When asked how technology
aided his English use, he explained:
When I teach, I open google translate in my desktop. So whatever I want to say to the students, I
type it into the google translate. I like google translate because it also includes the pronunciation. So, it helps me. Especially when the electricity is down and I cannot use my desktop.
That’s why I buy this phone. Too expensive for me, actually. So I can just type the phrase/
word I wanna say in Indonesian and then, I can see and listen how to say it. For example
‘pindah ke atas’ [let’s move upstairs]. But the problem is when there is a connection
problem, then I use Indonesian. (Mr Eko, 2 April 2012)
Here, I found Mr E’s buying Samsung X2, a phone that is way above his pay grade, as an act
in activating his agency in surviving the EMI policy. It helps him to navigate his teaching
around the expectation to use English as well as local constraints (occasional power
blackouts).
Surviving the EMI policy through code-switching into Indonesian
Teachers claimed that students do not have the necessary English competence to cope with
the EMI policy. Therefore, it is a common practice for teachers to provide a glossary at the
beginning of a new topic. During the interview, Ms Grace stated that by introducing new
vocabulary before teaching a topic, she expected learners would understand when new
10
N.T. Zacharias
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
words occurred in context. Other than using a glossary, teachers commonly provide students with a summary in English and then shared it through the power point slides.
However, the way teachers scaffolded these English summary varied. Some teachers
conduct the lesson entirely in Indonesian with the only English being chunks of text
read from the slides or occasionally slipping in English terminology. Others used English
for classroom use such as greetings and closings, collecting papers, and reprimanding
unwanted behavior. Only a very few teachers used English all the time.
What they all have in common is that they switched into Indonesian to scaffold understanding and important concepts. This is best summarized by Mr Yono when I asked him to
explain his reasons for choosing Indonesian to reinforce concepts in Physics:
The target of the policy is to use English all the time. But we teach concept and we cannot teach
it wrong. So, concepts need to be delivered in Indonesian. Must be in Indonesian … concept.
When using jargons, yes, we can use English. But when we highlight concepts it needs to be in
Indonesian. Because if we use English, we are afraid we represent the concept inappropriately.
So each time I teach concepts such as Archimedean. If I use English, it is even difficult for me,
let alone, the students. So I might be teaching the wrong concept. (Mr Yono, 25 June 2012)
Mr Yono seems to perceive his lack of proficiency in English as a barrier to knowledge. He
was aware that when teaching, the wrong choice of words in the foreign language may lead
to comprehension issues. Since language is the carrier of content (Tatzl, 2011), teachers’
linguistic competence is crucial in the success of EMI policy.
Code-switching into Indonesian is not without its drawbacks. As a consequence of
extended clarification in the students’ mother tongue, the EMI policy tends to accommodate
less content compared to native language lectures. One participant, Ms Rani, a Chemistry
teacher in the senior high school, mentioned that teaching in a foreign language involved a
slower acquisition rate for the content delivered:
EMI is good but we need to finish the scheduled material for the national examination. Since
we need to explain the materials twice. Giving input in English and then, translated them into
Indonesian. So materials that were usually can be covered in one hour. Now we need at least
two hours. Longer. Also, if we want to use all English that means more preparation time of the
teacher. That is difficult because we are teaching twenty four hours per week in addition to
other administrative work. (Ms Rani, 16 July 2012)
Ms Rani’s comment was echoed by all teachers when they were asked why they did not use
English. Inferred from her comment is that teaching and learning through the medium of a
poorly acquired medium of instruction is time-consuming. As a result, she frequently did
not complete the syllabus set by the national government (Othman & Saat 2009; Probyn,
2005; Tatzl, 2011).
Ball (1994) notes that language policies are often ‘introduced into contexts where other
policies are in circulation, and that the enactment of one may inhibit or contradict or influence the possibility of enactment of others’ (p. 19). Through Ms Rani’s comment, it is clear
that she was caught between her allegiance to her institution and her moral responsibility to
the students. On the one hand, she needed to use English. As a civil servant, she felt obliged
to do what her institution has decided to do, that is, enacting the EMI policy. On the other
hand, she felt a moral responsibility to help students pass the national examination written
in a language different from the medium of instruction. In Indonesia, students are assessed
through national examination at the end of every academic year. The grades obtained from
the national examination will later be used for further education and/or in the job market.
Current Issues in Language Planning
11
And thus, she felt that her continued use of English may hamper students’ understanding of
the course content and eventually might sacrifice students’ success in the national examination. For this reason, she made a conscious decision to limit her English use and opt for the
use of Indonesian, the language she felt students would be more comfortable with.
It is interesting to note that these teachers use Indonesian strategically. All teachers
admitted to using far less of the national language when they are being observed by government/school officials (Probyn, 2002). This is best summarized by Ms Nani, a Biology
teacher, at the senior high school:
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
When we were supervised, I used almost all English. So I picked the materials that are easy. For
example, about nitrate recycling process. So I usually used visual with English words so it
guided me when I explained the materials although I was not fluent. But that was when I
was supervised. More English. Usually I just slipped English words/jargons into my teaching.
(Ms Nani, 1 July 2012)
Implied in her comment is the assumption that ideal EMI classes employ all English and
that the use of first language in the EMI policy is often seen as bad practice by the
policy-makers. In the case of Ms Nani, she made a deliberate decision to adjust the
content to her English competence and used visuals that allowed her to use more
English. Her decision seems to be informed by political reasons rather than educational
ones. She felt it was her moral responsibility to satisfy the supervisor with what she perceived as an ideal situation for the EMI classroom. Although many might question Ms
Rani’s strategy in surviving the supervised EMI classes (e.g. Martin, 2005), Brock-Utne
(2005) argues ‘while we are waiting for ideal situation to happen, teachers must be
allowed to code-switch because their speech behavior is sometimes the only possible communicative resource there is for the management of learning’ (p. 190).
Negotiating the EMI policy through expressing linguistic vulnerability
Not only were the teachers well aware of their limited English, but they were also honest
about it in front of their students. In fact, they made it one of their strategies to keep on
reminding the students of their inadequacy in speaking English. During the first weeks,
when the EMI policy was implemented, Ms Warni said ‘We are learning together. Like
you, my English is not good.’ The way Ms Warni positions herself as a learner of
English is a common strategy used by many teachers. As in the case of Ms Grace:
My problem when I speak English in the classroom is sometimes my mind goes blank. Suddenly, I am struggling to find the English words of something. I totally forgot even the simplest
thing. Then, I just asked my students ‘What is this in English?’ And then, one or two students
will say, ‘Eraser, Mam.’ The students are great. They are smart. Their English sometimes are
better than the teachers. (Ms Grace, 7 May 2012)
This narrative shows that in an attempt to survive the EMI policy, ISS teachers have made a
conscious choice to make students collaborators in creating linguistic input. In the case of
Ms Grace, she saw students, who she believed as ‘great’ and ‘smart’, as learning partners
who she might resort to from time to time when she needs linguistic guidance.
However, not all teachers were confident in making students’ their linguistic learning
partners. Mr Dono, for example, often felt frustrated because when he spoke English, the
students often laughed at him. This certainly made him hesitant in using English. When
asked how he overcame his English inadequacy, Mr Dono shared the following:
12
N.T. Zacharias
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
Before starting the lesson, I often say to my students ‘My grammar is terrible. That’s why I will
just talk and not focus on my grammar. The important thing is you know what I am saying.’
That’s what I often said. Just to let them know. I understand English related to Physics, I
just do not know how to say it in English. … the students are better in speaking English. Sometimes when I wrote test items, students laughed at my English and said ‘Sir, the grammar is
wrong. I usually said jokingly, “Didn’t I say not to focus on my grammar? The important
thing you understand the meaning.”’ (Mr Dono, 25 June 2012)
Here, it can be seen that Mr Dono’s strategies in navigating the EMI policy are by shifting
the focus from teaching to communication. He was well aware of his limitations in teaching
Physics in English and thus attempted to refocus students’ attention from correct language
use to meaning-making. He felt if the students’ understand the meaning, then he was successful in achieving the purpose of the lesson despite his poor command in English
grammar.
What these narratives have in common is that the EMI policy has created a feeling of
solidarity on the part of the students, which in turn has been reinterpreted and appropriated
as a resource for language reinforcement for the teachers’ lack of English proficiency. By
doing so, it has transformed the relationship between students and teacher from a perceived
vertical relationship into a more participatory type of interaction. In other words, the policy
allows the teacher and students to co-construct the lesson and the language used in it.
Conclusion
Through a content analysis of the interview transcripts of 12 teachers, the study offers
insights into how 12 ISS teachers implemented a macro-language policy in two candidates
of ISSs in Indonesia. This study purposely places an emphasis on local actors, because the
literature on ISS policy in Indonesia largely focuses on the macro-level perspective. Even
when local actors are addressed, they are usually seen reductively, based on their lack of
teaching competence, English skills, and low TOEFL scores. Indeed, Baldauf, Li, and
Zhao (2008) note that when it comes to implementing language policy, it is the language
teachers who are ‘gatekeepers’ (p. 234) of the policy and not the language planners or
policy-makers.
The interview data illustrate that teachers’ attempts to use English in the classroom
should not be mistakenly interpreted as indicative of support for the EMI policy. Rather,
it is a way to enact their civic duty as government officials. Bjork’s (2005) ethnographic
fieldwork in six junior high schools in East Java showed that public servant teachers primarily are evaluated based on their allegiance and obedience to the central government and not
on the education they provide. Bjork (2005) argues that civil servant teachers have learned
from experience that the emphasis up to now has been on teachers as government employees rather than as professional educators. Consequently, personal voices and opinions are
seen as irrelevant and even unnecessary because with regard to educational policy, ‘the
system did not value their opinions … the basic educational functions of schools were determined in Jakarta [central government] and would not be modified based on the suggestions
of classroom instruction’ (Bjork, 2005, p. 101). Therefore, civil servant teachers have been
conditioned to follow orders (or policy) from the central government rather than to actively
participate in shaping them.
In the light of Bjork’s study, teachers’ efforts to implement the EMI policy in the present
study might seem to be best interpreted as agentless. In fact, the act of reproducing the
policy can be seen as an act of activating agency in itself. As pointed out by Mr Maman,
Ms Grace, and Ms Warni, their efforts to implement the policy were ways to increase the
Downloaded by [Nugrahenny Zacharias] at 02:57 14 May 2013
Current Issues in Language Planning
13
economic stability of their workplace, the schools, and ensure the sustainability of their
jobs. As government officials, they were all aware that failure to at least show initiative
to implement the policy might jeopardize their future careers.
From the interviews, teachers’ agentive behaviors appear to be affected by the social
setting in which the EMI policy takes place (Ollerhead, 2010; Toohey, 2007). Here, the
societal factors are influenced by the complex interplay between teachers’ English competence, students’ perceived English competence, and the lack of socialization of the EMI
policy. It seems that the poor, if not absent, socialization process ISS teachers received
from the principal of the school and/or the government provided them with the pedagogical
freedom to develop their own classroom teaching techniques to meet the needs of the students and to survive the EMI policy.
One of those teaching techniques is the use of Indonesian to compensate for the lack of
English of both teachers and students. Martin (2005) labels the strategy as ‘safe’ practices
(p. 89), that is, ‘practices that allow the classroom participants to be seen to accomplish
lessons’ (p. 89). The safe practice that many of the teachers use to annotate crucial
subject-related concepts is a convenient way to negotiate their limited English proficiency
that might otherwise be sacrificed if teachers insisted on using the required medium of
instruction. Although the safe practices are the common stated classroom practices,
Martin (2005) argues that safe practices such as the one Mr Yono and most teachers in
this study used might undermine the policy and can hamper the acquisition of English,
denying the very essence of EMI policy. Othman and Saat (2009) claim that teachers’
code-switching into a language they have a greater access to might indicate a lack of competence both in the language of instruction or in pedagogical knowledge of using the
language of instruction in integrating content and knowledge.
The finding is not surprising as these teachers did not receive sufficient training on how
to integrate the teaching of English as a second language with science instruction at high
schools. The training that they received was only dealt with daily English and