Teacher Training For English As A Lingua Franca
Teacher Training For English As A Lingua Franca
Teacher Training For English As A Lingua Franca
The global spread of English has resulted in the use of English as a lingua
franca (Burns, 2005; Seidlhofer, 2004). As explained by Seidlhofer (2004), in its
purest form, a lingua franca has no native speakers (p. 211). However, the spread
of the English language is such that it has resulted in its use by speakers of English
from Inner, Outer, and Expanding Circles (Burns, 2005; Seidlhofer, 2004).
Regardless of the term used to refer to English as a lingua franca (e.g., English as an
international language, English as a world language, English as a global language,
etc.), the reality is that, to put it in Burns (2005) words: English is a language used
locally and internationally, not only among so-called native speakers but by anyone
wishing to activate his or her role as a member of an international communicative
network (p. 1).1
261
Additionally, around the world, there are more English speakers who come
from Expanding Circles than those who come from Inner Circle contexts
(Canagarajah, 2005; Kachru, 1992; Kachru & Nelson, 2001). Therefore, it should
not come as a surprise that English is being taught by nonnative speakers of English
to other nonnative English speakers (Kachru & Nelson, 2001; Medgyes, 1996;
Pasternak & Bailey, 2004). Nonnative English-speaking (NNES) teachers constitute
up to 80 percent of the English teachers around the world (Canagarajah, 1999).
Pasternak and Bailey (2004) argue that given these numbers, It is simply not logical
to assume that there are enough native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) (qualified
or otherwise) to meet the global demand for English teachers; nor is it logical to
assume that hiring a native over a nonnative teacher is always the best administrative
decision (p. 156). This chapter reviews current research and scholarship in relation
to issues in teacher preparation for English as a lingua franca. Through the
presentation of two cases of teacher preparation in English as lingua franca settings,
it addresses current issues in English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching and
learning. It concludes with implications for teacher preparation in lingua franca
settings and suggestions for future research.
Issues of Professional Preparation and Language Proficiency
Recently, there has been a significant growth in research focusing on NNES
teachers (see Kamhi-Stein, 2005, for a comprehensive review of the research on the
topic). However, as explained by Pasternak and Bailey (2004), the debate over the
qualifications of native and nonnative speakers is highly controversial (p. 156) on
two grounds. First, a satisfactory definition of the term native speaker is not
available and in the absence of such a definition, the negative term is quite
impossible to define (Kaplan, 1999, quoted in Pasternak & Bailey, 2004, p. 156).
Second, nativeness in English cannot be equated with proficiency in English and, a
teachers language proficiency is only one element of professionalism (p. 161).
For Pasternak and Bailey, the second element of professionalism is professional
preparation.
They further argue that teachers, regardless of whether they are native or
nonnative speakersmust have both declarative knowledgeknowledge about
somethingand procedural knowledgeability to do things in at least three key
areas: (1) knowing about and how to use the target language, (2) knowing about and
how to teach in culturally appropriate ways, and (3) knowing about and how to
behave appropriately in the target culture (p. 158).
Bailey (2006) and Pasternak and Bailey (2004) present a framework that
examines issues of language proficiency and professional preparation. Central to
their framework are two notions. First, language proficiency and professional
development need to be perceived as continua. Second, there are different degrees
of proficiency: being proficient is a continuum, rather than an either-or proposition
(Pasternak & Bailey, 2004, p. 163). Moreover, whether or not a teacher is
proficient depends on how we define this multifaceted construct (p. 163). Figure 1
presents the framework.
Proficient in
the target language
Professionally
prepared as a
language
teacher
Not
professionally
prepared as a
language
teacher
Not proficient
in the target language
Figure 1: Continua of Target Language Proficiency and Professional
Preparation (from Bailey, 2006)
According to this framework, teachers falling in Quadrant 1 would be those
who are proficient in the target language and are professionally prepared. Teachers
falling in Quadrant 4 would be those who are neither proficient nor have professional
preparation. According to the framework, teachers falling in Quadrant 2 would be
professionally prepared and not proficient in the target language and teachers falling
in Quadrant 3 would be proficient in the target language but not professionally
prepared.
A complementary view of the relationship between professional preparation
and language proficiency, this time in direct relationship to the EFL English as a
foreign language setting, is provided by Lee (2004). She argues that teacher
preparation programs need to sensitize teachers to issues that are of professional
interest to them. To do this, the teacher preparation curriculum should promote
reflection, capitalize on the teachers strengths by promoting awareness of the
advantages they bring to the classroom as nonnative English-speaking professionals,
and reinforce the need for ongoing language improvement.
An issue that has only recently been addressed is the relationship between
proficiency in English and teachers instructional practices. A study by Butler
(2004) investigated EFL teachers in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, their perceptions
about their level of proficiency, and their perceptions about the minimum level of
proficiency they perceived to be necessary to teach elementary school children. The
results of the study showed that there were gaps in the teachers perceptions about
their proficiency, their desired level of proficiency, and what they perceived to be the
minimum level of proficiency necessary to teach at the elementary school level.
Butler explains that the teachers negative self-perceptions are problematic because
they may ultimately affect their instructional practices and, in turn, negatively affect
student learning and motivation.
In another related study, Kamhi-Stein and Mahboob (2005) investigated the
relationship among teachers English language proficiency, teachers beliefs about
second language (L22) teaching and learning, and language used in classrooms in
Argentina, South Korea, and Pakistan. They found that a complex interplay of
factors affect the teachers use of English in the classroom. Specifically, the results
of their investigation showed that in implementing instruction, the extent to which
teachers used their home language or English was affected by their actual proficiency
in English (as measured by a battery of tests) and their beliefs about L2 teaching and
learning. The study also showed that the teachers instructional practices were, to a
large extent, contextualized in the beliefs and practices of the educational system in
which they functioned.
Issues of Pedagogy
Over the last few years, researchers have emphasized the importance of
implementing language teaching methodologies that are sensitive to local
sociocultural and institutional beliefs (Canagarajah, 1999; Kumaravadivelu, 2001;
Lin, Wang, Akamatsu, & Riazi, 2005; Luk, 2005; McKay, 2002). Communicative
language teaching (CLT), the most popular approach to the teaching of English
around the world over the past two decades (Burns, 2005), has been questioned on
the basis that it relies on Western beliefs and values, and as such, is problematic
because of the mismatch in expectations about teachers and students roles (Luk,
2005; McKay, 2002).
In a study of the implementation of CLT in Hong Kong classrooms, Luk
(2005) found that verbalizing voices does not necessarily equal communication (p.
264). Instead, she concluded that language development for global communication is
facilitated when instruction allows students to express their localized self (p. 265)
in the target language, that is, when classroom activities are centered around topics
that are relevant to the students local settings and allow students to express their
thoughts, feelings, and intentions. The same conclusion was reached by Lin, Wang,
Akamatsu, and Riazi (2005) in their study of their own English language learning
experiences in foreign language settings. At issue were instructional materials,
which, though ostensibly authentic (in the sense that they were written by and about
native English speakers), did not allow students to express their localized selves
(Luk, 2005, p. 265). Instead, when teachers focused on topics centered around social
and political issues that were relevant to the students lives, the students gained
confidence and fluency in using English for meaningful communication.
In relation to pedagogical practices, Lin, Wang, Akamatsu, and Riazi (2005)
argue that rather than asking what counts as good pedagogy, the question that
needs to be asked is: What counts as good pedagogy in specific sociocultural
contexts? (p. 210). To answer this question, they report on the instrumentality of
the teachers of English they had studied, who, in spite of implementing
using commercial audiotapes that relied on White accents, the teachers in her study
made use of tapes with a variety of accents, including their own. In a related
investigation, Golombek and Jordan (2005) found that the pre-service teachers were
influenced by the native speaker myth and by the notion that the native speaker is
White. However, they further observed that the teacher preparation program in
which pre-service teachers were enrolled helped them to challenge the notions by
providing them opportunities for PSTs [pre-service teachers] to develop alternative
instructional practices that are compatible with an imagined identity, especially
because those practices may run counter to institutional norms (p. 530).
The issue of teacher accentedness has also been investigated from the
students perspective. In one study, focusing on ESL learners attitudes toward
teacher accentedness in an Inner Circle setting, Kelch and Santana-Williamson
(2002) had students listen to passages read by native and nonnative speakers and
complete attitudinal surveys. The findings of their investigation showed that
language learners were not capable of distinguishing between native Englishspeaking (NES) and a nonnative English-speaking (NNES) teacher accent with a
high degree of accuracy (p. 62). The results also showed that students attributed
positive characteristics to teachers who were perceived to be native speakers.
Finally, the study revealed that degree of familiarity with the different varieties of
English spoken by the teachers affected the students perceptions about the teachers.
In another study, also looking at ESL learners attitudes toward teachers, Liang
(2002) had students complete a variety of tasks designed to untap the students
attitudes toward Inner Circle and Expanding Circle teachers. She also had students
listen to recordings of five NNES teachers and one NES teacher and complete
attitudinal surveys. The results of the study showed that students did not perceive the
native speaker to be the ideal teacher of English. At the same time, degree of teacher
accentedness correlated positively with students attitudes toward the teacher.
Teacher Preparation: Examples from Egypt and Uzbekistan
In this section, we apply the issues raised above to two lingua franca settings
for in-service teacher preparation. Our aim is to show how these issues play out in
the actual, on the ground preparation of teachers in two very different lingua franca
contexts where resources are scarce, yet needs are great.
Egypt: The Development of Standards
English is the primary foreign language offered in Egyptian public schools,
and competent users of English are in great demand in tourism and commerce. Many
Egyptian universities require English-medium instruction in the final two years of
university study in majors such as science, engineering, and technology. Despite the
demands, there is dissatisfaction with students ability to use English for a variety of
communicative purposes.
The growing emphasis on English is underscored by dramatic changes in the
onset of English instruction in Egyptian government schools. Within the last decade,
the introduction of English instruction has been moved from the sixth year of
primary school, to the fourth year, and, more recently, to the first year of primary
school. As in many EFL settings, the pool of qualified instructors has not kept pace
with government mandates. El Naggar et al. (2001) point out that many English
teachers lack training in the effective instruction of young learners and experience in
communicative teaching methods, and many teachers themselves feel that their own
English skills are inadequate.
Pharos, a project focused on improving the quality of English teaching in
Egyptian schools, illustrates several key issues in in-service teacher training in a
lingua franca setting. The project was a precursor to a larger educational reform
program that is currently taking place in Egypt around the vehicle of national
standards (National Standards of Education, 2004). The Pharos project sought to:
(1) improve English classroom instruction and in-service teacher education systems;
(2) provide a framework to support training and technical assistance; (3) offer a set of
consistent criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of training; and (4) ultimately serve as
a model for the development of standards in other content areas such as mathematics,
science, Arabic, and other foreign languages.
The vehicle used to meet these goals was standards. Standards are
statements that describe what learning should look like and how learning should be
provided in order to increase achievement or effectiveness. Applied to teachers,
standards describe what teachers need to know and be able to do as they design and
deliver instruction and assess student achievement. The Pharos project took place
over a four-year period with a team of American specialists with expertise in
standards development and implementation. These American specialists
collaborated with Egyptian faculty of education members with extensive knowledge
of teacher preparation in Egypt and the Egyptian instructional setting. By the end of
the project, the team had developed four sets of standardsfor English teachers,
teacher trainers, educational leaders, and in-service training programs. 2
How might the notion of standards apply to teacher preparation of English in
lingua franca settings (or any setting seeking to improve the quality of teachers)?
The previously-cited framework by Bailey (2006) and Pasternak and Bailey (2004)
addresses the two main needs of ESL/EFL teachers, namely professional teacher
preparation and English language proficiency. In fact, all seven domains of the
standards developed for the Egyptian teacher preparation contextVision and
Advocacy, Language Proficiency, Professional Knowledge Base, Planning and
Management of Learning, Assessment and Evaluation, Learning Community and
Environment, and Professionalism3could be plotted on the continua of professional
preparation and target language proficiency depicted in the Bailey (2006) and
Pasternak and Bailey (2004) framework.
Standards can serve as a lens through which to improve teacher
professionalism and language proficiency. They necessarily create a certain tension
between teachers current comfort zones and a more forward directed target for
improved professionalism and language proficiency. To be meaningful, they must,
as Lin, Wang, Akamatsu, and Riazi (2005) note, be sufficiently grounded in the
specific sociocultural contexts. The following examples illustrate how some of the
key issues raised previously were realized through the application of standards in the
in-service preparation of English teachers in Egypt. They seek to demonstrate how
improved professionalism and proficiency were conceptualized within the Egyptian
sociocultural context.
Example 1: Variety of English. Standards designed for the EFL setting must
address the issue of language proficiency. However, where should the bar be set?
Our review of literature shows that language learners assess the ideal English
teacher on a number of different criteria. For example, they gave more favorable
ratings to teachers who spoke a variety of English with which they were familiar. In
addition, they did not necessarily perceive pronunciation to be a key criterion. At the
same time, standards that aim to improve student achievement through teacher
effectiveness must set out certain benchmarks. This is illustrated in the domain
language proficiency which states: Language proficiency is defined as the level of
English language competence that enables educators to perform their tasks and
duties. Applied to the English teacher:
Standard 1: The English teacher uses oral and written English language
appropriately and fluently.
In this conceptualization of language proficiency, the native speaker is not
the model; rather the focus is how teachers use the language in the course of their
duties. Evaluation might contain levels of achievement such as does not meet
standard, meets standard, or exceeds standard so that teachers may move
further along the language proficiency continuum.
Example 2: Methodology. In the area of methodology, standards should
build on a foundation that validates what teachers already know, but also give
explicit direction to their design of lessons. This is illustrated in the domain
Planning and Management of Learning for the educational leader (i.e., headmaster,
school director, or principal) where the standard and indicator are:
Standard 1: The educational leader manages the organizational unit and
resources to ensure a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
Indicator A: The leader sets SMART objectives to guide performance in the
work unit. (S = Specific M = Measurable A = Attainable R = Results-oriented T =
Time bound)
Egyptian teachers learn the acronym SMART in their pre-service training.
The Egyptian educational system is a very top-down and hierarchical workplace
where teachers generally have very little say in decisionmaking. This indicator
aimed to validate teachers approach to lesson planning while attempting to link
teacher thinking and administrator thinking through a shared discourse. In other
words, it gave administrators an entre to talk the same language as the teacher in the
course of their work as educational professionals in the school.
From October 2003May 2005, ten members of the IELTE teacher training
faculty participated in a two-year professional development program funded by the
U.S. Department of State.5 This program consisted of six site visits by two English
Language Specialists (ELSpecs) and a three-week summer intensive program in 2004
conducted at the University of California, Los Angeles. For the majority of
participants, the summer program represented their first time outside Central Asia as
well as their first visit to an English-speaking country.
The primary goals of the ELSpecs site visits included providing feedback
on pedagogy, promoting reflective teaching, 6 assessing the IELTEs curriculum, and
collaborating with faculty on curriculum/materials development. For the summer
intensive, the primary goals included continued revision of the IELTE curriculum,
creation of a program website, improving teacher pronunciation, professionalizing
skills, and broadening understanding of U.S. culture. The ultimate project goals were
to provide the IELTE faculty with the necessary skills to develop and implement a
successful undergraduate curriculum and to autonomously administer the IELTE
program.
Uzbekistan, as one of the former Republics of the Soviet Union, is located in
a region of the world where English was previously relegated to school subject
status. Today, although Russian continues to be the dominant nonnational language
in this Muslim majority country and to play a critical role in education, government
and commerce, English is widely spoken and taught. As an English-medium
program within an otherwise Russian-medium institution, IELTE represents a unique
English as a lingua franca environment. Using a curriculum modeled after U.S.
English teacher preparation programs, the faculty strictly adhere to the practice of
conducting classes and all other interactions (e.g., office hours, meetings, casual
conversations) in English. This practice carries over to Uzbek and Russian-speaking
teacher candidates, who use English not only in the classroom setting (i.e., to ask and
answer questions, to conduct group work) but also in out-of-class interactions with
their peers.
Despite the growing popularity of English in Uzbekistan, there are still very
few opportunities to interact with native speakers of English. Notable exceptions to
this situation for the IELTE faculty include U.S. State Department ELSpec visits or
other professional development opportunities afforded by Peace Corps, Soros
Foundation, the British Council, and so on. In particular, IELTE has benefited from
having both a U.S. State Department Senior English Language Specialist and a
Fulbright Fellow funded to teach in the program.
An additional factor figuring into the equation of faculty target language
proficiency and professional preparation is the resource poor environment in which
the IELTE operates. A modest teacher professional library has been provided
through outside funding. However, the program still lacks many essential resources,
including Internet connectivity. In terms of teacher professional preparation, faculty
members are educated in the field of English Philology, possessing either a B.A.,
Diploma, or M.A. degree in this field; they are all self taught in the field of Applied
Linguistics and teaching English as a second language since neither of these degrees
is currently offered in Uzbekistan.
As noted earlier, when conducting teacher professional development, it is
important to build in tolerance for teacher accentedness, accept regional varieties of
English, and recognize nonnative speaker ownership of English. It is also critical to
keep in mind the strengths that NNES teachers bring to the classroom and to
recognize the complex sociocultural context in which a given program is situated. In
Uzbekistan, however, there is no localized English variant and Inner Circle variants
of English (i.e., British and increasingly American) are the target linguistic norms for
the EFL classroom as well as for teacher preparation programs such as IELTE. Given
IELTEs goal of creating a U.S. style TESOL preparation program in Central Asia,
the program setting was one in which the faculty are attempting to emulate and
recreate the linguistic and cultural practices of similar programs in the United States.
Applying the Bailey (2006) and Pasternak and Bailey (2004) framework, it
was determined that the IELTE faculty fell into quadrant 4neither possessing
target-like second language proficiency nor having adequate professional preparation
as second language teacher educators. Goals for the professional development
program were thus defined collaboratively with the IELTE faculty to address each of
these competencies. IELE faculty-identified needs included: fine-tuning the existing
teacher preparation curriculum and designing new courses for the 4th year
curriculum; preparing for the upcoming accreditation of IELTE by the USUWL
administration; revising the entrance exam and other assessment instruments;
increasing teachers facility with computers; addressing teacher pronunciation and
grammar skills; and structuring the supervision of the student teaching and senior
project courses. ELSpec-identified needs included: fine-tuning teachers lesson
delivery; addressing language issues in content classes; improving teachers
pronunciation and academic writing skills; identifying the optimal scope and
sequence of courses for the 4-year TESOL curriculum; and helping IELTE faculty
acquire professional leadership skills.
Target language proficiency. Multiple components of the program targeted
linguistic development. A key component of all six site visits involved IELTE
faculty observations by the ELSpecs. These observations proved critical in assessing
the classroom linguistic performance of individual faculty members and providing
individualized feedback in the areas of grammar, pronunciation, word choice, and
nonnative use of expressions. A few verbatim comments from the written
observation protocols follow:
fither, lead sounded like liyd, and blind sounded like blonde.
Lack of postvocalic /r/ is also an issue: hard sounded like hot and or
sounded like oh.
Word choice: Avoid the use of the expression home task. Instead, use
homework or out of class assignment.
Nonnative use of expressions: Yes? with rising intonation at the end is not
a tag question in English. Instead, try Right? Okay?
Future Directions
Based on our collective experiences, we have identified the following issues
as critical for those involved in international teacher education. The questions below
are meant to both provoke discussion and guide future research in teacher preparation
in lingua franca settings.
What does it mean to aim for a global perspective while maintaining local
sensibilities?
For example, which criteria should be applied to determine the
appropriateness of teaching methods and curricular models in local contexts?
Investigations should be undertaken to understand the value of different
methodologies in relation to local beliefs and to determine how best to blend local
teaching approaches with those promoted by Inner Circle methodologies. This work
should include investigation of which content/topics are appropriate and relevant for
given populations; it should further consider how teacher education programs can
modify their existing language curricula to become more sensitized to these issues.
How should teacher educators address the issue of Inner Circle versus Outer Circle
varieties of English?
The literature on NNES teachers makes the important point that target
language norms (i.e., Inner Circle vs. Outer Circle variants of English) differ widely
depending on the context in which the teacher preparation program is conducted.
Thus which variety of World Englishes to teach should be determined based on local
norms and curricular guidelines. However, a continuing controversy is the degree of
target language proficiency that NNES teachers must attain in order to serve as good
target language models for their students. Sensitively addressing the proficiency
issue and building language development opportunities into teacher preparation
programs is a priority, especially in contexts where there is no localized variety of
English and where teachers lack fluency and/or accuracy in their command of
English. Answers to this question will assist in developing objectives for teacher
preparation curricula and in setting aims for acceptable levels of language
proficiency in local contexts.
How should teachers cultural knowledge be addressed within teacher preparation
curricula?
This issue closely parallels that of which variety of English to select as the
target norm. In this respect, it is critical to infuse the notion of the teacher, regardless
of language background, as the intercultural speaker, acknowledging his or her
knowledge of both local and target cultures. But how to achieve this and how to
ensure that teachers are able to display an intercultural personality, that is, that
teachers develop the ability to critically reflect on the target culture and language in
relation to their own language and culture remain issues to be addressed.
In the case of NNES teachers, access to knowledge of the target culture
remains an issue for the vast majority who are teaching in EFL contexts because
many have little access to native speakers and have not had the opportunity to
experience the target culture firsthand. Teacher educators must therefore critically
examine how to engage teachers in activities designed to prepare them to explicate
culture, both in planned (i.e., culture-based lessons) and unplanned contexts (i.e., in
response to student questions.)8
To what extent, if any, are standards applicable to lingua franca contexts? If they are,
kinds of standards should be developed to meet local needs? And which kinds of
collaborative projects might local and outside experts be engaged in to develop such
standards? In other words, whose standards are to be used and for which purposes?
The development of standards has the potential for many avenues of reform.
Among possible impacts, for instance, are discussions (for the first time) across
educational sectors, the setting of benchmarks for student achievement, changes in
student assessment procedures, the design of blueprints for meeting the needs of
teachers through professional development programs, and the development of criteria
for teacher promotion and career advancement apart from seniority or patronage.
Other issues that we have not touched on directly in this chapter will
undoubtedly also come into play and need to be addressed. One rather obvious one
is that the pre-service education of teachers in lingua franca settings is often not in
alignment with the in-service programs delivered by specialists from abroad. This,
coupled with the fact that many in-service programs involve collaboration of both
local teacher educators and foreign specialists mandates that the current knowledge
base and philosophies of both sets of teacher educators be in alignment as well.
Often, this is not the case as local authorities who are designated to participate in
joint teacher education programs often have received their own teacher education
many years in the past and may not have updated their knowledge base. This can, in
some cases, lead to the lack of a shared philosophy between the two sets of educators
and even, in extreme cases, to resistance to or obstruction of program goals.
In conclusion, if pre-service and in-service are seen as steps on the same
pathway to teacher professionalism, then government ministries must develop
articulated plans that require the collaboration of the institutions delivering preservice education and those systems in which in-service education is delivered. The
results of ongoing needs assessment can be fed back into both sets of institutions and
priorities for teacher preparation can be assigned. This is especially important in the
case of low resource settings. Ensuring quality should be a chief aim of any teacher
preparation system and the study of mechanisms for quality control should guide
policy and planning.
Notes
1. For a comprehensive review of research perspectives on English as a lingua
franca, see Seidlhofer (2004).
2. For a more detailed discussion of the multi-step process of designing standards in
the Pharos project, see Snow, Omar, and Katz (2004) and Katz and Snow (2003).
3. A domain is defined as a general, overarching area that is broad enough to
account for the various audiences and settings to which it is applied. Progress
indicators were also developed to go along with domains and standards. These are
defined as assessable, observable behaviors or activities that show progress toward
meeting a particular standard. See Snow, Omar, and Katz (2004) for sample domains,
standards, and progress indicators for the four sets of standards developed in the
Pharos project.
4. The program graduated its first cohort of 65 students in the spring of 2005.
5. Donna Brinton and Barry Griner of UCLAs Department of Applied Linguistics
& TESL conducted the six site visits to Tashkent, where they were assisted by
Regional English Language Officer Lisa Harshbarger, Assistant Regional English
Language Officer Rifat Gafurov, and Senior English Language Fellow Jolle
Uzarski. During the three-week summer Uzbek Teachers of English Program at
UCLA they were assisted by Priyanvada Abeywickrama, Claire Chik, Janet
Goodwin, Christine Holten, Linda Jensen, and Jolle Uzarski.
6. Seminal sources on reflective teaching include: Bailey, Curtis, and Nunan
(2001a); Richards and Lockhart (1994); Stanley (1998); and Zeichner and Liston
(1996).
7. For excellent sources on teaching portfolios, see Bailey, Curtis, and Nunan
(2001b) and Wolfe-Quintero and Brown (1998).
8. Lazaraton (2003) presents interesting research on this issue. See also the response
to this research (Jeannot & Lazaraton, 2004).
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Burns, A. (Ed.). (2005). Teaching English from a global perspective. Alexandria,
VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. London:
Routledge.
This volume, from the Case Studies in TESOL Practice series, is
written by practitioners for practitioners. The volume summarizes current
thinking and scholarship in relation to issues of English as a global language
and applies them to the language classroom. The 12 chapters in the volume
provide practitioners with practical ideas of how the notion of English as a
global language can be integrated in actual classrooms around the world.
Canagarajah, A. S. (Ed.). (2005). Reclaiming the local in language policy and
practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
This thought-provoking volume presents a collection of 12 papers
dealing with the spread of and effects of English on local communities. The
papers in the volume argue that the spread of English is often associated
with the imported notions of progress and innovation (p. x) at the
expense of local practices and beliefs. The authors make the case for
revaluing local practices in language teaching and learning.
Burns, A., & Coffin, C. (Eds.). (2001). Analysing English in a global context: A
reader. London: Routledge.
Along with its companion volumes in the three-part series Teaching
English Language Worldwide, Analysing English in a Global Context is a
valuable compilation of essays that address the changing nature of English
today. Issues addressed in the 15 articles that comprise the volume include
the internationalization of English, the development of local varieties and the
surrounding debate regarding which of these constitute standard varieties,
and the need to recognize and value NNESTs.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (Ed.). (2004). Learning and teaching from experience:
Perspectives on nonnative English-speaking professionals. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
This volume focuses on issues related to NNES professionals as
teachers of English. The volume consists of 16 chapters in which the
authors present theory and research related to NNES professionals; it
examines a wide range of issues in relation to teacher preparation and
discusses implications for classroom practice.
OTHER REFERENCES
Amin, N. (2004). Nativism, the native speaker construct, and minority immigrant
women teachers of English as a second language. In L. D. Kamhi-Stein
(Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience: Perspectives on nonnative
English-speaking professionals (pp. 6180). Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Bailey, K. M. (2006). Language teacher supervision: A case-based approach. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, K. M., Curtis, A., & Nunan, D. (2001a). Reflective teaching: Looking
closely. In Pursuing professional development: The self as source (pp. 34
47). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Bailey, K. M., Curtis, A., & Nunan, D. (2001b). Teaching portfolios: Cogent
collages. In Pursuing professional development: The self as source (pp.
223236). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Burns, A. (Ed.). (2005). Interrogating new worlds of English language teaching.
Teaching English from a global perspective (pp. 115). Alexandria, VA:
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.