Foreign Learners’ Perceptions of Plurilingual Pedagogy in Indonesian BIPA Classrooms: Insights Into Learning Engagement and Performance
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1606.22Keywords:
plurilingual pedagogy, BIPA, foreign students, translanguaging, learning perceptionAbstract
This study investigates the perceptions of foreign learners toward plurilingual pedagogy in BIPA (Bahasa Indonesia for Foreign Speakers) programs and examines how these perceptions impact learning performance. Drawing on translanguaging theory and the CEFR’s plurilingual framework, the study responds to a gap in Indonesian language education where multilingual learner realities are often mismatched with monolingual instructional norms. A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was employed. Quantitative data were gathered through a 15-item Likert-scale questionnaire, followed by qualitative data from reflective essays, interviews, and classroom document analysis. Four BIPA learners with diverse linguistic backgrounds participated in both phases. Descriptive and thematic analyses were used to triangulate perception scores with students’ learning behaviors and narratives. Findings indicate that positive learner perceptions toward plurilingual strategies, especially those incorporating cultural context and cross-linguistic scaffolding, are associated with greater engagement, metalinguistic awareness, and reflective learning. Conversely, students with limited multilingual proficiency or linguistic insecurity showed cognitive overload and lower performance. Challenges identified include teacher readiness, affective resistance, and monolingual instructional materials. This study contributes to the discourse on inclusive language education by demonstrating that perception is not peripheral but central to plurilingual pedagogy’s success. It advocates for pedagogical shifts in BIPA instruction, including integration of learners’ language repertoires, culturally anchored materials, and teacher training in translanguaging. The findings have broader implications for language programs operating in linguistically diverse, transnational contexts. However, challenges such as limited teacher readiness and scarce plurilingual resources persist. Based on research at a state university in Indonesia, the study underscores the need for curriculum updates and teacher training aligned with CEFR’s plurilingual principles.
References
Asteria, P. V., Rofiuddin, A., Suyitno, I., & Susanto, G. (2023). Indonesian-based pluricultural competence in BIPA teachers’ perspective. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 190–201. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.1151735
Ahmed, T., & Aman, A. (2024). Impact of the Indonesian language course (BIPA) on international student cultural adaptation in Indonesian universities. Journal of Language and Culture Studies, 12(2), 45–59.
Ambariski, R. (2012). The analysis of fantasy genre’s formula on Harry Potter series. Lexicon, 1(1), 1–10.
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing.
Cummins, J. (2009). Multilingualism in the English-language classroom: Pedagogical considerations. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 317–321.
Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 36–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000191
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Gorter, D., & Cenoz, J. (2015). Translanguaging and linguistic landscapes. Linguistic Landscape: An International Journal, 1(1–2), 54–74. https://doi.org/10.1075/ll.1.1-2.04gor
Horwitz, E. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190501000071
Jaspers, J. (2018). The transformative limits of translanguaging. Language & Communication, 58, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2017.12.001
Kleppin, K. (2022). Developing flexilingual competence: A conceptual connection between plurilingual competence and autonomisation. Recherches en didactique des langues et des cultures, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.4000/rdlc.10877
Lasagabaster, D., & Huguet, Á. (2007). Multilingualism in European bilingual contexts: Language use and attitudes. Multilingual Matters.
Little, D., & Kirwan, D. (2019). Engaging with linguistic diversity: A study of educational inclusion in an Irish primary school. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction: Content and language in policy and practice. Oxford University Press.
Nouri, P., Imanipour, N., Talebi, K., & Zali, M. (2018). Most common heuristics and biases in nascent entrepreneurs’ marketing behavior. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 30(6), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2018.1433305
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Pearson Education.
Piccardo, E., & North, B. (2019). The action-oriented approach: A dynamic vision of language education. Multilingual Matters.
Sultana, S., & Dovchin, S. (2019). Popular culture and translanguaging. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(2), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006917726383
Ushioda, E. (2009). Emergent motivation, self and identity. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 215–228). Multilingual Matters.
Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx039
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00136
