Global Englishes

Preface
About the Book

With the ever-increasing global demand for English proficiency, English lan-
guage teaching (ELT) has become a global industry. English proficiency, as part
of the modernisation agenda in many countries, is a major part of government
initiatives. English is a prestige language in many contexts. It is often
a compulsory subject in school; it is a requirement to enter higher education
and to graduate. It is becoming, or has already become, a prerequisite to career
success in many companies that use English proficiency as a benchmark in their
promotion ladders. The age for English instruction has been lowered in many
primary schools, and the English language is associated with a number of
perceived benefits at the individual, the institutional and the national level.
As Kachru wrote in The Alchemy of English (1986), ‘knowing English is like
possessing the fabled Aladdin’s lamp, which permits one to open, as it were, the
linguistic gates to international business, technology, science and travel.
In short, English provides linguistic power’ (p. 1).
Background to Global Englishes and Its Implications

The spread of English as a global language has resulted in the emergence of
a number of related fields of research, including English as an International
Language (EIL), English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) and World Englishes (WE).
This book groups these fields under the one umbrella term of Global Englishes
in its exploration of the impact of the global spread of English on English users
and learners. Our use of the term Global Englishes is not a rebranding exercise,
but, rather, a consolidation exercise. As independent research fields have been
exploring the diverse use of English associated with its global spread, as well as
its implications, a term is needed to unite the shared agendas, ideologies and
calls for change to pedagogy. We discuss these fields and other related fields,
such as translanguaging and native speakerism, in our opening chapter.
Chapter 1 also outlines how Global Englishes – an inclusive paradigm –
resonates with similar movements in second language acquisition (SLA),
ix
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UCL, Institute of Education, on 01 Feb 2019 at 10:28:12, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316678343.001
x Preface
such as the multilingual turn (e.g. May, 2014c), and key ideas emerging from
critical applied linguistics, which are explored in greater depth in Chapter 3.
The growth of English as an international lingua franca has been coupled
with a tremendous shift in usage of the language. The majority of speakers are
now so-called second- or foreign-language users of English, a misnomer con-
sidering that, for many people, English has become an important language in
their multilingual repertoires. These multicompetent speakers (see V. Cook,
1999, 2012, 2016a, 2016b) use the language alongside other languages for the
purpose of communication in diverse and flexible speech communities. This
shift in English language use has been accompanied by shifts in the needs of
English-language learners for those learning the language to use as a global
lingua franca.
In terms of teaching English, in just 100 years we have seen the primary
purpose of English-language education move from teaching it primarily as an
academic subject to teaching it for communication with first language (L1)
speakers, and to teaching it for use predominantly with other users of English.
As English language teaching approaches are linked with the needs of learners
(Rose, 2018), this global shift indicates that a major change in the English-
language curriculum is required, which is a topic covered further in Chapter 2.
The growing demand for English proficiency has further been accompanied
by an increasing number of practitioner training courses, from short-term
online certificate courses to full degree and postgraduate programmes. Today,
there exist numerous options to obtain accreditation and further one’s skills in
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), accommodating
those seeking credentials for a short-term working holiday to those seeking
a professional career. Many leading universities also offer undergraduate and
postgraduate degree programmes in TESOL. Teacher training is discussed
further in Chapter 7.
This demand, for English proficiency and practitioner training, has also been
furthered with the global movement towards English medium instruction,
referred to as EMI. The internationalisation of higher education has become
synonymous with English and, as universities seek to internationalise their
curricula, the number of courses and programmes being offered in English has
experienced exponential growth (Galloway et al., 2017). Europe has witnessed
a tenfold increase in the number of EMI Master’s programmes over a period of
just ten years, led mainly by the disciplines of business, economics, engineer-
ing and technology (Brenn-White & Faethe, 2013). A widely cited report on
EMI in Europe shows a similar increase in English-taught programmes in
European universities, from 725 in 2001 to 2,389 in 2007, and 8,089 pro-
grammes in 2014 (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). The EMI movement is hap-
pening worldwide (Doiz et al., 2013). In many contexts, one of the key driving
forces behind this policy is to improve the English proficiency of a country’s
Preface xi
future workforce, and English skills are also a key motivating factor behind
student enrolment (Galloway et al., 2017).
The rapid spread of EMI has necessitated a need for English-language
support programmes. The increased use of ELF in academic settings also offers
new opportunities to use English with international peers and tutors. It would
seem appropriate, then, for these programmes to include a Global Englishes
focus, particularly since many students will have been exposed to
a monolingual native model in their high school English class. Thus, the global
EMI phenomenon, discussed further in Chapter 8, clearly has implications for
the field of TESOL, as well as national school curricula. However, students on
EMI programmes do not always value the use of their mother tongue in EMI
programmes (Galloway et al., 2017), which may stem from their attachment to
‘standard’ or ‘native’ English norms, discussed further in Chapter 4.
A Call for Change

Certainly, the rise of English as a global language has changed the foundations
of how the language is taught and learned. The pedagogical implications of the
change in the usage of English by global speakers have led many scholars to
call for a paradigm shift in English language teaching – the likes of which last
occurred in the 1970s, when communicativeness was brought to the forefront
of language education with the emergence of communicative language teach-
ing. Scholars have argued that such a shift is necessary to reframe language
teaching in order to match the new sociolinguistic landscape of the twenty-first
century. Underpinning this paradigm shift is a change in views of the ownership
of English, the emancipation of non-native speakers from native speaker
norms, a repositioning of culture within the English language, a shift in models
of language and a repositioning of the target interlocutor.
Curriculum theory has been discussed in relation to the globalisation of
English previously (cf. Alsagoff et al., 2012). Sembiante (2016) also discussed
the implications of new perspectives on multilingualism and translanguaging in
the field of curriculum studies, particularly regarding the role of language. Such
contributions aim to guide practitioners to critically reflect on their teaching
practice in their specific contexts, but this book further helps practitioners to
consider the barriers to change in order to achieve successful curriculum
innovation. This book also outlines how curricular change is part of a larger
movement in applied linguistics that extends beyond TESOL to studies of SLA,
identity and global mobility.
While there has been a growing debate on the need for a critical examination
of English language teaching in relation to the globalisation of English, the
industry continues to focus on native English norms. Teacher training manuals
continue to focus on static representations of English and constrained
xii Preface
representations of future use of the language with native speakers in Inner

Circle cultures. As a result, many ELT practitioners in training continue to
receive traditional views of language and language teaching characterised by
adherence to ‘standard’ norms. This is unfortunate, given that ELF is now the
most common use of the language today. This book aims at filling this gap by
providing an alternative view of English language teaching, underpinned by
a global use perspective.
In most books aimed at practitioner–researchers and teacher trainees, the
norms of ‘standard’ English prevail, rather than the diversity and plurality of
ELF interaction. Both Dewey (2012) and Widdowson (2012) note the need for
teachers to reconceptualise the notion of language, the very subject they teach.
Recent years have witnessed research flourish within the field of Global
Englishes, and a number of researchers have begun to investigate more deeply
what the implications are for teaching the language in the twenty-first century.
Although some authored books that explicitly link EIL with TESOL have
preceded this one (e.g. McKay, 2002), no definitive authored monograph on
Global Englishes and language teaching currently exists.
Global Englishes for Language Teaching

This book aims to build on the growing literature on the pedagogical implica-
tions of Global Englishes research, which includes a number of book sections
and chapters on the topic of ELT in Global Englishes texts (e.g. Galloway,
2017a; Galloway & Rose, 2015; Jenkins, 2015; Kachru & Nelson, 2006;
Kirkpatrick, 2007, 2010a, 2010b; Melchers & Shaw, 2011; Murata, 2016;
Seidlhofer, 2011), entire books (Alsagoff et al., 2012; Bowles & Cogo, 2015;
Brown & McKay, 2016; Dogancay-Aktuna & Hardman, 2008; Galloway,
2017b; Matsuda, 2012, 2017; McKay, 2002; Rose & Galloway, 2019;
Sharifian, 2009; Walker, 2010), articles in language teaching journals (Baker,
2012; Cogo, 2012; Cogo & Pitzl, 2016; Galloway & Rose, 2014, 2017;
Jenkins, 2012; Jenkins et al., 2011; Kirkpatrick, 2011; Rose & Galloway,
2017a; Sowden, 2012; Sung, 2014; Suzuki, 2011; Syrbe & Rose, 2018;
Thorn, 2013) and growing mention of Global Englishes in ELT practitioner
texts (Hall, 2016; Harmer, 2007; McDonough et al., 2013; McGrath, 2013;
Savova, 2008) – albeit in a superficial fashion (Galloway, 2017a). It builds on
a number of concrete proposals for change being put forward, which can be
grouped together into a Global Englishes Language Teaching (GELT) frame-
work (Galloway, 2011; Galloway & Rose, 2015). This book aims to widen the
debate on the need for change in ELT practice in light of such research, by
offering a detailed examination of what incorporating a Global Englishes
perspective into the ELT classroom (i.e. GELT) would look like. GELT is not
a prescriptive model for ELT and this book intends to emphasise the diversity of
Preface xiii
global teaching practices and the diversity of students’ needs around the globe.
It is a student-centred framework for curricular change that aims to empower
TESOL practitioners to critically evaluate their curricula in relation to Global
Englishes.
Based on the proposals for change in the literature, a Global Englishes
perspective of ELT emphasises the need to raise awareness of the issues
associated with the spread of English and to prepare learners to use English
in various global and local communities. GELT is a groundbreaking attempt to
unite discussions on the pedagogical implications of the global spread of
English into a single text for researchers and practising teachers. This book
aims to draw on trends in educational and applied linguistics theory to better
inform future English language teaching practice.
The movement towards GELT, however, requires a conceptual transition, in
terms of both how the language itself is viewed and how it is taught. Such a shift
in usage, as well as the evolution of the language, ‘have forced a re-
examination of the goals of English-language learning and teaching, as well
as a reconceptualisation of the English language itself, along with sacredly held
paradigms in ELT’ (Nero, 2012, p. 153). As Widdowson (2012) notes,
‘The first step is to raise the awareness of teachers that there is an alternative
way of thinking about the subject they teach, based on an understanding of
English as a lingua franca’ (p. 24). Thus, this book is structured in a way that
enables readers to fully understand where these proposed changes come from
and to offer a critical alternative to current mainstream teacher training books.
It also introduces original research that melds a Global Englishes perspective
with research on materials evaluation, teacher training programmes and
English medium instruction in higher education.
Book Structure
A Book in Two Parts: A Text and a Research Monograph

The book is divided into two parts. It is a key text for researchers and teachers,
as well as a research monograph. The first part of the book explores the key
concepts and theories underpinning a global approach to English language
teaching. It explores the theoretical underpinnings of GELT, analyses GELT
through a curriculum perspective, explores SLA theory through a Global
Englishes lens and investigates what GELT innovation should look like.
The second part of the book outlines avenues for research at the nexus of
ELT and Global Englishes. It further showcases original GELT-related research
in three separate studies, via an exploration of teaching materials, teacher
education and language use in EMI contexts.
xiv Preface
Part I: An Overview of Global Englishes for Language Teaching

Part I focuses on the theory behind a Global Englishes approach to language
teaching and includes four chapters. Chapter 1 begins with an overview of the
field of Global Englishes, introducing its connections to World Englishes, ELF,
EIL, translanguaging and a number of other interrelated research paradigms.
In this initial chapter, we introduce the key concepts and theories, which
underpin the book, before moving on to their pedagogical implications. This
chapter introduces the GELT framework and outlines the proposals that have
been put forward for change to ELT practice.
Chapter 2 re-examines key concepts and theories underlying English lan-
guage teaching, by exploring them through a Global Englishes lens. It takes
a curriculum perspective, by exploring the implications of Global Englishes on
such elements as course aims/objectives, needs analysis, syllabus design,
teaching approaches, learner assessment and course evaluation. This chapter
provides a structured critical overview of the field of TESOL and challenges
the dominance of English-language norms, whilst providing real-life examples
of GELT innovations in English-language classrooms.
Chapter 3 widens our investigation by applying a critical Global Englishes
lens to the field of SLA. SLA theory holds significant influence over English-
language learning and teaching practices. This chapter links trends in TESOL
with parallel developments in SLA, in order to provide GELT with a theoretical
anchor. Here, we provide an overview of key theories in SLA before focusing
on recent developments surrounding multilingualism and movements away
from monolingual reference points. Increasing awareness of the fact that multi-
lingualism, not monolingualism, is the norm in language acquisition has led to
a re-examination of key concepts in SLA. Many of the arguments within the
recent ‘multilingual turn’ in SLA resonate with GELT; hence, this chapter
highlights the synergies between the two.
In Chapter 4, we acknowledge that implementing change is challenging, and
we introduce readers to the GELT curriculum innovation process. We also
discuss a number of possible barriers to achieving Kumaravadivelu’s (2012)
‘epistemic break’ (p. 14) from ‘native’ English-speaking norms in ELT.
We also acknowledge that such a change may be rather daunting for TESOL
practitioners, so offer advice on how best to introduce innovation to increase
the possibility of successful institutional adoption of GELT. It is hoped that
consideration of the various factors involved in the curriculum innovation
process will help practitioners to maximise the opportunity to implement
sustainable GELT-related curricular innovation.
This chapter concludes Part I and argues that, in order to achieve macro-level
change in ELT, it is crucial not to alienate experienced teachers by telling them
that their current teaching practices are irrelevant and outdated. It is also
Preface xv
important that calls for change are grounded in classroom-based research, and
not on ideological or theoretical arguments. In order to bridge the
theory–practice divide, we call for more research carried out by practitioners,
which leads us to the next part of the book that outlines research studies in
GELT.
Part II: Research on Global Englishes for Language Teaching

Part II of the book focuses on researching GELT. Chapter 5 examines research
into GELT, starting with an outline of areas in need of investigation.
We especially emphasise the need for classroom-based research to evaluate
the impact of Global Englishes approaches in language classrooms, in order to
bridge the theory–practice divide. This chapter also explores suitable meth-
odologies that can be employed to investigate GELT. It particularly emphasises
the importance of action research, reflective inquiry and narrative inquiry as
tools to examine and report on change in actual ELT classrooms, as well as
introducing a number of alternative methodologies. Just as practices change,
new methods of inquiry are necessary, in order to research them effectively.
Chapter 6 presents a study that investigates the global orientation of popular
English textbooks, which are widely used within ELT contexts around the
world. The study illustrates how the GELT framework can be operationalised
as a research framework to investigate Global Englishes in teaching materials.
Despite textbooks providing only one perspective into classroom practices,
they remain one of the most prevalent sources of teaching and, as such, assert
a major influence on the way language is taught and on the way students view
the language (Matsuda, 2002). The aim of the study is to explore the extent to
which a sample of textbooks position key GELT constructs, in order to ascer-
tain whether or not these texts reflect the lingua franca language needs of
modern-day English learners.
Chapter 7 examines a research project into TESOL teacher education in the
UK, where a Global Englishes course is offered as an optional module within
a Masters-level TESOL programme. The study uses pre-course and post-course
questionnaires and interviews and post-course focus groups to examine pre-
and in-service teachers’ attitudes towards GELT and to examine the effects of
the course on these attitudes. The mixed methods study aims to reveal the
attitudinal undercurrents of the participants and to gain insight into the contexts
in which they are operating. The study also aims to inform GELT course
evaluation and design. We use this study as a springboard to emphasise the
importance of both teacher education and conducting research with key stake-
holders, thus the results will be of interest to those teaching in different contexts
who are interested in ensuring that their TESOL practitioner programmes
reflect the growth in ELF usage worldwide.
xvi Preface
Chapter 8 presents reanalysed data from a recent British Council ELT

Research Award project (Galloway et al., 2017), in order to more thoroughly
explore the monolingual orientation within EMI programmes in China and
Japan. Questionnaires were conducted with 579 students at 12 participating
universities in Japan and China and with 28 members of staff at 8 of the
universities. The chapter also draws on an additional 123 international students
who were studying in Japan. The study builds on the results of the main project,
by offering a more detailed examination into student and teacher perspectives
of English-only policies within EMI, as well as their underlying attitudes
pertaining to the use of other languages. The qualitative data provides insight
into why the participants hold monolingual or multilingual perspectives of
language use within these EMI contexts.
A Personal Rationale
Although we have outlined an academic rationale of this book, it also has
a deeply personal rationale. Our motivations to write this book emanate from
both authors’ lifelong commitment to the profession of teaching, which is
anchored in our combined thirty-five years of working in English language
teaching and TESOL teacher education. We feel our identities are as teachers
first and as scholars second, and we drew on both of these identities when
researching and writing this book.
From our early years as language teachers in schools in rural Japanese towns,
we both became acutely aware of the privileges afforded to us as so-called
native English-language teachers working in an educational context that prized
speakers of ‘American English’ or ‘Queen’s English’. As both of us came from
non-standard English-speaking communities (Nicola from Scotland and Heath
from rural Australia), we were highly aware from the outset of our careers that
this privileged status was undeserving and misguided, but we lacked the
academic knowledge to articulate why.
In these early years, we worked with many talented L1 Japanese background
English-language teachers, who were not only more experienced at teaching
than we were at the time, but also more knowledgeable of the standard English
used in the curriculum. Our co-teachers, however, were often undervalued,
especially in the commercial English language teaching industry. Such early
experiences caused one of us (Nicola) to challenge such inequalities in her
Master’s research, and the other (Heath) to distance himself for a couple of
years from the profession of English language teaching to focus his Masters
research on the pedagogies of languages other than English.
After completing our Master’s degrees, we both independently returned to
Japan to take up lectureships at Kanda University of International Studies,
which was where we first became colleagues. We worked with students who
Preface xvii
mainly aimed to use English for future careers in the tourism industry. We both
were acutely aware that our learners were likely to use English with
other second-language (L2) users of the language, rather than ‘American
English speakers’, who were over-represented in the curriculum. Our univer-
sity gave us a great deal of autonomy within the curriculum. The curriculum
promoted learning through use, rather than a focus on form, which was quite
compatible with innovations.
Lecturers were also free to propose and create content-based courses on
a topic of their own interest. One of us (Heath) created and taught a course
showcasing cultural and historical content related to East and South-East Asia,
within the context of tourism. The decision to introduce this course was to help
balance the extant curricula focus on ‘British Studies’ and ‘American Studies’.
It was also due to the perceived importance of this region for students who
aimed to work in the tourist industry. As an example, in January 2018 there
were 2.3 million visitors from East and South-East Asia to Japan compared to
just 92,000 visitors from the USA (source: JTB, www.tourism.jp/). The other of
us (Nicola) explicitly taught Global Englishes content to students, which
formed data for her doctoral research. This foray into explicit Global
Englishes teaching can be read in Galloway (2011, 2013, 2017a). As far as
we can tell from the extensive literature we cover in this book, this course is one
of the first recorded instances of teaching Global Englishes content to learners
of English within a traditional language programme.
In later years, we were colleagues once more within Rikkyo University
College of Business, where we worked together to integrate Global Englishes
content within the existing English for Academic Purposes (EAP) curriculum.
Changes included: an introductory module on the global spread and use of
English; the hiring of L2 English-speaking teaching assistants for increased
ELF exposure in the classroom; inviting of guest speakers who were strong role
models of business ELF users; and shifting focus on communication over
accuracy in assessment. Our drive to innovate the curriculum was grounded
in the perceived importance of English as a business lingua franca for our
students’ future careers. Some of this later experience is reported in Galloway
and Rose (2013) and Rose and Montakantiwong (2018). After teaching at
Rikkyo University, we took up academic positions in UK and Irish universities,
where we integrated our professional and academic knowledge in shaping
teacher training programmes – experiences we discuss in Galloway (2017b)
and Rose (2017).
We introduce this personal rationale to highlight the fact that we do not write
this book sitting atop an ‘ivory tower’ dictating change from an ideological
point of view. Sadly, this is sometimes the case when calls for change are made
by applied linguistics researchers who have had limited experiences in actual
language classrooms. While the perspectives we present in this book have
xviii Preface
a strong theoretical foundation, they are also entrenched in our own previous
pedagogical experiences and practices in TESOL. They are reflective of our
own journey and experiences as teachers of English and are bound inextricably
with practice. Many of the ideas we present here have a strong professional
rationale and offer our own professionally grounded answers to calls from
practitioners who teach English in global contexts.
Scholars often talk about a theory–practice divide when introducing inno-
vative pedagogical practice. However, our personal rationale highlights the fact
that our research-informed practices have predominantly occurred within the
very space between theory and practice. Much of the research we have reported
over the years (Galloway, 2011, 2013, 2017a; Galloway & Rose, 2014, 2018;
Rose & Galloway, 2017; Rose & Montakantiwong, 2018) has occurred when
we have embodied a practitioner–researcher identity (for an overview of the
complexities of such research, see Galloway, 2017c). Thus, this book is one
way for us to consolidate this work by linking our own extant practices of
Global Englishes for language teaching with current TESOL and SLA theory in
order to stimulate innovation within both fields.
1 Global Englishes Language Teaching
The rise of English as a global language has been well documented in research
literature. In just 500 years, the world has seen English grow from a national
language spoken by fewer than 3 million people to a global language learned by
an estimated 2 billion speakers. The spread of English as a global language has
resulted in the emergence of a number of related fields of research within
applied linguistics. Paradigms for examining the spread of English include
English as an international language, English as a lingua franca and World
Englishes. This book groups these fields under the one umbrella term of
Global Englishes in its exploration of the impact of the global spread of
English on the field of English language teaching.
English has spread around the world via four channels (Galloway & Rose,
2015), which has produced markedly different Englishes as well as linguacul-
tural contexts of language use. As part of Channel One, English spread through
settler colonisation, where English-speaking emigrants created new L1
English-speaking communities in regions as far-flung as Australia, Canada,
the United States and New Zealand. This gave rise to new varieties of English
via the process of koineisation (formed by different dialects coming into
contact). Channel Two saw English spread to new regions and communities
via the slavery, where displaced slaves of mutually unintelligible African
languages had English imposed on them, quickly becoming the first language
of subsequent generations. This gave rise to new varieties of Englishes via the
process of creolisation (formed by different languages coming into contact) in
such regions as the West Indies. Channel Three (exploitation colonies) also saw
new Englishes emerge via the process of creolisation (usually via pidgins), but
this time to L2 English-using communities. Forts, trading ports and colonies
saw English spread via this channel to regions such as Nigeria, Singapore, India
and Hong Kong. In these contexts, English is still often used alongside local
languages in an official or quasi-official capacity.
The final channel of English dispersion has occurred through globalisation,
which has seen English emerge as a global prestige language, due to the
economic and political power of English-speaking economies such as the
United States. English was seen as a means to facilitate individual and national
4 Introducing Global Englishes for Language Teaching
upward economic and social mobility, although we have warned previously of

the dangers of such views (see Galloway & Rose, 2015). Globalisation brought
an emergence of educational policies worldwide that sought to teach English in
regions with no historic ties to English-speaking nations. Due to globalisation,
we are witnessing a boom in numbers of English speakers in such regions as
China, Japan and mainland Europe.
The rise of English as a global language has changed the foundations of how
the language is taught and learned. The pedagogical implications of the change in
the use of English by second language learners have led many scholars to call for
a paradigm shift in the field of English language teaching. Scholars have argued
that such a shift is necessary to reframe language teaching in order to match the
new sociolinguistic landscape of the twenty-first century. Underpinning this
paradigm shift is a change in views of the ownership of English, the emancipa-
tion of non-native speakers from native speaker norms, a repositioning of culture
within the English language, a shift in models of language and a repositioning of
the target interlocutor. In this book, we group these proposals within a framework
of Global Englishes Language Teaching (GELT).
The term Global Englishes Language Teaching was coined by Galloway
(2011, 2013) and then developed further in Galloway and Rose (2015), with
further adaptations in Galloway and Rose (2018). GELT was first established as
a new approach to teaching English, founded on theoretical notions from
Global Englishes research. GELT is an answer to calls for an epistemic break
(Kumaravadivelu, 2012) in English language teaching, which views current
practices as ill-fitting for teaching English as a global lingua franca.
This chapter explores the theoretical underpinnings of GELT and rationalises
a need for a new approach to teaching English in the twenty-first century. It first
examines the concept of Global Englishes and establishes the boundaries of the
term as used in this book. It then outlines the six proposals for change in
English language teaching practices that emerged from research in the field in
the early 2000s, upon which GELT was established. Finally, it outlines the
GELT framework developed by Galloway and Rose in 2015 and explores
adaptations to it since then. We also outline alternative models that have been
proposed by researchers in the related fields of English as a lingua franca and
English as an international language, in order to compare and contrast these
approaches to the framework used in this book.
What Is Global Englishes?

In this book, we define Global Englishes as an inclusive paradigm looking at
the linguistic, sociolinguistic and sociocultural diversity and fluidity of English
use and English users in a globalised world. Global Englishes has been used by
Global Englishes Language Teaching 5
a number of authors in applied linguistics before us, whom we would like to

acknowledge as informing our own understanding.
Pennycook (2007) has used Global Englishes to refer to the spread and use of
diverse forms of English within processes of globalisation. Pennycook sees
Global Englishes as a more inclusive paradigm compared to World Englishes,
which is based on national lines and discounts ‘other Englishes’ in its exclu-
sionary definitions. His work on hip-hop illustrates how users of English can
take ownership of the English language, where performers reconstitute the
language for their own creative purposes to ‘perform and (re)fashion identities
across borders’ (2003, p. 529). Canagarajah (2013) has also used Global
Englishes to refer to the diversity of English used around the world. He uses
the term to distinguish the paradigm from the constructs of World Englishes
and English as a lingua franca, which he views as too entrenched in the
nativeness of speakers. Canagarajah states that ‘Linguae francae should be
studied in terms of contact practices, not native speaker status’ (2013, p. 67).
Thus, similar to Pennycook, Canagarajah views Global Englishes as a more
broadly encompassing term, which dispenses with the shackles of exclusionary
terms of nativeness and ownership. Whilst we would see much ELF research as
being focused on contact practices, the point that Canagarajah makes is, none-
theless, reflected in much of the ELF research of the 2000s.
Scholars such as Pennycook have been observed to embrace critical applied
linguistic (CAL) perspectives, which others argue is a position that some
teachers have difficulty embracing:
But the CAL position risks alienating practicing teachers, concerned as they are with the
realities of classrooms, examination requirements, parents’ expectations, education
department policies, etc. This is in large part due to the often uncompromising ideolo-
gical stance of much CAL work and the highly abstruse nature of much of its discourse.
(Hall et al., 2013, p. 5)
While we see the truth in this observation, we, nevertheless, see the work of
critical applied linguists as crucial in driving new ideas (and ideologies)
forward. In its critique of existing constructs, as well as in its quest for more
accurate and appropriate conceptualisations of language, the field is able to
explore new avenues for imagining English-language use and English-
language education. As teachers themselves may find such ideas difficult to
grasp, it is up to educational applied linguists to apply these ideas more
explicitly to English-language teacher education, as we plan to do in this book.
The term Global Englishes has also been used previously in resources aimed
at language teachers and teacher educators. The term was adopted for the third
edition of Jenkins’s (2015) book Global Englishes: A Resource Book for
Students, which was originally entitled World Englishes in its first two editions
(2003, 2009). Jenkins (2015) states that the decision to change the title was in
response to ‘the recent massive growth in the use of English as an international

lingua franca among people from different nations and first languages’ (p. viii),
thus the focus of the field has been adjusted to be more inclusive of newer non-
nation bound uses of the English language.
Whilst we see an importance in adopting an inclusionary stance to Global
Englishes, we do feel that some criticisms of Pennycook towards World
Englishes, and some criticisms of Canagarajah towards English as a lingua
franca, create an exclusionary environment when defining Global Englishes –
a term that was created to escape exclusionary research practices. In fact, both
English as a lingua franca and World Englishes have witnessed a substantial
semantic widening in recent years. Indeed, much of what is called Global
Englishes can be seen in the study of fluid language practices in recent ELF
research, as well as from scholars of World Englishes, who have moved beyond
the study of region-specified varieties. In this book, we posit Global Englishes
as an umbrella term to unite the shared endeavours of these interrelated fields of
study in sociolinguistics and applied linguistics. We use it to consolidate
research in World Englishes, English as a lingua franca and English as an
international language, while drawing on scholarship from translanguaging and
multilingualism in second language acquisition. Thus, we define Global
Englishes as an inclusive paradigm that embraces a broad spectrum of inter-
related research that has come before it and emerged alongside it. Thus, to fully
understand Global Englishes, one needs to examine more closely the inter-
related fields of World Englishes, English as a lingua franca, English as an
international language and translanguaging.
World Englishes
World Englishes as a discipline began as both a linguistic and a sociolinguistic
school of study in the 1970s and 1980s, largely informed by the theoretical
work of Braj J. Kachru and Larry Smith. It was primarily concerned with
recording and codifying linguistic variation in English, with special interest in
the Englishes of former British colonies. The oft-cited model of World
Englishes is Kachru’s (1992) groundbreaking Three Circle model, consisting
of the Inner Circle, Outer Circle and Expanding Circle. The Inner Circle
includes countries where English serves as a first language and spread to the
country as a direct result of English-speaking colonisation and migration.
Illustrative Inner Circle countries include the United Kingdom, Ireland,
Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. Although it is an
additional language for many speakers in these countries from other linguistic
backgrounds, the predominant official language is English. The Outer Circle
includes countries of the former British Empire where English operates pre-
dominantly as a second language alongside other national languages (although
many speakers are first language English speakers). Examples of Outer Circle
countries include Nigeria, India, Singapore and Hong Kong. The Expanding
Circle includes countries where English had no historical intra-national func-
tion and is taught within the education systems. In these countries, English has
often been given the status of a foreign language, although, due to globalisa-
tion, it is increasing in intra-national usage and international (lingua franca)
usage. Examples of Expanding Circle countries include Spain, China, Brazil
and Russia.
Since its inception, the Three Circle model has been subject to much criti-
cism for being drawn along national lines, rather than linguistic ones (e.g.
Bruthiaux, 2003; Galloway & Rose, 2015; Jenkins, 2015; Pennycook, 2010),
resulting in its inability to capture the diverse way English is used within and
across geographic boundaries. Nevertheless, research from World Englishes
has made a substantial contribution to knowledge, where it has challenged
notions of standard language ideology and has sought to raise the profile and
legitimacy of the Englishes of the Outer Circle. Under the umbrella of World
Englishes research, scholars also sought to challenge some of the assumptions
and practices of ELT, which we will draw upon later in this chapter.
English as a Lingua Franca

The limitations of World Englishes scholarship to describe English used
across regional and linguistic boundaries led to growing interest in the more
fluid ways English was being used as a lingua franca by speakers of
different L1s. Seminal work by Jennifer Jenkins (1998, 2000), Barbara
Seidlhofer (2001) and Anna Mauranen (2003) lay firm foundations for
ELF research, being a field that has since flourished in its own right.
Lingua franca contexts, like those seen throughout Europe, were very
different to Outer Circle contexts like India and Singapore. In the Outer
Circle, the emergence of English was gradual, and often involved processes
of creolisation and nativisation of language. The Expanding Circle, how-
ever, is much more fluid and unstable, with the type of language contact
and immediate language needs greatly influencing the way English is used
from context to context. Nevertheless, early work in English as a lingua
franca mirrored that of World Englishes and saw scholars focus on the
linguistic features of the language used in lingua franca contexts.
However, the codifying of the ‘norms’ of language in flux was soon viewed
as being an inappropriate task for ELF. As Canagarajah (2016) notes, ‘These
norms are highly variable and hybrid, changing for different communicative
contexts and interlocutors’ (p. 19). The field thus moved in its focus to explore
the fluidity of ELF use, especially in diverse and dynamic contexts. Jenkins
(2015) states that the field has since witnessed the emergence of a third phase of
research, which she refers to as ELF3, where researchers further their interest in
multilingualism in exploring how lingua franca English is used with other
languages. Hence, like Global Englishes, ELF research has become more
integrated with notions of translanguaging and plurilingualism, as:
There is now a growing realization that English cannot be separated from other
languages. This is true not only of the contemporary global contact zones where
languages intermingle, but of all communication, because languages are always in
contact. (Canagarajah, 2016, p. 19)
While much ELF research continues to explore English-language use, there is
an ongoing body of ELF research that explicitly examines the implications of
ELF on language teaching. ELF scholars have argued for a need to teach
learners to adapt to a variety of communities of practice, develop communica-
tion strategies for ELF usage and to speak intelligibly, without necessarily
adhering to traditional standards. Some of these concepts, and others, will be
returned to later in this chapter.
English as an International Language

English as an international language, as a field of study, is often viewed as the
North American counterpart to English as a lingua franca, which emerged out
of a need to examine linguistic practices in Europe. This being said, ELF
scholars, such as Jenkins (1998), once worked within the EIL label.
However, the two fields are slightly different in the focus of their scholarship.
With the growing interest in the use of English on a global scale, some
researchers from such diverse fields as World Englishes, Language Policy
and TESOL began to more closely examine the phenomenon of English as an
international language. Unlike early ELF research, early EIL research was less
focused on a linguistic study of language use, focusing more on the implica-
tions for society, and language education in particular.
The field saw important work emerge from TESOL scholars, such as Sandra
McKay, who sought to examine the implications of such research on classroom
practices. Just as ELF research has flourished, so, too, has EIL research; the
past ten years have seen a number of important edited volumes on teaching EIL
(Alsagoff et al., 2012; Matsuda, 2012, 2016; Sharifian, 2009), as well as an
encyclopaedia volume (TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching,
Vol. I: Teaching English as an International Language, 2018). In some con-
texts, EIL has been used as a catch-all term for the use of English in general,
and as a strategy to eliminate traditional distinctions between English as
a native, second, foreign and additional language (ENL/ESL/EFL/EAL), as
these distinctions are viewed as being increasingly irrelevant in today’s
globally integrated world.
Translanguaging and Translingual Practice

It is also important to acknowledge the overlap with Global Englishes ideology
and the ideology of translanguaging, and translingual practice (Canagarajah,
2011b; Garcia, 2009). Indeed, key publications in the field on translingual
practice (Canagarajah, 2013; Pennycook, 2007) have also used the term
Global Englishes. In our previous work within Global Englishes (Galloway
& Rose, 2015), we use the term ‘translingual practice’, as our interpretations of
Global Englishes were heavily influenced by Canagarajah (2007, 2013). Since
this time, the term ‘translanguaging’ has flourished in the field of applied
linguistics and has been used as an umbrella term to unite similarly focused
research. As Global Englishes is itself an umbrella term, we too adopt trans-
languaging for this purpose, unless we are specifically referring to
Canagarajah’s work.
Translanguaging examines the processes of speakers drawing upon their
entire linguistic repertoire when communicating, thus breaking down concep-
tual linguistic boundaries when describing communication, and challenging
concepts built upon these notions, such as code switching. In terms of the
implications for TESOL, this orientation goes beyond plurilingualism in
TESOL (Taylor & Snoddon, 2013), which is also seen to challenge traditional
notions of linguistic boundaries within the learner. Translanguaging challenges
the underlying assumption that languages are separate entities, whether it is
within a social, cognitive or psychological realm.
Translanguaging showcases linguistic hybridity and helps to inform our
understanding of how speakers of English as a global lingua franca utilise
their multilingual, or translingual, repertoires to communicate. Speakers of
a global language use translanguaging – a concept that has its roots in bilingual
education (see Baker, 2001; Williams, 1996) – as a strategy for communication,
drawing on all of their linguistic resources. Thus, whilst World Englishes
scholars were more focused on the use of English within distinct boundaries
or geographical settings, we now have evidence of how global users of lan-
guage negotiate communication with speakers of these so-called diverse vari-
eties of English, developing conversational strategies that are flexible enough
to adapt to their surroundings, depending on both the context and the situation.
It is also important to note that the centrality of flexible norms in GELT also
resonates with recent work on transnational mobility and the growing body of
research looking at the needs of migrants (Guo & Maitra, 2017). Just as ELF
users are not necessarily tied to one form of English, migrants may not be tied
to one place. As Guo and Maitra (2017) note:
“Rather, they [migrants] are becoming embedded within a shifting field of increasingly
transcultural identities,” given the fact that migrants are becoming more “transnational
and adopting fluid, transcultural identities.” (p. 80)
Guo and Maitra (2017) criticise the lack of focus on, and engagement with,
transnationalism and transculturalism in the Canadian public school curricula,
proposing a revised version that would integrate transnational and transcultural
perspectives. Similar to GELT, they propose a more ethical and inclusive
curriculum, due to the fact that postmodernity and globalisation necessitate
a narrative of mobility and fluidity.
Migration is now viewed as moving beyond the framework of methodolo-
gical nationalism, and transnationalism challenges the rigid boundaries of
nation states. GELT also calls for a more postmodern perspective, due to the
fact that the use of English in multilingual contexts challenges the rigid
boundaries of languages. With globalisation, the boundaries of nation states
are shifting and being contested. In a similar vein, the boundaries of languages
are also shifting and being contested. Migrants do not just make one single
journey from one location to another, but engage in multiple and circular and
return migration (Lie, 1995). Similarly, ELF users do not solely travel to
a native English-speaking country, and may never do – their contexts and
interlocutors are often constantly changing.
The Multilingual Turn

The term multilingual turn is used to describe the increasing importance placed
on multilingualism within second language acquisition theory.
The multilingual turn, which is discussed further in Chapter 3, strongly over-
laps with Global Englishes. For example, while Global Englishes researchers
have been calling for a change in English language teaching, similar calls have
been emerging in parallel within SLA (see May, 2014b; Ortega, 2013). Thus, it
seems imperative that we connect these related movements in order to provide
a stronger foundation for change.
The multilingual turn describes a growing movement in the field to reject
a monolingual bias that has underpinned both applied linguistics and SLA
theory and research for decades and has impacted on TESOL practices.
In a broader sense, therefore, translanguaging and Global Englishes can both
be seen as contributing to the multilingual turn. Whilst Global Englishes has
‘English’ at its core, it is highly attuned to the languages that surround it. It is
a paradigm informed by its multilingual users, which challenges monolingual
ideologies seeks to dismantle linguistic barriers between ‘varieties’ and the
languages of its speakers.
Ortega (2013) has predicted that the multilingual turn will impact on the
field with a similar magnitude as the social turn in the 1990s, which saw the
field of SLA move away from its cognitive and positivist origins and incorpo-
rate more social, individualistic and non-traditional perspectives of SLA (see
Block, 2003, for details). We see Global Englishes as part of this larger
trend, and we see GELT as playing a leading role in this movement relating
to ELT.
Uniting the Paradigms

In sum, the field of applied linguistics has witnessed three main pillars of
research into variation in the English language around the world since the
1980s – all of which focus on the plurality of English and legitimacy of such
variation:
• World Englishes, which focuses on the linguistic features of English varieties
and their sociolinguistic implications.
• English as an international language, which examines the implications of the
spread of English as a global language, with its predominant focus on
pedagogical implications.
• English as a lingua franca, which explores both the linguistic use of language
across speakers of different first languages and the sociolinguistic implica-
tions of the use of English as a contact language.
There are two further related concepts, which are not confined to implications
for the English language but the use of language in global, mobile commu-
nities. These concepts are highly relevant, as similar calls for innovation are
emerging from their scholarship:
• Translanguaging, which challenges the monolingual orientation and looks at
languages not as separate entities, but as part of an interwoven system.
• The multilingual turn, which also challenges the monolingual orientation and
emphasises the importance of other languages in addition to dominant lingua
francae.
All five fields have implications for research surrounding the growth of
English, the world’s foremost lingua franca. World Englishes, English as an
international language and English as a lingua franca have shared endeavours
to change the perceptions of the users of English regarding what English is,
who owns it and how it should be used. Translanguaging further pushes the
boundaries of conceptualising the fluidity of language, and challenges the
notion of English, or Englishes, as being separate from other languages in
use. We unite the shared endeavours of these five fields under the umbrella term
of Global Englishes, as shown in Figure 1.1. This figure is a further adaptation
of the Global Englishes figure provided in Galloway (2017a).
Importantly, all fields have implications for language teaching – the focus of
this book. As Galloway (2017a) notes:
Researchers in all of these fields have questioned the relevance of such norms for ELT in
light of their research findings. Notwithstanding their different stances, such work has
a similar underlying ideology, united in the desire to showcase the diversity of English
Figure 1.1 Global Englishes: an inclusive paradigm.
and to instigate a paradigm shift in ELT. As such, they form part of the broader paradigm
of Global Englishes. (p. 2)
In World Englishes, it has been noted that ‘pedagogy has continued to be one of
the main preoccupations of the field’ (Saraceni, 2015, p. 171), and this is also
true for ELF research (Seidlhofer, 2011). Likewise, EIL scholarship has lob-
bied for a complete overhaul of English language teaching practices, as well as
an epistemic break from the ideology that underpins current pedagogical
practice (Kumaravadivelu, 2012). Translanguaging, having emerged from
bilingual educational contexts, continues to maintain central importance in
pedagogical practice. Finally, much of the theory within the multilingual turn
is directly related to pedagogy, with Meier (2017) describing it as ‘a critical
movement in education’ (p. 131), and other scholars drawing applications to
not only SLA theory, but also TESOL (e.g. May, 2014c).
In defining Global Englishes, we should note that scholars use different
umbrella terms to unite shared ideologies of these fields. For example, as the
field of World Englishes has expanded from its linguistic origins into social
realms, it, too, has been used to encompass much EIL and ELF literature.
Matsuda (2017), for example, uses World Englishes to refer to research into all
related fields. Thus, her definition of World Englishes would be very similar to
our definition of Global Englishes. Translingual practice – Canagarajah’s
preferred term to describe the practice of translanguaging – has been defined
as being an umbrella term itself, aiming to ‘capture the common underlying
processes and orientations’ (Canagarajah, 2013, p. 6) that motivate ‘commu-
nicative modes’ in plurilingual encounters.
We choose Global Englishes, rather than these other terms, in order to
highlight it as an inclusive paradigm of all shared ideologies, and in order to
not limit the scope of our research interest to certain segments, regions or
populations affected by the spread of English. Nevertheless, we acknowledge
that other scholars of English-language pedagogy, such as McKay and Brown
(2016) under the umbrella of EIL, or Matsuda (2017) under the umbrella of
World Englishes, are broadly exploring similar issues as outlined in this book,
while not explicitly labelling such work as Global Englishes. Thus, Global
Englishes aims to bring such work together and also highlight the fact that
researchers in all of the aforementioned paradigms have discussed their work in
relation to pedagogy and have called for change.
Native Speakerism and Native Speaker Terminology

Global Englishes is also presented in this publication as a political ideology,
where native speaker hegemony is challenged and the term native speaker is
problematised. As such, it also shares an ideology with research in applied
linguistics that centres on these notions. The term native speaker has been
problematised and criticised for decades (see Cook, 1999; Davies, 1999, 2003,
2013; Holliday, 2005, 2015; Paikeday, 1985; Rampton, 1990), yet there has
been little consensus on alternative terms to replace it (Selvi, 2011).
In our earlier work on Global Englishes (Galloway & Rose, 2015) we draw
into question the accuracy of the term ‘native speaker’, arguing – like others
before us – that the term is notoriously difficult to define, and only exists as
a concept in people’s minds, rather than being an identifiable reality. Because of
the illusiveness of this concept, it has been described as a ‘fallacy’ (Phillipson,
1992b), a ‘myth’ (Davies, 2003) and a linguistic ‘figment’ of one’s imagination
(Paikeday, 1985). Rajagopalan (2018) notes that,
With globalization and the resultant mass migration of people across the world on
an unprecedented scale and growing contact among people from different regions at
an exponential rate, the distinction is becoming more and more difficult to main-
tain. (p. 1)
He suggests that one should be considered a native speaker of whichever
language one feels competent in.
Nevertheless, the term has been used to drive a wedge in English language-
using communities – a phenomenon sometimes referred to as native speak-
erism. Native speakerism is a term used to describe a disparity of treatment of
English users due to their perceived native speaker status, with native speakers
often receiving favourable treatment over non-native speakers:
Native-speakerism is a pervasive ideology within ELT, characterized by the belief that
‘native-speaker’ teachers represent a ‘Western culture’ from which spring the ideals
both of the English language and of English language teaching methodology.
(Holliday, 2006, p. 385)
Despite efforts from within ELT to challenge native speakerism, at least in

terms of teacher-hiring practices, it prevails today, with current language
teaching advertisements still illustrating a preference for native speakers over
non-native speakers for certain teaching positions (Selvi, 2010). Holliday
(2015, p. 13) notes ‘discrimination is evident in employment practices and
customer preference far beyond the English-speaking West, where “native
speaker” has become a sales icon for all types of language teaching institutions
and their customers’.
Native speakerism extends beyond language teaching to other English-using
communities. At the essence of native speakerism is the idea of ‘Othering’,
which creates an ‘us and them’ dichotomy in society where native speakers are
assigned certain cultural, intellectual and linguistic attributes, and non-native
speakers are assigned other qualities. However, even if these assigned attri-
butes were justifiable (which they are clearly not), ‘being a “native speaker” has
nothing to do with the abilities to be a teacher of a particular language’

(Holliday, 2015, p. 16).
As use of the ‘native’ term is problematic, many scholars have lobbied for
the use of alternative terms that dissipate this dichotomy, such as ‘proficient
user’ (Paikeday, 1985), ‘native user’ (Davies, 2013), ‘language expert’
(Rampton, 1990), ‘English-using speech fellowship’ (Kachru, 1992) and
‘multicompetence’ (Cook, 1999, 2016a). Such practices have called into ques-
tion whether we should also seek to use alternative terms in this book, in order
to challenge the current hegemony. However, although we acknowledge that
the terms ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ are not identifiable realities, it is our
position that they are constructed categories and perceived realities for the
majority of people in English-using communities. That is, while the labels are
not definable, they still exist in the social fabric of most English users’ speech
communities. By using alternative terms in this book, we feel we would be
skating around the issues, rather than explicitly challenging them head-on.
Cook (2016b, p. 187) states ‘that second language acquisition researchers’
reliance on the native speaker is now more covert. Yet by and large, research
still falls back on the L2 user meeting the standard of native speakers’. In this
book, we do not want to be seen as covert, by choosing alternative terms when
challenging ideologies surrounding the concept of nativeness. Therefore, it is
our position that as the labels of ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ are widely used in
society, and by many readers of this book, we need to use them in order to
politically challenge their existence. Hence, we have decided to only use these
labels in this book when the ideas surrounding them are challenged. We also
choose to use these problematic labels when we are referring to a perceived,
rather than defined, distinction. When the labels do not bring this dichotomy
into question, we seek to adopt alternative and more accurate terms.
Implications of Global Englishes for Language Teaching

There has been a recent call within applied linguistics for a paradigm shift in
English language teaching (see Galloway, 2011, 2017a; Galloway & Rose,
2015; Kumaravadivelu, 2012; May, 2014c). The last paradigm shift to occur in
teaching approaches was the large-scale adoption of the communicative
approach over other competing methodologies that had come before it, such
as audio-lingualism in the United States, structural situation language teaching
in the United Kingdom and numerous other alternative methods that emerged
in the 1960s and 1970s. This historical overview will be discussed further in
Chapter 2. The communicative language teaching (CLT) paradigm shift, which
began in the 1970s, saw teaching approaches shift to communicative views of
language learning, and was largely due to sociopolitical changes in the world
that witnessed an increase in the need for learners to be able to communicate
languages due to increasingly mobile communities of speakers. Since this time,

the world has witnessed further globalisation and the entrenchment of English
as the global language, which has caused some scholars to call for another
paradigm shift to reframe language teaching in order to match the new socio-
linguistic landscape of the twenty-first century. Underpinning this paradigm
shift is a change in views of the ownership of English, the emancipation of non-
native speakers from native speaker norms, a repositioning of culture within the
English language and a shift in models of language including the target
interlocutor.
Both Dewey (2012) and Widdowson (2012) note the need for teachers to
reconceptualise the notion of language, the very subject they teach. ‘The first
step is to raise the awareness of teachers that there is an alternative way of
thinking about the subject they teach, based on an understanding of English as
a lingua franca’ (Widdowson, 2012, p. 24). There has been headway in this field
and the flourishing research within the field of Global Englishes has begun to
focus on what this means for teaching the language (see Galloway, 2017a for
a comprehensive overview of recent work).
Previously, we have categorised calls for change under six broad proposals
referred to as the GELT proposals (Galloway & Rose, 2015), which were built
upon those outlined previously by Galloway (2011). These are:
1. Increasing World Englishes and ELF exposure in language curricula
2. Emphasising respect for multilingualism in ELT
3. Raising awareness of Global Englishes in ELT
4. Raising awareness of ELF strategies in language curricula
5. Emphasising respect for diverse culture and identity in ELT
6. Changing English teacher-hiring practices in the ELT industry
In terms of the first proposal, scholars in the field of applied linguistics have
long lobbied for more accurate representation of the variation in English in
language-learning contexts (Gass & Varonis, 1984). This view has also
extended to language educationalists, such as McKay (2012), who has argued
that learners need to comprehend different varieties ‘so that they are better
prepared to deal with English interactions in international contexts’ (McKay,
2012, p. 73). Nevertheless, there remains a lack of materials to expose students
to variation in English, even in contexts where the importance of ELF usage is
acknowledged. Syrbe and Rose (2018), for example, examined materials
created for use in curricula in Germany. Despite a stated purpose of the
curriculum being to train students to use English as a European lingua franca,
their study found little representation of ELF usage in the texts, and few
examples of accents outside standard Inner Circle varieties in the audio materi-
als, with a strong received pronunciation (RP) representation.
In terms of developing respect for multilingualism, research is showing that
knowledge of only English is not enough to fully function in global contexts.
Applied linguistics researchers have long been strong advocates of multilingu-

alism, which extends into the English-language classroom. Movements in
translanguaging research and the multilingual turn in SLA have further high-
lighted the importance of multilingualism, and have challenged the monolin-
gual orientations that underpin much research and practice. GELT is sensitive
to the fact that the ability to use other languages alongside English creates
authentic contexts similar to possible future communities of practice, in which
they are likely to use English alongside other languages.
The third GELT proposal emphasises the importance of raising learners’
awareness of how English is used as a global language, in order for them to
develop an accurate understanding of how they will use the language in the
future. This proposal aims to add further authenticity to the sanitised uses of
English evident in many ELT materials. Preliminary research has already
shown that the direct teaching of Global Englishes can help students move
beyond preconceived notions of standard language and challenge deeply
ingrained native speaker norms. A study by Galloway (2011, 2013, 2017a)
raised awareness of Global Englishes in traditional EFL classrooms in Japan,
which resulted in learners reporting an increase in self-confidence as English
users, challenging their perceptions of how they would likely use English in the
future.
In order to function in these emerging global contexts, it has also become
increasingly clear that learners must develop the strategies needed to adapt to
different communities of language users, which forms the fourth GELT pro-
posal. Calls in this domain have particularly emerged from the study of
language in more fluid contexts – notably ELF and translanguaging.
Canagarajah (2013), for example, has argued that proficiency includes an
ability to be multidialectal to adjust to local, regional and global communities
across and within traditionally defined World Englishes boundaries. Likewise,
ELF research has highlighted the importance of strategies in ELF communica-
tion, to not only accommodate a wide range of speakers from different linguis-
tic backgrounds but also pre-empt differences in English-language norms and
bridge cultural and pragmatic differences (Jenkins et al., 2011). These strate-
gies extend beyond the use of norms in the English language if the translingual
orientation is considered (Canagarajah, 2014, 2016). The pedagogical implica-
tions ‘range from facilitating language awareness among learners to develop-
ing communicative strategies that will enable them to negotiate resources from
diverse languages and construct meaning situationally’ (Canagarajah,
2016, p. 19)
The fourth proposal centres on the need to respect cultural differences in ELT
classrooms and to widen the lens of what an English-using culture is. Will
Baker’s work has been highly influential within this domain (Baker, 2009,
2012a, 2015). Language curricula often posit English-using cultures as Inner
Circle, and the goal for learners is also proposed as taking part in this culture.
Even when textbooks aim to widen the lens of Global Englishes, such as in the
texts explored in the Syrbe and Rose (2018) study, where chapters on ‘South
Africa’ and ‘multicultural London’ were included, the depictions were often of
static cultures the learner must learn about in order to successfully adapt. These
depictions, whilst being a step in the right direction, are somewhat out of sync
with current research on culture, which shows that culture is a fluid, negotiable
concept. Rather, this GELT proposal sees a need for teachers and textbooks to
break away from practices of presenting static regional cultures as the contexts
for language use and to, instead, emphasise the dynamic and fluid cultures that
English is used in today – many of which are emerging in contexts traditionally
labelled as ‘EFL’. For example, English in Japan was traditionally learned to
use in foreign contexts, such as travel or work abroad, or when these contexts
came to Japan, such as English speakers visiting Japan. However, nowadays, it
is increasingly being used in domestic settings – in universities, in laboratories,
in companies and in social settings.
The final GELT proposal calls for a need in teacher recruitment and training to
move away from concepts of native speakers as being experts to professional
English teachers (see McKay, 2012). In considering that so-called non-native
English-speaking teachers make up the majority of the profession, it has been
noted that ‘on a global level, the ELT profession is perhaps the world’s only
occupation in which the majority faces discrimination’ (Ali, 2009, p. 37). While
there is seemingly no shortage of jobs for non-native English-speaking teachers
in the contexts of their own L1 communities, discrimination often occurs when
these qualified teachers wish to take their skills to another context, and they soon
find that native speaker competence is desired in addition to (and at times in lieu
of) teaching qualifications and experience. While there is evidence that
these practices are slowly changing, it appears that the job of the international
language teacher still rests in the hands of a native speaker, who is viewed as
a more ‘authentic’ source of linguistic knowledge, even if they have no experi-
ence of teaching, or even learning language. In this vein, World Englishes
scholars, such as Kirkpatrick (2012), state that a multicomponent English teacher
is a far more suitable role model for learners than a monolingual native speaker.
However, we also concur with Holliday (2015) in that we need to stop this
discrimination, including current research that compares the two types of tea-
chers, as this merely reinforces the terms and suggests that there is a difference.
These proposals point to a need to innovate English language teaching in the
twenty-first century to meet the changing needs of students learning a global
lingua franca. As such, we concur with Kirkpatrick, who has in the past advo-
cated that the changing sociolinguistic use of English ‘has implications for
language learning goals, for language teachers and for the curriculum’
(Kirkpatrick, 2012, p. 131). Matsuda and Friedrich (2012) have also lobbied
for innovation, arguing that the ‘linguistic, cultural and functional diversity
associated with English today challenges some of the fundamental assumptions
of English language teaching (ELT) and requires that we revisit our pedagogical
practices’ (p. 17). However, even though applied linguists and language educa-
tionalists seem to agree that change is necessary, until recently a concrete plan of
innovation that can be implemented into practice has been lacking. This has led
to widespread observations of a theory–practice divide, which this book aims to
remedy with its lobbying of a new conceptualisation of language teaching,
referred to as Global Englishes Language Teaching.
The Global Englishes Language Teaching Framework

The Global Englishes Language Teaching framework (Table 1.1) was origin-
ally created by Galloway (2011) to provide a usable framework for research
purposes, and to inform curriculum innovation. The original framework was
informed by similar comparisons, such as Jenkins’s (2006) EFL vs ELF con-
ceptualisation, as well as earlier work by Canagarajah (2005) and Seidlhofer
(2004). Galloway’s (2011) framework was seen as a means to answer calls for
change in ELT by consolidating interconnected themes in a reader-friendly
format (see Table 1.1). Since this time, the framework has undergone adapta-
tion as new ideas have emerged, and proposals have been put into practice.
Table 1.1 Galloway’s (2011) original GELT framework (adapted)
ELT GELT
Target interlocutor The NES The NES and the NNES/The ELF
speaker
Owners NESs ELF users
Cultural content NE culture Students’ C1 and ELF cultures
Teachers NNESTs (same L1) and NESTs Teachers – NNESTs (same L1),
NNESTs (diff L1) and NESTs/
multilingual ELF users
Norm NE and concept of SE Diversity, flexibility, ELF strategies
and multiple forms of competence
Model The NES The successful ELF user
Materials NE and NESs NE, NNE, ELF and ELF
communities and contexts
L1 and C1 A hindrance and an interference A resource
Paradigm Belongs to the foreign-language Belongs to the Global Englishes
paradigm paradigm
In its second incarnation, the framework appeared in our book entitled

Introducing Global Englishes (Galloway & Rose, 2015), which was intended
as an introductory text to the field. Adaptations to the framework at this time
were heavily influenced by the ‘pedagogical priorities’ outlined by
Canagarajah (2013). Categories were added and terms amended to reflect
current thinking in the field. This version of the framework has appeared in
a number of subsequent publications and has informed some subsequent
research (e.g. Galloway, 2017a; Galloway & Rose, 2014, 2018; McKinley,
2018; Rose & Galloway, 2017; Syrbe & Rose, 2018), which applies the
dimensions of the framework to critically analyse data. Meier’s (2017,
p. 155) ‘framework for critical reflection’ also uses dichotomous labels to
represent shifts in thinking when she explores dimensions within the multi-
lingual turn, thus the GELT framework sits well with other related frameworks.
Since 2015, we have made slight adjustments to the framework in order to
more accurately represent research and current positions. Firstly, we have
aimed to de-emphasise the divide between so-called native and non-native
English speakers in light of movements to abandon these terms. While in our
2015 book we problematised the terms before using them, we want to further
emphasise that GELT does not view users of English with such divisive labels.
Thus, in terms of the categories of target interlocutors, ownership, norms and
materials, we have dropped previous labels that aimed to include both native
and non-native speakers of English to embrace more inclusive terms, such as
‘all users’, ‘global’ ownership and ‘competent’ teachers, who use fluid, diverse
and multiple forms of the language. We have maintained use of the ‘native
speaker’ and ‘native English’ labels when referring to traditional ELT, as we
still feel that these provide an accurate means to describe problematic positions
that have underpinned (and continue to underpin) most teaching practices.
We have also replaced labels in the ownership category from speakers to
contexts, highlighting that ownership of English is seen to rest within certain
English-using contexts, rather than speakers. Our current thinking of GELT is
illustrated in Table 1.2 and, thus, underpins the discussion of GELT that
follows.
In terms of target interlocutor, we see a need to move away from depictions
of the native speaker as being the preferred target for learners’ future use of
English. Research on English use has shown that twenty-first-century learners
of English will need the language to engage with a global community of users,
and we see that teaching practices will need to fully prepare students for this.
While in some contexts a shift is apparent, research has shown that, even in
somewhat ELF-aware contexts such as Germany, the target interlocutor is still
widely presented to students as the native speaker. A small-scale study of
German textbooks, for example, found that only one pedagogical task across
four textbooks at the advanced level could broadly be defined as positioning the
Table 1.2 The 2018 Global Englishes Language Teaching framework
Traditional ELT GELT

Target interlocutors Native English speakers All English users
Ownership Inner Circle Global
Target culture Static NE cultures Fluid cultures
Norms Standard English Diverse, flexible and multiple forms
Teachers Non-NE-speaking teachers Qualified, competent teachers (same
(same L1) and NE-speaking and different L1s)
teachers
Role model NE speakers Expert users
Source of materials NE and NE speakers Salient English-speaking
communities and contexts
Other languages and Seen as a hindrance and source Seen as a resource as with other
cultures of interference languages in their linguistic
repertoire
Needs Inner Circle defined Globally defined
Assessment criterion Accuracy according to Communicative competence
prescriptive standards
Goals of learning Native-like proficiency Multicompetent user
Ideology Underpinned by an exclusive Underpinned by an inclusive Global
and ethnocentric view of Englishes perspective
English
Orientation Monolingual Multilingual/translingual
target interlocutor as an ELF speaker (Syrbe & Rose, 2018). We further develop
such research in a later chapter of this book (Chapter 6).
Much of the emphasis on the native speaker stems from an underlying
ideology that ownership of the English language rests within the Inner Circle.
This is despite the fact that English speakers outside the Inner Circle have long
outnumbered those within it – a fact that is only going to become more
prevalent in the future. At the current growth rates, the number of English
speakers may surpass 4 billion by the year 2050, of which little more than
0.5 billion will be defined as L1 English speakers of the Inner Circle. This will
further increase the ratio of L1 to L2 speakers to a 1:8 ratio, compared to David
Crystal’s (2003) oft-cited 1:3 ratio. This further emphasises the need to encou-
rage a perception in the classroom that English belongs to a global community,
rather than the traditional origins of it as being the language of the Inner Circle,
or more broadly of those living in nations descendent from the former British
Empire. Within a GELT perspective, the owners of English are seen as being as
fluid as the language they speak, moving beyond outdated notions that geo-
graphic borders and nation-based states ‘contain’ language and speakers.
GELT’s transnational view of language sits alongside similar perspectives of
transnationalism (discussed further in Chapter 2). While transnationalism is

challenging the rigid boundaries of nation states, Global Englishes, like ELF,
challenges the rigid boundaries of languages.
Connected to changes in the representation of ownership and target inter-
locutors is the target culture in which the language is to be used. Earlier, we
described a call for changes in cultural depictions in curricula to more repre-
sentative illustrations of the fluid and diverse cultures where English is used
today. Byram’s (1997) work is important here and critical cultural awareness is
central, focusing on the competence needed for communication between those
from different linguacultural backgrounds. Thus, GELT aims to help learners
develop this, providing them with a foundation to evaluate their own and
others’ ‘perspectives, practices and products’ (Byram, 1997, p. 63). However,
in GELT, Baker’s notion of intercultural awareness is more relevant, since in
ELF there is no target culture, so speakers cannot be familiar with the perspec-
tives, practices and products of all of their potential interlocutors. Thus, a more
appropriate goal may be to demonstrate intercultural awareness, the role
culturally based communicative forms, practices and frames of reference
have in intercultural communication, and an ability to use these in a flexible
and context-specific manner (Baker, 2011, 2012a). Will Baker’s (e.g. 2009,
2012b, 2015) work has played a key role in leading the movement to innovate
culture in language classrooms that have traditionally been underpinned by
static models. GELT calls for more innovations of this type, in order for learners
to be aware that new cultures emerge and develop in each instance of language
use, especially in lingua franca contexts, where speakers are bringing different
expectations and experiences to the speech community. Intercultural aware-
ness recognises the need to move away from essentialist conceptualisations and
highlights this fluid, dynamic and complex relationship between language and
culture in ELF encounters.
The norms which underpin language teaching are perhaps the most resistant
to change, as they are grounded in standard language ideology that a standard,
or correct, version of the language exists. GELT concurs with opinions that
static views of language are problematic (Widdowson, 2012). Thus, students
will benefit from more fluid, diverse and multiple forms of the language during
their education. Some of this fluidity can be achieved through the exposure of
varieties of English, such as in Galloway and Rose (2014, 2018), while
diversity can also be achieved through awareness raising, such as in
Galloway (2013) and Rose and Galloway (2017). In the latter of these studies,
an explicit pedagogical task involving an informed debate over Singlish and the
Speak Good English Movement in Singapore helped to challenge students’
standard language ideology. We will return to this study in Chapter 4.
In order to reflect global ownership of the language, GELT encourages the
positioning of qualified, expert users as good role models for learners. While
this may prove difficult, due to the prevalence of standard language ideology as
discussed above, initial research shows a raised awareness of the value of
expert users as role models and teachers. A study by Galloway and Rose
(2013) aimed to explore the effects of hiring teaching assistants for an English-
medium business course in Japan, based on their perceived value as both role
models of expert ELF users (e.g. having used English in diverse contexts) and
having knowledge of business concepts. Questionnaire data from students
suggested that they valued qualities in the assistant, which were not connected
to linguistic knowledge but the ability to engage with students, to explain key
concepts and to be approachable peers. The study also saw no statistically
significant differences between the reported value of the assistant and per-
ceived nativeness. This is also supported by our own anecdotal evidence in the
same teaching context, which showed that students valued having expert ELF
users as guest speakers on the programme, as they represented achievable role
models and inspired the learners to reach the same standards.
The positioning of authentic role models ties in with the need to position
competent teachers as ideal English teachers, regardless of their perceived
native status. After all, while native speaking teachers are often positioned as
authoritative users of the language, they often make poor role models for
learners, representative of a largely unachievable yardstick to which to measure
their own language-learning aspirations. Non-native speaking teachers, on the
other hand, were once learners of the language themselves, and have often built
up a repertoire of learning practices, knowledge and experiences that have seen
them become actual authoritative figures of English language teaching.
Nevertheless, while making an argument for non-native speakers as authentic
role models, we are not advocating that the non-native speakers necessarily
make better teachers. What we would argue is that nativeness is inherently
a poor criterion on which to judge a teacher’s ability to teach. The issue of
native speakers as ideal teachers has been challenged by teaching organisations
for decades. The organisation, TESOL in 1991, for example, took to publishing
an article criticising such hiring practices – a position they re-emphasised in
2006 (TESOL, 1991, 2006).
Nevertheless, the native speaker hegemony remains. One of the biggest
casualties of this hegemony is that the field of English language teaching is
not taking advantage of its human resources, as non-Anglophone countries are
still perceived as places where native speakers of English can travel to teach,
but non-native English-speaking teachers cannot find work (unless they are
speakers of the local language, where this skill is valued in order to teach low-
level classes through the L1 within some education systems). GELT sees the
value of not only hiring qualified teachers regardless of native status but also
what teachers of different L1s can bring to learners. With such expert teachers
heading language classes, learners have a threefold benefit in having a teacher
who is a qualified expert, has a multilingual repertoire and provides an authen-

tic ELF setting for each class. Moreover, if hiring practices change, we can
leverage the benefits of an 80% share of non-native language teachers, who can
be suddenly mobile in their profession, instead of being prisoners to the current
prevailing native speaker hegemony.
In terms of movements in the sources of materials used, GELT sees
a need to draw upon a wider range of sources from global uses of
English language today than is currently occurring. The ELT industry is
still currently propped up by Anglocentric publications, due to a pervasive
view that they are the source of authoritative experts and publications in the
field (Jenkins, 2007). While there is evidence that some positive movement
in more recent textbooks has occurred (see, e.g., Chapter 6, this volume)
with notable additions to speaker varieties in the recorded materials of
newer textbooks compared to those a decade ago, the consensus is that
much more movement is needed. This particular aspect will be returned to
in Chapter 6, where popular language-learning materials are investigated.
For now, we argue that textbooks need to include a more representative
depiction of students’ future English-language use. Needs analysis is, there-
fore, essential in ensuring that the materials used in classrooms suit the
future language needs of the students with whom they are used.
The field of English language teaching has already witnessed a significant
conceptual change in our understanding of the role of the first language and
culture, but some traditional ideologies remain. Despite a large body of
research denouncing English-only policies in the language classroom (see
Tollefson, 2007, for an overview), the ideology remains in English-language
classrooms throughout the world with further gravitation towards English-only
pedagogy in some national school contexts, such as in Korea. The notion that
students’ L1 is a crutch, or hindrance, to learning, although debased by
research, remains prevalent in teachers’ understanding of pedagogical practice.
GELT challenges such ideologies and, drawing from similar movements within
the multilingual turn, views learners’ linguistic repertoire as an important
resource for learning, rather than a source of interference. Similarly, GELT
embraces the importance of a learner’s own culture.
An uncontroversial element of needed change to move away from tradi-
tional approaches to ELT to a Global Englishes approach is a change in
how we conceptualise students’ needs. While most good teachers already
see needs analysis as being central to curriculum development, the Inner
Circle is often assumed to be part of this need and, as a result, is rarely
problematised. Many programmes establish their curriculum around
a supposition that students need to use English in Inner Circle contexts,
or with speakers from such contexts. GELT challenges this notion and
argues that most students’ needs today – and especially those who are
learning English for global use – are markedly different from the past.
Therefore, teachers must make informed decisions based on the careful
needs analysis of their students. While the Inner Circle may still be relevant
for some students, it may not be for all.
Central to a paradigm shift in English language teaching is a shift in
perspectives of the assessment criteria against which language outcomes are
measured. Here, we concur with the observation that ‘Debates about the
assessment of international English have revolved around two important ques-
tions: Whose norms should we apply? And how do we define proficiency in the
English language?’ (Canagarajah, 2013, p. 3). Canagarajah further states that,
due to a new geopolitical order, which he terms postmodern globalisation, there
is a need for
a more complex orientation that moves the discourse of proficiency to a totally different
label . . . 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 emer-
ging communicative needs. (pp. 2–3)
Without a change in the assessment the washback effect (discussed further in
Chapter 4) would continue to stifle innovation in the curriculum and, thus, both
assessment and teaching must adapt in order to meet our postmodern globalisa-
tion language needs.
Language testing seeks to measure a simulation of ‘relevant communica-
tive behavior’ required by the learners, which is referred to as the criterion
(McNamara, 2000), and assessment is also designed with regard to such
criterion. Considering the growth of English as a global language, it is clear
that the target setting for using English has changed significantly and, thus, so
has the criterion. The future language use behaviours of learners and test
takers will increasingly involve speakers with diverse linguistic backgrounds,
in addition to the first language users. A Global Englishes perspective would
argue that, because the target language use context has changed for learners of
a global language, so, too, should assessment criterion, if assessment aims to
make an accurate inference about a learner’s future performance. Language
testing has been identified as being one of the areas in which the native
speaker is most visible and is, in that effect, also one of the areas in which
changes are most necessary. Making a change, however, is difficult, as
McNamara (2012, p. 199) notes:
Traditionally [achievement] is defined in reference to the educated native speaker of
Standard English. But the majority of users of English in the contemporary world are
non-native speakers using the language as a lingua franca. So the question is how far the
constructs articulated in standards for English language proficiency reflect, or can
reflect, the insights into the nature of communication represented by research on
English as a lingua franca.
A GELT perspective, however, does not seek to replace one standard with
another. Indeed, ELF research has indicated that the very idea of a standard is
incompatible with the fluid nature of ELF usage. Instead, GELT argues for
assessment criterion to be based on communicative competence, rather than
accuracy according to such a standard. Thus, the central criterion to any piece
of assessment that aims to make inference about a learner’s ability to use
English in a global context should make its evaluations of the speaker’s ability
to communicate effectively and concisely in that type of environment.
In terms of the ideology underpinning GELT, we see that the approach is
underpinned by the inclusive paradigm of Global Englishes, which embraces
the diversity of English used today. We posit Global Englishes as the means
through which an epistemic break can be achieved in English language teach-
ing, which Kumaravadivelu (2012) has defined as a thorough reconceptualisa-
tion and reorganisation of knowledge systems. He argues that
The native-speaker episteme has not loosened its grip over theoretical principles,
classroom practices, the publication industry, or the job market. What is surely and
sorely needed is a meaningful break from this epistemic dependency if we are serious
about sanitizing our discipline from its corrosive effect and sensitizing the field to the
demands of globalism and its impact on identity formation. (p. 15)
In our exploration of GELT, we hope to provide a roadmap for change in
current practices so that this break can be better facilitated.
Global Englishes for Language Teaching

Finally, we want to emphasise that our vision for change in English language
teaching does not suggest that we need to abandon previous practices entirely.
Just as Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011), who provide an overview of
techniques and principles in language teaching, note that they ‘do not seek to
convince readers that one method is superior to another, or that there is or ever
will be a perfect method’ (p. ix), GELT is not proposed as a superior teaching
approach. Instead, it challenges the assumptions about English that pervade
into teaching practices, saturate teaching materials and permeate into the
ideologies of learners. GELT calls for a re-evaluation of current practices in
light of the changing sociolinguistic uses of the language. GELT answers calls
by scholars such as Matsuda and Friedrich (2012), who have previously argued
for a complete revision of teaching programmes ‘using one’s understanding of
the use of English in international contexts as a foundation that influences every
single aspect of the curriculum’ (p. 25).
Similar to other scholars who examine teaching approaches (e.g. Richards &
Rogers, 2014), we want to emphasise that teachers will have to adapt the ideas
and concepts presented in this book to their own contexts, depending on their
student needs and their curriculum constraints. GELT is an ideology that can be
used to inform, rather than direct, teaching in the twenty-first century. In order
to emphasise GELT as a framework for action, which can also be used to
evaluate progress, we have inserted a seemingly trivial (but actually very
important) for in the title of this book. The reason for this insertion is to
emphasise that GELT should be viewed as a tool for language teaching, rather
than an approach that is used to teach. In this way, GELT should not be seen as
an alternative to current approaches used to teach but a way to inform these
approaches. Indeed, methods of teaching need not change, but, rather, it is the
ideology that underpins curricula that is to change.
GELT offers a new perspective on how we view language, encouraging
practitioners and curriculum planners alike to question norms and monolingual
ideology. It acknowledges the importance of bi/multilingual speakers’ whole
language repertoire and semiotic system and aims to emancipate them from
adhering to strict native norms. Thus, it offers an opportunity for learner
agency, enabling learners to draw on their languages to suit the purposes of
communication, recognising the hybrid use of languages and how it changes.
The work on translanguaging (Garcia, 2009; García & Wei, 2014) aims to move
the field past dividing these languages, and emphasises the valuable use of the
entire repertoire. As opposed to learning how to communicate in one set way, it
acknowledges learners’ ability to adapt according to their interlocutors and the
situation.
GELT can also be used for research purposes for investigations of language
teaching practices. In the latter half of the book, we will illustrate the use of
GELT as a research framework used to measure innovation in course curricu-
lum and materials, where innovation is occurring within a variety of teaching
contexts. In this way, we show how Global Englishes for language teaching is
being used to innovate and to highlight areas where further innovation can
occur.
2 The TESOL Curriculum and GELT
As outlined in the previous chapter, GELT requires a conceptual transition in

the field of TESOL. In order to facilitate this, we examine some of the
fundamental key concepts and theories underpinning English language teach-
ing through a Global Englishes lens. Global Englishes research, and the
expansion in the use of ELF, raises numerous questions about how English
should be taught and learned. Good teaching and successful curricula meet the
needs of learners, yet in today’s globalised world, learners’ needs have changed
and, as such, it is questionable how far ‘traditional’ approaches that focus on
‘native’ English-speaker norms are meeting these needs. This has implications
for English language teaching, especially: programme goals and objectives; the
content to be taught and learned (the syllabus); how it should be taught (the
methodology); and how learners should be evaluated (assessment).
In this chapter we take a curriculum perspective, exploring GELT by focus-
ing on needs analysis, syllabus, methodology, assessment and curriculum
evaluation. In doing so, we aim to problematise the centrality of ‘native’
English speaker norms and the role of Western-centric notions of teaching
and learning. A number of the concepts and theories introduced have their roots
in second language acquisition theory, discussed in the next chapter. In our
examination of the main trajectories in the field, we also aim to help map future
directions in curriculum innovation.
TESOL: A Changing Context

In the introduction to a special issue of Modern Language Journal, Kramsch
(2014) notes a changing context of language teaching, which is entirely applic-
able to the field of TESOL:
There has never been a time when language teaching and learning has been more
interactive and more imaginative than today . . . Communicative pedagogies have
made the classroom more participatory, electronic chatrooms have loosened the tongues
and the writing of even the shyest students, video and the Internet have made authentic
materials available as never before, telecollaboration and social networks have
increased students’ access to real speakers in real cultural environments—and yet
28
The TESOL Curriculum and GELT 29
there has never been a greater tension between what is taught in the classroom and what
the students will need in the real world once they have left the classroom. In the last
decades, that world has changed to such an extent that language teachers are no longer
sure of what they are supposed to teach nor what real world situations they are supposed
to prepare their students for. (p. 296)
It is this tension and preparation for real-world situations that GELT aims to
address. This certainly poses a dilemma for teachers in deciding what they are
supposed to teach, particularly if their textbooks, tests and institutional or
governmental ELT policies continue to promote ‘native’ English speaking
and monolingual norms. As discussed in Chapter 1, debates over the domi-
nance of ‘native’ English-speaker norms are not new, nor are they unique to the
field of Global Englishes. Nevertheless, research within the Global Englishes
paradigm throws a new perspective on these debates, illuminating the need to
reconceptualise the ‘E’ in ELT and TESOL – and in EMI for that matter
(discussed in Chapter 8). Growing research in the field of Global Englishes
has prompted a shift in the perspective of language, corresponding with other
movements such as the multilingual turn. It is this new perspective that the
GELT framework (Figure 2.1) attempts to address, encouraging a movement
away from the monolingual orientation.
In order to understand where TESOL is heading, we must first understand
where the field has come from, although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to
provide a detailed overview of each major development. As with Canagarajah
(2016), who examined the history of the field via a content analysis of TESOL
Quarterly’s issues over the past fifty years, we also adopt Widdowson’s (2004)
approach to the history of ELT, focusing on ‘the underlying trends and tenden-
cies’ of the profession (p. 353). However, in doing so, we do this within the
context of the curriculum. Good teaching is, after all, ‘Dependent on under-
standing the context for teaching, the needs of teachers and learners, the careful
planning of courses and materials, as well as the monitoring of teaching and
learning’ (Richards, 2001, p. xi). It is dependent on a number of interrelated
factors and processes referred to by Richards (2001) as curriculum develop-
ment. By anchoring our discussions within familiar concepts such as the
curriculum, we hope to avoid alienating teachers with our critical perspectives,
which has been previously observed as being an issue in connecting theory with
pedagogical practice (Hall et al., 2013).
Curriculum theory has previously been discussed in relation to the globa-
lisation of English (cf. Alsagoff et al., 2012). Such contributions also aim to
help guide practitioners to critically reflect on their teaching practice in their
specific contexts. Sembiante (2016) also discussed the implications that the
shift in the perspective of language prompted by researchers discussing
multilingualism and translanguaging have for the field of curriculum studies,
particularly the role of language. In a similar vein, the GELT framework helps
practitioners to consider not only innovations but also barriers. Thus, in the
following sections, we examine the field within the context of the curriculum
through a Global Englishes lens to showcase how GELT embraces and
informs shifting perspectives in the field.
Curriculum
The curriculum is often conflated with teaching methods, which are often
viewed as being the most important factor in ensuring the success of an
education programme. As such, the field of TESOL has been preoccupied
with a quest for the best method. However, as Richards (2001) notes,
‘[a] perspective often missing from the method-based view of teaching is that
of how methods interact with other factors in the teaching-learning process?’
(p. ix). A curriculum can be defined as ‘an inventory of what is to be taught, and
how it will be taught and assessed for the realisation of particular goals or
specific needs. It is primarily a selection of content, resources and activities
organised and sequenced for consistency and continuity of instruction, and for
the assessment of change or development’ (Mickan, 2013, pp. 24–5).
A curriculum, therefore, includes:
1. Needs Analysis: Who are the learners/the target group? Why are they
learning English? What is the context like? How is English used in their
country/domain?
2. Goals and Objectives: What is to be achieved? What is their purpose?
3. Syllabus: What is to be taught?
4. Methodology: How should it be taught?
5. Assessment: How can we measure whether learners are learning the content
and the goals have been met?
6. Evaluation: How can we ensure that it is effective?
Needs analysis often acts as the anchor for curriculum development and
evaluation. If learners’ needs change, the whole curriculum may need to be re-
examined. Postmodern globalisation has clearly changed learners’ use of the
English language, and thus impacts on all other curriculum elements. Taking
a curriculum perspective to GELT enables us to consider how the various
elements relate to one another, allowing us to ask key questions to help ensure
successful and sustained curriculum innovation (see Figure 2.1).
The GELT framework is designed to guide practitioners to evaluate and
design curricula. It illuminates the why, what, when, where, how and with whom
to learn. An effective curriculum or course design makes the educational
principles that underlie the curriculum explicit (Graves, 2016) and, therefore,
we began this book with an overview of the field of Global Englishes and
GELT. The beliefs and values of curriculum planners are also important.
As Guo & Maitra (2017) note:
Figure 2.1 The interrelated elements of the curriculum in relation to GELT.
It is important to pay attention to the ideology and politics behind curriculum planning,
for people in positions of power, provincial governments, school authorities, and other
stakeholders are often primary agents when decisions are made on the content of the
curriculum, as well as instructional materials and texts chosen, thereby legitimating and
enforcing what students should learn and teachers ought to teach (Bickmore, 2005;
Skerrett, 2015). (p. 82)
Beliefs about the purpose of English-language education are often evident in
national education policy statements, and these can have a powerful impact on
curriculum change. The Council of Europe’s adoption of communicative
competence as a curricular goal, for example, impacted national curricula
across Europe, and indeed around the world. We recognise that curriculum
planners are not always the government, nor education ministry officials, and
the beliefs of practitioners, students, parents and other stakeholders are also
important. SLA theory, discussed further in Chapter 3, also plays a large role in
informing curriculum change.
Needs Analysis
Needs analysis is often the logical starting point in the curriculum design
process; once needs are identified, curriculum planners can set goals and
objectives and then design the syllabus, methodology and assessment.
The growing body of empirical work showcasing how ELF is used pro-
vides a wealth of data on learners’, or future ELF users’, needs.
The growing body of literature on the pedagogical implications of such
work, the increasing number of practical suggestions and also the increas-
ing body of research examining how GELT can be incorporated into
curricula are also useful. See Galloway (2017a) for a comprehensive over-
view of this literature.
In the early days of ELT, learners’ needs were not central, and there was
an assumption that learners everywhere had the same goals, which centred
on knowledge of ‘standard’ English grammar and lexis. Interest in needs
analysis stemmed from growing consideration given to the teaching and
learning context. A large example of how learners’ changing needs influ-
enced curriculum is the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2005), a transnational curriculum
framework that is now used globally. The CEFR (see Council of Europe,
2001, p. 9) aims to prepare learners to communicate in real-world contexts.
While some ‘can-do’ statements use ‘native’ English as a benchmark, and
are therefore questionable, it is nevertheless helpful to inform curriculum
developers of the students’ can-do needs to use the language in the ‘real’
world. However, as Galloway (2018) notes: ‘The “real world”, then, appears
to be a world where learners will use the target language with native English
speakers’ (p. 469), which seems somewhat incompatible with GELT.
Needs analysis also grew in importance as language courses started having to
justify or secure funding (Richards, 2001). Education is certainly a competitive
industry and in many contexts, courses have to provide evidence that they are
serving a need. This is certainly not problematic for GELT, given the flourish-
ing Global Englishes research providing empirical evidence on learners’ needs
today. Indeed, the ‘establishment of World Englishes and ELF research has
provided powerful arguments for the need to reconceptualise models of English
in ELT’ (Llurda, 2016, p. 56). While ‘the lack of descriptive work on ELF
initially made it difficult for teaching professionals to incorporate an ELF
approach into their teaching practice’ (Llurda, 2016, p. 56), this is not the
case today. One of the very aims of this book is to encourage curriculum
planners to draw on such work and recognise the significance it has for the
English-language curriculum.
Necessities
Nation & Macalister (2010) refer to three types of target needs: necessities,
lacks and wants. There is plentiful evidence of learners’ necessities, in terms of
the required knowledge needed by those learning English to use as a global
lingua franca. Global Englishes research highlights a mismatch between what
is currently taught in the ‘traditional’ ELT curricula and how the language is
used as a lingua franca. It showcases, for example, that ‘errors’ and ‘mistakes’,
often highlighted in mainstream ELT materials and assessments, do not neces-
sarily result in a communication breakdown.
Corpus linguistics as a field of study grew out of a focus on ‘authenticity’ and
‘real’ English, alongside developments in technology, and, today, many course
books are based on corpora – electronic databases of ‘real’ contextualised
examples of ‘authentic’ language. Examples include the Touchstone series
(Cambridge English) and the Empower series (Cambridge English).
However, the native English corpora upon which such textbooks are based do
not reflect the needs of all learners, particularly those who will use English as
a lingua franca. Emerging ELF corpora, such as VOICE 2.0 (2013), ACE
(2014) and ELFA (2008), provide alternatives and they showcase how ELF
users utilise their multilingual repertoires and negotiate communication in
multilingual encounters.
There is also a wealth of data available for those working in different
domains, such as business English as a lingua franca (Ehrenreich, 2009,
2015; Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2018; Kankaanranta & Planken,
2010), ELF in social contexts (Pietikäinen, 2014, 2018), electronically
mediated intercultural communication (Sangiamchit, 2018), translation/inter-
preting (Albl-Mikasa, 2013, 2015, 2018; G.Cook, 2012; House, 2014), acade-
mia (Jenkins, 2014; Murata & Iino, 2018; Smit, 2018) and migration (Grazia
Guido, 2008, 2018), all of which can provide insights for curriculum planning.
We recognise that ELF users may not all have the same needs and ‘native’
English norms may still be appropriate for some learners. Indeed, GELT is
based on the context-sensitive nature of such communication and aims to
increase learners’ choices, recognising the diverse needs of learners today,
thus drawing on the notion of ‘communities of practice’ (Wenger, 1998).
Wants
With regard to the subjective needs, the ‘wants’ (Nation & Macalister, 2010), or
attitudes, of various stakeholders, some studies have concluded that positive
attitudes towards native norms can be used to justify the use of this model,
given that it meets learners’ self-professed needs (Kuo, 2006; Timmis, 2002).
However, such studies have been criticised for failing to investigate the under-
lying factors behind such attitudes, including the very dominance of native
norms and standard language ideology (Galloway, 2013, 2017a; Galloway &
Rose, 2015). Just because learners ‘want to be native speakers . . . does not
mean these attitudes are right’ (Cook, 1999, p. 196), and such ‘attitudes are the
product of the many pressures on them to regard L2 users as failed natives’
(p. 199). Recent studies have also revealed the important influence of ELF
awareness and experience (Galloway, 2011, 2013, 2017a; Wang, 2013, 2015;
Wang & Jenkins, 2016) and the positive influence of Global Englishes instruc-
tion on attitudes (Baker, 2012b; Derwing et al., 2002; Galloway, 2011, 2013,
2017a; Galloway & Rose, 2013; Shim, 2002; Sung, 2015). Indeed, the field is
dominated by monolingual ideology, and therefore, we have included this in
Table 2.1, where we present the ideological perspectives influencing ELT
curricula.
Students’ desire to learn native English should not be dismissed, but as
we argue in Chapter 5, we urge researchers, and practitioners, to explore
these attitudes, and students’ needs, in more depth. As McKay (2003)
notes:
many language learners today are studying English not because they are being coerced
to do so by speakers of Inner Circle countries, but rather because of the benefits
knowledge of English brings. An effective EIL pedagogy, then, must consider the
specific goals that lead learners to study English and not assume that these goals
necessarily involve attaining full proficiency in the language. (p. 5)
An effective GELT curriculum should not only be based on an understanding of

learners’ goals and motivation for learning the language, but also on their
needs. However, it must also refrain from assuming that all students have the
same needs. Needs will always differ; for some, it may well be native English-
speaker proficiency, but we also have to cater for those who may wish to strive
to become a more successful ELF user.
Lacks
Some of the studies investigating students’ attitudes in relation to Global
Englishes reveal that ELF familiarity and experience influence attitudes (e.g.
Galloway, 2011, 2017a; Wang, 2015). This is not always a straightforward task,
however, and language awareness and the need for reflection will be discussed
further in relation to syllabus and methodology. Galloway and Rose (2014), for
example, found in their listening journal study that learners lacked the meta-
cognitive skills to reflect on their ELF experiences.
Table 2.1 Richard’s (2001) curriculum perspectives from a GELT perspective
Curriculum
Perspective Richard’s (2001) Perspective Further GELT Perspective
Academic rationalism Emphasises the intrinsic value GELT embraces new ideas in
of the subject matter, mastery of academia, and thus further enhances
content and developing the intellectual knowledge surrounding
learners’ overall intellect and English language.
rationality.
Social and economic Emphasises the practical needs Emphasising the practical and
efficiency of learners and society and the functional skills in English can be
need to produce learners who easier in GELT since it is more needs
are economically productive. based. By preparing students to
develop intercultural communicative
competence and sensitivity to using
English in multilingual contexts,
they are more likely to meet social
and economic needs.
Learner-centredness Emphasises learner-centredness, GELT offers opportunities for
the individual needs of the critical thinking and promotes
learners and the importance of learner autonomy, focusing more on
self-reflection, self-expression the process than the product, and
and critical thinking and learning thus emphasising learner agency.
strategies.
Social Emphasises the role of GELT doesn't see curriculum
reconstructionism education in addressing social development as a neutral process and
injustices and inequality. encourages students to examine the
possible biases or social divisions
that English has created. GELT is in
line with critical pedagogy, seeing
teachers and learners as being
involved in a joint process of
exploring and constructing
knowledge.
Cultural pluralism Emphasises the need to prepare GELT aims to develop intercultural
learners to participate in several competence to work in fluid ELF
different cultures, not merely cultures. GELT highlights the
the culture of the dominant importance of L2 users and
social and economic group. challenges L1 cultural, linguistic and
social hegemony.
Situational Needs and Specific Purposes

Context is central to GELT and information on the ‘Situation needs’ (Brown,
1995), or information to help with the ‘Environment analysis’ (Nation &
Macalister, 2010) or ‘situation analysis’ (Richards, 2001) is abundant in the field

of Global Englishes. In addition to research in different domains, Global
Englishes research is also increasing in varied geographical settings, including
Europe (Sherman, 2018), ASEAN (Kirkpatrick, 2018), China (Wang, 2018),
Japan (D’Angelo, 2018; Galloway, 2011, 2013, 2017a), Brazil (Gimenez et al.,
2018) and South Africa (van der Walt & Evans, 2018). Business students studying
English at a university in Korea, for example, may have different situation needs
for learning English than comparable business students at a university in Mexico.
The centrality of learners’ needs in GELT resembles an English for
Specific Purposes (ESP) approach, where the goal of an ESP course is to
prepare learners to use English in a specific context or within a specific
set of tasks. Starfield (2016, p. 150) notes that:
The ESP learner is not learning the language for general educative purposes or for the
study of literature in which the language is the subject matter of the course, but rather as
a means to the “acquisition of some quite different body of knowledge or set of skills”.
(Robinson, 1980, p. 6)
In GELT, the specific purpose can be said to be to use English in lingua franca
or global contexts and acquire a specific set of skills to use English in such
contexts. This is different to the knowledge and skills taught in a curriculum
based on monolingual native norms. GELT, or EIL in McKay’s (2003) words,
must recognize the various ways in which English is used within multilingual commu-
nities. Typically these bilingual users of English have specific purposes for using
English, employing their other languages to serve their many additional language
needs . . . One purpose they all share, however, is to use English as a language of
wider communication. (p. 18)
Context and content are also central to ESP (Starfield, 2013) and to GELT,
where awareness should be raised of how ELF functions in dynamic, flexible
situations with speakers from diverse linguacultural backgrounds. As in ESP,
needs analysis in GELT is an ongoing iterative process that continues through-
out the course as practitioners learn more about their learners, their goals and
their target situations.
A further similarity is that the emergence of ESP was related to post-Second
World War needs with globalisation, ideologies of progress and the desire to
facilitate international communication (Starfield, 2016), which is also true of
GELT’s links to globalisation. ESP was also perceived as a ‘radical’ break from
previous approaches (Starfield, 2016). There are various subfields of ESP, such
as English for law, EAP, English for business and English for science. As new
needs emerge, a new subfield emerges. Many of these have their own course
books and some, such as EAP, have become established fields in their own right
with their own journals. In a similar vein, Global Englishes has become an
established field, with associated journals (World Englishes, Journal of English

as a Lingua Franca), conferences and publications. As such, it could be seen as
a new subfield of ESP.
However, in drawing comparisons with ESP, we have to be careful so that we
do not promote the use of a fixed set of lexical items or phrases deemed
appropriate for ELF communication. As mentioned in Chapter 1, while this
type of work formed part of the first phase of ELF research, it is not central to
current research (ELF3) and is incongruent with the ideology of Global
Englishes. Nevertheless, there are similarities, and it is also worth noting that
the globalisation of English and the associated pedagogical implications have
been acknowledged within the field of ESP. Nickerson (2005), for example,
refers to the use of ELF alongside other languages, and Nickerson (2013,
p. 451) notes the need to move away from native speaker models to think
about ‘functional nativeness’ in lingua franca contexts. Starfield (2016) high-
lights the large number of articles written by L2 English speakers in the ESP
journal and the fact that the majority of ESP practitioners around the world are
not L1 speakers. Further, in discussions of how to adopt a critical approach to
ESP, Nickerson (2005) discusses the need to focus on strategies for commu-
nication in business ‘regardless of whether the speaker/writer is a native or non-
native speaker’ (p. 369), indicating a shift in the field from language skills to
language strategies, which resonates well with GELT. Nickerson (2013) also
discusses a shift to ELF perspectives and Starfield (2016) refers to the VOICE
corpus that ‘will provide instances of spoken interaction that may help drive
these changes’ (p. 159). There have also been discussions on how to encourage
multilingual learners to reflect on their self-perceptions of their cultural iden-
tities and positioning (Belcher & Lukkarila, 2011). This movement towards
seeing learners as multilingual subjects in the field of ESP is promising for
GELT and Starfield (2016) recognises that this has implications for ESP
curricula and has the potential to move the field away from deficit views.
Goals and Objectives

Many policy-level curriculum developers perceive instrumental benefits in
English proficiency, both for the learner and for the wider society, and thus
measurable development in learner proficiency is the main objective of
most language curricula. As Wedell (2003) notes, these perceived benefits
‘have for several decades provided an impetus and rationale for numerous
English language curriculum change (sometimes called “reform” or “devel-
opment”) projects’ (p. 439). While goals and objectives ‘are near-synonyms
and thus are often used interchangeably’ (Graves, 2016, p. 87), subtle
differences exist. Goals (sometimes referred to as aims) are often broader,
outlining what learners should achieve by the end of a course/programme.
They are often the foundation for the objectives, shorter term statements of
what learners need to know or be able to do to reach these goals – they are
designed to be measurable and observable; ‘thus objectives “unpack” the
goals’ (Graves, 2016, p. 87). Setting goals and objectives is a critical step
in curriculum development. In some contexts, practitioners are afforded
a degree of autonomy to create their own; in others, they are published and
enforced by higher authorities.
It was often ‘taken for granted in the past that the aim of an English course is
to make the learners communicate like native speakers. This is for most
learners an inaccessible goal; and these days it is not even an appropriate
one’ (Ur, 2012, p. 6). As noted, the CEFR continues to be used to develop
goals; yet can-do statements are somewhat out of sync with modern ideas
regarding the benchmarks of learners, as is indicated in the following state-
ments that appear in the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001):
• learners are able to make ‘assimilations and deletions comparable to native-
like speech’;
• learners are able to appreciate ‘fully the sociolinguistic and sociocultural
implications of language used by native speakers and can react accordingly’;
• learners ‘can sustain relationships with native speakers without unintention-
ally amusing or irritating them or requiring them to behave other than they
would with a native speaker’.
In a GELT curriculum, the native speaker is not the assumed benchmark.
A proficient learner may be able to ‘interact with a degree of fluency and
spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible
without strain for either party’ (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 24), but this may
not indicate that the learner can achieve mutual intelligibility in an ELF
encounter. As Llurda (2016) notes:
We need to question the common assumption in ELT that native speaker English should
be the target for learners. What is the point in teaching specific aspects of a particular
variety spoken by a restricted number of people if the goal is to communicate with
a much wider and more global population? (p. 56)
In contexts where the CEFR has to be used, we urge practitioners to adapt it,
making even the slightest changes to the benchmarks used in order to situate
goals within global contexts, rather than native speaker ones.
In the Bilingual Business Program (Bilingual Business Program, 2010) at
Rikkyo University (where both authors once worked), programme members
devised and published learning outcomes for the overall language programme,
as well as each language course within the programme. Although these out-
comes were benchmarked against the CEFR, the can-do statement did not
reference L1 using norms. Examples of language-related outcomes include
an outcome that students will be able to ‘follow and contribute to complex
interactions during group discussions’ (p. 11). The document also includes
globally orientated non-language-related outcomes that link to critical peda-
gogy, such as goals to ‘Exercise increased sensitivity to identify my own
cultural biases and distinguish stereotypes from general cultural patterns by
seeking evidence behind the given claims’ (p. 8).
Clear goals and objectives are essential, and also ensure that a programme is
open to evaluation, particularly given the focus on programme accountability
in recent years and the increased demand for programme evaluation reports to
justify funding. In Table 2.2, we outline some possible additional goals and
objectives for a GELT curriculum. Also, see the lesson plans in the appendix of
Galloway (2017a) and activities on the accompanying website to Galloway and
Rose (2015).
One of the overall goals is to prepare students to use ELF. A GELT curricu-
lum focuses on being intelligible, not acquiring native-like proficiency; being
able to successfully deliver a message, not deliver it in a way that a small group
of native speakers would; convey a message and negotiate forms, not commu-
nicate in constrained forms. When formulating goals and objectives, it is
important that the goal is not to help learners produce ‘accurate’ English that
adheres to a fixed set of ‘standard’ norms but to use the language flexibly.
The inability to produce the language in a predetermined ‘fixed’ way does not
equate to being an unsuccessful language user. As Dewey (2014) notes,
‘in second language pedagogy, grammar is predominantly seen as
a precondition for communication. In short, grammatical accuracy is regarded
as an important factor in determining communicative success, and so intellig-
ibility is conceptualized as being norm dependent’ (p. 15). The role of grammar
will be discussed further with regard to syllabus, but it is important to note here
that the goal of GELT is not accuracy. It embraces linguistic diversity – as such,
it aims to raise learners’ awareness of the sociolinguistic use of English as
a global lingua franca and their awareness of multilingualism. This clearly has
implications for the syllabus, which should expose them to how meaning is
negotiated, how ELF users exploit their linguistic resources to negotiate com-
munication and how they adapt it to suit their purposes.
The goal is to expose them to the agency of ELF speakers, something
that exposing students to one or two select native varieties of the language
will not achieve. The aims of GELT are to help learners develop both their
receptive and their productive skills for ELF contexts. However, its main
foundation lies on the need to move away from native English norms and
expose them to the inherent variability in the language when it is used as
a global lingua franca. As discussed in Chapter 1, a further goal is success-
ful intercultural communication. In relation to culture, Baker (2011, 2012a)
critiqued Byram’s (1997) notion of intercultural communicative compe-
tence, given that, in ELF encounters, there are not necessarily clearly
Table 2.2 A multilayered content-based and skills-based syllabus integrated

with GELT (adapted from Galloway & Rose, 2018)
Module Week EAP Skills Focus Global Englishes Topic Focus

The spread 1 Introduction History of English; English
of English Reading: reading for meaning speakers
2 Listening: taking notes skills Advantages and disadvantages of
Debate: introducing opinions the spread of English
3 Writing: brainstorming Issues related to the spread of
Presenting: structure English
World 4 Reading: issues and opinions English in Kachru’s Three Circles;
Englishes Listening: summarising English and power
5 Debating: agreeing/disagreeing Variety and ownership
Writing: paragraphs
6 Presenting: voice ‘Standard’ English
Presenting: non-verbal
communication
ELF 7 Reading: skimming and scanning English use in Europe
Listening skills: listening for gist
8 Introduction to presentation task English use in Japan
Debating: boosting and hedging
9 Writing: citing sources English use in higher education
Writing: essay structure
Main tasks 10 Student presentations Varieties of English
Student presentations
11 Presentation reflections and Varieties of English; English in
feedback Singapore
Listening: organising notes
12 Student debate preparation ‘Standard’ English in Singapore
Student debate
13 Review of main topics Review
End-of-term assessment
established relationships between a language and a particular culture.

Flexibility is key and ELF scholarly work has explored how intercultural
competence can be translated into classroom practice (Baker, 2012b). When
using ELF, there is no clear language–culture nation correlation, so goals
and objectives that encourage students to show awareness of cultural
differences are inappropriate. GELT aims to move away from simplistic
representations of culture, something that can still often be found in text-
books (highlighted in Chapter 6) and move more towards goals and objec-
tives that aim to develop intercultural communicators.
For GELT, both performance objectives and process objectives are impor-
tant. Objectives should not only focus on language development, but also on
developing critical thinking, autonomous learners. It is also important to note

that due to the centrality of learners’ needs, and learner agency, learners should
be involved in formulating goals and objectives, where possible. A GELT
curriculum focuses on the whole process of learning, on real-world knowledge
and participative learning, autonomy and reflective/active learning. It is not
viewed as a top-down ‘product’, where knowledge/language is fixed and
learners are passive.
Syllabus
A GELT curriculum calls for the replacement of goals that aim to produce
learners who can accurately reproduce standard versions of native English with
goals focusing on intelligibility and the global ownership of English. This shift
then has implications for what is to be taught in the classroom – whether in the
form of a formal written syllabus, a plan, or a list of items for a lesson.
A syllabus may or may not be a published document and can be sequenced in
different ways (e.g. from easy to difficult; by theme; or by skill). A syllabus also
often recommends preferred methodology or materials (Ur, 2012).
The issue of what to include in the ideal English-language syllabus has been
discussed at length and several scholars have discussed the various develop-
ments in syllabus design over the years (Graves, 1999; Richards, 2001).
Different syllabi types emerged from a variety of factors, which correspond
to three main developments in language teaching:
1. the product-orientated focus phase (structural formal syllabi);
2. the communicative phase (syllabi based on the use of language but also
sociocultural approaches to teaching focusing on intercultural competence);
3. the learning how to learn/postmodern phase (learners given more responsi-
bility and focus on learning content).
These can also be broadly divided into product and process syllabi (Figure 2.2).
While GELT ideology could be positioned within any syllabus type, it may be
more attuned to syllabi that do not focus on forms of the language, as much
Global Englishes ideology lobbies for flexible language norms. That being
said, we have had moderate success in integrating GELT into product-based
syllabi such as the skills-based syllabus reported in Galloway and Rose (2018)
and the content-based and EAP syllabus reported in Galloway (2011, 2013,
2017a). Thus, it is worth reviewing all types via a Global Englishes lens before
outlining what a GELT-orientated syllabus might look like.
The Synthetic Syllabus

Synthetic syllabi, still common in many contexts, focus on form and are based
on assumptions that language is best taught in discrete units of studies.
Figure 2.2 Syllabus types.
Structural (or formal) syllabi were one of the first types of synthetic syllabi.
Linguistic knowledge is introduced by separate bits of grammatical or lexical
features that can be built up to form patterns and sentences. Synthetic syllabi
first flourished alongside structural linguistics. At this time, linguists believed
that humans all developed language in the same way and that an L2 was
acquired in the same way as an L1, with grammar being central. Even when
Chomskian notions were introduced in the 1960s, ideas regarding the impor-
tance of building blocks of language remained. Thus synthetic syllabi
remained, even if teaching approaches changed. The ‘native’ English speaker
was posited as the authority, the ideal speaker in a homogeneous speech
community (Chomsky, 1965, p. 3).
Some may argue that synthetic syllabi are simpler to design: simple sen-
tences can be introduced before embedded clauses and present tense verbs
before irregular and conditional verb forms (Mickan, 2013, p. 25). This may
seem easier than basing one on learners’ needs, or indeed one that presents
language as a fluid and dynamic construct. Grammar is not central to GELT and
the overall goal is certainly not mastery of native English. When working with
structural syllabi, it is important to encourage learners to see such examples as
merely one way of communicating an idea.
In the 1970s and 1980s, there was a major shift in how language was viewed
in the field. The emphasis on ‘communicative competence’ (Hymes, 1966,
1972) saw increased emphasis placed on language in use. Communicative
competence, which was defined as knowing ‘when to speak, when not,
and . . . what to talk about with whom, when, where and in what manner’
(Hymes, 1972, p. 277), aimed to be more inclusive of not only grammar and
sentence structures, but also feasibility and performance. It challenged the
notion that language resided in the mind of the native speaker as the ideal
speaker–listener. Communicative competence significantly widened the scope
of language teaching and therefore extended the goals of teaching (Thornbury,
2016). Previous product-based structural syllabi were criticised for failing to
prepare students to use the language communicatively.
A second major phase of syllabus development language emerged where
language was not viewed as a set of components, but as socially situated
communication, a tool for communication. Types of functional syllabi
emerged, informed somewhat by linguistic developments in systemic func-
tional linguistics, which also viewed language as performative of functions.
The functional–notional syllabi emerged out of the Council of Europe
Modern Languages Project – the threshold syllabus in the early 1970s that
aimed to reform and standardise modern-language teaching in Europe and
devise a framework for adult learners based on their needs (Thornbury,
2016), as discussed in relation to needs analysis. This was a reaction against
the structural syllabi and there was an emphasis on needs analysis. When
designing the components of this needs-and-purposes-driven curriculum,

Wilkins’s (1976) work on notional syllabi was adopted by the Council of
Europe in their development of a communicative language syllabus. Wilkins
(1976) proposed that a curriculum that aimed to enable learners ‘to function
effectively’ should be ‘organized in terms of the purposes for which people are
learning language and the kinds of language performance that are necessary to
meet these purposes’ (p. 13). Such aims were clearly the precursors to the later
creation of the CEFR. The functional–notional syllabus contained
semantic–grammatical meaning (e.g. time, duration, frequency), modal mean-
ing (modality, scale of certainty) and communicative function speech acts, such
as requests, complaints, apologies, compliments and suggestions. In these
syllabi, the units of grammar featuring in previous types of syllabi were
restructured and organised in this way.
Thus, despite major changes in approaches to teaching and ways to view
language, the synthetic syllabus was preserved through major developments in
linguistic theory. Even though functional–notional syllabi were sequenced
around language used to carry out topics and language functions, the core
idea of structuring the syllabus around sequenced discrete objects of study
remained. From a GELT perspective, of the two main types of synthetic syllabi,
functional syllabi are easier to work within, as the core of the syllabus presents
learners with numerous language choices that can be used to carry out
a function in the target language. This concept is relevant for GELT, which
also places emphasis on what people want to do through the language, rather
than just mastering the language structures. Nevertheless, the synthetic sylla-
bus still focuses on controlled norm-driven structured patterns. While GELT
constructs can be integrated into a functional syllabus type, flexible rather than
synthetic syllabus designs are needed for GELT ideologies to reach their full
potential.
The Analytic Syllabus

Analytic syllabi are a third type of product-based syllabi, organised around
formulaic communicative abilities or functions as opposed to seeing the lin-
guistic items (e.g. grammatical structures or function-based language struc-
tures) as the starting point. The functional movement in syllabus design was
challenged in the early 1980s, with criticisms that teaching a set of functions or
special purpose language was limiting. Many felt that communicative language
teaching was being weakened by an attachment to syllabi that still had gram-
mar-based or function-based linguistic structures at their core.
Situational and topic-based syllabi were seen as a more flexible alternative,
where lessons focused on ‘Getting around a city’ or ‘At the airport’ or such
topics as ‘The family’, ‘School’ and ‘Hobbies’. Within these situations and
topics, teachers and learners were free to explore a range of language choices.
While the flexibility of this syllabus type worked well in small-sized commu-
nicative language classes, in reality it was often layered with other synthetic
syllabus types. The result was a weak version of communicative language
teaching, which combined a situational–structural language teaching approach,
where language structures were embedded in situations, and grammatical
accuracy was once again promoted. A good example of this hybrid is the
Streamline (Hartley & Viney, 1978) and New American Streamline (Viney
et al., 1994) textbook series, which repackages a structural syllabus in
a situational structure and is promoted as communicative. While such situa-
tions and topics are certainly relevant for GELT, the return to structural
approaches is irrelevant for a learner today.
Moves towards communicative language teaching also led to syllabi
being designed around language as a resource for meaning-making in
context, exploring the languages used for various genres, texts and content.
Genre syllabi and text-based syllabi are organised around the context of use
and the texts rather than language structures. Skills-based syllabi involve
lessons being organised around language-related skills, such as giving
a presentation, writing a cover letter or listening for effective note-taking.
Similarly, content-based syllabi involve lessons being organised around the
content, taken a step further with CLIL (content and language integrated
learning), which focuses on the use of English for the teaching of other school
subjects or specific content.
Genre, text-based, content-based and skills-based syllabi offer good oppor-
tunities for GELT integration. In Galloway and Rose (2018), we describe
a skills-based syllabus, where Global Englishes content had been layered
within the materials and tasks. An overview of the syllabus is shown in
Table 2.3. In a skills-based syllabus, GELT content can easily replace the
existing content used to introduce and practise the taught skills, and does not
necessarily need to disrupt the structure of the units (skills) being used for
sequencing purposes.
A similar success story is described in Rose and Montakantiwong (2018),
where elements of an existing skills-based syllabus were replaced with Global
Englishes content. The authors explain:
Students still learned the required EAP reading skills, note-taking skills, essay-writing
skills, and presentation skills that underpinned the curriculum. What had changed was
that instead of reading a generic EAP passage for reading comprehension, we gave them
adapted articles based on World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca literature.
Instead of practising note-taking to generic lectures, they listened to TED-talk presenta-
tions. (Rose & Montakantiwong, 2018, p. 8)
Table 2.3 Example additional goals and objectives in a GELT curriculum
Example Goal Example Objectives Example Outcomes

To raise learners’ Students will gain awareness of how The students will be able to:
awareness of English is used globally -demonstrate an awareness that
Global Englishes English is fluid;
-demonstrate knowledge of basic
features of salient varieties of
English, including their own;
-comprehend (listening) salient
examples of ELF communication.
To teach ELF Students will learn strategies for use The students will be able to:
strategies in ELF contexts -demonstrate an awareness of ELF
strategies;
-apply appropriate repair strategies
when they are not understood;
-accommodate their use of language
to their interlocutor’s needs.
To understand Students will explore attitudes The students will be able to:
attitudes towards towards English, including their own -demonstrate an understanding of
English their own, and their peers’, attitudes
towards English;
-demonstrate an awareness of
factors that influence attitudes;
-reflect on their own attitudes and the
factors that may influence them.
Similar adaptations could be made to genre, text and content-based syllabus

types, where Global Englishes ideology is integrated into the genres, texts and
content being studied by learners. Indeed, the syllabus reported in Galloway’s
extensive research into a Global Englishes course in Japan (Galloway, 2011,
2013, 2017a) embodied a content-based structure, while still delivering lan-
guage-related goals.
Process-Based Syllabi
A further major category of syllabi includes process syllabi, which allow for
classroom decision-making (Breen, 1984). ‘[N]egotiation about the purposes,
content and ways of working’ are seen as a ‘meaningful part of the content of
lessons’ (Breen, 2001, p. 154). Of course, this may not be possible, or relevant
in certain contexts, but process syllabi, which focus on how learning is under-
taken and actively involve learners in the selection of content for the syllabus,
are useful to explore here, as these ideals are clearly compatible with GELT.
As noted above, GELT embodies process objectives, aiming to promote self-

efficacy and self-direction and learner agency. Encouraging learners to go
beyond the native speaker code and be creative with the language may lead
to greater agency in future language use. As noted with regard to product-based
syllabi, simply introducing formulaic expressions does not allow for learner
agency, and certainly does not present an accurate reflection of how English is
used today.
The most well-known process-based syllabi are task-based syllabi, which
grew out of calls for stronger versions of a communicative approach. It is worth
noting here that weaker versions of task-based syllabi can also be categorised
as analytical syllabi, especially when tasks involve a focus on form (the
product). However, a strong focus on tasks that mirror what learners will do
in the real world is clearly in sync with a GELT approach. Tasks are designed to
develop communicative competence and are based on an understanding of
language as context-dependent. While there is a debate over whether this is
product-orientated or process-orientated (depending on what type of tasks are
used), it is important to point out that the main focus is on the task itself and on
interaction and negotiating meaning. Thus, of all the product-based syllabi,
a task-based syllabus seems to be a good fit for GELT, where practitioners are
welcome to organise their lessons around communicative tasks rather than
around various discrete items that learners are expected to master through
practice.
Focusing on using the target language ‘for a communicative purpose (goal)
in order to achieve an outcome’ (Willis, 1996, p. 23) in GELT could be used to
offer opportunities to use ELF. Task-based syllabi can pave the way to intro-
duce real ELF-interaction tasks, where students from different L1s work
together to complete lesson activities. In monolingual classrooms, ELF inter-
action tasks could be facilitated through Skype exchanges or out-of-class
activities, as has been illustrated in Vettorel (2013) and Sung (2018), respec-
tively. We are not proposing that a GELT curriculum should include a task-
based syllabus, but we want to point out this compatibility. We should also note
that the debate continues regarding whether analytic syllabi enable learners to
notice language forms implicitly, or whether they need to be accompanied with
some degree of explicit instruction.
GELT is also in line with postmodern syllabi that embrace new ideologies of
language. GELT requires us to see grammar in a different light and views
language as a complex adaptive system. As discussed in the next chapter,
language learners have come to be viewed in a different light in the field of
SLA over the past fifty years or so with a trend towards empowering the learner
(see Larsen-Freeman, 2012). However, in order to achieve this fully, Larsen-
Freeman (2012) argues that we need an alternative view of language, one
inspired by complexity theory and one that respects learner agency. This fits
well with GELT which does not promote a fixed, static view of language, where
creativity is seen as an error, rather than an innovation. Such a ‘goal of language
instruction, although never explicitly stated, was conformity to uniformity. But,
such a goal, even if it is desirable, is not achievable’ (Larsen-Freeman &
Cameron, 2008, pp. 300–1). As noted above, the objectives of GELT are to
enable learners to exploit the meaning potential of language, ‘not just to
internalize a ready-made system’ (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008, p. 301).
However, this certainly raises questions as to how to present a language that
is recognised as emergent and being in a constant state of flux. A GELT syllabus
should enable learners to utilise different parts of their language resources,
teach them how to adapt their speech and to negotiate and co-adapt with their
interlocutors. It requires a reconceptualisation of the English language to take
a broader view. The form, meaning and use are important, but we need to
present this in a flexible way and present grammar in more dynamic terms,
raising learners’ awareness that when grammar is used in communication in
ELF encounters, it is not always determined by rule-governed structures. This,
then, clearly has implications for methodology, which should encourage lear-
ners to seek reasons as to why it is used in different ways. A GELT syllabus,
then, does not merely include rules but focuses more on encouraging learners to
seek reasons for such rules and also exploit their potential and take advantage
of their agency and creativity. In doing so, this will help GELT achieve the aim
of empowering ELF users to go beyond conforming to form-based rules.
Larsen-Freeman (2006) calls for grammar teaching to help develop capacity
within students, not formal grammatical competence. Capacity is ‘an active
force for continuing creativity’ (Widdowson, 1983, p. 27), and involves lear-
ners using lexicogrammatical resources for the creation of meaning. It is that
which enables language learners to move beyond the memorised formulas and
static rules they employ and acquire ‘a way to create and understand meaning’
(Larsen-Freeman, 2009, p. 530).
GELT-Informed Syllabus Design

In this discussion of syllabus types, we have aimed to show how GELT does not
necessarily have to follow one syllabus type and also that a Global Englishes
perspective can be incorporated into any type of syllabus. However, needs
analysis, which should be an iterative process, is central and therefore a flexible
approach to syllabus design is clearly a better fit. Whatever syllabus type is
chosen, it should be in accordance with other elements in the curriculum to
ensure alignment. A multidimensional, or mixed/layered, syllabus is another
option, particularly for those who have to work with enforced syllabi. When
selecting content, it is important to understand that GELT questions the separa-
tion of languages and recognises the bi/multilingual practices of individuals.
The content should be sequenced or graded according to the specific context

and the needs of the learners.
There is a growing body of studies showing how GELT can be incorporated
into different kinds of courses (Baker, 2012b; Derwing et al., 2002; Galloway,
2011, 2013, 2017a; Galloway & Rose, 2013, 2014; Kubota, 2001; Shim, 2002;
Sung, 2018) and, as discussed in Chapter 1, there has been much discussion in
the World Englishes paradigm on the need to expose students to different
varieties of English, given the link between intelligibility and familiarity.
However, a GELT syllabus is more than merely replacing one ‘norm’ with
another. We recognise that exposing learners to speakers of English from
different contexts may help to raise awareness of the diversity of English, but
it will not help them to be productive, or to learn how to use the language as
a lingua franca. Global learners will have different needs and, therefore, this
makes choosing what ‘varieties’ of English, or ELF encounters, to introduce
problematic. It is also more complex than merely providing examples of the use
of English in different contexts and domains. If the goal is to produce global
English-using citizens, then the syllabus should allow for a degree of reflection.
This highlights the need for language awareness or explicit knowledge about
the language itself. Llurda (2016) notes that much mainstream ELT pedagogy
did not pay much attention to language awareness throughout the twentieth
century. He also notes that it was thought to be irrelevant for those aiming to
achieve general language competence.
We encourage syllabus designers to move teachers away from giving pro-
blematic advice based on English language teaching of the twentieth century,
such as the belief that, in EFL settings, English is ‘neither widely used for
communication, nor used as the medium of instruction’ and that EFL learners
have ‘limited exposure to the language outside of the classroom, and often
limited opportunity to use it’ (Carter & Nunan, 2001, p. 2). In this book, Carter
and Nunan (2001) further inform practitioners that this may be problematic for
teachers who are ‘non-native speakers of English who may lack opportunities
to use the language, or lack confidence in using it’ (p. 2). These extracts from
teacher education resources less than twenty years ago show how much the
field has developed in terms of timely advice for syllabus design. The division
between ESL and EFL settings, and between native and non-native English
speakers, is no longer relevant and should not be used as a basis to organise the
content of a GELT syllabus.
Methodology
There is often confusion over what constitutes a method, and an approach and
a technique. Here, an approach is defined as a model of teaching based on
theories of SLA (e.g. the communicative approach), a method is a collection of
teaching procedures that correspond to a certain approach (e.g. the audiolingual

method) and a technique is a teaching practice (e.g. Presentation–Practice–
Production).
The quest for the ‘best’ teaching method has dominated the field over the years
and a variety of approaches, methods and techniques have been tried and tested,
soon to be replaced by a more fashionable method (Figure 2.3). Changes in
methodology were usually the result of changing ideas within SLA, or changes in
students’ language-related needs, which often grew from sociopolitical trends.
Figure 2.3 is a general timeline of major methods, and other versions of this
timeline exist. Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011) list eleven methods, and
Richards and Rodgers (2014) list sixteen approaches and methods. Hall (2016)
notes that the differences in these accounts show there is no definitive list.
We would add that our indicated start and end years in the timeline are also not
definitive – we still find grammar–translation methods around the world today,
and ‘new’ methods almost always grew out of existing practices.
Methods and Geopolitical Circumstances

As Cook (2003) notes, ‘Different approaches to teaching English did not occur
by chance, but in response to changing geopolitical circumstances and social
attitudes and values, as well as to shifts in fashions in linguistics’ (p. 30). In the
1800s and early 1900s, the grammar–translation method prevailed, where
learners practice grammatical structures and lexical patterns and focus on
accuracy and writing. At a time before mass travel, few people were learning
languages and the goal was often to develop intellectual abilities and enable
literature to be read in the original language, not necessarily to communicate
(Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Hall, 2016). This met the needs of those learning
English as an academic subject, but not for the purposes of communication.
As communication is central to GELT, the grammar–translation method is
clearly incompatible.
Rose (2018) states that ‘[s]ince the early years of mass language education,
approaches have adapted according to the needs of the learner’ (p. 6).
The direct method emerged around the 1920s in response to the needs of
a more mobile population, which required spoken communication skills in
foreign languages. Linked to an increased interest in ‘natural learning’ and the
belief that language is learned by direct association with the target language, it
places emphasis on using the target language. Question and answer techniques
and demonstrations to communicate the meaning of words are used, thus
moving away from isolated sentences and lists of words to oral classroom
methodology. The direct method has had a major influence on the field of
TESOL, particularly by promoting the use of the target language and avoidance
of the mother tongue. As Hall (2018) points out ‘logically, this principle has
Figure 2.3 Major methodology trends from early to mid-20th century in the
quest for the ‘best’ method.
enabled language teachers to teach without knowing their learners’ first lan-
guage, hence paving the way for ‘native speaker teachers’ within ELT’ (p. 96).
The direct method is somewhat compatible with GELT so long as some
adjustments are made to move away from native speaking benchmarks.
The ‘target’ should not be benchmarked with ‘native English’, and ‘native
speakers’ should not be positioned as ideal teachers. Likewise, a GELT
approach would position knowledge of the L1 as a resource.
The army method emerged during the Second World War, where there was
a need to train large numbers of people with conversational abilities. Large
numbers of US servicemen were taught using oral drills and conversation
practice. After the Second World War, there was increased emphasis placed
on teaching English as a second or foreign language and the role of English as
an international language expanded with greater mobility, and English was
important for trade and commerce (Richards, 2001). The army method coin-
cided with prevailing theories of behaviourism and evolved into mainstream
teaching methods such as the audiolingual method in the United States and
structural–situational language teaching in the United Kingdom (which pre-
sented language structures via situations). Developing learners’ oral skills is
certainly something central to GELT, but habit formation and learning through
teacher-led dialogues and drills is not. Further, GELT embraces the valuable
use of learners’, and practitioners’, multilingual repertoires and, as such, does
not promote a classroom conducted solely in the target language. Target
interlocutors and ‘ideal’ teachers are also not monolingual native English
speakers.
In the 1960s, many mainstream methods were criticised, spurred on by
developments in linguistics and in psychology. Chomsky (1965), for example,
believed that language was property of mind, so could not be learned through
habits, and the emphasis on imitation was criticised. A number of different
methods were put forward around this time, united in their rejection of the
‘science’ of audiolingualism and their acceptance of the importance of affec-
tive factors such as motivation and anxiety (Hall, 2016). This ushered in an era
of alternative approaches including:
• total physical response (TPR) (Asher, 1977), which placed emphasis on
exposure to the target language;
• the silent way (Gattegno, 1972), which encouraged learners to produce the
language in class while teachers remained largely silent by presenting the
language verbally through coloured rods, and vocabulary charts;
• community language learning or counselling learning (Curran, 1972), which
involved student-led discussions, facilitated by the teacher who interpreted
the needed vocabulary and language structures;
• suggestopedia (Lozanov, 1978), which centred on the influence of the
unconscious on learning.
Richards & Rodgers (2014) note the ‘unusual demands’ (p. 313) that these
methods placed on both learners and teachers were one of the reasons they did
not become popular.
The emergence of communicative language teaching has been documen-
ted ‘as the most significant development within ELT over the last fifty
years. It is generally regarded as a clear paradigmatic break with the past’
(Hall, 2016, p. 214). The communicative approach instigated a shift from
a focus on form to meaning, positing English as a tool for communication.
It reflected a change in thinking about language, ‘a reaction against the
view of language as a set of structures; [and] a reaction towards a view of
language as communication’ (Brumfit & Johnson, 1979, p. 3). It saw a shift
away from form and mastery of the written language to language in use,
and from an emphasis on reading and writing to an emphasis on speaking
and interaction.
While communicative language teaching appears on the surface to comple-
ment GELT, we have still to witness a shift away from native English-speaking
norms, thus GELT requires a further paradigmatic break. Communicative
competence is still based on native competence. As McKay (2003) notes,
some of the assumptions
are not appropriate for the teaching of EIL, particularly its reliance on native
speaker models to inform a definition of authentic materials and cultural appropri-
ateness. On the other hand, CLT’s emphasis on actual language use, meaningful
tasks, and learners’ personal experiences could well be productively applied to the
teaching of EIL. (p. 15)
GELT, too, which we see as including the teaching of EIL, shares a lot of the
same fundamental principles as CLT; the goal is to be able to communicate in
the target language and develop communicative competence. Activities
involved in ‘real’ communication use meaningful tasks; the classroom is
learner-centred and promotes learner autonomy. As discussed with regard to
syllabus, strong forms of CLT, such as task-based language teaching, can be
a useful way to encourage students to engage in real-life tasks using ELF,
although the focus on form is not necessarily on a native speaker form. For
Samuda and Bygate (2008), a task is defined as
a holistic activity which engages language use in order to achieve some non-linguistic
outcome while meeting a linguistic challenge, with the overall aim of promoting
language learning, through process or product or both. (p. 69)
Such definitions fit GELT, especially considering that task-based language

teaching allows learners to complete tasks via non-prescribed language forms
to achieve the outcome (Willis & Willis, 2001).
In GELT, the learners’ L1 is seen as a valuable resource and learners are

encouraged to utilise their multilingual repertoires. In GELT, tasks should aim
to reinforce learners’ positive self-image as a legitimate speaker of the lan-
guage and, therefore, teachers should refrain from correcting ‘errors’ that ELF
researchers class more as innovations. As Willis & Willis (2001) note:
The challenge for TBL, therefore, is to devise a methodology which affords learners the
freedom to engage natural learning processes in the creation of a meaning system, but
which also provides them with incentives to ‘restructure’ their system in the light of
language input. (p. 174)
With developments in online language learning, there are increasing opportu-
nities to engage in real-life ELF communication to negotiate tasks, and task
reflection could include looking at the strategies used.
However, CLT has come under severe criticism as a ‘centre’-based metho-
dology often incompatible with certain contexts. Discussed further in
Chapter 4, several studies have documented such incompatibility and the
need for locally sensitive methods. A critical strand emerged looking at the
relationship between method and issues of power and control within ELT (Hall,
2016). Pennycook (1989) suggests ‘methods’ favour the West, as most have
originated in the United Kingdom or the United States, and thus represents the
interests of one group at the expense of others. People have started to speak of
‘The death of the method’ (Allwright, 1991), the ‘postmethod condition’
(Kumaravadivelu, 1994) and ‘beyond methods’ (Kumaravadivelu, 2006).
The increased emphasis on the local challenge led to criticism of the notion
of methods in the 1990s, leading to the post-methods era. It was argued that
a ‘postmethod condition’ (Kumaravadivelu, 1994) was needed to encourage
practitioners to develop context-specific ideas and draw on a range of methods
and principles at different times depending on the needs of their students. This
resonates well with GELT, which places emphasis on understanding the situa-
tion/context when thinking about pedagogy. ‘The de-linking of English from
the culture of Inner Circle countries also suggests that teaching methodology
has to proceed in a manner that respects the local culture of learning’ (McKay,
2003, p. 18). In order to move forward, we have to stay attuned to what is
happening in local classrooms, and to move away from a methods-based
perspective, and towards pedagogy. In this sense, GELT is more of a bottom-
up approach that aims to empower the periphery.
Another trend has been critical pedagogy, a philosophy of education that
applies the principles of critical theory (Giroux, 1983). Education is seen as
a political act, knowledge is not seen as a neutral concept and education is seen
to have the potential to improve social justice by developing active citizens
(Freire, 1996). Emancipation is central and ‘unlike traditional ELT which tends
to strive for neutrality, critical pedagogy acknowledges positionality in terms of
class, race, gender and ethnicity (Benesch, 2001), and teaches students to
oppose and reorganise social forms that are exploitative and damaging
(Brookfield 2003)’ (Jeyaraj & Harland, 2016, p. 588). Here, language is
analysed to look at how it contributes to asymmetrical power relations.
Learners are given the opportunity to engage in dialogue with other learners
and the teachers and they are encouraged to be reflective and critically question
the material. GELT draws on such perspectives, encouraging learners to be
critical of native hegemony in their material. In GELT, learners are active, not
passive, in the learning process. GELT advocates a critical approach to ELT that
recognises that theories may not translate well, and it aims to address power
imbalances, not perpetuate them. As promoted in the lesson plans in the
appendix of Galloway (2017a), GELT draws on real-world resources to encou-
rage a dialogue with students about language and power imbalances.
Assessment
Language assessment is usually for the purpose of evaluating how well
a learner has reached the stated goals of the curriculum. In a curriculum
where communicative competence is at the core, the constructs of any piece
of language assessment are merely a proxy for their estimated performance in
real-world communicative situations, as measured by their ability to meet the
curriculum standards. A construct in assessment refers to the definition of
target language abilities, in such a way that they can be measured. As Rose &
Syrbe (2018) note:
Tests are a means of gathering information based on which we make an inference about
someone’s language ability, rather than a direct observation of the test taker’s abilities in
the real world. In other words, we are making an assumption about the assessee’s
performance in a real-life target setting. In that sense, the test is a simulation of the
“relevant communicative behavior”, which is referred to as the criterion (McNamara,
2000) in this target setting. (p. 3)
Thus, good pieces of assessment are devised in respect of real-world criterion,

which requires a detailed understanding of the language in use. Global
Englishes research challenges the validity of traditional English-language
assessment practices, especially when the criterion of language assessment
practices no longer represents the ‘relevant communicative behaviour’ in the
real world. Today, global users of English use the language within local and
global communities of practice, where it is used in its plurality and within fluid
cultures and diverse contexts. Thus, language assessment needs to reflect
learners’ ability to use English with such flexibility and within such diversity.
Global Englishes research argues that good assessment practice must be able to
make an inference about learners’ future performance according to this evolved
criterion. In short, bad assessment practices occur when a test construct does
not match the target criterion.
There has been considerable debate over whether the construct for Global
Englishes assessment should be based on standard English or ELF (Elder &
Davies, 2006). If an assessment construct is based on standard English, then
some accommodation to ELF usage is necessary, such as only penalising
language forms that impede communication, since successful communication
is the criterion of assessment. A further option would be to define the construct
in terms of ELF, which raises further complications. As Chapter 1 has shown,
ELF is not a codified variety of English, and its features are fluid, and thus ill-
fitting to operationalise as a test construct. Therefore, good assessment con-
structs, rather than being defined according to language form, are better defined
according to success in communication. Llurda (2016) notes that:
An appropriate benchmark of proficiency would be the measurement of how a message
was successfully delivered and understood as opposed to whether an L2 user’s produc-
tion matches the production of a selected group of native speakers. (p. 57)
Thus, constructs of assessment in a GELT curriculum need to focus on measur-

ing success in communication, using ELF settings as the benchmark for the
target criterion (assuming, of course, this matches the students’ language
needs). Shohamy (2017) states that ‘the vast amount of research on ELF should
be channeled into the development of ELF tests, rating scales and rubrics’
because ‘[t]hese findings are instrumental in developing the testing construct’
(p. 591).
GELT further emphasises the importance of assessing students’ strategic
competence in using the language and in negotiating meaning. In short, GELT
lobbies for a shift away from assessing learners’ linguistic knowledge of
English towards assessing learners’strategic use of English. This complements
Widdowson’s (2012) assertion that good language assessment should centre on
how well learners understand the language in terms of its use, rather than on
how much learners understand the language in terms of its form. It also supports
Canagarajah’s (2007) claim that assessment needs to ‘focus on one’s strategies
of negotiation, situated performance, communicative repertoire and language
awareness’ (p. 936), and Hu’s (2012) argument that the constructs of EIL
assessment must encompass intercultural strategic competence and accommo-
dation skills.
GELT assessment practices, therefore, could involve learners displaying
their strategic ability to:
• use spoken English to take part in a successful oral task with a classmate on
a given topic related to the syllabus;
• negotiate meaning in a communication breakdown;
• use written English to communicate ideas effectively on a topic and genre

related to the syllabus;
• comprehend ELF interactions of speakers of both familiar and less familiar
Englishes;
• complete a project with classmates using English as a lingua franca, while
being able to draw on their other linguistic resources.
It is important to note that communicative assessment tasks such as role-plays,
written assignments, interviews, presentations and group projects are more
appropriate to the criterions central to Global Englishes, rather than traditional
standardised tests that usually require standardised norms.
At a curriculum level, GELT assessment practices are, therefore, quite
achievable, so long as the curriculum goals and objectives are ones that move
learners towards becoming global users of the language in lingua franca
settings. It is essential that curriculum elements are in alignment, for example,
needs analysis will elicit appropriate assessment criterion, goals and objectives
will ensure learners are moving towards this criterion and assessment practice
will ensure the constructs being tested match these needs and goals. External to
the curriculum, however, washback from major standardised tests can disrupt
this alignment, as major proficiency tests still have standard English-language
norms as their core constructs. Washback from standardised tests as a barrier to
change is discussed further in Chapter 4.
Evaluation
As Richards (2001) points out, ‘once a curriculum is in place, a number of
important questions still need to be answered’ (p. 286). Curriculum evaluation
is an ongoing process and as discussed above, given the context-sensitive
nature of GELT, ongoing classroom-based research is called for to ensure
that GELT meets the changing needs of learners today. Thus, even if GELT is
incorporated successfully, practitioners are encouraged to evaluate their inno-
vations on a regular basis.
Curriculum evaluation has several purposes. If the purpose is to determine
whether or not the goals of the curriculum have been met, evaluation may
involve looking at the assessment results of the learners. However, it is clear
from the preceding section that this will be pointless if assessments based on
native norms continue to be used. If the purpose is related to the overall
curriculum, then it will include an evaluation of teaching and materials, and
analysing information about the course/programme. An example of GELT
evaluation is the quasi-experimental studies located in the field (Galloway,
2011, 2013, 2017a), which had the dual focus of investigating the influence of
the course on students’ overall attitudes towards English and ELT and also
gaining feedback on the course itself. Chapter 7 also presents a similar study
with regard to teacher education. Evaluation can guide classroom teaching,

showing what works and does not work, and, therefore, GELT requires action
research (see Chapter 5).
Curriculum evaluation can be formative, or summative, and ideally, an
institution should employ both to provide regular up-to-date information.
By examining GELT from a curriculum perspective, we aim to reduce the
risk of misalignment between the various elements. In an edited volume on
curriculum in L2 teaching, Graves (2016) notes issues with when curriculum
design processes are undertaken by different people before the curriculum is
then given to teachers and learners. He notes that this can result in curriculum
incoherence and thus calls for more alignment between these processes by the
actors of each stage (Graves, 2016). It is clear from the literature that there is
currently a misalignment between programme content and student needs
throughout TESOL, especially when the curriculum is derived from actors
who are external to the classroom. In order to reduce the risk of curriculum
misalignment, we want those developing curriculum guidelines and princi-
ples to take account of contextual factors. Of course, we must also ensure that
the programme is not ‘aspirational’, but realistic for the learners (Graves,
2016). Thus, the reporting and sharing of curriculum implementation and
evaluation between practitioners are essential – a point discussed further in
Chapter 5.
Conclusion
In a sense, GELT reflects an ecological approach to curriculum. As Van Lier
(2009, p. 53) notes from an ecological perspective:
The curriculum does not start out by specifying and sequencing materials that is to
be “covered”, but it starts out with the activities, needs and emergent purposes of
the learner. On the basis of activities and emergent needs, the teacher makes
resources available in the environment, and guides the learner’s perception and
action towards arrays of affordances that can further his or her goals.
We concur that ‘[t]he process curriculum also reflects the view of the classroom
as a learning community (Wenger, 1998; Van Lier 2004, 2009)’ (Richards,
2017, p. 17). This is conducive to a GELT curriculum as learning is not viewed
as mastery of fixed, predetermined content. Learners are encouraged to con-
struct new knowledge together and to explore the meaning potential of the
language together.
Examining the field from a curriculum perspective helps us to understand its
various elements and how they interact with one another, which is particularly
important when advocating a new approach to ELT. The needs of learners have
changed, necessitating different goals, content and methods. GELT aims to

instigate a paradigm shift away from native English norms and also away from
the cycle of colonial relations in the field of TESOL. It is no longer relevant to
look to the West for the best method and it is important to point out that GELT is
a bottom-up approach, which acknowledges the global dominance of English
and promotes a critical approach. The need to move away from native norms is
not new, but GELT throws a new perspective on this debate. The transient
nature of the English-speaking population in today’s globalised world requires
a different approach and requires us to reconceptualise some of the fundamen-
tal concepts and theories underpinning the field. The language is likely to be
further globalised, and we need a flexible approach that will respond to such
changes, such as a new form of ESP, a subfield. This all requires a lot from the
teacher, as it devolves responsibility to teachers and learners, which is
a challenge that will be discussed in Chapter 4.
3 Second Language Learning Theory and GELT
In the previous chapter, we examined key concepts and theories that underpin
the field of TESOL through a Global Englishes lens. In this chapter, we do the
same for the field of second language acquisition (SLA). SLA is an important
field of inquiry and it is clear from the preceding chapter that it holds significant
influence over the English-language curriculum, particularly with the increased
focus on the learner and the learning process. Here, we provide an overview of
key developments in the field, before focusing on recent developments sur-
rounding multilingualism and movements away from monolingual L1 English-
speaker reference points. Increasing awareness of the fact that multilingualism,
not monolingualism, is the norm has led to a re-examination of key concepts in
SLA. Many of these arguments resonate with GELT, and this chapter highlights
how GELT is in line with parallel trends in SLA.
Second Language Acquisition: An Overview

SLA refers to the processes by which someone acquires an additional language,
the study of how learners learn. Established in the 1960s (Creagh, 2017), it has
become a thriving field of study. It is an interdisciplinary field and has been
influenced by the fields of language teaching, linguistics, sociology, anthro-
pology, psychology and brain science among others, and more recently bilin-
gualism and multilingualism (Creagh, 2017; Ortega, 2009; Tarone, 2015).
As such, there is a lot of epistemological diversity, which is covered by several
comprehensive overviews of developments in SLA (e.g. Atkinson, 2011;
Mitchell et al., 2013; Ortega, 2009).
The main developmental periods in SLA can be segmented in numerous
ways. SLA can be seen as both systematic (e.g. focuses on the actual language
learners acquire as they pass through a series of stages) and variable (e.g.
learners acquire the language at different rates), so a common divide can be
made between studies that focus on the product and the process of acquisition.
Lines have also been drawn between cognitive and social approaches in SLA.
Meier (2017) identifies four strands of developments (cognitive, integrated,
socio-critical and multimodal understandings of language). A further
60
Second Language Learning Theory and GELT 61
theoretical perspective has resulted in an increased focus on multilingualism,

and is the main focus of this chapter.
It is clear from the previous chapter that these developments in SLA research
have influenced the TESOL syllabus and teaching methods in many ways. For
example, structural syllabi emerged during an era that focused on the linguistic
aspects of acquisition and was accompanied by such approaches as audio-
lingualism and structural situational language teaching. Many of the alternative
teaching methods emerged during an era which focused on the cognitive-
psychological aspects of SLA. Many learner-focused syllabi such as the task-
based syllabus have emerged alongside sociocultural perspectives of SLA.
However, SLA research is not solely conducted to inform pedagogy, of course,
and we are wary of directly translating research findings into the classroom
context. Nevertheless, understanding research on how learners acquire
a language has clear implications for TESOL and, therefore, for GELT.
SLA has also been the focus of much attention within the field of ELF and
World Englishes (for an overview, see Berns, 2015). Yamuna Kachru (1986)
criticised Gass and Selinker (1983) for failing to take into account multilingual
societies and the communicative needs of learners in their research. Seidlhofer
(2011) refers to the ‘mismatch between the purpose for which English is most
learnt in the world, namely ELF use, and what is focused on in SLA, namely
ESL/EFL’ (pp. 11–12). Jenkins (2006) maintains that ‘mainstream SLA
research can no longer afford to ignore the massive growth in the use of
English as a Lingua Franca (ELF)’ (p. 137).
Notwithstanding the monolingual bias in the field in recent years, multi-
lingualism has been at the centre of recent discussions in SLA. This develop-
ment has been referred to as the multilingual turn and is a movement that
Global Englishes situates itself within. The idea that English is a stable con-
struct has long informed the field of SLA, but recent years have seen many
reconceptualise established concepts in light of the growth of multilingualism:
‘Multilingualism, it seems, is the topic du jour – at least in critical applied
linguistics’ (May, 2014b, p. 1). V. Cook (1999, 2012, 2016a, 2016b), for
example, has reframed the concepts of ‘competence’ as multicompetence.
Scholars are increasingly critical of the focus on the monolingual native
speaker, highlighting that the use of English by non-native speakers should
not be viewed as deficient and inferior. Instead, the competencies of bi/multi-
lingual learners are seen to be the basis for successful language learning.
As discussed in Chapter 1, there is an increased focus on the blurred boundaries
between languages and, overall, the dominant ideology of monolingualism,
native speakerism, and standard language ideology is being challenged.
The multilingual turn in SLA resonates well with GELT; however, before
examining this further, we need to evaluate the main developments in the
field that preceded it.
In this section, we review some main concepts in SLA research in order to

explore potential connections to GELT. Our review of historical theories is
hardly exhaustive and is provided as a foundation for an in-depth exploration of
the multilingual turn, which we see as being most clearly connected to move-
ments in Global Englishes. Nevertheless, in order to understand the implica-
tions of SLA for GELT, it is important to examine some fundamentals of SLA
through a Global Englishes lens.
SLA as a Focus on Language as a Product

As discussed with regard to the syllabus, the structural approach stressed an
emphasis on the formal aspects of the language, the structure. A learner’s first
language was believed to influence the acquisition process, resulting in errors.
Thus, early SLA research examined the similarities and differences between
a learner’s first and second language. This began with Lado’s (1957) work on
contrastive analysis, which looked at the comparison, and interaction, between
the learner’s first and second languages, not at the language they were produ-
cing. The belief that patterns can be predicted based on the learner’s first
language and that this could result in either positive transfer or negative
interference led to beliefs about interference. Languages, then, were seen to
be discrete entities and it was believed that separate structures could be studied
(Saussure, 1966).
Saussure (1959) made a distinction between the features and rules of
a language and the use of language. At this time, Chomsky (1965), who
reformulated Saussure’s (1959) notions of language, was influential.
Chomsky (1965) believed that all people are born with the ability to learn
a language: just as we are built with an ability to walk, so are we to learn
a language. His universal grammar theory is built on the idea that there is a set
of basic grammatical elements common to all languages, so there is no need to
teach grammar explicitly. Chomsky (1965) distinguished between competence
and performance, in regard to one’s knowledge of a language versus one’s
situational use of it. This notion of linguistic competence led to the study of
language by comparing native speakers, who had the ideal knowledge of
a language, and non-native speakers, thus positioning the native speaker as
central, and with whom to compare non-native speakers.
Cognitive understandings of language, then, see grammar as a system that
can be processed by humans; therefore, language is conceptualised monolin-
gually, as a stable system that is independent of the people that use it. These
ideas influenced developments in the field, including the study of the develop-
ment of learners at various stages according to their linguistic systems, and
comparing language learners with native speakers (e.g. Ellis, 1994).
As behaviourism was challenged in the 1960s, there was a shift towards
looking at how learners communicate in the target language. Corder (1967) and
Selinker (1972) rejected the contrastive viewpoint, stressing the importance of
patterns in the target language. Corder (1967) stressed the importance of
examining learners’ errors and error analysis was seen as being an important
part of the learning process. Researchers examined the systematic errors
produced by learners, who seemed to move through various stages of learning
as their proficiency developed. This was coined ‘interlanguage’ or ‘interim
language’. Thus, unlike the contrastive view, three language systems (not two)
were seen to be important: the native, the target, and an interim language.
An associated term was fossilisation (Selinker, 1972), referring to a plateau in
a learner’s interlanguage. Terms still used today, such as ultimate attainment,
native-like, target-like, near-native, interlanguage and fossilization, stem from
this era of SLA. This era also laid the foundation of an underlying assumption
of monolingualism and the superiority of native speakers. Criticism of such
terms and concepts is not, of course, unique to the field of Global Englishes.
Input, Output and Interaction

In the 1970s and 1980s, Chomskian ideas influenced Krashen, who was
prominent at this time in theory development in his introduction of five
hypotheses. Krashen (1982) argued that learners drew on subconscious knowl-
edge to communicate meaning. To Krashen, grammar is not central, but rather
meaningful language communication is important to activate existing grammar
principles as part of an innate ‘language acquisition device’. Krashen believes
that we acquire rules in a predictable order and language can be acquired
subconsciously with comprehensible input, with the grammar provided by
the ‘language acquisition device’. His input hypothesis stressed the importance
of the linguistic environment. Speakers of the target language, and their speech,
provided learners with linguistic input through listening opportunities and he
believed that learning to communicate was a result of internalising this input.
Learners had to comprehend linguistic items at a stage slightly beyond their
current level (i+1). However, Krashen also believed in the need for a silent
phase to reduce interference and help with pronunciation. While GELT is not
compatible with Krashen’s views of interference and silence, we do concur
with Richards and Rodgers (2014) in that there are many implications of
Krashen’s theory that are relevant for language teaching. Comprehensible
input is clearly important for successful learning and communication and is
not too different from Global Englishes views on the importance of accom-
modating to an interlocutor’s language needs.
Such researchers as Long (1983a, 1983b, 1985, 1996) and Doughty and
Pica (1986) also shifted the focus from form to meaning and showcased how
using the language interactively facilitates L2 development, because of
conversational and linguistic modifications. Thus, the focus started to be

placed on interaction. Long was a prominent interactionist in the field, and
this resonates with GELT as interaction is at the core of Global Englishes
work. Interactionists are interested in how speakers engage in conversations
to negotiate meaning, and many relevant ideas emerged at this time, such as
highlighting the importance of conversational modifications, comprehension
checks, clarification requests, paraphrasing, repetition and so forth. These
concepts are clearly important for ELF communication. However, Long often
referred to the native speaker as the target interlocutor, which is not the case
for those learning to use the language as a lingua franca. Long (1983) notes
that negotiation for meaning that leads to modified interaction between the
native speaker and non-native speaker helps with their acquisition as it
connects input and output, and makes language comprehensible. However,
discussions of native speakers simplifying language, such as foreigner talk
(see Ferguson, 1971), are not compatible with GELT, even if the strategies
are. ELF further views interaction as a cooperative engagement, where speak-
ers negotiate meaning as they communicate. Hall (2017) notes that:
Most research into interaction has taken place in Western cultural settings, with little
being known about the negotiation strategies followed by L2 learners in other cultural
contexts. (Mitchell, Myles and Marsden, 2013) (p. 124)
We would concur with Hall, in that much of Long’s revised (1996) interaction
hypothesis is based on Western ideologies, with the native speaker positioned
as central to interaction. Since this time, however, we have witnessed a large
amount of ELF research, which has filled gaps in knowledge of communication
strategies used outside such settings.
Swain (1985, 1995, 2000, 2005) challenged Krashen’s comprehensible
input hypothesis with her ‘comprehensible output’ hypothesis, believing
that learners needed opportunities to produce the language to develop their
knowledge. Unlike Long’s model, Swain’s model contradicts Krashen,
rather than complementing it. She believes that giving learners the oppor-
tunity to practice enhances their fluency. It can also help their grammatical
competence and accuracy; as they struggle to produce output, they pay
attention to grammar. In short, producing the target language may serve as
‘the trigger that forces the learner to pay attention to the means of expres-
sion needed in order to successfully convey his or her own intended
meaning’ (Swain, 1985, p. 249), and output helps learners to notice the
gap between their linguistic resources and the target language (Swain,
1995, 2005). Swain’s (1995) ‘pushed output hypothesis’ noted that learners
look at their linguistic system when they fail to meet their communication
goals. This idea resonates with Gass’s (1997) observation that task-based
methodologies force learners to notice gaps.
The work in this era sparked much debate over consciousness in successful
L2 learning and the role of implicit versus explicit instruction. Long (1983,
1988) and Ellis (1990) reviewed numerous studies concluding that conscious
learning contributes to successful L2 learning. Schmidt’s (1990) ‘noticing
hypothesis’ has been influential; however, this principle rests on the belief
that learners must be able to notice the gap between their own language ability
and that of a native speaker to help them to develop proficiency. Van Lier
(1996) observes that:
To learn something new one must first notice it. This noticing is an awareness of its
existence, obtained and enhanced by paying attention to it. Paying attention is focusing
one’s consciousness, or pointing one’s perceptual powers in the right direction, and
making mental ‘energy’ available for processing. (p. 11)
Sharwood Smith (1981), who was one of the first to define conscious raising,
proposed that teaching formal aspects of language did not necessarily have to
involve rules and drills but could involve highlighting relevant aspects.
As discussed in Chapter 2, the focus on output and meaning led to an
emphasis on the process of learning and to methods such as task-based lan-
guage teaching. While task-based language teaching could be seen as a stronger
version of communicative language teaching, some incarnations of task-based
teaching include a heavy focus on form (Norris & Ortega, 2000; Skehan, 1996;
Willis, 1996), and therefore we should not assume compatibility with GELT
ideology. Output-based or interaction-based approaches to language teaching
do not necessarily mean a movement away from a focus on form. Indeed, Long
(1991), Ellis (1993, 1997), and Ellis et al. (1999) proposed the need for a focus
on form, as did Skehan (1996) who notes that learners’ language will develop
better if a focus on form is included in the task cycle. Willis’s (1996) task cycle
includes a focus on both form and meaning, in stating that ‘task-based learning
combines the best insights from communicative language teaching with an
organised focus on language form’ (p. 1).
The same challenge is applicable to GELT with regard to whether or not to
explicitly focus on form, although it becomes more complex when we view
‘form’ or norms in more dynamic and flexible terms that encourage learner
creativity and agency. As discussed in Chapter 1, there has been much discus-
sion on language awareness, metalinguistic rules and terminology. In GELT,
a more inductive, implicit way is preferred that focuses on meaning and
context. It is compatible with Long (1996), who distinguishes between form
within a meaningful context and a focus on forms (driven by grammar). Thus,
we propose that in a GELT curriculum, input enhancement (e.g. make the input
more noticeable) is important, but explicit form-focused instruction and impli-
cit form-focused instruction (learners work out the rules for themselves), if
used, should not focus on native speaker-benchmarked forms. In solving
a problem in a task, for example, learners should be encouraged to utilise their

entire multilingual repertoire to complete a task. Indeed, ELF researchers have
stressed the importance of language awareness classes. In a sense, we advocate
a consciousness-raising approach to teaching grammar. We reject the linear
view of introducing grammar, seeing it as more organic, and we encourage
future ELF users to form hypotheses about the language, linking it with what
they know, what they need to do and how they can negotiate successful
communication. Thus, although reference points have changed, noticing and
awareness are clearly fundamental concepts in GELT.
SLA as a Focus of the Process of Acquisition

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, research that looked at learning as a cognitive
process began to become the predominant theory underpinning SLA research.
In this ‘cognitive turn’ (Meier, 2017, p. 135), research looked at the path
learners followed as they acquired the language, the interaction between the
learners’ internal ‘cognitive’ processes and their external environment
(Creagh, 2017). Thus, the field witnessed a shift from the product to the process
of acquisition. Acquisition of the target language was seen as being indepen-
dent of the learners’ L1 and there was a focus on their mind and the brain,
looking at psychological aspects of learning and the learner-internal or cogni-
tive processes that underpin language acquisition. Thus, this cognitivist and
psychological view of SLA was based on notions that learners develop patterns
and have to make sense of input provided by their surrounding environment.
Research looked at how paying attention to language influenced acquisition,
intake, working and long-term memory (computational model), and how the
human mind processed the second language (Creagh, 2017).
This led to an increased focus on the learner, placing them central in the
learning process. However, it also cemented the position of the native speaker
as central, seen as the best model and also the best teacher. As discussed in
Chapter 2, soon after Chomsky proposed defined competence and perfor-
mance, there were criticisms and advocates for a more communicative view
of second-language teaching. In contrast to the separation of language use and
knowledge, Hymes (1972) introduced the notion of communicative compe-
tence, emphasising the ability to use grammatical competence in communica-
tive situations (a sociolinguistic perspective). Success in SLA came to be seen
as requiring more than merely acquiring grammatical accuracy, and this new
notion of communicative competence generated an interest in the relationship
between language and social context, and more emphasis on the meaning of
language and how it is used. These ideas received a lot of attention in the 1970s
and 1980s from applied linguists interested in SLA and language testing and
the concept was developed. Nevertheless, these views still emphasised native
English-speaker norms, as competence in both Chomsky’s and Hymes’s terms

implied conformity to such norms – to linguistic norms in Chomsky’s case and
to social appropriateness in Hymes’s case (Larsen-Freeman, 2007, pp. 45–6).
Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) defined communicative com-
petence as the underlying system of knowledge and skill needed for commu-
nication, defining three types of knowledge: knowledge of grammatical
principles; knowledge of how to use language for communication; and knowl-
edge of discourse principles. Canale (1983) also distinguished between one’s
underlying capacity and how this capacity is manifested in real communication
or performance. Savignon (1972, 1983) put more emphasis on this aspect of
ability, in explaining ‘the ability to function in a truly communicative setting –
that is, in a dynamic exchange in which linguistic competence must adapt itself
to the total informational input, both linguistic and paralinguistic, of one or
more interlocutors’ (Savignon, 1972, p. 8). She saw ability as something
dynamic, not static, and defined by context, which is a key concept that clearly
resonates with GELT.
Sociocultural Aspects of SLA and the ‘Social Turn’

Cognitive approaches that looked at SLA in a slightly decontextualised way
came to be criticised in the field, as it was argued that focusing on cognitive and
mentalist aspects led to deficit perspectives of language learners (Block, 2003;
Firth & Wagner, 1997). Some researchers shifted from a monolithic understand-
ing of language to look at how language is used by examining the language-
learning process in a socially contextualised way. The ‘social turn’ came as an
answer to increased calls for a reconceptualisation in the field, which urged SLA
researchers to take into account socio-historical aspects of learning as opposed to
just cognitive and mentalist perspectives. Firth and Wagner (1997) stressed the
centrality of context and that SLA studies should account for and also be studied
within context. As Sembiante (2016) notes, while Firth and Wagner (1997)
were not the first to make this call (see Frawley & Lantolf, 1984, 1985, and
also Beebe, 1980; Block, 1996; Norton, 1995; Tarone, 1983; Young, 1988), they
were definitely instrumental in uniting a number of socially orientated research-
ers, who pioneered this new direction in the field.
Sembiante (2016) notes that the basis of many arguments made by May
(2014b) and his colleagues in the multilingual turn – discussed next – ‘stem
from these initial propositions’ (p. 51), and it is clear that this focus on
interaction and the learners’ context resonates with GELT. As discussed in
Chapters 1 and 2, when devising goals and subsequently learning objectives in
a GELT-orientated curriculum, we urge practitioners to take the learners’
varying contexts into account. GELT learners do not all have the same needs:
they are active agents in the learning process and play an active role in how they
shape the language, and therefore the language they are learning. GELT also
recognises that they are shaped by their environment (see Larsen-Freeman,
2011; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008).
The sociocultural framework, influenced by Vygotsky (1978), became more
prominent in education throughout the 1980s, and also in language education.
Learning was seen as a social activity, so focus moved towards interaction,
which complemented communicative trends occurring around the same time.
Researchers looked at how second languages were acquired through
co-construction between experts and novices utilising notions such as scaffold-
ing for learners to move towards autonomous learning (Lantolf, 2011). Core
concepts within sociocultural theory complement GELT, such as notions that
teachers should be able to assist individual needs with resources at hand for
learners. Meier (2017) notes that ‘As this perspective is open to the use of other
languages, such as the first language, to support additional language learning
(Moore, 2013), I argue that this pedagogy could be described as potentially but
perhaps not explicitly cross lingual’ (p. 137).
Others in the field of Global Englishes have also drawn on sociocultural
theory. More than a decade ago, Jenkins (2006) noted that sociocultural
theorists do not focus on native speaker contexts of use, but on the interactions
that non-native speakers participate in, where language is learned through the
mediation of interaction. Here, learners are ‘socially constituted and always
situated beings’ who ‘undeniably belong in their second self-chosen world, not
as observers but as fully-fledged participants’ (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000,
p. 169). Similarly, ‘In the case of TESOL, much of the meaningful classroom
interaction is ELF, with learners being present and future members of an
international community made up predominantly of other NNS [non-native
speakers]’ (Jenkins, 2006, p. 155). She also notes that sociocultural theory
places emphasis on the transformative agency of L2 learners (Donato, 2000),
which is clearly in line with GELT, where learners do not just conform to the
rules of native English, but are creative and innovative, as they ‘transform’ the
rules to negotiate meaning. As Jenkins (2006) points out:
Again, this is an aspect of sociocultural theory which contradicts the fundamental
conformist tenet of mainstream SLA but on the other hand has much in common with
an ELF perspective, whose claim is that ELF speakers, to use Donato’s turn of phrase,
are transforming their (English) world by means of their lingua franca interactions.
It also links with Brutt-Griffler’s (2002) position, which holds that ELF speakers
(although she does not actually use the term) are not merely recipients of English but,
more importantly, agents in its spread and development. (p. 148)
Jenkins (2006) also notes that the notion of identity in sociocultural theory is
important and, indeed, many researchers have looked at identity in ELF con-
texts (Jenks, 2013; Sung, 2014a, 2014b; Virkkula & Nikula, 2010). For many,
the goal is no longer to integrate into a native English-speaking community and

ELF provides a range of new ‘identity categories’ (Jenks, 2013, p. 168) for
those learning English.
It is important to highlight that social constructivist perspectives of learning
are very different to interactionist perspectives of SLA, even though both
superficially appear to see learning as a product of language interaction (Hall,
2017). Interactionists place cognition at the core of learning, whereas social
constructionists see learning occurring through the process of social activity.
In sociocultural and post-structuralist views, language learning is seen as being
based on co-construction of meaning, but also about interpersonal interactions,
where ‘participants actively and dynamically negotiate not just textual mean-
ing, but also their social relationships’ (Kumaravadivelu, 2005, p. 70).
Individual and Group Differences in SLA

Through this time, the field of SLA has continued to develop its interest in
psychological aspects of language learning and has witnessed a growth in
research focusing on the variation in language learning according to learners’
individual differences. Individual and group differences include such variables
as age, personality, motivation, anxiety, aptitude, and learning strategies.
The critical period hypothesis – the belief that in order to master a language
one must learn it before a critical age – prevailed for decades. Despite scarce
research evidence that supported the importance of age in instructed second
language acquisition environments (as opposed to immersive environments)
many countries have sought to lower the age of instruction. Even though
substantial evidence now exists to contradict ‘the younger, the better’ ideology
(Pfenninger & Singleton, 2017), many institutions still promote such educa-
tional policies. The introduction of language at earlier ages in education has
implications for Global Englishes. As argued by Galloway (2011, 2017a),
GELT is needed in primary school contexts, particularly since stereotypes
certainly form at a young age, thus promotion of native norms in primary
school is concerning.
Another large area of research on individual differences is motivation, which
has implications for GELT. Motivation has consistently been proven to be
a good predictor of language-learning success (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015).
Motivational research in SLA began with seminal work by Gardner and
Lambert in bilingual Canada. Gardner posited two key orientations for lan-
guage learning motivation: the instrumental motive and the integrative motive,
of which the integrative motive was deemed more powerful (Gardner, 1985).
Gardner viewed success in language learning as being highly dependent on the
learner’s attitudes towards the linguistic-cultural community of the target
language, in addition to other factors such as: motivational intensity/effort;
the desire to learn the language; attitude towards learning the language; and
attitudes towards the learning context, including the teacher. Learners were
described as having integrative motivation if they had a positive attitude
towards the target language and an interest and willingness to interact with
members of the target language group (Gardner, 1985).
As the sociopolitical status of English has changed, we also need to reassess
the importance of instrumental motives for learning, as these motives may have
grown in importance. Ur (2012) notes that ‘learners today need English for
a variety of instrumental purposes rather than in order to join a particular
English-speaking community’ (p. 10). English has become an important lan-
guage with high capital value and is a prerequisite to academic and career
success in many contexts. For many learners, instrumental motivation, rather
than integrative motivation, has become a more powerful driving force for
learning English for career or academic success.
Dörnyei and Csizér (2002) re-examined the notion of integrative motivation,
referring to its ill fit with English as an international language. Kormos et al.
(2011) found that the most important language-learning goal was ‘related to the
status of English as a lingua franca’ (p. 513). The influence of indirect and
direct intercultural contact (Kormos & Csizér, 2008) has been found to be
important and indeed, as discussed in Chapter 2, research has revealed the
influence of ELF awareness and experience influences attitudes towards
English (Galloway, 2011, 2013, 2017; Wang, 2013, 2015; Wang & Jenkins,
2016). Attitudes towards speakers of the target language are important; how-
ever, with the globalisation of English use, this target community has signifi-
cantly widened. Gardner’s integrative motive may have accounted for
motivations of Anglophone Canadians to integrate with the Francophone
community, and vice versa, but is seen as being more problematic when
looking at motivations for learners of a global language, with a more fluid
English-using community.
This mismatch has in part been addressed by Yashima’s (2002) notion of
international posture, which is defined as an ‘interest in foreign or international
affairs, willingness to go overseas to study or work, readiness to interact with
intercultural partners and . . . a non-ethnocentric attitude toward different cul-
tures’ (p. 57). Research in this area has focused on learners in the Expanding
Circle who learn English for use with an international English-using body, rather
than speakers of a fixed L1 community. Research has shown that high levels of
international posture are related to positive language-learning attitudes in
Chilean learners (Kormos & Csizér, 2008) and that high levels of international
posture exist among young language learners in Indonesia (Lamb, 2012). GELT,
however, might challenge some descriptions of international posture, by arguing
that ELF use is not just an ‘international’ construct and that there are increasing
opportunities to use English in domestic settings.
Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System was introduced as an alter-

native construct via which to examine motivation. This system places the
learner at the centre of his or her system of language-learning motivation,
where learners depict their future selves. These selves, termed possible selves,
‘denote a powerful and at the same time versatile motivational self-mechanism,
representing individuals’ ideas of what they might become, what they would
like to become, and what they are afraid of becoming’ (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015,
p. 87). This self-system, therefore, consists of multiple versions of one’s future
self, termed as the Ideal Self (the type of learner one ideally wants to become),
and the Ought To Self (the type of learner one thinks they should become to
meet external expectations or to avoid negative outcomes). If a learner’s current
language ability is different to either of these future selves, the learner might
develop a desire to learn, and therefore be motivated to develop their ability to
learn a language (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). The opposite is also true: if the future
self is not that different, then the goal cannot be said to be desirable to the
student, and then an issue will occur with the learner’s ability to reach that goal.
Dörnyei’s (2009) ‘L2 Motivational Self System’ is helpful for GELT, as it is
a useful way to conceptualise motivation. Here, attitudes towards the target
language community are related to an ideal language self-image, rather than
a problematic ‘other’, which has traditionally been posited as a ‘native’
speaker.
This perspective of motivation highlights the importance of previous experi-
ences with the target language and previous intercultural contact with members
of the target language community, which may lead to, or perhaps diminish,
their ‘linguistic self confidence’ (Dörnyei et al., 2006, p. 15). With regard to
motivation, GELT aims to increase learners’ motivation by raising their aware-
ness of the use of English as a global language, by increasing their confidence
as legitimate speakers and not comparing them to L1 norms or presenting them
as deficient in any way. Confidence is linked to a higher self-perceived and
actual language competence (Sampasivam & Clement, 2014), thus GELT aims
to increase this second-language confidence or linguistic self-confidence.
While Kachru (2005) may note that ‘[t]here is enough evidence in socio-
linguistic literature to show that users of institutionalised varieties are secure
in their identities and do not wish to acquire the identity of either an American
or British speaker of English’ (p. 160), we do have to recognise that some
learners will desire to learn native English. Thus, learners’ ideal L2 self may be
a native English speaker or an expert ELF user. GELT acknowledges that
learners’ ideal L2 self is defined by the learners themselves, and not imposed
by the curriculum or others.
More researchers started looking at identity, seeing it as something subjec-
tive and constructed socially and also as a post-structuralist perspective, some-
thing actively produced and reproduced, rather than something that is fixed
(Jenks, 2013; Norton, 2014; Virkkula & Nikula, 2010). Researchers were
critical of those in the cognitivist tradition who viewed individual differences
(e.g. motivation, age) as stable traits (Larsen-Freeman, 2011) and the field has
moved towards looking at unique local particularities of learners as self-
reflective agents. Thus, in this era of SLA research, individual differences
began to be viewed through a sociocultural and post-structuralist lens, where
language learning involved co-construction of meaning and interpersonal
interactions. There was recognition that learners are different and learn in
different ways (Meier, 2017).
Multilingualism and the Multilingual Turn

Ortega (2013) notes that the epistemological diversity in the field today has
been fuelled by the social turn, initiated in the mid-1990s. As noted above, it
emphasised social dimensions of SLA, questing cognitive understandings. This
led to a division of research; those that argued that it happened in a learner’s
mind and those that felt it had social dimensions. This led to ontological
differences in how language, language learning and language learners were
conceptualised and understood (Meier, 2017). Ortega (2013) points out that,
after the social turn, the field started to take on a lot of diversity and started
drawing on such constructs as emergentism, connectionism, dynamic systems
and complexity theories, with seminal papers in the mid-1990s (Ellis, 1996;
Gasser, 1990; Larsen-Freeman, 1997; MacWhinney, 1997; O’Grady, 1996).
With the social turn now complete, this opened the door to examining social
dimensions of language and she predicted a move towards a bilingual orienta-
tion in SLA, noting that:
I believe it is the ability for SLA researchers to invest in future positive reframings of the
late-learned, bi/multilingual nature of L2 acquisition that will most radically impact on
the field’s continued and growing transdisciplinary relevance in the 21st century.
Moreover, I predict it will take a bi/multilingual turn in SLA, one of similar depth and
magnitude as the earlier social turn SLA experienced (Block, 2003), for these refram-
ings to flourish. (Ortega, 2013, p. 14)
Indeed, an increasing number of researchers in the field of SLA are challenging
the monolingual bias in SLA in light of the fact that multilingualism and
multiculturalism are a reality around the globe. An increasing body of research
acknowledges ‘that SLA nowadays should be seen as the acquisition of multi-
lingual and multicultural competencies, even if the object of instruction is one
standard linguistic system’ (Kramsch, 2012, p. 108).
It is important to note, however, that foundations for the multilingual turn
had been laid in previous decades, from both cognitivist and social standpoints.
The interdependence hypothesis (Cummins, 1979) argued that bilinguals have
an underlying integrated proficiency and not separate monolingual compe-

tences. Meier (2017) notes that from around the 1980s, a new integrated (or
cross-lingual) way of looking at language started. This hypothesis, which has
since been accepted based on neuroscience and psychology research, con-
firmed, for example, that multilinguals have an integrated multilingual lexicon
(Kroll et al., 2013; Lowie et al., 2014) on which they draw for all communica-
tion, placing language in the minds of users. Complexity theorists have furth-
ered our understanding of language ‘as a complex adaptive system, which
emerges bottom-up from interactions of multiple agents in speech commu-
nities’ (Larsen-Freeman, 2011, p. 49) that constitutes a ‘system [that] is in
constant flux’ (ibid., p. 50).
May (2014a) notes that the increased focus on superdiverse linguistic contexts
in the field foregrounded multilingualism, rather than monolingualism, as the
new norm of applied linguistic and sociolinguistic analysis. Many ELF research-
ers have drawn on Vertovec’s (2007) notion of ‘superdiversity’ and we have
certainly seen a movement towards focusing on the blurred boundaries between
languages, looking at it all from a more fluid perspective. Increased globalisation
has highlighted the dynamic and hybrid nature of multilingual encounters.
As part of this term, new vocabulary was required to capture new ideas and
SLA saw the emergence of many neologisms to explain complex multilingual
practices, including translingual writing (Horner et al., 2010), multiliteracies
(Cope & Kalantzis, 2000), codemeshing (Canagarajah, 2011a), polylingual
languaging (Jørgensen, 2008), translanguaging (Garcia, 2009; García & Wei,
2014), metrolingualism (Pennycook, 2010), lingua franca multilingualism
(Makoni & Pennycook, 2012), contemporary urban vernaculars (Rampton,
2011), flexible bilingualism (Creese & Blackledge, 2011), plurilingualism
(Canagarajah, 2011b) and mobile resources (Blommaert, 2010).
It is clear that recent years have witnessed an increasing view of languages as
being dynamic, multifaceted, heteroglossic, and adaptive. They evolve through
contact between people from different language backgrounds and there is
recognition that, in their hybrid use of languages, speakers adapt to different
situations. As noted in Chapter 1, translanguaging has its origins in bilingual
education, where stigmatisation of the use of minority languages and restricting
access to multilingual repertoires in schools were criticised for having detri-
mental effects on bilingual students’ success in school. In recent decades views
on bilingualism have matured from constrained labels built around language
proficiency and temporal benchmarks, to how bilinguals use the languages
according to context, and we have seen new understandings emerge, such as the
flexible bilingual (Blackledge & Creese, 2010), dynamic bilingual (Garcia,
2009) and multicompetent users (Cook, 2012).
These critical multilingual perspectives add to debates surrounding monolin-
gual and the native speaker bias in SLA and TESOL and such terminology has
increased awareness of fuzzy boundaries surrounding language, particularly in

superdiverse contexts. All of this work combined has led to a multilingual turn in
SLA (May, 2014c). The multilingual turn also stems from work of Pennycook
(2001) in critical applied linguistics, discussed in Chapter 1, who questioned
labels used to describe the global spread of English, as well as challenging power
relationships involved with language use. Pennycook’s postcolonial work, like
many movements in the multilingual turn, aims to emancipate L2 users of
English from constrained communities, models and views of language, which
were underpinned by a monolingual bias.
It was at the 2012 American Association for Applied Linguistics annual
conference where Stephen May referred to a ‘multilingual turn in SLA’ within
a colloquium that brought together these ideas. In this colloquium, Kramsch
(2012) notes that Ortega explored what kind of research would be needed to
support a multilingual outlook on SLA research – a notion further explored in
Chapter 5. The colloquium eventually led to an edited volume on the topic
by May (2014c), in which the purpose of the book is stated to ‘resituate the
issue of multilingualism more centrally in applied linguistics and, in so doing,
to make more permeable some of its key subdisciplinary boundaries particu-
larly, those between SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education’ (May, 2014a, p. 2).
With contributions from SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education scholars, the
book shows how researchers address the monolingual bias and treatment of the
‘acquisition of an additional language (most often English) as an ideally
hermetic process uncontaminated by knowledge and use of one’s other lan-
guages’ (May, 2014a, p. 2).
Thus, as with GELT, the multilingual turn urges a paradigm shift in how we
view language, questioning dominant norms and discourses and stereotypes.
It calls for a critical approach that embraces multilingual practices and trans-
languaging, and, as with GELT, it respects language learners’ hybrid language
practices and entire linguistic repertoire, aiming to legitimise such practices.
Those advocating a multilingual turn contend that there is a need to break down
boundaries between languages. Blackledge et al. (2014), for example, point out
that ‘the traditional distinction between languages is no longer sustainable, so
the distinction between monolingual, bilingual and multilingual speakers may
no longer be sustainable’ (p. 193). Also in the book, Block (2014) develops his
earlier critique of monolingual bias in linguistic-cognitive SLA and makes
a call to address the issue of multimodality. Block argues that the field of SLA
needs to focus more on multilingualism, an approach that should embrace
embodiment and multimodality, which includes such aspects as intonation,
proxemics, posture, gesture and clothing. Block is interested in what people do
when they communicate, which connects with ideas of Canagarajah (2016),
who argues that semiotic resources are used in communication and are there-
fore part of language. ‘For Block, multimodality and embodiment move
beyond linguistics (the bias of SLA) to a holistic communicative act, and he

argues that SLA should be concerned with all possible semiotic forms of
communication’ (Creagh, 2017, p. 70).
Thus, a movement within the multilingual turn has led to an evolved under-
standing of language as part of a multimodal repertoire, as an ‘intricate web of
social meaning woven from grammar, intonation, gaze, gesture, head move-
ment, bodily orientation, and additional semiotic resources’ (Atkinson, 2011b,
p. 147). As discussed in Chapter 1, Cook’s (2012) notion of the multicompo-
nent learners is very much in line with GELT, and thus many notions within the
multilingual turn are as well. When using ELF, learners use other semiotic
resources, not just linguistic knowledge. Thus, all of this has implications for
how language competence is defined and taught, thus bringing us back full
circle in forcing us to readdress what is meant by competence and proficiency
in TESOL of the twenty-first century.
Much of Ortega’s (2013, 2014) work reverberates with GELT, such as her calls
for the abandonment of concepts of nativeness and monolingual as organising
principles in SLA, particularly in the field of linguistic-cognitive SLA. She calls
for ‘usage-based linguistics’, the study of language from a functional perspec-
tive, which can be a helpful theoretical framework for an epistemic reorientation
of SLA. Usage-based linguistics sees language as an emergent thing; a process,
not a product, that is shaped by experience. It also recognises the multiple
discursive practices of language learners. Since knowledge of a language
comes from using it in the local context, and experience is important, this is in
contrast to Chomskian ideology and universal grammar. She is further critical of
concepts that stemmed from this ideology, such as ‘native-like’, target-like’,
‘interlanguage’, ‘fossilisation’, and ‘ultimate attainment’. Such thinking clearly
echoes our own views of language use within Global Englishes.
Sembiante (2016) notes that a functional language perspective supports
teachers to adopt critical language pedagogy, which is relevant to GELT:
A functional language perspective encourages teachers and students to develop critical
language awareness, or the understanding of how language varies across social contexts,
how they use language in different ways and for different purposes and how language
functions differentially in genres and content areas across the curriculum. (p. 56)
In Chapter 2 we outlined how GELT embodies aspects of critical pedagogy.
In a thematic decomposition of two books with the phrase multilingual turn in
their title (Conteh & Meier, 2014; May, 2014b), Meier (2017) notes that, while
there is no explicit reference to critical pedagogy in any of the chapters, the findings
presented are ‘consistently concerned with concepts that are central to critical
pedagogy’ (p. 152); thus we are not the only ones to see the link between the
two. Meier (2017) notes that:
There is an over-arching critical, and arguably ideological, theoretical perspective

associated with the multilingual turn, which questions widely held assumptions about
language, learners and learning, as well as the nature and location of knowledge, social
relationships and power; all concepts associated with critical pedagogy (see McLaren
2013; Norton and Toohey 2004). Teachers, learners, parents, and schools may make
linguistic decisions that are shaped by widely accepted monolingual and standard
language norms and prevailing ideologies. (p. 154)
As with GELT, there is an aim to move away from monolingual bias and the
shift resonates well with GELT, which also places two opposing ideologies at
either end of its continuum to indicate a needed ‘turn’ in perspective. GELT
compares an approach loosely guided by traditional, monolingual assumptions,
and one guided by critical, multilingual assumptions to try to force this turn.
Three chapters in May’s seminal book (Canagarajah, 2014; Leung, 2014;
Norton, 2014) focus on TESOL, indicative of it being central, rather than
peripheral, to the multilingual turn. As noted in Chapter 1, Canagarajah’s
earlier descriptions of language in global contexts informed the original
GELT framework, and thus we see a natural ideological thread that connects
GELT to similar movements pertaining to TESOL within the multilingual turn.
As Creagh (2017) notes, ideas within the multilingual turn ‘point to pedagogi-
cal transformation in the field of TESOL’ (p. 150).
Accomplishing the Turn

Nearly three decades ago, Sridhar and Sridhar (1986) criticised the assumption
that learners want to achieve native-like proficiency, noting that ‘[p]aradoxical
as it may seem, Second Language Acquisition researchers seem to have
neglected the fact that the goal of SLA is bilingualism’ (p. 13). Further, while
there is criticism that the field of SLA has taken a more psycholinguistic
approach and has neglected social (sociolinguistic, socio-psychological, and
sociocultural) factors, Jenkins (2006) notes that ‘[m]any of those who have
identified problems with mainstream SLA have tended not to take issue with its
basic premise of NS [native speaker] normativity’ (p. 144). She further criti-
cises the field for focusing on ‘ways of facilitating the acquisition of as near
native-like competence as required by the learner, teacher, or “system,” be this
by means of tasks, scaffolding, comprehensible input/output, or whatever’
(p. 139). To some extent, this is now untrue, given the work described above
in the multilingual turn. However, while it is clear from this chapter that the
field of SLA has witnessed several ‘turns’, as with the field of TESOL outlined
in the previous chapter, monolingualism and associated terms (e.g. native
speaker) still dominate.
‘Turn is a name given to a development that has established itself, or is in the
process of establishing itself’ (Meier, 2017, p. 132). Meier (2017) further states
that a turn is not necessarily a new occurrence, but something that develops
over some time, growing in significance in terms of its importance. Global
Englishes is not only an established field, but there is an increasing body of
work focusing on its pedagogical implications. Moreover, many advocates of
change in language teaching are not those researching in fringe fields, but rather
leading scholars in applied linguistics. Thus, we must ask the same question as
Ortega (2013):
With such distinguished SLA advocates, and with such powerful and increasingly
comprehensively articulated arguments, why has SLA had such difficulty breaking
away from the straightjacket of the comparative fallacy, the target deviation perspective,
and the monolingual native speaker bias? (p. 15)
We could argue the same for TESOL, in that with such a growing body of
evidence spanning decades calling for a change in teaching practices and
curriculum from key figures in TESOL (e.g. McKay, Widdowson, Larsen-
Freeman), why does change appear to be so slow in gaining traction?
Sembiante (2016) observes that progress has been slow since the publication
of the multilingual turn with ‘some proponents of the linguistic–cognitive
perspective arguing that traditional understandings and constructions of SLA
will continue to trump those emerging from the new sociolinguistic movement’
(p. 54). Ortega (2013) also notes that time may be necessary for changes to take
full effect in SLA. For GELT, matters might be worse, as change tends to take
even longer in TESOL. Many practising teachers infrequently return to teacher
training. Thus, new ideas sometimes require a new generation of teachers to
become fully realised in practice. Our discussion of the obstacles and environ-
mental constraints to GELT, in Chapter 4, aims to speed up this process by
problematising these barriers and discussing ways in which they can be dis-
mantled. However, we have argued previously that attachments in the field to
standard language and the monolingual ideology are barriers to GELT and, as
we see it, the multilingual turn.
Nevertheless, future prospects of a turn are looking positive.
Translanguaging has been well received in the field and might encourage
movement in other areas, as it is highly applicable to TESOL, having grown
from bilingual educational practices. There is an increasing body of studies
revealing the positive influence of Global Englishes instruction on attitudes
(Baker, 2012b; Derwing et al., 2002; Galloway, 2011, 2013, 2017a; Galloway
& Rose, 2013; Shim, 2002; Sung, 2015). The more we can share successful
practices in TESOL to a wider audience of language teachers, the more quickly
we can accomplish the turn. A call for such research is discussed further in
Chapter 5.
Conclusion
This chapter has highlighted that the monolingual bias is evident in the field of
SLA as well as TESOL. Nevertheless, there we are clearly witnessing
a paradigm shift in the field of SLA, which bodes well for parallel shifts in
the related field of TESOL due to the natural links between the two. Just as
shifts in teaching English in global contexts have been gathering traction in
classrooms and teacher training programmes, the multilingual turn is gathering
momentum in SLA. This is promising for GELT, where the yardstick of
competence and reference points for learning are not the L1 monolingual
English speaker. GELT positions language users as L2 users in their own
right and recognises learner agency. More scholars are now critical of the
monolingual bias and recognise the value of utilising learners’ entire linguistic
repertoire, viewing them as multicompetent users of language.
Nevertheless, in addition to theoretical issues that are at the heart of debates
in SLA and TESOL with regard to global language use, there are also practical
issues to consider. TESOL is, after all, a profession; and like any profession, it
is bound by real-world limitations and a range of push-and-pull forces that can
affect the implementation of new ideas. For example, teachers have to contend
with pull factors such as the need to prepare their students for real-world
English use, and with push factors such as teaching to tests, working within
set curricula and juggling different stakeholder expectations, including their
own. They may, after all, have their own internal battles to contend with
regarding the importance of standard language education. While often
described as a theory–practice divide, we believe there to be a gaping lacuna
between the criteria outlined within the GELT framework and current main-
stream classroom pedagogy. Even teachers who want to instigate change may
not know how to do so due to a lack of knowledge. They may also lack access to
necessary tools, such as the materials to do so. Even if teachers embrace SLA
theory that promotes the importance of multilingualism, the fluidity of lan-
guage, and sees language learning as a social practice, they may face difficul-
ties regarding how this translates to classroom practices. Similarly, they may be
at a loss in terms of how the focus on form should be approached, if this is how
they were taught to teach. Even though new ideas may be circulating through-
out the SLA research realm, this does not guarantee that TESOL practitioners
will even be familiar with them. Many practitioners will have their own
ideologies and will work in different contexts. There are numerous barriers to
applying SLA theory to TESOL, to initiate change. These barriers can be both
internal and external to the teachers and students, and may pose substantial
obstacles for successful GELT implementation. These barriers to innovation
are discussed in detail in the next chapter.
4 Curriculum Innovation and GELT
As noted in Chapter 1, GELT is not a prescriptive one-size-fits-all model for

practitioners, nor is the purpose of this book to tell teachers what to do, or to
suggest that they have to abandon current curricula and pedagogical practices
familiar to them. The preceding three chapters have highlighted the need for
change to pedagogical practice in light of Global Englishes research. In this
chapter, we discuss GELT curriculum innovation in more depth, examining the
process of implementing innovation and the factors that influence it, including
possible ‘barriers’ (Galloway & Rose, 2015) or ‘environmental constraints’
(Nation & Macalister, 2010) present in different contexts. In doing so, we also
discuss the possible barriers to accomplishing the multilingual turn in the field
of SLA, although, here, our main focus is on instigating a paradigm shift in the
field of TESOL. Our in-depth discussion of the curriculum innovation process,
and the variables that influence it, aims to increase the potential for successful
and sustained GELT curriculum innovation. We draw on innovation theory to
examine the process in full and, as elsewhere, we do not make value judge-
ments regarding the learning and teaching context in a particular culture. In this
chapter, we aim to further aid practitioners to make informed decisions about
GELT, its relevance for, and feasibility in, their contexts.
The Innovation Process

Despite the increasing attention given to the need for change at the theoretical
level, ‘the native-speaker episteme has not loosened its grip over theoretical
principles, classroom practices, the publication industry, or the job market’
(Kumaravadivelu, 2012, p. 15). It is also clear from the preceding chapter that,
despite the increased attention given to multilingualism, monolingual ideolo-
gies still dominate and also present obstacles to fully achieving a ‘turn’, or
paradigm shift. In order to facilitate curriculum innovation, and ultimately
widespread change, we feel it is ‘important to pay greater attention to what
innovation theory suggests about ways of making the practice of ELT innova-
tion more successful than hitherto’ (Wedell, 2009, p. 398). Thus, this chapter
draws on innovation theory to explore the complexity of incorporating a GELT
79
perspective into ELT classrooms. By examining the curriculum innovation

process in full, we aim to provide readers with ample information to consider
and, ultimately, to help them ‘develop a more rationalised, informed perspec-
tive on the (de) merits of selecting language norms in the classroom’ (Dewey,
2012, p. 166). As Rogers (2003) notes:
Getting a new idea adopted, even when it has obvious advantages, is difficult. Many
innovations require a lengthy period of many years from the time when they become
available to the time when they are widely adopted. (p. 1)
Curricular innovation can be a challenging and complex phenomenon, and

GELT requires a conceptual transition in not only how English should be taught
and learned, but in how the language itself should be viewed. We recognise that
change may not be imminent; indeed, many of the proposals that inform GELT
were made more than thirty years ago and, as we argued elsewhere, the native
speaker yardstick has been questioned for decades outside calls within the field
of Global Englishes. Incorporating a GELT perspective fully into a curriculum
may take time and certainly requires more research, the subject of our next
chapter. There are definite barriers, as we have outlined elsewhere (Galloway &
Rose, 2015), but this does not make it impossible, nor should they be a deterrent
to making the curriculum more relevant to the needs of learners in today’s
globalised world. By examining the curriculum innovation process, and giving
consideration to the various factors involved, the potential ‘barriers’ to innova-
tion and the various phases/stages that innovations go through, we aim to
improve the success for GELT innovation institutionalisation.
Successful and sustained innovation certainly depends on having a strategic
approach and it is important to understand the many factors involved, which
has been given a lot of attention in the literature (Chang, 2011; Fullan, 2007;
Henrichsen, 1989; Owston, 2007; Rogers, 2003; White et al., 1991). Several
models have also been proposed to describe the various phases and factors that
impact curriculum innovation (Fullan, 2007; Henrichsen, 1989; Rogers, 2003),
which we draw on in Figure 4.1 to produce a framework to help practitioners
understand curriculum innovation and the various factors involved, both in
general (Figure 4.1) and in relation to GELT (Figure 4.2). We also draw on
Wedell’s (2003) list of questions for planning TESOL curriculum change,
which help guide planners to consider change in their own contexts, and
White et al.’s (1991) overview of managing curriculum development and
innovation.
There are different phases to curriculum innovation and research is needed at
every stage to maximise the likelihood of innovation success. We draw on
Fullan’s (2007, pp. 65–9) three broad phases (initiation, implementation and
institutionalisation) and Roger’s (2003) five steps in the innovation decision-
Figure 4.1 Curriculum innovation cycle.
Figure 4.2 GELT curriculum innovation cycle.
Curriculum Innovation and GELT 83
making process: (1) knowledge, (2) persuasion, (3) decision, (4) implementa-
tion and (5) confirmation (p. 20). In our figure, we depict four phases:
1. The ‘knowledge’ phase (exposure to the innovation first with no knowledge
and then more information in the persuasion stage, where the advantages
and disadvantages are assessed – e.g. the perceived characteristics – relative
advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, observability.
2. The ‘initiation’ phase (or Roger’s decision phase – a decision is made to
proceed with or reject the innovation).
3. The ‘implementation’ phase (attempt to put the innovation into practice,
leading to the next stage, rejection, or reinvention, which starts the process
again).
4. The ‘institutionalisation’ phase (attempt to achieve innovation sustainabil-
ity, leading to rejection, adoption, and possibly reinvention, which starts the
process again).
As indicated in Figure 4.1, it is not a linear, but a cyclical process and
innovation rejection can happen at any stage. The model is also transformative
in non-typical flows: initial rejection can lead to later adoption, just as initial
adoption can later lead to discontinuance. As Waters (2014) points out, it is
unfortunate that, despite its importance, research on the institutionalisation
phase appears to have been somewhat neglected in the research of English-
language education management. This is certainly the case with regard to
GELT. There is growing research on the attitudes of students and practitioners
towards English and ELT in relation to Global Englishes (see Galloway, 2017a;
Galloway & Rose, 2015; Jenkins, 2007 for an overview), but only a small
number have explored what a Global Englishes approach would look like in the
classroom (see Galloway, 2011, 2013, 2017; Galloway & Rose, 2014, 2017;
Rose & Galloway, 2017; Shim, 2002; Sung, 2014, 2018), and few studies have
been conducted on the influence this has on students’ attitudes (Baker, 2012b;
Derwing et al., 2002; Galloway, 2011, 2013, 2017; Galloway & Rose, 2013;
Shim, 2002; Sung, 2015), and, to date, there have been few longitudinal
studies.
This phase of curriculum innovation may occur last in chronological terms,
but a successful GELT innovation strategy requires consideration of successful
institutionalisation from the outset, which includes attention to the various
factors influencing the process as part of a needs analysis. As White et al.
(1991) note, ‘the questions to be dealt with here are concerned with clarifying
the current situation before looking to the future’ (p. 172). We highlight the
importance of considering the institutionalisation phase first in Figure 4.1 and
we have also aimed to make it clear that there are many factors influencing the
complex process of curriculum innovation. Some of these relate to the innova-
tion itself, and others relate to the resource system, the users and the alignment
between the various factors. The figure aims to help practitioners to consider all
of these factors to determine if GELT can exist as ‘part of the “fabric” of the
“host” system into which it has been introduced’ (Waters, 2014, p. 98). We also
show in Figure 4.1 that consideration of some of the innovation and contextual
factors, such as current resources and degree of openness to change, which
Wedell (2003) calls ‘level 1’ questions, can also lead to changes in the innova-
tion introduced (reinvention). This then leads to further questions (Wedell’s
level 2), which involves considering the alignment of the components, e.g. the
adjustments that will need to be made to restore balance between the curricu-
lum elements.
Research on teacher beliefs and teacher education is certainly important, but
GELT will be implemented in different ways in different contexts. As such,
more research is needed on what happens after teacher training and teacher
education. Research should focus on contextualised investigation of how the
innovation is introduced, in order to examine what happens in the classroom
when GELT is incorporated into the curriculum. Indeed, referring to the wide-
spread recent English-language education innovations, including CLIL and
ELF, Waters (2014) notes that:
It would also be particularly useful if such analyses (especially those involving local
innovations) were carried out both prospectively (before implementation) and retro-
spectively (after implementation), to increase understanding of the predictive value of
this kind of study in managing innovation. (p. 96)
In their study of curriculum innovation in China, Li and Edwards (2013) found
that, on arrival, teachers could be characterised as ‘early adopters’ at the start of
the UK-based course. However, post-course evaluations revealed that they had
made the transition to the ‘decision phase’ (p. 394). Such research on how
teachers move through different stages at varying lengths of time is important
to see how practitioners move towards the implementation or confirmation
stages. Li and Edwards’s (2013) study also highlights that facilitating factors
for curriculum innovation in China include the dissatisfaction of teachers
regarding the current ELT practices in China. Their conclusions indicate that
a supportive policy environment may positively influence teachers to accept
new teaching approaches, via promotion of the relative advantage of innova-
tion. For GELT, we need to ensure teachers fully understand the relative
advantage of this innovation, in order that change can be fully realised.
True adoption occurs when an innovation has been institutionalised to the
point that it is no longer construed as a new idea or practice (Rogers, 2003).
Fullan (2007) also refers to adopter commitment, which is a key variable to
determine whether an innovation will survive. Thus, it is important that GELT
research does not only focus on the attitudes of stakeholders prior to its
incorporation and we call for more longitudinal studies in the next chapter to
examine whether it produces lasting changes. Such research is likely to reveal

whether GELT will undergo mutual adaption, which is described as ‘adaptation
of the innovation to fit the local setting and adaptations by local users to fit the
innovation’ (Waters, 2014, pp. 136–7), or reinvention, which is described as
‘the degree to which an innovation is changed or modified by a user in the
process of its adoption and implementation’ (p. 180). This relates to what
Richards (2017) refers to as the ‘enacted curriculum’, referring to how teachers
individualise curricula according to their unique contexts. This is even more
likely with regard to GELT, due to its context-sensitive nature and flexible
approach to student needs. GELT curriculum innovation ultimately aims to be
a bottom-up process that will be informed by students’ needs analysis carried
out by practitioners in diverse contexts around the globe. The success of
innovations in various contexts can then be shared more broadly via reported
action research so that teachers can learn from innovations in broadly similar
contexts.
Whether the decision is to reject, adopt or reinvent (Figures 4.1 and 4.2),
we need to encourage research, so that teachers and curriculum planners can
share their experiences with innovative practice. We must also recognise
that, even if GELT is incorporated initially, it may be discontinued. At the
moment, GELT is an idea that needs to be fully implemented and evaluated
and, thus, should not be treated as a full-blown teaching approach. Rogers
(2003) notes that discontinuance, a decision to reject an innovation after it
has previously been adopted, occurs for a variety of reasons. With GELT,
we imagine that discontinuance may occur for any number of reasons,
such as:
• a lack of teacher training and resources to fully realise the innovation
• washback from high-stakes examinations
• backlash from standard language ideology of key stakeholders, including
teachers and learners, resulting in a lack of acceptance.
Thus, reporting on both successful and unsuccessful innovation is essential in
the adoption process (Figures 4.1 and 4.2).
As Rose and Montakantiwong (2018) note, ‘whether it is a success story or
a cautionary account, recognising the pedagogical value of others’ experiences
is one of the most prominent takeaways’ (p. 99) of sharing innovation imple-
mentation experiences. The reasons for discontinuance of GELT innovation,
therefore, are as important to share as the success stories, so that educators can
learn from others’ experiences. Of course, the ultimate aim is to promote
sustained innovation with regard to GELT and it is hoped that the growing
body of research at different stages will provide insights into why this may
happen. However, consideration of the factors outlined in this chapter aims to
reduce the chances of discontinuance and to navigate around some of the
reasons an innovation may be rejected.
Factors Influencing the Innovation Process

In the educational research literature, Carlson (1968) defines an innovation as
‘a new idea or practice’ (p. 10), noting that idea-based innovations are more
difficult to implement than practices-based innovations. GELT is both: it is
theory-driven, as new ideas are being applied to pedagogy; and it is practice-
driven, as teachers seek ways to consolidate their efforts to teach English as
a national language. As outlined in this book thus far, GELT may not be entirely
‘new’ in the sense that it is not completely different to other approaches to ELT
and it is also compatible with a range of current syllabus types and methodo-
logical approaches. However, ‘newness in an innovation needs not just to
involve new knowledge’ (Rogers, 2003, p. 12) and a person may have known
about it for a while, ‘but not yet developed a favourable or unfavourable
attitude towards it, nor have adopted or rejected it’ (p. 12). Indeed, Chapter 1,
documents the growing attention given to the pedagogical implications of
Global Englishes research for TESOL and it is a topic that is certainly gathering
momentum. In this sense, it may not be a completely ‘new’ concept to all.
We also examined the predecessors to GELT in Chapter 1, several of which also
compared this with ‘traditional’ forms of English language teaching.
Nonetheless, given the dominance of native norms, GELT may be ‘new’ to
many, particularly in the sense that it involves a new way of looking at the
English language.
It is clear from Figure 4.1 that many factors influence the innovation process
and also the innovation itself with regard to GELT. When introducing an
innovation, people often want to know what the innovation is, how it will
work, how it will be an improvement on the status quo, what advantages it is
intended to bring and whether there will be any drawbacks. In Chapter 1, we
presented a detailed overview of the innovation itself (the theoretical under-
pinnings of GELT). As White et al. (1991) point out, ‘explicitness is an
important characteristic of an innovation. If an innovation can be clearly
described, people are more prepared to take notice of it. Also, if the innovation
is well developed and in tangible form, it will be more acceptable’ (p. 183).
Thus, the explicitness of an innovation should be considered alongside the
antecedents (Henrichsen, 1989) to the innovation, as well as the background to
the innovation, which includes considering factors such as current pedagogic
practice, the intended users, the need for innovation and also previous innova-
tion attempts. Much of this was covered in Chapters 2 and 3 with our overview
of the current situation (‘traditional’ ELT and historical perspectives within the
field of SLA), as well as our overview of the perceived need for innovation.
We have also highlighted the importance of understanding the context,
including the users/receivers of the innovation (in our discussion of needs
analysis), current pedagogic practices (in our discussion of methodology),
and the experiences of previous innovation attempts (our discussion of the

introduction of CLT and the social and subsequent multilingual turn in SLA).
In essence, Chapters 1–3 provided an in-depth understanding of the back-
ground to GELT (the current situation), which is important to increase the
potential for successful and sustained innovation. It is also hoped that this will
provide practitioners and curriculum planners with a consideration of the
factors beyond their immediate educational system, given that context does
not merely relate to their own classroom and successful innovations in one
context can have direct application to other contexts (although consideration of
the immediate institution is also important, of course, as shown in Figure 4.1).
Here, sharing of innovative practice becomes important. Rose and
Montakantiwong (2018) emphasise the importance of sharing experiences
(both good and bad) within a wider professional community, in order to learn
from both successful and unsuccessful innovation.
Rogers (2003) highlights that five factors determine innovation success:
relative advantage (whether it offers an improvement on the status quo);
trialability (the ability to experiment with it); observability (the degree to
which it is observable to others); complexity (the degree to which an innovation
is perceived as difficult to understand and use); and compatibility (how it fits in
with existing beliefs and practice). GELT aims to be compatible with a variety
of institutions, from language schools or centres, to state schools and online
courses, and the small body of research that has been conducted on GELT in the
classroom has been conducted in both classroom settings and online pro-
grammes. Institutions will differ with regard to class sizes, linguistic composi-
tion, resources and ideology of education. As such, we call for research in
various settings, which will also involve examining who will be involved in the
innovation process. Ideally, GELT would involve a collaborative effort with
teachers and institutions to ensure that people have ownership, a bottom-up
perspective to curriculum innovation. On a larger scale, this would also involve
materials designers, policymakers, practitioners and even parents.
In Chapter 1, we outlined the attributes of GELT in our discussion of the
benefits and the rationale for this much needed paradigm shift. These attributes
lay the foundations for the first step of identifying the ‘relative advantages’ of
the innovation (Figures 4.1 and 4.2), which ‘may be measured in economic
terms, but social prestige factors, convenience and satisfaction are also impor-
tant factors’ (Rogers, 2003, p. 15). It is early days for GELT, yet the increasing
body of studies examining the impact of GELT on learners’ attitudes (Baker,
2012b; Derwing et al., 2002; Galloway, 2011, 2013, 2017a; Galloway & Rose,
2013; Shim, 2002; Sung, 2015) show that they have positive attitudes/show
satisfaction. Further, as will be discussed in Chapter 7, there is also an increas-
ing body of studies reporting positive responses to incorporating a GELT
perspective into TESOL practitioner education programmes (Blair, 2015;
Dewey, 2012; Dilek & Özdemir, 2015; Doan, 2014; Hall et al., 2013; Lopriore,
2016; Sifakis, 2017; Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2015, 2018; Suzuki, 2011; Vettorel,
2016; the study reported in Chapter 7). Potential adopters can learn a lot from
these studies, helping them to decide whether it is worthwhile and whether it
offers benefits over the status quo, and also how GELT can be incorporated into
diverse contexts and curriculums in varied ways.
Practitioners and curriculum planners will always want to know why an
innovation is better than what they have at present. They will need to be
convinced as to why the existing pedagogical practices that uphold the
status quo need to change. Thus, the growing body of research on the
positive effects of GELT is important to communicate to curriculum plan-
ners. We also hope that, by offering research directions in the next chapter,
future research will add to the knowledge base and help make the relative
advantage more ‘observable’. Rogers (2003) defines observability as ‘the
degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others. The easier
it is for individuals to see the results of an innovation, the more likely they
are to adopt it’ (p. 16). This book, alongside others that serve a similar
purpose, should help with raising observability, but we also need more
research to offer hard empirical evidence that GELT innovation can suc-
ceed in a wide range of practices.
Of course, economic profitability may be an issue, and, as Galloway (2018a)
argues with regard to materials, given that publishers want to make money it is
uncertain whether they will ‘dare to be different’ (McGrath, 2013, p. 198) and
move away from native English norms. The testing industry is also
a moneymaking industry, and something we return to later in the chapter.
Social prestige is also a problem, and is discussed further in relation to attach-
ments to standard language ideology later in this chapter.
For successful and sustained GELT innovation, it is, therefore, important
to understand how GELT is viewed by the receivers of the innovation: the
students, the practitioners and other key stakeholders. We have to be care-
ful not to assume that they will see innovation in a positive light and,
therefore, this relates to the importance of communicating the relative
advantage, the benefits of GELT, to them. Standard language norms prevail
and we have to recognise that many potential adopters may have been
socialised into thinking that native English is not only right, but that native
norms are best. GELT may be daunting and the status quo may be seen as
safer. Indeed, as Meier (2017) notes:
In the current climate of uncertainties, such as climate change, economic down-
turns, political changes, refugee crises and terror threats, multilingualism may be
seen by some as a further destabilising force, and be one of the reasons for the
perpetuation of monolingual and standard language norms by stakeholders in
schools and society. (pp. 153–4)
GELT, with its promotion of multilingualism, may, then, be viewed suspi-

ciously by some people.
Standard language ideology is promoted through language and education
policies and ‘gatekeeping academies’, such as international standardised test-
ing. Indeed, Johnson (2016), drawing on Jenkins (2006), makes a similar point
to us in relation to Global Englishes research that, despite an observable
increase in the legitimacy of ideas in the field of World Englishes, there has
been very little pedagogical implementation within TESOL. Johnson (2016)
notes that this may be related to the prevalence, in certain contexts, of ‘high-
stakes exams, language policies and/or public discourses that view varieties of
English as linguistic deficiencies’ (p. 129). Attachments to standard English
clearly present a possible barrier to GELT and also influence other barriers,
including teacher recruitment practices and testing – both of which are included
as part of Galloway and Rose’s (2015) barriers to GELT, which we turn to next
in our discussion of compatibility.
Compatibility
Compatibility with Educational and Institutional Cultures

and Pedagogic Practice
When considering implementing innovation, it is important to consider such
factors as compatibility (Figures 4.1 and 4.2). Thornbury (2006), for example,
notes that the grammar–translation method may have survived because of its
ease of implementation, particularly in places with large class sizes. A simple
and easier to implement innovation will be more attractive, but it is also
important that it fits with existing beliefs and practice. It is also important to
look at the factors within the resource system and institution, and the inter-
elemental factors (Henrichsen, 1989) that operate ‘between’ elements, for
example, the degree of proximity of the resource and user system. If there is
a good degree of fit between the elements, then change will be implemented
more easily. Consideration of such factors also involves thinking about what
kind of support they will need to make the transition and what kinds of
adjustments will have to be made. Understanding such factors regarding the
context of the innovation could, of course, be considered part of phase one
(antecedent/knowledge), but here we focus more on the specific teaching
context in which practitioners are operating, as opposed to the field of
TESOL/SLA as a whole. They are also part of the institutionalisation phase,
as they are unlikely to be fully adopted and institutionalised if the innovation
does not fit within the institutional context.
It is clearly important to consider whether GELT may be compatible or
incompatible with the sociocultural values and beliefs, current pedagogical
practices and also the stakeholders’ needs. Indeed, the GELT framework
emerged in response to the changing needs of English learners in today’s
globalised world. ‘One indication of the compatibility of an innovation is the
degree to which it meets a felt need’ (Rogers, 2003, p. 246) and it is clear from
Chapter 2 that GELT meets a specific need – the need to prepare students to use
English as a global language. However, ‘[T]he classroom is a socially defined
reality and is, therefore, influenced by the belief systems and behavioural
norms of the society of which it is part’ (Tudor, 2001, p. 35). GELT may well
meet the needs of learners in today’s globalised world preparing to use ELF, but
there is also a need to examine the sociocultural context, including prevailing
norms and beliefs about English and ELT.
Culture is the ‘defining aspect that needs to be understood for innovation to
be successful’ (Wedell, 2003) and it is important to point out that the ‘context’
does not only relate to the classroom itself, but also to the sociocultural
processes and norms of education that influence learners and teachers and,
therefore, the curriculum. In his chapter ‘Achieving Cultural Continuity on
Curriculum Innovation’, Holliday (2001, p. 169) restates Jacob’s theory (1996)
on curriculum innovation, noting that ‘cultural continuity’ emphasises the need
for sensitivity to the cultural needs of different stakeholders (the recipients of
innovation), whether they be students or teachers encountering new teaching
methodologies, or stakeholders in curriculum projects. In order to achieve
cultural continuity, more research is needed that focuses on building bridges
between the culture of GELT-related innovations and the traditional expecta-
tions of the key stakeholders in diverse classrooms to ensure we have an in-
depth understanding of different contexts, and also an in-depth understanding
of how GELT is viewed by those from diverse contexts. Cultural continuity
necessitates that innovations are adjusted to, and informed by, institutional
environments to ensure successful integration (Holliday, 2001).
Compatibility with Stakeholder Beliefs

Thus, when examining the context, it is also important to examine the belief
systems of the curriculum planners, institutional and national education and
language policies, and other stakeholders, as discussed in Chapter 2. As Breen
et al. (2001) point out:
any innovation in classroom practice from the adoption of a new technique or textbook
to the implementation of a new curriculum has to be accommodated within the teacher’s
own framework of teaching principles. (p. 472)
Practitioners’ attitudes, discussed further in Chapter 7, may not only influence
the curriculum but also help explain any possible reluctance or resistance to
change. White et al. (1991) point out:
It has to be realized that the view of an innovation differs according to where you stand
in the system. There are two quite different viewpoints: that of the change agent – the
person advocating the innovation – and that of the receiver or changer – the person who
is being asked to put the innovation into effect . . . Failure to take the receivers’ view-
point into consideration will almost invariably lead to difficulties, because, in the
process of dissemination and implementation, an innovation will tend to be ‘reinvented’
by the adopters. (pp. 179–80)
Thus, it is imperative that stakeholders’ views are considered when making

curriculum innovation, and GELT is no exception. Even if an institution was to
make GELT adaptations to its curriculum at the institutional, department or
course level, teachers’ viewpoints must be considered, lest they may not be
delivered at the classroom level as envisioned.
GELT requires a new ontological stance, or understanding of language, and
teachers may, for example, reject the change if it clashes with their beliefs.
‘Research on individual beliefs, everyday contexts, and practices casts an
instructive light on potential obstacles to policy initiatives and reforms’
(Ramanthan & Morgan, 2007, p. 449). Indeed, the study presented in
Chapter 7 highlights a number of context-specific barriers salient to the pre-
and in-service TESOL practitioners involved in that study. Consideration of the
beliefs of stakeholders, towards both English and ELT, is important, particu-
larly given the pervasiveness of standard language ideology, which has been
identified as a possible barrier to GELT (Galloway & Rose, 2015). As Kramsch
(2014) notes:
The purity ideal embodied in the authentic NS [native speaker] still remains intact for
FL [foreign language] educators. For sure, they acknowledge the increasing variations
and non-standard manifestations of the language as it is used in real life, but their
teaching is pegged to the pure linguistic standard established by the national gate-
keeping academies monitored by NSs. (p. 299)
Thus, if teachers’ ideology does not match a new ontological stance, it is more
likely that TESOL practitioners will reject the changes.
In Thailand, for example, the Education Ministry launched a Regional English
Training Centres Project (British Council, 2018), following on from the success
of a ‘boot camp’ intensive teacher development pilot programme in 2016. Thai
English teachers were trained by British Council L1 English speakers, with an
aim to boost teachers’ confidence in English and their communicative teaching
techniques via a thirty-seven day immersion where they communicated only with
‘native’ English speakers (Mala, 2016). The initiative followed a survey on the
English proficiency of Thai English teachers conducted by the Ministry of
Education that found that six out of more than 43,000 teachers in public schools
could achieve native-like fluency or C2 level on the CEFR. These scores were
used to select teachers for the boot camp. The three-week intensive course used
British Council course materials tailor made to the Thai context, although it is
clearly questionable how much these materials were centred around Inner Circle
norms.
Compatibility with Language Norms and Attitudes/

the Social System
The Quirk/Kachru debate on standards may have been more than two decades
ago, but many TESOL practitioners may still consider teaching anything other
than the so-called standard, a ‘cheat’ (Quirk, 1990, p. 6). Many studies have
been conducted on practitioners’ attitudes towards Global Englishes, some of
which also looked at their attitudes towards ELT (see Galloway, 2017a;
Galloway & Rose, 2015; Jenkins, 2007; Chapter 7, for an overview). These
studies reveal that many TESOL practitioners, and other key stakeholders,
including students, cling to ‘standard’ norms and have fixed ideas about how
it should be taught (see Galloway, 2017a; Galloway & Rose, 2015; Jenkins,
2007 for an overview). Many ELF scholars have expressed concerns about
these views and noted the need to raise teachers’ awareness of ELF research
(Blair, 2015; Dewey, 2012, 2014, 2015b; Dewey & Patsko, 2018; Mauranen,
2012; Seidlhofer, 2011; Sifakis, 2014, 2017; Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2015, 2016,
2018; Vettorel, 2016; Widdowson, 2012). However, of the studies on practi-
tioners’ attitudes, only Zacharias (2005) used mixed methods (questionnaires,
interviews and classroom observations). His study of 100 tertiary-level tea-
chers investigated beliefs about the use of teaching materials produced locally
and in Anglophone countries (i.e. ‘internationally published’). The study
revealed a preference (86% and 87%) for materials produced in Anglophone
countries.
However, several studies do provide insights into some of the underlying
factors influencing positive orientations to native norms. Jenkins’s (2007)
questionnaire study with 326 English teachers in 12 countries, for example,
highlighted the importance of preconceived stereotypes on attitudes towards
English (p. 166). Unsurprisingly, respondents had positive attitudes towards
‘native’ accents. However, Swedish English was rated more unfamiliar than
all of the non-native English accents, except Brazilian and Indian English, but
more correct, acceptable and pleasant than other non-native English accents.
Other studies have also highlighted the complexity of practitioners’ attitudes,
particularly differences in those manifested in theory and in practice. Sifakis
& Sougari’s (2005) questionnaire-based study of 421 Greek teachers once
more revealed that attitudes are norm bound. There was a lack of awareness of
English as an international language; more than 70% felt English belonged to
native English speakers or to people with native English-speaker competence.
However, for their own pronunciation teaching practices, the teachers
revealed a need to focus more on communication, as opposed to rules and

standards, when considering non-native English-speaker–non-native
English-speaker communication. Teachers in this study could conceive ELF
and the importance of intelligibility, but they did not consider it when teach-
ing, preferring a native English-speaker model (Jenkins, 2007).
Similarly, Sasaki (2004, cited in Yoshikawa, 2005) found that 80% of the 97
Japanese high school English teachers surveyed recognised the necessity of
touching on varieties of English in their classes, but only 7.8% did. Moreover,
when these teachers did focus on variation, the emphasis was only on Inner
Circle differences. Reasons included a lack of time and knowledge about World
Englishes, both of which have been identified as possible barriers to GELT
(Galloway & Rose, 2015). Seidlhofer and Widdowson (2003) examined essay
responses to an article by House (2002), which challenged native English-
speaker norms in ELT. The participants in this study were forty-eight students
taking a teacher education option at the University of Vienna. The study revealed
that the student-teachers’ main concern was with teaching, and specifically with
cultural aspects and pronunciation. Jenkins’s (2007) interview study of seventeen
L2 English-speaking teachers found that several claimed to support ELF pro-
nunciation, but aimed at ‘native’ English themselves, and most referred to ‘non-
native’ English as ‘incorrect’. However, only two were entirely against the notion
of ELF and many reasons were provided, such as pressure from government,
schools and parents to teach native English, a lack of ELF pronunciation
materials and teachers’ traditional attachment to ‘native’ English. Several also
thought that teachers need ELF experience to appreciate the irrelevance of the
native English-speaker model for international communication, a finding that
was used to prompt discussions on job recruitment sites for TESOL practitioners.
These studies highlight the complexity of attitudes, and from where
they may stem. As Galloway and Rose (2015) state:
It is not sufficient to simply state that teachers or students prefer native English, and
to use this to justify the status quo. It is clear from these studies that a theory/
practice divide exists. ELF is often accepted in the abstract by teachers, but rejected
in the classroom. While the main and often-stated obstacle appears to be the lack of
materials and research available, it is also possible that it is related to teachers’ own
investments in achieving native English-speaker competence, as well as a fear of
replacing the status quo with something that appears to be a radical departure from
the norm. (p. 189)
Cook (1999, p. 196) pointed out before the turn of the century that learners may
well ‘want to be native speakers’, but such ‘attitudes are the product of the
many pressures on them to regard L2 users as failed natives’. Recent years have
witnessed an increasing body of studies reporting on the positive influence that
GELT instruction, language awareness and ELF experience has on attitudes.
Attitudes and the lack of support, discussed later, have also been identified as
a barrier in the field of translanguaging. Weber (2014), for example, notes that
there are ‘major pedagogical and attitudinal obstacles’ (p. 186) to implement-
ing a more flexible multilingual education. Meier (2017), in her thematic
decomposition analysis of Conteh and Meier (2014) and May (2014), both of
which contain the phrase ‘multilingual turn’ in their title, notes that both books
discuss the dominance of monolingual ideology and how there is a lack of
support for practitioners in schools. Meier (2017) points out that this is based on
misunderstandings (Ortega, 2014; Young, 2014), the widespread ideologically
informed monolingual norm (Canagarajah, 2014; Ortega, 2014) and ingrained
pedagogic and learning-theoretical traditions (García & Flores, 2014; Meier,
2014), as well as economic and political motivations (Leung, 2014; Norton,
2013), including the general acceptance of language hierarchies. There is the
argument that pedagogic traditions and beliefs are largely built on
a monolingual attitude, which is hard to shift (May, 2014a; Ortega, 2014;
Young, 2014). This includes the native speaker myth and the language separa-
tion myth.
Previous Innovations
We are not the first to advocate the centrality of context and much has been
written on the subject in the field of TESOL. Holliday (1994), for example,
stresses the need to understand the innovation situation and warns against
transferring methodologies from one context to another. GELT is not a new
‘methodology’ per se, nor is it a one-size-fits-all curriculum framework that can
be transplanted from one context to another, but it is important to learn from the
various studies that have been conducted on TESOL innovation, particularly
with regard to communicative language teaching. ‘The potential for such
a mismatch has long been recognized in the TESOL literature’ (Wedell, 2003,
pp. 441–2) and many scholars have been critical of exporting Western methods
and materials and the incompatibility of such methods and materials in contexts
around the globe.
Many language curriculum change projects remain to be influenced by what
Holliday (1994) calls the BANA (British, Australasian, North American)
thinking (Wedell, 2003, p. 443). It is, then, no surprise that such policies can
be an ill-fit for other contexts, and can even result in the expansion of BANA
educational systems to non-BANA contexts. English-only policies, for exam-
ple, perpetuate the monolingual orientation and require highly proficient tea-
chers who are capable of not only teaching the subject of English but also
teaching it through English. EMI policies similarly require human resources to
be able to deliver highly specialised content knowledge through English, and
the lack of a needs analysis for EMI provision has been criticised (Galloway
et al., 2017). When BANA educational ideologies are transplanted to other

contexts, this can also advantage L1 English speakers over L2 users in the
adopted contexts, who may not have the necessary training in the associated
methodologies. Western pedagogies are prioritised over local pedagogies,
which may be better suited to the local teaching environments. A teacher’s
ability to use English to teach through English is prioritised over subject
expertise and local knowledge.
Swan (2015) found CLT to be a major issue in some educational contexts,
referring to a ‘mismatch between what the student teachers have been taught,
and what they have to face in their teaching environments’ (p. 65). The students
took exams that did not necessitate CLT and classroom time was too limited to
develop communication skills, leading Swan to conclude that we should be
wary about asking teachers to embrace a new teaching approach and to
abandon ‘practices that are part of their own educational culture, which is
bound to be different to the Western cultural setting of CLT’ (p. 65). This is an
issue we are trying to avoid with our call for action research in Chapter 5.
The topic of practitioner education will be returned to later in the chapter, and
also more fully in Chapter 6, but it is important to note that GELT-related
innovation places emphasis on providing practitioners with the opportunity to
reflect on their own learning and teaching contexts when introducing GELT.
In Japan, Humphries and Burns (2015) looked at curriculum innovation in
a school context, concluding that teachers did not have enough time to guide the
students through the communicative activities or explain unfamiliar cultural
issues. In Hong Kong, Carless (2004, 2007) found that secondary school
English teachers experienced challenges implementing TBLT due to time,
large class sizes and the mismatch with the examination system. Carless’s
(2009) interview study with twelve secondary school teachers and ten teacher
educators in Hong Kong also found that secondary school teachers of English
preferred the Presentation–Practice–Production (PPP) model, seeing TBLT as
too complex. Deng and Carless’s (2009) study in primary schools in mainland
China, which included twelve observations and seventeen interviews, also
found that activities did not reflect principles of TBLT, due to contextual
factors, including examinations and teachers’ limited understanding of how
to implement TBLT.
It is also important to note that some studies have also been conducted with
L1 English-speaking TESOL practitioners. Andon and Eckerth (2009), for
example, examined the understandings of TBLT of four teachers of adult
English learners using interviews and observations. The study found that they
had a good sense of awareness of their own pedagogic practice and TBLT. Li
and Edwards (2013) looked at the impact of a UK-based professional devel-
opment programme on curriculum innovation and change in English-language
education in western China, a context where much has been written about the
traditional Confucian heritage culture, which values teacher-centeredness,

which may seem at odds with GELT, and which promotes learner and teacher
agency. They applied tenets of Roger’s ‘diffusion of innovation model’ to
examine aspects of the Chinese situation that are supportive of change and
those that constrain innovation. The authors note that, while traditional peda-
gogical practices predominate, there is evidence of openness to experiment and
a willingness to change. However, those returning to the Chinese context after
overseas-based professional training adapted new approaches to their own
context and did not adopt them uncritically, remaining attentive to their envir-
onmental constrictions, including the examination system, which has not kept
pace with curriculum development. This highlights the importance of the
notion of reinvention (Figure 4.1) for successful innovation in contexts with
poor levels of resourcing, large classes, limited teacher proficiency in English
and, in relation to GELT, an examination system that does not match.
Complexity
More complex innovations are clearly more problematic and, to increase the
chance of GELT being adopted, we have to be wary of bombarding practi-
tioners with new ideas and practices. Indeed, ELF researchers have always
been wary of prescribing what to teach. In 2004, Seidlhofer noted that this
would be ‘premature’ until ‘certain prerequisites have been met’ (Seidlhofer,
2004, p. 209) and Jenkins (2012) warns against providing ‘specific pedagogic
recommendations’, noting that:
ELF researchers have always been careful to point out that we do not believe it is our
place to tell teachers what to do, but that it is for ELT practitioners to decide whether/to
what extent ELF is relevant to their learners in their context. (p. 492)
Innovation is highly specific to institutional and contextual factors and their
specific needs. In Chapter 2, we highlighted the complex nature of GELT-
orientated testing. Despite arguments for change in language assessment prac-
tices, many international, standardised tests continue to focus on form for one
simple reason: it is far more difficult and far more expensive to test the
construct of strategic competence as opposed to the grammatical knowledge
of a language. Due to this fact, high-stake tests continue to focus on prescribed
English grammar, simply because they are easier to construct, cheaper to run
and more systematically graded. As McNamara (2012) notes, changes to
testing at this level would result in revolutionary consequences, which ‘are
likely to be as revolutionary as the advent of communicative language teaching
some forty years ago’ (p. 202). He notes, however, that such changes are
necessary. Rose and Syrbe (2018) add that, even though testing Global
Englishes constructs via a standardised test ‘may prove more difficult, more
expensive and more time-consuming, it should not detract from the importance
of testing English proficiency against the “real-life” future use of the lan-
guage’ (p. 11).
Standardised tests do more harm than merely not capturing the appropriate
constructs. Due to the power of the ‘washback effect’, poor fitting tests can
disrupt the entire curriculum. Washback effect refers to the negative or positive
impact that language testing can have on a curriculum, in terms of impacting on
choices made by learners and teachers regarding what to prioritise (McKinley
& Thompson, 2018). For example, if grammatical knowledge of standard
language forms is likely to form the basis of important tests for learners,
teachers may prioritise the teaching of such forms, even if, by doing so, they
compromise other curricular goals. Thus, ‘[n]egative washback occurs when
there may be a mismatch between the stated goals of instruction and the focus
of assessment; it may lead to the abandonment of instructional goals in favour
of test preparation’ (McKinley & Thompson, 2018, p. 1). Testing practices are
seen as a major barrier to curriculum innovation and form one of the six GELT
barriers outlined by Galloway and Rose (2015).
Washback is also highly challenging to combat, as innovation in testing is
difficult. Measuring test-takers on their intercultural strategic competence
and their ability to use ELF, and its associated strategies, such as accommo-
dation, in international situations may be daunting for those used to testing
students on ‘errors’ or deviations from the ‘standard’ norm. It may also be
time-consuming, labour intensive, costly and require an additional workload
for practitioners. However, the misalignment in the curriculum caused by the
focus on native norms in testing is something that urgently needs to be
addressed. More research is also needed in collaboration with large-scale
testing companies to address the negative washback effect on classroom
practice. McKinley and Thompson (2018) offer a positive outlook on the
future of testing by observing that, ‘although the impact of TEIL [teaching
English as an international language] in testing has yet to be seen, the impact
of TEIL on testing is coming’ (p. 11).
Trialability
While the GELT framework is presented within specific categories for change,
not all dimensions will be relevant for all contexts, and some will likely be
more important than others, depending on student needs and environmental
constraints. In Chapter 7, for example, the study invited participants to com-
ment on the proposals for change put forward by Galloway and Rose (2015), in
order to consider their relevance for their own context. Students were invited to
review the advantages and disadvantages, and the strengths and weaknesses,
while suggesting ideas for adaptations to their local teaching contexts. Simple
activities such as this allow early adopters to see GELT as being representative
of options for innovation, rather than it being presented as something fixed, or
in need of absolute compliance. Rogers (2003) points out that there is evidence
that ‘a higher degree of re-invention leads to a faster rate of adoption . . . [and]
a higher degree of sustainability of an innovation’ (p. 183), and, as we noted in
Chapter 2, we see the curriculum evaluation process as something ongoing;
once an innovation is in place, it is not a fixed entity. Rather, we wish to
encourage those who introduce it to shape it and inform it continually as they
integrate it into their context.
Thus, trialability is an important factor in the innovation process. Trialability
refers to the degree to which teachers or curriculum planners are able to
experiment with an innovation, in order to consider it for adoption (Rogers,
2003, p. 16). It is hoped that the increasing number of practitioners taking
Global Englishes-related courses will lead to a growing community of practice
interested in adopting this perspective into teaching practice. Robinson and
Latchem (2003) identify two conditions necessary for new teaching methods to
become established: they have to be ‘proven in practice’ and they should be
adopted by ‘a critical mass of teachers who, together, reinforce each other’s
beliefs, reduce the risks of innovation and eventually change the culture of
teaching’ (p. 239).
Observability
To ‘prove’ GELT, observability is an important factor, and, as noted above, the
growing body of research that ‘proves’ the effectiveness of this curriculum
perspective for learners today, or proves the relative advantage for the innova-
tion, is helpful. Communities of practice will grow with the increasing presence
of Global Englishes at TESOL conferences and with reported action research.
Institutional: Teachers (Qualifications, Skills, Experience,

Education and Support)
Teachers are key players in the innovation process, and we recognise the
importance of involving practitioners and giving them autonomy. As with
McKay’s (2003) notion of EIL, we draw on Canagarajah (1999), who argues
that:
If English teaching in Periphery communities is to be conducted in a socially responsible
and politically empowering manner, the authority for conceiving and implementing the
curriculum and pedagogy should be passed on to the local teachers themselves. (pp. 90–1)
As mentioned in Chapter 1, Canagarajah’s early work inspired Galloway’s

(2011) first iteration of the GELT framework, so it is comforting to see calls for
local teacher autonomy during innovation stretching back to this work.

However, we have to be mindful of the importance of complexity in curriculum
innovation, particularly since GELT requires new skills and understandings.
Teachers will need time to understand GELT, and will also need support and
training (Figures 4.1 and 4.2).
As noted above, Wedell (2003) criticised many of the twenty-first-century
nationally planned TESOL curriculum change projects, which continue to be
expressed in the same way as projects of the 1980s–90s, which assume that
practitioners in diverse contexts are able to make cultural and professional
adjustments to enable such changes. He adds that one of the reasons for the
limited success of such projects was planners’ failure to adequately consider
the support that classroom teachers would need, including the time needed to
make the required adjustments. It is imperative that any discussions on GELT
involve the key stakeholders, as only this will ensure successful and sustained
innovation. It is also important to highlight the need to give practitioners the
opportunity to gain understanding of the innovation before implementation.
We recognise the importance of teacher education with a study in Chapter 7,
where we examine relevant studies and present our own study of the attitudes of
pre- and in-service TESOL practitioners taking a GELT course within
a postgraduate TESOL course.
Referring to problems encountered incorporating CLT into the Japanese
school context in Japan, which again highlights the importance of exam-
ining previous innovation attempts, Humphries and Burns (2015) note
that, ‘if teachers gain understanding of an innovation, they can adapt it
to their context in a principled manner’ (p. 246). They also noted the
importance of the expectations and beliefs of the teachers implementing
the change, in addition to the training and ongoing support needed to
‘accompany the gradual transition to new practices’ (Humphries & Burns,
2015, p. 247).
Just as the global growth in EAP has led to a growing need for EAP-
orientated teacher education programmes (Basturkmen & Wette, 2016), the
growth in English as a lingua franca necessitates ‘a need for a new kind of
teacher training, one more attuned to the diverse linguistic reality of the 21st
century with less prescriptive and with more context specific goals’ (Nero,
2012, p. 151). Nero (2012) further claims that TESOL programmes should
require courses in such topics as Global Englishes for pre-service and in-
service teachers, in order to challenge their thoughts on standard English and
‘correct versus incorrect’ grammar. Many ELF researchers have discussed the
need to work with teachers and have explored the implications of ELF for
teacher education (e.g. Blair, 2015; Dewey, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2015, 2017;
Seidlhofer, 2011; Sifakis, 2014; Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2015, 2018). As noted by
Borg (2018), it is during teacher education that the teachers’ prior expectations
and professionally and personally held beliefs can be transformed, the effect of
which can last throughout teachers’ entire careers.
In the field of teacher education, research is varied on whether teacher
education influences beliefs (for an overview of studies in the field of foreign-
and second language teaching on teacher cognition and teacher education, see
Borg, 2003), teacher cognition and language education in general (Borg, 2006,
2009) and on the relationship between teacher beliefs and their actions (Borg,
2018). Busch (2010), for example, who conducted a mixed methods study of
the influence of an SLA course on the beliefs of 381 pre-service teachers
enrolled at a Californian university over three years, found significant changes
in beliefs from the course and also their experiences tutoring whilst studying.
In contrast, Tang, Lee and Chun (2012) found that pre-service teachers in
a TESOL programme did not always make pedagogical decisions based on
TESOL concepts and theories introduced in their programme, but in ways that
reflected their own experiences as students.
However, teacher education provides a direct opportunity to engage with
teachers and to challenge their ideas. Dewey (2012) notes that change must
come from working with teachers themselves and, along with Widdowson
(2012), he notes the need for teachers to reconceptualise the notion of language.
In Rose and Montakantiwong’s (2018) duoethnography of experiences of
teaching English as an international language in Japan and Thailand,
Montakantiwong explicitly mentions teacher education as being the catalyst
for change in her curriculum. Both authors describe teacher education as being
the ‘seed’ for curricula innovation. Headway in teacher education has been
made in this area, evident in such publications as Matusda (2017) that provide
an overview of teacher education programmes to teach English as an interna-
tional language. A number of postgraduate TESOL programmes now include
Global Englishes components (Galloway, 2017b) and the University of
Southampton now has an entire graduate programme on the topic.
Teacher education has also been discussed within the field of translangua-
ging and multilingualism. Meier (2017) notes that in both Conteh and Meier
(2014) and May (2014b) the topic is discussed. Both books argue for
a reconceptualisation of the teacher and propose the use of web-based and
research-informed teacher resources and critical reflection on student teachers’
own language ideologies, power, and status, in order that they can develop as
agents of change in their multilingual classrooms (Young, 2014). It is impor-
tant, however, that these courses do not merely include a superficial coverage of
the topic, but offer the opportunity to gain ‘a meta-understanding about EIL –
its forms and histories’ (Dogancay-Aktuna & Hardman, 2012, p. 103).
Practitioners require more than a surface-level understanding; they require
the opportunity to critically reflect on current practices and norms, in order to
evaluate the relevance of Global Englishes in their own teaching contexts.
The inclusion of GELT on practitioner education programmes is also impor-

tant, due to criticism of the shortcomings of ELF when it is related to pedagogy
and also the ambivalence present in many practitioners’ attitudes. Godó’s
(2014) study in Hungary, for example, found that teachers thought that ELF
was a variety to replace, or threaten, standard English. Blair (2015) also found
many tensions and uncertainties about such aspects as error correction and
participants referred to a lack of teacher training to deal with ‘new’ models.
There are many critics of the pedagogical implications of Global Englishes
research (Kuo, 2006; Maley, 2010; Sewell, 2013) and we propose a critical
approach to this topic on such courses. Courses should incorporate aspects of
reflective practice to challenge the hegemony of Western TESOL programmes,
encouraging student teachers to reflect and engage critically with key theories
introduced on other courses, as well as to reflect on their appropriateness to
their own teaching contexts. As outlined in the next chapter, we also propose
that such courses should foster opportunities for action research.
Resources and Materials

A further ‘barrier’ to GELT identified by Galloway and Rose (2015), and an
important factor when considering innovation complexity and compatibility, is
the availability of GELT resources and materials (Figures 4.1 and 4.2).
As Matsuda (2012, p. 169) notes, due to teachers’ lack of awareness of the
diversity of English, they often have to rely on current materials. However, the
majority of TESOL materials currently focus on native English (Galloway,
2018b). As Chapter 6 will show, while some textbooks claim to have a global
English focus, at times this is provided at a tokenistic level. GELT requires
more than merely a few token ‘non-native’ English speakers on the accompa-
nying audio.
A native English bias is also evident in TESOL practitioner materials
(Galloway, 2018a) and, while some recent texts do at least acknowledge
Global Englishes, it is unfortunate that they do not fully integrate the ideals
in the rest of their books. In A Course in English Language Teaching, for
example, Ur (2012) notes that, ‘Since English is today being used for all sorts of
purposes worldwide, it is important for our students to know that there is not
just one “English style”. There are, in fact, an enormous number of them’ (p. 2).
Closer examination of this text also reveals several things/factors/content
that fit well with GELT. The section on ‘English as an International Language’
makes reference to the fact that:
• non-native English speakers outnumber native English speakers
• English is not a ‘foreign’ language for the majority of learners
• English is a globally owned language
• such factors have implications for ELT
• global intelligibility, rather than a focus on native English, should be

prioritised
• importance of the non-native English speaker
• non-native English-speaking teachers are in the majority, and may have
better insights into the learning processes of their students and can function
as good role models.
However, there is no mention of ELF research and it is unfortunate that the
examples used in this book are not based on empirical research from ELF.
We are also unclear why it is ‘more useful to teach the spelling organize than
organise’ (Ur, 2012, p. 4). Further, while we agree that ‘non-native speakers’
can be good models, we would question whether the English spoken by them ‘is
also likely to be a better model of international English for their students than
any “native” variety’ (p. 5). As discussed in Chapter 1, GELT is not about
replacing one norm with another. Teachers should be valued according to their
professional qualifications, and their multilingual competence, rather than
whether they are L1 or L2 English users.
Nevertheless, such texts are promising, as is the increasing body of Global
Englishes texts that include practical suggestions and ideas (e. g. Alsagoff et al.,
2012; Bayyurt & Akcan, 2015; Cogo & Bowles, 2015; Galloway, 2017a;
Galloway & Rose, 2015; Matsuda, 2012). Matsuda (2012), for example,
includes chapters on syllabi (e.g. Bayyurt & Altınmakas, 2012; Lee, 2012;
Matsuda & Duran, 2012) and Matsuda and Duran (2012) include example
activities for teachers, albeit with a World Englishes focus. Matsuda (2012b)
focuses on evaluating teaching materials in relation to EIL, encouraging
practitioners to ask questions related to the variety of English speakers pre-
sented and the cultures represented.
Alsagoff et al. (2012) cover such topics as curriculum, assessment and
learning strategies from an EIL perspective. However, as discussed in
Chapter 2, despite the impressive inclusion of chapters on curriculum, assess-
ment and learner strategies, which aim to ‘guide critical and informed practice
and reflection in teaching, and, more importantly, to raise questions whose
answers can only be discovered by teachers and learners of EIL in each of their
unique contexts’ (Alsagoff, 2012, p. 5), it is overly theoretical and does not
offer teachers any practical suggestions for incorporating an EIL perspective
into their classroom. Nor does it explore the various barriers to implementing
change, or research projects directly investigating this topic (Galloway and
Rose, 2015).
In McKay’s (2002) Teaching English as an International Language:
Rethinking Goals and Approaches, teaching the language is discussed only in
the last chapter. Further, the first half is devoted to looking at CLT and only
a small section focuses on the methodology for teaching English as an inter-
national language. Nevertheless, we agree with many of the points made by the
author about the principles that should inform the pedagogy of an international
language, including:
• giving the local practitioners control over how English should be taught
• placing priority on a context-sensitive methodology, as opposed to
a Western-centric one
• entering learning on the needs of the students
• recognising that bilingual users of English may not necessarily want, or need,
native-like competence
• learners should be taught in a way that respects the local culture of learning
(p. 129).
Overall, the dominance of TESOL materials that orientate to native speaker
norms is problematic and we have to acknowledge that, until the creation of
more materials, many will have to create or adapt existing materials.
Of course, support mechanisms are also needed and institutions would
benefit from a collaborative atmosphere. Bayyurt and Sifakis (2017, p. 11)
warn that unassisted innovation requires a ‘substantial amount of autonomy
and maturity’, thus collaboration with other teachers (in groups, or under the
mentorship of more experienced teachers) can help in the development of EIL-
aware lessons. Recent studies have shown that collaborative reflective practice,
in particular, can aid teachers in ‘jointly constructing new meanings about their
practice’ (Burhan-Horasanlı & Ortaçtepe, 2016, p. 380). Thus, this brings us
back to the importance of the user system (Figures 4.1 and 4.2) influencing
change. School culture may prohibit and facilitate innovative practices.
Reporting on Innovation via Communication Channels

Our figures (Figures 4.1 and 4.2) outline the different people involved in
the innovation process, in terms of when they adopt the innovation, bor-
rowing from Roger’s (2003) terminology: the innovators; the early adop-
ters; the early majority; the late majority; and laggards. People will vary in
the innovation-decision period, and methods used for reporting practice by
these people may vary, which is discussed further in Chapter 5.
The innovators may be more likely to report ideas in conceptual pieces,
or via analysis of the relative advantage of the innovation. The early
adopters are more likely to report on implementation via experimental
methods, or action research. Once an innovation reaches a stage where
there is an early and late majority, more comparative work can be carried
out. Teachers are the glue to ensure an innovation sticks and, thus, GELT
treats them as important autonomous agents for change in the innovation
process. The role of teachers, therefore, is essential in communicating
innovations with each other.
Conclusion
This chapter has shown that in order to achieve macro-level change in TESOL,
it is important to recognise that the implementation of curriculum innovation is
complex in itself and even more so with regard to GELT. The process has to be
planned properly and planners have to take into account various factors that
may influence successful implementation. Careful consideration of the various
factors outlined in this chapter will enhance the potential for successful and
sustained long-term innovation. It is also crucial not to alienate experienced
teachers by telling them that their current teaching practices are irrelevant and
out of date. By giving adequate consideration to these factors, and also the
context within which they are working, we aim to reduce the possibility of
practitioners being resistant to change.
GELT aims for a bottom-up approach to curricular innovation that values
both teacher and learner agency in the curriculum innovation process.
However, we do not wish to be idealistic and recognise that change will require
time and support. It is further important that calls for change are grounded in
classroom-based research, and are not merely based on theoretical arguments.
In order to bridge a theory–practice divide, we call for more research carried
out by practitioners, so that on-the-ground innovative practices can feed back to
our knowledge of how Global Englishes is best integrated into various curri-
culums and contexts.
Part I Conclusion
This concludes Part I of this book, which has laid a foundation for Global
Englishes for language teaching, including an overview of its theoretical
foundations, pedagogical implications and pathways to innovation. Chapter 1
collated relevant literature in applied linguistics in order to show that calls for
change in TESOL practices are emerging from a variety of interrelated fields.
These calls have emerged from the rapidly changing sociopolitical landscape of
English use around the world. We have shown how World Englishes scholars
have lobbied for more inclusivity of global varieties of English for decades
(e.g. Kachru, 1990). We have shown how ELF scholars (e.g. Seidlhofer, 2001)
seek to challenge native speaker hegemony in TESOL in order to prepare
learners to use the language in fluid lingua franca settings that are not be
bound by native speaker norms. We have shown how critical applied linguists
(e.g. Canagarajah, 2007, 2016; Pennycook, 2010) challenge the very founda-
tions of our views of the English language, and how it is used in today’s global
society but a global community. Translanguaging research has challenged the
linguistic boundaries between languages and their use in multilingual contexts.
We have further shown in Chapter 3 how SLA researchers (e.g. May, 2014c)
are challenging the prevailing monolingual orientation to SLA theory by call-

ing for a multilingual turn, which has clear implications for TESOL (e.g.
Canagarajah, 2014; Leung, 2014; Norton, 2014).
It is clear that English has a complicated relationship with globalisation and
has emerged as the world’s foremost lingua franca. Further, it is clear that so-
called second and foreign-language users of English have outnumbered L1
users of English for some time – a position likely to strengthen in the future as
L2 users of the language continue to grow in numbers.
By taking a curriculum perspective, as outlined in Chapter 2, we have teased
apart the various facets of English language teaching practice that are in need of
innovation. This perspective has shown that as the needs of our learners have
changed, so too must the other elements in order that the curriculum is properly
aligned. In order to match learners’ needs to use English as a global language,
we may need to reconsider our curriculum objectives, syllabus design, assess-
ment and evaluation practices, and possibly even our teaching methods.
However, students in global contexts have vastly different needs depending
on their future use of the language; thus, innovation is complex and likely to be
highly context-dependent. In order to achieve macro-level change in TESOL, it
is important to recognise that the implementation of curriculum innovation is
complex in itself and even more so with regard to GELT.
Chapter 4 furthers the discussion of curriculum innovation, exploring the
multiple facets of the process, as well as the potential barriers that can cause
institutions to reject innovation. Central to this process is for innovators and
early adopters to report on their innovations so that this knowledge can feed
back into the innovation cycle. Thus, in order to stimulate widespread GELT
innovation, we call for more research carried out by practitioners or researchers
who work very closely with practitioners. This leads us to the second part of the
book, which outlines research directions in GELT, and is accompanied by three
example empirical studies.
5 Research Implications for GELT
Part II of this book takes a departure from the theories underpinning, and issues
surrounding, a Global Englishes approach for language teaching. Part II turns to
Global Englishes-informed pedagogic research by showing how the GELT
framework can be applied to empirical studies. The previous chapter outlined
a number of barriers to implementing Global Englishes into language teaching,
many of which stem from a need to investigate: the relative advantage of a GELT
pedagogy; the processes of incorporating pedagogical innovation into diverse
educational contexts; and the successes and failures of GELT innovation.
In order to gather evidence of what good GELT pedagogy should look like,
there is an urgent need for research on Global Englishes in practice, so we are
able to learn from early adopters. In short, there is a need for practice-based
research, in order to better understand what GELT looks like in practice. This can
complement the growing amount of theory-led research, which builds on our
conceptual understandings of the various facets of GELT, and lays the foundation
for understanding its relative advantage over current teaching approaches.
The researcher–practitioner is in the ideal position to conduct future research.
Therefore, this chapter examines pathways forward for researchers and
researcher–practitioners to examine the applications of Global Englishes
within language learning contexts. It first examines calls for research, which
have emerged from the literature explored in the first part of this book. It then
examines the necessary research methodologies for addressing these gaps.
Finally, the chapter outlines previous and current research projects occurring
within GELT, in order to illustrate the types of research that are driving the field
forward. This chapter also acts as a segue to the next three chapters in Part II,
which provide examples of original research on Global Englishes in classroom
materials (Chapter 6), teacher education programmes (Chapter 7) and English-
medium classrooms (Chapter 8).
Calls for Further Research

It is impossible to compile a complete list of all calls for research in the
expansive field of Global Englishes, as the umbrella term covers topics as
109
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Librarian-Seeley Historical Library, on 01 Feb 2019 at 10:22:31, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316678343.006
110 Researching Global Englishes for Language Teaching
diverse as linguistics (exploring morphosyntactic and phonological diversity in

English), sociolinguistics (exploring a language in use, including societal
beliefs about English), second language acquisition (exploring a language
that is acquired and learned in increasingly diverse contexts and for increas-
ingly diverse purposes) and TESOL (exploring pedagogical implications of the
spread of English). Nevertheless, when confined to implications for language
teaching, there are a few topics that emerge as key areas of research interest.
While not exhaustive in coverage, we posit six areas in need of urgent review.
Classroom-Based Research on Implementing GELT Innovations

The first call for research involves a need for classroom-based research into the
implementation of GELT innovations into language curricula. While some
work has been done (see Galloway, 2011, 2013, 2017a; Galloway & Rose,
2014, 2018; Rose & Galloway, 2017; Shim, 2002; Sung, 2014c, 2018), more is
needed. In one of the three studies reported by Shim (2002), twenty-seven
students in the researcher’s own class were exposed to World Englishes
through TV (a programme called Crossroads Café). Effects were somewhat
unpronounced with twenty-three wanting an internationally accepted teaching
model (although this is not fully explained in the article, nor are benchmarks of
attitudes before the exposure was properly reported in order to understand
change). However, all twenty-seven participants felt a need to understand non-
native English speakers, and all twenty-seven stated they would be willing to
participate in an ELT programme that introduced non-native English speakers.
Further work is needed on the exposure of varieties of English in the classroom,
including more stringent measures of attitudes and measures of change before
and after exposure.
In Galloway’s studies (2011, 2013, 2017a), she reports on the creation and
implementation of a specialised Global Englishes course at a Japanese uni-
versity. The course included a number of activities surrounding Global
Englishes topics, including ELF, variation in English and standard language
ideology. In addition to questionnaires and interviews, she used focus groups
with students, and pre- and post-course questionnaires to examine changes in
attitudes to the issues surrounding the spread of English as a global language.
She used a comparison group of students studying a module on tourism, which
revealed a significant broadening of the Global Englishes students’ views
towards English, including raised confidence in students’ self-identity as
English users.
In Galloway and Rose (2014) listening journals were used with 108 students
in Galloway’s own English classes at a Japanese university. The journals were
attached to an activity that exposed learners to samples of self-selected varieties
of English or samples of ELF interactions, by having them reflect on their
Research Implications for GELT 111
reasons for choosing the sample, and their reactions to it. We found that, while
the listening journals raised awareness of variation in English, the superficial
nature of the task also reinforced stereotypes in some students and saw them see
some non-standard varieties as ‘strange’ compared to the models they had
received in class. While this activity was more prolonged and student-centred
than the one used in Shim (2002), and collected a richer set of attitudinal data,
it, nevertheless, suffers from a lack of a stringent measure of attitudinal change;
hence, the long-term effects of the type of superficial exposure remain
unknown.
In response to our first article on listening journals, Sung (2014c) called for
more research on how to incorporate Global Englishes into ELT, which he
responded to in his own pilot study involving the incorporation of a range of
Global Englishes-orientated activities into a course in Hong Kong, in which
twenty-five students from different disciplines had enrolled. Tasks included
a discussion on standard language ideology, a listening task that involves
listening to Chinese accents of English, an accent identification task involving
different accents of English from Kirkpatrick’s World Englishes (2007);
a comprehension task on understanding global English, and a group discussion
on ELF communication. We responded to Sung’s call in agreement ‘that such
work is needed to help practitioners raise learners’ awareness of the diversity of
English and prepare them to use English in lingua franca contexts’ (Galloway
& Rose, 2018, p. 1).
Answering Sung’s (2014c) call, we further reported on data from the same
teaching context as our 2014 study in two separate studies (Galloway and Rose,
2018; Rose & Galloway, 2017). In the first study, we used a presentation task to
have students select a single English-using community and research the
Englishes used within the community to better understand the sociolinguistic
forces that shaped them (Galloway & Rose, 2018). This task saw students
engage with the English variation at a deeper level, and to present their findings
and reflections to their peers, further creating an opportunity to discuss
a diverse range of Englishes. This task yielded more positive results than our
2014 study, with many students reporting positive viewpoints on non-standard
Englishes in their reflection papers. The study also reported that the task had an
added benefit of eliciting some interesting post-presentation discussions on
language norms. In Rose and Galloway (2017) we reported on a classroom
activity, where students in the same context engaged in a debate over standard
language, using the Singaporean Speak Good English Movement as a case
study (for academic debates surrounding this movement, see Bokhorst-Heng,
2005; Lim et al., 2010; Rubdy, 2001). Other work has recently emerged from
Sung (2018), where he reports on an out-of-class activity requiring Hong Kong
learners to engage in ELF communication. Sung analysed students written
reflection, which was similar to the methodology of our 2018 study on
presentations, in order to elicit students’ unprompted reactions to the experi-

ence. The author concludes that the activity raised student awareness and
critical consciousness of the use of English as a global language.
Despite consistent calls for pedagogically situated research, little has
been done beyond the studies described above. Apart from Galloway’s
longitudinal study (2011, 2013, 2017a) and Marlina’s (2018) study of an
EIL programme at a university in Australia, research has been confined to
a single classroom context or a single activity, rather than examining the
implications of wide-sweeping innovations throughout a language
curriculum.
There is also a notable lack of pedagogy-focused research emerging from the
ELF paradigm, where there are continued calls for more ELF-aware language
teaching, accompanied by an imbalance of pedagogical research. Except for
a handful of classroom-based ELF studies (e.g. Baker, 2009, 2012b; Sung
2017; Vettorel, 2013), we have a paucity of research into what ELF innovation
in classrooms looks like. A recent example is the Routledge Handbook of
English as a Lingua Franca. While there is one chapter in the handbook
dedicated to the topic of teaching, even this focuses on teacher education rather
than actual classroom practices. Thus, we call for more ELF classroom-based
work in the vein of Baker’s and Vettorel’s, more EIL research in the vein of
Marlina’s (2018) and more Global Englishes work in the vein of Galloway (e.g.
2017a), in order to better understand on-the-ground challenges of GELT
innovation. The previous chapter highlighted the necessity for early adopters
of an innovation to report on their practices, in order for the innovation to be
adopted more widely. This classroom-based research is essential for the inno-
vation process.
ELT Teaching Materials Research

A lack of materials has been noted by numerous researchers in the past as
a major barrier to implementing change in language teaching classrooms
(see previous chapter for discussion). ELT materials play a crucial role in
not only dictating teaching input, but also in structuring a syllabus, and
even suggesting appropriate teaching approaches. Thus, they are a core
part of a language programme and the learning and teaching process
(McDonough et al., 2013).
As ELT materials remain undoubtedly orientated around Inner Circle norms
(Galloway 2017a, 2018a; Jenkins, 2012), research is needed to understand how
Global Englishes can be integrated into them. Research work has begun to
investigate the linguistic, sociolinguistic and cultural norms that current mate-
rials communicate to learners, in order to highlight what needs to be changed
(Galloway, 2018a; Vettorel, 2018). Research into what materials are used, and
what they communicate about norms, is needed to ensure that twenty-first-

century ELT is effective in preparing learners to use English in global contexts
(Galloway, 2018a). While some research has been conducted in terms of
investigating the linguistic and cultural diversity presented in textbooks
(Chan, 2014; Syrbe, 2017; Syrbe & Rose, 2018; Tajeddin & Teimournezhad,
2015), there is a dearth of published studies of materials research (see
Chapter 6, this volume, for an overview). Considering the vital role that ELT
materials play, we simply need more research into materials evaluation and
analysis on how key GELT constructs (the target interlocutors, role models,
norms, cultures, ELF strategies) are construed in textbooks.
The next step after this would be to begin to investigate what Global
Englishes materials look like, and their effects on learners and the learning
process. Currently, many GELT materials are ‘home-grown’ in-house materials
used additively to the curriculum, and are not made widely available in the
public domain. An exception is the materials in the appendix of Galloway
(2017a) and on the companion website of Galloway and Rose (2015), although
the latter are not aimed specifically at the language learner, and are not part of
a uniform curriculum.
Leading on from the creation of new materials is the need for reporting on
their development and implementation. While some frameworks have been
proposed (e.g. Galloway, 2018a), but more work is needed to trial them with
a range of materials. Many authorities in materials development have noted
a need for materials to better reflect Global Englishes constructs. Materials
and Methods in ELT: A Teacher’s Guide (McDonough et al., 2013, p. 48)
explicitly comments on the global spread of English, pointing out that World
Englishes and English as a lingua franca see a need for teachers ‘to be able to
evaluate, and adapt and develop, their own approaches in the form of prin-
cipled materials based on their own judgement and experience’. Similarly,
Teaching Materials and the Roles of EFL/ESL Teachers: Practice and Theory
(McGrath, 2013) states it is difficult to justify the use of textbooks that
orientate learners towards specific native speakers and Inner Circle cultures,
when used in contexts where learners will use English predominantly outside
such contexts and with other L2 speakers. The book also states that it is
unclear how to translate calls for exposure to a diverse range of models into
materials development, but encourages publishers to ‘dare to be different?’
(p. 198). Chapter 6 evaluates some textbooks that claim to be different, and
we compare these alongside some examples of general English textbooks and
business English textbooks to evaluate whether there is substance in these
claims. While Chapter 6 presents GELT-informed materials research, its main
aim is to provide a model for further research into both commercial and novel
teaching materials.
An Examination of the English in English Medium Instruction

A third area of much needed research is the role of teaching English language in
emerging contexts where it is being used as an academic lingua franca.
English as a medium instruction is in a state of boom, as evidenced from the
oft-cited statistics on the growing number of English-taught programmes in
Europe that show a 1,115% increase in English-taught programmes in Europe
from 2001 to 2014 (Wächter & Maiworm, 2014), with particularly pronounced
growth at the taught Masters level (Brenn-White & Faethe, 2013). While much
research attention on EMI has focused on Europe, the EMI boom is also
occurring across the globe, with noted growth throughout East Asia and South-
East Asia: ‘Now, English as a “medium” of instruction (EMI) (as opposed to
English as an “object” of instruction) is becoming a new “normal”, and a key
site for this change is higher education, and nowhere more so than in the Asia-
Pacific’ (Walkinshaw et al., 2017, p. 2). Such trends raise questions about
norms in EMI and the need to reconceptualise the ‘E’ in EMI (Galloway
et al., 2017).
Links to English as a lingua franca are clearly relevant in a context where
English has become a lingua franca in an academic setting; however much ELF
work has centred on an analysis of a language in use in academic settings (e.g.
ELFA corpus), rather than as a language being learned. This may be due to the
fact that much ELF research has occurred in Europe, where English-language
proficiency tends to be much higher, and the switch to English as a medium
instruction has occurred independent of trends in English language teaching.
In many Northern and Western European contexts, EMI has occurred as a result
of internationalising higher education in response to catering for a mobile
student population in need of a lingua franca of education. As most academic
sources are in English – more than 90% according to some sources
(Montgomery, 2013) – English seemed to be the logical choice. In other
Expanding Circle contexts, English proficiency tends to be lower, so move-
ments towards EMI are not independent of English-language learning aims.
For example, while Swedish students may not feel that learning in English
affects their ability to understand content matter (Airey, 2011), less than a third
of Korean students studying through EMI feel that they can understand 80% of
the subject matter (Kim, 2017). Thus, EMI puts demands on students,
particularly if Inner Circle standards are enforced.
In EMI contexts emerging in the Middle East and East Asia, English
language teaching still clearly needs to play a central role to models of EMI
(see Chapter 8, this volume). Thus, language teaching in these contexts war-
rants a lot more attention, in terms of how ELT meets its goal of facilitating
learners to use English as an academic lingua franca for the purposes of subject-
specific study. EMI students are, by definition, those who are most likely to go
on to use English in global contexts, being the business leaders, engineers,

medical personal and scientists of a global marketplace, and, thus, GELT seems
intensely relevant.
Currently, EMI is under-researched, and there have been recent calls for an
examination of the challenges faced by students in EMI contexts (see Macaro
et al., 2018). A GELT perspective can add to this research agenda by calling for
more research on the ‘E’ in ‘English medium instruction’ – that is:
1. What English is used in EMI? (An opportunity to explore language variation
in EMI.)
2. How is English being used alongside other local languages? (An opportu-
nity to explore fluidity and translanguaging in EMI.)
3. How can English-language curriculum better prepare students to use
English as an academic lingua franca? (An opportunity to explore the
nexus of TESOL and EMI.)
These are ambitious questions that cannot be answered by a single study, but
create an opportunity for context-specific case studies, in order to fully com-
prehend the impact of EMI on language development through a Global
Englishes lens. As Galloway (2017a) notes:
With the global spread of English medium instruction (EMI) in Higher Education
institutes in non-Anglophone contexts and the lowering of the age for English instruc-
tion in many contexts, there is an ever-increasing demand for ELT practitioners . . .
The mismatch between the languages taught in the classroom and the increasing
evidence of how it functions in real life calls for an urgent need for a critical examination
of ELT. The monolingual approach does not permit the use of ELF strategies or
translanguaging and anything that deviates from the ‘standard’ is seen as a sign of
a lack of proficiency. (p. xiv)
Chapter 8 introduces some research in this vein and presents data on attitudes
towards deviations from language norms within several EMI programmes in
Chinese and Japanese universities.
Learner and Teacher Attitudes Towards Global Englishes

Attitudes are an area that has been explored quite thoroughly through a World
Englishes lens, but there is a need to re-examine attitudes via new ideas that
have emerged in the multilingual turn. Traditionally, studies that explore
attitudes towards variation and diversity in English have opted for indirect or
direct measures. Examples of indirect measures have included widely used
verbal guise and matched guise techniques. These measures involve partici-
pants listening to samples of speech in different language dialects. While the
former technique uses the same speaker, who adopts different accents (or
guises) to minimise confounding variables, the latter uses different speakers
to increase authenticity (for further discussion of these techniques, see

Galloway & Rose, 2015). An example of a direct measure is perceptual
dialectology, which involves rating languages without having any exposure
to them and, thus, examining ‘people’s (more conscious) beliefs about lan-
guage use’ (Jenkins, 2007, p. 75). The technique sometimes makes use of
detailed maps for participants to mark out speech zones and record their
perceptions of accents within each zone. This technique was also used in
Galloway’s (2011, 2013, 2017a) studies.
Global Englishes sees measures that encourage hard boundaries around
‘varieties’ as problematic for researching attitudes in the twenty-first century,
where populations are mobile, and geographic boundaries no longer accurately
dictate the way English is used within and across historical speech commu-
nities. These ideas are also incompatible with research in the multilingual turn,
which calls for a reconceptualisation of the relationship between languages and
language varieties. We have previously argued that the field needs to move
beyond geographic descriptions of language, which constrain much World
Englishes research (Galloway and Rose, 2015), echoing the opinions of other
Global Englishes scholars (e.g. Pennycook, 2010).
How, then, do we better examine attitudes towards diversity in English, as
well as answering the more important question of where attitudes come from?
A Global Englishes research highlights a need to investigate how attitudes are
formed, as this is essential to understand how innovations in the curriculum can
change them. Galloway’s (2011, 2013, 2017a) study was seminal in using in-
depth qualitative techniques to more fully understand learners’ attitudes in
Japan. She was one of the first researchers to apply focus groups to explore
attitudes to English as social constructed, rather than individual manifested.
Focus groups allowed the participants to discuss attitudes within their peer
groups, which more accurately reflects how attitudes are formed and solidified.
Attitudes do not emerge in a vacuum but are created in social circles, of which
peers are an important part. Galloway’s study also applied a quasi-experimental
design as a means to examine how attitudes can, if at all, be influenced by the
English-language curriculum. Thus, this study not only examined what atti-
tudes were, but how they are formed, and how they can be changed. Future
GELT research needs to explore this more complex view of learner attitudes.
In order to fill the gap created by the departure from matched and verbal guise
techniques, new instruments to measure attitudes need to be developed. These
instruments should transcend static depictions of varieties, and tap into speak-
ers’ underlying openness for variation in general.
If engaged in GELT-like practices, such as those reported in Galloway (2011,
2013, 2017a), quantitative attitude measures could be used in a pretest/post-test
design to examine the effects of GELT on learner attitudes. Such measures
could also be used to compare the orientations of learners in different contexts
to examine whether proficiency, context or teaching and learning experiences

have an effect on learner attitudes. However, in order to fully understand
attitudes, questionnaire measures should not be used in isolation. In-depth
qualitative measures, such as focus groups, learner diaries and written reflec-
tion, are much more powerful in providing a more nuanced understanding of
the complexities of attitudes. Instruments will be discussed later in this chapter.
Students’ Specific Needs in a Global World

Building on from Chapter 2, we also see a need to explore the needs of students
learning English for use in global contexts. When conducting needs analysis, it is
important to consider who to involve, the purpose of the needs analysis and how
to carry it out. Those involved may include the target group, the audience, the
needs analysts and the resource group (Brown, 1995). The target group for GELT
may not be all learners. GELT, as a type of ESP, is intended for the specific
purposes of use in global domains, where linguistic speech communities meet,
and linguistic boundaries blur. Needs analysis is essential, informed by the type
of rich research from which other realms of ESP have benefited.
An ideal needs analysis team for GELT should include all stakeholders
involved: Global Englishes researchers have an important voice, yet it is
practitioners who are working in the classroom, the learners whom they teach
and the graduates who enter global communities who are in the best position to
understand these needs. A lot of approaches to needs analysis stem from
Munby’s (1978) needs analysis model; however, current approaches are largely
flexible in design, seeking knowledge of needs from all available sources.
Richterich and Chancerel’s (1977) approach was also influential in identifying
the gap between what students can currently do and what they need to know.
Much ESP needs analysis centres on identifying the gaps between current
abilities and students’ needs and wants, thus moving away from just studying
the situation and producing long lists of language items.
While traditionally surveys and studies of corpora to identify domain-
specific vocabulary have been used, other approaches include interviews and
observations. Swales (1985b, p. 219) advocated early on for an ethnographic
approach in ESP, for example, by going into target communities in order to
identify the language used. This tradition has continued to the present day with
scholars like Starfield (2016) calling for a richer exploration using multiple
methods:
These draw on insider understandings and triangulate multiple perspectives through
observation, in-depth interviewing and other forms of data collection (see, for example,
Bosher and Smalkoski, 2002), although, as Cowling (2007) points out, real-world
constraints, such as limited time, often complicate the carrying out of more in-depth
observation. (p. 154)
Starfield (2016) argues that researchers should be encouraged to collect data in

the workplaces into which their students are likely to go after graduation, and to
use multiple methods to collect data on the language the students will likely
need. As an example, she highlights Handford and Matous’s (2011) study at
a Hong Kong construction site, which combined a corpus-style analysis of
spoken discourse used at the site with ethnographic observation. She also
illustrates her point with Gimenez’s (2014) study of the multi-communication
practices in four multinational corporations, via a number of ethnographically
orientated methods.
Curriculum designers who want to incorporate GELT into their syllabus,
then, need to venture out in the social realms where their students are likely to
use English to more deeply understand how they will use English in the future.
Here, a lot of groundwork has been carried out by ELF researchers, who have,
by and large, focused on exploring how English is being used as a lingua franca
in a range of settings. Business English as a lingua franca is a good example,
which has been accompanied by recent research (e.g. Kankaanranta &
Louhiala-Salminen, 2007, 2010; Kankaanranta & Planken, 2010; Louhiala-
Salminen et al., 2005). Such research has focused on the use of English in
a range of business settings, so their work may be highly relevant to needs
analysts of business-focused ESP courses. However, one caveat is that much
ELF corpus-based work shows ELF to be highly variable, making it difficult to
apply to the pedagogical purposes of needs analysis. Thus, it is questionable
how much of ELF research findings can be used to directly inform classroom
practice, where needs of students differ from context to context. For example,
ELF research based on European speakers in a multinational corporation in
Europe may prove to be of little relevance to learners who aim to use English in
multinational corporations in China. Thus, specific examination of needs is
essential, as a one-size-fits-all model is likely to be an ill-fit for most.
Global Englishes in Teacher Education

A further area of needed research is in the realm of teacher education, discussed
further in Chapter 7. As the previous chapter has illustrated, teacher education
is described as being both a barrier, due to a professional resistance to change,
and a catalyst for innovation when those in charge embrace Global Englishes
ideology. While there are positive movements in the field, such as those
reported in Matsuda (2017), many scholars lobby for more change (e.g. Nero,
2012), while others argue that change must come from teachers themselves, in
joint consultation with new ideas for innovation (e.g. Dewey, 2012).
While the pace and amount of change needed in teacher training is somewhat
context-dependent, it is important for teacher educators to have a clear under-
standing of what GELT-informed teacher education could look like. The 2017
edited book by Matsuda (2017) offers considerable headway into teacher

education, with its collection of narratives from researchers working around
the world, who report on their own incorporation of EIL ideology into in-
service and pre-service teacher training programmes. There is a clear worth in
reporting on innovations vis-à-vis the thick descriptions of programmes in
Mora & Golovátina-Mora (2017), Galloway (2017b), Selvi (2017), Rose
(2017) and Vettorel and Lopriore (2017). These descriptions help to commu-
nicate to other teacher educators the state of the art practices occurring globally,
as teacher education programmes, courses and units turn to more Global
Englishes content.
However, while books such as Matsuda’s help to disseminate teacher
education practices, it is also important that research monitors the impact of
such change on teacher beliefs, teacher attitudes and teacher practices.
Even if global perspectives are integrated into existing programmes, this
does not mean these ideas will be adopted by teachers or will manifest as
change in the classroom. Thus, the field also needs research into the
implications of these programmes on the teachers themselves and on their
pedagogies. Hino (2017) conducted some work in this vein, observing the
teaching practices of two alumni of his EIL course, and conducting inter-
views with them. This small amount of data collection revealed that ‘the
graduate class helped them, among other things, to be aware of the legiti-
macy of showing the teachers’ own non-native English to the students as
one possible model’ (p. 95), and gave the teachers confidence as so-called
non-native teachers of the language.
Hino’s observation was not part of a structured study and, therefore, only
serves as anecdotal evidence that teacher education of Global Englishes can
affect actual change. One area of further research would be to examine in
what ways Global Englishes content in teacher education programmes
result in a change in teacher cognition (i.e. the attitudes or beliefs of
teachers, which underpin and inform their pedagogical practices).
A second area of research could further investigate whether Global
Englishes content in teacher training programmes leads to real innovation
at the classroom level, such as the incorporation of Global Englishes
constructs into taught syllabi.
A potential study, therefore, could measure the attitudes towards (and aware-
ness of) Global Englishes before and after the teacher education course.
If a change in attitudes is evident, the course could be said to influence teacher
cognition. An extension of this study could include an investigation of whether
this change in teacher cognition manifests into future classroom practices.
Chapter 7 aims to investigate the first part of this research gap in an investiga-
tion of a Global Englishes course in a TESOL master’s programme at the
University of Edinburgh.
Identity
There is a further need for research at the nexus of the English-language
curriculum and global migration, particularly looking at issues connected to
identity and transculturalism. As Guo & Maitra (2017) note:
A transnational and transcultural framework would align curricula with the shifting
ideas of culture, language and identity. By going beyond the “border-centered”
conceptualization of culture, language and identity, such a framework would move
the curriculum from a “mere celebration of differences” toward an understanding
of how, within transnational and transcultural social spaces and, despite their
mobile identities, migrants remain implicated within unequal power relations of
gender, race, ethnicity, class and occupy a range of dominating and dominated
positions. (p. 88)
They further argue that curriculum innovation ‘will nurture students toward
becoming well-informed, engaged, cosmopolitan citizens dedicated to the
cause of building a just and equitable world order’ (Guo & Maitra, 2017,
p. 88). GELT also aims to create a democratic space for learners to reflect on
dominant discourses and stereotyping and injustice.
Further, Rizvi and Beech (2017) also note that, today, ‘students (and tea-
chers) are involved in everyday experiences of cosmopolitan encounters and
that these can, and should, be used as a starting point for the development of
a cosmopolitan curriculum aimed at steering the cosmopolitan outlook of
students towards morally open but productive directions’ (p. 125).
The authors observe that global mobility has changed people’s sense of local
communities and identities, because
they bring diverse cultural traditions and practices into contact with each other as never
before, both within and across national borders. Such contact of course creates a range
of new challenges for living together, giving rise to a new politics of difference that is
often globally stretched. (p. 125)
Such ideas very much resonate with Global Englishes, which also explores the
implications on the language of a mobile global community. Transnationalism,
however, makes an important point, in that language is so inexplicably inter-
twined with identity and cultural politics that these topics are in need of
research, in terms of their positioning within the curriculum and in curricular
research. Thus, future research could explore the implications of topics such as
transnationalism and cosmopolitanism within a GELT curriculum, as these
fields also problematise the traditional nation-centric notions of identity and
citizenship (Thiel & Friedman, 2016).
Native Speakerism
Finally, there is a need for different research within the study of native speak-
erism within English language teaching – which is already a thriving area of
research in itself. However, future research in this area needs to stop comparing
two groups based on the ‘native’ dichotomy of ‘native’ versus ‘non-native’
speakers. As Holliday (2015) notes:
The terms have become commonplace in the field and we use them without thinking and
all the research that is done on comparing the two types of teachers just reinforces the
terms and suggests that there is a difference. There is nothing to prove; nobody would
think of doing research about the value of the ‘native speaker’. (p. 18)
Future research needs to take a postmodern view in exploring ideological and
discoursal underpinnings of native speakerism and the terms associated with it,
rather than taking a differences perspective (Holliday, 2015).
A Framework for GELT Research

The second part of this chapter explores the frameworks necessary to research
Global Englishes for Language Teaching. While we have already posited
GELT as a framework for teaching in this book, as well as a framework for
innovation in our previously published research (Galloway, 2011, 2013, 2017a;
Galloway & Rose, 2013, 2014,2015, 2018; Syrbe & Rose, 2018), we need
some discussion on how constructs can be operationalised for the purposes of
data collection and analysis.
Operationalising GELT as a Quantitative Research Measure

If ‘GELT’ and ‘traditional ELT’ are positioned as labels at either end of
a continuum, the various constructs of the GELT framework can be operatio-
nalised so that they can produce data for quantitative analysis. Syrbe (2017) has
done some groundwork in this regard, with her analysis of ELT textbooks,
which she analysed via the GELT framework. An important conclusion Syrbe
(2017) drew from her analysis is that evaluations made through the GELT
framework should be done so on a continuum, rather than in distinct dichot-
omous categories, and this is in keeping with our suggestion. Syrbe (2017)
argues that ‘a move away from this dichotomy and towards an approach that
conceptualises the relationship between the two approaches along several
scales seems more appropriate’. She offers a framework in order to measure
five facets of textbooks on a five-point scale. She further recommends that
measurements be conducted on a five-point scale, with descriptions of items at
each point (see Figure 5.1 for a sample item). This framework should be
Figure 5.1 A GELT construct operationalised on an ordinal scale

(Syrbe, 2017).
commended on a conceptual level but falls short in terms of being a truly usable
framework for quantitative analysis.
While this results in an easy-to-use framework for teachers, it is more
problematic as a framework for researchers. The recommended scale is on an
ordinal scale, rather than a nominal scale, which would exclude opportunities to
analyse continuous data via parametric tests, should one wish to use the frame-
work in such a way. Additionally, the scale labels are somewhat arbitrary, and
one might argue that point three on the scale is not in an ordinal position to point
four on the scale, and, thus, produces categorical data. Nevertheless, the point
Syrbe (2017) makes remains important: the labels used within GELT should not
be seen as dichotomous, but as a means to measure movement away from
traditional models of ELT towards global-orientated models.
Although not explicit in our 2015 description of GELT, we have always
conceptualised the framework labels as being at either end of a continuum, with
descriptions of traditional ELT at one end and GELT at the other. We never
intended the GELT framework to be perceived as a ‘one-or-the-other’ descrip-
tion of language teaching (while this was always our intention, it may not have
been communicated effectively in our arrangement of the paradigm into a two-
columned table). Figure 5.2 reimagines the cultural dimension of GELT on
such a scale. Even from a pedagogical point of view, rarely would practices fall
neatly within either description in a black-and-white manner. That is, many
practices could loosely be placed within a ‘grey’ area. Practices embodying
a traditional approach might still prepare students to use English as a global
language in a small way. Similarly, some of the practices that embody a global
Figure 5.2 A GELT construct operationalised on a nominal scale.
approach to ELT might still incorporate some traditional ideologies. Thus,

when conceptualised as a continuum, we are better able to report on where an
observed, or reported, practice lies on the spectrum.
Operationalising GELT as a Qualitative Research Measure

The GELT framework can also be developed to create qualitative mea-
sures used to explore various orientations within the English-language
curriculum, or the learners and teachers themselves. Galloway (2017a),
for example, used concepts from GELT to construct her focus group
prompts in her investigation of learner attitudes in a university in Japan.
The constructs were also used to help organise and inform her qualitative
data analysis.
A recent study by McKinley (2018) used constructs from an adapted
GELT framework to review three language-related programmes in Japan.
First, using interviews with lecturers and observation data, he used con-
structs from GELT to deductively code data, looking for examples of
reported and observed practices within each construct. While the data was
reported thematically in a tradition typical of content analysis, he also
qualitatively summarised the data according to whether aspects of GELT
were present in the curricula of the three programmes. He used symbols to
condense a lot of qualitative data in his cross-examination of the pro-
grammes: a tick indicating the construct was present; a cross indicating
that the item was not present; and a triangle indicating some elements of
the construct were present. An example is provided in Table 5.1. While
reductive in presentation, the study explored each element in greater detail in
its findings. This table importantly highlights the GELT framework to be
linear, rather than dichotomous, in nature.
Table 5.1 A cross-tabulation of summarised qualitative data using

GELT-inspired coding (adapted from McKinley, 2018, p. 245)
Did the curriculum value: Program A Program B Program C

a difference perspective? ✗ ✗/ ✔ ✗/ ✔
a movement away from a monolingual bias? ✗/ ✔ ✗ ✗
code switching and mixing as a resource? ✗ ✗ ✗
L2 target interlocutors/cultures? ✔ ✔ ✔
both NESTs and NNESTs? ✗ ✗/ ✔ ✗/ ✔
L2 English-using role models? ✗ ✔ ✔
the first culture and language as resource? ✗/ ✔ ✗ ✗
GELT Research Methodologies

Research methods span topics and disciplines, thus it is impossible to provide
an overview of all appropriate research methodologies that could be used to
conduct GELT research. However, in terms of our call for research in the first
half of this chapter, we see clear opportunities for needed types of research:
action research, field research, corpus studies, attitudinal surveys and content
analyses of curriculum-related documents. Further, just as the multilingual turn
has necessitated the need to explore new and alternative research methods
(Meier, 2017; Ortega, 2014), so, too, does GELT.
Action Research
Reflecting on the last paradigm shift of communicative language teaching,
Medgyes (1986) notes a high level of resentment from teachers, in that their
own experiences and wishes in the classroom were not considered when out-
side researchers decided what was best practice in their classrooms. There was
a sense that communicative language teaching was forced on teachers without
their participation in the research process, which perhaps contributed to the
slow uptake of the approach in many parts of the world. In order to involve
teachers in the GELT paradigm shift, it is essential that they take a front and
centre role in researching how GELT might be best manifested into classroom
practice. As we have said previously (Galloway, 2011, 2017c; Galloway &
Rose, 2015), action research appears to be an excellent methodology to fulfil
this urgent need.
Action research is defined as ‘a process in which participants examine their
own educational practice systematically and carefully, using the techniques of
research’ (Ferrance, 2000, p. 1). According to Kemmis and McTaggart (1988),
who were the early advocates and formulators of action research:
A distinctive feature of action research is that those affected by planned changes have
the primary responsibility for deciding on the course of critically informed action which
seem likely to lead to improvement, and for evaluating the results of strategies tried out
in practice. Action research is a group activity. (p. 6)
This sentiment is echoed more than twenty-five years later: ‘For action
researchers, a key concept is a dual commitment to both participation and
action. Action research is done with, rather than on, the participant’ (Dick &
Greenwood, 2015, p. 195).
In action research, ‘teachers apply a manageable process of planning, enact-
ing and reviewing change in their classroom practices’ (Mickan, 2013, p. 125).
The process is typically illustrated as cyclical, or as a series of trials, because
adjustments are necessary in order to improve the teaching innovation or
resolve any issues emerging from the previous cycle.
GELT research requires more practitioner-driven trials of classroom imple-
mentation. Moreover, it is imperative that teachers report on this research in
practitioner-orientated journals, newsletters, blogs and other publications, in
order to share the practices that worked and did not work for them. These
innovations do not need to be large. For example, in the late 2000s, one of us
(Galloway) identified a problem in our English-language class in Japan, where
the Japanese students we were teaching were not being exposed to a selection
of English accents that were salient to their planned future use. In order to
innovate ways to expose students to other languages, Galloway trialled
a listening journal task and later a presentation task, which we disseminated
years later in an ELT journal (Galloway & Rose, 2014, 2018). Both of these
trials were small and aimed at innovating just one of GELT’s constructs for
change, exposure to a greater diversity of English, but were, nevertheless,
worthy of dissemination. (For a detailed description of Galloway’s approach
to GELT innovation via action research, see Galloway, 2017a, 2017c)
Vettorel’s (2013) action research project was considerably larger in its
exploration of the efficacy of an ELF interaction exercise between school-
aged children in Italy and peers from European countries. The project involved
primary school pupils aged 9–11, who participated in a multi-stage project,
which first raised awareness of English as a lingua franca, before introducing
a series of activities over two years, where 540 students from Italy, Poland,
Latvia and Slovakia interacted first via written correspondence and, in later
cycles, via online communication (both written and spoken). The project used
corpus research methods to analyse the data to examine language use; however,
the findings also have pedagogical value in their evaluation of the activity itself.
Vettorel’s (2013) meticulous reporting of, and reflecting on, the activity pro-
vides opportunities for other teachers to implement elements of the project
within their own teaching contexts.
Galloway and Rose’s studies (2014, 2018) used a methodology of a single-

shot innovation (the equivalent to just one cycle of action research), and
Vettorel’s (2013) study reported on pooled data from all implementation cycles,
thus none of these studies fully mirror an action research design. Upon reflec-
tion, a better-planned, cyclical action research design may have yielded better
results in our own studies. The listening journals reported on in Galloway and
Rose (2014), for example, showed a lot of promise, but we retrospectively
noticed problems with their implementation and we were dissatisfied with
some of our findings. With just one cycle of innovation, we did not have the
opportunity to improve on the task and report on enhanced implementation of
this activity. Similarly, as Vettorel (2013) did not report on each cycle of
implementation, it is difficult to assess which of the ELF interaction activities
students got the most value from. Thus, there is still a strong need for carefully
planned and executed action research to delve deep into the issues of imple-
menting Global Englishes into classroom pedagogy.
Quasi-Experiments
We are hesitant to recommend quasi-experimental designs, due to both the
difficulties of conducting them and the difficulties in having them pub-
lished, as they are often held up to the standards of the so-called true
experiments, which are devoid of the contextual factors that make for
authentic learning environments. Nevertheless, quasi-experiments have
a strong history in educational research, and are an important method if
researchers wish to directly measure the effects of GELT practices on the
learners they teach.
One caveat of quasi-experiments in yielding conclusive results on innovative
teaching approaches is a lack of control. Unlike experiments, quasi experi-
ments do not involve a strict random assignment of participants, although they
strive to give treatments to roughly matched classes. Class groups, however,
may never be exactly the same. Additionally, while true experiments aim to
isolate all confounding variables, quasi-experiments conducted in the real
world outside controlled environments cannot claim to exert full control over
the magnitude of variables impacting learners’ everyday lives.
Because of a lack of control over confounding variables, quasi-experiments
are generally weak at measuring the effects of teaching approaches. For
example, a quasi-experiment that aimed to compare a GELT syllabus with an
existing syllabus would inevitably encounter issues of controlling for all other
variables. Breen (2001) writes:
Very little research has been undertaken to evaluate the relative effectiveness of
syllabus types. Since a syllabus is implemented in a classroom and operates within
the wider process of teaching and learning, this would be difficult to do. Just as it
has proved virtually impossible to show that one teaching method is more effective
than another (Stern, 1983; Allwright, 1988), variations in teacher interpretations of
a syllabus during the course and variations in what students actually learn from the
teacher intervene between the syllabus as a plan and the actual outcomes which
learners achieve. (p. 154)
However, the difficulty in conducting meaningful quasi-experiments should
not dissuade such research from being undertaken, especially as many English-
language teachers are often well placed to conduct them using their own
classes. English-language teachers often teach multiple classes of a similar
level within the same student body, which provides opportunities to conduct
more robust quasi-experiments with similarly matched students, controlling for
both the educational context and the teacher.
Galloway (2011, 2013, 2017a), for example, conducted a quasi-experiment
comparing a class of learners taking a content syllabus on Global Englishes to
a comparison group who studied an existing content syllabus on an arbitrary
topic. Galloway was the teacher of both classes of learners at the same
university of a similar proficiency, which minimised many confounding vari-
ables. In cases where matched classes cannot be found, or ethical requirements
limit one’s ability to offer different experiences to groups of learners, quasi-
experiments can be conducted without the use of a control group. Baker’s
(2012b) study involved pre- and post-course questionnaires and interviews
with learners undertaking an online course on intercultural communication.
Although this study did not have a comparison group, its findings, nevertheless,
revealed important conclusions and pedagogical implications.
We need more work of this nature to fully understand the effect of GELT on
learners, and to understand whether GELT equips learners for global English
use better than existing pedagogies. While one cannot draw definitive conclu-
sions from a single study (because of confounding variables), the findings can
build on a body of research that contributes to knowledge building in the field.
The field of research of written corrective feedback – the efficacy of which had
been debated for decades – is moving closer to a definitive answer on what
feedback works in certain educational contexts, due to the growing volume of
quasi-experiments over the years that collectively inform best practice.
Document Research of Curriculum: Syllabus, Textbooks,

Tests and Policy
A further method of research, which could prove useful to GELT, is document
analysis of curricula, textbooks, tests and policy documents surrounding
English language teaching. Document research can also be extended to other
artefacts, such as job advertisements for language teachers, or linguistic
landscapes of learning environments. In order to challenge the status quo, we

must first understand what the status quo is and identify areas that are already
changing or are most resistant to change. Because many teaching practices
centre on written documents in the form of the materials teachers use, the tests
learners take and the policies and curriculum they teach within, document
analysis can be a powerful research method to investigate such practices.
When analysing documents for GELT constructs, there is a need for both
quantitative and qualitative content analyses. Quantitative content analysis can
help identify what ideologies exist in documents, and qualitative analysis can
identify how these ideologies are manifested. While both qualitative and
quantitative content analyses are similar, in that both follow replicable proce-
dures (Mayring, 2000), there are fundamental differences. While quantitative
content analysis explores textual meaning through frequency counts, qualita-
tive content analysis explores meaning as it is constructed throughout the text,
providing a richer description. Both types of analysis offer a systematic
description of data through coding and categorisation. Kuckartz (2014) sum-
marises the differences as follows:
While the atomizing manner of quantitative analysis aims to convert the verbal data into
precise categories (represented by numbers) and then to statistically evaluate the
resulting data matrix, qualitative text analysis is interested in the text itself, notably
based on the text in its entirety. Even after categories have been assigned, the text itself,
i.e. the wording of the statements, is relevant and also plays an important role in the
preparation and presentation of results. (pp. 65–6)
Thus, the aim of qualitative content analysis is to comprehend meaning in the

text itself. Rather than equating coding frequency with the relevant importance
of a particular theme, qualitative content analysis provides detailed descrip-
tions of the themes in a text and requires the researcher to focus on aspects of
meaning related to the research question (Mayring, 2000; Schreier, 2014).
In Syrbe’s (2017) analysis of major English-language tests and textbooks,
she mainly adopted a qualitative analysis of the documents in her sample.
Although some quantitative data is provided in her study, this is generated via
a process of data reduction, rather than an analysis of quantitative data via
statistical procedures. For a good example of quantitative content analysis, see
Evans and Davies’s (2000) content analysis of the representation of masculinity
in elementary school reading textbooks. Although this is not a study of Global
Englishes, its approach to analysing the data provides a robust procedure that
a Global Englishes analysis could be based upon. For example, a GELT study
could replicate the procedures of this study, but, instead of exploring masculi-
nity in textbooks, a researcher could explore the representation of Global
Englishes according to a number of the dimensions within the GELT
framework.
Language-policy research offers a further approach to research that is needed

in Global Englishes. As Global Englishes is tied to ideologies, such research
may need to take a broad research lens, where policy is considered in not only
what is written in top-down documents, but also in the norms and beliefs
expressed through practice. Such perspectives would require an examination
of language policy via a variety of de facto practices, in keeping with
Shohamy’s (2006, p. 50) view that ‘language policy is more difficult to detect,
as it is subtle and hidden from the public eye’. Thus, policy research could
examine an educational context, exploring the way Global Englishes is pre-
sented in national (macro), institutional (meso) and classroom (micro) policy
and practices, which underpin a language course. This type of richer document
analysis would require examination of educational policy, institutional policy
(in the form of course descriptions, website materials and syllabus) and class-
room-based policy (in the form of curricula and classroom practice-based
norms) to fully develop an understanding of how English is positioned in
such educational contexts. An example of a ‘wide-lens’ approach to policy
analysis is Jenkins’s (2013) book on the international university.
Ethnographic Field Research

Ethnographic field research has a long tradition in educational research, and it
has clear applications for investigating Global Englishes in language teaching
contexts. This method is very useful to explore on-the-ground practices, where
Global Englishes may be making inroads into educational contexts. This type
of research is currently underrepresented in research papers.
While field research in itself is an adaptive research design, there are, none-
theless, standard features that constitute good ethnographic research (Dörnyei,
2007; Fetterman, 2010; Wolcott, 2008). Ethnographies focus on obtaining
a rich description of the shared and learned patterns of values, behaviours,
beliefs and language of a culture-sharing group, which is sometimes referred to
as a ‘bounded unit’ (Harklau, 2005). Thus, ethnographic research could involve
the investigation of teachers, students, intact classes or entire institutional
cohorts. It involves extended study of a group interacting in a natural setting,
usually obtained through direct observations, interviews, field notes, journals
and the analysis of documents. It is a flexible method that can include almost
any evidence collected in the field that would help to inform the research of the
object of study. Ethnographic researchers seek to understand patterns of beha-
viours, beliefs and practices of single cases or communities of people to
produce a holistic interpretation via a thick description of the constructs
under investigation.
The objective of field research in the case of GELT would be to understand
current classroom practices, in order to comment on areas of change and to
identify areas of pedagogical practice that could benefit from change. Field
research could also reveal cases of good practice in classrooms where Global
Englishes innovation is already taking place. In order to make recommenda-
tions for classroom change, researchers must first fully evaluate what is hap-
pening in the classroom. In recent years, when giving talks on Global Englishes
in various parts of the world, we have heard directly from teachers that many of
the proposals for change within GELT are already being enacted in many
teachers’ classrooms. Recently, anecdotal evidence from a group of Finnish
teachers undertaking professional development in the United Kingdom indi-
cated that teaching approaches in some Finnish English-language classrooms
had embraced a lingua franca perspective. In particular, the GELT proposals
calling for a shift in ownership and target interlocutors in curricula were already
well underway. Field research would be a useful method to examine such
practices, to learn from innovative educational contexts and to understand
how they relate to other facets of language learning.
Despite the clear benefits of ethnographic field research in language class-
rooms, very little has taken place. There are, however, a few noteworthy
exceptions, most of which involve examinations of wider topics, such as
English medium instruction, where notions of Global Englishes are touched
upon. Galloway et al. (2017), for example, explored universities in China and
Japan, collecting data from students and teachers via observations, interviews
and focus groups.
Surveys
The field of Global Englishes has generally suffered from poorly constructed
questionnaires. Prodromou’s (1992) survey study investigated students’ atti-
tudes towards bilingual and bicultural teachers, native English-speaking mod-
els and the cultural content of lessons, and was used to collect data from 300
students in Greece. The survey as a research instrument was quite problematic,
due to its simplicity (only five questions in length, with an unclear scale), and
would not be suitable to dissect the complexities of views surrounding Global
Englishes. Kirkpatrick and Xu (2002) used an attitudinal survey to collect
attitudinal data on World Englishes in China with 171 university students.
The questionnaire included fourteen items with responses recorded on
a Likert scale; however, the results were only descriptively presented as
percentages, with no attempt to use this instrument for deeper investigations
of the answers given. Furthermore, no data was provided in this study on the
internal reliability of the instrument. Murray’s (2003) study of 253 Swiss
teachers from private and state schools on their attitudes to ‘Euro-English’
has similar issues. While this survey was more complex in design, its complex-
ity was not matched in the analysis of its data. We need to examine variables
that have been suggested to influence attitudes (proficiency, language exposure,

learning context) against the data, rather than seeing results presented as the
raw percentages of a homogenous group.
Despite a problematic history, recent years have witnessed the emergence
of slightly more robust instruments. Buckingham (2014) used an adapted
questionnaire with 347 university students in the Middle East. While this
survey is reminiscent of the attitudinal work carried out in previous dec-
ades, the study shows good control over data analysis, going through the
necessary steps to ensure robust dissemination of descriptive statistics,
which the aforementioned studies fail to do. Galloway (2011, 2013,
2017a) uses a more complex survey with her participants at a Japanese
university to directly explore their attitudes towards Global Englishes, as
well as a Global Englishes pedagogy. Galloway et al. (2017) further use
surveys to explore beliefs and practices in EMI settings in China and in
Japan, which is a context also explored in Chapter 8. This study conducted
statistical analysis between groups using independent sample t-tests, illus-
trating avenues for more detailed survey research for the purposes of not
only descriptively reporting on attitudes, but to compare attitudes across
variables of interest. Due to the scales used in this questionnaire, we reflect
that non-parametric tests may have been more appropriate for data gener-
ated via these instruments.
A further limitation of previous research is that, while many surveys have
been conducted in the area, very few reported studies share the questionnaires
used, and even fewer report on any validation process in the development of
their questionnaires. This means that most researchers who wish to build on
past work are left with no choice but to build their own questionnaires from the
ground up, rather than to build on existing work in the field. We also find that, of
the better-reported and analysed surveys (e.g. Buckingham, 2014), many still
need to rely on adaptations of the matched guise technique. Thus, the field
currently lacks a reliable survey that can be adapted to a range of teaching and
learning contexts. In short, what the field needs is carefully constructed ques-
tionnaire items that can be used for more interesting analysis.
Alternative Methodologies
Just as the multilingual turn has necessitated the need to explore new and
alternative research methods to match emerging ideas and concepts (Meier,
2017; Ortega, 2014), we feel that GELT necessitates a certain degree of
research innovation. For example, while action research provides a clear meth-
odological blueprint to report on classroom innovation, the design indicates the
‘solving’ of an issue through careful planning and reporting. GELT innovation –
particularly at the early adoption stage – will be at a trial stage for decades to
come, and thus, may require more flexibility and reflexivity, before best
practices can be found. Alternative methods to action research may be required,
which will allow for more freedom of reporting on classroom-based trials.
The reporting of reflective practices and autoethnographies are promising
alternative methods via which teachers can report on their own practices within
a freer, and more personal, research style.
Instead of ethnographic field research, which requires intimate access to
classrooms and learners, other less direct methods could provide a window
into others’ practices. Narrative inquiry, for example, allows for an in-depth
understanding of not only what can be seen in terms of learners’ and teachers’
actions surrounding innovation, but also their ideologies and thoughts which
inform or underpin them. Instead of surveys, which capture a somewhat
distanced and detached snapshot of a phenomenon, focus groups and inter-
views can allow for a more nuanced understanding. Critical incident techni-
ques allow for deep introspection on critical episodes, which may help to
report on precise areas of conflict or success in an innovation. Bruster and
Peterson (2013) used reflection journals with twenty student teachers to
capture critical teaching incidents. This methodology could be very useful
for teachers implementing GELT innovations within their own classrooms, by
providing an insider account of the changes in practice. The technique allows
for the collection of a large amount of data that focuses on the crucial
moments of implementation, without the required presence of a researcher
in the classroom.
Innovative methods can further explore issues connected to identity and
cognition. Kelly (2018) conducted a study with twelve pre-service tea-
chers in a community college, where they drew pictures of ESL teachers
with accompanying descriptions at the beginning and end of a TESOL
methods course. These drawing were then used for content analysis, as the
article explains:
The researcher analyzed the drawings and descriptions with respect to the role of the
teacher, the role of the students, the teaching strategies shown, the instructional content,
and how the drawings changed over the semester. (Kelly, 2018, p. 110)
The research explained that the innovative data collection technique allowed
an analysis of both visual and linguistic data, which facilitated a more thor-
ough understanding of teachers’ beliefs. Other techniques are making their
way into applied linguistic research, which add new opportunities for
research. These include research techniques such as repertory grids, which
Borg (2015) argues can be used instead of traditional interviews to explore
teacher cognition. They also include data analysis methods, such as
Q methodology, which can be used for the systematic study of learners’ and
teachers’ viewpoints.
Future Directions in GELT

This chapter has suggested areas of research in the exploration of Global
Englishes, as it pertains to language teaching. We see a clear need for class-
room-based research in terms of an exploration of attitudes, classroom prac-
tices, materials and teacher education. If researchers are not engaging in the
groundwork that is needed to investigate how to link theory and practice, we
make a call to arms for researcher–practitioners to do the work that is despe-
rately needed. What is needed is on-the-ground research that reports on current
practices and evaluates the efficacy of putting Global Englishes ideas into
pedagogical practice. Without such research, the theory–practice divide will
only deepen, and calls for innovation will continue to lack the empirical
evidence of how this change can be operationalised.
This chapter has also outlined how GELT can be used as a research frame-
work, and has suggested a number of research areas and accompanying meth-
ods that can drive future research. Of these methods, we see quasi-experimental
and action research as essential avenues to evaluate curriculum change in real-
world classrooms, although we also point to the potential of more reflexive
alternatives. We also see fieldwork (including observation, interviews and
focus groups), document analysis and surveys as powerful methods to inves-
tigate the current level of Global Englishes within curricula in various teaching
contexts to benchmark practices in order to measure future change.
The second section of this book turns to putting some items on this GELT
research agenda into action. Chapter 6 explores Global Englishes in classroom
materials, by examining six textbooks that have been purposively sampled to
represent a range of English language teaching contexts. Chapter 7 investigates
a teacher education (MSc TESOL) programme at a UK university, in order to
examine the effects of Global Englishes content for pre-service teachers.
Chapter 8 explores some constructs of Global Englishes within emerging
English-medium programmes in East Asian universities. While these three
chapters represent a small subset of needed research in the field, we aim to
illustrate how research can be conducted in the area by providing a blueprint of
how constructs within the GELT framework can be operationalised for future
research.
6 Global Englishes and Language Teaching
Materials
Introduction
English language teaching materials can be broadly defined as any tangible
object of language presentation that can be utilised for the purposes of language
learning. Materials, therefore, can include anything from highly artificial text-
books to unaltered authentic sources of language. Gray (2016) states that ‘the
most significant and widely disseminated type consists of published materials,
which includes an ever-growing array of items, such as textbooks, ancillary
audio-visual accompaniments, workbooks, learner dictionaries, guided read-
ers, online courses and online supplements to traditional textbook-based
courses’ (p. 95).
Although textbooks only provide one perspective into classroom practices,
they remain the most prevalent sources of teaching and, as such, assert a major
influence on the way language is taught and the way students view the language
(Matsuda, 2012b). English language teaching materials also play an important
role in the language-learning process, serving ‘as the basis of much of the
language input that learners receive and the language practice that occurs in the
classroom’ (Richards, 2001, p. 251). A reality of English language teaching is
that commercial textbooks are often at the core of a programme (McDonough
et al., 2013).
As a lack of suitable materials has been noted as a barrier to the implementa-
tion of a Global Englishes approach to ELT (see Galloway, 2017a, 2018a;
Galloway & Rose, 2015), many teachers who want to present a global depiction
of English to their students may be limited by a practical need to rely on
commercial materials, which centre towards standard Inner Circle norms.
Gray (2010) has argued previously that most of the listening components of
published materials still promote a limited range of Inner Circle standard
Englishes, with a dearth of exposure to authentic samples of English from
Outer- and Expanding Circle countries. Because materials constrain innova-
tion, we see materials research as a vital area for in-depth study, as it is currently
under-researched. Therefore, we need to fully evaluate what current materials
134
Global Englishes and Language Teaching Materials 135
say about the language they teach if we are to make appropriate amendments to
better incorporate Global Englishes into language teaching practice.
This chapter firstly outlines previous research on textbook analysis in gen-
eral, in order to examine the methodologies used and our current understanding
of textbooks in English language teaching. We then suggest appropriate frame-
works for using GELT as a research tool to analyse materials before applying it
to examples of popular textbooks. Following this illustration of materials
research, the chapter outlines suggestions to supplement materials to incorpo-
rate a Global Englishes perspective. There is then a consideration of the
challenges practitioners may face, including the perceived need for standardi-
sation, exams and the financial motives of textbook writers. Finally, given that
responsibility for what to use and how to use a textbook lies with the teacher
(McGrath, 2016), it ends with a discussion on teacher education.
An Overview of Global Englishes-Related Materials Research

English language as depicted in many textbooks has been criticised as being
contrived and not representative of English spoken in the real world
(Widdowson, 1998). This rhetoric has given rise to considerable debates in
both academic and professional circles over the importance of authenticity in
textbooks and the use of authentic texts in the classroom. An oft-cited definition
of authenticity comes from Morrow (1977), who stated that ‘an authentic text is
a stretch of real language, produced by a real speaker or writer for a real
audience and designed to convey a real message of some sort’ (p. 13).
Scholars since this time have clarified that material designed for classroom
purposes should not be considered authentic (e.g. Lee, 1995) – a point which
McKay (2013) argues could alienate learners. Day and Bamford (1998)
famously discussed a ‘cult of authenticity’, where authentic texts are being
inappropriately used for pedagogical purposes for which they were not made or
intended.
As far as Global Englishes is concerned, the element of authenticity we are
most concerned about is not the purpose within which a text is used, but
whether the language in textbooks is truly an authentic depiction of the
English that learners are most likely to encounter outside the classroom.
While some textbook approaches have aimed to increase authenticity through
the use of corpora to select natural English language, including idioms, many of
these approaches use corpora that capture English as an Inner Circle language.
Touchstone (McCarthy et al., 2005), for example, is informed by a subset of
samples of North American English in the Cambridge English Corpus. Thus,
even though corpus-informed, the chosen corpora do not represent authenticity
in terms of how English is used outside the North American context. In a study
by Gray (2010), where he interviewed a number of teachers, he found
a pervasive view that so-called native speaker idiomaticity was not a high
priority when teaching English as an international language.
A study by Syrbe and Rose (2018) investigated three main textbook series in
the state of North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany, a region of political and
populous clout. The state-set English-language curriculum argues that it aims
to develop learners’ communicative and intercultural competence to use
English as a lingua franca, as well as developing students’ repertoire of
linguistic resources [Verfügbarkeit sprachlicher Mittel] and multilingual pro-
files [Mehrsprachigkeitsprofil]. The study used an adapted GELT framework,
focusing on representations of ownership, users, models and target interlocu-
tors of English. The study found that, of the twenty-nine authentic excerpts
used across the three books, twenty-six involved only native speakers of
English, mostly dominated by American and British English users commu-
nicating within their own context, one involved communication between an
Outer Circle speaker and an Inner Circle speaker, and another involved an
Expanding Circle speaker communicating with a so-called native speaker from
the Inner Circle. There were no examples of lingua franca communications of
Expanding Circle speakers communicating with other Expanding Circle
speakers. In a further examination of target interlocutors across all three text-
books, the authors found only two tasks where the target interlocutor was not
a native English speaker. An analysis of audio materials saw Received
Pronunciation as the dominant accent, with some representation of other
Inner Circle varieties of English, but only one conversation between two
speakers from Expanding Circle countries. The authors argue that this is
unrepresentative, in considering that data shows that Germans use English
most when they travel, and in greater numbers with people from Spain, Italy
and Turkey than with people from the United Kingdom or Ireland.
A study by Chan (2014) evaluated the implied pronunciation target in the
educational system of Hong Kong by triangulating information from the new
ELT curriculum, examination papers and commercially published textbooks,
with particular reference to World Englishes and English as a lingua franca.
Results of an analysis of the new ELT curriculum showed that the curriculum
took into account World Englishes and ELF perspectives in the choice of
contexts, whilst downplaying the importance of conforming to ‘native’ pro-
nunciations, but still being conceptually guided by them. The examination
analysis observed that the listening examination included local Hong Kong
English speakers, even when most of them had a ‘native’ accent. However, the
assessment criteria seemed to implicitly stigmatise these speakers’ phonologi-
cal features. An analysis of ten commercial textbooks observed an inclusion of
language-using contexts that involved English speakers from around the world;
however, RP remained to be the main choice of accent in most recordings.
Tajeddin and Teimournezhad (2015) examined two intermediate-level text-

books: one localised textbook from Iran and one popular international text-
book. They used a framework to categorise cultures into the target culture
(American or British), the source culture (Iranian), international cultures or
culture-neutral. The authors also quantified occurrences of intercultural inter-
actions within the texts, including ELF interactions. Their results indicated that
the localised textbook stressed culture-neutral representations while the inter-
national textbook contained a greater number of intercultural interactions,
which included ELF interactions.
A study by Naji Meidani and Pishghadam (2013) investigated the extent to
which four major English-language textbooks demonstrated the international
status of English. Their analysis examined references to Inner Circle, Outer
Circle and Expanding Circle countries, as well as an analysis of accents, places
of cultures and people in the texts. The study tried to introduce a temporal
element to the analysis, by choosing four different textbooks published over
a twelve-year period. The analysis revealed differences among the selected
books with a gradual tendency for later textbooks to show more recognition of
the international status of English. Due to a lack of control for confounding
variables besides time, which might also explain differences (e.g. the textbooks
have different writers or publishers and may be aimed at different audiences), it
is difficult to accept the results at face value. Nonetheless, the study does add
evidence of a greater attention to EIL in some textbooks.
Galloway (2018a, p. 474) provides an overview of a number of textbooks in
her chapter on ELF in language materials. In this review, she notes that, at first
glance, Macmillian’s Global series (Clandfield et al., 2011) states that the
‘ground-breaking’ course enables learners ‘to learn English as it is used in our
globalised world . . . and to learn about English as an international language’.
While the blurb seems promising, a closer examination revealed a focus on
native speaker norms, literature embedded in the Anglophone world. She
observed that the text payed lip service to a small selection of Englishes outside
the Inner Circle while ignoring lingua franca contexts and usage. Galloway
(2018a) also reviews Cambridge University Press’s English for Business
Studies (MacKenzie, 2010), which includes native and non-native English
recordings, where the editors note that ‘Listening to non-native speakers of
English is important, as much of the English you will hear in your professional
life will be spoken by people who don’t have English as their first language’ (p.
6). Again, while this was promising, Galloway (2018a) observed that the texts
mainly deal with variation at a superficial level with the inclusion of some non-
native English speakers on the accompanying audio. While these may be toke-
nistic examples of inclusion, they are, at least, indicative of small changes being
introduced. Importantly, changes occurring in business textbooks indicate that
this may be one field where faster progress may be occurring.
Other recent textbook analysis studies include: Caleffi’s (2016) investiga-

tions of ELF in the speaking and listening activities of recent English-language
coursebooks; Cavalheiro’s (2013) exploration of language and teaching mate-
rials from an EIL perspective; Siqueira’s (2015) discussion of ELF in materials;
Vettorel and Lopriore’s (2013) investigation of ELF in coursebooks;
Takahashi’s (2016) study of attitudes of learners and teachers towards ELF-
orientated materials; Xu’s (2013) discussion of globalisation and culture in
relation to ELT materials used in Chinese secondary education; Yu’s (2015)
critical evaluation of ELF materials in the Taiwanese context; and Vettorel’s
(2018) examination of communication strategies with a focus on ELF in Italian
secondary school materials.
Methods of Textbook Evaluation and Analysis

Textbook analysis is an important area of study in English language teaching,
serving both a pedagogic purpose (in investigating the suitability of certain
textbooks for specific teaching contexts) and a research purpose (in investigat-
ing the suitability of a textbook for English language teaching in general), to
uncover its strengths, limitations and hidden ideologies. This distinction
between two types of materials research was made more than twenty-five
years ago by Littlejohn (1992), who compared materials evaluation (materials
research for the purposes of development and implementation into the class-
room) to materials analysis (research for the purposes of analysing features of
a textbook).
In terms of pedagogical frameworks of evaluation, there are a number of
good resources that teachers can use (see, e.g., McGrath, 2016) to draw upon
general analytic approaches. While some practical evaluation frameworks exist
to provide structure to an evaluation, they tend to lack the scholarly robustness
we are accustomed to seeing in other areas of applied linguistics research. This
may explain the general lack of published findings of materials evaluations for
the purposes of informing teaching, which tend to be relegated to review
sections of scholarly work rather than being positioned as research within
their own right. All of this is a shame, of course, in considering how vital
materials are to the teaching profession, and how important a critical evaluation
of these materials is for the field.
Two popular methods of evaluation are the CATALYST method (Grant,
1987) and a checklist method, detailed by Tomlinson (2010) as being useful
to use for both first-glance evaluations and close-up evaluations (McGrath,
2016). Both methods involve an evaluator examining the textbooks, according
to a set list of items, such as the textbooks’ suitability to the students’ level, the
students’ potential interests in the content matter, the communicative nature of
the tasks, the textbooks’ layout and the teachability of text. A first-glance
evaluation requires the evaluator to take a holistic approach to evaluation based

on the evidence from their impression of the textbook as a whole. A close-up
evaluation is similar to the first glance but requires a little more systematicity,
where criteria that are important to the teaching context are first identified and
the textbooks are evaluated according to these criteria, usually using a simple
rating system (e.g. scores of 1–5). McGrath suggests that, for a further depth of
evaluation, criteria that are more important to the teaching context be weighted
more than those of less importance.
While checklists are convenient and quick tools for practitioners, they
encourage superficial judgements (McGrath, 2016). To provide a more in-
depth examination of textbooks, some scholars advocate for a more fine-
grained analysis. Breen and Candlin (1987) propose a two-phase approach
consisting of an analysis of the usefulness of the materials from a pedagogical
standpoint as well as an analysis of the appropriateness of the materials from
the standpoint of learner needs and teaching approaches, thus entailing the
application of pedagogical beliefs about best practice. Similarly, Littlejohn’s
(2011, p. 185–97) textbook analysis at three levels is a widely cited method and
focuses on: What is there in terms of the type of tasks and components
included? What is required of users in terms of the learning activities and
operations required to use the materials? What is implied in terms of the
pedagogical beliefs embodied in the textbook’s approach? Any evaluation of
materials in terms of Global Englishes for language teaching is clearly aimed at
Littlejohn’s third question. We have articulated throughout this book, and
particularly in Chapter 2, that GELT is not a methodology, thus it has flexibility
in terms of tasks, activities and operations. Hence, an evaluation of materials
would need to centre on what is implied in terms of the pedagogical beliefs that
underpin materials.
Tomlinson (2016), in recent years, has created a checklist for specific
evaluation of materials for the purposes of teaching English as an international
language. This checklist includes evaluating texts for the following features:
• authentic texts and tasks (written texts by non-native speakers)
• spoken interactions between non-native speakers
• learner unstructured interaction
• pragmatic awareness activities
• strategies to achieve successful communication in a lingua franca
• language items and features important for international communication
• intercultural competence.
This is a welcome attempt to respond to what Tomlinson (2016) terms criti-
cisms of ‘global coursebooks for not catering for the needs of learners of
English as a global language’ (p. 53) and, although we agree with the need
for new materials to ‘meet the needs of learners of English who will be
communicating more with other non-native speakers than with native speakers
of English’ (p. 53), it is unclear what informed the creation of this checklist, and
why many of the items on Tomlinson’s (2010) previous general checklist for
evaluating ELT materials are no longer relevant. As a result, the checklist
seems somewhat ad hoc and theoretical, neither pinned down by previous
work in materials evaluation nor by any external theory. Galloway (2018a)
further critiques Tomlinson’s (2016) EIL evaluation framework for its lack of
connection to his previous frameworks, which included items she saw as still
being pedagogically important. Based on this critique, she offers her own
framework for evaluation of materials for use in globally orientated class-
rooms, which follows a three-step procedure.
Whilst textbook evaluations serve a pedagogical need, they lack the research
rigour needed for content analysis. They do not connect with other theories of
scholarly work in applied linguistics or TESOL and, as such, they cannot make
contributions to larger bodies of knowledge. For this reason, the majority of the
more scholarly work in materials research centres on analysis of the elements
within the materials, while drawing on other epistemologies to make stronger
theoretical links. Gray (2016, p. 99) states that:
Materials research currently reveals a variety of disciplinary influences, which include
cultural and media studies (Gray, 2010a; Harwood, 2014), sociology (Littlejohn, 2012)
and theoretical perspectives derived from postmodernism (Kullman, 2003, 2013),
Marxism (Gray and Block, 2014) and critical pedagogy (Thornbury, 2013; Chun, 2016).
These works seek to explore and analyse materials as cultural artefacts in order
to uncover what is sometimes termed ‘the hidden curriculum’, which conveys
meaning to students and teachers about what the textbooks depict as cultural
and linguistic norms.
Using GELT as a Framework for Textbook Analysis

This chapter presents a study that investigates the global orientation of popular
English textbooks, which are widely used within the ELT contexts around the
world and, thus, underpin a wide range of ELT curricula. The study has two
aims:
1. To investigate the extent to which English’s global position was reflected in
popular teaching materials.
2. To showcase how the GELT framework can be operationalised for research
purposes – in this case, a content analysis.
Therefore, in order to evaluate the global orientation of textbooks, a framework
was adapted from GELT. Syrbe (2017) has already carried out some ground-
work in this regard, with her exploratory analysis of four major textbook series,
which she analyses via an adapted GELT framework. An outcome of her study
was a recommendation to measure five facets of textbooks on a five-point scale.
Table 6.1 Adapted GELT framework for textbook evaluation
ELT <—————————————————————————————> GELT

What models/norms of English are discernible in the book and audio materials?
1. Standard English only <—————————————> 5. Diverse, flexible and
multiple forms
Who are the target interlocutors in the materials?
1. L1 users <—————————————> 5. All English users
What linguistic orientation is promoted in the book?
1. Monolingual <—————————————> 5. Multilingual/translingual
How is culture depicted in the materials?
1. Static L1 English <—————————————> 5. Fluid, diverse cultures
cultures
We have developed this suggestion in order to emphasise that GELT is not

a black-and-white dichotomous paradigm (see the previous chapter for discus-
sion), and that teaching materials do not fall into an either/or category of
adopting or rejecting a Global Englishes ideology (see Table 6.1).
Our adapted framework examines elements in the curriculum, such as target
interlocutors, models of English, target cultures and ownership of English.
The textbooks were evaluated within four major dimensions:
1. What models of English are used in the book and audio materials?
2. Who are the target interlocutors in the materials?
3. How is ownership depicted in the materials?
4. What linguistic orientation is promoted in the book?
Two methods are utilised in this chapter to illustrate how GELT can be used for
materials research at a practitioner level, as well as at a scholarly level. The first
evaluation follows a similar method to that used in Masuhara and Tomlinson
(2008) in their analysis of nine textbooks in the United Kingdom, which
resembles a close-look evaluation described by McGrath (2016). It trades
objectivity for speed and breadth of application by holistically evaluating the
materials and assigning a score on a five-point scale, with a score of one
representing a traditional orientation and a score of five representing a GELT
orientation. We use this as it shows how the GELT framework can be used to
evaluate textbooks at a practical level. It is intended for practitioner, rather than
research, purposes, where the assigned score can be used for ranking purposes,
rather than an objective measure. This is an initial evaluation method and
should not be used in place of a more rigorous method for practitioners, such
as the three-step evaluation recommended by Galloway (2018a).
Our second procedure is in-depth analysis, which uses specific and countable
features of the textbook as proxy measures for a larger construct, in order to
show how GELT can be used to elicit other types of data within textbooks.
It follows methodological epistemologies of content analysis. This is similar to
analyses conducted by Syrbe (2017) and Syrbe and Rose (2018) that aim at
making a contribution to theoretical knowledge of textbook research – the
results of which are aimed at researchers or curriculum planners. Due to a lack
of word space in this chapter to present an in-depth analysis of all textbook
features (and a lack of time resources to conduct an in-depth analysis for all
research questions), a narrow sample of data is sometimes chosen for analysis.
This analysis serves an illustrative purpose for applying the GELT framework,
rather than being a comprehensive analysis of all possible features in the
textbooks.
Textbook Samples
For the close-look evaluation, six textbooks were selected to offer a wide
representation of the commercial textbooks in use in ELT around the world.
Where series were used, we elected to evaluate upper-intermediate textbooks
aimed at an adolescent/adult reader, as we assume the target learner is more
likely to become a global user of English in the future, rather than just a formal
language learner. The inclusion criteria were:
1. The textbook had to explicitly target learners outside Inner-Circle contexts
in promotion materials.
2. The textbook had to be aimed at learners at the post-beginner, adolescent/
adult level.
In order to identify appropriate textbooks, we formed an expert panel of twenty
experienced teachers recruited within an in-service Masters’ programme.
These teachers were working in nineteen different nations, hence offering
a global perspective on textbook use. We asked them to nominate the most
influential textbooks used in their teaching context within two set categories of
markets: general English and business English. Business English textbooks
were chosen, due to their specific focus on a global English-using market.
The top two textbooks within each category were selected for analysis.
We further added two comparison textbooks that were marketed to be global
in their approach to teaching English to assess textbooks that claimed to ‘dare
to be different’ (McGrath, 2013, p. 198). The following were chosen:
• New Headway: Upper-Intermediate. The New Edition (Soars & Soars,
2008), as an example of a general textbook;
• Interchange 3 (Richards et al., 2005), as an example of a general textbook;
• Market Leader: Upper Intermediate (Cotton & Lansford, 2011), as an
example of a business textbook;
• International Express: Upper Intermediate (Wallwork & Sheard, 2001), as

an example of a business textbook;
• Global: Upper Intermediate (Clandfield et al., 2011), as an example of
a marketed global textbook;
• English Unlimited: Upper Intermediate (Tilbury, 2011), as an example of
a marketed global textbook.
Within this sample of textbook series, we settled on analysing the upper-
intermediate textbook within each series. Our decision to do so was based on
the assumption that learners at the higher level of the textbook series were more
likely to need English for use in global contexts.
In our close-look evaluation, we holistically examined the textbooks, which
required the researchers to read through the entire book, making qualitative notes
on features related to the research questions. In our in-depth analysis, we collected
quantitative data via proxy measures on each research question construct to ensure
more subjective comparability across the six textbooks. This included:
1. The first twenty-five named characters as proxy representations of target
interlocutors (which were systematically coded as L1 or L2 speakers).
2. The first twelve communications as proxy representations of type of com-
munication (L1–L1; L2–L1; L2–L2).
3. The first twenty-five named geographic places as a proxy measure of own-
ership and cultural representativeness of English use.
4. Coded varieties of English in the first hour of recorded audio as measures of
phonological variation.
While each of these constrained samples has limitations, due to the proxy used,
the combination of close-look evaluation of the holistic sample and in-depth
analysis of a specific sample has allowed us to make inferences based on
a range of interpretive and objective data through a wide and narrow lens.
Findings
All textbooks were included in the close-up evaluation. The results are pre-
sented according to each criterion and are then discussed case by case, in order
to present some of the evidence reviewed in making our evaluations. There are
limitations to the results that must be acknowledged:
1. There is a subjectivity in the coding and interpreting elements due to what
the researchers view as representative of each criterion;
2. There is a lack of data from the producers of the textbook creators, which
may help to explain why specific content is included or omitted;
3. There is a lack of data from teachers and learners, which may explain how
the textbook is used, including how it is adapted or supplemented in the
classroom. As Littlejohn (2011, p. 181) states, we can investigate the
materials ‘as they are’ but not the ‘materials-in-action’.
Table 6.2 Evaluation of English-language norms in textbook samples
Textbook Rating Example Comments from Close-Look Evaluation

Market Leader 2 Glossary marks varieties as British or American only, portraying
these as standard.
International 3 Promotes Inner Circle norms in terms of standard English
Express grammar; challenges some pronunciation norms.
Interchange 2 Promotes Inner Circle norms in terms of standard English
grammar; no discernible preference for vocabulary.
New Headway 1 Many references to British English norms; communicatively
acceptable language forms labelled as incorrect.
English Unlimited 2 British-centred in vocabulary; a grammar-focused task avoids
using the word ‘mistake’ in favour of the ‘best option’.
Global 2 Global focus contrasts with sections on ‘Typical errors’,
including the intelligible forms of English labelled as error.
To mitigate some of these limitations, we have provided a trail of evidence of

examples so the reader can better understand how the scores were derived.
English-Language Norms: Close-Look Evaluation

Models of English were analysed in terms of the diversity of English-language
norms depicted in the textbooks, and given a score agreed by two independent
raters, which are summarised in Table 6.2. A score of one indicates that the
textbooks were entirely representative of a ‘traditional ELT’ orientation as
described in the GELT framework, with no display of flexibility. A score of
two indicates a traditional orientation, with a few examples of flexibility in
norms. A score of three indicates a traditional orientation, with acceptance of
some flexibility in global use norms. A score of four indicates that the textbooks
had a global orientation to norms, but still adhered to some traditional language
norms. A score of five indicates that the textbooks were entirely representative
of a ‘global ELT’ orientation as described in the GELT framework.
New Headway was the lowest rating textbook for the promotion of global
norms of English use. The textbook contained many references to British English
norms, perhaps best illustrated by British-centred vocabulary (e.g. my ‘mate’
Norman, p. 36; what ‘rubbish’, p. 25; I ‘reckon’, p. 111). Phonological norms
were in standard British English (e.g. ‘Phonetic Symbols’, p. 159).
Communicatively acceptable language forms, such as ‘I was born in one town
in Mexico’ or ‘I’ve learnt English’ (p. 16), were labelled as incorrect forms of
language use. There was also a reference to learners’ future goals of speaking
‘perfect English’ (p. 47). Errors were also a feature in Global, despite it being
promoted as being global in coverage. This positioning contrasted with sections

on ‘Typical errors’, including the intelligible ‘Well, I ‘ope you’ll be very ‘appy in
the new ‘ouse’ for most English users and a further example where we would
challenge an ‘error’ to exist: ‘Next week I will have a party at my house. Would
you like to come?’ (p. 27). Market Leader and Interchange tended to avoid the
explicit labelling of correctness and standards. However, in Market Leader’s
glossary, the textbook marked varieties as British or American only, portraying
these as benchmarks of language norms.
Interchange also promoted standards in its grammar-focused activities, but
there was no explicit discernible preference for vocabulary standards.
English Unlimited offered more globally orientated messages than its coun-
terparts in its grammar-focused activities, which avoided using the word ‘mis-
take’ in favour of asking students to choose the ‘best option’. Despite this, the
vocabulary was very British-centred (e.g. flats and flatmates throughout).
Phonological depictions were British-centred with examples such as teacher
(p. 159) representative of the schwa /ə/. Although this is representative of most
non-rhotic accents, the absence of other alternative pronunciations was noted.
The highest rated textbook in this category was International Express,
which, despite adhering to similar standard English in its examples throughout,
contained a ‘hidden gem’ in section 6.2 where two people in the transcribed
audio materials discuss fluency of speech. One speaker says (albeit using native
speakers as benchmarks) that it isn’t important to understand everything, nor to
mimic some pronunciation norms, stating that many British English speakers
do not pronounce th as /θ/, but are, nevertheless, understood. This was one of
the few examples across the six textbooks where students were taught that
adherence to standards was not always necessary to be understood (and also
pointed out that norms were not adhered to in so-called norm-providing
communities).
English-Language Norms: An In-Depth Analysis

Models of English were analysed in more depth in terms of the diversity of
English used in the audio materials that accompanied the student textbook. This
analysis involved using accents represented in the audio materials of the text as
a proxy measure of representativeness. Recorded samples (excluding instruc-
tional phrases) within each text were used, and the accents of each recorded
conversation or monologue in terms of its speech-community origin. If more
than one type of accent was present in a dialogue, a raw time score was
calculated for each speaker based on the length of the conversation divided
by the number of speakers.
Full samples of Interchange, Market Leader and New Headway were used,
as the audio either came with the student textbooks or was made available
Table 6.3 An analysis of norms in supplied audio materials
Interchange Market Leader New Headway

Accents Seconds Percentage (%) Seconds Percentage (%) Seconds Percentage (%)
RPa 574 15.94 1654.4 44.63 2487 68.97
AmE 2954 82.06 805.7 21.73 369 10.23
Other 72 2.0 308.7 8.33 644 17.85
TOTAL L1 3600 100 2768.8 74.69 3500 97.06
Undefined/other - - 193.5 5.22 88 2.44
NNES
European - - 575.7 15.53 18 0.50
East Asian - - 169 4.56 - -
TOTAL L2 - - 938.2 25.31 106 2.94
a
Includes British accents which were deemed to be similar to RP.
online to students. The in-depth analysis of the first approximately 3,600

seconds of the recordings is displayed in Table 6.3. For many of the textbooks
in our sample, sufficient audio materials could not be obtained and, thus,
a small sample of materials available online were used. For International
Express and Global, this equated to just one unit of study, which was insuffi-
cient for a full in-depth analysis. Nevertheless, our analysis of this audio is
discussed in comparison with our full analysis of Market Leader, New
Headway and Interchange (see Table 6.3).
Table 6.4 displays the analysis of audio from the books where a full sample
was not obtained. Global provided one unit of audio on their companion
website for the pre-intermediate-level book, and thus, this was used for com-
parison. This sample was comprised of 65% of RP accents and 35% of other
UK-based accents (i.e. West Country English/northern English/Scottish),
resulting in a 100% coverage of L1 accents in the sample, all of which were
from the United Kingdom. English Unlimited also had one unit available
online. This sample included a 41.5% coverage of RP accents, an 8% coverage
of General American English and 6.5% of other L1 accents, which included
Scottish and Irish only; thus, 56% of the audio represented L1 speakers. Half of
the audio sample was UK-based (49.5%) in accent. However, 44% of the audio
comprised of L2 English accents, the vast majority of which were non-defined
L2 accents (30%) and the remainder comprised of Venezuelan, Japanese and
broadly European. The audio in International Express comprised of over 51%
RP, 24% General American English and a further 8% of other L1 (Scottish
English) accents, totalling over 83% of L1 English accent representation.
The remaining 16.7% comprised of mainland European (possibly Latin
American) and Japanese speakers of English.
Table 6.4 An analysis of norms in a sample of audio materials
English Unlimiteda Global International Expressa

Accents Seconds Percentage (%) Seconds Percentage (%) Seconds Percentage (%)
RP 281 41.45 385 65.03 460 51.22
AmE 55 8.11 - - 213 23.72
Other 44 6.49 207 34.97 75 8.35
TOTAL L1 380 56.05 592 100 748 83.3
Undefined NNES 203 29.94 - - - -
European 25 3.69 - - 120 13.36
Latin American 55 8.11 - - - -
East Asian 15 2.21 - - 30 3.34
TOTAL L2 298 43.95 - - 150 16.7
a
Due to a lack of availability of upper-intermediate audio, a sample of pre-intermediate audio
materials available online was reviewed.
English Unlimited appeared to be most inclusive of L2 English speakers in

its audio, despite standard English accents (RP and General American) making
up 49.66% of the sample analysed. New Headway was most representative of
standard English, with 79.2% of its sample being categorised as RP or General
American. Moreover, when deviations from standard English were present, the
majority of these showcased other UK-based accents, with less than 3% of the
audio including L2 English accents. The L2 English learner and user, therefore,
were essentially absent from the New Headway audio.
Global contained no audio that included L2 users, ranking it lower than New
Headway. Global was marketed as providing a wide variety of accents around
the world (24 accents, p. 2), so it is possible that the available audio for our
limited analysis failed to capture this representativeness. Indeed, this may be
true for all of the textbooks for which we were only able to conduct a limited
analysis (Global, English Unlimited, International Express). Compared to the
3,600+ seconds of audio analysed in the full textbook samples, Global’s sample
was just 592 and, thus, should not be considered as being representative of the
entire book. Hence, a follow-up study should aim to conduct a full analysis
across textbooks’ audio materials.
Target Interlocutors: Close-Look Evaluation

The target interlocutors were analysed in terms of who were depicted as being
users of English throughout the written textbook materials. The scores were
agreed by two independent raters, on a five-point scale. A score of one indicates
that the textbooks were entirely representative of a ‘traditional ELT’ orientation
Table 6.5 Evaluation of target interlocutors in textbooks
Textbook Rating Comment

Market Leader: 4 The target interlocutors are global; no single discernible target
Upper for English use throughout the book apart from global business;
Intermediate ‘Language work’ and ‘Writing file’ tasks predominantly UK-
centric.
International 3 The target interlocutors are global but in a slightly less labelled
Express: Upper way than Market Leader. Global offices in London and
Intermediate Melbourne of the fictional company IntEx centred many tasks in
the Inner Circle.
Interchange 3 English is mostly used with interlocutors who are not fixed to
a particular country.
New Headway: 1 English is almost exclusively used between learners and Inner
Upper- Circle speakers, including Inner Circle expats in Expanding
Intermediate Circle countries, and communications between Expanding
Circle and Inner Circle users.
English 3 The book mostly avoids references to geographical locations for
Unlimited: Upper target interlocutors. English is used as a tool to discuss a wide
Intermediate variety of people around the globe, but not necessarily providing
them with an English-using voice. While there are many Anglo-
Saxon names used in example communications, these are not
explicitly tied to countries.
Global: Upper 3 The target interlocutors are mostly not defined by geographic
Intermediate regions, and users of English in the book are often depicted as
a global community. The book opens with a quote stating the
‘English language is nobody’s special property’ (p. 2), but
embodies a traditional orientation in other parts.
as described in the GELT framework, with the target interlocutors being

positioned as L1 users only. A score of five indicates that the textbooks were
entirely representative of a ‘global ELT’ orientation as described in the GELT
framework, with the target interlocutors being representative of a diverse range
of all global English users. These results are summarised in Table 6.5, including
descriptions of how these scores were derived.
The most globally orientated textbook in this evaluation was Market Leader.
There was no single discernible target for English use throughout the book
apart from global business. The target interlocutors and users of the language in
the textbook were global, from professors of marketing in Denmark to hotel
managers in the Middle East and to Chinese business graduates from Parisian
universities. These characters were often engaged in ELF communications.
Moreover, these interlocutors of the language were depicted most often as
being language users, rather than language learners. The textbook fell short in
its ‘Language work’ and ‘Writing file’ tasks, which were predominantly UK-
centred. Most of the letters and emails presented in the text involved corre-
spondence between the UK-based companies and those based in Expanding
Circle countries, thus portraying a message that English was still predomi-
nantly used for communication with the Inner Circle. The lowest rated textbook
was New Headway, in which the English was almost exclusively portrayed as
being between language learners and Inner Circle speakers. This included Inner
Circle expats in Expanding Circle countries (e.g. English in Chile, pp. 10–11,
Canadians in Korea, p. 12), and a letter from Brazilian-based ‘Fernando’ to
‘James’ and Tokyo-based ‘Keiko’ to ‘Ms Jones’ (p. 121).
Other textbooks received similar middle-range scores. Contrary to our
hypothesis that the business and globally marketed textbooks would be more
GELT-orientated than the general textbooks, Interchange, International
Express, English Unlimited and Global were all given the same score in our
evaluation, although this score was derived in different ways. For International
Express the target interlocutors were global, but in a slightly less labelled way
than Market Leader. The fictional company of the textbooks, within which the
characters worked, had global offices in London and Melbourne, which caused
much correspondence to be within and from these Inner Circle locations. Thus,
while international in its positioning, the textbook often used these two con-
texts as anchors for global communication, thus embodying both traditional
and global depictions.
Interchange and English Unlimited cleverly avoided Anglo-dominant con-
tent by depicting English as being mostly used between interlocutors who were
not fixed to any particular country. In Interchange the interlocutors were mostly
depicted as being the learners themselves – the users of the textbooks, for
example, by adopting a Student A and Student B task construction. A similar
trend was seen in English Unlimited, which more explicitly labelled speakers in
their tasks and excerpts, but often avoided situating them within labelled
speech communities. While there were many Anglo-Saxon names used in the
example communications, these were not explicitly tied to countries. In the rare
times when they were situated within a national context, the book seemed
inclusive of ELF communication, even if it was not the dominant form. For
example, a section on cross-cultural misunderstandings (p. 63) highlighted two
native speaker communication examples, but also one example of
a Korean–Italian ELF exchange.
Global provided mixed messages, by promoting ideals that the ‘English
language is nobody’s special property’ (p. 2) in its ethos while embodying
a traditional orientation to learners mostly communicating with Inner Circle
speakers in other parts of the book. This push-and-pull of traditional and global
uses of the language provided it with a middle score, despite much promise in
its opening pages.
Table 6.6 Analysis of assumed target interlocutors
Market International English

Interlocutor New Headway Inter-change Leader Express Global Unlimited TOTAL
L1 English 24 21 18 10 N/A 11 84
L2 English 1 4 7 15 N/A 14 41
Per cent L2 (%) 4 16 28 60 N/A 56 32
Target Interlocutors: In-Depth Analysis

In order to address the issue of the target interlocutor in a more in-depth way,
additional analysis was conducted on displays of English-language commu-
nication within the books. We took a sample of the first twenty-six interlocutors
within the book and placed them within an L1 or L2 speech community. Often
this speaker background information was explicitly referred to in the textbooks,
and at other times we had to infer this information based on the characters’
given names. While we acknowledge that characters’ names are not a clear
indication of one’s identity as an L1 or L2 user, they are, nevertheless, a way in
which some readers of the textbook might infer identity. Seeing as the char-
acters were fictional, we can also assume that names are the predominant way
most readers would infer the characters’ linguistic background. Thus, due to
a lack of other alternatives, this formed the basis of our categorisation where
nationally unmarked characters were represented. For all regionally unmarked
names, we consulted a name frequency database and assigned speakers to the
country where their name occurred most frequently, thus basing our assump-
tions on probability, rather than subjective judgement. While flawed in its
assumptions (i.e. given names do not truly represent a language-using identity),
the consistency with which we applied this as a proxy measure of target
interlocutor identity nevertheless revealed some interesting results.
First, we examined the countries of the target interlocutors, and further
tallied these into assumed L1, mixed L1/L2 and L2 communities. Table 6.6
shows the first twenty-five named interlocutors who engaged in communica-
tion within each of the texts. International Express and English Unlimited
revealed the highest percentage of interlocutors of an assumed L2 English-
speaking identity at 60% and 56%, respectively. International Express’s high
score was derived in part due to two main characters (Pei Lin and Diego) who
engaged in repeated ELF communications throughout the book. Despite high
scores in our close-look evaluation of Market Leader, only 28% of the
interlocutors in our sample from this book were from an assumed L2-using
identity. Thus, while the book displayed a wide range of positive depictions of
Table 6.7 Analysis of ELF interactions in textbooks
New Inter- Market International English

Headway change Leader Express Global Unlimited Total
L1–L2 1 3 4 6 N/A 8 22
L2–L2 0 1 2 4 N/A 2 9
L1–L1 11 8 6 2 N/A 2 29
Per cent ELF (%) 8 33 50 83 N/A 83 52
English-using people and contexts, when actual examples of communication

were presented to the reader, the L1 users of the language dominated.
Interchange, which had avoided marked examples of people using English in
our close-look evaluation, scored poorly in our in-depth analysis, which
revealed only 16% representativeness of assumed L2 English-using interlocu-
tors. This was only moderately higher than New Headway, which included only
one speaker of the first twenty-five interlocutors in the book, who was assumed
to be an L2 English user. Upon inspection of New Headway, we were surprised
to find that depictions of L2 English learners were notably absent in the book.
That is, the book focused on an English-using context, which was almost
exclusive in representation of communication between L1 English speakers.
We were unable to analyse the interlocutors from the textbook Global, due to
a lack of named characters in the depicted communications.
Next, we explored the nature of communication in terms of whether the
communications were L1–L1, L1–L2 or L2–L2 when the interlocutors engaged
with language use. Table 6.7 illustrates the assumed nature of communication
between these interlocutors. Depictions of L2–L2 ELF communication were
scarce, except for International Express, which contained four ELF commu-
nications of a sample of twelve, where no discernible native speaker was
present. Both Market Leader and English Unlimited contained two such
instances in each of their samples of twelve. If we take a broad definition of
ELF communication, which includes L1 English users, International Express
and English Unlimited contained 83% of such representations. Half of Market
Leader’s communications were considered ELF, and Interchange was a third,
at 33%. New Headway included just one depiction of an L1–L2 speaker
interaction of its sample of twelve. This result was most shocking, as not
only were L2 users of English mostly absent, but learners of English commu-
nicating with L2 users were, for all purposes, absent throughout the textbook –
quite shocking for a textbook aimed at learners. We believe, due to this absence,
that learners would have a difficult time imagining themselves in the English-
using communities depicted in the textbook, which centred on L1 users speak-
ing English with other L1 users.
English Ownership via Nation-Based Cultural Representations:

Close-Look Evaluation
This section examined the references to people and places that formed the
content of the textbooks. This was different to the communications explored in
the previous section, as the evaluation examined static texts, national cultural
references, pictures and historical figures, around which the content of the
textbooks was often organised. This cast a wide net over who and what were
being associated with English-language use. With this evaluation, we aimed to
make an inference regarding portrayed ownership of the language in terms of
the nations and cultures connected to it (see Table 6.8 for evaluations).
Market Leader and English Unlimited received the highest scores in our
evaluations. Market Leader, in keeping with its international target market,
showcased numerous non-English-speaking cultures, although these were
often presented in somewhat static ways (e.g. ‘Business culture in
Kazakhstan’, p. 61). This was quite different to English Unlimited, which,
despite receiving the same score as Market Leader, seemed to adopt a strategy
Table 6.8 Evaluation of English ownership in textbooks

Market Leader: Upper 4 Many non-English-speaking cultures were present but often
Intermediate presented in somewhat static ways.
International Express: 3 Cultural depictions are worldwide; however, pop-cultural and
Upper Intermediate news references are over-represented by the United Kingdom.
Some across Expanding Circle cultural references, but some
stereotypical. Some specialised UK-based cultural references.
New Headway: 1 Predominantly English cultural references with few non-
Upper-Intermediate Anglophone cultural references; clear preference for British-
and US-centred content; some tasks require shared knowledge
of British culture.
Interchange 3 Mixed cultural references. Some sensitivity to using English
across cultural borders. Examples drawn from non-English-
dominant cultures such as Bollywood. Some activities
indicate the Inner Circle as reference point.
English Unlimited: 4 Cultural depictions are worldwide. Literary cultural
Upper Intermediate references to people are included from a number of countries.
Across cultures, sections depict a static view of culture in
various countries.
Global: Upper 3 Global cultures, people and places are presented. Literary
Intermediate cultural references to people are included from a number of
countries, but the UK and the US culture dominates in this
domain, with an Anglo-centric display of authentic materials.
that being global meant to not reference too many countries and locations in
their examples, for example, ‘Making a complaint to an international airline’,
or ‘Applying for a job in Antarctica’ or ‘Researching exciting locations for
a theatre company’. While these were not explicitly tied to a country, many of
the examples appeared very American/British (e.g. there was an American flag
flying in the picture of a ‘city river boat’, and pound and dollar amounts were
used throughout the book). They also appeared to equate their global outlook as
being met by providing numerous non-Anglo historical and political refer-
ences. In many cases this just did not make sense from a language point of view
(e.g. there was a section on the historical leaders of Japan with no clear
connection to learning English), and so it seemed that many of these examples
were purely used to be ‘international’ in content coverage, and somewhat
tokenistic in their inclusion.
International Express, Global and Interchange all received a mid-range
score. In International Express, cultural depictions were worldwide; however,
pop-cultural and news references were over-represented by the United
Kingdom. The book’s reference to the Expanding Circle cultures was aided
by a business project that was referred to throughout the book called ‘Latin
goes East’, which explored business opportunities between East Asia and Latin
America. Nevertheless, this contrasted with some UK-based cultural refer-
ences (e.g. to Monty Python, p. 22), which could be alienating to readers
unfamiliar with this content. Some other cultural discussions (e.g. the dialogue
in 7.4) displayed stereotypical depictions of foreign cultures. Thus,
International Express offered uneven and, at times, conflicting cultural
messages.
Interchange also included reference to a number of mixed cultural refer-
ences, such as those located in Taipei, Shanghai, Indonesia and the Philippines.
There were also some activities that showed sensitivity to using English across
cultural borders (e.g. ‘The wrong stuff’, p. 83). Some examples existed entirely
within the Outer Circle, such as drawing cultural references from Bollywood.
However, other activities positioned the Inner Circle as a cultural reference
point. For example, in ‘It’s against the law’ (p. 100) the textbook compared the
United States and Canada to ‘other countries’, which were all from the Outer
and Expanding Circles. Similarly, ‘Comparing cultures’ (p. 118) used
US culture as its reference point.
In Global numerous cultures, people and places were represented, including
literary cultural references to people within a global sphere. Nevertheless, the
UK and the US cultures dominated in this domain, with a prominently Anglo-
centric display of authentic materials. Although many texts were included
representing global cultures, a closer evaluation revealed that ‘authentic
texts’ (thereby representing the norms of reference to the language) were
very Inner Circle-skewed, including excerpts from Jane Austin, H. G. Wells,
Ernest Hemmingway, Edgar Allan Poe, Arthur Conan Doyle, Tom Wolfe and
Dr Spock. The emphasis on Inner Circle literary figures dwarfed mentions of
other figures, such as Chinua Achebe or Vikram Seth, who was noted as an
‘Indian Poet’ ‘who has lived in England, the US and China’ (p. 79). When other
cultures were discussed in authentic texts, such as Japanese and Chinese
cooking (p. 130), these were taken from Inner Circle sources (e.g. New
Scientist).
However, this was not done as unashamedly as New Headway, which
seemed to use England as a cultural selling point for its learners. New
Headway included many English cultural references, such as to ‘Henry VIII’
and ‘Charles Dickens’ (p. 18) and ‘Princess Diana’ (p. 39). While there were
some cultural references where the Anglophone culture was absent, such as
German tourists in Spain and global tourists in the Caribbean, Vietnam and
Italy (pp. 20–1), there was clear reference to British- and US-centred content.
For example, in Chapters 3 and 4, the news stories were predominantly UK-
and US-based. Some tasks inferred a shared knowledge of British culture, such
as knowledge of educational culture to understand the meaning of ‘grammar
school’ and ‘A-levels’ (p. 110).
English Ownership via Nation-Based Cultural Representations:

In-Depth Analysis
As with our analysis of the target interlocutors, we have conducted our in-depth
analysis of cultural representations using a simplified proxy measure, which
includes a count of the first named countries in the textbooks. While this is
a narrow and static way to explore culture representativeness, and not in
keeping with GELT’s assertions to break down state-based depictions of
culture, these textbooks are artefacts of such cultural views. If we were to
analyse the texts through a transnational lens, for example, there would be very
little relevant content to use. Thus, returning to static views of national cultures
is one way, at least, to objectively (and simply) evaluate which national cultures
are represented to learners as being connected to an English-using world. It is
also a method that has been used in previous Global Englishes textbook
evaluations (Syrbe, 2017) and is one way that we can obtain both quantitative
and qualitative evidence.
One limitation of this analysis was that our sample of twenty-five first
country mentions per book was rather small. Our adoption of this technique
was to ensure consistency across the books, and the lack of mention of nations
in some texts meant that the sample remained quite low. The negative effect of
this was that our sample was reached within a few chapters in textbooks such as
New Headway, while in others, such as Interchange, this sample included most
of the book. Because in New Headway many earlier chapters centre on topics
Table 6.9 Evaluation of global cultures in textbooks
New Inter- Market International English

Nation Headway change Leader Express Global Unlimited TOTAL
Inner (%) 9 8 5 12 7 5 46
Outer (%) 2 2 4 1 6 4 19
Expanding (%) 14 15 16 12 12 16 85
Most frequent USA (4) USA (5) USA (4) UK (5) USA (4) India (4) USA (22)
nation USA (5)
such as travel, we feel this sample is not entirely representative of the entire
book, as our close-look evaluation showed to be very UK-centric in its latter
half. Nevertheless, in order to compare the books subjectively, we adopted this
approach. This analysis is presented in Table 6.9, which outlines the national
cultures within Kachru’s three circles, which we have argued previously in this
book to be a poor way to categorise linguistic variation, but a useful way to
categorise English via nation-based socio-historical factors.
An oft-cited statistic on the global users of English is Crystal’s division
according to native, second and foreign users of the language, which roughly
maps on to Kachru’s Three Circle model. Crystal (2003, p. 61) estimates that
there are: 320–80 million people who speak English as a first language;
300–500 million people who speak English as a second language; and nearly
one billion people who speak English as a foreign language (or lingua franca).
Taking Crystal’s upper range of estimates, this would equate to 20% of users
being within the Inner Circle, 27% in the Outer Circle and 53% in the
Expanding Circle, or within a sample of twenty-five a 5:6.75:13.25 ratio of
Inner-, Outer- and Expanding Circle representation. Of our sampled textbooks,
Global came closest to this mark in its ratio of 7:6:12. English Unlimited
(5:4:16) and Market Leader (5:4:16) were also somewhat representative of
this ratio, although both texts favoured Expanding Circle contexts over Outer
Circle ones in representation. International Express, Interchange and New
Headway were all over-representative of the Inner Circle and underrepresenta-
tive of the Outer Circle.
Linguistic Orientation: Close-Look Evaluation

This section examined references to monolingual versus multilingual orienta-
tions. Scores were given on the five-point scale, based on interpretations of
evidence that pointed to either a traditional or global orientation within the
GELT framework (see Table 6.10). A score of one indicated an absolute
Table 6.10 Linguistic orientation of textbooks

Market Leader: 3 Inclusion of non-English-language translated quotes at start of
Upper some chapters promoted importance of other languages. The use
Intermediate of other languages alongside English was notably absent despite
opportunities to highlight this business practice.
International 2 The use of other languages alongside English was notably absent
Express despite opportunities to highlight this business practice in the
numerous global contexts; one example of a translanguaging
strategy.
New Headway: 1 Little reference to languages other than English; some examples
Upper- showcase the learning of foreign languages other than English as
Intermediate a negative experience.
Interchange 3 Some content placed value on knowing other languages and
respected multilingual speakers.
English Unlimited 2 Little reference made to other languages, despite opportunities to
highlight multilingual historical figures in excerpts.
Global 2 Multilingualism was rarely discussed in the text; some evidence
of a monolingual standpoint, with students’ L1 depicted as
source of interference and error in L2.
monolingual orientation, and a score of five indicated an absolute multilingual

orientation.
The textbooks bunched in scores towards the monolingual orientation with
little positive mention in the textbooks regarding multilingual users. In New
Headway there was reference to languages other than English, except in the
first chapter that discusses expat lives. In one case, a Canadian bemoans the fact
that learning Chinese characters ‘stinks’. In another case, an Englishman
complains that, despite living in Chile for four years, he ‘cannot make himself
understood at a deeper level’, and feels he ‘doesn’t belong’, unlike English
culture that ‘fits him like a glove’. New Headway, therefore, had quite negative
depictions of learning or using languages other than English.
International Express, English Unlimited and Global rarely discussed multi-
lingualism. In Global multilingualism was rarely discussed in the text, and
when it was the book took a monolingual standpoint. The listening exercises in
unit 1 were particularly egregious, where four students discussed their errors in
English as being caused by interference in the L1, such as a Spanish speaker
mixing his and her, a Bosnian student mapping English on to the syntax of her
L1 and a German student mistaking German vocabulary for English vocabu-
lary, a French student not pronouncing /h/ in ‘aitch’ (p. 151) and an Italian
student not spelling out acronyms due to transference from her L1. Learners
were shown to be purveyors of mistakes and error. In English Unlimited, the

use of other languages alongside English was notably absent, despite opportu-
nities to highlight multilingual historical figures, who featured in excerpts.
In International Express the use of other languages alongside English was
notably absent, despite opportunities to highlight this business practice in the
numerous global contexts highlighted throughout the book. However,
International Express was one of the few books that highlighted a translangua-
ging strategy (activity 10.2), which encouraged speakers to make use of their
full linguistic repertoire in offering advice for note-taking. In one audio James
asks Nicola ‘Should notes be taken in English rather than the student’s own
language?’ Nicola replies that the best strategy is to do what suits the students,
and that clarity in note-taking should not be sacrificed because a student is
worried about English-language abbreviations. The subtext in this advice is
that other languages could be used to enhance note-taking clarity.
Market Leader included some non-English-language translated quotes at the
start of each chapter (e.g. Swahili proverb, p. 22), which promoted the impor-
tance of other language users, placing them in a prestige position. However, the
use of other languages alongside English was notably absent, despite opportu-
nities to highlight this business practice in the numerous global contexts high-
lighted throughout the book. Some content in Interchange placed value on
knowing other languages (e.g. asking what two foreign languages students
would like to learn, p. 122; discussing the importance of choosing brand names
that translate well into other languages, p. 83; and celebrating a speaker of
nineteen languages as being ‘gifted’, p. 111).
Summary of Findings
New Headway received the lowest evaluations in our analysis. The textbook
was unabashedly Inner Circle-focused. The promotion of Inner Circle cultures,
such as the United States and the United Kingdom, seemed to be specific
marketing ploys, which positioned learners as studying English to participate
in these specific cultures. Of all the books New Headway appeared to be the
least aware of English as a global language and, accordingly, made minimal
attempts to prepare students to use it as such.
Interchange was evaluated as being a superior general textbook, as it made
more explicit attempts to be more globally orientated than New Headway.
While there were still numerous references to Inner Circle cultures, it was
clearly more sensitive to its global learners who were not all learning English to
participate in Inner Circle cultural contexts. The interchange was also helped
by a few references that placed value on multilingualism, and on using the
English language across linguistic and cultural communities. Some of our in-
depth analyses revealed that the interchange was, nonetheless, heavily focused
on L1 users as being the predominant target interlocutor for English use, and
American English was the predominant language norm presented throughout.
International Express was one of the few books that highlighted
a translanguaging strategy, which encouraged speakers to make use of their
full linguistic repertoire in note-taking. Likewise, in a further discussion of
listening, the book gave advice on strategies for negotiation of meaning.
It offered contrasting advice, such as that students mimic sounds from audio
cassettes, but also that some sounds like ‘th’ are understood even if they are not
pronounced in the standard way.
Market Leader proved itself to the juggernaut of textbooks in terms of its
global focus, achieving comparatively high evaluations in most areas. While it
included references to American and English pronunciation norms, the audio
samples were diverse, exposing students to a range of accents (even if some
were inauthentic). It was culturally inclusive, albeit at times static in its
depictions. While there still seemed to be an Anglo-cultural dominance in
many tasks, text samples and the audio, it certainly was explicitly aware of
English as a global language, and how business English students might likely
need to use the language in the future.
English Unlimited, despite its promise of a global focus, was often evaluated
as comparable with the long-running general textbook Interchange, and the
business textbook of International Express. The textbook seemed to adopt
a strategy that being global meant to not reference too many countries and
locations in their examples, although many of the examples appeared very
American/British-centred, despite not being explicitly defined as such. They
also appeared to equate their global outlook as being met by providing numer-
ous non-Anglo historical and political references. While this made the book
seem much more global compared to the other texts, one might argue that this
was at a tokenistic level. The book was improved by its strong depictions of
ELF exchanges among its main characters.
Global was very promising during the first-glance evaluation, but once we
conducted a close-look evaluation we realised that many of the global depic-
tions were at a superficial level. This investigation led it to not outperforming
(and indeed underperforming) many of the general and business textbooks
within many of the GELT criteria. While it should be commended for adopting
an openness to including a variety of speakers, this content clashed with other
decisions in the book, which focused on ‘error’. Our analysis revealed similar
contradictions with the depictions of culture in the texts.
Conclusion: What Do Good GELT Materials Look Like?

Our textbook analysis can be used as a departure point from which to draw
conclusions on what good GELT materials should look like. One of the first
issues raised in the analysis is the importance of needs analysis in creating good
materials. Market Leader proved itself to be more globally focused than the
texts that specifically promoted themselves as being aimed at teaching EIL.
Market Leader probably made its content decisions based on learners’ business
use needs, highlighting the important role of needs analysis in developing
appropriate materials for a curriculum, a topic we discussed in Chapter 2.
In Chapter 5 we further discussed GELT as English for a specific purpose,
thus parallels between the material created for the specific purpose of using
English as a business lingua franca somewhat align with elements within the
GELT curriculum. Good GELT materials could build on this model and use
needs analysis to inform the content of their textbooks, rather than making
decisions at the ideological level, as we suspect was the case for the two global
textbooks in our sample.
Our analysis has found that there was over-reliance on UK and American
models of English, and an over-representation of L1 speakers. We conclude
that this is not representative of how English will be used by most students who
learn via these textbooks. Nevertheless, some texts showed positive signs of
change. Market Leader and English Unlimited used a fairly high proportion of
non-standard English in their audio, which showcases to learners that English
norms (albeit only phonological ones) are flexibly used in global contexts.
Eighty-three per cent of the interactions in some of the textbooks could be
broadly defined as ELF (L1–L2 or L2–L2), and L2–L2 interactions accounted
for one-third of the audio sample from International Express. This is a positive
starting point for further commercial materials development in this area. It also
indicates that some textbooks are beginning to become more inclusive, at least
in the constrained context of accompanying audio materials. Good GELT
materials could further this progress by including examples of not only pho-
nologically varied English but also morphosyntactically varied English. ELF
corpora may be key in this area. We reiterate Galloway’s (2018a) call for ‘more
dialogue between ELF researchers, ELT practitioners and ELT materials wri-
ters and publishers’ to ‘facilitate the movement away from the focus on
accuracy and native English towards a more realistic and representative view
of how English functions as an international lingua franca’ (p. 478).
Movement is also needed in the static depictions of English-speaking cul-
tures in the textbooks. Indeed, culture was so nation-centric in its portrayals
that we needed to resort to a static analytical framework within which to
interpret them. Such treatment of culture is entirely incompatible with GELT.
Good GELT materials would draw on work in ELF, such as that by Baker (see
Chapter 1) to encourage students to see culture as fluid, and co-constructed.
Good GELT materials should portray culture as being created in communities
of practice and not depict learners as joining an English-using culture but co-
creating it. As Galloway (2018a) notes:
Materials writers are encouraged to draw on such opportunities and to encourage

learners to reflect on their encounters . . . also reflecting on how communication between
those from diverse lingua-cultural backgrounds differs to static predetermined NES
norms. (p. 477)
Cultures should also not be defined by traditional state-based or ethnic-based
borders. They can include any number of flexible English-using cultures in the
workplace, social circles, or even virtual ones, where English is used to fill
a communicative need within that culture. Louhiala-Salminen et al. (2005) note
that ‘learners should be trained to see themselves as communicators, with real
jobs to perform and needs to fulfill; it is these jobs and needs that should be
emphasised, not the language they use to carry them out’ (p. 419).
Good materials should further equip learners with the strategies needed to
use language in fluid and diverse contexts. In our analysis, we only recorded
a handful of examples where learners were taught strategies to negotiate mean-
ing or draw on their other linguistic resources when using English. These
findings concur with recent evaluations of communication strategies in ELT
materials, such as Vettorel (2018), who notes that the relevance of commu-
nication strategies in ELF has not yet been acknowledged in materials. This is
despite the fact that:
Communication strategies have been shown to have a particularly significant role in
English as a Lingua Franca communication, that is characterized by negotiation and co-
construction of meaning; in these encounters, where different linguacultures meet, ELF
speakers employ a range of pragmatic strategies to solve, or pre-empt, (potential) non-
understandings often drawing on their plurilingual repertoires, too. (Vettorel, 2018, p. 1)
Good GELT materials should go further than teaching language, by, instead,
training students to use the language in flexible ways in order to achieve
successful communication in a range of contexts. Thus, strategy training to
be able to adapt, to clarify, to repair and to draw on other linguistic resources is
an essential component for modern-day, global textbook content.
Due to the fact that commercial materials tend to drag behind learner needs,
it may take some time for suitable commercial materials for GELT to begin to
emerge. This is because global publishing houses tend to focus on the ‘late
majority’ of an innovation as they are driven by profitability. As was discussed
in Chapter 4, Global Englishes innovations are still in the early stages of the
innovation process and, thus, it will take time for innovation to achieve
a critical mass. In the interim, curriculum developers and materials writers
may need to adapt existing materials or create their own for their local contexts.
The flip side of this is that home-grown materials may be better catered to local
learners’ needs, as writers will be more attuned to their own language learners’
needs. In fact, as Chapter 4 has shown many innovations in English language
teaching, especially those driven by demands to teach English as a global
language, are occurring despite the barrier of a lack of materials. Thus, rather
than being driven by large publishing houses, changes are occurring at
a grassroots level in teachers’ own classrooms. The emergence of materials,
however, would greatly speed up the innovation process and, thus, research into
their current lacks can help inform the creation of new materials. As new
materials emerge, especially those that are promoted as global in orientation,
evaluation and analysis is essential, in order to investigate whether their claims
ring true.
7 Global Englishes and Teacher Education
It is clear from this book thus far that the global spread of the English language
and its use as a lingua franca raises questions about conventional modes of
thinking in TESOL. As discussed in Chapter 4, teacher beliefs, education,
support and training have been identified as key ‘barriers’ to consider in
GELT curriculum innovation. Our innovation model (Figure 4.2) also places
attitudes as key factors that affect innovation uptake. This chapter responds to
the call for more research on the attitudes of these important stakeholders and
also on how GELT can be incorporated into pre-and in-service TESOL practi-
tioner training. We review key research and present an original empirical study
to explore how familiarising pre-service and in-service teachers with Global
Englishes subject matter can help them become part of this paradigm shift.
The study also sheds light on incorporating a GELT perspective in varied
teaching contexts.
GELT and TESOL Practitioner Education

The importance of teachers’ beliefs was highlighted in Chapter 4 as being a key
factor to ensure successful and sustained curriculum innovation. Chapter 4 also
highlighted the fact that many ELF scholars have noted the need to raise
teachers’ awareness of ELF research. Many postgraduate TESOL and applied
linguistics programmes now offer Global Englishes components and recent
publications showcase such programmes in contexts around the globe
(Matsuda, 2017). Some recent publications also offer lesson plans and activ-
ities (Galloway, 2017a; Galloway and Rose, 2015; Matsuda, 2017). Matsuda’s
(2009) examination of the content of teacher education programmes in
Kachru’s Expanding Circle, for example, found that, although the majority
focus on American and British English, more than half offer courses that cover
topics on the spread of English, World Englishes, and social and regional
dialects of English. The lack of research-led practical suggestions for teachers
to implement change was noted, however. Dewey (2014) makes a similar point,
noting that MA TESOL modules that cover this subject tend to concentrate on
162
Global Englishes and Teacher Education 163
ELF research and theory, with relatively little consideration of the practical
aspects of incorporating ELF in the classroom.
Challenges to the Hegemony of Western TESOL

By advocating the inclusion of GELT in TESOL practitioner education courses,
we are not suggesting abolishing current content, but wish to encourage
a critical examination of this through a Global Englishes lens. We want to
position pre- and in-service TESOL practitioners, who are ‘experts’ in their
contexts, not as passive receivers of an education, but as important agents of
change in the curriculum innovation process. It has been two decades since
Pennycook (1998) criticised TESOL programmes for reproducing images of
‘the superior Self’ over ‘the inferior Other’, and more than a decade since
Holliday (2005) critiqued the dominance of native speakerism in Western
TESOL, and characterised the ‘English-speaking West as the source of domi-
nant TESOL thinking’ (p. 2). It is unfortunate that this may still be the case in
some contexts.
Ilieva and Waterstone’s (2013) curriculum examination found that the dis-
courses and practices circulating in Western TESOL programmes are still
informed by Western superiority. Dewey and Patsko (2017) also note that
despite the incorporation of ‘ELF and/or Global Englishes’ in the syllabus of
two initial English language teaching awards (the Certificate in English
Language Teaching to Adults (CELTA) and Trinity Certificate in Teaching
English to Speakers of Other Languages (CertTESOL)), the guidelines lack
guidance about the associated pedagogical implications. The reference to
‘variation’ and ‘variety’ more or less interchangeably leads to a concern that
ELF and varieties of English may become conflated in the minds of the
teachers. Thus, it is uncertain ‘whether the syllabus writers or trainers on
CertTESOL courses will approach the topic of ELF in a way that is compatible
with an ELF perspective’ (p. 445), resonating with our call for research on
classroom-based research (see Chapter 5). Such superficial coverage and native
bias is unfortunate given the numerous studies reporting dissatisfaction with
pre- and in-service teacher training courses and the relevance for diverse
contexts, discussed next.
Challenges to the Relevance of TESOL Practitioner Education

Much has been written on the barriers that novice teachers may face (see
Farrell, 2012) and the gap between what is taught on teacher education pro-
grammes and what happens in the classroom (Baecher, 2012; Faez & Valeo,
2012; Tarone & Allwright, 2005). Research has also been conducted within the
field of TESOL on the relevance of preparation programmes (Barnawi & Le
Ha, 2014; Chowdhury & Phan, 2014; Hobbs, 2013; Holliday, 2005; Inoue &
Stracke, 2013; Li & Edwards, 2013; Phan, 2007; Swan, 2015). Some of these
examine the views of those enrolled on these programmes. Inoue and Stracke’s
(2013) interviews with eight English L2 students taking a postgraduate TESOL
course in Australia revealed that they were aware of the privileged position of
Inner Circle English(es) and of native English-speaking teachers, and valued
their Australian qualification to differentiate themselves from other teachers in
their home countries. However, six of the participants in this study questioned
the current situation, having realised the importance of introducing World
Englishes in their own teaching.
The importance of practitioners’ own contexts was also highlighted in Hobbs’s
(2013) study with nine trainees and six experienced teachers who had completed
a similar certificate course earlier in their career. Using field notes, question-
naires, interviews, course documents and emails, the tips and techniques
introduced were found to be the most valuable compared to the language
awareness input, which was seen as more ‘theoretical’ and less valuable.
The study called for the inclusion of different teaching contexts, longer
supervised teaching practice and for TESOL practitioner education to ‘adjust
to meet the shifting needs of English-language learners’ (ibid., p. 173), due to the
fact that bilingual proficiency is taking central stage among other things.
Others have examined the attitudes of practitioners after they return to their
home contexts. Swann’s (2015) interviews with fifteen teachers of English
from seven countries revealed that CLT was a major issue, highlighting
a ‘mismatch between what the student teachers have been taught, and what
they have to face in their teaching environments’ (p. 65). In Saudi Arabia,
Barnawi and Le Ha (2015) investigated the extent to which North American,
British and Australian TESOL programmes have prepared teachers to teach in
their home contexts. Their study used questionnaires, observations and inter-
views with two Western-trained Saudi TESOL language teachers over six
months. The study found that they did not uncritically adopt assumptions of
Western pedagogies and one used more context-sensitive methods and the
students’ mother tongue.
In China, Li and Edwards (2013) assessed the impact of a UK-based
professional development programme on curriculum innovation and change
using the diffusion of innovation theory. Interviews, focus group discussions
and observations with forty-eight TESOL practitioners who had taken part in
this training, nine who had not, and ten interviews with English managers
revealed that there was evidence of innovation on return to China, although
reinvention was common to ensure it fitted with local needs. These studies, as
with those outlined in Chapter 4, highlight the importance of understanding the
context within which practitioners are working. The few studies that have been
conducted in relation to GELT are discussed next.
Practitioners’ Attitudes Towards Global Englishes and ELT

Some studies have looked at practitioners’ attitudes towards Global Englishes
and some of these have also looked at their attitudes towards ELT (for an
overview, see Galloway, 2017a; Galloway & Rose, 2015; Jenkins, 2007).
While only one of these used mixed methods, we did note in Chapter 4 that
several of these provided insights on the possible factors that influence these
attitudes, including preconceived stereotypes (Jenkins, 2007), and others high-
lighted a theory–practice divide and the complexity of attitudes (Jenkins, 2007;
Sasaki, 2004, cited in Yoshikawa, 2005; Seidlhofer & Widdowson, 2003;
Sifakis & Sougari, 2005).
Some studies discuss their results in relation to the implications for teacher
education. Blair (2015), for example, who uses the term ‘ELF-aware teacher
education’ (p. 100), conducted interviews with twelve teachers and utilised
discussion forums, emails and a joint interview with two teachers.
The European L2 users from the Expanding Circle had received some, or
part, of their teacher education in the United Kingdom. The teachers were
found to display what Dewey (2012, p. 167) calls teachers’ ‘fundamental
ambivalence about ELF’ and proposes that teacher education programmes
can integrate a ‘post-native’ sociolinguistic and ELF position by giving more
prominence to sociolinguistic and sociocultural perspectives on SLA modules,
including ELF use as a goal for learners, more focus on pragmatics inclusion of
ELF/Global Englishes elements in pedagogy modules, and provide opportu-
nities to explore diversity and challenge key constructs such as ‘nativeness’,
among others things.
Doan’s (2014) interviews with eleven lecturers taking a teacher education
option in Vietnam to examine culture teaching from an EIL perspective con-
cluded that a pluricentric perspective should be adopted that moves beyond the
native speaker culture model. The author calls for an inclusive EIL paradigm
that endorses the diversity of English and validates speakers of non-native
English as authentic users of the language. Dilek and Özdemir’s (2015) ques-
tionnaires with 300 pre- and in-service teachers in Turkey revealed that the
former was more open towards ELF, more likely to question the normative
perspective of English language teaching, and more critical of native speaker
superiority. ELF instruction and familiarity with ELF were also found to have
a positive effect on attitudes and they concluded with a call for the inclusion of
an ELF-aware approach in teacher education to help the movement towards an
ELF-aware approach in ELT.
Some studies provide accounts of practitioners’ experiences introducing
a GELT perspective into their classrooms. Manara’s (2014) critical reflection
of her experience of teaching EIL in an Australian context using narrative
inquiry found resistance to ideas. Learners questioned its usefulness in contexts
where tests adhered to standard norms. Similarly, Giri and Foo’s (2014) study
in Japan also highlights resistance. Using a critical reflective narrative
approach with one non-native English speaker in TESOL (NNEST), the
study examines the dilemma of being an EIL advocate in a society that values
native English-speaking norms. Indeed, as discussed in Chapter 4, ‘challenges
to normative beliefs’ may create the ‘most resistance’ (Ullucci, 2007, p. 1).
However, beliefs are not static constructs and are subject to change as has been
highlighted by the recent body of research on the influence of Global Englishes
instruction on students’ attitudes (Derwing et al., 2002; Galloway, 2011, 2013,
2017a; Galloway & Rose, 2013; Shim, 2002; Sung, 2015).
Influence of GELT Practitioner Education on Attitudes

As outlined in Chapter 4, research is varied on whether teacher education
influences beliefs. In Japan, Suzuki’s (2011) mixed methods study (question-
naire, individual in-depth interview, classroom observation, analysis of teach-
ing materials, and analysis of students’ writing) with three student teachers
found that instruction in the diversity of English can affect student teachers’
views of English. Suzuki also found the influence to vary depending on their
past exploration, and knowledge, of non-native English. She concluded, how-
ever, that ‘single-shot instruction in the diversity of English’ is not enough due
to their ‘deeply ingrained beliefs that there is a single useful form of English for
international communication, and this is standard English’ (p. 151).
Hall et al. (2013) developed an online course for English language teachers
to raise their awareness of the pluricentricity of English, including World
Englishes and ELF, and the pedagogical implications. The course design was
based on the conviction that beliefs must change within the profession before
macro-level change can occur. It was piloted with seventeen pre- and in-service
teachers and a teacher trainer from the Inner, Outer, and Expanding Circles.
The majority showed recognition of the problems associated with a monolithic
ontology of English. Overall, the course was found to have the potential to
trigger change in their beliefs and practices, and in some cases to encourage
them to seek to promote change in others. However, many teachers have a firm
attachment to a monolithic ontology of English and other languages. This
‘bottom-up’ approach to applied linguistic research emphasises the need to
listen to and interact with teachers and explore how their educational and
professional experiences influence their beliefs. The trial feedback was
encouraging, albeit revealing the expected ‘magnitude of the challenge’
(Hall et al., 2013, p. 16)
Vettorel (2016), who prefers the term ‘WE and ELF-informed teacher
education’, found similar results in her examination of pre-service teacher
beliefs. The participants were undertaking a university course in Italy, which
included a module on the pedagogical implications of World Englishes and

ELF. Pre-course and post-course questionnaires, interviews, class reflections
and materials developed by the trainees revealed that it raised their awareness
of the issues and there was evidence of a ‘readiness to move towards a WE- and
ELF-informed approach’, also visible in the teaching ideas, which included
several of Galloway and Rose’s (2015) proposals for change. It modified their
perspective and prompted them to reflect on the barriers to incorporating this
perspective in their classroom. Barriers included its potential difficultness and
complexity compared to only focusing on one variety, which may cause
students’ confusion (a concern raised by students themselves in Galloway,
2011, 2013, 2017a), a lack of time, a scarcity of materials and an attachment
to standard English. They remained attached to the role of grammar and error
correction and the need to provide learners with a standard ‘reference model’.
There was also a degree of uncertainty as to what model/standards they should
follow. Forum discussions did highlight, however, that the course encouraged
them to critically reflect and question the non-monolithic perspective of
TESOL.
Lopriore (2016) investigated the attitudes of 250 native (15% of the sample)
and non-native pre- and in-service teachers in Italy taking a teacher education
courses that introduced ELF and the implications for pedagogy. Pre-course
questionnaires, four focus group interviews, written narratives and lesson plans
revealed that the participants were keen to explore new ways of teaching
English, which were inclusive of World Englishes and ELF. The course enabled
them to reflect on their own ELT contexts, critically examine materials in
a ‘new light’ and plan locally relevant activities within a World Englishes,
EIL and ELF-informed viewpoint. However, there was a lack of ways to
improve learners’ negotiating strategies and most trainees lacked a capability
for observing and using interactive strategies. The study concludes with a call
for more exposure to samples of meaning negotiation and for noticing activities
through the VOICE corpus. Participants also referred to other tasks and duties,
and difficulties were not found to be related to teachers’ resistance to changes
or in their attitudes, but due to the limited time for introducing innovations and
selecting and adjusting materials. The study calls for action research in teacher
education courses to trigger observations of their classroom practice.
Sifakis and Bayyurt’s (2015, 2018) teacher education project (ELF-Ted
project), focused on putting their transformative ELF-aware teacher education
(ELFATE) framework into practice to raise TESOL practitioners’ awareness of
‘ELF teaching matters’ (Sifakis, 2007, p. 355) and to encourage them to
critically reflect on, and challenge, their own beliefs about language and
teaching. Twelve teachers (eleven from Turkey and one from Greece) com-
pleted all three phases of the project. Evaluations were collected and two focus
groups with Turkish participants during and after the pilot phase were con-
ducted (Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2015). The framework raised participants’ aware-
ness of their deep-rooted convictions and helped them explore new
perspectives, conduct action research and try out activities and lessons ‘that
deviate (sometimes significantly) from established or expected practices’
(Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2016, p. 148). They found ELF a straightforward notion
and viewed ELF-aware training as a means to become aware of new develop-
ments in ELT. The framework enabled them to pinpoint concrete examples of
where native English norms are promoted. Reflections on their pedagogical
practice led to self-confidence as non-native English speakers and teachers.
They reported learners’ positive and enthusiastic reactions to the ELF-aware
lessons, which the authors note is evidence of the need for locally designed
materials and activities by those who intimately know their own context,
resonating with our conclusion in Chapter 6 that materials be adapted to local
needs. Participants felt that learners could become ELF-aware, without this
necessarily influencing the way English is taught in Turkey, even in contexts
where stakeholder perceptions strongly favour standard English.
However, the project did not result in a radical transformation; many were
enthusiastic but continued to resort to ‘traditional’ methods when teaching.
Three types of participants were identified: supporters, risk-takers, and scep-
tics. The study concludes that it is early days for ‘ELF-aware pedagogy’ due to
the diversity in teaching contexts, teacher beliefs and learner needs, suggesting
that ‘only micro-innovation is possible’ (Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2016, p. 150),
referring to localised pedagogical interventions by individual teachers. They
also highlight the importance of engaging with the possible barriers to curri-
culum innovation on TESOL practitioner programmes to help them manage
innovation in their own contexts, calling for more action research data.
The Study
The study presented in this chapter was conducted with pre- and in-service
TESOL practitioners taking a Global Englishes for Language Teaching course
on a one-year Master’s in TESOL programme at a university in the United
Kingdom. The course was designed and delivered by one of the authors.
In order to inform GELT practitioner education and provide insights into
implementing GELT in diverse contexts around the globe, the following
research questions were generated:
1. What are pre-service and in-service TESOL practitioners’ attitudes towards
the GELT course and its relevance for their own teaching practice?
2. What are their attitudes towards the proposals and barriers for GELT put
forward in the literature?
3. To what extent did the GELT course influence their attitudes?
The study also aimed to address concerns that the pedagogical implications of
Global Englishes research continue to be theorised in the literature without
empirical data on implementing proposals for change. Further, the study
provides practical suggestions on how to implement GELT.
The Setting
The Global Englishes for Language Teaching option course (for an overview,
see Galloway, 2017b) was introduced in 2013. The MSc TESOL programme
attracts both in-service and pre-service teachers, with the majority being from
China. In the first semester, students take compulsory courses on TESOL
methodology, curriculum, second language acquisition and research methods.
In the second semester, they take two further research methods courses and two
option courses. The GELT course runs for eight weeks; students participate in
a one-hour pre-lecture workshop, a one-hour lecture and a two-hour workshop
each week. Topics include the history of English, language variation, World
Englishes, EIL, ELF and translanguaging research, the role of English in
different contexts, language attitudes, identity, English language teaching,
GELT, the internationalisation of higher education and the future of English.
Core texts are Galloway & Rose (2015) and Jenkins (2015). The GELT frame-
work aids reflective practice, encouraging reflection on readings and lectures in
relation to their own beliefs, familiar curricula and learning and teaching
contexts. They also reflect on key TESOL concepts and theories introduced
in semester one and critically examine relevant research studies, prompting
discussion on ‘standard’ English and, for some, their ‘normative mindset’
(Seidlhofer, 2008, pp. 3–4).
Research Design
Data was collected via an online questionnaire (n = 41) at the start and end of
the course. Interviews (n = 21) were also conducted before and after the course,
followed by six post-course focus groups (n = 27). A pilot study was conducted
in 2015 to test the instruments, which were adjusted accordingly. Data was
collected between 2016 and 2017 with two cohorts of students, who studied the
same content and were taught in the same way. The questionnaire elicited
background information and all instruments elicited views on GELT, the course
and the proposals and barriers (Galloway and Rose, 2015). Interviews, con-
ducted in English, began by allowing participants a chance to talk freely about
their teaching and language-learning experience and familiar ELT context,
followed by semi-structured prompts based on Kvale’s (1996) question types.
Focus groups prompts, based on Krueger’s (1998) five category framework,
were conducted last and aimed to provide an opportunity to reflect on attitudes
and experiences in comparison to their peers (Krueger & Casey, 2015) and to
create an interactive environment to discuss these attitudes and exchange ideas
(Rossman & Rallis, 2016).
Data Analysis
Quantitative data analysis was conducted using the IBM® SPSS v.22 statistical
software. Descriptive statistics were utilised to summarise the data. Non-
parametric statistical tests, including Mann–Whitney U tests and
Kruskal–Wallis analysis of variance tests, were used with the ordinal data.
Qualitative analysis was conducted in NVivo 11. Qualitative data sets were
treated as separate ‘cases’ and analysed separately. The focus group data was
analysed as the joint product of the group discussion, rather than the reflection
of individual views (Smithson, 2000) and the main focus was on group
dynamics, how participants established common ground (Överlien et al.,
2005) and the ways in which this influenced expressed opinions. The pre-
course and post-course data were compared to address research question 3.
Limitations
One of the limitations relates to the fact that research data were collected in one
of the researcher’s own classrooms (for an overview of the complexities of
doing such research, see Galloway, 2017c). However, participation was volun-
tary, did not affect course grades and anonymity has been protected. The single
setting of the study and relatively small quantitative sample pose further
limitations. However, the mixed methods study aimed to give participants
a voice and address any possible relationships of unequal power caused by
the dual role of the researcher/course instructor. Additional steps to ensure the
credibility of the findings included member checking of the transcripts, thick
description of the setting and cross-coder analysis.
Questionnaire Results
Participant Overview
Fifty-seven participants completed a pre-course questionnaire, and 38 com-
pleted a post-course questionnaire. Demographic information of the partici-
pants was taken from the pre-course questionnaire. As noted in Galloway et al.
(under submission), the majority of the respondents were female (n = 41),
under the age of thirty (n = 42) and from China (n = 35). Other countries
included Indonesia (n = 3), the United Kingdom (n = 3), Hong Kong (n = 2),
the United States (n = 1), Malaysia (n = 1), Japan (n = 1) and Thailand (n = 1).
About a quarter (n = 12) did not have any teaching experience, but some had
either less than 1 month (n = 8), 1–3 months (n = 8), 4–12 months (n = 10), 1–4
years (n = 5) or more than 5 years (n = 3).
Attitudes Towards the GELT Optional Course and Barriers for

Implementation
Students responded on a four-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 =
strongly agree). In the pre-course questionnaire, 40 of the 41 agreed or strongly
agreed that the Global Englishes option course will be useful for my future
English teaching career (M = 3.22, SD = 0.48) and 38 agreed or strongly agreed
that Global Englishes should be a topic on all MSc TESOL/English language
teacher education programmes (M = 3.10, SD = 0.49).
Students were introduced to Galloway and Rose’s (2015) six GELT propo-
sals for change to ELT, and the barriers to implementing change, in an intro-
ductory lecture on Global Englishes in semester one. In the pre-course
questionnaire, attitudes towards all of these were very positive with all mean
scores over 3.00 (Table 7.1). They all also thought all six proposals would be
possible to achieve in their teaching contexts, although they were least con-
fident about changing English teacher-hiring practices (Table 7.1).
With regard to the barriers, they strongly believed that language assessment
(M = 3.38, SD = 0.54) was a barrier, with 22 agreeing and 16 strongly agreeing.
Twenty-three agreed and 16 strongly agreed that attachment to ‘standard’
English (M = 3.38, SD = 0.54) was a barrier; 25 agreed and 14 strongly agreed
with teacher education (M = 3.33, SD = 0.53); 30 agreed and 9 strongly agreed
with lack of Global Englishes ELT materials (M = 3.20, SD = 0.46); and 29
agreed and 8 strongly agreed with teacher-hiring practices (M = 3.13,
SD = 0.52) (see Table 7.2).
Influence of GELT Course on Attitudes

To investigate whether there were significant differences between the pre-
and post-course questionnaire, a Mann–Whitney U test was performed
(Table 7.3). There were some significant differences, although since nearly
all either agreed or strongly agreed that the GELT course will be useful for
their future teaching career (40 out of 41 in the pre-course survey and 31 out
of 35 in the post-course survey) and that Global Englishes should be a topic
on all MSc TESOL/English language teacher education programmes (38 out
of 41 in pre and 33 out of 36 in post), the course did not significantly influence
attitudes to these prompts.
However, at the end of the semester, students put less importance on the
need for English teachers to have a knowledge of English grammar (M = 3.48
Table 7.1 Frequencies and percentages of participants’ attitudes towards the

relevance of GELT proposals for their future teaching context
Item Description Mean SD

Relevance to their future Raise awareness of Global Englishes 3.46 0.51
teaching context Emphasise respect for diverse 3.41 0.55
culture and identity
Raise awareness of ELF strategies 3.28 0.51
Emphasise respect for multilingualism 3.21 0.41
Change English teacher-hiring 3.21 0.62
practices
Increase Global Englishes exposure 3.18 0.51
Positive to achieve in future Raise awareness of Global Englishes 3.36 0.54
teaching context Emphasise respect for diverse 3.28 0.51
culture and identity
Emphasise respect for multilingualism 3.23 0.49
Raise awareness of ELF strategies 3.15 0.54
Increase Global Englishes exposure 3.10 0.45
Change English teacher-hiring 2.95 0.61
practices
Table 7.2 Frequencies and percentages of students’

attitudes towards the relevance of the barriers to their
teaching context
GELT Mean SD
The future of English 3.48 0.51
Language assessment 3.38 0.54
Attachment to ‘standard’ English 3.38 0.54
Teacher education 3.33 0.53
Lack of Global Englishes ELT material 3.20 0.46
Teacher-hiring practices 3.13 0.52
in the pre-course versus M = 3.16 in the post-course questionnaire, U = 586.0,

p = 0.013, r = −0.28) and good pronunciation (M = 3.41 versus M = 3.19, U =
613.0, p = 0.021, r = −0.26). They were also significantly more positive about
the need for English teachers to have experience using English as a Lingua
Franca (M = 3.45 in the pre-course versus M = 3.67 in the post-course, U =
548.0, p = 0.037, r = −0.24). However, positive attitudes towards the impor-
tance of considering some GELT proposals in their future teaching contexts
Table 7.3 Comparison of pre- and post-course attitudes
Mean
Item Description Group Na Rank U p r
The Global Englishes option course will Pre 41 38.51 717.0 0.995 0.00
be useful for my future English teaching
career.
Post 35 38.49
Global Englishes should be a topic on all Pre 41 36.01 615.5 0.133 -0.17
MSc TESOL/English language teacher
education programmes.
Post 36 42.40
The following skills are important for an
English teacher in this context:
Knowledge of English grammar Pre 44 46.18 586.0 0.013 -0.28
Post 37 34.84
Good pronunciation Pre 44 45.57 613.0 0.021 -0.26
Post 37 35.57
The following topics covered on the
course will be useful:
English as a Lingua Franca Pre 40 34.20 548.0 0.037 -0.24
Post 36 43.28
The following GELT proposals
introduced briefly in semester one are
important to consider in my
future teaching context:
Raise awareness of ELF strategies Pre 39 32.54 489.0 0.026 -0.25
Post 34 42.12
Emphasise respect for multilingualism Pre 39 32.88 502.5 0.031 -0.26
Post 34 41.72
The following barriers to introducing
a Global Englishes perspective into the
ELT classroom briefly introduced in the
‘Language and the Learner’ lecture are
relevant to my context:
Language assessment Pre 39 32.82 500.0 0.038 -0.24
Post 34 41.79
Attachment to ‘standard’ English Pre 40 32.95 498.0 0.039 -0.24
Post 33 41.91
Lack of Global Englishes ELT material Pre 40 33.00 500.0 0.021 -0.27
Post 34 42.79
a
N: Number
Scores ranged from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 4 (Strongly agree)
lessened, such as the need to raise awareness of ELF strategies (M = 3.56

versus M = 3.28, U = 489.0, p = 0.026, r = −0.25) and emphasise respect for
multilingualism (M = 3.44 versus M = 3.21, U = 502.5, p = 0.031, r = −0.26).
When asked about the possibility of implementing these proposals in their
context, students did report higher mean scores after the course, but the
difference was not significant. This is related to the fact that both before and
after the course, students had higher mean scores (>3.0) for all five barriers to
introducing GELT in their contexts. Almost all either agreed or strongly agreed
before and after the course, but at the end of the semester, there were signifi-
cantly higher levels of agreement that language assessment (M = 3.65
versus M = 3.38, U = 500.0, p = 0.038, r = −0.24), attachment to ‘standard’
English (M = 3.64 versus M = 3.38, U = 498.0, p = 0.039, r = −0.24) and lack of
Global Englishes ELT materials (M = 3.47 versus M = 3.20, U = 500.0, p =
0.021, r = −0.27) represented barriers to GELT in their contexts.
Open-Ended Questionnaire Results on Attitudes

Forty-seven participants provided responses in the pre-course questionnaire and
a number of themes were identified (Table 7.4). Seventy-one comments (pre- and
post-course combined) related to reasons for choosing the course, with a general
interest in Global Englishes being the most popular response (n = 35). They are
‘interested in English as a lingua franca both as a phenomenon and a research
paradigm’, ‘want to understand more about it and consider its relevance to my
context’, ‘interested in the concept about Global Englishes, and how English is
perceived and accepted in different contexts and speakers’ and because they ‘have
been wondering why we need to follow American English norms when in reality
nowadays our communications in English are mostly with non-native speakers’.
Many referred to its perceived relevance for ELT and/or own career (n = 16)
because Global Englishes is ‘a growing field that will affect most of [them] in [their]
future careers’ and ‘English teachers need to know to be able to deal with the most
recent knowledge of English teaching’. Eleven want clear GELT guidelines to aid
curricular innovation because they are ‘interested in learning how to use ELF in
a classroom of an EFL country’ and ‘would like to know if it can be taught’.
References to relevance to career were made throughout, not only with
regard to why they chose the course. Nineteen felt GELT was relevant to
their future, fifteen wanted to apply GELT theory in their classrooms, two
believed it was relevant to their dissertation and two planned to undertake
a PhD or other research related to GELT. However, when asked about the
relevance and feasibility of Galloway and Rose’s (2015) proposals for change
for their future teaching contexts, only eleven commented. Only one was
critical, noting that they are ‘too general and related to policy’ and others
were positive because they are ‘important with regard to Global Englishes’
and that ‘Global Englishes should be an important part of English teaching’
Table 7.4 Thematic comparison for pre- and post-course

open-ended questionnaire responses
Themes Pre Post

Relevance to career 19 16
Incorporate GELT 15 11
Dissertation 2 2
PhD or other future research 2 3
Raise awareness of GE 27 19
Students’ awareness 13 7
Teachers’ awareness 9 4
Others’ awareness (e.g. parents, ‘people’, 5 8
policymakers)
Proposals 11 16
Barriers 11 16
Attachment to SE and/or lack of awareness of GE 4 16
Assessment 4 4
Lack of materials 2 3
Teacher-hiring practices 1 3
Guidelines X 1
Teacher training X 3
Lack of time X 1
Parents X 1
Policy X 1
because it ‘is important for the development of current English and English
teachers’. However, one proposal, the need to raise awareness of GE emerged
as a major theme throughout the data (n = 27).
On the other hand, five of Galloway and Rose’s (2015) barriers were noted,
including assessment (n = 4), attachment to standard English and/or lack of
awareness of Global Englishes (n = 4), lack of materials (n = 2) and teacher-
hiring practices (n = 1). Comments included ‘I think the hardest part for
language teaching related to Global Englishes should be that it is hard for
teachers to choose a possible assessment. There is no right or wrong in this
aspect’ and ‘The attachment to “standard” English is quite hard to remove,
which leads to the barrier of recruitment practices’.
Some post-course comments (n = 22) were categorised as providing GELT
course evaluations and eighteen expressed positive attitudes. The course pro-
vided them with ‘a new insight on English teaching’, enabling them to ‘make
students aware of the Global Englishes and encourage them to be themselves
rather than crazy for native English’. It ‘changed my view of English teaching
which I never thought it on a global context before’. Many found it relevant to
their own contexts and for ELT in general, they would consider incorporating it
into their classrooms. The course provided ‘broader and deeper understanding
of the implications of the global spread of English’ and they now feel ‘better
equipped with helping students to be free from their strong belief that they have
to sound like a native speaker if they want to be considered as a competent user
of English’. However, four referred to their confusion ‘about how to use these
topics in ELT’ and there was a concern over ‘how to put it into real practice’ and
a desire for ‘real examples to see what is GELT-like’.
Open-Ended Questionnaire Results on GELT Influence on Attitudes

Qualitative data from the questionnaire also indicated that the course influ-
enced participants’ attitudes (Table 7.4). As in the pre-course data, participants
still plan to ‘bring the theories [which they learned on the course] into practice’,
‘create actual teaching plans which involve ELF strategies and awareness
raising activities in terms of such as respecting multilingualism’ and ‘to make
a plan of teaching English which is useful for students’ needs in the future’.
However, fewer commented on the relevance to career and future teaching.
They referred to more of the proposals, however, and referred more to their own
contexts. Illustrative comments included:
In my teaching context, sometimes students are from diverse cultures, and I think it is
important that they learn how to appreciate various cultures’. And ‘I believe it is
important to raise the awareness by introducing these topics and mostly can be done.
However, there are some practices like hiring which cannot be easily changed because it
is related to the perspective of the policymakers.
Overall, there was an increased awareness of the barriers to GELT in their own
teaching context (thirty-four comments in the post-course questionnaire com-
pared to eleven comments in the pre-course questionnaire). Comments were
also more detailed, and all barriers were referred to. There were four times as
many references to attachment to standard English and/or a lack of awareness
of Global Englishes. Further barriers identified included policy, lack of guide-
lines, lack of time and parents. However, some were optimistic about addres-
sing these, noting it would be ‘fun to try and expand [their] future classrooms
beyond SE [standard English]’ and that they were determined to ‘try [their]
best’. Others, however, were concerned that ‘some practices cannot be easily
changed’, that the barriers ‘will continue to be there for quite a long time’ and
that ‘it is unlikely’ to introduce GELT into their context ‘anytime soon’.
Interview Results
Interviewee profiles (pseudonyms used) are shown in Table 7.5 and the themes
that emerged in the pre-course interviews are displayed in Table 7.6. In the
interviews, many discussed their language ideologies (coded fifty-eight times),
which were often at odds with these teaching and/or learning experiences. For
Table 7.5 Interviewee and focus group profiles
ELT
Name Inta FGb Country Context Age Gender IELTSc Education English Teaching Experience
Ching Y FG2 China China 23 F 7 BA (English) No experience
Amir Y FG2 Indonesia Indonesia 27 M 7.5 BA (English Teaching/ 2 years
Education) (English teacher in
a multinational company)
Sandy Y FG2 US Japan 29 F N/A BA (Communication Studies – 8 years
minors in German, Japanese (4 years: English tutor for
and ESL) Japanese students in the US;
Teaching certification for K-12 4 years: Assistant language
ESL classes in the USA teacher in Japan)
Lingyi Y FG2 China China 26 F 7.5 BA (English) 3 months
(Part-time summer English
teacher)
Fei Y FG3 China China 24 F 6.5 BA (Teaching Chinese as No experience
a Foreign Language) (Part-time Chinese tutor in
a private language school)
Fan-ko Y FG3 China China 25 F 7.5 BA (English) 2 months
(Chinese tutor)
Jiaying Y FG3 China China 25 F 7.5 BA (English Language and No experience
Literature)
Chengxin Y FG3 China China 27 M 7 BA (English) No experience
Yun Y FG4 China China 23 F 7.5 BA (Civil Aviation) 2 months

(Part-time assistant teacher of
IELTS)
Yifan Y FG4 China China 23 F 7.5 BA (English) No experience
Table 7.5 (cont.)
ELT
Name Int FG Country Context Age Gender IELTS Education English Teaching Experience
Peng Y FG4 Taiwan Taiwan 27 F 8 BA (Japanese Language and 2 years

Literature plus (English teacher in Taiwanese
English Language Teaching) senior high school)
Rob Y FG4 UK South 32 M N/A BA (English) 5 years
Korea (English tutor in South Korea)
Indah Y FG5 Indonesia Indonesia 25 F 7.5 BA (English Teaching/ 2 years
Education) (English tutor at a language
institution and a high school
in Indonesia)
Do Y FG5 Taiwan Taiwan 27 M 7.5 BA 3 years
(English teacher in Taiwan)
Nobuko Y FG5 Japan Japan 48 F 8 BA (Japanese Literature) 18 years
(Private tutoring and language
schools in Japan)
Jingshu N FG5 China
Yang Y FG6 China China 22 F 7.5 BA (Teaching Chinese as 1 year
a Foreign Language) (English tutor for middle school
students and internship as
a Chinese tutor)
Wanrong Y FG6 China China 27 F 7 BA (English) 4 years
(Junior high school English

teacher in Taiwan)
Ruiqin Y FG6 China China 22 F 6.5 BA (English language Teaching/ 3 months
Education) (Internship as a teaching
assistant)
Sam Y FG6 UK Japan 27 M N/A MA (Japanese) 2 years
(English teacher in Japan)
Zhu N FG6 China China
Yating N FG6 China China
Sihan Y China China 23 F 7 BA (Finance/Translating and No experience
Interpreting)
Xiaojing N FG1 China China 24 F 7.5 BA (English) No experience
Wenyan N FG1 China China 27 F 7.5 BA (Translation and No experience
Interpretation between English
and Chinese)
Ting N FG1 China China 25 F 7 BA (English) 3 years
(English teacher in middle
school)
Yijun N FG1 China China 26 F 7.5 BA (Teaching Chinese to No experience
Speakers of Other Languages)
Hui N FG1 China China
a
Int: interviewee;
b
FG: focus group;
c
IELTS: International English Language Testing System

Table 7.6 Thematic framework for the pre-course interviews
Theme Interviewees References

Language ideologies 16 58
Reasons for choosing the course: 21 111
Relevance to ELT and/or own career 21 69
Interest in GE 16 22
Clear GELT guidelines 12 13
Dissertation 2 4
Other (e.g. course structure, assignment) 3 3
Expectations 20 39
Relevance to career: 21 50
Incorporate GELT 12 19
Questionable relevance of GELT 11 31
Proposals 21 52
Barriers: 21 93
Attachment to SE and/or lack of 15 30
awareness of GE
Assessment 14 19
Teacher-hiring practices 10 14
Parents 8 15
Lack of materials 8 10
Teacher training 3 5
example, in Indah’s context, the ‘native’ English-speaker model is used, yet she
is aware that, ‘although people from different parts of the world speak different
Englishes, they still get their meaning across’ and because of this, students
‘don’t have to speak like an American . . . as long as the person you’re talking to
understands what you’re saying’ (Indah, Indonesia). Before coming to the
United Kingdom, Fei ‘thought we should know American English or British
English, and especially about the culture or accents’ because of her ELT
context, yet ‘after I came here I found that many teachers, they’re not native
speakers and they can speak English perfectly and they can teach us the
knowledge about English’ (Fei, China).
Students’ reasons for choosing the course were similar to the question-
naire data; the majority had a general interest in GE (coded 22 times in 16
interviews). Several felt it had relevance to ELT and/or own career (coded
69 times in all interviews) and wanted clear GELT guidelines to aid
curricular innovation (coded 13 times in 12 interviews). When discussing
their expectations, they also expressed their interest in ‘how to apply GE
in the classroom’ (Sandy, USA), ‘further [their] understanding of GE, and
also to really apply some theories into teaching’ (Fan-ko, China). Yifan
(China) wanted to ‘learn how to incorporate the ELF in the ELT’, making
specific reference to how to assess students. Amir (Indonesia) wanted to

learn about ‘implementing this Global Englishes concept in classroom
practices’.
Comments on the relevance of Global Englishes to career (coded 50 times in
21 interviews) were made throughout the interviews. Twelve participants
wanted to incorporate GELT (coded 19 times), although 11 referred to the
questionable relevance of GELT (coded 31 times). As Rob (UK) summed up,
many ‘feel conflictive’; they supported GELT in principle but were unsure how
to implement it and of its feasibility in their context. They were concerned that,
‘if there is no standard, (. . .) what shall we teach?’ (Yun, China).
Attitudes towards the proposals for change were predominantly positive.
They are seen to be ‘very relevant’ (Chengxin, China) and ‘very useful’ (Ching,
China), and many noted that they are ‘needed’ (Fei, China) in their contexts.
The most frequently discussed proposal was the need to increase Global
Englishes exposure, and emphasise respect for multilingualism and for diverse
cultures and identity. However, with regard to the feasibility of implementing
these in their contexts, few felt that ‘all these changes are possible’ (Yifan,
China) and a majority raised concerns as to whether they could be implemen-
ted, making reference to possible barriers.
Once again, discussions on proposals were followed with discussions sur-
rounding the barriers (coded 59 times). All of Galloway and Rose’s (2015)
barriers were discussed, including attachment to standard English and/or lack
of awareness of Global Englishes (coded 30 times across 15 interviews),
assessment (coded 19 times across 14 interviews), teacher-hiring practices
(coded 14 times across 10 interviews), lack of materials (coded 10 times across
8 interviews) and teacher training (coded 5 times across 3 interviews).
Parents were also identified as a further barrier (15 times across 8 interviews) and
their attachment to standard English and lack of awareness of Global Englishes was
seen to be important. As Rob (a UK national with a teaching context in South
Korea) noted, ‘parents want their children to be taught by Western teachers, they
want that exposure. They want that perfect pronunciation. I don’t believe it’s
possible, but I don’t think you can convince those parents’. He spoke about this
extensively in the South Korean context, noting that while ‘people like the idea of
Global Englishes . . . it doesn’t get students a better grade necessarily’, adding that
‘parents don’t want to pay for their students unless they see pay-off, better exam
results’, which influences policymakers and curriculum developers.
This is also a concern in the Chinese context, where Yun noted that, while it
was fine to let teachers know the concept of Global Englishes, when deciding
on the syllabus, teachers ‘need to get the acceptance of the parents and the
students of the new concept of ELF’ (Yun, China). Another suggested that,
‘Maybe you can train the teachers to accept the Global Englishes perspective
and the students as well, but how can you persuade the parents to accept it’
Table 7.7 Thematic framework for the pre- and post-course comparison
Theme Pre Post

Interviewees References Interviewees References
GELT course evaluation x x 20 169
Overall impression 20 80
Expectations x x 19 20
x x 18 48
Influence on attitude 20 39 18 21
Teacher education x x
Critical reflections on GE- x x 19 101
related topics
Relevance to career 21 50 21 42
Incorporate GELT 12 19 19 38
Questionable relevance of 11 31 2 4
GELT
Proposals 21 52 19 35
Barriers 21 93 21 80
Attachment to SE and/or lack 15 30 10 13
of awareness of GE
Assessment 14 19 11 13
Teacher-hiring practices 10 14 4 6
Parents 8 15 7 11
Lack of materials 8 10 12 13
Teacher training 3 5 6 6
Policy x x 5 6
(Lingyi, China). This resonated with another interviewee from China, who
noted that parents
only care about the result of the learning and not the process. So I think it’s hard for the
parents to change this kind of concept. Although we have implemented such a kind of
Global English education in primary and middle schools, but for the parents, how can
the parents accept such kind of change and how do we persuade them to do that, I think
it’s hard. (Fan-ko, China)
Thus, the barrier of parents’ expectations of an education in standard English

seemed to be a recurring theme in the China educational context.
In the post-course interviews, 169 comments were generally coded as
referring to GELT course evaluations and 80 of these referred to their overall
impressions on the GELT course (across 20 interviews), which were mostly
positive (See Table 7.7). Comments included ‘I really enjoyed Global
Englishes [course]’, I am ‘really happy with it’ and ‘I found it really useful’.
It met their expectations and was believed to have had a positive influence on
their attitude towards English and ELT, raising their awareness of alternative
approaches and generating an interest in the topic. One participant commented,
‘I was shocked at times during the class, I think it was just bringing things to my
attention that I would not have even thought about as being an issue’ (Sandy,
USA). It also led to a desire for some to explore the field further, illustrated by
the following comment: ‘I’m not familiar with this concept; however, after this
course, I became interested in it and I wanted to investigate our opinions about
it’ (Jialin Lu, China). Eighteen interviewees referred to the importance of
GELT for teacher education (coded 21 times) and the influence of the course
was also evident in their critical reflections on GE-related topics (coded 101
times across 19 interviews).
The interviews also provided evidence of an increased desire to incorporate
GELT, as illustrated by the following comment: ‘It is really useful, it changed
some of my attitudes and I hope I can incorporate it in my future teaching’
(Ruiqin, China). It also encouraged some to reconceptualise English, as another
student noted: ‘I think the most important thing I learned from this course is to
think critically about the language I have been learning for so long’ (Peng,
Taiwan). After the course, more interviewees expressed a desire to incorporate
GELT into their future teaching than in the pre-course interview, with most
planning to incorporate GELT into their teaching (coded 38 times across 19
interviews) and ‘use the knowledge [they] have learned into [their] future
career as potential teacher[s]’ (Chengxin, China). Wanrong (China) felt that it
‘made me focus on what I will introduce in pedagogy about Global Englishes’
and Ruiqin (China) found it ‘really useful, it changed some of my attitudes and
I hope I can incorporate it in my future teaching’. Only two, as opposed to
eleven in the pre-course interview, referred to a questionable relevance of
GELT.
Once again, proposals were discussed in relation to barriers, but comments in
the post-course interview were observed to be more critical and more closely
related to their own teaching contexts. With regard to the proposals, Indah
(Indonesia) ‘totally agree[s] with everything, with everything’, but feels there
is a need to ‘change the system for assessment’ and thinks the ‘teaching hiring
system in Indonesia’ is problematic because ‘some of the native English
teachers, they just come without any qualification degree because they speak
the language from birth, they can teach the language in Indonesia’. Others were
aware that change was necessary ‘but it won’t be easy’ (Fan-ko, China) and
innovation was ‘possible but it needs a long time’ (Fan-ko, China). A few
interviewees noted an increased awareness of the difficulties of change. Before
the course, Ching (China) thought the GELT innovations were ‘very useful
[and] important’ and was optimistic about implementing them. After the
course, however, she commented that the ‘course has raised awareness but
I think there is a long way to go to do this in China, because we lack materials,

we lack tests, we lack models’. Similarly, before the course, Yifan (China)
thought that ‘basically all these changes are possible in the Chinese context’,
but after the course noted that, ‘I think these barriers cannot be addressed’.
Focus Group Results

Of the 27 focus group participants, 19 were previously interviewed (see
Table 7.5). They came from China (17), the United Kingdom (2), the United
States (1), Taiwan (4), Japan (1) and Indonesia (2) and were all familiar with the
East Asian context, helping them establish rapport as both MSc TESOL
students, and pre-service and in-service TESOL practitioners. They all shared
knowledge of GELT via the course, and knowledge of the same context.
Table 7.8 shows the list of themes generated.
Discussions on reasons for choosing the course were short and were not
discussed by every group, and comments were not as detailed as the interviews.
Only three reasons were discussed in four groups; interest in GE (6 references),
relevance to ELT and/or own career (5) and other (course structure,
assignment) (1). With regard to the relevance for career, in Focus Group 4,
Yun (China) noted that she wanted to know ‘how to actually teach the Global
English’.
Discussions on relevance to career were made throughout all of the focus
groups (40 times across 6 focus groups) with regard to GELT course evalua-
tion. It was the second most frequently discussed theme in the entire data set,
discussed at length and often returned to when discussing other topics.
Fourteen expressed doubts about the questionable relevance of GELT.
However, overall impressions were mostly positive, and centred on the fact
that it should be part of teacher education (coded 17 times across 6 focus
groups) and had a positive influence on attitudes (coded 16 times across 6 focus
groups). Overall, data suggested that they were ‘really happy that [they] have
taken this course’ (Wenyan, China, Focus Group 1), as it ‘really helped’
(Lingyi, China, Focus Group 2) them to understand the topic, and they ‘really
liked’ (Ching, China, Focus Group 2) what they had learned. Wenyan (China,
Focus Group 1) ‘really think[s] that Global Englishes is the most important
course during the whole year’ and having GELT on teacher education courses
would ‘really be able to help them [the trainee teachers] to change’ (Nobuko,
Japan, Focus Group 5), because in the future they ‘really need to tell’ (Indah,
Indonesia, Focus Group 5) their students about GELT.
Barriers were a dominant theme (161 times across all focus groups by 26 out
of 27 participants), concurring with the findings in the other data. The one
participant who did not mention barriers was mostly silent in the discussion.
On the other hand, in her focus group, her peers each commented on the barriers
Table 7.8 Thematic framework for focus group discussions
six times on average; some as many as twelve times. These barriers also
prompted longer discussions and, as noted above, were often raised when
discussing other topics, such as the reasons why they chose the course (see
Extract One).
EXTRACT ONE (Focus Group 6)

yating: I think Global Englishes is a very young concept, and the reason I chose this
course is I think the syllabus is very interesting, so I chose this course and,
uhm, to be honest I think I cannot use something in this course in my future
teaching, because first we have no material about Global Englishes, and next
I think policies in China do not support our idea. I think we can introduce this
idea in China and, you know, examination is the most important thing. If we
have some examinations about Global Englishes maybe parents and students
would be more likely to accept this new concept.
This was also the case in Extract Two, which also demonstrates how discus-
sions on the proposals for change led to discussions on barriers.
EXTRACT TWO (Focus Group 1)

xiaojing: I think it’s a good thing but it doesn’t mean that we can make it right now,
because you know the teacher-hiring practices is not just about what
universities want or what schools want, but like what China wants. It’s
a policy thing, usually, because I’ve done research and people all say that,
especially those teachers from India, they say, you know, many, like my
friends, they want to teach in China, they are as proficient as me but they
cannot, because they cannot have that kind of visa to teach in China. So it is
really hard for them to change, although I know it is in progress, but still not
there yet, so. I don’t know when it is going to change.
As in the interviews, only very short statements were made about the
proposals and there was a sense that they are ‘a good thing but it doesn’t
mean that we can make it right now’ (Xiaojing, China, Focus Group 1). There
were some short exchanges about various proposals (Extract Three), but these
were not extensive.
EXTRACT THREE (Focus Group 6)

sam: I think this one is definitely possible – emphasise respect for diverse culture
and identity. I think you can do that in the classroom quite easily.
ruiqin: Yes.
sam: And hopefully that would encourage learners to consider going abroad for
themselves. And I guess that in itself increases Global Englishes exposure.
ruiqin: Just trying to spread the ideas first and then maybe changes will emerge
slowly.
As in the interviews, attachment to SE and/or lack of awareness of Global

Englishes was the most commonly discussed barrier (49 times across all focus
groups by 24 participants), followed by lack of materials (40 references),
assessment (22 references), teacher-hiring practices (19), parents (13), policy
(8) and teacher training (5). A new barrier, students’ motivation (5), was also
discussed, referring to a feeling that students ‘don’t care’ (Fan-ko, China,
Focus Group 3) about learning English in general, let alone Global Englishes.
Focus group participants positioned themselves as ‘experts’ in their context,
encouraging lengthy discussions on the barriers. Most centred on China, but in
those groups where contexts differed, there was still an attempt to establish
common ground by highlighting similarities (Extract Four).
EXTRACT FOUR (Focus Group 2)

sandy (Japanese context): There’s people from South Africa, there’s people from
Singapore, there’s people from like the UK, and there’s people from Australia
and America, the majority of the people that are hired on this particular
programme are Americans, so it’s like, when I went my year was like 800,
compared to like maybe 300.
peng (Taiwanese context): I think the situation is similar in Taiwan. In Taiwan, they
also prefer the native American norms and . . .
Those who were interviewed also discussed these much more frequently and in
more depth. Yang (China, Focus Group 6), for example, made twelve refer-
ences to barriers, yet only a single comment in the interview. They were also
more confident in the focus groups, presenting their opinions as fact. In Focus
Group 1, for example, Ching (China) noted that, ‘It still happens in China,
that’s a fact, probably because they know nothing about Global Englishes’.
Summary and Discussion of Findings

In addition to exploring pre-service and in-service TESOL practitioners’ atti-
tudes, this study also aimed to explore the contexts in which they are working
and investigate the potential influence of a GELT course. In the questionnaire,
85% of the participants were female and 73% were from China. In the inter-
views and focus groups, the majority were also from China, although all
(except one student from Indonesia) had experience as either a learner or
a practitioner in the East Asian context (Table 7.5). Such familiarity with
a specific context also enabled lengthier and more in-depth discussions regard-
ing this region. In the questionnaire, only 12% had more than three years’
teaching experience, but the qualitative data sets included a range of both pre-
and in-service practitioners.
The interview and focus group proved a useful way of gaining insights into
these contexts and the study revealed that their language ideologies were often
at odds with this ELT context. As expected, native English-speaker norms
dominated and the questionnaire highlighted that English teachers are mostly
recruited from the United States and the United Kingdom, the two contexts that
are also most dominant in ELT materials.
Attitudes Towards the GELT Course and Its Relevance

There was strong agreement that the course would be useful for their future
teaching career and also that it should be a topic included on all postgraduate
TESOL programmes. The qualitative data provided insights into their reasons
for choosing the course, although this did not generate lengthy discussions in
the focus groups. In all data sets, a general interest in Global Englishes was
the most popular response, followed by relevance of GELT for their own
teaching career. Some took the course to learn more about implementing
GELT or how to ‘solve that problem’ of ‘how to actually teach the Global
English’ (Yun, China, Focus Group 4). In their discussions of their expecta-
tions of the course, interviewees noted a desire to learn how to apply theory to
practice and similar discussions featured in the focus groups when discussing
their expectations. The relevance for future teaching was a major theme in all
of the data sets, and discussed in every focus group, at length and often
returned to when discussing other topics. However, the open-ended ques-
tionnaires revealed some confusion over how to do this and some intervie-
wees also discussed the questionable relevance of GELT for their contexts,
a concern also raised in the focus groups. Rob’s comment that many practi-
tioners ‘feel conflictive’ supports previous research, in that many accept
innovation in principle but have problems with practice. As in Giri and Foo
(2014), there appears to be a dilemma: teachers advocate for GELT, but also
recognise the problems in doing this in contexts that value native English-
speaking norms. Such comments relate to concerns in Vettorel (2016), where
there was a degree of uncertainty as to what model/standards they should
follow.
Attitudes Towards the Proposals and Barriers for GELT

Prior to taking the course, attitudes towards all of Galloway and Rose’s (2015)
GELT proposals were very positive regarding their achievability in their own
contexts, although they were least confident about changing English teacher-
hiring practices. Support for the need to raise awareness of Global Englishes
emerged as a major theme throughout the data. There was an acknowledgement
that headway has been made in this area with regard to raising teachers’ and
students’ awareness, but this study reveals that one of the central concerns was
how to deal with other stakeholders, including parents and policymakers. This
was identified as a major potential barrier to curriculum innovation in the East
Asian context. In the interviews, many students raised concerns about how to
implement change and comments on the proposals mostly related to the
barriers.
It is clear that the attachment to standard English norms and the dominance
of native English norms in assessment were of particular concern. As in
Manara’s (2014) study, there is a concern over the usefulness of GELT in
contexts where standard language ideology is strong. Parents, and their
attachment to ‘standard’ English, were added to the list of barriers. One
participant (Rob, UK) feared that it was not possible to convince parents in
the South Korean context, and this was also stated to be a concern in the
Chinese context. Thus, raising parents’ awareness of Global Englishes may
be an essential step to dismantling this barrier. However, as noted in
Chapter 4, with more research and awareness of the relative advantage
(Rogers, 2003) of GELT, such attitudes may change. It may be challenging
to persuade the parents, but many once thought this of students and teachers
and beliefs are not static constructs and are subject to change, as demonstrated
in this study and others. Unlike in Lopriore’s (2016) study, nobody mentioned
a lack of time for introducing innovations and selecting and adjusting materi-
als, which is promising.
The Influence of the GELT Course

Attitudes towards TESOL practitioners’ desirable skills changed. After the
course, teachers put less importance on the need for knowledge of English
grammar and good pronunciation and were more positive about the need
for experience using ELF. While this was not commented on in the
qualitative data, this indicates an increased awareness of the use, and
importance, of ELF. Indeed, recent studies on students’ attitudes have
highlighted the importance of ELF familiarity and experience on attitudes
(e.g. Galloway, 2011, 2017a; Wang, 2015). It has been previously noted
that ‘the lack of experience of ELF communication creates a myth of
intelligibility, whereas linguistic experience helps to resolve the myth’
(Wang, 2015, p. 103). Such observations were supported in our data,
such as Fei (China) noting in her interview that, before coming to the
United Kingdom and using ELF with her teachers, she felt more strongly
about the need to learn native English.
Course evaluations in all data sets were mostly positive. It met the inter-
viewees’ expectations and had a positive influence on their attitude towards
English and ELT, raising their awareness of alternative approaches and

generating an interest in the topic. In both data sets, it was said to have
raised their awareness of alternatives, was thought to be relevant to their
contexts, and there is an overall desire to incorporate GELT into their class-
rooms. Participants also reported that the course was useful to help them
incorporate GELT in the future and, as in Sifakis and Bayyurt’s (2015, 2018)
study, the course raised their awareness of their own orientations and helped
them explore new perspectives. The study reveals that the course met its aims
of encouraging reflection on English itself and ELT practice. After the
course, the participants were more critical in their accounts, highlighting
the importance of such courses to encourage critical reflection on normative
assumptions about both language and language learning, assumptions that
ultimately influence how policies are enacted and students’ learning experi-
ences. The course provided the opportunity to reflect not only on their own
contexts, pedagogical experiences and practices but also on a non-
monolithic perspective of TESOL, which resonates with the findings of
Vettorel (2016).
We cannot expect practitioners to incorporate GELT without adequate gui-
dance and training and the importance of including GELT courses in teacher
education programmes was noted in all of the focus groups. Wenyan (China,
Focus Group 1) thought that ‘Global Englishes is the most important course
during the whole year’ and Nobuko (Japan, Focus Group 5) commented that
GELT courses could ‘help them [the teachers] to change’ (Nobuko, Japan,
Focus Group 5). Such findings indicate an awareness of the critical role teacher
education programmes play, and also of the importance of Global Englishes
courses within such programmes.
There were also differences in attitudes before and after taking the course.
More interviewees expressed a desire to incorporate GELT into their future
teaching after the course and only two teachers, compared to eleven before the
course, questioned the relevance of GELT for their context. It should be
acknowledged, however, that some teachers did express doubts. Such complex-
ity in attitudes is also evident in the fact that fewer references were made to the
proposals for change in the open-ended data, yet comments were more critical
and related more to their own educational contexts.
Proposals for change were almost always discussed alongside the barriers
to innovation. Increased awareness of the barriers to GELT was evident in all
data sets. As in Vettorel (2016), the course prompted reflection on these, and
after the course, they were discussed more frequently, in more depth, and
additional barriers were also put forward, including policy, lack of guidelines,
lack of time and parents’ and students’ motivation. This increased awareness
highlights the need to incorporate GELT into teacher education programmes
from the outset, which ‘would provide the time necessary to reflect on the
implications of ELF for their teaching practice and would give space to
explore materials and tasks from an ELF perspective’ (Dewey & Patsko,
2017, p. 449).
Overall, as in previous studies (Dilek & Özdemir, 2015; Hall et al., 2013;
Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2015, 2018; Suzuki, 2011; Vettorel, 2016), the course
influenced attitudes, yet there is a clear conflict; they accept GELT in theory,
but recognise the complexities associated with implementing it in practice.
It is promising that the course made some interviewees optimistic about
overcoming these barriers and it is hoped that more research and more
coverage of GELT on teacher education programmes will allow further con-
textualised reflection. However, this study reveals that there is a clear need for
research with other key stakeholders such as policymakers, and thus this
concurs with the view that ‘[m]acro-innovation usually comes from
“above,” it is usually the result of centralised policy-making’ (Sifakis &
Bayyurt, 2016, p. 150). The ‘bottom-up’ approach advocated for by others
(e.g. Hall et al., 2013) is desirable, but it is not only practitioners that we need
to listen to and interact with, but also other stakeholders, including parents
and policymakers. This study has revealed more contextualised challenges,
particularly in the East Asian educational context, yet it has also identified
that those taking the teacher education course are ‘supporters’ of change
(Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2015, 2018) and time will tell if they will become
‘early adopters’ when they return to their home contexts. A degree of scepti-
cism about change is unsurprising.
Conclusion
Norm-bound attitudes are clearly problematic for GELT and this study has
revealed that, despite positive orientations towards GELT, there are concerns
over incorporating this perspective at the practical level. However, while
attitudes may be slow to change, and indeed while ‘macro-level’ change will
take time, this study revealed that even a semester-long course can influence
attitudes and allow pre-service and in-service teachers to ruminate over
potential pedagogical innovation. The course in this study provided an
opportunity to reflect on current practice and traditional TESOL concepts
and theories and problematise GELT-related change. This study provides
more insights into the possible barriers to GELT and it is hoped that more
research, particularly research on how innovation is implemented in prac-
tice, will help. Future research should collect data from the ‘innovators’ and
‘early adopters’, including interview transcripts, extracts from diaries or the
lessons they design. These research artefacts can then be fed back into
teacher education programmes for further reflection on how others have
diverged from the traditional ELT curriculum. We call for more research to
help inform this movement and research that can bring real-life practice into
the classroom. This study was one step in this direction, asking teachers
what they thought about the proposals for change that have been put forward
at the theoretical level, but we need to see how they interpret and operatio-
nalise them in the classroom. We also call for research with other key
stakeholders.
8 Global Englishes and English Medium
Instruction
Introduction
An oft-cited definition of internationalisation of higher education is ‘the pro-
cess of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the
purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education’ (Knight, 2003,
p. 2). Rose & McKinley (2018) note, ‘internationalization is viewed at its worst
as an economic ploy to drum up student numbers and tuition, and at its best as a
way to positively influence the universities’ global outlook’ (p. 113).
Internationalisation in its worst form, as an enterprise to bring in student
money, has been heavily criticised, especially in the approaches taken by
English-speaking nations like the United Kingdom and Australia, which
adopt a highly commercial approach to international students (Forbes-
Mewett & Nyland, 2012, p. 191). These universities tend to view internatio-
nalisation as a source of income, cashing in on their Anglophone status, rather
than seeing internationalisation as an opportunity to diversify their student
body to develop their global human resources. Nevertheless, for many uni-
versities internationalisation is pursued for its non-fiscal benefits, which
include positive effects on a university’s reputation, research quality, teaching
quality and graduate employability (Delgado-Márquez et al., 2013). Thus,
many universities pursue internationalisation policies to leverage such benefits
without due attention to the challenges that relate to the growing language of
instruction in ‘international’ programmes, which is predominantly English.
Internationalisation and English as a medium instruction in the twenty-first
century are inextricably intertwined, as universities turn to Englishisation in
order to internationalise (Kirkpatrick, 2011). A side effect of internationalisa-
tion is the rapid emergence of EMI in higher education around the world.
Wilkinson (2013, p. 3) notes that EMI programmes have become ‘common-
place in many institutes of higher education where English is not the native
language’. Galloway et al. (2017) identify eight driving forces behind the EMI
trend:
• gaining access to cutting-edge knowledge and increasing global competi-
tiveness to raise the international profile
193
• increasing income (and compensating for shortages at the domestic level)

• enhancing student and lecturer mobility
• enhancing the employability of graduates/international competencies
• improving English proficiency
• reflecting developments in English language teaching (ELT)
• using English as a neutral language
• offering EMI for altruistic motives.
Some scholars see EMI programmes as a powerful means of rectifying
a competitive disadvantage that non-Anglophone countries have in the market
for international students (Earls, 2016). Others see EMI as having a detrimental
effect on access to education by positioning the English language in
a gatekeeping role for admission.
EMI has boomed in recent decades in higher education in order to prepare
students for the linguistic demands of an English-speaking global market and to
increase the international profile of the university (Wächter & Maiworm,
2014). Englishisation and internationalisation have occurred so rapidly that it
is estimated that half of the world’s international students are learning through
English (Ball & Lindsay, 2013). Europe is a prime example of these two forces
at play, where policies emerging from the Bologna Process and the ERASMUS
programmes have seen a need for a lingua franca of education to ensure
mobility, cementing the importance of English for facilitating a movement of
students from across national and linguistic borders. Because English has
already established itself as the lingua franca of academia and publishing,
many universities also turn to English as a natural choice for the lingua franca
of higher education classrooms.
The boom of EMI in Europe has been widely documented with oft-reported
statistics (Brenn-White & Faethe, 2013; Wächter & Maiworm, 2014); how-
ever, this movement is happening worldwide (Llurda, 2013) and, certainly, we
can see an EMI boom emerging in many East Asian nations with the expansion
of ‘internationalization at home’ programmes (Galloway & Rose, 2015,
p. 232), especially in Japan and China (Galloway et al., 2017). The trend to
offer an ‘international education’ in a ‘domestic’ context has also been
observed in Taiwan, as it strives to remain competitive with its larger neighbour
(Song & Tai, 2007). The internationalisation and Englishisation of Japanese
higher education has been recently stimulated by a string of highly funded
policies that aim to increase its universities’ global presence and to attract
international students (Rose & McKinley, 2018). One survey on the EMI
provisions in fifty-five countries concluded that ‘the general trend is towards
a rapid expansion’ (Dearden, 2014, p. 2). This expansion of EMI has led to
a growth in research on the EMI phenomena in places such as Turkey, the
Middle East and throughout South-East Asia, marking a spread of EMI from
the traditional EMI hot spots of the Netherlands and Northern Europe (see
Global Englishes and English Medium Instruction 195
Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). In short, EMI is becoming pervasive throughout

the Expanding Circle and is becoming particularly pronounced in the Asia-
Pacific (see Walkinshaw et al., 2017).
This boom in EMI in recent years goes largely unmonitored in terms of the
language used in these courses. Importantly, while a switch in the medium of
instruction has been widely undertaken, the question of ‘what English?’ has not
been widely explored, indicating an urgent need to examine the ‘E’ in EMI
(Galloway, 2017a). This chapter fills this gap by exploring the role of English in
EMI, including how it is used alongside other languages as an academic lingua
franca. This chapter draws upon data from a published British Council report
(Galloway et al., 2017) and incorporates additional data and analyses, in order
to explore students’ and teachers’ perceptions of EMI in the East Asian context.
Englishes in English Medium Instruction

English Medium Instruction is a term widely used, but difficult to define.
Macaro et al. (2018) offer the following definition: ‘the use of the English
language to teach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or
jurisdictions in which the majority of the population’s first language is not
English’ (p. 36). This definition is not uncontroversial, specifically as many
educational contexts are fiercely multilingual, and, thus, it is difficult to define
what the majority language is in a truly international university. Nevertheless,
the main defining criteria is that EMI occurs in national contexts where English
is not the predominant language of communication outside of the classroom.
By this definition then, EMI programmes could be considered to operate in
Thailand, but not in Singapore, and in Germany, but not in Ireland. They could
also arguably operate in countries such as Hong Kong and Malaysia, which,
despite a historical tie to the United Kingdom, exist in a predominantly non-
English-using society.
It is important to note that a language development objective is not openly
declared in definitions of EMI, which makes it distinct from other forms of
content-related language teaching models, such as content and language inte-
grated learning (CLIL) approaches, bilingual education models and content-
based instruction models of language teaching. Nevertheless, universities often
make reference to the language-learning benefits of EMI, which indicate an
expectation that English-language proficiency will develop in tandem with
subject discipline knowledge. Some institutions purport that EMI ‘is
a relatively simple and cheap solution to both the problems of internationalisa-
tion and upgraded local language proficiency’ (Hamid et al., 2013, p. 11).
However, the relationship between EMI and language development is tenuous,
with many EMI programmes providing little institutional support for the
language-related needs of their students, assuming that language entry
requirements for these courses act in a suitable gatekeeping capacity to ensure

students are able to study through the medium of English. Other universities,
however, build language support into programme structures, operating more
similarly to a CLIL curriculum in higher education.
Models of EMI and GELT Compatibility

A recent review of EMI research has revealed a lack of consensus over the role
of English in EMI and has identified a number of models of EMI currently
being developed (Macaro et al., 2018). These models include the
preparatory year model, the institutional support model and the pre-
institutional selection model.
The preparatory year model appears around the world but is very common in
Turkey and Middle Eastern countries, where EMI programmes are targeted at
a mostly domestic student population. In this model, students will enter year-
long intensive English for academic purposes and study skills courses to build
up their English-language proficiency before entering their subject-specific
degree course. This model tends to suit students of lower English proficiency,
who have not yet reached the threshold of proficiency necessary to study
content through English. A Global Englishes approach to language teaching
within these preparatory year models would allow students to become better
prepared to use English as an academic lingua franca, by making them more
aware of the language used as the medium of instruction, and by increasing
their confidence as multilingual users of English. A GELT curriculum would
also, presumably, better prepare them for post-graduation, if English was
needed for their future professional practice.
The institutional support model tends to occur in institutions where profi-
ciency is higher, but many students still need language support in order to study
the content effectively. This model will typically involve students taking mod-
ified content courses in their early years with a large amount of support from EAP
or ESP courses. The language support is generally reduced over time in favour of
unsupported content courses in the later years of study. However, the reduction in
support varies from institution to institution. The internal structures of the
institutional support model vary considerably. In some undergraduate courses,
where English development is deemed as being as important as content devel-
opment, there may be as many credits of language classes as there are of content
classes. This model is seen worldwide but is quite common in East Asian
contexts. Again, a GELT curriculum for language support classes would resonate
well with parallel content classes. As Chapter 2 outlined, GELT is a type of ESP,
thus much of the curricular ideology that underpins ESP also underpins GELT.
Chapter 2 on syllabus design also outlined how a multilayered syllabus can cater
to the teaching of both academic skills and Global Englishes content.
The pre-institutional selection model runs most similarly to universities in

Anglophone countries. There is usually minimal language support provided in
favour of language proficiency benchmarks (e.g. IELTS or Test of English as
a Foreign Language (TOEFL)) that are used as selection criteria for entry into
the courses. This model is quite common in mature EMI contexts, such as those
in the Netherlands and Northern European universities. GELT is incompatible
with EMI programmes that neither cater for the language development of its
learners nor put emphasis on language proficiency as defined by standardised
tests pegged to ‘native speaker’ norms.
‘What English?’ in EMI

A number of scholars (e.g. Galloway et al., 2017; Kirkpatrick, 2017) have
recently argued that English should never be the sole language of education,
even in EMI settings. Kirkpatrick (2017) vehemently lobbies against the
political ideology that EMI should be English only, and questions the type of
English that is most suitable in EMI settings:
The ‘E’ in EMI is often understood to refer to a native speaker variety of English. This
insistence on a native speaker variety as the benchmark needs to be reconsidered, and
the use of English as a lingua franca should be supported. After all, a major role of
English in today’s world is as a lingua franca. The majority of today’s speakers of
English are multilinguals for whom English is an additional language rather than native
speakers. This actual practice should inform language policy. (p. 9)
Despite an increasing body of research that challenges native speaker hege-

mony, English-only ideologies remain strong in language education, including
EMI. Such challenges to native speaker hegemony resonate with GELT, which
also sees learners’ linguistic repertoire as a resource for learning. Thus,
research that investigates English-only policies and native speaker centrality
is at the nexus of EMI and Global Englishes. There is a clear need to understand
how languages operate in this emerging lingua franca setting.
A pertinent point in terms of language use in EMI is the use of the L1
alongside English in the classroom. This is a debate that has emerged in recent
years in the field of language teaching:
the question of whether the first language (L1) should be used in the oral interaction or
the written materials of second or foreign language (L2) classrooms is probably the most
fundamental question facing second language acquisition (SLA) researchers, language
teachers and policymakers in this second decade of the 21st century.
(Macaro, 2014, p. 10)
However, EMI should ideologically be different. If English is merely the
instructional language, and the goal of EMI is content learning, then it would
make sense that stakeholders of EMI should not be opposed to other languages
in the classroom. After all, if the use of other languages, such as learners’ L1,
facilitates content learning, then ideologically one might assume it should be
used freely. The reality, however, is quite different. To the contrary, the use of
L1 in EMI contexts is surrounded by debates similar to those in the use of the
L1 in English language teaching.
This is perhaps the reason code switching has emerged as a topic of research
interest in EMI settings (see, e.g., Barnard & McLellan, 2014), and within,
more recently, debates on multilingualism in higher education (see, e.g., Earls,
2016) and translanguaging in EMI (see, e.g., Paulsrud, 2016). Many view that
code switching is a natural behaviour where speakers make use of their multi-
lingual repertoire, but it is seen as problematic by top-down monolingual
policies that ignore the possibility of multilingual use (Wei & Martin, 2009).
Others see code switching as being invaluable for pupils who struggle to
understand difficult subject matter whilst concurrently using a foreign language
as the medium of instruction (Ferguson, 2009). Ferguson (2003, 2009) further
suggests that code switching is useful to teachers in facilitating the transmission
of knowledge, managing the classroom environment and establishing rapport
with their learners. This claim is also supported by some empirical research
(see Tarnopolsky & Goodman, 2014). The findings of Lo & Macaro (2015)
suggest that an L2 medium of instruction results in less interaction between the
teacher and students, as the teacher talk increases and the student talk
decreases. Such findings seem to suggest that rigid English-only policies in
EMI settings may result in less dynamic classrooms and a return to teacher-
centred pedagogy.
Under the umbrella of code switching, Macaro (Lee & Macaro, 2013;
Macaro & Lee, 2013; Tian & Macaro, 2012) has been involved in important
work on the use of the L1 in the L2 classroom, a research area he has described
as having increased in academic attention in L2 language-learning contexts
(Macaro, 2014). This work has now extended to EMI contexts, as researchers
struggle with understanding how other languages are best used in a diverse
array of EMI environments, some of which are predominantly bilingual, while
others are intensely multilingual. Recent years have witnessed the emergence
of an entire edited volume (Barnard & McLellan, 2014) on code switching in
EMI contexts in East Asia, marking a growing interest in this phenomenon
outside European higher education, which has predominantly featured in much
code-switching research in educational settings.
While code switching has received attention in EMI, other forms of fluid
language use have received less attention, such as practices that could be
broadly defined as being translanguaging, although there has been a boost in
translanguaging research recently, including an entire edited volume on
Translanguaging in Higher Education edited by Mazak & Carroll (2017).
As shown in Chapter 1, translanguaging is less concerned with an examination
of the functions of each language in education, but is, rather, an examination of

how both languages intersect in classroom practices. Translanguaging allows
students and lecturers to move freely between languages without this process
being explicitly linguistically signposted.
Practices in some EMI contexts in Europe could be broadly categorised as
being examples of translanguaging. It has been observed that language mixing
in exams, for example, is permitted in Swedish EMI higher education pro-
grammes (Söderlundh, 2012), although the extent to which both languages can
be used in a single exam is unclear. This study also observed that lecturers were
willing to accommodate and adapt to linguistic diversity in the classroom,
particularly in terms of local language use in the EMI classroom. Also in the
Swedish context, there has been a description of parallel language use, which
represents a fluid acceptance of using languages that best meet student needs
and contexts. For example, the course material may be in English but lectures
can be delivered in Swedish, unless international students are present when the
lecturer makes the switch (Airey, 2011). Such practices show a fluidity of
language that is different to code switching. As many EMI programmes have
English-language-learning support programmes associated with them, GELT
would seem highly relevant to these contexts, as both GELT and these open
EMI contexts view language use as being fluid and challenge the boundaries
between the languages themselves, encouraging flexibility and creativity.
EMI in East Asia

There seems to be a fundamental difference between the L1 use in mature
EMI contexts in Northern and Western Europe and the emerging EMI con-
texts in East Asia, where the role of language development seems to be built
within the model of EMI. Galloway et al. (2017) have suggested that one of
the major driving forces of EMI in China and Japan is to raise language
proficiency. Thus, language learning is, perhaps, more inextricably linked to
EMI programmes in this context when compared to Western and Northern
European ones. Such contexts may be more resistant to other languages being
used in EMI contexts, and could more closely resemble practices in EFL
teaching, which have tended to adopt teaching approaches that adhere to
monolingual ideologies.
Much EMI research ‘has been conducted in European contexts, and there
is a paucity of research on EMI in Asian countries, especially China’ (Hu
& Lei, 2014, p. 552), and this undoubtedly reflects the historical roots of
EMI within a mobile and integrated Europe, which was further boosted by
the Bologna Declaration of 1999 and through the ERASMUS and
ERASMUS+ programmes. China is of further interest, due to ongoing
pushes for EMI in the region, despite the relatively low proficiency levels
compared to more mature EMI markets, such as Hong Kong and Western
Europe. In 2001 the Ministry of Education in China stipulated that 5–10%
of all undergraduate courses at Chinese universities should be in a foreign
language, and since then top-down directives for EMI have further intensi-
fied (Hu & Lei, 2014).
Japan is in a similar situation, and a number of aggressive internationalisa-
tion policies in the post-2000 era have pushed for increased numbers of
international students, staff and research via EMI programmes (for discussion,
see Rose & McKinley, 2018). Brown (2014) notes that the push for EMI is also
coming from language educators themselves, who are ‘turning to EMI peda-
gogies for authenticity and validity in language learning, and to strengthen their
own professional identities’ (p. 50). Studies in the Asian context are on the rise,
with a number of studies in Japan (Bradford, 2016; Brown, 2014; Burgess et al.,
2010) and China (Hu, 2009; Huang, 2006). However, compared to Europe,
there is yet to be a thorough investigation of attitudes towards language use in
EMI. The governments of China and Japan have been noted to actively promote
‘the use of EMI in both private and public (state-funded) universities’ (Macaro
et al., 2018, p. 49). Thus, this context served as a natural setting for our own
investigation of language use in emerging EMI contexts in a variety of state and
privately funded settings.
Methodology
This chapter reports on data collected in a larger study of EMI conducted in
China and Japan, led by Galloway. Some of the data from this project has been
reported elsewhere (e.g. Galloway et al., 2017). In this chapter we take some
data from this study to explore just one construct in the GELT paradigm, that is
the positioning of the first language in the EMI classroom. Our study was not
concerned with analysing code switching vis-à-vis previous research on EMI
(Tarnopolsky & Goodman, 2014), which would involve an analysis of the
language recorded in classrooms according to function in a similar vein to Lo
and Macaro (2014). Code switching, while serving a clear pedagogical func-
tion, does not sit comfortably within the ideology of Global Englishes, which
seeks to explore more fluid understandings of how English is used across
multilingual communities that speak a number of shared and unshared lan-
guages in their speakers’ linguistic repertoires. As outlined in Chapter 1, GELT
is more than just code switching, since translanguaging goes beyond this
language-segmented depiction of communication. The data for the study
aimed to measure the underlying beliefs and positions of main EMI stake-
holders on the use of English, the L1 and other languages in the EMI classroom.
Research Questions
Our main research questions were:
1. What are the norms of language use in EMI classrooms in China and Japan
in terms of proportion of English, L1 and other language used?
a. Is there a difference between practices reported by students and teachers?
2. What are the stakeholder (students’ and teachers’) beliefs on the use of other
languages, including the L1, in these EMI contexts?
a. If multiple languages are used, what functions do they serve in these
settings?
Data Collection and Setting

The data to answer these questions was extracted from a much larger British
Council project (Galloway et al., 2017), which explored the EMI phenomenon
in higher education in Japan and China. Questionnaires, interviews and focus
groups with staff and students were used to collect data and provided insights
into the differing approaches to, driving forces behind, and attitudes towards
EMI. It responds to Dearden’s (2014, p. 2) call for a ‘research-driven approach
which consults key stakeholders at a national and international level’ by
providing insights on staff and student perceptions. As Galloway et al. (2017)
explain:
The empirical and critical examination of the rapid expansion of EMI in Japan and
China provides initial insights to act as a platform for further research and also staff
training. The study also raises questions as to whether approaching EMI monolingually
is the best way forward. (p. 3)
This allowed for a contextualised understanding of EMI, as the researcher

visited each of the institutions to collect data. As Shohamy (2012, p. 197)
notes: ‘the teaching of EMI at universities cannot be detached from broader
settings where medium of instruction approaches are implemented’.
The data collection for the main study (Galloway et al., 2017) took place at
twelve universities in the form of student focus groups, teacher focus groups,
interviews and staff and student questionnaires. Questionnaires were conducted
with 579 students at all of the participating universities in Japan and China and,
due to access limitations, with twenty-eight members of staff at eight universities
in Japan and China. Some results of an additional 123 international students (not
used in the Galloway et al. study), who were studying in Japan were added to the
data set when a comparison group was needed for certain research questions.
The questionnaire was administered online and elicited anonymous responses.
Interviews were conducted with 18 students and 28 staff members (10 EAP and
18 content teachers) at 6 of the universities. Also four focus groups with students
Table 8.1 Qualitative data from participant universities (adapted from

Galloway et al., 2017)
Content Student
Student Staff EAP Staff Focus Staff Focus
University Interviews Interviews Interviews Groups Groups
Japan
University A 2 1 5 – –
University B – – 2 – –
University C 3 2 2 – –
University D 2 3 4 1 (n=5) 1 (n=3)
University E 2 – 4 – –
China
University W 7 4 – 1 (n=4) 1 (n=5)
University X 2 – 1 – –
University Y – – – 1 (n=5) 1 (n=4)
University Z – – – 1 (n=8) 1 (n=4)
and four focus groups with content staff were conducted. The instruments were
piloted with a small set of Japanese university students in January 2016 and
adjustments were made accordingly. Table 8.1 provides details of the universities
included in the qualitative part of the study.
Analysing the Data

Quantitative data analysis was conducted using PASW 18.0. Firstly, the data
was summarised using descriptive statistics. Next, the data from the main study
was reanalysed according to the research question. Non-parametric tests,
including Mann–Whitney U tests and Kruskal–Wallis H tests, were used to
compare the differences in means between variables of interest, such as
Japanese and Chinese students, local and international students, proficiency
and experience using English in non-local contexts. Non-parametric tests were
used due to unevenly distributed data.
All of the qualitative data sets were reanalysed in NVivo 10 building on the
thematic analysis used in the larger EMI study by Galloway et al. (2017).
The coding followed the methodology of typical qualitative content analysis
(e.g. Mayring, 2000), in that:
1. A thematic framework for staff and students’ focus group data and interview
data were created in separate data sets.
2. The focus group data was thematically analysed; however, the key focus
remained on the nature of the social interaction within each group (Halkier,
2010).
3. When analysing emergent themes in the focus group data, the attention
remained on groups as a whole, as opposed to the individuals within them
(Krueger, 1994), marking a different approach to coding from the inter-
views, which were treated as individual data.
4. The coding acknowledged that the data emerging from the focus groups was
a joint product, rather than being merely a reflection of individual perspec-
tives (Smithson, 2000).
5. When analysing the interaction within the focus groups, particular attention
was paid to how, and whether, the groups established common ground, and
how individual participants contributed to this common ground (Överlien
et al., 2005).
Thus, the analysis of the focus group data concentrated on the content of the
discussions, on the dynamics of the interactions and on the consensus and
commonality when reached within the groups. The analysis of the individual
interviews, although coded according to the same emergent thematic frame-
work, was seen as individual expressions of attitudes and beliefs.
Language Use in EMI Settings: Initial Findings

First, the study sought to investigate the level at which English was used in each
participant university. The students were asked to report on the use of English
in lectures, course materials, classes and exams. The results of the English use
at the universities were reported in Galloway et al. (2017), but in an abridged
format. Thus, we present the data here, alongside an additional 123 responses,
in a more detailed manner to delineate further differences between the students’
and teachers’ reported English use.
The findings indicate that English was used more predominantly in the
Japanese EMI contexts, compared to the Chinese EMI contexts. As Galloway
et al. (2017) observe:
The Japanese students noted that the language of instruction, materials and exams were
mostly only English, while less frequent use of English was reported by the Chinese
students. (p. 15)
This point is evidenced by data from the staff questionnaire, which is displayed
beside the student responses in Table 8.2. As reported in the main study (Galloway
et al., 2017), the results show a discrepancy between the levels of English used in
EMI contexts as reported by staff, compared with the students in their pro-
grammes. The difference is more pronounced in China than in Japan. For
example, while all the Chinese staff report the use of English in lectures, materials,
classes and exams as ‘very often’ or ‘always’ the students report is quite different,
ranging from 55.5% (very often or always) in classes to 65% (very often or
Table 8.2 English used in EMI as reported by students and teachers
Students Staff
Japan China Japan China
Description Label N % N % N N
My lectures are in Never 2 0.5 8 4.4 1 0
English Rarely 5 1.2 25 13.7 0 0
Sometimes 22 5.5 53 29.1 0 0
Very often 85 21.1 52 28.6 2 1
Always 289 71.7 44 24.2 13 6
My course Never 2 0.5 5 2.7 1 0

materials are in Rarely 2 0.5 16 8.8 0 0
English Sometimes 21 5.2 41 22.5 0 0
Very often 82 20.3 55 30.2 2 2
Always 296 73.4 65 35.7 13 5
My classes are in Never 1 0.2 4 2.2 1 0

Sometimes 26 6.5 61 33.5 0 0
Very often 85 21.1 50 27.5 2 1
Always 289 71.7 51 28.0 13 6
My exams are in Never 3 0.7 6 3.3 1 0

Sometimes 27 6.7 37 20.3 0 0
Very often 54 13.4 39 21.4 1 1
Always 317 78.7 77 42.3 14 6
always) in course materials. The discrepancy in the Japanese context between

staff and student reporting is less pronounced and, thus, there is considerable
evidence that EMI in Japan adheres more to an English-only or English-dominant
EMI environment than is seen in the Chinese university cases.
A reanalysis of the interview data according to our research questions
confirmed the main report’s findings that the divisions between languages in
class were not as clearly defined as the teachers suggested (see Galloway et al.,
2017). Many of the participants in the Chinese universities suggesting practices
drew on both English and the dominant local L1 during classes. A student at
a Chinese university explains:
The teacher may speak in Chinese in class so we can understand more, but the
PowerPoint and the textbook and our test is in English and this can maybe increase
our ability of English, because my listening and speaking is so poor. I am good at reading
and writing but my listening and speaking is poor. (Student interview, China data set)
Another student, who was a biotechnology student, noted a similar difference,

with English being the formal language of content input in the sources used, but
Chinese being the predominate language of spoken discourse. She stated that
the ‘teacher uses English mostly to teach us but they speak Chinese as well’, but
in her classes ‘our textbook is in English but the teachers speak Chinese’
(Student Interview, China data set). In a further example, of a liberal arts
major at a Japanese university, the languages used were clearly defined by
the context of use:
Class materials, textbooks, and lectures are all in English. Some professors do explain
things in Japanese, as most of the students are Japanese and that’s a faster way to teach
sometimes. (Student interview, Japan data set)
Interviews with learners confirmed that many of the Japanese contexts in the
data set appeared to use English more widely, as evidenced by the following
quote: ‘Apart from our [out-of-class] activities, everything is in English, the
textbooks are in English, the workshops for TOEFL and TOEIC [Test of
English for International Communication] are in Japanese, but everything is
in English’ (Student Interview, Japan data set). Thus, everything, except exam
preparation classes, was conducted in English. At another university, the rules
of English were more malleable, as one postgraduate research student explains:
I wrote my proposal in Japanese, which is acceptable. My Masters thesis was written in
English. For the Masters, the rules for the course state that English is recommended, but
is not compulsory. (Student interview, Japan data set)
This flexibility at the same university also extended to classroom discussions,
as one student explains:
There’s a group of exchange students talking in English, then there’s another group of
only Japanese students who are talking in Japanese. It’s two languages going on at the
same time, but, because the professor gives lessons in English, when he calls on me
I have to talk in English, so it’s pretty complicated. (Student Interview, Japan data set)
Such descriptions reflect a translanguaging ideology of language use, where
students are allowed to draw upon their linguistic repertoires and to choose the
language most appropriate to the task or to the people with whom they are
communicating. However, this university policy of openness with language use
appeared to be an anomaly, rather than the norm, and was not a dominant theme.
Monolingual Orientation in the Classroom: Quantitative

Findings
A secondary focus of the study aimed to reanalyse questionnaire data from
Galloway et al. (2017) to investigate the intensity of the monolingual
Table 8.3 Responses to ‘I believe that EMI programmes should only permit the
use of English in lectures and classes’
Students Staff
Label N % N % N N
Strongly disagree 14 3.5 2 8.2 1 0
Disagree 78 19.4 39 42.3 1 2
Agree 228 56.6 147 42.9 11 3
Strongly agree 83 20.6 57 6.6 3 2
orientation within the EMI programmes of the participants. In the question-

naire, the students and staff were asked to directly respond to the statement
‘I believe that EMI programmes should only permit the use of English in
lectures and classes.’ The student and staff respondents in Japan and China
are detailed in Table 8.3. The students at the Japanese universities (n = 387)
reported a higher level of agreement with this statement (M = 2.94, SD = 0.78)
than the students at the Chinese universities (n = 193, M = 2.48, SD = 0.71).
The results of a Mann–Whitney U test found this difference to be significant (U
= 32876, p = 0.010).
Not wanting to only investigate nation-based variation in the data, we also
sought to investigate whether other differences were found according to other
variables. As other applied linguistics research has suggested that motivation is
an important factor in the uptake of CLIL and EMI (see Lasagabaster & Doiz,
2017), we investigated whether students’ motivation for enrolling in an EMI
programme was a predictor of their English-only beliefs. In order to make this
comparison, the students were divided into two groups according to how they
answered a question regarding their reasons for applying to an EMI pro-
gramme, with the students who positively responded to the question of whether
they enrolled in EMI programmes to learn/improve English (n = 387) in one
group, and those who negatively responded to the question in the other (n =
193). Although this is a crude measure of language motivation, it effectively
isolated the students who were linguistically motivated to study in an EMI
environment from those who were motivated by non-linguistic drivers.
A Mann–Whitney U test revealed a significantly higher level (U = 32876, p =
0.01) of agreement with the English-only statement in the linguistically moti-
vated group (M = 2.91, SD = 0.78) than in the group who were not linguistically
motivated (M = 2.75, SD = 0.71). These results are unsurprising, considering
that students who aim to use EMI as a vehicle for English improvement may be
more focused on learning the language than content, so may be willing to
sacrifice the acquisition of content, which could be facilitated via use of the L1,
in favour of English-language development opportunities they believed to be
facilitated by a strict English-only environment. Likewise, students who enrol
in EMI programmes for non-language-related reasons may value the facilita-
tive effects of the L1 on their content learning.
Use of the L1 in the Classroom: Quantitative Findings

A second question asked for opinions about the use of the L1 in the classroom,
asking students and staff to respond to the question: ‘I believe that EMI
programmes should permit staff and students to use English and their mother
tongue.’ The question aimed to investigate whether stakeholders believed use
of the L1 should be permitted for any purpose (pedagogical or otherwise) in the
classroom. This was in response to the positive function of L1 use noted in the
literature, such as facilitating the transmission of knowledge, managing the
classroom and establishing rapport with learners (Ferguson, 2003, 2009).
Responses to the item are shown in Table 8.4. The results of
a Mann–Whitney U test revealed no significant differences in this statement
between the students in Japan and China. Further tests also revealed no
significant differences according to other group variables, such as motivations
for undertaking EMI.
We were also interested in exploring the L1 status of the participants and
how this might impact on their views of English. For this analysis, we added in
data from the 123 international students in the Japanese context. (Note: there
were insufficient international student participant numbers in the China study
to warrant statistical analysis of this type, so the Chinese EMI programmes
were removed for this analysis to eliminate the confounding variable of
a national difference.) Three groups were created for the students enrolled in
EMI in Japan: Japanese students, international students of a non-English L1
Table 8.4 Responses to ‘I believe that EMI programmes should permit staff
and students to use English and their mother tongue’
Students Staff
Label N % N % N N
Strongly disagree 22 5.5 13 7.1 1 1
Disagree 119 29.5 41 22.5 6 1
Agree 216 53.6 105 57.7 9 3
Strongly agree 46 11.4 23 12.6 0 2
Table 8.5 Analysis of items 16 and 17 comparing students of different L1

backgrounds
Chi-
Description Group Mean SD square p Significance
Q16. I believe that Japanese L1 2.93 0.72 8.869 0.012 J < Other L1
EMI programmes Other L1 3.20 0.77
should only permit English L1 2.79 0.69
the use of English in
lectures and classes.
Q17. I believe that Japanese L1 2.75 0.72 9.755 0.008 J > Other L1
EMI programmes Other L1<
should permit staff and Eng L1
students to use English
and their mother
tongue.
background, and international students of an English L1 background.

A Kruskal–Wallis H test was applied to explore the difference between the
three groups.
The results are presented in Table 8.5 for both items. The Japanese
students reported a significantly lower level of agreement with the belief
that EMI programmes should use only English in lectures and classes than
the students of ‘Other L1s’. The ‘Other L1’ group also showed
a significantly higher level of agreement with the statement than the
English L1 students. The same significance in relationship in inverse
was found for the statement ‘I believe that EMI programmes should
permit staff and students to use English and their mother tongue ’.
The students of non-English and non-Japanese L1s were in significantly
less agreement to the statement than the students of a Japanese L1 and
English L1. Thus, the group that appeared to be most rigid about English-
only use in EMI (and less open to the use of other languages) were the L2
English-speaking international students, followed by the L2 English-
speaking Japanese students, and then the L1 English speakers. The L2
speakers, therefore, seemed more intent on the use of English than the L1
speakers, perhaps due to them perceiving EMI as an avenue for English-
language use and practice. The results were unexpected and, thus, an
exploration of qualitative data was necessary in order to better explain
this difference in opinion.
Exploring the Use of Other Languages, Including the L1, in EMI

Settings
The open-ended responses to the question of whether EMI classrooms should
be English only helped to add a richer understanding of why certain opinions
were held. In total 305 open-ended responses were coded. These are presented
according to emergent themes in this section alongside relevant data from the
student and staff focus groups.
Students Who Supported a Monolingual Orientation

A majority of students, who agreed with the questionnaire item that English
should be used in classes and the mother tongue restricted, provided general
answers that could be categorised under a theme that an English-only environ-
ment would help them to improve their English-language abilities. Illustrative
statements from the learner questionnaire are provided in Table 8.6 and include
sentiments such as ‘It is helpful for studying English’. Other comments indi-
cated that an English-only environment would create an immersion-like envir-
onment, which would habitualise their language use to be more ‘English-
speaking’. See Table 8.6 for a list of illustrative comments in support of an
English-only policy taken from the open-ended response item on the
questionnaire.
Table 8.6 Sample open-ended comments regarding ‘English only’
Sample reasons given for supporting an English-only EMI classroom

• ‘It is helpful for studying English’
• ‘Only by this [having an English-only classroom] can the mindset of English be taught’
• ‘Immersion in English atmosphere helps improve English’
• ‘I think that using English only can give the students a sense, an atmosphere, of speaking English
so that they can make progress’
• [Learning through English only will help students to] ‘think in an English way’
• ‘We can’t make progress in our English if we use first language after class’
• ‘English should be used not only in lectures but also in daily lives if you really want to improve
your skills’
• ‘The use of English on campus helps students improve their level much more quickly’
• ‘If the lectures are in English, exams, assignments, and everything else should be too’
• ‘What do you mean? The EMI programme is an English instruction programme, so everyone is
required to use English’
• ‘Because it’s EMI’
• ‘If we don’t use English, why call it an EMI programme? Only by using English can we have
a better ability in using English’
• ‘Because this is an English programme’ [student’s own emphasis]
This sentiment was also observed in the interview data, illustrated by com-
ments such as the following in one Japanese student’s interview:
I prefer it to be English only, because the reason why I wanted to come to [this
university] was because I would be able to speak English on a regular basis, when I’m
in school. I don’t expect to speak English outside school, because I live in Japan and
that’s the way it should be, but at least when I’m in school I like to have as many
opportunities to speak English. (Student interview, Japan data set)
For this student, it was essential to create an English-only environment so that
language could be developed.
Furthermore, many students used the open-ended questionnaire items to
make stronger claims. One student claimed that the English-only ideology
should be more greatly enforced ‘because force is sometimes necessary’.
Another student echoed this sentiment, claiming that it was necessary to
‘force students to use English, so their English improves’. Two students
expressed the only reason they complied with the English-only policy was
because it was enforced, stating that they ‘will get marked absent if we speak
Japanese in class’. Three further students reasoned that forcing the use of
English in lectures and class was necessary ‘Because [for] the majority of
students, English is not their first language’, and an ‘English-only environment
will be more helpful for English learning’, and, thus, ‘Students have to try to
use English even when it’s difficult’. One comment explicitly stated the
purpose of EMI was to improve the language ability of students, in stating
‘Because EMI classes are to improve English and study English, so using other
language does not help the student’. This sentiment was echoed in much of the
interview data, illustrated by the following excerpt from an interview with
students at a Japanese university:
My Japanese friends who are also enrolled in the FLA [first language acquisition]
programme, they prefer talking in Japanese to English, because they’re not really
confident in English, so I tend to use Japanese in class discussions, which I’m kind of
disappointed about. (Student interview, Japan data set)
Other students used the open-ended comments to suggest that the English-only
policy was not only appropriate in lectures and classes but should be applied to
other educational domains. One student stated that ‘If you are to cultivate the
student’s integrated skills in English, then the range of EMI should not be
limited in lectures and classes.’ In another interview, one student elaborated on
this ideology, stating:
I think that EMI programmes should suggest strongly students to use English outside
lectures. Native language is usually come up without thinking, but in English, you
need to get myself accustomed. To improve students’ English performance, they
should use them as much as they can; and that should be suggested by EMI
programmes too. (Student interview, Japan data set)
Others suggested that programmes should not only encourage ‘the use of
English in lectures and classes’, but also ‘should use in the exams and practice
in our daily life’, a sentiment echoed in many other comments. Another
claimed, ‘If the lectures are in English, exams, assignments and everything
else should be, too.’ This extended beyond just educational domains, and into
the students’ social domains as well, as students recommended using English
outside class as well.
For many students who supported an English-only policy, there was no
mention of content learning. For these students, the purpose of EMI appeared
to be development of second language proficiency, rather than the acquisition
of content knowledge within their discipline of study, stating, ‘if we don’t use
English, why call it an EMI programme?’ For these students, the use of
languages other than English in classes challenged the very purpose of enrol-
ling in an EMI programme, because ‘Mixing languages does not help students
commit to an EMI programme’, and it is ‘much faster for students to learn
English when no other languages are used in the classroom’. One student
expressed resentment at the use of other languages in EMI classes, stating
that ‘Some students discuss in Japanese. It irritates me, because listening to
English and Japanese discussion is confusing and it is not effective for students
to study English.’ Such comments clearly support the monolingual orientation
that has underpinned much of ELT.
Other students provided more pragmatic reasons for English only in class-
rooms and lectures, drawing attention to the fact that English was the only
shared language for classes that included international students, so the policy
was necessary ‘so students from other countries can understand’. One student
stated that ‘There are some students coming from other countries and if we use
Japanese in English environment, it’s not fair for the international students.’
Some students saw English as egalitarian, stating ‘I don’t like speaking
Japanese when some of the classmates do not understand it’ and ‘English is
the only language everyone understands.’ Another stated that he/she was
studying at ‘an international university, which means that the only language
all students can understand is English, if students or professors use other
languages they will exclude others from learning’.
Students Who Challenged a Monolingual Orientation

To the contrary, those who disagreed with the English-only policy underpinned
their opinions with a rationale that using other languages was beneficial to
Table 8.7 Sample open-ended comments supporting ‘the use of other languages’
Sample reasons given for supporting the use of other languages in EMI
• ‘Using multiple languages is easier to understand’
• ‘Some terms might be explained in another language if necessary’
• ‘Sometimes we need other languages to explain something’
• ‘Sometimes it’s necessary to explain difficult points in the mother tongue’
• ‘Students can’t understand some exact meaning which can only be expressed explicitly in their
mother tongue’
• ‘If we are taught only in English, we will have some trouble in understanding knowledge the
teacher introduces to us. After all, English is not our mother tongue’
• ‘Because some students don’t know English at all, they need an explanation in their mother
tongue sometimes’
• ‘For some students who aren’t good in English, like me, we need the Chinese to explain to us, to
help us understand what it is we are learning’
• ‘Because sometimes the use of L1 could be more useful to understand the notion or concept in
depth’
• ‘Because the main purpose of taking lecture is to understand the lecture, so if students didn’t
understand the contents, teachers should try to explain students in their native language or in an
easy way’
• ‘When I cannot understand in English, I want the teacher to explain in Japanese’
• ‘When I want to learn specific topics, using Japanese is easier to understand the details of them
than in English’
• ‘If using other languages other than English is necessary to understand some difficult contents of
the lecture, using other languages should be allowed’
• ‘While English should be strongly encouraged, there may be instances in which the mother
tongue may prove to be more effective/useful’
• ‘If an individual’s mother tongue could be allowed, then so could other languages, to expand the
range of communication’
• ‘If students are completely lost and can’t follow the class, that is the time they [should] be
allowed to use their mother tongue’
• ‘I somehow agree with this as stated above. In order to improve their speaking and writing skills,
students should be permitted to use English when they talk to staff and peers. However, in order
to have a depth of knowledge of a subject that students are interested in, being an expert of the
subject both in English and their mother tongue is also important’
• ‘I think we should allow students to use other languages in class. The teacher has to use English,
but some Japanese students think in Japanese and then use English to speak, but they can explain
better in Japanese, and this causes them not to speak’
• ‘Sometimes it is still very hard to ask something in English and the question could end up unclear
if we avoid asking just because we don‘t know how to say it’
understanding the content. Illustrative comments from the open-ended ques-

tionnaire item are included in Table 8.7.
Some students recognised the importance of English in classes but noted the
benefit of using the students’ L1 in certain situations. One student commented
that
I believe a full English environment can be more effective to improve one’s English
skills and grow the linguistic sense. I am not strongly disagree because according to my
experience sometimes we do need the mother tongue to explain some of the meanings so
that we could understand them immediately and thoroughly.
(Student interview, Japan data set)
A similar student, torn between the perceived benefits of an English-only

classroom, but acknowledging the facilitative benefits of L1 use, stated that
the ‘Mother tongue should only be used outside class or in specific situations’,
thus drawing functional and geographic domains around the language used.
A further student commented that where English can be used, it should: ‘It may
be easier for some students to understand material if it is explained in their
mother tongue, but it should not be used too often because students should
challenge themselves to think and understand in English.’
In the interview data, it seemed that the class cohort was a factor that dictated
language use:
If everyone is Japanese, then we speak Japanese. The university states everything is to
be in English, but some professors do use Japanese, for example in Chinese lessons,
there’s a professor who is not good at English, but is good at Japanese. And sometime
the grammar or expressions can be similar, so it’s easier to explain them in Japanese, if
all students are Japanese. But if there is an international student there, then it is in
English. I took Mongolian classes, and the same thing happens there.
This phenomenon is similar to findings of EMI research in Europe, where users
switch between languages depending on the shared languages of the student
cohort (Airey, 2011). A lecturer in Switzerland, for example, may begin
a lecture in German if all students present can understand German, but then
may switch to English when a non-German-speaking student enters the lecture
theatre. Such sentiments were also revealed through the student interviews,
where a more nuanced attitude towards L1 use could be found, acknowledging
that the L1 had value for certain situations and to perform certain functions.
Illustrative excerpts are provided below.
Some students saw the purpose of EMI as being to create an international
programme that would be English-led, but not exclusively so. One student at
a Japanese university with a long history of English-medium and bilingual
programmes stated that ‘Both Japanese and English teaching are vital to [my
university’s] ethos’. A further student commented that the language used
should be adaptable to the background of the students communicating. He
argued that during discussions ‘with people who have the same nationality,
using our mother tongue should be permitted in order to understand opinions
precisely and quickly’. Another student challenged the concept that internatio-
nalisation equals Englishisation, in stating, ‘I think that just because the
programme aims for internationalism, doesn’t necessarily mean they should

only use English in the programme.’
Perhaps the most articulately written opinion of this type was seen in the
open-ended response from a learner at a Japanese university, who stated,
Since EMI not only allows us to speak and listen to English daily, it is another great
factor that people from many different background gathers. It might be narrowing the
potential of global interaction by simply forcing the students to only speak in English.
For example, there are words and expressions which might be difficult to say in English.
If students are allowed to use their own language, it might bring better results for all of
us. (Student interview, Japan data set)
Comments such as this seem to connect with EMI’s relationship with globali-
sation. EMI, as a product of internationalisation in higher education, is not
intended for the sole purpose of language development, nor content acquisition
in a second language, but for the development of global human resources
through internationalised learning experiences.
The data also revealed opinions arguing against English only in the name of
equality, and access to an effective education. These students expressed that
English only was ‘not reasonable for all students’, or that ‘everyone has the
right’ to use their native language, with one student noting that
The more often we speak English the more we will improve. However, I think that we
should be able to speak a little of our native language in order to make sure we don’t
leave anybody behind. (Student interview, China data set)
Another argued that ‘If there are misunderstandings, they should be explained
in the appropriate language’. These students explicitly stated a need for prior-
itising students’ understanding, even if this meant other languages were used.
Furthermore, other students claimed the enforcement of an English-only policy
resulted in advantaging more proficient speakers, because an overemphasis on
English ‘will make students feel more anxiety’ and would prevent ‘students
from speak[ing] their opinions because of the lack in confidence in their
English’.
This sentiment was echoed in interview data where some students expressed
negative effects of an English-only policy on classroom participation. Contrary
to opinions that English only was more inclusive for international students,
many non-Japanese-speaking international students were advocates of
a multilingual classroom. One L1 English-speaking exchange student studying
in an international programme in Japan stated in his interview:
I am not a big fan of English only. Having the availability to [use another language]
when you don’t understand is a very convenient tool to have. The readings and text-
books should be in English, and they are here. Some teachers provide extra materials if
you’re interested or if you’re not understanding. (Student interview, Japan data set)
Thus, the qualitative data revealed quite opposing positions on the use of other
languages in EMI contexts, with some students exhibiting strong opinions that
advocated for English only in all classroom (as at times, out-of-class) contexts,
and others seeing the value in other languages for a variety of purposes and for
a variety of specific situations and functions.
Beliefs about ‘What English?’ in EMI: Quantitative and

Qualitative Data
A third question investigated student and staff attitudes towards the native
speaker centrality, thus exploring Kirkpatrick’s (2017) observation that native
speaker hegemony exists in EMI, and needs to be challenged in order for EMI
to be successful. Thus, one questionnaire item elicited opinions of the per-
ceived importance of teachers to embody ‘native-like’, standard qualities in
their English-language use. This item was included in order to explore issues
surrounding native speakerism, a topic that we noted of being of research
interest in Chapter 5. In one task students and teachers were asked to respond
on a Likert scale to the importance of qualities of a teacher, including an
evaluation of the importance of a ‘native-like accent’. The results indicated
a high preference for native-like accents, with 76.7% (M = 2.98) of the students
in Japan and 76.3% (M = 2.89) of the students in China agreeing with the
statement. The results of a Mann–Whitney U test confirmed no significant
differences in this statement between the two groups. When the results were
compared according to reasons for enrolling in EMI, a further Mann–Whitney
U test revealed that students who enrolled in EMI programmes to learn/
improve English reported a significantly higher level (U = 25270.5, p =
0.005) of agreement with this statement (M = 3.07, SD = 0.61) than students
who did not (M = 2.90, SD = 0.69). This indicates that those students who are
more motivated by learning language within EMI classes adhere more closely
to native speaker norms (in terms of spoken accent) than students who choose
EMI based on content learning or other goals.
We were interested in exploring the L1 status of the participants and how this
might impact on their views of importance of native-like characteristics of their
EMI teachers. Thus, for this analysis, we added in data from the international
students in the Japanese context and removed the Chinese EMI data to elim-
inate some of the confounding variables. The three groups of students who
reported on the importance of a native-like accent for their EMI teacher were
Japanese students (M = 3.08, SD = 0.71), international students of a non-
English L1 (M = 2.81, SD = 0.73) and international students of an English
L1 national background (M = 2.46, SD = 0.71). The results of a Kruskal–Wallis
H test revealed significant differences (p < 0.001) between the three groups.
Importantly, the students of a Japanese L1 placed a significantly higher value
on the native-like accent of their EMI teacher than the students of other (non-
English/non-Japanese) L1s. Then, in turn, this ‘Other L1’ group placed
a significantly higher value on the native-like accent of their teachers than the
students of an English L1.
This finding warranted a further investigation using the qualitative data,
however, few mentions were noted in the interview data. Only one student
made an explicit comparison with ‘native’ English, arguing that, in her EMI
programme, she wanted more opportunities to travel to native English-
speaking countries to find opportunities to improve her English as the
English used in her EMI course was insufficient:
I think the most important support would be to give us more chances to go abroad, yes, to
study in America or England. I think that the English spoken in these different countries,
speaking and listening, is totally different, and it would improve my English level.
(Student interview, China data set)
A further student concluded that ‘Maybe accepting more native English-
speaking professors is the best way forward’ for the EMI programme. These
students, however, seemed to be in the minority in terms of evidence yielded
from the qualitative data. Most students were of the opinion that teachers
needed to know English well enough to convey the subject knowledge effec-
tively, and the nativeness of the teachers’ English was not an issue.
Other students explicitly valued the importance of knowledge of content
subject matter, and of the local educational context, as being more important
than native-like fluency in English, as illustrated by the following comment:
Not all teachers have a fluent grasp of English, but I don’t feel you need to be really
fluent. It’s not always about what you know but how you communicate it. Every
professor knows how to teach based on the standards of the country they come from.
In America we write a lot of notes, the teachers here all have a different style and it’s
hard to say what’s effective. The students are also diverse. Although it’s supposed to be
based on the American system, the teachers are not teaching that way. You need to know
absolutely your subject matter, but you need to recognise when your students don’t
understand, especially when the students all have a different level of understanding.
In a similar vein, some students supported the idea that their EMI teacher
should be multilingual. They saw value in a teacher being functional in not only
the English language but also the students’ L1, as illustrated by the following
illustrative comment from the interview data:
Staff should be multilingual. They should be able to speak the most popular language
amongst the students other than English, so that students having trouble with vocabulary
can be helped quickly. (Student interview, Japan data set)
This rhetoric was also found in the Chinese EMI context, with one student
interviewee noting that ‘I think it would be better if my EMI teacher was
Chinese, because it is easier to understand each other.’ International experience
was also seen as being more important for many students than the type of
English they used. The importance of teachers understanding not only students’
L1 but also the cultural backgrounds of students was echoed by at least twelve
students.
Discussion and Implications

One of the biggest differences we found in language use in EMI contexts in this
region was that the Chinese context appeared to use much more of the L1
within the classroom when compared to the Japanese context, despite teachers
reporting the contrary. This discrepancy was explained in the main study as
follows:
The study also revealed that EMI is delivered differently in Japan and China, with more
English used in the former. Staff reported using the students’ mother tongue as
a pedagogical tool, showing an understanding of students’ needs. They did appear,
however, concerned as to how and when to use the students’ mother tongue, and that
students may end up depending on it too much. This is further complicated by the fact
that student interviews revealed that such language use is seen as a sign of a lack of
English proficiency. (Galloway et al. 2017, p. 32)
This finding should be seen as a positive one, and is one that resonates with
a GELT ideology. Rather than use of the L1 being seen as a sign of language
lack in English, it should be seen as a tool for education – especially when the
outcomes of education revolve around the learning of content, rather than the
language itself. ‘It is imperative that we raise students’ awareness that English
does not have to be acquired monolingually, nor is it used monolingually’
(Galloway et al., 2017, p. 32). If a GELT curriculum can accompany such EMI
programmes, language courses can better educate learners of the important role
of other languages in education, and thus raise awareness of their positive
applications to EMI.
The Japanese adherence to English-only norms in this study may further be
due to a strong monolingual ideology in the L1 in Japan, which has been
reported elsewhere (e.g. Galloway and Rose, 2015; Seargeant, 2009). Japan is
more than 98% ethnically Japanese, and the Japanese language is the only
official language of the nation. China, on the other hand, is a deeply multi-
lingual country. The use of Putonghua as the national lingua franca of China
also provides a domestic context that is accustomed to lingua franca lan-
guages being used alongside others. While this is one explanation, another
could be the lack of international students in the Chinese context compared to
the Japanese context in the EMI programmes we explored. Because the students
in most of the EMI programmes in China shared knowledge of Putonghua as
well as English, this may have promoted its use. The interview data in Japan
indicated that some Japanese students felt it was unfair to use the non-shared
language of Japanese in the presence of international students within their
programme, so this may have encouraged the use of English only.
However, when attitudes towards the use of English only were further
explored in the qualitative and quantitative data, we discovered a strong pre-
ference for English-only use, particularly from the L2 English-speaking stu-
dents. It became apparent that supporters of a monolingual orientation within
EMI programmes did so based on the belief that it would help them to develop
their English-language proficiency. Such findings in Japan are corroborated by
previous research that has shown that Japanese students’ predominant reason
for taking EMI courses is to improve their English ability (Chapple, 2015).
If the driving forces behind monolingual ideology in EMI contexts does,
indeed, stem from a belief that English only in EMI will benefit English-
language development, as the data suggests, then it is necessary to problematise
this largely untested and unsubstantiated relationship. There is a scarce amount
of research that has measured language gain in EMI settings, and the evidence
that does exist is not positive (Macaro et al., 2018). A study in the United Arab
Emirates, for example, found that students only gained on average one-half of
an IELTS proficiency band over four years of EMI study – something that can
be achieved in 200 hours of study in a general English course (Rogier, 2012).
A study by Hu et al. (2014) found that EMI students made the same proficiency
gains on two different proficiency tests as a comparison group of students
studying through the medium of Chinese while taking typical general English-
language classes. While other studies have shown proficiency gains in EMI,
particularly in receptive skills (e.g. Aguilar & Muñoz, 2014), the evidence is
simply not strong enough to argue that EMI needs to be English only in order to
leverage the benefits of this somewhat weak relationship. Thus, if language
proficiency gains in EMI are a clear policy goal, then such programmes need to
be accompanied by language classes. Due to the ideology underpinning Global
Englishes matching the lingua franca functions of English within EMI, a GELT
curriculum is ideally suited to support this dual-purposed EMI model.
Even in high-proficiency environments such as Norway, studies have shown
that listening comprehension is worse through the medium of EMI than through
the medium of the L1 (Hellekjaer, 2010). Use of the L1 and translanguaging of
other language may be one strategy to help to alleviate the comprehension
challenges associated with EMI. While some students in our sample disagreed
with such practices, arguing that it would alienate speakers who did not share
knowledge of languages other than English, the L1 English speakers in our data
set were the most open linguistic group to embrace such practices. We concur
with Galloway (2017a) in that monolingual ideologies still ‘dominate univer-

sity language policies (even unwritten ones) and tensions often occur between
the everyday multilingual practices of students and university classrooms that
can become artificially monolingual’ (p. 7).
We need to consider what a Global Englishes orientation in an EMI setting
should look like. It is easy to argue for the use of the L1 as a resource in ELT, but
in EMI settings, particularly those in Japan populated with international stu-
dents, can one do this when English is the only shared lingua franca language of
the classroom? It is important to note, however, that the use of the L1 has been
observed in other EMI contexts of mixed student populations (Costa, 2012)
and, thus, might be considered normal practice for students when entering an
EMI context within a country where they do not speak the L2. EMI need not
mean English only or English always, or that all communication needs to
happen in mutually intelligible languages, so long as everyone has access to
the information needed to succeed. Perhaps the best example was seen within
one participant university in Japan, where the students reported a practice
where the teachers gave students the freedom to use whatever language best
fitted the learning task. This resulted in translanguaging practices, such as
conducting group work in a range of shared spoken languages based on the
English-medium content, but then returning to English for functions such as
reporting back to the class. In short, a Global Englishes orientation to EMI
practice would argue that language does not need to be ‘policed’, especially if
the goals of EMI in terms of content are being acquired via the student body’s
linguistic repertoire.
Conclusions and Further Research

The study reported here examines a single dimension of the GELT framework,
related to views of the use of the L1 as a resource (GELT orientation) or
a hindrance (traditional ELT orientation). Even within this single dimension,
we find stark differences in reported L1 use in EMI settings, as well as beliefs
that underpin how much and in what circumstances the L1 should be used, if at
all. In presenting the results of our data according to one dimension of the
GELT framework, we hope to have indicated further avenues that GELT can be
used to explore English use in EMI, which is a booming ELF context.
In drawing on other elements of the GELT framework, further research ques-
tions can be explored in EMI, including:
1. Who are the teachers of EMI? How does their L1 status affect stakeholder
perceptions of them? What value do qualifications and competence have in
comparison to L1 status?
2. What are the cultures of EMI? How do English users create an EMI culture
conducive for communication in a diverse student population?
3. What English norms are prevalent in EMI? Are these norms diverse, flexible
and multiple?
4. What materials are used in EMI contexts? Are they globally representative,
or norm-driven?
5. What are the language needs of EMI students? Are these language needs
globally or locally or norm defined?
6. What is the role of language in EMI assessment practices? Are EMI students
assessed according to language accuracy or communicative competence?
7. What are the language-learning goals of EMI, if any? Are these appropri-
ately benchmarked?
8. Does EMI embody a monolingual or multilingual/translingual orientation?
How can translanguaging be best integrated into EMI practice?
In a recent systematic review of EMI research, the following research area was
posited as being a key factor in need of examination:
We need to arrive at some sort of a consensus about what kind of English will be/should
be used in EMI HE. Again, this needs further unpacking: are we talking about a “native
speaker English” or other nativised varieties of English, or indeed of English as a lingua
franca (ELF) [Jenkins, 2015]? If it is ELF, then how does this affect international
students from different geo-linguistic areas, including English-dominant ones?
(Macaro et al., 2017, p. 38)
While our study has examined perceptions of the use of English alongside other
languages in EMI contexts in Japan and China, we have failed to unpack the
nuances and intricacies surrounding ‘what English?’ is used in such contexts,
and perceptions surrounding lingua franca English use and variations in the
Englishes used within EMI. EMI contexts – particularly those that have
a diverse student body of a range of L1s – are a microcosm of effervescent
ELF use in a context geographically removed from a native speaker-dominant
environment. However, they remain a largely unexplored research environ-
ment within which to explore Global Englishes issues related to English-
language use. In considering that many programmes in EMI emerging contexts
such as China and Japan also offer language support classes, these contexts also
offer vibrant opportunities for Global Englishes-orientated language teaching
and GELT research.
Part II Conclusion
This concludes the second part of the book, which has explored research
directions related to Global Englishes for language teaching. In addition to
outlining appropriate research topics and methodological approaches, we have
also showcased three self-contained studies to highlight diversity in Global
Englishes research related to English-language-learning contexts.
Our investigation of English-language books showcased how the GELT

framework can also be used as a framework for research. In its descriptions
of the various dimensions of needed change in English language teaching, the
framework can further be used to evaluate other facets of a curriculum. While
we, alongside others (e.g. Syrbe, 2017), have applied the framework to evaluate
materials (Chapter 6), other researchers have used it inform evaluations of
whole programmes (see McKinley, 2018). Thus, the framework can be applied
to other areas of teaching to help highlight areas of needed curriculum change.
The framework can also be adapted to inform data collection instrument
design, and to measure the effects of curriculum innovation in English-
language classes.
Our investigation of the teacher education programme outlined in Chapter 7,
further shows how GELT can be used to innovate pre-service and in-service
TESOL programmes. In this programme, key concepts related to GELT were
used to inform the content of a masters-level TESOL course, and to measure
changes in students’ perceptions of teaching English as an international lan-
guage. In addition to constructs in the GELT framework, the GELT proposals
and barriers (see Galloway & Rose, 2015) were particularly useful in providing
our research participants with tangible issues to respond to in our question-
naires and focus groups. Recently, a good amount of literature is emerging from
teacher education programmes that seek to better prepare teachers to teach
English as an international language (see Matsuda, 2017). We need in-depth
research to accompany such programmes to tangibly measure their effects on
teachers’ thoughts and actions, including potential longer term effects on
pedagogical practice after teachers enter or return to the classroom.
While considerable work in teacher education is occurring under the
umbrella of ELF-aware pedagogy, we believe GELT has an added advantage
that many of the ideas we present have already been tried and tested in language
classrooms (see Galloway 2011; 2013; 2017a; Galloway & Rose, 2014; 2018;
Rose & Galloway, 2017). Thus, GELT pedagogical innovations are research-
informed and teacher-led, rather than being applied as top-down constructs
from research which extends beyond the language-learning domain. The GELT
framework also deconstructs the multiple facets of pedagogical change into
sizable and digestible dimensions, which can be easily transformed into teach-
able units in teacher educations programmes. Further, the curriculum perspec-
tive offered in Chapter 2 shows how a GELT perspective can map on to existing
constructs which are typically taught in TESOL programmes (needs analysis,
objectives, syllabus, methods, assessment and evaluation). As teacher
education programmes continue to innovate, there will be increased
opportunities to research the impact of these programmes on teachers’ attitudes
and their future practices.
Our investigation of the ‘E’ in EMI showcases how Global Englishes is

further relevant to practices in the periphery of language teaching. As Briggs
and Smith (2017) note:
In EMI courses English is the conduit through which content subjects are delivered:
students acquire knowledge of content material while, ideally, also improving their
English language proficiency. Key to distinguishing EMI from other methods is the
ancillary role of English language development—a side effect of instruction rather than
an explicit pedagogical target. (p. 28)
Thus, even though English language teaching is not central to EMI, it is
nonetheless implicitly connected. The same global forces that have caused
a worldwide boom in EMI programmes are the same forces that have necessi-
tated change in language teaching practices. Therefore, these changes are
equally applicable to EMI in order to challenge native speaker centrality and
monolingual hegemony. Most EMI contexts, with internationalisation and
content learning at their core, need not promote a monolingual orientation to
English use, nor an ideology that reinforces notions of native language norms.
A GELT curriculum, whether part of an EMI preparatory programme or an EMI
language support course, can help stakeholders to challenge standard notions of
English.
While this book has outlined a number of areas of self-contained research,
our example studies in the final three chapters of this book are nonetheless
limited in scope and context. Rather than being exhaustive of research in each
area, they are intended to provide visibility to the tip of a ‘GELT research
iceberg’, which is indicative of the much larger body of research still yet to be
explored. Chapter 5 has endeavoured to provide a roadmap for future research,
but this roadmap will need to be adapted as new ideas emerge, and new contexts
for language use emerge.
Future research should aim to connect the concepts in Part I of the book,
which establishes the theoretical undercurrents and pedagogic applications of
Global Englishes, with Part II of the book, which highlights a need to research
innovations in practice. Global Englishes for language teaching occupies the
very space between theory and practice, where many scholars have noted
a considerable divide. From its very inception in Galloway’s (2011) seminal
study, the GELT framework has been proposed as a means to bridge this very
gap. Since this time, we have occupied this space with a modest amount
research on our own pedagogical practices, but far more is needed if a true
‘paradigm shift’ or ‘turn’ is to be realised. We hope this book will enable
scholars and teachers alike to forge new pathways forward so that TESOL can
continue its transformative journey as an adaptable profession that has grown
and matured as the needs of our learners, and the very language we teach, has
changed.

Global Englishes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Englishes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Englishes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preface

About the Book

Background to Global Englishes and Its Implications

A Call for Change

representations of future use of the language with native speakers in Inner

Global Englishes for Language Teaching

A Book in Two Parts: A Text and a Research Monograph

Part I: An Overview of Global Englishes for Language Teaching

Part II: Research on Global Englishes for Language Teaching

Chapter 8 presents reanalysed data from a recent British Council ELT

upward economic and social mobility, although we have warned previously of

What Is Global Englishes?

a number of authors in applied linguistics before us, whom we would like to

response to ‘the recent massive growth in the use of English as an international

English as a Lingua Franca

English as an International Language

Translanguaging and Translingual Practice

The Multilingual Turn

Uniting the Paradigms

Native Speakerism and Native Speaker Terminology

Despite efforts from within ELT to challenge native speakerism, at least in

nothing to do with the abilities to be a teacher of a particular language’

Implications of Global Englishes for Language Teaching

languages due to increasingly mobile communities of speakers. Since this time,

Applied linguistics researchers have long been strong advocates of multilingu-

The Global Englishes Language Teaching Framework

Table 1.1 Galloway’s (2011) original GELT framework (adapted)

In its second incarnation, the framework appeared in our book entitled

Table 1.2 The 2018 Global Englishes Language Teaching framework

Traditional ELT GELT

transnationalism (discussed further in Chapter 2). While transnationalism is

who is a qualiﬁed expert, has a multilingual repertoire and provides an authen-

Global Englishes for Language Teaching

As outlined in the previous chapter, GELT requires a conceptual transition in

TESOL: A Changing Context

Figure 2.1 The interrelated elements of the curriculum in relation to GELT.

An effective GELT curriculum should not only be based on an understanding of

Table 2.1 Richard’s (2001) curriculum perspectives from a GELT perspective

Situational Needs and Speciﬁc Purposes

Macalister, 2010) or ‘situation analysis’ (Richards, 2001) is abundant in the ﬁeld

established ﬁeld, with associated journals (World Englishes, Journal of English

Goals and Objectives

Table 2.2 A multilayered content-based and skills-based syllabus integrated

Module Week EAP Skills Focus Global Englishes Topic Focus

established relationships between a language and a particular culture.

developing critical thinking, autonomous learners. It is also important to note

The Synthetic Syllabus

designing the components of this needs-and-purposes-driven curriculum,

The Analytic Syllabus

Table 2.3 Example additional goals and objectives in a GELT curriculum

Example Goal Example Objectives Example Outcomes

Similar adaptations could be made to genre, text and content-based syllabus

As noted above, GELT embodies process objectives, aiming to promote self-

GELT-Informed Syllabus Design

The content should be sequenced or graded according to the speciﬁc context

teaching procedures that correspond to a certain approach (e.g. the audiolingual

Methods and Geopolitical Circumstances

Such deﬁnitions ﬁt GELT, especially considering that task-based language

In GELT, the learners’ L1 is seen as a valuable resource and learners are