The English teaching as International language (EIL) takes place in a great context of variety. In Singapore, they use English as the medium and the second language of their students. In other countries like Thailand, students bring English to the classroom with their own distinct variety of English. In other countries like Indonesia nowadays, the learning of English in public schools encouraged through national examinations. Moreover, each country has their great diversity and variety in English teaching, for example, public school versus private institutions and rural versus urban institutions is quite different. English as International actually have a complicated or complex curriculum development because for each variety of the English should be informed by a theory of language learning and teaching. This paper firstly will explain the English language growth and how it develops the EIL pedagogy. And throughout this paper, I argue that since an international language pedagogy is no longer linked to a particular culture of native speaker. Also since one of its primary uses will be for bilingual speakers of English like our country, in order to communicate with other bilingual speakers or even the native speaker of English. It is no longer suitable and appropriate to use the model of native speaker to inform curriculum development especially in Indonesia English Language Teaching (ELT).
Most people nowadays agree that English is a global lingua franca. English has gained this status not because of a growth in the native speaker’s number, but rather because of an increase in the individuals number in the world nowadays who are gaining English as an additional language. This situation has resulted in a marvelous growth in the number of second language English speakers. In fact, Graddol (1999: 62) says that during the next 50 years, the number of people using English as their second language will grow around 462 million from 235 million. Contributing to its status as a global lingua franca, the growing number of people in the world who have awareness with English allows English to act as a language of wider communication for a great variety of purposes. To develop an appropriate curriculum for EIL, it is important to examine how English has reached its status as an international language and how this role has transformed the language.
Brutt Griflier (2002) says that one of the international language central features is the spread of the language. It spread like what Brutt-Griffler explains about ‘macroacquisition’. It does not through speaker migration but rather by many individuals in an existing speech community gaining the English language. Although the English original spread was clearly due to speaker migration, resulting in the development of largely monolingual English-speaking communities such as the United States, New Zealand and Australia. As Graddol’s projection shows before, the current English language spread are due to individuals gaining English as an additional language for international and in some contexts intranational communication. However, unlike speaker migration, this language spread results, not in monolingualism but rather large-scale bilingualism.
Nowadays, Many English bilingualism learners may desire to learn English language because of its growth through macroacquisition. In order to share information with others about the culture and identity of their own countries, to encourage the economic development, to promote trade and tourism, and exchanging information they need to learn English. Those kinds of purposes for using and learning English in the world, it challenges the basis of traditional cultural English in which the English teaching English has often involved learning about the concerns and cultures of the terms ‘Inner Circle countries’ what Kachru (1985) such as Canada, Australia and the United States. Since an international language does not belong to any country but rather to an international community. Smith (1976) explains that the learners of EIL does not need to internalize the cultural norms of native speakers of English. The second, the ownership of EIL has become ‘de-nationalized’. The third, the educational goal of EIL often is to enable learners to communicate their ideas and culture to others.
Throughout this essay, it has explained that the development of English as a global lingua franca has transformed the nature of English in terms of how it relates to culture and how it used by English speakers. As discussed above, the spread of English nowadays is largely the result of macroacquisition and in future it will lead to more user of bilingual English. Its growing number recommends that a productive theory of EIL teaching and learning should recognize the various ways in which English used within multilingual communities. Normally for using and learning English, the bilingual English users have specific purposes. They using their English or other languages to help their needs in many additional languages. They often use English to access the enormous available information and knowledge in English and to contribute to this English knowledge base such as teacher. But, they also share similar purpose. It is to use English language as a language of wider communication. It resulting in cross-cultural encounters being a central feature of the use of EIL. Therefore, one of the major assumptions that need to inform in EIL curriculum development is a recognition or awareness of the diverse ways in which bilingual speakers make use of English to fulfill their specific purposes.
The second major suggestion that our country needs to inform EIL curriculum development in is that many bilingual users of English do not need or want to gain native-like competence. Such an assumption presupposes that there is some agreement as to what makes up a native speaker, although this is not the case. In current Indonesia ELT learning in curriculum 2013. It objectives frequently posit that the goal of most learners of English is to develop native speaker grammatical standards, phonological patterns, and discourse competence. There are, however, several reasons many current bilingual users of English may not see this as their goal. First, on a practical level, they may not need to gain the full range of registers needed by monolingual speakers of English since their use of English may be restricted to largely formal domains of use. Second, there are attitudinal reasons they may not want to gain native-like competence, particularly regarding pronunciation and pragmatics. Third, if, as I have argued throughout the paper, English as an international language belongs to its users, there is no reason some speakers of English should be more privileged and thus provide standards for other users of English.
The final assumption that needs to inform EIL curriculum development is a recognition of the fact that English no longer belongs to anyone culture, and hence there is a need to be culturally sensitive to the diversity of contexts in which English taught and used. In terms of materials, this suggests that the traditional use of Western cultural content in ELT texts needs to be examined. There are clear advantages to the use of source culture content. Such content minimizes the potential of marginalizing the values and lived experiences of the learners. Sharifian (2009, p.5) explains that “The focus in the EIL paradigm is on communication rather than on the speakers’ nationality, skin color, and so on, those factors which in the metaphor of ‘Circles’ acted as symbolic markers of the politicized construct of ‘native speaker’ (e.g. Brutt Griffler & Samimy 2002)” However, using English as an EIL has directly and indirectly shaped our ways of thinking which may ultimately shape our identity (Ha, 2008). Source culture content can also encourage learners to gain a deeper understanding of their own culture and identity so they can share these insights when using EIL with individuals from different cultures. Perhaps most significantly, source culture content does not place local teachers in the difficult position of trying to teach someone else’s culture.
The role of culture in instructional materials is another area of ELT curriculum development that often reflects a native speaker model, an approach that once again needs to reassessed regarding EIL curriculum development. Cultural knowledge often provides the basis for the content and topics used in language materials and classroom discussions. Which culture to use in instructional materials needs to be carefully considered regarding the teaching of an international language. Cortazzi and Jin (1999) distinguish three types of cultural information that can be used in language textbooks and materials. First is source culture materials that draw on the learners’ own culture as content. the second, target culture materials that use the culture of a country where English is spoken as a first language. The third, international target culture materials that use a great variety of cultures in English- and non-English-speaking countries around the world.
Traditionally, many English-language textbooks have used target culture topics. Frequently ELT textbooks use such content because textbooks often published in Inner Circle countries and because some ELT educators believe such information will motivate English-language learners. Whereas it is possible that target cultural content is motivating to some students, it is also quite possible that such content may be largely irrelevant, uninteresting or even confusing for students. If one of the primary reasons for learners to gain English today is to provide information to others about their own community and culture, there seems little reason to promote target cultural content in English language classroom, particularly when such content can cause bilingual teachers of English feeling insecure because they lack specific knowledge about particular target cultures. (For a more extended discussion of the problems that can arise in using the target culture in EIL pedagogy, see McKay 2002.).
The uncoupling of English from the culture of Inner Circle countries also suggests that teaching methodology has to proceed in a manner that respects the local culture of learning. An understanding of these cultures of learning should not be based on cultural stereotypes, in which assertions about the roles of teachers and students and approaches to learning made and often compared to Western culture. Rather an understanding of local cultures of learning depends on an examination of particular classrooms. Although it is important to recognize that what happens in a specific classroom influenced by political, social and cultural factors of the larger community, each classroom is unique in the way the learners and teacher in that classroom interact with one another in the learning of English. Given the diversity of local cultures of learning, it is unrealistic to imagine that one method, such as CLT, will meet the needs of all learners. Rather, local teachers must be given the right and the responsibility to use methods that are culturally sensitive and productive in their students’ learning of English. Common assumptions regarding English teaching have been largely based on an instructional context in which immigrants to English-speaking countries learn English often as a replacement for their first language. Today, however, English is being studied and used more as an international language in which learners gain English as an additional language of wider communication. Hence, the dominance of native speakers and their culture has seriously challenged. Given this shift in English, it is time to recognize the multilingual context of English use and to put aside a native speaker model of curriculum development. Only then can an appropriate EIL curriculum developed in which local educators take ownership of English and the manner in which it taught.