Voices in the Classroom: Intertextuality, Power, and Pedagogy in Indonesian EFL Discourse

Yelfiza Yelfiza; Della Patria; Ferlizea Marsya; Nofitri Nofitri

doi:10.24036/ld.v20i1.135854

Voices in the Classroom: Intertextuality, Power, and Pedagogy in Indonesian EFL Discourse

Yelfiza Yelfiza⁽¹⁾, Della Patria⁽²⁾, Ferlizea Marsya⁽³⁾, Nofitri Nofitri⁽⁴⁾,
(1) Universitas PGRI Sumatera Barat

Indonesia
(2) Universitas PGRI Sumatera Barat

Indonesia
(3)

Indonesia
(4) Universitas PGRI Sumatera Barat

Indonesia

Corresponding Author
Copyright (c) 2026 Lingua Didaktika: Jurnal Bahasa dan Pembelajaran Bahasa

DOI : https://doi.org/10.24036/ld.v20i1.135854

Full Text:

Language : en

Abstract

This study explores how intertextuality constructs classroom discourse, shapes power relations, and guides pedagogy in Indonesian EFL (English as a Foreign Language) contexts. Using qualitative classroom discourse analysis, the research was conducted in three schools in Padang, Indonesia, involving three English teachers and their students. Data were collected from classroom video recordings, ethnographic notes, and teacher interviews. The analysis identified five intertextual themes: (1) moral legitimation through references to religion and national ideology; (2) epistemic framing via textbooks and curricula; (3) disciplinary socialization through teacher narratives and students’ experiences; (4) behavioral regulation through playful, game-like intertextuality; and (5) cognitive scaffolding through dialogic negotiation. These intertexts drew on vertical sources (Islamic texts, curricular norms, institutional rules) and horizontal sources (student utterances, peer talk, daily routines), producing a hybrid discourse of control, engagement, and moral guidance. The findings show that intertextuality functions beyond language, serving as a pedagogical resource for order, identity formation, and value transmission. In multilingual and multicultural classrooms, intertextual practices mediate teacher authority and student agency while embedding moral dimensions of learning. This study contributes to EFL discourse research by highlighting intertextuality as a critical tool for ethical and effective classroom communication.

Keywords

classroom discourse; intertextuality; multimodal interaction; pedagogy; power

References

Abahussain, M. O., & Abdul-Rab, S. D. (2023). Intertextual reading: Analyzing EFL context via critical thinking. Register Journal, 16(2), 186–206. https://doi.org/10.18326/register.v16i2.186-206.

Andriani, A., Maryani, E., & Affandi, I. (2023). The vital role of Pancasila values in building national character through civics education. AL ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 15(3), 3051–3062. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v15i3.4067.

Arlita, C., & Prasetya, W. (2024). Practicing intertextuality in English as a foreign language: An Indonesian EFL learner’s experiences. Journal of English and Education (JEE), 10(1), 17–29.https://doi.org /10.20885/jee.v10i1.28239.

Arwanto, E., Prasetya, D. A., & Sari, D. P. (2024). Narrative reinforcement in classroom interaction: Building character and engagement through shared stories. Indonesian Journal of Language Teaching and Linguistics, 9(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.30957/ijoltl.v9i1.987

Babacan, K., & Akyol, H. (2025). Methodological diversity and trends in intertextual reading research. Journal of Education and Future, 27, 147–159. https://doi.org/10.30786/jef.1561558.

Bakar, F. A., & Kumar, V. (2022). How students perceive the teacher’s use of humour and how it enhances learning in the classroom. The European Journal of Humour Research, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2019.7.4.bakar.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). University of Texas Press.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.

Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique (Rev. ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.

Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B. M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2004). Discourse analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: A microethnographic perspective (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611215.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters.

Erdoğdu, F., & Çakıroğlu, Ü. (2021). The educational power of humor on student engagement in online learning environments. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 16(9). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-021-00158-8.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.

Gee, J. P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203850992

Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.5.

Jewitt, C. (Ed.). (2008). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. London, UK: Routledge.

Karwadi, & Indrawan, D. (2023). Islamic Islamic Education Teacher Strategies in Internalizing Character Values in Madrasah Ibtidaiyah Students. Jurnal Cakrawala Pendas, 9(2), 242–249. https://doi.org/10.31949/jcp.v9i2.4731

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London, UK: Routledge..

Kristeva, J. (1980). Word, dialogue and novel. In T. Gora, A. Jardine, & L. S. Roudiez (Eds.), Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art (pp. 64–91). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Lemke, J. L. (1995). Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.

Lim, F. V., & Tan-Chia, L. (2022). Designing learning for multimodal literacy: Teaching viewing and representing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429293431.

Li, W., & Zou, W. (2021). Exploring primary-school EFL teacher expertise in scaffolding: A comparative study. SAGE Open, 11(4),1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211061574.

Maroko, G. M. (2023). Sacred discourse as moral control in African EFL classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 22(5), 456–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2023.2184937

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. Equinox Publishing.

Merabti, Z. (2020). Intertextuality in EFL classrooms. AL-Lisaniyyat, 26(2), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.61850/allj.v26i2.253.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2015.975966

Nguyen, T. A., & Truong, V. (2024). Effects of scaffolding in genre-based writing instructions on EFL learners’ writing performance. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 5(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2024.5.1.751.

Nguyen, L., Bui, H. P., & Ha, X. V. (2025). Scaffolding in genre-based L2 writing classes: Vietnamese EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 63(2), 1275–1293. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0125.

Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press.

Qasserras, L. (2025). Managing discipline problems in ESL/EFL classrooms: A review of challenges and strategies. Contemporary Research in Education and English Language Teaching, 7(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.55214/26410230.v7i1.4656.

Qin, X., & Wang, Y. (2021). Multimodal interaction in language classrooms: A review of current research and future directions. Language Teaching Research, 25(4), 538–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820966733

Silverman, D. (2016). Qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Teedaaksornsakul, N., & Bowen, N. (2024). Students’ perceptions of intersemiotically cohesive teaching materials designed for English for Agriculture. Reflections, 31(2), 230–259. https://doi.org/10.53762/reflections.v31i2.274907.

Thongchalerm, S., & Jarunthawatchai, W. (2020). The impact of genre-based instruction on EFL learners’ writing development. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.1311a.

van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591447Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S.

van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Yawiloeng, R. (2022). Using instructional scaffolding and multimodal texts to enhance reading comprehension: Perceptions and attitudes of EFL students. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(2), 877–894. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4122231.

Zhou, R., Samad, A., & Perinpasingam, T. (2024). A systematic review of cross-cultural communicative competence in EFL teaching: insights from China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), Article 1750. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04071-5.