Contextualizing the Pedagogy of English

as an International Language

Contextualizing the Pedagogy of English

as an International Language:
Issues and Tensions

Edited by

Nugrahenny T. Zacharias and Christine Manara

Contextualizing the Pedagogy of English as an International Language:

Issues and Tensions,
Edited by Nugrahenny T. Zacharias and Christine Manara
This book first published 2013
Cambridge Scholars Publishing
12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Copyright 2013 by Nugrahenny T. Zacharias, Christine Manara and contributors
All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
ISBN (10): 1-4438-5125-6, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5125-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ....................................................................................................... vii

Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings of EIL Pedagogy
Chapter One ................................................................................................. 2
Redefining Proficiency in Global English
Suresh Canagarajah
Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 12
The Nonnative Speaker (NNS) Movement and its Implications
for ELT in Asia
George Braine
Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 26
English as an International Language: Considerations for English
Language Teaching
Anne Burns
Part 2: Contextualizing EIL Pedagogy
Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 42
Towards EIL Teacher Education: Exploring Challenges and Potentials
of MATESOL Programmes in the United States
Ali Fuad Selvi
Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 59
Reconceptualizing EIL Pedagogy: From Mastery to Successful
Negotiation
Madhav Kafle
Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 75
Questioning the International of the International Teaching Materials
Used in Australian ELICOS Institutions
Roby Marlina and Ram Giri

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter Seven............................................................................................ 99
NESTs and NNESTs at an Islamic Higher Institution in Indonesia:
Is the Former better than the Latter?
Rahmila Murtiana
Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 119
Cultural Concepts and EIL: The Case of the Republic of Kiribati
Indika Liyanage and Tony Walker
Part 3: Reflections on the Practice of EIL Pedagogy
Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 134
One Teachers Struggles to Integrate EIL Approaches in a Microteaching
Class: An Action Research Project
Nugrahenny T. Zacharias
Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 150
The Struggle of Moving towards EIL: Competing and Conflicting
Narratives of Professionalism in an Indonesian Context
Christine Manara
Chapter Eleven ........................................................................................ 168
Implementing World Englishes in First-Year Composition Classrooms
Pisarn Bee Chamcharatsri
Chapter Twelve ....................................................................................... 177
Creating Englishes Alliance between Non-Native English Speaker
(NNES) Teacher and Students in Inner Circle Territory
Yohanes Nugroho Widiyanto
Contributors ............................................................................................. 192

PREFACE

This book is a response to the recent sociolinguistic profile of English

users and uses where English is now the international language (EIL).
Traditionally, English was learned for integration into western Englishspeaking communities and thus native speakers were often positioned as
the norms and best models for English language learners. With the
evolving status of English, native-speaker norms should be examined and
replaced by a paradigm that focuses on the recent English users and uses
of English.
There are many scholarly publications describing how English has
travelled to different contexts. When English arrives in these contexts, it is
being nativized to serve local cultures, needs and identities. Thus,
Canagarajah maintains English now is being pluralized and known as
Englishes. The travelling of English changes the English language itself,
as well as its users. Now, there are growing numbers of individuals,
especially in multilingual contexts, who not only learn English but also
own English and make it a part of their language repertoire. And,
certainly, their English is different, not necessarily poorer, than that of
traditional monolingual English speakers.
The growing sociolinguistic change of English uses and users has
challenged the way English is represented and taught in the classroom.
This change has led English teachers to ask a complex set of questions.
These questions include, but are not limited to: how do we relate to
English and globalization for our contextual (as well as international)
needs and specific purposes? How should we accordingly respond to
English and globalization, to meet the learners needs? What are their
needs in learning English? Whose English(es) should learners learn?, And
what should be the goal of English language teaching? The answers to
these questions are certainly not straightforward, as teaching and learning
English are closely linked to the status of English in a given context, the
needs of the learners, and the purpose of studying English, to say the least.
It is interesting to note that despite the growth of publications and
research on EIL, the change at the classroom level continues to be
marginal. The lack of studies on EIL classroom pedagogy needs to be
addressed urgently because for a new pedagogical paradigm to take root,
studies in classroom contexts are crucial. The present book is, therefore,

viii

Preface

written as an attempt to fill this gap. Among the growing number of

publications on promoting English as an International Language, little has
been written on the complexities that the EIL paradigm has brought to the
teaching and learning of English. This book brings together narrative of
realities that EIL practitioners encountered in their teaching contexts
(Indonesia, the Pacific islands, USA, and Australia)the struggles, the
tensions, the dilemmas, and the quests of living as EIL practitioners in
their specific teaching contexts and the wider English communities in
general. It explores pedagogical practices, understandings, and challenges
surrounding the implementation of EIL pedagogy and principles in
contexts traditionally described as a second language or foreign language.
This book contains three main sections: Part 1, Theoretical
Underpinnings of EIL Pedagogy; Part 2, Contextualizing EIL Pedagogy;
and Part 3, Reflections on the Practice of EIL Pedagogy. The first part of
this book presents theoretical foundations and key concepts of EIL
paradigm that provide ground knowledge in understanding EIL pedagogy.
The second section contains chapters that problematize the traditional
Anglocentric and monolithic view of English Language Teaching (ELT)
and address and analyze the current status and use of English as an
International Language and its contextual implication for ELT in todays
globalized era. Finally, the last section presents English educators
reflexive accounts of their efforts, struggles, challenges, and realities in
implementing EIL in their teaching practice.
This book will be of interest to teachers, academics, and research
students working in the areas of ELT, critical applied linguistics, EIL,
language and identity, and English language teacher education. It can be
used to complement university-level textbooks in those areas, and it
provides theoretical and contextual knowledge for practising teachers and
teacher educators seeking to understand and explore the teaching and
learning realities of implementing EIL in the classroom. It is hoped that
this book can also stimulate EIL practitioners to explore their own
teaching contexts in enriching the discussions in this area with more
dialogic contextual knowledge and perspective.
Nugrahenny T. Zacharias
Christine Manara

PART 1:
THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS
OF EIL PEDAGOGY

CHAPTER ONE
REDEFINING PROFICIENCY
IN GLOBAL ENGLISH
SURESH CANAGARAJAH

Introduction
Debates about the assessment of international English have revolved
around two important questions: Whose norms should we apply? And
how do we define proficiency in the English language? The answers to
these questions have been dominated by positions belonging to two wellentrenched ideological camps that I would label the World Englishes (WE)
perspective (see Lowenberg, 2002) and the Standard English (SE)
perspective (see Davies, 2002). SE would argue that the norm for testing
should centre on one of the dominant varietieseither standardized
British or American English. WE proponents would contest the relevance
of these exogenous norms for postcolonial communities with
institutionalized varieties of their own, and would argue that correctness
should take into account local norms. As for proficiency, SE proponents
would measure it in terms of the native speaker, defined as the
monolingual speaker from the homogeneous inner circle speech
communities that have traditionally claimed ownership over the language.
For WE proponents, proficiency means the ability to engage in meaningful
social and institutional functions in multilingual communities according to
local conventions. While scholars of both camps have been engaged in this
debate, the ground has been shifting under their feet, unbeknown to them.
We find ourselves in a new geopolitical order with different
communicative needs. What I call postmodern globalization renders the
previous arguments irrelevant and calls for a more complex orientation
that moves the discourse on proficiency to a totally different level.
In this paper, I first introduce the changing social context and outline
the new communicative needs with which people are faced. Based on this
context, I then describe the new orientation to norms and proficiency that

Redefining Proficiency in Global English

should inform assessment. This orientation also means that we have to

move away from the previous paradigms of teaching to creatively devise
new practices that would address our emerging communicative needs. I
conclude with the implications for teaching.

Changing Communicative Context

Debates in proficiency have been shaped by the discourse on
colonization and postcolonial orientations to English (see Davies, 2002;
Pakir, 2005). Colonization was influenced by what Stuart Hall (1997) calls
modernist globalization. In this form of geopolitical relationship,
communities related to each other in a hierarchical and unilateral fashion.
The dominant communities (i.e. western European) assumed the
superiority of their cultural and social systems, and even of their language,
and attempted to spread their influence at the cost of local traditions. It is
in this context that English was introduced to other parts of the world.
English was treated as a superior language that was more conducive to
human progress and intellectual advancement. Based on this
understanding, local languages were suppressed.
However, the new social and technological forces unleashed by
modernist globalization have generated a new relationship between
communities. Diaspora groups, the Internet, transnational production and
economic relationships, and the compression of time and space through
travel, media, and communication account for what Hall calls postmodern
globalization. This social context is marked by traits that are different from
those of the world as we know it (see Canagarajah, 2006):
a. the interaction between communities is multilateral (i.e.
international involvement at diverse levels is needed in todays
economic and production enterprises);
b. national boundaries have become porous as people, goods, and
ideas flow easily between borders;
c. languages, communities, and cultures have become hybrid,
shaped by this fluid flow of social and economic relationships.
It is an interesting historical irony, then, that the forces unleashed to
suppress the local during modernist globalization and colonization have
led to unexpected new conditions which have given the local a new lease
of life. Under these conditions, English is also getting localized in diverse
communities, and these plural Englishes are travelling to other
communities.

Chapter One

There are new implications for English in the transcultural flows (to
use Appadurais 1996 terminology) unleashed by postmodern globalization.
To understand the radical implications for English, we should re-examine
the assumptions of the World Englishes model introduced by Kachru
(1986). This model rightly dominates debates on assessment as it brought
into crisis our previous assumptions on the nature of English language.
Kachrus three concentric circleswith the countries traditionally enjoying
ownership of English labelled as the inner circle, the postcolonial
communities which use English as a second language for intra-national
purposes labelled as outer or extended circle, and all the other
communities increasingly using English as a foreign language, primarily
for international purposes labelled the expanding circle and positioned
nearer the peripherysituated the different varieties of English in a
historical context. More importantly, the model established the legitimacy
of the new varieties of English in the outer circle, affirming their validity
for these communities. The model thus pluralized the English language.
We have now stopped treating English as a homogeneous language
characterized by a uniform norm or grammatical system.
However, the conditions featuring postmodern globalization call into
question some of the assumptions behind the Kachruvian model. The
following are some of the limitations of Kachrus model of World
Englishes:
a. The model legitimizes each variety in the outer circle in terms of
its national identity. Thus Indian English is valid for Indians, Nigerian
English for Nigerians, and Singaporean English for Singapore and so
on. However, these varieties of English have started to leak outside
their national borders in postmodern globalization. Indian English is
relevant not only for Indians anymore. Personnel from the outsourced
companies in Madras or Bangalore use their variety of English when
they conduct business with people from other countries. More
importantly, even British or American nationals cannot be satisfied
with their prestigious varieties anymore. Americans now have to
transact many important types of domestic and personal business with
companies outside their borders. Indian English is now necessary for
Americans. They should at least have receptive skills in World
Englishes to transact business with outsourced companies.
b. On the other hand, speakers in the expanding circle do not use
English only for extra-community relations. For countries like China,
Vietnam, Philippines, and Brazil, English performs many important
functions within their own borders. English is important for

Redefining Proficiency in Global English

international news, popular culture, and advanced education in these

countries. There are reports in scholarly literature on how hip-hop
music is appropriated and recreated in a wide range of communities
i.e. Belgium, Japan, Hollandfor consumption locally (see
Pennycook, 2003). These considerations call into question the
ESL/EFL distinction and demand that we take account of the
increasing currency of English in expanding circle countries.
c. More importantly, we are learning that expanding circle
communities are developing new norms as they use English for lingua
franca communication. We cannot treat them only as norm
dependent, as Kachru labelled them. Multilingual speakers dont seem
to defer to inner circle norms when they communicate with each other
in English (see Seidlhofer, 2004; Jenkins, 2006).
d. If there is still a grudging acceptance in the Kachruvian model
that the inner circle countries enjoy ownership over English (i.e. while
labelling the other two circles only norm developing and norm
dependent, he called the inner circle norm-providing), the
postmodern spread of English questions this assumption. The oft-cited
statistics by Graddol (1999) and Crystal (1997) show that the speakers
outside the inner circle are now more in number. In terms of the
currency and usage of the language, there is even clearer evidence that
English is used more in multinational contexts by multilingual
speakers than in homogeneous contexts of monolingual speakers (see
Graddol, 1999). These considerations raise questions about the
periphery status of the outer and expanding circles in the Kachruvian
model. The latter communities are quite central to the character and
currency of English today.
These developments demand a reconceptualization of the relationship
between the diverse varieties of English. We see scholars talk of the
death of the native speaker (Graddol, 1999) and celebrate the dominance
of the periphery in theorizations of English language. We now have to
move closer to the position that English is a heterogeneous language with
multiple norms and diverse systems. We have to start working with
Crystals (2004: 49) notion of English as a family of languages or
McArthurs (1987) egalitarian circle of English model where the
different varieties relate to each other on a single level (and not three
hierarchies as in Kachrus). These new models encourage us to treat all
the varieties of English as sharing the same status in international
communication.

Chapter One

Implications for Norms and Proficiency

In the postmodern context, where we have to constantly shuttle
between different varieties and communities in transnational life,
proficiency becomes more complex. To be really proficient in English
today, one has to be multidialectal. Therefore, we have to move from the
either/or orientation in the proficiency debate as conducted by the WE
and SE camps to a both/and more perspective. So what does proficiency
in English entail in the postmodern world?
a. Though I am in sympathy with the need to assess outer circle
speakers according to endogenous norms (as articulated by the WE
camp), this is not enough. Outer circle speakers must be ready to
engage with inner circle and expanding circle communities in order to
accomplish important communicative and socio-economic functions.
b. Proficiency in communicating with inner circle communities is
also not enough for outer and expanding circle communities, as much
of the communication in English happens among multilingual speakers
in non-native/non-native interactions. Researchers on English as a
Lingua Franca (ELF) point out that speakers in the outer and expanding
circles are able to negotiate their differences in their own terms, and
accomplish their communicative needs effectively without deferring to
inner circle norms (Jenkins, 2006; Seidlhofer, 2004). So standard
American or British English doesnt have much relevance to many
communicative activities of millions of multilingual speakers outside
the inner circle.
c. Proficiency means, then, the ability to shuttle between different
varieties of English and different speech communities. In this sense,
the argument whether multilinguals need local standards or inner circle
standards becomes irrelevant. They need bothand more (i.e. the
ability to negotiate the varieties in other outer and expanding circle
communities as well).
d. This orientation to globalization doesnt mean that postmodern
speakers of English have to be proficient in all the varieties under the
sun. What we find from ELF research is the importance of negotiation
skillssuch as speech accommodationfor shuttling between English
varieties and speech communities. Such practices suggest the need for
an important paradigm shift in assessment. Rather than focusing on
proficiency in grammar (or in abstract linguistic features), we have to
focus on proficiency in pragmatics. Sociolinguistic skills of dialect
differentiation, code-switching, style shifting, interpersonal

Redefining Proficiency in Global English

communication, conversation management, and discourse strategies

are important for shuttling between English varieties (see McKay,
2005). We even have to be open to the fact that while interlocutors
may use convergence strategies to facilitate communication, they can
adopt divergence strategies to distance themselves from each other
(Jenkins, 2006). In such cases, we cannot treat divergence as a
breakdown in communication, but as a creative rhetorical act. To
accommodate these possibilities, we have to shift from language as a
system to language as social practice, or from competence to
performance, in our attitude to proficiency.
What are the implications of postmodern communication for norms?
We realize that norms are relative, variable, heterogeneous, and changing.
What is correct for an Indian English speaker may be incorrect for a
Nigerian English speaker. And what is correct for both of them may be
incorrect for a British or American. Therefore, posing the options as
native English norms or new Englishes norms is misleading. A
proficient speaker of English in the postmodern world needs an awareness
of both of them. He or she is able to shuttle between different norms,
recognizing the systematic and legitimate status of different varieties of
English in this diverse family of languages. More interestingly, ELF
research shows that there are new norms developing when multilingual
people communicate with each other. We find that as people from
different nationalities communicate in lingua franca situations they are coconstructing situational norms that serve their immediate needs and
purposes (see Seidlhofer, 2004). As multilingual speakers focus more on
intelligibility rather than grammatical correctness, they are developing
new norms of English that are different from both the local and the
metropolitan varieties.
All this leads to the view of English as a heterogeneous language with
multiple norms, each coming into play at different levels of social
interaction. Proficiency in the world of postmodern globalization requires
the ability to negotiate this variability. We might have to address the fact
that there are different norms that come into play at different levels of
social interaction. While lingua franca norms come into play in
multilingual contexts, the local norm may have to be used in clearly
demarcated contexts of inner circle and outer circle usage. In extremely
formal institutional contexts, where inner circle norms are well established
(such as in academic communication), one has to adopt inner circle norms.
This multilayering of norms doesnt have to be as confusing as it may
sound. Though pedagogy and assessment are still focused on unitary

Chapter One

norms, research on the everyday communication of multilingual students

and adults shows that they draw from intuitive resources and skills to
negotiate such diversity effectively (see Firth, 1996; Higgins, 2003;
Khubchandani, 1997; Rampton, 1995). In other words, multilinguals have
the capacity to decode the changing norms in different contexts, shape
their language to accommodate the norms of their interlocutors, and
achieve intelligibility.

Pedagogical Implications
Since it is unwise to base proficiency on a single variety, and it is
impossible to teach or measure proficiency in many simultaneously, we
have to consider other paradigms of teaching and assessment. The
changing pedagogical priorities suggest that we should focus on language
awareness rather than grammatical correctness in a single variety;
strategies of negotiation rather than mastery of product-orientated
rules; pragmatics rather than competence. I favour a pedagogy of
communicative strategies that can be taught to students to negotiate global
English. Rather than aiming to join a speech community, students will
learn to shuttle between communities in contextually relevant ways. The
following is the set of pedagogical priorities that are gaining importance in
the context of postmodern communicative needs:
a. Language awareness: the need to engage with multiple English
varieties, and even other languages, is so great in postmodern
globalization that it is unwise for one to develop competence in only
one language system. It is more important to develop the cognitive
abilities to negotiate multiple codes as one shuttles between
communities. Scholars in ELF research put it memorably when they
say that the needs of international negotiations in English imply that
we have to move from teaching languages to teaching Language
(Seidlhofer 2004, p. 227). I would articulate this shift as moving from
teaching English to teaching Language. One should be able to
inductively process the underlying system in the varieties one
encounters in social interactions. One should draw on intuitive skills to
develop relative communicative competence in new varieties according
to ones needs.
b. Sociolinguistic sensitivity: ones awareness of dialect differences,
identity considerations, contextual constraints, and cultural sensitivity
is important as one shuttles between diverse communities in the
postmodern world. McKay (2005) argues that this sensitivity should

Redefining Proficiency in Global English

recognize different pragmatic norms for different contexts of

communication. So, as an outer circle speaker, I have to recognize that
there are well established pragmatic conventions for English
communication in inner circle communities that are different from
mine; however, in my own outer circle community, I should feel free
to adopt the pragmatic strategies from the local languages and cultures
that now shape English as well; and yet, in lingua franca
communication with non-native speakers, I might have to withdraw
from the negotiation strategies (which are not culture- or communityspecific) to interact with speakers with no common communicative
convention we share together. Such strategies are described next.
c. Negotiation skills: we have to devise more interactive and
collaborative formats for developing ones proficiency in strategies of
language negotiation. Such a proficiency might involve the following:
Code-switching, crossing (Rampton, 1995);
speech accommodation (Giles, 1984);
interpersonal strategies: i.e. repair, rephrasing, clarification,
gestures, topic change, consensus-orientated, mutually supportive
(Firth, 1996; Gumperz, 1982);
attitudinal resources: i.e. patience, tolerance, and humility to
negotiate differences (see Higgins, 2003).

Conclusion
What the above discussion points to is the need for a paradigm shift in
assessment and pedagogy. The dominant paradigm, influenced by
modernist assumptions, focuses on the mastery of a uniform and stable
grammatical competence. Traditional native speaker norms are adopted
to measure ones proficiency in examinations. The paradigm is based on
the assumption that a competence is a mental product or grammatical
knowledge that can be easily measured. What we find in the new
communicative context of postmodernism is that proficiency is more
complex and fluid. We need creative new devices to examine the
proficiency to shuttle between communities, adopting the diverse norms
we find in transnational social contexts. We have to think outside the box
to come up with assessment procedures that are more practice-based,
interactive, and process-orientated. The old-style discrete item tests in the
written mode are not adequate to examine this kind of proficiency.
Similarly, we have to move our pedagogy from a focus on form and
grammar to communicative practices. Here again, we have to move from a
product-orientated pedagogy to one that is more process-orientated and

10

Chapter One

practice-based. Pedagogies such as learner strategy training and language

awareness are more suitable for such purposes. This is a creative time for
all of us as we attempt to devise teaching and testing practices that are
more responsive to the changing communicative contexts around us.

References
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of
globalization. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Globalization of English and changing
pedagogical priorities: The postmodern turn. In B. Beaven (ed.).
IATEFL 2005 Cardiff Conference Selections (pp. 15-25). Canterbury,
UK: IATEFL.
Chalhoub-Deville, M & G. Wigglesworth. (2005). Rater judgment and
English language speaking proficiency. World Englishes, 24(3), 383391.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: CUP.
. (2004). The language revolution. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Davies, A. (2002). Whose language? Choosing a model for our language
tests. Paper presented at the International Conference on Language
Testing and Language Teaching, Shanghai.
Davies, A, L. Hamp-Lyons, & C. Kemp. (2003). Whose norms?
International proficiency tests in English. World Englishes, 22(4), 571584.
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality. On lingua
franca English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26,
237-259.
Giles, H. (Ed). (1984). The dynamics of speech accommodation.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 46. (Special topic
issue.)
Graddol, D. (1999). The decline of the native speaker. AILA Review, 13,
57-68.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. (Interactional Sociolinguistics
1.) Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Hall, S. (1997). The local and the global: globalization and ethnicity. In A.
D. King (Ed.), Culture, Globalization, and the World System (pp.1940). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Higgins, C. (2003). Ownership of English in the Outer Circle: An
alternative to the NS/NNS Dichotomy. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 615644.

Redefining Proficiency in Global English

11

Jenkins, J. (2006). The spread of English as an international language: A

testing time for testers. ELT Journal 60/1.
Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and
models of non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon.
Khubchandani, L. M. (1997). Revisualizing boundaries: A plurilingual
ethos. New Delhi, India: Sage.
Lowenberg, P. H. (2002). Assessing English proficiency in the expanding
circle. World Englishes, 21(3), 431-435.
McArthur, T. (1987). The English languages? English Today, 11, 9-13.
McKay, S. (2005). Teaching the pragmatics of English as an International
Language. Guidelines, 27(1), 3-9.
Modiano, M. (1999). Standard English(es) and educational practices for
the worlds lingua franca. English Today, 15(4), 3-13.
Modiano, M. (2004). Monoculturalization and language dissemination.
Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 3(3), 215-227.
Pakir, A. (2005). The measurement of World Englishes: Kachruvian
concerns. Paper presented in the Featured Symposium, The
Assessment of World Englishes at the 14th World Congress of
Applied Linguistics. Madison, WI.
Pennycook, A. (2003). Global Englishes, Rip Slyme, and performativity.
Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 513-533.
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among
adolescents. London: Longman.
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a
lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209-239.

CHAPTER TWO
THE NONNATIVE SPEAKER (NNS) MOVEMENT
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ELT IN ASIA
GEORGE BRAINE

Introduction
The non-native speaker (NNS) movement, which began as a caucus
within the TESOL organization in 1999, has grown rapidly within the past
decade. In this presentation, I shall trace the beginning and growth of the
movement, its major goals and achievements, and the challenges faced by
NNS English teachers in Asia, both extrinsic and intrinsic. In terms of
English language teaching, China is a powerhouse: the highest number of
English learners and English teachers is in China. The main intrinsic
challenge faced by many indigenous English teachers in China is their low
proficiency in English. To illustrate the challenges faced by these teachers,
I shall describe the life and career of an English teacher from China.

Origins of the Non-native Speaker Movement

The British Council (www.britishcouncil.org) estimates that English is
spoken as the second language by 375 million speakers and as a foreign
language by 750 million speakers. Because second and foreign language
speakers vastly outnumber native speakers (NS) of English, there is little
doubt that the majority of English teachers are also non-native speakers
(NNS) of English.
In language pedagogy, a long accepted view has been that NNS
English teachers are second in knowledge and performance to NS English
teachers. According to Phillipson (1992), this notion may have originated
at the Commonwealth Conference on the Teaching of English as a Second
Language held in 1962. While the authority of the NS was accepted as the
norm in English speaking countries, there appears to have been a power

The NNS Movement and its Implications for ELT in Asia

13

struggle between the expatriate NS teachers and the indigenous NNS

teachers in English as a second or foreign language contexts (see
Canagarajah 1999, for instance).
The origins of the NNS movement probably lie with the concept of
World Englishes first proposed by Braj Kachru and Larry Smith in the
1970s, and since accepted widely by linguists. Kachrus classification of the
spread of English into three concentric circles was groundbreaking because,
for the first time, it showed that the NNS in the Outer and Expanding Circles
far outnumbered the NS of English in the Inner Circle (1992).
If NNS English teachers needed consciousness-raising, it came with
the publication of Phillipsons Linguistic Imperialism in 1992, which dealt
with the native speaker fallacy, the belief that the ideal teacher of
English is a native speaker. Phillipson challenged the fallacy by stating
that NS abilities could be instilled in NNS through teacher training, that
NNS of a language have undergone the process of learning a (second)
language and are therefore better qualified to teach the language, and that
language teaching is no longer synonymous with the teaching of culture
and thus could be taught by teachers who did not share the same culture as
the language they taught.
With NS-NNS issues still in the spotlight, I organized a colloquium
titled In Their Own Voices: Non-native Speaker Professionals in
TESOL at the Annual TESOL Convention in 1996, inviting prominent
NNS scholars in applied linguisticssuch as Ulla Connor, Suresh
Canagarajah, and Kamal Sridhar to address these issues. The idea for a
TESOL Caucus for NNS was first proposed at the discussion that
followed.
Around the same time, I was invited to write for the TESOL
organizations newspaper, TESOL Matters, and it was published as NNS
and Invisible Barriers in ELT (Braine, 1998). In the article, I pointed out
that for many NNS English teachers, qualifications, ability, and experience
were of little help in the job market where the invisible rule appeared to be
No NNS need apply. Despite TESOL, Inc.s opposition to
discrimination against NNS, most ELT administrators did not hire NNS. I
described two frequent excuses trotted out for thisthat ESL students
prefer to being taught by NS, and that recruiting foreigners involves a
complex legal processbut argued that the main reason was the subtle
opposition to the increasing presence of foreigners in western academia as
teachers, researchers, and scholars. I also pointed out that this was
especially ironic in ELT, considering the professions strident
championing of multiculturalism, diversity, and other sociopolitical causes
on behalf of ESL students and immigrants.

14

Chapter Two

I also pointed out that NNS English teachers who return to their
countries after obtaining higher degrees and teacher qualifications in the
west are not always able to find work. Some language programme
administratorsnotably in Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong, for
instanceappeared to prefer unqualified NS of English instead of
qualified local teachers. I stated that such teachers were in the bewildering
and frustrating position of being denied what they had been trained to do.
In 1998, the Non-Native English Speakers in TESOL (NNEST) caucus
was established with me as the chair and Jun Liu (who later became
President of TESOL Inc.) as the chair-elect. The first formal meeting of
the caucus was held at the TESOL Convention in 1999, which coincided
with the publication of my book Non-Native Educators in English
Language Teaching. The overall aim of the caucus was to strengthen
effective teaching and learning of English around the world while
respecting individuals' language rights. Specifically, we defined the major
goals as to:
x
create a nondiscriminatory professional environment for all
TESOL members regardless of native language and place of birth;
x
encourage the formal and informal gatherings of NNS at TESOL
and affiliate conferences;
x
encourage research and publications on the role of nonnative
speaker teachers in ESL and EFL contexts; and
x
promote the role of non-native speaker members in TESOL and
affiliate leadership positions.
The caucus used a biannual newsletter, an active listserv, and a web
site to publicize its activities and disseminate information. The web site
also listed a bibliography of publications on research relating to NNS
English teachers and related issues. For those of us who had been
members from its inception, the caucus appeared to have released a
floodgate of pent up energy in the empowerment of NNS. Through
outreach activities, well-attended meetings, an actively subscribed listserv,
conference presentations, and publications, the caucus created a vibrant
community that had attracted 1,700 members by 2008.
In 2008, by consensus of its members, the caucus became the Interest
Section of TESOL Inc. Caucuses are mainly for advocacy, whereas
interest sections are more concerned with professional issues. This
transition marked another milestone of the movement with its emergence
as a fully-fledged area of research.

The NNS Movement and its Implications for ELT in Asia

15

Achievements of the NNS Movement

What began as an attempt by a small group of TESOL Inc. members
has now become a worldwide movement. Three of the original objectives
to encourage the formal and informal gatherings of NNS at TESOL and
affiliate conferences, to encourage research and publications on the role of
non-native speaker teachers in ESL and EFL contexts, and to promote the
role of nonnative speaker members in TESOL and affiliate leadership
positionshave been achieved beyond expectations, thereby greatly
empowering NNS English teachers. The first objective, to create a
nondiscriminatory professional environment for all TESOL members
regardless of native language and place of birth, is more an ideal than a
pragmatic reality, and the NNS movement will continue to work towards
this end. More specifically, the major achievements are the rise in selfesteem, a surge in academic research and publications on NNS issues, and
leadership in TESOL. I will now consider these achievements in more
detail.

Self-Esteem
When a suitable name for the caucus was being contemplated, some
colleagues did not support the inclusion of the term non-native speaker
in the name and suggested a number of alternatives. The hesitancy in using
the term non-native speaker came as no surprise. As stated earlier, NNS
English teachers had long being considered second-rate, which in turn may
have caused a lack of self-confidence among these teachers. Till the
formation of the TESOL caucus, few NNS English teachers had called
themselves NNS either in academic presentations or publications. The
term non-native speaker was indeed a pejorative.
In contrast, the past ten years have seen a surge in the use of the term
non-native speaker in discussions, scholarly presentations and
publications. Now, it is politically correct to use the term, and applied
linguists no longer hesitate to use it. But, among NNS, the change has
been dramatic. No longer afraid to call themselves NNS, they have
transformed the landscape of academic presentations and publications. For
instance, since the formation of the caucus, the annual TESOL
conventions have included significant presentations on NNS issues, with
the term NNS in the title. Many of these presentations have been from
NNS themselves.

16

Chapter Two

Research and publications

The NNS bibliography, available on the Interest Section website
(http://nnest.asu.edu/), lists more than 200 publications. Most of them of
them have appeared since the formation of the caucus, and many have
been authored by NNS. Since the appearance of Non-Native Educators in
English Language Teaching (Braine, 1999), four major anthologies have
also been published. They are: Learning and Teaching from Experience:
Perspectives on Nonnative English-speaking Professionals (2004) edited
by Lia Kamhi-Stein; Non-native Language Teachers:Perceptions,
Challenges, and Contributions to the Profession (2005), edited by Enric
Llurda; Teaching English to the World: History, Curriculum, and Practice
(2005) edited by George Braine; and The NNEST Lens: Non Native
English Speakers in TESOL (2010), edited by Ahmar Mahboob. Nonnative
Speaker English Teachers: Research, Pedagogy, and Professional
Growth, authored by Braine, was also published in 2010.

Leadership
Suresh Canagarajah, a member of the colloquium in 1996, became the
first NNS editor of TESOL Quarterly in 2005. Jun Liu, a former Chair of
the NNS caucus, was elected President of TESOL Inc. for 2006-07. Liu is
a founding member of the NNEST caucus and was its second chair. A
former chair of the NNS Interest Section, Brock Brady, was elected
president of TESOL, Inc. in 2010. In addition, throughout the world, more
and more NNS are taking leadership roles in applied linguistics and
English language teaching.

Challenges Faced by NNS English Teachers in Asia

Although NNS English teachers in the United States could be proud of
what they have achieved in recent years, the discriminatory attitude
towards NNS English teachersfrom employers, students, NS colleagues,
and parents of studentshas not changed much in the rest of the world. I
have narrowed my discussion to Asia because, in my opinion, NNS
teachers in Asia face the highest levels of discrimination. This is a result of
more and more NS being attracted to English teaching jobs in Asia as a
result of this regions rising prosperity.

The NNS Movement and its Implications for ELT in Asia

17

Intrinsic Challenges
A perennial issue in Hong Kong over the past two decades has been
the decline of English standards among Hong Kong students (Bolton,
2002). As a result of public concern about the low proficiency of language
teachers, the government launched a language benchmark test (English
Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers (LPAT)) ten years ago.
English teachers are tested on reading, writing, listening, speaking, and
classroom language assessment. The objective of benchmarking is to make
sure that all English teachers possess the minimum proficiency to teach
English and to encourage them to strive for higher levels of language
proficiency.
When the results of the LPAT were announced in 2001, faith in local
English teachers was further shaken. Overall, the teachers did not do well,
particularly in writing and speaking: only 33 per cent of the candidates
passed in writing, and only half passed in speaking. In the second
benchmarking tests held in 2002, the passing rates were even lower: fewer
than 30 per cent of the candidates passed in writing, and fewer than 40 per
cent passed in listening. The results of the 2003 benchmark test have not
been any better. Nearly 70 per cent of the 1,930 teachers who sat the test
failed the writing paper; more than 50 per cent failed in speaking. After the
results of the final test were announced in May, 2006, about 1,500 English
teachers were found to be unsuitable to teach English. They would have to
teach other subjects or find other employment (Clem, 2006).
In order to boost the standard of English teaching in Hong Kong, the
government imports NS English teachers to Hong Kong. The scheme was
launched by the Education Department in 1997 with a worldwide
recruitment of over 700 teachers from Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
Britain and the United States at a cost of HK$254 million (US$32.5
million). About 300 NET teachers are hired each year. Most secondary
schools receive one NET teacher, and two primary schools share one
teacher.
Despite the fact that Hong Kong is a former British colony where
English has been taught for about 150 years, and where English is very
much a living language, the fact that English teachers even at the primary
level have to be imported points to the need for higher English language
proficiency among Hong Kongs English teachers. The proficiency level
of most indigenous English teachers in other Asian countries such as
China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand would be no better, or
even much lower because unlike Hong Kong they have not had a lengthy
association with the English language.

18

Chapter Two

Research shows that this low proficiency in English could also be

leading to a lack of self confidence among NNS English teachers. When
Jenkins (2005) conducted lengthy, in-depth interviews with eight well
qualified NNS English teachers to determine their perceptions of NS-NNS
accents, the teachers described NS English accents as good, perfect,
correct, competent, and real. On the other hand, NNS English
accents (such as their own) were called not good, wrong, not real,
fake, and deficient.

Extrinsic Challenges
A number of reasons could be attributed for the discrimination faced
by NNS English teachers. First, the native speaker fallacy that Phillipson
(1992) referred to still prevails in Asia: NS teachers are considered to be
more competent in English, and the variety of English they speak is
considered to be superior to the variety spoken by indigenous English
teachers. In a strange extension of the native speaker fallacy, all
Caucasianseven eastern Europeansare automatically considered to be
NS of English.
Another reason for the prevalence of the fallacy is due to indigenous
English teachers unawareness of the rise in the NNS movement and the
respect that NNS English teachers have earned in ESL contexts. Academic
journals, the Internet, and other sources for dissemination of information
that are taken for granted in more affluent countries are simply not
available or accessible to English teachers who live and work in some
resource poor Asian countries, a situation exacerbated by the poor salaries
they earn. These teachers are simply unaware of current trends in our
profession. I recall a conversation with one such teacher in an Asian
country, who would not believe that NNS English teachers were actually
teaching English to NS learners in the United States.
The result is that Asia is awash with Caucasians, not all of them NS of
English, who are able to obtain English teaching jobs at their whim and
fancy. Although some arrive with valid qualifications and experience in
teaching English, many do not. These travelling teachers pose a major
challenge to qualified indigenous teachers in terms of employment. The
mushrooming of private English Schools is a common phenomenon in
Asia. They are run by businessmen who are aware of the attraction of
Caucasian NS teachers of English, if not for students but their parents who
pay the tuition. Although indigenous NNS teachers may not care to teach
at these schools, they help to propagate the native speaker fallacy and
affect these NNS employment prospects in more formal institutions.

The NNS Movement and its Implications for ELT in Asia

19

What attracts these travelling NS teachers to Asia? A quick look at the

per capita incomes of various countries gives a clear idea for the attraction.
For instance, few of these teachers would travel to Bangladesh, India,
Indonesia and Sri Lanka in search of employment because of the low per
capita incomes (US$1,400, US$3,200, US$4,100, and US$4,700
respectively). As a result, the private English Schools in these countries
are unable to offer salaries attractive enough for NS teachers. Instead,
countries such as Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea are the preferred
destinations because, with higher per capita incomes (US$45,000,
US$33,000, and US$29,000 respectively), they offer salaries even better
than in the west, with the added attraction of often not requiring teaching
or professional qualifications. (International Monetary Fund, n.d.)
A glance at websites which offer information and advice to these NS
teachers will support my last statement. One favorite site, Transitions
Abroad (www.transitionsabroad.com), lists hundreds of English teaching
jobs all over the world. It also offers information and advice on English
language teaching in specific countries. For Hong Kong, Transitions
Abroad, under the headline Hong Kong Needs Teachers: Native English
Speakers Are in Demand carries the following contribution from an
English teacher: Now is an excellent time to teach in Hong Kong. When I
first moved to Hong Kong I heard that it would be nearly impossible to
find work because I had no formal experience as a teacher. But I found
that if you are a native English speaker there is a job for you. For China,
the headline reads Chinas High Demand for English Teachers: Jobs Are
Plentiful, Requirements Are Few followed by the statement that Often
the only requirements are being a native speaker and holding a university
degree. For Taiwan, one headline reads You dont need a TEFL
certificatejust a university degree, followed by the advice that English
schools here insist that their teachers be native English speakers, and that
they possess an undergraduate degreea BA or BS in any subject. A
TEFL certificate or prior teaching experience is helpful, but not
necessary.
China has a relatively low per capita income (US$6,800) yet attracts a
large number of NS teachers. This anomaly is not easy to explain, but
China does have a huge income gap between the rich and poor, and
students at English Schools may be paying high fees that pave the way
for attractive salaries to English teachers. Further, many westerners see
China and a knowledge of the Chinese language as stepping stones to
lucrative careers, and teaching English as an opening to China.
The extreme level to which the native speaker fallacy dominates
China was seen recently in two events. A Chinese-American described the

20

Chapter Two

problems he faced when applying for an English teaching position in

China. After graduating from college, he decided to teach English in China
but went through rejection after rejection, with replies such as, You
know, now in China, many students want their foreign teachers to have a
white face (Hsu, 2005). A similar experience is recalled by another
Chinese-American who assumed that her ability to speak Mandarin and
her high fluency in English would help her obtain an English teaching
position. However, she was advised not to apply for a job in China
because discrimination against coloured people is quite strong in China,
and that most colleges, universities, and language institutions prefer only
Caucasian teachers. Because she is ethnically Chinese, she would also be
paid less than foreign NS of English (Shao, 2005).

A NNS English Teacher in China

On the whole, I am disappointed with the lack of commitment to the
English language by many younger NNS English teachers. Despite being
teachers of English, and therefore role models for their students, their use
of English is often limited to the classroom. If the goal of the NNS
movement is to empower NNS English language teachers, more attention
needs to be given to China because, in terms of English language teaching,
China is a powerhouse. In order to highlight the prevailing situation in
China, I will describe the life and career of an English teacher from there.
The number of English learners in Chinese public schools and
universities is estimated to be around 230 million (China facts and
figures, n.d). When learners at private language centres and those
obtaining tuition individually are added to this number, the total number of
English learners in China could be as high as 600 million (See Niu &
Wolff, 2004). There is no doubt that an army of English teachers has to be
employed to teach these students. According to Bolton (2004), an expert in
World Englishes and a scholar familiar with English teaching in China, the
number of secondary level English teachers in China was around 500,000.
Liao (2004) estimates the number of English teachers at the primary level
in China to be 1.5 million. Hence, in order to paint a well-rounded portrait
of an English teacher in China, I shall describe Sihua (a pseudonym) from
the viewpoint of socio-economic background and early education, higher
education, career and professional growth and attitudes and perceptions.
The description is based on interviews with the teacher.

The NNS Movement and its Implications for ELT in Asia

21

Socio-Economic Backgrounds & Early Education

Sihua was born to a large farming family in rural China. Her family
and neighbourhood were monolingual. Being in the final years of the
Cultural Revolution, English was not taught at the primary school where
Sihua began her schooling. She was first taught English at junior
secondary school at the age of 13, thereby missing the critical stage for
optimum language acquisition.
Sihuas English teachers spoke with a terrible accent, had only
become English teachers because they failed the college entrance
examination, and taught English in Chinese. During English lessons, the
textbook was explained in Chinese, point-by-point. Homework meant
memorizing new words and expressions, which led some students to
memorize the entire textbook. She rarely listened to English programmes
on radio or watched them on TV because such programmes were not
available.
The medium of instruction continued to be Chinese in senior secondary
school as well. Although the number of English teachers at her school had
increased to around 20, and many of them were university graduates, they
did not converse in English. They did speak some English in class but still
spoke with strong accents. The teaching methods remained the same, the
pattern being read, memorized, and recited. Grammar continued to play an
important role. For extended reading, Sihua had access to a few
newspapers meant for students.

Higher Education
On completing secondary school, Sihua entered a teachers college.
Although the curriculum included course work in British and American
literature, the emphasis was on skills courses such as intensive and
extensive reading, listening, and oral English. Memorizing and reciting
was less emphasized and the English course contents related more to daily
life. Teachers, all locals, communicated with students in English and there
was a conscious effort to develop language ability instead of accumulating
knowledge. However, vocabulary learning was a tedious task, whole
nights spent on looking-up words in the dictionary and memorizing them.
Extensive reading, too, was part of course work, not necessarily
undertaken for pleasure. During this period, Sihua began to watch English
movies, TV programmes, and also began to listen to BBC and VOA
(Voice of America) broadcasts. She later obtained a distance degree in
English Education, studying from home. Once again, the emphasis was on

22

Chapter Two

courses such as intensive and extensive reading, and vocabulary, although

courses in British and American literature were also included.

Career & Professional Growth

Sihua was assigned to a local school upon graduation from teachers
college, and her students were from rural, poverty-stricken families. She
liked the attractive textbook, the emphasis on oral English, and the helpful
reference books. Sihua taught in both English and Chinese mainly using
the audio-lingual method. After four years, she moved to a prestigious
senior middle school where she continued to teach mainly rural students,
with a sprinkling of relatively affluent students from town. Both Sihua and
her students have access to more English books, newspapers, and
magazines.

Attitudes and Perceptions

Despite having to plough through the dictionary in order to enhance
her vocabulary, Sihua sustained her interest in English through secondary
school and teachers college. She is satisfied with her current teaching
conditions, though not with her salary as an English teacher. She envies
her classmates who have gone to better paying jobs in other fields. She
thinks that the English curriculum is bound too strongly to public
examinations. Sihua is able to analyze the advantages and disadvantages
of being an English teacher in China that has been transformed to a
market-oriented society.
She feels inferior to foreign (NS) teachers when she speaks with them,
because she cannot make herself understood. She finds no difficulty in
talking about topics related to her life but professional topics are a
challenge because so much jargon is involved. She thinks foreign teachers
should teach listening and speaking at her school so that students could
practice English with them.

Discussion
Sihua, when she eventually began learning English, was left in the
hands of teachers who themselves were barely fluent in English, taught in
Chinese, and encouraged memorization and recitation at the expense of
communication. Her environment, lacking in English speakers, or English
books, magazines, or newspapers, or regular English programmes on radio
or TV, did not promote the acquisition of English at all.

The NNS Movement and its Implications for ELT in Asia

23

The linguistic environment in China described by Sihua is illustrative

of the situation in many Expanding Circle countries where English is
taught. In Japan and Korea, countries that are more affluent than China,
the governments have implemented schemes where NS English teachers
are recruited for public schools (like in Hong Kong) because local English
teachers are deemed incompetent.
When I was a teacher trainee in Sri Lanka in the early 1970s, in my
cohort of 150 classmates at least half came from English medium schools,
many from English speaking homes, and they were at ease with the
language. They read English newspapers and magazines, listened to
English pop songs on the radio (Sri Lanka did not have TV at that time),
and conversed with each other freely in English.
Forty years on in Sri Lanka, among the younger English teachers who
have come from backgrounds with little English in their day-to-day lives,
and have studied English as another subject in non-English medium
schools, English proficiency is at an appallingly low level. For many of
these teachers, teaching English is another job like teaching physics or
mathematics, and their use of the language ends when they leave school at
the end of the day. They would rather watch TV , read newspapers and
magazines, or converse in their first languages, Sinhala or Tamil. More
proficient users of English obtain lucrative employment in the mercantile
sector, shunning the low-paying teaching positions. The situation has
deteriorated to such an extent that the government has begun to conduct
spoken English classes for English teachers in public schools. Even in
affluent Hong Kong, the typical English teacher is not a fluent user of the
language. This phenomenon, where recent generations of English teachers
from Outer Circle countries such as Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka,
for example, have shown a steady decline in their English proficiency is
alarming because the situation in Expanding Circle countries is even
worse. Sihuas story is only too typical. Multiplied a million-fold, it does
not indicate a positive outlook in Asia, where ELT is growing the most.

Conclusion
I have described the rise of the non-native speaker movement, mainly
in the United States, classifying its achievements as increased self-esteem
among NNS English teachers, a surge in scholarly activity, and leadership
in TESOL, Inc. As for challenges to NNS English teachers in Asia, I have
discussed the threat of unqualified NS being employed to teach English in
the region, and the NNS English teachers low proficiency in English,
taking the situation in Hong Kong as an example and China as examples.

24

Chapter Two

The native speaker fallacy, once taken for granted in the west, is still
shown to be dominant in Asia, a rapidly growing area in terms of English
language teaching. While NNS English teachers in the United States have
won the respect they deserve, most NNS English teachers in the rest of the
world are still considered second class, not only by others but by
themselves, too! As I have shown above, this sense of inferiority is at least
partly due to the English teachers own low proficiency in the English
language.
The NNS movement has not only empowered NNS English teachers,
but has also given birth to a whole area of study and research in applied
linguistics. However, its effects will be confined to English as a second
language (ESL) contexts. Biographies of those at the forefront of the NNS
movement show that most of them had arrived in the United States as
graduate students and stayed on as teachers and scholars. It is to their
credit that they have launched a vibrant and influential movement in what
is essentially their country of adoption. But, to what extent have these
pioneering NNS taken the message back to their countries of birth? NNS
English teachers in these EFL countries are still awaiting the
empowerment that their colleagues in ESL settings have achieved.

References
Bolton, K. (2002). Introduction. In K. Bolton (Ed.) Hong Kong English:
Autonomy and creativity (pp. 125). Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Braine, G. (Ed.) (1999). Nonnative educators in English language
teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Braine, G. (Ed.) (2006) Teaching English to the World: History,
curriculum, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Braine, G. (2010). Nonnative speaker English teachers: Research,
pedagogy, and professional growth. New York: Routledge.
. (nd) NNS and invisible barriers in TESOL. Retrieved on May 7, 2011,
from http://nnest.moussu.net/
Canagarajah, S. (1999). Interrogating the native speaker fallacy: Nonlinguistic roots, non-pedagogical results. In G. Braine (Ed.), Nonnative educators in English language teaching (pp. 145-158). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
China facts and figures Retrieved on August 15, 2009, from
http://www.china.org.cn/english/shuzi-en/en-shuzi/index.htm
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT
Press.

The NNS Movement and its Implications for ELT in Asia

25

Clem, W. (2006). 2,000 language teachers fail to make grade. South

China Morning Post, May 22 2006, p. C1.
Hsu, H. (2005). Mainland bias against Chinese from the west. South
China Morning Post, 28 November 2005, p. A16.
International Monetary Fund (nd). World Economic Outlook Database.
Retrieved on May 7, 2011, from
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/01/weodata/index.aspx.
Kamhi-Stein, L. (ed.) (2004) Learning and teaching from experience:
Perspectives on nonnative English-speaking professionals. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Llurda, E. (Ed.) (2005) Non-native language teachers: Perceptions,
challenges, and contributions to the profession. New York: Springer.
Mahboob, A. (Ed.) (2010) The NNEST lens: Non native English speakers
in TESOL. Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Niu, Q. & Wolff, M. (2004). English as a foreign language: The modern
day Trojan horse? Retrieved May 7, 2011, from
http://www.usingEnglishcom/esl-in-china/
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. London: Oxford UP.
Shao, T. (2005). Teaching English in China: NNESTs need not apply?
NNEST Newsletter. Retrieved on May 7, 2006 from
www.tesol.org/Newslettersiye/view.asp?nid_3982

CHAPTER THREE
ENGLISH AS AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE:
CONSIDERATIONS FOR ENGLISH
LANGUAGE TEACHING
ANNE BURNS

It is everywhere. Some 380m people speak it as their first language and

perhaps two-thirds as many again as their second. A billion are learning it,
about a third of the world's population are in some sense exposed to it and
by 2050, it is predicted, half the world will be more or less proficient in it.
It is the language of globalisationof international business, politics and
diplomacy. It is the language of computers and the Internet. You'll see it on
posters in Cte d'Ivoire, you'll hear it in pop songs in Tokyo, you'll read it
in official documents in Phnom Penh. Deutsche Welle broadcasts in it.
Bjork, an Icelander, sings in it. French business schools teach in it. It is the
medium of expression in cabinet meetings in Bolivia. Truly, the tongue
spoken back in the 1300s only by the low people of England, as Robert
of Gloucester put it at the time, has come a long way. It is now the global
language.
(The Economist, 20 Dec 20, 2001)

Introduction
One of the most remarkable things about the current debates
surrounding the teaching English as an international language (EIL) is that
less than 60 years ago the globalized prominence of today was barely
imagined. Even though predictions that English would spread emerged in
the late nineteenth century (Graddol, 1997), few would then have
estimated the reach and penetration of the language described in the
opening quotation. As Crystal states:
In 1950, any notion of English as a true world language was but a dim,
shadowy theoretical possibility, surrounded by the political uncertainties

English as an International Language

27

of the Cold War, and lacking any clear definition or sense of direction.
(2003, p. xii)

Yet English is now widely viewed as a social, economic and

educational commoditya basic skill that needs to be acquired for
academic success in almost the same way as literacy, or numeracy. No
longer is English taught only as a subject in its own rightEnglish as a
foreign/second language as it has been traditionally calledbut it is
increasingly being legislated in numerous educational systems around the
work as the medium of instruction for other subjects and is being taught to
ever younger learners (Graddol, 2006).

Why English?
Perhaps the first question to ask is this: how is it that the language
spoken by a small number of the population from a small and isolated
island off the north-west coast of Europe became a modern-day
international lingua franca?
Two major diasporas (Kachru & Nelson, 2001, p.10) led to its global
spread. The first, beginning in the sixteenth century during the reign of
Elizabeth I, involved large-scale migrations to North America, New
Zealand and Australia. This continuous movement increased the number
of English mother-tongue speakers worldwide from an estimated 57
million to 250 million by the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth II
(Crystal, 2003). The second, beginning in the late eighteenth century and
culminating in the nineteenth, arose from the expansion of colonial power,
particularly into Africa, India and the South Pacific. This, coupled with the
dominance of economic and political power by Britain in the nineteenth
century and the United States in the twentieth, ensured the present-day
status of English. For over 400 years, technological advances
encompassing the press, radio and television broadcasting, the movie
industry and now computer and internet technology have furthered the
dominance of English internationally (Graddol, 1997).
Although, there is speculation that English will not continue to
maintain its dominance (e.g. Graddol, 2006), for the present its ascendancy
as the international language to acquire seems assured. Consequently, in
the world of English language teaching the ground is shifting, albeit
gradually, as educators grapple with the implications for pedagogy.

28

Chapter Three

Who uses English?

Estimating the number of English speakers worldwide is a very
difficult exercise; numbers can never be exact because of the difficulty of
defining who counts as a speaker of English. At the end of the twentieth
century, British linguists, David Crystal (1997) and David Graddol (1997)
suggested that there could be up to 1.21.5 billion speakers of English
worldwide (almost a quarter of the worlds population), with this figure
rapidly increasing all the time. Now, as English becomes even more
unstoppable, it is common to hear the term World Englishes to suggest
the diversification of varieties of English and their appropriation in
different local contexts. Why the plurality, and what does this term imply?
One interpretation relates to the different ways English has been diffused
globally. Kachrus (1985) influential model of concentric circles was
originally put forward as a tentative model to suggest the historical nature
of this expansion. Although the distinctions in this model are rapidly
blurring, and it has been criticised as too simplistic, fixed and failing to
take into account the complexities of plurilingual societies, nevertheless it
is still useful as an explanatory framework:
x
The inner circlethe old-variety English-using countries where
English is the first or dominant language (for example, the USA/UK with
320-380 million speakers);
x
The outer circlewhere English has a long history of
institutionalized functions and standing (for example, India/Singapore
with 300-500 million speakers);
x
The expanding circlewhere English has various roles and is
widely studied, but for more specific purposes than in the outer circle (for
example, China/Russia with 500-1000 million speakers).
(from Kachru and Nelson, 2001, p.13, figures from Crystal, 2003)

Whatever, the complexities of estimating the number of speakers, one

fact stands out starkly: first language speakers of English are vastly
outnumbered by speakers of other languages and are a minority group.
English is not owned by Inner Circle users but is a language that is
potentially available to anyone anywhere to use in ways they consider
most relevant to their daily lives.

Key themes and issues for English language pedagogy

In the next sections, I draw out some key themes (by no means an
exhaustive list) that are now permeating the literature. They are issues that,

English as an International Language

29

in my view, will become more and more pressing in the field of English
language teaching (ELT) as the limitations of current approaches and
practices become more obvious.

Terms and terminology

With the recognition of the internationalised status of English, terms
that have traditionally pervaded the world of ELT have become highly
questionable. Concepts such as English as a second language (ESL),
English to speakers of other languages (ESOL), and English as a foreign
language (EFL) can all be criticised for their negative, deficit and
delimiting connotations; they highlight language abilities and resources
that are absent, rather than those that may be available to learners of
English. There is also debate about the relevance of newer terms that have
more recently emerged: should we be referring to teaching English as an
international language (EIL), a world language (EWL), a global language
(EGL) or a lingua franca (ELF)?
Commentators such as Jenkins (2007) and Seidlhofer (2011) argue that
the term EIL still marks out those whose primary language is English from
those for whom it is not, or who may also be plurilingual. It sustains the
concept that the major referent for English, albeit that the language is
being employed for communication internationally, is the standard of the
so-called native speaker. In contrast, Seidlhofer (2011) argues, English
as a lingua franca is now a more relevant conceptualisation of the situation
experienced by many language speakers/learners. The term lingua franca
encompasses the concept of both a local contact language between those
who do not share a common language (Firth, 1996; House, 1999) and its
use by speakers from different intercultural backgrounds for whom
English is the communicative medium of choice and often the only
option (p. 7, authors italics). Thus, it recognises the concept of mutual
intelligibility and acknowledges the differences from the native speaker
standard that are produced by the speakers. Whatever the eventual terms
that emerge, shifting the current terminological labels used in ELT is
likely to take some time and to be highly contentious; however,
recognition that the current simplistic namings of English language
teaching and learning no longer hold will be inevitable.

The native-speaker norm

For some time, serious doubts have been raised about the native
speaker norm as the standard in ELT. Brumfit (2001, p.116) points out

30

Chapter Three

what numerous other commentators have also noted that the English
language no longer belongs numerically to speakers of English... The
ownership of any language in effect rests with the people who use it. In
other words, languages are shaped by the people who use them and in the
environment of a dominant world language where the majority of speakers
are non-native, this means that those who speak the language as a lingua
franca contribute extensively to reconstructing the way it is used.
However, in most language classrooms, curricula, content, materials and
tasks are still based extensively on native speaker models. Maintaining the
native speaker myth, many now argue, sustains a form of linguistic
imperialism (Phillipson, 1992; Pennycook, 1995; Canagarajah, 1999), an
assimilationist mentality (Tollefson, 1991; Kelly Hall & Eggington, 2000)
and inequities in the opportunities available to learners (Holliday, 2009).
In such a situation, questions inevitably arise about the nature of the
linguistic content of teaching and learning if ELT is even to approach any
level of general effectiveness. Of what value to learners is it if curriculum
developers, materials writers, teacher educators and teachers maintain a
hold on native-speakerness as a standard to which learners should aspire?
The effect is to misrepresent the plural nature of World Englishes (see
Kirkpatrick, 2007) and the diversity of its speakers, as well as to reinforce
the primacy and superiority of the native speaker teacher (see below).
Continuing to set unachievable goals of nativeness as the targets for
speaker proficiency and pronunciation, it could be argued, is one of the
major contributing causes of the failure of English language programmes
in many developing countries (see the discussions in Coleman, 2011).

Standard English
Following on from the controversies surrounding native-speakerism,
there is much debate about the standards and varieties that should then be
taught in the language classroom. One of the key questions is whether
local varieties should be allowed into language classrooms. In numerous
ELT programmes, native speakers are widely considered to set the
standard and to represent the target usage for which to aim. However, as
Tarone (2005, p. 5) points out, the native speaker is not the ideal speaker
of the language:
The ideal speaker knows only one register of English, knows it perfectly
and never makes errors. Such a speaker does not exist. All speakers of any
language know several varieties of that language, each appropriate for use
with a particular group or social context.

English as an International Language

31

While the notion of a fixed ideal standard might be appealing, as it

appears to simplify the goals and content for teaching the language,
following Tarones line of argument it is, in fact, unrealistic as a learning
target. Moreover, the notion of standard English is itself an artificial
construct as it is not a language in any meaningful sense of this term,
but only one variety of English among many (Trudgill, 1999, p. 117); or
as Widdowson puts it, a kind of superimposed dialect (Widdowson,
1994, p. 380). Standard English is a dialect of English which historically
gained prominence through its use by those with access to social, cultural
and intellectual capital and is the version of English most associated with
education, particularly with written forms of academic writing. But, as
Trudgill reminds us, [s]tandard English is thus not the English language
but simply one variety of it; the vast majority of English language
speakers, native or non-native, are users of non-standard dialects or
varieties.
While English language teachers may well have very good reasons to
introduce learners to the privileged standard forms of academic writing, it
is also valuable to consider whether working with fixed expectations of
attaining native-speaker based targets best serves their learners. Much will
depend, of course, on the ages of the learners and their purposes for
learningparticularly in the case of spoken English. However, a
reorientation of ways of working with learners from an approach that
assumes fixed and stable standardscorrect English, whatever that
meanstowards one that pays attention to language variation and
flexibility would relieve the tensions that exist in many language teaching
programmes. As Seidlhofer (2011, p. 198) argues, this alternative
approach is not a question of imposing ELF or EIL forms, for which there
is currently no standard codification in any case, but:
What really matters is that the language should engage the learners reality
and activate the learning process. Any kind of language that is taught in
order to achieve this effect is appropriate, and will always be a matter of
local decision.

Focusing on the spoken and written registers and genres that are
appropriate to different local community or academic needs would be
productive in a situation where English is used with such great variety
across the world (Tarone, 2005; Canagarajah, 2012). But at the present
time, this would require a large-scale change of government curriculum
policies, and teacher attitudes and beliefs across the ELT field, and
considerable upgrading of language teaching skills

32

Chapter Three

Teachers of English
The majority of English language teachers across the world are not the
native speakers, who have so often been judged to be ideal teachers of
the language, but those for whom English is an additional language. In
1999, Canagarajah estimated that approximately 80 per cent of the worlds
English teachers are bilingual speakers of English, and this number has
inevitably increased, given the fact that English is now taught to ever more
diversified learner groups. It is an unfortunate fact, however, that across
the world native speakers are frequently given preferential status. Many
government and institutional recruitment bodies persist with discriminatory
practices that favour native speakers, even when they may have no other
qualifications than the ability to speak English (Govardhan, Nayar &
Soeorey, 1999; Jenkins, 2000; Liu, 1999; McKay, 2002). The notion of
language proficiency has dominated debates, and it is only very recently
that the importance of recognising the roles, skills and abilities of the nonnative-speaking (NNS) professional (Braine, 1999; Lui, 1999; Medgyes,
1992) has emerged, together with a growing body of research on nonnative teacher issues (Braine, 2005). As Pasternak and Bailey (2004) have
highlighted second, language proficiency is only one aspect of the ability
to teach a language, another critical element being professional preparation
and competence.
However, despite the healthy signs of greater recognition of the NNS
teacher, the labels native and non-native professional are themselves
problematic in the world of teaching English as an international language.
They suggest a simplistic dichotomy that overlooks the range of language
teaching and learning experiences, language aptitudes and proficiencies,
training and professional development opportunities, and inter/crosscultural contacts that any one individual might need (Burns, 2005). Braine
(2005) suggests that, as the demand for English continues to grow and the
supply of native speaker English teachers decreases, in a profession that
pays poorly and attracts limited recognition, the teaching of English may
become the exclusive domain of NNSs in time to come (p. 23). Braines
argument raises the question of the legitimacy of retaining these
distinctions. They serve only to mark out differences and perpetuate deficit
notions of the superiority of native over non-native. In future debates
about English language teacher professionalism, it would be more
productive to focus on what constitutes effective teacher knowledge and
proficiency, awareness of language learning processes, and pedagogical
practices for all teachers, regardless of their first language. To reiterate
Canagarajahs (1999) argument, the assumptions embedded in this

English as an International Language

33

dichotomy are both linguistically inaccurate and politically and

vocationally damaging.

Learners of English
The international craze to learn English means that English language
teachers, whether native or non-native, must also be prepared to teach a
growing and much wider range of learners than ever before. Over the last
two decades, governments across the world have been demanding, often
because of pressure from parents and the community, that children learn
English at a young age. Despite the fact that there is no convincing
empirical evidence that younger is better, it is common now for many
young learners to begin learning English from Grade 3 or even Grade 1
(Garton, Copland & Burns, 2011; Nunan, 2003). Moreover, within both
the elementary and high school systems, many countries are pursuing a
policy of English as the medium of instruction (EMI) for other subjects,
for which there is very mixed evidence of success. While EMI may be
effective for children from more privileged backgrounds, it can lead to
unnecessarily low achievement and, worse, school dropout for others
(Coleman, 2011; Williams, 2011). For the majority of teachers of school
subject areas, EMI instruction, in preference to mother-tongue education,
is also a challenge for which they are unprepared and ill-trained to
achieve. As Williams (2011, p. 44) notes:
If children in developing countries have little exposure to the language of
instruction outside the school and if teaching the language of instruction
inside the school is ineffective, then low quality education is inevitable.

At the other end of the educational sector is the push to increase skills
for academic study, as more and more students aim either to study
overseas (and not only the traditional Inner Circle countries) where
English is also the medium of instruction. Thus, English for Academic
Purposes is a field of ELT that is rapidly expanding. More demand for
English is also coming from the business and commercial sectors, many of
which now favour employees with English language skills, who, it is
believed, again with limited evidence, can increase international
competitiveness.
The expansion of the profile of learners worldwide is accompanied by
an economic divide that creates inequities in English learning
opportunities (McKay, 2012). In some countries, Korea for example, the
private school system has essentially overtaken the public system as
affluent parents seek to gain educational advantages for their children,

34

Chapter Three

while in Hong Kong the policy of exempting some schools from teaching
in the medium of English was greeted by a backlash from many parents,
who began to seek alternatives to the public system. The problem of how
to provide equal quality and access to all learners of English is one that is
not likely to diminish.
This expansion of numbers of learners and the issues that accompany it
will demand much higher levels of training and continuous professional
development among language teachers. How this is to be achieved is a
perplexing question that will continue to challenge the ELT field.

What can teachers do in practice?

In 1976, Larry Smith (cited in McKay, 2012, p. 16), who was among
the first to use the term an international language, made some important
statements about English as an international language. He asserted that:
x
learners of an international language do not need to internalize
the cultural norms of native speakers of that language;
x
the ownership of an international language becomes
denationalized;
x
the educational goal of learning an international language is to
enable learners to communicate their ideas and culture to others.
Several decades on, the field of ELT has still to come to terms with
these fundamental concepts. Methods and approaches for teaching
English as an international language are in their infancy, and much
research needs to be done to identify effective pedagogical practices.
Teacher education programmes will also need to seek new forms of
content and modes of delivery (Burns & Richards, 2009). It is timely for
ELT classroom professionals to reflect on how their classrooms can be
informed by practices such as the following:
x
Discuss terms like English as an international language, English
as a global language, and English as a lingua franca with learners. Ask
them to debate which term they prefer to describe their own aspirations
in learning English;
x
Demythologise the notion of the native speaker as target. Make
learners aware that multi/pluri-lingualism is far more widespread than
English native-speakerism;
x
Ask learners opinions about the advantages of learning English
for international communication and what they can bring to their

English as an International Language

35

learning from their own cultures;

x
Value the language knowledge and abilities that learners
demonstrate in the classroom. Help them to use their repertoires of
knowledge of the language(s) they speak as their learning of English
develops;
x
Offer learners examples of different varieties of English,
including local and regional varieties. Expose them as much as
possible to different speaker voices and accents and ask them to
discuss issues of intelligibility in relation to these speakers;
x
Encourage informed code-switching from the local language(s)
to English. Perpetuating an English-only policy in classroom
learning is unrealistic, especially for beginner learners. Conversely,
failing to use English in the classroom, or teaching about English in
another language, denies learners access to the language;
x
Use your own experiences of learning English and your own use
of English as valued models for your learners. Share with them the
strategies you use to develop your own skills and to communicate with
other English speakers;
x
Reflect on the suitability of the curriculum approaches mandated
for your context. Combine, modify or supplement them with locally
valued approaches that fit your learners needs and expectations.
Experiment with different culturally appropriate approaches that lead
to effective learning;
x
Evaluate the materials and textbooks used in your local context.
Identify whether they are dominated by native speaker cultural
assumptions and practices that are irrelevant in your context. Consider
additional or alternative activities that relate to local uses of English.

Final Remarks
In this early part of the twenty-first century, English language teaching
is highly pervasive throughout the whole world, and the craze to learn
English shows no sign of abating. However, although there is now an
extensive literature, using terms such as English as an international/global
language (e.g. McKay, 2002), English as a lingua franca (e,g. Jenkins,
2007; Seidlhofer, 2011 ), and World Englishes (e.g. Kirkpatrick. 2009),
and these topics have been widely discussed in local and international
TESOL conferences, it is still the case that much current English language
teaching relies on traditional, not to mention erroneous concepts of
language and outdated pedagogical approaches. It is still a challenge to

36

Chapter Three

find examples of syllabus planning, materials and tasks that go beyond

paying lip-service to an internationalised approach.
In 2005, in an introduction to a series of teacher case studies on
teaching English as a global language, I wrote: In the light of this reality
[the internationalisation of English], we urgently need new sets of
assumptions for ELT [practice] (Burns, 2005, p. xx). It seems that seven
years on, the field is still very much struggling to identify new practices to
meet these challenges. As Seidlhofer (2011, p. 11) stresses:
the discourse about English teaching has changed but the actual content
of courses has not: the discourse makes very little effective contact with
the realities of practical pedagogy. This leaves English as a subject in a
kind of limbo, caught between innovations in the discourse about the
teaching of language and a lack of innovation in terms of actual language
content.

Practical examples of what teachers think and in classrooms about

teaching English from these new perspectives are urgently needed. This
volume aims to make a valuable contribution to this important debate.

References
Braine, G. (Ed.). (1999). Non-native educators in English language
teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Braine, G. (2005). A history of research on non-native teachers in the
twenty-first century. In E. Llurda (Ed.), non-native language teachers:
Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession (pp. 1324). New York: Springer.
Brumfit, C. J. (2001). Individual freedom in language teaching: Helping
learners to develop a dialect of their own. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Burns, A. (2005). Interrogating new worlds of ELT. In A. Burns (Ed.),
Teaching English as a global language (pp. 1-15). Case studies in
TESOL series. Alexandria, VA.: TESOL.
Burns, A., & Richards, J. C. (Eds.), (2009). The Cambridge guide to
second language teacher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Canagarajah, A.S. (1999). Interrogating the native speaker fallacy: Nonlinguistics roots, non-pedagogical results. In Braine, G. (Ed.), Nonnative educators in English language teaching (pp. 77-92). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

English as an International Language

37

. (2002). Globalization, methods and practice in periphery classrooms.

In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language
teaching (134 150). London: Routledge.
. (2012). Teacher development in a global profession: An
autoethnography. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 258-279.
Coleman, H. (Ed.). (2011). Dreams and realities: Developing countries
and the English language. London: The British Council.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
. (2003). English as a global language. 2nd edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On lingua
franca English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics,
(25), 237-79.
Govardhan, A.K., B. Nayar., & R. Sheorey (1999). Do U.S. MATESOL
programmes prepare students to teach abroad? TESOL Quarterly,
33(1), 114-25.
Garton, S., Copland, C., & Burns, A. (2011). Investigating global
practices in teaching English to young learners. London: The British
Council.
Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? London: The British Council.
. (2006). English next. London: The British Council.
Holliday, A. (2009). English as a lingua franca, non-native speaker and
cosmopolitan realities. In E. Sharifian (Ed.), English as an international
language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues (pp. 21-33). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
House, J. (1999). Misunderstanding in intercultural communication:
Misunderstandings in English as a lingua franca and the myth of
mutual intelligibility. In C. Gnutzmann (Ed.), Teaching and learning
English as a global language (73-89). Tbingen: Stauffenberg
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kachru, B.B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism:
The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H.G.
Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world (pp. 11-30). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of
non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

38

Chapter Three

Kachru, B.B., & Nelson, C.L. (2001). World Englishes. In A. Burns &
C.Coffin (Eds.), Analysing English in a global context (pp. 9-25).
London: Routledge.
Kelly Hall, J., & Eggington, W. (Eds.). (2000). The sociopolitics of
English language teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international
communication and English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lui, J. (1999). Nonnative-English-speaking professionals in TESOL.
TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 85-102.
McKay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an international language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
. (2012). English as an international language. In A Burns and J.C.
Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice in
second language teaching (pp. 15-22). Cambridge: Oxford University
Press.
Medgys, P. (1992). Non-natives in ELT. London: McMillan.
Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on
educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL
Quarterly, 37 (4), 589 613.
Pasternak, M., & Bailey, K. M. (2004). Preparing nonnative and native
English-speaking teachers: Issues of professionalism and proficiency.
In L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience:
Perspectives on nonnative English-speaking professionals (pp. 155175). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Pennycook, A. (1995). English in the world/The world in English. In J.
W.Tollefson, (Ed.), Power and inequality in language education (pp.
34-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Tarone, E. (2005). Schools of fish: English for access to international
academic and professional communities. The Journal of Asia TEFL,
2(1), 1-20.
The Economist, 20 December, 2001, The triumph of English. A world
empire by other means. Retrieved from global
http://www.economist.com/node/883997 4 August, 2012.
Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality. London:
Longman.

English as an International Language

39

Trudgill, P. (1999). Standard English: What it isnt. In T. Bex & R. J.

Watts (Eds.), Standard English: The widening debate (117-128).
London: Routledge.
Widdowson, H. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31,
377-389.
Williams, E. Language policy, politics and development in Africa. In H.
Coleman (Ed.), Dreams and realities: Developing countries and the
English language (pp.39-55). London: The British Council.

PART 2:
CONTEXTUALIZING EIL PEDAGOGY

CHAPTER FOUR
TOWARDS EIL TEACHER EDUCATION:
EXPLORING CHALLENGES AND POTENTIALS
OF MATESOL PROGRAMMES IN THE UNITED
STATES
ALI FUAD SELVI

The TESOL discipline likewise needs to be re-visioned and reshaped to t

an increasingly globalized world Our disciplinary goal should be the
more urgent task of nding situated, dialogic ways of teaching and
learning English for relatively constraint-free understanding and
communication among people coming from very different locations (both
geographical and social) and with very different sociocultural experiences
expand[ing] its traditional technicalized goals to include equally
important concerns about how to value linguistic and cultural diversity and
promote social justice as English spreads (often as the dominant language)
to different parts of the world.
Lin et al. (2004, p. 501)

Introduction
The current chapter1 is at the nexus of two interrelated phenomena.
First, I take the position that the unprecedented global demand, use, and
appropriation of English as an international language (EIL) necessitates a
profession-wide response to English language learning, teaching, teacher
education, assessment, and policy, as Lin et al. (2004) remind us in the
epigraph. Second, TESOL teacher education (TESOL-TE) practices
regarding an EIL-sensitive pedagogy need to embrace macro- (e.g. the
institutional affordances and constraints) and micro-level (e.g. individual
1
The original research leading to this chapter (Selvi, 2012) was funded by TIRF
Doctoral Dissertation Grant, and University of Maryland SPARC Grant.

Towards EIL Teacher Education

43

backgrounds and post-programmatic orientations of teacher-learners and

teacher educators) considerations.
In this chapter, I provide a critical and multifaceted discussion of the
Masters in TESOL (MATESOL) programmes in the U.S., and argue that
their complex structures and diverse profiles (both teacher-learners and
teacher educators) serve as a locus of debate and discussion, which comes
at a propitious moment for the future of EIL pedagogy and teacher
education. In the first part of the chapter, I briefly outline the recent
sociolinguistic profile of English users and uses, which can attest to the
present-day international status of English. This discussion contextualizes
the teacher education within the broader sociolinguistic framework and
offers a coalescing window into the past of EIL literature, and an impetus
towards EIL teacher education. The discussion will be then complemented
by deconstruction of the programmatic parameters and individual teacherlearner profiles in MATESOL programmes across the U.S., which prepare
native English-speaking (NES) and non-native English-speaking (NNES)
teacher-learners both for Centre and Periphery settings. The final section
will unpack the assertion that the diversity within these programmes (e.g.
in terms of programmatic structures, ethnolinguistically diverse profile of
teacher-learner and teacher educators, and a multitude of target teaching
contexts) presents unique impediments and opportunities towards the
future of a sustained EIL teacher education.

The Global Sociolinguistic and Educational Profile of EIL

Affecting and affected by present day globalization, migration, and
information and communication technologies, EIL is an unquestionable
reality today. It has a wide range of instrumental, sociolinguistic, and
pragmatic roles in many domains of our lives. Enjoying the status of the
worlds global language, English touched the lives of so many people, in
so many cultures and continents, in so many functional roles, and with so
much prestige (Kachru, 1990, p. 5). Interestingly, it generates diverse
conceptualizations such as neutral (Wardhaugh, 1987), imperialist and
oppressive (Canagarajah, 1999; Pennycook, 1994; Phillipson, 1992), and
even democratic and liberating (Crystal, 1997).
Among these diverse perceptions, roles, and functions in cultural,
linguistic, educational, and sociopolitical realms, perhaps the most
interesting developments occur within the context of TESOL. Nowadays,
the presence of the English language is evident in almost every level of the
educational curricula in both English-speaking and non-English-speaking
countries. Policy makers view English as an important asset in

44

Chapter Four

participating in the globalized economy, and accessing and disseminating

knowledge that provides the basis for socio-economic development (Burns
& Richards, 2009). Governments embark upon massive educational
projects and reforms to redesign their education policies and systems to
equip their citizens with a stronger linguistic link to the lingua franca of
the twenty-first century. The global TESOL enterprise today is therefore a
multi-billion dollar industry, and its ubiquitous presence is likely to
continue expanding in the future.
Today, the field of TESOL is characterized by the pivotal role of
English language proficiency, the ever-diversifying global sociolinguistic
landscape of uses and users of EIL, and the necessity to better
accommodate the diverse needs of English language learners. We now
realize that the teaching and learning of an international language must be
based on an entirely different set of assumptions than the teaching and
learning of any other second and foreign language (McKay, 2002, p. 1).
This view serves as a guiding principle in interrogating some of the wellestablished practices in our field such as native speaker (NS) as a learning
goal and model of competence (Cook, 2002; Davies, 2003), NS as a
teacher quality (Braine, 1999, 2010; Selvi, 2011), and the monolingual and
monocultural approach in language teaching (Zacharias, 2003). It also
broadens the traditional scope of English language teaching by taking
norms, standards and considerations of EIL/ELF (Jenkins, 2009; Matsuda,
2012; McKay, 2002; McKay & Bokhorts-Heng, 2008) and World
Englishes (WE) (B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & Nelson, 2009; A. Matsuda,
2003).
In a nutshell, EIL pedagogy offers a viable response to the diverse
uses, users, and contexts of the English language. It postulates a pedagogical
framework for critical interrogation of fundamental assumptions, notions,
analytical tools, approaches, and methodologies in TESOL, and provides
principles and practices (as summarized in Table 1 below) that promote
teaching of English to meet glocal (dialectic between global and local)
needs in a way that is sensitive to the local cultures of learning (Selvi &
Yazan, 2013).
The endogenous relationship between EIL teaching and teacher
education entails a reconfigured response to preparing all language
teachers (teacher-learners coming from a range of ethnolinguistic, cultural,
racial, ethnic, gender, and age backgrounds with various past teaching,
learning and educational experience) for diverse sociolinguistic and
educational contexts in the world. Departing from this realization, the
current chapter suggests EIL pedagogy (Alsagoff et al., 2012; A. Matsuda,
2012; McKay, 2002; McKay & Bokhorts-Heng, 2008; Selvi & Yazan,

Towards EIL Teacher Education

45

2013) as a framework for the preparation of TESOL workforce for diverse

teaching settings.

Principles of EIL Pedagogy

Table 1. Major principles and practices of EIL pedagogy (from Selvi

& Yazan, 2013)
Is a radical shift from the traditional conceptualization of TESOL
Is sensitive to the local teaching context and culture of learning
Is sensitive to achieving balance between local and global concerns
Offers a viable alternative to NS framework in terms of norms and
cultural tendencies in the curriculum, methods, material design,
assessment, teacher qualities, and identity
Recognizes and promotes plurality of present-day local and global
English uses, users, and contexts
Equips learners with a repertoire of sociolinguistic and cultural
strategies to better function as competent users in cross-cultural
encounters
Encourages English-speaking ownership and participation in
(mostly digital) global discourse communities
Recognizes the importance of local teachers in designing and
providing socially-sensitive, diverse and rich opportunities for
TESOL
Creates a glocal pedagogical space where multiple identities,
realities, varieties, voices, and cultures co-exist
Examines sociocultural identity in respect to diverse teaching
contexts of use and profiles of users
Redefines the notion of proficiency, authenticity, acceptability, and
appropriateness in the learning, teaching and assessment of the
language

MATESOL Programmes in the United States:

Programme and Student Profiles
Profiles of MATESOL Programmes in the U.S.
The global spread of English and the importance of TESOL-TE are
manifested in the growing number of MATESOL programmes in the U.S.,
as well as the number of individuals attending these programmes. The
most recent directory of teacher education programmes in TESOL
contains 420 programmes (31 doctoral, 179 masters 57 graduate

46

Chapter Four

certificate, 35 other certificate and 31 undergraduate programmes) in 232

institutions in the United States and Canada (Christopher, 2005), which
reflects an almost ten-fold increase in four decades. The developmental
trajectory of the TESOL-TE field in the United States has expanded in
terms of both breadth (i.e. the number of programmes in respective
institutions) and depth (i.e. the specializations reflected in the ratio of
programmes to institutions).
Let us now review the characteristics of MATESOL programmes in
the United States to demonstrate the complexities of TESOL-TE, which
also serves as a prelude to the discussion on EIL teacher education.
No uniform degree. There is a lack of uniformity in terms of degree as
programmes with similar goals and aims grant either Masters of Arts
(M.A.), Education (M.Ed.) or Arts in Teaching (M.A.T.) degrees. The
term MATESOL is therefore insufficient in capturing the entire picture,
and postulates a more comprehensive outlook.
No uniform title. In the same vein, these programmes might have
different names such as M.A./M.Ed./M.A.T. in TESOL, English with
specialization in TESOL, Second Language Education and Culture,
Second Language Studies, Applied Linguistics, Bilingual Education
and TESOL, and many more. Therefore, understanding stereotypical
naming of MATESOL programmes requires deconstructing the term,
because neither MA nor TESOL can suffice to capture the actual
picture.
No particular location. Similarly, these programmes might be housed
in different departments ranging from Linguistics to English and to
Curriculum and Instruction, and within various colleges ranging from
Education to Humanities. While T in MATESOL refers to teaching, it
does not necessarily mean that these programmes are located in Colleges
of Education.
Different tracks. The programmes include various tracks (e.g. statewide certification, non-certification) that promote specialization, and
thereby encapsulate various programmatic structures.
Different formats. The programmes may vary in terms of modes of
instruction, ranging from purely online environments to hybrid models,
and to the entirely conventional in-class formats.
Exit requirements. This is one area where a greater variability is
observed due to the very diverse nature of the programmes across the
nation, or even within one institution. While some programmes require
successful completion of the coursework, others require coursework and a
comprehensive exam, and some others might require a thesis, or a
completion of an institutionalized practicum.

Towards EIL Teacher Education

47

Different durations. The duration of MATESOL programmes varies

across the nation. Usually, the programmes run from between 2 to 6
semesters, and a great majority of them lasts 4 semesters.
Practicum options. A school-based practicum may be found in many
programmes while a great variation is observed in terms of its
configuration such as its length, and requirements. Moreover, some
programmes do not require a practicum component, or require it for only
certain programme tracks.
This comprehensive zoom suggests that the current picture of the
TESOL-TE programmes in the U.S. consists of a number of a very
complex, and often non-uniform pieces. As an understanding of the
situation is a prerequisite to change and action, an understanding of the
organizational parameters will serve as an important milestone in the
construction of EIL teacher education. A comprehensive look at the
curricula of these programmes with a motivation of promoting and
incorporating EIL pedagogy into teacher education practices (A. Matsuda,
2009, 2012) entails a deeper understanding of the organizational scope of
these programmes.

Profiles of MATESOL Students in the U.S.

(1) Having graduated with an undergraduate degree in Elementary
Education, Leslie decided to pursue a masters degree in TESOL to
obtain her teaching certification for the state of Maryland so that she
could begin serving as a certified ESOL teacher in local public
schools. Upon graduation, she began working with a student
population from diverse cultural, linguistic, and ethnic backgrounds.
Her primary task is to contribute to her students academic and
linguistic development and facilitate their transitioning into the
mainstream classrooms.
(2) Kyung is from South Korea where she completed her
undergraduate education in English language and literature and
started working as an instructor in an Intensive English Programme
affiliated with a local private university whose medium of instruction
was English. Her primary responsibility was to teach a variety of
courses that promoted academic language development of students
who share similar cultural and linguistic backgrounds. She moved to
the United States to get her masters degree in TESOL with an
intention to return to her programme in South Korea.

48

Chapter Four

(3) Having completed her undergraduate education in English

language teaching in Turkey, Beng enrolled in a masters in TESOL
programme with an intention to serve as an ESOL teacher to adult
immigrants, who would like to excel in their professional and life
skills. She now teaches in an Adult ESOL programme in the suburbs of
Washington D.C., where she works with an ethnolinguistically diverse
immigrant population.
(4) After completing an undergraduate degree in Sociology and
working as an English teacher in various parts of the Southeast Asia,
Jonathan returned to the U.S. to obtain his masters degree in TESOL
with an intention go back to Asia to embark upon new teaching
journeys. He was primarily interested in teaching a variety of
language skills courses to secondary-level students. He now works
with high school students in Japan.
As P. K. Matsuda (2006) reminds us, an image of prototypical students
is often inevitable and even necessary (p. 639), facilitates the teachers
imagined audience, and generates a set of assumptions on the
characteristics of the students, their background, and future orientations,
which ultimately underpins methodological and instructional decisions.
However, developed as an abstraction that comes from continual
encounters with the dominant student population in local institutional
settings as well as the dominant disciplinary discourses (P. K. Matsuda,
2006, p. 639), this image might lead to widely accepted generalizations.
The real life cases (1) and (2) perfectly fit into the typical MATESOL
teacher-learner image that could be found in more than 400 TESOL
programmes over 200 institutions across North America (Christopher,
2005) that have the institutionalized aim of preparing a TESOL workforce
for the diverse teaching settings in the U.S. and beyond. They represent a
set of tacit yet prevalent stereotypical assumptions about MATESOL
students: domestic students (being NESs) are interested in working in
various settings in the U.S., whereas international students (being NNESs)
are often destined to continue their professional careers in their home
countries upon graduation.
While such an image might serve for some practical purposes, it
inadequately represents (a) the diversity of teacher-learners in these
programmes, (b) their future teaching contexts, and (c) the diverse uses
and users of EIL in their future teaching contexts. More seriously, this
conceptualization, which establishes a simplistic link between teacherlearners and their target teaching context, ultimately translates into teacher
education practices where TESOL-TE towards Centre teaching contexts

Towards EIL Teacher Education

49

such as the U.S. is regarded as the professional territory of NESs, while

Periphery contexts are left at the discretion of NNESs. Thus, it might
reinforce narrow conceptualizations of teacher-learners and their ultimate
teaching contexts, and create a problematic dichotomy in professional
development practices.
On the other hand, examples in (3) and (4) are two different and reallife instances complicating the traditional MATESOL teacher-learner
profiles in the U.S. context. These examples can easily be multiplied with
different names, genders, cultural, linguistic, and academic backgrounds of
individual teacher-learners as well as the features of their target language
teaching settings (types of school, student characteristics, curricular foci,
and institutional challenges). They are important examples of embracing
greater diversity of profiles of teacher-learners in these programmes.
A closer scrutiny of MATESOL programmes in the U.S. easily reveals
that they welcome a combination of ethnolinguistically diverse teacherlearners whose individual profiles vary in terms of age, gender, race, past
teaching and learning experiences (e.g. a multitude of TESOL-related
experiences, from no experience to many years of experience), academic
background (e.g. education majors, non-education majors, mid-life career
changers), teaching goals upon graduation, and individual characteristics
(e.g. individuals from various age levels, commuters, those who are
working and studying simultaneously). The diversity of student profiles
also manifests itself in the complexity of orientations. These teacherlearners bring a variety of orientations to their programmes, and have
diverse aims in terms of teaching settings in the U.S. and international
contexts upon graduation. These diverse orientations posit unique
challenges to these programmes in terms of adequately and effectively
providing teacher preparation practices (Govardhan, Nayar, & Sheorey,
1999; Ramanathan, Davies, & Schleppegrell, 2001; Selvi, 2012).
Graduates of these programmes take positions as K-12 and adult education
teachers, community college teachers, university professors, researchers,
supervisors and coordinators of language programmes, consultants,
language and diversity policy analysts, and project officers in non-profit
organizations and government agencies.
In conclusion, I claim that the profile of teacher-learners in MATESOL
programmes in the U.S. is certainly not monolithic. On the contrary, it is
multiple, multifaceted, complex and in constant transformation through
personal, educational and institutional histories, philosophies and
interactions. Therefore, it is almost impossible to make straightforward
conclusions about the profiles of teacher-learners in these programmes or
establish a link between teacher-learners and their future teaching settings

50

Chapter Four

upon graduation (e.g. U.S.-born teacher-learners are NESs, who will

teach in the U.S. upon graduation, or international teacher-learners are
NNESs, who will teach in international contexts upon graduation). While
there is a growing recognition of this challenge in MATESOL
programmes, and teacher educators develop their own initiative to address
these issues on a daily basis, it is imperative to integrate the diversity in
institutionalized practices in these programmes. Despite this variation in
terms of teacher-learner profiles in MATESOL programmes, one thing
will remain the same: the challenge of providing a comprehensive teacher
education curriculum that can represent (and adequately prepare for) a
wide range of the contextual and pedagogical diversity in MATESOL
programmes.

EIL Teacher Education: A Shift in Perspectives

The larger sociolinguistic and socio-educational context of EIL has
been going through a transformation due to a reconceptualization of the
Centre-Periphery relationship. Today, NNESs are estimated to outnumber
their NES counterparts by three to one (Crystal, 2003), the ownership of
English is shared by all its speakers, regardless of their nativeness
(Widdowson, 1994), and 80 per cent of English language teachers
worldwide are estimated to be NNESTs (Canagarajah, 2005). When seen
in tandem with the emergence of the WE/ELF/EIL paradigm, these
realizations significantly complicate TESOL practices because it requires
that most basic assumptions in the field be re-evaluated and re-negotiated
vis--vis the current sociolinguistic landscape of the English language (A.
Matsuda, 2006, p. 158).
In spite of the growing interest in critical examination of various
aspects of EIL pedagogy, its manifestation in the realm of TESOL-TE is
widely under-researched and under-explored (A. Matsuda, 2009). TESOLTE programmes are therefore an urgent reality in establishing EIL
pedagogy and should be re-imagined from a perspective that would no
longer make narrow assumptions regarding the cultural/linguistic context
of teaching, ESL-centric models of teaching, and the nature of the English
language itself (Doanay-Aktuna & Hardman, 2008, p. 8-9).
If we argue that completely novel assumptions must govern the
enterprise of teaching and learning EIL (McKay, 2002), then would it not
be too nave to assume our traditional approaches, content, mindset, and
models of teacher education would adequately respond to this critical
need? Departing from this simple yet profound question, I argue that what
lies at the crux of socially sensitive EIL pedagogy must be teacher

Towards EIL Teacher Education

51

education efforts (A. Matsuda, 2009), which serves as an intellectual,

professional and praxization bridge between past histories, present realities
and future directions of teacher-learners in the programmes and the
foundational pillars of EIL pedagogy encompassing historical spread and
current use of Englishes (A. Matsuda, 2009; McKay, 2012; Seidlehofer,
2002), cultural aspects (Brutt-Griffler, 2002; Kubota, 2004), proficiency
(Jenkins, 2006; McKay, 2012), identity (Alsagoff et al., 2012;
Canagarajah, 2004; Kumaravadivelu, 2012), post-methodology
(Kumaravadivelu, 2006), and the diverse needs of EIL users today (A.
Matsuda, 2006, 2012; Brown, 1995).
More specifically, I would like to contextualize this argument within
the scope of MATESOL programmes in the U.S. in the light of
aforementioned diverse organizational structures and ethnolinguistically
diverse teacher-learner and teacher educator populations. I argue that
MATESOL programmes in the U.S. have a unique role in the development
of English language teachers whose professional knowledge base rests
upon EIL pedagogy. In the remainder of this chapter, I will highlight some
of the challenges and potentials that lie ahead of us towards the future of
TESOL-TE for EIL. My reflections upon and suggestions about this issue
will cover two specific domains, namely (1) curricular and programmatic
parameters, and (2) the roles of teacher educators and teacher-learners.

Curricular and Programmatic Parameters

Parallel to the growing espousal of a new EIL paradigm in the field of
TESOL (Alsagoff et al., 2012; A. Matsuda, 2006, 2012; Burns, 2005;
McKay, 2002; McKay & Bokhorts-Heng, 2008; Selvi & Yazan, 2013), a
lacuna of understanding emerged about EIL teacher education. Because
teachers are instrumental in the operation of any curricular innovation on a
daily basis, and in constant negotiation of their pedagogical practices and
professional identity in English language classrooms, it is imperative to
identify critical components, processes and features of TESOL-TE
programmes. As primary agents of EIL pedagogy, teachers, both in preand in-service teacher education programmes, are subject to closer
scrutiny.
Earlier investigations of teacher education programmes revealed that
non-native varieties of English are not formally recognized in TESOL-TE
programmes (Vavrus, 1991, as cited in A. Matsuda, 2009), and thus called
for expanding the curricular scope of teacher education programmes so as
to go beyond narrow assumptions regarding the cultural, linguistic and
pedagogical context of teaching EIL (Doanay-Aktuna & Hardman,

52

Chapter Four

2008). Today, teachers need to be equipped with a comprehensive

understanding of the historical trajectory of the English language and its
current uses and functions across the world for EIL users who have a wide
range of glocal needs. The language, literature, research, culture, and
teacher education practices generated in the Inner Circle, more specifically
on the both sides of the Atlantic, are frequently prioritized as the core or
default (A. Matsuda, 2009, p. 188). On the other hand, EIL and WE
perspectives are seen as a peripheral body of knowledge, whose
implementation is left at the discretion of the teacher educators, as long as
time and resources are available.
MATESOL programmes in the United States have a critical role and
importance in the process of initiating and sustaining a change towards
adopting EIL and WE perspectives as the guiding framework for English
language learning, teaching and teacher education. The change, as I
contend, will be through simultaneous implementation of (a) upside down,
(b) top-down and (c) bottom-up processes. The ultimate response towards
the critical need of EIL pedagogy and teacher education is to adopt EIL
pedagogy as an overarching framework through which teaching, learning
and teacher education are re-envisioned and operationalized. Thus, an
upside down process is to revamp existing types of teacher education
programme or create an alternative from the perspective of EIL and WE,
as suggested by A. Matsuda (2009). Alternatively, a specialized EIL
teacher education programme track within the existing programmatic
structure might also be developed as a response to this critical need. In
addition, top-down processes refer to smaller-scale programmatic
initiatives that are implemented at programmatic level such as specialized
courses, study or teach abroad programmes towards embracing and
practicing EIL pedagogy. Finally, bottom-up processes refer to individual
initiatives that are adopted by teacher educators in an infusion model (e.g.
introducing issues related to EIL pedagogy or integrating EIL perspectives
into units, modules, professional development activities) or by teacherlearners (e.g. engaging in discussion groups, professional organizations
and professional development activities) in and beyond these programmes.
While the last two options argue for an expansion of the knowledge
base of TESOL-TE with an intention to integrate greater awareness of the
sociocultural and political context of teaching EIL (Doanay-Aktuna,
2006), the first option utilizes EIL pedagogy as an overarching framework
not only to inform but also to re-orchestrate curricular implementations. In
any case, it must be underscored that the problem is multifarious, and
concerns many segments of the field. It is therefore essential to develop a
broad repertoire of responses available to create a comprehensive and

Towards EIL Teacher Education

53

profession-wide approach to address the problem. The aforementioned

programmatic landscape of MATESOL programmes (i.e. title, degree,
location, tracks, formats, requirements, duration, and practicum structure)
and the diverse characteristics of their teacher-learner profiles need to be
taken into account when generating local solutions that address not only
the needs and post-programme aims of teacher-learners in these programmes
but also the future uses and users of EIL.

The Roles of Teacher Educators and Teacher-learners

As major stakeholders in TESOL-TE enterprise, teacher-learners,
teacher educators, clinical faculty, mentors, administrators and policy
makers have varying degrees of roles and responsibilities in the process
towards EIL teacher education. Given the space limitations, I will delimit
my discussion of stakeholders in TESOL-TE to teacher educators and
teacher learners.
MATESOL programmes in the U.S. comprise ethnolinguistically
diverse teacher-learner populations embodying a range of identities,
orientations, and post-programme aims. Ultimately, they take teaching
positions in the U.S. and international contexts thanks to the educational
partnership programmes, increased mobility, and migration in an excessively
globalized world. Considering their diverse nature operationalized at
individual and programmatic levels, MATESOL programmes in the U.S.
have an unfulfilled potential to serve as a microcosm of EIL pedagogy and
a community of practice in which teacher-learners acknowledge, embrace
and get exposed to various uses and users of EIL. These programmes bring
together teacher-learners and teacher educators who themselves are users
of various varieties of Englishes with past learning and teaching
trajectories and experiences. What they bring together is the overall aim of
teaching English informed by their future teaching contexts, where
multiple standards of English are operationalized and implemented in
accordance with the glocal needs of EIL users.
In a similar vein, these programmes have the potential to serve as a
professional bridge between teacher-learners past teaching/learning
histories and their future professional trajectories in diverse teaching
contexts, what I refer to as the notion of omnitemporality2 (Selvi, 2012,
2

I argue that programmatic efforts in teacher education programmes are unique in

the sense that they are ideally operationalized in an omnitemporal fashion, which is
interweaving past teaching-learning experiences of teacher-learners with present
programmatic efforts in order to prepare them for their future teaching tasks and
contexts that might be distant in terms of time and space. Therefore, teacher

54

Chapter Four

p. 8). Along these lines, A. Matsuda (2009) rightfully argued that teacherlearners bring their American/British-orientated English language
instruction to their teacher education programmes, which could, in fact,
play a crucial role in introducing these teachers to the linguistic and
functional diversity of English, and how the language may unite or divide
the global community (p. 172).
MATESOL programmes in the U.S. have a critical transcending role
and importance in the ongoing Centre-Periphery debate as professional
border-crossing structures that are physically located in the Centre while
preparing an ethnolinguistically diverse teacher workforce for both Centre
and Periphery contexts in which English fulfills an array of different roles,
functions and purposes. This realization, in fact, necessitates a reimagined
agency distributed through time, space and stakeholders constituting
teacher education for diverse teaching settings. To be more specific, EIL
teacher education necessitates three major cornerstones: (1) competent
teacher educators who have teaching experience in and expertise about
EIL practices, (2) teacher education practices that consolidate the
interrelation among teacher-learners past histories, present realities and
future trajectories within the parameters of EIL framework, and (3)
teacher-learners whose agency is acknowledged, practiced and developed
in respect to their imagined instructional settings.

Conclusion
In this paper, I explored some of the challenges and potentials that lie
ahead of the EIL teacher education paradigm within the context of the
complex programmatic structures and student profiles of MATESOL
programmes in the United States. The overarching focus of this chapter
extends McKays (2002) argument about the idiosyncratic nature of EIL
by maintaining that teacher education and preparation (at both pre-service
and in-service levels) of an international language also must be based on
an entirely different set of assumptions than the teacher education of any
other second and foreign language.
I highlighted the need to design possible means of integrating EIL
pedagogy and WE perspectives into the default curriculum (A. Matsuda,
education programmes become as intermediary states and periods during which
past (teaching and learning experiences, and knowledge, beliefs and
predispositions on language learning and teaching) and future (teaching contexts
and activities) are manipulated, merged and coded into the knowledge base of
teacher-learners by means of a range of interconnected and discursive mediational
means (Selvi, 2012, p. 8-9).

Towards EIL Teacher Education

55

2009) of TESOL-TE programmes so as to expand and enrich the

sociocultural knowledge base of teacher-learners (Doanay-Aktuna,
2006) through the exposure of various roles and functions of English in
diverse contexts. This will be the first step towards a more committed and
profession-wide response to EIL pedagogy. The overarching aim of EIL
teacher education will be to prepare teachers who can construct a
pedagogy of particularity, practicality and possibility in the post-method
era (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, 2012) through constant negotiation with
glocal needs, realities and challenges at multiple levels (Tudor, 2003), and
with the realization of ever-diversifying sociolinguistic profiles of English
users, uses and contexts. As principles of EIL pedagogy are coded into the
DNA of TESOL-TE programmes and practices in various forms,
MATESOL programmes in the U.S. will become change agents
spearheading EIL teacher education and transforming socially-sensitive
EIL pedagogy into established practices for diverse teaching settings in the
world.

References
Alsagoff, L., McKay, S. L., Hu, G., & Renandya, W. (2012). Principles
and practices for teaching English as an international language.
London: Routledge.
Braine, G. (1999). Nonnative educators in English language teaching.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
. (2010). Nonnative speaker English teachers: Research, pedagogy and
professional growth. New York: Routledge.
Brown, K. (1995). World Englishes: To teach or not to teach? World
Englishes, 14(2), 233-245.
Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Burns, A. (2005). Teaching English from a global perspective. Alexandria,
VA: TESOL.
Burns, A., & Richards, J. C. (Eds). (2009). The Cambridge guide to
second language teacher education. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Interrogating the native speaker fallacy:
Non-linguistic roots, non-pedagogical results. In G. Braine (Ed.),
Nonnative educators in English language teaching (pp. 77-92).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
. (2004). Subversive identities, pedagogical safe houses, and critical
learning. In B. Norton, & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and

56

Chapter Four

language learning (pp. 116-137). New York: Cambridge University

Press.
. (2005). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Christopher, V. (2005). Directory of teacher education programs in
TESOL in the United States and Canada. Alexandria, VA: TESOL
Publications.
Cook, V. J. (Ed.) (2002). Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
. (2003). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language [2nd ed.]
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Doanay-Aktuna, S. (2006). Expanding the socio-cultural knowledge
base of TESOL teacher education. Language, Culture and Curriculum,
19, 278-295.
Doanay-Aktuna, S., & Hardman, J. (2008). Global English teaching and
teacher education: Praxis and possibility. Alexandria, VA: TESOL
Publications.
Govardhan, A. K., Nayar, P. B., & Sheorey, R. (1999). Do U.S.
MATESOL programs prepare students to teach abroad? TESOL
Quarterly, 33(1), 114125.
Jenkins, J. (2006). Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 137-162.
. (2009). English as a lingua franca: Interpretations and attitudes. World
Englishes, 28(2), 200-207.
Kachru, B. B. (1990). World Englishes and applied linguistics. World
Englishes, 9(1), 3-20.
Kachru, B. B., Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of
World Englishes. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kubota, R. (2004). Critical multiculturalism and second language
education. In B. Norton, & K. Toohey (Eds.). Critical pedagogies and
language learning (pp. 30-52). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From
method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
. (2012). Individual identity, cultural globalization, and teaching English
as an International Language. In L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu, &

Towards EIL Teacher Education

57

W. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as

an international language (9-27). London: Routledge.
Lin, A., Grant, R., Kubota, R., Motha, S., Sachs, G. T., Vandrick, S., &
Wong, S. (2004). Women faculty of color in TESOL: Theorizing our
lived experiences. TESOL Quarterly, 38(3), 487-504.
Matsuda, A. (2012). Principles and practices of teaching English as an
international language. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
. (2009). Desirable but not necessary? The place of World Englishes and
English as an International Language in English teacher preparation
programs in Japan. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), English as an international
language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues (pp. 169-189). Bristol,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
. (2006). Negotiating ELT assumptions in EIL classrooms. In J. Edge
(Ed.), (Re-) locating TESOL in an age of empire (pp. 158170).
Basingstoke: Palgrave-MacMillan.
. (2003). Incorporating World Englishes in teaching English as an
international language. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 719-729.
Matsuda, P. K. (2006). The myth of linguistic homogeneity in U.S. college
composition. College English, 68(6), 637-651.
McKay, S. L. (2012). Principles of teaching English as an international
language. In L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu, & W. Renandya (Eds.),
Principles and practices for teaching English as an international
language (pp. 2846). London: Routledge.
. (2002). Teaching English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
McKay, S. L., & Bokhorst-Heng, W. D. (2008). International English in
its sociolinguistic contexts: Towards a socially sensitive EIL
pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an International
Language. London: Longman.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ramanathan, V., Davies, C. E., & Schleppegrell, M. (2001). A naturalistic
inquiry into the cultures of two divergent MA-TESOL programs:
Implications for TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 279-305.
Selvi, A. F. (2011). The non-native speaker teacher. ELT Journal, 65(2),
187-189.
. (2012). A quest to prepare all English language teachers for diverse
teaching settings: If not us, who? If not now, when? (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park.

58

Chapter Four

Selvi, A. F., & Yazan, B. (2013). Teaching English as an international

language. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
Tudor, I. (2003). Learning to live with complexity: Towards an ecological
perspective on language teaching. System, 31(1), 112.
Vavrus, F. S. (1991). When paradigms clash: The role of institutionalized
varieties in language teacher education. World Englishes, 10(2), 181195.
Wardhaugh, R. (1987). Languages in competition: Dominance, diversity,
and decline. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly,
28(2), 377-389.
Zacharias, N. T. (2003). A survey of tertiary teachers beliefs about
English language teaching in Indonesia with regard to the role of
English as a global language (Unpublished masters thesis).
Assumption University of Thailand, Bangkok, Thailand.

CHAPTER FIVE
RECONCEPTUALIZING EIL PEDAGOGY:
FROM MASTERY TO SUCCESSFUL
NEGOTIATION
MADHAV KAFLE

[T]he dominant discourse and ideology of language as whole, bounded

system inextricably tied to identity and territory is central to the
legitimization of the nation-state as a particular historical mode of
regulation of capital. (Duchene & Heller, 2012, p. 3)
Translanguaging in a classroom is precisely a way of working in the
gap between, on the one hand, the global designs of nation-states and their
education systems, and on the other, the local histories of peoples who
language differently. (Garcia, Flores, & Woodley, 2012, p. 52)
[W]e need to develop an awareness that it is not necessarily the
language you speak, but how you speak it, when you can speak it, and to
whom that matters. It is a matter of voice, not of language. (Blommaert,
2010, p. 196)

Introduction
The quotes above both posit the problem of why relating a language to
a specific nation-state is problematic, and provide a viable solution to the
problem. Duchene and Heller (2012) use Bourdieusian metaphor to argue
that claiming ownership over a language and defining its territory was a
socio-political project. Languages of the people who did not fit in the
majority were utterly erased by the discourse of homogeneity. Despite the
existence of heterogeneous voices, the tacit norm of monolingualism
misrecognizes them. As Garcia, Flores, and Woodley (2012) argue,
translanguaging can be a viable approach to dealing with the problem
created by the nation-state framework. Rather than focusing on the
analysis of codes used, translanguaging is more concerned with the
process of meaning-making by utilizing whatever resources learners bring

60

Chapter Five

with them. Building on these sources, in this paper I argue that our major
goal in teaching language should be facilitating the process of meaningmaking rather than eradicating the differences. I highlight theoretical and
social motivations for inculcating an awareness and proficiency in all
students regarding dynamic use of their linguistic resources.
Many scholars continue to debate appropriate models of teaching
English across contexts. Recent popularization of the terms such as global
English, world Englishes, English as a lingua franca, English as an
international language (EIL) firmly indicates this trend. I argue, however,
that language professionals should focus on developing multicompetence
(Cook, 1999) in learners rather than debating about appropriateness of
models. In this way, learners can successfully negotiate diverse linguistic
(and non-linguistic) codes in various settings. While there is hardly any
doubt that English is becoming important in this increasingly globalizing
world, scholars have largely neglected the fact that English is also
appropriated by local communities for their own interests. To accomplish
such goal(s), professionals need to adopt a translingual pedagogy
(Canagarajah, 2013), destabilize the concept of the monolithic standard,
and shift goals of teaching from mastery of target norms to effective
negotiation of divergent communicative practices. These fundamental
principles are not the magic bullets that will solve all the problems;
however, starting with such an orientation, I hope, will assist us in
reconceptualizing EIL pedagogy1 (McKay, 2003) so that we can better
facilitate language learning. Regardless of the choice of the variety, the
fundamental assumption seems to be that of a fixed standard, which
dictates what is right and wrong usage.

Standard English as Academic Panacea?

With the increasing internationalization of higher education, more and
more universities are adopting English as their instructional language (see
Green, Fangqing, Cochrane, Dyson & Paun, 2012). Similarly,
governments in several countries are touting English as the major vehicle
for globalization, claiming that English provides the inroads to world
access to education as well as to modernization, democracy, and
development (Sontag, 2003). Taking for granted that English will confer
these benefits, almost all governments adopt discourses of English without
much resistance. Consider, for example, the education policy in Nepal,
1
By EIL pedagogy, I mean various approaches and models suggested so far
regarding teaching English as an international language

Reconceptualizing EIL Pedagogy

61

which has mandated English from grade one (MOE, 2009, p. 81) despite
the hard fact that between 69 per cent to 80 per cent of the students failed
in the national standard exam in Nepal between 1981 to 2009 only because
of English (Giri, 2011).
As people are using English for their expected social and intellectual
mobility (Graff & Duffy, 2008), they are increasingly mixing their own
languages with English. In his 1986 book Alchemy of English, Braj Kachru
argued that people had already used the English language in their own
ways through code-mixing. Similarly, language mixing has been going on
in classrooms around the world for decades (for sustained examples of
such disconnect see Canagarajah, 1999; Michael-Luna & Canagarajah,
2008; Roberts & Canagarajah, 2009). Nevertheless, policies in many
multilingual countries are driven by monolingual ideologies (Blackledge,
2000), which gives the impression that teaching a language means making
learners conform to the homogeneous norms of some particular brand of
English.
A recently edited volume by Lin and Martin (2005) showcases the
disconnect between policy and practice in many countries, including India,
South Africa, Tanzania, Kenya, and Malaysia. These studies show us that
while teachers are trying to follow a certain methodology prescribed by
the dominant paradigms, many have devised their own ways of combatting
these models. Even though the dominant discourse does not validate this
grassroots approach, it is how most people around the world are learning
English. While many scholars rightly argue that there should be a balance
between local and global approaches to teaching English (see other edited
volumes, e.g. Alsagoff et al. 2012; Matsuda, 2012; Murata & Jenkins,
2009; Rubdy & Saraceni, 2006; Sharifian, 2009), they tend to present an
exaggerated picture, whereby global and local varieties are treated as if
only the two varieties were involved.
That might be because of the fact that we are academically socialized
as such, and cannot generally0 think of a language without being
normative and associating it with a dominant way of using that language,
i.e. the standard. Since EIL pedagogy revolves around the issue of which
variety of English to teach or which standard to follow as an authentic one,
it is essential to have a deeper understanding of how the concept of
language standards came into existence and how they got reified in the
way they are used today.

62

Chapter Five

The Rise of the Monolithic Standard

The custom of seeing languages as discrete entities with stable
standards rather than fluid and integrated pragmatic semiotic tools is
primarily a consequence of projects of enlightenment that sought universal
truths and did not give any room for the existence of alternative truths
(Morgan, 2007; Romaine, 1994). The rise of the fixed standard of English
can be clarified in at least two ways: politically and academically. Along
with the building of the nation-states, most of the languages were confined
within narrow walls of certain political regimes. In the name of keeping a
language pure, various ideological boundaries were drawn to contain
languages. Eventually, the process of standardization reified certain norms
(Bex & Watts, 1999; Milroy & Milroy, 1999; Watts, 2011).
Similarly, the academics, primarily linguists, in their projects of
studying linguistic phenomena scientifically, promoted such reifying
discourses as if they reflected the actual language practices. The discourse
of structuralism, for example, focused more on studying language as a
stable homogenous system, relegating meaning as unworthy of scientific
study. Even worse, multilingual practices were viewed as deficient, nonstandard, unscientific, and uncivilized. In this light, Makoni and
Pennycook (2007) rightly contend that the notion of standard has been a
way to control variety and difference, and thus it excludes mixed practices
that we see all around in most parts of the world. In many parts of the
globe, fuzziness of language boundaries, fluidity in language identities,
and treating language as a communicative tool rather than a fixed code
were more prevalent in the past than they are today. In the name of
modernization, the epistemologies of the colonial difference created the
illusion of transparency and universality within knowledge systems
originating in the West, which tended to universalize both the relevance
and the applicability of their concepts (de Souza, 2005, p. 77) throughout
the world. Multilingual practices suddenly became aberrant owing to
imposition of language classification and standardization.
Despite the ubiquity of multilingual practices, monolinguals in the
western world often seem unaware of the presence of such practices
(Garcia, 2009a, p. 47). Education commonly takes place in the so-called
mainstream languages, and students are often taught in languages other
than the ones used in their homes. Multilinguals are treated as possessing
separate compartments for each language they speak, and their competence
is viewed as deficient. Formally, moving between languages has
traditionally been frowned upon in educational settings (Blackledge &
Creese, 2010, p. 203), and many teachers express feelings of guilt for

Reconceptualizing EIL Pedagogy

63

doing so in their classrooms, fearing that one language might contaminate

the others. Despite significant use of English along with local languages in
multiple places in Asia and Africa, language mixing in academia is often
considered a consequence of lack of English language competence
(Martin, 2005, p. 88).
Questioning monolingualism as a norm, therefore, is essential to
reclaiming authentic linguistic practices. As Makoni and Mashiri (2007, p.
63) point out, our primary objectives should be promoting peoples
linguistic practices and enhancing communication among between and
among diverse individuals rather than policing each utterance. Since our
teaching/learning practices tend to emphasize the study of languages more
than how people use languages, the ideology of homogeneous norms
should be destabilized.

Destabilizing the Homogeneity of Norms

The obsession with the form (correctness) is primarily a result of two
dominant ideologies: the ideology of English monolingualism, and the
ideology of standard language (Rubdy, 2008). While the first tries to
establish English as a unitary and a normative language, the latter
engenders hegemonic commonsense, promoting the view that languages
are discrete, separate entities that belong to particular geographical
regions. Similarly, texts are seen as artifacts to be decoded by everybody
in the same way by both ideologies. In the widest sense, language learning
is much more than just learning some cognitive and psychological skills.
Unlike the common perception that meaning is produced based on the
words in the text, it has been now accepted that meaning is a process of
mediation between texts, images, gestures, and spaces (Cope & Kalantzis,
2000). More importantly, meaning is an outcome of the social practice
(Gee, 2008). Since meaning-making involves mixing of various codes, and
modes, treating language as a bounded, nameable, and countable unit and
reducing it to grammatical structures and vocabulary is inherently narrow.
In adopting appropriate EIL pedagogy, we need to shift our teaching
philosophy from language as a bounded system to language as a social
practice.
Undoubtedly, the effect of monolingual ideology on policy, practice,
and performance also drives the teacher training programmes, professional
organizations, and scholarly journals, textbook and testing industries and
vice-versa. In such a scenario, is it possible to teach English without
resorting to a fixed standard? This is where EIL pedagogy can learn from
multilingual practice in South Asia, where deviation rather than

64

Chapter Five

conformity is the norm (Khubchandani, 1997, p. 94). People in many

traditionally multilingual communities, Khubchandani argues, successfully
communicate to each other regardless of their so called low proficiencies
in some languages. These people concentrate on meaning rather than on
form of utterances.
It should be made clear to the students that while we treat standards as
fixed for practical (political) reasons, the standards keep changing. Since
norms are strictly practiced in the written medium, it may be worthwhile
to see some examples of mixed language practices in literacy: languages
are mixed in web 2.0 environment (see Lee & Barton, 2012), in media (see
Mahootian, 2012), and in texting/SMS (Lexander, 2012) for various
creative functions. While not all of these samples occur in formal
situations, they can still be of relevance. Its true that almost everybody
wants to have a branded English (Fairclough, 2002), yet it is essential to
make the students aware about how the deficit discourses often discredit
actual language practices.

What is a Translingual Pedagogy?

So far I have shown how the monolingual ideology of English has
dominated both research and practice of EIL. Now, lets turn to an
integrative perspective of languaging (using language) as a corrective. To
provide a brief background, studies about how language users mix various
codes in their semiotic practices have referred to such practices by various
names according to the disciplines in which they are used. For instance,
terms such as codemeshing, transcultural literacy, and translingual writing
have been used in Composition Studies; categories such as translanguaging,
multiliteracies, continua of biliteracy, pluriliteracy, poly-lingual languaging,
hetero-graphyto name but a feware used in other disciplines (for
details, see Canagarajah, 2011b). In this paper, I use the terms
translanguaging and translingual to refer to the act of using codes which
transcends the binary of mono-/multi-lingualism.
Garcia defines translanguaging as the act performed by bilinguals of
accessing different linguistic features or various modes of what are
described as autonomous languages, in order to maximize communicative
potential (2009b, p. 140). In her definition of translanguaging, Garcia
makes clear that the term bilingual also includes multilinguals. Similarly,
according to Canagarajah (2011a, p. 401), translanguaging refers to the
ability of multilingual speakers to shuttle between languages, treating the
diverse languages that form their repertoire as an integrated system.
However, translanguaging resembles more with what Canagarajah calls

Reconceptualizing EIL Pedagogy

65

LFE (lingua franca English), which is not a product located in the mind of
the speaker but a form of social action (Canagarajah, 2007, p.151) with
the abstract notion of competence. Some traditional linguists might
narrowly call translanguaging code-switching, yet Baker (2006) clarifies
that it refers to those linguistic practices which are a result of a dynamic
and interconnected but not separate competences.
Translingual pedagogy strives to enhance the process of
translanguaging. Such pedagogy is based on at least two broad assumptions:
first, communication transcends individual languages, and second,
communication also transcends words and involves diverse semiotic
resources and ecological affordances (Canagarajah, 2013). As Canagarajah
rightly argues, the first assumption entails various sub-assumptions
including that languages are always in contact and mutually influence each
other, that users treat all the available codes as repertoire but not separate
entities, and that meaning is a more important outcome of negotiation than
correct use of grammatical structures. Additionally, as the second
assumption indicates, communication involves multiple semiotic resources
such as symbols and images along with the words, which might have
different meanings according to the social context in which they are used.
Thus, translingual pedagogy sees language as an integrated social semiotic
practice regardless of the number of the languages a person knows. Unlike
the term multilingual, which often gives an impression of additive
language, the term translingual validates the wholeness of people who use
codes from different languages.
In that regard, translingual pedagogy draws its motivations, among
others, from pedagogy of cultural continuity (Holliday, 2005), socially
sensitive pedagogy (McKay, 2011), and humanizing pedagogy
(Kamwangamalu, 2010) and advocates for a fluid and flexible use of
languages as medium of instruction in the classroom, in keeping up with
local multilingual practices (see Creese & Blackledge, 2010).
We need to revisit our common pedagogical frameworks to meet the
demands of the new knowledge economy. Currently, the intensification
of worldwide social relations link[s] distant localities in such a way that
local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and
vice versa (Giddens, 1990, p. 64). The impact of this time-space
compression has meant that the world is coming to be organized less
vertically, along nation-state lines, and more horizontally, according to
communities of shared interests and experiences (Perlmutter, 1991). In
such a scenario, teaching just one (native/global) or the other (nonnative/local) variety is insufficient. Further, traditional distinctions
regarding language teaching among ENL, ESL and EFL (English as a

66

Chapter Five

native/second/foreign language respectively) countries should be

discredited since technology and media make English accessible anytime
in almost any city in the world. English language teaching professionals
must therefore assist in developing negotiation skills, sociolinguistic
sensitivity, and language awareness in the learners, so that they can
establish a tolerance and understanding of variation (Kirkpatrick, 2007).
Specific teaching and learning contexts and specific needs of the learners
should determine the syllabus and classroom activities, and multilingualism
rather than monolingualism should be the norm. All the instructional
phases from planning to implementation to reflection would benefit if
these guiding principles are seriously taken into account.
Someone might ask: OK, Im fully persuaded, and would now like to
adopt a translingual pedagogy, but from where do I get the legitimacy? It
should be emphasized that professional legitimacy, or any legitimacy for
that matter, is associated with relations of power, including educational
structures and processes (Martin-Jones & Heller, 1996, p.4). To boost the
morale of the multilingual English students, we need professional
development networks for non-native teachers, where they can boost their
own confidence. Similarly, to fight against the hegemonic or call it
neoliberal force, we need to demystify the major misconceptions that
many students as well as teachers subscribe to. For instance, the view that
there is only one type of English, that all the people in the UK, USA,
Australia and Canada speak in the same way, and that only native teachers
are the best teachers, needs to be corrected urgently (see Braine, 1999,
2005, 2010). Calling into question the notion of separate and enumerable
languages, and adopting translingual pedagogy by viewing language and
literacy as social practice makes the real practices visible and provides
people opportunities for using their resources. Therefore, we need to move
from mastery of forms to negotiation of meanings.

Moving Away from Mastery of Forms to Negotiation

of Meaning
Moving from mastery to negotiation while teaching requires
orientating our pedagogy from product to process, seeing language as
heterogeneous and dynamic rather than homogenous and static, and
prioritizing function over form. The commonly held belief that we need to
master the lexico-grammar to fully take part in the interactions is only
partially true because multiple modes often come together for a fuller
meaning. Similarly, Larry Smith proposed over 35 years ago that the
learners of an international language do not need to internalize the cultural

Reconceptualizing EIL Pedagogy

67

norms of the native speakers (Smith, 1976). However, in most of academia

the monolingual norm is still quite dominant, thus emphasizing getting
things correct according to the established rules. While some scholars
rightly point to pragmatics as the way forward, it is disappointing to know
that, even in pragmatics conforming to the monolingual, ideology is the
norm. There too, emphasis seems to be on the product. What we need is a
process-orientated pedagogy that focuses more on negotiation than on
rules.
The question we have is how we can equip our students with such
negotiation skills. The first way can be through inculcating critical
language awareness in our students by showing that different languages
are complementary, and the standards of languages contingent. While it is
true that students in multilingual settings are already equipped with high
negotiation skills from their daily experience, the academic system usually
devises various requirements for conforming to the monolithic standards.
With a translingual orientation, we can, for example, treat the vernacular
as an asset in learning not a deficit (Cummins, 1991), and make teaching
and learning more democratic.
As Pennycook (2010) argues, the role of the teachers is to diversify
meanings, to show the meanings that might not be visible outright. Using
guest speakers (Matsuda, 2003, 2006), and media resources (Kubota,
2001) can be some other ways of teaching negotiation skills to students. In
the same vein, turning students into mini-ethnographers to explore the
relation of language and society, language and education, language and
mobility, just to mention a few, can be other options. Additionally,
students can do mock interviews, mock internships, and business
workshops. In settings where there is high exposure to English, we can ask
students to be the language ambassadors and go around the city where
language is being used. Students can explore how languages, cultures,
skills are changing owing to language contact through trade, migration,
diasporas, advancing Internet and technology. Of course, the level and
need of students would determine the degree of complexity involved.
Further, problematizing the common dichotomies might help. Firth and
Wagner (1997) questioned the dichotomies nonnative versus native
speaker, learner versus user, and interlanguage versus target language.
Canagarajah and Liyanage (2012, p. 59) argue for problematizing the pairs
of grammar and pragmatics, determinism and agency, purity and hybridity,
fixity and fluidity, cognition and context, monolingual and multilingual
acquisition (also see Cook, 1999, for a related concept, comparative
fallacy). Regardless of the actual techniques, the main goal of language
teaching professionals constitutes changing learners attitudes to language

68

Chapter Five

difference bby applying a translingual orientation.

o
Iff we can inculcate such
awareness, students can effectively use
u their neggotiation skillss to take
advantage of the resourcees they have.
Im fullyy aware of thee fact that thiss might soundd quite idealisstic at the
outset, especcially in the soo-called Engliish dominant countries. However, in
this ever m
more globalizzing world, linguistic
l
com
mmunities aree always
emergent, constantly beinng reshaped by
b the interacctive dynamics of their
members annd of other communitiess (see Blomm
mmaert, 2010,, p. xii).
Therefore, even with trruncated repertoires (Bloommaert, 201
10), it is
possible to nnegotiate meanning without understanding
u
g all the utteraances (see
let it pass principle in Firth & Wag
gner, 1997). V
Viewing langu
uage as a
resource, noot as a system
m, can make positive conttributions in nurturing
transnationaal practices, iddentities, and communitiess. This also means
m
we
will have too focus on gennres, registerss, and styles ((i.e. repertoirees) rather
than on lannguages. We therefore neeed to view laanguage as something
intrinsically and perpetuaally mobile, through
t
spacee as well as time,
t
and
mmaert, 2010, p. xiv), ratherr than as locaalized and
made for moobility (Blom
sedentary soociolinguistic patterns (Cou
upland, 2010, pp. 16).
Pedagoggy is not onlyy shaped by utilitarian
u
and functional caauses, but
also by sociial, political, and
a historical causes depennding on the context
c
of
teaching. Hoowever in the changing con
ntext, the overrall principle should
s
be
moving froom a traditional monolin
ngual paradiigm to an emergent
translingual paradigm as depicted
d
in the diagram bellow:

Adapted from
m Canagarajah and
a Wurr (2011
1, p. 10)

Reconceptualizing EIL Pedagogy

69

Canagarajah and Wurrs (2011) treatment of the emergent paradigm

above nicely captures the qualities of translingual paradigm I have been
arguing in this paper. The figure crucially assists us in thinking through
the ways for reconceptualizing EIL pedagogy. Of course, we cannot
entirely negate the harsh realities of gatekeeping, but with translingual
pedagogy, teachers should be able to not only equip the students to
negotiate the requirements such as testing but also to give them agency so
that they are not the victims of exploitation (see Rubdy & Tan, 2008).

Final Remarks
Because of the specific role English holds in todays linguistic
landscape, we need to develop new and transnationally sensitive EIL
pedagogies. While some researchers have argued that EIL is a variety, and
others have identified it as a function, I would like to propose a third
option: EIL is a form of practice with no uniform grammar, transcending
the dichotomy of function and variety. As Meierkord (2004) concludes,
grammar can be highly variable, hybrid, and fluid in settings where
language users from diverse background meet. Thus, it is essential to focus
on negotiation strategies and communicative practices.
Proficiency in English today does not mean mastery of one of its
varieties, but the ability to negotiate the new and emerging varieties one
encounters in interactions. Teaching English in todays world means that
we need to facilitate learning not only homogeneous codes of English but
many multilingual and multimodal codes. Casting away the custom of
pursuing a target standard of L1 like some kind of nirvana, the focus
should be on the process of meaning-making. Of course there will be
struggles, tensions, and dilemmas wherever one is teaching, but yet I hope
that the orientation proposed in this paper will help us understand the
complexities of language teaching and learning.
Retuning to my opening quotes, I would like to close with a potential
solution. If we can make our students understand that modern nation-states
assigned a language to each country in order to regulate capital (Duchene
& Heller, 2012), and if we can use translanguaging to better facilitate
language teaching and learning, then we will also be teaching the learners
to be authentic language users. What counts most is the voice of the
leaners, not the mastery of standard language (Blommaert, 2010). We
should make a collective move toward sharing with each other the
approaches, methods, and techniques that help us meet the new goals of
EIL pedagogy: changing our focus from individual varieties to repertoire,
product to process, and correctness to practice of negotiation.

70

Chapter Five

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Suresh Canagarajah for his intellectual support during
the revision process and to the anonymous reviewers and the editors for
their insightful comments on an earlier version of this paper. The
shortcomings, of course, remain my own.

References
Allsagoff, L., Ed, McKay, S. L., Ed, Hu, G., Ed, & Renandya, W. A., Ed.
(2012). Principles and practices for teaching Eenglish as an
international language. New York: Routledge
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism.
Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Bex, T., & Watts, R. J. (1999). Standard English: The widening debate.
New York: Routledge.
Blackledge, A. (2000). Monolingual ideologies in multilingual states:
Language, hegemony and social justice in western liberal democracies.
Sociolinguistic Studies, 1(2), 25-45.
Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualism: A critical
perspective. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Braine, G. (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching.
Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
. (2005). A history of research on non-native speaker English teachers.
In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions,
challenges and contributions to the profession, (pp. 13-23). New York:
Springer.
. (2010). Nonnative Speaker English Teachers: Research, Pedagogy,
and Professional Growth. New York: Routledge.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English
teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and
language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 923-939.
. (2011a). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable
strategies of translanguaging. Modern Language Journal, 95, 401-417.
. (2011b). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for
research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 1-27.
. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan
relations. London: Routledge.

Reconceptualizing EIL Pedagogy

71

Canagarajah, A. S., & Liyanage, I. (2012). Lessons from pre-colonial

multilingualism. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese
(Eds.). The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 49-65).
London: Routledge.
Canagarajah, A. S., & Wurr, A. J. (2011). Multilingual communication
and language acquisition: New research directions. The Reading
Matrix, 11(1), 1-15.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 33, 185209.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and
the design of social futures. New York: Routledge.
Coupland, N. (2010). The handbook of language and globalization.
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual
classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern
Language Journal, 94(1), 103-115.
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first-and second-language
proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language
processing in bilingual children, (pp. 7089). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
De Souza, L. M. (2005). The Ecology of writing among the Kashinawa:
Indigenous multimodality in Brazil. In A. S. Canagarajah (Ed.),
Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice (pp.73-95).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Duchne, A., & Heller, M. (2012). Language in late capitalism: Pride and
profit. New York: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2002). Language in New Capitalism. Discourse & Society,
13 (2), 163-166.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some)
fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language
Journal, 81(3), 285300.
Garcia, O. (2009a). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global
perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
. (2009b). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st
century. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson, A. K. Mohanty, & M.
Panda (Eds.), Social justice through multilingual education (pp. 140158). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Garcia, O., Flores, N., & Woodley, H. (2012). Transgressing
monolingualism and bilingual dualities: Translanguaging pedagogies.
In A. Yiakoumetti (Ed.), Harnessing linguistic variation to improve
education (pp. 45-76). Oxford: Peter Lang.

72

Chapter Five

Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses.

New York: Routledge.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Giri, R. A. (2011). Examination as an agent of educational reform: Reiterating some issues of debate. Nelta Choutari. Retrieved June 9,
2012, from http://neltachoutari.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/1645/
Graff, H. J., & Duffy, J. (2008). Literacy myths. In B. V. Street & N. H.
Hornberger (Eds.), Literacy: Encyclopedia of language and education,
Vol. 2 (pp. 41-52). Boston, MA: Springer
Green, A., Fangqing, W., Cochrane, P., Dyson, J., & Paun, C. (2012, July
8). English spreads as teaching language in universities worldwide.
University World News. Retrieved July 9, 2012, from
http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20120621131
543827
Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international
language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and
models of non-native Englishes. New York: Pergamon Institute of
English.
Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2010). Multilingualism and code-switching in
education. In N. Hornberger & S. McKay (Eds.) Sociolinguistics and
language education (pp. 11642). Bristol, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Khubchandani, L. M. (1997). Revisualizing boundaries: A plurilingual
ethos. New Delhi: Sage.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international
communication and English language teaching. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Kubota, R. (2001). Teaching world Englishes to native speakers of English
in the USA. World Englishes, 20, 47-64.
Lee, C. & Barton, D. (2012). Multilingual texts on web 2.0: The case of
flickr.com. In M. Sebba, S. Mahootian, & C. Jonsson (Eds.), Language
mixing and code-switching in writing: Approaches to mixed-language
written discourse (pp.128-145). London: Routledge.
Lexander, K. (2012). Analyzing multilingual texting in Senegal: An
approach for the study of mixed-language sms. In M. Sebba, S.
Mahootian, & C. Jonsson (Eds.), Language mixing and code-switching
in writing: Approaches to mixed-language written discourse (pp. 146169). London: Routledge.

Reconceptualizing EIL Pedagogy

73

Lin, A., & Martin, P. (Eds.). (2005). Decolonisation, globalisation:

Language-in-education policy and practice. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual
Matters.
Mahootian, S. (2012). Repertoires and Resources: Accounting for Codemixing in the Media. In M. Sebba, S. Mahootian, & C. Jonsson (Eds.),
Language mixing and code-switching in writing: Approaches to mixedlanguage written discourse (pp. 192-211). London: Routledge.
Makoni, S., & Mashiri, P. (2007). Critical historiography: Does language
planning in Africa need a construct of language as part of its
theoretical apparatus. In S. Makoni & A. Pennycook (Eds.),
Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. 6289). Buffalo, NY:
Multilingual Matters.
Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (Eds.). (2007). Disinventing and
reconstituting languages. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Martin, P. (2005). Safe language practices in two rural schools in
Malaysia: Tensions between policy and practice. In A. Lin & P. Martin
(Eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-education policy
and practice (pp. 7497). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Martin-Jones, M., & Heller, M. (1996). Introduction to the special issues
on education in multilingual settings: Discourse, identities, and power:
Part I: Constructing legitimacy. Linguistics and Education, 8, 3-16.
Matsuda, A. (2003). Incorporating World Englishes in teaching English as
an international language. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 719-729.
. (2006). Negotiating ELT assumptions in EIL classrooms. In J. Edge
(Ed.), (Re)Locating TESOL in an age of empire (pp. 158-170). New
York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Matsuda, A. (Ed.). (2012). Principles and practices of teaching English as
an international language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
McKay, S. L. (2003). Toward an appropriate EIL pedagogy: Re-examining
common ELT assumptions. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 13(1), 1-22.
. (2011). English as an international lingua franca pedagogy. In E.
Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and
learning, Vol. 2 (pp. 122-139). New York: Routledge.
Meierkord, C. (2004). Syntactic variation in interactions across
international Englishes. English World-Wide, 25(1), 109132.
Michael-Luna, S., & Canagarajah, A. S. (2008). Multilingual academic
literacies: Pedagogical foundations for code meshing in primary and
higher education. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1).
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1999). Authority in language: Investigating
Standard English. New York: Routledge.

74

Chapter Five

MOE (Ministry of Education, Government of Nepal) (2009). School sector

reform plan 2009-2015. Retrieved July 5, 2012, from
http://www.moe.gov.np/attachments/article/32/SSRP%20English.pdf
Morgan, B. (2007). Poststructuralism and applied linguistics. In J.
Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English
language teaching, Vol. 1 (pp. 10331052). New York: Springer.
Murata, K., & Jenkins, J. (Eds.). (2009). Global Englishes in Asian
contexts: Current and future debates. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. New York:
Routledge.
Perlmutter, H. V. (1991). On the rocky road to the first global civilization.
Human Relations, 44(9), 897.
Roberts, P., & Canagarajah, S. (2009). Broadening the ELF paradigm:
Spoken English in an international encounter. In F. Sharifian (Ed.),
English as an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical
issues (pp. 209226). New York: Multilingual Matters.
Romaine, S. (1994). Language in society: An introduction to
sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rubdy, R. (2008). Language planning ideologies, communicative practices
and their consequences. In M. Martin-Jones, A. M. de Mejia & N. H.
Hornberger (Eds.), Discourse and Education: Encyclopedia of
language and education, Vol. 3 (pp. 211 223). Boston, MA:
Springer.
Rubdy, R., & Saraceni, M. (Eds.). (2006). English in the world: Global
rules, global roles. New York: Continuum.
Rubdy, R., & Tan, P. K. W. (2008). Language as commodity: Global
structures, local marketplaces. New York: Continuum.
Saraceni, M. (2010). The relocation of English: shifting paradigms in a
global era. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sharifian, F. (Ed.). (2009). English as an international language:
Perspectives and pedagogical issues. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual
Matters.
Smith, L. E. (1976). English as an international auxiliary language. RELC
Journal, 7(2), 3842.
Sonntag, S. (2003). The local politics of global English, case studies in
linguistic globalization. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Sridhar, S. N. (1994). A reality check for SLA theories. TESOL Quarterly,
28(4), 800805.
Watts, R. J. (2011). Language myths and the history of English. New
York: Oxford University Press.

CHAPTER SIX
QUESTIONING THE INTERNATIONAL
OF THE INTERNATIONAL TEACHING
MATERIALS USED IN AUSTRALIAN
ELICOS INSTITUTIONS
ROBY MARLINA AND RAM GIRI

Introduction
As a result of globalisation, communication between people of diverse
lingua-cultural backgrounds has, in the last two decades, increased
severalfold. As the labour market and workforce become more global and
mobile, engagement and interactions between individuals and between
nations have become todays necessity. While the interactions or
engagements may be defined differently in different contexts, one process,
which incorporates interactions and engagements of all kinds and at all
levels, is termed as internationalisation. Internationalisation then, is, seen
as a process of engaging people of diverse backgrounds with a view to
addressing their common interest and managing the influences emerging
from the process, and involves making adjustments in the process and
support mechanism in order to respond to the influences and at the same
time support the educational needs of the future. This, then, requires
reassessment of and re-engagement in the way people and the nation-states
perceive and practise education beyond their borders (Magnan 2012).
The views on English as the language of global engagement are also
changing. The knowledge of the English language and communicative
ability in English are indispensable without which the level of engagement
in such interactions can be severely limited. In this chapter, we look into
the way the term internationalisation is implemented in the English
language education institutions in Australia, particularly in the ELICOS
(English Language Intensive Course for Overseas Students) institutions.

76

Chapter Six

Taking Knight (2004) and McKays (2002) perspective to analyze the

ELICOS materials, we explore the extent to which the institutions claim
of providing international education is justifiable. Based on our analysis of
the prescribed teaching materials from three highly reputable ELICOS
institutions in Melbourne, we argue that the provision of a truly
internationally-flavoured English language education in some Australian
ELICOS institutions is still far from being realized. These institutions tend
to use the term international from a marketing rather than pedagogical
perspective, and the materials they use provide anything but international
education. In light of this, the chapter offers food for thought for educators
to consider in providing internationalised education as well as choosing
materials for teaching EIL.

The Theoretical Lens and Previous Studies

Prior to discussing the data in more detail, the following discusses the
frameworks employed as the lens for analysing the data as well as the
basis for this chapters standpoint.

Internationalisation of education
The notion of 'internationalisation' is diversely interpreted and defined
by different scholars. As Knight (1997) claims, internationalisation
means different things to different people (p.5). It is, for example,
adopted (a) as academic, student and faculty exchanges (Stevenson, 1994);
(b) as areas of international studies (Welch, 1997); (c) as educational and
technical cooperation among institutions and co-operations (Arun & Van
de Water, 1992); (d) as the mobility of academic personnel (Welch, 1997);
(e) as intercultural training (Knight, 1997), and (f) as joint research
initiatives (Knight & De Wit, 1994). With these different approaches and
emphases, Trevaskes, Eisenchelas and Liddicoat (2003) further categorise
internationalisation into weak and strong forms. Driven by a 'marketing
and quality assurance' paradigm, the weak form of internationalisation
shows concerns for maximising profit/income through recruitment of feepaying international students. The strong form of internationalisation, on
the other hand, emphasises the integration of intercultural and international
dimensions into the teaching and learning of an educational programme
(Knight, 2004). This chapter views the latter as more relevant because it
focuses on education as opposed to commerce/trade, and aims to equip
students with knowledge, skills, and attitudes to function effectively in
today's increasingly multilingual and multicultural world. Informed by the

Questioning the International of International Teaching Materials

77

latter, an internationalised curriculum includes cultural and linguistic

diversity (i.e. inclusion of students' lingua-cultural backgrounds into
learning curriculum), and reflects zero tolerance for parochialism and
monocultural chauvinism (Trevaskes, et.al, 2003).

English as an International Language (EIL)

In response to the urge to provide internationalised education, what
should learners of English learn in English language institutions? The
answer to this question is, of course, English. However, English has also
been internationalised. It has achieved the status of an international
language as a result of its predominant (though not exclusive) use in a
variety of international economic and cultural arenas (Crystal, 1997;
Graddol, 2006; McKay & Bokhorst-Heng, 2008). This international use of
English has allowed English to spread its wings, thereby increasing the
number of its users in the world. This expansion has led to the
diversification of the form, culture, and user of the language.
Firstly, the process of English being localised and appropriated
(Canagarajah, 1999) to suit "local tastebuds" (Marlina, 2010) as the
language enters a particular country, has led to the emergence of different
varieties of English in the world (collectively called World Englishes).
English is, therefore, a vehicle for any users of English to communicate
their cultural norms, values, and worldviews.
Secondly, the pluralisation of its users has also further given English
the status of an international language. As those new varieties of English
are developed alongside other languages spoken in most multilingual and
multicultural societies, speakers of English today are mostly bi/multilingual speakers of English who do not necessarily use the English
spoken by those from ICCInner-Circle Countries (where English is
spoken as a mother tongue). According to Graddol (2006), nearly 80 per
cent of todays communication in English takes place between competent
bi-/multilingual speakers of English from OCCOuter Circle Countries
(where English is used as an institutionalised language in conjunction with
other languages) and ECCExpanding Circle Countries (where English is
a foreign language). As bi-/multilingual users of English from OCC and
ECC have led users of English from ICC to become 'minority accent'
(Bloch & Starks, 1999; Jenkins, 2003; McKay, 2003), it is often the case
that more than one variety of English is being negotiated in international
communicative exchanges because each interactant uses a variety or
varieties of English with which they are familiar. Therefore, as persistently
insisted upon in the literature, the so-called native-speakers of English

78

Chapter Six

and their cultural norms are no longer relevant to today's English language
learning (McKay, 2002; Smith, 1976; Smith, 2003). Rather, as English has
become an international language, students are encouraged to learn how to
communicate across cultures and how to communicate their own cultures
in English (Marlina, 2011; McKay, 2002, 2003, 2012). Specifically,
McKay (2012) has argued that English teaching materials need to take into
account the outcomes of English as an international language. Specifically,
she outlines elements that need to be included in materials for teaching
EIL:
x
examples of different varieties of English;
x
more representations of uses of English and cultures from OCC
and ECC; and
x
interactions between bi/multilingual speakers of English in which
code-switching is also evident.
However, to what extent has this been practised?

Studies on teaching materials from an EIL perspective

Previous studies (Adaskou & Fahsi, 1990; Canagarajah, 1999; Datta,
1939; Gray, 2002; Matsuda, 2002, 2005) have questioned the international
relevance and/or orientation of English language teaching materials. In
fact, this argument is not new, and has been put forward for decades by
researchers from diverse contexts. For example, in India, the Readers of
English that Indian students had to study only talked about the lives of the
great English people, their thoughts and ideas, and the cultures, but
"nothing about Indian great heroes of the past or about the ways of life of
our own countrymen in the various provinces" (Datta, 1939, p.4). In the
Japanese context, Matsuda (2002, 2005) has found that while the
curriculum guidelines in Japan encourage English teachers to develop
students international understanding, the textbooks tend to provide
students with information only on the usage of English in and
cultures/customs of ICC. The characters in those textbooks are
predominantly those from ICCs, and interactions are often between the socalled native-speakers and non-native speakers. There tends to be less
representation of the use and users of English and less discussion on
cultures/customs from OCC or ECC. However, the extent to which all of
this may apply to ELICOS in Australia has not been addressed. Although
this chapter has not come up with any new discovery, it provides the
ongoing conversation in the literature with additional perspectives of

Questioning the International of International Teaching Materials

79

English language teaching and teaching materials in Inner Circle countries

as opposed to in Outer and/or Expanding Circle countries.

The Study and Context

The main question the chapter aims to address is how 'international' are
the English teaching materials in ELICOS in Australia. To what extent do
the learning materials taught in ELICOS truly reflect the internationalism
that the institutions widely promote? Based on this, what are the
implications for teaching English (in ELICOS in Australia) or, in general,
English as an International Language?
To investigate these, we have chosen to analyse the prescribed
textbooks and learning materials from three different ELICOS providers.
Three of those institutions use Headway and Touchstone as the main
prescribed textbooks to teach English for both general and academic
purposes. However, students who study English for academic purposes are
also given supplementary exercises, but mainly from the workbooks of
the above textbooks. We have also managed to interview three head
teachers from the institutions. However, due to their hectic timetable, they
could only share some brief yet relevant perspectives which, we believe,
are worth discussing. Prior to presenting the results, the following
provides brief information about the institutions (ELICOS 1, ELICOS 2,
and ELICOS 3) as well as about the head teachers.
ELICOS 1, 2, and 3 are English language institutions, each of which is
affiliated to and works very closely with three reputable internationallylinked universities in Melbourne, which have the highest numbers of
international students and teaching staff. The language institutions offer a
wide range of English language courses that prepare students for studying
English for general and academic purposes. As the reputable universities
promote themselves as the 'best' providers of the international curriculum,
so do the language institutions. In particular, they claim to be providers of
excellent international language education that aims to help learners to
become competent intercultural communicators and that prepare learners
to become future open-minded and ethical twenty-first century citizens
who are ready to face the demands that the globalisation era brings (in
general), and that the Australian universities bring (particularly for
students studying English for academic purposes). ELICOS 2 and 3, in
particular, share one common mission, that is, to create a learning
community where there are mutual respect and a celebration of
differences.

80

Chapter Six

The three chosen head teachers (Felix, Ursula, and John, all
pseudonyms) were from Australia and had completed a postgraduate
degree in TESOL in Australia. They speak English and another language;
French (Felix) and Japanese (Ursula and John). They had been teaching
English and coordinating language programmes at the language
institutions ranging from between five to nine years. Prior to working in
Australia, these teachers had taught English for several years in the Asia
Pacific region.

Findings and Discussions

Are the learning materials international? Maybe.
English language teaching materials have been previously criticised for
their monocultural-chauvinistic approach that predominantly includes
Anglo-European characters and texts about their cultures, albeit claiming
to be textbooks with an international approach to teaching (Canagarajah,
1999; Datta, 1939; Gray, 2002; Matsuda, 2002, 2005). Communications in
these textbooks also mostly occur either between the so-called nativespeakers, or native-speakers and non-native speakers. However,
analyses of the prescribed textbooks (Headway and Touchstone) used by
three Australian ELICOS providers revealed some elements of
internationalisation and attempts to minimise the chance of being
interpreted as monocultural-chauvinistic. In particular, both textbooks
include non-Anglo-European names and characters (pictures AF), and
passages about countries other than Anglo-English-speaking countries
(Text AE), which can be seen in the following examples:

Questioning the International of International Teaching Materials

Characters

Picture A.

Picture C.

Picture E.

Picture B

Picture D.

Picture F.

81

Chapter Six

82

Texts

Text A.

Text B.

Questioning the International of International Teaching Materials

Text C.

Text D

Text E

83

84

Chapter Six

In fact, conversations with the head teachers reveal that these textbooks
had been prescribed mainly because they were believed to be truly
internationa" or globally-orientated. John, in particular, prescribed
Headway because its international orientation was in line with how his
institution (ELICOS 3) promoted itself:
Our chosen learning textbooks like headway as well as touchstone truly
give students international perspectives of learning English. If you look at
the inside, they have topics that talk about other countries and you can see
pictures of people from other countries and their lives and everything.
There are cases where there are texts that write about other countries.
That's why I have decided to use these textbooks as the main because not
only do students learn English, but they also get to read about the things
from other countries, to widen their horizon about things from other
countries (Felix)
Our institutions use Headway a lot and for some of our advanced
students, we occasionally give them materials from Other Voices because
they tell stories about people from different countries, their lives, their
experiences. And I love headway a lot because these textbooks used to only
have things western western western, but the new edition, they are much
global-oriented and they include passages from China so students get to
read about their own countries or other people's countries but in English.
This can enrich their world views and allow them to learn how to talk
about their own countries in English. So, I reckon that's truly an
international textbook (Ursula)
I have to say that headway has been the best textbook that I have ever used
because it provides students with texts from different parts of the world. I
mean, when you look at it, you don't just simply see white people like us or
our Anglo-names, but you also see Japanese names or Brazilian names.
And you get to read about other countries as well, not just Englishspeaking countries. So every teacher who uses it loves it because it is truly
international and that's what our institutions promote - differences! (John)

In the light of the literature and the data above, it is rather a relief to
observe that the textbooks and the head teachers seem, to some extent, to
be in line with Knight's (1997) notion of internationalisation and McKay's
(2003; 2012) EIL perspective of English teaching materials. Unlike those
highlighted in previous studies, the textbooks in this study seem to be to
some extent 'international' as they display some attempts to
internationalise the characters and their names in the textbooks. This was
supported by the head teachers who appeared to value materials that are
'pluricentric' as opposed to Anglo-centric ("western western western").
Interactions between characters in the textbooks (e.g. pictures D and F)

Questioning the International of International Teaching Materials

85

also seem to be arranged on the basis of the current and/or future

predominant users of English, who are multilingual users of English from
OCC and/or ECC (Crystal, 2004; Graddol, 2006). In addition, readings
about cultures, customs, or practices etc. of people from OCC and ECC
are included, which, according to Ursula, provide students with
opportunities to "enrich their world views" and "learn how to talk about
their cultures in English". This is again in line with the aim of teaching
EIL (see McKay, 2002, 2003). At this point, therefore, the current findings
seem to imply that learning materials that are written based on the notion
of internationalisation and EIL appear to be those that include
representations of users of English from different parts of the world and
texts about customs/practices etc from OCC and ECC. However, further
critical analysis of the textbooks reveals that learning materials with the
aforementioned content are not necessarily internationally orientated and
informed by the EIL perspective. Thus, it would not be wise to claim
oneself as the best provider of international language education that
celebrates differences if such learning materials are 'uncritically' used. The
following findings and data justify why.

Are the materials international enough? Not really!

Although these textbooks have been praised for their 'international'
approach to teaching English, a critical analysis of the passages and the
way these characters are presented reveals that the materials are not
adequately 'international' and still appear to be rather Anglo-centric,
promoting the 'native-speakers' supremacy. Firstly, the global expansion of
English has allowed the language to acquire significantly important roles
and functions in many different parts of the world. The textbooks,
however, still portray ICC as the only countries in the world that use or
speak English (for example see picture G). There do not seem to be
extended tasks that require students to research countries in the world
(other than the ones in the textbook) that can be categorised as Englishspeaking countries, for example: Singapore, India, the Philippines,
Nigeria, Malaysia, etc.
Thus, this exercise (Picture G) is likely to prompt students to believe
that English-speaking countries are restricted only to ICCs and that
English is only spoken by people from these countries, which contradicts
the sociolinguistic landscape of English in the world today. With this
exercise, how can ELICOS students be expected to achieve what the
institutions expect them to achieve, i.e. to become open-minded twentyfirst century citizens? Also, how can ELICOS students be expected to

86

Chapter Six

develop the ability to use English to communicate with people from

diverse lingua-cultural backgrounds who are not only restricted to ICCs?

Picture G.

Secondly, as previously mentioned, the institutions promote

themselves as the providers of international language education and take
pride in their value for "promoting differences". This value thus needs to
be reflected in the learning materials that emphasise heterogeneity. As
discussed by McKay (2003; 2012), materials need to include examples of
different varieties of world Englishes and show that English is
predominantly used by bi/multilingual speakers. Even though the
textbooks have been praised for being internationally-orientated, reflecting
today's global village, the pragmatic discourse conventions, for example,
still seem to be centred on English-speaking Anglo-European cultural
norms (seen in Text FI):

Questioning the International of International Teaching Materials

Text F

Text H

Text G

87

88

Chapter Six

Text I.

To explain this, greeting is chosen as an example because it is the

most basic conversational strategy that is often taught at the beginning of a
language course. How are you? is indeed a commonly taught form of
greeting in English. However, as English has pluralised, there are now
diverse forms of greeting (refer to Jenkins, 2003, for a list), for example,
Have you eaten? (Singaporean/Malaysian/Chinese English); Are you all
right? (East African English); You're enjoying (Nigerian English), which
are shaped by the local cultural norms/values. In some societies with
which the author is familiar, 'how are you?' could be interpreted as the
speaker showing extra care for the other speaker and wanting to know in
detail how he/she actually is. Rather, the exercise requires students to
'match the correct expression' or 'test your partner [if they] can give the
correct response', which does not seem to provide students with a 'space'
or flexibility to search for other different possible ways of greeting in
different English-speaking contexts, and most importantly overlooks the
fact that students themselves have their own sense of pragmatic
appropriateness. Students may not necessarily agree with the correct
answer provided in these textbooks, and may not have complete
attachment to the meaning or function of those expressions. The use of

Questioning the International of International Teaching Materials

89

'correct' is even likely to lead students to believe that there is one 'correct'
form of greeting in English (which is not the case). Therefore, "test your
partner [if they] can give the 'correct' response" may imply that English
spoken by 'native-speakers' and their pragmatic appropriateness are the
'right' ones against which students' linguistic competency is measured. In
the light of this, it would be rather problematic and perhaps contradicting
to claim that the learning materials adopt an international approach to
teaching language and are taught in the institutions that value differences
and aim to help their learners become open-minded intercultural
communicators. What needs to be taken into serious consideration is the
fact that learning textbooks that are inadequately international can lead
students to feel confused or resistant when they are confronted with
different types of English users or uses, be shocked by varieties of English
that deviate from Inner-Circle English and may view them as deficient
(rather than different), or grow disrespectful to such varieties and users
(Matsuda, 2002, p.438).
Furthermore, despite the inclusion of interactions between characters
from OCC and ECC, they tend to be based on a monolingual mindset and
Anglo-European cultural norms/values. Text H and I illustrate this point. It
can be seen that the conversations in both texts take place between two
speakers of a Middle-Eastern Muslim background:1 Abdul and Faisal
(Text H), and Ali and Omar (Text I). However, what seems to be even
more problematic is that these characters communicate with each other in
American English and with American pragmatic discourse conventions.
There are not even anysigns of code-switching or any distinctive linguistic
features that may be used by bi-/multilingual and bi-/multicultural
characters. In Text H, both characters greet each other with Hi or Hey
How are you doing? as opposed to 'Salaam or Assalamualaikum'; and
use 'Thank Goodness' (in Text I) as opposed to 'Alhamdulillah' as an
expression of relief. Not only does this contradict the 'internationalapproach' to teaching for which the textbooks have been praised, but it
portrays a distorted view of the actual natural communicative exchanges in
English between bi-/multilingual and bi-/multicultural speakers.
What is also rather concerning to observe is the fact that the head
teachers had positive attitudes towards how the textbooks provided their
students with ways to "use English naturally...[and] internationally"
What has really impressed me is that these materials teach my students
how to use English globally. Students will be able to use the natural
1

Judging from the names, appearance, and the head cover without any intention to
stereotype or 'otherwise'.

90

Chapter Six
language that they teach them everywhere. So, it already sets the standard
for students, so I don't see why I should use other textbooks. (Felix)
As I said before these materials are very international, so our students can
actually how to use English in a very natural way, so that they too can
later on use English in a natural way when they interact in international
settings. Other textbooks are not that great in providing standard for
students to stick to I reckon, so, I am very satisfied with this one. (Ursula)
The thing that I like about these textbooks is our students can learn real
English, natural English, the English that is spoken internationally. So, it
shows learners how things get done in worldwide in English. (John).

Despite their support for 'valuing and promoting differences' and

'internationally-oriented textbooks' mentioned earlier, these above
statements reveal that the head teachers appeared to show superficial
understanding of the notion of internationalisation. Internationally
orientated materials (from their perspectives) seem to mean materials that
display diversity only at a surface level (pictures of people from different
countries, texts about those from different countries, non-Anglo-names).
This leads the authors to argue that the head teachers also showed a
minimal awareness of the outcomes of English as an international
language, and were therefore not critical of the textbooks they used from
the EIL perspective. They believed that the English taught in the textbooks
was 'natural', 'real', 'international', but in actual fact it was based on either
American or British English, and hence a cultural value/norm of either
America or Britain . The claim that these materials show learners
"standard for...how things get done worldwide in English" implies the
view that all English speakers worldwide adhere to the American and
British cultural values/norms/conventions as the 'standard'. This view is
too distant from the attitude that supports internationalisation and that
values differences. Rather, this could be interpreted as a reflection of a
support for parochialism. Teaching students with this belief may produce
twenty-first century citizens who would be monoculturally and linguistically
chauvinistic as opposed to open-minded and competent in intercultural
communication.
Lastly, attempts to include names and characters from diverse linguacultural backgrounds, and passages about cultural practices/customs from
OCC and ECC are indeed to be commended. However, the inclusion still
needs to be done with care. For example, if the discourse about cities in
China (in Text B and C) is critically read, it can be seen that the cities
seem to be presented in a way that could be interpreted as condescending

Questioning the International of International Teaching Materials

91

("ugly...mess", "shocking place", "they don't worry about losing their

traditional ways of life").

What appears to have made these texts even more problematic is that
they are written by textbook writers who are unlikely to be Chinese and
who may not necessarily have local knowledge about China. Writing
about China using the words/phrases circled above could lead critical
students and/or other readers to view it as ethnocentric. As a matter of fact,
how knowledgeable and confident are the writers to claim (on behalf of
Chinese people) that they "don't worry about losing traditional ways of
life"? It is also rather concerning to observe that (during the interviews)
none of the head teachers had made any comments about the texts or
found them problematic. They all seemed to share a similar view that "it
was a great textbook". Thus, including texts about cultures/customs etc,

92

Chapter Six

from OCC and ECC is "a great idea", but needs to be done with extra
care. As Kubota and Austin (2007, p.76) warn, teaching materials both
construct and reflect discourses on what is worthy for learning what are
often presented in textbooks and taught in the classroom are often
perceived as the correct knowledge to learn or the normal way of viewing
the world. Thus, as language educators, it would certainly be
unprofessional to expect students to develop attitudes that could be
interpreted as ethnocentric or unethical.
Furthermore, as suggested by Matsuda (2005) and McKay (2012), the
teaching materials have included users of English from OCC and ECC and
interactions between these users. However, this is still not enough, because
analysis of the materials reveals that these users tend to be sadly presented
from a deficit point of view. The recognition of who are categorised as
users or speakers of English has already been established in the materials
(picture G), which implies that those who are not from the listed category
are unlikely to be classified as users/speakers of English. The characters
(for example in pictures A, B, C, and D) who are not from those listed
countries, therefore, tend to be portrayed as learners of English, as
opposed to legitimate users and speakers of English (see pictures below).
Even a Japanese business professional (in picture C) is still condescendingly
portrayed as a learner of English who carries a dictionary and a
vocabulary notebook in his briefcase during his business trip to New York.
This kind of portrayal provides students with a false representation of the
actual reality of users of English from outside those categories in picture
G, who are likely to regard themselves as competent users of English who
can use English without having to carry dictionaries and vocabulary
notebooks. This is also likely to further consolidate and legitimise the
ideology of those from ICC as the 'speakers' of English, and those from
OCC and ECC as 'learners' of English. Learning a language with materials
that regard diversity as a deficit is likely to prompt students to continue
upholding native-speaker supremacy and at the same time develop an
inferiority complex, believing that one is never going to graduate from
being a 'learner' of English unless he or she is from ICC. Though these
textbooks claim to adopt an international approach to teaching, they still
promote the superiority of one particular culture and variety of English
which contradicts the true meaning of 'international'. ELICOS teachers
that do not seem to be critically aware of the 'hidden' deficit constructions
are likely to impinge on the institutions' image as the providers of
'international' education. With this unawareness, how could students be
guided to become open-minded and ethical citizens?

Questioning the International of International Teaching Materials

93

Owing to time constraints and limited access to teaching materials in

the said ELICOS institutions, the study investigated only two textbooks
commonly prescribed by three ELICOS institutions in Australia.
Similarly, only three head teachers were interviewed, one each from the
three institutions. Their views may not therefore necessarily be embraced
by other teachers within the institutions. As previously mentioned, the
hectic schedule of the three head teachers provided the researchers with
relatively limited data. A larger-scale research project involving classroom
observations, analyses of other teaching materials, and longer interviews
with head teachers and other teachers would give this study a richer and
more in-depth perspective on the issue.

94

Chapter Six

Food for thought

This study investigates how 'international' the English teaching
materials in Australian ELICOS institutions are, and the extent to which
these materials truly reflect the internationalism and value for diversity the
institutions widely promote. Based on an analysis of the prescribed
textbooks and brief interviews with three head teachers from three
reputable ELICOS institutions, this study has revealed that the ELICOS
teaching materials seem to have failed to deliver what they are praised for,
and have therefore failed to help the institutions achieve their objectives
fully. The head teachers also seem to be less critical of the teaching
materials, which may imply a further support for the institutions to
contradict themselves as the providers of international education. As
textbooks that have been regarded as adopting an 'international -approach
to teaching, they have, to some extent, included characters from diverse
lingua-cultural backgrounds and readings about cultures/customs, etc.,
from OCC and ECC. However, these characters, and some of the readings,
tend to be presented from a deficit point of view. In addition,
notwithstanding the dramatic changes in the contemporary sociolinguistic
landscape of the English language, the teaching materials seem to teach
only one particular Inner-Circle variety of English (either American or
British English), and hence the cultural norms and values, of one particular
cultural group. Therefore, in line with other studies (Briguglio, 2007;
Trevaskes, et. al, 2003; Matsuda, 2005), a truly internationalised ELICOS
programme still seems to be far from reality.
This study has not been able to provide data as rich as a larger-scale
project would provide. However, it raises some issues that ELICOS
language educators may need to consider in providing internationalised
English language education and/or teaching English for intercultural
communication. Therefore, based on the notion of internationalisation and
the EIL perspective of English language teaching materials, this chapter
offers a number of suggestions for internationally-orientated English
language institutions that aim to help their students become future openminded and ethical twenty-first citizens who are competent in intercultural
exchanges. The core 'element' of the suggestions is that English language
teachers are encouraged to consider incorporating the current changing
sociolinguistic landscape of English into their teaching materials. More
specifically, we suggest that internationally-orientated English language
teaching materials need to:

Questioning the International of International Teaching Materials

95

1. Teach their students about different varieties of world

Englishes
As suggested by McKay (2012) and many other scholars in the
discipline, today's learners need to be informed about the diversity and
complexity of the English language. They need to be equipped with
appropriate knowledge, attitudes, and skills in order to communicate with
speakers of English who are NOT always from Inner-Circle countries.
This is absolutely essential because educators do not always know with
whom their students will be communicating in English outside their
classrooms. Teaching only one variety of English restricts their ability to
shuttle between different speech communities. If the materials do not
include these varieties, then teachers are encouraged to provide students
with opportunities to research and explore other alternative ways of
'saying things' in English in OCCs and ECCs. Alternatively, since students
bring their sociocultural and linguistic knowledge to the classrooms, this
knowledge can be used by teachers as a way to teach world Englishes. For
example (referring to text F), rather than asking students to match the
'correct' answer, an international approach to teaching English would ask
students: 'How would you respond to those social expressions in your
cultures?'; or 'What would be considered as an appropriate answer in your
cultures?; or In what context(s) are these expressions used in your
cultures? This type of exercise is likely to provide students with
opportunities to develop the ability to communicate across Englishes and
cultures as they learn about their classmates' cultures and observe how
these cultures influence the way they use English. This can allow students
to avoid feeling resistant or having strong negative attitudes towards
different varieties of English. Is it not better for students to know about
many different varieties than just one variety?

2. Include code-switching in the interactions between

bi-/multilingual and bi-/multicultural users of English
If the materials are to include users of English who are bi-/multilingual
and bi-/multicultural, then code-switching needs to be present in order to
avoid giving students a distorted view of the actual and realistic linguistic
habits of bi-/multilingual and bi-/multicultural users of English. Apart
from showing students the actual natural communicative exchanges in
English between bi-/multilinguals and bi-/multicultural users of English, it
would also allow students to learn to realise that English does not fit all.
There are words/concepts/phrases that must be used in its 'natural tongue',

96

Chapter Six

of which the meanings cannot be fully captured by English. If codeswitching is not present in the materials, then the students would need to
be given the opportunities to do so in the class. This has been empirically
proven as helpful for learning English (Manara, 2007)

3. Teach about diversity with extra 'care'

Readings about customs/cultures from OCC and ECC are indeed
important as they provide students with opportunities to (as explained by
some of the head teachers) expand their horizons and enrich their
worldviews. Having characters from diverse lingua-cultural backgrounds
does provide students with a view that English is not only spoken by one
particular speech community, but by people from all walks of life.
However, these texts and characters need to be presented in a nonethnocentric and non-deficit way. If the characters and readings are
presented in a way that could be interpreted as disrespectful or patronising,
teachers would need to invite students to critically question the discourse
and the ways the characters are presented so that, supported by Kubota and
Austin (2007), students do not internalise what is presented, and accept
them as the 'truth'. Professional and internationally-orientated language
educators certainly do not desire their students to be ethnocentric, to grow
disrespectful for others, and to develop an inferiority complex, but to
become open-minded and ethical twenty-first century citizens who can
function effectively in today's social and professional settings that are
international/intercultural in nature.

References
Arun, S. & Van de Water, J. (1992) The need for a definition of
International education in US universities. In Klasher, C.B. (ed.)
Bridges to the Future: Strategies for internationalising higher
education. Carbondale: The AIEA
Bloch, B. & Starks, D. (1999) The many faces of English: intra-language
variation and its implications for international business, Corporate
Communications: An international journal, 4 (2), 80-88.
Briguglio, C. (2007) Educating the business graduate of the 21st century:
communication for a globalised world. International Journal of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19, 8-20.
Canagarajah, S. (1999) Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English
Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Questioning the International of International Teaching Materials

97

Crystal, D. (1997) English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Datta, T.K. (1939) What English Education Has made of us. Lahore:
Doaba.
Graddol, D. (2006) English Next: why global English may mean the end of
English as a foreign language. British Council publication.
Gray, J. (2002) The global course book in English language teaching, In
D.Block & D.Cameron (eds.), Globalization and Language Teaching,
London: Routledge, pp. 151-167.
Jenkins, J. (2003) World Englishes: A resource book for students.
London/New York: Routledge.
Knight, J. (1997) Internationalisation of higher education: A conceptual
framework. In J. Knight and H. de Wit (Eds.), Internationalisation of
Higher Education in Asia Pacific countries (pp. 519). Amsterdam:
European Association for International Education.
Knight, J. (2004) Internationalization remodelled: Definition, approaches,
and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5
31.
Knight J. and De Wit (1997) Internationalisation of higher education: a
conceptual framework. In Knight J. and De Wit (eds.)
Internationalisation of Higher Education in Asia Pacific Countries.
Amsterdam: The EAIE
Kubota, R., & Austin, T. (2007) Critical approaches to world language
education in the United States: An introduction, Critical Inquiry in
Language Studies, 4 (2-3), 73-83.
Magnan, M. (2012) Internationalisation of European Higher Education.
Amsterdam: The EAIE
Manara, C. (2007) The Use of L1 Support: Teachers' and Students'
Opinions and Practices in an Indonesian Context, The Journal of Asia
TEFL, 4 (1), 145-178.
Marlina, R. (2010) Teachers of Englishes, English Teaching Professional,
Issue 66, p.47-49, Keyways Publishing: Chichester.
. (2011) Its like umI cant explainwhatever: Multiculturalism
and My-culturalism in English classes. In N.T. Zacharias & C. Manara
(eds.). Bringing Linguistics and Literature into EFL Classrooms,
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Publishing Scholars.
Matsuda, A. (2002) International understanding through teaching world
Englishes. World Englishes, 21 (3), 436-440.
. (2003) Incorporating World Englishes in Teaching English as an
International Language. TESOL Quarterly, 37 (4), 710-729.

98

Chapter Six

. (2005) Preparing future users of English as an International language.

In A. Burns (eds.), Teaching English from a global perspective: Case
studies in TESOL series, Alexandria: TESOL, pp.63-72.
McKay, S.L. (2003) EIL Curriculum Development. RELC Journal, 34
(1), 31-47.
McKay, S.L. & Bokhorst-Heng, W.D. (2008) International English in its
sociolinguistic contexts: Towards a socially sensitive EIL pedagogy.
London: Routledge.
McKay, S.L. (2012) Teaching materials for English as an International
Language. In A. Matsuda (ed.) Teaching English as an International
Language: Principles and Practices. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Smith, L. (1976) English as an International Auxiliary Language, RELC
Journal, Vol 7 (2), December.
Smith, D.L. (2003) Essay: Confessions of a Native Speaker. Asian
Englishes, 6 (1), 92-96.
Stevenson, L.G. (1994) Formation of professional values towards Europe:
the role of professional education and organisation. Higher Education
Policy, 7(3), 27-33
Trevaskes, S., Eisenchlas, S., & Liddicoat, A.J. (2003) Australian
Perspectives on Internationalising Education. Melbourne: Language
Australia.
Welch (1998) Going Global? Internationalising Australian Universities in
a Time of Global Crisis. Auckland: The ANZCIES Conference.

CHAPTER SEVEN
NESTS AND NNESTS AT AN ISLAMIC HIGHER
INSTITUTION IN INDONESIA:
IS THE FORMER BETTER THAN THE LATTER?
RAHMILA MURTIANA

Introduction
Despite the fact that more than 80 per cent of all English teachers in the
world are non-native English speaker teachers (NNESTs) (Canagarajah,
1999), NNESTs are still widely considered less qualified than native
English speaker teachers (NESTs) in teaching English. This dichotomy of
NESTs and NNESTs has raised a number of interesting debates over the
last few decades. Many have argued that comparing them is irrelevant
these days (Brown, 2007). However, in practice, different attitudes toward
NESTs and NNESTs cannot be avoided, and the discrimination between
the two is still very much observed, not only in inner circles or outer
circles but also in expanding circle countries such as Indonesia.
In some countries, NEST and NNEST discrimination is obvious from
the way certain institutions recruit teachers. In China, Korea, or Japan,
language institutions and universities prefer to hire NES even though they
do not have teaching qualification (Kirkpatrick, 2007). In the U.S., the
number of NNESTs employed in intensive language programmes at
universities is much lower than NESTs, not only because NESTs
outnumber NNESTs in the pool of candidates but also because native
speaker status is the important criterion for being hired (Braine, 2010).
The other issue is salary. In Indonesia, that NESTs receive a higher rate of
payment is commonly known; they are mostly hired by so-called
international schools, and, compared to NNESTs who work at public
schools, the salary of NESTs is much higher. Braine (2010) quoted from
Transition Abroad that foreign teachers receive ten times local wage
(p.12). This situation is not only disadvantagious to NNESTs, but also to

100

Chapter Seven

the learners because the institutions that hire NESTs usually charge higher
fees (McKay, 2002). All of this shows how NNESTs have been treated as
having a lower status than NESTs.
More questions arise in relation to the position of NNESTs in their
own country. Has the existence of NESTs challenged or threatened the
status of NNESTs? The fact is that in most learning and teaching
activities, students meet and interact more with NNESTs. Will NNESTs be
able to achieve the same competence as NESTs so that NNESTs could
achieve the same status as NESTs? If not, what should NNESTs do to
raise their status? Several studies have been conducted about NNEST
issues, mostly from inner circle contexts, such as studies by Thomas
(1999), Ferguson (2005), Han (2005), Llurda (2005, as cited in Moussu &
Llurda, 2008), and Shin (2008). A few are found in the context of outer
and expanding circles such as studies by Braine about NNESTs in
Malaysia and China, and NNESTs in Hong Kong conducted by Cheung
(2002, as cited in Braine, 2010). These studies mostly examined the
attitude of students towards NESTs and NNESTs and what aspects
influenced their preference.
To learn further about the issues and challenges faced by both NESTs
teaching in a foreign country and NNESTs teaching in their own country,
particularly in Indonesia, I conducted this small-scale research. The main
aim of this study is to investigate the students perceptions of NESTs and
NNESTs with regard to their roles in helping the students improve their
English. The study also aims to gain information about students
expectations toward NESTs and NNESTs. I generated my research
questions as follows:
1. What are the students perceptions of NESTs and NNESTs?
2. What are the students views on their ability and knowledge in
English after being taught by NESTs?
3. What are the students expectations regarding the roles of NESTs
and NNESTs in helping them improve their skills in English?
To address these questions, the next section begins with a discussion of
relevant literature on the issue of NESTs and NNESTs, followed by the
section on research methodology and research findings. The paper will
conclude with some major points from the research findings and
recommendations related to English teacher education and professional
development.

NESTs and NNESTs at an Islamic Higher Institution in Indonesia

101

The Native Speaker Fallacy

The dichotomy of NEST and NNEST occurs because of native
speaker fallacy, that is, an assumption that the NEST is the ideal teacher
(Phillipson, 1992). In terms of physical appearance, NESTs are often
referred to those coming from western countries, having fair skin and
blonde hair. In terms of language proficiencies, NESTs are assumed to
possess the ability to use idiomatic expressions and speak fluent English
because they are the owners (Samimy & Brutt-Griffler, 1999) and are
considered to have first-hand knowledge (Kirkpatrick, 2007) of the
language. Aside from these perceived linguistic proficiencies, NESTs are
also assumed to possess the knowledge of cultural connotations of English
(Phillipson, 1992). Since the teaching of English is believed to
automatically involve the teaching of English culture, NESTs are
considered to be the perfect teachers of it. Because of these perceived
advantages, NESTs are often positioned as more valuable than NNESTs,
and are able to occupy the central position in English learning and
teaching all over the world.
However, several studies have shown that there are also some
circumstances where NESTs may fail to meet learners expectations. For
example, in an English class in China, the students think that their NESTs
did not teach writing effectively (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996). This is because
the students perceptions of writing discourse, process, and organization
were different from the teachers. A study conducted on Korean students
studying in Australia revealed that they viewed their NESTs negatively
because they lacked understanding of Korean culture. The students
expected their NESTs to be more concerned about their learning
difficulties, and even should have knowledge of their language (Han,
2005).

NNEST and students perceptions

The dichotomy of NESTs and NNESTs mostly brings disadvantages to
NNESTs. Compared to NESTs, NNESTs may be portrayed as having a lot
of weaknesses, which in turn may affect their confidence when teaching
English. A correlational study conducted by Reeves and Medgyes (1994,
as cited in Samimy & Brutt-Griffler, 1999) showed that there is a
relationship between the teachers proficiency and their self-image.
NNESTs who do not have a very good command of English, especially in
oral proficiency, mostly possess a low self-image, and this influences the
way they teach.

102

Chapter Seven

Besides struggling with their own self-perceptions, NNESTs also have

to face the learners perceptions. Learners often prefer to be taught by
NESTs from whom they can get the perfect model. The unpleasant
experiences of NNESTs in dealing with learners expectations are even
more apparent when they teach in an inner circle country. Take for
example Jacinta Thomas (1999), a NNEST from India who taught English
in the U.S. Despite her Ph.D. qualification and seven years teaching
experience, she was regarded as a not-so-good teacher. At first, her
students even doubted whether she was the English teacher because of her
physical appearance. At the end of the semester, in the evaluation sheets
the students actually complimented her teaching ability, but they still
thought that it would have been better if the teacher had been a NES. This
implied that students still perceived a NES as the ideal English teacher.

NNESTs and English language learning

Concerning the dichotomized position of NESTs and NNESTs in
English language teaching and learning practices, Cook (1999) has
questioned the role of NES as the model for L2 learners. He argued that
people cannot be expected to conform to the norm of another group to
which they do not belong (p.197). He reminded us of Labovs classic
argument that one group should not be measured against the norm of
another, and this includes language users. Unfortunately, many learners
and teachers generally have a belief that language learning should be set in
accordance with the standard of its NES. As a result, when L2 users
grammar, vocabulary, or pronunciation is different from those of L1 users,
they are treated as a mistake or a failure (Cook, 1999).
In an attempt to acknowledge the advantages possessed by L2 users,
Cook (1999) has put forward the term multi-competence users to refer to
those who have the knowledge of more than one language, and this
includes the first language, the interlanguage and the second language.
The implication of multi-competence for language teaching is that the goal
of language teaching is not to make students become native-like or to
reproduce a NES, but rather to produce successful L2 users (Cook, 2007).
Supporting Cooks argument, McKay (2003) has criticized the traditional
practices of ELT which maintain the NESs proficiency and inner circle
norms as the reference for second language learning. English teaching and
learning in the expanding circles has different functions from that in the
inner and outer circles, and it is therefore right for the users to establish
their own norms (McKay, 2003). In line with McKays opinion,
Canagarajah (2006) asserts that language norms are relative, variable, and

NESTs and NNESTs at an Islamic Higher Institution in Indonesia

103

heterogeneous, and a proficient speaker of English today needs to shuttle

between different communities (p.18). In other words, in todays
globalization era where English is used for both intranational and
international communication, the goal of ELT needs to enable the users to
navigate themselves when interacting in various discourse communities.
NNESTs role and position are thus challenged to move beyond the
NES model and promote to learners various ways of using English for
successful communication. NNESTs as multi-competence language users
should not doubt that they will be able to take up this challenge. Many
NNESTs might have been worried about their competence; however,
Medgyes (1992, 2006) is convinced that NNESTs possess a number of
assets. Those assets are: 1) NNESTs are models of successful language
learners; 2) NNESTs can teach learning strategies more effectively since
NNESTs learn the language through a conscious process; 3) NNESTs can
provide learners with more information about English language because
NNESTs have learned English from scratch; 4) NNESTs are more able to
anticipate learner difficulties; 5) NNESTs tend to be more empathetic to
the students problems and needs; and 6) NNESTs can benefit from using
the same L1 as the students.
The use of L1 is believed to make the teaching and learning process
more successful. Harbord (1992) approves of the use of L1 judiciously in a
second language classroom and calls it a humanistic approach because it
can facilitate communication as well as rapport between learners and
teacher. Learners are given the opportunity to switch to L1 when they have
difficulties in finding the correct expression in English, so they will be less
fearful of making mistakes. Also, when NNESTs use L1 to explain
difficult language items such as grammar patterns or certain expressions,
the lesson can be easier to grasp. An experimental study conducted by
Miles (2004), which compared English-only classes and classes where L1
was allowed, revealed that the use of L1 did not hinder learning, but it
even facilitated the learning process.
Having the same L1 can also mean having the same background in
culture, habits, or perspectives. NNESTs are able to understand learners
behaviour in the class, for example, why learners seem passive or do not
ask questions, which might be more difficult for NESTs (Cortazzi & Jin,
1996). Also, NNESTs will understand the way learners respond to
particular topics such as womens roles, family values, religious issues, or
norms in their society. Being aware of these issues, I was motivated to
investigate how students perceive NESTs and NNESTs in my own specific
contextat an Islamic Higher Institution in Indonesia. The following

104

Chapter Seven

section introduces the methodology and specific context in which the

study was conducted.

Methodology
This study was carried out at Tarbiyah Faculty (Faculty of Education
and Teacher Training) at an Islamic Higher Institution in South
Kalimantan, Indonesia. The faculty has several study programmes
including an Islamic Education Department, Mathematics Department,
Arabic Department, and English Department. The lecturers at the English
Department are all NNESTs, most of them having obtained English
teaching qualifications from local universities, and a few from universities
abroad. Some lecturers have non-linear qualification, such as a Bachelors
degree in English teaching but a Masters degree in management or
Islamic studies.
For three academic years, 2007 to 2010, the English Department had
an opportunity to host three different NES lecturers from the U.S. with
Masters degrees in TESOL, through the ELF (English Language Fellow)
programme funded by the U.S embassy. This programme enables higher
institutions across provinces in Indonesia to have a NEST as their guest
lecturer. Based on this experience, I was interested in investigating how
the students at the English department perceived NESTs and NNESTs.
A quantitative methodology with a survey design had been chosen as
the research approach. For the instrument, a questionnaire was used to
identify and measure the attitudes of the participants toward the given
topic. The items in the questionnaire were designed and developed based
on the ideas proposed by Medgyes (1992) and Timmis (2002) who
conducted research on a similar topic but administered it to a number of
teachers and students. While Medgyes attempted to get an overall view on
assets possessed by NNESTs, Timmis research focused more on whether
students and teachers must conform to NES norms.
The questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first part asked about
the participants personal background, the second part consisted of 30-item
statements using the Likert scale, and the third part consisted of three
open-ended questions asking the participants opinion about, and
expectation of, NEST and NNEST. The 30-item statements were given
values, 1 for strongly disagree (SD), 2 for disagree (D), 3 for unsure (U), 4
for agree (A), and 5 for strongly agree (SA), whereas for negative
statement items, the reverse scaling was used (DeVellis, 2003).
The participants for this research were purposely selected through
convenience sampling. Convenience sampling is a way of selecting the

NESTs and NNESTs at an Islamic Higher Institution in Indonesia

105

participants who are willing and available to be studied, although they

cannot be said to be representative of the population (Creswell, 2008).
Two classes were deliberately selected, based on the consideration that the
students had been taught by the NEST for the whole semester, while in the
other classes the NEST only came to teach once or twice during a
semester. A total of 58 respondents were gathered, with the distribution of
44 females and 14 males.
Since this research used a survey design which describes trends and
general tendencies to a single variable or question, descriptive statistics
were used in analyzing the result. Descriptive analysis of the data was
done on a variable-by-variable basis and involved analyzing the means,
standard deviation, and frequency distribution (Punch, 2009). Besides
indicating general tendencies of the data such as mean, mode, median, and
the spread of scores, descriptive statistics can help the researcher to
summarize the overall trends in the data (Creswell, 2008) for this
particular teaching context.

Findings
Students perception of NESTs
Based on the students responses, it is evident that most of them favour
a NEST as their teacher. The majority of the students responses falls
between agree (48.3 per cent) and strongly agree (37.9 per cent) to the
statement in item 1, that is, having a NEST is a must if they want to be
successful in learning English. Only about 3 per cent of the respondents
disagree, and about 10 per cent feel unsure. This finding is supported by
the response of students to the statement in item 2, in which most of the
students believe that learning English with a NEST is more effective, with
nearly 52 per cent of the respondents agreeing, and nearly 40 per cent
strongly agreeing, with the statement. This opinion might be related to the
students view that a NEST is the ideal model in terms of speaking skill.
More than 46 per cent of the students strongly agree and 31 per cent agree
that they want to be able to speak like a NES (item 10). Besides being an
ideal model, a NEST is also able to increase students motivation and
make students become more interested in learning English (item 9), with
34 students or 58.6 per cent agreeing and 10.3 per cent strongly agreeing
with the statement.
Interestingly, when the students were asked whether a NEST has better
teaching method and techniques, 32.8 per cent of students felt unsure, the
same number of students as those who agreed, while 19 per cent of the

Chapter Seven

106

Table 1. Students perceptions of NESTs

Item
No
1

10

Statement
Having a native
speaker is a
must if we want
to be successful
in learning
English.
Learning
English with a
native speaker
is more
effective.
A native
speaker has
better methods
and techniques
in teaching than
a non-native
speaker
A native
speaker teacher
is more
approachable
than a nonnative teacher
Native speaker
is the best
teacher
My interest
toward English
language has
increased
because of a
native speaker
When I speak, I
want to sound
like a native
speaker

*SD = Strongly Disagree

SA=Strongly Agree

SD

SA

2
(3.4
per
cent)

6
(10.3
per
cent)

28
(48.3
per
cent)

22
(37.9
per
cent)

4.21

Std.
deviation
.767

1
(1.7
per
cent)

4
(6.9
per
cent)

30
(51.7
per
cent)

23
(39.7
per
cent)

4.29

.676

1
(1.7
per
cent)

11
(19
per
cent)

19
(32.8
per
cent)

19
(32.8
per
cent)

7
(12.1
per
cent)

3.35

.981

1
(1.7
per
cent)

14
(24.1
per
cent)

20
(34.5
per
cent)

17
(29.3
per
cent)

6
(10.3
per
cent)

3.22

.982

4
(6.9
per
cent)
1
(1.7
per
cent)

6
(10.3
per
cent)
4
(6.9
per
cent)

25
(43.1
per
cent)
12
(20.7
per
cent)

14
(24.1
per
cent)
34
(58.6
per
cent)

9
(15.5
per
cent)
6
(10.3
per
cent)

3.31

1.079

3.70

.823

1
(1.7
per
cent)

12
(20.7
per
cent)

18
(31
per
cent)

27
(46.6
per
cent)

4.22

.839

D= Disagree

U= Unsure

Mean

A=Agree

NESTs and NNESTs at an Islamic Higher Institution in Indonesia

107

students disagreed with the statement. This almost equal distribution

implies that a NEST is not necessarily considered to excel in terms of
teaching techniques compared to NNESTs. In addition, although a NEST
is preferred by many students, only 24 per cent of students agreed that a
NEST is the best teacher, while the majority of students (42 per cent) felt
unsure. The following table summarizes the participants perception of
NESTs.
The descriptive statistics shows that the highest mean was gained by
statement in item 2, implying that most respondents agreed that learning
English with a NEST is more effective (M = 4.29). The standard deviation
of this item was also not very high (SD = .676), which implies that most
respondents have a similar opinion on the item.

Students perceptions of their ability and knowledge after being

taught by NESTs
Based on student responses, findings show that students are still not
confident with their ability in English despite their experience of having
learned English from a NEST. About 24 per cent of students feel unsure,
and about 43 per cent do not feel confident, with their ability. The issue of
intelligibility seems to be the students concern when practicing or
communicating with a NEST. Although a majority of students (nearly 57
per cent) feel at ease practicing their English with a NEST, many of them
(43 per cent) still feel nervous when they have to practice their English
with a NEST.
The above situation might happen because the students have failed to
make themselves understood owing to lack of vocabulary. They might
also have little knowledge of communicative strategies and fear that their
NEST would misunderstand what they said since they have a distinct
accent or could not switch into L1 as they normally do with NNESTs.
From the students responses to the open-ended questions in item 1, it is
evident that students were not always able to achieve successful
communication with a NEST, either because their NEST talked too fast, or
the students could not find the right way to convey what they meant. The
following are some excerpts from the students responses which were
written in English.
What I dislike is they can't understand me as well as non-native [English]
teachers(Student 1)
I dislike when I do not understand with what they say. (Student 2)

108

Chapter Seven
Sometimes I find difficulties to convey what I ask and mean when I can't
find the right way to tell it. (Student 3)
I dislike because sometimes they are so fast to speak English. (Student 4)

These responses challenge the NESTs role in helping students to be

successful in using English. Furthermore, nearly 40 per cent feel unsure of
the statement that their English ability would not have become as good as
now without a NESTs help. About 38 per cent of the students agreed, and
if that is combined with those who strongly agree, it is still lower than the
percentage of students who feel unsure, disagree, and strongly disagree.
This almost equal strand of responses means that the students feel that the
chance to be successful in learning English does not necessarily depend on
whether the teacher is a NES or not.
Regarding cultural knowledge, which cannot be separated from
learning a language, nearly 59 per cent of the students agreed that being
taught by a NEST has made them become more aware of western culture
and understand it better. However, there are a few students who
disapproved of the culture or habits of NESTs such as their clothing, their
attitudes, or the way they talked, as expressed in the following.
..sometimes native [English] speaker doesn't know about our culture and
habit... (Student 5)
I dislike native [English] speaker because they don't have politeness.
(Student 6)
They have amazing skills and understanding about English, but sometimes
they brought the different culture in our class, such as their clothes and
attitude, this why sometimes I dislike native [English] speaker. (Student 7)

These responses might be generated from the students comparison of

their own customs with those of NESTs. For example, female students at
an Islamic institution have to wear a hijab (a female Muslim attire
covering the whole body except hand and face), and therefore it is quite an
unfamiliar sight to see the female NEST wearing no hijab. This difference
may create a feeling of discomfort in some students. Another example is
when a student mentioned in her response how she dislikes the teacher
sitting on the table while teaching. To her, this is considered to be
impolite in her culture. Thus, it seems that the students are not accustomed
yet to a different culture brought by a NEST.
The following table summarizes the participants perceptions of their
English ability after being taught by NESTs.

NESTs and NNESTs at an Islamic Higher Institution in Indonesia

109

Table 2. Students perceptions of their English ability after being

taught by NESTs
Item
No
7

11

12

13

Statement

SD

SA

Mean

My English
would not be as
good as now
without the
help of a native
speaker
I feel at ease
when practicing
my English
with a native
speaker
My awareness
and
understanding
toward western
culture have
increased after
learning from a
native speaker
I feel nervous
when practicing
my English
with native
speakers
because I am
afraid they
would not
understand me
Although I
have learned
from a native
speaker, I am
still not
confident with
my ability

1
(1.7
per
cent)

8
(13.8
per
cent)

23
(39.7
per
cent)

22
(37.9
per
cent)

4
(6.9
per
cent)

3.34

Std.
deviation
.870

1
(1.7
per
cent)

3
(5.2
per
cent)

18
(31
per
cent)

33
(56.9
per
cent)

3
(5.2
per
cent)

3.59

.750

1
(1.7
per
cent)

7
(12.1
per
cent)

9
(15.5
per
cent)

33
(56.9
per
cent)

6
(10.3
per
cent)

3.64

.903

1
(1.7
per
cent)

5
(8.6
per
cent)

13
(22.4
per
cent)

25
(43.1
per
cent)

14
(24.1
per
cent)

3.79

.969

1
(1.7
per
cent)

13
(22.4
per
cent)

14
(24.1
per
cent)

25
(43.1
per
cent)

5
(8.6
per
cent)

3.34

.973

*SD = Strongly Disagree

SA=Strongly Agree

D= Disagree

U= Unsure

A=Agree

The table shows that the means for all variables are below 4. As
mentioned in the methodology section, the value given for agree is 4, and
the value for unsure is 3. The result therefore indicates that the opinions
fall slightly from agree to unsure. In other words, the students are not

110

Chapter Seven

certain whether a NEST has a great impact on their language learning

success, and there might be other factors contributing to the students
knowledge and ability in English.

Students perception of NNESTs

Despite the findings that students mostly like to be taught by a NEST
and view a NEST as an important and good model, most of the students
believe that NNESTs can also have competence and proficiency like a
NEST. More than 50 per cent of the students even agreed with the
statement that a NNEST can be the better model of a successful language
learner, which supports the notion from Medgyes (2006). In addition to
being a model of a successful learner, the skills and competence of
NNESTs can inspire the students to achieve the same competence or even
better, with 60.3 per cent of the students agreeing and nearly 26 per cent
strongly agreeing with this statement.
Another positive perception toward NNESTs is about the ability of
NNESTs in anticipating students learning difficulties. The majority of
the students (62.1 per cent) think that NNESTs are more able to anticipate
their difficulties in learning. Again, these data support Medgyess notion
about the assets of NNESTs. However, many students still doubt whether
NNESTs can teach learning strategy more effectively. Although nearly
44.8 per cent agree with this, the high percentage of the unsure response
(43 per cent) shows the doubt of the students.
The next finding is that NNESTs understand students habits and
behaviour more than NESTs do (item 20), with nearly 57 per cent of the
students agreeing with the statement. The fact that NNESTs can
understand the habit and behaviour of the students is because NNESTs
come from the same cultural background as the students. Besides,
students have interacted with NNESTs longer than they have with NESTs.
Furthermore, nearly 57 per cent of the students agree that the way
NNESTs teach and talk is easier to understand (item 15). This is
reasonable because NNESTs have the same L1 and therefore have an
accent similar to that of the students.
The ability of NNESTs in using the same L1 with the students has
been proven as an advantage of being NNESTs. The response to item 23
showed 54 per cent agreed and 17 per cent strongly agreed. Meanwhile,
for item 27, 51.7 per cent of the students agreed if their NNESTs used
their mother tongue while teaching, particularly in explaining difficult
terms. Overall responses of students regarding their perceptions of the
NNESTs are presented in table 3.

NESTs and NNESTs at an Islamic Higher Institution in Indonesia

111

Table 3. Students perceptions of NNESTs

Item
No
14

15

16

17

18

19

20

22

Statement
In my view, nonnative teachers can
teach learning
strategy more
effectively
The way non-native
teachers talk and
teach is easier to
understand
Non-native
teachers are more
able to anticipate
my difficulties in
learning
Non-native
teachers show more
empathy toward my
learning problems
than native speaker
teachers do
I believe that nonnative speaker
teachers can be the
better model of a
successful language
learner
Non-native
teachers of English
can also have
competence and
proficiency like a
native speaker
Non-native
teachers understand
my habits and
behavior more than
native speakers do
The skills and the
success of nonnative teachers
inspire me to
achieve the same or
even better
competence than
theirs

SD

SA

Mean

3
(5.2
per
cent)

25
(43.1
per
cent)

26
(44.8
per
cent)

4
(6.9
per
cent)

3.53

Std.
deviation
.706

3
(5.2
per
cent)
2
(3.4
per
cent)

4
(6.9
per
cent)
11
(19
per
cent)

33
(56.9
per
cent)
36
(62.1
per
cent)

8
(13.8
per
cent)
8
(13.8
per
cent)

3.79

.744

3.88

.683

10
(17.2
per
cent)

21
(36.2
per
cent)

23
(39.7
per
cent)

3
(5.2
per
cent)

3.33

.831

3
(5.2
per
cent)

17
(29.3
per
cent)

28
(48.3
per
cent)

8
(13.8
per
cent)

3.73

.774

4
(6.9
per
cent)

37
(63.8
per
cent)

16
(27.6
per
cent)

4.16

.696

1
(1.7
per
cent)
1
(1.7
per
cent)

3
(5.2
per
cent)

12
(20.7
per
cent)

33
(56.9
per
cent)

9
(15.5
per
cent)

3.79

.833

1
(1.7
per
cent)

2
(3.4
per
cent)

5
(8.6
per
cent)

35
(60.3
per
cent)

15
(25.9
per
cent)

4.05

.804

Chapter Seven

112
23

27

The ability of nonnative teachers in

using the same
mother tongue as I
do is an advantage
as it can help the
teaching- learning
process to be more
successful
I don't mind if nonnative teachers
occasionally use
their native
language during the
lesson particularly
in explaining
unfamiliar terms

*SD = Strongly Disagree

SA=Strongly Agree

3
(5.2
per
cent)

2
(3.4
per
cent)

11
(19
per
cent)

32
(55.2
per
cent)

10
(17.2
per
cent)

3.76

.961

5
(8.6
per
cent)

20
(34.5
per
cent)

30
(51.7
per
cent)

2
(3.4
per
cent)

3.81

.951

D= Disagree

U= Unsure

A=Agree

The table indicates that the highest mean is achieved by item 19 (M =

4.16), implying that the students believe that NNESTs are very likely to
have a competence equal to NESTs in terms of teaching and language
proficiency. The low standard deviation (SD = .686) also shows that the
majority of the students have a similar opinion on this item.

Students expectations and attitudes toward NESTs

and NNESTs
The responses of participants regarding their expectations and attitudes
toward NESTs and NNESTs are displayed in the following tables.
As mentioned in the previous section, the students difficulty in
understanding a NEST becomes the major concern, because sometimes a
NEST speaks at a pace which students think too fast. Therefore, some
students expect that a NEST can talk slowly. In addition, 58.6 per cent of the
students expected that a NEST could understand their language, and 22.4 per
cent even strongly agreed with item number 5. This is reasonable, as the
explanation by a NEST is not always understood by students, particularly if
students are still unfamiliar with the expressions used.
For NNESTs, students expectations include teaching competence and
professionalism, which the students mention in their response to the openended questions. In addition, many students believe that NNESTs should
improve their language skills by pursuing their higher education in an
English-speaking country, as shown by the response to item 21 where 46.6
per cent agree and 29.3 per cent strongly agree. This may relate to the

NESTs and NNESTs at an Islamic Higher Institution in Indonesia

113

students belief that learning with a NEST is more effective (item 2)

because they can get a good model of pronunciation and expression (item
10), and in the country where English is spoken as the first language,
people can get maximum exposure to English.
However, the students seem to be uncertain about what an ideal
NNEST is and whether their competence can be simply considered as
having achieved a native-like proficiency. This is based on the response to
item 26, where the percentage of students who feel unsure (43.1 per cent)
differs only slightly from the percentage of students who agree (44.8 per
cent). The mean and standard deviation of this item, which are not very
high (M = 3.46 and SD = .683), indicate that students have quite similar
opinions: that being a professional or an ideal teacher is not automatically
equal to having a native-like proficiency. As Brown (2007) and Medgyes
(2006) suggest, there are many other aspects that could be the strong
points of NNESTs.
Table 4. Students expectation toward NESTs and NNESTs
Item
No

Statement

It would be
more helpful if
native speakers
also learn and
understand my
native language
and culture.
To improve
their skills,
non-native
teachers should
pursue their
higher
education in
countries where
English is the
first language.
The ideal nonnative teachers
are those who
have achieved
native-like
proficiency in
English.

21

26

SD

1
(1.7
per
cent)

*SD = Strongly Disagree

SA=Strongly Agree

SA

Mean

Std.
deviation

2
(3.4
per
cent)

7
(12.1
per
cent)

4
(58.6
per
cent)

13
(22.4
per
cent)

4.04

.713

2
(3.4
per
cent)

10
(17.2
per
cent)

27
(46.6
per
cent)

17
(29.3
per
cent)

4.00

.886

4
(6.9
per
cent)

25
(43.1
per
cent)

26
(44.8
per
cent)

2
(3.4
per
cent)

3.46

.683

D= Disagree

U= Unsure

A=Agree

Chapter Seven

114

Table 5. Students attitude toward NESTs and NNESTs

Item
No

Statement

SD

SA

Mean

Std.
deviation

28

I respect nonnative teachers in

the same way I
respect native
speakers.
I always love to
learn English
even if I have not
been taught by a
native speaker.
For me, it does
not matter if
teachers are
native or nonnative as long as
they have a high
level of
proficiency and
professionalism.

1
(1.7
per
cent)

2
(3.4
per
cent)

6
(10.3
per
cent)

27
(46.6
per
cent)

22
(37.9
per
cent)

4.16

.873

2
(3.4
per
cent)

3
(5.2
per
cent)

6
(10.3
per
cent)

24
(41.4)

23
(39.7
per
cent)

4.09

.997

16
(27.6
per
cent)

41
(70.7
per
cent)

4.66

.663

29

30

1
(1.7
per
cent)

*SD = Strongly Disagree

SA=Strongly Agree

D= Disagree

U= Unsure

A=Agree

In addition to students expectations, the students generally perceive

NNESTs positively. The majority of students respect their NNESTs as
much as they respect their NESTs (item 28), with 46.6 per cent agreeing
and 37.9 per cent strongly agreeing. This suggests that the issue of native
and non-nativeness does not necessarily affect students views of the
important roles of teachers in their English language learning. In the
context of Indonesia, particularly in the Islamic educational institution, it
is part of the learning culture to respect the teachers regardless of their
background or ability.
The native and non-nativeness is again considered as unimportant for
the students in learning English due to their high interest in learning the
language (item 29). What is more important for them is the teachers or
lecturers professionalism in teaching the language, such as knowledge of
the subject and the ability to transfer the knowledge to the students (item
30). The high percentage of agree (about 41 per cent) and strongly agree
(nearly 40 per cent) reflects students passion for learning English. Nearly
100 per cent of the students responses fall in the category of agree (27.6
per cent) and strongly agree (70.7 per cent). This suggests that because of
their drive to learn English, students expect teachers who are proficient in

NESTs and NNESTs at an Islamic Higher Institution in Indonesia

their subject knowledge and professional in their teaching.

expectations seem to override the issue of native-speakerism.

115

These

Conclusions and Pedagogical Implications

This research has two major aims: investigating the students
perceptions of NESTs and NNESTs and gaining information about
students expectations towards them. Several conclusions and implications
could be drawn from the research findings. First, despite the fact that there
might still be a subconscious differentiation between NESTs and NNESTs
among the students, the majority of the students considered the issue of
being proficient and professional as more important than the status of
being a NEST or NNEST. Second, although NESTs are assumed to have
particular strengths that make them seem superior to NNESTs, students
greatly expect NESTs to appreciate and understand the students local
culture and to have a higher level of language awareness when they are
teaching and use intelligible English in the classroom. On the other hand,
NNESTs may be seen as inferior in terms of their language proficiency;
however, the students believe that NNESTs have potentials or strengths
which NESTs do not have.
The implication of these findings suggest that rising concepts in the
development of Englishes (such as World Englishes or EIL) and the issue
of NESTs and NNESTs should be included as part of the curriculum in
language teacher education, either pre-service or in-service. The purpose
would be: 1) to de-construct the binary view of teaching professionals in
English Language Teaching (NESTs vs. NNESTs); 2) to bring about and
reinforce the potential of NNESTs in their teaching profession; 3) to boost
the confidence of NNESTs and ensure their identity among all teachers of
English in the world; and 4) to make NNESTs more aware of the issue of
World Englishes, and to avoid being fanatic about certain English
varieties such as American English or British English while underestimating
other varieties. This is important since many ELT practices, including
those in the context I have been researching, still tend to favour innercircle norms. In fact, it is high time to move away from native-speakerism
towards a more appropriate pedagogical approach.
In the era of EIL, as English has been widely used by people from
different first language backgrounds, researchers such as McKay (2002,
2003), Seidlhofer (2004), Jenkins (2006), Clyne and Sharifian (2008)
agree that there is a strong need to accommodate and develop ones own
norms rather than continue to depend on NES norms. This is because
English has a great diversity of contexts and sociolinguistic complexity

116

Chapter Seven

which requires more understanding of the pluricentricity of English, and

instructions should focus on intercultural communication, pragmatic, and
conceptual variation (Clyne & Sharifian, 2008, p.12). This is the
challenge for teacher education programmes in expanding circles, such as
in Indonesia, to positively respond to this call by including EIL as part of
the courses, thereby maximizing the potential of NNESTs. As Llurda
(2009) has argued, NNESTs are more suitable for promoting EIL, and the
choice of EIL as the target paradigm can really empower NNESTs
(p.122). In other words, the EIL paradigm can give NNESTs the authority
to teach the language using appropriate pedagogy, which in turn will raise
their position and status as English teachers.
This research is a small-scale survey in a particular teaching context.
Therefore, it does not claim to represent the whole Indonesian context. I
hope that this research can motivate more Indonesian scholars in their own
teaching setting to conduct similar research to find out how widely-spread
this native-speakerism ideology is in Indonesia and raise readers
awareness of this hidden ideology. Further research could look into
professional development within the framework of EIL, which should
involve the teachers themselves as the participants and include a more
rigorous method such as interviews and observations on the teachinglearning process. It is hoped that more research in this area could help to
fill in the gap and reduce the scarcity of literature in expanding-circle
teaching contexts.

References
Braine, G. (2010). Nonnative Speaker English Teachers: Research,
Pedagogy, and Professional Growth. New York: Routledge.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson Education Inc.
Cook, V. J. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185-209.
. (2007). The goals of ELT: reproducing native-speakers or promoting
multi-competence among second language users? In J. Cummins & C.
Davison (eds). Handbook on English Language Teaching(pp. 237248). Kluwer.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Interrogating the "Native-Speaker Fallacy":
Non-Linguistic Roots, Non-Pedagogigal Results. In G. Braine (Ed.),
Non-Native Educators in English Language Teaching (pp. 77-92).
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum associates.

NESTs and NNESTs at an Islamic Higher Institution in Indonesia

117

. (2006). TESOL at Forty: What Are the Issues? TESOL

Quarterly.40(1), 9-34.
Clyne, M. G., & Sharifian, F. (2008). English as an International
Language: Challenges and possibilities. Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics, 31(3), 28.1-28.16.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of Learning: Language
Classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the Language
Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Application (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.
Ferguson, A. (2005). Student Beliefs about Their Foreign Language
Instructors: A Look at The Native Speaker/Non-native Speaker Issue.
Unpublished Dissertation, University of Arizona. Retrieved May 11,
2012, from
http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/195777/1/a
zu_etd_1124_sip1_m.pdf
Han, S.-A. (2005). Good teachers know where to scratch when learners
feel itchy: Korean learners' views on native-speaking teachers of
English. Australian Journal of Education, 49(2), 197-213.
Harbord, J. (1992). The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELT
Journal, 46(4), 350-355.
Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and
English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly 40(1), 157-181.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (1999). Preparing Non-Native Professional in TESOL:
Implications for Teacher Education Programme. In G. Braine (Ed.),
Non-Native Educators in English Language Teaching (pp. 145-158).
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international
communication and English language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Llurda, E. (2009) Attitudes towards English as an International language:
the pervasiveness of native models among L2 users and teachers, in F.
Sharifian (Ed.), English as an International Language: Perspectives and
Pedagogical Issues (pp.119-134). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an International Language:
Rethinking Goals and Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

118

Chapter Seven

. (2003). Toward an appropriate EIL pedagogy: re-examining common

ELT assumptions.International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1),
122.
Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or Non-Native: Who's Worth More? ELT
Journal, 46(4), 340-349.
. (2006). When the Teacher is a Non-Native Speaker. In M. CelceMurcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp.
429-442). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Reseach Press.
Miles, Richard. (2004). Evaluating the use of L1 in the English Language
Classroom. Unpublished dissertation. University of Birmingham.
Retrieved January 20, 2012,
fromhttp://www.bhamlive3.bham.ac.uk/Documents/collegeartslaw/cels/essays/matefltesldissertations/Milesdiss.pdf.
Moussu, L. & Llurda, E. (2008). Non-native English-speaking English
language teachers: Historyand research. Language Teaching, 41(3),
315-348
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford Unviersity
Press.
Punch, K. F. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods in Education.
London: Sage Publication Ltd.
Samimy, K. K., & Brutt-Griffler, J. (1999). To be a Native or Non-Native
Speaker: Perceptions of "Non-Native" Students in a Graduate TESOL
Programme. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-Native Educators in English
Language Teaching (pp. 127-144). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a
lingua franca.Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209239.
Shin, S. J. (2008). Preparing Non-native English Speaking ESL Teachers.
Teacher Development, 12(1), 57-65
Thomas, J. (1999). Voices from the Periphery: Non-Native Teachers and
Issues of Credibility. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-Native Educators in
English Language Teaching (pp. 5-13). Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Timmis, I. (2002). Native-Speaker Norms and International English: A
Classroom View. ELT Journal, 56(3), 240-249.

CHAPTER EIGHT
CULTURAL CONCEPTS AND EIL:
THE CASE OF THE REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI
INDIKA LIYANAGE AND TONY WALKER

Introduction
Its a typical sunny day in equatorial Kiribati1 and shards of sunlight are
cutting through the palm-thatched roof, dappling the cement floor of the
classroom. The usual complement of desks and chairs straggled before a
2
chalkboard are vacant apart from a young i-Kiribati woman who sits
facing a white woman. On the desk between them are papers, a cassette
recorder and a clock. An interview is about to begin. The first questions
are intended to be straightforward, to introduce the candidate, to establish
a little rapport between interviewer and interviewee: First of all Im going
to ask you a few questions about yourself. The young woman smiles and
nods: Okay, she replies confidently. Can you, the interviewer asks,
describe your family home?

The young woman in this vignette is Teitia3, an 18-year-old i-Kiribati

who has travelled from an outer island of the Pacific nation to make the
most of an opportunity to change her life and the future of her family and
community. She is the recipient of a comprehensive scholarship and has
been studying hard to complete an English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
course. If she is successful, she will be able to travel to Australia to
undertake tertiary education.
Can you, she was asked, describe your family home? Surely this is a
question that Teitia should be able to answer with ease in the interview
conducted as a classroom activity, described above. Yet there is a problem.
Her answer is coherent and relatively fluent, but the content is not aligned
1

Pronounced keer-ah-bhass
The people of Kiribati
3
Not the young womans real name
2

120

Chapter Eight

with the expectations of the interviewer. Experiences such as this

reminded us that language embodies cultural concepts based on
experiences of its users over time (Sharifian, 2003), and prompted us to
ask the research question that guided our study: When concepts that are
used in English Language Teaching (ELT) resources and objects of its
assessment are assumed as having shared meanings globally across all
users of the English language, can they present difficulties in contexts
where English is used as an International Language (EIL)? In this chapter
we discuss, through classroom data collected from a geopolitically remote
island nation, the implications for EIL pedagogy of incongruence between
Centre English language conceptions and local English language use in
periphery contexts. We identify the implications for teaching materials and
for high stakes testing of periphery English users, and argue the necessity
for re-conceptualising the role of culture in EIL pedagogy to recognize the
importance of grounded realities of language users. We begin, however,
with a consideration of the place of culture in EIL pedagogy and of how
this can be informed by understandings of cultural conceptualisations.

EIL pedagogy
Contributions to this volume, capturing emergent and dynamic
responses to the concept of EIL pedagogy, are clear illustrations of how
the consequences of the global spread of English as investigated from
local to international contexts raised the issues of models, norms and goals
in language pedagogy as key areas of discussion (Acar, 2006, p. 175). In
one sense, this struggle of ELT to respond to the EIL landscape reflects the
debate over implications of the spread of English. For example, will an
identifiably global standard English emerge (Crystal, 2003), a variety that
can be targeted pedagogically? Or is it more practical to adopt approaches
that conceptualize proficiency as the capacity to negotiate diverse varieties
(Canagarajah, 2006)? In practice, the contexts in which ELT is conducted
outside the English-speaking Centre are complex and diverse, not least
because of historical and social factors related to power and prestige and to
local and geo-political imperatives (see for example Liyanage, 2010;
Mahboob, 2011; Patil, 2007; Zacharias, 2005). McKay (2003) argued that
the teaching of EIL must be informed by the assumption that underpins
conceptualizations of EIL: that, because the language is used in diverse
ways and contexts in the contemporary world, English cannot be regarded
as belonging to any one cultural group or language community. Many
users of English do not aim to, wish to, or need to achieve native-like
proficiency, and attention has moved to accommodation and mutual

Cultural Concepts and EIL: The Case of the Republic of Kiribati

121

intelligibility in intercultural interactions in which English is used (Acar,

2006). Any EIL pedagogy must respond to these circumstances and to
diversity in contexts where English is taught and learned. Amongst the
earliest responses to the changing ELT landscape was the recognition that,
in an EIL paradigm, English language learning was arguably not foreign
language learning, and thus the cultural norms and practices of English use
in the Centre no longer occupied a privileged place in learner needs
(Smith, 1976). Pedagogically, this de-linking (McKay, 2003, p. 19) of
EIL from the cultures of the Centre has focussed on lexical, grammatical,
phonological and pragmatic aspects of language use, and on materials and
methods used in ELT. We advocate deeper exploration of the significance
of culture in an EIL pedagogy, and in doing so, believe it is useful to
locate conceptualizations in the four dimensions of culture relevant to
language learning and teaching identified in the literature (Adaskou,
Britten, & Fahsi, 1990; McKay, 2000):
1. Aestheticlanguage associated with literature, film, and music of a
particular country;
2. Sociologicallanguage linked to customs and institutions of a
country;
3. Semantica cultures conceptual system as expressed in language;
4. Pragmaticcultural norms that influence language appropriacy in
specific contexts.
Our investigation of the potential of cultural conceptualization to be a
source of trouble in language teaching and learning focuses only on the
semantic dimension, the expression of cultural concepts in language in the
Kiribati experience we describe and discuss in this chapter. In a
consideration of how the semantic aspect of culture is evident in ELT,
McKay (2000) associates it with the teaching of lexical items or common
phrases, idiomatic language and terms in which cultural information that
depends upon historical, cultural or sociological knowledge is often
embedded. We argue that this conception of the lexical aspect of culture is
not comprehensive because it fails to acknowledge the fundamental
conceptual variations that can be found in lexical items commonly
assumed to be universal. There is no doubt that examples can be found of
language use that is arguably meaningful across Centre contexts, such as
those McKay suggests of Pandoras box and the Midas touch, as well as
others particular to specific target cultures, for example, yellow journalism
in relation to the USA (McKay, 2000, p. 9). However, such culturally
situated knowledge is relevant to learners only if materials from a target

122

Chapter Eight

culture are used, or if learners plan to travel to the target language

community.
Understandings of the semantic dimension of culture need to be
broadened from the idea of concepts that are unique to particular target
cultures, and thus outside the experience of English language learners, to
include concepts that are more fundamental and apparently universal with
which we might expect learners to already have familiarity. While some
may argue that the teachers role in this regard is to make decisions about
language to be introduced, we suggest that what is involved is language
already deeply embedded in day-to-day ELT. We support our contention
through examination of the use of a basic item that learners encounter in
the ELT classroom, often in the beginning phases of learning: home.
Before we illustrate the complications that arose when learners were asked
to participate in classroom activities that involved this apparently widely
agreed, simple concept, we discuss in some greater detail cultural
conceptualization and language.

Cultural conceptualisation and language

The notion of cultural conceptualization that we adopt is founded on a
dialectical relationship between culture and mind as semiotically
organized functional systems (Lantolf, 1999, p. 30). Individual
conceptual resources for meaning making originate in the earliest
childhood experiences of, and ongoing participation in, constitutive
renegotiation of shared cognitive resources that facilitate social interaction
in communities. Although cultural conceptualizations may be instantiated
in various cultural artefacts (Sharifian, 2003, p. 188), Vygotsky (1986)
argued that words are central to the formation of concepts and to the role
of concepts in mental operations: real concepts are impossible without
words (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 107). This is not to say that lexical items or
language simply reflect, describe, or encode social realities experienced by
users of a language; language in use constructs social realities (Halliday,
1978; Kramsch, 2003). In this view, although individual conceptualizations
can vary in relation to unique lived experiences, the locus of culture as
experience, as learned and enacted, is the local community of practice
(Erikson, 2011, pp. 31-32, in Anderson-Levitt, 2012, p. 6). It is the
distribution of concepts across a group of individuals that not only
continually reconstitutes the concepts but also simultaneously defines the
cultural group and facilitates mutual understanding and social interaction
within the group. Culture and the use of language as a cultural artefact
involves, in essence:

Cultural Concepts and EIL: The Case of the Republic of Kiribati

123

participation of individuals in each others conceptual world. The

degree to which individuals can participate in a groups conceptualized
sphere would determine their membership of the group. This participation,
or non-participation, is often mirrored in interactions between the
members of a cultural group as well as those between the members of
different cultural groups. (Sharifian, 2003, p. 189)

Thus, in cases of social interaction involving interactants from

different cultural backgrounds, relations between words, concepts and
culture can be a source of tension for participants, and can be additionally
complicated by the use of second or additional languages. Lantolf (1999)
discusses issues involved in what he terms second culture acquisition as a
cognitive process, and presents a review of research on lexical concepts in
second languages, concluding that in particular circumstances, such as
cultural immersion in a target language (TL) culture, conceptualizations
can be modified to align more closely with those distributed across
members of the target language cultural community. However, there is
also evidence that learners of a second language organize lexical items
from the TL using the conceptual frameworks developed around their first
language (Ushakova, 1994, in Lantolf, 1999). John-Steiner (1985, in
Lantolf, 1999, p. 37) claims that learning a second language entails a
weaving of new meanings into the fabric of verbal thought already
existing in the first language. Although Wolf and Polzenhagen (2009)
refer to a considerable body of research exploring cultural conceptualization
across languages, they note that the study of cultural conceptualization
within English on the basis of varieties is only beginning, with little
literature extant, and with only limited varieties investigated. One variety
that has been studied is Australian Aboriginal English, which has been
found to be informed by a semantics deeply rooted in Aboriginal culture
(Malcolm & Rochecouste, 2000, p. 264). Sharifian (2003) also explored
cultural conceptualizations in Australian Aboriginal English in relation to
social roles and family, events, and emotions. Sharifian (2003) concluded
that application of the notion of cultural conceptualization is important in
situations in which the understanding of discourse would closely hinge
on understanding its underlying cultural conceptualizations. This would
include the analysis of discourse produced by L2 learners as well as the
analysis of intercultural discourse (p.204).

The concept of home

Notions of home represent values and aspirations that all cultures
hold (Parsell, 2011, p. 160) and, on this basis, the introduction of the

124

Chapter Eight

concept home in a high-stakes interview is understandable as a topic to

initiate social interaction and to exploit an assumed shared understanding.
However, in our exploration of the conceptual dissonance that emerged
through the interview activities in the Kiribati classroom, the authors
considered the question that faced the learners. What does the concept
home mean to us? For one of the authors, home is his principal and current
place of residence, describable primarily in terms of location and physical
features such as building materials, number of rooms, aspect, etc. For the
other author, home has a close affinity with the place he grew up with his
parents and his siblings, and he still considers that to be his home, even
though he now lives abroad, has a home of his own and his own family. In
another cultural context, some indigenous Australians associate the
concept of home with being in the company of extended family rather than
a particular location or building (Sharifian, 2009). The reader may provide
yet another understanding of what home means.
ELT materials make frequent use of topics or themes that are based on
the types of cultural concepts that we have discussed, for example, home,
and others such as holiday, and city. Such themes or concepts are found in
materials from the beginner level to those for more advanced learners.
Examples abound in widely respected textbooks produced by leading
publishers in English-speaking countries that are popular and commonly
used in periphery ELT contexts. We present as examples the concept of
home as portrayed in two publications (Cambridge University Press, 2001,
Unit 10, pp. 79-85; Oxford University Press, 2000, Unit 5, pp. 36-43) used
widely around the world for ELT. In both these publications the concept of
home as a theme for language-learning activities is defined as a located
physical space and presented in material terms focussing on floor plans,
household fittings, furnishings and white goods. The lexical grammar
comprises such items as refrigerator, television, washing machine, living
room, dining room and kitchen. Both units are illustrated and supported by
a photograph of a living room which is typical of affluent western living,
but from which any occupants of the home are absent, much as in the style
of glossy home and lifestyle magazines. One includes a floor plan typical
of a western home with communal and private living spaces. These
materials illustrate the types of materials used in the Kiribati classroom as
the basis of preparation for testing.
These supposedly universal concepts are also used in proficiency
testing, including high-stakes proficiency testing. For example, it is
common practice that speaking proficiency tests include such concepts
drawn from familiar topic frames on the grounds that all candidates will
have readily accessible knowledge and understanding of these ideas as

Cultural Concepts and EIL: The Case of the Republic of Kiribati

125

they are understood in the west. In some instances these concepts are
understood to be useful for facilitating talk between examiners and
candidates in order to establish rapport and to allow candidates
opportunity to relax and feel confident. Despite the intentions of the
testing process, i.e., to ignore such introductory interaction in terms of the
final assessment of candidates proficiency, the danger in this practice is
that subjective assessments are difficult to avoid and can influence the
outcome of the test. In testing writing, a similar danger exists when such
concepts are introduced. Candidates, whose cultural conceptualizations
differ from those of the examiner, may be assessed in writing and speaking
items as off the point, irrelevant or inappropriate. In listening and reading
items, the examiner may feel there are grounds to question candidates
understanding. In the section that follows, we describe the setting and
present data that illustrate the issues highlighted.

Setting
Situated in the central Pacific Ocean, the Republic of Kiribati
comprises a landmass of just over 8,000 square kilometres stretching
across 33 atolls situated between Nauru to the east and French Polynesia to
the south-east. These atolls were colonized and administered by the British
until independence in 1979. Kiribati is one of the poorest countries in the
Asia Pacific region (Asian Development Bank, 2008a, 2008b; Tisdel,
2000) with a population of about 90,000, of whom more than half live in
the capital, Tarawa (Asian Development Bank, 2007).
Pacific Islands, including Kiribati, are supported with various
international education aid initiatives aimed at their socio-educational
development (see Firth, 2005; Tisdel, 2000; 2002 for a discussion). These
initiatives primary objectives are to provide opportunities for students to
achieve competitive qualifications at overseas tertiary institutions and gain
overseas employment, thereby constituting a first step to setting up a base
for long-term economic viability in these countries. The EAP programme,
from which we draw our data, was part of one such international aid
initiative aimed at improving the English language proficiencies of a
selected group of 30 i-Kiribati youth, many of whom travelled from outer
islands to Tarawa to participate, and who were planning to travel to an
English-speaking country for tertiary education. The programme
comprised teaching and learning activities typical of any standard EAP
course with similar objectives. In this chapter, we focus on one teaching
activity, an interview resembling closely a component of an international
proficiency test that included a question to participants based on the idea

Chapter Eight

126

of home. We video-recorded these interviews for research purposes and

transcribed them.

Home for i-Kiribati

The data presented are two typical examples extracted from mock
interviews modelled on speaking tests in which an Australian teacher
played the role of interviewer. The interviews were conducted in
conditions, described in the vignette that begins this chapter, intended to
replicate testing conditions:
(1)
Interviewer:
Can you describe your family home
(2.7)
Teitia:
There are 4 three of us myself and I had two brothers
excluding our parents so theres five of us in the family and we
we love each other (first) but now uhmm our home is more like
ehhmm more like uhhmmm aaaah extended family (who)
bcause we live in an extended family most of our most of our relatives
living with us but we we enjoy doing lot of things so like ehm
doing movies together watching movies together uhm playing
games so our family home is more like a happy home I can say
(2)
Interviewer:
Can you describe your family home?
(4.8)
Inatio:
My My father and my parents I live with my
parents at Bairiki and we just moved from Abemama to here but
we grow up I grow up on this island and now I live with my
father and mother and my five brothers and one sister my two
older brothers live with their wives

Both these i-Kiribati participants experienced classroom language

learning activities, such as described above, that presented home as a
physical and material concept. Thus, the issue with which we are
concerned is not participants awareness of the western concept of home as
one bound up with material goods in a physical location; in fact, many
houses in Kiribati contain material goods such as those described in the
textbooks. What concerns us is that, despite their awareness of the
textbook-based concept, i-Kiribati participants responses to questions
about their home very likely would not have matched the conceptualizations
4

indicate pauses

Cultural Concepts and EIL: The Case of the Republic of Kiribati

127

of the Australian interviewer. This reflected a mismatch between the

perspectives of the interviewer and of the participant, between the
interviewers expectations and the participants conceptualization of what
constitutes an appropriate answer. We argue that the expectations of
interviewers from Australia, that references be made to physical and
material elements associated with the concept of home, would lead them to
judge that the participant responses are irrelevant and demonstrate a lack
of understanding. In more practical terms, the interviewers assessment
could suggest that the response is not complete and not appropriate as it
falls outside the parameters established by the conceptual base of the
question. Were such an answer included in a response to a writing task, it
could be assumed to illustrate a failure to understand the lexical grammar
and to comprehend the demands of the task.
Our intention here is not to present the Centre conceptualization of the
term home as superior or as one that necessarily must subordinate or
silence the interviewees conceptualizations, or vice versa. However, it is
probable that conceptual dissonance of this kind is more extensive. For
example, a recent analysis (Shin, Eslami, & Chen, 2011) of the cultural
content of English textbooks used internationally found topics such as
holiday and city to be widely used in teaching materials. Yet, in Anglo
settings, a holiday is an activity people prefer to engage in away from their
familiar surroundings, for example, camping, taking a cruise, or going
overseas, but the key feature is that a holiday is taken away from the
home. However, in other contexts, such as Kiribati in this instance, a
holiday means to be at home spending time with family. Individual
conceptualizations of city within the Anglosphere can vary also in relation
to geographical origin, i.e. there is no guarantee of mutually shared
understandings of the concept city even for users of English as a first
language. When the term city is introduced to classrooms in a
geographically remote island location such as Kiribati, or an island in the
Indonesian archipelago, it can have potential for dissonance in the
understanding of participants in interaction. The word city is perhaps one
quite familiar to learners but the connotations are grounded in the cultural
histories of local communities. When a term such as home, holiday or city
is introduced in the context of high-stakes testing the ramifications for the
learner can be significant. Thus, what is highlighted is the necessity to
engage with the serious implications of such mismatches for learners who
depend upon the outcomes of high-stakes testing for securing their futures.
Use of culturally aligned ELT teaching materials has been seen as an
area in which pedagogy can take a more appropriate approach by drawing
on learners own culture or perhaps a wider diversity of cultures of

128

Chapter Eight

English- and non-English-speaking communities (Cortazzi & Jin, 1999).

McKay (2000, 2003) refers to problems inherent in using target culture
(i.e., Centre culture) topics but proceeds to a discussion of this in terms of
target culture content (i.e., information about target culture) and suggests
that materials that include examples of cross-cultural uses of English by
bilingual speakers could illustrate lexical, grammatical, phonological and
pragmatic variations in the use of varieties of English in international
interaction. While such an approach to culture might provide a basis for
students to gain a fuller understanding of how English today serves a great
variety of international purposes in a broad range of contexts (McKay,
2003, p. 11), it nonetheless neglects recognition of the implications of
deep-seated cultural conceptualizations of commonly used words. This
concentration on cultural content or knowledge rather than engaging with
differences in cultural conceptualizations that might be embedded in
apparently universal topics means that materials that include source
culture content can still reflect mismatches between target culture and
source culture concepts, particularly if materials continue to be developed
by target culture publishers or teachers, or if examiners originate from
target cultures rather than the source culture. The development of
materials locally can go some way to addressing the challenges of cultural
conceptualization mismatches and the confusion or trouble that can ensue,
as demonstrated in the data we have presented in this chapter, but the
pedagogic delivery and testing that accompanies ELT teaching materials
must also address these challenges if effective EIL pedagogy is to be
achieved.
The current literature on EIL pedagogy neglects the possibilities, not to
mention the significance, of cultural dissonance at such a fundamental
level. Addressing this neglect might mean deviating from popular debates
on viability of pedagogical approaches at the meta-level as applicable in
diverse geographical locations (for example Canagarajah, 1999; Hinkel,
1999; Hu, 2002) to concentrate much more on language likely to be
introduced. Such an approach would require EIL pedagogy to move
beyond debates on culturally-based approaches to teaching and learning or
acknowledgement of local varieties of English that differ from centre
norms. Simply adopting a different pedagogy does not address the
problem of conceptual incongruence that can be very deep-seated in the
socially shared cultural schema of particular communities.

Cultural Concepts and EIL: The Case of the Republic of Kiribati

129

Conclusion
We have directed attention in this chapter to a fundamental aspect of
classroom teaching practice, the materials we use, and the assessments we
make of users of English in culturally distinct and remote language
communities, such as the Republic of Kiribati. Incongruence in cultural
conceptualizations has been theorized as a problem in EIL communicative
events (Sharifian, 2009), but the implications and challenges for pedagogy
and materials, and for language testing on an international level, in
periphery contexts have not been explored. When teaching and learning
activities include elements that are culturally specific, and thus potentially
ambiguous, this can create communicative dissonance. In periphery
contexts, these are important pedagogic issues for consideration by EIL
practitioners and by developers of materials and testing instruments.
Literature abounds that focuses on the significance of pedagogic context
but we argue that any approach to responding to the context of teaching
must accommodate locally situated conceptions of fundamental terms that
are introduced to the English-language classroom.

References
Acar, A. (2006). Models, norms and goals for English as an International
Language pedagogy and task-based language teaching and learning.
Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 174-191.
Adaskou, K., Britten, D., & Fahsi, B. (1990). Design decisions on the
cultural content of a secondary English course for Morocco. ELT
Journal, 44(1), 3-10. doi: 10.1093/elt/44.1.3
Anderson-Levitt, K. M. (2012). Complicating the concept of culture.
Comparative Education, 1-14. doi: 10.1080/03050068.2011.634285
Asian Development Bank. (2007). Priorities of the people: Hardship in
Kiribati. Manila: Asian Development Bank.
. (2008a). Annual Report 2008. Manila: Asian Development Bank.
. (2008b). Asian Development Bank & Kiribati 2008. Suva: Asian
Development Bank.
Cambridge University Press. (2001). Changes: English for international
communication. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English
teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. (2006). Changing communicative needs, revised assessment
objectives: Testing English as an international language. Language
Assessment Quarterly, 3(3), 229-242.

130

Chapter Eight

doi: 10.1207/s15434311laq0303_1
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1999). Cultural mirrors: Methods and materials in
the EFL classroom. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Cullture in second language
teaching (pp. 196-219). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Firth, S. G. (2005, April 5-8). Globalization on the Pacific Islands. Paper
presented at the 2nd South-east Asia and the Pacific subregional
tripartite forum on decent work, Melbourne, Australia.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social
interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore: University Park
Press.
Hinkel, E. (1999). Cullture in second language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The
case of communicative language teaching in China. Language Culture
and Curriculum, 15(2), 93-105.
Kramsch, C. (2003). From practice to theory and back again. In M. Byram
& P. Grundy (Eds.), Context and culture in language teaching and
learning (pp. 4-17). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lantolf, J. P. (1999). Second culture acquisition: Cognitive considerations.
In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Cullture in second language teaching (pp. 28-46).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liyanage, I. (2010). Globalization: Medium of instruction policy,
indigenous education systems and ELT in Sri Lanka. In V. Vaish (Ed.),
Globalization of langugae and culture in Asia: The impact of
globalization processes on language (pp. 206-229). London:
Continuum.
Mahboob, A. (2011). English: The industry. Journal of Postcolonial
Cultures and Societies, 2(4), 46-61. Retrieved from
http://www.jpcs.in/upload/1563023725Englishpercent20Theper
cent20Industry.pdf
Malcolm, I., & Rochecouste, J. (2000). Event and story schemas in
Australian Aboriginal English discourse. English World-Wide, 21(2),
261-289. doi: 10.1075/eww.21.2.05mal
McKay, S. L. (2000). Teaching English as an international language:
Implications for cultural materials in the classroom. TESOL Journal,
9(4), 7-11. doi: 10.1002/j.1949-3533.2000.tb00276.x
. (2003). Toward an appropriate EIL pedagogy: Re-examining common
ELT assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1),
1-22. doi: 10.1111/1473-4192.00035

Cultural Concepts and EIL: The Case of the Republic of Kiribati

131

Oxford University Press. (2000). New headway English course. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.
Parsell, C. (2011). Home is where the house is: The meaning of home for
people sleeping rough. Housing Studies, 27(2), 159-173.
doi: 10.1080/02673037.2012.632621
Patil, Z. Z. (2007). On the nature and role of English in Asia. Journal of
English as an International Language, 1(1), 25-47. Retrieved from
http://www.eilj.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id
=102&Itemid=136
Sharifian, F. (2003). On cultural conceptualisations. Journal of Cognition
and Culture, 3(3), 188-207. doi: 10.1163/156853703322336625
. (2009). Cultural conceptualizations in English as an International
Language. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), English as an international language:
Perspectives and pedagogical issues (pp. 242-253). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Shin, J., Eslami, Z. R., & Chen, W.-C. (2011). Presentation of local and
international culture in current international English-language teaching
textbooks. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 24(3), 253-268. doi:
10.1080/07908318.2011.614694
Smith, L. E. (1976). English as an international auxiliary language. RELC
Journal, 7(2), 38-42. doi: 10.1177/003368827600700205
Tisdel, C. (2000). Poverty in the pacific Islands. International Journal of
Sociology and Social Policy, 20(11/12), 74-102.
. (2002). Globalisation, development and poverty in the Pacific Islands.
International Journal of Social Economics, 29(11/12), 902-922.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.).
Cambridge, MASS.: MIT Press.
Zacharias, N. T. (2005). Teachers beliefs about internationally-published
materials: A survey of tertiary English teachers in Indonesia. RELC
Journal, 36(1), 23-37. doi: 10.1177/0033688205053480

PART 3:
REFLECTIONS ON THE PRACTICE
OF EIL PEDAGOGY

CHAPTER NINE
ONE TEACHERS STRUGGLES
TO INTEGRATE EIL APPROACHES
IN A MICROTEACHING CLASS:
AN ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT
NUGRAHENNY T. ZACHARIAS

Why EIL approaches in a Microteaching class?

The present study came about from my strong concern when teaching
English in a pre-service teacher education programme, which continues to
be informed by the inner-circle orientation to ELT. Using Kachrus (1992,
p. 356) most influential and widely used model of English users profile,
the inner circle countries refer to countries where English is most often
used as a first language (a mother tongue) such as the US, the UK and
Australia. The people from these countries are traditionally known as the
native speakers or Monolingual English Speakers (MES) and their English
is seen as the norm and standard in the field of Second Language
Acquisition (SLA). In the present study, I will use the term native speaker
paradigm and inner circle orientation interchangeably to refer to
teaching approaches that position native speakers and their English as the
only norm.
In the context where the present study takes place, favouritism of
native-speaker paradigm is evidenced in the pervasive use of MESs from
the US and Australia to teach speaking courses, cross-culture
understanding (CCU) courses, as well as writing courses, among others. I
do not totally disagree with employing MES teachers (MESTs) as they can
illustrate that even people from the traditionally inner-circle countries do,
indeed, speak different Englishes. However, the exclusive employment of
MESTs from inner-circle countries will not justly portray the changing
sociolinguistic realities of English users, which recently have become
extensively diverse. The exclusive use of MESTs in teacher education

One Teachers Struggles to Integrate EIL Approaches

135

programmes specifically will project wrong information, that is, ideal

English teachers are those from the inner-circle countries. Therefore, as
pointed out by Matsuda (2003a; 2005), the curriculum in teacher education
programmes needs to be adapted to accommodate awareness of the
evolving and changing landscape of English and English users.
Indeed, the pervasive use of native-speaker paradigm is not uncommon
in Asia. Studies on English Language Teaching (ELT) practices in Japan,
for example, illustrate that English continues to be taught as an inner-circle
language, based almost exclusively on American or British English (Iwata
et al., 2002; Matsuda, 2003a). A survey of 100 English teachers in
Indonesia that I conducted in 2003 found that these teachers continued to
have a marked preference for native speaker English teachers to teach skill
courses, but not linguistic or content courses. Although many teachers did
not necessarily perceive their non-nativeness as a weakness, the majority
of them showed a preference towards inner-circle models and norms.
I am not suggesting that teaching English with an inner-circle
orientation is wrong. In fact, it might be arguably appropriate for students
who might need and want to function in inner circle countries. However, it
is important to remember that even these students might encounter and
become involved in practices where awareness of other English varieties is
necessary and even crucial to enhance communication effectiveness.
Matsuda (2005) warns that only exposing learners to inner circle English
may lead to confusion and resistance (p.721). Students might question
the legitimacy of the Englishes not represented in the classroom and even
worse, develop negative attitudes towards them. Therefore, Canagarajah
maintains that the purpose of teaching English now is to enable learners to
shuttle between different communities of English users and use, and this, I
believe, can only be achieved through the teaching of English with English
as an International Language (EIL) orientation. Following McKay (2010)
I will use the term English as an International Language as an umbrella
term to refer to the use of English between bilingual English speakers,
whether sharing the same culture or not, as well as between bilingual and
monolingual English speakers.
For EIL approaches to have a stronghold in the ELT landscape, I am of
the opinion that the teachers themselves need to be made aware of the
current landscape of English (also in Matsuda, 2003b; Renandya, 2011;
Zacharias, 2002). This includes providing a space for teachers to examine,
and if necessary, reformulate their beliefs surrounding the ownership of
English. Without such efforts, teachers cannot develop a favorable attitude
toward EIL. Ironically, the reality at the classroom level shows that many
teachers are less enthusiastic in embracing the EIL models of teaching

136

Chapter Nine

English (Jenkins, 2007). Realizing the determining role of teacher education

programmes to the success of EIL implementation, a study focusing on the
extent to which student-teachers actually negotiate and respond to the
teaching of English with EIL orientation, is needed.
It is therefore fitting to conduct a study focusing on bilingual English
student-teachers (for convenience, BESTs) experiences of teaching
English with EIL orientations. The term bilingual is used in the broadest
sense to refer to people who speak two languages and more. This paper
intends to be a response to the call made by Matsuda (2003a) to
incorporate EIL orientations to the teaching of English in teacher
education programmes. In particular, the present study aims to document
BESTs understandings and the challenges they face when teaching
English with EIL orientation as well as in designing lesson plans and
teaching materials.

The study
The present study is situated in a four-year pre-service teacher
education programme in the Faculty of Language and Literature in a
private university in Indonesia. Data were collected through focus groups,
individual interviews, and teaching journals. The two major research
questions guiding the study are: (1) What are BESTs understandings of
EIL? and (2) What are the benefits and difficulties of integrating EIL in
their mini lessons? The 12 BESTs who participated in this study were all
registered in my Microteaching class. All of them were in their early
twenties and in their third or fourth year. As with any Indonesians, they
are bilinguals or trilinguals with at least Indonesian, the lingua franca of
Indonesia, and one local language. All the names are pseudonyms.
The data were collected in a Microteaching course, where I was the
class instructor. The course runs for two hours a week over 14 weeks, with
approximately 12 students in a class. Throughout the course, each student
has the opportunity to conduct a 15-20 minute mini-lesson three times.
The data for the present study were collected after students conducted their
first mini-lessons, which were conducted in weeks 3, 4 and 5. After
conducting a mini lesson, they were expected to write a reflective journal
focusing on how they accommodated EIL approaches, their feelings while
doing so, as well as the difficulties they encountered.
When studying how BESTs incorporate EIL approaches in their mini
lessons, I used the action research framework adapted from Burns (2010)
and Richards and Lockhart (1994). The data were analyzed through
content analysis of focus group and individual interview transcripts and

One Teachers Struggles to Integrate EIL Approaches

137

teaching journals. Each focus group and individual interview was recorded
and then transcribed for analysis. The participant statements from
transcripts and teaching journals were analyzed for recurring patterns
(Miles & Huberman, 1994) and then coded according to the
categories/themes relevant to the research questions. The analysis included
an examination of expressed attitudes, contradictions, and conceptualizations
concerning key issues related to their understandings, the benefits of EIL
as well as the difficulties they faced when integrating EIL concepts in their
lesson plans and mini-lesson. It would be impractical to include all the
data here. Thus, I have selected several typical examples of the responses
to illustrate the extent to which the research questions were addressed.

Approaches to Course Design

Stage One: Identifying students awareness of EIL issues
To explore how far students have understood the concept, I decided to
distribute initial questionnaires in the first week of the Microteaching
class. The questionnaire consists of three open-ended items addressing the
following questions:
1. What do you understand from the term English as an
international language?
2. Do you think teaching English now is different from teaching
English in the past? Explain your answer.
3. Who you think should be the model in teaching English? Explain
why.
The qualitative analysis of the questionnaires illustrates that the
majority of the participants do not see MESTs as the best English teachers.
In fact, many of them preferred their senior high school teachers, local
Indonesians, as models of good English teachers. The reasons for such
preferences, among others, were clear pronunciation (OR pronunciation
that they can understand?), a good motivator and well-organized lesson.
Other students stated that anyone can be a good model of an English
teacher as long as they have knowledge and skills in teaching English.
Among the 12 BESTs, only three students who thought MESTs the best
English teachers for such reasons as, compared to local teachers, they are
more respectful and attentive to students works, as well as more relaxed
in teaching. One student mentioned that MESTs are good models because
they already know about English (Ndandut, pseudonym). What is

Chapter Nine

138

interesting about these comments is that the reasons stated, for the most
part, go way beyond nativeness. For them, good English teachers have
more to do with the way they organize their teaching, teaching skill and
expertise as well as personality factors. The finding from the initial
questionnaires illustrates the context-dependability of students perception
of the best English teacher.
From the questionnaires, I also learned that all the participants were of
the opinion that teaching English now should be different from teaching
English in the past. All of them were aware that English now is the
international or global language. Although the participants do not
elaborate on how the teaching of English now and then should be
different, the findings of the questionnaire indicated the extent to which I
need to expose students to EIL concepts during the presentation and
workshop on EIL.

Stage Two: Presenting and discussing EIL approaches

to English language teaching
The findings of the questionnaire showed me that issues associated
with teaching English as an inner-circle language versus English as an
International Language need to be explained prior to expecting BESTs to
accommodate the concepts in their lesson plans and mini lessons. Due to
the burgeoning of literature discussing EIL approaches and my limited
time in discussing issues of EIL, my challenge was to pinpoint and explain
EIL approaches in a way that the participants, who might be new to the
concept, could accommodate them in their mini lessons.
At the planning stage of the action research cycle, I decided that I
would start with giving a presentation comparing the purpose of teaching
English in the past, which was mostly informed by the native-speaker
paradigm, and the present, which should be centred on bilingual English
speakers. The themes of the presentation were adapted from Burns (2005):
x
x
x
x

Which models?
Which standard?
Which teachers?
Whose culture?

I added the last themeWhose culture?which is not addressed in

Burns because of the traditional assumption that learning English entailed
learning the cultures of native speakers. By contrast, the issues of culture
in the EIL approaches nowadays include using English to express the

One Teachers Struggles to Integrate EIL Approaches

139

users cultures as well as learning other English users cultures and not
necessarily, the native speakers cultures (McKay, 2010).

Stage Three: Refocusing students tasks

To make it easier for BESTs to focus on accommodating EIL
approaches, each BEST needs to develop a mini lesson of approximately
20 minutes around one input text. The input texts are all taken from
Touchstones, a required course book for an Integrated Course, a course
students in the department need to take the first year. The titles of the input
texts are: Everything must go on line!, What do you have in your
refrigerator?, and She was telling me... I deliberately chose those three
texts because they are heavily informed by the inner-circle cultures and
lifestyles. The reason for choosing such texts is because, during the
teaching practicum, BESTs do not have the freedom to choose the
textbooks. These textbooks are more often informed by inner-circle
countries English and cultures. The input texts also stimulate students to
adapt the text to accommodate EIL approaches.

Stage Four: Monitoring students experience in the process

of integrating the EIL concepts
To document the process of integrating the EIL into their mini-lessons,
I asked them to write a teaching journal before and after the mini lesson. I
choose the name learning journal because it highlights the significance of
progressive conscious reflection (Moser, 2005, p. 92) when the studentteachers attempt to accommodate EIL in their lesson plans as well as minilessons. The teaching journals follow Burns (2010) and Richards and
Lockhart (1994) action research cycle of topic, planning, action, and
reflection.

Findings
Teaching English with EIL approaches means making room
for students cultures
The first focus of the study is BESTs understandings of teaching
English with EIL approaches. For many of them, teaching English with
EIL approaches is equal to making rooms for students cultures. Although
they seem to have remarkably common understanding of the place for
students cultures in EIL approaches, their opinions vary with regard to

140

Chapter Nine

which student cultures should be represented. In a country consisting of

hundreds of cultures, the answer to the question of which students
cultures should be accommodated in an EIL approach is certainly not
straightforward.
For Rum, students cultures mean particular traits and lifestyles
familiar to local students. In the mini-lesson, she used the input text
Everything online as a platform to discuss how students treated their old
unwanted stuff. She was aware that the input text was very western,
because selling old stuff online was uncommon in Salatiga, where the
Internet is only used by those in the middle-class or above. People more
often sell their old unwanted stuff, locally known as rosokan, at secondhand markets or mobile cars. At the end of her mini lesson, she asked the
students to write their experiences of selling their old stuff.
Similar to Rum, the students cultures Nisa represented in the
classroom are the ones close to the students:
perhaps we can start by exposing things in Salatiga because students
learn English in Salatiga, so I make them aware of the culture in Salatiga. I
think thats more beneficial than exposing them to the culture of the UK
people, for example, because they havent lived in the UK (Nisa, focus
group, 2/9/2011, my translation)

Different from many BESTs who tend to start teaching by exposing the
western cultural content of the input text, Nisa preferred to start with the
cultural content familiar to the local students. Therefore, when teaching in
Salatiga, she would start by making students aware of the cultures and
lifestyles of Salatiga before gradually transitioning to western cultures.
Benny put forward practicality reasons when responding to the
question of which students cultures he would expose through English. For
him, he would expose any local cultures that were available online. He
also highlighted the importance of making the students aware of the
diversity within one nation. For example, when conducting the mini lesson
of the input text, She was telling me [that she was engaged], he decided
to expose students to two accompanying texts, describing the engagement
practices of the Javanese and Bataks. I found Bennys attempt to bring in
two, instead of one, significant to the way he comprehends EIL. It shows
that for him, it is important for students to be made aware of the diversity
within one nation.
For many BESTs, EIL is not only making room for students cultures
but also the cultures from the inner-circle countries. For Rika and Rhani,
exposing students to western cultures is important so that students can
compare and contrast their cultures with those of westerners. One student-

One Teachers Struggles to Integrate EIL Approaches

141

teacher, Lida, felt the understanding of western cultures should come

before exposing students to the local cultures:
Actually English comes from the western countries, so it has its own
cultures and we also have our own cultures, so there is nothing wrong with
introducing students to Western cultures first and then exposing them to
our culture (Lida, focus group, 5/10/2011)

For many participants, English continues to be closely associated with

inner circle countries. In fact, Lidas comment shows that the cultures of
the inner circle can serve as a stepping stone to discuss students cultures.
Other than integrating student cultures into the materials, many BESTs
express their doubts and even question whether EIL concepts can be
integrated into other teaching areas such as the teaching of grammar.
During the focus groups, Ida, for example, continued to believe that EIL
could not be integrated into the teaching of grammar because:
the [US] grammar is already standard, so if we teach the students other
grammar, it will be considered wrong

For Ida, students need to learn the standard grammar because they are
more likely to encounter that in academic arenas where most Indonesian
students will use English. For these student-teachers, issues of acceptability
and correctness appear to be their main concerns. The grammar from the
US is considered correct and is widely accepted rather than World
Englishes grammar. Additionally, Ida seems to develop the understanding
that exposing learners to other varieties of English is equal to asking the
learners to acquire grammar norms which she considered incorrect.
I am not sure if my materials and lesson plan are EIL enough

The second focus of the study is to explore students stated difficulties

in implementing the EIL approaches. In the focus groups and individual
interviews, all the participants admitted that they were aware that English
has now become the lingua franca of the world. Because of this changing
role of English, some participants suspect that the way English is taught
now and in the past should be different, although they have only a vague
idea of those differences. Many participants admit feeling surprised that
the global role of English has in fact brought implications to the way
English was taught.
A common theme gathered from the focus groups, individual
interviews and the teaching journals is the concern as to whether their

142

Chapter Nine

lesson plans are EIL enough, to use Rums word. One participant who
felt that way is Nisa:
Honestly I did not really know about EIL rules, so I cant determine
whether my teaching material is right or wrong. What I meant is that EIL
rules are more about the regulation and the principle of teaching EIL. For
me EIL just considers the students culture in teaching, and I don't know
whether teaching EIL is only about culture or not. Is it only about the
materials, pronunciation and content? Or maybe it is also about linguistics
and grammar? (Nisa, Teaching Journal 1)

Nisas word choice in reflecting on teaching with EIL approaches as

written in the teaching Journal 1, is significant to the way she understood
EIL concepts. She uses words such as rules, regulation and principle
to describe EIL approaches. By using such words, Nisa perceives EIL as
equal to prototypical methods (Kumaravadivelu, 2003, p. 540) such as
Grammar-Translation and Audiolingual methods, where there
are
prescribed classroom techniques that teachers need to follow. With this
conceptualization, it is, therefore, not surprising when she was concerned
about the way she did her mini lesson (Honestly I did not really know
about EIL rules, so I can determine whether my teaching material is right
or wrong).
Despite Nisas seemingly strong understanding of EIL as making
rooms for students cultures, it is interesting to see how she questioned her
understanding at the end of the excerpt (I don't know whether teaching
EIL is only about culture or not. Is it only about the materials,
pronunciation and content? Or maybe it is also about linguistic and
grammar?). A similar doubt is also expressed by Eny:
In applying EIL approach, I felt I just used one way which is comparing
western cultures to the local cultures. I felt it was not enough. It will not be
good if a teacher who teaches English using EIL approaches only use
comparison. I thought I only apply a fraction of EIL even though I do not
know in what other ways I can teach EIL (Eny, Teaching journal)

Indeed, participants doubts about EIL are not uncommon. When I

asked if there were any last comments at the end of focus groups and
individual interviews, Lia and Rani, for example, asked whether the ways
they taught and understood EIL were correct.
Some participants note that EIL is difficult because it lacked a teacher
model. In his post-teaching journal, Benny wrote:
As a student-teacher when I teach, I will subconsciously model the way
my teachers teach. However, because I have never had teachers who teach

One Teachers Struggles to Integrate EIL Approaches

143

English with EIL approaches, I became not sure whether I have

accommodated the EIL approach or not.

A similar comment is put forward by Ria. During the focus group, she
felt challenged to integrate EIL approaches into the teaching grammar, but
she did not know how to do it.
Bennys and Rias remarks underline the importance of the teacher as
one significant source of teaching techniques and methodology (Richards
& Lockhart, 1994). It also shows that in the context of the study, EIL has
not become part of the teaching pedagogy of English teachers.
I feel proud teaching with EIL approaches

Despite students limited understandings of EIL approaches and how

to implement them in the classroom, interestingly all of the participants are
to some extent quite positive about their student-teaching experiences.
They described the experiences of implementing EIL approaches as
challenging, interesting, and rewarding. Several students point out
that EIL is, indeed, necessary both for bilingual English students and
teachers. Nisa, for example, stated during the focus group that EIL
materials could stimulate silent students, like herself, to make a more
active contribution in the classroom.
For Lida, EIL approaches provide a space for students to share about
their cultures; an opportunity that, perhaps, is somewhat limited in
western-based teaching approaches:
What I like [about EIL approaches] is the involvement of student culture
so student can share their culture like in the mini lesson the input text
is about Western engagement culture with EIL approaches I can ask the
students to talk about the engagement culture and ritual in their own
cultures I like it because the students can share their culture and I, the
teacher, can obtain new knowledge from them although I am confused
which students cultures should I accommodate (Lida, focus group,
5/10/2011)

From Lidas remark, we can see that EIL approaches open doors to
students cultures. When conducting the mini lesson, after exposing
students to the engagement ritual in the US, she developed a series of
questions for students to discuss the engagement ritual in their own
cultures. Despite Lidas excitement of implementing EIL approach, she
was ambivalent about which students cultures should be represented in
the classroom.
EIL approaches are not only beneficial to students but also to teachers.
For a beginning teacher, Nisa felt her confidence grow when teaching

144

Chapter Nine

using the EIL approach. Prior to knowing EIL, she felt her position was
limited to be a follower of US models:
Nisa: before EIL I felt I have to teach in a certain way, needs to use a
certain English, a certain pronunciation
I: What kinds of English? What kinds of Pronunciation?
Nisa: Like the US (Nisa, focus group, 12/9/2011)

Nisas comment implies an element of liberation from the confining

nature of US-led models. She describes teaching English before as more
prescriptive because she needed to teach English in a certain way.
A slightly similar comment comes from Rani. During the focus group,
Rhani expressed her excitement of using the approaches:
I like it when I dont need to follow Western rules when teaching English.
If we use Western materials, I do not understand the idioms, the culture.
EIL approaches give me the freedom to choose the materials that are more
appropriate for my students. It also allows me to choose my own
methodology (Rhani, focus group, 5/10/2011, my translation)

What I found interesting is Ranis strong belief in EIL despite her

fuzzy understanding of EIL approaches. She felt EIL empowered local
teachers, like herself, to choose materials and teaching methodology
suitable to the local context. Rans comment also indicates the lack of
accessibility factor of Western-based teaching materials for local teachers
because of the idioms and cultural content of those texts.
One participant who perhaps shows the most excitement when
integrating EIL approaches is Anthi. Among all of the BESTs, she is the
only one who creates an accompanying listening text featuring herself and
one of her friends. When asked why she chose Javanese English speakers,
she explained during the focus group that she would like to give an
opportunity to Javanese English. Based on her experience in the listening
class, the models were always westerners because of the stereotypical
assumption that native speakers were fluent and spoke comprehensible
English. From her standpoint, Indonesians provided better models because
their English was clear and easily to be understood.
Not only did Anthi see the benefits of teaching EIL, she felt proud to
be integrating the approach:
I: How do you feel after teaching using EIL approaches?
Anthi: I feel proud because I just realize that local culture can be
considered in teaching English as an international language it can be
included in the teaching materials.
I: Do you think it is necessary to teach EIL?

One Teachers Struggles to Integrate EIL Approaches

145

Anthi: I think its necessary because this is a new innovation in the

teaching of English now because its different from teaching English then
in the past if we learn English we also need to learn the culture without
including the local culture even a little bit. (Anthi, individual interview,
13/10/2011, my translation)

For Anthi, EIL approaches give some sort of validation to the students
cultures. Implicit in her remark is the strong pride she felt because her
culture, the local culture, has a place or can be included in the English
language teaching landscape.

Reflection and evaluation

There are two aims of the present study. The first is to explore
students understanding of EIL concepts, and the second, to explore
students stated benefits and difficulties when integrating EIL in the minilessons. Students exposed to a new methodology have mixed reactions, as
became apparent in this project when they discussed their feelings in the
focus groups and individual interviews. Although all of the BESTs are
aware of the global role of English as stated in the initial questionnaires as
well as focus groups and individual interviews, many of them admitted
that they did not expect that the global role of English had any bearings on
the way English is taught in the classroom. In fact, these findings
correspond to Modiano (2009). When he discusses the current status of
EIL in the European Union (EU), he observes that while some teachers
have a sense of the global role of English, they continue to feel uncertain
about its implications for classroom practices.
One of the significant concepts of EIL is re-examining the relationship
between language and culture. In the native-speaker paradigm, it is taken
for granted that the teaching of English needs to be accompanied by the
exposure and learning of the inner-circle countries cultures. In the EIL
paradigm, however, McKay (2002) explains that the inner circle cultures
alone can no longer provide adequate culture content. Teachers need to
include the culture from the learners cultures. In fact, this is one of the
EIL concepts that all the BESTs appear to embrace the most. Although
they have different ideas of what constitutes local cultures, they all see
EIL as allocating space for participants address students cultures.
While some BESTs do believe that students cultures have a legitimate
place in EIL, their places are still considered supplementary to western
cultures. For a variety of reasons, BESTs continue to believe that exposing
students to western cultures is important. Although this may be translated
as illustrating some sort of continued attachment to inner circle cultures, I

146

Chapter Nine

support Matsuda (2009) that the notion of EIL cannot be conveniently

separated from the default curriculum. In the Microteaching class, the
default curriculum is represented through the input texts, which expose
the cultures of the U.S.
As far as teaching grammar is concerned, many participants seem to be
reluctant and hesitant to expose students to other varieties of English. This
is understandable because of the lack of observability factor (Rogers,
1983, p. 231), which according to Rogers (1983) is defined as how
visible an innovation is (p. 231). Rogers examines variables affecting the
rate at which innovations are adopted. He postulates that an individual is
more likely to adopt an innovation that they are familiar with. The
hesitancy of the participants in employing the EIL approach, an approach
that is considered an innovation in Indonesia in the teaching of gramma,r
might be due to the invisibility or under-representation of EIL grammar(s).
Even Rani, who is eager to integrate EIL grammar, is confused about how
to do it.
Despite the empowering force of EIL, the doubts, questions and
concerns when integrating EIL into their mini-lessons illustrate the
significant role of modelling. Continued efforts to bring EIL concepts into
the classroom and teacher education programmes are therefore crucial.
Maley (2009) notes that teachers, for the most part, will teach what they
are able to teach. Maleys idea is also shared by Kirkpatrick (2007). Based
on Kirkpatricks observation of local Chinese English teachers, they tend
to teach the model that they have themselves have learned (p.192). For
EIL to take a firm hold in the ELT landscape in the expanding circle
countries such as Indonesia, EIL needs to be part of the knowledge base
that informs teacher pedagogy and education (also in Matsuda, 2003a,
2005, 2009). This present study therefore contributes a worthwhile
contribution in this area.
The most encouraging finding from the present study is that despite
students somewhat fuzzy understandings of EIL, many BESTs are very
willing to do a paradigm hop (Brown, 1993, p. 60) and are enthusiastic
about implementing the approach. One possible explanation is because the
EIL approach, as pointed out by Nisa and Anthi, is empowering for local
English teachers. In fact, many of these student-teachers admitted that EIL
approaches increase their level of confidence as beginning English
teachers. Although teaching with EIL approaches is not necessarily easier,
for once Anthi felt that her presence as an Indonesian English teacher is
validated because she is allowed to bring in her culture, which was
suppressed or even backgrounded under the native-speaker paradigm.

One Teachers Struggles to Integrate EIL Approaches

147

Among other things, the relative success of the project is the result of
maximizing dialogizing spaces in the form of focus groups, individual
interviews, and reflective journals. Together, these venues create a safe
atmosphere for an ongoing discussion about how EIL can be best
integrated in the teaching of English within students contexts. Brown
(1993) argues that for a paradigm shift to occur, certain conditions need to
be fulfilled. The present study suggests that the integration of EIL needs to
be accompanied by providing safe and reflexive spaces allowing the
learners to interact, process, and discuss the new concepts. Discussing the
participants experience of integrating EIL concepts in their mini-lessons
is not only beneficial to the students, but also for me, the teacher. I can
gain new understandings and awareness on how the student-teachers
develop their understanding and even, navigate their insecurity and
hesitancy in using the approaches.

Conclusion
The project described here represents a first attempt to integrate EIL
into a Microteaching class. In the project, the student-teaching experience
was built around integrating EIL concepts into teaching as well as
developing lesson plans and materials. Unfortunately, because of time
constraints, I cannot provide ample time for the BESTs to process the
approach or even examine their beliefs surrounding the ownership of
English that I have tried to address in my presentation and workshop on
EIL. More time therefore needs to be allocated to EIL approaches so that
students can have ample time to process them. This can be done by
integrating EIL approaches into existing curriculum in teacher education
programmes either by combining it with existing courses or addressing it
as a stand-alone course.
In conclusion, I would like to point out factors that play important
roles in the successful implementation of any teaching techniques:
enjoyment and challenge. The BESTs who took part in this small-scale
action research project had a great time experimenting with the EIL
approach. I have witnessed how their excitement and their level of
confidence grew when they were given the opportunity to bring something
meaningful to their lives. The classroom is a place for learning but, most
importantly, it is a place where both the teacher and students feel validated
and their voices are heard. And I can think of no better way to share who
we are than through teaching English within the EIL framework.

148

Chapter Nine

References
Brown, K. (1993). World Englishes in TESOL programmes: An infusion
model of curricular innovation. World Englishes, 12(1), 59-73.
Burns, A. (2005). Interrogating new worlds in English language teaching.
In A. Burns (Ed.), Teaching English from a global perspective (pp. 118). Alexandria: TESOL, Inc.
. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide
for practitioners. New York: Routledge.
Iwata, Y., Ogawa, M., Wen, Q., Sakamoto, E., Takarada, M., & Horio, A.
(2002). Exposure to different cultures through English textbooks
[Electronic Version]. ASTE Newsletter, 46. Retrieved March 11, 2010
from http://www.bun-eido.co.jp/aste/aste46.html
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. New
York: Oxford.
Kachru, B. (1992). The Other tongue: English across cutlures (2nd ed.).
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international
communication and English language teaching. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Critical Language Pedagogy: A postmethod
perspective on English language teaching. World Englishes, 22(4),
539-550.
Maley, A. (2009). ELF: A teacher's perspective. Language and
Intercultural Communication, 9(3), 187-200.
Matsuda, A. (2003a). Incorporating World Englishes in Teaching English
as an International Language. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 719-729.
. (2003b). The ownership of English: A perspective of Japanese high
school students. World Englishes, 37(719-729).
. (2005). Preparing future users of English as an international language.
In A. Burns (Ed.), Teaching English from a global perspective (pp. 6374). Virgina: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
. (2009). Desirable but not necessary? The place of World Englishes and
Englishes as an International language in English teacher preparation
programmes in Japan. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), English as an international
language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues (pp. 169-189). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an International Language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

One Teachers Struggles to Integrate EIL Approaches

149

. (2010). English as an International Language. In N. H. Hornberger &

S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Education (pp. 89115). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Modiano. (2009). EIL, Native-speakerism and the Failure of European
ELT. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), English as an international language:
Perspectives and pedagogical issues (pp. 58-80). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Moser, J. (2005). Using language-focused learning journals on a taskbased course. In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring
tasks in English language teaching (pp. 78-88): Palgrave.
Renandya, W. A. (2011). Teacher roles in EIL. Paper presented at the
Paper presented at the English Department, Faculty of Language and
Literature.
Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second
language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free
Press.
Zacharias, N. T. (2002). Different tongues, diverse voices, the same
language? English EDU: Journal of Language Teaching and Research,
1(2).

CHAPTER TEN
THE STRUGGLE OF MOVING TOWARDS EIL:
COMPETING AND CONFLICTING NARRATIVES
OF PROFESSIONALISM IN AN INDONESIAN
CONTEXT
CHRISTINE MANARA

This study is a part of a larger project that follows four teacher

educators narratives of learning and teaching English. It explores how
these teacher-educators from a single private university in Indonesia
understand their professional work and lives and how they interact with
various discourses of professionalism in English Language Teaching
(ELT). In this article, there is a particular focus on their experience of
living with competing and conflicting ideologies, beliefs, standards,
values, and narratives in their profession as English language educators.
Their narratives illustrate how their high awareness of EIL has often been
challenged by the authoritative or policy-driven rhetoric of professionalism
that appears to dictate their professional work and identity in their teaching
context. Discourses of professionalism in the area of ELT in Indonesia are
often dominated by the discourses of the west. The four participants
narratives depict their struggle to move away from this monologic and
Anglophonic view of professionalism to the multi-dimensional one. This
study aims to explore these narratives of professional learning experiences
which reflect the complexity and multilayered world of teaching as
constructed during my conversations with the educators. These are stories
of teaching and learning experience, professional and personal endeavour
in teaching, tensions and dilemma of teaching beliefs and reality outside
the classroom, and concerns and imaginings of the future of ELT in
Indonesia. This study was initiated with a general topic of teacher learning
guided by the following research questions: How do the English teacher

The Struggle of Moving towards EIL

151

educators understand their teaching, work, and lives? How do they interact
with various discourses of professionalism in ELT?

Discourses of professionalism in ELT

Several scholars (e.g. Holliday, 2005; Maley, 1992; Nunan, 2001)
discuss the notion of professionalism in ELT. Maley (1992) and Nunan
(2001) describe the need to carefully define the concepts of profession,
professional, and professionalism by emphasizing the diverse
characteristics and settings of English Language Teaching across the
world. Maley (1992) emphasizes that it is difficult to have a clear cut and
fixed definition of the concept because of the sheer diversity in ELT
contexts and settings. He describes four major divisions as follows:
x
Different perspectives of English teaching that separate the
state from the private sectors: The state sector tends to operate
within the classical humanist tradition (the use of textbook,
syllabus, and examinations prescribed by the authorities) whereas
private sectors tend to be flexible and innovative in their main
interest to meet the paying clients needs or wants.
x
Division between employers and individual teachers in
different contexts (e.g. in the UK, BASCELT as an association of
employersteachers, or in some countries between Ministries of
Educationlocal teachers) often causes conflict between
professional interests (i.e. top-down curriculum change conflicts
with teachers perceptions of what is needed).
x
Division between Native and Non-Native speaker teachers
(native speaker teachers are considered to be the best model for
English teaching).
x
Quality vs. quantity (there is an increasing demand of people
throughout the world to learn English and this sometimes impacts
on quality of English Language Teaching across a greater range of
providers). (Maley, 1992, p. 96-98)
Linked to the diversity sketched out above, Maley argues the need for
taking into account distinct ELT characteristics or features when
considering the notion of professionalism in ELT. He advocates the
importance of recognizing the different needs and aspirations of ELT
professionals in particular settings, and of moving towards professional
excellence through co-operation, collaboration and interchange between
sectors (Maley, 1992, p. 98). It can be concluded that any understanding of

152

Chapter Ten

professionalism must be closely tied to the needs, conditions and contexts

of where the English language teaching takes place.
While Maley (1992) sees professionalism as a journey towards
professional excellence, Holliday (2005) views it as a site of struggle. This
notion of struggle is closely related to the growing status of English as an
International Language and its impact on the traditional viewpoints on
language teaching and learning. Holliday observes this issue from political
and ideological perspectives. Although he acknowledges that professionals
in the TESOL profession include English educators from different parts in
the world who share the same goal (teaching English), he still insists that
there exist politics of division which most of the time are dominated by
one distinct part of the TESOL world, the English-speaking West
(Holliday, 2005, p. 2). In line with other scholars voices (Canagarajah,
1999; Jenkins, 2000; Pennycook, 1994, 1998; Phillipson, 1992), Holliday
states that TESOL professionals from the English-speaking West
undoubtedly have a privileged and dominant position in the TESOL world.
Unfortunately, the rapid increase in the status of the English language
globally is not accompanied by changes in perspectives of English
language teaching and learning at the same pace. Resistance towards the
idea still exists in most parts of the world and in the minds of TESOL
professionals (teachers, academics, curriculum developers, writers,
publishers, etc.) (Holliday, 2005). For this reason, Holliday emphasizes the
notion of struggle for relationships of how we see each other, how
colleagues from the English-speaking West must deal with the divisive
elements of their professionalism; and how we must all overcome the
legacy of native-speakerism (2005, p. 16). Holliday calls for rethinking,
re-evaluating, and establishing new relationships among the multifaceted
elements in ELT.
Maleys (1992) and Hollidays (2005) perspectives correspond with
Halls (2004) descriptions of professionalism as situational, relational and
often contradictory. It is often related to the political struggle to define
what teachers work should be and how it should be implemented in the
curriculum (Hall, 2004, p.6). The notion of a teachers professionalism
has often been viewed as related to political purposes that control and
guide teachers in the form of policies, standards, and professional criteria
(Day & Sachs, 2004; Hargreaves, 2000; Sachs, 2001 & 2003). Sachs
(2003) explains that these policies tend to control and restrict teachers
through specifications of skills, competencies and attributes of the
teaching profession. However, to pin down the concept of professionalism
as a generic and uniform set of professional responsibilities and expected

The Struggle of Moving towards EIL

153

characteristics for all members of the profession disregards the contextual,

personal, and dynamic nature of professionalism.
In the case of ELT in Indonesia, the concept of professionalism is still
dominated and imposed by the west. Many (including educators,
institutions, parents and students) still believe in a purist paradigm of
English as owned by the English-speaking west (Holliday, 2005),
including countries such as the UK, U.S., Canada, and Australia.
Standards, criteria, and qualifications for being an English language
teacher in most parts of Indonesia are still adopting and adapting systems
developed in the Anglophone world as the benchmark of professionalism
for their particular contexts. This condition is continually maintained when
teacher education programmes in Indonesia design their curricula to meet
these standards, criteria, and qualifications. Despite new developments in
ELT towards recognizing a more pluralistic view of language, culture and
identity, the ideas of native-speakerism, monolingualism, and
monoculturalism are still quite prominent in the language of professional
competence in ELT in Indonesia. Terms such as native-speaker of
English, near native-speaker competence, and Standard English are
still widely used with less critical assessment of their political and
ideological implications in the field of ELT in Indonesia. The notion of
agency with respect to a multilingual and multi-competence English user
and teacher as an independent and self-directing English pedagogue has
often consciously and subconsciously been submerged by this dominant
strain of professionalism discourse.
This conditioning of the Anglophone standard in Indonesia can be
traced back to when English was chosen to be the first foreign language to
be studied in the national curriculum. After gaining its independence in
1945, Indonesia, according to Dardjowidjojo (2000), was in a devastated
condition (economically and politically). It was not until 1950 that the
government was finally prepared to pay attention to the education sector
(Dardjowijojo, 2000). In terms of foreign languages study, Dutch was not
chosen since it was the language of the colonialist and it did not have
international stature (2000, p. 23). English, then, was chosen as the first
foreign language to be taught and learned at school. With little or no
teacher resources to teach English, the government approached the US for
assistance. This signalled the beginning of the ELT aid (Phillipson,
1992) programmes in Indonesia that still continue to the present day.
These ELT aid programmes exist in various forms: as teacher education
short-courses or (post)graduate degrees, delivered as part of scholarship
programmes for studying abroad (the English-speaking west) in schools
where western ELT consultants are sent out to train local teachers in

154

Chapter Ten

Indonesia; as part of sponsored native-speakers of English Teachers

being sent to educational institutions; as ELT curriculum materials
developed for particular educational projects; as TOEFL and IELTS
testing and teaching services; and even as teaching certification
programmes from some western institutions (which are sometimes
promoted as a more reliable teaching qualification for English language
teacher than the Indonesian teaching certification programmes such as
CELTA, DELTA, etc.). This networking relation is still going on. There is
a tendency to position the west (the one who provides the language
teaching aid) as the one who decides and owns the standard. Indeed, this
long history of ELT aid and teacher education programmes invokes a
sense of exclusive professionalism (Holliday, 2005), creating an image
of a particular professional group as having superiority of specialized
knowledge, practices, and discourses (p. 26).
English Language educators in their professional life have most of the
time to live under the shadow of these issues (native-speakerism,
Standardized English, monoculturalism and monolingualism). Schools,
parents, students, and even educators themselves most of the time believe
that English Language educators should be native speakers or close to this
status. It is believed that native speakers of English provide the correct
and original model of English for young learners. This can be seen from
a study done by Zacharias (2006) who surveyed 100 tertiary level teachers
(94 per cent English Speakers Teachers with Indonesian nationality) in
Indonesia about the role of Native English Speaker Teachers (NEST)
and Non-Native English Speaker Teachers (NNEST) in teaching
language skills. The study shows that the majority of the teachers believed
that it was preferable for pronunciation (93 per cent) and speaking (88 per
cent) skills to be taught by NEST. They believed that NEST would
provide the right exposure to language use in terms of appropriateness,
accuracy and naturalness. It would provide learners with access to up to
date words for contemporary expressions, and it would give learners vital
experience in communicating with people whose language the students
learned (Zacharias, 2006, p. 6). Interestingly, this study also shows that
there are contradictory beliefs in terms of the value of NEST teachers. It is
reported that although NEST is viewed as the providers of correct norms
in language practices, it is not expected that NEST teachers need to teach
grammar. The majority of the teachers think that teaching is an art and
that acquiring the language naturally did not make a person a better
teacher (2006, p.8). This view of English teaching stands in acute contrast
with many of the standard practices of English language teachers in TEFL
or even in English as an International Language perspective, and so raises

The Struggle of Moving towards EIL

155

interesting questions about the different skills, knowledge, or qualities, as

well as the professional identities of certain English teachers in Indonesia.
With these overlapping discourses that co-exist in the context of
Indonesia, I would like to explore how English language teacher educators
understand professionalism in their context and to what extent the concept
of professionalism is challenged and/or negotiated in todays era of EIL
through their narratives of learning and teaching.

Method: Narrative-based inquiry

As Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach and Zilber (1998) state, a human is a
meaning-generating organism. It is in his/her nature to elicit and actively
produce meaning in his/her interaction in the world. One way to do this is
through constructing narrative. Fivush (2007) views narrative as a way of
making sense and generating meaning from what individuals experience
every day. When individuals tell their experiences to others, they are
involved in the act of reinterpreting, re-evaluating and reconstructing their
experiences for themselves. In this study, narrative-based research is
chosen because of its philosophical assumptions of pluralism, relativism,
and subjectivity (Lieblich, et al., 1998). On the basis of such assumptions,
I have explored the uniqueness of each individual teacher educators
understanding of professional learning while also being alert to possible
commonalities in their understandings. As Doecke and Parr (2009)
explain, Narratives in all their diversity and multiplicity make up the
fabric of our lives: they are constitutive moments in the formation of our
identities and our sense of community affiliation (p. 66). Narrative serves
as a medium and method for this study, allowing meaningful engagement
with individuals experiences and how they see and interpret themselves in
different situations and times.
The data in this study come from in-depth and individual narrative
interviews. The interviews were conducted in three sessions, based on
three main topics. The teacher educators were interviewed two to three
times. The interview responses were approached as narrative accounts
(Mishler, 1986). The interviewing process in this study was underpinned
by Mishlers (1986) concept of joint construction of meaning. In this
study, I saw my role in the interviews as enabling myself as interviewer
and my interviewees to work together to achieve recripocal
understanding of meanings (1986, p. 52). A mutual understanding of
meanings was achieved through variations in how I asked the questions.
Mishler also explains that, as interviews unfold, the interviewer and
interviewee need to be given space and scope for reformulating or

156

Chapter Ten

specifying questions in an ongoing process of making sense of what they

are saying to each other.
Considering the narrative and reflexive characteristics of this study, I
did not set any strict criteria for participating in the study. The willingness
of a teacher educator to participate was very important in the gathering of
the data (i.e. in the interviews) since this helped to avoid any uneasiness
and potential reluctance in sharing their stories. Thirteen (13) lecturers of a
university-based pre-service English teacher education programme of a
private university in Central Java, Indonesia, responded to my invitations.
The teacher education programme specializes in preparing teachercandidates to be English language educators in primary, secondary, and
tertiary educational settings. All of these educators are multilingual
speakers and of Indonesian nationality. I interviewed and transcribed them
all. As I was listening and transcribing the interviews, I was mostly drawn
to these four teacher educators accounts for the issues that they raised
which stood out, and the clarity with which they articulated these issues.
However, I do not mean to imply that the other nine participants
narratives were in any way less important than the four I chose to focus on
in detail. Rather, I think that the four educators accounts echo and share
most of the issues and concerns that the other nine educators raised in their
accounts. The teacher educators are all multilinguals and have been
teaching in the teacher education programme for more than 10 years. I
present and discuss their accounts using pseudonyms that they chose. In
the following paragraph, I provide brief information of the teacher
educators in this study.
Daniel (a pseudonym) is a young early career teacher educator in
Dharma University. His MA degree in Applied Linguistics was obtained
from a university in Australia. He is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in the U.S.
Sukiyem holds a BA degree in ELT from Dharma University and an MA
degree in the same area from a university in Thailand. Sukiyem recently
obtained her Ph.D. in Composition and TESOL from a university in the
U.S. She has been teaching in Dharma University for more than 10 years.
She is an active researcher who has published in local, national, regional,
and international journals. Tuti is a senior lecturer who is near to
retirement. She has been teaching in the university for more than 30 years.
Her MA degree in ELT was obtained from a university in the UK in 1992.
Teaching, to Tuti, is only one dimension of her professional work in
education: she has had several academic roles in the university including
the Secretary of the ELT Department, Head of the ELT Department, and
Deputy Rector for international networking. Ucoq (a pseudonym) is a parttime lecturer in the ELT Department in Dharma University. She also holds

The Struggle of Moving towards EIL

157

a tenured teaching post in another institution nearby, the Bakti University.

Her MA in ELT was obtained from a university in Thailand. Ucoq also
just recently received the Indonesian Governments acknowledgment as a
Certified Lecturer which certainly affected her professional status in her
home-based institution.

Discussion: the struggle of claiming professional identity

As Britzman (2003) points out, the story of learning to teach may not
be the one that is expected (p. 10), and this is borne out in these four
teacher-educators narratives. The four teacher educators journey since
entering the ELT profession does not show a smooth and linear process.
Their own unique narrative of experiences tell quite a similar story of
discovering teaching and the struggle of (re)claiming their professional
identity.
During their early years in teaching, there was apparently no formal
mentoring programme. Their early professional learning was still very
much operating under the traditional Anglocentric paradigm of their
previous learning experiences at the university. It involved unplanned and
intuitive learning from colleagues, learning that was heavily circumscribed
by institutional beliefs, values, managerial systems, and practices, and by
the dominance of English-speaking western discourses of professionalism
in ELT. These discourses of their past learning and their perceptions as the
Other in the institution led or predisposed them to certain expectations,
beliefs, and practices. In their early years of teaching, the educators
seemed to be accepting of these one-dimensional norms (Standard English,
native-speakerism, monoculturalism, and monolingualism) and systems
(the institutions educational beliefs and policies, and perception and
expectation of a new arrival lecturer) since they were still focusing on
fitting in to the institutions cultural and discursive practice (Wenger,
1998).
In her narratives, Tuti mentions the division of labour that has been set
from the beginning of the Departments establishment:
Native speakers teach skill courses because they are skillful in using the
language, because they are the model for content courses, the local
teachers can handle them. (Tuti)

This long guarded system has also influenced the way Tuti views
language and culture from the purist perspectiveEnglish is exclusively
owned by the English speaking west. She believes that the Native Speaker
of English speaks perfect and appropriate English, and that it is

158

Chapter Ten

therefore essential to have NEST in every language institution. Content

courses (Phonology, Semantics, Sociolinguistics, etc.) and grammar
knowledge are portrayed as being less important (for a competent English
user) compared to a person who can use the language like a NES. Yet, Tuti
still establishes a space for negotiation between her cultural background
and the target language cultural background. To her, learning a language
also means learning the culture but not to the extreme point of losing ones
own culture. I always told my students, learn the good values of other
cultures and leave out the ones that are not suitable with our culture, she
explained.
The notion of struggle of living with pre-existing discourse of
professionalism is very apparent in Sukiyems narrative. Sukiyem
provides a more elaborative explanation on this division of labour that
affects the way she views her professional identity:
If I was certain of my teacher identity, I was not sure of my English
teacher identities. This was because there was a clear division of labour
between native and non-native teachers. Native speaker teachers taught
courses dealt more with language production such as pronunciation,
speaking, and writing. Only very few non-native speakers taught
pronunciation; those who spoke like a native speaker.
. We have been positioned like that for so long, its really hard to
turn us around, you know what I mean. I feel like no amount of knowledge
can turn us around that quickly. Look at me, for example now almost
finished my Ph.D., but there are certain cases that I feel that I cannot
appreciate myself as an English teacher. There are certain events that
made me feel, Ah, theyre better. Native speakers are better. And I
always attribute all my failures to my being a Non-native speaker.
(Sukiyem)

This division of labour seems to lead to what Holliday (2005) terms,

exclusive professionalism in which NESTs are considered to be the
authority and experts on certain knowledge or domainsand membership
of this imagined community are only for those who could sound and
speak English like them. Sukiyem feels that the institutional belief and
practice does not appreciate and encourage the expertise of a professional,
and only confines her identity into a one-dimensional identitya NonNative English Speaker. Also, it is even more devastating to her when she
feels that, from time to time, she also attributes all her failings to being a
non-native English speaker. It has been dominating the way professionalism
is perceived, and even worse, it has been sustained and perpetuated by
most professional communities with whom she interacts. Sukiyem
struggles to respond to this long preserved professionalism myth to the

The Struggle of Moving towards EIL

159

point that she starts to doubt her own capacity as an English language
educator.
Sukiyem and Ucoq also talk about the use of commercial English
language textbooks (mostly ELT textbooks from the English-speaking
west as instructed by the Department in their university) and other
teaching materials that have been prepared by their senior colleagues and
by NESTs. The institutions curriculum is orientated to what they believe
to be, Standard English (British English and/or American English). The
curriculum is therefore often designed by following the textbooks
produced by publishers from western countries. These types of textbooks
claim to give Standard English models necessary for learners linguistic
knowledge and competence. It would seem that the dominant professional
practice of the institution still works under the native-speakerism fallacy
(Phillipson, 1992). As novice lecturers, Sukiyem and Ucoq were uncertain
of their capacity or authority in designing and developing their own
teaching materials. This condition is quite apparent from Sukiyems
narrative: Before I studied in AU [for an MA degree in ELT], I thought
we just sucked up all the knowledge from the western [countries]. So, we
just teach the textbooks. We cant do anything else. Working with such
discourses in the institution, Sukiyem as a beginning teacher-educator
subconsciously also positioned herself as the consumer of the
authoritative knowledge of English from western countries, and clouded
her potential capacities as a material developer and a co-constructor of
knowledge.
The monolithic, monologic and Anglocentric ideology in ELT
professionalism in Indonesia continues to be preserved through different
forms of standardization instruments. One of them is the legitimized
testing systems such as TOEFL, IELTS, and, recently, TOEIC that are
often used as one (yet most of the time, the determining) qualification to
define an English language educators professional competence. Daniel
objected to this idea by contextualizing his use of English in various
discourse communities:
At least in Indonesia, I can use English for my purposes and that doesnt
necessarily fit in English speakersthe so-called English Native
Speakers purposes that I need to integrate myself fully to their own way
of thinking. In Indonesia, I can share things and my thoughts with English
to suit my purposes. Thats all. Thats enough for me. So, even in my book
that I will publish. I will get that published soon. I mentioned in one of the
introduction, I think, whats the point of getting 677 [in TOEFL] or 9 in
IELTS because I think, I believe like what I said I have purposes that I
can share with the world in whatever Englishes that I write.

160

Chapter Ten

Daniel shows great awareness of the rising of multiple Englishes and

how standardized tests like TOEFL and IELTS fail to acknowledge and
represent different versions and dimensions of Englishes in various
academic settings. Daniel feels that being measured primarily by
standardized tests seems to overlook his professional quality as an
academic who uses English for his professional purposes (for teaching,
academic discussions with international scholars, networking, publications,
and others). Daniel further criticized TOEFL and IELTS as adopting an
integrationist perspective which forced other English users to think in
one framework of English: people from different countries were forced
to integrate their mind set in order to fit their [English-speaking west]
context. This kind of mindset, he argued, seemed to put aside the
intercultural background of the English users. Daniel built a compelling
argument challenging the normative view of language that controls and
confines his identity as a test-taker to conform to the centralized [Englishspeaking western] norms, and emphasizes the multi-dimensional aspects
of his identity as an English language user and teacher educator. Daniels
account showed a concern about the hidden and political agenda of this
type of standardized test being forced onto the ELT profession, an agenda
that benefits (by imposing certain norms of) one party, and marginalizes
others. Here, Daniel also pointed out the issue of power held by the test
administrators. The test administrators (namely, TOEFL, IELTS, and other
educational, social and political institutions) as the testers or test makers
hold the privilege of deciding what to test, how to test, how to score, and
how to deliver and interpret the results (Shohamy, 2001, p. 20). Hence,
tests are never neutral and separated from hidden motives or agendas. This
discourse of standardized testing that Daniel brought up in our interview
reconfirms the issue of systematic and political control that promotes and
preserves a particular language and culture to become the norm and
reference for others to follow; neglecting and suppressing other varieties
and identities from emerging.

Re-imagining ELT in Indonesia: The struggle

of constructing an alternative paradigm
While conversing with the four teacher-educators, I noticed how their
high awareness and analytical viewing of the dominant traditional
paradigm in ELT led them to look for some alternative paradigms (namely
EIL, Critical Pedagogy, and identity pedagogy) and their struggle to
construct these paradigms in their teaching practice in todays globalized
era. The educators acknowledged the urgency of mastering English in the

The Struggle of Moving towards EIL

161

current globalization era so that the young Indonesian generation could

compete internationally.
Ucoq noted the mushrooming of National Plus Schools, International
Schools and Sekolah Bertaraf International (International Standard
Schools) throughout Indonesia. In their advertisement flyers, these schools
put forward their distinguishing feature of using English as the Medium of
Instruction (EMI) in their institution to attract students from higher class
society. Often, these schools have been viewed as promoting exclusivity
of opportunity to the believed good education and language superiority
(one language is of a higher status and importance than the other) through
their promotion of EMI. This kind of advertisement discourse, to some
extent, seems to promote English as if it were higher than Bahasa
Indonesia. Ucoq shared her concerns about the urgency of mastering
English with the rising number of these exclusive schools:
Im concerned when ...the implementation of English [as the medium of
instruction] is overrated. I mean, it needs to be in a good balance. I mean,
if they want to learn English from kindergarten level, okay thats fine...
They will master English language, okay, fine, but not to the expense of
losing knowledge about Indonesia. ... I understand they are being
prepared to meet the demands of the globalization era but lets not let
them be unaware of their own identity... Its that sense of nationalism, I
think. (Ucoq)

The belief that English needs to be taught in the early years for a
successful English acquisition has often been used as a justification to
open such schools, Ucoq feels. She has seen how parents nowadays rush to
put their children in these type of schools in the hope that their children
could master both English and content subjects. For these reasons, Ucoq
feared that arguing for a focus on English because of the globalized world
in this manner might leave the younger generations unaware of their own
linguistic, cultural, and national identities. Ucoqs explanation also
signalled a certain level of concern that this potential misconception by the
public may lead to discrediting the Indonesian language in the education
sector in the future. As I further asked her about this concern, Ucoq
clarified that English would probably not take the place of Bahasa
Indonesia in these types of school curricula. However, Ucoq worried that
several aspects of the Indonesian curriculum would be sacrificed as a
result of adopting exported curriculum designs (e.g. the Singapore or
British school curricula) such as Pancasila Philosophy Education and
Moral and Ethics-related subjects. In Ucoqs opinion, while some schools
decided to adopt these exported curriculum designs, it would still be

162

Chapter Ten

important to have some subjects that were related to keeping a sense of

nationalism and knowledge of national ideology (Pancasila).
Similarly, Tuti believes that it is necessary to use English as a Second
Language in classto use it intensively as the medium of instruction to
provide learners with a meaningful use of the language. Tuti, however,
also showed an awareness of recent discourses which suggest that
monolingual teaching of English may threaten and endanger the English
learners sense of nationalism, and they may lose their cultural identity by
referring back to the English-phobic time near the end of the 1990s. At
that time, the government prohibited the use of English words in branding
practice and in the media (television, newspaper, advertisement, and
others). Tuti argued that the idea of nationalism, which was shown by
some politicians through policies in the past, should not be too narrowminded. She believed that the fear of the loss of nationalism among
Indonesian youngsters is unfounded. She gave the example of English
speakers of the neighbouring countries such as Malaysia and Singapore in
which English is used as a Second Language, yet the people still preserve
their national identity:
You are an Indonesian. And youre proud of your country. You do the best
for your country, thats nationalism. But, it doesnt mean that you are
close-minded and refuse to develop, like, for example, everything has to be
in Indonesian and we should not learn English. If it is the best thing for
your country, why not? Take Malaysia, for example, they still have their
high nationalism. They are, when was it, during Mahathir Mohamads
governance, when English was made the medium of instructions at
schools.

For Tuti, nationalism involves being open to the existence of other

languages in Indonesia. She further suggests that nationalism should be
viewed from an open-minded perspective that embraces new changes for
the betterment of the nation, even if it means learning, in her words,
English as a Second Languagea naturalistic view of language
learning. Her view challenges the idea of a direct and unilateral relation of
language and culture as an inseparable whole (Risager, 2007). Tuti, in this
case, was proposing a creative way of viewing language and culture
pedagogy in ELTone that leads to a multilateral and dialogic relation.
Faced with the tensions between the urgent needs of mastering English
and misconceptions in approaching this matter, the teacher-educators view
the importance of their role in engaging the teacher-candidates to an
analytical way of viewing ELT in Indonesia. In their teaching, they seek to
raise learners awareness of issues such as linguistics and cultural
imperialism in ELT practices, World Englishes, and the multiple

The Struggle of Moving towards EIL

163

dimensions of identities through their teaching activities and design of

materials. Tuti, in her teaching, interestingly often reminds her students to
be cautious, selective and mindful in learning and adopting another
culture:
I always remind them that when we learn English, we also learn the
culture. Take whatever good values of that culture enrich you. Leave out
the inappropriate ones, meaning: foreign values that do not fit our
customs or culture in Indonesia. To me, [accepting] those kinds of
values will distort our [cultural] values

Despite her belief in the teaching of English language and English

culture, Tuti emphasizes the importance of keeping some essential values
of the local culture and not letting them all be washed away by the strong
current of globalization. Tutis narrative displays a degree of dialogic
thinking that involves re-creating the traditional perspective of
monolingual and monocultural understanding and practice in the past into
a personalized, contextualized and hybridized meaning.
Sukiyem, having a research interest in language and identity,
emphasizes the necessity for English language teacher-educators to help
teacher-candidates to confidently claim their multilingual and intercultural
identities as an English teacher:
Being an English Language teacher-educator in Indonesia, I think, is to be
able to make the learners proud to be Indonesian in English be able
to show that you dont need to be like other people or speak English
like the American or British people. But you use English to promote your
culture; to be Indonesian; to show people what is Indonesian in English.
So, the teaching of English, I think, should accommodate that.

Sukiyems vision of being an English language teacher-educator

involves taking pride in being a multilingual English teacher and resisting
the imposition of native-speakerism in her professional work and life.
Sukiyem exposes her learners to the notion of multiple Englishes using
texts written by bilingual and post-colonial authors. She discusses and
openly problematizes the monolithic ideology in TESOL methodologies
with her learners, inviting them to share their reflections and opinions on
their past experience of learning under this monolithic framework.
Similarly, Ucoq discusses hidden ideology in ELT approaches and
methods in her Curriculum and Material Design course. She reminds
teacher-candidates to critically scrutinize any teaching methodologies that
may be introduced, endorsed or employed by schools:

164

Chapter Ten
Sometimes they have no choice about the book that they have to use...
Since these textbooks are being published by western publishers, there are
many western-oriented cultures. A student in my [Curriculum and
Material Design] class yesterday said that the topic [introduced in the
textbook] was far-fetched from Indonesian learners [background]. Then,
I asked them to discuss it. But I didnt stop there. I always ask them, So
what should we do as teachers in bridging this gap? So, I always raise
their awareness about how to adapt teaching materials to suit Indonesian
learners needs.

Being critical, analytical, and able to adapt the teaching methodologies

and materials becomes the main goal of Ucoqs teaching. Ucoq introduces
the concept of post-methodology (Kumaravadivelu, 1994), and encourages
her students always to take into account the teaching context in order to
find the most suitable approaches for that context instead of accepting any
generic or dominant approaches that are imposed on them.
Daniel, through his critical pedagogy course, discusses with, and
encourages, his learners to be keenly looking for any evidence of
marginalization acts that might be happening in their educational and
social surroundings. Drawing heavily on Freires traditions of critical
pedagogy, Daniel also encourages his learners to articulate their voice, and
to learn to talk back to the authoritative discourses that seek to marginalize
them. To Daniel, being a teacher is also being a critical pedagogue. I try
to convey through critical pedagogy how the students can read the world,
how they can perceive reality in the world, how they can comment on that
or how they can contribute to the betterment of our society through
English, explained Daniel about his desire to encourage learners to be
active and transformative individuals in their society.

Closing
In their dialogue with me as the researcher, the four teacher-educators
(Tuti, Sukiyem, Daniel, and Ucoq) were engaged in a reflective and
reflexive process of understanding their perspective, beliefs, emotions, and
practices of teaching. One the most telling findings in this study is the
revelation of how their narratives tell their struggle for voice (Britzman,
2003) in their professional endeavours. The educators challenged and
problematized the traditional paradigm of ELT in relation to todays
English status as an international language. Their narratives reflect how
their understanding of EIL contributes to how they re-conceptualize
professionalism of ELT and how they navigate themselves among these
co-existing, overlapping, and conflicting discourses of professionalism in

The Struggle of Moving towards EIL

165

their teaching context. As a researcher, I was grateful that these educators

shared their vulnerability (cf. Kelchtermans, 2005), tensions, self-blame
attitudes and emotions, and conflicting feelings in their practice and their
becoming (Britzman, 2003) an educator. Britzman (2003) explains how
these sorts of struggles have often been repressed, denied, and avoided in
discussions about teacher education. Without these complications, it is
easy to give the impression of a linear and mechanistic development,
whether this be in pre-service teachers learning to teach or teacher
educators learning about their work and practices in higher education.
As I listened to and worked with their narratives, I also heard them
stressing the need to review and critically assess the way English is taught
for todays globalized world. The issue of language (in this case, English)
and how that language constructs the learners, users, and educators
identity has been a recurring motif in the teacher educators narratives of
their teaching. They themselves call for pedagogical and curricular reform
in ELT in Indonesia that better recognizes and supports the development
of multilingual, multicultural and intercultural identitiesa paradigm shift
away from constructing identity of English users in countries across the
world as deficit and one-dimensional-self (cf. non-native English speaker).
An ELT paradigm that embraces and acknowledges variety, particularity,
and local capacity is one that approaches English in a globalized world as
a language that mediates the learners development of international and
intercultural selves.

References
Britzman, D. P. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of
learning to teach. New York: State University of New York Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Dardjowidjojo, S. (2000). English teaching in Indonesia. English Australia
Journal, 18(1), 22-30.
Day, C. & Sachs, J. (Eds.). (2004). International handbook on the
continuing professional development of teachers. Berkshire: Open
University Press.
Doecke, B. & Parr, G. (2009). Crude Thinking or reclaiming our storytelling rights. Harold Rosens essays on narrative. Changing English,
16(1), 63-76.
Fivush, R. (2007). Remembering and reminiscing: How individual lives
are constructed in family narratives. Memory studies, 1(1), 45-54.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

166

Chapter Ten

Hall, C. (2004). Theorising changes in teachers work. Canadian Journal

of Educational Administration and Policy. 32, 1-7. Retrieved from
http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/pdf files/hall.pdf
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional
learning, Teachers and Teaching: History and practice, 6(2), 151-182.
Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an International
Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International
Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kelchtermans, G. (2005). Teachers emotions in educational reforms: Selfunderstanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1317-1333.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging
strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28,
27-48.
Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R., & Zilber, T. (1998). Narrative research:
Reading, analysis, and interpretation. London: Sage.
Maley, A. (1992). An open letter to the profession. ELT Journal, 46(1),
96-99.
Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and Narrative.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Nunan, D. (2001). Is language teaching a profession? TESOL in Context,
11(1), 4-8.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international
language. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Risager, K. (2007). Language and culture pedagogy: From a national to a
transnational paradigm. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Sachs, J. (2001, December). Curriculum control: the cost to teacher
professionalism. A paper presented at AARE Conference. Fremantle,
Australia.
. (2003). The Activist teaching profession. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Shohamy, E. (2001). The Power of texts: A critical perspective on the uses
of language tests. London: Pearson Education.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and
identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The Struggle of Moving towards EIL

167

Zacharias, N. T. (2006). Native or Non-Native Teachers: A study on

tertiary teachers beliefs in Indonesia. A Journal of Culture, English
Language Teaching and Literature, 6(1), 1-10.

CHAPTER ELEVEN
IMPLEMENTING WORLD ENGLISHES
IN FIRST-YEAR COMPOSITION CLASSROOMS
PISARN BEE CHAMCHARATSRI

Introduction
According to the Open Doors Report, the number of international
students entering into higher educational institutions in the U.S.
increased by five per cent to 723,277 during the 2010/11 academic year
(Open Door Report, 2011). These international or second language (L2)
students coming into our composition classrooms might have the
perception of English as a monolithic entity or Standard English (SE). L2
students might have heard and feel proud of their varieties of English in
their home countries; others might have negative perceptions toward their
local Englishes. Even more complicated, when they enter into composition
classrooms, they want to learn about writing templates to be successful in
American college writing classrooms.
Second language (L2) writers come into English composition
classrooms with their monolithic Standard English (SE) perceptions. As
Horner (2006) puts it, students need to learn to work within and
among and across a variety of Englishes and languages, not simply to
(re)produce and write within the conventions of a particular, standardized
variety of English (p. 570).We as literacy educators need to introduce
varieties of English to our students so that they can be well informed
within the contexts they are in. This was supported by Canagarajahs
(2006) position that we need to educate our students to be more inclusive
to other English varieties by introducing English varieties that are
personally significant to the students so that they will accommodate
[these varieties] in their repertoire of Englishes (p. 592).
This chapter presents some reflections of teaching an ESL First Year
Writing course (FYC) by implementing World Englishes (WE) in the
classroom. The reason is that the discussion on using WE in composition

Implementing World Englishes in First-Year Composition Classrooms

169

classes has been going on in the field of composition (Canagarajah, 2006);

however, we have not read about challenges or issues in implementing
WE scholarship in composition journals. Not until recently did Matsuda
(2012) come out with her edited collection of how to implement WE in
classrooms in different contexts. Based on her book, this chapter will
complement its last chapter by discussing the process of choosing
materials used in class, sequencing activities to help students write about
this topic, and presenting some student reactions to writing up WE
research papers.

Teaching Context
Classrooms are considered to be communities that have their own
cultures; hence, understanding the contexts is important in learning about
the implementation of teaching methodologies (Chamcharatsri, 2009). In
this chapter, I focus on an ESL composition classroom in a four-year
public university in the US. The classroom consisted of 25 international
students who came from different countriesChina, Korea, Malaysia,
Nigeria, Taiwan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Many of these students came
to pursue their undergraduate degrees; some of them were in the one-year
exchange programme.
In this course, these students were required to work on two major
assignmentspoetry books and a World Englishes (WE) paper. For the
WE paper, students were asked to choose their own topics within the WE
research area. Within seven weeks, students were expected to produce a
12-page research paper with in-text citations and a list of references using
the APA-style format.

Familiarizing Students with WE

When students were told that they needed to write 12-page research
papers, they were stunned because they had had limited opportunities to
write long papers, especially in English. After I discussed the requirements
of the paper, I asked my students to free-write their answers based on these
two questions: 1) What is English? 2) What are Englishes? Then I asked
them to share some of their responses to the whole class.
Students Reflections:
The word Englishes was a puzzle for me. I had no idea about Englishes
and not even the meaning of the phrase. (Js Reflection)

170

Chapter Eleven
What is the World Englishes? Did he misspell it? People in the classroom
were asking each other what is the World Englishes? (Gs Reflection)
but the second question was about What does Englishes mean? In this
question I thought there was a spelling mistake. (Ts Reflection)
The next question is, What do I think of when I see the term Englishes?,
at my first glance of this word I was thinking to myself, Is there even such
a word? Does this even exist in the dictionary? (Ws Introduction)

This is an awareness-raising activity for L2 writers to think about how

English has evolved and changed. In a way, I attempt to break their
illusion of the so-called Standard English that they have in their English
language perceptions. A few students thought that I had made a spelling
mistake with the word Englishes. Others guessed that it was something
to do with different accents, spellings, and pronunciation. Based on their
answers, I could sense that they were somewhat aware of differences in
the English language; however, they were not sure whether these
variations were acceptable because they expected to learn Standard
English. After the discussion, students were asked to read a review
research article by McArthurs (2001) World English and World
Englishes: Trends, Tensions, Varieties, and Standards. After reading,
they were asked to write a one-paragraph summary of the article, and one
paragraph on their reaction to the article. The reason I chose this article
was that it helped L2 students to see the big picture of the realm of English
language around the world.
Identifying resources is important especially for L2 students because
they need to learn how to navigate themselves through resources available
at the univeristy. I provided my students with these titles and resources as
a starting point for them to look for articles and papers that were relevant
to their chosen topics. Students found these titles to be helpful for them
because they could start thinking about their topics and look for the
information they needed, which helped them to further their search for
other journals and books. The resources to which I introduced my students
included the journals of World Englishes, TESOL Quarterly, Applied
Linguisics, and ELT Journal. I also directed them to look at some books
such as Kachru, Kachru, and Nelsons (2006) The Handbook of World
Englishes, Kachrus (1990) The Alchemy of English, Kirkpatricks (2007)
World Englishes: Implications for International Communication and
English Language Teaching, and Jenkins (2003) World Englishes: A
Resource Book for Students.

Implementing World Englishes in First-Year Composition Classrooms

171

Scaffold writing/reflecting activities

Sequencing the activities is important in this project. Every writing
activity I designed in this course helped students move their papers
forward. In other words, every small writing assignment could be used to
complete the papers at the end of the semester. The following section will
describe major writing activities that help L2 students write their WE
papers: annotated bibliography, research questions, and reflective writing.
After some discussions of the articles and readings, students were
asked to start working on their papers. Based on their chosen topics,
students were asked to think of questions that they wanted to work on.
Topics that students chose were related to their national heritages. These
topics came from their own interests and their own observations when they
were back in their home countries. For example, many Chinese students
chose to write about Chinglish, Chinese English, and teaching English in
China. Korean students wanted to work on Konglish and Korean English
Education. One Korean student wanted to analyze her own English
writing. She collected every written draft and analyzed them with basic
quantitative data (frequency distribution).

Annotated Bibliography
The first activity was an annotated bibliography. They were required to
write at least eight annotated entries based on their chosen topics. This
annotated bibliography serves different purposes. The first one was to help
students learn referencing in the appropriated format. The second purpose
was to help students familiarize themselves with resources. Another
important purpose was to teach them the concept of plagiarism. At this
point, some students would change their topics because they found other
interesting ones to work on.
The annotated bibliography helped students become familiar with their
chosen topics and resources. They needed to make sure that they had
enough resources to write about their topics. During this process, students
were indirectly introduced to academic writing and socialization, which is
an important aspect in learning in the college level. I made sure that I had
a chance to check in with my students, talk to them about challenges or
problems they faced, and help them by directing them to resources that
they might not think of.

Chapter Eleven

172

Students Reflection:
After reading through all the materials, I realized that Malysian English is
not only something that represents the uniqueness of Malaysia or as
simple as the lah or meh ending particles, but there are much more indepth knowledge about this language and make me very interested to write
about it. (Js Reflection)

As seen from my students reflection, J not only learned more about

his variety of English, but he also gained some information that he did not
know prior to working on this WE project. He turned himself into an
educator for others who wanted to learn more about Malaysian English.
After reading some materials, he became interested and wanted to work on
this project. In a way, he created his own motivation in writing this paper.
The common problem that I came across in this process was the use of
keywords in searching for resources because some students came back
saying that they either had too many articles or had only a few of them.
When I discovered the problem, I decided to group students who thought
of working on similar topics together. This helped them think about
different keywords that they could use in their search.
Students Reflection:
During class, the professor suggested that I formed group with people,
who researching the same topic. That new process was very helpful to this
project. My classmate provided access to Korean universitys online
library for me and other group members. The online library had enough
articles for us. Then I could start studying my topic of Korean English.
(Gs Reflection)

When students faced difficulties in finding resources for their projects,

I grouped students who worked on the same variety of Englishes together.
They were allowed to share strategies in searching for resources; they
were also able to share the resources they had. In this way, the classroom
turned into a supportive community in which they created trust and
connections to one another.
After the annotated bibliography was finished, students were asked to
write a reflection based on their experiences. Reflective writing is used as
a transition from one writing activity to another. It also helped students
construct their reflective writing at the end of the semester. I know that
reflective writing is one of many genres that L2 writers who come from
other countries are not familiar with. Therefore, I provided some guided
questions for these students to think back to their writing process:

Implementing World Englishes in First-Year Composition Classrooms

x
x
x
x
x
x

173

How did you come up with the topic?

How did you find your resources?
What were challenges you faced during your writing process?
How did you solve problems?
How many drafts did you write?
How helpful was the peer review?

At the beginning, these L2 students briefly answered these questions

with two or three sentences. Some of them still could not manage their
reflective writing because this was new to them. I approached the
reflective writing in a different way. I asked my students to describe their
writing processes and then answer these questions in detail.
Students Reflection:
I enjoyed writing reflection the most. Reflection is a thought process and a
technique for evaluating our own performance. The important part of
reflection is understanding our feelings as well as acknowledging it. (As
Reflection)

Research Questions
After the annotated bibliography was finished, I asked my L2 students
to think of a few research questions that they wanted to answer through
their research papers. The research questions could be from their personal
experiences or observations on language use and/or from their WE
resources that they had read. The underlying reasons for asking students to
construct research questions were twofold. These research questions serve
as stepping stones for these L2 writers to form arguments in their paper;
they therefore needed to take stances in their positions posted in their
questions. This is important because L2 writers need to learn to state their
preferences or their positions in their papers. L2 writers may not have
experience in explicitly stating their opinions or positions in their papers.
By asking students to come up with research questions, L2 writers have a
sense of where they stand in relation to topics they are going to work on.
Second, L2 writers can construct their research papers in personal
meaningful ways. The research questions that these L2 writers try to
answer need to come from their own interests. When L2 writers are
interested in the issues they explore, they will be motivated to work on
their papers. They will try their best to find resources, read articles and
book chapters, and construct their arguments in meaningful ways.

Chapter Eleven

174

Students Reflection:
I found some really interesting facts about Malaysian English which I do
not even know after being a Malaysian for more than twenty years. This
project did help me a lot in knowing more about my country languages
development and some unique facts of Malaysian English. I really
appreciated this because as a Malaysian, I believed I will never know this
much about Malaysian English if I did not do this project. (Ts Reflection)

Process Writing
Process writing is introduced to L2 writers because many L2 writers
who come from other countries might not be familiar with multiple
drafting, revising, and editing. Many international students are not trained
to write in multiple drafts, even though they have taken writing courses in
their home countries. In other words, these L2 writers are trained to write
in a product-orientated fashion. This is one of the most challenging tasks
in teaching L2 writers because they may not want to show their writing to
their peers because they do not want to be judged by their English
proficiency. At the beginning of the activity, it is challenging for L2
writers to critique or give feedback to their peers because they feel that
they are not qualified to do so. To overcome this problem, I asked my
students to respond to two questions when they read their peers drafts:
1) What do you want to learn or know more about this paper?
2) Is there anything to add to this paper (i.e. examples, short narratives,
definitions, etc)?
These questions help L2 writers focus on commenting on the drafts of
their peers by paying attention to the meaning of the text in front of them.
Instead of responding to grammatical issues in their peers drafts, the
questions will help them respond to the content. These questions also help
L2 writers expand their papers when they revise for the next draft. The
writing process is cyclical in which students then bring in their revised
drafts by adding information on content that they need to add and
according to their peers comments.
Students Reflections:
The process of peer review was awesome. I did not expect peer review to
help me in writing my paper. I get to see the improvement of my friends
and also the improvement of myself. (Jis Reflection)

Implementing World Englishes in First-Year Composition Classrooms

175

Reviews from my friends are often very helpful and sometimes they trigger
me to think more creatively. By reading my friends work, I can gain some
other data which very helpful in writing my own paper. (Ts Reflection)
Honestly I didnt like [peer review] in the beginningI am afraid that
people would laugh at my idea, or grammar errors.after the couple times
of peer reviewing, I started feel comfortable showing people my works, and
I was lucky that the feedback I got was really helpful for me. (Js
Reflection)
Peer review has helped me a lot. I can elaborate my paper by reading
those reviews given by [my peers]. (Xs Reflection)

As L2 writers reflected on their peer response experiences, some of

them did not want, or felt reluctant to share their papers with their peers.
Modelling peer response activity is suggested, especially when working
with L2 international writers. They will have a chance to notice how to
give feedback and what types of constructive feedback to give. In the end,
these L2 writers felt that peer response was helpful to them in reflecting on
their writing processes as well as their performance in their language
proficiency.

Conclusion
This project aims to raise L2 writers awareness of Englishes, as
Canagarajah (2006) discusses in his article that he aims to make some
space for pedagogical rethinking and textual experimentation on the place
of WE in composition (p. 613). This chapter has given some proof that
L2 compositon classrooms are a site that can be used for such
experimentation. By introducing the World Englishes project to L2
writers, they will gain knowledge of their own language background.
Another point to be made is that L2 writers have a chance to read
academic research articles on their varieties of English. By challenging
them to read academic papers, we prepare and challenge them to be ready
for upper division or graduate school courses. Also peer response activities
help L2 writers learn from one another about different aspects of their
writing and languages. The classrooom becomes a site of learning: a
community of world language inquiry.
On the other hand, although these L2 writers learn about varieties of
English, they are required to write in Standard Written English because
they need to know how to write academic research papers for their
survival in the rest of their academic career (Matsuda & Matsuda, 2010).
The assignment on World Englishes therefore needs to be adapted

176

Chapter Eleven

according to student populations, teaching contexts, and availablity of

resources. The aim of introducing this to these L2 writers is to raise their
awareness of varieties of English around the world and hopefully
demystify their perception of Standard English. Through writing this
research paper, L2 writers will gain more understanding of
different/multiple discourse communities so that they can shift between
different discourses without jeopardizing their success in their academic
career.

References
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). The place of world Englishes in composition:
Pluralization continued. College Composition and Communication,
57(4), 586-619.
Chamcharatsri, P. B. (2009). Searching for best method in ELT. Paper
presented at the Asia TEFL Conference, Bangkok, Thailand.
Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes: A resource book for students.
London: Routledge.
Kachru, B. B. (1990). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and
models of non-native Englishes. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois
Press.
Kachru, B. B., Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. L. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook
of world Englishes. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international
communication and English language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Matsuda, A. (Ed.). (2012). Principles and Practices of Teaching English as
an International Language. Toronto, CA: Multilingual Matters.
Matsuda, A., & Matsuda, P. K. (2010). World Englishes and the teaching
of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 369-374.
McArthur, T. (2001). World English and world Englishes: Trends,
tensions, varieties, and standards. Language Teaching, 34, 1-20.
Open Door Report. (2011). International student enrollments increased by
5 per cent in 2010/11, led by strong increase in students from China.
Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Who-We-Are/News-and-Events/
Press-Center/Press-Releases/2011/~/media/Files/Corporate/Open-Doors/
Press-Releases/Open-Doors-2011-International-Students-Press-Release
.ashx.

CHAPTER TWELVE
CREATING ENGLISHES ALLIANCE BETWEEN
NON-NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER (NNES)
TEACHER AND STUDENTS IN INNER CIRCLE
TERRITORIES
YOHANES NUGROHO WIDIYANTO

Introduction
This narrative aims to vividly describe my struggle as an adjunct
teacher of an intensive language programme at a large Midwest university
in the U.S. This story is not arranged according to a Hollywood plot
(Connelly and Clandinin, 1990) with a smooth ending, unfolding the
transition of an English teacher from Indonesia, which is in the expanding
circle, in the realm of the industry of teaching English in the inner circle
(Kachru, 1992). Instead, it shows challenges and encouragement, success
and failure, and creativity to act out of the box in classroom settings.
Using the framework of the community of practice (Wenger, 1998), I
narrate my peripheral participation in the enterprise of teaching English at
an English as a Second Language (ESL) centre of an American university.
The following events took place in the ESL administrative office as well
as within and outside of the classroom setting. During this process, I also
encouraged my students to participate as legitimate members within the
community of practice of English speakers despite their status as nonnative English speakers (NNES).

Entering the new community of practice

My first entrance into the territory of higher education in the U.S. as a
graduate student of foreign and second language education filled me with
mixed feelings. On the one hand, I felt confident that I was deserving of

178

Chapter Twelve

my status as a Doctoral student. This was not my first encounter with an

educational setting in the inner circle, as I had done my masters
programme in Australia a few years before (Widiyanto, 2005). On the
other hand, I could not hide the inferiority I felt as a non-native English
speaker. During the first month I lacked confidence whenever I needed to
make phone calls. The fact that I had to repeat my personal information for
the automated phone systems several times made me feel as though I had a
deficiency in English. This frustration is the first challenge faced by
international graduate students as they initially socialize into an English
language and cultural setting, as noted by Cassanave & Li (2008).
However, as time went by, I found that could adapt myself to different
accents of English spoken by people of diverse ethnicity and nationality.
After a year of being a graduate student focusing on my course work, I
was challenged to go to the next level of socialization within the
profession of teaching English (Golde, 1998). Brenda (all names in this
narrative are pseudonyms), a graduate student of my cohort who taught
within the ALP (American Language Programme) at my school, suggested
that I apply for a part-time teacher position in her programme, noting that I
had the credentials to do so. Chen, a Taiwanese Doctoral student cohort,
contested Brendas idea. She relayed the embarrassment she had
experienced when she applied for a job at the writing centre of our
university. The administrator of the centre stated that her status as a Ph.D.
student of the foreign language education programme was not evidence
that she would be able to assist the local and international students served
by the writing centre. The managers scepticism towards Chens language
ability, because of her status as a non-native English speaker, was
influenced by the concept of native speaker fallacy (Phillipson, 1992),
that native English speakers are considered to have a better knowledge of
their language and, therefore, should not be assisted by non-native English
speakers in the use of their language. Chens experience with the
managers bias is in line with experiences shared by Faiza Derbel (2005),
an Arab, and Yujong Park (2006), a Korean, who felt that they had been
discriminated against in the hiring process because of their NNES
background, in spite of their sufficient qualifications.
Despite Chens disheartening experience, I approached the ALP
programme coordinator, albeit apprehensively, as Braines (2010) argument
exemplifies that the administrators of intensive English programmes
were the most resistant (p. 10) in accepting NNES teachers. Quite the
opposite, the programme coordinator hosted me professionally and asked
me to submit my resume, promising that if there was a vacancy, he would
be happy to invite me for an interview. Eventually, I had the chance of an

Creating Englishes Alliance

179

interview, during which I was able to show my credentials, and we

exchanged ideas on how to create a conducive learning environment for
students, based on my experience of teaching English in Indonesia. In my
second interview with the director of the ESL centre, I received further
support. When I shared my concerns about being a non-native English
speaker, the director assured me that all applicants would be treated
equally and professionally, without looking at my status as a non-native
English speaker. He even said that my existence as an NNES teacher
would be a good example for students to experience world Englishes
(Kachru, 1992) which should be appreciated as a part of todays paradigm.
When I was eventually accepted, I felt really contented. As a new teacher
at the ESL centre, I experienced a warm welcome from the other teachers.
I was fortunate to have an office area consisting of five cubicles with four
other Ph.D. studentstwo native English speakers and two other nonnative English speakers. As they had been hired years ahead of me, I
found that I had more opportunities to learn not only about our ESL
students but also about the Doctoral programme we were doing.
In the light of the socialization theory proposed by Berger &
Luckmanns seminal work The Social Construction of Reality (1966),
being an ESL teacher in the second year of my doctoral studies of foreign
and second language education was a part of my secondary socialization in
the field. During this socialization, I was engaged in the acquisition of
role-specific knowledge, the roles being directly or indirectly rooted in the
division of labour (p. 138). The ultimate aim of my study was to be a
professional in TESOL both in teaching and research, and this job was one
type of career in this field. This job offer involved me more deeply in the
double socialization as a graduate student (Grabe, 1998), in which I not
only learned to be a graduate student by participating in the class and other
academic activities, but also learned to prepare myself as a professional in
teaching English by being a teacher at ALP. My journey in the second year
of my Doctoral programme moved from a peripheral position to getting
close to the centre of this community of practice. However, the struggle of
participating in this community of practice did not end in the
administration office. In fact it was the beginning of the real journey of my
status as an ESL teacher.

180

Chapter Twelve

The classroom as the main battleground of being

a professional ESL teacher
The Sweet taste of the first wine
The real battle of teaching English in the inner circle for a NNES
teacher is in the classroom. In the first quarter of my teaching career, I
taught an elective class of Vocabulary which did not start until the second
week. In the first week, students were orientted with the main programme
of the class which concentrated on developing their listening, speaking,
reading and writing skills. In order to be familiar with the classroom
atmosphere, I asked my level coordinator, Karen, whether I could observe
a class. She was very supportive and invited me to observe her class so
that I could have a sense of teaching practice at ALP. In addition, she also
ensured that some of the class members would choose my elective
Vocabulary class, so that it was a good idea to see them as early as
possible. The observation gave me a general impression that the practice
of teaching ESL in the U.S. was not completely different from my own
practice of teaching English in Indonesia. In the reading class that I
observed, my mentor distributed a text and discussed it using a bottom up
approach from words, sentences to the whole text to answer comprehension
questions. One thing that impressed me most was the way the teacher
explained difficult words by relating them to cultural and social aspects,
some of which were beyond my knowledge. As a native English speaker,
she had a greater capacity to explain cultural ideas and colloquial
expressions as well as greater accuracy in grammar and diction (Braine,
2010).
I felt a bit anxious on my first day of teaching at ALP, despite my long
experience in teaching English back in my country. Halic, Greenberg &
Paulus (2009) argue that such a negative feeling is caused by the fact that
the perceived need of international students to prove themselves was
doubled by a perceived loss at the academic expertise that they have
acquired in their country of origin (p.87). My strategy for coping with the
feeling of being an underdog in the teaching force (Reis, 2012) was that
from the beginning I tried to create an alliance with my students that I
believed would create a more effective learning process. As most of my
students were from the Middle East, I allowed them to call me Yahya, the
Arabic version of my first name: Yohanes. My bond with the Arabic
students became stronger when I told them that I came from Indonesia.
They shared their knowledge about Indonesia as the biggest Muslim
country in the world and their appreciation of the work ethic of Indonesian

Creating Englishes Alliance

181

migrant workers in their houses. The non-Arabic students also welcomed

me warmly as I used an interactive computer programme to enhance their
learning. The dynamics of the first day of teaching in my vocabulary class
made my students interested and engaged, so that it strengthened my
confidence.
In general, my first encounter in the ESL class was really encouraging
for me. My class observation opened an opportunity for me to cooperate
with my mentor, a native English speaker professional. Rather than
dichotomizing our status of NES and NNES teachers, I completely agreed
with P.K. Matsuda (in Moussu & Llurda, 2008) who suggested that both
parties should emphasize cooperation and mutual help between NES and
NNES teachers since both groups of teachers have specific advantages and
disadvantages (p. 323). As a junior in the work-place, I was fortunate to
learn her way of teaching. She also appreciated my suggestions for
improving the quality of the programme, and regarded me as a partner
rather than only as her subordinate. In addition to that, my way of
connecting my cultural background with that of my students was also a
way of building a relationship with my students. The warm reception from
my colleague and students in the beginning of my career made lifted my
spirits.

Teaching by principles
The strong tie that I created with the majority of my students from the
very first day made the Vocabulary class that I taught go efficiently. I
became confident teaching the materials that I presented. As we studied
vocabulary, we explored the words from morpho-phonemics and syntax to
pragmatics. Before my departure for the U.S., I was fortunate to take a
special training on pronunciation in Canada that made me feel confident in
using my English as a model of pronouncing words despite my non-native
English accent. I encouraged my students to achieve intelligibility rather
than aiming at near native accent. In teaching pronunciation, I focused
on some phonemes that are quite distinct in certain cultures. The Arabic
language, for example, has many sounds that are quite similar to English.
Therefore, my Arabic students could pronounce most of the sounds quite
well. However, I found that my Japanese and Korean students had a
problem in pronouncing /l/ and /r/. I invited my Arabic students to work in
pairs with these students, and by so doing, I also empowered the students
to become models for their peers.
In discussing the meanings of the words that we studied, I used clues
and context, rather than providing definitions, so that my students could

182

Chapter Twelve

negotiate the meanings. I used contexts that they were familiar with,
especially relating to their culture. For example, when I found that the
word requirement was difficult, I put the words into the requirements of
being a king. When I was giving some clues, one of the students called out
a word in Arabic. Then others tried to search their electronic dictionary to
see whether that Arabic word was synonymous with the word
requirement. They smiled contentedly when they discovered that their
conjecture was true. They furthermore corrected me, saying that the
requirements of being a king in Saudi Arabia were different from those in
other cultures. Their sharing was really something new for me and for
students of other cultures. By sharing the different systems, I had
empowered my students to use English as a means of promoting their own
values and culture.
I sometimes used songs to develop vocabulary. For example, when we
discussed the word reflect as a part of the materials, I used Christina
Aguileras song entitled Reflection, that had become the theme song of the
Disneyland movie Mulan, and while my students filled in the blanks on
the sheets that I had distributed, I played song. In this way I showed them
that studying English can be fun because they could learn while enjoying
the music. In addition to developing their vocabulary, I also stressed the
cultural aspect of the song that promoted the Chinese epic of Mulan
through the media of an English song and singer. Furthermore, I asked
them to mention their own classical works such as Mulan as a way of
promoting their own culture.
I also developed some materials through simple interactive programmes
such as Hot PotatoesTM (http://hotpot.uvic.ca/) and incorporated them in
my teaching. The advanced system of information technology at ALP
enabled me to upload the materials to the ALP website so that students
could access the materials at home and use them as enrichment materials.
Even though the interactive programme was very simple, being able to
give the correct answer and obtain feedback motivated my students to do
well. Since the task was done on a voluntary basis, the homework
stimulated my students to become independent learners.
Confronted with being an underdog, I believed that students would
eventually see whether I was professional or not through my teaching
performance rather than my status as an NNES. In order to do this, I relied
on principles of communicative language teaching (Brandl, 2008; LarsenFreeman & Anderson, 2011). In terms of input, I introduced vocabulary
through authentic multimedia materials such as songs to increase my
students awareness of the rich variety of materials available in their daily
lives in addition to the textbook. I also incorporated technology to make

Creating Englishes Alliance

183

my teaching more engaging. I also proceeded from input to output by

encouraging my students to use the vocabulary based on their own
experiences. I employed cooperative learning, hoping that it would
become a means of empowering them as learners. A significant nuance
that I promoted in my class was the critical approach to teaching English
(Pennycook, 1999) rather than simply employing the communicative
language approach and cooperative learning. The way I invited my
students to mention classical works from their culture (Arabic, Chinese,
Korean and African) or the practice of power succession in their own
countries was a way of fighting against being the other in learning
English.

Non-native English teacher: no way

My experience with students was not always smooth. I had a terrifying
experience when teaching an elective class of Conversation. I found that
the class was empty, even though it was five minutes after the scheduled
time. I heard a knock at the door and saw three Arabic students outside the
door. Is this the Conversation class? one of the students asked. Yes,
come in, I said warmly. They reluctantly came in and said, Arent there
any Americans here? I had a lump in my throat when I answered this
question. I said that I was their teacher. Two of them complained that there
was no point in speaking with other Arabic students. Both of them started
to discuss it in Arabic in front of me. I suspected that they wanted to drop
my class, and my guess was right. Another student, Bacheer, who came
from Kuwait, was still there. Arent you going to leave also? I asked. He
said, No, its good to have a smaller conversation class with you. I can
practice more.
That experience was really traumatic for me. I lost confidence when
students dropped my elective class only after they had found that their
teacher was a non-native English speaker. I regretted that they did not
even give me a chance of employing my teaching strategies. They just did
not want to learn from someone who spoke with a strange accent. They
did not realize that even native English speakers have different accents.
From doing my Masters degree in Australia I knew how the Australian
accent was different from the accent in Hollywood movies and pop songs.
In addition, they did not realize that in international communication, they
would not only speak English with native English speakers but with
people whose English was not their first language, such as people from
Asia, Latin America or Africa.

184

Chapter Twelve

Facing that situation, I sent an email to my former students of

Vocabulary. Hessah, a female Arabic student, replied, I'm shocked,
because I open my Ipad to send an email to you to let you know that I
really miss your class and I find email from you. really I miss your class, it
was fun and serious. thank you for everything. I had some other
supportive emails. Furthermore, Hessah offered to have a private
conversation with me about this issue, in which she said that she felt sorry
about my situation, but said that the statement did not represent the whole
perception of Arabic students. She tried to explain how the teachers in her
country were very strict. She said that my approach was too gentle so
that it would not work with male Arabic students. Even though I did not
agree with her suggestion about changing my teaching approach, I really
appreciated her encouragement.
The conversation class eventually became worse in terms of quantity. I
only had five students who came regularly from the initial list of eighteen.
This condition was partly caused by the conversation classs being an
elective, which allowed students to drop it without affecting their final
score. However, in term of quality, I found that I made progress in
developing my students competence as well as in relating to them more
deeply. Our small class enabled us to have more discussion, and I got to
know my students better; the strong relationship that I built with them was
a good foundation for teaching future classes.
The experience of being ignored by my students reminded me again
that many students in the inner circle still perceived the myth of NES as
the ideal teacher. As the perception was something personal and based on
his or her personal experience, I could not blame the students, but rather
took it as a professional challenge. Moussus survey (in Braine, 2010)
showed that the amount of time and exposure to NNES teachers had
changed the students perception to being more positive; however, I found
that it was more difficult to change that perception in an elective class.

Social Groups: Bridging different territories

Being a professional teacher, to me, means not only relying on content
knowledge, but on pedagogical knowledge as well. One pedagogical issue
that I faced while teaching was classroom management. In my Vocabulary
class, starting from the first day, I found that the classroom was divided
into three territories. On the right sat all male Arabic students. On the left
sat all female Arabic students. The non-Arabic students had freedom in
choosing their position, but some of them tended to be the wall in the
centre that separated the two groups. Some others tended to sit in different

Creating Englishes Alliance

185

areas that had been set up by the majority, based on gender. While I
believed that all students should be able to interact with each other as a
reflection of daily life where we could usually not choose our speaking
partners, I had to be careful not to change things dramatically. Achmed
tried to explain to me that the separation of male and female adults was a
part of their culture and is supported by Islamic teaching. Even in his
town, the young male adults who were not married yet had to live together
in a separate court provided in each village. Women and children, on the
other hand, lived with the father or husband in their house or apartment.
Male and female students went to different schools. That is why the
separated territories in the class happened naturally.
Rather than imposing the new concept of mixing students of different
gender directly, I tried to encourage the third group to become a bridge,
rather than a wall between the two groups of Arabic students. In the third
group, there was Umnou, a Muslim girl from Ghana. In our conversation,
she said that she was a devout Muslim although she did not wear a hijab.
As she did not have any problems working together with male students, I
used her as a channel when the female Arabic group needed to
communicate with the male Arabic group. Honda, on the other hand,
represented the male group in communicating with the female group. I
also made several activities in which, rather than working in pairs, they
worked in a group of three. I made sure that each group contained a
member of each social group. The male Arabic students still felt
comfortable because there was another male student from the third group,
and so did the female Arabic students.
The fact that most ALP classes were conducted at the central campus,
which they shared with undergraduate students from various programmes,
made it potentially a very constructive place to practice their English,
especially during breaks or after class hours. However, I found that the
blocking wall existed not only between ALP students but also between
them and the local students. During the short break between classes, the
female students tended to stay in the class while the male students
preferred to leave the classroom, either to the hallway or to the bench
downstairs when the weather was nice. They did not see that the break
time was an opportunity to speak English with local students. Instead, the
male students admitted that they preferred to go outside the classroom
because they had an opportunity to speak in their first language after being
tired of speaking English in the classrooms.
During Conversation class, in order to emphasize the message that the
campus was a very productive place to practice English, I once invited my
students to go outside the building to the university main library. I gave

186

Chapter Twelve

them a task to get information from any native English speaker in the
library. I gave them ten minutes to do that, and after that we had a
conference in the coffee shop. At first, I saw their discomfort in doing that
assignment, but after doing it they came back with excitement and
confidence by sharing enthusiastically. They found it really fun because
they had to pretend that they really needed the information. However, they
found that native English speakers were not as scary as they had
previously thought. In fact, they found that they were very gentle and
helpful. During the conference, I tried to encourage them to squeeze any
opportunities they could in real life to practice their English. I assured
them that to be able to interact with local students, they needed to act first,
rather than waiting to be called upon, as in the class.
My students were presumably very lucky language learners to be able
to study abroad and experience both the instructional context in ALP
classes as well as the naturalistic context after course hours. However, this
advantage might not be effective when the students lack motivation, which
is claimed by Gass and Selingker (2001) as the second most important
predictor of language learning success after aptitude. This is in line with
Gardners seminal work promoting the term integrative motivation in
which learners have a desire to learn the target language of another
language community in order to communicate with, interact with and to
become (in some small way) a part of the other language community
(Gardner & Smythe, 1975, p. 219). In order to increase my students
integrative motivation, I started with the small community in the
classroom and extended it outside the classroom in the area of the campus.
When I saw the invisible wall that blocked the students willingness to
communicate (MacIntyre, 2007) in the classroom, I used some activities
that encouraged students to maximize the potential for learning English in
the inner circle.

Widening the battleground to the community

I was concerned about the ironic situation of my students, who mostly
had very low proficiency in English, still living in their foreign student
ghetto pattern (Day, 1987, p.264) after their classroom hours. One of the
basic motivations for learning English in an English-speaking country
such as the U.S. is the great opportunity to practice the language by
communicating with local people. This ideal situation turned out to be
very difficult for ALP students. In my conversation with them, they
admitted that they had very limited opportunities to converse with native
English speakers. Honda, a Japanese in his late thirties, explained, I stay

Creating Englishes Alliance

187

in the College Village [note: this is an off campus accommodation area

where many international students stay]. Most of my neighbours are
students from China. They speak in Chinese with their friends. Besides, I
might be also too old to stay there. I dont find people of my age a lot.
While Honda identified his age and cultural background as the hindrances,
Assad, another student, complained about not being accepted by the local
people, saying, The native [English] speakers are not happy when Im
speak to them. Theyre show unhappy face when I speak slowly. Even
Ahmed, an Arabic student in his late thirties who brought his wife and
children, also brought up the contradictory values that he held with the
local values in our conversation. Ahmed explained his view at that time:
We have different religions. I am not allowed to eat pork and they,
Christians, put pork in pizza. They also drink alcohol. That [drinking
alcohol] is really bad. He felt disturbed with what he saw on TV, that
there were Christian preachers who condemned Islam. That is why he felt
he was being othered by American society. The three students daily
routine was really typical of other ALP students: coming to campus a few
minutes before the class started, using the break time for chatting with
people of the same mother tongue, and going home as soon as possible
after the class ended to do homework and chores in their apartment.
On the other hand, Hassan, another young man from Saudi Arabia,
blasted his friends reluctance to reach out to the local people. He blamed
his Arab fellows for staying around a certain area in the city where a huge
group of people from the Middle East resided so that after school hours
they spent time with the people from the same language background. In
answering why he preferred to stay near the campus area, he said My
teacher in Canada told me that if I dont use it, I will lose it. He preferred
to talk with local students, go to the local barbershop or caf while still
maintaining his principle of not drinking alcohol. In addition, he shared
with me how he was determined to do undergraduate studies, majoring in
chemical engineering at a university in North America after completing
ALP. The fact that he was moved to a higher level because of his
performance after the first week was a sign that he was on the right track.
The literature in study abroad contexts clearly shows how affective
factors play a role in target language proficiency development. Whether in
an academic context (Allen, 2010) or a less academic context (Naoko,
2008), those who want to embrace the local culture and interact more with
local people, especially with their host families, show greater progress.
The progress is not only in language proficiency in terms of grammar and
language skills, but also sociolinguistic competence in which learners are
able to use expressions acceptable for a certain language community

188

Chapter Twelve

(Regan, Howard & Lemee, 2009). Isabelli-Garcia ( 2006) furthermore

identified social network, motivation and attitudes as the main factors in
acquiring the target language successfully. Hassans relative success in
learning English underlined the key aspects of his motivation to succeed in
his studies and his positive attitude towards American society and culture.
While I encouraged my students to engage with local people after
school hours as Hassan did, I assured them that practicing their English
did not mean using English exclusively with native English speakers. I
emphasized the important principle that all English learners are members
of the global community. That is why I tried to give my students ways to
use English as a means of communicating with people from diverse
backgrounds. For example, since Ahmed had a Bachelors degree in
Islamic studies, I suggested thathe create an Islamic study group in his
mosque with Muslim brothers from different nationalities, like Pakistan,
Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia. Since you speak different languages, I
assured him, all of you will speak in English, right? Ahmed liked the
suggestion and planned to do it. In a country where he felt that he was
being marginalized, Ahmed found that English, as the global language
(Crystal, 2003), gave him confidence and a sense of purpose to connect
him with people of different language backgrounds
Personally, I tried to give some students an example of how to learn
English aside from school hours. When I held a birthday party for my
daughter, I invited Ahmed and Honda to come with their families. I also
invited all of my Indonesian graduate students, most of whom lived in
university family housing. In addition, I also invited my Malaysian and
Icelandic neighbors as well as an American friend from my church. They
all brought their families. That party, in some ways, became an
international party. Ahmed was really happy to see my Indonesian friends,
who were mostly his Muslim brothers and sisters. His wife, who wore a
veil covering her face, also enjoyed the friendship with my female
Indonesian friends who mostly also wore hijabs. Since the guests came
from different nationalities, we did not have any other choice but to speak
in English, the language that united us. By so doing, we all created an
imagined community (Norton, 2000) of Englishes speakers coming from
different cultural and language backgrounds but being engaged in
interacting and sharing as community members.

Conclusion
Since the groundbreaking work of Medgyes (1994) and Braine (1999)
about the dichotomy of NES and NNES teachers, the perception of ESL

Creating Englishes Alliance

189

management and students toward NNES teachers has been reshaped to

become more balanced and positive. While Braine (2010) explores NNES
teachers challenges in the outer and expanding circle countries, this
narrative reflects my struggle in an inner circle country. Through this
narrative, I explore my teaching values and goals in contributing to the
shaping of the TESOL profession (Brutt-Griffle & Samimy, 1999). I
believe that NNES teachers should be able to create alliances with their
students as well as with society in general so that ESL students can grow,
not only in language mastery but also in personal and cultural aspects.
However, my experience of being rejected by some students confirms a
need for NNES teachers to have structural support from ESL
administrators. That is why I would echo Moussu & Llurdas (2008)
calling for more unheard narratives from ESL administrators about
assisting NNES teachers to be more professional. The strong alliance
between ESL administrators, teachers (both NES and NNES) and students
would mutually benefit all parties in achieving their goals.

References
Allen, H. (2010). Language-learning motivation during short-term study
abroad: An activity theory perspective. Foreign Language Annals,
43(1), 27-49.
Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. (1966) The social construction of reality: A
treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books
Braine, G. (2010). Nonnative speaker English teachers: Research,
pedagogy, and professional growth. New York: Routledge.
Braine, G. (Ed.) (1999). Non-native educators in English language
teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brandl, K. (2008). Communicative language teaching in action: Putting
principles to work. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Brutt-Griffler,J. & Samimy, K. (1999). Revisiting the colonial in the postcolonial: Critical Praxis for nonnative-English-Speaking teachers in a
TESOL-Programme. TESOL Quarterly, 33 (3), 413-431
Cassanave, C.P. & Li, X. (2008). Learning the literacy practices of
graduate students: Insiders reflections on academic enculturation.
Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press
Connelly, F.M. & Clandinin,D.J. (Eds) (1990) Stories of experiences and
narrative inquiry. Educational Reseachers. 19, 5, 2-14
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

190

Chapter Twelve

Day, J. T. (1987). Student motivation, academic validity, and the summer

language programme abroad: An editorial. The Modern Language
Journal. 71 (III). 261-266
Derbel, F. (2005). Fully qualified but still marginalized. Essential
teachers, 2 (1), 10-11
Gass, S.M. & Selinker, L. (2001) Second language acquisition: An
introduction course. (2nd ed0 Mahwah, N.J. : Lawrence Erlbaum
Gardner, R.C. & Smythe, P.C. (1975) Motivation and second-language
acquisition. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 31, 218-230
Golde, C.M. (1998). Beginning graduate schools: Explaining first-year
doctoral attrition. New Direction for Higher Education. 101, 55-64
Halic, O., Greenberg, K. & Paulus,T. (2009) Language academic identity:
a study of the experiences of non-native English speaking international
students. International Education. 38 (2). 73-93
Isabelli-Garcia, C. (2006). Study abroad social networks, motivation and
attitudes: implications for second language acquisition. In Dufon, M.A
& Churchill, E. (eds) Language learners in study abroad contexts.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Kachru, B. (1992). World Englishes: Approaches, Issues and resources.
Language Teaching, 25, 1-14
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in
language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Llurda, E. (2005). Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges
and contributions to the profession. New York, NY: Springer
Macintyre, P.D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second
language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional practice.
The Modern Language Journal. 91 (4). 564-576
Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan
Moussu, L. & Llurda, E. (2008) Non-native English-speaking English
language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching. 41 (03),
315-348
Naoko, T. (2008). Cognition, Language Contact, and the Development of
Pragmatic Comprehension in a Study-Abroad Context. Language
Learning, 58(1), 33-71.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and
educational change. Harlow, UK: Longman/Pearson.
Phillipson, R. (1999). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL.
TESOL Quarterly, 33 (3), 329-348

Creating Englishes Alliance

191

Park, Y. (2006). Will nonnative-English speaking teachers ever get a fair

chance? Essential Teacher, 3 (1), 32-34
Regan, V., Howard, M & Lemee, I. ( 2009). The acquisition of
sociolinguistic competence in a study abroad context. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters
Reis, D. S. (2012). Being underdog: Supporting Nonnative EnglishSpeaking Teachers (NNESTs) in claiming and asserting professional
legitimacy. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 23(3), 33-58.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and
identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Widiyanto, Y.N. (2005). The making of a multicultural English teacher.
English Teaching: Practice and Critique. 4, 1, 106-117.

CONTRIBUTORS

Suresh Canagarajah is Edwin Erle Sparks Professor at The Pennsylvania

State University. He teaches and publishes on World Englishes, critical
pedagogy, and rhetoric and composition. His latest book is Translingual
Practice (Routledge, 2012).
George Braine (Ph.D., Texas) last taught at the Chinese University of
Hong Kong. He is the founder of the Nonnative Speaker movement which
has gained a worldwide following. His latest book, Nonnative Speaker
English Teachers: Research, Pedagogy, and Professional Growth, was
published in 2010.
Anne Burns holds professorial positions at Aston University, Birmingham
and the University of New South Wales, Sydney. Her recent books
include Doing Action Research in the Language Classroom: A Guide for
Practitioners (2010, Routledge), The Cambridge Guide to Pedagogy and
Practice in Second Language Teaching (with Jack C. Richards, 2012,
CUP) and Researching Language Teacher Cognition and Practice:
International Case Studies ( with Roger Barnard, 2012, Multilingual
Matters).
Ali Fuad Selvi is the Interim Programme Coordinator of TESOL
Programmes at the University of Maryland and the Chair-elect of the
NNEST Interest Section in TESOL International. His research interests
include the global spread of English and its implications for language
learning, teaching, teacher education, and policy realms, issues related to
non-native English-speakers in TESOL. He is co-authoring a book on
Teaching English as an International Language as part of the TESOLs
English Language Teacher Development Series. E-mail: alifuad@umd.edu
Madhav Kafle is currently a Doctoral candidate in Applied Linguistics at
The Pennsylvania State University. He has taught English in parts of rural
Nepal and now teaches academic writing in the United States. His research
interests include negotiation of literacies across contexts, language
teaching and globalization, and critical pedagogy.

Contextualizing the Pedagogy of English as an International Language

193

Roby Marlina lectures in the programme of English as an International

Language (EIL) at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. His research
interests include curriculum and pedagogy of EIL, and
international/multicultural education. His writing has appeared in the
International Journal of Educational Research and in a number of books
edited by TESOL and EIL scholars from diverse contexts.
Ram A. Giri, Ph.D., is a member if the academic staff in the programme
of English as an International Language at Monash University, Melbourne.
He has published books, book chapters and journal articles. His co-edited
book English Language Education in South Asia: From Policy to
Pedagogy was recently published by Cambridge University Press, India.
His research interests include language (education) policy, minority
languages, and TESOL.
Rahmila Murtiana is a lecturer in the English Department, State Institute
for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Antasari, Banjarmasin. She obtained her BA in
English Literature from Diponegoro University, Semarang, and her MA in
Teaching English as a Second Language from Flinders University, South
Australia. Her research interests are issues related to TESOL, language
teacher education, teacher professional development, and World
Englishes.
Dr Indika Liyanage is a senior lecturer in TESOL/Applied Linguistics at
Griffith University, Australia where he convenes and lectures in
postgraduate coursework programmes in TESOL/Applied Linguistics and
supervises research higher degree students. His current research interests
include Issues in Second Language Teacher Education, English for
Academic Purposes, and Pedagogy of English as an International
Language (EIL). He has worked also as an international consultant on
TESOL in the Pacific.
Dr Tony Walker lectures in the Masters in Applied Linguistics/TESOL
programme at Griffith University, Australia, where he contributes to the
supervision of postgraduate research. His current research interests
include classroom discourse analysis, English as an International
Language (EIL), second language teacher education, and English for
Academic Purposes (EAP) in internationalisation of education. Prior to his
present appointment, he worked as a senior English language teacher for
over twenty years in Australian secondary Schools.

194

Contributors

Nugrahenny Tourisia Zacharias is a teacher-educator at a pre-service

Teacher Education at the Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya
Wacana Christian University, Indonesia. She obtained her Ph.D. in
Composition and TESOL from Indiana University of Pennsylvania, U.S.
in 2010. Her research interest is in the area of identity issues in teacher
education, curriculum and material development, and the implementation
of EIL concepts in second language education. She has published in
various national and international journals such as RELC Journal and Asia
TEFL Journal. Her recent book publication includes Stories of Multilingual
English Teachers (2010), Bringing Linguistics and Literature in EFL
Classrooms (Co-edited with Christine Manara) (2011), and Qualitative
Research Methods for Second Language Education: A Coursebook (2011).
She can be contacted at Ntz.iup@gmail.com.
Christine Manara has been an English language educator for over 15
years. She earned her Ph.D. from Monash University, Australia. Her
research interests include teaching methodology, English as an
International Language pedagogy, teachers professional learning and
identity, and the use of literature in ELT. She is currently a lecturer in the
MA (TESOL) programme, Payap University, Thailand. Her email address
is manara.christine@gmail.com.
Pisarn Bee Chamcharatsi is Assistant Professor in the Department of
Language, Literacy, and Sociocultural Studies and Department of English,
University of New Mexico. He earned his Ph.D. from Indiana University
of Pennsylvania (IUP). His research interests include emotions and second
language writing, identity construction, World Englishes, applied
linguistics, and poetry writing. His publications appear in Asian EFL
Journal, NNEST Newsletter, and Writing on the Edge.
Yohanes Nugroho Widiyanto is a lecturer in the English Education
Department of Widya Mandala Catholic University, Indonesia. Funded by
Dikti-Fulbright scholarship, he is pursuing his Ph.D. in Foreign and
Second Language Education at the Ohio State University where he also
works as an instructor in its American Language Programme. His topic
interests include teacher training, studying abroad experience and
identities of language learners.