English as an international language (EIL) views in Indonesia and Japan: A survey research

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to address students' views of EIL in various circumstances by concentrating on the perspectives of Indonesian and Japanese university students about their EIL experiences, including their perception of current status of English (CSE), varieties of English (VE), strategies for multilingual/multicultural communication (SMC), and English speakers' identity (ESI). A total of 220 participants took part in this survey research. With the help of IBM SPSS Statistics 22, we conducted an EFA on the newly acquired data. Varimax rotations and Principle Components Analysis (PCA) were employed to extract data and we looked at three factors such as eigenvalues, factor loadings, and communalities. Using the criteria of Cronbach's alpha and Composite Reliability (CR), as well as Average Variance Extracted (AVE), the reliability and validity had been examined and the thresholds were reached. All items of CSE, VE, SMC, and ESI were employed in each construct. Descriptive statistics were obtained for the four constructs using their pooled mean and standard deviation (SD). At last, we used an independent samples t-test to evaluate whether the groups differed significantly in how Indonesian and Japanese students viewed EIL. The findings indicated that both groups had no differences in perceiving current status of English, varieties of English, strategies for multilingual/multicultural communication, and English speakers’ identity. The implications for the deployment of EIL teaching methodologies and resources are highlighted.

EIL Views; Indonesia; Japan.

1. Introduction

Students studying English as an International Language (EIL) have to possess many abilities due to English dominance as the world's primary language of communication. They must demonstrate English competency to work in various roles. To promote cross-cultural understanding among students, they must acquire competence in their field and general cultural knowledge (Richards, 2010). Literature on TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) professional identity has already been developed using the notions of language teaching as a starting point. According to Pennington (2014), a rising number of individuals are interested in learning whether or not the current professional profiles of English students meet specific general requirements and professional competencies. To meet those competencies, some tests are needed to differentiate those who are good at English and vice versa. However, not all students have positive views of English tests. For example, as Choi (2008) and Kim (2010) found that many individuals are against EFL exams because of the adverse effects on education that they have. Moreover, Tsai and Tsou (2009) revealed that EFL tests, such as TOEFL and IELTS, are being forced on high school students, and college entrance exams are getting too much attention.

In recent years, there has been a dramatic shift in the public perception of the English language, which has impacted individuals all over the world. Since its establishment as a world language in the twentieth century, English has evolved from being an ethnically homogeneous and standard language spoken by a small number of select countries to becoming an international language spoken by an increasingly diverse range of speakers throughout the world as a result of its global development (Galloway and Rose, 2017). It is necessary to develop a profession-wide response to the unexpected growing demands for, use of, and possession of English as an international language (EIL) in today's world. This includes developing a response in English language learning, teaching, and teacher education in response to English as an international language (EIL). This reaction should involve assessment, policy, and evaluation of English as an international language (EIL). To ensure that all students have access to a high-quality education, it is necessary to develop an educational agenda that includes pedagogical strategies for teaching English under EIL principles. This will ensure that all students have a high-quality education that meets their individual needs (Matsuda, 2003).

Because of globalization, people all around the globe have become more reliant on the English language during the past several decades. In turn, the demographics of individuals who speak English across the world and the function of English as an international language (EIL) have changed due to this. According to Crystal (2003), English is used as L1 (first language), L2 (second language), and L3 (foreign language) all around the world. However, around 75% of them are not native English speakers. Following Graddol (2003), the number of L1 speakers decreases while L2 and L3 speakers increases. Data from Sharifian (2013) shows that English speakers have increased by roughly two billion from the first estimate a decade earlier, and it is dominated by L2 and L3 speakers other than L1 speakers. As a result, many non-native speakers currently communicate in multilingual and multicultural settings. This indicates that non-native English speakers have a tremendous influence on today's English, even though they do not speak English very well themselves.

The perspective of EIL in non-native English speaking environments has changed considerably in recent years (Ahn, 2015; Hundt et al., 2015; Bernaisch and Koch, 2016). Researchers are also looking at EFL students' attitudes across the cultural settings concerning EIL (Jeon and Lim, 2013; Ke and Cahyani, 2014). EIL users who resided in the same geographic area or had the same first language (L1) linguistic background were the focus of these investigations (e.g. Ren et al., 2016). Therefore, an empirical study was unable to fully elucidate the cross-cultural views of EIL users in its current form. A necessary explanation is that earlier research has focused chiefly on some regions of EIL, such as phonetics and lexico-grammar while disregarding any other aspects of linguistics (Ren et al., 2016).

More information regarding how students throughout the globe perceive EIL from different viewpoints on culture is necessary to get a fuller view of the problem from an overall macro perspective, which is currently lacking. The current study attempts to address students' views of EIL in various circumstances by concentrating on the perspectives of Indonesian and Japanese university students about their EIL experiences. Therefore, this study proposes four research questions (RQs) in the following order:

• 1.How do students' views of the Current Status of English (CSE) vary in Indonesia and Japan?
• 2.How do students' views of Varieties of English (VE) vary in Indonesia and Japan?
• 3.How do students' views of Strategies for Multilingual/Multicultural Communication (SMC) vary in Indonesia and Japan?
• 4.How do students' views of English Speakers' Identity (ESI) vary in Indonesia and Japan?

2. Literature review

2.1. English as an international language (EIL)

Crystal (1997) observed that native and non-native English speakers participated in more than 80% of English talks, with the remaining 20% occurring between native English speakers. Crystal's initial finding has become more prevalent in today's globalized and networked world, which may be witnessed in various digital and non-digital contexts, including the internet. According to Aslam (2018), most Facebook users are from nations other than the United States of America. It is as a result that Inner Circle users from the US, UK, and Canada used to dominate the social networking site, users from many countries outside of the inner circle or expanding circle, including India, Indonesia and Brazil, have recently surpassed users from the United States to rank as the world's most populous countries on the social networking site (Malkin, 2007; Yung-Hui, 2012). Even though no data is provided to illustrate how popular English is on Facebook, according to the Internet Globe Stats 2018, English has surpassed all other languages to become the most often spoken in the world. Consequently, among Facebook users, English seems to be the most often spoken language.

As a consequence of this shift, approximately 40 million small enterprises today run their own Facebook platforms to accomplish jobs all around the globe (Ha, 2015). The number of international events and activities in person is increasing, creating more possibilities for individuals from all over the globe to connect and engage with each other. According to the Union of International Associations (2016), South Korea has surpassed the United States as the world’s largest destination for international meetings, having hosted 206 such events in 2006. As a consequence of these altering digital environments, people from non-native English speaking countries have been exposed to and engaged with varied cultural and linguistic identities, which has aided the organization in its development (Kirkpatrick, 2010). As a result of this trend, the internationalization of English and the need to improve cross-cultural communication skills in a wide variety of jobs are becoming more critical.

With a critical viewpoint, researchers in applied linguistics and teaching English as a second language (TESOL) have repeatedly underlined that the English language is transforming the sociolinguistic and sociocultural context (Galloway and Rose, 2015; Kachru, 1985; McKay, 2002; Pennycook, 2001; Seidlhofer, 2013). Numerous scholars have called into question traditional ELT practices, such as native speakers' models, the fallacy of native speakers, and ELT materials in the classroom. It is said that these methodologies do not even correctly depict the current situation of the English language and the people who speak it. The EIL methodology should be used in ELT classrooms and teacher training programs (Matsuda, 2002, 2012, 2017). A multilingual, international situation in which each individual speaks the kind of English they are most comfortable with and employs a variety of communication tactics is considered an international language (Matsuda, 2017). It is possible to explore EIL in a variety of methods; however, there is numerous terminology that has multiple meanings, such as "English as an international lingua franca," "global Englishes," and "world Englishes" (Matsuda, 2017; Selvi, 2017). Pedagogically, Matsuda's conception of EIL is well-suited for this study, which is primarily focused on English-language students.

2.2. EIL users’ views in cross-cultural contexts

Several studies on the views of non-native English speakers of EIL have been conducted during the past two decades, and the results have been published. The mainstream English spoken in the US and UK was preferred above the Sri Lankan and Indian English spoken in the study, said Bernaisch (2012). Indians preferred British English above other versions of English in India (i.e. Sri Lankan English, Indian English, and American English). Students in Fijian universities spoke American and British English (Hundt et al., 2015). Tan and Tan (2008) and Kang (2015) have shown student preference for standard variations among ESL and EFL learners. Coskun (2011) discovered that many English instructors believed that NES accents were the norm and that the most excellent pedagogical strategy in the classroom when it came to teaching was the use of NES accents. Although respondents had varying opinions on the prestige of regional dialects of Standard English such as Sri Lankan, Indian, Fijian, and Singaporean, this research revealed that Standard English was widely considered a prestigious language by the public. As a result, according to Yu (2010)'s study, Chinese university students are frequently familiar with multiple different dialects of English and have a positive attitude about their original language (i.e. Chinese English). Wang's (2015) attempts to establish Chinese English as a natural English language form in the classroom were impeded by the refusal of Chinese university students to adopt NES-like pronunciation in their tongue. After conducting many studies examining Taiwanese people's views toward various English, researchers identified a clear preference for American English in terms of social standing and sense of belonging (Chien, 2014). When Ahn (2014, 2015) researched in Korea, she discovered that while Korean ELT teachers were more likely to accept Korean English in her 2014 study, they were less likely to accept other regional types like Chinese English, Singaporean English, Indian English, and Japanese English when she did research in the same country in 2015.

We have seen thus far that the great majority of studies on how people perceive EIL has been done on a tiny group of EIL users, which seems to be the case. Some recent research initiatives have aimed to investigate EFL students' cultural perspectives on EIL to better comprehend this group's attitudes in general. For example, Ke and Suzuki (2011) found that participation in the internet-based platform for cultural exchange that included students from Japan assisted them to be well prepared to connect with other NNSs. Most EFL students in Taiwan who took part in the research believed that NNS was the most suitable design nine weeks after the intervention. L3 students from Taiwan's EFL universities participated in an eight-month cross-cultural online exchange program with students from Indonesia, where they learned to identify the importance of L3 in cross-cultural situations (Ke and Cahyani, 2014). Korean EFL students' cross-cultural and communication skills in elementary school increased when they were put together with people from different cultures through video conferencing (Jeon and Lim, 2013). At the same time, it was shown that video conferencing could be used to establish an authentic EIL environment at a private Japanese university (Lee et al., 2017). As a result of their encounters with Japanese students, many EIL users from the three countries worldwide positively viewed the program.

Even though they tried to look at EIL users' points of view throughout other contexts within a culture, users of EIL are the primary focus of the study, which is conducted in a single location. As a result, empirical research has not completely figured out the cross-cultural views of students who use EIL. Ren et al. (2016) researched how Taiwanese and Chinese students thought about English used as a Lingua Franca, including ELF/EIL. They saw massive discrepancies in how the two groups thought about ELF. Even though they lived in different areas, the students had the same Chinese language. In addition, Ren et al. (2016) only looked at the aspects of linguistics in EIL, such as lexico-grammar or phonology, instead of other aspects of EIL. Thereby, learning about how students think about EIL in different cross-cultural settings is crucial for us to know more about this subject matter around the world. Because EIL is necessary and there is not much research on how students think about it in different settings, this study will provide an insight into how Indonesian and Japanese university students view EIL by following the concept of EIL proposed by Lei et al. (2017). According to Lei et al. (2017), there are four aspects of EIL, namely, Current Status of English (CSE), Varieties of English (VE), Strategies for Multilingual/Multicultural Communication (SMC), and English Speakers’ Identity (ESI). See appendix 1 for detailed EIL indicators.

2.3. EIL users’ view in Indonesia and Japan

A number of research pertaining to EIL have been carried out in Indonesia. For example, Lee et al. (2019) found that EFL pre-service teachers seem to have a positive attitude toward EIL. It would seem that those preparing to teach English as a foreign language in Indonesia are more committed to include lessons on diversity and tolerance into their curricula. They have a deeper sense of ownership over their speech patterns, which include their regional accents. According to Ubaidillah (2018), English as a Foreign Language (EFL) pre-service teachers in East Java, Indonesia share the belief that instructors who are native English speakers are superior. There is no doubt that they are completely oblivious to the concept of English either as a global language or as an international language (EIL). The use of authentic materials from countries in the inner circle is their top choice when it comes to teaching and studying English as a foreign language (EFL), but they are open to the idea of incorporating their mother tongue into EFL classes. Because of this, people have a low level of confidence in the local EFL books that they consult in order to improve their English language skills. On the other hand, there are two schools of thought when it comes to the incorporation of cultures associated with the English language into EFL instruction. Some people believe that the materials used in the teaching should reflect their own local Indonesian cultures. Dewi (2014) found that speaking English has a beneficial effect on a person's way of thinking, despite the widespread belief that the Western way of thinking is intrinsically linked to the English language. This belief is prevalent because of the prevalence of the Western style of thinking. Even among Muslim students, there has been a shift away from associating English with their religion; rather, they see English as having an influence on their religious life. This shift has led to a significant decline in the significance of English as a foreign language (EFL) settings in Indonesia, where English has a positive effect on ethnic identities and where English has a positive effect on ethnic identities. According to Raja et al. (2022), EFL pre-service teachers in Indonesia feel that EIL may be used for a number of purposes. When interacting with people who come from a variety of cultural backgrounds, they are able to modify their behavior and the way in which they carry on conversations in order to adapt to the myriad of various pronunciation patterns and accents of English that they are exposed to. This demonstrates that they have a high level of proficiency in several languages and cultures. They have a strong sense of ownership over their unique varieties of the English language, which they speak.

Supartini (2013) investigated the identities of two Western English teachers in relation to their experiences as EIL English teachers in Indonesia. She discovered that EIL instructors built their identities in three distinct ways. These techniques included self-positioning, being positioned, and negotiating between two cultures. In all cultures, self-positioning shapes values and attitudes. They were non-natives who studied with great native speakers in western culture. In Indonesia, they employed languages. The teachers' identities were also shaped by their exposure to Western and Indonesian cultures. When they were exposed to western culture, they recognized they were foreigners. Both teachers were regarded as outsiders. In Indonesia, they were seen as a distinct "species" from the wider world, teachers who had studied and trained in the West and worked alongside "local" colleagues. When they returned to Indonesia with various new knowledge, they saw that their coworkers' views changed, both positively and negatively. The teachers' confusion was created by their exposure to two diverse cultures, as their identities were complex since they were a hybrid of Indonesian and Western culture and did not really belong to either. Thus, various negotiations were conducted and communicated by integrating and readjusting Western and Indonesian experience.

It has also been extensively examined what the future of EIL would be like in Asia. In Japan and Korea, students often favoured English accents with native speakers, such as American and British English, compared to other English accents (Ahn, 2014; Chiba et al., 1995; Matsuda, 2003; Tokumoto and Shibata, 2011). Some of the problems that Japanese students have in taking ownership of their English proficiency have been explored in EIL studies undertaken in Japan. Japanese students feel that English is just for native speakers. They also claim to speak a dialect that varies from native speakers' Standard English. Matsuda (2003) finds that Japanese students still feel that native English speakers have exclusive access to the language and that their dialect of the language is either uniquely Japanese or an inaccurate form of the language that varies from the original form used by native speakers. Students in Japan favour native English over non-native English while discounting their Japanese performance variety at the same time, according to a newer investigation by Saito and Hatoss (2011). Since native English speakers are still considered the language's overlords in Japan, Japanese learners suffer from their own lowered status in global communication.

With more exposure to English, the Japanese have started to utilize English in their everyday speech. Educators have begun requiring students to study English in the early grades. In order to do business on a global scale, companies rely on English. They believe that only native-speaker language is authentic, and their objective is to achieve "near-native" or "native-like" fluency in English (Yano, 2021). Moreover, Sato (2022) said that the top global university project was initiated by the Japanese government in 2014 with the purpose of fostering the globalization of public and private institutions and attracting international students from all corners of the world to study at Japan's various educational institutions of a higher learning level. Kyoto University and Tokyo University, two of the most prestigious educational establishments in Japan, have made a significant commitment to improving their English language skills in order to enhance their standing in the worldwide academic community. As a legitimate demand from society, government funding for these colleges may be imposed, and these institutions see this as an acceptable approach to enhance the amount of English immersion in Japan.

Even though EIL perspectives are important in EFL teaching and there are more and more research papers on the subject, EFL students have not gotten as much attention particularly in the Indonesian and Japanese contexts. So, the goal of this study was to find out how EFL students in higher education institutions in Indonesia and Japan felt about the four aspects of EIL. This was done to find more conclusive evidence about the topic being studied in the Indonesian and Japanese EFL contexts. These four parts are the current status of English, varieties of English, strategies for multilingual/multicultural communication, and English speakers’ identity among EFL students in higher education institutions in Indonesia and Japan.

3. Methods

This study used quantitative research method as Bryman (2012) suggested that Quantitative research is distinguished by its emphasis on using numerical measures in both the data gathering and interpretation stages. It is derived from a logical method in which the focus is put on the testing of theories, and it is molded by empiricist and positivist philosophical systems of thought. To gather data of EIL views, we implemented a survey research. As Shaughnessy et al. (2011) said that in order to collect information on people's perspectives, feelings, and opinions, survey research is widely used. The data were collected from an online questionnaire. Finally, we used IBM SPSS Statistics version 22 to analyze data.

3.1. Participants and contexts

On the basis of a convenient sampling technique, there were a total of 220 students of English as a foreign language from Japan and Indonesia who took part in the research and successfully finished the questionnaire phase. They consisted of 106 students (65 females and 41 males) from one Indonesian university (Semarang State University) and 114 students (74 females and 40 males) from one Japanese university (Hiroshima University). The reasons of choosing those two universities are because they have similar characteristics in which both of them are state universities with the government’s fully financial support so that they are more established rather than other universities. The students had varying amounts of previous learning (ranging from 5 to 8 years, with a mean of 6 years), and they had attended a range of English language programs in Indonesia and Japan. They all chose to concentrate on the field of English education for their academic studies. The participants remained anonymous, and the confidentiality of the information they provided was preserved for the whole of the data collection procedure. Afterwards, the participants were split up into their respective groups (Indonesia and Japan). Each of the two groups consisted entirely of college students who spoke English. On the other hand, Indonesia and Japan are both countries in which English is not the primary spoken language, and students in both countries are required to communicate with one another in their different first language. In addition to this, the cultural and social systems of each country are distinct from one another. As a direct consequence of their participation, it was quite probable that an investigation into the perspectives of EIL would be conducted on the part of students hailing from a wide range of different cultural backgrounds.

3.2. Instrument and data collection procedure

The instrument used in this study was online questionnaire by using Google Docs. According to https://bit.ly/3aaIY06, users of Google Docs are able to create, edit, and collaborate on documents online in real time with one another while using the platform. The person who makes the update is responsible for tracking it, and a revision history will display any changes that have been made. As part of the research process, participants were requested to fill out a two-section, self-report questionnaire that collected information about their experiences. The selection of questionnaires was done with the goals of gaining insight into the perspectives, interests, and core values held by the students, as well as articulating the significance and relevance of various activities (Dörnyei and Taguchi, 2010). The participants' age, gender, major, and number of years of learning English were all inquired about in the first section. The students were required to complete 14 statements on four different EIL features adopting from Lee and Hsieh (2018), including the current status of English (CSE), varieties of English (VE), strategies for multilingual/multicultural communication (SMC), and English speakers' identity (ESI), on a Likert scale ranging from strong disagreement to strong agreement, represented by a 1 to 5 scale.

We did an EFA on the newly collected data with IBM SPSS Statistics 22. Variable maxima rotations and principle components analysis (PCA) extracted information from the data. We looked at three factors: eigenvalues more than 1.00, factor loadings <0.5, and communality <0.5 (Hair et al., 1998). In order to obtain more precise results, we investigated validity and reliability for the required data. The reliability of the samples might be assessed using a value of 0.7 for Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability (CR) (Hair et al., 1998). All constructs had Cronbach's alpha values between 0.63 and 0.92, while CR values ranged between 0.85 and 0.92. Using the average variance extracted (AVE), we examined that the convergent validity ranged between 0.67 and 0.75, with a cutoff of 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The students were told of the goal of the present research before it was carried out, and they were allowed to participate if they so desired (Table 1).

Table 1.

Result of EFA, Validity, dan Reliability.

Item	Factor structure coefficient				Communality
	1	2	3	4
1	0.067	-0.103	-0.021	0.700	0.506
2	0.040	0.200	0.137	0.806	0.711
3	0.000	-0.148	-0.176	0.809	0.707
4	0.872	0.078	0.157	0.143	0.811
5	0.867	0.136	0.095	0.239	0.836
6	0.932	0.099	0.052	-0.116	0.895
7	0.849	0.181	0.293	-0.174	0.869
8	0.017	0.661	0.469	0.000	0.657
9	0.126	0.956	0.022	-0.001	0.931
10	0.194	0.934	0.112	-0.078	0.929
11	0.151	0.970	0.070	-0.023	0.969
12	0.251	-0.018	0.893	-0.083	0.867
13	0.617	0.164	0.583	0.224	0.797
14	0.163	0.283	0.885	-0.049	0.893
Eigenvalues	3.650	3.411	2.330	1.982
Explained variable (%)	26.100	24.368	16.644	14.160
Cumulative variable (%)	26.100	50.466	67.110	81.270
Cronbach’s α (retained item)	0.923	0.921	0.860	0.634
CR	0.897	0.922	0.895	0.853
AVE	0.686	0.748	0.740	0.668
Factor Name	VE	SMC	ESI	CSE

3.3. Data analysis

3 CSE items, 4 VE items, 4 SMC items, and 3 ESI items were employed in each construct. In the end, descriptive statistics were obtained for the four constructs using their pooled mean and standard deviation (SD) (see Table 2). At last, we used an independent samples t-test to evaluate whether the groups differed significantly in how Indonesian and Japanese students viewed EIL.

Table 2.

Descriptive data on the four constructs of EIL.

Constructs	No. of items	Mean	SD
CSE	3	4.1015	0.6610
VE	4	3.5568	0.9524
SMC	4	3.7102	0.7554
ESI	3	3.7205	0.9368

3.4. Ethics statement

Researchers have told the respondents about the purpose of the survey. Responses are kept strictly confidential, and respondents could remain anonymous. Written consent has been obtained from the respondents. It has been confirmed that the respondents have given their written consent in their data collection by filling out the questionnaire.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Results

In terms of preferences, Table 2 shows the outcomes of the EIL survey, which mean that respondents had good reactions to all of the constructs. CSE had the higher responses, followed by ESI, SMC, and VE. CSE survey participants' perceptions revealed that English was primarily considered a world language and was extensively spoken for commerce, culture, education and work. In terms of ESI, It was found that participants' comments focused on belonging to a particular group and on mutual understanding of the English language, rather than the pursuit of grammatically correct or native-like usage when asked to assess their views on how English speakers see their own identities. According to the results, participants who used SMC strategies for multilingual/multicultural communication were better able to adapt their conversational styles and behaviour and explain their cultural characteristics and practices to others. As a result, they showed a more vital willingness to learn about various cultures. Participants in both countries expressed support for using listening resources that included communication between non-native English speakers by teachers in the VE part on attitudes toward English-related variety.

The average values of all EIL constructs were compared between the two groups using an independent-sample t-test to determine whether the significant differences occurred. CSE t (−1.04), VE t (−1.42), SMC t (−0.18), ESI t (−0.19) with p-value > 0.05 of all constructs did not vary significantly between the two groups as shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Average responses from Indonesian and Japanese students on the four EIL constructs.

Construct	Group	Mean	SD	t	Significance	Cohen's d
CSE	Indonesia	4.0532	0.6685	-1.044	0.298	0.1408
	Japan	4.1463	0.6537
VE	Indonesia	3.4623	1.0222	-1.415	0.158	0.1914
	Japan	3.6447	0.8780
SMC	Indonesia	3.7005	0.7257	-0.184	0.854	0.0249
	Japan	3.7193	0.7851
ESI	Indonesia	3.7083	1.0417	-0.185	0.853	0.0249
	Japan	3.7318	0.8321

∗represents significance level 5%.

RQ#1: CSE.

In order to respond to RQ #1, which inquired as to the amount to which students in Indonesia and Japan varied in their CSE, we compared the students' reactions to the three questions in the CSE. Using the concept of CSE, Table 4 revealed that both groups indicated no significant differences.

Table 4.

The results on the construct of ‘CSE’.

Construct	Group	Mean	SD	t	Significance	Cohen's d
CSE1	Indonesia	4.51	0.707	-0.441	0.659	0.0552
	Japan	4.55	0.742
CSE2	Indonesia	3.32	1.184	-1.657	0.099	0.2248
	Japan	3.58	1.128
CSE3	Indonesia	4.33	0.658	0.271	0.787	0.0315
	Japan	4.31	0.612

∗represents significance level 0.05.

A further in-depth investigation of the three survey questions found that CSE1 values were [M(4.51), SD(0.71)], and [M(4.55), SD(0.74)], [t(-0.44), p > 0.05] for Indonesian students and Japanese students respectively. Further results in CSE2 values showed Indonesian students [M(3.32), SD(1.18)], and Japanese students [M(3.58), SD(1.13)], [t(-1.66), p > 0.05]. Lastly, values on CSE3 were [M(4.33), SD(0.66)], [M(4.31), SD(0.61)], [t(0.27), p > 0.05] for Indonesian students and Japanese students respectively.

RQ#2: VE.

The four survey questions revealed no significant differences between Indonesian and Japanese students during the investigation of the students' VE, which was integrated into RQ#2 (Table 5).

Table 5.

The results on the construct of ‘VE’.

Construct	Group	Mean	SD	t	Significance	Cohen's d
VE1	Indonesia	3.57	0.995	-1.787	0.075	0.2382
	Japan	3.79	0.846
VE2	Indonesia	3.29	1.234	-1.438	0.152	0.1987
	Japan	3.52	1.075
VE3	Indonesia	3.64	1.071	-1.210	0.228	0.1680
	Japan	3.81	0.949
VE4	Indonesia	3.35	1.196	-0.764	0.446	0.0981
	Japan	3.46	1.041

∗represents significance level 5%.

The Indonesian students’ VE1 values were [M(3.57), SD(1.00)], whereas the Japanese students’ VE1 values were [M(3.79), SD(0.85)], [t(-1.79), p > 0.05]. The Indonesian students’ VE2 values were [M(3.29), SD(1.23)], and the Japanese students’ VE2 values were [M(3.52), SD(1.08)], [t(-1.44), p > 0.05]. There were no significant differences between Indonesian students [M(3.64), SD(1.07)] and Japanese students [M(3.81), SD(0.95)], [t(-1.21), p > 0.05] in the VE3 analysis. Finally, the VE4 values of the Indonesian students [M(3.35), SD(1.20) and VE4 values of Japanese students [M(3.46), SD(1.04)], [t(-0.76), p > 0.05] were found identical.

RQ#3: SMC.

Following a thorough investigation of RQ#3, which focused on the participants' multilingual or multicultural communication abilities, researchers discovered an interesting commonality between the two groups. Table 6 indicated no significant differences between Indonesian and Japanese students in SMC1, SMC2, SMC3, and SMC4.

Table 6.

The results on the construct of ‘SMC’.

Construct	Group	Mean	SD	T	Significance	Cohen's d
SMC1	Indonesia	3.39	0.981	-1.718	0.087	0.2338
	Japan	3.61	0.899
SMC2	Indonesia	3.81	0.782	0.288	0.774	0.0380
	Japan	3.78	0.796
SMC3	Indonesia	3.78	0.805	0.567	0.571	0.0722
	Japan	3.72	0.857
SMC4	Indonesia	3.82	0.778	0.459	0.647	0.0634
	Japan	3.77	0.799

∗represents significance level 5%.

Among Indonesian students, the SMC1 values were [M(3.39, SD(0.980)], whereas among Japanese students the SMC1 values were [M(3.61), SD(0.90)], [t(-1.72), p > 0.05]. Similar patterns emerged in SMC2, with Indonesian students scoring [M(3.81), SD(0.78)] and Japanese students scoring [M(3.78), SD(0.80)], [t(0.29), p > 0.05]. For SMC3, the Indonesian values were [M(3.78), SD(0.81)], and Japanese values were [M(3.72), SD(0.86)], [t(0.57), p > 0.05]. Aside from that, the SMC4 values for Indonesian were [M(382), SD(0.78)], and the values for Japanese were also [M(377, SD(0.80)], [t(0.46), p > 0.05], implying no significant difference between the two groups.

RQ#4: ESI.

Results from Table 7 revealed that, despite both groups being enthusiastic about the identification and mutual understanding of English usages, no statistically significant differences were detected among the participants on any of the three survey questions as examined in RQ #4.

Table 7.

The results on the construct of ‘ESI’.

Construct	Group	Mean	SD	T	Significance	Cohen's d
ESI1	Indonesia	3.83	1.100	0.488	0.626	0.0686
	Japan	3.76	0.934
ESI2	Indonesia	3.55	1.180	-0.577	0.565	0.0740
	Japan	3.63	0.971
ESI3	Indonesia	3.75	1.180	-0.358	0.720	0.0458
	Japan	3.80	0.997

∗represents significance level 5%.

When it came to the ESI1, the values for Indonesian students were [M(3.83), SD(1.10)], whereas the values for Japanese students were [M(3.76), SD(0.93), [t(0.49), p > 0.05]. Indonesian students received [M(3.55), SD(1.18) on the ESI2, whereas Japanese students received [M(3.63), SD(0.97)], [t(-0.58), p > 0.05] on the same test. Lastly on the ESI3 values, Indonesian students received [M(3.75), SD(1.18)], while Japanese students received [M(3.80), SD(1.00)], [t(-0.36), p > 0.05].

4.2. Discussion

The results of this study were mostly divided into three categories: First and foremost, the students from Indonesia and Japan gave positive responses to all four features of EIL on average, and this was true across all four qualities. There was a good attitude among EFL students regarding the general principles of EIL. A preliminary study indicated that increasing students' exposure to an increased number and variety of EIL users and resources might be good in enhancing their overall awareness, comprehension, and attitudes about EIL in general (Jeon and Lim, 2013; Lee et al., 2017). Previously conducted research found that students' knowledge of EIL increased due to an EIL-integrated educational intervention; however, the current study examined students' attitudes toward EIL using an online survey. The benefit of this is that English language students may better comprehend the present condition of the phenomenon in the issue. In terms of overall value, CSE had the greatest [M(4.10), SD(0.66)], accompanied by ESI [M(3.72), SD(0.94)], SMC [M (3.71), SD(0.75), and VE [M(3.56), SD(0.95)]. Due to various digital tools and resources (such as cellphones and social media) that expose young EFL students to worldwide concerns and cross-cultural material, their level of CSE has risen (Lee, 2017). The degree to which digital technologies can assist EFL students with their CSE will need more investigation. There will very certainly be other discoveries in the future. Compared to the use of VE, EIL utilization in EFL settings was found to be much lower, which is most likely owing to a lack of opportunities and resources for exposure and implementation of EIL in EFL contexts in general.

The second findings revealed that Indonesian and Japanese students had a similar view of the ESI [t(-0.19), p > 0.05]. According to these data, both groups seem to have equal control over their regional dialects of English, such as Indonesian English and Japanese English. Furthermore, the ESI2 seems to support Ahn’ (2014) findings that Korean EFL students were unlikely to possess their Korean English. Indonesian students M(3.55) and Japanese students M(3.63) also endorsed this item strongly. A parallel scale measuring the same concept may also be utilized in a future investigation to support this argument. The findings of CSE [t(-1.04), p > 0.05], VE [t(-1.42), p > 0.05], and SMC [t(-0.18), p > 0.05] revealed that Indonesian students performed similarly to Japanese students in all three categories; nevertheless, these results were not statistically significant. The usage of English in business, culture, and education, attitudes regarding English-related diversity, and practices for multilingual/multicultural communication were shown to have no significant differences between the two groups.

Unexpectedly, neither group's VE nor SMC levels changed. High-stakes English exams or instructional strategies may have had similar washback effects on Indonesian and Japanese students' English competency on the VE and SMC tests (Choi, 2008; Kim, 2010). The TOEFL is the test of choice for many high school students in Indonesia and Japan who want to enter college for college admissions exams. Because the TOEFL listening section mainly comprises questions with a British English accent, many Indonesian and Japanese students dedicate their secondary school years to improving their English listening skills by emulating the British English accent. Students from Indonesia and Japan who attend SMC seem to benefit from a curriculum and teaching technique that emphasizes the TOEFL (such as reading comprehension and grammar). According to Tsai and Tsou (2009), sociopolitical factors, such as the use of worldwide standardized English examinations like the TOEFL, TOEIC, and IELTS as education requirements, were present in both Indonesian and Japanese high school students.

The last key finding was that when the VE4 technique was used, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups [(t(-0.76), p > 0.05). Both Indonesian and Japanese students [(M(3.35), SD(1.20)] and [(M(3.46), SD(1.04)] preferred English listening materials with accents and interaction with non-native speakers in this study. This findings contrast with Ahn’ (2014) that American and British accents are appreciated and regarded more highly than local accents (for example, Korean English). It is reasonable to suppose that students were compelled to concentrate only on Standard English during this kind of high-stakes exam, which may negatively affect their verbal abilities. As a result, Indonesian and Japanese EFL students may not have had as much formal and informal exposure to a particular standard variety accent (American or British English) as they would have received in their home countries via formal and informal teaching methodologies (Kang, 2015). High-stakes settings may produce unanticipated outcomes. Future research in this area is planned to investigate further the impact of English listening assessments and instructor models on students' perceptions of VE.

This study may have significant ramifications for L2 professionals based on prior research. EIL learning environments may be effectively constructed by incorporating technology with pedagogical advantages, such as collaboration in real-time over the internet through SMC, into the language curriculum. Students may use Internet technology to bypass geographical barriers and interact with English speakers worldwide (Jeon and Lim, 2013; Ke and Cahyani, 2014). Additionally, SMC provides a natural and engaging environment in which native and non-native speakers alike may engage in conversation at any time and from any place when they are connected to Internet access (Lee et al., 2017). Students from diverse nations and cultures benefit from SMC, as shown by Yu (2010) as a collaborative learning technique (Jeon and Lim, 2013; Ke and Cahyani, 2014). As a consequence of this online collaboration, an online learning community for EFL students may be formed that enables them to engage with and learn from native English speakers (Kirkpatrick, 2010).

A diverse variety of linguistic inputs should also be provided to students through online resources, such as conversations between non-native speakers (NNSs) and people who speak the language well. Exposure to dialects apart from those spoken in the US and UK helps EFL students become better English learners (Matsuda, 2017). Teachers can help students experience EIL by using technology and resources found online. This will help students better understand the CSE and enhance their views on various English and intercultural communication forms.

5. Conclusion and implications

The majority of English users worldwide are non-native speakers who have learned the language to communicate with both native and non-native speakers (Larsen-Freeman, 2019; Seidlhofer and Widdowson, 2020). In this study, we examine how EFL students from two different countries (Indonesia and Japan) perceive English as an international language in terms of four factors: Current Status of English (CSE), Varieties of English (VE), strategies for Multilingual/Multicultural Communication (SMC), and English Speakers' Identity (ESI). To begin with, there are no substantial variations between how Indonesian and Japanese students perceive CSE. As is the case in Indonesia and Japan, English is utilized as an international language not just by native speakers but also by non-native speakers. It is widely used for business, culture, and education. Next, it seems that both Indonesian and Japanese students share the same perspectives about VE. They reach an understanding that English contains other accents outside Standard English (American English and British English). As a result, Hong Kong English, Indian English, Indonesian English, Japanese English, etc. are now accepted. Even though these English speakers have various accents, they might be used in their teaching. Thirdly, with regard to SMC, both groups had comparable views. Even if the interlocutors have diverse cultural backgrounds, Indonesian and Japanese students can converse well in English. Last but not least, English students in Indonesia and Japan have similar perspectives on ESI. They believe that they have different accents as their identities so that it is unnecessary for them to speak like native speakers as far as their English is understandable.

The findings of this research have implications for the deployment of EIL teaching methodologies and resources. To begin with, depending only on the native speaker model to increase one's ability to communicate successfully should be avoided. Instead, current educational methods must be reevaluated in light of a multilingual rather than a classic monolingual approach to communication. Consequently, ESL/EFL teachers should educate their students’ strategic communication skills so they may communicate successfully in EIL interactions utilizing both native and non-native linguistic and practical norms. It is imperative that English language teaching materials reflect the wide distribution of EIL, in part through including a variety of Englishes. There appears to be agreement among researchers on the significance of better preparing teachers and administrators in non-English-speaking countries and around the world to raise their awareness of the diversity of English and its varieties as well as to promote equity for speakers of non-native and/or "standard" varieties of English. These notions should thus be taught to non-native English language learners to help them reshape their conception of English ownership and legitimacy. English Teachers must be helped to reevaluate their common assumptions about native speakerism and to adopt more EIL-aware pedagogy in order to reappraise teaching techniques in expanding circle scenarios from an EIL viewpoint. In addition, English teachers should focus on teaching students to negotiate meanings and develop negotiation skills so that they may participate effectively in international exchanges. It has been suggested by Kachru and Smith (2008) that the diversity of global Englishes makes it more difficult for people from different cultures to communicate effectively.

6. Limitations and suggestions

This research has various limitations that may limit the generalizability of its results. In order to perform a follow-up research effectively, it will be required to gather data from a bigger and more diversified sample of individuals who have had a range of diverse experiences. We need participants from various other universities to verify our results. Thus, this research may serve as a useful beginning point and suggest for further comparative studies to examine the impact of diverse language and sociocultural contexts in EIL users' perspectives (Ren et al., 2016). Second, the teacher's in-class methodology may have influenced the participants' views of EIL, nevertheless it is not covered in this study. Because teachers have such a significant impact on how their students perceive EIL, upcoming research may require teacher aspects like teacher belief and teaching style into consideration. Third, attention may be required when interpreting self-reported data from surveys. Students may underreport their experiences with EIL. In addition, some respondents may have different levels of comprehension or interpretation of an issue they are asked to answer. This means that more data, like interviews and observations, should be included in future studies to get a complete picture of the present state of affairs.

Declarations

Author contribution statement

Ahmad Tauchid: Conceived and designed the experiments; Wrote the paper.

Mursid Saleh: Performed the experiments.

Rudi Hartono: Analyzed and interpreted the data.

Januarius Mujiyanto: Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data.

Funding statement

This work was supported by the Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP), The Ministry of Finance, Indonesia.

Data availability statement

Data will be made available on request.

Declaration of interest’s statement

The authors declare the following conflict of interests: This research was financed by the Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP), The Ministry of Finance, Indonesia.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Appendix 1.

EIL Indicators

Current Status Of English (CSE)

• (CSE1) English is used today as an international language to communicate effectively with people from around the world.

• (CSE2) Many non-native English-speaking countries currently use English as their official or working language.

• (CSE3) English is the language of business, culture, and education around the world today.

Varieties Of English (VE)

• (VE1) Different varieties of English, such as Hong Kong English, Indian English, and Singaporean English, are acceptable today.

• (VE2) Teachers can use English listening materials that are recorded by people who have different kinds of English accents.

• (VE3) Different varieties of English, such as Indonesian English, Taiwanese English, and Japanese English, are acceptable today.

• (VE4) Teachers can include the interaction between non-native English speakers (e.g. Indonesian-Japanese speakers) in English listening materials.

Strategies For Multilingual/Multicultural Communication (SMC)

• (SMC1) I can adjust my conversational style according to my interactions with people of other cultural backgrounds.

• (SMC2) I can explain my own culture and customs clearly in English to people from other cultures.

• (SMC3) I am open-minded about accepting speaking/pronunciation patterns that are different from those of my home country.

• (SMC4) I can behave appropriately according to English users I speak with.

English Speakers’ Identity (ESI)

• (ESI1) English teachers should not push me to speak like a ‘native’ English speaker.

• (ESI2) I don’t mind if people laugh at my English accent when I speak because it is my own English.

• (ESI3) It is unnecessary to speak like American or British English speakers as long as my English is intelligible (or understandable) to others.