English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts 9781788921770

Table of contents :
Contents
Contributors
Abbreviations
1. Introduction
Part 1: Foundations
2. ELF for EFL: A Change of Subject?
3. Towards the Reconciliation of ELF and EFL: Theoretical Issues and Pedagogical Challenges
Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy
4. ELF-aware Teaching in Practice: A Teacher’s Perspective
5. Developing an ELF-aware Intercultural Purpose in the Thai University Context
Part 3: ELF and EFL Language Learning Materials
6. Perspectives in WE- and ELF-informed ELT Materials in Teacher Education
7. When the Textbook is Not Enough: How to Shape an ELF Classroom?
8. ELT Materials for Basic Education in Brazil: Has the Time for an ELF-aware Practice Arrived?
Part 4: ELF and EFL Teacher Education
9. ELF-awareness in Teaching and Teacher Education: Explicit and Implicit Ways of Integrating ELF into the English Language Classroom
10. Changing Teachers’ Attitudes Towards ELF
11. Exploring Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy in Teaching ELF
Part 5: ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing
12. ELF in Language Tests
13. Towards an ELF-aware Alternative Assessment Paradigm in EFL Contexts
14. Concluding Chapter
Index

Citation preview

English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION Series Editors: Professor Viv Edwards, University of Reading, UK and Professor Phan Le Ha, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA Two decades of research and development in language and literacy education have yielded a broad, multidisciplinary focus. Yet education systems face constant economic and technological change, with attendant issues of identity and power, community and culture. This series will feature critical and interpretive, disciplinary and multidisciplinary perspectives on teaching and learning, language and literacy in new times. All books in this series are externally peer-reviewed. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION: 62

English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts Edited by

Nicos C. Sifakis and Natasha Tsantila

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Blue Ridge Summit

DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/SIFAKI1763 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Sifakis, Nicos C., editor. | Tsantila, Natasha, editor. Title: English as a Lingua Franca for EFL contexts/Edited by Nicos C. Sifakis and Natasha Tsantila. Description: Bristol; Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters, [2019] | Series: New Perspectives on Language and Education: 62 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018026065| ISBN 9781788921763 (hbk : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781788921756 (pbk : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781788921770 (pdf) | ISBN 9781788921787 (epub) | ISBN 9781788921794 (kindle) Subjects: LCSH: English language—Study and teaching—Foreign speakers. | English language—Foreign countries. | Lingua francas. | English language—Globalization. Classification: LCC PE1128.A2 E4685 2019 | DDC 428.0071—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018026065 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-176-3 (hbk) ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-175-6 (pbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: NBN, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2019 Nicos C. Sifakis, Natasha Tsantila and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Nova Techset Private Limited, Bengaluru and Chennai, India. Printed and bound in the UK by the CPI Books Group Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by Thomson-Shore, Inc.

Contents

Contributors Abbreviations 

vii xiii

1 Introduction Nicos Sifakis and Natasha Tsantila

1

Part 1:  Foundations 2 ELF for EFL: A Change of Subject? Barbara Seidlhofer and Henry Widdowson 3 Towards the Reconciliation of ELF and EFL: Theoretical Issues and Pedagogical Challenges Kurt Kohn

17

32

Part 2:  ELF in EFL Pedagogy 4 ELF-aware Teaching in Practice: A Teacher’s Perspective Stefania Kordia 5 Developing an ELF-aware Intercultural Purpose in the Thai University Context Sutraphorn Tantiniranat and Richard Fay

53

72

Part 3:  ELF and EFL Language Learning Materials 6 Perspectives in WE- and ELF-informed ELT Materials in Teacher Education Lucilla Lopriore and Paola Vettorel

97

7 When the Textbook is Not Enough: How to Shape an ELF Classroom? 117 Luís Guerra and Lili Cavalheiro 8 ELT Materials for Basic Education in Brazil: Has the Time for an ELF-aware Practice Arrived? Sávio Siqueira and Julia Vasconcelos Gonçalves Matos

v

132

vi  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

Part 4:  ELF and EFL Teacher Education 9 ELF-awareness in Teaching and Teacher Education: Explicit and Implicit Ways of Integrating ELF into the English Language Classroom 159 Elif Kemaloglu-Er and Yasemin Bayyurt 10 Changing Teachers’ Attitudes Towards ELF Enric Llurda and Vasi Mocanu

175

11 Exploring Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy in Teaching ELF Areti-Maria Sougari

192

Part 5:  ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing 12 ELF in Language Tests David Newbold 13 Towards an ELF-aware Alternative Assessment Paradigm in EFL Contexts Androniki Kouvdou and Dina Tsagari

211

227

14 Concluding Chapter Andy Kirkpatrick

247

Index

261

Contributors

Yasemin Bayyurt is a Professor of Applied Linguistics at Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey. She holds a PhD degree in English Linguistics from Lancaster University, England. Her current research focuses on ELFawareness in English language teaching and learning; mobile/blended learning, content and language integrated learning (CLIL), intercultural communication. Her publications include articles in various indexed/refereed journals (World Englishes; Language, Culture and Curriculum, …); edited books and book chapters published by national/international publishers. Recently, she co-edited a book entitled Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca (2015), published by De Gruyter. Lili Cavalheiro holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics from the School of Arts and Humanities of the University of Lisbon, where she is also an Assistant Professor. She is involved in the Masters in English Language Teaching at the university, where she teaches English Didactics and supervises student teachers’ practicum. She is also a researcher at ULICES – University of Lisbon Centre for English Studies. Her main areas of research interest include: English as a Lingua Franca, English Language Teaching, Teacher Education, Materials Development and Intercultural Awareness. Richard Fay is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Manchester where he has specialised in TESOL and Intercultural Education/Communication since the early 1990s. His research interests include: researching multilinguallly and researcher education; appropriate methodology in TESOL as linked to post-TEFL paradigms; intercultural music education as linked to teaching klezmer; and narrative inquiry. Luís Guerra is an Assistant Professor of English Language and Linguistics and the Director of the Language Centre of the School of Social Sciences, University of Evora, Portugal and has a PhD in English Language Teaching/Applied Linguistics from the University of Warwick, UK. He has extensive experience in ELT having taught in Brazil, the US, the UK, Spain and Portugal and has published books, book chapters and articles. His research interests are ELF/EIL, ELF-based teaching methodology, World Englishes, the role of English in the Expanding Circle, language learning motivation, intercultural communication and the use of technology in second language teaching/learning. vii

viii  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

Elif Kemaloglu-Er (PhD) is a full-time instructor at School of Foreign Languages and a part-time instructor in Foreign Languages Education Department at Boğaziçi University in Istanbul, Turkey. She has been working as an instructor of English for 20 years. She received her PhD degree in English Language Education at Bogazici University. Her research interests include English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), ELF-aware pedagogy, foreign language teacher education, and materials development. She has several academic publications on the subjects of Applied Linguistics & ELF. She has also presented many papers at multivariate conferences to disseminate the findings of her studies. Andy Kirkpatrick is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities and Professor in the Department of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences at Griffith University. He is the author of World Englishes: Implications for ELT and International Communication (CUP) and English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN:A multilingual model (Hong Kong University Press). He is the editor of the Routledge Handbook of World Englishes. He is currently co-editing two new handbooks namely, Asian Englishes (WileyBlackwell, with Kingsley Bolton as co-editor) and Language Education Policy in Asia (Routledge, with Tony Liddicoat as co-editor). Kurt Kohn is Professor Emeritus of Applied English Linguistics at the University of Tübingen and co-director of LINK – Linguistik und Interkulturelle Kommunikation, GbR (www.sprachlernmedien.de). His research interests include theoretical and empirical issues of second language learning and teaching, English as a lingua franca and lingua franca pedagogy as well as translation and interpreting. He has been involved in European projects focusing on multimedia content authoring, pedagogic corpus development, interpreter training in virtual reality, telecollaboration for intercultural foreign language learning, and language teacher education. Stefania Kordia is a PhD candidate at the Hellenic Open University (HOU), Greece, investigating the transformative potential of ELF-aware teacher education. She has been teaching English in various areas in Greece for approximately 13 years and, in 2015–2016, she developed and delivered an ELF-aware teacher development programme called ‘ELF-GATE’ (‘Growing Awareness Through English as a Lingua Franca’) which was offered by HOU and the Panhellenic Association of Adult Education. Her research interests include language teaching and learning, the pedagogy of ELF and teacher professional development and she has presented papers on these topics in several national and international conferences. Androniki Kouvdou is a PhD candidate and teacher of English as a foreign language in a Greek state school. She holds a BA in English Language and Literature from the University of Athens, Greece and a Master’s degree in TEFL from the Hellenic Open University. She is currently carrying out her

Contributors ix

PhD research on the potential links between English as a Lingua Franca and alternative assessment. Her research interests include classroom-based assessment, ELF and its pedagogical implications, language teaching and methodology as well as teacher education. Enric Llurda is Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Lleida. He has edited and co-authored five books, and has extensively published in international journals and edited volumes. His research interests include non-native language teachers, English as a lingua franca, language attitudes, multilingualism, translanguaging, and language education and policy in higher education institutions. He is the coordinator of the research group Cercle de Lingüística Aplicada and is currently leading the research project ‘Towards a plurilingual approach in teaching English as a lingua franca at university’. Lucilla Lopriore, Associate Professor, Roma Tre University. MA TEFL, Reading University; PhD, Siena University. TESOL Italy President (1996– 98), TESOL Intl. Board of Directors member (2001–2004), TESOL Intl. Research Professional Council Chair since 2017. Italian national coordinator of the Early Language Learning in Europe (ELLiE) project (2006– 2010). Qualified as Teacher Educator and course-book writer. Her current fields of interest are: English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), Language Teacher Education, Educational Linguistics, Evaluation, Early Language Learning, CLIL. She has published extensively in the field of teacher education, early language learning, ESP, ELF, CLIL and assessment. Julia Vasconcelos Gonçalves Matos is Professor at Federal University of Recôncavo da Bahia. She holds a PhD in Language and Culture from Bahia Federal University and a Master’s Degree in Language and Culture from Bahia Federal University. Her main subjects of research include learner autonomy and textbooks. Vasi Mocanu has an MA in English Language Teaching and is currently pursuing a PhD in Applied Linguistics at Universitat de Lleida. She is interested in the relationship between language and identity, with a special focus on the impact of mobility on the identities, language skills, and language attitudes of young sojourners. Vasi has been a visiting student at Simon Fraser University, Canada and she has obtained a research fellowship from the University of Fribourg. The expected date of completion of her PhD is December 2018. David Newbold is a researcher and lecturer in English language and linguistics at the University of Venice Ca’ Foscari. He has a background in language teaching, a longstanding interest in language testing and assessment, and a more recent interest in the development of English as a lingua franca, especially in Europe. He has published numerous materials for learners of English, and contributed to the development of a number of tests including,

x  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

most recently, a co-certified (with the University of Venice) ‘ELF aware’ version of the Trinity College London Integrated Skills in English. Barbara Seidlhofer is Professor of English and Applied Linguistics at the University of Vienna. Her research and teaching focus on the conceptualisation and description of English as a lingua franca and their implications for teacher education. She is the founding director of the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) and author of Understanding English as a Lingua Franca (OUP). Her other books include Foreign Language Communication and Learning (with K. Knapp), Controversies in Applied Linguistics and From International to Local English – and Back Again (with R. Facchinetti & D. Crystal). She is past editor of the International Journal of Applied Linguistics and founding editor of the Journal of English as a Lingua Franca. Nicos C. Sifakis (Hellenic Open University, Greece) is an Associate Professor in the School of Humanities of the Hellenic Open University and director of its MEd in TESOL programme. He holds a PhD in language and linguistics from the University of Essex, UK. He is editor-inchief of Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning (http://rpltl. eap.gr/). He has published extensively on intercultural communication and pedagogy, teaching and researching English as an international lingua franca, language teaching methodology, distance education, adult education and teacher education (more information: https://www.researchgate. net/profile/Nicos_Sifakis/publications). Sávio Siqueira has a PhD in Letters and Linguistics from Bahia Federal University (UFBA), Salvador, Brazil. He is an Associate Professor of English and Applied Linguistics at UFBA’s Department of Germanic Languages and permanent professor in the local Graduate Program in Language and Culture. He has recently finished post-doctoral studies on Critical Language Teaching at the University of Hawai’i, Manoa, Honolulu, Hawai’i, USA. ELF, critical pedagogy, and intercultural studies are among his main research interests. Areti-Maria Sougari is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics in the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Some of her work appears in TESOL Quarterly, Language and Education, the Journal of Applied Linguistics and other journals. Her research interests include teaching ELF, teacher education and development and teaching English to young learners. Sutraphorn Tantiniranat is a lecturer at the Department of Western Languages, Burapha University, Thailand. She was awarded a Royal Thai Government Scholarship to pursue her PhD in Education, which she did at the Manchester Institute of Education, The University of Manchester, UK. Her research focuses on appropriate paradigms for teaching English in

Contributors xi

Thailand given the current, important lead that ASEAN is providing on interculturality and the use of English as the regional and global lingua franca. Dina Tsagari is a Professor in English Language Pedagogy/TESOL, Department of Primary and Secondary Education, OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway. She has previously worked for the University of Cyprus and the Greek Open University. Her research interests include language testing and assessment, teacher training, materials design and evaluation, differentiated instruction, multilingualism, distance education and learning difficulties. She is the editor and author of several volumes, journal papers, and book chapters and the coordinator of the Classroom-based Language Assessment SIG – EALTA. She has coordinated and participated in research projects on second language assessment literacy (www.taleproject.eu), identifying linguistic parameters accounting for progress in proficiency in high-stakes tests and authentic language acquisition in multilingual contexts. Natasha Tsantila is an Associate Lecturer at Deree – the American College of Greece, since 1989, where she has taught and designed courses in academic writing and Linguistics. She has worked as English language Programme coordinator and teacher trainer in language centers in Greece. Her professional interests include teacher education, language and pedagogy, teaching English as an International language. She has presented in international conferences, IAWE, ELF and TESOL, and published in refereed publications (book chapters and articles). She is currently pursuing her PhD with the Hellenic Open University. Paola Vettorel is Assistant Professor at the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures – University of Verona. Her main research interests include ELF and its implications in ELT; ELF and digital media. Among her recent publications: (2015) (ed.) New Frontiers in Teaching and Learning English. Cambridge Scholars; (2016) WE- and ELFinformed classroom practices: Proposals from a pre-service teacher education programme in Italy. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 5/1; (2017) Communication strategies, ELF and ELT materials. A Cor das Letras, Special Issue, v. 18. Henry Widdowson spent several years as a British Council English Language Officer in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh and then taught at the universities of Edinburgh, London and Essex. He was a founding editor of the journal Applied Linguistics and for 30 years acted as applied linguistics adviser to Oxford University Press. He has lectured and written extensively on applied linguistics, discourse analysis and language teaching and his publications include Defining Issues in English Language Teaching (2003), Text. Context, Pretext (2004) and Discourse Analysis (2007). He is Professor Emeritus University of London, Honorary Professor University of Vienna.

Abbreviations

ACE Asian Corpus of English AmE American English ASEAN Association of South East Asian Nations BACKBONE Corpora for Content & Language Integrated Learning – Backbone BrE British English CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning CLT Communicative Language Teaching DELF Developments in ELF E English EFL English as a Foreign Language EIC English for Intercultural Communication EIL English as an International Language ELF English as a Lingua Franca ELF ReN AILA English as a Lingua Franca Research Network ELFA English as an Academic Lingua Franca ELFL English Learned as a Foreign Language ELF-Ted English as a Lingua Franca-Teacher Education ELT English Language Teaching EMI English Medium Instruction ENL English as a Native Language ESL English as a Second Language ESOL English for Speakers of Other Languages ESP English for Specific Purposes ETFL English Taught as a Foreign Language GA General American GEE General Education English ICELF Annual International Conference as a Lingua Franca L1 First Language L2 Second Language ME Ministry of Education NNE Non-Native English NNESTs Non-Native English Language Teachers NNS(s) Non-Native Speaker(s) xiii

xiv  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

NS(s) Native Speaker(s) NTP National Textbook Program OCEM National Curricular Orientations for Upper Secondary Education OER Open Educational Resource PCN National Curricular Parameters for Basic Education PNLD/NTP Plano Nacional do Livro Didático PPG Pendidikan Profesi Guru PPP Political Pedagogical Project RP Received Pronunciation RQAs Reflective Questions and Activities SA Structural Approach SE Standard English TESOL Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages TILA Telecollaboration for Intercultural Language Acquisition VOICE Vienna Oxford International Corpus of English WE World Englishes

1 Introduction Nicos Sifakis and Natasha Tsantila

In all probability, English is the only language in the history of natural languages that has been extensively studied in its use by so-called nonnative users (more commonly referred to as non-native speakers, or NNSs). The very use of English by unprecedented numbers of NNSs has given rise to a series of reinterpretations of the term ‘native speaker’ and its significance (Davies, 2003; Selvi, 2014), together with a reappraisal of concepts that play a definitive role in the teaching of English as a foreign language, such as ‘standard English’ (SE) (Kohn, 2011). These attempts to understand the structures, functions and underlying communicational skills of NNS English have been significantly fueled by research in the fields of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), English as an International Language (EIL) and World Englishes (WE). Each of these domains adopt a different orientation to the study of English language communication, but they all contribute to a need to appreciate the depth and richness of context and the variability of different types of interactions involving native and nonnative users of English. It is only natural that these insights inform the area of teaching English as a foreign language (EFL). The book at hand is an attempt to take stock at what has been done so far in the field of ELF and what insights can be drawn for EFL. In the past two decades, ELF has undergone a number of considerable shifts. In its simplest form, the term refers to the function of English as a contact language in communications involving primarily non-native users of English from various international, multilingual and heterogeneous settings, to which each user brings a variety of English that he or she is most familiar and comfortable with and employs various strategies in order to communicate effectively. Early ELF research (of the period spanning from the early 1990 to the early 2000s) aimed to identify the parallels between NNSs’ uses of English and the codified SE of the NSs (see the account of Jenkins, 2015). In the 2000-2010 period, the interest shifted from trying to establish ELF as a distinct variety to focusing on the knowledge, strategies and skills of successful ELF users (Seidlhofer, 2009). As the awareness of the fluidity and unboundedness of ELF interactions that ‘transcends boundaries, and that is therefore beyond description’ (Jenkins, 2015: 55) became all the more pertinent, the importance of redefining ELF within the more realistic and authentic framework of multilingualism and translanguaging 1

2  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

(García, 2009; García & Wei, 2014) takes centre stage (see Hülmbauer & Seidlhofer, 2013; Jenkins, 2015; Kirkpatrick, 2010; Mauranen, 2012). In its most recent orientation (Jenkins, 2015), ELF’s natural habitat is the different multilingual and multicultural interactional settings that are independent of the norms that are socio-culturally associated with SE (Cogo & Jenkins, 2010; Seidlhofer, 2010). This means that ELF is perceived as a highly malleable means of communication which adopts English as its primary vehicle but is appropriated by its users to adapt to the linguistic, pragmatic and cultural elements for each ­individual interaction (Jenkins, 2015; Mauranen, 2012; Seidlhofer, 2011). In light of the above, the main bulk of ELF-oriented research has focused, and understandably so, on describing, analyzing and understanding the ELF ‘construct’. It is relatively recently that there has been an interest in informing the EFL domain and, in particular, EFL classroom stakeholders (most eminently, teachers, policymakers, materials designers, testers) about ELF. In this light, the volume at hand seeks to describe and investigate the applicability of ELF theory and research at a practical level. More particularly, the focus is on how ELF can be related to EFL, or expanding circle contexts, where English has no officially recognized status but enjoys wide recognition as the primary foreign language in the state and private domains (Kachru, 1996). This book explores the interfaces of ELF and pedagogy, teacher education, language development materials, testing, policymaking, the English language learner and other relevant areas, placing emphasis on how EFL practitioners can make use of ELF theorising and ELF research into their classrooms. The descriptions of pedagogical practices from the aforementioned areas and researchers’ insights from diverse geographical, cultural and institutional contexts demonstrate a range of possible approaches to comprehensively inform practitioners to reconsider their practices and adopt new ones in order to meet their learners’ diverse communicative needs in international contexts today. ELF and EFL: A Brief Review

Widdowson (2003: chapter 4) was probably the first to highlight the fundamental issues concerning the relationship between ELF and EFL, and these were taken up again in Widdowson (2013). The widespread interest in researching the discourse of interactions involving NNNs of English is evident from the broad variety of research publications within and beyond ELF. In fact, it is possible to distinguish these publications into two broad categories: one exclusively focusing on ELF (the ELFspecific category) and one incorporating ELF together with other similar perspectives, such as the WE or the EIL category. ELF-specific research focuses on predominantly applied linguistics (discourse analysis, pragmatics) accounts of the ELF construct. For

Introduction 3

example, the DELF (Developments in ELF) series, published by Mouton deGruyter, has so far published titles on the socio-pragmatics of ELF (Deterding, 2013; Kalocsai, 2013), ELF discourse (Björkman, 2013; Vettorel, 2014) and language-regulatory practices (Hynninen, 2016). The volume edited by Gimenez et al. (2017) focuses on ELF-focused teacher education issues in Brazil. Other recently published books with an ELFspecific focus discuss the ELF construct and, to some extent, include implications for teaching. For example, Mackenzie (2014) discusses grammar, lexis and variation; it also discusses issues such as identity and accent; there is less emphasis on implications for the foreign language classroom (which is raised in the final chapter). The volume edited by Taviano (2013) focuses on implications of ELF for interpreters and translators. Jenkins (2013) and the special issue of the Journal of Pragmatics edited by Björkman (2011) focus on policy concerns for ELF in academia. The volumes edited by Archibald et al. (2011), Bayyurt and Akcan (2015) and Lopriore and Grazzi (2016), and the monographs by Cogo and Dewey (2012) and Mauranen (2012) present overviews of the ELF construct with a marked focus on discourse and pragmatics and a rather minimal concern for implications of ELF for teaching. The EIL list includes books that also discuss pragmatics and discourse and there are some titles that have a more teaching-oriented perspective. An interesting example is the volume edited by Marlina and Giri (2014), which presents perspectives and case studies of integrating EIL in Asian contexts (Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Malaysia). Another similar example is Matsuda (2012), which presents a comprehensive account of teaching practices and processes in different parts of the world, viewed from an EIL perspective. Also, Matsuda (2016) showcases current teacher education models and ideas that are informed by EIL. Two more examples of EIL volumes focusing on teaching are Kirkpatrick and Sussex (2012), which includes chapters that are more theoretical and discuss implications for teaching in different Asian countries, and Phan (2008), which focuses exclusively on teacher identity. Another book that merges EIL and ELF concerns for teaching contexts is that edited by Gagliardi and Maley (2011). From the above it can be surmised that there is a growing concern for more classroom-focused applications of the ELF construct. While there have been book-length publications that link the broader EIL framework with the foreign language classroom (pre-2010 publications that do that include McKay, 2002), those publications: (a) have had a predominantly prescriptive rather than descriptive character and (b) have tended to focus more on ESL teaching contexts, i.e. contexts that are found in inner circle settings (where English is openly or tacitly recognized as the official language), in which case a WE approach would be more useful. On the other hand, the ELF perspective has always taken a clearer interest in expanding circle contexts, i.e. contexts where non-native users’ contact with the English language has traditionally been exercised through foreign

4  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

language education (EFL). This book focuses exclusively on EFL settings and the chapters herein discuss different aspects of the impact that ELF research can have on those classrooms. These aspects range from language instruction and materials development and evaluation to assessment, testing and policy. Such a clear focus of the ELF impact on EFL settings has yet to be the subject of a book-length publication so far, the reason being, as we have shown above, that, since the early 2000’s, ELF research has been almost exclusively concerned with delineating the ELF construct. In fact, in the mid-2000’s, leading ELF scholars had argued against attempts to apply ELF in the classroom before academic research had more fully delineated the ELF construct (Seidlhofer, 2004). That said, in the more recent international ELF conferences, there have been an increasing number of papers by scholars and teachers applying ELF in EFL settings and this interest reflects in the literature (e.g. Bowles & Cogo, 2015; Seidlhofer, 2011; Sifakis et al., 2018; Vettorel, 2015; Walker, 2010). The aim of this book is to showcase a theoretically informed and practice-based account of ELF applications in EFL settings and to do it in a way that is teacher-friendly (through extensive questions, with indicative answers, that spread throughout the chapters). Preliminary Implications of ELF Research for EFL Practice

In the chapters that follow, ELF is acknowledged as a ‘force to be reckoned with’ within EFL. Therefore, a common thread is that ELF research should inform EFL practice. However, when addressing the ways in which ELF can be linked with EFL, it is possible to distinguish, admittedly rather crudely, between two perspectives: an ‘either/or’ approach and a ‘with/ within’ approach. The former posits that the ELF perspective is more appropriate and more realistic than EFL and should therefore replace the EFL mindset. In the words of Seidlhofer and Widdowson (this volume), EFL is ‘a pedagogy of failure’ inasmuch as it is grounded in NNS learners abiding by the rules (and failing the test of) conformity, as they are expressed by NS norms. The point that Seidlhofer and Widdowson make is that, as NNSs follow their own learning paths, what is taught in the EFL classroom (namely, NS norms) is not identical with what is learned. As the aim of teaching should be learning, and as ‘[t]he E of [EFL learning] […] bears a close resemblance to the E of ELF’, it follows that ELF should inform EFL teaching by empowering learners to avoid turning into ‘teachees’ (i.e. passive recipients of what is taught) and grow into active participants in the learning process. EFL learners and teachers are requested to enter a transformative journey that will change their mindsets concerning what really works both in in-class sessions and in interactions outside the class. The ‘with/within’ approach to linking ELF with EFL takes up a rather less radical perspective. While it appreciates the relevance of ELF for realistic and authentic interactions involving NNSs, it also acknowledges the

Introduction 5

very extensive research carried out under the EFL label and the corresponding tradition that this research has engendered in terms of pedagogy, course design and assessment. It therefore prioritises learners’ needs and has the teacher integrate as much ELF as their learners, agendas and teaching contexts will allow. This is, essentially, the meaning of the concept of ‘speaker satisfaction’ that Kohn introduces in this volume. In Kohn’s words (this volume), ‘[t]he pedagogical potential of incorporating the notion of speaker satisfaction based on learners’ own r­ equirements of success still remains to be discovered’. In his view, EFL and ELF need not be in conflict but should be reconciled to meet learners’ needs and demands: From a social constructivist perspective, it should be noted that a teaching model based on [standard English/SE] is not necessarily in monolithic conflict with the plurilithic effects of learning and communication on English knowledge and use – quite the contrary. Whether SE is a normative barrier to successful learning or a helpful model for pedagogical guidance depends on the teachers’ and learners’ SE orientation.

The ‘either/or’ and ‘with/within’ perspectives both recognize the limitations and ideological baggage of EFL-borne instructional approaches that are very much the vogue today. While there is an awareness that communicative language teaching (CLT) and task-based instruction are predominantly NS-oriented, the question arises: should these methods be replaced by a distinct ‘ELF approach’ (see Kirkpatrick’s chapter in this volume) or can they be adapted to meet the needs and demands of interactions involving NNSs? In other words, when thinking about linking ELF with EFL, does ELF require the development of a completely original instructional approach that is in contrast to the other, more ‘traditional’ ones, or is it possible that the teaching methods and approaches that EFL teachers have been familiar with for the past 30 odd years can be adapted, tailored and ultimately transformed to essentially incorporate the ELF perspective? (see Kordia, this volume) Similar questions arise with regard to assessment and testing: should traditional perspectives be replaced by a completely new ELF-focused perspective, or can they change to adapt to the ELF reality? The chapters by Newbold and by Kouvdou and Tsagari are particularly enlightening of the idiosyncrasies that need to be considered in this regard and of the possibilities that arise. The same question arises in curriculum and syllabus design (see the chapter by Siqueira & Matos, which focuses on the Brazilian context) and coursebook design and implementation (the ­chapters by Lopriore & Vettorel and by Guerra & Cavalheiro provide comprehensive and fully contextualized perspectives on whether it is possible, or indeed desirable, in EFL contexts in Italy and in Portugal, to use entirely originally designed courseware that integrate ELF discourse and skills, or whether teachers can adapt existing courseware to the ELF ‘demands’). Ultimately, questions on how teacher education methods should be tailored to inform interested

6  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

teachers about ELF arise in the chapters by Kemaloglu-Er and Bayyurt and by Sougari, whereas Llurda and Mocanu discuss the non-native English teacher perspectives and attitudes in this regard. These questions are perhaps hard to provide definitive answers to, but it is our contention that they have to be asked. The chapters of the volume at hand do not focus on analyzing the ELF construct per se, as other books have done in the recent past (see below), but they present issues and challenges that ELF raises for the EFL classroom, with reference to specific contexts and practices. Essentially, therefore, the book is intended for the actual teacher working in foreign language settings. The questions we raise in the book are outlined below. • What are the implications of ELF-aware practice for EFL instruction? What are the challenges posed and what would be the limitations of teaching ELF in the foreign language classroom? In which specific ways could ELF be integrated to prompt the intercultural competence of different types of EFL learners? • What specific challenges does the ELF construct raise for pre-service and in-service EFL teacher education and training? What do these teachers have to know in order to be able to begin to apply the ELF construct in their context? How can ELF-aware teaching promote teacher professional development? • What demands and challenges does ELF present for materials development? To what extent are current EFL textbooks ‘open’ to an ELFinformed intervention? What specific suggestions regarding the adaptation of such materials could be put forward? • To what extent can the ELF construct inform EFL assessment and testing? How can alternative assessment processes and practices be relevant in this pursuit? What are the obstacles facing serious EFL testers? Despite the different perspectives in the chapters that follow, the following observations are shared throughout. First, that ELF serves as a constant reminder to teachers, learners, policy makers and coursebook designers of how English is used in real-life situations in interactions involving non-native users, and of the limits of the normative approach to English language teaching (ELT). In this regard, it helps to see ELF users as members of a particular community of practice (Kalocsai, 2013), or perhaps as ‘ethnographers of the communication in which they become involved’ (Tantiniranat & Fay, this volume). Second, that what is at stake is the need for a reconceptualisation of stakeholders’ perspectives about English language usage, teachers’ roles as correctors and feedback providers. The focus of this reconceptualisation is perspectives or ‘anchors’, in Tantiniranat and Fay’s lingo (see their chapter), that relate to identifying a language with its NSs, assumed homogeneity of the language and the related culture, and ‘tendency to view languages and cultures as separate

Introduction 7

bounded systems’. In the same way, policymakers should appreciate the need to perceive English as a language that does not have the characteristics of a ‘foreign’ language, but of a language that already plays a role (however large or small) in EFL learners’ communication practices and identity (Baker, 2015). Coursebook designers should provide more authentic non-native user usage and more extensive contextualisation of learning activities and tasks. The third observation is that a reconceptualisation of EFL stakeholders’ perspectives needs to be carried out through appropriate means. Thus, teacher education should focus on raising teachers’ awareness of ELF and of their own attitudes about learners’ needs and about what works in the EFL classroom (Sifakis, 2007, 2014; Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2015). However, this is easier said than done, as recent research has shown (Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2015a, 2015b; Sifakis, 2009; also see Kemaloglu-Er and Bayyurt’s and, furthermore, Sougari’s chapters in this volume). Chapter Layout

The book is divided into five parts, preceded by this introduction and a concluding chapter (by Andy Kirkpatrick). The aim of the first part is to lay the foundations for the ways whereby ELF may be linked with EFL. In the first chapter of the part Barbara Seidlhofer and Henry Widdowson seek to stimulate ELT practitioners’ critical reflection on hitherto instructional approaches and practices, questioning their unconditional pedagogical validity and effectiveness in today’s globalized world. They argue that primary importance should be cast on ‘how’ the English language users actually use the language. Consequently, ELT practitioners should shift their focus to setting objectives that are realistic, ‘attainable’ and consistent with what is globally required, ultimately recognizing that the use of ELF ‘corresponds more closely’ to learners’ pragmatic needs and should therefore inform their choices in ‘the way English is taught as a foreign language (EFL)’. In his own chapter, Kurt Kohn proposes a ‘reconciliation of ELF and EFL’. Adopting the social constructivist perspective as a conceptual framework, Kohn puts forward pedagogical options like ‘online ELF resources and telecollaborative participation in intercultural ELF exchanges’ that EFL teachers could integrate in their teaching as a means of developing their learners’ ELF competence and communicative ability. Part 2 focuses on more empirical perspectives of linking ELF with EFL pedagogy. In her chapter titled ‘ELF-aware teaching in practice: A teacher’s perspective’, Stefania Kordia presents her own proposal for integrating ELF in the EFL classroom. She describes three original ELF-aware teaching activities, providing, thus, the ELT practitioners with a clear insight into the implementation of ELF-aware teaching in EFL classrooms. Sutraphorn Tantiniranat and Richard Fay use a Thai university context

8  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

as a case study to encourage ELT practitioners to re-reorient their teaching away from an EFL concern with native-like norms and forms and exploit the interconnections of an ELF-aware approach and teaching English for intercultural communication (EIC). Hence, those concerned could devise a context-appropriate plan for re-directing their EFL teaching as per the EFL-aware and EIC constructs. The part on ‘ELF and Language Learning Materials’ contains three chapters. Lucilla Lopriore and Paola Vettorel discuss the evaluation, ­adaptation and design of language teaching materials (courseware) that incorporate elements from ELF and WE from the perspective of teacher preparation. The authors contribute sample activities and tasks that were developed in two teacher education programmes in Italy which guided practitioners to: (a) raise their awareness towards ELT materials within a global perspective, (b) critically examine the existing ones, (c) develop the main criteria for ELT materials evaluation and (d) adapt and design new, authentic tasks that will ‘sustain the adoption of a plurilithic approach’ as a means of addressing learners’ global needs. In their chapter titled ‘When the textbook is not enough: how to shape an ELF classroom?’, Luís Guerra and Lili Cavalheiro provide a general description of the Portuguese curriculum with a focus on EFL materials, urging teachers to first examine and reflect on the ways that language and culture are ‘portrayed’ in EFL textbooks and thenceforth to explore different dimensions of designing and integrating supplementary ELF-aware activities and teaching materials into their didactic practices by selecting from a variety of sources ­recommended. In this way, learners will be better prepared for real-life (i.e. outside-the-EFL-classroom) language encounters. In the third c­ hapter of this part, Sávio Siqueira and Julia Matos introduce us to the ELT reality in Brazil, where ELF, despite the predominance of ‘ENL-oriented and inner-circle’ materials, is gaining some ground. Through the findings of a study based on a nationally conducted programme of the 2015 edition of the Textbook National Plan (PNLD) – Plano Nacional do Livro Didático), the authors argue that an ELF-sensitive pedagogy is feasible even within a traditional EFL instructional framework. They go on to invite ELT stakeholders to attempt to integrate ELF in their own teaching contexts. The part on ELF and teacher education includes three chapters. In the chapter called ‘ELF-awareness in teaching and teacher education: Explicit and Implicit ways of integrating ELF into the English language classroom’, Elif Kemaloglou-Er and Yasemin Bayyurt relate the concept of ELFawareness to teaching and teacher education and describe how pre-service teachers who participated in an ELF-aware teacher education programme at a Turkish university integrated ELF into their lessons. Enric Llurda and Vasi Mocanu, in their chapter titled ‘Changing attitudes towards ELF’, argue that teacher training should attempt to liberate non-native English language teacher-trainees from ‘exogenous’ parameters, such as an adherence to NS norms, and ‘self-imposed, endogenous’ attitudinal barriers that

Introduction 9

restrict current teaching contexts and practices. They propose a five-stage teacher training programme aiming at: (a) raising non-native English language teachers’ (NNESTs) awareness of the use of English in multi-diverse lingua-cultural settings around the world and (b) strengthening NNESTs’ sense of self-efficacy towards their profession. In this way, NNESTs will eventually see ELF as ‘a desirable goal rather than a poor version of an idealised NS model’ and will be able to help their learners develop into more competent and effective English language users in various international sociocultural and professional settings. Finally, Areti-Maria Sougari investigates teachers’ views on their own efficacy in teaching English either as a foreign language or as an international lingua franca and maintains that ELT practitioners ought to understand the changing global realities reflect upon and interconnect them with their classroom practices. Thus, they will ultimately be able to set new priorities in their educational practices, reconsider their previously held perceptions on their efficacy to teach English, and adopt innovative teaching practices accordingly in order to prepare their learners for ‘their future intercultural’ interactions. The last part of the book problematizes the links between ELF and assessment. This part includes research, practices and viewpoints on the challenges that are brought about by the globalisation and diversity of education in the field of testing and assessment. David Newbold’s chapter puts forward a rationale for the development of ‘ELF-aware’ tests. He discusses the problematic aspects of assessment in relation to ELF, such as validity and fairness, and maintains that it is important for test designers to engage with ELF. He concludes by making recommendations on how to plan ELF-aware skills tests and to develop assessment grids that capture the nature of ELF production, within a traditional testing context. In their own chapter titled ‘Towards an ELF-aware alternative assessment paradigm in EFL contexts’, Androniki Kouvdou and Dina Tsagari reach out to EFL practitioners who, having developed an understanding of the internationalisation of the English language in the contemporary globalized world, are interested in employing alternative assessment methods that ‘reflect ELF principles and promote learners’ intercultural competence and skills’. They present a research project conducted in a multicultural school environment in Greece and demonstrate the applicability of alternative assessment within an ELF-aware teaching setting. The final chapter of the book is contributed by Andy Kirkpatrick. The chapter sums up the gist of the chapters in the book and looks forward to how ELF could be integrated within EFL. Kirkpatrick suggests that this can be achieved through the ‘lingua franca approach’, which integrates five principles, amongst which are the centrality of mutual intelligibility and intercultural competence and the importance of appropriate assessment of ELF interactions. He goes on to underline the importance of acknowledging, in ELF aware teaching and learning, the different norms set by different genres and rhetorical structures within different cultural backgrounds of ELF users.

10  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

Methodology and Target Audience

The book adopts a distance learning methodology in the writing and layout of the chapters. Each chapter includes: (a) learning objectives, (b) list of key concepts, (c) reflective questions placed strategically t­ hroughout the chapter, with indicative answers at the end of the chapter, (d) discussion points at the end of the chapter, (e) further annotated bibliography. Each chapter incorporates a number of Reflective Questions and Activities, or RQAs. These are intended to help readers (a) think ahead, before coming to a new concept that is going to be developed further down in the chapter, (b) reflect on their own experiences and link them with what they read and (c) test their understanding of certain terms and concepts. Certain of these RQAs have answers provided by the authors at the end of each chapter. Some of these answers are definitive (e.g. in the case of RQAs that test understanding); others are indicative, in that they do not have a specific answer but provide additional information to the reader. In other cases, where RQAs are meant to ‘prepare’ readers for what they are going to read, their answers are integrated in the text that follows them. With this latter type of RQA readers are strongly advised not to continue reading but to pause and seriously (and perhaps extensively) take time to reflect on them before continuing reading. RQAs are placed in strategic points inside each chapter – this not only facilitates engagement with the chapter content, it also ‘chunks’ the chapter and can help readers who do not have a lot of time to ‘take in’ large chapter sections to organize their reading time. This book is intended to appeal to pre-service and in-service teachers of EFL studying at university level or following teacher training seminars, for two reasons. First, the book’s content is practice-oriented. Teachers are able to see concepts, notions and specific criteria for applying ELF research in their own contexts coupled with tangible applications in contexts similar to theirs (and in relation to teaching and learning, adapting existing courseware or assessing/testing their learners). The structure of the book (different parts on different themes related to teaching and learning) is also intended to help instructors guide their students or trainees in making sense of these criteria and applications. The second reason for using the book in teacher training courses and seminars is that its methodology adopts the distance learning perspective, incorporating reflective questions with suggested answers not only at the end of each chapter but also at key points inside each chapter. This renders reading extremely facilitative, especially when studying independently. It also significantly assists instructors in selecting key topics for reflection, discussion and evaluation. More particularly, the targeted audience of the book are: • undergraduate students in English language and applied linguistics university departments;

Introduction 11

• postgraduate students in university departments focusing on ELT, ELF, WE, EIL, Global Englishes, applied linguistics; • teachers of English to speakers of other languages following in-service training seminars (in the face-to-face or distance mode); • policy and decision makers (who would use this book as a reference); • language learning materials publishers and developers; • language assessment experts, including test and examination developers. A final understanding that all chapters in this volume seem to converge upon is that, while ELF has relevance for EFL classroom contexts (no matter how diverse they are), its inherent flexibility and hybridity as a communicational medium means that it cannot be perceived as a variety that can be taught. EFL learners who are efficient communicators are ELF users by default, and this raises specific implications for pedagogy, policy, courseware design and assessment – but nowhere in the chapters in this book is it supported that ELF is, or will ever be, a legitimate variety (or collection of varieties) that will be amenable to teaching in the same way that SE or General American (GA) is. This realisation does not in any way minimize the importance of ELF for EFL, but it certainly raises implications for the ways in which ELF will be integrated in an EFL that lacks one of its definitive ingredients, i.e. the uncritical overreliance on NS norms. In this way, we can envisage that ELF will significantly contribute towards what can be called a ‘post-EFL’ paradigm. The chapters in this book are intended to raise readers’ awareness about this ‘brave new’ possibility. References Archibald, A., Cogo, A. and Jenkins, J. (eds) (2011) Latest Trends in ELF Research. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Baker, W. (2015) Culture and Identity through English as a Lingua Franca: Rethinking Concepts and Goals in Intercultural Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bayyurt, Y. and Akcan, S. (eds) (2015) Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca. Selected proceedings from the ELF5 conference in Istanbul, Turkey. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bayyurt, Y. and Sifakis, N. (2015a) Transforming into an ELF-aware teacher: An EFL teacher’s reflective journey. In H. Bowles and A. Cogo (eds) International Perspectives on Teaching English as a Lingua Franca: Pedagogical Insights (pp. 117–135). London: Palgrave MacMillan. Bayyurt, Y. and Sifakis, N. (2015b) Developing an ELF-aware pedagogy: Insights from a self-education programme. In P. Vettorel (ed.) New Frontiers in Teaching and Learning English (pp. 55–76). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Björkman, B. (ed.) (2011) The Pragmatics of English as a Lingua Franca in the International University. Special Issue of Journal of Pragmatics, 43. Björkman, B. (2013) English as an Academic Lingua Franca. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bowles, H. and Cogo A. (eds) (2015) International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca: Pedagogical Insights. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2012) Analysing English as a Lingua Franca. Continuum.

12  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

Cogo, A. and Jenkins, J. (2010) English as a lingua franca in Europe: A mismatch between policy and practice. European Journal of Language Policy 2 (2), 271–294. Davies, A. (2003) The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Deterding, D. (2013) Misunderstandings in English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Gagliardi, C. and Maley, A. (2011) EIL, ELF, Global English: Teaching and Learning Issues. Berlin: Peter Lang. García, O. (2009) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. García, O. and Wei, L. (2014) Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gimenez, T., Salles El Kadri, M. and Cabrini Simões Calvo, L. (eds) (2017) English as a Lingua Franca in Teacher Education: A Brazilian Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hülmbauer, C. and Seidlhofer, B. (2013) English as a lingua franca in European multilingualism. In A.-C. Berthoud, F. Grin and G. Lüdi (eds) Exploring the Dynamics of Multilingualism: TheDYLAN project (pp. 387–406). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hynninen, N. (2016) Language Regulation in English as a Lingua Franca Focus on Academic Spoken Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Jenkins, J. (2013) English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Politics of Academic English Language Policy. London: Routledge. Jenkins, J. (2015) Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2 (3), 49–85. Kachru, B.B. (1996) World Englishes: Agony and ecstasy. Journal of Aesthetic Education 30 (2), 135–155. Kalocsai, K. (2013) Communities of Practice and English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kirkpatrick, A. (2010) English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN: A Multilingual Model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kirkpatrick, A. and Sussex, R. (eds) (2012) English as an International Language in Asia: Implications for Language Education. New York: Springer. Kohn, K. (2011) English as a lingua franca and the Standard English misunderstanding. In A. De Houwer and A. Wilton (eds) English in Europe Today: Sociocultural and Educational Perspectives (pp. 71–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lopriore, L. and Grazzi, E. (eds) (2016) Intercultural Communication: New Perspectives from ELF. Rome: Roma TrE Press. Mackenzie, I. (2014) English as a Lingua Franca: Theorizing and Teaching English. Routledge. Marlina, R. and Giri, R.A. (eds) (2014) The Pedagogy of English as an International Language: Perspectives from Scholars, Teachers, and Students. New York: Springer. Matsuda, A. (ed.) (2012) Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Matsuda, A. (ed.) (2016) Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language (EIL). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mauranen, A. (2012) Exploring ELF. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McKay, S.L. (2002) Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking Goals and Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phan, L.H. (2008) Teaching English as an International Language: Identity, Resistance and Negotiation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Seidlhofer, B. (2004) Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 209–239. Seidlhofer, B. (2009) Orientations in ELF research: Form and function. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds) English as a Lingua Franca. Studies and Findings (pp. 37–59). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Introduction 13

Seidlhofer, B. (2010) Lingua Franca English: The European context. In A. Kirkpatrick (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes (pp. 355–371). London: Routledge. Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sifakis, N.C. (2007) The education of the teachers of English as a lingua franca: A transformative perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17 (3), 355–375. Sifakis, N.C. (2009) Challenges in teaching ELF in the periphery: The Greek context. ELT Journal 63 (3), 230–237. Sifakis, N.C. (2014) ELF awareness as an opportunity for change: A transformative perspective for ESOL teacher education. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3 (2), 317–335. Sifakis, N.C. and Bayyurt, Y. (2015) Insights from ELF and WE in teacher training in Greece and Turkey. World Englishes 34 (3), 471–484. Sifakis, N., Lopriore, L., Dewey, M., Bayyurt, Y., Vettorel, P., Cavalheiro, L., Siqueira, S. and Kordia, S. (2018) ELF-awareness in ELT: Bringing together theory and practice. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 7 (1), 155–209. Selvi, A.F. (2014) Myths and misconceptions about nonnative English speakers in the TESOL (NNEST) movement. TESOL Journal 5 (3), 573–611. Taviano, S. (2013) English as a Lingua Franca: Implications for Translator and Interpreter Education. Special Issue of The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 7 (2). Taylor and Francis. Vettorel, P. (2014) English as a Lingua Franca in Wider Networking. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Vettorel, P. (2015) New Frontiers in Teaching and Learning English. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Walker, R. (2010) Teaching the Pronunciation of English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. (2003) Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. (2013) ELF and EFL: What’s the difference? Comments on Michael Swan. Journal as a Lingua Franca 2 (1), 187–193.

Part 1 Foundations

2 ELF for EFL: A Change of Subject? Barbara Seidlhofer and Henry Widdowson

General aims of this chapter

What this chapter seeks to do is to prompt teachers and prospective teachers of English to reflect critically about the subject they teach, particularly about what implications the use of ELF might have for the way English is taught as a foreign language (EFL). Expected outcomes

The reading of this chapter should have: • raised your awareness of the assumptions about language and language learning that underlie the different approaches to EFL that have been proposed in the past; • explained how an ELF perspective suggests a different way of defining the objectives of EFL and the relationship between teaching and learning. Key concepts

• • • • • •

Conformity to NS norms. English learned as a foreign language (ELFL). English taught as a foreign language (ETFL). User English and learner English. Communicative capability. Learning investment.

Introduction

English is a subject that appears on the timetable in schools all over the world. Whether you are preparing to be a teacher of this subject or you have already been teaching it for some time, the obvious question you need to ask yourself is just what this subject is. You could say, of course, that there is no need to ask such a question because it has already been answered for you: the English you teach is what is prescribed in the 17

18  Part 1: Foundations

curriculum and laid out in the textbook you use. But if you want to claim to be a professional practitioner you obviously cannot be content simply to follow the textbook as if it were a manual of instructions. You need to ask just what assumptions underlie how the curriculum and the t­ extbook represent English as a subject, and how far these assumptions are valid. The purpose of this chapter is to stimulate such critical thinking about how English has been, and generally still is, defined as a subject and how far the assumptions on which such a definition is based are now, or ever were, pedagogically tenable. Defining the Subject ‘English’

Like any other subject on the school curriculum – history, physics, geography – English is a pedagogic construct, designed to facilitate the process of learning. RQA 1 So how has English been designed to do this? And what does learning a language actually mean? Think about these two questions (refer to your own experience as teacher and learner) and write your reflections in your notebook. When you are done, read on. Learning a language has traditionally been seen as a matter of becoming linguistically competent in it, of getting to know the formal properties of the language – its phonology, grammar and vocabulary as recorded in standard works of reference. The history of language teaching is mainly an account of different ways that have been proposed for getting learners to acquire this competence and so there have been different ways of defining the subject. In the so-called structural approach (SA), this involved designing a syllabus by selecting and grading grammatical structures and lexical items, which were then focused on in the classroom by the technique of so-called situational presentation, whereby linguistic forms were orally presented and then systematically repeated and varied so as to get learners to internalize them. The technique will be familiar: I have a book. This is a book. The book is here. That is a book. The book is there.

And so on. RQA 2 Have you used this technique yourself in your own teaching practice? Have you been exposed to it as a learner? If so, have you thought about the basic ideas about language learning that it presupposes? Write down your thoughts and, when you are done, continue reading.

ELF for EFL: A Change of Subject?  19

The rationale of SA would seem to be as follows. What essentially makes English so foreign is that its encoding systems – its grammar, lexis and phonology – are radically different from those of the L1 – the learners’ own language. This is what makes the language difficult to learn. Therefore, the teaching priority in SA is to reduce this foreignness and focus attention on this difficulty so as to get learners to internalize the distinctive linguistic features of this foreign code so as to be linguistically competent. So, in SA linguistic features were graded according to relative difficulty so as to make them learnable and this inevitably involved abstracting them from the contexts in which they would naturally occur. But of course linguistic competence is never exercised in the abstract, but is always actualized to serve some communicative purpose or other. This being so, isolating it in this analytic way misrepresents it: it needs to be integrated into the more comprehensive concept of communicative competence. We come to Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). RQA 3 What would you say are the main features of CLT? In what ways do you think it is essentially different from SA? Note down your response and, when you’re done, keep reading. What is CLT and How Exactly Did It Change the Subject?

Proponents of CLT point out that the presentation and practice of linguistic forms artificially dissociated the language from its essential communicative function. Therefore, what the learners were subjected to was unreal language – language which nobody ever actually used in this way, certainly not NS. So, the purpose of the communicative approach was to shift attention to how the language actually functions. This, it was claimed, was radically different from the SA in that it involved a focus on meaning rather than form. But how radical was this difference? RQA 4 Do you think that the use of the technique of situational demonstration (This is a book etc.) shifts the focus of attention from meaning? Think about this and, when you’re done, keep reading.

Semantic and Pragmatic Meaning

It is actually not the case that the SA focused on form in disregard of meaning. On the contrary, the techniques of situational presentation

20  Part 1: Foundations

mentioned earlier were expressly designed to demonstrate what words and structures meant: This is a book, the book is here. That is a book, the book is there.

The word ‘book’ means this object, the words ‘this’ and ‘here’ mean near the speaker as distinct from ‘that’ and ‘there’, which mean away from the speaker – focus on meaning. But this is semantic meaning – meaning encoded in linguistic forms – meaning in form. In order to focus on this kind of meaning, contexts are invented in the classroom, so context is made subservient to the linguistic forms of the code. But pragmatic meaning, the meaning that people actually make when they use the language, works in the completely opposite way. Here language is only used when it suits a communicative purpose: with pragmatic meaning it is linguistic forms of the code that are subservient to context. What the communicative approach set out to do was to focus on contexts in which the linguistic code functioned in natural pragmatic ways. So, with CLT came the shift of focus from meaning as semantically encoded to meaning as pragmatically contextualized and so to a different way of conceiving of English as the L2 – not as a linguistic code but as a mode of communication. RQA 5 Have you thought of the difference between focusing on semantic and pragmatic meanings in this way before – as reversing the dependency between code and context? What do you think are the practical pedagogic consequences of focusing attention on pragmatic meaning? Write down your thoughts on this question and, when you finish, continue reading. Changed Relationship between L2 and L1

This changed concept of the L2 as a mode of communication rather than just a linguistic code also has an effect on the relationship between the L2 and the L1. What the SA focused on was the obvious differences in how semantic meaning was encoded in the linguistic forms of the two languages – in their grammatical, lexical and phonological features. But there is no such obvious difference in how the two languages function pragmatically: in both cases, code is naturally subservient to context and linguistic forms are only used as functionally appropriate. So, learners know how language functions as communication in the contexts they are familiar with, and so they are already communicatively competent. What they do not know is what form these communicative functions might take in contexts where English is used. In principle, therefore, the shift from semantic to pragmatic meaning

ELF for EFL: A Change of Subject?  21

reduces the foreignness of the L2 and brings it closer to the learners’ own experience. RQA 6 In light of the above, what do you see as the advantage of a communicative approach to EFL? What do learners gain from such an approach? Write down your thoughts on this question (considering the discussion above). When you finish, continue reading. The advantage of a communicative approach to EFL in principle is that it makes English more real for the learners because they can see that it functions like their own L1. But surely the contexts in which the L1 and L2 function as communication are not the same. A communicative approach in principle would allow for a closer relationship between L1 and L2. But the communicative approach, as generally practised does not. This is because the communicative approach is based on the assumption that these contexts must necessarily be NS contexts. So, what we usually get in a communicative syllabus, and in the textbooks that conform to it, is a selection of form– function correlates, communicative functions as they are typically realized in certain linguistic forms. So, learners are taught linguistic expressions that NS use when greeting people or asking directions, or making a request or apologizing or expressing an opinion and so on. Learning to be communicative is therefore taken to be a matter of conforming to NS norms of behavior. It is not a general communicative capability in English that they are taught but how to conform to ways in which NS communicate. Communication has to be on NS terms and in NS terms. Any communicative activity that does not conform to the norm does not count, no matter how effective it might be. Communication and Conformity to NS Norms

It is important to see that the CLT that became established as an orthodoxy – an orthodoxy still followed in its subsequent developments, such as task-based language teaching – is not centrally concerned with the communicative process itself, with how communication actually functions, but with what form communication takes among NS of a particular language. So, although it is often said that in CLT there is a focus on meaning and not on form, there is in fact still a focus on form in that the meanings still have to be formulated in the approved conventional NS way. So, although CLT changed the subject in some respects, it was still based on the old assumption that the ‘E’ of the subject EFL was essentially the ‘E’ of English as a native language, ENL. There was in this respect no change of subject, no significant paradigm shift. And just as the

22  Part 1: Foundations

conception of the L2 remained essentially the same, so accordingly did the relationship between the L2 and the L1. Indeed, the focus on communicative function had the obvious effect of increasing the distance between them and making the L2 more foreign and more difficult to learn. RQA 7 Think, for a minute, about this notion that the communicative teaching of the L2 (English in this case, but it can be applied in all L2 teaching contexts) increases the distance between the L2 and learners’ L1. Why do you think this is so? Also, how wide is that distance? Once you’ve thought about these questions, compare your reflections with what follows. The reason for the increase of the distance between the L2 and the L1 was because the English that learners were required to learn was now defined in reference to two kinds of norm. Learners are not only directed at conforming to norms of correctness, as authorized by SE dictionaries and grammars, but at conforming to NS norms of contextual appropriateness to the way these forms conventionally function in contexts of NS use. So, there were now two kinds of norm that learners are required to conform to. Then came a development in linguistic description that fundamentally changed ideas about how language is used in communication. The form– function expressions that were presented in the earlier CLT specifications in, for example, the Council of Europe threshold level, were themselves abstractions in that they were not direct records of actual instances of NS behavior. With the advent of the computer, corpus linguistics was now able to reveal in detail patterns of NS usage – patterns of linguistic forms that NS actually produce. This, it is said, represents real or authentic English. So, it is argued, since the objective of learning is to acquire the actual behavior of NSs, then learners should be required to conform to the norm of these patterns of usage as well. Theoretical Perspectives

These changes of thinking about what should be taught in EFL can be explained by reference to theoretical ideas about the nature of communication. What provided the theoretical background for CLT was the model of communicative competence proposed by Hymes (see Brumfit & Johnson, 1979). Hymes suggested that someone who is communicatively competent in a language is able to make four kinds of judgement about how it is used on a particular occasion. Two of these are: (1) whether and to what degree it is possible, that is to say in accordance with encoding rules; (2) whether and to what degree it is feasible, that is to say easy to process.

ELF for EFL: A Change of Subject?  23

It is easy to see that it was these two aspects of communicative competence that were focused on in the SA: it presented items of the linguistic code of English so as to make them easy to process and to learn. RQA 8 So, can one say that, in this respect, the SA was also communicative in a way, in that it did indeed account for some aspects of communicative competence? Yes, one could say that. But it did not account for the next two aspects that Hymes identified. These were: (1) Whether and to what degree an instance of the language is appropriate to context. (2) Whether and to what degree it is attested as having actually been performed. The earlier manifestation of CLT, as represented by the specifications of the threshold level (van Ek, 1975), focused attention on the third component of communicative competence. What changed with the development of corpus linguistics was that detailed information was now available about the fourth component and so it was assumed that learners had to be taught this as well to be communicatively competent. In effect, this meant that there was no distinction between what is appropriate and what is attested as having been actually performed by NS. So, no allowance was made for language which was used in a communicatively appropriate way if it had not been attested as having already been used in NS contexts. So, although there have been changes in how CLT has been put into practice, most obviously in the promotion of task-based language teaching, its central normative principle remains the same: to be communicatively competent in English means to know how to communicate as NS do. English as a subject is essentially ENL: the ‘E’ of EFL is the ‘E’ of ENL. Summary: the Primacy of NS Norms

It would seem clear then that the aim of CLT is not to develop the ability to use English as a communicative resource, but to get speakers of other languages, whoever and wherever they are and whatever their purposes may be, to communicate in the way NS do. Although it is recognized that learners may often err and stray in their communicative behavior, ultimately what is required of them is conformity to NS norms. The assumption is that the ability to communicate in English depends on such conformity, that if you cannot communicate like a NS then you will be communicatively disabled.

24  Part 1: Foundations

RQA 9 Why is this not a valid assumption to make? Doesn’t the ability to communicate with people necessarily depend on such conformity? This depends on who you are going to communicate with. The assumption that communication depends on such conformity is invalidated by the fact that innumerable users of ELF manage to communicate very effectively without conforming to these NS norms. The linguistic forms that are required to function pragmatically in ELF are not necessarily the same as those required for ENL. RQA 10 Why should this be so? What elements of ELF communication render it different to, but not necessarily less appropriate than, ENL? As pointed out earlier, in the pragmatic use of language, what linguistic forms are used is determined by contextual need. The contexts and purposes that users of ELF need the language for are immensely varied and so the English that it is appropriate to use varies accordingly. Indeed, for many contexts and purposes of international communication it could well be quite inappropriate to conform to NS norms. For example, here are two extracts from a conversation between international students at a club. S1 is a female speaker of German from Austria, S2 is a male speaker of Spanish from Spain, captured in VOICE, the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English. S2: S1: S2: S1: S2: S2: S1:

S2:

e r sometimes the days i’m speaking german all the day i improve my german but but maybe er the next day i have forget it forget it all no no i don’t think so when we met the first time at [first name2] yeah you only speaked little little little german an- and now i think you can s- you can understand much more than at the first time at the first meeting yeah even when when we were speaking english yeah sometimes we speak in english but it it’s good for me because hh i i i don’t learn an an language here and when i speak english e- english with you and [first name3] i i i can improve a little my english knowledge@@ so it’s not so bad for me to speak english with you but in fact er in the residence there is a boy come from london and i can’t understand er the fifth per cent he s- he says (VOICE, 2013, LEcon229: 97–104)

ELF for EFL: A Change of Subject?  25

S2:

the spanish women er feed the spanish men er they are very good er S1: @@@@ S2: woman it’s perfect S1: @@@ SS: @@ S2: i love it i love them S1: you love the spanish and the french woman S2: i love the feed woman SX-f: @@@@@ S1: the woman who likes machos you think S2: yeah the woman who likes feed f- men S1: @@ but you S2: spanish men S1: you you’re not a macho S2: me S2: yeah i am i’m er spanish i can’t refuse my my identity S1: @@ (VOICE, 2013, LEcon229: 288–303) In these extracts it is clear that the resources of English are being used effectively as appropriate to context and purpose without conforming to NS norms. But this does not only apply to this kind of casual conversation. Consider the following example from the business domain. This is an extract from a sales team meeting about internal matters of a forwarding agency. Both speakers are male, S1 is a speaker of German from Germany, S5 a speaker of Spanish from Spain. S1: y ou get each year an increasement of your salaries which is paid by the company … S5: which for the time being is not big issue so i don’t know what you want to try to develop afterwards you gonna be increasive by a hundred per cent or two hundred per cent but er hh it’s very it’s very funny the more virtuality on the project of the air border and so on you know because what you you said before from your trade lane manager to the booking reservation xxx RQA 11 Consider the above excerpts from the VOICE corpus. How would you treat such discourse if it was produced by your learners in your own teaching context? Also, see Hymes’ four principles of c­ ommunicative competence discussed earlier – which of these ­principles would you argue are presented in these excerpts and which are not? Why – why not? What conclusions might be drawn from your observations about the difference between the different nature of ‘E’ in ELF and ENL?

26  Part 1: Foundations

If this English were produced in the classroom, you would no doubt notice the ‘errors’ and feel the urge to correct them, get the learners to do remedial work on the ‘proper’ forms of verbs, nouns and adjectives, the use of the definite article and so on. But although these uses of English contain many elements that are ‘impossible’ in Hymes’ terms, they meet all the other conditions: they are feasible and appropriate. And they are attested too, as actual use in communication. It is simply that they are not attested as performed in NS contexts of use. So, in spite of the claim that what NS produce, as recorded in corpora, is the ‘real’ or ‘authentic’ language, what ELF users produce is just as real, just as authentic as communication. When we consider how English is actually used in the real world, we actually have two kinds of reality: ENL and ELF. ‘E’ appears in both acronyms, but it is not the same ‘E’. RQA 12 What implications does this have, then, for teaching and learning English as a subject? How does ELF relate to EFL? EFL, ENL, ELF – Defining the ‘E’

As we have said, the prevailing assumption is that the ‘E’ of EFL is essentially and necessarily the same as the ‘E’ in ENL. But what if we think of the ‘E’ of EFL as being the ‘E’ of ELF as a more realistic alternative? Consider first the consequences of continuing to take ENL as the pedagogic subject, with its objective being to get learners to conform to the norms of correctness and conventions of usage that are said to represent NS competence. The most obvious consequence is a discrepancy between what is taught and what is learned. Teachers may teach this normative competence, but this is not what learners learn. They persistently fail to conform. They learn something of course, but if that something does not correspond with what is taught, they get no credit for it: on the contrary it counts against them. But however one thinks of learner English, it is a reality that cannot be ignored. So as every teacher is well aware, English that is taught as a foreign language (ETFL) and which corresponds to the norms of ENL, is not the same as English that is learned as a foreign language (ELFL), which very frequently does not correspond to these norms. RQA 13 Teachers know that there is a difference between teacher input and learner intake. So why is there this lack of correspondence between them? And what can be done about this learner English?

ELF for EFL: A Change of Subject?  27

Learner English is, of course, language of low status, regarded as inadequate, defective, an interim interlanguage stage learners go through on the way to acquiring competence in ‘proper’ or ‘real’ English. Its ­non-conformities are seen as errors, and although these may be taken as signs of progress, if the progress is to be maintained, they need to be eliminated at some point in one way or another – either by direct correction or by creating conditions whereby learners will be induced to correct the errors for themselves. Either way, they are required to conform, to bring their learning into line with teaching. Otherwise they are deemed to fail, for success is measured not against what is learnt, but by what is taught. The attempts by teachers to get learner English, ELFL, to conform to teacher English, ETFL, have a long history (see Howatt, 2004). All kinds of approaches and methods have been recommended – the SA, the communicative approach, task-based language teaching; what they have all amounted to is a pedagogy of failure. Most learners fail the test of ­conformity – especially when they are required to conform to all the NS norms we have mentioned – not only norms of code correctness, but also of pragmatic function and conventions of actual usage. RQA 14 But this does not mean that more successful ways of teaching will not be found in the future. What is the alternative? An Alternative Way of Thinking

Instead of thinking about how to get learners to conform, perhaps it would be better to think about why they do not, and ask why these socalled ‘errors’, these non-conformities of learner language, happen anyway? Where do they come from and why are they so persistent? Learners do not learn the language they have been taught but they learnt something from it. What then makes them learn some things and not others? Here we return to the point made earlier that the shift of focus to communicative function relates the L2 more closely to the learners’ experience of their own language. The L1 and the L2 are very different in their encoded form, but both function as communication in much the same way. Learners have got to know how language works pragmatically through the experience of their own language, their L1, so it is not surprising that they should seek to apply that knowledge in learning how a different language works. Learning of anything must always involve making sense of what is new in reference to what is familiar and so learning an L2 will always inevitably involve transfer from the experience of L1. At the level of form this is traditionally seen as interference which has to be countered as a source of error. But looked at functionally, these ‘errors’ can be seen as the results of pragmatic transfer, the focusing on what can be put to communicative use.

28  Part 1: Foundations

These non-conformities may be linguistically malformed in reference to NS norms, but this does not make them communicative malfunctions. On the contrary, they can be seen as the focusing on what is communicatively salient or significant in what is taught and filtering out what is not. This would explain why the so-called errors that are most stubbornly resistant to correction tend to be those that have little if any communicative significance. So, the non-conformities in learner language can be seen as evidence of communicative language learning, the development of a capability to put linguistic resources to pragmatic use. The problem is that this natural learning is inhibited, even suppressed, by CLT that insists on conformity to NS norms. In this respect, it is the teacher and not the learner that gets things wrong. Communicative Capability

The ‘E’ of ETFL is, as we have said, essentially the ‘E’ of ENL. The ‘E’ of ELFL, however, bears a close resemblance to the ‘E’ of ELF: here, what we find is a focus on communicative function, the expedient pragmatic use of whatever linguistic forms are available for the purpose, whether they are in conformity with NS norms or not. Both ELFL and ELF show a capability for making meaning beyond the confines of imposed competence. In this respect, the essential features of ELF are contained within ELFL. ENL → ETFL ELF → ELFL The Roles of Teacher, Learner and Teachee

A good deal has been said about learner autonomy, the importance of allowing learners to take the initiative and to allow them to put the English they have learned to use in meaningful and purposeful ways. But in insisting on them conforming to ENL norms we actually prevent them from doing this. The conventional view of classroom learning is that it is the reflex of teaching – an entirely dependent activity. But of course, in actual fact, teaching is dependent on learning and not the other way round. You cannot teach unless there are learners, but you can learn without teachers – we do it all the time. In effect, making learners in the classroom conform to teaching reduces their role – they become teachees. Just as employers have employees and trainers have trainees, so teachers have teachees. RQA 14 But then does this not reduce the role of teachers in that they would just be reactive to learner behavior rather than proactive in extending it?

ELF for EFL: A Change of Subject?  29

The teacher would retain a crucial proactive role in activating and guiding the learning process. The difference would lie in the kind of process involved, and what allowance is made for learner initiative. Our argument is that instead of basing what and how we teach on how we think the students in classrooms ought to use their English as teachees, we should pay primary attention to how they actually do use their English as learners, and so guide them in the development of their communicative capability. Capability in ELF Use and Learner English

As we have suggested, it is this capability that learners exploit when they become ELF users. What the findings of EFL research can indicate is what aspects of the language and what strategies for using it might be given priority as the best investment for learning. Instead of thinking of learner English negatively as a defective version of the language that does not match up to either NS norms or to the demands of teaching based on them, one might think of it more positively as the development of a potential that can be subsequently realized – and extended – as a use of English in its own right. Teaching the Subject English: Two Alternatives

We have argued that how English is taught needs to be based on how English is used as a lingua franca. We need to change the way we think of English as a subject we teach. It seems to us that those concerned with the teaching of English are faced with two alternatives. Either one can persist in teaching a competence that learners rarely attain, and apparently do not need anyway as subsequent users of the language. Or one can consider the possibility of setting objectives that are realistic in that they both reflect the learning process and are attainable, and correspond more closely to the requirements of the majority of actual users of the language. The first option would be to continue with a pedagogy based on the ideal and ideological assumption that eventually all uses of English in the world should match up with NS competence (whatever that may be!) and that somehow an approach to teaching will eventually be discovered which enables learners to acquire it. The record shows that this is in effect a pedagogy predicated on failure, with vast numbers of people who put their learning to use in ELF stigmatized as incompetent. The second option would be to accept the reality that what is learnt of English does not, and cannot, correspond with the language that is currently taught and that the specification of objectives based on NS norms

30  Part 1: Foundations

has to be abandoned. Instead, the purpose of teaching would become the development of a capability for effective use which involves the process of exploiting whatever linguistic resources are available, whether they conform to NS norms or not. RQA 15 When you say, ‘whatever linguistic resources are available’ does this include the learners’ L1? So, would this alternative approach allow for translation or other bilingual and multilingual activities in the classroom? Think about these questions. Then, continue reading. Yes it would, since the main objective would be to extend the range of the learners’ existing communicative capability. As has been pointed out (Cook, 2010; Widdowson, 2003), although the received wisdom is that EFL teaching should be monolingual in the L2, learning is always bi- or multilingual in that learners will always relate the L2 to their L1 experience. This again is the difference between ELFL and ETFL. Synopsis

What we have argued for in this chapter is an ELF informed approach to EFL. If EFL is to move on, it needs to come to terms with reality. The reality is that in a globalized world the predominant use of English is as international lingua franca and this needs to be taken into pedagogic account if English is to be made a reality for learners. The global learning of English needs to be based on its global use. What this means, we have suggested, is that, instead of persisting with unsuccessful attempts to get learners to conform to NS norms, we need to change the subject and recognize that it is the use of ELF that corresponds more closely to what is real for learners, and is a more realistic objective for them to achieve. References Brumfit, C. and Johnson, K. (eds) (1979) The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford University Press. Cook, G. (2010) Translation in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Howatt, A.P. (2004) A History of English Language Teaching (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. van Ek, J.A. (1975) The Threshold Level. Council of Europe. VOICE (2013) The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version 2.0 online). B. Seidlhofer (Director); A. Breiteneder, T. Klimpfinger, S. Majewski, R. OsimkTeasdale, M.-L. Pitzl, M. Radeka (Researchers). See http://voice.univie.ac.at (accessed 5 June 2016). Widdowson, H.G. (2003) Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ELF for EFL: A Change of Subject?  31

Further reading Dewey, M. (2012) Towards a post-normative approach: Learning the pedagogy of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (1), 141–170. A discussion of what, in principle, the pedagogic implications of ELF research might be, and an exploration of ways in which teachers might, in the light of this research, be collaboratively involved in a reconsideration of established thinking about EFL methodology and in putting ELF-informed ideas into actual classroom practice. Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A comprehensive enquiry into the nature of ELF, how its study raises critical issues in language description and sociolinguistic theory and calls into question conventional ways of thinking about such key concepts as competence, community and language variation. The last chapter of the book is a detailed exploration of the implications of ELF for ELT. Swan, M. (2012) ELF and EFL: Are they really different? Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (2), 379–39. Written by a well-known author of EFL teaching materials and reference books, this article expresses a skeptical view of the pedagogic relevance of ELF study, arguing that ELF use is really no different from learner English and calls for no reconsideration of the traditional assumption that EFL needs to be based on NS norms. Vettorel, P. (ed.) (2015) New Frontiers in Teaching and Learning English. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. A collection of papers by various authors. The first part of the book is concerned with developments in ELF research and the thinking in general about its pedagogic implications. The second describes practical projects designed to develop teacher awareness of ELF and the third focuses on ways in which ELF might be incorporated into English teaching practices, and the problems and challenges that this gives rise to. Widdowson, H. (2013) ELF and EFL: What’s the difference? Comments on Michael Swan. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2 (1), 187–193. These comments challenge the validity of Swan’s argument and suggest that it is based on a conservative view of EFL that is no longer pedagogically appropriate for the kinds of reasons that are further discussed in this chapter. In a brief reply to these comments (in Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2 (2)), Swan takes issue with these comments on the grounds that they misrepresent his position.

3 Towards the Reconciliation of ELF and EFL: Theoretical Issues and Pedagogical Challenges Kurt Kohn

General aims of this chapter

The aim of this chapter is to bridge the pedagogical divide between EFL and ELF. A social constructivist perspective on language learning and communication is used to provide a conceptual framework within which teachers and researchers from both areas are invited to re-examine and reconcile their diverging pedagogical views and preferences. Focus is on three issues: success in ELF communication, language learning as creative construction, and the pedagogical status of SE. Against this backdrop, key dimensions of ELF competence are addressed; special attention is given to awareness, comprehension, production, communicative interaction, and NNS creativity. Online ELF resources and telecollaborative participation in intercultural ELF exchanges are discussed as a pedagogical option for learners to further develop and improve their ELF competence as speakers. Expected outcomes

On completing this chapter, you should be able to: • outline a social constructivist model of (foreign) language learning; • summarize conditions and processes of successful (ELF) communication; • discuss SE as a pedagogical construct; • elaborate objectives and challenges of ELF competence development; • explain why the EFL classroom should provide space for ELF competence development; • design and implement (online) tasks for ELF competence development; 32

Towards the Reconciliation of ELF and EFL  33

• evaluate an EFL course with regard to its potential for ELF-aware teaching; • identify key dimensions of transformative teacher education. Key concepts

• • • • • • • • •

Language learning as creative construction. Intercultural telecollaboration. Success in ELF communication. Speaker satisfaction. SE as a pedagogical construct. ELF competence. Non-native speaker creativity. Online ELF communication. ELF-aware teaching.

Introduction

English as a lingua franca and EFL got off on the wrong foot (Swan, 2012; Widdowson, 2013). At the centre of the dispute are seemingly irreconcilable views regarding the goal and approach of English language learning and teaching and the pedagogical status and role of SE. For most EFL teachers, compliance with SE conventions has always been a conditio sine qua non. With the communicative turn in foreign language learning and teaching, deviations from SE may have become more tolerable, but an exonormative orientation towards externally given criteria of success is still considered valid (Leung, 2013). From an ELF perspective, by contrast, it is the endonormative nature of ELF competence which counts: NNS’ creative and thus inevitably deviant appropriation of the English language is considered a key condition of successful learning and communication. The nature of ELF communication and the pedagogical principles of EFL appear to be in fundamental opposition: advocates of ELF-aware teaching find fault with EFL teachers’ normative mindset (Dewey, 2012); EFL teachers, in turn, interpret pedagogical suggestions emerging from the ELF camp as a criticism of their SE preference, the very cornerstone of their pedagogical beliefs and convictions. How can this conflict be resolved? Adopting a transformative teacher development approach to enable teachers to raise their awareness of the creativity and success of authentic ELF communication is a necessary step (Sifakis, 2014; Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2015). But is it sufficient? An experienced non-native English teacher’s comment at the end of a half-day workshop about pedagogical implications of ELF communication speaks for itself: ‘Do you want me to teach incorrect English?’

34  Part 1: Foundations

In this chapter, my focus is on closing the theoretical and pedagogical gap between ELF research findings and the EFL classroom with its pedagogical orientation towards SE. I will argue that a true reconciliation between the two ‘hostile brothers’ requires transformation processes that go beyond raising awareness of the nature of ELF communication; they crucially need to include a thorough reappraisal of teachers’ conceptualization of language, communicative competence and (foreign) language learning. My proposal of ELF as a pedagogical space in the foreign language classroom (Kohn, 2015) is based on an open, social constructivist understanding of language learning and communication. This perspective essentially incorporates the claim and challenge of granting learners the autonomy to develop their own English in pursuit of their own speaker satisfaction, i.e. in accordance with their communicative and communal needs and purposes, and guided by their own requirements of success. Key dimensions of ELF competence include ELF awareness, ELF-related comprehension, production and interaction skills as well as speaker–learners’ trust in their own NNS creativity (Kohn, 2015). A suitable pedagogical approach for helping them develop their ELF competence incorporates two pillars: (a) a social constructivist reconceptualization of teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about foreign language learning and communication, and (b) exposure to authentic intercultural ELF communication. Current e-learning and online communication facilities provide an innovative pedagogical potential for intercultural communication and are proposed to be used in blended learning arrangements to compensate for arguably limited communicative options of the face-to-face classroom. Success in ELF Communication

To begin with, it is important to point out that ELF communication is not about using a special variety of English, nor is teaching towards ELF competence about teaching such a variety. In the earlier stages of ELF studies, the search for ELF varieties received a certain amount of attention. The fast-growing body of empirical data, however, soon provided evidence of the ‘fragmented, contingent, marginal, transitional, indeterminate, ambivalent and hybrid’ nature of ELF (James, 2005: 141), thereby reducing the explanatory validity of the variety concept. Facilitated by the availability of ELF corpora such as VOICE (http:// www.univie.ac.at/voice) and English as an academic lingua franca (ELFA) (http://www.eng.helsinki.fi/elfa), the research focus in empirical studies began to shift towards the linguistic and strategic characteristics of ELF communication. The initial interest in potential ELF varieties gave way to an interest in ELF speakers’ creative and strategic use of their linguistic resources for achieving communicative success (Jenkins et al., 2011).

Towards the Reconciliation of ELF and EFL  35

RQA 1 Before you read on, think about your own understanding of communicative success. Specify criteria you deem relevant. There is ample empirical evidence that ELF communication can indeed be highly successful. It should be noted, however, that this success is deeply rooted in speakers’ ordinary communicative competence for handling the gaps, inconsistencies and often creative irregularities of everyday communication including e.g. unknown words, unusual phrases, new metaphors, or broken grammatical constructions. The strategic capabilities and processes speakers resort to when confronted with the challenges of communicative ELF interaction are built and refined in a life-long communicative learning process starting with the earliest days of acquiring and using one’s first language. All the outstanding characteristics of successful communication – understanding and conveying more than what is explicitly said, collaborating in the co-construction of meaning, accommodating one’s performance to the purpose of the communicative exchange and the needs of one’s interlocutors, letting problematic passages pass, or lowering unrealistic communication goals – are part and parcel of everyday communicative competence and use. Whenever ELF communication succeeds, it is largely because of competence dispositions which exist independent of ELF but may (need to) be further refined through (and for) ELF encounters. The twin of success is failure. In the case of ELF communication, failure might be caused by temporary or more fundamental weaknesses in the interacting ELF speakers’ ordinary communication skills, divergences and incongruities between their linguacultural backgrounds, or a mismatch between the speakers’ linguistic–communicative competence and the communication task at hand. Lack of success in ELF communication – as in communication in general – is not always easy to pin down. In ELF research, reference to successful ELF communication is often linked to ELF speakers’ ability to achieve mutual intelligibility and communicative robustness through strategic and creative exploitation and expansion of their linguistic resources (e.g. Jenkins et al., 2011; Seidlhofer, 2011). Making oneself understood is certainly crucial for communicative success. On a deeper level, however, the competence underlying successful communication ‘is essentially about being able to express oneself in keeping with one’s individual and social identity’ (Kohn, 2015: 56). It should thus be no surprise that, depending on the communicative situation and the values of their preferred speech fellowship, ELF speakers may wish to achieve a certain degree of thematic refinement, grammatical accuracy, situational appropriateness, or fluency. And neither should it be a surprise that ELF speakers may fail to comply with their own requirements of success and feel dissatisfied with their lack of ‘express-ability’ (Albl-Mikasa, 2013).

36  Part 1: Foundations

Communicative success is a slippery customer. In the EFL classroom, we learn to look at successful communication through the eyes of our teachers. In authentic ELF encounters outside the classroom, however, we find that the interacting speakers are the ultimate arbiters. Am I satisfied with my own communicative performance and with the performance of my interlocutor(s)? The ELF perspective directs our attention to speaker satisfaction as the endonormative yardstick of communicative success. Speakers’ awareness of their mutual satisfaction and their skills for monitoring their communicative performance in accordance with their own requirements of success are indicative of their liberation from exonormative constraints and their autonomy as both ELF speakers and ELF learners. Language Learning as Creative Construction

Research and practice in EFL and ELF are guided by often implicit preferences concerning the targets and outcomes of language learning. A closer look at these preferences will help to throw some light on why a fruitful pedagogical collaboration between EFL and ELF is so difficult to achieve. The theoretical framework within which I propose to analyse and resolve conceptual incompatibilities between EFL and ELF is a social constructivist one. RQA 2 Before you read on, think about acquiring a car and acquiring a language. What is the crucial difference? When talking about learning a particular language, in our case English, the very phrases we use, e.g. ‘learning English’ or ‘acquiring English’, seem to suggest that the English that is learned is given as a learner-external input entity that should be matched by what the learner is actually able to take in. According to a social constructivist understanding, however, people learn a language by creating ‘their own version of it in their minds, hearts and behaviour’ (Kohn, 2011: 80). Learning English, or any other language for that matter, inevitably requires individual learners to develop their own internal representation of English in a process of creative construction. Whatever variety of English I aim for, e.g. standard British English (BrE), Indian English or Cockney, I can only create ‘my English’ (Kohn, 2011: 78–83). In this connection, it is important to emphasize that the direction in which learners develop ‘their’ English is not arbitrary. Their creative construction process is guided and shaped by a number of complementary and interacting individual and social forces including in particular: • the learners’ linguacultural background and previous learning experience; • their learning goals and motivational disposition;

Towards the Reconciliation of ELF and EFL  37

• the effort they invest and the learning–teaching approach they adopt; • the language and communicative interactions they engage in; • the speech fellowship they want to belong to. All in all, the social constructivist perspective emphasizes that language learning is fundamentally geared to helping learners develop the kind of linguistic–communicative competence that best suits their own communicative and communal needs and purposes. This first and foremost concerns a more or less intuitive knowledge of phonetic-phonological, lexical and structural means of expression as well as the skills to make appropriate and strategic use of this knowledge in written and spoken communicative interactions. But there is more. Learners also set their own requirements of successful communicative performance. They certainly want to be understood, but they may also want their performance to be accurate and fluent, or an indicator of professional competence, educational background, or group membership. These requirements of success, which are often tuned to specific genres and styles of communication typical of e.g. exams, business meetings, public speeches, or private gatherings, are of crucial importance for ensuring learning direction and drive for both knowledge and skills development. Throughout their learning life cycles learners shape and reshape their requirements and try to develop their linguistic–communicative competence accordingly. To the extent that learners manage to achieve a balance between (a) their knowledge and use of linguistic means of expression, (b) their requirements of success and (c) their communicative needs and purposes, they can be said to have appropriated the target language for themselves, and language learning can be considered successful in a social constructivist sense. RQA 3 Is the social constructivist emphasis on the creative nature of language learning in conflict with your own EFL practices? At a first glance, the assumption of language learning as creative construction does not seem to mark a principal difference between ELF and EFL. Creative construction is considered essential for successful ELF communication and development, and it has also been identified as a key characteristic of foreign/second language learning and CLT. The terminological harmony, however, is deceptive. A closer look reveals significant differences with regard to the requirements of success that are considered relevant. Unlike in ELF, the affirmation of creativity in EFL goes together with a strong commitment to the standard language competence of ‘the’ NS as the ultimate goal and aspired endpoint of learning. Creativity is in the service of achieving mastery of ‘correct’ language knowledge and use. With the communicative orientation of language learning and teaching,

38  Part 1: Foundations

the requirement of correctness was complemented by considerations of fluency, situational appropriateness, discourse coherence, conversational interaction and strategic handling of communication problems. This incorporation of communicative requirements of success was readily adopted by the language teaching profession without, however, a fundamental communicative revision of the requirement of correctness itself. Depending on the nature of the communicative focus, the requirement of correctness may be softened in pedagogical practice, but it continues to be a cornerstone of the overall approach. This is evident in the fact that in  EFL institutions requirements of success are generally set by forces external to the learners, e.g. educational standards, course books, or teachers. The pedagogical potential of providing space for speaker satisfaction based on learners’ own requirements of success still remains to be explored. RQA 4 How would you conceptualize the notion of ‘speaker satisfaction’? Which challenges do you see in incorporating it in EFL practices? Note down your reflections and observations and keep them; we will return to them at a later stage in the rest of this chapter. The Pedagogical Status of SE

In EFL contexts, conceptualizations of English as a goal of foreign language learning and teaching generally draw on notions of SE as a societal and pedagogical norm. Outside the immediate school context, prescriptive attitudes show in the high attention issues of grammatical correctness and lists of ‘common English errors’ receive in online lan­ guage guides and discussion groups. What is more, a prescriptive mind-set often goes along with reference to NSs as ultimate arbiters, which is in stark contrast to the sociolinguistic realities of non-native English speakers and ELF communication around the world (Leung, 2013). With its communicative and intercultural enrichment, EFL becomes more and more torn between the security of prescriptive constraints and the freedom of successful communication. But is a pedagogical orientation towards SE necessarily and inevitably caught in the normative trap? The social constructivist assumptions about language learning as a process of creative construction outlined above clearly speak in favour of a more liberal stance. The crucial point is to conceptually separate SE as a pedagogical construct from SE as a prescriptive societal norm. The pedagogical construct needs to be granted an existence of its own motivation and in its own right as the result of cultural and political development, local educational decisions (Seidlhofer, 2011: 198) and of learning as creation. From a social constructivist perspective, the pedagogical emancipation of

Towards the Reconciliation of ELF and EFL  39

SE is achieved by acknowledging and involving the speaker–learner as a principal agent in all learning and teaching processes. RQA 5 Before you read on, reflect on the nature of your pedagogical SE orientation. Does it comply with a social constructivist understanding of foreign language learning? In this connection, I propose to distinguish between two kinds of pedagogical orientation towards SE, a ‘strict’ and a more ‘open’ one. According to the strict SE orientation, the learning goal is conceived as a unified entity without properly differentiating between English as knowledge and English as communicative use. Learners are required to meet the SE teaching norms; deviations are seen as evidence of unsuccessful learning. The strict view treats language learning essentially as a prescriptive copying process and (implicitly) argues from a quasi-behaviouristic position. According to the open orientation, on the other hand, SE serves as a pedagogical model providing orientation for the learning process; at the same time, however, it is recognized and acknowledged that learners cannot but create their own NNS version of this model. The open view follows from an (implicit) understanding of language learning as a social constructivist process of cognitive, emotional and behavioural creation (Kohn, 2011, 2015); it leaves room for communicative and communal appropriation (Seidlhofer, 2011: 198; Widdowson, 2003: 35–44) guided by learners’ requirements of success. Creative development of one’s own nonnative signature, in both one’s knowledge of English and one’s use of this knowledge in communicative interactions, should be the ultimate goal in foreign language learning and teaching, comparable to other fields of high competence in which successful mastery requires an individual touch, such as in art, literature, or music (Seidlhofer & Widdowson, 2009: 94). The social constructivist perspective also throws an interesting light on the plurilithic reappraisal and reform of traditionally monolithic EFL models of English. Drawing on questionnaire and interview responses from a sample of Chinese teachers of English, Hall et al. (2017) identify tensions between monolithic and plurilithic orientations in individual teachers’ conceptualizations of English. Whereas classroom English is generally seen as requiring compliance with idealized monolithic SE norms, a more realistic plurilithic spectrum of diversity is deemed acceptable in communicative use outside the classroom. Hall et  al. (2013) describe an interactive online course (http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/changing-englishes) designed to help teachers change their monolithic idealization of English and develop an understanding of English as a plurilithic pedagogical resource. Key course components include defining, using, learning, teaching and changing English. This syllabus reflects that plurilithity is not to be seen as a surface

40  Part 1: Foundations

phenomenon. Although most visible in manifestations of linguistic knowledge and use, the very origins of plurilithity are integral to the nature of human learning and communication. Considering that language learning is creative construction and communication sensitive to speakers’ situationspecific requirements of success and strategically guided by their desire for communicative satisfaction (see above), plurilithic effects in people’s knowledge and use of English (or any other language) hardly come as a surprise. From a social constructivist perspective, it is interesting to note that a teaching model based on SE is not necessarily in monolithic conflict with the plurilithic effects of learning and communication in English knowledge and use – quite the contrary. Whether SE is a normative barrier to successful learning or a helpful model for pedagogical guidance depends on the teachers’ and learners’ SE orientation. A strict, normative orientation leads to the monolithic/plurilithic conflict described by Hall et al. (2017); an open, social constructivist orientation makes SE part of an overall plurilithic conceptualization of English. It is horses for courses: different pedagogical needs and purposes require different manifestations of plurilithic English, justified and integrated by a social constructivist understanding of learning and communication. A plurilithic orientation in teacher education can only succeed if it addresses the origins of plurilithity in learning and communication. Dimensions of ELF Competence

Against this backdrop, issues of ELF competence development are now addressed with regard to five dimensions: awareness, comprehension, production, communicative interaction and NNS creativity. On each of these dimensions, speakers’ attitudes and requirements, their linguistic– communicative knowledge as well as their strategic knowledge processing and interaction skills are involved in special ways. Overall orientation and monitoring is provided by the speakers’ desire and intention to communicate successfully to their own satisfaction. RQA 6 While reading the passages below about ELF-related competence dimensions, try to assess the feasibility of implementing them in the EFL classroom. From a pedagogical perspective, speakers first of all need to develop awareness of (a) the plurilithic nature of (English) language learning and communication, (b) linguistic–communicative lingua franca manifestations of English and (c) the conditions and requirements of successful ELF communication and speaker satisfaction. To achieve this, it is necessary for them to perceive and evaluate ELF communication in relation to their own

Towards the Reconciliation of ELF and EFL  41

requirements of success. At the same time, these requirements need to be flexible and open for change in reaction to speakers’ ELF exposure and experience. For many ELF speakers with a traditional EFL background, this requires readjusting their internalized focus on correctness within more complex and situation-specific constellations of communicative and communal requirements regarding, e.g. accuracy, fluency, comprehensibility, or group participation. This should go hand in hand with perceiving and accepting themselves as agents of their own communication and learning success. All in all, increased awareness of plurilithity and the conditions and processes of ELF communication strengthens speakers’ linguistic–communicative and cultural tolerance, both for others and for themselves, as a crucial element in their endeavour to make English their own. Awareness-raising tasks include explorations of one’s own and others’ manifestations of genuine ELF communication with regard to language, communication styles and cultural differences, always combined with an assessment concerning efficiency and speaker satisfaction. Reflective activities help learners transform their exploration experience into awareness. These activities can be performed alone, in pairs or in groups. Online support (e.g. a Moodle forum) can be used depending on availability or pedagogical preference. Explicit learning about the plurilithic implications of language learning and communication and, more specifically, about characteristics and possible manifestations of ELF communication and the challenges and strategies involved complements the experiential insights and puts them in a wider research-informed context. With regard to ELF-related comprehension skills, special attention should be given to unfamiliar pronunciation and sentence structures, unclear utterance meanings regarding lexis, proposition and illocution, as well as weak discourse coherence due to lack of explicit cohesion markers or unfamiliar organization. In terms of linguistic–communicative means of expression, comprehension reaches out far beyond what speakers need to master for production purposes. Suitable tasks involve exposure to and practice with pedagogically selected manifestations of genuine ELF communication. Focus should be on the identification and analysis of com­ prehension problems due to unfamiliar linguistic–communicative means of expression, unclear meanings or lack of coherence. Learners need to get accustomed to these phenomena and they also need to develop appropriate and generalizable processing strategies. Further consolidation of the insights gained is achieved through reflective activities, alone or in (online) collaboration with others, as well as through learning about the conditions and processes of comprehension including challenges and strategic solutions. Helping learners develop ELF-related production skills crucially involves pushing them to check their own requirements of successful performance and to adjust them to the demands of authentic communication outside the protected and restricted enclosure of the EFL classroom. This

42  Part 1: Foundations

concerns in particular a more relaxed and functional attitude towards correctness and a stronger focus on fluency and ­communicative-communal success. It is also important to help learners expand and strengthen the communicative power and specialization of their linguistic repertoire with regard to, e.g. politeness, agreeing and disagreeing, topic and conversation management, paraphrasing, negotiating meaning, or handling misunderstandings. In general, learners need to develop and consolidate their ELFspecific ‘express-ability’ (Albl-Mikasa, 2013). Relevant tasks draw on participation in authentic ELF interactions with a balanced focus on communicative function and form, and an open, social constructivist orientation towards the preferred pedagogical (SE) model. Fluency practice should be foregrounded and combined with the identification and analysis of production problems and attention to linguistic means of expression specifically relevant to intercultural ELF communication. Reflective explorations as well as learning about the conditions and strategic processes of successful NNS production, preferably in collaboration with others, further consolidate and enrich the learning experience. Comprehension and production processes are intertwined and complement each other in intercultural communicative interaction. When cooperating in trying to understand and make themselves understood, speakers activate and creatively stretch the linguistic means of expression at their disposal in the manner they deem most appropriate. Their requirements of success provide guidance and, at the same time, need to be mutually aligned or temporarily suspended. Successful interaction between speakers of different linguacultural backgrounds depends on their drive and ability to negotiate an intercultural common ground for coping with cognitive, emotional and behavioural divergences. Empathy, tolerance for ambiguity, and behavioural flexibility are of key importance as well as linguistic–communicative strategies of various kinds from avoiding and handling misunderstandings to mutual accommodation, meaning negotiation and letting it pass. From a pedagogical perspective, it is important to understand that all these attitudes and strategic skills, despite ELFspecific adaptations and uses, are firmly anchored in speakers’ ordinary communicative competence and behaviour. Suitable tasks should be designed around authentic ELF communication with a focus on meaning and community-related communicative intentions, the identification and analysis of problems of communication and the exploration of strategic solutions. Relevant back-up support includes reflective and ‘learning about’ activities. A highly challenging part of ELF competence formation concerns NNS creativity. In traditional EFL contexts, this quality is commonly neglected, with negative effects on learners’ motivation, comfort and learning success. However, being able to make creative use of one’s linguistic–communicative resources is a speaker’s most natural and distinguishing capability. It is at the root of communicative adaptation,

Towards the Reconciliation of ELF and EFL  43

individual learning and language change; and it holds for NSs and NNSs alike. Harmonizing creativity with learning success is the ultimate challenge: ‘learners are creative in spite of themselves, and their nonconformities are taken as evidence of incompetence, for all their appealing inventiveness’ (Widdowson, 2003: 49; also see Seidlhofer & Widdowson, 2009). Being allowed to creatively appropriate the target language is a necessary and constitutive condition for NNSs to develop ‘a feeling of agency and ownership, self-confidence and satisfaction’ (Kohn, 2015: 61). Helping learners to explore and trust their natural NNS creativity is thus of foremost importance in a teaching programme aiming towards ELF competence. As a first task, it is essential for learners to raise their awareness of the need and possibility to reconceptualize their SE orientation (or whichever target orientation they might have adopted) by moving from a strict (normative) to an open (social constructivist) orientation. Such awareness makes it possible for them to adjust their performance requirements, including compliance with their preferred or imposed (SE) target model, to the actual communicative situation. It also provides leeway for learners to reset their requirements to include a dimension of speaker satisfaction. Next are tasks that support the development and practice of strategies for the creative exploration and extension of speakers’ own ­linguistic–communicative resources. Authentic communicative immersion combined with collaborative reflection and mutual assessment is of key importance for developing a critical monitoring sensitivity for communicative success and speaker satisfaction. Learning about the social constructivist nature of communication and language learning provides the necessary theoretical framework. Online Exposure to ELF Communication

Successful development of foreign language learners’ ELF competence requires pedagogically mediated exposure to authentic ELF communication. Online multimedia resources and telecollaboration environments (www.etwinning.net; http://uni-collaboration.eu) offer innovative pedagogical perspectives for communicative and intercultural foreign language learning (Grazzi, 2013; Kohn & Hoffstaedter, 2015; O’Dowd, 2016; Vettorel, 2013). In the following, I will present an approach designed to overcome the communicative limitations of the traditional classroom by pedagogically integrating online access to communicative ELF resources (BACKBONE) and intercultural ELF exchanges (TILA). The BACKBONE website (http://projects.ael.uni-tuebingen.de/backbone) contains corpora of video-recorded interview narratives in various European languages. Included is an ELF corpus with 50 narratives by French, German, Polish, Spanish and Turkish speakers. All interview narratives are available as an online open educational resource (OER) and are provided with video/sound recordings and transcripts annotated with

44  Part 1: Foundations

regard to topics and language characteristics. Flexible search procedures combine annotation-based queries with lexical searches and displays. The ELF narratives represent speakers from different walks of life and exhibit a variety of pronunciations, speaking styles and levels of proficiency. They are thus particularly suitable for awareness raising and comprehension practice. Watching the video recordings and listening to speakers trying to find expression for what they want to say enables users to become aware of different manifestations of ELF performance. What is more, users can evaluate what they see, hear and understand in relation to themselves: they can sharpen their own target language orientation and requirement profile and come to terms with their ELF identity. In a more practical vein, the ELF narratives provide opportunities for repeated listening comprehension, enabling learners to get used to unfamiliar accents and ways of speaking and to develop appropriate strategic solutions. This can be done with or without transcript support depending on scaffolding needs. In addition, both awareness raising and comprehension practice can greatly profit from collaborative reflection and languaging. Production activities such as summary writing or discussions can be integrated as well. RQA 7 Go to the ELF corpus on the BACKBONE website and check out its pedagogical potential for ELF competence development. The EU project TILA (www.tilaproject.eu) sets out to explore the pedagogical potential of telecollaboration for intercultural foreign language learning on secondary school level (12–18 years, A2–C1) (Kohn & Hoffstaedter, 2015). This overall objective rests on two complementary assumptions: (a) successful language learning is essentially driven by communication and (b) telecollaboration facilitates and supports authentic intercultural communication beyond and outside the natural limitations of the physical classroom. In order to provide pupils from different European countries with opportunities for intercultural contact and written as well as spoken communication, blended learning task ensembles are used to enrich the face-to-face classroom approach with asynchronous and synchronous telecollaboration activities including forum, blog, chat, video communication and three-dimensional (3D) virtual world interactions. In addition to the traditional NS-oriented tandem constellation, TILA also offers a pedagogical lingua franca format in which pupils use chat or video communication to talk with each other in pairs or small groups in a shared target language, e.g. English, French, German, or Spanish. Familiar topics such as ‘fashion’, ‘eating habits’ or ‘use of social media’ are chosen to enable pupils to draw on their own experiences, opinions and preferences and thus to make their

Towards the Reconciliation of ELF and EFL  45

conversations authentic for themselves. Telecollaboration access is often from the pupils’ homes instead of from their schools’ computer rooms. This avoids sound problems due to weak or congested school networks and gives pupils more flexibility for making appointments. Most importantly, home access provides the kind of communicative privacy which is necessary for natural communication but generally lacking in a crowded computer room. Under these conditions, all ELF-related competence dimensions, from awareness to comprehension and production to strategic interaction, are activated and explored. Pupils and teachers, including those who initially lean more towards tandem constellations between NSs and NNSs, appreciate the unfolding ELF conversations because of their rich thematic and linguistic diversity, motivational force and empathetic cooperation. Quite obviously, the ELF format holds a high potential for learners to exploit and develop their NNS creativity. By experiencing themselves in interaction with others and by evaluating their own communicative achievements against their communicative intentions and requirements of success, learners manage to attain deeper levels of self-awareness as speakers. While struggling for ways to express themselves, they become sensitive to the need and possibility to creatively explore and extend their own linguistic–communicative resources. By finding themselves in the same NNS boat, they learn to hone their sense for communicative empathy and collaboration (Kohn & Hoffstaedter, 2017). RQA 8 How would you implement intercultural telecollaboration activities in the EFL classroom? The availability and pedagogical potential of online multimedia resources and telecollaboration environments have implications for ELF-aware transformative teacher education. On the one hand, telecollaboration tools and environments should be covered to provide EFL teachers with innovative means for implementing intercultural ELF interactions for their learners. On the other hand, the telecollaborative ELF exchanges between learners are of crucial relevance for teachers themselves since they enable them to explore the pedagogical potential of authentic ELF communication in an EFL context. A comprehensive transformative teacher education programme should thus embrace and integrate five complementary components: (1) awareness of the conditions and processes of ELF communication; (2) a social constructivist revision of language learning and communication with speaker satisfaction as a monitoring force; (3) an open pedagogical orientation towards SE with room for learning as creative appropriation; (4) intercultural telecollaboration for ELF competence development regarding

46  Part 1: Foundations

awareness, comprehension, production, interaction and NNS creativity; and last but not least (5) a ‘teaching in action’ section enabling teachers to explore the pedagogical potential (and limitations) of online intercultural exchanges and to reconsider their pedagogical attitudes and beliefs in the light of their EFL learners’ telecollaborative ELF performance. Synopsis

Arguing from a social constructivist position, this chapter set out to establish a conceptual common ground for a pedagogical reconciliation of EFL and ELF. Emphasis was on the creative and plurilithic nature of language learning and communication, speaker satisfaction as a criterion of communicative success, the roots of ELF strategies in people’s competence for everyday communication, and an open (endonormative) pedagogical orientation towards SE. Objectives and tasks for ELF competence development were described along five dimensions including awareness, comprehension, production, communicative interaction and NNS creativity. Opportunities for learners to engage in authentic intercultural ELF communication were identified as a necessary condition for the successful implementation of an ELF perspective in the EFL classroom. E-learning activities involving online ELF resources and telecollaborative intercultural ELF exchanges were shown to significantly extend the communicative power of the face-to-face foreign language classroom and to provide innovative pedagogical solutions for ELF competence development. Telecollaborative ELF immersion was finally argued to provide a muchneeded ‘teaching in action’ space for EFL teachers as part of a transformative teacher education approach. Answers to Reflective Questions and Activities

RQA 1: Reflect on differences between the classroom and authentic communication outside. What are key criteria of communicative success? Which strategic competences and skills should speaker–learners have at their disposal? RQA 2: Ownership of a car is transferred through the act of buying. Ownership of a language can only be achieved through an act of creative construction. What are the forces and processes involved? RQA 3: Reflect on your EFL practices. Do they penalize, tolerate or encourage learners’ creativity? RQA 4: Consider speaker satisfaction both within and outside the classroom. Are there any differences regarding focus? Think of the communicative dimension of speaker satisfaction and of how to make it part of your classroom approach.

Towards the Reconciliation of ELF and EFL  47

RQA 5: Does your SE orientation provide leeway for the creative force of making a language one’s own? What do you think of learners’ natural right to their own ‘signature’? RQA 6: Think of texts, pictures or sound/video recordings that might help your learners raise their ELF awareness and develop ELF-related comprehension skills. Are there ways – including technological ones – of making ‘natural’ and ‘authentic’ ELF communication available to your learners for practising their production and communicative interaction skills and for exploring their NNS creativity? RQA 7: Follow ‘Corpora & search’ on the BACKBONE website and load the ‘BB English as Lingua Franca’ corpus. Browse the interview narratives (with video files and transcripts) for characteristic ELF usages and comprehension challenges. Try ‘Section search’ (with its ‘Category filter’) to discover ELF speakers’ viewpoints on topics suitable for summary or discussion tasks. Use the learning activities under ‘Resources’ to create exploration paths for your learners. RQA 8: Look at your own experience with online communication tools, e.g. chat or Skype. Consider their pedagogical potential for intercultural ELF collaboration. Check the tools your learners have available (or prefer) either in school or at home. Explore the online telecollaboration sites referred to in the chapter. References Albl-Mikasa, M. (2013) Express-ability in ELF communication. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2 (1), 101–122. Dewey, M. (2012) Towards a post-normative approach: Learning the pedagogy of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (1), 141–170. Grazzi, E. (2013) The Sociocultural Dimension of ELF in the English Classroom. Rome: Anicia. Hall, Ch.J., Wicaksono, R., Liu, S., Qian, Y. and Xiaoqing, X. (2013) English Reconceived: Raising Teachers’ Awareness of English as a ‘Plurilithic’ Resource through an Online Course. London: British Council. Hall, Ch.J., Wicaksono, R., Liu, S., Qian, Y. and Xiaoqing, X. (2017) Exploring teachers’ ontologies of English: Monolithic conceptions of grammar in a group of Chinese teachers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 27 (1), 87–109. James, A. (2005) The challenges of the lingua franca: English in the world and types of variety. In C. Gnutzmann and F. Intemann (eds) The Globalisation of English and the English Classroom (pp. 133–144). Tübingen: Narr. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2011) Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching: Surveys and Studies 44 (3), 281–315. Kohn, K. (2011) English as a lingua franca and the Standard English misunderstanding. In A. De Hower and A. Wilton (eds) English in Europe Today. Sociocultural and Educational Perspectives (pp. 71–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kohn, K. (2015) A pedagogical space for ELF in the English classroom. In Y. Bayyurt and S. Akcan (eds) Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for ELF (pp. 51–67). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

48  Part 1: Foundations

Kohn, K. and Hoffstaedter, P. (2015) Flipping intercultural communication practice: Opportunities and challenges for the foreign language classroom. In J. Colpaert, A. Aerts, M. Oberhofer and M. Gutiérez-Colón Plana (eds) Task Design and CALL (pp. 338–345). Antwerp: Universiteit Antwerpen. Kohn, K. and Hoffstaedter, P. (2017) Learner agency and non-native speaker identity in pedagogical lingua franca conversations: Insights from intercultural telecollaboration in foreign language education. Computer Assisted Language Learning 30 (5), 351–367. Leung, C. (2013) The ‘social’ in English language teaching: Abstracted norms versus situated enactments. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2 (2), 283–313. O’Dowd, R. (2016) Learning from the past and looking to the future of online intercultural exchange. In R. O’Dowd and T. Lewis (eds) Online Intercultural Exchange: Policy, Pedagogy, Practice (pp. 273–294). London: Routledge. Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seidlhofer, B. and Widdowson, H. (2009) Conformity and creativity in ELF and learner English. In M. Albl-Mikasa, S. Braun and S. Kalina (eds) Dimensions of Second Language Research (pp. 93–107). Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Sifakis, N. (2014) ELF awareness as an opportunity for change. A transformative perspective for ESOL teacher education. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3 (2), 317–335. Sifakis, N. and Bayyurt, Y. (2015) Insights from ELF and WE in teacher training in Greece and Turkey. World Englishes 34 (3), 471–484. Swan, M. (2012) ELF and EFL: Are they different? Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (2), 379–389. Vettorel, P. (2013) ELF in international school exchanges: Stepping into the role of ELF users. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2 (1), 147–173. Widdowson, H. (2003) Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. (2013) ELF and EFL: What’s the difference? Comments on Michael Swan. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2 (1), 187–193.

Further reading Dewey, M. (2012) Towards a post-normative approach: Learning the pedagogy of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (1), 141–170. An argument for an ELF-informed reassessment of the principles underlying ELT practices and the discussion of case study insights for teacher education. Hall, Ch.J., Wicaksono, R., Liu, S., Qian, Y. and Xiaoqing, X. (2013) English Reconceived: Raising Teachers’ Awareness of English as a ‘Plurilithic’ Resource through an Online Course. London: British Council. Description of an open-access online course helping teachers to become aware of the essential diversity characterising the communicative use and learning of English around the world and to better understand the resulting pedagogical implications. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2011) Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching: Surveys and Studies 44 (3), 281–315. A compact yet comprehensive overview account of main trends and key issues in ELF research including defining and describing ELF, business English and academic English, ELF-oriented English teaching and the role of attitudes.

Towards the Reconciliation of ELF and EFL  49

Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A thorough discussion of the development and current state of ELF research with particular emphasis on the need for a reconceptualization of English against the backdrop of the standard English ideology, the dynamics of communicative use and interaction, (English) language learning as creative appropriation and implications for ELT. Sifakis, N. (2014) ELF awareness as an opportunity for change. A transformative perspective for ESOL teacher education. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3 (2), 317–335. An argument for a transformative teacher education approach enabling teachers of English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) to critically consider and change their beliefs about the pedagogical implications of ELF. Swan, M. (2012) ELF and EFL: Are they different? Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (2), 379–389; Widdowson, H. (2013) ELF and EFL: What’s the difference? Comments on Michael Swan. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2 (1), 187–193. A debate that touches on key issues marking the rift – and misunderstanding – between EFL and ELF including the pedagogical status of ‘mistakes’ and SE, the nature of ELF between variety and use, and implications of ELF for EFL. Widdowson, H. (2003) Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A critical exploration of issues relevant for a deeper understanding of CLT, including in particular the ownership of English, EIL, the appropriate language for learning, and pedagogical design.

Part 2 ELF in EFL Pedagogy

4 ELF-aware Teaching in Practice: A Teacher’s Perspective Stefania Kordia

General aims of this chapter

Drawing on the author’s personal experience in integrating ELF in her teaching practice, this chapter aims at providing an insight into the implementation of ELF-aware teaching in EFL classrooms. It is mainly addressed to in-service teachers of all grade levels, but the targeted audience also includes ELF teacher educators. Upon completing this chapter, the reader will have deepened their knowledge about the challenges involved in becoming an ELF-aware teacher and will have gained a comprehensive picture of three original ELF-aware teaching activities. Expected outcomes

On completing this chapter, you should be able to: • define ELF-aware teaching and summarize its key principles; • identify some of the thoughts and feelings one may have while engaging with ELF; • identify some of the practical difficulties one may face while trying to integrate ELF in his or her context; • explain how ELF was integrated in three specific ELF-aware teaching activities; • discuss the extent to which these activities are relevant to your own context; • develop a clearer view of how you could implement ELF-aware teaching in your classroom. Key concepts

• ELF-aware teaching. • Critical reflection. • Action research. 53

54  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

Introduction

Offering a fresh way of perceiving the successful communicator in English-medium interactions, the developments in ELF research since its beginning in the late 1990s have inevitably raised serious implications as far as ELT is concerned, especially in settings where the EFL paradigm is typically adopted (for a review see Jenkins et al., 2011). Special emphasis has been placed in this regard on the need for a conceptual shift in ELT from prioritising NS SE to focusing on the richness, the dynamism and the complexities of lingua franca communication (e.g. Dewey, 2012). Along with the on-going study of the linguistic nature of ELF, a new research agenda has thus been recently developed so as to explore what this shift may entail and how it could eventually be achieved. To this end, the notion of ELF awareness and the corresponding concept of ELF-aware teaching have been put forward in the field of teacher education (Sifakis, 2014; Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2018) to describe the process of empowering teachers, on the one hand, to identify the implications of ELF for ELT and, on the other, to address these implications by integrating ELF in teaching and learning to the extent that this is appropriate and relevant to their local context. On this basis, a number of ELF-aware teacher education programmes have been held (e.g. Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2015; Lopriore, 2016), highlighting the significance of critical reflection and action research in terms of modifying one’s teaching practices to respond to the current realities in English language use around the world. Nonetheless, while trying to make sense of the construct of ELF and decide on its applicability in one’s own context, a teacher may face several psychological and pedagogical challenges complicating his or her active engagement with ELF. Such challenges might seem less intimidating and, perhaps, easier to overcome if one is presented with examples of what Sifakis and Bayyurt call ‘applied’ ELF (Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2018: 464), namely, ELF-aware implementations in various teaching and learning contexts which are preferably documented by teachers themselves. Aiming, therefore, at inspiring other teachers and, hopefully, facilitating their own experimentation with ELF, I discuss, in what follows, my own experience as a participant of the ‘ELF-TEd Project’, an online ELFaware teacher development programme that has been running at Boğaziçi University in Istanbul, Turkey since 2012 (Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2015). At first, I briefly present the fundamental principles of ELF-aware teaching based on the way it is currently perceived. Then, after describing my teaching context, I provide data from the reflective journal I kept during the project which illustrate some of the most significant psychological challenges I faced throughout it and how I eventually managed to cope with them. Afterwards, the discussion focuses on how I tried to integrate ELF in my classroom. In this respect, I present three ELF-aware activities I designed as part of the action research I carried out in the framework of

ELF-aware Teaching in Practice: A Teacher’s Perspective  55

the project. These activities are discussed with reference to their relevance to ELF research, their usefulness to my learners and the practical difficulties I encountered while designing them. The chapter ends with a retrospective view of my experience, highlighting the factors that, to my mind, could have made it somewhat less challenging. Given the purposes of this chapter, the rest of the discussion is addressed to EFL teachers who are about to embark on or have already begun their ELF-aware journey. Five reflective questions have been included, encouraging the reader to reflect on the extent to which the issues discussed here are relevant to their own situation. The Process of ELF-aware Teaching

RQA 1 Before you read on, think about the shift in ELT mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, from prioritising SE to focusing on the way NNS use the language to communicate with each other. Would you say that this shift involves using methods or techniques which are different from those that are currently used for teaching EFL? Provide two or three reasons supporting your opinion. When you finish, read the comment at the end of the chapter, which provides an answer to this question from an ELF-aware perspective and, then, continue reading below. The emphasis placed on the function of ELF and on its implications for teaching and learning has been so great in recent years that more and more of us, i.e. teachers, are willing to familiarize ourselves with the construct of ELF, make meaning out of it and explore its pedagogical potential. This is precisely where the usefulness of ELF-aware teaching lies, in that it provides a structured framework that can guide one’s involvement with ELF. As Sifakis and Bayyurt (2018) clarify, this concept essentially refers to: the process of engaging with ELF research and developing one’s own understanding of the ways in which it can be integrated in one’s classroom context, through a continuous process of critical reflection, design, implementation and evaluation of instructional activities that reflect and localize one’s interpretation of the ELF construct. (Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2018: 459)

This definition turns our attention to several issues that are highly important from an ELT perspective. First of all, it underlines that ELF-aware teaching is a developmental process, rather than, for instance, a new ELT method or approach seeking, perhaps, to replace EFL teaching. Instead, drawing on the current conceptualisation of ELF as an inherently fluid means of communication which is ‘beyond description’ (Jenkins, 2015: 55)

56  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

and, hence, not teachable the way that standard varieties are, Sifakis and Bayyurt focus on the possibilities of integrating ELF within EFL, namely, of enriching current practices with insights gained from ELF research. This, primarily, depends, on the one hand, on how exactly one perceives the construct of ELF in general and, on the other, on the extent to which the integration of ELF in a specific context is appropriate, necessary and sufficiently feasible. Developing your own understanding of ELF and deciding upon its applicability in your local context, however, is easier said than done. As the above definition illustrates, engaging in critical reflection is crucial in order to determine how the theory of ELF, as well as the actual findings of ELF research, relate, for instance, to the function of English in the particular area, the needs and wants of the specific learners, the curriculum for English teaching, and, of course, your own, as well as other ELT stakeholders’ (e.g. learners’), perceptions, beliefs and attitudes about issues pertaining to the NSs and the NNSs of English, the notion of error, the role of the teacher in the language classroom and so forth (Sifakis, 2014). In order, then, to see how exactly ELF can impact teaching and learning, Sifakis and Bayyurt highlight the significance of action research through the design, implementation and evaluation of instructional activities which integrate elements from ELF research in a way that is relevant to one’s local context. This is indeed important so as to see what ‘works’ and what doesn’t in practice and, in this way, reach informed conclusions about the role that ELF should play in one’s classroom. It could well be argued, therefore, that implementing ELF-aware teaching can be a fairly challenging endeavour. Nevertheless, it is not impossible. In the following section, I describe my own ELF-aware experience, highlighting the various difficulties I faced throughout this process and the way I tried to overcome them. ELF-aware Teaching in Practice

My own ELF-aware journey began in 2012, when, out of sheer curiosity, I enrolled, as mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, at the ‘ELF-TEd Project’. I was about 32 years old at the time, I had already been teaching English for 10 years and I had just completed my Master’s degree with flying colours. My participation at the ‘ELF-TEd’ lasted for approximately nine months and, in line with the fundamental principles of ELFaware teaching illustrated earlier, I was engaged in studying a relatively large part of the literature that had been published up to this point on EIL and ELF, responding to a series of progressively more demanding reflective questions and, finally, carrying out action research in my classroom (for a description of the ‘ELF-TEd’ syllabus, see Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2015). Given the significance of the context in ELF-aware teaching, my narrative begins with a description of my teaching situation.

ELF-aware Teaching in Practice: A Teacher’s Perspective  57

My teaching context

During my participation in the ‘ELF-TEd’, I worked at a state primary school of a coastal town on the island of Crete, Greece. In fact, even though English has no official role in this country, it enjoys an exceptionally high status among Greeks as it plays an increasingly significant role in various domains of their social and professional life. Indeed, being (besides Greek) the language that people use more regularly as a lingua franca either for international or intranational communication (e.g. at work or on the internet), it is generally considered to be the most useful language one needs to speak (Sifakis, 2009) and, therefore, a great number of people have, at least, a working knowledge of English.1 This is especially true in popular tourist destinations, such as Crete, where the need for using English in business settings is even more imperative. As a result, special emphasis is placed on English language instruction, the starting point for which is set at the first grade of primary school. Despite, though, the extensive use of ELF in the country, there is a firm attachment to SE (mainly BrE) and the ‘native speaker ideal’ (see, e.g. Andreou & Galantomos, 2009), which is reflected in, and possibly enhanced by, the ‘culture of certification’ that prevails in Greece. More specifically, aiming at eventually obtaining a certificate of language proficiency from acclaimed standardized examination boards, the vast majority of pupils of all levels also learn English at private language institutes or through one-to-one tuition. Teaching in these settings is, inevitably, norm-oriented and there is a widespread belief that it is more effective than teaching at state schools (Sifakis, 2009), where preparing learners for such examinations is not prescribed. Under these circumstances, even state school teachers, including myself before the ‘ELF-TEd’ (see below), try, in general, to focus their teaching on language accuracy, perhaps in an attempt to raise their professional status. On the other hand, the official curriculum for ELT at state primary and secondary schools adopts a more balanced approach. 2 Along with focusing on the normative structures and functions of the language, it highlights the significance of intelligibility, the principles of multilingualism, as well as the development of skills and competences essential in establishing effective communication both with NSs and NNSs. Speaking from personal experience, however, such elements are not reflected in the textbooks used at state schools, where British linguistic and cultural norms are prioritized, thus reinforcing the NS-oriented mentality in ELT. In this light, my own primary school class in Crete consisted of 22 12-year-old learners who attended the sixth grade. Their level of competence ranged from A1+ to A2+ according to the CEFR and the majority of them had been learning English for approximately four years both at the primary school, in the morning, and at private language institutions, in the afternoon. All of them had also been learning French and/or German (which are compulsory state school subjects), while seven of the learners

58  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

were bilinguals in Greek and Albanian or Serbian. In fact, before entering the ‘ELF-TEd’, this information about my learners was all I had available and, to my mind, it was more than enough so as to plan my teaching according primarily to what my textbook dictated. Nevertheless, the needs, wants and perceptions of learners with regard to English are, as mentioned earlier, highly significant. Therefore, the first phase of my ELF-aware action research involved carrying out two wholeclass discussions with my learners and three focus-group interviews (of seven and eight learners each time) in order to gain a clearer picture of the extent to which ELF was relevant to my teaching context. More specifically, my questions to the learners revolved around four main topics: (1) the ways they used English outside the classroom, including the contexts within which they usually employed the language and the problems they faced in their interactions; (2) the contexts in which they expected they would use English in the future; (3) whether, in their opinion, the English language belongs only to its NSs; (4) the ways in which NS-oriented teaching could, in their view, be modified to make the learning process more interesting and pleasant. To ensure coherence and clarity throughout the rest of the chapter, the most important findings are described below (also see Kordia, 2015). One of the major findings was that, despite their young age, the learners reported using English outside the classroom environment to a large extent, while, for example, surfing the internet, playing interactive online games or discussing with tourists who had visited their island. Either faceto-face or online, their English-medium communication, in fact, involved mainly other NNSs. As they stated, however, they often faced difficulty in reaching mutual understanding with NNSs, especially when their ‘accent was heavy’. Overcoming obstacles related to intelligibility and comprehensibility was, they argued, very important for their future interactions as well. As far as they could see, most of these interactions would occur at college, at work (in Greece or abroad), on the internet and while travelling around the world, and they would involve, again, mainly NNSs. Furthermore, the learners displayed a surprisingly open-minded attitude towards the issue of the ownership of the language. Drawing possibly on their background world knowledge and their experience in using English in multicultural settings, they stated that claiming that a language belongs only to its NSs is not ‘fair’ and could even be considered as a ‘racist’ action. Instead, being able to ‘express oneself successfully’ was, to most of them, a lot more important than accuracy, provided that ‘everyone understands’ the meaning intended to be expressed. ‘We [i.e. NNSs] also have rights’, as a learner, quite insightfully, observed. On this basis, the learners’ views about teaching and learning were just as significant. All of them admitted that striving to produce the sounds /ʃ/, /tʃ/ and /ə/ (which do not exist in Greek) ‘correctly’ made them feel ‘anxious’ and ‘stressed’, while being exposed ‘only’ to BrE and culture was ‘extremely boring’. Therefore, they argued that learning about other cultures and the way other NNSs

ELF-aware Teaching in Practice: A Teacher’s Perspective  59

used English would be quite interesting, making their lessons ‘different … in the good sense of the word’. Of course, until I carried out that part of my action research near the end of the ‘ELF-TEd’, little had I known about how exactly my learners used English outside the classroom and how they felt about the issue of the ownership of English and the way they had been learning English. In fact, before entering the project, I was completely unaware of the construct of ELF altogether. RQA 2 Think about your own teaching situation. What similarities and differences can you spot between your context and mine? Make a list in your reflective journal noting down as many similarities and differences as you can. If you need some extra prompt, read my comment at the end of the chapter and, when you finish, continue reading below. Engaging in critical reflection

Reading journal articles and book chapters so as to develop my own understanding of ELF and determine its pedagogical potential was a challenging task. It involved critical reflection on the particular characteristics of my context and, most importantly, on my assumptions and convictions about English and ELT, which stirred up strong, and often conflicting, feelings inside me. Given the fact that the ‘ELF-TEd’ was an online programme involving mainly self-study, I sometimes felt quite tired, let alone ‘lonely’ and ‘isolated’, since I was not aware of how the other participants experienced this process. To make matters worse, the achievements I had accomplished up to that point, including, as I mentioned earlier, a Masters’ degree, had raised my self-esteem so much that, at times, it was extremely hard even to admit to myself that I had difficulties first in making sense of what I read and, then, in putting my thoughts into words. In order to shed more light on the challenges I faced while engaging with ELF and the way I tried to cope with them, a brief, yet profound, glimpse into my reflections is offered below. The following quotes have been extracted from the reflective journal I kept throughout the programme and, although they have been condensed due to space constraints, they are presented here in the order I originally wrote them. RQA 3 Go through the following quotes from my reflective journal. (a) Make a list of all the ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ feelings I had while writing them. Can you identify any other feeling I might have had which is not explicitly mentioned in my reflections? 

60  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

(b) Based on these quotes, what do you think were the main factors that helped me overcome the ‘negative’ feelings I had throughout this process? (c) Have you ever had similar ‘negative’ thoughts and feelings? How did you/would you try to overcome them?  Take notes in your own reflective journal. When you finish, read my comment at the end of the chapter and, then, continue reading below. Quote 1

This was written at the early stages of the programme, while engaging with literature on EIL. If a learner needs to communicate with NS only, then, it’s ‘easy’, you will teach him/her the corresponding variety [British English, in my case], but if s/he needs to communicate with everybody, what do you do? You, obviously, opt for teaching a ‘global language’. And how exactly do you do that […]? I feel rather overwhelmed […]. If EFL instruction aims at ‘producing’ students capable of communicating in various linguistic and social contexts, then, what makes ELF different from EFL? Is ELF a ‘branch’, let’s say, of EFL, requiring a purer or more extreme CLT methodology? Quote 2

This was written after reading about how the distinction between the NS and the NNS is viewed nowadays. The more our student sounded (or acted) like a native speaker, the more effective our teaching was considered to be. This of course applied (or still applies …) to my own teaching context […]. I think I have been brainwashed […]. What kind of ‘real life communicative situations’ have we been talking about? BBC world news and Reader’s Digest stories? That’s exposing [the learners] to NS contexts of use alone, when 80 or so percent of communication nowadays takes place in lingua franca contexts […]. I am still quite confused concerning the way that this could really be put into practice but, nonetheless, I find it pretty amazing. Quote 3

This was written near the middle of the ‘ELF-TEd’, while reading about the findings of ELF research on phonology and lexicogrammar. I am VERY surprised […]. Our approach to teaching [pronunciation], grammar and vocabulary should be redirected if our aim is to prepare students to communicate effectively in lingua franca contexts […]. That would be highly beneficial not only for my [own] students, given that they will need to communicate effectively in lingua franca contexts in the future but also for myself in terms of the ethical satisfaction associated with ‘doing your job right’ […]. Even though I always considered my

ELF-aware Teaching in Practice: A Teacher’s Perspective  61

teaching to be aiming at developing communicative competence, I never really helped my students communicate effectively with either native or non-native speakers, which, as I see it now, is quite disappointing, if not unprofessional. Quote 4

This was written after receiving information about the research findings on pragmatics. Variability, fluidity, creativity […]. I found these examples particularly interesting […]. I could perhaps expose [my learners] to various interactions [among NNSs] and this way elicit the various negotiation strategies that successful communicators use in real life […]. The incorporation of an ELF component in my teaching practices feels more essential as my knowledge on this issue grows. The way I see it now, the very first step involves [finding out] what exactly my students think about all this […]. I think that their perceptions about the language are quite similar to [the ones I had], that they consider [SE] to be the only ‘correct’ alternative. Quote 5

This was written near the end of the programme, while preparing my ELF-aware action research. To me, ELF is the language […] that is used internationally by people with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds; it is a language that is not ‘stable’, not ‘permanent’, it is constantly reconstructed while speakers negotiate the meaning to reach mutual understanding … that’s why it’s so difficult to determine strict rules concerning its structure, and that’s why we [i.e. teachers, need to] focus on the strategies that speakers employ during their communication […].

As illustrated in these quotes, developing my own understanding of ELF, as well as of the link between ELF and ELT, was not possible till near the end of the programme, when I had a comprehensive view of the research that had been carried out up to that point. Of course, the following phase of the programme entailed putting theory into practice, which was probably an even more difficult endeavour. Engaging in action research

As I highlighted while describing my teaching context, the first phase of my action research involved exploring the way that my learners used English in their personal lives, as well as their views about the issue of the ownership of English and my NS-oriented teaching. In fact, the findings of that part of the research were particularly useful in several perspectives. First, I realised that my learners’ views about the ownership of the language were a lot more open-minded and, dare I say, more ‘revolutionary’ than I thought (see Quote 4 above in

62  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

relation, e.g. to their comment about racism mentioned earlier), which, in my opinion, meant that promoting the stereotype of the NS in teaching and learning was not appropriate any more. Moreover, by finding out about the various contexts within which the learners used English in their personal lives, my view of them as users of the language changed significantly. They were no longer a class of students who needed to use ELF only ‘in the future’ (see Quote 3) but, rather, they were a group of real ELF speakers, already employing the language for their own communicative purposes. The fact that they often faced difficulties when communicating with other NNSs was highly important in this respect. To my mind, it meant that I needed to find a way to integrate issues pertaining to intelligibility, comprehensibility, multilingualism and multiculturalism in my teaching practices, which was also consistent not only with the learners’ views about the modifications that were necessary in my teaching (such as exposing them to NNS discourse), but also with the guidelines of my curriculum and the way that English is generally used in Greece. To this end, I initially went through my textbook to find out whether a task included therein could be modified to incorporate an ELF-aware perspective. Nevertheless, since, at that time, none of the tasks of the textbook seemed appropriate enough, I designed and implemented an original lesson plan which consisted of three ELF-aware activities (see Appendix 4.1). The first major decision I had to make while designing this lesson plan involved, of course, determining the overall aims I wanted to achieve. Taking into consideration the needs and wants of my learners, as well as my own understanding of the construct of ELF (see Quote 5), this lesson aimed at exposing my learners to real ELF discourse and raising their awareness of the ways that NNSs negotiate the meaning to establish effective communication. Therefore, it was considered more prudent to place emphasis first on aural skills. Besides highlighting the significant role of the listener in ELF interactions, exposing my learners to ELF in the safe classroom environment, I thought, would also help them somehow overcome their ‘fear’ of real-life communication with NNSs, which, of course, could be (and indeed was, see Kordia, 2015) attempted later on in a more systematic way through another ELF-aware lesson focusing on oral (speaking) skills. RQA 4 In light of the discussion provided so far, think about your own teaching context. (a) Are the aims of my lesson, as illustrated above, in any way relevant to your teaching situation? Provide as many arguments as you can to support your opinion.

ELF-aware Teaching in Practice: A Teacher’s Perspective  63

(b) Based on your experience as a teacher, what kind of activities would you design to achieve the aims illustrated above? When you finish, read my comment at the end of the chapter and, then, continue reading below. Before deciding how exactly the aims of my ELF-aware lesson would be achieved in practice, I had to select the listening input that my learners would be exposed to. After searching online for several hours, I eventually decided to use parts of two videos I found at a website containing a pedagogic corpus of ELF. 3 Two speakers were interviewed in the videos, Fanny, who came from France, and Başak, who came from Turkey (the origin of the ‘Reporter’ is unknown). This decision was, in fact, very difficult to make, given the plethora of videos available online, and was based on the following criteria I had in mind: (1) authenticity, referring, in my view, to the extent to which spontaneous ELF discourse was displayed in the videos, demonstrating the significance of intelligibility and the use of a wide range of negotiation strategies (e.g. repetition); (2) relevance, referring to the extent to which the content was relevant to the learners’ age, personal interests (e.g. travelling) and wants (e.g. lack of emphasis on NS discourse); (3) level of difficulty, referring to the extent to which the input was comprehensible enough to my learners; (4) practicality, referring to practical aspects such as high-quality recording and availability of transcription. Nevertheless, designing activities based on those videos required a lot more effort and critical thinking, especially when we consider that other ELF-aware activities I could perhaps have drawn on had not been made available yet. The greatest challenge involved figuring out how my own perception of ELF could be translated into teaching practice, or, in other words, determining what exactly my learners would do at these activities that would be useful to them as users of the language. On this basis, the activities I designed followed a typical pre-/while-/ post-listening sequence. The pre-listening activity (about 10 minutes) involved carrying out a whole-class discussion so as to motivate the learners and activate their background knowledge on ELF communication. More specifically, the learners were encouraged to reflect on their own experience in communicating with NSs and, mainly, NNSs and identify the aspects that made their interactions interesting and, in any way, useful to discuss in class. Indeed, while sharing their wealth of experience, they managed to describe in a simple, yet quite accurate way several key elements of ELF communication, including the occurrence of forms that deviate from NS norms and the significance of cooperating with one’s interlocutor (e.g. through paraphrase or body language) to maintain the flow of conversation. Reflecting, in this way, on their personal experience was, I thought, highly important in terms of developing a sense of themselves as actual users, rather than merely as learners, of the language

64  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

which would enable them to grasp the significance of the issues the following activities revolved around to a larger extent. In this regard, the first while-listening activity (about 15 minutes; see Appendix 4.1) was, at first sight at least, a simple multiple-matching activity where the learners had to watch the videos and match specific information they had listened to with the name of the speaker who had provided it. The purpose, though, was not just to check listening comprehension. Instead, the activity aimed primarily at raising the learners’ awareness of the significant role that, in my view, pronunciation plays in establishing intelligible communication. Therefore, after completing this activity (which, in fact, was quite easy for them), whole-class discussion took place again, focusing this time on whether Fanny’s or Başak’s pronunciation prevented them from understanding what they were saying in the videos. In fact, they argued that, even though the speakers’ ‘strange’ pronunciations did not cause serious problems to them, Fanny was much easier to understand than Başak as they had been learning French at school and her accent was not ‘new’ to them. A wonderful opportunity thus arose for me to highlight the significance of familiarity with different NNS accents, which, to be frank, had not crossed my mind when selecting these videos. Having discussed various crucial aspects of ELF communication, the second while-listening activity (about 40 minutes; see Appendix 4.2), which was definitely more demanding than the previous ones, aimed at helping the learners notice the way that the speakers in the videos used the language to negotiate the meaning. To this end, they had to watch the videos again and carry out several multiple-choice or gap-filling questions, which asked them to focus on specific parts of the interviews illustrating a particular feature of ELF communication each time (e.g. the use of repetition, see below). In fact, this was the activity that required more critical thinking on my behalf since, along with deepening their understanding of ELF, I also wanted to help them, on the one hand, raise their awareness of the attitudes that people, including themselves, may have about ELF and, on the other, take a small step towards developing their own skills and competences as users of ELF. To this end, the questions referring, for instance, to Fanny’s interview first drew the learners’ attention to the fact that the Reporter refrained from correcting her linguistic ‘errors’ (Question 1), which offered an excellent opportunity for promoting their tolerance towards ‘errors’ in general. After identifying the Reporter’s actual reaction, the learners were thus encouraged to reflect on the reasons underlying his decision (e.g. he might not have wanted to offend Fanny), the various feelings people may have when it comes to ‘errors’ (e.g. contempt) and, even, the effect that ‘errors’ may have in various contexts (e.g. insignificant effect during informal communication and a serious effect when taking a speaking exam leading to certification). In this light, the rest of the multiple-choice questions based on Fanny’s interview (Questions 2 and 3) engaged the learners in identifying the reasons why specific utterances were repeated to keep the conversation flowing.

ELF-aware Teaching in Practice: A Teacher’s Perspective  65

In fact, these questions were, in my view, particularly important not only in terms of highlighting the various functions that repetition may have in ELF communication (in this case, asking for help and demonstrating solidarity), but also in terms of helping the learners develop a clearer view of how they could employ this communication strategy in real life for their own communicative purposes. Therefore, they were also urged to draw, once again, on their background knowledge and engage in a relevant follow-up role play. Taking on, in this game, the role of Fanny and the Reporter, they were thus asked to see for themselves how they could repeat the same utterances in such a way so that the options that had been ‘wrong’ at these multiplechoice questions could be ‘correct’ if the speaker wanted to use repetition for a different reason (e.g. to express confusion or disappointment). All in all, this ELF-aware lesson aimed primarily at raising the learners’ awareness of the most significant aspects of ELF communication. Of course, one lesson is never enough; this was just the very first step in my attempt to integrate ELF in my teaching practices, a task which seems increasingly more essential in the Greek context. RQA 5 Think about the ELF-aware lesson presented in this chapter. (a) Focus on Questions 4, 5 and 6 (Appendix 4.2) which refer to Başak’s interview. In what ways has ELF been integrated in these questions in your opinion? (b) Based on your own understanding of ELF, what advantages and disadvantages can you identify from the implementation of these ELFaware activities in your own context?  When you finish, read my comment at the end of the chapter and, then, continue reading below. Concluding Remarks

After providing a glimpse into my experience in implementing ELFaware teaching, it may have become apparent that the impact that this experience had on me as a teacher and as a person in general was more than important. Indeed, those months may have been particularly difficult, both physically and cognitively, but the benefits in terms of the ethical satisfaction associated with ‘doing your job right’, as I had mentioned in my reflections, made it worth the effort. Looking back at my experience, however, I cannot help but highlight how useful it would have been for me if, during that process, I participated in a network of teachers – a community, let’s say, of ELF practitioners – sharing views, questions and concerns on pedagogical issues related to ELF. That, I think, might have made my own experience somewhat less

66  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

challenging and, perhaps, even more constructive than it was. This is precisely what the overarching aim of this chapter has been: to encourage teachers to engage with ELF, document their experience and share it with the rest of us. It would definitely be less ‘lonely’ this way. Synopsis

This chapter aimed at providing an insight into the way I tried to implement ELF-aware teaching in my language classroom. To that end, data from my reflective journal were presented, which illustrate that I faced various challenges while engaging with the construct of ELF. Special emphasis was placed on the way I integrated ELF in my teaching practices through three ELF-aware activities. These activities were designed taking into consideration the particular requirements of my local context, which was described in detail. My experience suggests that, even though quite challenging, ELFaware teaching may be highly beneficial for teachers and learners alike. Answers to Reflective Questions and Activities

RQA 1: ELF-aware teaching does not involve adopting any different techniques or practices that are different from those of the various well-established methodologies in ELT (e.g. CLT, task-based-learning, etc.). Instead, it involves enriching one’s current practices with elements from ELF research in a way that it is relevant to one’s local context (in terms of e.g. pronunciation teaching, error correction, etc.). RQA 2:Here are some questions you could address while comparing your context with mine: Is English used in your country as extensively as in Greece? What purposes does English-medium communication serve? Do people, including teachers, place as much emphasis on SE as Greek people do? What role does SE play in the curriculum and the courseware that you use? About your learners in particular, do they use English outside the classroom as often as my learners? In which contexts do they do so or will do so in the future? Would you say that their views about the ownership of English, as well as about NS-oriented teaching, are similar to the views that my learners expressed? RQA 3: Besides the feelings I mention (e.g. confusion, disappointment), I also felt self-conscious and rather angry (Quotes 1 and 2), as well as embarrassed and even hurt (Quote 3), especially when realising that my past teaching practices had not been as effective as I thought. These feelings often overlapped with ‘positive’ ones like astonishment and enthusiasm (Quotes 3 and 4), especially when thinking about the future. Reflecting on relatively ‘simpler’ issues (pertaining e.g. to EIL) before engaging with more complex ELF-related issues, and, of course, being

ELF-aware Teaching in Practice: A Teacher’s Perspective  67

determined to ‘do my job right’ played a significant role in regaining my self-confidence as a teacher. RQA 4: The extent to which the aims of my lesson are relevant to your teaching situation largely depends on the particular characteristics of your local context (see your responses to RQA 2). If, for instance, your learners are younger than mine and/or they do not use English so frequently, your first ELF-aware lesson could aim at raising their awareness of the reasons why English is used in their country and/or in the whole world, e.g. through a project. Likewise, if your learners are older and, perhaps, already employing ELF, e.g. at work, your first lesson could aim at helping them identify the problems they might be facing and the ways in which they usually try to cope with them, e.g. through role-playing based on their real-life experiences. RQA 5: In my view, these are also awareness-raising questions focusing on the role of pronunciation in ensuring intelligibility (Questions 4 and 5) and the role of code-switching as a strategy facilitating communication (Question 6). A significant disadvantage I can identify is the fact that this was a quite demanding lesson for my young learners. Even though they enjoyed it very much, they argued it was rather tiring to carry out the second while-listening activity. Notes (1) According to a Special Eurobarometer Report (2012), 51% of the Greek respondents argue they can speak English well enough so as to have a conversation, while the European Union average is 38% (available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/ archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf). (2) During my participation at the ‘ELF-TEd’ in 2012, the Cross-thematic Curriculum Framework for Modern Languages, including English, was used at state schools (a  synopsis is available at http://www.pi-schools.gr/download/programs/depps/ english/14th.pdf). This curriculum has recently been updated, emphasising the social dimensions of the language even more. (3) The BACKBONE Project (available at http://projects.ael.uni-tuebingen.de/backbone/ moodle/).

References Andreou, G. and Galantomos, I. (2009) The native speaker ideal in foreign language teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 6 (2), 200–208. Bayyurt, Y. and Sifakis, N. (2015) Developing an ELF-aware pedagogy: Insights from a self-education programme. In P. Vettorel (ed.) New Frontiers in Teaching and Learning English (pp. 55–76). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Dewey, M. (2012) Towards a post-normative approach: Learning the pedagogy of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (1), 141–170. Jenkins, J. (2015) Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2 (3), 49–85. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2011) Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching 44, 281–315.

68  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

Kordia, S. (2015) From TEFL to ELF-aware pedagogy: Lessons learned from an actionresearch project in Greece. In K. Dikilitaş, R. Smith and W. Trotman (eds) TeacherResearchers in Action (pp. 235–261). Kent: IATEFL Research S.I.G. Lopriore, L. (2016) ELF in teacher education: A way and ways. In L. Lopriore and E. Grazzi (eds) Intercultural Communication: New Perspectives from ELF (pp. 167– 187). Rome: Roma TrE-Press. Sifakis, N.C. (2009) Challenges in teaching ELF in the periphery: The Greek context. ELT Journal 63 (3), 230–237. Sifakis, N.C. (2014) ELF awareness as an opportunity for change: A transformative ­perspective for ESOL teacher education. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3 (2), 317–335. Sifakis, N.C. and Bayyurt, Y. (2018) ELF-aware teaching, learning and teacher development. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds) The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 456–467). London: Routledge.

Further reading Murray, N. (2012) English as a lingua franca and the development of pragmatic competence. ELT Journal 66 (3), 318–326. In one of the first articles to address the pedagogical implications of ELF, Murray discusses various types of strategies which can be used to promote the learners’ pragmatic competence. Wen, Q. (2012) English as a lingua franca: A pedagogical perspective. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (2), 371 – 376. In this article, Wen discusses how ELF can be integrated in EFL teaching and learning in China, as well as other expanding-circle settings, by adopting a balanced context-sensitive approach.

Appendix 4.1

ELF-aware Teaching in Practice: A Teacher’s Perspective  69

Appendix 4.2

70  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

ELF-aware Teaching in Practice: A Teacher’s Perspective  71

5 Developing an ELF-aware Intercultural Purpose in the Thai University Context Sutraphorn Tantiniranat and Richard Fay

General aims of this chapter

This chapter is designed to help ELT practitioners reconsider the cultural and intercultural aspects of their teaching when the possibilities of an ELF-aware approach are considered for their EFL context. In particular, the chapter seeks to bring together two closely related sets of pedagogic thinking regarding ELT – namely, possibilities arising from discussions of: an ELF-approach and an EIC purpose. As argued elsewhere (e.g. Fay et al., 2016; Sifakis & Fay, 2011), we see ELF and EIC as complementary starting points for conceptualising the English language phenomena for which students are being prepared. Whereas the former term might be seen as more language-focused (i.e. focusing on how the language is being used … as a lingua franca) and the latter more communication-focused (i.e. focusing on the purposes for which the language is being used …. for intercultural communication), it is on the overlaps between these conceptualisations that we seek to capitalise in this chapter. The target audience is experienced EFL teachers, materials writers, ­policy-makers, test-setters, advisors and all those involved in the design and delivery of ELT. By the end of the chapter, readers will know more about this intercultural purpose and the possible resonances between it and an ELF-aware approach. Expected outcomes

On completing this chapter, you should be able to: • identify the methodological assumptions underpinning (your) EFL teaching and its cultural contextualisation;

72

Developing an ELF-aware Intercultural Purpose in the Thai University Context  73

• recognise the links between teaching which is both ELF-aware and interculturally oriented; • formulate a context-appropriate plan for re-orientating (your) EFL teaching with an ELF-aware, EIC purpose; • determine what aspects of (your) EFL teaching already resonate with such an ELF-aware EIC purpose and consider how these existing aspects might be further strengthened; • assess what aspects of an ELF-aware EIC purpose are missing in (your) EFL teaching in order to be able to design new materials, methods and activities to fill the gaps identified. Key concepts

• • • •

ELF. EIC. An ELF-aware EIC purpose. Intercultural communication.

RQA 1 Before you study this chapter, we invite you to reflect on the assumptions – perhaps implicit, unstated and even subconscious – which underpin: (a) the context in which you mainly work and (b) the ways in which you approach your teaching in this context. The prompts below are designed to stimulate your thinking in this regard. (1) How is English mainly used in the society in which you teach English? ���������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������� . (2) How do you yourself use English outside the language classroom? ���������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������� . (3) Regarding your main (EFL) teaching context, what assumptions does the curriculum (or textbook and other materials) make about: (a) the English language? For example, what does it say or assume about who ‘owns’ the language? ���������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������� .

74  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

(b) the models of language to be learned? For example, what model of pronunciation are students directed towards?) ���������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������� . (c) the cultural aspects (i.e. cultural content, cultural norms, etc.) associated with English? For example, what kinds of cultural information are included? ���������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������� . (d) the ways in which the learners will use English outside the classroom now and in the foreseeable future? ���������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������� . When you have finished thinking about these prompts, continue reading.

Introduction

The particular EFL context we use to situate our discussion in this chapter is that of ELT in Thai universities (the professional context of the first author) but we hope that the discussion of this context is also resonant for teachers in other EFL contexts. Although the title for this book does not explicitly mention the cultural and intercultural aspects of teaching (terms we distinguish in Box 1), in this chapter we will explore how an ELF-aware approach carries with it cultural and intercultural considerations and possibilities (for more on this broad area of discussion, see Holmes & Dervin, 2016). Box 1: Cultural and intercultural

In this chapter, we use ‘cultural’ to refer to the largely shared values and way of life of a particular group of people; and we use ‘intercultural’ – as linked to ‘communication’ – to refer to interactions involving people between whom there are (likely to be) significant differences in group memberships, affiliations, and associated cultures.

Developing an ELF-aware Intercultural Purpose in the Thai University Context  75

Foreign Language Teaching (FLT)

For teachers of foreign languages, there is often a strong linkage between, on the one hand, the ‘target language’ and, on the other, a related context and the culture(s) of the people living in that context (see Box 2). In the case of teachers in EFL contexts, to accompany and contextualise the teaching of a native variety of the language (e.g. American English, British English, Australian English, etc.), there is often also cultural teaching about one or more native English-speaking societies (e.g. the US, the UK, Australia, etc.). Box 2: Country, society and culture

In this chapter, the term ‘target culture’ is not seen as a synonym for ‘target country’ or ‘target society’ as we do not wish to suggest that everyone in a particular country or society has the same culture. Further, the noun phrase ‘target culture’ suggests something quite fixed and static, whereas we want to emphasise that cultures are dynamic, emergent and changing (Street, 1993; Holliday, 1999). FLT anchors

For our present purposes, four important ‘anchors’ for this teaching linkage between a ‘target-language’ and a ‘target-culture’ can be identified. (1) Native-ness (i.e. teaching anchored to the norms of NS of the target language who are natives of the target society and proponents of the target culture). (2) The assumed homogeneity of the language and the related culture (i.e. the objective seems to be to teach a largely standardised variety of the language as linked to a largely generalised cultural understanding of the country with which the target language is linked). (3) The tendency to view languages and cultures as separate bounded systems rather than focus on the linguistic and cultural resources that individuals have and are developing, and how they might use these in their (intercultural) communication. (4) The desire for cross-cultural comparisons in which aspects of the learner’s home society are compared with aspects of the society linked to the foreign language they are learning. An opportunity to reframe the anchors of FLT

The increasing recognition of the lingua franca function of English provides a stimulus for EFL teachers to consider, as appropriate for their

76  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

own contexts, possible ways of reframing both the linguistic aspects of their teaching and also its cultural and intercultural aspects. Or, to put it another way, how might teachers better prepare their students for using ELF and as a medium for intercultural communication? In practical terms, EFL teachers – as they try to use this opportunity to reframe their teaching – might consider loosening the native-ness anchor for both the linguistic and cultural aspects of EFL teaching. For example, in place of the target culture orientation (e.g. information about the UK and/or the USA), they might add an EIC purposeful-ness (i.e. the awareness and skills helpful for ELF-medium intercultural communication). Similarly, they might challenge the value associated with assumed homogeneity (of NS’ language and culture). For example, in place of a focus mainly on native-speaking societies such as the UK and the USA, they might seek to provide their students with a culturally diverse range of users of ELF. Further, they might problematise the focus (embedded in many syllabi) on the linguistic and cultural systems and instead focus on the linguistic and cultural resources that users bring to their ELF-medium intercultural communication. To this end, they might focus on the skills and awarenesses that their students need for effective intercultural communication. Finally, given the unpredictability of the cultural backgrounds of those involved in ELF-medium communication (Baker, 2015; Cogo & Dewey, 2012), the need for cross-cultural comparisons lessens. Instead, there may be increased value in teachers preparing their students to be attentive to whatever cultural and intercultural aspects emerge in ELF interactions as they develop. In a sense, there is an opportunity for, and value in, ELF users being ethnographers of the communication in which they become involved. Prototypical EFL Assumptions

In addition to the above anchors, we can explore the assumptions in play in an EFL context such as our Thai university context. For example, the third set of prompts in RQA 1 above began this process by asking you about: (a) the ownership of English; (b) the linguistic models and norms used for teaching; (c) the cultural aspects commonly invoked in EFL teaching; and (d) the intended English-medium interactions for which your students are being prepared. Although it is often much more complex than we suggest below, answers from a prototypical EFL teaching context might be the following: (a) English is the language of (i.e. it is ‘owned’ by) English NSs in countries such as the US, the UK and Australia. (b) English as the target language is often linked to pronunciation, pragmatic and other norms associated with NSs of the language (e.g. received pronunciation and British politeness norms).

Developing an ELF-aware Intercultural Purpose in the Thai University Context  77

(c) English, as the target language, is often linked to cultural insights associated with the way of life and shared values in societies (e.g. the US, the UK and Australia) which are linked to the language. (d) A common assumption is that students, as NNSs of English, will subsequently use this learned language predominantly with NSs of the language (i.e. NNS ←→  NS pattern of interaction). Although the term ‘non-native speaker’ is ubiquitous in the foreign language education literature, it is not one we particularly like, as it defines someone by what they are not. By way of analogy, how appropriate would it be in the world of sport to speak of non-man’s tennis (rather than women’s tennis) for example? Mindful of this, our preferred usage in this chapter is EFL-user. RQA 2 How do your RQA 1 (prompts 3(a)–3(d)) responses compare with the prototypical possibilities above? ���������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������� When you have finished making this comparison, continue reading. Teaching EIC

In the prototypical EFL assumptions discussed above, we highlighted both the value placed upon cultural insights associated with the way of life and shared values in societies (e.g. the US, the UK and Australia) and the assumed likelihood of NNS ←→  NS patterns of interaction. To put this another way, it is assumed that users of EFL will be communicating with English NSs and that their communication will benefit from cultural understandings related to such NSs of the language. An EIC purpose challenges such assumptions. This is a line of thinking with a long history (as summarised, for example, in Fay et al., 2016) which, for our present purposes, we exemplify with a brief review of some of this thinking.

78  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

Back in the 1970s/1980s, discussion flourished about EIL and much of that literature has cleared the ground for our current discussion. For example, Lester (1978) noted that ‘a perfectly satisfactory level of communication can take place between, say, Greeks and Japanese through the shared medium of English as an international language’ (Lester, 1978: 9). For him, perfectly satisfactory did not mean native-like. Similarly, for Smith, ‘no one language is inextricably tied to any one culture and no one needs to become more like native English speakers in order to use English well’ (Smith, 1983: 10). Focusing on NNS ←→ NNS communication in English, he argued that ‘the Japanese businessman will not be very successful with an Indonesian if he expects him to do business as an American just because he is using English’ (Smith, 1983: 9). As a final example, Baxter (1983) argued that ‘linguistic fluency in English does not ensure effective intercultural communication’ (Baxter, 1983: 290) and, further, ‘although the use of English is always culturebound, the language itself is not bound to any specific culture’ (Baxter, 1983: 295). He proposed a new approach to English language education, namely English for intercultural competence. Where he uses the more abstract term ‘competence’, we have opted for the more concrete term ‘communication’ – i.e. EIC (Baker, 2009a, 2009b; Dooly, 2005; Fay, 2009; Nakayama, 1987; Sifakis, 2007; Trejo Vences & Fay, 2015). Our preferred term foregrounds, we hope, the target usage situations involving ELF, but we recognise that the ‘perfectly acceptable’ communication in ELF does involve intercultural competence. Baxter explicitly critiqued the use of NS models underpinning EFL teaching (Baxter, 1983: 304) but also recognised that the embrace of EIL (instead of EFL), if it retained a modelbased character (perhaps using an educated NNS of English as the norm), then it would fail to address the issue of how people (i.e. NNSs but also NSs) use English for intercultural purposes. It is on this line of thinking initially developed by Lester, Smith, Baxter and others, that our chapter builds, but to which we add an extra dimension. Given the increasing multiculturality of many EFL contexts, we propose that an ELF-aware EIC purpose needs to extend the above focus on English-medium international communication to also include Englishmedium intranational communication (see Fay et al., 2010, 2016; Sifakis & Fay, 2011). We now focus on the Thai university context in order to provide a concrete example of an EFL context for which an ELF-aware EIC purpose might be developed. The Thai University EFL Context English in Thailand

Thailand is usually categorised as an expanding circle context (see Box 3) in which English has no official status and teaching is closely associated with the above prototypical assumptions underpinning EFL

Developing an ELF-aware Intercultural Purpose in the Thai University Context  79

teaching. However, since the second half of the 20th century, English has increasingly been seen as the global language of modernisation, globalisation and communication. Thus, the status of English in Thailand has changed. Not only does it now play an important role in tourism, industry and commerce, education and popular media, as we will discuss shortly, it also has, as we discuss below, an important official role in the political and economic structures within which Thailand is developing. Box 3: Circles of English usage

English language usage can be understood – using Kachru’s (1996) somewhat dated but still influential model – in terms of an inner circle (i.e. countries such as the UK and the US where English is seen as a native language), an outer circle (i.e. countries such as India, Jamaica, Nigeria and Malaysia where English has official status and functions) and an expanding circle (i.e. countries such as Greece, Thailand and Turkey where English typically has the status as a foreign language and no official functions). For teachers, this changing status of English – no longer viewable only from an EFL perspective but also to be approached as a globally useful resource with a widespread lingua franca function – has significant pedagogical implications and possibilities. In essence, ELT practitioners in Thailand (and similar EFL contexts we would suggest) increasingly face the question, ‘To what extent is EFL teaching appropriate for students’ likely ELF communicational needs outside the classroom and/or in the future?’. One response to this – as voiced many times throughout this book – is that teachers in EFL contexts would benefit from becoming more ELF-aware in their pedagogical thinking. It is a response we endorse, but also seek to extend as we consider a further question facing such EFL teachers, namely: ‘To what extent are the common cultural assumptions underpinning EFL teaching appropriate for students’ likely ELF-medium intercultural communication needs outside the classroom and/or in the future?’. ELT in Thai universities

As relevant for our current discussion, English is an entrance (and sometimes an exit) requirement for Thai universities and an important qualification for the career opportunities of Thai graduates. Approximately 10% (or more) of the credits of most undergraduate degree programmes are devoted to English language learning. Universities are free to choose or write their own teaching materials and follow their own approaches to teaching English (i.e. there is no national curriculum).

80  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

In practice, this teaching is usually linked, albeit with an academic purposes dimension also, with the above prototypical EFL approach – i.e. teaching is linked to one or more NS varieties of English, and especially to American English. Curricular influences

ELT practitioners may not always have ease of access to all the curricular documents which have the potential to shape how English is taught in their contexts. However, examination of such texts can be helpful in identifying opportunities for, as well as obstacles constraining, teachers’ reframing of their practice (e.g. to accommodate to some extent an ELFaware EIC purpose). To exemplify this, we will now look more closely at the curriculum documents potentially shaping the Thai University ELT context. We will first look at the macro-level of specification (i.e. those originating at regional and national level), then at the meso-level (i.e. the university syllabus as an example) and finally at the micro-level (i.e. an example textbook). As we shall see, these differing levels of specification are not fully coherent, and although this can be regarded as a source of unhelpful ambiguity and/or of competing demands on teachers, it can also provide an opportunity for the reframing of EFL teaching with the ELFaware EIC purpose with which we are concerned in this chapter. RQA 3 Before reading the following commentary on the Thai documents, to which curriculum documents do you have access and of those which do you consult? Add the names of the documents in the left-hand column of Table 5.1 and then tick the ‘access’ and ‘consult’ boxes as appropriate. Table 5.1​  ​Access to and consultation of curriculum documents

List of curriculum documents

Access Consult

When you have finished this stock take of your curriculum documentation, continue reading.

Developing an ELF-aware Intercultural Purpose in the Thai University Context  81

Macro-level specifications

Curriculum direction is potentially shaped by the wider geopolitical context. In particular, since 1967, Thailand has been a member of the Association of South East Asian nations sociocultural community (ASEAN), which currently consists of 10 countries. Interestingly, the Article 34 of the ASEAN Charter (ASEAN, 2008a) stipulates, in English, that ‘English shall be the working language of the ASEAN’. Policy and other strategic documents at both ASEAN and national levels, explicitly and implicitly invoke an English-medium vision of intercultural communication between and beyond the countries in the association. For example, the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Blueprint (ASEAN, 2008b) proposes ‘exchanges of television programmes to enhance cross-culture understanding among ASEAN Member States’ (ASEAN, 2008b: xix). In this quote, we can see traces of the cross-cultural comparison anchor mentioned earlier, i.e. the comparisons between different ASEAN societies (which is what we think the document writers mean). This contrasts with the next quotation, which seems to be focusing on intercultural interactions involving individuals between whom there are some significant cultural differences. Thus, with regard to English, the blueprint seeks to support ‘the citizens of Member States to become proficient in the English language, so that the citizens of the ASEAN region are able to communicate directly with one another and participate in the broader international community’ (ASEAN, 2008b: xviii). More specifically, the Strategies of Thai Higher Education for the Preparation for the ASEAN Community in 2015 (OHEC, 2010), notes that: The fact that English has been designated by the ASEAN as its working language suggests that learning foreign languages is essential for today and the future, especially [the learning of] English, the language regarded as the international language for communication. (OHEC, 2010: 21, translated from Thai)1

Thus, the ASEAN and Thai (national-level) documentation positions ELT as the enabler of intercultural communication within and beyond the country and wider region. In this sense, the documents form a shaping influence on ELT in Thailand, one which calls into question the appropriacy of the prototypical EFL anchors outlined above. Meso-level specifications

For illustrative purposes, we now focus on an undergraduate, general education English (GEE) course from a Thai university. RQA 4 In the GEE course description (Figure 5.1), we have highlighted four (a)– (d) items revealing the documentary steer being given to teachers as they

82  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

navigate the possibilities of either/both a prototypical EFL approach and/or an ELF-aware EIC purpose. In each case, use the spaces provided to make brief notes on why these items might be of interest and what steer they are giving to teachers. Course Description: Development of English language skills necessary for a) daily life. Integration of fourskills through a wide range of b) content topics. Practice of learning strategies, selfdirected learning skills, c) communication skills, problem-solving, and basic thinking skills. d) Developing awareness and understanding of diverse cultures. Figure 5.1  Sample GEE course syllabus (part 1)

(a) ������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������� (b) ������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������� (c) ������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������� (d) ������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������� When you have finished making your notes, continue reading. Regarding the ‘development of English language skills necessary for daily life’, we note that there is considerable ambiguity involved – whose daily life? (that of English NSs and/or that of Thai lingua franca users of English?); necessary for what kind of use? (for intercultural communication?). This goal is expressed in neither EFL nor ELF-aware terms, but the ambiguity perhaps provides an opportunity for teachers to bring an ELFaware EIC purpose to the classes through a reformulation as shown in Figure 5.2a. Suggested Reformulation 1 “development of English language skills necessary for daily life” “development of the language skills needed for English-medium everyday communication within and beyond the ASEAN region” Figure 5.2a  Curricular reformulation

Regarding the ‘integration of four-skills through a wide range of content topics’, again there is considerable under-specification: content topics drawn from where? (from NS contexts associated with English? And/or

Developing an ELF-aware Intercultural Purpose in the Thai University Context  83

from other contexts?); concerning what? (aspects of NS culture(s)? And/or concerning cultures of NNS?). As previously, there is perhaps scope for some reformulation for an ELF-aware EIC purpose, as shown in Figure 5.2b. Suggested Reformulation 2 “the integration of four-skills through a wide range of content topics” “the integration of four-skills through a wide range of content topics drawn from diverse (including both native-speaker and non-native-speaker) contexts” Figure 5.2b  Curricular reformulation

Regarding ‘practice of communication skills’, again there is considerable under-specification: communication skills in English and/or Englishmedium communication skills? Communication skills as framed by NS ←→NS and NS ←→  NNS combinations? And/or by a NNS ←→  NNS combination? This makes reformulation for an ELF-aware EIC purpose possible, as shown in Figure 5.2c. Suggested Reformulation 3 “practice of communication skills” “practice of ELF-medium intercultural communication skills” Figure 5.2c  Curricular reformulation

Finally, regarding ‘developing awareness and understanding of diverse cultures’, we have perhaps the clearest steer away from a narrow EFL-framed cultural agenda (topics and awareness) towards a more ELFaware EIC purpose. Given the complexity – for the Thai university ­context – of communication within as well as beyond the ASEAN region, and given the linguistic and cultural complexities of both ASEAN and other societies, some further specification might be of value, as shown in Figure 5.2d. Suggested Reformulation 4 “Developing awareness and understanding of diverse cultures” “Developing awareness and understanding of the cultural and linguistic diversity within and beyond the ASEAN community” Figure 5.2d  Curricular reformulation

84  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

Note that, in this reformulation, we are suggesting a move from a focus on the ‘diverse cultures’ (thus, still treating ‘cultures’ as bounded separate systems) to a focus on the diversity within and beyond societies (which challenges this familiar EFL anchor). We might go further still, and shift the focus to the cultural and linguistic diversity which students are likely to encounter in their ELF interactions (with both/either citizens of ASEAN and/or other contexts). The same course has the specification of objectives depicted in Figure 5.3. Course Objectives:

Communication skills: Students will learn about word stress and the standard pronunciation of English. They will be able to communicate by using English language accurately and appropriately in composing expository and opinion paragraphs together with discussion and presentation with regards to intonation, body language, creating Power Points, and pronunciation. Content skills: Students will be able to comprehend and reflect their understanding of the contents from different sources of information. Cognition: Students will be able to develop basic thinking skills. Culture: Students will be able to develop intercultural awareness in using English as an international language as well as cross-cultural awareness. They will develop a greater understanding of the ASEAN region with regards to culture, geography, economies, cuisine, education, and travel. Figure 5.3  Sample GEE course syllabus (part 2)

As with the course description, there is some ambiguity in the ways in which these four areas are delineated. The native-ness of an EFL approach is evident in the attention paid (in communication skills) to standard pronunciation (‘whose standard?’ we might ask) and (presumably native norms of) accuracy and (academic) appropriacy. In the content and cognition areas, there is also a strong steer towards a culturally detached English for academic purposes (although we might reasonably ask, ‘whose norms of academic literacy?’). Of the four areas, it is the last (culture) that most clearly resonates with the direction of the macro-level documents and which disambiguates some of the ambiguities identifiable in the course description (see RQA 4). Both ASEAN and internationally oriented intercultural awareness are explicitly mentioned as linked to the international status and functions (rather than simply foreign language status) of English. Micro-level specifications

At the chalk-face, as it were, teaching is often shaped by materials such as coursebooks. For illustrative purposes, we have chosen one page (see Figure 5.4) from a coursebook (School of Liberal Arts, Mae Fah Luang University, 2014) used for the above GEE course. Here, through the explicit coverage of English varieties within the ASEAN region and cultural knowledge of neighbouring ASEAN countries to Thailand, we can

Developing an ELF-aware Intercultural Purpose in the Thai University Context  85

Figure 5.4  Sample teaching material

see coherence with the macro-level and some of the meso-level specification. However, in the discussion of errors (as measured against what standard or norm?), there may also be a hint of the value attached to native-like norms. So far, in the various levels of specification, we can see some potentially conflicting pushes, on the one hand, towards an ELF-aware EIC purpose and, on the other, more prototypical pulls from the dominant EFL approach. And in between, there are also some pulls towards English for academic purposes. How do teachers position themselves amid these various pulls and pushes? One of the teachers on the above course is Kamala (pseudonym). Her commentary on her teaching of the above activities illustrates these pulls and pushes: In terms of content, the kids will know that there are not only native speakers of English, but there is diversity in [English] use, pronunciation and accents. They will know that they can speak English with Thai accent but [emphasis in the original] regarding the pronunciation, we have to try to pronounce words correctly. You can have a Thai accent just like [Vietnamese] have their accent. 2

Overall, she seems to position herself with the textbook writers and their more ELF-aware EIC purpose rather than with the prototypical EFL assumptions regarding NS norms: Maybe the textbook writers wanted the kids to see that they can use English correctly in their ways which do not have to be like native speakers. They can be fluent, but do not have to be exactly like native speakers.

86  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

The above discussion has revealed, albeit very briefly, some of the complexities and possibilities in an EFL, expanding circle context such as Thailand (and GEE provision within Thai universities in particular) and we believe that these possibilities and complexities are not related solely to Thailand but may be of value to teachers working in similar contexts. Overall, through research in this Thai context (e.g. Tantiniranat, 2015, 2017), we can see that the teachers themselves are trying hard to balance the pulls and pushes which shape their curricular context, but that their efforts to do so are limited to some extent by under-articulated thinking about what might replace, or refocus, the prototypical assumptions of the EFL approach when a more ELF-aware EIC purpose is embraced. It is to this intercultural communication purpose (associated with an ELF approach) that we now turn. Developing an ELF-aware EIC Purpose in EFL Contexts Revisiting RQA 1

With this Thai university context in mind as an example, we can now contrast the key assumptions underpinning an EFL approach which we discussed earlier with the parallel assumptions we suggest for the ELF– EIC approach. RQA 5 Imagine that you are re-orienting your EFL teaching with an ELFaware EIC purpose approach. What assumptions might you make about: (a) Who ‘owns’ the English language? ���������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������� (b) What models of language are appropriate for ELF? ���������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������� (c) Which cultural aspects are most appropriate for ELF? ���������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������

Developing an ELF-aware Intercultural Purpose in the Thai University Context  87

(d) How will learners use English outside the classroom? ���������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������� Our responses to these prompts are provided at the end of the chapter. But what might this line of thinking mean in practice? If you are to be able to formulate a context-appropriate plan for re-orientating your EFL teaching with an ELF-aware EIC purpose, we recommend beginning with the curricular influences on your context in order to identify, as with Kamala, the pushes and pulls your work is shaped by at the macro-, mesoand micro-levels. Macro- and meso-level possibilities

In RQA 3, we asked you to bring to mind all the curricular documents to which you had access and which you might already have consulted. A first step, then, might be to (re-)examine these documents along the lines we have briefly exemplified with the Thai documents. RQA 6 Identify one (or more) statements in your macro- and/or meso-level curricular documentation which explicitly anchor the teaching in an EFL approach (with its associated anchors and assumptions (as discussed earlier in the chapter): (1) ������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������� (2) ������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������� Identify one (or more) statements in your macro- and/or meso-level curricular documentation which explicitly anchor the teaching in an ELFaware EIC purpose (see the answers to RQA 5 for some support in this task). (1) ������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������� (2) ������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������� Identity one (or more) statements in your macro- and/or meso-level curricular documentation which are ambiguous regarding the EFL vs

88  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

ELF-aware approaches and which might provide an opportunity for reformulation towards an ELF-aware EIC purpose? Can you propose such a reformulation? (1) ������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������

reformulated as: ������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������

(2) ������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������

reformulated as: ������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������

As this activity is focused on your own curricular documents, there are no suggested answers. Micro-level possibilities

There are quite a number of evaluation frameworks for considering the opportunities and constraints that textbooks provide for particular pedagogical objectives. For example, teachers in the intercultural helpdesk in Bulgaria have developed an evaluative frame for reviewing textbooks across all curriculum areas and all levels with a view to the contributions they made, or could make, towards the objectives of intercultural education (for more details, see Fay & Davcheva, 2005). With regard to teaching EIC in particular, Baxter (1983: 31) provides a checklist for mapping the causes of miscommunication in ELF communication. It includes the list of possible causes shown in Figure 5.5. This list could be repurposed for evaluating the opportunities (or not) that your textbook (and teaching more generally) provides for exploring areas of communication resonant with the ELF-aware EIC purpose. A further example is provided by O’Sullivan (1994: 60), who lists areas of communication likely to exhibit variation between individuals from differing cultural backgrounds, as shown in Figure 5.6. Again, this list could be repurposed for evaluating the opportunities (or not) which your textbook (and teaching more generally) provides for exploring areas of communication resonant with the ELF-aware EIC purpose. Developing an ELF-aware EIC purpose in your EFL context

The two strategies above – namely, examining curricular documents and exploring reformulations of them where there is ambiguity, and using

Developing an ELF-aware Intercultural Purpose in the Thai University Context  89

Figure 5.5  Mapping miscommunication (Baxter, 1983: 31)

modified versions of checklists such as those above – can be very useful in: (1) determining what aspects of your EFL teaching already resonate with an ELF-aware EIC purpose; and (2) considering what aspects of such a purpose are missing in your EFL teaching. Taken together, these processes should enable you to identify any existing ELF-aware EIC possibilities in your textbook and other resources and to be more aware of the gaps in the ELT provision in your context, thereby setting the agenda for new materials, methods and activities.

90  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

Figure 5.6 Likely areas of variation in intercultural communication (O’Sullivan, 1994: 60)

Concluding Comments/Synopsis

In this chapter, as exemplified with details at a macro-, meso- and micro-level of curricular specification from the Thai university TESOL provision and practice, we have considered what teachers in expanding circle traditionally EFL-dominated contexts (such as Thailand) might do in order to develop an ELF-aware intercultural purpose in their teaching. This endeavour requires them to reconsider the cultural and intercultural aspects associated with EFL teaching, and bring together an ELF-aware approach and what we term EIC (i.e. teaching English for intercultural communication). In practical terms, this involves teachers in such EFL contexts: identifying the methodological a­ ssumptions underpinning their EFL teaching and its cultural contextualisation; recognising the links between teaching which is both ELF-aware and interculturally-oriented; formulating a context-appropriate plan for re-orientating their EFL teaching with an ELF-aware, EIC purpose; determining what aspects of their EFL teaching already resonate with such an ELF-aware EIC purpose and considering how these existing aspects might be further strengthened; and assessing what aspects of an ELF-aware EIC purpose are missing in their EFL teaching in order to be able to design new materials, methods and activities to fill the gaps identified. The chapter provides a starting point for these actions, and cumulatively provides the framework for an action plan for the cultural and intercultural dimensions associated with an ELFaware approach in EFL contexts.

Developing an ELF-aware Intercultural Purpose in the Thai University Context  91

Answers to Reflective Questions and Activities

RQA 1: There are no suggested answers to this RQA because, in the discussion which follows, we cover the relevant conceptual areas. For this reason, we will invite you to reconsider your above responses at various points during your study of this chapter. In this way, you can ‘measure’ the development of your thinking about such matters. RQA 2: There are no suggested answers to this RQA as your responses here will be linked with your responses to RQA 1. RQA 3: There are no suggested answers to this RQA because, in the discussion which follows, we exemplify the consideration of coherence in the various levels of curriculum specification using the Thai example. RQA 4: There are no suggested answers to this RQA because, in the discussion which follows, we directly provide our commentary on the phrases concerned. RQA 5(a) Who ‘owns’ the English language? For us, the native-ness anchor of the EFL approach is challenged by the ELF-aware EIC purpose such that English is more usefully seen as being a resource ‘owned’ by all who use it. It would be naïve to suggest that the global linguistic hierarchies (in which English has gained a pole position) and the English NS privileges (which remain in many contexts) would simply disappear because we want them to but, nonetheless, for pedagogical purposes, we suggest that ELT practitioners do indeed challenge this native-ness anchor. RQA 5(b) What models of language are appropriate for ELF? Whilst this question is not so directly related to the cultural and intercultural focus of this chapter, we would argue that the NS norms so embedded in an EFL (plus academic English) approach also need to be questioned (see the discussion in the chapters by Seidlhofer and Widdowson and by Kohn in this book). RQA 5(c) Which cultural anchors are most appropriate for ELF? Just as the NS linguistic models associated with EFL (and also EAP in many cases) are challenged by an ELF-aware EIC purpose, so too is the common EFL focus on the culture(s) associated with English NS in the inner circle contexts (see Box 3). In their place, we suggest that there is a focus on intercultural communication and on raising awareness of how and where cultural differences might be significant in such ELF-medium ­intercultural communication. For example, teachers might focus on different c­ ultural assumptions and practices regarding politeness, directness and so on. RQA 5(d) How learners will use English outside the classroom? Here, we would suggest that most students will most commonly become ELF (rather than EFL) users in that they will be using English much less in NS ←→ NNS patterns of interaction and much more in NNS ←→NNS patterns.

92  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

RQA 6: As this activity is focused on your own curricular documents, there are no suggested answers. Notes (1) Translations from Thai into English are by the first author. (2) These data extracts are taken from Tantiniranat (2015, 2017).

References ASEAN (2008a) The ASEAN charter. See http://www.asean.org/storage/images/ ASEAN_RTK_2014/ASEAN_Charter.pdf (accessed 24 January 2014). ASEAN (2008b) ASEAN economic community blueprint. http://www.asean.org/?static_ post=asean-economic-community-blueprint (accessed 24 January 2014). Baker, W. (2009a) The cultures of English as a lingua franca. Tesol Quarterly 43 (4), 567–592. Baker, W. (2009b) Intercultural awareness and intercultural communication through English: An investigation of Thai English language users in higher education. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Southampton. Baker, W. (2015) Culture and Identity through English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Baxter, J. (1983) English for intercultural competence: An approach to intercultural communication training. In D. Landis and R.W. Brislin (eds) Handbook of Intercultural Training (Vol. 1, pp. 290–324). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2012) Analysing English as a Lingua Franca. London: Continuum. Dooly, M. (2005) The internet and language teaching: A sure way to interculturality. The ESL Magazine: The Information Source for ESL/EFL Professionals Worldwide 44 (8), 8. Fay, R. (ed.) (2009) Intercultural Approaches to the Teaching of English (Vol. 1: Theoretical Foundations). Athens and Patras: Metachmio/Hellenic Open University. Fay, R. and Davcheva, L. (2005). Interculturalising education in Bulgaria: The contribution of the national helpdesk for intercultural learning materials. Intercultural Education 16 (4), 331–352. Fay, R., Lytra, V. and Ntavaliagkou, M. (2010) Multicultural awareness through English: A potential contribution of TESOL in Greek schools. Intercultural Education 21 (6), 581–595. Fay, R., Lytra, V. and Sifakis, N. (2016) Interculturalities of English as a lingua franca: International communication and multicultural awareness in the Greek context. In P. Holmes and F. Dervin (eds) The Cultural and Intercultural Dimensions of English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 50–69). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Holmes, P. and Dervin, F. (eds) (2016) The Cultural and Intercultural Dimensions of English as a Lingua Franca. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Holliday, A.R. (1999) Small cultures. Applied Linguistics 20 (2), 237–264. Kachru, B.B. (1996) World Englishes: Agony and ecstasy. Journal of Aesthetic Education 30 (2), 135–155. Lester, M. (1978) International English and language variation. In British Council (1978) English as an International Language (pp. 6–14). London: British Council. Nakayama, Y. (1987) English as an international language (ElL): Smith’s philosophy of English for intercultural communication. JALT Journal 8 (2), 157–161. OHEC (2010) The strategies of Thai higher education for the preparation for the ASEAN community in 2015. http://www.stat.mua.go.th /eDoc/file _document // 2010/20100920153705.pdf (accessed 31 January 2014).

Developing an ELF-aware Intercultural Purpose in the Thai University Context  93

O’Sullivan, K. (1994) Understanding Ways: Communicating Between Cultures. Sydney, New South Wales: Hale & Iremonger. School of Liberal Arts, Mae Fah Luang University (2014) English 1. Chiang Rai, Thailand. Sifakis, N. (2007) The education of teachers of English as a lingua franca: A transformative perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17 (3), 355–375. Sifakis, N. and Fay, R. (2011) Integrating an ELF pedagogy in a changing world: The case of Greek state schooling. In A. Archibald, A. Cogo and J. Jenkins (eds) Latest Trends in ELF Research (pp. 285–298). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Smith, L.E. (ed.) (1983) Readings in English as an International Language. Oxford: Pergamon. Street, B. (1993) Culture is a verb: Anthropological aspects of language and cultural ­process. In D. Graddol, L. Thompson and M. Byram (eds) Language and Culture (pp. 23–43). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Tantiniranat, S. (2015) Some intercultural implications of ASEAN and Thai educational policies for Thai higher education. Cambridge Open-Review Educational Research e-Journal 1 (2), 154–165. Tantiniranat, S. (2017) TESOL purposes and paradigms in an intercultural age: Practitioner perspectives from a Thai university. Unpublished PhD thesis: The University of Manchester. Trejo Vences, P. and Fay, R. (2015) Developing general cultural awareness in a monocultural English as a foreign language context in a Mexican university: A wiki-based critical incident approach. Language Learning Journal 43 (2), 222–233.

Further reading Fay, R. and Davcheva, L. (2005) Interculturalising education in Bulgaria: The contribution of the national helpdesk for intercultural learning materials. Intercultural Education 16 (4), 331–352. Whilst the focus of this article is on intercultural education across the curriculum rather than on the intercultural aspects of ELT, nonetheless it provides a worked example of the kind of materials evaluation framework which this chapter is advocating as TESOL practitioners in EFL contexts work towards an ELF-aware EIC purpose in their teaching. Fay, R., Lytra, V. and Ntavaliagkou, M. (2010) Multicultural awareness through English: A potential contribution of TESOL in Greek schools. Intercultural Education 21 (6), 581–595. In this article, with a focus on the traditionally EFL context of Greece, the authors consider repositioning ELT away from an EFL approach towards an intranationally-oriented MATE approach. As discussed in the following resource, this MATE approach can be set alongside an internationally-oriented ELF-aware approach. Fay, R., Lytra, V. and Sifakis, N. (2016) Interculturalities of English as a lingua franca: International communication and multicultural awareness in the Greek context. In P. Holmes and F. Dervin (eds) The Cultural and Intercultural Dimensions of English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 50–69). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. See the previous article recommendation. Holmes, P. and Dervin, F. (eds) (2016) The Cultural and Intercultural Dimensions of English as a Lingua Franca. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. This recent edited volume brings together a set of chapters – including the previous recommendation – focusing on the cultural and intercultural aspects of (teaching) English as a lingua franca.

94  Part 2: ELF in EFL Pedagogy

Sifakis, N. and Fay, R. (2011) Integrating an ELF pedagogy in a changing world: The case of Greek state schooling. In A. Archibald, A. Cogo and J. Jenkins (eds) Latest Trends in ELF Research (pp. 285–298). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. In this chapter, again with a focus on the traditionally EFL context of Greece, the authors consider some of the pedagogical implications for teachers of making a move from an EFL approach to one a more ELF-aware one.

Part 3 ELF and EFL Language Learning Materials

6 Perspectives in WE- and ELF-informed ELT Materials in Teacher Education Lucilla Lopriore and Paola Vettorel

General aims of this chapter

In this chapter we will explore emerging perspectives related to WE, ELF and ELT materials analysis and development, particularly in the context of teacher education. We will examine criteria for materials evaluation that take account of a WE- and ELF-aware viewpoint. We will then outline guidelines aimed at fostering the development of WE- and ELF-aware classroom activities in teacher education. Examples of activities and tasks within a plurilithic and more inclusive perspective will also be provided. Expected outcomes

On completing this chapter, you should be able – within a WE- and ELF-aware perspective – to: • • • • • •

identify main criteria for ELT materials evaluation; apply criteria for ELT materials evaluation; adapt existing ELT materials for specific activities and tasks; identify additional and integrative teaching resources; adapt authentic materials with specific activities and tasks; design WE- and ELF-aware teaching materials and activities.

Key concepts

• WE- and ELF-awareness framework. • WE- and ELF-aware: materials evaluation and adaptation; activity and task design; teacher education. ○○ ○○ ○○

97

98  Part 3: ELF and EFL Language Learning Materials

Introduction

The pedagogical implications of a WE and, more recently, ELF perspective have become a growing area of research, first of all as far as teacher education is concerned (e.g. Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2015; Blair, 2015; Dewey, 2015; Lopriore, 2010, 2016; Lopriore & Vettorel, 2015; Seidlhofer, 2011; Sifakis, 2007; Vettorel, 2016). Despite the differences between the WE and ELF research areas, they both share an orientation towards a plurilithic view of English and its speakers (e.g. Jenkins et al., 2011). A relevant research area within ELF is the ELF-awareness perspective. One of the most relevant points for a WE/ELF-aware perspective to be effectively taken into account is raising teachers’ awareness of ELT materials evaluation within this perspective, so that existing materials can be critically examined and implemented with ‘authentic’ examples of the current complexity of Englishes and ELF. A plurilithic approach in teacher education

Teacher education is a field where teachers-to-be expect to be instructed on the what (contents), on the how (approaches) and on the why (rationale) of their future work in the classroom. In ELT teacher education courses both prospective teachers and teacher educators share common held notions and ideas – mostly deriving from personal experiences, research or individual studies, national policies or curricular traditions – about language, language learning and acquisition, teachers’ roles, classroom management, lesson planning and delivery, standards and achievement. These ideas and notions are very seldom discussed and not even challenged, even if most recently there has been an emphasis laid upon the importance of reflective approaches in teacher education, particularly via direct involvement of teachers-to-be and the use of narrative as tools for teacher inquiry and professional development (Farrel, 2007; Freeman, 2016; Johnson & Golombek, 2011). Revisiting teacher education in the light of a plurilithic approach, the notions of English and of nativeness are inevitably being challenged, and traditionally held notions of language learning and teaching revisited, as in the case, for example, of communicative competence. This approach engages both teachers and teacher educators in taking into account and reconsidering the social practice of the language learning processes and the multiple scenarios of language usage. Introducing a WE- and ELFaware perspective in ELT means being prepared to adopt a plurilithic approach in the course goals and in classroom practice, in the choice of materials, in the language used and provided as an input, in the design of activities and tasks. Such an approach would leave room for flexibility and awareness, and would lead to revisiting standards, expected outcomes and proficiency levels as well as assessment paradigms. It is thus important that a critical discussion of these points and issues is an integral part of teacher education courses.

Perspectives in WE- and ELF-informed ELT Materials in Teacher Education  99

Criteria for ELT Materials Analysis within a WE/ELF-aware Perspective

The identification of criteria that may be used to guide ELT coursebook and materials evaluation from a WE- and ELF-aware perspective is one of the most relevant aspects in teacher education. Providing tools for materials analysis, that are inclusive of the current developments in the English language, and of its contexts of use, may allow teachers to make informed choices both in terms of materials to be used in class, and of activities to be developed. RQA 1 In the next section we are going to discuss criteria for ELT materials evaluation that are informed by and inclusive of WE and ELF. Before you read on, think about your teaching context and experience: what criteria would you take into account? Why do you think they are important? Keep your answers in your notebook, because we will ask you to return to them in the next RQA. The basic general criterion in WE- and ELF-aware ELT material evaluation should be based on investigating whether the plurilithic nature of Englishes and its lingua franca role are present, and in what measure and in what ways they are developed. Areas to be taken into consideration ought to include representations of language variation in WE (contexts, levels, speakers) and of effective communication in ELF, particularly in listening activities, as well as representations of the variety of cultures that are part of communication through English in its local and global spread. Several studies provide suggestions on such criteria. For example, Matsuda’s guidelines to evaluate teaching materials within an EIL perspective include taking into account the variety of English the material is based upon, and whether it is the variety students in a specific context should learn; whether adequate exposure to other varieties of English is provided, raising awareness of the linguistic diversity of English in terms of speakers and cultures, in ways that are appropriate for local contexts (Matsuda, 2012: 172–179). Syrbe and Rose (2018), in their analysis of some course-books used in Germany for advanced English levels from an ELF and Global Englishes perspective (Galloway & Rose, 2015), worked through three main research questions: (1) Who are positioned as the owners of English? (2) Who are the target interlocutors in the materials? (3) What models and norms of English are used in the book and audio materials? (Syrbe & Rose, 2018: 4). Similarly, Vettorel and Lopriore (2013) looked at representations of WE and ELF in ELT course-books currently used in Italian high

100  Part 3: ELF and EFL Language Learning Materials

schools for pre-intermediate and intermediate learners in terms of language use, language awareness and intercultural competence, applying the following criteria: (1) Presence or absence of references to WE and ELF (in reading and listening materials and activities, and in the ‘legitimate’ inclusion of NNS characters and settings). (2) Awareness-raising activities for WE and/or ELF. (3) Promotion of the use of English outside the school environment and flexibility for effective localization – reflection on localized environments both in language and (inter)cultural terms. (4) Promotion of the use of effective communication and intercultural strategies (also in contexts involving bilingual users of English, considering NNS as successful communicators). RQA 2 On the basis of the sample criteria provided above, compare your list for RQA 1: are there any differences? Can you think of points that are not mentioned above? Which of these points do you find most relevant in your teaching context? Within teacher education, reflection points for course-book evaluation containing elements such as the ones outlined above ought to be included in order to foster a critical approach to ELT materials. An overt focus should be provided on analysing whether perspectives other than a monolithic, Anglophone-only point of view are taken into account, one that can be more suited to preparing learners for the variety of Englishes and the linguacultural hybridity of ELF, and to becoming effective language users. The points listed in Table 6.1, for instance, were part of a more comprehensive general checklist for materials evaluation that was used and discussed during the English language teacher education courses1 run at the Foreign Languages and Literatures Department, University of Verona (Italy), over the last five years. Table 6.1  Checklist for materials evaluation Language varieties: WE/ELF Perspectives on global Englishes are included (awareness-raising activities) Several varieties are presented in listening activities ELF contexts/speakers are presented in listening activities Culture is presented including different countries and points of view Intercultural perspectives are included Reflection activities on the students’ own culture are present

Perspectives in WE- and ELF-informed ELT Materials in Teacher Education  101

Trainee teachers were invited to critically examine recently published course-books they were familiar with in their teaching and learning experience, and to provide comments for the above points. The activity proved useful in that trainees realized that in general little attention is given to a more ‘inclusive’ approach for WE and ELF, even in more recent materials – as highlighted by several studies in course-book analysis from a WEand ELF-aware perspective. Significantly, this activity was part of the module dealing with WE, ELF and their implications for teaching; many trainee teachers commented that, in their previous evaluation of coursebooks, they had not realized the relevance of taking into account specific evaluation criteria inclusive of a WE and ELF perspective, not least in order to complement existing materials with ad-hoc activities. In two of the courses for English language teachers held at Roma Tre University, within the course-book and materials evaluation component of the course, teachers-to-be were first asked to engage in small group discussions on most used classroom course-books and on the choice and use of evaluation criteria for ELT course-books. They were then involved in a task which aimed at leading participants to reflect upon the notion of authenticity in teaching resources and course-book analysis. Box 6.1 provides an extract of the tasks provided. Read the following questions and discuss your answers with your colleagues. Choose some of the communicative tasks in one of the course-books you are evaluating. How authentic do you consider the tasks used to be? Provide some examples. Does the course-book provide any additional materials, such as workbook, audio/video, links to external websites? Do the additional materials provide exposure to authentic uses of English? Any samples of WEs? Any samples of NNS using English? Do teacher’s notes highlight differences, or ask learners to focus on non-standard forms? Provide some examples. Think of a group of learners you have (or you might have in the near future). Choose a teaching unit or a module of the course-book. How and what would you modify in this unit in order to include a WE(s)/ ELF aware perspective? RQA 3 Think of two criteria you may use to evaluate whether a course-book is inclusive of authentic language use or might be enriched with a broader perspective on WEs.

102  Part 3: ELF and EFL Language Learning Materials

Inclusion of activities such as the ones exemplified above is very important for English language education courses. In this way teachers become aware and eventually recognize the necessity of having students exposed to different contexts and ways in which English is used, both among NS and NNS. Fostering reflection on such elements can help future teachers first of all realize that if students do not understand the significance of the uses of English among non-native speakers, they may not take full advantage of the opportunities that accompany the use of EIL. 2 Instead, students may assume that English belongs to the Inner Circle, and that others are expected to conform to Inner-Circle norms and remain in a peripheral position in international communication in English. (Matsuda, 2012: 171–172)

Consequently, it can foster a critical understanding of existing ELT course-books in their components, as well as provide tools to identify alternative additional materials and devise activities within a WE- and ELF-aware perspective. RQA 4 Choose some of the criteria provided above and apply them to the analysis of an ELT course-book you are familiar with – whether you used it as a learner, or as a teacher. Reflect on your findings: are there any instances of WE- and/or ELFaware activities in that course-book? Materials Development and Tasks in a WE-/ELF-informed Teacher Education Course

Language teacher education courses are traditionally organized around a set of components: from second language acquisition theories to teaching approaches and methodology, from language skills to grammar and vocabulary development, from lesson planning to materials selection and use etc.; all of these components as well as the type of approach are selected on the basis of language teachers’ foreseen professional needs and of the overall educational aims of the institutions where the courses are held. If we wish to adopt a plurilithic focus, all components of teacher education courses will be influenced by this different perspective. This will inevitably lead to uncovering teachers’ as well as trainers’ beliefs, thus revisiting their approaches too, and to devising different forms of syllabus and lesson planning as well as the overall rationale of most teaching choices. This is particularly true when it comes to the choice of

Perspectives in WE- and ELF-informed ELT Materials in Teacher Education  103

tasks, activities and resources in course-books, inclusive of online resources, additional as well as self-developed or adapted authentic materials. Lesson planning has always been one of teachers’ most engaging tasks, because in lesson planning they are expected to use their own beliefs in order to identify and define what the learners will learn and how, the activities and the tasks to be used, the materials needed and the appropriate forms of assessment and evaluation: Even though a lesson may have already been planned (by the course-book writer), a teacher will still need to make decisions that relate to the needs of his or her specific class, adapting the lesson from the book in different ways to make it better suit the class. This process of planning and adaptation is a crucial dimension of teaching because during this process the teacher makes many decisions that are essential for a successful lesson. (Farrell, 2002: 14)

RQA 5 Thomas Farrell’s words highlight how the use of course-books may only partly sustain teachers in their work since, when they prepare a lesson, they inevitably set up a process of adaptation of what a course-book offers to the lesson planned. And all of this may happen when a lesson is prepared as well as during the lesson itself. Think of situations when you decided as a teacher to modify parts of your course-book lesson/unit. What was the modification due to? Type or order of activities/tasks? Teaching materials? Other? Choose a unit from a course-book. (a) What would you modify and why, in order to include WE- ELF aware materials and activities? (b) Would it be mostly a matter of activity or task types (i.e., teaching approach), or a matter of resources and types of materials? Think about and make notes on the above. When you’re done, compare your reflections with ours, at the end of this chapter. The above task was administered in the pre-service courses held at Roma Tre University, where teachers-to-be worked in small groups and proposed different solutions, such as modifying the type of spoken language input, inclusive of a variety of news or TV series in English shown in non-English speaking countries. In terms of tasks, most teachers-to-be, during their group discussion, highlighted the importance of asking learners to find examples of authentic language use from the internet or from the radio or television and to present them highlighting samples of nonstandard forms.

104  Part 3: ELF and EFL Language Learning Materials

In a lesson plan within a plurilithic approach, there are several aspects of the language teaching process that should be taken into consideration and revisited in the light of an awareness-raising perspective such as the following: • language functions: revisited through samples and activities inclusive of functions aiming at negotiating meaning and establishing identities; • grammar: revisited through the inclusion of noticing (Schmidt, 1990, 2010) and languaging tasks focused on standard and non-standard forms; • vocabulary: revisited through the exposure of learners to a range of standard and non-standard forms and chunks as used in WE and ELF and fostering reflection through the use of noticing tasks; • themes: inclusion of a variety of cultural and intercultural issues in standard and non-SE-speaking contexts; • pronunciation: revisited through the use of multimedia activities and exposure to standard and non-standard forms inclusive of a variety of native and non-native excerpts; • spoken language: revisited through exposure to authentic spoken interactions among NSs and NNSs and the use of tasks focusing both on noticing and on the use of standard, non-standard or localised spoken language features such as fillers, discourse markers, general extenders, hedges, vague language etc.; • aural comprehension: revisited by drawing learners’ attention through noticing tasks and activities that use excerpts of authentic audio or video recordings with samples of interactions among native and nonnative English speakers; • reading comprehension: revisited by drawing learners’ attention to a range of texts produced in English within WE and/or ELF contexts, such as notices, instructions, chats, videogames, etc., besides traditional text typologies. All the above aspects might require on the part of the teacher to integrate those mostly standard-English-oriented ELT course-books with appropriate authentic materials and activities and to identify WE or ELF resources to be adapted for teaching purposes. RQA 6 In the European Profile of Language Teacher Education (Kelly & Grenfell, 2004), a framework for teacher education programmes in terms of skills, knowledge and professional competencies, the following descriptors are included: • Trainees know how to use teaching materials and resources effectively to meet the needs of learners and to fulfil the requirements of the curriculum.

Perspectives in WE- and ELF-informed ELT Materials in Teacher Education  105

• Trainees write detailed lesson plans in which they integrate the aims of the lessons, how these fit in with the aims of the curricula and how and why they have chosen their materials to best meet these aims and the needs of their learners. If the curriculum is inclusive of a WE- and ELF- aware perspective, (a) Where would you look in order to identify teaching materials and/or resources? (b) What would you look for? (c) How would you integrate the aims of a language lesson in order to include a WE-/ELF-aware perspective? Think about these questions and make notes. Then, consider our own suggestions at the end of the chapter. In order to include a WE-/ELF-aware perspective in one’s own teaching, it is important to reflect upon the notion of authenticity in language usage, but this notion goes together with the idea of devising authentic tasks, i.e. by asking learners to complete a real task through language; tasks are ‘activities that call for primarily meaning-focused language use’ (Ellis, 2003: 3). If the focus is on task fulfilment rather than on language performance and a task usually engages learners in using language pragmatically rather than just displaying language (Ellis, 2003: 9), the use of authentic tasks may sustain the adoption of a plurilithic approach. It is within this perspective that analysing the tasks provided in a course-book and the authenticity of the language used may widen the notion of authentic language as well as unveil uses of WE or ELF. It is therefore important for both teachers and teacher educators to investigate the type of input provided in course-books, in their additional materials, to reflect upon ways of identifying authentic resources, in order to adapt and integrate them into the lesson plans. Language activities in a plurilithic approach

‘Re-consideration of language and language learning in terms of the role and function of English varieties and of ELF should be included as the underlying component of teacher education courses’ (Lopriore & Vettorel, 2015: 19). What the two authors suggest here is to expose teachers to a variety of materials from different WE and or ELF contexts, asking them to observe how language processes and communicative strategies are enacted and engaging them in devising activities within their classroom contexts. In this light, activities in teacher education courses should: • be aimed at involving trainees in authentic tasks inclusive of a WEand ELF-aware perspective; • include exposure of trainees to English varieties and non-native/native interactions;

106  Part 3: ELF and EFL Language Learning Materials

• include exposure to multilingual contexts where both natives and nonnatives are engaged in meaningful interactions; • be aimed at guiding trainees to identify features of authentic spoken language interactions, and perceive the complexity and hybridity of the language; • include references and reflection upon different linguacultures and intercultural issues through Englishes and ELF; • be geared at sustaining teachers in developing an ‘ownership’ of their English and resorting to their multilingual repertoires. RQA 7 In your experience as participants in teacher education programmes, which activities related to the above list did you/would you find most useful in terms of reflection on a WE- and ELF-aware didactic approach? As a result of teacher education, teachers-to-be should therefore be able to achieve the following. (a) Adapt course-books to include WE/ELF observation and recognition in their lessons Either when course-books present some overt references to WE and/ or ELF, or when they offer activities that could be developed in this perspective, teachers can adapt and integrate them with appropriate materials and activities in order to provide a more realistic picture of the complex sociolinguistic reality of English today, as outlined below. (b) Identify appropriate authentic language resources Authenticity of the language learners will be exposed to is a pre-requisite in a WE- and ELF-aware perspective. This is why, for example, the linguistic landscape at large should constitute a first starting point that can be used, from primary school onwards, to develop awareness of the current spread of English. The web offers a wide range of opportunities of authentic materials, particularly for WE (e.g. songs, speeches by public figures both in WE and in ELF contexts) that would constitute relevant resources, together with learners’ first-hand experiences both in the increasingly multicultural school environment and in the ‘outside world’ (cf. Matsuda, 2012: 179–181). (c) Adapt authentic materials to specific activities and tasks After language resources as identified in (b) have been selected, they should be appropriately adapted for classroom work, both in terms of language level/learners’ age, context, and educational/language aims. For example: for younger learners only, selected parts of the authentic materials could be used, focusing on noticing and awareness-raising tasks; ○○

Perspectives in WE- and ELF-informed ELT Materials in Teacher Education  107

for older learners, materials and tasks can have a higher level of complexity, going beyond an ‘awareness-raising’ stage, and fostering reflection on phonological, lexico-grammatical as well as pragmatic aspects of the spoken language in use (standard and non-standard varieties, ELF contexts). (d) Offer tasks on intercultural issues The plurality of linguacultures that are expressed through WE and ELF is one of the areas that should be included in materials and activities. Course-books are increasingly offering more than one perspective in sections devoted to culture, and (inter)cultural materials and tasks are very frequently developed in proposals coming from trainee teachers (e.g. festivals, food, music) at all school levels. Besides fostering awareness of this plurality, tasks should aim at developing intercultural awareness and at fostering intercultural (communicative) skills  – a fundamental aspect in effective communication. (e) Develop tasks and materials where learners’ communicative competence is inclusive of the ability of resorting to communicative strategies and to their own plurilingual repertoires. Given the diverse linguacultures characterising both WE and ELF, communication strategies play a fundamental role, together with the ability to resort to – and effectively manage – the multilingual repertoires of bilingual speakers of English in interaction. Activities in (b) and (c) above could be used with a specific focus on communication strategies (e.g. noticing most and least successful ones); opportunities to communicate in international settings – school partnerships, telecollaboration, eTwinning, etc. – ought to be considered as an integral part of the syllabus. ○○

Examples of Modifications and/or Expansion of Course-book Activities in a WE-/ELF-aware Perspective

The examples below are modifications and expansion of course-book activities within a WE- and ELF-aware perspective as recommended by teachers-to-be during teacher education courses at the universities of Roma Tre and of Verona. 3 All course participants in the above training courses were involved in course-book analyses and in tasks that aimed at adapting and expanding activities in the afore-mentioned perspective. The examples reported below represent most of the competence areas listed after RQA7. Example 1  – Listening activity and language authenticity

The example below is a listening activity on food ‘intercultural differences’ that was analysed and modified by participants.4

108  Part 3: ELF and EFL Language Learning Materials

COURSE-BOOK ACTIVITY Listen and complete: Listen to a group of five European students talking about their countries’ most famous food and drinks. Complete the text with the words from the box. onions – chocolate – chicken – Austria – cheese – German – rice – beer – Spain – drink – healthy – salad – cake – French – jam M. Hi, I’m Marlene. I’m (1) ………, from Berlin. Guess what our most common (2) …………is? C. Hi, Marlene. Nice to meet you. I’m Christelle, and I bet your favourite drink is (3) …………., as it is in my country, Belgium. I’m from Brussels. Our most popular dish is (4) ………… fries. R. Hi, everybody! I’m Rose. I’m from Vienna. (5) …………………’s most famous dessert is Sacher Torte. It’s a (6) ……… made with (7) …….. and some apricot (8) ……. Have you ever tried it? P. I have, and I love it! Hello, I’m Pedro, from Seville. The most renowned(a) dish in (9) …….. is paella. It is made with lots of things like (10) ………, fish, and (11) ………. They are all very (12) ………. ingredients. C. I love paella, too! Hi, everybody! My name is Ciril. I’m from Patras. One of Greece’s local dishes is Greek (13) ……….. P. What’s in it? What do you put in it? C. It’s made with tomatoes, some (14) ……….. cucumber, peppers, and some (15) …….. a Greek type called Feta. It’s a very healthy dish. Comments and modifications as suggested by participants, mainly on the practical uses and of resources, are offered below. (i) Authenticity of speakers’ English: all speakers chosen for the recordings sound British imitating European accents. Suggestion: speakers used in the recordings should be German, Greek, Belgian, Spanish and Austrian as the characters in the dialogue. (ii) Listening task: Participants noticed that asking to fill in gaps with items already listed was not an authentic request. Suggestion: have M/C questions followed by questions about awareness of the language used (e.g. what strategies did learners use to better understand what characters were saying?). (iii) Authenticity of the language: these interactions sound as fake conversations set up deliberately to practice certain language structurers Suggestions: organize a party where participants coming from different countries/regions prepare some traditional dishes from their own country and are asked to interact. Participants would use their own English and different strategies to communicate, ask for clarifications etc. One group, suggested the organization of a Cooking competition using audio files from TV series.

Perspectives in WE- and ELF-informed ELT Materials in Teacher Education  109

Resources: school international exchanges or on-line exchanges as in eTwinning projects; authentic audio texts from TV/Web international series on Cooking where invited international speakers talk about food (e.g. https://www.speakerscorner.co.uk/listing/food-drinkspeakers). (TFA Courses, Roma Tre University, 2014/15) Example 2  – Listening & speaking: Language, tasks and strategies

The following examples are listening and speaking activities where changes were proposed in terms of task types, noticing different instantiations of English, and using communicative interactive strategies. 5 COURSE-BOOK ACTIVITIES 1. Listen and match: Listen to six people talking about festivities6 celebrated in their countries and match pictures and recordings 2. Listen and complete: Listen to the recordings again and complete the table. Festivity

When

Where

When

All over the world by Jewish people Buddha planted his foot here Finland All over Africa and the US Art, dance, drama, competition 24th June

Interact: In pairs, think of festivities you celebrate and special days in your culture, country or area. Report to the rest of the class. Use the prompts below to help you: We celebrate… Our favourite festivity is… On this day people…. Participants’ criticisms, modifications and the practical suggestions made were as follows: (i) Authenticity of texts & speakers’ English: all speakers chosen for the recordings are British speakers not from the places described (Israel, Sri Lanka, Finland, Black American, Canadian etc.). Suggestion: the texts should be ‘personalised’ by using speakers, NSs and NNSs, who would be talking in their own accent about their own traditions, possibly adding their own memories. (ii) Listening task: rather than asking for the traditional item identification using a grid, participants suggested to stimulate different receptive skills through questions about the speakers (e.g. How much is the speaker involved in the event? Do you feel the speaker has ever

110  Part 3: ELF and EFL Language Learning Materials

participated to this event?), or different ways of using English to talk about an event (e.g. Do the 5 speakers use different ways of talking about the event, e.g. Use of tenses? Use of local idioms? Use of extenders?). (iii) Interaction task: even if the request to interact thinking of their own areas or region is within the line of localizing the learners’ use of English, the suggested prompts limit the oral interaction. Suggestion: maintain those prompts, but set up an interaction with 3 learners where each of them interacts by asking questions, using communicative strategies to interrupt, ask for explanations or comparing. (TFA Courses, Roma Tre University, 2014/15) Example 3  – Spoken language awareness

In this section of the course-book, different spoken text-types and conversations are presented and their pragmatic features are analysed.7 COURSE-BOOK ACTIVITY Text C – Sometimes speech events are characterized by different degrees of formality and informality, according to speakers’ roles and functions and the type of relationship they have with the interlocutors. Look at the two official speeches. Which one is more formal? Why? Can you notice any differences between the two speakers when they begin or when they address their audiences? ‘Amandla! Amandla! i-Afrika, mayibuye! [Power! Power! Africa, it is ours!] My friends, comrades and fellow South Africans, I greet you all in the name of peace, democracy and freedom for all. I stand here before you not as a prophet but as a humble servant of you, the people’. (Mandela, 1990)

‘Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen. It is a great pleasure for Prince Philip and me to be back in Australia and in the home of your parliamentary democracy. As Queen of Australia, I have always felt a special bond with a people whose creative energy and collective ambition is leavened by genuine warmth, generosity and humour’ (Queen Elizabeth II’s speech at the Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, 15 March 2006)

The criticisms and suggestions made also in terms of task modifications and resources were as follows: Texts: the two examples are mainly meant to focus on speech formality and informality and not on their different English.

Perspectives in WE- and ELF-informed ELT Materials in Teacher Education  111

Suggestions: (a) add examples of speeches by other NNSs, e.g. The Dalai Lama Nobel acceptance speech, the President of the European Bank, Mario Draghi, Pope Francis speech in front of the United Nations etc. (b) Task: ask learners to focus on different uses of spoken English by each speaker and what made it difficult/easy for them to understand. Resources: course participants retrieved most speeches from the web. (TFA Courses, Roma Tre University, 2014/15) Example 4 – Intercultural issues and communication strategies

Other activities dealing with intercultural issues and including also communication strategies were devised taking a course-book section on traditional food eaten on special occasions and festivals as a starting point.8 The three viewpoints by an English, a Pakistani and a Jewish teenager living in England, talking respectively about food eaten for Sunday Lunch, Ramadan and Sabbath, are used to raise awareness of different cultural habits and traditions, as well as to reflect on the students’ own cultures. Attention is also drawn on the fact that the names of typical dishes cannot be easily translated into other languages but have rather to be explained, and on to how relevant this is particularly when English is used as a lingua franca of communication among people of different linguacultures. Communication strategies such as paraphrasing and circumlocution are then introduced and practiced with reference to some popular Italian food (e.g. panettone, pandoro, polenta). Working in pairs, students are then asked to prepare an oral presentation addressed at an international audience about a traditional festival in Italy or in a culture they are familiar with and its typical food, also using communication strategies to explain different dishes and traditions (AB, MC, PC, PAS 2015/16, University of Verona). Such a project could well be part of an internationally-oriented school partnership, for example through eTwinning, as was proposed by some trainee teachers for other topics (e.g. places to visit in the area where students live). Synopsis

A WE- and ELF-aware perspective requires a reconceptualization of teacher education, of its epistemology, of the way teachers-to-be are called to respond to the new global sociocultural issues and of the way they learn to teach within their working contexts. In this chapter we have dealt with issues related to ELT materials analysis and development within a WE- and ELF-aware perspective, looking at how they can be integrated into teacher education programmes. Possible criteria to be taken into consideration for a reflective and critical analysis of ELT materials have been examined, and activities for the development of materials, activities and tasks to be included in a WE- and ELF-aware

112  Part 3: ELF and EFL Language Learning Materials

perspective have been proposed. Samples of activities that were developed and carried out in two teacher education courses in Italy have also been provided as an exemplification of what teachers-to-be should be guided to devise within such a perspective. Indicative Responses to Reflective Questions and Activities

RQA1: Answers should include criteria related to textbook evaluation, such as the ones outlined in the following paragraphs. RQA2: This is an open question, whose answers will depend on the school level and the teaching context. RQA3: Answers may be open since it depends upon the context, the learners and the teaching aims. Criteria may vary from the presence of samples of varieties of English to the type of intercultural themes or tasks. RQA4: Answers should include examples, if present, of WE- and ELFinformed activities, as well as reflections on their relevance, and applicability to, your broader educational and more specific local teaching context. RQA5 (a) Modifications to lessons may mostly be due to lesson organization issues; they may also lead to reducing the number of activities. (b) As for the inclusion of a plurilithic approach, this may impact, for example, the types of materials, the use of multimedia or the use of recordings of news in English in non-English speaking contexts. (c) Changes in the task demands. RQA6 (a) Besides the internet, publishers are offering numerous authentic materials that are accessible via their website. Using extracts from films, documentaries, television series may provide useful samples of authentic language use. (b) Easily downloadable materials, videos, texts produced in both SE and non-SE or with non-native English speakers. (c) The aims should include the development of the ability of distinguishing between standard and non-SE forms, and of noticing the use of communicative strategies in spoken interactions. RQA7: Open Notes (1) The courses are teacher education paths that have been offered by Italian universities since 2011 for all subject teachers; they are called Tirocinio Formativo Attivo/Active training practicum (TFA) and Percorso Abilitante Speciale/Special teacher training path

Perspectives in WE- and ELF-informed ELT Materials in Teacher Education  113

(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

(PAS) courses. The two courses mentioned in this contribution – targeted at English as a foreign language teachers – were respectively run at the University of Verona and at the University of Roma Tre; for a more detailed description see Vettorel and Lopriore (2017). EIL stands for ‘English as an international language’ and it refers to the use of English as a means of communication in international contexts around the world. The term is sometimes used interchangeably with English as a lingua franca (Vettorel, 2015b: 239). For other exemplifications of activities cf. Lopriore and Vettorel 2015; Vettorel 2015a, 2016, Extract from one of the 10 course-books analysed: Voicing English, vol. 1 course-book (age 14/15), Unit 3 – Identities – Lopriore, Ceruti, 2010, Turin: Loescher, editore. Extract from: Voicing English, vol. 1 course-book (age 14/15), Unit 2 – More than Language – Lopriore, Ceruti, 2010, Turin: Loescher, editore. Script: the text provides a brief description of the following festivities: Passover, Adam’s Peak Pilgrimage in Sri Lanka, Vappu Day in Finland, the African Liberation Day, Red Earth Native American Fair, St Jean Baptiste Day. Extract from Voicing English, vol. 2 (age 15/16), Unit 3 – Section Language Awareness: More than Language, Lopriore, Ceruti, 2010, Turin: Loescher, editore. In Bowen, P. and Delaney, D. (2012) High Spirits (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References Bayyurt, Y. and Sifakis, N.C. (2015) Developing an ELF-aware pedagogy: Insights from a self-education programme. In P. Vettorel (ed.) New Frontiers in Teaching and Learning English (pp. 55–76). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Blair, A. (2015) Evolving a post-native, multilingual model for ELF-aware teachers. In Y. Bayyurt and S. Akcan (eds) Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 89–102). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dewey, M. (2015) ELF, teacher knowledge and professional development. In H. Bowles and A. Cogo (eds) International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca. Pedagogical Insights (pp. 176–193). Basingtoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Farrel, T. (2007) Reflective Language Teaching. London: Continuum Freeman, D. (2016) Educating Second Language Teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Galloway, N. and Rose, H. (2015) Introducing Global Englishes. London/NY: Routledge. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2011) Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching 44 (3), 281–315. Johnson, K.E. and Golombek, P. (eds) (2011) Research on Second Language Teacher Education. New York: Routledge. Kelly, M. and Grenfell, M. (2004) European Profile of Language Teacher Education. Southampton: University of Southampton. Lopriore, L. (2010) World Englishes and language teacher education in a world in migration: A shift in perspective. In C. Gagliardi. and A. Maley (eds) EIL, ELF, Global English: Teaching and Learning Issues (pp. 69–91). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lopriore, L. (2016) ELF in teacher education: A way and ways. In L. Lopriore and E. Grazzi (eds) Intercultural Communication. New Perspectives from ELF (pp. 167–188). Rome: Roma Tre Press. Lopriore, L. and Ceruti, M.A. (2010) Voicing English. Turin: Loescher Editore. Lopriore, L. and Vettorel, P. (2015) Promoting awareness of Englishes and ELF in the English language classroom. In H. Bowles and A. Cogo (eds) International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca. Pedagogical Insights (pp. 13–34). Basingtoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

114  Part 3: ELF and EFL Language Learning Materials

Matsuda, A. (2012) Teaching materials in EIL. In L. Alsagoff, S.L. McKay, G. Hu and W.A. Renadya (eds) Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language (pp. 168–185). London: Routledge. Schmidt, R. (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11, 129–158. Schmidt, R. (2010) Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W.M. Chan, S. Chi, K.N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J.W. Sew, T. Suthiwan and I. Walker (eds) Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010, Singapore, 2–4 December (pp. 721–737). Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies. Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sifakis, N.C. (2007) The education of the teachers of English as a lingua franca: A transformative perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17 (3), 355–375. Syrbe, M. and Rose, H. (2018) An evaluation of the global orientation of English coursebooks in Germany. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12 (2), 152–163. Vettorel, P. (2015a) World Englishes and English as a lingua franca: Implications for teacher education and ELT. Iperstoria (6) Fall, 229–244. Vettorel, P. (2015b) EIL (glossary definition). In P. Vettorel (ed.) New Frontiers in Teaching and Learning English (p. 239). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Vettorel, P. (2016) WE- and ELF-informed classroom practices: Proposals from a preservice teacher education programme in Italy. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 5 (1), 107–133. Vettorel, P. and Lopriore, L. (2013) Is there ELF in ELT course-books? Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 3 (4), 483–504. Vettorel, P. and Lopriore, L. (2017) WE, EIL/ELF and awareness of their pedagogical implications in teacher education courses in Italy. In A. Matsuda (ed.) Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language (EIL) (pp. 197–209). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Further annotated readings Blair, A. (2015) Evolving a post-native, multilingual model for ELF-aware teacher education. In Y. Bayyurt and S. Akcan (eds) Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 89–108). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Mouton. The chapter addresses a pivotal issue in this time of transition from standard to non-SEs, that of teacher education, a field central in revisiting beliefs about language learning and teaching. Blair introduces the fundamental notion of multicompetence and represents teachers’ points of view. Corbett, J. (2010) Intercultural Activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The volume represents a valuable collection of language activities within an intercultural language perspective. The introductory sections provide a concise theoretical overview of the topics that are explored in the different sections, where a varied set of locally and internationally set activities are offered. Lopriore, L. and Vettorel, P. (2015) Promoting awareness of Englishes and ELF in the English language classroom. In H. Bowles and A. Cogo (eds) International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca. Pedagogical Insights (pp. 13–34). Basingtoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Part of a book on ELF pedagogical implications, this chapter engages the reader in understanding the multiple challenges involved in adopting an ELF-aware approach in one’s

Perspectives in WE- and ELF-informed ELT Materials in Teacher Education  115

own teaching. It offers numerous suggestions on how to use materials and course-books within a plurilithic ELF-oriented approach. Matsuda, A. (2012) Teaching materials in EIL. In L. Alsagoff, S.L. McKay, G. Hu and W.A. Renandya (eds) Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language (pp. 168–185). London: Routledge. After an introductory section dealing with main issues in ELT materials, the chapter provides a series of criteria for the evaluation of teaching materials from an EIL viewpoint, as well as a series of questions that can guide teachers in the choice of materials and activities to supplement the course-book. McKay, S.L. (2012) Principles of teaching English as an international language. In L. Alsagoff, S.L. McKay, G. Hu and W.A. Renandya (eds) Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language (pp. 28– 46). London: Routledge. After an overview on users and uses of English today, the chapter examines and illustrates a series of principles for EIL pedagogical implications, providing meaningful suggestions for areas to be taken into account within an ‘EIL socially sensitive’ pedagogy, including the promotion of multilingualism and multiculturalism, awareness of language variation and cross-cultural awareness. Tomlinson, B. (2013) Classroom research of language classes. In B. Tomlinson (ed.) Applied Linguistics and Materials Development (pp. 43–61). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Tomlinson’s contribution, built around general assumptions on classroom research, provides a thorough description of what this type of research has so far revealed in applied linguistics. Tomlinson’s account leads the reader who is looking for ways of researching his/her own practice into the use of different approaches to research. Vettorel, P. (ed.) (2015) New Frontiers in Teaching and Learning English. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. The essays in each of the three sections into which the volume is organized provide diverse and complementary insights into recent developments in ELF research and pedagogy, including teachers’ awareness of ELF and examples from practice in different settings (primary, secondary and tertiary education).

Annotated websites The English for Global Communication blog https://englishglobalcom.wordpress.com/ about-egc/ (accessed 16 May 2016). The blog, run by Robin Walker, deals with communication in ELF contexts and teaching/ learning English, particularly (although not only) in terms of pronunciation and intelligibility issues. Particularly valuable also is the section with downloadable resources and links to other blogs dealing with similar as well as more general issues. ELF Pronunciation blog https://elfpron.wordpress.com/what-is-elf-pronunciation/ (accessed 16 May 2016). This blog, run by K. Simpson and L. Patsko, focuses on pronunciation issues related to ELF. It also includes an interesting section with useful readings and research, and one with links and downloadable resources.

116  Part 3: ELF and EFL Language Learning Materials

Practical Ideas for Teaching Pronunciation and Listening in an English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Context http://englishagenda.­britishcouncil.org/seminars/practicalideas-teaching-pronunciation-­and-listening-english-lingua-franca-elf-context (accessed 16 May 2016). Part of the British Council ‘English Agenda’ events, it is a video recording of a seminar presenting some practical ideas for teaching pronunciation and listening in ELF contexts given by K. Davis and L. Patsko. The Speech Accent Archive, 1999. http://accent.gmu.edu/about.php (accessed 16 May 2016). The Speech Accent Archive exhibits a large set of speech accents from a variety of language backgrounds. NS and NNS of English all read the same English paragraph and are carefully recorded. It is a useful tool for teachers and learners to learn more about Englishes. Speech in Action, 1998. www.speechinaction.org (accessed 16 May 2016). An extremely useful tool for promoting listening. It offers a wide variety of samples and a section is devoted to ELF and teaching. TED Talks https://www.ted.com/ (accessed 16 May 2016). TED Talks are influential videos from expert speakers on education, business, science, tech and creativity, with subtitles in 100+ languages. A useful tool for teachers and learners because it offers a wide variety of accents, topics and forms of public speaking that might be used in a WE/ELF perspective.

7 When the Textbook is Not Enough: How to Shape an ELF Classroom? Luís Guerra and Lili Cavalheiro

General aims of this chapter

This chapter is devised for ELT practitioners to reflect on how language and culture are portrayed in EFL textbooks, and explore how an ELF approach can be further integrated into their teaching practices through supplementary activities and teaching materials. The target audience is pre-service and in-service teachers as well as course-book designers. After reading the chapter, readers will become aware of several ELF-related teaching activities and materials that focus both on language and culture, so that they could explore and apply them in their teaching contexts. Expected outcomes

On completing this chapter, you should be able to: • reflect upon your own ELT context; • evaluate ELT teaching materials; • locate in teaching materials examples of diverse English varieties and cultures, as well as intercultural communicative interactions, among NSs and NNSs; • identify different ways of implementing an ELF-pedagogy in the classroom; • design your own ELF-aware teaching materials. Key concepts

• Textbook analysis. • ELF in the classroom. • ELF-aware teaching materials.

117

118  Part 3:  ELF in EFL Language Learning Materials

Introduction

Essentially, the concept of ELF aims at mutual intelligibility and appropriate language use involving speakers of different varieties of English and thus concerning cross-cultural, cross-linguistic interactions. Regarding the use of ELF at a global level, Widdowson (2003: 177) proposes that English language teachers reexamine their objectives when dealing with NS norms and cultures in the classroom: ‘rather than seeking to specify goals in terms of projected needs (…) it would be preferable, and more practicable, to focus on the development of a more general capability which would serve as an investment for subsequent learning’. More specifically, an EFL perspective which highlights SE and its culture – usually British or American – should be replaced by an ELF pedagogy. Based on Modiano (2001: 340), there are two major concerns in the teaching of ELF: language varieties and cultures. Consequently, in order to implement ELF pedagogical practices, it becomes imperative to consider how teaching materials present language varieties and cultures and develop supplementary innovative activities when the textbook adopts an ethnocentered and linguacentered approach to learning English which does not emphasize its international use. In sum, the aim of this chapter is to provide teachers with tools to assess their teaching materials so as to apply them to an ELF paradigm whenever needed. This chapter begins by providing a general outline of the Portuguese curriculum, with a focus on the ELT aims for upper basic and secondary education (years 8–11). Following this analysis, the teaching materials for these levels are examined, not only in terms of textbooks, but also audio files and CDs, as the intention is to assess the linguistic and cultural dimensions of ELF in teaching materials. Lastly, several suggestions are put forward on how to build or adapt more ELF-aware teaching materials that can prepare learners for real English language use. The Portuguese ELT Curriculum

Since the beginning of the millennium, the Portuguese government has implemented educational policies further substantiating the importance of English in compulsory education. For instance, in 2005, the Ministry of Education (ME) urged primary schools to offer English lessons from year 3 onwards, and in 2014 English was integrated in the obligatory curriculum for years 3 and 4. Until then, students were customarily introduced to their first foreign language in year 5; since 2012, the ME has made English the mandatory foreign language. It must also be kept in mind that in 2009 it was stipulated that compulsory education change from nine to 12 years, which has consequently led to English being taught until year 11, after which point it may voluntarily be chosen in year 12. Hence, in the near future Portuguese students will have completed at least nine years of English language when finishing high school.

When the Textbook is Not Enough: How to Shape an ELF Classroom?  119

RQA 1 Before you read on, think about your own ELT context. Are there mandatory curricular programs to be followed? If yes, for how long have they been implemented? Have there been any recent changes? Are they mainly UK/US based or are they internationally oriented? In case there are no curricular programs, are there any guidelines to be complied with? Again, are these guidelines mainly UK/US based or are they internationally oriented? After reading the next section, compare and contrast your own situation with the Portuguese ELT context presented. Another central issue to consider is the EFL curricular programs, which guide not only teachers, but also materials writers and publishers. In the case of primary education (years 1–4), the program dates from 2005 with updated curricular aims published in 2014. At this level, particular emphasis is given to listening and speaking skills, although reading and writing should not be ignored. Furthermore, not only is learners’ awareness towards linguistic and cultural diversity in general promoted, but so are their own linguistic and cultural identities when confronted with another foreign language and the culture(s) associated with it. Other promoted values include understanding how language functions as a medium of interpretation and communication with the surrounding world, as well as advocating education for communication, by encouraging values such as respect for others, mutual support, solidarity and citizenship. At lower and upper basic education (years 5–9), programs date from 1995, with updated curricular aims published in 2013. As with the previous level, attention is placed on developing learners’ awareness to linguistic and cultural diversity when confronted with another foreign language and the culture(s) associated with it in addition to also encouraging social interactions, which foster values like mutual respect and support, solidarity and citizenship. In upper basic education, further consideration is given to the Portuguese culture and language as a way to learn about the language and cultures of the USA and the UK, so as to develop tolerance and respect towards difference. References to the British and American cultures are quite common; however, explicit allusions to British and American English are less frequent. The secondary level (years 10–12) program was introduced in 2003. It focuses on other concerns in line with a more unrestricted view of English(es), by establishing the learning of English within a multilingual and multicultural European and international setting. The international role of English is a major concern in this syllabus, but no clear indication is given to its status as a lingua franca (particularly among NNSs), continuing therefore to favor interaction and intercultural communication with other English-speaking countries and cultures, namely from the inner and outer circles (Kachru, 1985).

120  Part 3:  ELF in EFL Language Learning Materials

Considering the different programs, all share the need to improve learners’ knowledge and awareness of their own sociocultural context, and to understand and demonstrate their openness and appreciation for other cultures. Furthermore, learners’ mother tongue and culture are also viewed as crucial within the ELT context, as both contribute to establishing the learners’ positions (local, national or European/global) within their community. Bearing this in mind, it is fundamental to analyze whether published materials follow these general guidelines (especially at more advanced levels where more openness is verified) or if they continue to be trapped within UK- and US-based linguistic and cultural preconceptions. Assessing the Linguistic and Cultural Dimensions of ELF in Teaching Materials (years 8–11)

RQA 2 The next section provides a detailed analysis of the linguistic and cultural representations in Portuguese EFL textbooks. Regardless of whether you use a textbook in the classroom that is required by the Ministry of Education (or a similar entity), or chosen by you, to what extent are the linguistic and cultural native and non-native representations used as criteria to decide which textbook to adopt? Considering the Portuguese ELT curricula, this study contemplates the analysis of teaching materials targeted at upper basic and secondary English levels (years 8–11) produced by Portuguese publishers from a linguistic and cultural ELF perspective. Our focus on these more advanced levels is due to the greater awareness they portray in differentiating British and American linguistic and cultural aspects, as well as a more international outlook. Year 8

The year 8 textbook, iTeen 8 (Gonçalves et al., 2014), is structured in five main units: (1) Time out; (2) Food and health; (3) Teen time; (4) Teens and media; (5) Green living; plus an ‘entry unit’ (Welcome back!) and a supplementary unit on festivities (Let’s celebrate). The texts and activities in this book make extensive references to American and British people and places, mostly related to pop culture and the entertainment industry (singers, bands, films, television programs), with colorful pictures and illustrations which appeal to students in this age group – around 14 years old. It also includes several references to places and artists from other inner circle countries, such as Ireland, Canada and Australia. It is interesting to note only two activities

When the Textbook is Not Enough: How to Shape an ELF Classroom?  121

(a questionnaire about cultural facts in the entry unit and a project work in unit 1), which focus directly on English-speaking countries. However, English as a second language (ESL) countries are rarely mentioned in brief references to Jamaica, Rihanna and Gandhi. In contrast, examples of places, facts and cultural habits in EFL countries are slightly more frequent. Finally, this textbook does not often refer to Portuguese people, places or facts – there are only five such references throughout the book. Regarding language varieties, this textbook uses BrE spelling, vocabulary and grammar. However, it makes frequent references to features of American English (AmE), mostly vocabulary but also spelling and syntactic differences. Interestingly, many activities and texts use AmE lexicon, spelling and grammar without identifying them as such and, quite frequently, together with BrE features in the same text or exercise. For example, a text may use ‘film’ and ‘movies’, even though these words are later on identified in vocabulary lists as characteristics of different English varieties (other examples include ‘rubbish/garbage’, ‘in the street/on the street’). Another curious finding is the occurrence of BrE in texts supposedly written by Americans (e.g. ‘favourite’ in a text written by an American teenager). Interestingly, neither the student’s nor the teacher’s book make any comments regarding mixing BrE and AmE. The CD accompanying the textbook contains dialogs, texts and listening comprehension activities which were recorded by 13 speakers. Two of them are adults, one male and one female, and the remaining are young adults/teenagers of both genders. The adult speakers are English native (UK and US), whereas the others are Portuguese speakers with a nativelike pronunciation. However, the text on the back cover of the CD case claims that students will be exposed to NSs of different ages, from different origins and with different English accents. But, after a careful analysis of the audio material, most of the young speakers displayed a Portugueseinfluenced accent (recognized through the absence of /h/ in syllable-initial position, insertion of /h/ before vowels, no distinction between /ɪ/ and /i/, the pronunciation /ɪŋg/ for _ing, mixing received pronunciation (RP) and general American in the same text – e.g. /t/ and the alveolar tap /ɾ/). Year 9

The textbook inspected, Upgrade (Filipe et al., 2015), is divided into five units: (1) Walking the red carpet; (2) Ready, steady… fit!; (3) Life changes; (4) A world of differences; (5) Time to move. The texts and activities in this textbook make extensive references to American culture – mainly Hollywood and television artists, singers, bands, movies – and places in the US, although also providing plenty of references to British culture and lifestyle. As for texts and activities that are linked to other inner circle cultures/countries, there are some materials that mention Australian and Canadian people (although with no

122  Part 3:  ELF in EFL Language Learning Materials

identification of their nationality) and places, with only one reference to New Zealand in a reading comprehension activity. There are even fewer and briefer references to ESL cultures (e.g. Malaysia, India, Pakistan). Interestingly, there are more materials focusing on an international/ELF perspective with more detailed facts (e.g. the living habits around the world, a multicultural classroom in England, sports in Germany) or brief references to places (e.g. Spain, Paris, Taiwan, the Netherlands, Israel, Costa Rica). As for Portuguese culture, few references are made to ­cultural habits and places, but no reference to Portuguese icons or ­historical figures. Considering the language varieties identified in this textbook, BrE is the preferred standard in spelling (e.g. _our, _re, _ise; encyclopaedia, programmes, dialogue), vocabulary (e.g. brackets, marks, adverts, autumn) and syntax (e.g. have got). However, AmE is also used throughout the textbook. Although there are only three cases of identification of the differences in vocabulary between AmE and BrE in footnotes (copped/admitted; principal/head teacher; gas/petrol) and two references to the differences in spelling (_ize/_ise; _or/_our), there is plenty of use of American vocabulary and spelling but with no identification as such. More interestingly, the textbook makes use of both American and British words and spelling (e.g. soccer/football; garbage/rubbish; elevator/lift) sometimes even in the same text or exercise (e.g. movie/film; mom/mum). The audio activities were mostly recorded by NSs of American and BrE, and there are several activities with other NSs such as Australians and Canadians. It is interesting to note, however, some recordings with NNSs, such as Japanese, Brazilian, Egyptian and Portuguese. Year 10

The textbook analyzed, A Taste 4 English (Sampaio et al., 2013), is divided into four units: (1) A world of many languages; (2) A technological world; (3) The media; (4) Young people in the global era, which follow the international outlook recommended for year 10. The texts are mainly authentic British and American writings published online, and contrary to what is usually verified, American texts here are more dominant. Regarding the topics, references are made not only to British and American culture, icons and people, but also to some other English-speaking countries and cultures (e.g. Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, India). Furthermore, an array of general and international topics are promoted, namely social media, world-renown writers (e.g. Baudelaire, Dostoevsky, Nabokov), EU exchange programs (e.g. Erasmus, Comenius), robotics (e.g. Japanese robotic bear pillow and baby seal robot), different forms of communication throughout time (e.g. pictograms, cave paintings) as well as different types of music/musicians (e.g. from Beethoven and Mozart to Abba and Bob Marley), which ultimately contribute to a

When the Textbook is Not Enough: How to Shape an ELF Classroom?  123

wider perspective of the world, instead of solely considering a country or two. As for Portuguese references, there are only two: a listening exercise with a song in Portuguese by a local rapper and a grammar exercise with football player Cristiano Ronaldo. Considering vocabulary, although there is an extensive list of dif­ ferences between BrE and AmE, some words are used interchangeably within units, such as cinema/movie, mobile/cell or pen friends/pen pals. The same is verified with spelling, with 16 words written in either BrE or AmE, although there is a slight preference for American spelling due to the number of American-based texts. The British counterpart of the word or spelling is largely located in the exercises drafted by the Portuguese teachers, who are traditionally British-oriented. Therefore, the British and American word or spelling can appear on the same page – the issue is whether this was done consciously or unintentionally. As for the audio CD, it consists of authentic recordings not created specifically to be used in the classroom, such as songs (four American, two British and one Canadian) and narrated texts, where AmE is predominant. As for examples of NNSs of English, there is only one Japanese speaker in a BBC news report. The CD narrators are also NSs: one is American and the other has American/Irish influence. Year 11

The year 11 textbook, Xplore (Almeida et al., 2014), is composed of four major units: (1) Environment; (2) Consumerism; (3) Work; (4) Multiculturalism, which follow the international outlook already experienced in year 10. Similarly, British and American texts are predominant, with reference to British and American culture, icons and people, but also to other native and ESL cultures, countries and people (e.g. Australia, Canada, Nigeria, South Africa). There is also a strong international view by referring to Burma, China, Pakistan, Qatar and Tibet in different activities, as well as to diverse cultural behaviors and work etiquette in Asia, India, Islamic Middle-East and Latin America. Furthermore, international brands (e.g. Gucci, D&G, H&M, Zara, L’Oréal) and organizations and initiatives (e.g. Earth Hour, PETA) are contemplated too. However, once more, the Portuguese culture seems to be greatly neglected. Only on two occasions do students reflect on the Portuguese scenario: common scams targeting Portuguese teens, and how other cultures have influenced the Portuguese culture. Regarding language, in Xplore there is a slight tendency to favor the British over the American lexicon, and there is only one specific exercise to identify examples of AmE and to give the BrE equivalent. The same tendency is verified even more with spelling, following therefore the traditional British ELT paradigm. Vocabulary and spelling are once again used interchangeably throughout the textbook; however, it is not clear

124  Part 3:  ELF in EFL Language Learning Materials

whether this is intentional so as to provide learners with multiple standards of English. Xplore also has two audio CDs consisting of a total of 62 tracks, in which the same NS narrator introduces each track. The texts are read by several speakers who, according to the cover of the CDs, are NSs of English. However, although all of them possess native or native-like fluency, it is clear that some speakers are competent NNSs of English due to eventual mixing of pronunciation standards (RP and General American (GA)) and non-standard pronunciations. All in all, apart from BrE and AmE, the audio material does not provide exposure to other accents. RQA 3 After the above information on the Portuguese textbooks, compare and contrast our findings with the textbooks used in your own country and particular teaching context. Consider the following topics: • Varieties used (BrE and/or AmE? Other native and/or non-native varieties?) • Cultural representations (British and/or American? Other native and/ or non-native cultures? Global issues?) How to Design or Adapt ELF-aware Teaching Materials

Teaching materials have traditionally been restricted to standard monolithic representations of language, focusing largely on standard BrE (and to a certain point AmE as well) as the only valid example. As a result, materials have generally neglected ‘to acknowledge the increased use of English among NNSs of English’ (Matsuda, 2012: 171), therefore ignoring the dynamic plurality learners will encounter. Recent research has not only indicated that ELF is largely underrepresented in both textbooks and web-based teaching materials (Matsuda, 2012; Vettorel & Lopriore, 2013), but that there is a lack of appropriately designed ELF-aware teaching materials (Seidlhofer, 2011; Sifakis, 2009). Considering this, Lopriore and Vettorel (2015) call for an updated perspective not only on didactic materials, but also on classroom practices, ultimately contributing to a greater awareness, sensitivity and respect regarding language differences. Teachers should, however, be able to transition from conventional EFL to ELF-aware lessons as gradually and effortlessly as their context allows (e.g. Sifakis, 2009), avoiding divergence from the EFL curriculum, but still enhancing the implemented ELT syllabus. For instance, by resorting to audio or visual materials from ‘real-life’ contexts, teachers may create their own teaching materials and activities where learners are engaged in listening to effective language use and in using negotiation of meaning strategies, among other issues.

When the Textbook is Not Enough: How to Shape an ELF Classroom?  125

Bearing this in mind, our aim is to: (1) put forth suggestions for teachers, whose aim is to recognize the existing variety of Englishes and ELF in different teaching materials and (2) propose a range of resources to develop ELF-based activities and materials that can be used in classrooms to acquaint learners with ELF issues. RQA 4 In this section, we are going to discuss some ELF-aware teaching materials for the EFL classroom. Before reading, reflect on your own teaching context. In what ways have you integrated, or can you begin to integrate, ELF-aware teaching materials in your classroom? Identify at least four types of materials for the successful integration of an ELF approach. The variety of resources educators may employ is infinite, especially with the rise of the internet, which has allowed for free and easy access to information. The resources given here are a mere example of what teachers may work with. In order to help them, not only have internet sources been considered, but so have published materials, both of which have been divided into the following five main sections that will be contemplated more in depth: audio-visual materials, online archives, web 2.0 tools, ­digital media and academic books. Audio-visual materials

In terms of listening and understanding skills, teachers may resort to a range of well-known and successful NNSs from a variety of different fields to demonstrate the unnecessary need to sound like a NS. Some examples include actors (e.g. Penélope Cruz, Audrey Tautou, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Roberto Benigni, Sofia Vergara, Diogo Morgado), supermodels (e.g. Sara Sampaio, Gisele Bündchen, Natalia Vodianova), athletes (e.g. Cristiano Ronaldo, Rafael Nadal) or even politicians (e.g. Ban Ki-moon, Angela Merkel, Vladimir Putin, Shinzō Abe, Alexis Tsipras). Songs can also be used in order to develop learners’ listening and understanding skills when dealing with non-native varieties. One example of a song which depicts a non-standard variety of English is ‘Cheap Thrills’, by Sia ft. Sean Paul. Sia is an Australian singer and Sean Paul is a reggae and hip-hop singer from Jamaica. In this song, Sean Paul participates singing in Jamaican English and as the video of the song shows the lyrics in subtitles, it is possible to compare the pronunciation and spelling of the words (e.g. ‘mi nah play no hide an seek’, ‘wah fi see di ting u have weh mek mi feel week girl’). Another interesting source of songs in Jamaican English which may be used in an ELF classroom come from the repertoire of a Portuguese reggae singer, Richie Campbell. The songs ‘I Feel Amazing’ and ‘That’s How We Roll’ are interesting examples of this English variety.

126  Part 3:  ELF in EFL Language Learning Materials

Watching movies and television programs is a frequent activity in language classrooms and may also be a valuable resource in ELF pedagogy. The following movies are excellent examples of a multicultural approach to language learning: In America (2002) directed by Jim Sheridan (an Irish family in New York city); Crash (2004) directed by Paul Haggis (multiculturality in Los Angeles); Slumdog Millionaire (2008) directed by Danny Boyle and The Namesake (2006) directed by Mira Nair (India); Hotel Rwanda (2004) directed by Terry George; Boy (2010) directed by Taika Waititi and Whale Rider (2002) directed by Niki Caro (New Zealand); and the Cities of Love series, such as Paris, je t’aime (2006), and Rio, eu te amo (2014), where international actors occasionally interact in English, sometimes even code-switching. More specifically, Nigeria has become one of the major film producers in the world and the name ‘Nollywood’ has been used to describe the Nigerian film industry. Although these movies can use any of the over 300 Nigerian languages, there are a great number of movies produced in Nigerian English which can be viewed on YouTube. Similarly, MTV, the American cable and satellite television channel, has created affiliated channels in Europe, Asia, Oceania, the Middle East, Africa and the Americas, so it has become a rich source of programs in different languages and varieties of English. An example is the program ‘You got’, produced by MTV South Africa featuring artists and localized music programming, which can be viewed on YouTube. Online archives

The internet is host to a number of dialects and accents archives which provide valuable resources for English teachers who wish to engage their students in ELF-based activities. The following are some of the most suitable archives for pedagogical purposes. IDEA – International Dialects of English Archive (http://www.­ dialectsarchive.com). This is an archive of recordings of dialects and accents of English from around the world. The recordings can be searched by ­country, state, or province, and by characteristics of the speaker, such as ­ethnicity, age and occupation. It is possible to listen to the streaming audio and read the accompanying transcription and commentary at the same time. The Speech Accent Archive (http://accent.gmu.edu). This archive presents speech samples from a wide diversity of language backgrounds. As far as ELF activities are concerned, learners will be able to observe and compare the accents of different NSs and NNSs of English by browsing the samples from a world map which indicates representative speakers from different countries such as Canada, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa, Jamaica, Trinidad, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Philippines, Guyana, Barbados, Singapore, Nigeria and Ghana, among others.

When the Textbook is Not Enough: How to Shape an ELF Classroom?  127

VOICE (https://www.univie.ac.at/voice/). This archive presents an extensive corpus of ELF non-scripted face-to-face interactions among speakers from different first language backgrounds in different speech types (interviews, press conferences, service encounters, seminar discussions, working group discussions, workshop discussions, meetings, panels, question–answer sessions, conversations) in terms of domain (professional, educational and leisure), function (exchanging information, enacting social relationships), and participant roles and relationships (acquainted vs unacquainted, symmetrical vs asymmetrical), which can be used in listening comprehension activities, for example. Web 2.0 tools

Regarding Web 2.0 tools, the possibilities are immense. For English varieties, Voki (http://www.voki.com) is an app that allows users not only to create an avatar that may be imbedded, for instance, in a blog, but they may also choose what English variety they want it to speak (British, American, Australian, Irish, Scottish, Indian, South African) or they may even upload their own recording, allowing for a mixture of different varieties. In terms of a more collaborative approach, there are certain Web 2.0 applications that allow users from different places to work together or to comment on each other’s works. For instance, learners in different countries can collaborate to build an online magazine or book on a specific issue such as MadMagz (https://madmagz.com), ProjectWriter (https://www. boomwriter.com/projectwriter), or perhaps they may choose to give an oral presentation via VoiceThread (https://voicethread.com) and receive either oral or written feedback from colleagues in other schools. For a more direct interpersonal approach, Skype is an excellent tool for interacting with anyone around the world, so educators can take advantage of their international contacts and have learners actively communicate with others, engaging in conversations with a diversity of NSs and NNSs of English. Digital media

For quite some time now, English teachers have been using online media as a major tool to display British and American language and culture. However, from an ELF cultural perspective, online media should also be seen as an effective means of exploring other native and non-native cultural contexts. For this reason, English-language international news channels and newspapers should be systematically used in the ELF classroom. Some examples are given below. • China Daily (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn): an English-language daily newspaper aimed at an international audience as it translates relevant Chinese newspaper articles.

128  Part 3:  ELF in EFL Language Learning Materials

• AllAfrica.com (http://allafrica.com): a website that gathers news produced in Africa about all areas of life, politics and culture. • Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com): an Arabic news and current affairs network channel, including the internet and television channels such as Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera America. • The Japan Times (http://www.japantimes.co.jp): Japan’s largest English-language newspaper. • The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com): an Indian English-language daily newspaper. • Euronews (http://www.euronews.com): a news television channel which covers world news from a pan-European perspective. Other rich sources of NS and NNS’ use of English are: • TED Talks (http://www.ted.com): a global set of conferences on technology, design, scientific, cultural and academic topics. Currently, over 2400 talks are offered for free viewing online, with transcripts and subtitles to help viewers follow the presenters; • YouTube: an excellent source for interviews, which illustrate interactions among NSs and NNSs. Academic books

Another useful source of international English varieties and cultures are academic textbooks, which aim at analyzing and comparing the characteristics of the English language as it is used around the world. Here, we highlight some of the most relevant. International English: A Guide to the Varieties of Standard English (5th edn, 2008), by Peter Trudgill and Jean Hannah: This book introduces the main varieties of SE as well as non-standard varieties throughout the world such as Australian English, Welsh English, Singaporean English, Indian English, South African English, Caribbean English, among many others. Moreover, it provides a categorization of typologies of varieties of English, including ELF. According to the authors, one of the aims of this book is ‘to familiarize readers with as many varieties of English as possible with a view to improving comprehension’ (Trudgill & Hannah: ix). To do so, the book points out the relationships and differences in phonetics, phonology, grammar and vocabulary, providing free MP3 downloads with audio examples from their website. This book is, without doubt, a useful resource for teachers of English who advocate an ELF paradigm in the classroom. World Englishes (2nd edn, 2013) by Gunnel Melchers and Philip Shaw: This book presents a thorough description of the main varieties of spoken and written English, providing an overview of variations in  vocabulary, grammar, phonology and pragmatics of English as it

When the Textbook is Not Enough: How to Shape an ELF Classroom?  129

is used in the world in the 21st century. More specifically, it describes English varieties following Kachru’s (1985) model of inner, outer and expanding circles, but also refers to linguistic variation beyond these circles such as ELF, and English in internet-mediated communi­ cation such as on Facebook and in chat rooms. In order to help teachers promote an international approach to teaching and learning English, this book includes 20 audio examples of NSs and NNSs of English from  the five continents, available for download from the book’s website. World Englishes: Implications for International Communication and English Language Teaching (2007) by Andy Kirkpatrick: This book introduces a wide range of native and non-native varieties of WE. From a pedagogical perspective, it re-examines key concepts in ELT such as ‘standard’, ‘variety’, ‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native speaker’ and discusses the implications for ELT of choosing a specific variety to be used in the classroom from the teachers’ and learners’ perspectives. For teachers who wish to implement an ELF paradigm, there is a ­chapter  on ELF and an accompanying audio CD with 60 authentic examples of different varieties of English, ranging from informal dialogs to poetry readings. The book also provides the transcripts of the audio files. RQA 5 Considering the above types of ELF-oriented materials, which one(s) would you use in your classroom? Can you think of advantages ­a nd/­or  disadvantages of implementing these materials in your ELT context? Synopsis

This chapter has allowed readers to recognize and assess the linguistic and cultural issues portrayed in textbooks by taking into consideration the Portuguese context as an example. As was shown, the British and American linguistic and cultural paradigms continue to be the model followed by publishers, failing to portray the language’s greater international use, especially regarding NNSs. Bearing this in mind, a more ELF-aware approach was proposed by taking into account additional activities and materials that contemplate other linguistic and cultural ESL and EFL environments, which are many times neglected in textbooks. By integrating a variety of different listening and reading materials, learners’ awareness and respect for other Englishes and cultures increases, preparing them for real-life language encounters once outside the classroom.

130  Part 3:  ELF in EFL Language Learning Materials

References Almeida, T.P., Araújo, P.M. and Sousa, T.C. (2014) Xplore: Inglês 11° ano. Porto: Porto Editora. Filipe, I., Rabaça, M.A. and Simões, P. (2015) Upgrade 9. Lisboa: Edições Asa. Kachru, B. (1985) Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realm: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk and H. Widdowson (eds) English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gonçalves, M.E., Coelho, M. and Gonçalves, A. (2014) iTeen 8. Porto: Areal Editores. Lopriore, L. and Vettorel, P. (2015) Promoting awareness of Englishes and ELF in the English language classroom. In H. Bowles and A. Gogo (eds) International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca: Pedagogical Insights. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Matsuda, A. (2012) Teaching materials in EIL. In L. Alsagoff, S.L. McKay, G. Hu and W.A. Renedy (eds) Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language. London: Routledge. Modiano, M. (2001) Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL. ELT Journal 55 (4), 339–346. Sampaio, A., Mateus, A., Botas, A. and Jales, M.P. (2013) A Taste 4 English. Lisboa: Raiz Editora. Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sifakis, N. (2009) Teacher education in the post-modern era: Introducing a transformative dimension in the teaching of English as a lingua franca. In Selected Papers from the 18th ISTAL (pp. 345–353). Trudgill, P. and Hannah, J. (2008) International English: A Guide to Varieties of Standard English (5th edn). London: Routledge. Vettorel, P. and Lopriore, L. (2013) Is there ELF in ELT course-books? Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 3 (4), 483–504. Widdowson, H. (2003) Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Further reading Practical ideas for teaching pronunciation and listening in an English as a lingua franca (ELF) context. Available at: http://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/seminars/practicalideas-teaching-pronunciation-and-listening-english-lingua-franca-elf-context This seminar gives practical suggestions for: prioritizing areas in pronunciation, adapting pronunciation activities from textbooks for ELF purposes, using authentic materials, ­raising awareness of the listener’s responsibilities and dealing with learners’ misconceptions of ELF. Bayyurt, Y. and Ackan, S. (eds) (2015) Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. This book considers how current theories and principles in ELF studies contribute to research on pedagogical practices in ELF settings. It focuses on ELF-based pedagogical practices in various settings and on the pedagogy–policy connection regarding ELF. Holmes, P. and Dervin, F. (eds) (2016) The Cultural and Intercultural Dimensions of English as a Lingua Franca. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. This book contemplates the cultural and intercultural issues associated with ELF and how these notions can be incorporated into an ELF-aware teaching and learning approach.

When the Textbook is Not Enough: How to Shape an ELF Classroom?  131

In addition to the communication and pedagogical implications of this type of an approach, several recommendations are also given regarding ELF curriculum development, pedagogy and research. Walker, R. (2010) Teaching the Pronunciation of English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A description of the book is offered in the annotated readings of the next chapter.

8 ELT Materials for Basic Education in Brazil: Has the Time for an ELF-aware Practice Arrived? Sávio Siqueira and Julia Vasconcelos Gonçalves Matos

General aims of this chapter

The objective of this chapter is to provide a brief overview of the ELT reality in Brazil, still predominantly ENL-oriented and ­inner-circle emulating, arguing that, despite resistance, ELF-sensitive classes are gaining ground in the country. Based on findings of a brief study whose goal was to analyze how a few English high-school textbooks approved in the 2015 edition of the National Textbook Program (NTP)1 are linguistically, methodologically and ideologically oriented, we propose an alternative ELF orientation to a previous EFL syllabus. In light of this work, we assume that an ELF-sensitive pedagogy is viable even when departing from general pre-existing materials. The targeted audience will be teachers, student teachers, teacher educators, researchers, materials designers and other stakeholders involved in language education. Upon finishing the chapter, readers will have been exposed to some theoretical ELF-related issues as well as given the opportunity to explore and reflect over a specific ELT experience which can signal possibilities to be related to, and potentially be applied to their own contexts. Expected outcomes

Upon completing this chapter, readers should be able to: • perceive some of the main characteristics of the ELF construct; • identify some ELF implications/applications for ELT; • develop some familiarity with the ELT reality in Brazil and compare it with their own; 132

ELT Materials for Basic Education in Brazil  133

• contrast the resonance of ELF research findings in Brazil with the broader international context; • discuss some of the initiatives that can potentially trigger changes in ELT practices in the Brazilian reality under an ELF perspective; • reflect over the specific ELT experience and identify implications in their own contexts; • understand the textbook screening program for public schools in Brazil; • examine the results of a brief analysis of a few textbooks selected for public high schools in Brazil whose goal was to understand how they are linguistically, methodologically and ideologically oriented; • evaluate a proposal of syllabus expansion in expanding circle contexts, based on the results of the analysis, which defends alternative ELF-oriented practices departing from pre-existing materials; • interpret the reinforcement of the premise that an ELF-sensitive pedagogy is viable even when dealing with traditionally EFL instructional resources. Key concepts

• • • • • •

ELF. EFL. ELT. Interculturality. Native speaker model. ELF-aware approach.

Introduction

As Cogo (2015: 1) asserts, ‘there has been a remarkable growth of interest in the phenomenon of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) in recent years, and as result this has become a [very] productive field of research.’ This interest, especially when it comes to implications and applications of ELF-research findings to the regular classroom, despite differences in realities and contexts, has generated a great deal of discussion, debate and reflection towards the questioning of some taken-for-granted ELT practices. Such practices, however, according to Rajagopalan (2004: 113–114), have for some time already ‘been threatened with the prospect of being declared obsolete for the simple reason that they do not take into account some of the most significant characteristics of WE’, 2 such as the function of English as today’s most widespread means of intercultural communication among speakers of distinct linguacultural backgrounds. Not long ago, the bulk of the discussion on ELF was restricted to the academic world and, as it was mainly theoretical and very recent, 3 it kept the common practitioner distanced from many of the developments in the

134  Part 3: ELF in EFL Language Learning Materials

field until ongoing empirical findings began to provide important insights that revealed ELF’s potential to influence and provoke change in the regular ELT classroom dynamics. As Dewey (2012: 143) contends, ‘the growing significance of ELF is such that it is becoming increasingly untenable for language teachers not to consider its particular relevance for their own teacher contexts.’ In other words, adds the author, ‘it is essential that we give very careful consideration to teachers’ awareness and understanding of the phenomenon in order that we can begin to explore ways in which an ELF-orientation to English might be developed in practice’ (Dewey, 2012: 143). This volume and this chapter are aligned with such an idea, indicating that there is already a vast and rich territory to be explored by English teachers, especially those from expanding circle countries. In this chapter, we argue for ELF’s latest developments to be integrated into EFL contexts, providing stakeholders with possibilities of rethinking some of their assumptions, beliefs and orientations. Having an ample access to ELF’s research findings, teachers especially can potentially adopt new postures and behaviours that may critically respond to their learners’ needs as global intercultural users of English nowadays. However, we do not advocate a ‘throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater’ attitude. As Sifakis (2014) would propose, by providing teachers with the opportunity of putting into practice many of the classroom implications ELF research has unveiled, which holds the potential to change things in a very positive way, we are to creatively foster an ELF within, not against, the EFL scenario that, as time goes by, can be transformed into the educational environment, which indeed prepares learners to interact in the real world. With this in mind, the main goal of this chapter is to bring teachers of English closer to current discussions and reflections about ELF through the analysis of a few textbooks and materials used in public schools in Brazil, supporting changes triggered by teachers’ ELF awareness. We briefly introduce the concept of ELF and its main characteristics, and ponder over the importance of having ELF research findings reach the ordinary classroom in order to challenge enrooted ELT practices that have been proven outdated for ‘the fast changing scenario of global English usage’ (Lopriore & Vettorel, 2015: 17). We provide an overview of the ELT reality in Brazil, and explain the local NTP through which foreign language (FL) (English/Spanish) textbooks and materials are selected for the public-school system, in particular the middle education (Ensino Médio – the three ‘high-school’ years, which in this case, will be the last three years before university). We then present the findings of a study of three locally produced collections approved by the aforementioned NTP in 2015, putting forward alternative ELF-aware practices departing from these materials. We conclude by reinforcing the premise that it is about time for us to work on the impact of the ELF paradigm on current thinking and practice in ELT

ELT Materials for Basic Education in Brazil  135

(Dewey, 2012), and that a pedagogy sensitive to ELF concerns holds great potential to be implemented even when dealing with traditionally ELTbased materials. RQA 1 In the following section we intend to briefly explain the ELF concept and the importance of exposing the EFL teacher to the implications of an ELFaware pedagogy. Before you keep on reading, think about your own experience and try to come up with at least three traditional ELT premises an ELF-oriented pedagogy holds great potential to challenge. When you finish, compare your answers with our suggestions at the end of the chapter. Explaining ELF

According to Seidlhofer (2011: 7), ELF4 refers to ‘any use of English among speakers of different first languages.’ For Cogo and Dewey (2012: 1), the sociolinguistic reality of today’s world makes ELF ‘a phenomenon that is sui generis, and one which therefore requires a different methodological and theoretical perspective for conducting empirical research.’ This is equally true for the teaching/learning context, as it has not been uncommon to come across strong resistance to initiatives that openly question a status quo aligned to the perpetuation of dogmas and certainties originated in a center and spread out to a consuming periphery well known for reproducing ideas, concepts, practices and behaviors at various levels. ELF can be delineated in terms of three main levels; its settings, its function and as a research paradigm. In Cogo and Dewey’s view (2012: 8), it ‘is a term used to describe the use of English in settings where it is spoken as a contact language by speakers of varying linguacultural backgrounds for whom there is not usually another shared language available.’ For these authors, ‘the only way to describe ELF is as a lingua franca which is capable of operating as a fully complex language system, just like any ENL or nativized version of the language’ (Cogo & Dewey, 2012: 16). Contrary to earlier conceptualizations and definitions, the way ELF is taken today is not that of ‘a variety or a uniform and fixed mode of communication’ (Cogo, 2015: 2), but an additional resource for intercultural communication which includes diverse interlocutors, NS alike. Evidently, a global language like English grants visibility to some important features, such as high levels of hybridity, great diversity of users and, as previously mentioned, the possibility for speakers to engage in meaningful intercultural interactions. Embracing the term ‘interculturality’ for ELF interactions, we affiliate ourselves to the thoughts of Guilherme (2002: 297) when she defines the concept as ‘the ability to interact effectively with people from cultures we recognize as being different from our own,’ and of Estermann

136  Part 3: ELF in EFL Language Learning Materials

(2010: 33), for whom ‘interculturality describes symmetric and horizontal relations between two or more cultures, with the objective of mutually enriching one another and contributing to greater human plenitude.’ Even though ELF research has been contributing significantly to our comprehension of many distinct perspectives involving communication within the global community, it is our contention that this paradigm contradicts and challenges the deep-rooted traditionalism prevalent in ELT. Because of that singularity, the findings and implications of ELF research ought to reach the classroom in a way that they can be accessed, discussed and ultimately incorporated. Of the implications that can lead to important shifts in the practitioner’s perspective (Seidlhofer, 2011; Sifakis, 2014), we can mention the challenge of the NS model since language teaching in general, and ELT in particular, has historically evolved around the premise of the NS ‘as the ultimate state at which first and second language learners may arrive and as the ultimate goal in language pedagogy’ (Van der Geest, 1981: 317 as cited in Rajagopalan, 2004: 114). Besides that, we would highlight ‘the need to ground practices in descriptions of actual language usage, the importance of viewing students as users rather than as learners of English (our emphasis), and the potential of focusing on practices that facilitate further acquisition of the language in different communicative settings’ (Sifakis, 2014: 319). We would also add the need to expose learners to varieties other than the hegemonic (American/British) ones, trying to bring to the classroom the fluidity and flexibility of ELF interactions, commonly found in the real world. Such a strategy, as Cogo (2015: 3) argues, is to place greater importance on ‘speakers’ creative practices in their use of plurilingual resources to flexibly co-construct their common repertoire in accordance with the needs of their community and the circumstances of the interaction.’ RQA 2 According to some scholars (i.e. Seidlhofer, 2011) in the field, one important ELF assumption refers to the status of students who are to be considered ‘users’ rather than ‘learners’ of English or ‘failed native speakers’, since the focus should be on the actual use of the language. How would you interpret such a distinction, and in which way would this interfere with your praxis? Write your reflections in your notebook and continue reading. ELT in Brazil

Brazilians have always comprised an ever-growing group of learners and users of English in the expanding circle, where the language has neither an official nor an institutional role, nor any local models to be followed. As in most places in Latin America, English is by far the most learned and valued

ELT Materials for Basic Education in Brazil  137

FL. English is practically everywhere, ‘on neon signs, shop windows, television commercials, popular magazines and newspapers, even on T-shirts worn by ordinary people, including many who speak little or no English’ (Rajagopalan, 2003: 92). Despite this ubiquitous, and so far unchallenged, condition, and the remarkable growth in the number of Brazilians interested in learning the world’s language, it is not an exaggeration to assume that the effective use of English at reasonable levels of proficiency is still a distant objective to be reached by the majority of the local population. Exploring the local reality a little more deeply, for decades, Brazil has had several laws to guide national basic education,5 the latest dating from 1996. This ‘Law of Basic Parameters’ (Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional) introduced elementary and middle education (Ensinos Fundamental and Médio),6 granting FL the status of a mandatory discipline since the beginning of the second cycle of our basic education (6th to 9th years). Over the years, important innovations were to be carried out, and several other efforts which involved scholars and researchers from diverse Brazilian universities culminated in the publication of the first National Curricular Parameters for Basic Education (PCN), in 1998, and the National Curricular Orientations for Upper Secondary Education (OCEM), in 2006, to mention a few. These documents encompassed a solid volume entitled Language, Codes, and their Technologies, where the process of teaching and learning modern FLs was carefully approached, with the objective of promoting an informed practice for teachers from all backgrounds and contexts, especially those working in public schools, where FL still (a) plays a minor role, (b) experiences a condition of low prestige and (c) continues to hold a very marginal position. Within this scenario of initiatives for FL education in Brazil, the NTP (PNLD), one of the oldest governmental programs in the country, is a very important one and even though it has received different names and gone through several reformations in its almost 80 years of existence, FLs (English and Spanish) were included only in 2011. The NTP encompasses basic education (total of 12 years) and its main objective is to support teachers’ pedagogic work through the free distribution of print-based courseware to students matriculated in the country’s public school system. After the evaluation and approval of coursebooks, the Ministry of Education publishes a general Guide to Coursebooks with reviews of the approved collections. This Guide is then sent to schools all over the country, and based on the information contained in the document, teachers, and possibly other professionals related to each discipline, choose the collection that best suits their political pedagogical project (PPP).7 The coursebook selection process takes place nationally at an average of three years, and each year the approved textbooks are freely distributed to different sectors within the educational structure (primary, secondary and high school). Concerning FL, covering only lower and upper secondary grades, once collections are chosen locally, they are sent to schools, used by students, but according to official policy, they should be well kept,

138  Part 3: ELF in EFL Language Learning Materials

since at the end of the year they are to be returned for re-use by the subsequent year students. Besides textbooks, the program also includes the distribution of dictionaries to the students. Despite all measures to stimulate and create opportunities for students to show some interest in learning FL in compulsory education in Brazil (both public and private),8 it does seem strange to affirm that such a plan has proven to be a failure for many years. And, once the regular system fails, compensatory education comes in with the objective of quickly and efficiently responding to the demands of the market that has always seen languages like English, for example, as an important asset to guarantee access to better job opportunities in this globalized world. This is the case for FL institutes, which have proliferated at an enormous pace, selling FL as a powerful and attractive merchandise, commercializing it, most of the time, at the utilitarian level. In other words, the overthrow of one segment can basically mean the success of another. And this is more than true in Brazil when it comes to FL teaching/learning, especially ELT, the super engine which moves the great majority of language schools in the country. In general, ELT in Brazil has followed a path not different from that of many expanding circle countries. As English is not significantly used by Brazilians outside their classrooms, a real disposition to acquire the language is seriously considered only when a very palpable need arises. In fact, the country’s feeble linguistic policies have never succeeded in naturally instilling in people’s minds the importance of learning additional languages for life and, because of this, in several parts of the country, for different reasons, a ‘monolingual mentality’ seems to linger on, especially for those classes who cannot afford ‘to buy’ English. Even so, as mentioned before, a great number of Brazilians do engage in learning English for different short- or long-term purposes. Unsurprisingly, traditional ELT principles and practices have always prevailed in local pedagogy, especially when it comes to establishing as the ultimate goal an almost complete approximation to the NS model, the always powerful and desired representation of a supposed monolithic variety of English. Methods, approaches, materials and technologies have been historically imported, and certainly taken for granted as the ones to be blindly adopted on the basis of the world-spread conviction that, once they come from the center, they bring along an uncontested ‘seal of quality’. Teachers have been trained by foreign ELT experts, following in many ways their ‘magic’ formulas and procedures, which have always been ranked as superior in comparison to local initiatives. NS-based tests and exams have been extensively applied in Brazil for a long time, without any adaptation to local needs, bearing the same high value despite the fact that they still put great emphasis on formal features such as vocabulary and grammar.9 Naturally, in a lingua franca reality, the adequacy of the NS norms is to be questioned, but in this concern too, so far it has not been common practice in the country’s language educational environment.

ELT Materials for Basic Education in Brazil  139

Having said all this about English and ELT teaching/learning in Brazil, it is, to a certain extent, reasonable to contend that, in terms of linguistic planning and policy, the country still has a long, hazy and difficult path to tread. In more concrete terms, it is not difficult to find among the millions of young learners the assertion that English is just for those who can afford to buy it, that it is impossible to learn the language at school, and that good materials are those heavily oriented towards the hegemonic target culture(s) and biased towards reproducing NS target norms. RQA 3 Upon reading this section, analyze the statements about the ELT reality in Brazil below, check the ones you think are similar to your reality, and then write down possible measures to change such a scenario. In case just some (or even none) of the examples are applicable to your context, or do not depict an ideal situation, reflect on how they can be changed/ improved. Use the same spaces provided. (1) English and other FLs like Spanish, for instance, do not hold the same level of interest by Brazilian students.

()

Comments:

(2) Teaching FL at school in Brazil involves a lot of work and effort as, in general, students believe it is not the proper place to learn a new language.

()

Comments:

(3) English, like FLs in general, is a discipline of very low prestige in Brazil.

()

Comments:

(4) Brazilian teachers of English are usually resistant to ELT pedagogies that do not come from central English-speaking countries like the USA and UK.

()

Comments:

(5) For most Brazilians, private English institutes and courses are the ideal and most appropriate places to successfully learn an additional language.

()

Comments:

(6) Diverse FL international exams are extensively used in Brazil without adaption to respond to local students’ needs.

()

Comments:

When you finish, compare your answers with some of the suggestions we give at the end of the chapter.

140  Part 3: ELF in EFL Language Learning Materials

RQA 4 Based on what you read about the Brazilian NTP, what did you think of this public policy? How would you analyze such an initiative? Do you think it should be reproduced in other expanding circle countries? Is there anything similar in your local context? If yes, what are the similarities or differences with the Brazilian program? How are coursebooks selected and distributed? If not, do you believe this could be an interesting initiative to implement in your country? When you finish, keep reading. ELT Textbooks Made in Brazil: An Analysis

As is widely known, research on ELT textbooks has continuously revealed that these materials bear a strong tendency to focus on ­pre-established and norm-biased representations of language. They often present hegemonic varieties and their stereotypical cultural aspects ‘as the only valid exemplifications of the English language’, neglecting the fact that English, for quite a significant time already, has increasingly been used by NNSs who, as we know, ‘are actively reinterpreting, reshaping and redefining [it] in oral and written form’ (Nault, 2006: 316). Such an approach has, in many ways, ‘contributed to the promotion of a simplified monolithic view of the English language (…), and it does not adequately prepare learners for the dynamic variety and plurality they will meet as English users’ (Lopriore & Vettorel, 2015: 13). This is more than true for most expanding circle contexts, including Brazil. Even so, it is always important to keep in mind that alternative approaches might surface and trigger possible changes, even if they take place in a slight manner. Since the ELT collections approved by our Ministry of Education have to go through an extensive and demanding screening process, this has aroused our interest in knowing to what extent locally produced ELT materials would reinforce the norm-biased premises or would at least try to break with tradition. As local materials, guided by documents that require content appropriate to the local contexts, such an orientation, in our view, would be the logical path to follow. Our brief investigation of three coursebooks approved by the 2015 NTP (see below) focused on how these materials are linguistically, ­methodologically and ideologically oriented, and if they integrate any refe­ rences to ELF. Based on the results, it was also our objective to discuss how it might be possible to depart from pre-existing content, and potentially promote a pedagogy in the EFL classroom that is sensitive to ELF c oncerns. The materials analyzed were (see Appendix 8.1): ­ Menezes, V. et al. (2013) Alive High. São Paulo: Edições SM (henceforth referred to as TB1); Tavares, K. and Franco, C. (2013) Way to Go! São Paulo: Editora Ática (henceforth TB2); and Dias, R., Jucá, L. and Faria,

ELT Materials for Basic Education in Brazil  141

R. (2013) High Up. São Paulo: Macmillan10 (henceforth TB3). The sets comprise three volumes of eight units each. In terms of ‘linguistic orientation’ (the first category of analysis), which is basically stated in the teacher’s guide as part of the ‘philosophy’ of the material, TB1 perceives language as a complex semiotic system, and as such, alive, dynamic and capable of constant evolution and change. It sees English as an instrument of access to information, social groups and cultures from different parts of the world, and invites students to recognize different linguistic variations. Although not openly stated, the ‘default’ English of the collection is American standard (AmE). Despite this, input from non-hegemonic English-speaking countries like Nigeria, for instance, was identified. There are several activities following this broad orientation. One example is a dialog from an audition for the music program X Factor US (volume 1, p. 15) involving a young US rapper Brian Bradley. Besides the common features of oral language (Uh; Y’know, And my mom, she’s … she’s …), the exercise brings vocabulary typical of AmE (stepdad; steppops, etc.) and references to events/places in the country (X Factor US; Madison Square Garden, etc.): TB2 adopts a Bakhtinian dialogic perspective of language in which language is taken as a concrete reality and not a scientific abstraction. Just like TB1, TB2 sees English as an instrument of access to diverse information, social groups and cultures of different countries – therefore, to various ways of thinking, feeling and acting in the world. It also refers to the importance of English in the representation of cultural and linguistic diversity. Although it is argued that students are to be exposed to speakers of English from different nationalities, as in TB1, the default English of the collection is AmE. Just like the previous material, there are no ELFrelated activities, such as accommodation strategies, and no references to other NNE cultures and inclusion of non-standard varieties. One activity to exemplify such a tendency brings three covers of the same US magazine, Newsweek, for students to guess through the headlines and illustrations the topic of the text to be read in the sequence (volume 2, p. 65). Certainly, diversification of magazines in this particular activity would approximate the material to a less overt inner-circle orientation. TB3 adopts a socio-interactional approach which sees language as a social action that takes place within and through the relationship with other people. It incorporates the notion of multimodality as one of the crucial aspects of language in the current digital era. The material highlights the conception of the educational aspect of learning English, therefore putting emphasis on the development of a sense of citizenship. No references to ELF were found, and despite the presence of some activities which consider the variability of English, the default English is AmE. Figure 8.1 illustrates this posture as the text comes from a US online source (yahoo.com). The same tendency appears in oral segments depicting international speakers supposedly from countries like Brazil, Egypt,

142  Part 3: ELF in EFL Language Learning Materials

Figure 8.1  High Up (volume 1, p. 143)

Chile and so on. The marked variety spoken by these users is easily identifiable as AmE. Concerning the second category, ‘methodological orientation’, apart from minor differences, the three collections assume to teach English communicatively, heavily based on textual genres (articles, interviews, email messages, book excerpts, movie reviews, comic strips, etc.), always in a contextualized way, integrating skills with strong reference to information and communication technologies (see Figure 8.1). More specifically, TB1 adopts a perspective that sees language learning not just as a means of communication, but also of

ELT Materials for Basic Education in Brazil  143

Figure 8.2  High Up (volume 2, p. 51)

reflection towards action in society. TB2, in turn, emphasizes its affiliation to a Vygotskian socio-historical and cultural perspective, in which the roles of teachers and students move away from teacher-centered pedagogical practices and the sole transmission of information and knowledge. TB2 also integrates the notion of multiliteracies, and the same goes for TB3, which is equally anchored on a socio-interactional view of learning, and reveals its affiliation to a FL pedagogy founded on the development of critical, digital and multimodal literacies. Figure 8.2 illustrates the overt and very common use of different genres (in this case, a movie review) in these local collections. Despite this, none of the three coursebooks openly discusses political and ideological implications of teaching and learning a global language

144  Part 3: ELF in EFL Language Learning Materials

Figure 8.3  High Up (volume 1, p. 26) (Originally in Portuguese) In this unit you will: • reflect about some stereotypes attributed to Brazilians; • learn words related to Brazilian habits and food; • work with the genres ‘lists’ and ‘interviews’; • use the simple past; • identify and use adverbs of frequency.

like English nowadays. And because of this lack of ‘ideological orientation’, it is plausible to infer that TB1, TB2 and TB3, all produced in Brazil, although bringing very interesting and meaningful topics for the local context (see Figure 8.3),11 offering students a broader and more critical view of the world, still respond to a ‘protocol’ that simply ignores or disregards findings, reflections and advances made public by ELF research. A clear example of this posture is the central role attributed to the NS model throughout the materials, making us re-affirm that ‘despite a growing tendency to include NNSs as characters [in ELT materials], they are not overtly presented as “legitimate users of English”’ (Lopriore & Vettorel, 2015: 15).

ELT Materials for Basic Education in Brazil  145

RQA 5 So far in the section, we have presented a brief analysis of three EFL teaching materials produced in Brazil and selected by the Ministry of Education to be used in local public schools. Of the information shared, what specific observations have most attracted your attention? Has any particular observation surprised you? Why? Two famous thinkers, Bakhtin and Vygotsky, have their work referred to in the theoretical orientations of these collections. What do you know about these authors when it comes to associating their theories with FL teaching/learning? Do you affiliate your teaching practice with any of the theories described? Why? Why not? Write down your notes and, when you are finished, continue reading. Having these materials produced in Brazil and written by experienced Brazilian ELT professionals is a significant step for the local teaching and learning communities. Locally produced teaching materials can be as good as (or even better than) socially anaesthetized international materials that are usually designed for a depersonalized global audience (Akbari, 2008). This brief analysis has shown that we still have a long way to go concerning informed changes that are to reach the EFL classroom. With Englishes mushrooming in every corner of the world, and the language functioning heavily as a lingua franca in intercultural encounters, materials cannot continue to be conceived and commercialized predominantly based on ENL norms, cultures and communication styles Even when textbooks are not organized and produced under an ELFsensitive perspective, teachers can critically use these resources to trigger their students’ awareness of ELF and of what it might imply for the process of learning English. In the collections analyzed, for instance, this is possible through a broader exploration of activities related to ‘the English language in the world,’ ‘appreciation of local knowledge,’ and ‘global representations’. TB2 and TB3, albeit in a shy way, integrate prompts for discussions about the global spread of English (see Figures 8.4 and 8.5). Certainly, this discussion can be expanded and discussed under an ELF-sensitive approach, calling attention to the type of interactions that are to take place in different contexts, presenting and reinforcing the nature of ELF as a flexible, co-constructed and variable means of communication (Cogo, 2015). Even in an EFL context, activities adopting that policy depart from the premise that English is not a product that belongs only to hegemonic inner-circle countries like the USA and Britain. Once this happens, teachers can use these opportunities to highlight the world expansion of English and discuss who its current speakers are, and their status with relevance to the NS, in reality, a minority group of English users. If an activity already integrates oral segments of supposedly NNSs of English, as is tentatively the case in the three coursebooks analyzed here, the teacher can

146  Part 3: ELF in EFL Language Learning Materials

Figure 8.4  High Up (volume 1, pp. 10)

integrate in the discussion implications for a language that has more nonnative than native users, raising questions about how this situation changes communication in this language, if students would use the language the same way or if they would still try to imitate a hegemonic NS model. Although the focus of such activities is not on the development of a possible ELF-awareness, the teacher can use these pre-existing sources to create new activities which may stimulate learners to debate issues related to variations, accents and intelligibility, among others. For example, bearing in mind the theme ‘the English language in the world’, TB1 brings a sequence of activities that approaches topics like language variation and linguistic prejudice. Using the literary text as a basis for such a discussion, the book depicts colloquial language samples used by a character in a fragment of a short story, ‘The Verger’, by Irish-descent novelist W. Somerset Maugham (1874–1965), and by Eliza Doolittle, the famous character from My Fair Lady (pp. 91–95). A small section entitled ‘Language variation’ (volume 1, p. 94), where examples of non-standard language taken from both texts are quoted and analyzed, calls learners’ attention to the issue.

ELT Materials for Basic Education in Brazil  147

Following this, the book brings the lyrics to the song ‘Wouldn’t it be loverly?’ sided by a small glossary and a movie poster of My Fair Lady. A final section called ‘Beyond the lines’ invites students to work on questions like ‘Who determines which dialect will be considered standard in a country?’, ‘Why should we learn standard dialects?’, ‘Have you ever seen any case of linguistic prejudice?’ (p. 95). In volume 3, pursuing similar objectives, literary texts by African writers such as Wole Soyinka are used. Certainly, activities like these, explicitly ELF-prone, can easily be expanded by an ELF-aware teacher not only to invite students to debate the topics, but to show, for example, ELF’s adaptive moves and pragmatic strategies used by speakers in their intercultural interactions. Working on the assumption of ‘appreciation of local knowledge’, further interesting possibilities of expanding classroom work towards an ELF-sensitive perspective are found in TB3. The first unit of volume 1, entitled ‘English everywhere,’ (pp. 10–11; see Figures 8.4 and 8.5) is illustrated by a picture of a Portuguese/English sign on a Brazilian beach saying ‘Aluga/To Hire,’ a picture of a kangaroo, and one of the famous soldiers who guard the Queen’s Buckingham Palace in London. On page

Figure 8.5  High Up (volume 1, pp. 11)

148  Part 3: ELF in EFL Language Learning Materials

Figure 8.6  High Up (volume 1, p. 13)

11 there are questions in L1 (Portuguese) such as the following: ‘To what extent is English present in Brazil?’, ‘Are scenes like the ones depicted common where you live?’, ‘Which aspects of the countries where English is spoken are represented in the illustrations?’ In another activity (see Figure 8.6), there is a drawing of a Brazilian street with stores and a food kiosk bearing such signs as ‘Tob’s’, ‘Drive Thru’, ‘Hot Dog’, ‘Pet Shop’, ‘Lan House’, ‘Wi-fi’ and ‘Happy Hour!’. Students are asked to identify those words and expressions, say if they are familiar with them, and if they find them where they live. Learners are also asked to place them in categories like clothes, food, technology, sports, leisure, etc. After this, they are asked to respond to the following questions: ‘Why is the English language so important in the contemporary world?’, ‘Do you remember a situation when you had to speak English? If so, describe it’ and ‘How does the English language help you in your daily life?’. These activities, in fact, stimulate the discussion about the real use of the TL in the learner’s local context, and the teacher can expand the debate, adding other questions like: ‘When you used English in a given situation what difficulties did you face and how did you overcome them?’; ‘Did you speak English to a native or non-native user?’; ‘If yes, did you notice any difference in the way he/she spoke English?’; ‘Have you ever talked to any foreigner using your native language?’; ‘If so, could you notice any strategy (adaptation, use of gestures, accommodation,

ELT Materials for Basic Education in Brazil  149

code-switching, translanguaging, etc.) this person used in order to facilitate the communication between you two?’; ‘Do you try to do something similar when you speak English with anybody, native or non-native?’. So, working on such comparisons, trying to include experiential learning as much as possible, learners can have the opportunity to engage in activities that will naturally create an atmosphere of intersecting between an initially EFL-based class and an expansion that will naturally lead into the understanding of the nature of ELF communication and, consequently, a preparation for that step beyond common and consolidated traditional ELT expectations. Another example of this ‘appreciation for local knowledge and production’ that can bring ELF to the arena lies, in our specific case, in the different forms of representation of Brazil and Brazilians through images, texts and audio/video segments. This appreciation of the local as the basis for English learning helps the student internalize that once we acquire a new language this language becomes ours, and thus we can and should appropriate it entirely in order to communicate in different contexts, including, and mainly, when it comes to discussing aspects and elements of our own culture. We can trigger such a posture having as examples the following activities taken from the textbooks analyzed. For instance, in TB1, there is an interesting reading activity about Brazilian ethnic music (volume 1, pp. 64–66). Still in volume 1 (pp. 73–74), students are asked to read short texts about two famous Brazilian female artists and then practice question words (‘What’, ‘Who’, ‘Why’, ‘How’, etc.) using the information they get from the excerpts. In TB2 (volume 3, pp. 15–28), there is an entire unit about ‘Ethnic diversity in Brazil’. In TB3 (volume 1, p. 22), based on an interview with Brazilian super model Gisele Bündchen, students are asked to complete a text about what she said with forms of the verb ‘to be’. In the same book, there is an activity where students are given several statements about Brazil and they have to ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’, justifying their answers (volume 1, p. 28). The purpose of the activity is to discuss stereotypes, departing from issues those students are potentially very familiar with – in other words, beginning from the known to reach the unknown. In this very unit (volume 1, pp. 26–41), the whole linguistic content is introduced through texts and activities that refer to different cities/states in the country. Through activities that privilege local knowledge and individual experience, the teacher can integrate other similar initiatives that stimulate students to reflect over the aspect of the English language as belonging to them, with its many colors and many possibilities. Therefore, he/she can make it clear to learners that they need to know how to use the language not to simply talk about the other and their culture (as still happens in most EFL classrooms around the world), but also, and, especially, to talk about themselves, their own culture, their needs, interests and singularities. This posture is to be considered a very significant change.

150  Part 3: ELF in EFL Language Learning Materials

Last but not least, we come to the aspect related to the integration of ‘global representations’. As with local appreciation, global representations are of great importance for an ELT practice that seeks to encourage and strengthen an ELF conception. Once learners hold on to local appreciation in order to guarantee their empowerment through the access to English, they also need to be aware that users of the global language today are likely to communicate with people from many different nationalities and cultures. So, it is crucial to keep in mind the importance of developing an openness towards diversity, and a predisposition against judgmental attitudes and any kind of prejudice. In spite of bringing many representations of the USA and Britain, the materials analyzed do not fail entirely to include local representations and representations of other English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries. TB1, for example, has a unit about dance, and learners are introduced to representations from different countries, such as a Turkish folk dance, Brazilian dancer Carlinhos de Jesus, a dance festival in Italy, Brazilian indigenous dance rituals in the state of Mato Grosso and ballet dancers in New York (volume 1, p. 50). TB2, volume 2, in a grammar activity on ‘Women’s marathon’, introduces important global runners like Merry Lepper (USA), Tegla Loroupe (Kenya) and Paula Radcliffe (UK). On page 58, there is a similar exercise on Brazilian gold medalist and Paralympic athlete Daniel Dias. It also brings a whole unit on cultural diffusion and cultural diversity, contrasting Brazil with countries like India, for example (pp. 15–28). In a section called ‘Looking ahead’, for instance, there is a picture of two Indian young ladies engrossed in their mobile phones and another of the bustling oriental district in the city of São Paulo. Along with the illustrations, questions on cultural diversity and globalization, cultural diffusion, and if and how people in Brazil try to preserve their cultural distinctiveness, invite learners to reflect upon and discuss such issues. TB3, volume 1, brings activities with representations of global celebrities like Penélope Cruz (Spain), Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal) (p. 22), J.K. Rowling (UK), Andrea Bocelli (Italy), Charlize Theron (South Africa), Lionel Messi (Argentina) (p. 44), among others. On pages 68–69, there is a reading activity on ‘Teens who are changing the world’. In volume 2, there is a unit on ‘Hip hop culture & music’ (p. 64–79), which discusses the movement from different perspectives, bringing information about artists like JAY-Z (USA), Lurdez da Luz (Brazil) and Shahin Najafi (Iran) (see Figure 8.7). Such examples are found throughout the materials and indeed it was possible to see an attempt to not concentrate heavily on the representation of a single country. In fact, this variety of representations can be used by the teacher to create or expand activities. This can, consequently, develop in their learners so-called intercultural competence, a very important feature that is greatly needed for successful ELF interactions.

ELT Materials for Basic Education in Brazil  151

Figure 8.7  High Up (volume 2, p. 69)

RQA 6 From the examples that were brought to the discussion here, which ones did you consider extremely useful for the implementation of an ELFaware class? Do the materials you use (coursebooks, resource books, etc.) resemble the ones depicted here? If yes, in which way? Is there anything suggested here that is totally new to you? If yes, what and why? Conclusion

From what we have tried to discuss in the chapter, it can be concluded that, in our view, the time for an ELF-aware practice has arrived. Drawing on a brief study of a few Brazilian-produced EFL coursebooks, it is our contention that a textbook does not need to be conceived under an ELF orientation to be able to stimulate teachers and students to bring about this discussion and turn it into practice. In fact, while ELF research findings are still distant from the practice of the common teacher, he/she can identify in the materials available the resources he/she can use in order to turn them into an ELF-aware activity or critically discuss some aspect indirectly approached by the original materials. In other words, it is up to the teacher to search within the materials he/she has at hand alternative ways of activating them, inserting ELF features in their praxis and

152  Part 3: ELF in EFL Language Learning Materials

showing to learners that what the book brings is not the only possibility of seeing and understanding English. The examples taken from these local ELT materials are merely a sample of what can be done to break with an ELT tradition that has prevailed through the years, and certainly needs urgent adjustments. As Sifakis (2014: 320) points out, ‘studies of the changing nature of English language communication at a time when NNSs are rapidly increasing and the communication contexts multiply on a global scale frequently make reference to implications for the ESOL classroom’. One way to start this ‘revolution’ is through existing materials, keeping in mind that the teacher will surely need to be aware of these advances, and through critical analyses of the materials that he/she uses, possibly find different resources and ways of inserting ELF-aware practices in his/her classroom. This may go on until the time when these adaptations will no longer be necessary. Potentially, they will be the rule of thumb. Synopsis

In this chapter, we have attempted to show through a brief study of local Brazilian EFL coursebooks12 that it is possible to work under an ELF perspective even in contexts where the ELT tradition still informs the practice of the regular teacher. Through a few examples deriving from preexisting activities, we proposed some expansions to activities that would stimulate teachers to teach English in a way whereby ELF would work together with EFL, and this would, naturally, end up in the enrichment of the English learning enterprise for both learners and practitioners. Answers to Reflective Questions and Activities

RAQ 1: ELF raises the issue of the relativization of norms students are exposed to, considering the high levels of hybridity and the great diversity of users of English in today’s global reality. ELF raises the need for preparing students for intercultural encounters with people from all over the world, the need to rethink the concepts of interlanguage and accent, among others. RAQ 2: Personal answers. RAQ 3: Suggestions for reflection based on the Brazilian context. Comments are listed as follows. (1) There has to be an effort from all stakeholders involved with FL education in order to reinforce the idea that monolingualism is an exception and learning additional languages is more than just a discipline, but a right. (2) It does involve huge efforts and, despite the belief that it is not possible to learn a new language at school, highlighting and reinforcing positive experiences where this is indeed taking place is a good start.

ELT Materials for Basic Education in Brazil  153

(3) This is common sense as people normally do not see the immediate use of the FL, especially in monolingual areas in the country. The world has changed and with information and communication technologies this possibility of using the language has grown immensely, so by focusing on this we can try to have people understand the importance of learning and using additional languages apart from a utilitarian objective, but for life. This will certainly change the status of the discipline in the regular school system. (4) More access to research findings and works carried out in fields like WE, ELF and cultural studies, among others, can naturally provoke some change concerning this traditional practice. Giving both preservice and in-service teachers the opportunity to study and discuss the spread of English from a more solid sociolinguistic point of view can contribute to question this current reality. (5) Empowering all stakeholders involved in FL education from both public and private sectors can change this reality created through a long process of compensatory education. Engaged and well-educated teachers, better infra-structure, access to more updated theories and materials, curriculum revision and more exposure to the new language are some of the measures that can contribute to change such a scenario. (6) International exams are to be critically accessed in order to take into consideration the needs and idiosyncrasies of global NNSs of English and other international languages. Locally produced exams have become an important demand to be met as more and more people have shown the need for FLs, especially English, for the most diverse purposes. RAQ 4: Personal answers. RAQ 5: Personal answers. Notes (1) In Portuguese, Programa Nacional do Livro Didático (PNLD). The program is sponsored and carried out by Brazil’s Ministry of Education. (2) World English (WE) is the label the author adopts in his writings to refer to English as a global language. (3) For authors like Saraceni (2015), the official start of ELF as a research field can be attributed to the publication of Seidlhofer’s (2001) seminal article calling for the closing of a ‘conceptual gap’ between the descriptions of varieties of English available within the traditional WE framework. Cogo and Dewey (2012) acknowledge the work of Seidlhofer (2001), but highlight the importance of Jenkins’ book-length empirical study of phonology in EIL, The Phonology of English as an International Language, published a little before Seidlhofer’s paper, in the year 2000. As Jenkins (2015: 52) herself would argue, ‘[t]he first empirical research into ELF communication was, to my knowledge, my own ELF pronunciation research that began in the late 1980s (though the term ‘English as a Lingua Franca’ was not yet in use).’ (4) ELF is currently a recognized field of knowledge and academic enquiry as evinced through the annual international conference (ICELF) in which researchers share their

154  Part 3: ELF in EFL Language Learning Materials

findings, the publication of the several monographs, articles, papers, reviews, etc., the ELF-related publications (Journal of English as a Lingua Franca (JELF) and DELF (Developments in English as a Lingua Franca) Book Series published by De Grutyer Mouton, and ELF Research Network (ELF ReN). (5) Compulsory basic education in Brazil comprises 12 years, structured within the following sequence: Jardim/Alfabetização (kindergarten – 1st grade; from age 6 on), Ensino Fundamental I (elementary –2nd to 5th grades), Ensino Fundamental II (lower secondary – 6th to 9th grades) and Ensino Médio (upper secondary – 1st to 3rd grades). (6) For a clearer understanding by readers from other countries, the reference to upper secondary education (Ensino Médio) in the analysis of the textbooks will be ‘high school’, in this case, the last three years before university. (7) Every school in Brazil is expected to have a PPP. The PPP defines a school’s identity and sets goals to provide quality education to the community. It is taken as ‘political’ because it sees schools as spaces for the formation of critical and responsible citizens who will act both individually and collectively in society. (8) As Brazil’s NTP applies basically to the public sector, the emphasis here is on EFL teaching in public schools. However, with a few exceptions, the reality in the private sector is very similar to the one described for the public sector. This means that even private schools are not seen by the population in general as places where FLs can be learned effectively either. (9) Although there has been a lot of discussion regarding the importance of our creating and applying institutionalized locally oriented English exams at a national level, at this point nothing significant in that particular area has come to our knowledge. (10) We thank Macmillan Brazil for allowing us to reproduce the illustrations chosen from TB3. (11) TB2 (volume 3) brings an interesting unit entitled ‘Save the Amazon’, one of the main learning objectives of which is to take part in discussions on environmental awareness. (12) As far as we know, a full free electronic version of the TBs presented here is not available to the general public. In case anyone is interested in contacting publishers for that reason, these are the links they should access for a first contact: High Up (www. macmillan.com.br/pnld); Alive High (www.edicoessm.com.br/#!/catalogo/ detalhes?livro=881); Way To Go (http://pnld2015interno.scipioneatica.com.br/ pnld2013). We are sure they can reply to messages written in English asking for any kind of information about their products.

References Akbari, R. (2008) Transforming lives: introducing critical pedagogy into ELT classrooms. ELT Journal 62 (3), 276–283. Cogo, A. (2015) English as a lingua franca: Descriptions, domains and applications. In A.  Cogo and H. Bowles (eds) International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca: Pedagogical Insights (pp. 1–12). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2012) Analysing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-driven Investigation. London/New York: Continuum. Dewey, M. (2012) Towards a post-normative approach: Learning the pedagogy of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (1), 141–170. Estermann, J. (2010) Interculturalidad: vivir la diversidad. La Paz, Bolivia: Instituto Superior Ecuménico Andino de Teologia. Guilherme, M. (2002) Critical Citizens for an Intercultural World – Foreign Language Education as Cultural Politics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Jenkins, J. (2015) Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2 (3), 49–85.

ELT Materials for Basic Education in Brazil  155

Lopriore, L. and Vettorel, P. (2015) Promoting awareness of Englishes and ELF in the English language classroom. In A. Cogo and H. Bowles (eds) International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca: Pedagogical Insights (pp. 13–34). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Nault, D. (2006) Going global: Rethinking culture teaching in ELT contexts. Language, Culture and Curriculum 19 (3), 314–328. Rajagopalan, K. (2003) The ambivalent role of English in Brazilian politics. World Englishes 22 (2), 91–101. Rajagopalan, K. (2004) The concept of ‘World English’ and its implications for ELT. ELT Journal 58 (2), 111–117. Saraceni, M. (2015) World Englishes – a Critical Analysis. London: Bloomsbury. Seidlhofer, B. (2001) Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11 (2), 133–158. Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sifakis, N. (2014) ELF awareness as an opportunity for change: A transformative perspective for ESOL teacher education. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3 (2), 317–335.

Further reading As a suggestion, we list here a few references that may help readers get to know about ELF and the implications for the classroom. Bayyurt, Y. and Akcan, S. (eds) (2015) Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. An excellent volume comprising different topics related to ELF pedagogy written by collaborators from various parts of the word. Jenkins, J. (2007) English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A seminal book that explores attitudes towards ELF and the implications for learners’ identities. It addresses how the ELF concept, based on research findings, can be approached in teacher education. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2011) Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching 44 (3), 281–315. A broad and interesting overview of earlier ELF research developments, discussing the potential of the field in positively influencing ELT pedagogy in different learning contexts. Jenkins, J., Baker, W. and Dewey, M. (eds) (2018) The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London/New York: Routledge. Publication covering the most diverse areas related to ELF, including pedagogical implications. Written by leading scholars from different parts of the world, the handbook is to become one of the main references for those interested in ELF and developments in the field. Walker, R. (2010) Teaching the Pronunciation of English as Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Considering Jenkins’ lingua franca core (LFC), the book brings interesting insights regarding pronunciation teaching, inviting readers to understand what ELF is, its benefits, and how to plan, teach and evaluate pronunciation under an ELF perspective.

156  Part 3: ELF in EFL Language Learning Materials

Appendix 8.1 – Brazilian EFL Coursebooks Analyzed in the Study

Menezes, V., Braga, J., Carneiro, M., Racilan, M., Gomes, R. and Velloso, M. (2013) Alive High. São Paulo: Edições SM.

Tavares, K. and Franco, C. (2013) Way to Go! São Paulo: Editora Ática.

Dias, R., Jucá, L. and Faria, R. (2013) High Up. São Paulo: Macmillan.

Part 4 ELF and EFL Teacher Education

9 ELF-awareness in Teaching and Teacher Education: Explicit and Implicit Ways of Integrating ELF into the English Language Classroom Elif Kemaloglu-Er and Yasemin Bayyurt

General aims of this chapter

This chapter aims at defining the concept of ELF-awareness in teaching and teacher education and describing how the pre-service teachers who were exposed to an ELF-aware teacher education programme integrated ELF into their lessons. We present a practical understanding of ELF-awareness in teaching and teacher education and insights into how ELF-aware pedagogy can be integrated into ELT classrooms through explicit and implicit ways. Expected outcomes

On completing this chapter, you should be able to: • demonstrate an understanding of the ELF-awareness perspective and its interconnection with teaching and teacher education; • develop and implement a teacher education model underlain by ELF-awareness; • elaborate/explain how to integrate ELF into English lessons in explicit and implicit ways; • reflect upon the recommendations made in this chapter and decide the extent to which they are relevant to your context; • adapt, design and implement ELF-aware lessons for your own teaching context. 159

160  Part 4: ELF and EFL Teacher Education

Key concepts

• • • •

ELF-awareness ELF-aware teacher education ELF-aware pedagogy Explicit and implicit ways of ELF-aware pedagogy

Introduction

ELF is a substantial social and linguistic reality of today’s global world experienced by millions and millions of people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Therefore, if we opt for language teaching to be conducted in a ‘realistic’ manner in which learners’ awareness of this worldwide and multifaceted use of English by numerous NNS including themselves is raised, it would not be sensible to be unresponsive to the reality of ELF. As Sifakis (2017) suggests, it is high time the stakeholders in the field of ELT started dealing with ELF issues. To achieve this goal, it is essential to design ELF-aware teacher education programmes based not only on theoretical but also on practical training, where teachers engage in a process of continuous critical reflection on ELF in both theory and practice and devise their own ways of integrating ELF into their teaching practices. The implementation of practices as such, in which inservice teachers from Turkey and Greece are involved, are discussed in Bayyurt and Sifakis (2015a, 2015b, 2017), Sifakis (2014) and Sifakis and Bayyurt (2015, 2018). This chapter will present an adaptation of Bayyurt and Sifakis’ ELFawareness teacher education framework in the context of Turkish preservice teachers. To present real samples of ELF-aware pedagogy together with their pedagogical implications, we will deal with how the pre-service teachers integrated ELF into their English lessons. To this end, first the concept of ELF-awareness (Sifakis, 2017; Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2018) underlying this study will be introduced. Then, the ELF-awareness pre-service teacher education perspective as applied in this study will be briefly described. Lastly, the pre-service teachers’ explicit and implicit ways of ELF integration into the classroom as categorized by Kemaloglu-Er (2017) will be presented through examples and their pedagogical implications will be discussed. RQA 1 In the next section we are going to explore what ELF-awareness means with reference to teacher education. Before you read on, imagine that, in your own context, there will be a new teacher education programme for in-service teachers aiming to raise their awareness of ELF. Now think about your own teaching context and identify at least two examples of

ELF-awareness in Teaching and Teacher Education  161

teaching practices, different from those traditionally used for the teaching of EFL, that can be shared with the teachers attending this programme. When you finish, continue reading. The Concept of ELF-awareness

The ELF-awareness pre-service teacher education perspective implemented and investigated in this study is an extension of Bayyurt and Sifakis’ (2015a, 2015b) ELF-aware teacher education framework applied with in-service teachers. According to this framework, teachers need to have a critical and open-minded stance towards their teaching, aiming at challenging and critically reorienting their long-held and deeply rooted viewpoints about native speakerism as well as EFL pedagogy, which typically adheres to NS linguacultural norms (Seidlhofer, 2011). In both cases above, namely, the Bayyurt and Sifakis (2015a, 2015b) framework as well as the one described in this chapter, teachers go through a process of ELFawareness, namely, the process of engaging with ELF research and developing one’s own understanding of the ways in which it can be integrated in one’s classroom context, through a continuous process of critical reflection, design, implementation and evaluation of instructional activities that reflect and localize one’s interpretation of the ELF construct. (Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2018)

Thus, in becoming ‘ELF-aware’, teachers go through a comprehensive intermediary process which aids them in connecting the implications of ELF theory and research with their actual teaching practices through critical reflection (Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2015a, 2015b, 2017; Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2015, 2018). Accordingly, ELF-aware teacher education typically involves three subsequent phases: a theoretical phase, an application phase and an evaluation phase. In the theoretical phase, teachers become engaged with ELF- and WE-related theory and research literature. They gain insights into the global use of English and the status and role of NNS, the issues raised by the ELF construct and the changes ELF has undergone from its earlier phases until now. Teachers are prompted to reflect on these issues by being exposed to selected papers from the ELF, WE and EIL literature through carefully phrased reflection questions. They are also invited to discuss their readings and reflections with their colleagues. The application phase aims at involving teachers in developing lesson plans and instructional activities that exemplify their own understanding of ELF and how it may be relevant to their own immediate teaching context. Integration of ELF into the classes can take any form, ranging from an improvement of an existing textbook task to a whole teaching session (Sifakis, 2017). The instructional activities to be designed should aim at raising learners’ awareness of ELF-related issues, e.g. the use of English by NNSs in different communicative contexts, or the function of mutual

162  Part 4: ELF and EFL Teacher Education

intelligibility and comprehensibility. In doing so, teachers should refrain from demonizing EFL teaching as irrelevant or even downright wrong. In designing ELF-aware instructional sequences, it is important that teachers refrain from thinking that they are expected to replace standard English with another English variety (or varieties). On the contrary, they should strike a balance between EFL and ELF by combining standard norms with an awareness of the inherently dynamic and fluid multi-semantic structures (Sifakis, 2017) that result from the various intra-national and international interactions involving non-native users. As stated by Kordia (in this volume), ELF-aware teachers should principally aim at ‘enriching current teaching practices with insights gained from ELF to the extent that it is appropriate and relevant’. In the evaluation process, teachers, alone or in groups, engage in a process of evaluating the lessons taught. Evaluation is a reflective process that takes into consideration all the prerequisites and constraints mentioned above, i.e. teachers’ own perceptions about ELF and the specifications of the local context. As defined by Sifakis and Bayyurt (2018), ELF-awareness has two significant features: it is ecological in nature and potentially transformative. The ecological nature of ELF-awareness reflects teachers’ awareness of the micro- and macro-ecosystem, including their own classrooms and the wider institutional and social settings, the idiosyncratic local features as well as other constraints and problems that arise. Second, ELF-awareness is potentially transformative in the way that it paves the way for teachers’ becoming cognizant of their deepest convictions about language use, teaching and learning so that they can question, confront and possibly change their established beliefs. Bayyurt and Sifakis (2015a, 2015b) also highlight the significance of teacher autonomy in ELF-awareness, that is, teachers becoming empowered to generate change in their own contexts rather than submit to an authority or to what the research may be defined to impose. In building this autonomy, teacher educators should assume a facilitating role rather than a prescriptive one. An ELF-aware Pre-service Teacher Education Perspective from Turkey

The present study was conducted with ten senior pre-service teachers attending a four-year undergraduate foreign language education programme at an English-medium state university in Istanbul, Turkey. The teachers were exposed to an ELF-aware teacher education training programme consisting of the theoretical, application and evaluation phases presented above. The programme was modified to accommodate the fact that participants were student-teachers, and were therefore not able to practice ELF-aware pedagogy in an actual class. Yet, they had at least two

ELF-awareness in Teaching and Teacher Education  163

other means within their contexts: (1) microteaching with their colleagues and (2) practicum at the K-12 schools where they were supposed to practise real teaching. Since applying ELF-aware instructional interventions and experiencing (and reflecting on) learners’ reactions is vital in becoming an ELF-aware pedagogue, both of these options were extensively used to practise ELF-aware pedagogy. Microteaching was convenient but not naturalistic, whereas practicum was real-life oriented but challenging. In the practicum, the pre-service teachers were supposed to observe English classes and then take over these classes to practice their own teaching through a limited number of lessons. Thus, their context-specific knowledge was limited and their teaching practice was not as naturalistic as it would be with an in-service teacher. Most teachers were also restricted by the NS-and-SE-bound attitudes of the stakeholders in their settings. As revealed by the findings, even under these hard conditions, all the ELF-aware pre-service teachers in our study integrated ELF in their teaching practices willingly and innovatively in explicit and/or implicit ways. However, it is necessary to note that their ELF-aware instruction did not go unchallenged. To illustrate, in the microteaching sessions the teachers mostly opted for explicit ways, but in real practice, most teachers, especially those working in private high schools that were forced to follow a strict normative approach, preferred to use implicit ways rather than explicit ways; this was because they were highly restricted by the SE pressure of these schools and the implicit ways made them feel more secure. The issue can be better understood by the in-depth analyses of the explicit and implicit ELF integration into English lessons presented in the following section. RQA 2 In the forthcoming section, you are going to read about how the pre-­service teachers in this study integrated ELF in their lessons. In your opinion, how can ELF be integrated in the English lessons? Try to make at least two suggestions with examples from your own context. When you finish, continue reading. Explicit and Implicit Ways of ELF Integration into English Lessons

The pre-service teachers in our study went through a process of experimenting with ELF-aware pedagogy in their own ways through microteaching and practicum, the analyses of which resulted in two main categories: (1) explicit ELF integration in the lesson; (2) implicit ELF integration in the lesson (Kemaloglu-Er, 2017).

164  Part 4: ELF and EFL Teacher Education

Explicit ELF integration refers to the introduction of ELF-related concepts to the learners by the teacher directly by making use of pedagogical aids such as videos, readings and discussions. The teacher defines what ELF is and what features it comprises. The aim is to raise learners’ ELF awareness. This is attempted by feeding participants directly with both a theoretical understanding of the concept of ELF and NNS samples from real-life ELF users. Issues to be raised here may include non-native varieties of English, the status and roles of NSs and NNSs, and communicative aspects of interactions among NSs, such as intelligibility. Participants are then prompted to synthesize, critically reflect on and discuss these inputs with reference to their own teaching context. Implicit ELF integration involves integrating ELF-related elements into the lesson without making direct reference to the concept of ELF. In this framework, learners get exposed to ELF-related concerns like accents of various NNSs through videos or the cultures of different NNSs including those of the learners. Yet, there is no explicit information about the ELF paradigm and/or ELF-related concepts. In addition to the examples above, not correcting the intelligible variations in learners’ speech or allowing limited use of learners’ L1s and other languages in the classroom can also be examples of implicit ELF integration. Thus, unlike explicit ELF integration, implicit ELF integration does not adopt ELF as one of the lesson’s themes to be introduced to the learners. The teacher makes no direct reference to or explanations about ELF and employs covert ways related to ELF. In our study, the findings revealed the application of these two approaches by the pre-service teachers in their one-shot experimentations with ELF-aware pedagogy through microteaching with their colleagues and practicum in real school settings. In the microteaching sessions, the teachers chose to integrate ELF in their sample lessons extensively through explicit practices, whereas in the practicum, the teachers preferred to apply mostly implicit ELF-aware practices. The underlying reason for the former was that the explicit manner was thought to be a fast and straightforward vehicle to introduce ELF and to reveal a sample ELF-aware implementation. On the other hand, in real-life situations within their practicum, most teachers, willing to integrate ELF into their lessons, felt under the pressure of NS-and-SE-bound attitudes of the stakeholders and thus opted for mostly implicit ways as they opened a safe space for ELF-aware practices. Therefore, in most EFL settings strictly abiding by the NS norms, it would be difficult to introduce the ELF construct openly and straightforwardly in the classes as it is likely to be disconcerting or even annoying for the stakeholders, including the learners, the parents and the school directors. In these settings, implementing predominantly implicit ways would give the teachers a sense of security. The implicit approach would also work better in contexts targeting preparation for high-stakes exams since the learners would be forced to study SE to pass a test and their focus would be on exam skills and strategies. Consequently, integration of

ELF-awareness in Teaching and Teacher Education  165

intermittent ELF interventions into the syllabus, mostly practised in an implicit fashion so as to mitigate a possible resistance, would be more feasible and preferable rather than an extensively explicit approach, which is likely to fail in such settings. However, it should be noted that, syllabus-wise, to make the learners ‘ELF-aware’, it is necessary to incorporate not only implicit but also explicit interventions in the EFL classrooms. The explicit one involves conscious learning, while the implicit one has potential effects on the subconscious. So, if we followed an implicit-only track, it would not be possible to say that the learners have become ‘aware’ or ‘conscious’ of ELF. In other words, there is a need for explicit instruction involving explanation, reflection and discussion at some point, applied at least a couple of times and ideally at a moderate level, to make sure there is some kind of awareness in the class about what is being done with respect to ELF. Thus, making use of the explicit intervention, at least to some extent, is an essential step towards raising learners’ ELF-awareness. In the ELF-related syllabus, we can then start with the implicit or the explicit way, but we should eventually follow a way in which these two complement each other. Hence, in pedagogical applications, it is necessary to view the explicit/ implicit dimension not as a binary concept imposing the use of either the explicit or the implicit, but as a continuum, or even a ‘repository’ of possible mechanisms from which one can choose different combinations, e.g. more implicit on some occasions and somewhat explicit on other occasions, or beginning and utilising the implicit for a certain period of time and then capitalizing with the explicit. Thus, flexibility is a key factor in determining the extent and kinds of ELF-aware applications in EFL classrooms. Teachers are thereby free to choose from the possible combinations which suit their contexts best. To illustrate, a teacher having to follow a given curriculum may opt for predominantly implicit ways in his/ her lessons but occasionally explain to the learners the rationale behind these implicit ways. Another teacher may prefer to emphasize explicit ways and, depending on how autonomous s/he is, may turn the English class into an English for a specific purpose (ESP) course, through readings, videos and discussions on ELF in theory and practice, complemented by ELF-related instructional activities. Table 9.1 presents the two ways to treat different pedagogical and ELF-related issues. In the ELF-aware syllabus, while explicit or implicit ways can be applied as separate entities in separate lessons in explicit-only or implicitonly forms, they can also be integrated within one single lesson. In the rest of the chapter we will present two sample lessons developed by participants that exemplify the explicit-only and implicit-only ways of integrating ELF in the EFL classroom. It is important to note that the teachers were entirely autonomous in designing and implementing their original lessons, the practices were not imposed upon them or even implied, as

166  Part 4: ELF and EFL Teacher Education

Table 9.1  How explicit and implicit ELF integration treat different pedagogical and ELF-related issues Explicit ELF integration

Implicit ELF integration

Teacher

ELF-aware; makes direct reference to ELF and makes use of overt explanations related to ELF.

ELF-aware; makes no direct reference to and explanations about ELF and employs covert ways related to ELF.

Learners

Informed about ELF; engaged in critical reflection on the ELF concept.

Not informed about ELF; no critical reflection on the ELF concept.

NNSs use of English

Introduced with different samples with direct reference to the concept of ELF.

Introduced with different samples by making no direct reference to the concept of ELF.

Communication

The teacher and the learners consciously focus on intelligibility in communications within the classroom. The students are informed about the concept of intelligibility.

The teacher consciously focuses on intelligibility in correcting the learners in communications within the classroom. The students are not informed about the concept of intelligibility.

Local cultures of NNS

Can be included with direct reference to the people’s NNS identity.

Can be included with or without direct reference to the people’s NNS identity.

Use of L1s and other languages

Allowed in the classroom as a resource to help to learn and improve English. The rationale behind this permission can be explained to the learners.

Allowed in the classroom as a resource to help to learn and improve English. The rationale behind this permission is not explained to the learners.

teacher autonomy is and has always been an essential factor in our ELFaware teacher education model. A sample lesson showing explicit ways of ELF-aware integration

The lesson was designed for upper-intermediate-level young adults. The teacher introduced ELF and some related concepts to the class explicitly and, to do this, she used a real sample from the learners’ own culture, a Turkish writer’s (Elif Shafak’s) TED talk in English (http://www.ted. com/talks/elif_shafak_the_politics_of_fiction.html). Elif Shafak is a famous Turkish novelist with an international background. She was born in France, and raised in and outside Turkey because her mother was a diplomat. So, she witnessed various challenges and contrasting environments, actions and attitudes/behavioural patterns. Her mother, for example, was a single mother and a secular successful woman going to different countries with her daughter, whereas her grandmother was a ‘spiritual, less educated and less rational’ woman. In her talk, Shafak refers to her background in quite an extraordinary fashion. She talks about, for instance, when compared with the majority of Turkish people, her being

ELF-awareness in Teaching and Teacher Education  167

a ‘representative foreigner’ in an international school she had to attend and the various types of stereotypes about Turkey she faced, as well as her experience of being a NNS, ‘a latecomer’ of English in her words, which she thinks is both ‘intimidating’ but also ‘stimulating’. In this ELF-aware lesson, the teacher used Elif Shafak’s talk as a basis to introduce ELF-related issues and raise learners’ awareness of their being a NNS through reflective dialogues. She then had the class do a local culture-specific speaking activity based on a subject covered in the video, namely, stereotypes about Turkey. After having the learners listen to the talk, the teacher proceeded with the following questions. She first asked them whether they liked the video and why. The class responded positively and the reasons for liking the video were their familiarity with Shafak and her interesting life. The teacher then asked if they found the way she spoke English intelligible, and if she seemed confident as a NNS. The responses were again positive. She then continued by reminding learners that Shafak is a NNS of English. She then added that nearly 2 billion people use English in their lives and invited the class to estimate how many of these people are native and nonnative. After a brief brainstorming, she wrote the phrases ‘400 million’ and ‘1.6 billion’ on the board and asked her learners to match these numbers with NSs and NNSs. After the matching was completed (400 million NSs vs 1.6 billion NNSs), the teacher referred to the fact that NNSs of English outnumber the native ones, so most of the interactions going on in the world are among NNSs of English. Following this activity, she reminded the class that Shafak mentioned ‘circles’ in her talk. Shafak mentioned the powerful influences of the social circles we belong to on ourselves by giving examples. She connected Shafak’s circles to Kachru’s circles. She reminded learners of the circles mentioned in the talk and said speakers of English can also be represented with circles, as in Kachru’s circles. She then explained Kachru’s concentric circles and gave Turkey as an example of a country in the expanding circle. Next, she asked the class what they could infer from the two pieces of information she had just given, i.e. the statistics of NSs and NNSs in the world and Kachru’s circles. She continued by emphasizing that NNSs have their own place in the circles and they don’t have to sound like the NSs. They may use English differently but as long as they are intelligible during their interactions, their variations are welcome. She concluded as follows: ‘We should understand that English is not under the control of native speakers’. The next issue the teacher dealt with was the interactions of NNSs with NSs and NNSs. She asked how the learners felt in their interactions with NSs compared to NNSs. Sample answers included feeling more self-conscious when talking to NSs or feeling intimidated with NSs because they thought that NSs speak better. The teacher then directed the learners’ attention to another part of Elif Shafak’s speech about being a latecomer to English and the problems this might bring about. This led to a reflective

168  Part 4: ELF and EFL Teacher Education

and fruitful classroom discussion between the classroom members, all NNSs of English. For example, one learner said, ‘You don’t feel as confident as a native speaker’. Another said, ‘You want to make jokes, but you just look and smile’ and one learner added ‘Naturally we feel that we are not perfect like natives’. At that point the teacher immediately said, ‘But it’s not a problem, it is not a problem, right?’ One learner replied ‘Well, maybe’ and another added, ‘In the end we accept this fact’. The teacher went on ‘We don’t have to be perfect. And meanwhile what does it mean to be perfect?’ Another learner said he observed that lots of NSs do not speak perfect English and there are examples of this like ‘we was’. The teacher emphasized the point by stating ‘We don’t have to feel inferior then, right? We are non-native speakers and may use our own ways of speaking.’ There was a short silence in the class. One learner then rushed ‘Yes, we are latecomers, but we have come’ and some students smiled. One learner said, ‘Here we are’ and another said ‘We are the passengers of the same ship’, a direct translation of an expression in Turkish. The teacher then said ‘Yes, we have our own place in this ship with our own ways of speaking so you don’t have to feel bad as you are not like a native speaker. An American is an American, a Turkish is a Turkish. You are all non-native speakers, you don’t have to be perfect, you don’t have to imitate the native speaker but also you mustn’t forget that you must be understandable.’ Having attracted the learners’ attention to the importance of speaking English in their own unique but intelligible ways, rather than attempting to be ‘perfect speakers’, the teacher moved on to a speaking activity where she would have the learners speak before an audience as ‘ELF-aware’ NNSs. The subject centered on an ELF-related issue, i.e. learners’ own culture. The teacher reminded the class of the stereotypes Shafak mentioned and shifted the topic to stereotypes about Turkey. She asked the class what stereotypes people in the world could have about Turkey. After receiving some answers like using camels for transportation or women wearing veils and discussing the disconnection people might have from reality, she asked students to carry out a speaking activity in which each student was expected to talk for five minutes in TED talks about the stereotypes the people have about Turkey and whether they are true or not. She also encouraged the learners’ active engagement by saying ‘You will be confident speakers I believe after our talks today.’ The learners started working on the topic but as the class time was not enough, the teacher assigned this as homework and the lesson was over. As shown and exemplified above, in this explicit ELF-aware lesson, the teacher’s intention for raising her learners’ ELF awareness was apparent. To this end, the steps she took included: (1) using the video of a NNS speaking about her experience of being a NNS; (2) reflective dialogues with the students on the NNSs’ way of speaking and speech content;

ELF-awareness in Teaching and Teacher Education  169

(3) theory building through explicit introduction to ELF-related issues and discussions that orient the learners to critical reflection on being a NNS; (4) public speaking practice where they are expected to perform as presumably ELF-aware and self-aware confident NNSs. Although our study did not aim to measure the effects of explicit and implicit ways on the learners, it is possible to make some comments on the basis of our observations. It was observed that the learners were highly interested in ELF as a novel concept and they liked the way it was presented through a well-known person from their own culture speaking English in her own way and displayed with her NNS identity. The level of participation was high, the discussions were lively and they were seen to listen to ELF-related explanations attentively. Thus, in this explicitly applied ELF-aware integration, the learners were seen to welcome ELF and the related issues positively. The setting was a state school where the teachers are relatively autonomous in applying their own ways of teaching. This could have contributed greatly to the comfort and fluency of the lesson. Also, the students were at a high level of proficiency so they can be deemed to be better prepared to grasp the ELF concept and to discover their own ways of speaking, as they are relatively experienced users of English. RQA 3 You have just read a section showing a sample lesson with explicit ways of ELF integration. Can you apply such explicit ways comfortably in your own context? Why/Why not? When you finish, continue reading. Sample lessons showing implicit ways of ELF-aware integration

We will now present two sample lessons revealing an implicit-only ELF integration. Note that there may also be versions of implicit applications applied together with the explicit at varying levels, but here, in both of the lessons below, there is not any form of explicit information about ELF conveyed to the learners. These lessons were chosen in order to show the reader the implicit, but genuine, integration of ELF. In the following applications, the knowledge is tacit, the vehicles are indirect and the teacher is ELF-aware but deliberately applies these implicit interventions to contribute to his/her learners’ ELF-awareness. The implicit ways used by the teachers include: (1) incorporating students’ own culture into the lesson; (2) introducing the topic of the lesson through a video of a NNS speaking about the given topic completely different from ELF;

170  Part 4: ELF and EFL Teacher Education

(3) a role-play activity where the students played the role of NNSs from different countries and spoke about their local problems. As mentioned above, no ELF-related explanation was made about the implementations. Moreover, the implicit ELF-related practices here were used to supplement and enrich the EFL-based lessons already prescribed by the school curricula typically defined by an SE orientation. Accordingly, in the first sample lesson, the teacher followed the given sequence in the unit of an EFL-oriented course book, but at certain points he intentionally integrated ELF-related aspects into it (see below). In the second one, the teacher created an implicit ELF-related activity from scratch and integrated it into the entire lesson. The first sample lesson targeted intermediate-level learners of English. The course book unit had two different themes, helping people and zerocarbon cities. Thus, the lesson included themes completely different from those of ELF concerns. While covering the unit, the teacher carried out the relevant activities in the book, yet he incorporated two ELF-related aspects into the lesson: (1) the learners’ own culture; (2) a NNS speaking in his own variety about the given topic. That is, the first theme, helping people, was discussed with respect to beggars and attitudes towards beggars in the learners’ own local cultures. The next theme was zero-carbon cities and, to exemplify the topic, the teacher had the class watch a video of a Brazilian speaker introducing an example practice in Rio de Janeiro (https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=soRKXtJfdag). The teacher talked about the content of the video and asked questions to the class, but he did not make any reference to the way the NNS spoke. The second sample lesson was also designed for intermediate-level learners of English. The subject of the lesson was war and peace. The learners listened to an Iraqi woman, Zainab Salbi, talk about the effects of war (http://www.ted.com/talks/zainab_salbi). Then the learners were given texts about wars in different expanding circle countries (Iraq, Turkey, Japan, Myanmar and Spain). They were asked to study the texts and, as they were instructed, each student would act like the representative of his/her country and give information about his/her country’s war experience to the class and talk about the importance of peace. The learners then made their presentations and the class asked them questions and/ or made comments about the given subject. These lessons were applied as one-shot experimental occurrences by the teachers. On the other hand, within a given syllabus, it is possible to practise these ways described above before or after an explicit lesson. If they are applied before an explicit introduction to ELF, they will set the grounds for an explicit introduction, make the learners ready, make the

ELF-awareness in Teaching and Teacher Education  171

transition between implicit and explicit smooth and serve the purpose of helping to raise learners’ ELF-awareness. If they are applied after an explicit lesson, then the learners would probably be aware of the ELF concept and such implicit practices would complement the explicit practices and strengthen their understanding of ELF. As for the observed effects of the lessons on the learners, the learners in both lessons were observed to participate in the lessons in a motivating way. Most of them were observed to be indifferent to the NNSs’ ways of speaking English, yet some learners in the first lesson were seen to imitate some of the words in the way told by the Brazilian speaker, but since they received no reaction from their teacher or their friends, they did not continue dealing with the accent of the speaker, but focused more on the content of the speech. Moreover, the students were also observed to be actively and willingly engaged in the discussion about beggars and the role-play activity involving different NNSs. Having looked at the practical details of the explicit and implicit approaches, let us now shed light on the commonalities and differences between them as well as analyze the strengths of each in pedagog­ical contexts: Commonalities

• Both the explicit and the implicit ways serve the purpose of raising learners’ awareness of the ELF paradigm and its concerns by introducing them to the reality and variety of NNSs with their own ways of speaking as well as their own backgrounds, cultures and L1s and other languages. • In both the explicit and implicit applications, the teacher is ELF-aware and his intention is to make the learners ELF-aware, thus, s/he deliberately incorporates these applications into the lessons. • Neither of the two ways aims at persuading learners to accept ELF. Their raison d’ être is raising learners’ ELF-awareness and this does not and should not mean automatic acceptance of ELF. Herein, awareness is being conscious of the ELF construct and NNS reality and, as discussed under the concept of ELF-awareness above, learners are free to choose to endorse the ELF paradigm or not. • The explicit and the implicit do not represent an either/or situation. They are complementary and the extent of each in the syllabus should be tailored to the educational context and needs of the learners. Thus, applying them flexibly in different combinations is a necessity, which would also enrich the variety of ELF-aware applications. Differences

• The explicit approach refers to an open, direct reference to ELF and its concerns, while the implicit approach refers to a covert, indirect reference to ELF issues.

172  Part 4: ELF and EFL Teacher Education

• While explicit ways of ELF integration are intended to make learners conscious of the ELF construct (e.g. different uses of English by NNSs and the status and role of NNSs in ELF communications), implicit activities have a potential effect on the subconscious ELF perception of the learners. • The explicit approach is a necessity in raising learners’ ELF awareness as it works at the level of consciousness with explanations and discussions and reveals relatively more rapid and straightforward ways to introduce ELF and its issues. It is, thus, likely to be more feasible in short-term trainings. • The implicit ways with their impact on the subconscious can be used at the start of an ELF-aware lesson or a syllabus to familiarize the learners with ELF, leading to a level of readiness, and can set the grounds for a smooth transition to an explicit introduction. Following the first explicit introduction to ELF, the implicit can then be used to complement the explicit and to increase the variety of instructional activities. • The implicit ways can also have a primary place in instructional settings dominated by a SE orientation. They would help the teacher include ELF in the lessons in a more comfortable and secure way and escape from the pressure of stakeholders imposing SE norms. All in all, the implicit and the explicit ways of ELF integration can contribute to raising learners’ ELF-awareness in various ways and it is the willingness and context-sensitive efforts of ELF-aware teachers that would pave the way for several creative applications in English classrooms. RQA 4 Now think about your own teaching situation. To what extent are explicit and implicit ways of ELF integration into English lessons relevant to your context? Identify at least four points from the pedagogical practices and implications described above which you potentially find useful with respect to the integration of ELF into your own context. Synopsis

In this chapter we have seen that ELF-awareness in teaching and teacher education requires being actively and critically engaged with ELF in theory and practice through continuous critical reflection synthesized with self-initiated instructional implementation. We have described the application of an ELF-aware teacher education framework for pre-service teachers in which the teachers were exposed to intensive theoretical and practice-based training on ELF and ELF-aware

ELF-awareness in Teaching and Teacher Education  173

pedagogy. Finally, in this chapter, the reader was introduced to explicit and implicit ways of ELF integration into English lessons with sample lessons and in-depth comparative analyses and it was suggested that a pedagogical approach should be adopted, in which explicit and implicit ways are used in a complementary fashion, to effectively raise the ELFawareness of learners. Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Bogazici University Research Fund for supporting this study under the grant number 8000. We would also like to thank the participants of this study. References Bayyurt, Y. and Sifakis, N.C. (2015a) Transforming into an ELF-aware teacher: An EFL teacher’s reflective journey. In H. Bowles and A. Cogo (eds) International Perspectives on Teaching English as a Lingua Franca: Pedagogical Insights (pp. 117–135). London: Palgrave MacMillan. Bayyurt, Y. and Sifakis, N.C. (2015b) Developing an ELF-aware pedagogy: Insights from a self-education programme. In P. Vettorel (ed.) New Frontiers in Teaching and Learning English (pp. 55–76). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Bayyurt, Y. and Sifakis, N.C. (2017) Foundations of an EIL-aware teacher education. In A. Matsuda (ed.) Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language (pp. 169–182). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kemaloglu-Er, E. (2017) Integrating ELF awareness into pre-service teacher education: Insights from theoretical and practical experience. PhD thesis, Bogazici University. Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding ELF. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sifakis, N.C. (2014) ELF awareness as an opportunity for change: A transformative perspective for ESOL teacher education. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3 (2), 317–335. Sifakis, N.C. (2017) ELF awareness in English language teaching: Principles and processes. Applied Linguistics, available from https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx034. Sifakis, N.C. and Bayyurt, Y. (2015) Insights from ELF and WE in teacher training in Greece and Turkey. World Englishes 34 (3), 471–484. Sifakis, N.C. and Bayyurt, Y. (2018) ELF-aware teacher education and development. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds) The Routledge Handbook on English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 456–467). Abingdon: Routledge.

Further reading Bayyurt, Y. and Akcan, S. (eds) (2015) Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. This book is a collection of works concerning ELF pedagogy in theory and practice. It presents ELF-based pedagogical practices in diverse settings and focuses on the pedagogy–policy connection in terms of ELF. Bayyurt, Y. and Altınmakas, D. (2012) A WE-based English communication skills course at a Turkish university. In A. Matsuda (ed.) Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language (pp. 169–182). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

174  Part 4: ELF and EFL Teacher Education

This chapter displays the development of a course based on the principles related to WE and EIL and application of these principles to the teaching of English. It describes the context and content of the course, sample implementations as well as the stakeholders’ perceptions. Sifakis, N.C. (2004) Teaching EIL – teaching international or intercultural English? What teachers should know. System 32 (2), 237–250. Sifakis proposes a cross-cultural framework to teach English as an international and intercultural language and makes suggestions to ELT practitioners willing to integrate EIL in their lessons.

10 Changing Teachers’ Attitudes Towards ELF Enric Llurda and Vasi Mocanu

General aims of this chapter

This chapter will explore ways in which teachers can enhance their sense of efficacy in teaching English by deeply exploring the concept of ELF. After revising some basic concepts related to the empowerment of NNS teachers of English and the need to develop ELF awareness, it will be argued that current frameworks of teaching are constrained by limitations of two kinds: exogenous, which are due to what Phillipson (1992) labelled ‘the native speaker fallacy’; and endogenous, which are set up by self-imposed barriers, and the ones that teacher training must aim to overcome. The chapter will emphasize the importance of a change of attitude by teachers regarding ELF and NNS uses of English, and a five-stage training proposal will be devised, through which teacher-trainees should gradually develop an understanding of English language diversity and become aware of NNS uses of English in the world. Thus, ELF will eventually emerge as a desirable goal rather than a poor version of an idealised NS model. Expected outcomes

On completing this chapter, you should be able to: • develop ELF awareness; • deconstruct the idea of the NS as a model for English language teachers; • evaluate your attitudes regarding ELF and NNS uses of English. Key concepts

• • • •

ELF. NNESTs. Teacher awareness. Teacher identity. 175

176  Part 4: ELF and EFL Teacher Education

Introduction

Teachers of English are currently facing a change in how English is described at the global level, from being a language that was established and developed in the centre (i.e. UK and US) and exported to the periphery, to its current existence as a language that is constantly developed, expanded and transformed globally and locally in a variety of settings and contexts, and embracing a variety of specialized communities of practice. Teachers of English can no longer reduce the language to the standard variety established and promoted by the economic and cultural elites in the UK and the US. They must reach beyond and contemplate the vast amount of variation existing in uses of the language, and consequently make pedagogic choices accordingly. Yet, the dominant discourses in ELT continue to be based on the idea of the NS as the ideal speaker, and SE as the only acceptable form of language use. This puts teachers of English, and especially non-native teachers, in a situation of conflict, whereby they are responsible for the teaching of a language that is not their own and consequently they may feel disempowered and may experience feelings of inadequacy. Such feelings are related to what Llurda (2009) has compared to the Stockholm syndrome and Bernat (2008) has labelled the impostor syndrome. This syndrome refers to a feeling of inauthenticity that comes along with a fear of being inadequate for their job. Non-native teachers experience constant reminders that point to NSs as the authority and legitimate bearers of the language, thus being relegated to a secondary role, being denied the right to claim ownership over the language and to use their own intuitions over it. Instead, they have to follow the norm as p ­ rovided by NSs endowed with the aura of legitimate owners of the language. Awareness, Empowerment and Ownership of English

RQA 1 In the next section we are going to discuss aspects related to the legitimacy of NNS as language teachers. Do you think native English language speakers are better teachers than non-natives? Please, think about the ­reasons that determine your perceptions on this matter. After that, you may continue reading. The reorientation in the description of the English language provoked by research on ELF and/or EIL has provided teachers with an excellent mechanism to overcome the limitations imposed by their non-native condition in a context of NS pre-eminence (Llurda, 2004). By claiming ownership over English (Widdowson, 1994), non-native teachers can cease to regard themselves as impostors and become assertive in their

Changing Teachers’ Attitudes Towards ELF  177

contribution to the ELT profession and their own learners’ language development. A process of empowerment is needed for teachers to become self-determined competent professionals. Such empowerment requires the development of awareness of ELF and of the global spread of English in connection to their own potentialities as competent users of English, regardless of the chronological order in which this language was acquired in their life trajectory. Non-native teachers have been long accustomed to carrying out their professional duties with a feeling of inferiority, expressed by a fear of being caught as inadequately dealing with a language-related query in the classroom. This may affect their way of teaching, which is often based on heavy reliance on grammar, textbooks and pre-packaged materials (Medgyes, 1994). They have accepted professional discrimination as a natural aspect of their job. Such discrimination may have been made evident through salary differences or a preference for unqualified NSs over qualified non-natives in job recruitment (Clark & Paran, 2007; Mahboob et al., 2004; Selvi, 2010). Therefore, teachers’ awareness of ELF and subsequent empowerment will transform them into active agents of change in ELT, thus improving their professional self-esteem and lowering the learners’ level of anxiety, as they will not suffer the pressure to imitate NS models in their language learning process. Arbitrary separation of professionals between NSs and NNSs leading to discrimination of members of one group is what Holliday (2005) called native-speakerism, an ideology that is directly related to racism in that it makes a distinction between humans based on properties that are not part of their professional skills, and yet they are used to differentiate and categorise such humans into different categories and levels. ELF-aware teachers develop a vision of ELF that will affect their attitude towards the English language and towards how to present the language to learners in pedagogical tasks and activities. A new vision of the language will evolve into a new way of teaching. Yet, changing teachers’ attitudes to the point of embracing the idea of ELF and challenging established norms and beliefs about the value of a standard native variety of the language is a complex process that will not happen by just informing teachers of the existence of ELF and current research on this topic. RQA 2 Think about your own experience at the teacher training courses and programmes you have attended. To what extent were those experiences in agreement or disagreement with the points mentioned above? Would you say the teacher training courses offered you the chance to reflect on your attitudes towards the English language and your role as a non-native teacher? Do you think that those courses should have placed more emphasis on empowering non-native teachers and on strengthening their sense

178  Part 4: ELF and EFL Teacher Education

of being legitimate language teachers? Please, reflect on whether the English teaching profession has traditionally disregarded the strengths of non-native teachers and if you conclude that non-native teachers’ contributions have effectively been disregarded; think about why this may have happened. Attitudes are composed of a combination of cognitive, affective and behavioural dimensions, and therefore they cannot be changed by simply informing the individual at the cognitive level of a certain type of information. The cognitive dimension needs to be complemented by experiences that penetrate the individual at the affective and behavioural levels. Too often, teacher training programmes rely exclusively on cognition, that is, theoretical knowledge, as though this was sufficient for teacher trainees to develop the necessary skills to become successful teachers. Unfortunately, the reality tends to be that teacher trainees, in order to inform their practices, turn to their previous experiences as learners, rather than to the concepts and theories they have been exposed to in their training. Experiential training is therefore fundamental to promote pedagogical change and gradually transform the teaching profession in any pedagogical area, and in particular in ELT since the establishment of English as an international lingua franca. In this way, training will promote attitudinal changes from a traditional view of ELT as EFL, and therefore external to the learning community, to a language teaching approach that embraces ELF as an internal language, that is a language that also belongs to the whole community of users. But why is a change of attitude necessary? Let us start by considering how the ELT profession has traditionally imposed severe limitations on NNS teachers. Such limitations can be divided into two basic categories: exogenous and endogenous. By exogenous, we mean what more than two decades ago Phillipson (1992) labelled the ‘native speaker fallacy’, which can be described as the belief that NSs are the only speakers who can speak the language properly and therefore are also the ones who can most adequately teach it. This belief carries with it the accompanying assumption that non-native teachers cannot properly teach the language. Such external pressure is commonly felt by non-native teachers when parents and learners demand native teachers in their schools and more so when they realise that their native colleagues are paid higher salaries for the same type of jobs, or when they are not hired for a job for not being a NS. So, they can feel the bias against them both from their employers and their potential clients. Yet, another kind of limitation exists that does not come from outside, but from their own inner perceptions of inadequacy. This endogenous limitation originates in self-imposed barriers based on feelings of inferiority and inadequacy for the language teaching job. Exogenous limitations are difficult to tackle as they imply several external agents. Changes will

Changing Teachers’ Attitudes Towards ELF  179

not happen until all those agents gradually change their attitude and this, in addition to needing a great deal of time, will depend on several other factors, including a very active advocacy by teachers and applied linguists, especially in their surrounding social environments. Endogenous limitations are more subtle, but at the same time more accessible and easily approached through teacher training. One of the worst aspects of racist ideologies, such as native-speakerism, is how they may actually penetrate the mind of their victims to the point that they willingly accept discrimination as unavoidable, logical and necessary. Applied linguists, teachers and teacher trainers may feel rather powerless to change social perceptions, but it is actually in their hands to have an impact on how teachers perceive themselves and how they regard their role as legitimate actors in the teaching profession. The main difficulty lies in finding the way to effectively act on self-perceptions and change teachers’ attitudes from selfdeprecation to self-esteem, from acceptance of discrimination to rebelliousness and assertiveness of their own value as teachers of ELF. Llurda (2009) drafted three lines of action to increase non-native teachers’ selfconfidence and awareness of their role and status as English teaching professionals: increasing opportunities for using English in international contexts; developing critical awareness; and engaging in discussions regarding EIL/ELF. In this chapter, we are going beyond these basic lines and will attempt to provide a more detailed model for changing teachers’ attitudes in training programmes. We propose a series of stages that aim at impacting teachers at the cognitive, affective and behavioural levels, thus creating the conditions for a change of attitude that will ultimately contribute to the development of new ways of teaching and an ELF-based perspective being adopted in an increasing number of ELT settings. An Awareness-raising Model for Non-native English Teachers

The model we are proposing contains five stages, aimed at gradually contributing to a change of attitude among non-native teachers, from an NSoriented perspective to a global English approach that takes into account the central role of NNSs in the use of ELF in international contexts. Stage 1: Exposure to ‘realistic’ situations, with examples of cultural and linguistic diversity

RQA 3 Take some minutes to think about the linguistic and cultural diversity of our world. Which kind of communicative situations do you think your learners will encounter? How many possibilities are there to encounter NSs of English? Which variety of English do you think will be more useful for communicating in a high diversity of communication situations?

180  Part 4: ELF and EFL Teacher Education

Spending some time abroad is an enriching linguistic and cultural experience, and the effects of studying abroad on English teachers have also been shown to be beneficial. There are, however, some issues to be considered, since not every period of study abroad comes out with the same results. For instance, Llurda (2008), in a study with 101 NNESTs, demonstrates that studying for a period of more than three months in an English-speaking country can have a positive effect on teachers’ proficiency, their views and their perceptions of the NS-NNS dichotomy. If we think about the possible causes of these benefits, contact with cultural and linguistic diversity might come to mind. It is true that many of the studies on this topic are mostly conducted with subjects that have spent some time in an English-speaking country, which we would situate in Kachru’s inner circle of English speakers (Kachru, 1982). However, even in this case, being exposed to the real situations where English is used can play an important role in realising that English usage takes many diverse forms and they are all valid and acceptable, and thus English does not belong exclusively to those who have it as a first language, but it belongs to all users, no matter their place of origin and chronological order in which the language was learned. In spite of this, and given the fact that most of the NNESTs receive their teaching training in their own countries, and not all of them have the chance to spend a period abroad, it is necessary to look for alternatives to explore the array of possibilities to use the language and the level of linguistic and cultural diversity of our world. Therefore, exposure to realistic situations, by means of which teacher trainees can come into contact with daily life examples of cultural and linguistic diversity might be a stimulus for the development of a broader frame regarding which kind of English they should teach and for which purposes. Widdowson (1994) stated that the current global situation does not contemplate English as an exclusive property of NSs but as a language of global use. Therefore, contact with a variety of situations where ELF is used will contribute to the enhancement of their self-perceptions with regard to the language, resulting in an increase of the NNESTs’ self-­ confidence and, consequently, strengthening the view that they are capable of being good language teachers. For this purpose, recent technological developments offer an infinite assortment of possibilities, from films to written texts, which are definitely worth exploring. The world wide web provides us with the chance to discover worlds that are physically far away, and it makes us perceive them as nearer and more approachable. What we propose here is to browse through the web in search of videos that show the use of English in plurilingual and multicultural contexts, as a means to become exposed to the diversity of uses of the language with the goal of presenting a realistic vision of English in the world, as opposed to the idealised vision presented by materials that emphasize SE spoken with a very restricted accent, either

Changing Teachers’ Attitudes Towards ELF  181

British RP or mid-west AmE. For instance, the following video https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0r0eUSqWVI shows a young man visiting New York and engaging in conversations in multiple languages with different residents in the city, which appears as a truly multilingual site where English is one language in addition to many others that co-exist in a less visible (but nonetheless real) way. Another video worth viewing is this interview in English with a South  Korean music band composed of four young women, while in Singapore, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTuUMVTwIcQ. This video could be complemented with another involving the same band https://www.­youtube.com/watch?v=-a3UQNMWdpw in which they mainly use Korean but resort to English when performing their songs and addressing the audience at a concert in the Philippines. A different perspective can be offered by a commercial for a well-known Spanish beer, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jlQiwcsV9Q, which shows how encounters between speakers of different languages can be perfectly successful, even if sometimes the participants have to rely on such communication strategies as code-switching and use of body language. Another example of communication in different languages appears in the film by Portuguese director Manoel de Oliveira Um Filme Falado, available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnFs1s7M744. The particular sequence that is worth watching happens between minute 46 and minute 55, when three ladies, one from France, another from Italy and another from Greece sit at the captain’s table on a pleasure boat around the Mediterranean Sea. The captain happens to be American and the conversation takes place by each speaking their own language, which means that French, Italian, Greek and English are used in the same conversation. Although the situation is probably more fictional than real, it is a good way to show how multilingual conversations are possible and how communication may go beyond convergence to a single language and a single variety. The particular irony in de Oliveira’s film is that passengers use a diversity of European languages and yet the person who is running the boat and therefore has the power of taking critical decisions is an American, which somehow may bring the discussion to the political forces that drive the use of certain languages in the international sphere, and in particular how English is so important in Europe by virtue of the tremendous influence of America on European life and culture, rather than by the somewhat meagre influence that the UK may have on the continent, and more so in the current moment when the UK is on its way out of the EU. Furthermore, the use of English in multilingual contexts as seen in these videos may be complemented by another video showing a NS of English from Glasgow who speaks in a variety rather difficult to understand by those who have not been extensively exposed to it https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=AXGP4Sez_Us. The overall goal by exposing teacher trainees to this kind of material is to help them become aware of

182  Part 4: ELF and EFL Teacher Education

their own multilingual resources and the advantages the multilingual condition may carry. Also, besides that, future teachers will better understand how in our multicultural and multilingual world, different types of sociocultural and linguistic resources are brought to the table and how speakers rely on different resources at different times in order to successfully participate in plurilingual conversations, which mostly implies more than one language at the same time. Finally, experimenting with situations where NSs perform unintelligible speaking acts versus successful speaking encounters, in super-diverse societies where agreement and negotiation are more important than the linguistic repertoire, could also change their views on the role of English in our global world. Stage 2: Analysis of data showing NNS professional performance

RQA 4 Often non-native teachers compare their performance in English with that of NSs. However, it is more reasonable to compare it to people who  have developed a successful professional life in international ­e nvironments. Please think about such professionals. Can you name any famous person who, without being a NS, manages to carry out their professional life using English competently and efficiently? Is it possible to speak with a clearly non-native accent and yet be a successful English user? In this stage, you will be exposed to examples of successful use of English by NNS users in different professional fields. Possible cases of successful professionals using ELF that can be discussed may include football coaches, political and financial authorities, top business people. Additionally, data showing specific advantages by NNS teachers of English over their NS counterparts will be used to show that professional competence does not require speaking English like a NS. At the turn of the century, Norton (2000) developed the notion of investment and made a connection between how learners perceive themselves with regard to society, both in the present and in the future, and their own language learning process. Special attention was devoted to the idea of imagined identities influencing the language learning process. The way we imagine ourselves with regard both to our present and to our future circumstances can have an effect on our investment in learning a language. Among the many identities that a person can ascribe to himself or herself, the professional one is, probably, one of the most important. Therefore, the job that we imagine ourselves doing in the future and the circumstances surrounding our professional life, can deeply influence the kind of English we choose to invest in. When applied to the ELT profession, it is clear that the 21st century and the work of many scholars in the field (i.e. Canagarajah,

Changing Teachers’ Attitudes Towards ELF  183

2007; Seidlhofer, 2011) has brought to the scene the notion of ELF and how English is a language that is actively used in a diversity of manners and contexts by speakers with different language repertoires who share English as a common language, and this sharing enables them to belong to the same international spaceless community of practice (Seidlhofer, 2011). Non-native teachers do not need to imagine NS competence as a professional goal. We are constantly exposed to examples of professionals from other fields who embraced an ELF approach to the language and turned out to be very successful communicators. It is important for teachers to move beyond traditional models of language accuracy and visualize how language used in alternative ways is not an impediment for professional success at the international level. Therefore, it would be very enriching if teachers and teacher trainees could get to know about these people and their professional careers, and be able to analyse some of their public interventions using ELF in a successful way. We believe that if teacher trainees are exposed to examples of successful use of English by NNS users in different professional fields, their imagined professional identities could change towards the figure of a good professional who is sufficiently capable to do his or her job without any need to resemble a NS. Pep Guardiola, a very successful Catalan football coach who has trained top European teams such as FC Barcelona, Bayern München and Manchester City (as per Summer, 2017) could be a good example, as can be observed in the following video available on the internet at the time of writing: https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=WgWCqqg7wzA. On the other hand, it would be very beneficial if we could contrast this with data showing specific advantages by NNS teachers of English over their NS counterparts. In this way, it will be possible for the teacher trainees to distinguish between what qualities they attribute to NSs of English and which ones they actually possess, getting to discover, in this way, that ‘nativeness’ is, most of the time, more of a social symbol than an intelligibility marker. Stage 3: Analysis of examples of academic uses of ELF

RQA 5 Have you ever participated in or witnessed a highly specialized academic discussion using ELF? Would you say it was successful? Do you think examples of successful use of academic non-native English can contribute to language teachers’ professional development? In the following section, you will be provided with a real classroom example showing the use of ELF and multilingual strategies in order to successfully achieve the communicative goals in an academic context.

184  Part 4: ELF and EFL Teacher Education

After having experienced language diversity as a natural format in human communication, and having observed successful ELF-speaking professionals at the international level in different disciplines, it is time for teachers to be exposed to examples of academic uses of ELF. Mauranen (2012) has extensively described her work and that of her associates in the development of the ELFA corpus, which provides several examples of academic uses of English by speakers whose L1 is another language. Exposure to examples of ELF in academic contexts will contribute to demystifying the notion of SE spoken by NSs as the only valid form of educated academic language. The language of professors and learners engaging in highly specialised academic discussions should move the focus from formal aspects resembling the language of NSs to detailed and accurate presentation of concepts and achievement of communicative goals. In a class taught in English to first-year learners of a law degree by a comparative law professor at a university in Catalonia, a particular interaction took place that is worth discussing here. Students had very different levels of English proficiency, but the university had decided that this particular course had to be offered in English as part of the plan to internationalise the studies at the university. The rationale behind this decision was that courses in English were needed by Erasmus mobility students and at the same time they contributed to increase the English proficiency of local students, a much-needed skill for contemporary university graduates. The class could be categorized as an example of English-medium instruction rather than CLIL (please, see Smit & Dafouz (2012) for further characterization of each), as the professor did not show any particular strategy for integrating content and language in his rather monological instructional style. At one particular point the teacher asked one student a question. The student tried to say something in English but immediately gave up and switched to Spanish to say that he could not speak English. The teacher did not give in and insisted on using English in class, but also assured the student that nobody would fail the course due to their poor English skills. The only requirement was that they tried to speak in English. The student tried again and for a second time stopped and switched to Spanish to vehemently say that he could not speak English (swear word in Spanish included). In spite of the teacher’s insistence, he refused to try again and insisted that for him English is like German, meaning that he could not speak it and he would not. At this point, the professor said something in German, and immediately afterwards offered the student the opportunity to speak Italian (‘Italian? Better?’), to which the student responded affirmatively (‘Si’) and the professor, still in English, conceded (‘Fine. Do it in Italian.’). The student then provided an answer to the initial question in Italian and both engaged in a short conversation in this language. Finally, the teacher wrapped up the student’s answer in Italian and switched back to English (‘Ben capito. Ben capito. The problem is that your colleagues don’t understand a word in Italian I’m afraid’),

Changing Teachers’ Attitudes Towards ELF  185

and some learners reacted to this challenge by indicating they did actually understand (‘Yes, yes. We understand.’). We have presented this sequence in a detailed manner because it illustrates an example of a naturally occurring interaction in a classroom setting in which the instructor and learners manage to negotiate the use of languages by avoiding the easy resource of using the L1 shared by learners and the professor, and instead they construct a multilingual interaction that values one student’s language expertise and at the same time presents the professor as a multilingual individual who can manage diversity and promote an international approach to the class, thus forcing the learners to move out of their comfort zone, but simultaneously allowing learners to negotiate ways of succeeding in the task even though their level of English is low. This is not a language class but a content class taught in the learners’ L2. Yet, it is a good example of the importance of communicative goals over dogmatic monolingual principles. A detailed analysis of short sequences like this one, or others happening in language classes, may bring to light issues that are worth discussing in order to contribute to the above-mentioned need to demystify standard language ideology. For instance, the question of accent may be brought to the discussion. It is likely that a professor speaks English with a clearly identifiable non-native accent, possibly strongly affected by their L1. Munro and Derwing (1995) and Derwing and Munro (2009) established the difference between three concepts that are interrelated and often subject to confusion: accent, intelligibility and comprehensibility. Whereas accent was defined as how a particular form of speech sounds different to a given (local) variety (Derwing & Munro, 2009), intelligibility was ‘broadly defined as the extent to which a speaker’s message is actually understood by a listener’ (Munro & Derwing, 1995: 289) and comprehensibility incorporates the perceptual dimension, that is the perception the listener has of how easy or difficult it was to understand a speaker. Through a series of empirical studies, Munro and Derwing managed to establish the independent status of these three elements of speech perception. Thus, the existence of a clearly recognizable foreign accent does not affect the intelligibility and comprehensibility of a speaker’s oral production. In other words, speaking with a foreign accent does not mean a speaker is not going to be understood, and speaking with no trace of a foreign accent does not necessarily mean that the speech will be totally intelligible and comprehensible. Teachers’ attention may be brought to the amount of information they can obtain from a sequence of academic language use irrespective of an obvious or a subtle foreign accent that may be observable in that speech. Another aspect that may be worth analysing is the use of interaction in the class to bring learners’ attention to the key points. Effective discourses are those that dialogically engage the interlocutors and keep their attention focused on the points under discussion, whereas discourses that

186  Part 4: ELF and EFL Teacher Education

monologically build an argument without leaving space for interaction tend to fall into boredom and disengagement, and consequently do little to contribute to the advancement of learning. Examples of academic lingua franca uses of English should be instrumental in shifting teachers’ attention from formal aspects based on educated NS resemblance to elements of communicative effectiveness in academic contexts, thus placing more value on content and clarity of exposition than on degree of similarity with the NS models. Stage 4: Prospective scenarios for international English

RQA 6 In the previous sections, we approached the issues of diversity, multilingualism and multiculturalism in our world. Bearing in mind the points we made before, do you think that English will still be the main language used in international contexts? Is there any other language that may threaten to take the dominant role that is currently held by English? In the next section, you will be asked to reflect on the hypothetical possibility of a future world dominated by a single leading country versus a world with multiple leaders. Arguments will be given for the latter option as the most likely to happen, with the probable outcome of English remaining as the international lingua franca in a world that will no longer have its centre in the US but in multiple places. Thus, the world will be seen in the process of evolving into an ELF global setting, in which NNSs will have the upper hand. The term globalization is most commonly used as shorthand for the intensified flows of capital, goods, people, images and discourses around the globe, driven by technological innovations mainly in the field of media and information and communication technology, and resulting in new patterns of global activity, community organization and culture (Appadurai, 1996; Castells, 1996). But flows have always happened throughout history, even if they have probably never been as evident as in our times. Not very long ago, both material and cultural goods circulated between colonies and empires, so we cannot claim that globalization is an innovation created in the 20th century. What is new, however, is the direction in which it goes and its implications. For instance, Hardt and Negri (2000) state that the US does not, and indeed no nation state can today, form the centre of an imperialist project. Imperialism is over. Therefore, the future seems to foretell no leader, but leaders. In addition to the countries that have dominated the economy in the second half of the 20th century, namely the US, Japan, Germany and other European Union countries, a group of new countries has emerged as main actors in the world economy. Four countries in particular, commonly referred to by the

Changing Teachers’ Attitudes Towards ELF  187

acronym BRICs (standing for Brazil, Russia, India and China) grew rapidly by the turn of the century and are expected to have an increasingly strong presence in top world policies and decisions. In this ‘decentred’ world, characterized by a continuous flow of things, and especially, of people, there is already a need for a common lingua franca, and it is difficult to think of any other language that could perform this role, but English (Graddol, 2006). However, the English language has evolved to the point that it is spoken more as an additional language than as an L1. We can certainly affirm that, if the world goes in this direction, more and more people will be able to speak English, and the vast majority of them will adopt it in addition to previously known languages. In this scenario, where the US may no longer be the centre of power, and with a considerable increment in the number of speakers of English as a second language, it will make no sense to stick to the NS as the ideal model in ELT. Therefore, focusing on a NS of English when teaching the language can have a counterproductive effect, since there are many more possibilities for communicative situations in English to happen between NNSs than between NNSs and NSs. Probably, the most attainable objective ELT can aim at is an expert command of the language that could serve its communicative purpose in the widest range of possible communicative situations. Furthermore, it would be very appropriate and highly recommended that if there is a perceived need for the learners to master the language for a specific type of communicative encounter, the teacher explores the possible ways in which he or she can give them the maximum number of skills and strategies in order to be able to convey their thoughts in the most effective way for the particular contexts they might find themselves in. Therefore, it might be highly beneficial if the actual instructor is a person with enough knowledge of the specific particularities of the situations his or her learners might encounter, and this is a key feature of people who have lived in that particular context for enough time to get to know well the communicative needs of the learners, something that most monolingual NSs, regardless of the level of proficiency, do not possess. In a decentred globalised world, one may wonder if English will still be the dominant language of international communication. However, there is no doubt that, if that is the case, English will have to adapt to the multiplicity of its speakers and their respective communities of practice. Stage 5: Reflection on own teaching identity, context, condition and the ideal (yet realistic) L2-self

RQA 7 We have addressed so far the issues of attitudes, diversity of communication situations and learners’ needs. Now, you may take some minutes to reflect on what kind of teacher you would want to be like in the future.

188  Part 4: ELF and EFL Teacher Education

Do you imagine yourself speaking with a native accent or do you rather picture yourself as a foreign-accented speaker with extensive pedagogical resources and great teaching expertise? Think about those activities in which you would like to invest your time and resources? Does devoting time to the aim of becoming native-like speaker imitators contribute to achieving your goals? Additionally, think about what kind of qualities English teachers need to possess in order to enable learners to be successful in a wide array of communicative situations? In the following text, we will try to drive you towards responding to the following questions: ‘What is my realistic/ideal goal as a language teacher trainee?’ and ‘What do I want to be like in the future?’, thus facilitating a critical reflection that should eventually lead to a transformational perspective co-constructed by trainers and trainees, which will be at the basis of teachers’ professional empowerment (Sifakis, 2007). We have already mentioned Norton’s (2000) work on identity and language learning and how important the role of mental projection of imagined future potential realities is in the language learning process. Norton makes an unbreakable connection between imagined identities and investment in becoming well versed in a certain language. So, we need to establish goals, but it is better for these goals to be realistic rather than idealistic. We do not imply that someone cannot let their imagination run free and engender all kinds of realities and an infinite number of attainable goals. In fact, the array of identities that English language trainees can choose from is quite extended and these identities can be shaped according to one’s own needs as well as to the resources we are ready to invest in achieving them. However, it has to be acknowledged that choosing one’s own language-related identity is not an easy matter, especially in a world where ownership over a language is often claimed to depend on birth right. Yet, knowing a language and knowing how to teach it are separate things. Knowing a language, what Rampton (1990) would call ‘expertise’, is a first step needed in the process of becoming a language teacher, but we cannot equate knowing English with being able to teach it effectively. Although everybody with a good command of the language and a proper qualification in ELT is a potential effective English language instructor, it might be very beneficial for teachers in training to invest their resources in becoming effective educators instead of native-like speaker imitators. When teachers have to create a future image of themselves, they may be tempted to create an image of pseudo-native speakers and disregard the more adequate image of resourceful non-native educators who can share their expertise and their own learning experience with their learners. In order to extend the conversation on this topic a little bit more, we can even bring into the scene the question of empathy, which can be sometimes detrimental to monolingual English NSs, since they have not experienced the actual process of learning the language as an L2. It takes a

Changing Teachers’ Attitudes Towards ELF  189

long time to understand how we learn languages, which materials are more suitable for certain purposes, when learners are demotivated and how to motivate them. All in all, we can say that probably the best language teachers are people who, at some point in their lives, have been language learners, and rather successful ones. Of course, NSs may have also been through the process of learning an L2, and many have indeed, and we might also argue that a NS can use a broad range of idiomatic expressions, and he or she may know a lot about their own culture and share it with their students, which is something learners might enjoy. It is true that apparently these are advantages over non-native teachers. However, most of the time, this cultural knowledge can be deeply rooted in one’s own individual experience, and idiomatic expressions are usually used by NS in a rather automatic way, so they might have difficulties in transforming this knowledge into teaching expertise that can be used for the learners’ advantage and progress. Participating in discussions about non-ideal visions of their future as teachers will engage teacher trainees in realistic perspectives of what kind of teacher they want to be and how they can better help their learners. Teacher training has to allow trainees to voice their concerns and fears regarding their future and thus help them overcome self-imposed barriers to empowerment. Sifakis’ (2007) transformational perspective as well as Sifakis and Bayyurt’s (2015) ELF-aware teacher training proposal point to the need to engage teachers in discussions that will transform their visions of English and ELT to the point of incorporating an ELF dimension in their teaching. It might be worth thinking about the reasons that determine whether non-native teachers imagine themselves as ideal NS of English or as NNS with a good command of the language and a considerable amount of teaching resources. And, most importantly, where are these reasons actually rooted? A critical consideration of how established frameworks of English have been perpetuated through imposition on both teachers and learners may open teachers’ minds to a new way of teaching the language that places communicative goals as the top priority and diminishes the predominance of imitation of externally established standard models. Synopsis

The proposal developed in this chapter is intended to provide a set of stages that will contribute to the increase of non-native teacher’s selfesteem as a necessary condition for improving English teaching practice. Teachers who suffer from low professional self-esteem will be handicapped and will miss the opportunity to take responsibility for helping learners develop the capacity to use English as an additional language in a diversity of communicative settings and functions. Instead, they will rather hide behind the mask of the NS, a mask that is apparently validated

190  Part 4: ELF and EFL Teacher Education

by the standard language ideology but which does not fit well on their face, and which will therefore make it very difficult for them to abandon the feeling of being impostors teaching a language that does only belong to NS. Engaging in critical thinking and discussions in the way developed above will provide teachers with a sense of identity rooted in their own reality as ELF users who have developed a competent knowledge of the language and who have the pedagogical skills to share their knowledge and facilitate acquisition to potential new speakers of the language. Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful for the financial support offered by the Spanish  Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (Project FFI2015-67769–P). References Appadurai, A. (1996) Modernity at Large. Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minnessota: University of Minnesota Press. Bernat, E. (2008) Towards a pedagogy of empowerment: The case of ‘impostor syndrome’ among pre-service non-native speaker teachers in TESOL. English Language Teacher Education and Development Journal 11, 1–8. Canagarajah, S. (2007) Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 91, Focus Issue, 923–939. Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture, Volume I. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Clark, E. and Paran, A. (2007) The employability of non-native-speaker teachers of EFL: A UK survey. System 35, 407–430. Derwing, T.M. and Munro, M.J. (2009) Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to communication. Language Teaching 42 (4), 476–490. Graddol, D. (2006) English Next. British Council. Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2000) Empire. Cambridge, Massachusets: Harvard University Press. Holliday, A. (2005) The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kachru, B.B. (1982) Models for non-native Englishes. In B.B. Kachru (ed.) The Other Tongue (pp. 31–57). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Llurda, E. (2004) NNS teachers and English as an international language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14 (3), 314–323. Llurda, E. (2008) The effects of stays abroad on self-perceptions of non-native EFL teachers. In S. Dogancay-Aktuna and J. Hardman (eds) Global English Teaching and Teacher Education: Praxis and Possibility (pp. 99–111). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Llurda, E. (2009) Attitudes towards English as an international language: The pervasiveness of native models among L2 users and teachers. In F. Sharifian (ed.) English as an International Language: Perspectives and Pedagogical Issues (pp. 119–134). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mahboob, A., Uhrig, K., Newman, K. and Hartford, B.S. (2004) Children of a lesser English: Status of nonnative English speakers as college-level English as a second language teachers in the United States. In L.D. Kamhi-Stein (ed.) Learning and Teaching from Experience: Perspectives on Nonnative English-Speaking Professionals (pp. 100–120). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Changing Teachers’ Attitudes Towards ELF  191

Mauranen, A. (2012) Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: CUP. Medgyes, P. (1994) The Non-native Teacher. London: Macmillan. Munro, M.J. and Derwing, T.M. (1995) Foreign accent, intelligibility and comprehensibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning 45 (1), 3−97. Norton, B. (2000) Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity and Educational Change. Harlow: Longman/Pearson Education. Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguisic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rampton, B. (1990) Displacing the ‘native speaker’: Expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. ELT Journal 44 (2), 97–101. Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: OUP. Selvi, A.F. (2010) All teachers are equal, but some teachers are more equal than others: Trend analysis of job advertisements in English language teaching. WATESOLNNEST Caucus Annual Review 1, 156–181. Sifakis, N. (2007) The education of teachers of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17 (3), 355–375. Sifakis, N. and Bayyurt, Y. (2015) Insights from ELF and WE in teacher training in Greece and Turkey. World Englishes 34 (3), 471–484. Smit, U. and Dafouz, E. (eds) (2012) Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education. Gaining Insights into English-Medium Instruction at European Universities, AILA Review 25. Amsterdam: John Benjamns. Widdowson, H.G. (1994) The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28, 77–389.

Further reading Bayyurt, Y. and Akcan, S. (eds) (2015) Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca. De Gruyter Mouton. This is a recent collection of studies looking into pedagogical aspects involved in the teaching of English as a lingua franca. It has a section on teacher education as well as others on teaching and assessment. Llurda, E. (2004) NNS teachers and English as an international language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14 (3), 314–323. This article establishes the link between ELF and non-native teachers of English and claims the need for NNESTs to support the idea of ELF. Moussu, L. and Llurda, E. (2008) Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching 41 (3), 315–348. This review article provides a comprehensive view of research done thus far on non-native teachers. In addition to the detailed account of the different topics researched, it also includes an introductory discussion of the concept of nativeness, and an overview of methods of research with indications of possible future directions. Sifakis, N. and Bayyurt, Y. (2015) Insights from ELF and WE in teacher training in Greece and Turkey. World Englishes 34 (3), 471–484. This article presents a framework for training teachers within the parameters of ELF and  WEs by implementing what the authors call an ELF-aware teacher education component.

11 Exploring Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy in Teaching ELF Areti-Maria Sougari

General aims of this chapter

In light of the emergence of ELF around the globe, there is a growing need to address the teachers’ perceptions of their efficacy to teach English in this context. Pre-service and in-service teachers as well as prospective teachers ought to understand the complexities of teaching ELF and to become aware of how teachers in the field ought to respond to the new reality. The aim of this chapter is to approach the issue of the teachers’ sense of efficacy in teaching ELF by giving voice to the teachers themselves. Expected outcomes

On completing this chapter, you should be able to: • identify the key features of what it means to be efficacious in teaching not only English but also ELF; • explain what holds teachers back from incorporating teaching practices salient to the new reality of the English language; • decide what steps need to be followed in order to change previous practices. Key concepts

• Teachers’ sense of efficacy. • Being ELF-aware. • Non-native speaker teachers of English. Introduction

The global spread of English has led to unprecedented research in the field of teaching English. Among the issues that have been put under the 192

Exploring Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy in Teaching ELF  193

researchers’ lens are: the sociolinguistic aspects of the language; teachers’ and learners’ attitudes towards ELF; the role of native and non-native English speakers within this domain; and the historical underpinnings of this turnout. The emergence of English as the dominant language for intercultural communication has given rise to the reference of ELF, EIL, EIC and so on. The term accepted for the purposes of the present chapter is that of ELF and refers to intercultural communication that is not limited to interactions between a native and a non-native English speaker but encompasses interactions mainly between non-native English speakers coming from various linguistic and ethnic backgrounds; at the same time we should not exclude the interactions between native English speakers who are not part of the same community (e.g. a South African interacting with a New Zealander). Both native and non-native English speakers ought to be equipped with the necessary understanding of otherness and to develop intercultural communication skills. Owing to the inherent complexities of what is involved in the situation created by the world-wide acceptance of ELF in the interactions mainly among NNSs, it seems that it is high time we considered ways of equipping teachers with the necessary knowledge and implementation skills. Once teachers are aware of what it means to be part of an ELF community and how they can engage in ELF-aware teaching, only then can we say that learners will be enabled in turn to take part in successful intercultural exchanges. However, it seems that teachers hold beliefs about the role of English, the NS of this speech community, teaching, learning and the classroom context, to name but a few. And these beliefs impact on the teaching practices implemented in the language classroom (Bandura, 1977); the same holds true for teachers of English (Chacón, 2005; Choi & Lee, 2016). The extent to which teachers are willing to become agents of change, moving away from familiar and established practices by adopting an ELF-aware outlook, rests on the teachers’ personality traits, their openness to and positive attitude towards change (Rogers, 2003). Teachers’ efficacy beliefs in teaching ELF impacts on teachers’ teaching of English in that the higher the efficacy beliefs in teaching ELF, the more they would promote ELF-aware activities as part of their teaching and the more effective they would be in their everyday teaching practices. Subsequently the learners would be better prepared for their future communication encounters, which would lead to successful interactions and to their recognition as ELF users. Being proficient in a language does not necessarily entail successful communication exchanges with other NNSs; this applies to NSs of English as well, who are not necessarily ELF-aware and may encounter communication breakdowns in their exchanges with NNSs. Therefore, the role of the teacher in the undertaking of exposing learners to ELF-aware teaching practices is of utmost importance and should not be downgraded.

194  Part 4: ELF in EFL Teacher Education

This chapter looks into teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and how these beliefs are interconnected with their proficiency in English. Once certain core points have been made clear, the issue of teachers’ sense of efficacy is viewed vis-à-vis teaching ELF. To explore teachers’ readiness for the implementation of ELF-related practices in the language classroom, a close look is given to the narratives of four in-service teachers who were prompted to disclose their awareness in relation to ELF issues and to consider their openness to adopting ELF-aware activities in the ­classroom context. RQA 1 What is meant by teacher self-efficacy? What is the role of self-efficacy in the making of the portrait of the effective teacher? To what extent are teachers’ practices influenced by their own perceptions of their efficacy? What aspects of their teaching seem to be influenced? What is the impact of the teachers’ self-perceived language proficiency on the general efficacy beliefs? Read what follows to find out the definitive role that efficacy plays in making EFL teachers feel good about themselves. The answer to this question can be found at the end of this chapter. Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy and Language Teaching

‘A teacher’s efficacy belief is a judgment of his or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning’ (Bandura, 1977; cited in Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001: 783). In Bandura’s words (Bandura, 1986: 21), ‘(A)mong the types of thoughts that affect action, none is more central than people’s judgements of their capabilities to deal effectively with different realities’. Teachers’ efficacy beliefs have been the scope of a great number of studies (Kartchner, 2009) that have shed light into the role that teachers’ perceptions play in relation to teacher engagement and teaching practices adopted as well as learner participation and learning outcomes. More specifically, it seems that teachers’ sense of efficacy exerts a strong influence on the implementation of classroom management techniques, the adoption of innovative practices, teachers’ persistence and dedication, and students’ academic achievements. Teachers’ high efficacy beliefs are responsible for leading teachers to prioritizing differently the work undertaken; likewise, teachers with low efficacy beliefs opt for more mainstream teaching and avoid innovative practices. To understand the elusive construct of efficacy beliefs, various efficacy scales have seen the light, offering insight into its various constituents (Bandura, 2006; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). At the same time, the NS teacher model, which has been regarded as the preferred model within the EFL educational context, is losing prominence due to the emerging new role of English in the global context.

Exploring Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy in Teaching ELF  195

However, teachers’ personal qualities, such as experience and proficiency in English, have been found to influence teachers’ perceived efficacy (Chacón, 2005; Choi & Lee, 2016). In the literature, it becomes apparent that teachers’ sense of efficacy relates to the beliefs individuals hold about their teaching competence, while at the same time overlooking knowledge of the subject taught and language proficiency (i.e. English in our case) (Bandura, 2006). In other words, efficacy beliefs are viewed separately from target language proficiency. But to what extent can teachers’ selfperceived language proficiency impact the general efficacy beliefs and the input provided in the language classroom? According to Choi and Lee (2016: 60), ‘both sufficient levels of perceived linguistic and pedagogical competences are critical for optimal English teaching’. In her study with Venezuelan teachers of English, Chacón (2005) drew similar conclusions, showing that higher levels of self-efficacy are exhibited among those teachers who think highly of their language proficiency across the four skills. Based on the findings of the aforementioned studies, it can be deduced that the issue of teachers’ perceived proficiency level cannot be overlooked in the EFL instructional context, while accounting for the level of the teachers’ perceived efficacy. RQA 2 Now that you have read the previous section, you must have attained an idea of what it means to have high efficacy beliefs as a language teacher. To what extent do you feel satisfied with what you can accomplish in the classroom, with your own use of English and the results rendered? Make notes and then continue with your reading. RQA 3 Teaching EFL is quite distinct from teaching ELF. To what extent are teachers ready to teach English the ‘ELF way’? What is needed toward that end? The reading that follows will shed light into the steps that should be followed in this direction. The answer to this question can be found at the end of this chapter.

Teachers’ Readiness to Teach ELF

What does it mean to be efficacious in teaching ELF? How can normabiding EFL teachers be enabled to deviate from the norm-bound approach to teaching, which entails having the NS as a model, and adopt a more flexible outlook that allows for intelligibility? To what extent do NNS teachers consider themselves efficacious enough to teach English and even

196  Part 4: ELF in EFL Teacher Education

more so as to teach ELF? The inherent difficulty in answering these questions lies in that there is no definition available about one being efficacious in teaching ELF. There is a wealth of definitions regarding the features of what a teacher’s efficacy entails, as a number of studies have shed light into the constituents of this efficacy. Recently, as mentioned earlier, viewing teachers’ proficiency level in English in relation to their efficacy has attracted researchers’ attention; yet the issue of a teacher’s sense of efficacy in undertaking ELF-aware activities remains an unexplored domain. A teacher’s sense of efficacy in teaching ELF would entail ‘a judgment of his or her capabilities’ (Bandura, 1977; cited in Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001: 783) to promote an ELF pedagogy and to endorse ELF-aware activities in English classes. In other words, it seems that the implementation of such activities is facilitated once a teacher believes in his or her efficacy to incorporate ELF practices in his or her own EFL educational context. Therefore, it is assumed that once a teacher holds high efficacy beliefs, he or she is in a position to deal with the reality of the classroom and to overcome any obstacles that may turn up during the act of teaching. The issue of English proficiency is not considered as playing a crucial role in the formation of the identity of the ELF-aware teacher, due to the prominence of intelligibility in the ELF paradigm (Sifakis & Sougari, 2005). It seems that greater efficacy would make teachers inclined to become involved in an ELF-awareness raising procedure, subsequently leading to experimentation with ELF-aware practices, should they wish to do so. However, the attainment of efficacy in teaching ELF is not obvious, and neither is the procedure that needs to be followed so that practitioners engage themselves in this undertaking. It seems that nowadays there is a growing interest in the pedagogical implications that the new reality is creating; thus, teacher education focusing on ELF-related issues has started to receive attention in response to the practitioners’ desire to be presented with tangible solutions, easily adaptable to the classroom context (Sifakis, 2014; Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2015). Teachers’ sense of efficacy in teaching ELF is based on the premise that the teacher is an ELF-aware practitioner; this entails being an ‘autonomous ESOL practitioner making decisions about their teaching contexts’, ‘engaging with the principles of ELF’ and assuming ‘a more proactive position, (a) by changing his/her convictions about issues that are typically taken for granted, such as normativity and standardness, fluency and accuracy, or NNSs’ ownership of English, and (b) by designing and reflecting on the impact of instructional sequences’ (Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2015: 474). Becoming ELF-aware should be seen by practitioners as an opportunity for change, first, for themselves, and, second, for their learners (Sifakis, 2014). But for that change to take place (i.e. for an EFL teacher to become an ELF-aware teacher who teaches in an EFL instructional setting), the individual ought to welcome the change and to take steps toward

Exploring Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy in Teaching ELF  197

that direction. The extent to which teachers’ beliefs are amenable to change has been questioned by a number of studies; the findings of a plethora of studies suggest that teacher beliefs are deeply rooted and resistant to change (Jenkins, 2007). With regard to ELF, as pointed out by Sifakis (2014), the need to become ELF-aware and subsequently to integrate ELF in teaching practice is not imposed by a higher authority (e.g. policy decision makers), but it is rather an inward decision and action that a practitioner deems necessary for his or her own classroom context. Thus, he goes on to suggest that change is a lengthy process on its own, as many obstacles show up along the way. First of all, practitioners ought to realize what ELF is all about and what the implications are in relation to teaching as well as learning. To that end, what is needed is to consult some of the ELF publications and to understand the discrepancies between traditional and ELF-driven teaching. Once deciding to integrate ELF teaching practices, the practitioners have to consider ways of designing, teaching and evaluating ELF-aware lessons. The final step is to convince learners, parents and other stakeholders about the necessity and merits of such a change in the curriculum as part of the teaching practices adopted. It is believed that this undertaking would require the attendance of a teacher education program that would address the main issues that are considered important for ELF-aware teaching, challenge the practitioners’ convictions (i.e. with the help of reflective activities) on core topics and implicate them in the design, teaching and evaluation of ELF-aware activities. RQA 4 How efficacious do you think teachers of English are in your (primary, secondary or tertiary) context? What are the main obstacles faced in their daily practices and how can teachers overcome them? Relate to a context with which you are familiar and note down what obstacles you think they are facing in their everyday reality. Once you have finished, read below to find out what holds true in the Greek context and draw out the similarities and the differences. What can teachers tell us regarding their sense of efficacy in teaching English? Giving voice to Greek teachers of English

Greece belongs to the countries where English is taught as a foreign language. English is greatly appreciated within the Greek community as English is manifested in everyday life, appearing in street signs, American and British films with subtitles, shop names and labels, etc. With regard to the education sector, English is the main language taught in state schools; the time allotted for English instruction is as follows: grades 1 and 2 for one hour per week; from grade 3 to grade 6 for three hours per week at the primary level; and from grade 7 to 9 for two hours per week

198  Part 4: ELF in EFL Teacher Education

at the lower secondary level. In the case of the upper secondary level, English is also taught for two hours per week. Throughout compulsory education (i.e. grades 1–9 for English), the curriculum promotes the teaching of modern foreign languages with the aim to facilitate the development of language skills that will enable future citizens to undertake effective communication in diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. That is why the promotion of literacy, multilingualism and multiculturalism receives paramount importance. Based on the principles outlined in the curriculum, teaching materials and courseware specifically designed by local authors are implemented by schools throughout the country. However, a close look at the materials reveals that the principles have not been integrated in all materials to a desirable degree. The courseware materials implemented in the primary sector promote ELF-related issues far more than the respective ones in the secondary sector (Sougari & Iliopoulou, 2012). In an attempt to offer a profile of the teachers of English population, it should be mentioned that the minimum requirement for their appointment to a teaching post in the state sector is the possession of a Bachelor’s degree in English language and literature or equivalent. Teachers’ attainment of further qualifications (i.e. postgraduate qualifications or certificates in teaching English) is the result of their own quest for knowledge and personal development. Apart from an initial training received upon their appointment, teachers are not obliged to attend such seminars. Attendance of seminars organized by school advisors is left entirely to their free will. Thus, teacher development and education require action on the part of the inquisitive teacher who wishes to be informed about the latest developments in the field and to enrich his or her teaching with new teaching ideas and innovative practices. The need to become ELF-aware could be one more example of such practice. Profiling four Greek EFL teachers and presenting the data collection procedure

Four in-service EFL teachers, who function as mentors in a teacher education program at a Greek university, participated in this study. The teachers exhibited diversity in that their experience in teaching English to students in the state sector ranged from 3 to 25 years; they also differed in terms of qualifications and age. Pseudonyms are used for the purposes of the presentation of their views. Martha (32 years old) has been teaching English as a substitute teacher in a state primary school for the past three years. She holds a postgraduate degree in teaching EFL. She attends teacher-training seminars, whenever the opportunity arises. She has recently completed a certificate in teaching English to young learners.

Exploring Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy in Teaching ELF  199

Elsa (42 years old) holds a teaching post in a state primary school which is located at the outskirts of a big city. She has been teaching young learners for 12 years. She has completed her postgraduate studies in translation studies. She shows an acute interest in attending t­eacher-training seminars. Katerina (47 years old) has 17 years of teaching experience and has been teaching English to lower secondary school learners. She holds a postgraduate degree in theoretical and applied linguistics and her experience is enriched as a result of being involved in a number of Comenius and Erasmus schemes. Olga (54 years old) is the most experienced of all four, having 25 years of teaching experience; this experience entails teaching English to teenagers at the lower secondary sector. She attends seminars whenever this proves convenient in terms of other commitments. Data were collected over a six-month period; interviews were scheduled on two occasions, both prior to the participants’ engagement with ELF awareness-raising activities and at the end of the deadline given, hopefully after the completion of the reading material (i.e. a list of 20 references, including books and articles) and the implementation of relevant informed practices in their classroom context. Journal entries or notes were highly encouraged during the span of six months. The teachers’ narratives discussed here are part of the second interview. Even though no attempt was made to replicate the transformative approach to teaching that has been proposed by Sifakis (2014) and Bayyurt and Sifakis (2015), the participants were asked to consult a list of references that were made readily available, with some prompts so as to stimulate their interest, and read with a critical mind. The interview questions raised gave an opportunity to the four teachers to address their inner thoughts regarding their own perceptions of their efficacy in the classroom reality and their beliefs about their ability to teach English, while preparing their students for future communication exchanges. The interviews were audio-recorded; all interviews were conducted in English, even though interviewees were given the option of being interviewed either in their mother tongue (i.e. Greek) or in English. Subsequently, the interviews were transcribed, whereas the data rendered were qualitatively analyzed and thematically organized. RQA 5 As you read the following section, which presents some of the issues in the teachers’ narratives regarding their experience with teaching English and their readiness to teach ELF, isolate the main themes that arise. Consider what the implications are for the future of ELF in EFL contexts. Do not consult the key at the end of the chapter just yet, but continue reading.

200  Part 4: ELF in EFL Teacher Education

Tracing teachers’ perceptions about their efficacy in teaching English

A look at the teachers’ narratives reveals their inner thoughts and convictions about teaching English and can be quite enlightening for both the interviewer and the interviewee. Thus, the teachers’ engagement with the ELF-related literature to differing degrees (i.e. due to the interviewees’ differing engagement with the literature and the implementation of relevant activities for reasons that will become apparent below) and the issues raised during the interview gave rise to the following themes. Viewing oneself as a teacher

As mentioned above, teachers’ sense of efficacy refers to their perceptions about their capability in assuming responsibility in the classroom and carrying out particular tasks. It is believed that teachers’ sense of efficacy plays a crucial role in having confident, dedicated, passionate and efficacious teachers. All four teachers disclosed their overall satisfaction with their capabilities in dealing with the reality of the classroom and coping with the eventualities of everyday teaching. Their efficacy instills the confidence required in order to react effectively to the unexpected. It seems that experience informs their teaching practice, particularly for those teachers who have accumulated years of teaching experience. To quote Olga I believe that in order to stick to the teaching profession, one has to love teaching, offering knowledge and experience to learners. Over the years, I have grown into a teacher who knows what she wants and how to get it. It has been a lengthy process and I realize now that I become wiser and wiser. I have come across some difficult learners and I managed to win them over. Teaching teenagers can be quite challenging. I know my strengths and weaknesses. Fortunately, I hide my weaknesses. I have learnt how to work on my strengths and how to accomplish the goals set.

The other teachers also stress their perceived satisfaction with their capability to overcome difficulties; they seem to be armoured by their experience, which proves helpful in the occurrence of unforeseen incidents. However, experience seems to be a guiding force in that the more experienced the teacher, the more capable she or he is of influencing a given situation. Martha’s lack of extensive teaching experience coupled with the insecurities associated with her teaching situation in the state primary school (i.e. being a substitute teacher for a certain period of time) leads probably to lower efficacy beliefs in relation to those professed by the rest of the participants. Martha’s response to the question ‘To what extent are you satisfied with your own teaching ability?’ reveals her own perception of her efficacy in teaching

Exploring Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy in Teaching ELF  201

Teaching is part of who I am. I have no reservations about that. I have a way of communicating with children. I have many of the qualities that a good teacher should possess. I have read about these in various publications. However, when it comes to teaching learners in different parts of Greece every year, it may seem quite exciting at a first glance. The reality is quite different. What you try to build throughout the year can prove useful for the next teacher who will take over that particular class. As for me, I am quite happy for being able to make a difference in certain learners’ lives. I don’t get to see the results of the effort, though. This gives rise to a feeling of disappointment.

Parents and administrators (i.e. the headmaster, the school advisor, etc.) present obstacles to teachers’ initiatives and practices. The hindrances imposed have an impact on teachers’ sense of efficacy as is revealed in the following lines (by Elsa) I believe that to a great extent I am a good teacher. This is based on other’s evaluations, i.e. school advisors’ comments, my pupils’ reactions. I enjoy teaching. What I have experienced over the years is the parents’ interventions, the headmaster’s rigid view of teaching, the school advisors’ insistence of particular expectations. To what extent do I conform or try to change things? That is a big issue. There is no easy answer to give. It depends on the situation. However, I can certainly say that I do try to carry on being myself. Viewing oneself as a teacher of English in general and as a teacher of English in a globalised world

With regard to the teachers’ perceptions of their efficacy in teaching English and ELF, the picture is not that clear-cut. As noted above, teachers’ target language proficiency impacts on their self-efficacy belief and shapes the teaching undertaken in the classroom context (Chacón, 2005; Choi & Lee, 2016). Being proficient in English is viewed as an important trait that English NNS teachers ought to have in their attempt to assume the role of the model teacher (Sifakis & Sougari, 2005), conforming to the model imposed by the norm-bound approach to teaching. Preoccupation with the target culture seems to be one of the targets of language instruction due to the exam-oriented nature of teaching in the classroom context (Sifakis & Sougari, 2005). In the study presented here, the teachers’ exposure to and their engagement with the ELF literature has offered a new perspective in the make-up of the ideal teacher of English in the ‘post-native’ era (Blair, 2015). The promotion of intelligibility, the realisation that to a certain extent the ‘native speaker is dead’ (Paikeday, 1985) as mentioned in the literature, the need to accommodate the needs of EFL learners in order to become ELF users are among the issues raised in the interviews. As Olga commented The university studies gave me a good theoretical background. While studying and the years after that the native speaker was placed right at

202  Part 4: ELF in EFL Teacher Education

the centre and this was the model after to teach. I believe that this is the model that I should promote as part of my teaching. I have to meet the parents’ and the learners’ views. I teach English. I have tried to consult the recent publications as much as I could. However, it seems fruitless. We only have two hours of teaching at the secondary level, many hours are lost at the same time. How much can we teach them? I have tried to incorporate some of the ELF ideas as part of the activities, namely, NNS–NNS dialogues so as to sensitise them. It wasn’t welcomed by all learners. I believe that such practices should be introduced early at the primary level and build on that. However, the fact that ELF teaching promotes intelligibility lessens the teachers’ burden to promote the native speaker model. It will take time, though, to convince learners about that.

All interviewees stated that they are content with their proficiency in English, which, however, reflects the importance placed on the NS model and the standardness promoted in relation to the teaching of English in the language classroom. Further evidence of their adherence to the normbound approach to teaching is what was previously mentioned by Olga and also revealed by Katerina’s comments below. The battle between teaching the standard variety and the promotion of the learners’ own variety is very difficult to win. The starting point is to persuade learners little by little. They expect to be taught BrE, the British accent. I feel that I have to learn a lot more about ELF. I have read most of the articles that were made available. I should consult resource books that provide teaching tips of ELF activities and find ways to incorporate activities that could supplement the school curriculum. Am I ready to teach the ELF way in my classroom? Honestly, I am not. Am I willing to find out more about ELF? Yes, but mainly for me and my learners, the ones that are into this. I have been trying to expose them to similarities and differences between nations, people, varieties through the projects that the school is involved in.

ELF pedagogy is promoted with a view to preparing learners for their future ELF interactions. With regard to the engagement with ­ELF-awareness-raising activities, Martha suggests that such activities can be introduced even at the primary level, once the learners have attained basic awareness of the language and can engage themselves in communication exchanges. Why not introduce ELF at the primary level? Learners are more open to new things, they are excited about learning, they like experimenting, they are more positive towards coming into contact with people from other parts of the world. Will they laugh with accents sounding funny? Yes, they will. But it all comes down to how the teacher, I, will treat the issue in the classroom. Is it difficult to find materials appropriate for my learners? I suppose. Will this raise parents’, school advisors’ objections? Most probably. I would try to do my share. I have tried to implement certain

Exploring Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy in Teaching ELF  203

activities, particularly with 5th and 6th graders. The learners welcomed the activities.

Martha’s enthusiasm with teaching and her impulsive nature become apparent as her words unfold her line of thinking. Similar enthusiasm can be traced in Elsa’s words when she states Teaching English to young learners can be quite challenging. They are so much into learning. You can see it in their eyes. Fortunately, the coursebooks offer samples of non-native–non-native interactions and portray instances of people’s lives around the world. This is the starting point. Children initially laugh at the weird accents; it all comes down to how the teacher will handle the whole situation. Having consulted some bibliography, I am trying to enrich my teaching with more diversified materials that offer opportunities for exposure to ELF. Practices that need to be undertaken in order to respond to the new reality

The participants stated on several occasions that they found the reading illuminating and inspiring; they considered that the consultation of the various sources enlightened aspects of their teaching and led to unknown territories that they were delighted to explore. What remains to be seen is what is stated by Martha ‘…’ for ELF to be implemented in the primary classroom, and any classroom for that matter, it will need to become more widely accepted. To that end, how will all teachers be informed about ELF? How are they going to be persuaded about the importance of promoting ELF in the classroom? In the mean time, we as teachers ought to involve ourselves in more reading related to ELF, to consult the internet, to attend seminars relevant to this topic and little by little to inform parents, pupils and so on. Hopefully, resource materials will become available with ­ready-to-apply teaching ideas, while bearing in mind that these ideas would have to be adapted to our own teaching context.

It becomes obvious that the entrenched beliefs are really difficult to shake off as they have been part of the make-up of the teacher long before teachers started their teaching career, and it seems that this is true even before they were exposed to theories of learning and teaching as part of their undergraduate studies. What this mini-exposure to ELF has achieved is that the teachers involved have become aware of issues pertinent to the nature of ELF, such as intelligibility, the NS in this domain and the displacement of SE, to mention a few. Olga’s words sum up her overall view All these new ideas have made me feel that things have to change. Just by reading I have started to feel more confident about being a non-native speaker teacher. However, lots of the ideas promoted make me feel that the role of the teacher ought to change altogether. I am no longer there in order to transmit knowledge but rather to facilitate discovery. What is

204  Part 4: ELF in EFL Teacher Education

suggested about intelligibility and standard English is all new to me. I feel that if I am supposed to adopt new activities, I should be trained to do so. New teachers, prospective teachers have a much better chance in this as all these ideas ought to be part of the curriculum.

In the above words, there is an overtone of pessimism for the potential of herself as a teacher, but at the same time there is an overtone of optimism for the teachers new in the profession. In the literature (Nespor, 1987), it is stated that the only way to secure changes in the belief system is to challenge these beliefs and to replace these beliefs with others that seem more appropriate for a given situation. To take it a step further, the teacher education model based on Mezirow’s (1991) transformative framework has been suggested as a means of challenging teachers’ perceptions about SE, the significance of mutual intelligibility in communication exchanges between NNSs, the provision of feedback in the classroom context and the role of the NS (Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2015; Sifakis, 2007). RQA 6 Now that you have read this chapter, consider the following questions: (a) To what extent is it feasible to adopt ELF in the classroom context and what are the shortcomings that the teacher ought to overcome? (b) What is needed in order for teachers to develop their efficacy in ELF? (c) What is the role of English proficiency in relation to promoting ELF in the classroom? The answer to this question can be found at the end of this chapter. Synopsis

With respect to the teachers’ sense of efficacy in teaching English, it becomes apparent that the participants in our study exhibit high levels of efficacy. However, holding high efficacy beliefs in teaching does not automatically entail that these teachers will necessarily become competent in teaching ELF in the new classroom reality. Needless to say, these efficacy beliefs will pave the way for the endorsement of new practices that could lead to a form of ELF-aware teaching. There is a need for rigorous attempts to override previously conceived ideas about teaching (such as those concerned with the role of the NS and the centrality of SE), which can only be achieved through a well-structured teacher development course (Sifakis, 2014). However, this is only one side of the coin. It becomes pertinent to address the beliefs of learners, parents and other stakeholders in an attempt to view the teaching of English beyond the walls of the classroom, so as to equip learners with the necessary knowledge for their future communication exchanges in the global village.

Exploring Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy in Teaching ELF  205

Teachers’ intrinsic motivation to incorporate ELF-aware activities in their teaching (which is a logical consequence from their confidence in their teaching skills) is set back for extrinsic reasons, such as the context in which they teach (predominantly the case of the secondary sector as English is taught for limited hours, i.e. two hours per week), the expectations of their learners and their parents, the lack of appropriate resource materials, and so on. The realization that teacher training is required and that ELF-aware resource materials are in demand is only an oversimplication of a rather complex issue that calls for action. RQA 7 Valuable insights can be drawn from the teachers’ narratives that are presented in this chapter. You are invited to read the narratives again and consider the lessons learnt. To what extent (1) can you relate to these teachers? (2) do you face similar hindrances that could prevent you from endorsing ELF-aware activities in the language classroom? and (3) do you feel ready to teach the ELF way? If not, consider some ways to succeed in this. Answers to Reflective Questions and Activities

RQA 1: ‘A teacher’s efficacy belief is a judgment of his or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning’ (Bandura, 1977; cited in Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001: 783). A wealth of studies have highlighted the impact that teachers’ efficacy beliefs exert on the implementation of particular practices in the classroom context. Thus, high efficacy beliefs have been associated with particular classroom management techniques, teachers’ dedication, learners’ successful learning outcomes, etc. It seems that the higher the teacher’s sense of efficacy, the more dedicated the teacher will be and so on. Furthermore, findings of a number of studies have brought to light that teachers’ sense of efficacy is correlated with their perceived proficiency in English. RQA 3: What is suggested in order to promote ELF in the language classroom is for teachers to develop a sense of efficacy in teaching ELF. As stated in this chapter, this sense of efficacy is manifested in the belief that the teacher is capable of endorsing ELF activities in the language classroom context. However, the teacher’s sense of efficacy in teaching ELF can only be developed once the teacher welcomes the change from teaching in the traditional way and follows an ELF-awareness raising program. RQA 5: Greek teachers’ views regarding their own context point to the following hindrances: • secondary teaching context (i.e. limited hours of teaching, students’ indifference);

206  Part 4: ELF in EFL Teacher Education

• parents’ expectations and beliefs about English and how it should be taught; • stakeholders’ beliefs; • lack of teaching materials; • lack of training. Overall, the teachers were positive about the promotion of ELF but considered its adoption more feasible in the primary context, so as eventually to make their learners aware of issues related to ELF. RQA 6: The answers to the three questions raised are as follows. (a) In order to adopt ELF-aware activities, the teacher ought to be aware of the ELF framework and to have a sense of efficacy in teaching ELF. Based on previous research, the prerequisite is for the teacher to have developed a sense of efficacy in teaching. Most shortcomings are for extrinsic reasons, such as parents’ expectations, learners’ indifference and stakeholders’ guidelines. (b) The adoption of an ELF-aware pedagogy in the classroom is a response to the inner drive of particular teachers who wish to change the course of their teaching and who undergo training towards this direction. (c) Lack of English proficiency on the part of the teacher is not seen as an obstacle in the promotion of ELF in the language classroom, as intelligibility is at the core of ELF. As a result, teachers feel more confident about themselves without fear of not sounding native-like or not speaking in a native-like way. References Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84, 191–215. Bandura, A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. New York: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (2006) Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares and T. Urdan (eds) Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Bayyurt, Y. and Sifakis, N.C. (2015) ELF-aware in-service teacher education: A transformative perspective. In H. Bowles and A. Cogo (eds) International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca: Pedagogical Insights (pp. 117–136). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Blair, A. (2015) Evolving a post-native, multilingual model for ELF-aware teacher education. In Y. Bayyurt and A. Sumru (eds) Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 89–101). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Chacón, C.T. (2005) Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education 21, 257–272. Choi, E. and Lee, J. (2016) Investigating the relationship of target language proficiency and self-efficacy among non-native EFL teachers. System 58, 49–63. Jenkins, J. (2007) English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Exploring Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy in Teaching ELF  207

Kartchner, C.S. (2009) Comparative analysis of elementary education preservice and novice teachers’ perceptions of preparedness and teacher efficacy. PhD thesis. Utah State University. Mezirow, J. (1991) Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nespor, J. (1987) The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies 19, 317–328. Paikeday, T. (1985) The Native Speaker is Dead. Toronto and New York: Paikeday Publications. Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (5th edn). New York: Free Press. Sifakis, N.C. (2007) The education of the teachers of English as a lingua franca: A transformative perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17 (3), 355–375. Sifakis, N.C. (2014) ELF awareness as an opportunity for change: A transformative perspective for ESOL teacher education. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3 (2), 317–335. Sifakis, N.C. and Bayyurt, Y. (2015) Insights from ELF and WE in teacher training in Greece and Turkey. World Englishes 34 (3), 471–484. Sifakis, N.C. and Sougari, A.-M. (2005) Pronunciation issues and EIL pedagogy in the periphery: A survey of Greek state school teachers’ beliefs. TESOL Quarterly 39, 467–488. Sougari, A.M. and Iliopoulou, K. (2012) Preparing language learners to respond to the needs of a multimodal world: The case of a coursebook. International Conference on Education across Borders, Florina, Greece, 5–7 October. Tschannen-Moran, M. and Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001) Teacher efficacy: Capturing an ­elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education 17, 783–805.

Further reading Bayyurt, Y. and Akcan, S. (eds) (2015) Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. This collection of papers brings insight to the pedagogy related to ELF. To be more precise, the main focus is on how the theories of language learning play a role in research that aims to unravel the good teaching practices in an ELF-related educational context. Among the expected outcomes of this volume, we can discern the following: to make more widely known the already available knowledge about ELF pedagogy and established policies in an attempt to instigate particular measures, to raise practitioners’ awareness in relation to ELF-related pedagogical issues and to bring to the fore practices undertaken in various instructional contexts. Bowles, H. and Cogo, A. (eds) (2015) International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca: Pedagogical Insights. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. This is a compilation of articles that highlights the relationship between ELF and language teaching. More particularly, emphasis is placed more than ever before on the need to ‘transform’ teachers into ELF-aware practitioners so as to accommodate their everyday undertakings in the language classroom. Thus issues, such as the promotion of intelligibility, the selection of appropriate teaching materials, the development of culture and language awareness, the adoption of classroom management techniques and transformative learning as part of teachers’ education, are given a close look within the spectrum of ELF. Chacón, C.T. (2005) Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education 21, 257–272.

208  Part 4: ELF in EFL Teacher Education

The study presented in this article investigates the relationship between teachers’ perceived proficiency and their efficacy in teaching English. Results indicate that there is a direct link between the two and thus the more proficient in English the teacher is, the higher the teachers’ sense of efficacy is. In other words, it becomes pertinent to help teachers to become competent across the four skills, so as to facilitate the overcoming of barriers and ensure high efficacy beliefs in relation to the implementation of appropriate instructional strategies. Sifakis, N.C. and Sougari, A.-M. (2005) Pronunciation issues and EIL pedagogy in the periphery: A survey of Greek state school teachers’ beliefs. TESOL Quarterly 39 (3), 467–488. This article highlights teachers’ viewpoints that tend to be influenced by the NS norms impinged upon them as a result of their schooling, training and socio-cultural milieu. It becomes apparent that teachers are supposed to facilitate learning, while preparing learners for standardized exams. This article makes it easy for the reader to identify with the teachers involved in this study and to reconsider practices undertaken in an attempt to view the role of English outside the Greek borders.

Part 5 ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing

12 ELF in Language Tests David Newbold

General aims of this chapter

This chapter is intended for anyone who wants to develop and administer tests which reflect the use of ELF. It is likely to be of interest to classroom teachers and trainees, but also to materials writers, syllabus designers and language planners. The main aim of the chapter is to propose and develop a rationale for ‘ELF-aware’ tests. It considers how ELF impinges on test-related issues such as validity and fairness, and why it is important for test designers to engage with ELF. It concludes with suggestions on how to plan ELF-aware skills tests and to develop assessment grids which capture the nature of ELF production, within a traditional testing context. Expected outcomes

On completing this chapter, you should be able to: • • • • • • •

define what is meant by an ELF-aware test; classify tests according to purpose; identify features which make a good test; criticize existing tests; prioritize learning outcomes within an ELF learning environment; propose a grid for assessing ELF production; experiment with developing an ELF-aware test.

Key concepts

• • • • •

Testing and assessment. Construct validity. Error. Productive and receptive skills. Assessment grid.

Introduction

Testing and assessment are a necessary part of the teaching and learning process, because they give information about the process. This chapter 211

212  Part 5: ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing

focuses on tests, and the problems involved in designing, administrating and scoring tests which are relevant to the acquisition of ELF. After briefly considering why there is no such thing as a perfect test, we go on to look at the need to identify what we want to test (the ‘construct’) and how, in an EFL context, this might be rethought to incorporate ELF. This is followed by a reflection on what an ELF-aware test should not be required to assess, and the chapter concludes by indicating an approach to testing the receptive skills, and the very different challenges posed by the productive skills. RQA 1 What do you think is the single most important reason for having a test? Write your answers to these questions, and check them against the first paragraph below. Tests are usually distinguished from other forms of assessment by their formal or institutional nature. They are planned, administered within a given time framework, and scored. This is not to say that tests cannot be informal. Teachers, who spend a lot of their time testing, often administer quick informal tests, for example to check that learning has taken place at the end of a teaching unit. But whatever the type of test, or the intended outcome – in this case, a decision by the teacher on whether or not to spend more time on a particular teaching point – there is only one reason for a test to exist, which is to provide the test administrator (and ultimately the test taker) with information. This is true of a quick vocabulary test at the end of a lesson, just as it is true of a high-stakes test, such as an internationally recognized certification, on which a test taker’s future job or academic career depends. Unfortunately, however much time, care, or resources are devoted to a test, there is no such thing as a perfect test, and many tests fall far short of the target of providing the administrator with the information required. Green (2014: 6) defines a test as ‘an event that is especially set up to elicit a performance (usually within a predetermined time frame) for the purpose of making judgements about a person’s knowledge, skills or abilities’. In this definition, a key word is performance, which will be familiar to students of linguistics who have studied the Chomskyan notion of an underlying language ability (‘competence’) and the ­language  a speaker actually produces (‘performance’), which is constrained by context. The test taker’s performance (and this can refer to the receptive skills of listening and reading, as well as to the productive skills) is what a test sets out to measure. But performance is by nature a one-off event, subject to variation; and therein lies one of the limitations of a test. If performance-related variation is significant, then the test is unreliable.

ELF in Language Tests  213

A perfect test would be reliable (i.e. it would always give the same results for candidates of equal abilities), valid (i.e. it would measure what it is intended to measure and not something else) and fair (it would not discriminate for the wrong reasons). These features are to an extent interdependent: for example, a test which is unfair or unreliable can hardly be considered to be valid. Recognizing this relationship, Messick (1998) places them all under the overarching umbrella of ‘construct validity’. We shall return to the notion of the test construct in the next section. One could add a few more desirable qualities for the hypothetical perfect test: it would be motivating for students, it would be easy and inexpensive to administer and it would contribute positively to the learning process. Hughes (2003) in his Testing for Language Teachers suggests that there are four qualities which contribute to a good test: validity, reliability, practicality and beneficial backwash (more often known as washback), which is the positive effect of tests (when this occurs) on the teaching and learning process. Not surprisingly, given the title of the book and its intended readership, Hughes pays particular attention to the importance of washback, the effect of tests on what happens in the classroom, since teachers have to live with the consequences of the tests which they administer. More recently, researchers have become interested in the wider effect of tests on the community at large; this effect is known as test impact. Test results shape language planning, and inform top-down decisions about access to training programmes, university, employment and citizenship. But, as McNamara (2000: 74) points out, in an age in which most students complete secondary education, some high-stakes tests, with their overemphasis on being as psychometrically reliable as possible, no longer meet the needs of most students. He argues that a more flexible approach to assessment would have a major impact on families, employment and welfare services. But he also warns that test impact ‘is likely to be complex and unpredictable’. In this chapter, which is about the feasibility and the desirability of developing tests which take into account the use of ELF (and which we will henceforth refer to as ‘ELF-aware tests’), we will be concerned primarily with issues of validity, and impact, and how they relate to the real everyday use of English by NNS, who make up the undisputed majority of users of English in the world today. RQA 2 Think of a test you are familiar with. Referring to the criteria listed in the section you have just read, in what ways would you say this test is less than perfect?

214  Part 5: ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing

Test Constructs: Measuring Underlying Competences

A test, we said, is supposed to measure something – but what? Traditionally, the term ‘construct’ is used to refer to the underlying knowledge or skill(s) which the test taker should possess, and the presence or absence of which the test should demonstrate. It may refer, for example, to knowledge of vocabulary or grammar rules, or to skills such as reading and writing, or to more functional or pragmatic uses of language in interaction. The identification of the test construct, or constructs, is an essential first step in developing a test. Some constructs, such as the receptive skills of reading and listening, are intrinsically more problematic than others: they are by nature invisible (or inaudible) skills, and so testers need to devise tests which will show evidence of comprehension. To do this, they need to break down the ‘macro’ skill of reading (or listening) into hypothetical micro skills, such as ‘understanding words in context’ or ‘understanding pronoun reference’. Inevitably, test constructs reflect theories about what language is, and these have changed over time. Thus, in the 1960s, drawing heavily from structural linguistics, language testers typically adopted a discrete point approach, testing one item (e.g. of grammar or vocabulary) at a time. However, tests like these did not give a lot of information about real-life use of language, such as the different skills needed more or less simultaneously in conversation; hence, the subsequent development of integrative tests which attempted to measure a range of language features in one performance: for example, pronunciation, range of vocabulary, fluency and accuracy in a test of speaking. Note that all of these features imply a ‘construct’ which needs to be carefully articulated by the test developer and understood by the person rating the performance. Perhaps the most important development in language testing over the last half century was a result of the ‘communicative revolution’ in the late 1970s. This owed much to Desmond Hymes’ (1972) theory of ‘communicative competence’, which brought the sociolinguistic context to the fore in CLT, and subsequently in communicative language testing. In a communicative language test, what should matter more than (say) grammatical accuracy is a successful communicative outcome. Thus, communicative language tests propose life-like tasks, based on a functional approach to language, in which there is a clear functional aim, such as ‘apologizing’ or ‘expressing intentions’, which might be contextualized in the task of writing a letter of apology, or talking about plans for the future as part of an oral interview. RQA 3 What problems do you think might be associated with the production, administration and interpretation of communicative language tests?

ELF in Language Tests  215

There are obvious shortcomings in the application of a communicative approach to language tests. First, the communicative tasks are likely to lead to nothing more than a pale reflection of real-life language use. Second, it may be difficult for raters, wedded to a standard variety of the language and notions of correctness, to prioritize supposed communicative success over the mere production of formal features of the language. The communicative approach received an enormous boost in Europe (where it began) with the publication in 2000 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. In its breakdown of language use into reception, production, interaction and mediation, with attendant descriptors, the Framework provided, and continues to provide, useful input for test developers. Existing European certifications were adjusted to fit the Framework, and new certifications developed with the level descriptions as the underlying construct. The past decade has seen massive growth in the number of candidates taking Framework-related certification. In Europe, where the role of ELF has developed at a similar pace, it has assumed a gate-keeping function, sanctioning access to higher education in many countries, or providing evidence of a ‘level’ for future employers. But although the Framework on which such certification is based owes much to the prevailing communicative approach of the 1980s and 1990s, it frequently resorts to an idealized ‘native speaker’ as a default standard by which to measure the NNS’ performance.1 The ability to be understood by an NS, or even the skill of not ‘unintentionally amusing or irritating them 2 are viewed as positive features for the foreign language learner to achieve. In a test of ELF, however, although communicative success is likely to be a declared aim, the NS is no longer a useful yardstick by which to measure it, and should not be part of the test construct. In the next section, we will move on to consider possible constructs for a test of ELF, and how these might vary according to the type of test. RQA 4 Think of a test you are familiar with and identify the test construct. Can you think of any other test which tries to produce evidence of the same construct, but which uses different techniques? Which kind of test do you think is more suitable for the teaching and learning contexts you are familiar with, and why? Towards a Construct for an ELF-aware Test

Although the term ‘ELF’ is sometimes used to refer to interactions between NSs and NNSs, in this chapter we are concerned only with NNS–NNS interaction. This is because a construct for an NS–NNS test is likely to be quite different from that of a test designed exclusively for

216  Part 5: ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing

NNS–NNS interaction. Take, for example, well-known tests such as TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) and IELTS (International English Language Testing System), which are intended to predict the ability of international students to successfully complete a course of study in higher education in an English-speaking country, as a consequence of which the test needs to make predictions about NNS–NS interaction. Here, relating NNS performance to NS competences (such as an NS accent, or the use of idiomatic or non-transparent language) as part of the measurement process might have some justification. But in a wholly NNS context this would not be the case. Rather (to keep the same examples), the need for accents and lexis to be accessible to the NNS interlocutor, rather than just ‘NS-like’, becomes vital. RQA 5 Think of the difficulties NSs might have in ELF interaction. In which kind of professional contexts do you think it could be important for NSs as well as NNSs to be assessed for their ability to interact in an ELF environment? Native speakers are in fact likely to experience difficulty in some ELF tests. An example of this might be an international test of English for pilots and air traffic controllers, where variation and ambiguity, which are natural features of NS interaction, cannot be tolerated, since lives depend on rapid mutual understanding of participants in interaction. In December 2014, an AirAsia flight crashed, killing all on board, because, apparently, the co-pilot misinterpreted the pilot’s instruction to ‘pull down’, assuming he was referring to the plane itself rather than to a lever in the cockpit. 3 Such a test is clearly a rather special kind of test of English as lingua franca, designed to ensure that a professional person can operate in an international context within his or her profession, and it reflects a ‘closed system’ in which there is a pre-determined lexis and little or no room for flexibility. In contrast, most tests of ELF which school teachers are likely to want to develop probably need to be open, inclusive and flexible in the assessment procedures they adopt, and allow for considerable variation between test takers. After all, a fundamental feature of ELF is accommodation, or the ability to adapt one’s production (accent, lexis, or any other communicative feature) to make it more interpretable to the interlocutor. In a test of ELF which is not confined to a specific professional sphere, flexibility and adaptability (of both speakers and listeners) are likely to be positive strategies that should be recognized and rewarded; and this implies the development of tools (such as assessment grids) which would make this possible. This reflection brings us to the crucial question of construct. What are the underlying competences which our (as yet hypothetical) ‘ELF-aware test’ seeks to measure? Clearly, these will vary according to the learning

ELF in Language Tests  217

objectives of the school or institution administering the test, and the syllabus it is related to. To start with, there are likely to be very different learning objectives at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. Second, there may or may not be explicit references to ELF in the syllabus statement, although the course itself, through the materials and activities used, might have brought students into contact with the realities of ELF (as we shall see in the examples below). In any case, it is likely that an ELF-aware test will have a lot in common with the communicative approach advocated by Canale and Swain (1980); and as such, it seems more appropriate, as already anticipated in the introduction 1, to refer to it as a communicative test with an ELF ­element – an ‘ELF-aware test’ – rather than ‘a test of ELF’. Canale and Swain drew up a list of four easy-to-remember guidelines for the communicative test developer. • • • •

Start from somewhere. Concentrate on content. Bias for best. Work for washback.

The beauty of these axioms (apart from their memorability) lies in the clear way in which they link testing principles to target language use. Start from somewhere is a reminder of the need for a coherent construct, through the identification of the kind of competences (strategic and social, as well as purely linguistic) required; bias for best, of the desirability to elicit the test taker’s best possible performance, and hence to ensure positive washback. Since the early days of the communicative approach, the process of globalization has accelerated, with inevitable consequences for the classroom. In Europe today, for example, ELF may surface as real communication, and therefore as a real resource, in learning environments ranging from primary schools which have opened their doors to children from migrant families who may have some English but not know the local language, to university students on mobility programmes following courses in English delivered by NNS teachers in the host country. As the ‘ELF awareness’ of language teachers grows, this may be reflected in the choices they make about which course books to adopt, and which activities to try out in the classroom, and these in turn may be facilitated by progress in technology and real-time communication, such as the possibility of setting up links on the internet with schools in other countries.4 All of these new situations may give an impetus to the ‘start from somewhere’ for teacher-testers who would like their tests to reflect the preponderant reality of ELF outside the inner circle of English native language countries. For example, in the case of a secondary school internet twinning, possible test constructs might include the ability of students to hold a conversation via Skype, or to interact using social media, or to coedit a text, and so on. These constructs might best be ascertained through

218  Part 5: ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing

alternative forms of assessment, such as continuous assessment or peer feedback (see the following chapter by Kouvdou and Tsagari). But in the case of a formal test being needed, the challenge for teachers would be to develop a test which would provide evidence of these skills, and a means of rating test takers’ performance. We will go on to consider these challenges in the sections on ‘ELF through the back door’ and ‘The final hurdle’. First, however, it will be useful to consider for a moment what an ELF-aware test would not seek to assess. RQA 6 Think of your teaching situation. Where would you start from to devise an ELF-aware test? Can you formulate an appropriate construct? Interlude: Rethinking Errors in ELF-aware Assessment

Teachers like errors. Some teachers love errors. 5 This is because (as well as providing a never-ending source of mirth in staffrooms) they offer plenty of input for teachers to work on, so much so that errors can shape lessons, courses and even teaching styles. Testers like errors, too – at least, visible, or audible errors (of grammar and pronunciation), which are easy to recognize and thus provide evidence of distance from a target level of performance. In both contexts, errors are perceived as negative, as examples of linguistic behaviour which should be avoided or corrected. This approach was conceptually reinforced by an interest in error analysis in the 1960s (Pit Corder, 1967) and the development of interlanguage studies in the 1970s (Selinker, 1972); a student’s interlanguage reflected a position reached on a hypothetical journey between a departure language (1L) and a target language (2L). In essence, the target language, since it was equivalent to NS competence, was unattainable, and the learner was thus condemned to ‘fossilization’ somewhere on the way to perfect proficiency. Yet, errors play an essential part in learning a language, and as such they also need to be seen in a positive light. This becomes possible as soon as the notion of ‘native speaker competence’ is removed as a yardstick for measuring NNS performance. In ELF interaction, an ‘error’ may be construed as useful if it has a successful communicative outcome. Lexical invention, grammatical variation and modification of pronunciation to produce non-native forms might all be seen as errors in a traditional test and rated accordingly. But in real-life communication they might be seen as strategies promoting comprehension. For example, when faced with the need for a word, one strategy would be to invent it: If you’ve got an *Internet key with you, I’ll let you have the file,

where SE has flash drive/USB key/memory stick, as well as other terms,

ELF in Language Tests  219

or The surface is dirty, I need to *undust it,

where SE has (somewhat illogically) dust. Both of these solutions show evidence of learning, as well as transfer from another language (in these two examples, Italian), they prevent communication from breaking down, and they are likely to be unproblematic for the listener. Similarly, grammatical inaccuracies, such as a non-standard use of prepositions, the substitution of relative pronoun who for which, or the dropping of redundant third person s, all of which are frequently attested in ELF interaction (see for example Cogo & Dewey, 2012) are unlikely to cause problems of comprehension. Indeed, some examples of grammatical manipulation, such as the transformation of a mass noun into a count noun, are likely to offer a more precise meaning than a monolithic standard form; Seidlhofer (2010: 25) cites the case of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s use of evidences. Phonological accommodation, or making pronunciation more accessible to the interlocutor, might mean consciously modifying sounds or intonation, so that they become less NS like; for example, by tending towards syllable-timed utterances (instead of NS-like stress timing). Jenkins, in an early study (Jenkins, 2000) of ELF phonology, hypothesizes a ‘core phonology’ of sounds, which is essential to comprehension in ELF interaction, and an inventory of ‘non-core’ features, such as stress timing, which are not. Testers seeking parameters for scoring pronunciation would do well to start from these lists, although they should not rely on them as definitive check lists. But teachers are wary of non-standard variation, and the idea of inventing unknown words or producing non-standard sounds so that they seem less NS-like might seem positively perverse. Recent research into teacher attitudes in Europe, at all levels (primary, secondary and higher education), confirms that teachers still cling to a standard variety of the language since it provides them, among other things, with a yardstick for assessment ­purposes. At the same time, teachers are increasingly becoming aware of the phenomenon of ELF and the need for some tests at least – ELF-aware tests – not to include NS-like behaviour (such as an accent) or non-­ transparent language (such as the use of culturally laden idioms) in the test construct, which are both features that are likely to attract positive ratings in a traditional test. An ELF test is context-aware, and looks for the highest common factor in communicative interaction, the upper limit of languaging potential shared by participants. In this context an error would be any language choice or strategy which does not lead to successful communication, such as an unintelligible sound, or a wrong choice of word – since unintelligible to the listener. Similarly, in both cases, self-correction leading to comprehension would need to be recognized and positively assessed.

220  Part 5: ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing

Formal errors, however, which do not impede communication (and which do not challenge the tolerance levels of NSs, who by our earlier definition are not part of the interaction), such as non-core pronunciation or non-standard grammar, need not be part of the assessment process, and are best ignored. By now it should be apparent that an ELF-aware test, premised on interaction, is a skills-based test, and the main challenge to the tester (once he or she has clarified the construct) will be to set tasks which involve comprehension and production in an ELF context, and to produce the tools which can assess this performance. In the following sections, then, we shall look at the forms such a test might take. RQA 7 Can you think of any examples of errors which can be interpreted positively? What would you consider to be a serious error in an ELF context? ELF Through the Back Door: Testing the Receptive Skills

Since ELF is primarily about using language in specific but everchanging contexts, most ELF-aware tests – or most tests in which ELF is a primary focus – are likely to be tests of spoken interaction, the unpredictability of which is guaranteed by the interlocutors. However, we can also make a case for ELF-aware tests of writing, listening and reading. A receptive skills ELF-aware test is one which makes use of NNS input, which might be any text spoken or written by a NNS. Listening seems to be conceptually less problematic. After all, if most speakers of English in the world today are NNSs, then most accents are non-native too; and understanding someone’s accent (which refers to prosodic features such as stress, intonation and other connected speech phenomena, as well as individual sounds or phonemes) is clearly part of the skill of listening. A listening test which uses non-native texts simply acknowledges this phenomenon; and it acquires authenticity as a consequence. There is, however, a potential problem of fairness in tests which use non-native accents, and which Harding (2012: 164) defines as ‘shared L1 advantage’: if the test taker is familiar with the speaker’s accent, does he or she have an unfair advantage over other test takers? Unsurprisingly, it seems they might have, but the evidence is not ­conclusive. However, as Harding points out, if that accent is part of the construct, and identified in the test specifications, then the problem no longer exists. As with any test, though, it is essential that test takers are fully informed about what they will be expected to do, and, in the case of an ELF-aware test of listening, the range of accents they might be exposed to.

ELF in Language Tests  221

In fact, research carried out at the University of Venice (Newbold, 2015), which got students to listen to extracts from lectures given by visiting professors, found that non-native accents were either ‘easier’ (25%) or ‘no more difficult’ (64%) than NS accents; significantly, the small minority (11%) who considered the non-native accents to be more difficult were those who scored lowest on the test overall, and may thus have been making the non-natives scapegoats to justify their poor performance. What sort of texts should be chosen for a receptive skills test? Ideally, they should be real speech events, such as video or audio recordings, or real written texts, taken from the public domain on the internet, rather than specially written, again for purposes of authenticity. Any text generated by a teacher-tester is (understandably) likely to look towards NS norms, whereas the norms of ELF are fluid and need to be constantly re-negotiated. It is also true, however, that some kinds of reading texts – such as those intended for publication – go through a substantial revision process, and the writer may (again, understandably) refer to NS resources, such as dictionaries and grammars, to edit the text; so, a non-native text becomes mediated through NS norms. A huge number of texts, ranging from novels to job applications, from journalistic articles to Wikipedia entries, may have been written by NNSs for NNSs and then carefully edited with a view towards SE, with only slight deviations from NS norms. On the other hand, real-time communication on the internet, using social media and email, has led to a grey area of ‘written’ text production which does not go through an editing process, and which has lots in common, in its immediacy, with speaking. Informality, non-standard grammar, phonological approximations in the spelling, short cuts, are all part of this kind of communication. It is worth noting that NSs may stray just as far as NNSs from NS norms in their digital texts, and as a result it is often not easy to decide whether a contribution to an internet blog in English (for example) has been written by a NS or not. So, to return to the question of text choice: in an ELF-aware test of reading, both carefully mediated texts and informal texting might be justified. For example, a test of English for commercial purposes might require students to understand a page from a company website; in a school which has set up a link with a school in another country, it might be appropriate to use online communications from the partner school for test purposes. Such tests are likely to be motivating, if seen by test takers as relevant to their real-life needs, and have positive washback. They are also likely to be unproblematic and uncontroversial: ELF has come in through the back door, as it were, unobtrusively. Depending on how the texts are exploited, the test taker may not be required to ‘produce’ ELF, and the assessment is made through objective items in a familiar psychometric format. The real challenges for ELF testing will come in assessing the productive skills, and we will turn to these in the next and final section.

222  Part 5: ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing

RQA 8 Which kind of listening and reading texts would be appropriate for an ELF-aware receptive skills test in a context you are familiar with? The Final Hurdle: Testing Productive and Interactive Skills

The CEFR makes the useful distinction between spoken interaction and spoken production. Unsurprisingly, the longest list of descriptors in the Framework comes under the heading spoken interaction, reflecting the multiplicity of communicative purposes in human interaction; and the list is not intended to be exhaustive. Spoken production refers to monologue, exemplified in activities such as narrating and making a presentation. A typical ELF-aware test would involve interaction between NNSs, which may not be more than a simple exchange of information, and which might be possible at quite a low level of proficiency. This kind of paired interaction format has existed for many years, notably in the Cambridge ESOL suite of exams, in which candidates have to work together on a collaborative task. Although various problems have been associated with pairing candidates in this way (what happens when there is a mismatch in levels? what happens when candidates appear to understand each other, but the examiner does not understand them?), the format continues to be used since it is believed to reflect target language use more closely than a traditional examiner–candidate oral interview. Naturally, if the two candidates have different mother tongues, then we have a genuine ELF interaction. Partnerships between schools in different countries, which we have mentioned in previous sections, could provide the context for this. But interaction between two candidates sharing the same mother tongue (which may be the norm in most school tests) is not necessarily ‘inauthentic’ from an ELF point of view, since in a group of three or more speakers in an ELF context, and in which two share the same language, these two may choose to use ELF so that they remain intelligible to everyone. In either case, the challenge for the tester is to evaluate the contribution of each participant towards a successful communicative outcome, and not to assess him or her in isolation using a traditional proficiency framework. House (2003: 573) suggests that the person(s) making the assessment should themselves be  ‘an expert ELF user, a stable multilingual speaker’ to be able to appreciate the dynamics of the interaction, which could indeed make the job easier. To assess performance, some sort of grid is needed. To assess ELF performance, this grid needs to take into account features of ELF interaction, such as accommodation and repair strategies, and perhaps phonological features and lexical creativity. It may also positively assess

ELF in Language Tests  223

strategies which in a different context might seem an admission of failure, such as an explicit appeal for help from the interlocutor; and it may negatively assess language features, such as high level but opaque idiomatic language which would be rewarded in a traditional EFL test, if communication breaks down as a result. A grid which tries to measure only these kinds of features, however, is likely to be hard to design and harder to use, as typical ELF features such as accommodation may be difficult to observe and ungradable. It might be more feasible to start with existing grids for assessing spoken interaction, which measure language proficiency features such as fluency, coherence and range, as well as interaction. This last criterion could be redefined in terms of ELF awareness demonstrated by the test takers and it could be given more weighting than other criteria in the test. But it will not be easy to identify the construct, which will vary according to the context of each specific test; and testers may need to modify or abandon some features which turn out to be difficult to observe, and add others which are observable for the empathetic tester hypothesized by House. A related issue is whether the ‘interaction’ criterion should discriminate at different levels of ELF-aware performance. In a task-based communicative test it could be argued that only two levels (success or failure) are needed, but a test which provides more feedback to the test taker and test administrator is likely to be more useful, such as one using a three-point rating system of (say) ‘basic’, ‘good’ and ‘excellent’ ELF awareness (or strategies), as well as a descriptor indicating inadequate awareness. Assessing spoken production may be slightly less problematic, since focused on an individual, although the way in which he or she interacts with listeners is fundamental to the assessment. It is also likely to involve only quite high levels of competence; whereas B1, the lower level of ‘independent user’ might be seen as an appropriate level for engaging with ELF in interaction, the monologue implied by spoken production, whether it  be narrating a story or making a presentation, suggests a level of B2 or above. Presentations on a previously chosen topic are already built into a number of international certifications, reflecting the formal use of English as the language of choice in international meetings. A grid for spoken production will need to recognize those features of spoken production which enhance intelligibility for listeners. These might range from voice control, including speed of delivery, to clear signposting, to ways in which the speaker relates to the audience, to effective repair strategies. Of course, most, if not all, of these skills would be the mark of an effective NS presenter; but in an ELF context they become crucial to intelligibility. As with a grid for interaction, testers of spoken production will need to experiment, adapting the grid to the specific context identified by the test

224  Part 5: ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing

construct, and resorting again to an ‘empathetic’ response, i.e. the ability to appreciate the performance in much the same way as an NN listener in the target language use domain. Written production, assessed as part of an ELF-aware test, will require a similar approach, and a grid which is NN reader-friendly, rather than one for a critical native eye intent on weeding out formal errors. But by now it should be clear to the reader that there will be no such thing as a quick fix for the would-be tester of ELF. Indeed, as we have suggested throughout this chapter, there appears to be no need for a conceptually problematic ‘test of ELF’, but there is a pressing need for ELF-aware tests of communication. However, given the difficulties we have alluded to, investing energy and resources in trying to develop an ELF-aware test might seem like embarking on a fool’s errand. In many cases, alternative assessment, perhaps involving interlocutor feedback, may provide interesting and useful insights from within the interaction which a traditional test will overlook. But the need for formal, institutional tests of English language proficiency will of course continue, and the need for them to reflect how English is really used internationally is likely to increase. In this chapter, we have looked at what an ELF-aware test might try to measure, without going into detail about how to do this. This is the challenge that teachers, testers and testing organizations now face, and as we have seen, it is fraught with difficulties. But it is a challenge worth taking on, since, in the long run, as well as potentially leading to the development of more valid and authentic tests, it will also contribute to a greater understanding of the dynamics of interaction which the world’s lingua franca brings into play. RQA 9 What assessment criteria would you include in an ELF-aware test of spoken interaction, for a teaching or learning context you are familiar with? Synopsis

In this chapter, we have made the case for teachers of EFL to develop tests which reflect the way in which English is actually used in the world, particularly in interaction between NNSs. We have called such a test an ‘ELF-aware test’ rather than a ‘test of ELF’, and we have noted that it would differ from traditional tests in its approach to errors, in the kinds of texts it uses, and, perhaps most crucially, in the grid it would need teachers to develop and use to help them make fair and useful assessments.

ELF in Language Tests  225

Answers to Reflective Questions

The reflective questions in this chapter are not intended to have ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers, but to get you to think about how tests work (or don’t work), and, especially, how they can be improved. So, in RQA2 for example, there might be lots of quite different reasons why a test you have experienced was less than perfect; maybe the level was not appropriate (too easy or too difficult), or you did not have time to complete it, or it tested content which you were not prepared for, or you did not understand the instructions. All of these problems impinge, in rather different ways, on the quality of the test, but, crucially, all of them are potentially resolvable. Notes (1) The term native speaker or native speakers occurs 56 times in the Framework; in about half of these instances it is used in the context of a scale of descriptors. (2) Level B2 descriptor for ‘Spoken Interaction: Conversation’. (3) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/01/airasia-crew-actions-caused-jet-tolose-control-say-crash-investigators retrieved 5.2.2018 (4) See for example Grazzi (2013). (5) For one teacher’s love affair with errors see IATEFL Newsletter 246, September– October 2015, p. 9.

References Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics 1 (1), 1–47. Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2012) Analysing English as a Lingua Franca. London: Continuum. Grazzi, E. (2013) The Sociocultural Dimension of ELF in the English Classroom. Rome: Editoriale Anicia. Green, A. (2014) Exploring Language Assessment and Testing. London: Routledge. Harding, L. (2012) Accent, listening assessment and the potential for a shared-L1 advantage: A DIF perspective. Language Testing 29 (2), 163–180. House, J. (2003) English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilngualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics 7 (4), 556–578. Hughes, A. (2003) Testing for Language Teachers (2nd edn). Cambridge: CUP. Hymes, D. (1972) On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds) Sociolinguistics Selected Readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Jenkins, J. (2000) The Phonology of English as an International Language. Cambridge: CUP. Messick, S. (1998) Consequences of test interpretation and use: The fusion of validity and values in psychological assessment. ETS Research Report. Educational Testing Services: Princeton. McNamara, T. (2000) Language Testing. Oxford: OUP. Newbold, D. (2015) Engaging with ELF in an entrance test for European university students. In Y. Bayyurt and S. Akcan (eds) Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca (pp. 205–222). Berlin: De Gruyter. Pit Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5, 161–170. Seidlhofer, B. (2010) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: OUP. Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 209–241.

226  Part 5: ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing

Further reading For teachers and other language professionals interested in reading more about background issues in testing and in developing their own tests, the volumes by Hughes and Green listed in the References could both be useful. Hughes (2003) is a classic, teacherfriendly text, while Green outlines recent developments in the field and is likely to be of interest to Masters level students and trainees. Also of interest is the Language Testing Resources Website maintained by Glenn Fulcher, at http://languagetesting.info.

13 Towards an ELF-aware Alternative Assessment Paradigm in EFL Contexts Androniki Kouvdou and Dina Tsagari

General aims of this chapter

This chapter aims at demonstrating the applicability of alternative assessment within a multicultural EFL context comprising learners from different lingua-cultural backgrounds with diverse communicative needs. It actually addresses the issue of assessment within an ELF-aware teaching environment, which incorporates basic principles of ELF. In that sense, it is intended for EFL practitioners who are aware of the importance of the role of EIL in today’s globalised world and are therefore interested in implementing assessment methods that reflect ELF principles and promote their learners’ intercultural competence and skills. To achieve its aim, the present chapter presents a research project conducted within the multicultural EFL class of two Greek state schools, a setting where the application of ELF-aware assessment was thought to be a most pertinent choice. Expected outcomes

On completing this chapter, you should be able to: • • • • •

distinguish between ‘testing’ and ‘assessment’; define what is meant by ‘ELF-aware assessment’; identify the basic principles of ELF-aware assessment; defend the compatibility of ELF with alternative assessment; recognise the significance of accommodation strategies for successful intercultural communication; • design an observation-based framework of oral assessment; • implement systematic observation for the assessment of communicative speaking skills.

227

228  Part 5: ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing

Key concepts

• • • • • • •

Assessment and testing. ELF-aware assessment. Intercultural competence. Intercultural speaking skills. Accommodation skills and strategies. Alternative assessment. Observation-based assessment.

Introduction

As our focus is on alternative assessment and its compatibility with ELF-aware contexts, a concise, albeit clear, definition of assessment in juxtaposition to testing is given at the beginning of the chapter. Our aim is to show that EFL assessment, although often used interchangeably with testing in ELF literature, can be a lot more than mere testing of one’s knowledge and skills on the basis of SE norms and structures. The chapter moves on to argue in favour of ELF-aware assessment, rather than the assessment of ELF per se, as there is no such thing as a clearly defined ELF construct. Yet, the use of ELF is a reality with subsequent implications on EFL pedagogy, which leads us to maintain that EFL practitioners need to reconsider their views and adopt a more ELF-aware perspective in their assessment as ELF cannot really be assessed. Our argument in favour of ELF-aware assessment is then followed by a list of principles underpinning it, which in turn lead to our suggestion towards an alternative ELFaware approach to assessment. Limiting our scope to intercultural speaking skills, we then attempt to establish the potential links between oral performance and ELF-aware alternative assessment and proceed with the description of an observation-based framework of assessment implemented in two different EFL contexts. This implementation shows how theory can be turned into practice and its description offers the informed teacher practical ideas as to how alternative assessment can be employed in a speaking context that aspires to develop intercultural competence and promote the use of ELF. The chapter ends with several conclusions regarding observation-based ELF-aware assessment and stimulates reflection on the issues raised. What is Assessment? Is Assessment Interchangeable with Testing?

Reviewing the ELF literature, one can see that the term ‘testing’ is more often than not used to refer to the assessment of learners’ proficiency in L2. In fact, the term ‘assessment’ is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘testing’, the latter being what most ELF scholars think needs revising so as to

Towards an ELF-aware Alternative Assessment Paradigm in EFL Contexts  229

meet the requirements of ELF (Canagarajah, 2006; Jenkins, 2000, 2006a; Lowenberg, 2002; McNamara, 2012). So, even when they use the term ‘assessment’, ELF scholars generally refer to testing, and more specifically standardised tests, which constitute the most widely acknowledged medium of evaluating language proficiency. What most of them actually do is criticise these standardised tests for failing to reflect and assess basic ELF features while requiring linguistic accuracy and strict adherence to the norms of SE (Canagarajah, 2006; Jenkins 2006a). Yet, despite the interchangeable use of the terms ‘testing’ and ‘assessment’ in the relevant literature, the recurrent question of their interchangeability is one that needs to be addressed before any decisions are made on what is to be assessed in relation to ELF, and on why and how assessment is done. In other words, we need to look at testing and assessment in terms of content, purpose and methodology in order to conclude whether they are truly interchangeable or not. They do share common features, as Allan (2003) points out, but are they a single entity? RQA 1 Do you think ‘testing’ and ‘assessment’ are the same? If not, what are their differences? Reflect upon them and then continue reading the chapter and see if your thoughts are congruent with the ideas expressed in the relevant literature. Reviewing the relevant literature, we can see that individual ELT scholars propose different definitions for ‘testing’ and ‘assessment’, all of which illustrate that, despite their similarities and degree of overlap, the two terms cannot be treated interchangeably. Testing, on the one hand, has to do primarily with the measurement of learners’ proficiency at a specific point of time and its scope is therefore limited to the end product of their performance, which demonstrates only a small sample of their knowledge and skills at that time (Allan, 2003). Terms such as ‘accuracy’, ‘correctness’, ‘error’, ‘measurement’ and ‘scoring’ are closely related to testing, which has often been identified with formal, standardised exams reflecting the norms of the idealised language of the NS. Assessment, on the other hand, is directed towards overall communicative language ability and therefore concentrates on more extended samples of learner performance. Unlike testing, it also focuses on the process rather than the product of learning and this is why it has come to be identified with alternative assessment (Fulcher & Davidson, 2007; Shaaban, 2005). Besides, assessment is often used as an umbrella term that covers all different forms of testing and assessment (Clapham, 2000). In that sense, it is a broader concept that refers to all sorts of methods employed by teachers to assess their L2 learners’ proficiency and skills (Turner, 2012).

230  Part 5: ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing

From the above, we understand that it is wrong to treat testing and assessment as identical concepts and use them interchangeably to describe evaluation practices in specific contexts. The truth is that they serve different purposes, reflect different criteria and involve different practices and should therefore not be confused. As already mentioned, in the case of ELF, the term assessment is often used in contexts where the term testing would be more pertinent. ELF scholars sometimes use the term assessment, whereas they actually refer to testing, and more specifically to standardised examinations, such as IELTS, TOEFL, Certificate of Proficiency in English (Cambridge ESOL exam) (CPE) or Examination for the Certificate of Proficiency in English (ECPE), constructed and administered by widely recognised examination boards. So, for the sake of accuracy, when talking about ELF, we should ideally distinguish between high-stakes, international exams, which reflect the norms and structures of standard British or American English and the informal, lowstakes assessment of L2 learners’ proficiency and skills as these are demonstrated in various communicative interactions. In other words, when using the term assessment in ELF contexts, we should be aware of the fact that this does not necessarily need to be limited to testing. RQA 2 Which of the following words and phrases usually characterise ‘testing’ and which describe ‘assessment’? Summative, overall performance, focus on product, accuracy, formative, low-stakes, discrete-point items, high-stakes, dynamic, measurement, endonormative standards, overall evaluation, formal, exonormative standards, focus on process, informal, intelligibility, static, certification, feedback, discrimination, continuous. Place the above words in their respective categories. When you are done, compare your answers with the ‘Suggested answers to RQAs’ provided at the end of the chapter.

The Assessment of ELF or ELF-aware Assessment?

When it comes to the assessment of ELF, the question that naturally arises is ‘Can ELF really be assessed?’ Obviously, assessment presupposes a clearly defined construct; we need to know what we assess if we are to have a valid assessment. That naturally leads us to the following questions: ‘What is the ELF construct?’, or else, ‘What does ELF look like?’ ‘Is it a language in its own right with its own rules and structures, a new linguistic variety, a register, or is it just a deficit NS model?’. The answers to these questions are not straightforward, as ELF scholars do not seem to share the same views about the linguistic status of ELF. In fact, there appears to be

Towards an ELF-aware Alternative Assessment Paradigm in EFL Contexts  231

some ambiguity as to what ELF really is (Swan, 2012). Mauranen (2003: 514), for example, describes ELF as ‘a variety of English’. Jenkins (2007, 2012) and Seidlhofer (2011), on other hand, reject the idea of ELF as a new single variety. So do Cogo and Dewey (2012), who tend to believe that ELF is ‘a legitimate manifestation of English in its own right’ (Cogo & Dewey, 2012: 18). Cogo (2012: 103), in particular, describes ELF as ‘a natural language’ that NNSs choose to use as an alternative to the language of the NSs. Similarly, Jenkins (2007: 2) describes ELF as ‘an emerging language that exists in its own right and is being described in its own terms’. Recently, the concept of ELF has been approached within a framework of multilingualism and translanguaging. Mauranen (2012), for instance, has revisited the concept of ELF, stressing the complexity of ELF contact scenarios, which involve English and other languages, thus rendering ELF a ‘hybrid of similects’ (Mauranen, 2012: 30). Moving between languages, or else translanguaging, is common in such contacts. Similarly, Jenkins (2015) has proposed a reconceptualisation of ELF, which emphasises its multilingual nature, while still acknowledging its fluidity, variability and hybridity. Jenkins actually argues that ELF should be viewed ‘within a framework of multilingualism’ (Jenkins, 2015: 75) as most ELF users may speak more languages than their L1 and English, which naturally influences their intercultural interactions. For that reason, she goes on to use the term ‘English as a Multilingual Franca’ (Jenkins, 2015: 73), without, however, suggesting ‘a name change for ELF’ (Jenkins, 2015: 74). From the above, we understand that the conceptualisation of ELF is an evolutionary process and that scholars do not seem to converge on one single definition of ELF. Yet, despite the ‘conceptual gap’ (Seidlhofer, 2001), a large majority of them agree that ELF is above all a complex linguistic phenomenon related to the use of EIC in today’s globalised world (Cogo & Dewey, 2012; Jenkins, 2014; Seidlhofer, 2011; Sifakis, 2017). Apparently, there are many different ways of approaching ELF, which are reflected in the various definitions put forward by different scholars and researchers. At the same time, there are a number of attempts to codify ELF in terms of phonology (Jenkins, 2000), lexicogrammar (Seidlhofer, 2001) and pragmatics (Firth, 1996; House, 2002). The compilation of relevant corpora, however, albeit very enlightening regarding the nature of ELF, has not been completed yet, so it is probably immature to talk about a clearly defined construct that can be taught and assessed. Regarding assessment, which is the focus of this chapter, Elder and Davies (2006) caution against moving too quickly to assess ELF before it has been properly described. Perhaps it would be wiser to adopt practices and criteria that correspond to our learners’ needs for intercultural communication rather than base assessment on criteria that reflect the norms of the idealised NS model. In that sense, it would be more appropriate to talk about ELF-aware assessment than the assessment of ELF per se. The ­special features and underlying principles of ELF should, in other

232  Part 5: ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing

words, inform L2 assessment, adding thus to its fairness and having a positive washback effect (Tsagari & Cheng, 2016) on ELT within a multicultural context. RQA 3 Why is it more appropriate to talk about ELF-aware assessment rather than EFL assessment?

Principles of ELF-aware Assessment

A review of the relevant literature indicates what ELF-aware assessment should be like. The work of various researchers actually points towards the principles that should guide an ELF-aware framework of assessment. First, it shows what this kind of assessment should not look like. As a matter of fact, ELF-aware assessment should not be restricted to formal testing, which is primarily based on exonormative standards that reflect the norms and structures of SE. In other words, it should not focus on linguistic accuracy or be dictated by the language use of NSs, as Seidlhofer (2001) and Matsuda (2003) reasonably argue. Likewise, wishing to stress the importance of successful intercultural communication as an assessment criterion, Elder and Davies (2006) point out that strict adherence to NS norms of correctness is not only unreasonable but also irrelevant to the target language construct, given that successful communication does not depend on them. Referring to ELF and testing, Jenkins (2006a) also maintains that if the latter is to be at all effective in an ELFaware context, it should not discourage the development of basic accommodation skills or penalise wrong forms which are, otherwise, perfectly intelligible and do not impede communication. Scholars and researchers of ELF and EIL have also made some very useful suggestions as to what the assessment of ELF or EIL should be like. Their work actually indicates – either explicitly or implicitly – the basic principles of ELF-aware assessment. One thing most ELF and EIL scholars agree on is the need for strategic competence and communicative effectiveness to take precedence over linguistic accuracy and approximation to inner-circle norms (Canagarajah, 2006; Elder & Davies, 2006; Jenkins, 2006a; Matsuda, 2003; Shomoossi & Tavakolli, 2008). Elder and Davies (2006: 296), for instance, suggest that assessment should place ‘reduced emphasis on the linguistic code’ and similarly, Matsuda (2003: 724) maintains that assessment based on NS norms ‘may not be valid for assessing the type of English proficiency needed in international contexts’. Another principle that should guide ELF-aware assessment is the prioritisation of mutual intelligibility, which is regarded by a number of scholars (Jenkins, 2000; Seidlhofer, 2001; Shomoossi & Tavakolli, 2008)

Towards an ELF-aware Alternative Assessment Paradigm in EFL Contexts  233

as the most significant assessment criterion in a context that aims at promoting the use of ELF. Mutual intelligibility between NNSs, however, presupposes negotiation of meaning and the use of the most useful accommodation strategies.1 So, understandably, an ELF-aware model of assessment should focus on learners’ ability to negotiate meaning and use a variety of accommodation strategies, which are the core of ELF communication, if it is to be valid and fair and have a positive washback on teaching. As Canagarajah (2006: 233) says, assessment should ‘focus more on proficiency in pragmatics’ rather than on ‘proficiency in grammar or in abstract linguistic features’. Contextualisation is an additional criterion that ELF-aware assessment should meet (Brown, 2014; Canagarajah, 2006). In our globalised society, language variation needs to be taken into account and the assessment of language proficiency has to be contextualised, reflecting both the global and local needs of the learners, the purpose/s of the assessment, as well as the decisions that are to be made on the basis of the assessment results. For that reason, Brown (2014) suggests that it should employ multiple tasks that will assess learners’ communicative skills in a variety of situations and involve more than one learner at a time, thus simulating real-life ELF interactions. Assessing learner performance should therefore be at the heart of ELF-aware assessment, which, according to Elder and Davies (2006), should be concerned primarily with the successful fulfillment of the communicative task. Finally, an ELF-aware framework of assessment should not be equated with testing, especially its standardised form, which is based on exonormative standards. Instead, it would be preferable if such a framework came in many different forms, including alternative ones, reflecting the complexity and multidimensional nature of language use, as suggested by Brown (2014). Alternative modes of assessment, and their compatibility with ELF as discussed in the next section, would probably encourage learners to focus on language functions that go beyond grammatical accuracy (Matsuda, 2003). RQA 4 Think about assessment in your EFL classes. On the basis of the discussion so far, what adjustments need to be made if it is to become ELF-aware?

Towards an Alternative ELF-aware Approach to Assessment

As already stated, formal testing reflects inner-circle norms and focuses on grammatical accuracy and native-like production, and is not therefore the most appropriate way of assessing language proficiency in

234  Part 5: ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing

contexts where the use of ELF is thought to be a priority of the teaching and learning process. In fact, testing is a form of assessment that is more compatible with clearly EFL contexts, where language proficiency is measured against the norms of SE. Besides, until ELF is fully codified, it is highly unlikely that established examination boards, which administer popular high-stakes tests, will be willing to change their construct and assessment criteria so as to reflect salient ELF features and meet the needs of ELF speakers. However, the use of ELF both inside and outside the multicultural classroom is a reality that needs to be reflected in language assessment; since testing fails to conform to this reality, alternative forms of assessment are probably more appropriate for an ELF-aware EFL context. The question is: ‘How do we define alternative assessment and how is it different from testing?’ It is true that different scholars have come up with different definitions of alternative assessment. Yet, a most comprehensive one, which applies to all its forms and differentiates it from testing, is the one provided by Alderson and Banerjee. According to them ‘Alternative assessment’ is usually taken to mean assessment procedures which are less formal than traditional testing, which are gathered over a period of time rather than being taken at one point in time, which are usually formative rather than summative in function, are often low-stakes in terms of consequences, and are claimed to have beneficial washback effects. (Alderson & Banerjee, 2001: 228)

A review of the relevant literature on ELF and alternative assessment has actually shown that these two fields of study share common features, which help establish the potential links between them. Being established, these links justify our proposal towards an alternative ELF-aware approach to assessment. RQA 5 What do you think are the common features of ELF and alternative assessment? Reflect upon them and then continue reading the chapter to see if your thoughts are congruent with the ideas expressed in the relevant literature. First of all, both alternative assessment, referring to any form of nonconventional assessment that is juxtaposed to testing (Brown & Hudson, 1998; O’Malley & Valdez-Pierce, 1996; Tsagari & Banerjee, 2015), and ELF defy existing norms, standards and conventions, whether these have to do with the idealised language of the NS, which is the case for ELF (Seidlhofer, 2004), or with formal testing, as is the case for alternative assessment (Alderson & Banerjee, 2001). In other words, they are both non-conventional in nature, which is one aspect of their compatibility.

Towards an ELF-aware Alternative Assessment Paradigm in EFL Contexts  235

A second point of convergence between ELF and alternative assessment is their focus on mutual intelligibility and hence successful communication. As a matter of fact, they both prioritise communicative competence over linguistic accuracy when it comes to language use. That is why accommodation strategies are very significant for both ELF and alternative assessment. Intercultural communication, which is the essence of ELF, is contingent on proper use of accommodation strategies (Jenkins, 2006b; Seidlhofer, 2009; Sifakis, 2009) and alternative assessment, which is basically performance oriented (Brown & Hudson, 1998), has the power to capture the use of these strategies and promote their development thanks to its continuous, formative nature (Alderson & Banerjee, 2001). What is more, when it comes to errors and the way these are treated, ELF and alternative assessment are quite similar. For ELF, some of the so-called errors are just variant forms used by the majority of ELF speakers (Jenkins, 2006a) and as such they need not be corrected. For alternative assessment, on the other hand, certain errors can be overlooked as long as mutual comprehension, which is the ultimate goal of communication, is achieved. In fact, being performance oriented, alternative assessment concentrates on what learners can do with the language (Shaaban, 2005) and as such it does not penalise them for their occasional linguistic errors. All the aforementioned links between ELF and alternative assessment substantiate their compatibility, which theoretically makes the latter a most suitable approach to ELF-aware assessment. Unlike testing, which has long been connected with conventional EFL teaching, alternative assessment exhibits features and adopts practices that are closer to the principles underpinning ELF-aware teaching and assessment. What remains to be seen is how theory can turn into practice and verify our hypothesis. RQA 6 Think of a form of alternative assessment (e.g. self-assessment, peerassessment, portfolio, observation, projects, etc.). How does it reflect the principles of ELF?

Oral Performance and ELF-aware Alternative Assessment

It is true that most ELF interactions are spoken and it is therefore natural that most attempts towards the codification of ELF and the creation of relevant corpora are based on oral discourse (Jenkins, 2000; Mauranen, 2003; Seidlhofer, 2009). This is why our study on the applicability of alternative assessment in an ELF-aware teaching environment is focused on oral performance. Besides, thanks to their dynamic, flexible

236  Part 5: ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing

and performance-oriented nature (Shaaban, 2005), alternative forms of assessment are thought to be most appropriate for the assessment of oral proficiency. But what exactly do we mean by the term oral proficiency in an ELFaware speaking context, where the ultimate goal of the interaction is mutual comprehensibility and hence successful intercultural communication? What are the skills and strategies involved? And, when it comes to assessment, what are the criteria against which oral proficiency is measured? Apparently, oral proficiency is approached differently in an ELFaware context than in a purely EFL one. In the former, it refers to the speaker’s ability to communicate effectively in English at an international level, having an intelligible accent and using accommodation strategies in a successful manner. Oral proficiency is therefore equated with communicative effectiveness, as this is achieved through intelligible pronunciation and appropriate accommodation skills. In that sense, native-like production is not only unrealistic but also unnecessary, as Jenkins (2006c) wisely argues. A proficient ELF speaker has to be able to understand diverse accents, negotiate meaning appropriately and accommodate their speech to the needs of their interlocutor so as to facilitate mutual comprehensibility and thus promote intercultural communication. So, naturally, when it comes to assessment in an ELF-aware context, these are the criteria against which oral performance should be evaluated. For the purpose of our study, we chose to focus on negotiation and accommodation skills, which are deemed vital for successful intercultural communication and whose use could be captured, recorded and promoted by means of alternative assessment. RQA 7 What are the skills of a proficient EFL and ELF-aware speaker, respectively? Can you think of a context which requires a proficient EFL speaker and another one where an ELF-aware speaker is needed?

Observation: An Alternative Method of ELF-aware Assessment

The construction and implementation of an observation-based framework of assessment was part of a research project (Kouvdou, forthcoming) aimed at exploring the potential of systematic observation as a way of assessing oral performance in a multicultural EFL context imbued with the principles of ELF. Systematic observation, as a typical form of classroom-based assessment, is thought to be compatible with the criteria of ELF-aware assessment and has the power to assess oral proficiency in general and accommodation skills in particular when implemented by an ELF-aware teacher.

Towards an ELF-aware Alternative Assessment Paradigm in EFL Contexts  237

According to Brown (2004), systematic observation of oral performance is a kind of formal assessment, in the sense that it is carefully planned and designed so as to help the teacher obtain information about learners’ achievements and progress in predetermined times. Its systematicity also involves the establishment of specific criteria that reflect the content and purpose of the assessment. If observation is not systematic, it can ‘result in a pile of useless information’ (Ketabi & Ketabi, 2014: 436) and should therefore be avoided. For the purpose of the research, a carefully planned observation assessment framework was implemented by two ELF-aware teachers in their EFL multicultural classes. More precisely, the research involved two case studies conducted in two different Greek state-school EFL classes of secondary level. These two classes were purposefully selected so that they would represent a large majority of Greek multicultural EFL classes. They actually comprised students from Greece as well as from other linguistic and cultural backgrounds, which ensured their multicultural nature, vital for the research purpose. Being of Bulgarian, Polish, Albanian and Moldavian origin, the participant students were more likely to simulate an ELF interaction and employ those strategies that facilitate intercultural communication. Besides, being ELF-aware, the two teachers were more likely to incorporate ELF principles in their classes and be more responsive to their learners’ diverse communicative needs (Sifakis, 2007). To ensure validity and reliability, every aspect of the assessment framework was carefully planned before its implementation and both teachers followed similar procedures throughout. Everything was, in other words, predetermined; the purpose and the assessment criteria; the time and duration of each observation session; the learners to be assessed; the speaking tasks they were asked to carry out; the tools for the collection and recording of information; as well as the way of providing feedback on learners’ oral performance and progress. Special care was taken so that the whole framework would reflect the principles of ELF-aware assessment, as these derive from the relevant literature and are described earlier in this chapter. More specifically, there were 20 observation sessions – 10 for each teacher – during which the learners performed an equal number of speaking tasks and had their oral performance assessed by the teacher-observer. For the purpose of the study, the observation focused on a group of five learners for each teacher; more than half of these learners came from different lingua-cultural backgrounds, creating a context that was closer to a real ELF speaking environment. The oral tasks were also designed to simulate authentic ELF interactions, covering a variety of communication purposes and situations, as suggested by Matsuda (2003), and stimulating the employment of the most useful accommodation strategies. Observing the learners perform these tasks, the teacher could assess their ability to use these strategies and thus achieve mutual intelligibility.

238  Part 5: ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing

It is evident that the implemented observation-based framework of assessment was performance-oriented and ‘the criteria for assessing performance were concerned primarily with task fulfillment’, which is what an ELF-aware teacher-assessor should be looking at (Elder & Davies, 2006: 292; Tsagari, 2014). Observation, in other words, concentrated on the learners’ ability to negotiate meaning successfully, use repair strategies and accommodate their speech to facilitate mutual understanding. In a nutshell, strategic competence took precedence over linguistic accuracy, which is what really happens in most ELF interactions (Canagarajah, 2006). This is further evidence that the implemented assessment reflected real-life communication between NNSs. Within such an assessment framework, meaning is obviously more important than form, which is why linguistic errors, whether these had to do with pronunciation, vocabulary or grammar, were usually overlooked, especially those that did not obstruct communication. They were treated, in other words, as they would be treated in authentic ELF encounters. Observing interaction without interfering, the teacher did not correct the errors she observed, nor did she penalise the learners for making them. She did, however, encourage the negotiation of meaning and the use of accommodation strategies through constructive oral feedback at the end of each session and the provision of individual written assessment reports upon completion of the project. These reports highlighted what the learners can do with the language and what progress they had made with regard to their accommodation strategies since the assessment began. They also included suggestions as to how individual learners could improve upon these strategies and thus enhance their communicative capability and become better ELF speakers. Furthermore, to keep observation assessments focused, the teacher used a specially designed checklist (see Appendix 13.1), which included statements describing what accommodation strategies each learner might employ and what features of ELF discourse2 might be present in their talk. A checklist, as such, is instrumental in defining the construct to be observed and assessed (O’Sullivan et al., 2002). Observing the learners interact and completing a daily checklist, the teacher was actually able to evaluate whether the presence or absence of these strategies and features enhanced or impeded mutual comprehensibility. In each checklist there was also space for teacher comments, which were actually anecdotal records of any other aspect of learners’ performance not included in the statements but still worth recording. Overall, the focus of the assessment, as this was depicted in the relevant observation checklist, was primarily accommodation strategies and secondarily typical ELF discourse features, elements that an ELF-aware assessment should be targeted at. In that sense, systematic observation could be characterised as ELF-aware assessment, as it has the power to capture the appearance and development of these elements in learners’ oral performance.

Towards an ELF-aware Alternative Assessment Paradigm in EFL Contexts  239

RQA 8 What are the basic elements of a successful observation-based assessment framework in an ELF-aware speaking context? Think in terms of duration, frequency, speaking tasks, treatment of errors, recording of the observed material, provision of feedback and the teacher’s role.

Synopsis

In this chapter, we attempted to approach the issue of EFL assessment in a multicultural context from an alternative perspective, taking into account the far-reaching implications that the use of ELF has on ELT pedagogy, and the failure of standardised testing to meet the principles of ELF-aware assessment. Arguing in favour of a shift towards ELF-aware assessment, we suggested a number of principles that should underpin this kind of assessment. These principles, in turn, pointed towards alternative assessment, which seems to be closer to ELF than testing; and then focusing on oral performance, we suggested an observation-based framework of assessment, concisely describing and justifying its implementation. Our hypothesis, which we tried to verify through this implementation, is that systematic observation is an effective alternative way of assessing oral proficiency skills in an EFL context imbued with the principles of ELF-aware pedagogy. Reflecting on the implemented observation-based assessment framework, we can see several elements that substantiate its suitability for ELFaware contexts. These have to do with the performance-oriented nature of the assessment, the focus on strategic competence and accommodation skills as vehicles to mutual intelligibility, the nature and variety of the real-life tasks employed and the treatment of linguistic errors as acceptable deviations from NS norms. Therefore, in an EFL context, which is, however, ELF-aware, an observation assessment framework like the one described above obviously reflects the principles of ELF and can therefore have a positive washback on teaching. It can also be valid, as assessment is aligned with teaching, and fair in that it gives all learners the opportunity to show their knowledge and skills as well as they can without facing linguistic or cultural biases (O’Malley & Valdez-Pierce, 1996). Moreover, it is reliable, as assessment is based on multiple observations and speaking tasks, but the main recording instrument, namely the observation checklist, is the same, ensuring what Genesee and Upshur (1996: 59) call ‘instrument-related reliability’. In this light, it could be argued that alternative assessment in the form of systematic observation is a way of introducing ELF-aware assessment in the multicultural EFL class, focusing on those communicative strategies and accommodation skills that are essential for successful ELF

240  Part 5: ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing

interactions in today’s globalised world. So, until the ELF construct is properly conceptualised and codified and standardised testing begins to follow endonormative standards of assessment that reflect non-native varieties and norms, perhaps ELF-informed TESOL practitioners could shift their assessment towards a more ELF-aware orientation; implementing alternative classroom-based forms of assessment, which reflect the principles of ELF, could be a move in this direction. Being flexible and formative in nature, alternative assessment can not only embrace but also sustain this shift towards ELF-aware assessment, counterbalancing as such the limitations of testing. Suggested Answers to RQAs

RQA 1 and RQA 5: To be answered by readers themselves. RQA 2: Words and phrases characterising ‘testing’: summative; focus on product; accuracy; discrete-point items; high-stakes; measurement; formal; exonormative standards; static; certification; discrimination. Words and phrases describing ‘assessment’: overall performance; formative; low-stakes; dynamic; endonormative standards; overall evaluation; focus on process; informal; intelligibility; feedback; continuous. RQA 3: It is more appropriate to talk about ELF-aware assessment rather than EFL assessment because there is no such thing as a definitive ELF construct that can be assessed. There is, however, a growing body of evidence which indicates that there are a number of common salient features appearing in most NNSs’ discourse and certain accommodation strategies employed by them in their attempt to promote mutual intelligibility and ensure successful intercultural communication. There are actually numerous studies researching the use of ELF and establishing a number of principles that should guide ELT and assessment. In that sense, it is pertinent to talk about ELF-aware assessment, which reflects the principles underpinning ELF. RQA 4: If assessment within an EFL context is to be more ELF-aware, the following adjustments could be made. • Assessment should not be limited to formal testing; alternative methods of assessment focusing on learner performance should also be employed. • Endonormative standards of assessment reflecting local varieties and norms should be adopted; the assessment criteria should not necessarily reflect the norms of SE as this is used by NSs. • The achievement of mutual comprehensibility should be placed on top of the assessment criteria list; in that sense, communicative strategies and accommodation skills that facilitate mutual comprehensibility should be the focus of assessment, while deviant forms and structures should not be treated as errors as long as they do not impede communication.

Towards an ELF-aware Alternative Assessment Paradigm in EFL Contexts  241

• The use of ELF should be encouraged through the employment of genuine ELF discourse as input for various listening, reading, speaking and writing assessment activities. • Feedback should ideally concentrate on the proper use of negotiation and accommodation strategies rather than on linguistic accuracy. RQA 6: Projects are one form of alternative assessment which can easily be designed to reflect the principles of ELF. First, they are a method of assessment that focuses on learners’ overall performance rather than on specific linguistic knowledge and skills. Meaning is deemed more important than form. Second, the prioritisation of meaning over form allows for local varieties and norms in learners’ performance as it is the accomplishment of the communicative goal we are interested in. Third, projects are usually carried out in groups, so the achievement of mutual comprehensibility through the proper use of accommodation strategies is a sine qua non for their successful completion and, as such, a most significant assessment criterion. Fourth, projects can easily encourage both the input and output of genuine ELF discourse for their effective completion, which is vital for ELF-aware assessment. Finally, when assessing projects, feedback can focus both on the final product as well as on the process of their completion, highlighting those elements of learners’ performance that promote mutual intelligibility and hence successful interaction. RQA 7: A proficient EFL speaker is able to conform to the norms and structures of SE. In other words, s/he can use language accurately and appropriately and sound as native-like as possible. An ELF-aware speaker, on the other hand, is able to use communicative strategies effectively and accommodate their speech to their interlocutors’ needs so as to achieve mutual intelligibility. In other words, s/he is able to understand and be understood by their interlocutors so that successful interaction, especially with other NNSs, is achieved. A context where a proficient EFL speaker is needed could be a purely inner-circle one, such as a UK university, where an excellent command of SE is a basic requirement for a professor that teaches in it. Respectively, a context where a proficient ELF-aware speaker is needed could be any outer- or expanding-circle context involving NNSs, such as a multinational company where employees coming from different lingua-cultural backgrounds use English as a common means of communication both at a professional and a personal level. RQA 8: For an observation-based assessment framework to be successful in an ELF-aware speaking context, it needs to meet the following requirements. • It has to be implemented for a long period on a frequent basis so that basic ELF interaction skills are systematically recorded and developed.

242  Part 5: ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing

• The speaking tasks that learners will be asked to perform need to be varied and simulate real-life ELF interactions. • Errors that do not obstruct communication should be treated as legitimate variants, especially if they are made in the learners’ attempt to facilitate intelligibility. • Special care should also be taken so that the observed material is recorded in ways that do not inhibit interaction and guarantee a most thorough recording of learners’ accommodation strategies and ELF interaction skills. Observation checklists, for instance, should not be too overburdened and audio recording, when used, should not interfere with learners’ free interaction. • Equally unobtrusive should be the teacher’s role during observation assessment. • Feedback should be systematic and focused, aiming at helping learners improve those skills that are necessary for effective intercultural communication. Notes (1) Basic accommodation skills and strategies employed by ELF speakers to ensure mutual comprehensibility are the following: asking for repetition, clarification checks, rephrasing, simplifying syntax, adjusting to interlocutor’s linguistic repertoire, decreasing diversity of lexical items, code switching, avoidance of idiomatic language, changing pitch and loudness, drawing on extralinguistic cues and the like (see e.g. Canagarajah, 2006; Giles & Coupland, 1991; Jenkins, 2000: ch. 7; Sifakis, 2009: 231). (2) These salient lexicogrammatical features of ELF discourse, albeit typical ‘errors’ in ENL terms, are generally unproblematic as they do not obstruct communication. Among these are the omission of the third person singular present tense –s, the use of redundant prepositions, the interchangeable wrong use of the relative pronouns ‘who’ and ‘which’, the overuse of certain common verbs, etc. (Seidlhofer, 2004: 220).

References Alderson, J.C. and Banerjee, J. (2001) Language testing and assessment (Part 1). Language Testing 34 (4), 213–236. Allan, D. (2003) ‘Distinctions & dichotomies’ article for ETP ‘Testing and assessment in ELT’. ETP. Retrieved from: http://www.slideshare.net/Cidher89/testing-andassessment-in-elt. Brown, H.D. (2004) Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. New York: Pearson Education. Brown, J.D. (2014) The future of world Englishes in language testing. Language Assessment Quarterly 11 (1), 5–26. Brown, J. and Hudson, T. (1998) The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly 32 (4), 653–675. Canagarajah, S. (2006) Changing communicative needs, revised assessment objectives: Testing English as an international language. Language Assessment Quarterly 3 (3), 229–242. Clapham, C. (2000) Assessment and testing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 20, 147–161.

Towards an ELF-aware Alternative Assessment Paradigm in EFL Contexts  243

Cogo, A. (2012) English as a lingua franca: Concepts, use, and implications. ELT Journal 66 (1), 97–105. Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2012) Analysing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-driven Investigation. London: Continuum. Elder, C. and Davies, A. (2006) Assessing English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26, 282–301. Firth, A. (1996) The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26, 237–259. Fulcher, G. and Davidson, F. (2007) Language Testing and Assessment: An Advanced Resource Book. Abingdon: Routledge. Genesee, F. and Upshur, J.A. (1996) Classroom-based Evaluation in Second Language Education. Cambridge: CUP. Giles, H. and Coupland, N. (1991) Language: Contexts and Consequences. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. House, J. (2002) Pragmatic competence in lingua franca English. In K. Knapp and C. Meierkord (eds) Lingua Franca Communication (pp. 245–267). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Jenkins, J. (2000) The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2006a) The spread of EIL: A testing time for testers. ELT Journal 6 (1), 42–50. Jenkins, J. (2006b) Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly 40 (1), 157–181. Jenkins, J. (2006c) Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 16 (2), 137–162. Jenkins, J. (2007) English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2012) English as a lingua franca from the classroom to the classroom. ELT Journal 64 (4), 486–493. Jenkins, J. (2014) English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Politics of Academic English Language Policy. New York: Routledge. Jenkins, J. (2015) Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2/3, 49–85. Ketabi, S. and Ketabi, S. (2014) Classroom and formative assessment in second/foreign language teaching and learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 4 (2), 435–440. Kouvdou, A. (forthcoming) Exploring the potential of alternative assessment in an ELF speaking context within the broader framework of Greek state secondary EFL classes. Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Humanities, Hellenic Open University, Patras, Greece. Lowenberg, P.H. (2002) Assessing English proficiency in the expanding circle. World Englishes 2 (3), 431–435. Matsuda, A. (2003) Incorporating world Englishes in teaching English as an international language. TESOL Quarterly 37 (4), 719–729. Mauranen, A. (2003) The corpus of English as lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL Quarterly 3, 513–527. Mauranen, A. (2012) Exploring ELF. Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McNamara, T. (2012) English as a lingua franca: The challenge for language testing. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (1), 199–202. O’Malley, J.M. and Valdez-Pierce, L. (1996) Authentic Assessment for English Language Learners: Practical Approaches for Teachers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. O’Sullivan, B., Weir, C.J. and Saville, N. (2002) Using observation checklists to validate speaking-test tasks. Language Testing 19 (1), 33–56. Seidlhofer, B. (2001) Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11 (2), 133–158.

244  Part 5: ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing

Seidlhofer, B. (2004) Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 209–239. Seidlhofer, B. (2009) Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a lingua franca. Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (2), 195–215. Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shaaban, K. (2005) Assessment of young learners. English Teaching Forum 43 (1), 34–40. Shomoossi, N. and Tavakolli, M. (2008) Assessment in a multilingual world: English as an international language (EIL). Iranian Journal of Language Studies 2 (3), 381–386. Sifakis, N.C. (2007) The education of teachers of English as a lingua franca: A transformative perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17 (3), 355–375. Sifakis, N.C. (2009) Challenges in teaching ELF in the periphery: The Greek context. ELT Journal 63 (3), 230–237. Sifakis, N.C. (2017) ELF awareness in English language teaching: Principles and processes. Applied Linguistics, amx034, https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx034. Swan, M. (2012) ELF and EFL: Are they really different? Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (2), 379–389. Tsagari, D. (2014) Language assessment literacy and the ELF orientation: Links between theory and practice. 7th International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), DEREE – The American College of Greece, Athens, Greece, 4–6 September. Tsagari, D. and Banerjee, J. (2015) Language assessment in the educational context. In M. Bigelow and J. Ennser-Kananen (eds) Handbook of Educational Linguistics (pp. 339–352). Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group, New York. Tsagari, D. and Cheng, L. (2016) Washback, impact and consequences. In E. Shohamy and N.H. Hornberger (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education (3rd edn), Volume 7: Language Testing and Assessment (pp. 1–13). New York: Springer. Turner, C.E. (2012) Classroom assessment. In G. Fulcher and F. Davidson (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Language Testing (pp. 65–78). London and New York: Routledge.

Further reading Brown, J. and Hudson, T. (1998) The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly 32 (4), 653–675. In their article, Brown and Hudson provide a comprehensive description of different alternative methods of classroom-based assessment. They also present the advantages of these methods, which should help EFL teachers select those methods that best suit their curriculum goals. The principles of alternative assessment, emerging in the article, could be used as a benchmark for the establishment of a common theoretical ground between ELF and alternative assessment. The article, in that sense, is useful for an ELF-aware practitioner who wishes to test the compatibility of ELF with alternative assessment and put the latter into practice within an ELF-aware context. Canagarajah, S. (2006) Changing communicative needs, revised assessment objectives: Testing English as an international language. Language Assessment Quarterly 3 (3), 229–242. In his article, Canagarajah attempts to redefine proficiency in English in today’s globalised society, where the knowledge of different varieties and the proper use of accommodation strategies are the key to successful communication. His arguments for a shift from grammar to pragmatics and from competence to performance are quite convincing and point towards the need for an assessment shift. In addition, his ideas and suggestions as to how

Towards an ELF-aware Alternative Assessment Paradigm in EFL Contexts  245

an established exam can become more ELF-oriented make his article a useful guide towards this direction. Jenkins, J. (2006a) The spread of English as an International Language: A testing time for testers. ELT Journal 6 (1), 42–50. Given the spread of EIL, Jenkins questions the appropriateness of standardized testing for failing to allow for outer and expanding circle varieties and rightfully argues in favour of a change in the way English language is tested so that the needs of the NNS for international communication are taken into consideration. Besides pinpointing the inadequacies of standardised testing for EIL contexts, she highlights the significance of accommodation in spoken interaction; Jenkins clearly suggests that the major examination boards should incorporate assessment criteria based on evidence from authentic EIL interactions. She actually challenges the authority of the NS language and urges English teachers and testers to view testing from an EIL perspective.

246  Part 5: ELF in EFL Assessment and Testing

Appendix 13.1 Observation checklist

Date of observation: Accommodation strategies and ELF discourse features   1. Asks for repetition   2. Asks for clarification   3. Repeats what s/he said   4. Repeats what his/her interlocutor has just said   5. Uses self-repair when s/he detects an error in his/her speech   6. U  ses interactive repair (i.e. makes verbal contributions to help his/her interlocutor)   7. Checks comprehension   8. Checks confirmation   9. Offers clarification 10. Uses paraphrasing/restructuring 11. U  ses extralinguistic cues (e.g. body language, gestures, etc.) to convey meaning 12. Uses simplified vocabulary 13. Uses basic grammar 14. Uses simple structures 15. Mixes linguistic codes or switches to L1 16. Overuses common verbs (e.g. do, have, take, make, put, etc.) 17. Omits third person singular (-s/-es) in present simple 18. Omits prepositions (e.g. listen to music, arrive school, etc.) 19. Uses redundant prepositions (e.g. discuss about, study about, etc.) 20. O  mits the definite (‘the’) and indefinite articles (‘a/an’) in places they are necessary 21. U  ses the definite (‘the’) and indefinite articles (‘a/an’) in places which would be considered ungrammatical 22. Uses ‘who’ and ‘which’ interchangeably 23. Avoids idiomatic expressions Teacher comments:

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

14 Concluding Chapter Andy Kirkpatrick

Introduction

As Seidlhofer and Widdowson point out in the introductory chapter of this volume, ‘the global learning of English needs to be based on its global use’ and that ELF ‘corresponds more closely to what is real for learners, and is a more realistic objective for them to achieve’. It is also important to note that there is a myriad different contexts in which ELF occurs. Previous chapters in this book have exemplified ELF use in a range of different contexts including Brazil, Greece, Turkey and Portugal. My own work (Kirkpatrick, 2010) shows a range of contexts in which ELF is used in Asia. For example, the 10 countries that make up the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN1) have made English the sole working language of the group, thereby necessitating daily and continual use of ELF across the region. ELF is thus seen throughout the world and in many different contexts. People therefore will have different reasons and motivations for using ELF and this complexity must somehow be considered when developing an ELF-aware approach to teaching. As many of the chapters in this volume have shown, to talk about an ELF-aware approach rather than the teaching of ELF per se is a deliberate and carefully considered position. As Kohn so elegantly notes (this volume) ELF communication is not about using a special variety of English. ELF communication depends on the context, the linguistic and cultural backgrounds of the speakers and the ways in which the speakers negotiate meaning when in ELF communication. In this it exemplifies a social constructivist understanding of language use in which people learn and use a language ‘by creating their own version of it in their minds, hearts and behaviour’ (Kohn, 2011: 80). This also means that their need for ELF will change depending on circumstances and contexts. And while it is sensible to note that mutual intelligibility is a key aim for all ELF communication, it may not be the only aim an ELF user has in mind. As Kohn reminds us (this volume), ELF users ‘certainly want to be understood, but they may also want their performance to be accurate and fluent, or an indicator of professional competence…’.

247

248  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

Generally speaking, however, an ELF-aware approach recognises that it is not necessary to persist with attempts to get learners to conform to NS norms (Seidlhofer & Widdowson, this volume). As Seidlhofer and Widdowson stress, ETFL (and which accords to ENL) is not the same as ELFL, which very frequently does not correspond to the norms of ENL. By the same token, therefore, in any assessment of ELF, the NS is not a useful yardstick (Newbold, this volume). ELF assessment needs to be ‘open, inclusive and flexible’, but, as Newbold points, out, this is con­ siderably easier said than done. The assessment of ELF remains one of the  major challenges for an ELF-aware approach and I return to this issue later. ELF Corpora and the Dynamic Nature of ELF

The dynamic nature of ELF is captured by a number of corpora of ELF. These include the well-known VOICE (http://www.univie.ac.at/ voice), ELFA (http://www.helsinki.fi/englanti/elfa/elfacorpus) and the Asian Corpus of English (ACE, http://corpus.ied.edu.hk/ace). These corpora all offer potential material for an ELF-aware approach to teaching. Here I shall use examples drawn from the ACE (2014) as this is the corpus with which I am most familiar and, given its only relatively recent publication, it is probably the least familiar to readers of this volume. ACE comprises the naturally occurring use of ELF as used by Asian multilinguals for whom English is an additional language. It has been transcribed and annotated using VOICEscribe, the software used for VOICE. Like VOICE, it is readily accessible to anyone interested in using it, so that researchers can easily compare the two corpora. Thus, researchers can compare a corpus that primarily comprises the use of ELF in European settings with speakers of European languages with one that primarily comprises the use of ELF in Asian settings with speakers of Asian languages. Here I review three studies which used ACE to show how a corpus such as ACE might be used to develop ELF-aware teaching materials. The three studies are quite different in that the first examined the use or nonuse of the present tense third person ‘s’ in the ELF of speakers whose first language was Malay, a language that does not mark for tense. The second study investigated the communicative and repair strategies of ELF speakers, and the third study looked at the topics that ELF speakers in ACE talked about with a view to suggesting possible ELF-aware materials. Three Studies

As indicated above, the first study examined the use or non-use of the present tense third person singular ‘s’ in the ELF of first language speakers of Malay. Using a 16-hour subset of ACE with speakers whose

Concluding Chapter  249

first language was a form of Malay (Malay, Bruneian Malay, Indonesian) the hypothesis was that, as Malay does not mark for tense, these speakers would thus have a tendency not to mark for tense. The hypothesis was not confirmed. In fact, these speakers were almost always found to mark for tense when the occasion was formal. Even in more informal situations, the speakers tended to mark tense more often than they did not (Kirkpatrick & Subhan, 2014). In the 16-hour sample the total number of instances where either singular present tense ‘-s’ or simple past tense could have been marked is 413. Of these possible instances of tense marking, 306 instances are marked and 107 are not. In stark contrast, however, in more formal interactions, such as preparing motions for a debate, there is a significant drop in the number of unmarked verbs, as there are only seven instances of non-marking compared with 152 of marking. Below is an example excerpt from a relatively informal interaction. The unmarked verbs are in italics and the marked ones are in bold. Discourse markers from the speakers’ L1, Malay, are underlined. • S1: ah eh the men getting girls pregnant then about twenty-five years below ah than I ask a lot of people lah then I ask my friends so my first three of my friend when I first ask ah they say oh I’ll ask her to abort the baby • S2: laugh • S1: ah number one number two then after that the I met erm you know who NAME he’s forever action type • one of the Malaysian guys • S1: he he’s a Malaysian staying in Singapore ah he stayed underneath us then… • …then he said erm if the if I was younger lah and then I would think about leaving school lah I say why give it to your mother or father to take care lah I might have done that lah cos my parents then he said then he said no lah the most important time for a child is four years mah and I want to bond with my child. The only unmarked verb form here is ‘ask’ and there are three instances of this. A possible explanation is phonological as the triple consonant cluster in [askt] is difficult to sound. Otherwise all tense forms are marked. In addition, the copula (‘be’) is never deleted. The evidence of substrate or first language influence does not come from non-marking of tense forms or copula deletion. Rather it comes from the use of discourse particles such as ‘lah’ (six instances) and ‘mah’ (one instance). This example shows how a corpus such as ACE can be used within an ELF-aware curriculum. The excerpt above shows that, on the one hand, these ELF speakers tend to mark for tense, especially in formal situations. This suggests that the influence of their first language on the

250  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

‘grammar’ of their ELF is not as great in this context as might have been expected. At the same time, however, there is influence from the first language in the form of the use of pragmatic particles adopted from their first language. By searching the corpus for specified grammatical features, teachers and learners can see how English is really being used in ELF contexts. Insights to be drawn from the first example include the fact that, in this context, L1 speakers of Malay when using ELF, mark for tense more frequently than previously thought, even in relatively informal situations. A second insight is how these speakers transfer the use of discourse markers from their L1 into their use of ELF. Learners could be asked what they think the communicative functions of these L1 discourse markers might be. The results of this study also underline the importance of corpora for illustrating the comparative frequency of distinctive morpho-­ syntactic features and the crucial significance of context and levels of formality. To put this simply, using corpora of ELF can illuminate how ELF speakers actually use English. This can often rebut claims that non-­ standard forms are characteristic of ELF use. ELF speakers may indeed use non-standard forms but only by examining corpora of ELF can we say whether this use of non-standard forms is a characteristic feature of a speaker’s ELF or simply an occasional use. The second study investigated the use of communicative strategies by Asian multilinguals to see if earlier research, which reported that ELF is characterised by ELF speakers’ adoption of specific communicative strategies to ensure successful communication and the preservation of their fellow interlocutors’ face, could be supported. The editors of a review of recent trends in ELF research conclude that these trends ‘evidence the supportive and cooperative nature of interactions in ELF where meaning negotiation takes place at different levels’ (Archibald et al., 2011: 3). In a study of the communication strategies of Asian ELF speakers, Kirkpatrick (2010) identified 15 communicative strategies adopted by ELF speakers to ensure successful communication. These are recorded below in Table 14.1. The second study also found that, as in the first study, context was the crucial variable and there were occasions when speakers, far from seeking to preserve the face of their fellow interlocutors, were happy to threaten it. For example, in the courtroom exchanges in the ACE data, it was found, perhaps not surprisingly, that direct, confrontational questioning and bald-on-record disagreement are common currency in these exchanges, where winning the argument supersedes the desire for interactional comity (Kirkpatrick et  al., 2016). So, while the strategies listed below do indeed occur frequently in ELF discourse, it is also true that ELF speakers can adopt strategies aimed at threatening their interlocutors’ face if the context allows or requires it.

Concluding Chapter  251

Table 14.1  Communicative strategies of ASEAN ELF speakers Strategy type (Listener) Lexical anticipation Lexical suggestion Lexical correction Don’t give up Request repetition Request clarification Let it pass Listen to the message Participant paraphrase Participant prompt Strategy type (Speaker) Spell out the word Repeat the phrase Be explicit Paraphrase Avoid local/idiomatic referents Source: (Kirkpatrick, 2010: 141).

The third study simply investigated the topics that ELF speakers discussed. These were, not surprisingly, extremely varied, but the majority concerned, again not surprisingly, Asia-centred issues. These included topics such as: • Islamic finance – how does lending and borrowing work in Islamic banks? • Thai–Myanmar border issues – what is happening to the refugees stranded in Thai border areas? • What is my first language? Speakers discuss the languages they learned as children, their parents’ and grandparents’ languages and how their use of language switches depending on contact and so forth. • Who produces the best rice in Asia – is it from southern Thailand or from northern Malaysia? • Contributing to arguments at ASEAN meetings. • How important is coffee to the Vietnamese economy? • The (mal)treatment of ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. Below is an example of the topic ‘What is my first language?’. Four participants are discussing how complex it can be to identify a multilingual speaker’s first language. The speakers are a Filipina (S1), a Bruneian female (S2), a Thai male (S3) and a Vietnamese female (S4). The symbol ‘SX-f’ means it is not possible to determine which speaker is contributing at this point, only that she is female.

252  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

S2:

SX-f: S3: S1: S4: S2: S4: S3: S2: S1: S2: S4: S2: S1: S2: SX-f: S2: SX-f: S1: S4: S2: SX-f: S2: S1: S2: S3: SX-f: S4: SX-f: S2: S1:

my first language when i fam- when i’m at home in the family are actually dialect chinese dialects i speak a few languages well i speak to my father (.) in a different dialect i speak to my mother (.) hh in a different dialect -kay so that is when i am at the age of one (.) one to three one to four family chinese dialect growing mhm so two dialects growing at the same time and at the same time our neighbours spoke malay mhm mhm we live in an area where there were a lot of malays there were a lot of malays li- living in the area as well your mother’s chinese my father’s chinese my mother is chinese mhm erm so but we spo- i spoke dialect Chinese so i had so i grew up with a lot of languages around me that’s interesting and i don’t i don’t actually remember laughter how i I only knew that i was drilled in grammar but erm i felt for a ve- very long time that even when i was i can still think back and i was in kindergarten i could understand the teacher okay uh-huh hm and she spoke erm english hm at that time so it wasn’t a major difficulty because i was so small and so young yeah yeah so what would you say is er what is your first language now definitely english now i mean english has become i think in english i English english laughter so you have so you have your mo- mother tongue father tongue laughter in the language i use most neighbourhood tongue (Kirkpatrick et al., 2013: 277)

Concluding Chapter  253

Transcripts (and, of course the tape itself) can be very useful for ­ LF-aware teaching materials. The example above can be used to illustrate E the linguistic diversity of many ELF speakers and how they employ their multilingual linguistic repertoire. It also demonstrates how an individual’s language use and proficiency can shift over time. As the speaker above notes, her first language has become English, rather than her mother or ‘father’ tongue. Excerpts such as these can be used simply as listening comprehension in order to allow learners to become familiar with different ‘accents’ of ELF. They can be used to highlight the use of non-standard forms and whether these cause any breakdowns in communication or misunderstandings. They can be used to illustrate communicative and repair strategies. They can also be used as a springboard for reflective discussion about the roles of languages in the student’s own environment and the extent to which, if at all, English is playing an increasingly dominant role. Materials such as these can also lead to discussions on the problems of communicating with older generations as language shift occurs and so forth. The point to be made here is that the topics of the type discussed by the ELF speakers in the ACE corpus are not topics that occur in English language textbooks written for Asian learners of English. Typically, as many of the chapters in this volume demonstrate, such textbooks provide NS environments and NS models. Corpora such as ACE and VOICE, on the other hand, provide rich resources of authentic ELF talk, ideal for ELF-aware language teaching and curricula. Kemaloglu-Er and Bayyurt (this volume) provide a range of similar ELF-aware materials for ELF-aware teaching, focusing on developing ELF-aware English language teachers. This is crucial for the successful implementation of ELF-aware classrooms, but, as the authors themselves point out, integrating ELF into ELT is easier said than done. The idea that the NS model is naturally the best and the fact that assessment practices in the main remain NS-oriented make it difficult for ELF-aware teachers to implement change in the language classroom. It is with this in mind that I developed five principles of what I call the lingua franca approach to language teaching (e.g. Kirkpatrick, 2012), which I summarise and adapt here in the hope that these principles may be useful in shaping ELF-aware curricula. These principles could, for example, be incorporated into ELF-aware approaches such as Llurda and Mocanu’s five-stage model (this volume) and the three phases for ELFaware teacher education described by Kemaloglu-Er and Bayyurt (this volume). Sifakis (forthcoming) has identified three phases for ELF-aware teacher education, namely: • Stage (a) where teachers are exposed to research in and examples of WE, and ELF. • Stage (b) where teachers consider the challenges that the complexities discovered in stage (a) pose for their own teaching contexts.

254  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

• Stage (c) where teachers develop an action plan to integrate ELF-aware teaching into their own classrooms. The five principles outlined below could be provided to teachers to consider in developing their own ELF-aware materials and contexts. These are adapted and abbreviated from Kirkpatrick (2012, 2017). Principles of the Lingua Franca Approach

• • • •

Principle number 1: Mutual intelligibility is the goal. Principle number 2: Intercultural competence is the goal. Principle number 3: ELF speakers make good ELF teachers. Principle number 4: ELF environments provide excellent ELF learning opportunities. • Principle number 5: ELF-aware teaching needs ELF assessment. Principle number 1: Mutual intelligibility is the goal

The role of ELF in ASEAN means that English is primarily used between multilinguals whose first languages comprise a variety of Asian languages and who have learned English as an additional language. There is no need for people to approximate NS norms. There is, for example, no need for people to sound like NSs of English (Jenkins, 2007; Walker, 2010). Apart from the obvious point that there are many varieties of NS English, all of which are distinguished by different accents and pronunciation so that the notion of a NS pronunciation is fuzzy at best, the development of new varieties of English across the world has added to the range of pronunciation and accents. In addition to the Englishes of Britain and the US, for example, we have the Englishes of the Indian sub-continent, and of many countries in Africa and Asia. The increasing role of English as an international lingua franca also means that more and more multilinguals who have learned English as an additional language are using English internationally. This inevitably means that the number of different accents and pronunciations of English are legion. In such circumstances, it is not sounding like a NS which is important, it is mutual intelligibility. Mutual intelligibility means that the interactants in any communicative activity are able to understand each other. And being a NS is no guarantee of mutual intelligibility (e.g. Kirkpatrick et al., 2008; Smith & Rafiqzad, 1979). In any ELF context, what is therefore important is multilingual users of ELF to be mutually intelligible when communicating with their fellow multilingual ELF users. Principle number 2: Intercultural competence is the goal

The cultures traditionally associated with English, such as British and American ‘Anglo’ cultures, are not necessarily directly relevant to ELF

Concluding Chapter  255

users of English. In the ASEAN context, the curriculum needs to focus on the cultures that comprise ASEAN (Honna, 2008). This is all the more important as government schools in ASEAN typically do not offer courses in any of the national languages of the group, other than their own, of course. The English curriculum therefore could provide these students with the opportunity of at least learning about the cultures of their region. The importance of this can be gauged by noting that ASEAN is culturally extremely diverse. Not only are the major religions of Buddhism (Thailand, for example), Islam (Indonesia, for example) and Christianity (The Philippines, for example) worshipped across the group, there are also literally hundreds of ethnic groups represented within the nations of ASEAN. The ELT curriculum therefore provides an opportunity to develop ASEAN intercultural competence in the citizens of ASEAN countries (see also Tantiniranat & Fay, this volume). The ASEAN cultural curriculum can be enhanced by including local literature in English and popular culture. In ASEAN itself, there are numerous writers who have produced a wide range of literature in English. Examples include Catherine Lim, Edwin Thumboo and Gemino Abad. Reading these authors not only gives the reader an insight into local cultures, but also into ways in which English can be adapted to reflect local cultural values. In Asia more widely, there are a host of writers from the Indian sub-continent, many of whom are international figures. There are also many Chinese writers, such as the novelist Ha Jin, now writing in English about Chinese cultural experiences. The ELF-aware curriculum can also include topics of the type identified in the third study above. As suggested earlier, corpora such as VOICE and ACE can provide a wealth of ELF-aware teaching materials. This is, of course, not to say, that native-speaking cultures should necessarily be excluded from an ELF-aware curriculum. Materials and curricula must be sensitive to specific contexts and the real needs of the learners. For example, students preparing to go and study in Englishspeaking countries such as Australia, the UK or the USA will obviously need to become familiar with the cultural norms of those countries. Even here, though, it should be stressed that the Kachru’s inner-circle countries are all home to extraordinary linguistic and cultural diversity. Principle number 3: ELF speakers make good ELF teachers

There has been a long struggle to promote and validate the NNS teacher of English. Many scholars, themselves NNSs of English, have argued that a prejudice against NNS teachers of English exists (e.g. Braine, 2010; Moussu & Lurda, 2008, the chapters in this volume). The lingua franca approach really requires NNS teachers of English. Remembering that the language learning goal is not to approximate NS norms, but to be able to interact successfully with fellow ELF users, it follows that a

256  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

multilingual who is proficient in English and who has the relevant qualifications represents the most appropriate teacher. Being multilingual provides ELF-aware teachers with obvious advantages as language teachers, especially if they also speak the language(s) of their students. First, they will have successfully accomplished what they are setting out to teach and thus have empathy with and an understanding of the problems that their students face (Medgyes, 2002). Second, being multilinguals who are proficient in English and who come from the same or similar linguistic backgrounds to their students, they not only represent good role models for their students, they also provide the most appropriate linguistic models for their students. The local multilingual teacher can provide the linguistic target for their students. Third, local multilingual teachers with intercultural competence can offer cultural insights for their students. It has traditionally been assumed that a great advantage of the NS teacher is that s/he can offer students a guide to the target culture (Moussu & Lurda, 2008). But, as argued above, the cultures which the ELF learners need to know are the cultures found within specific ELF contexts. Thus, the ELF-aware English language teacher needs intercultural competence in relevant cultures, coupled with the ability to transmit or instil this intercultural competence in the learners. The fourth reason why the local multilingual and ELF-aware teacher is the most appropriate English language teacher is that s/he can use the language of the students to help them learn English. That is to say that a bi- or multilingual pedagogy can be applied in the classroom. There are many ways in which the first language of the students can be exploited in the learning of the second language and these have been documented by several language teaching professionals and scholars (e.g. Littlewood & Yu, 2009; Swain et al., 2011). The fundamental principle to be adhered to is that the first language must be used in such a way as to help the student learn the second language. The fifth reason why the multilingual ELF-aware teacher is the preferred English language teacher is that an obvious goal of language learning is to develop multilinguals. It is important to establish a classroom philosophy through which the English language learner is not judged against NS norms and thus constantly evaluated as falling short of the mark, but is judged as a language learner who is developing multilingual proficiency. The students should be seen as becoming linguistically sophisticated multilinguals. They should not be seen or judged as failed or deficient NSs. Principle number 4: ELF environments provide excellent ELF learning opportunities

It is commonplace to assume that the best way to learn a language is to go to where the language is spoken as a native language. In many cases,

Concluding Chapter  257

this, of course, is true. However, in the contexts with which we are dealing, sending students to learn English in native-speaking countries may not be the most effective way of developing English proficiency among the learners. Rather, sending them to countries where English is used as a lingua franca may be far more beneficial. An example may help make this clear. A tertiary institution in Asia has a relationship with a British university and routinely sends its third-year students there for 10 weeks to develop their proficiency in English. The British university in question is in a part of England where the local variety of English is heavily accented and difficult to understand – even for English speakers from other parts of England. The Asian students are unlikely to make much progress in their English by communicating with the locals. At the British university itself, if placed in tutorial or seminar groups with NS students, the exchange students often find themselves unable to participate fully as they are not familiar with NS turn-taking and turnstealing conventions (Rusdi, 1999). They also feel awkward as they assume that their English will be evaluated against NS norms. This may well lead them to remain silent observers rather than active participants. This type of situation is common. A finding of research into the experience of international students in Anglophone centres is that their multilingual backgrounds tend to be seen as a problem rather than a resource, and that they tend to mix more easily with fellow international students rather than with local students (Liddicoat et al., 2003; Preece, 2011). Instead, therefore, of sending students to Anglophone centres such as Great Britain or the USA with the aim of improving their English proficiency, consideration should be given to sending them to places where English is naturally used as a lingua franca. Within Asia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei and the Philippines provide examples of sites where English is regularly used as a lingua franca and as a language of interethnic communication. The great advantage of such sites for Asian learners of English is, paradoxically, that the NS is absent. Instead, English is being naturally used as a lingua franca between Asian multilinguals. Students will find the linguistic environment less threatening and will feel more comfortable using English. At the same time, of course, they will develop greater understanding of the cultures in which they are living. Not only, therefore, will their English language proficiency improve, so will their intercultural proficiency. Principle number 5: ELF-aware teaching needs ELF assessment

There is no point adopting the principles outlined above and then assessing the students against NS norms and cultures. Assessment must be closely aligned with what is being taught (Newbold, this volume; Kouvdou & Tsagari, this volume). This means that students need to be assessed on how successfully they can use English in ELF settings. This,

258  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

in turn, means developing measures of functional proficiency – whether students are able to perform certain tasks in the language – as opposed to measuring how closely the students’ English conforms to NS norms. For example, a pronunciation benchmark that only awards the top level to speakers whose accent betrays no first language influence is precisely the type of benchmark that needs to be discarded. Such benchmarks need to be replaced with criteria that measure how successfully students can get their messages across and perform certain linguistic tasks. But as Newbold (this volume) has stressed, ‘this is easier said than done’. In the context of ASEAN, there is an overwhelming need for an overall ASEAN approach to these issues, particularly with regard the issues of teacher and student assessment (Dudzik & Nguyen, 2015). They call for ASEAN-wide proficiency benchmarks and ELT competency frameworks to be developed, which would include creating a ‘common regional proficiency assessment framework’ (Dudzik & Nguyen, 2015: 61) and ‘regional English teacher competency assessment tools’ (Dudzik & Nguyen, 2015: 62). They also call for the development of relevant curricula (such as SE Asian cultures) and teach English ‘no longer by teaching and assessing only NS varieties of English but also by introducing those spoken in neighbouring countries and by other regional multilingual speakers such as Singaporeans and Malaysians’ (Dudzik & Nguyen, 2015: 60). The need for ASEAN-centred curricula is also recommended by Widiati and Hayati (2015). In their review of teacher professional education in Indonesia, including the one-year Pendidikan Profesi Guru (PPG), they recommend that ‘there needs to be more explicit integration of the ASEAN curriculum so that the PPG students have adequate knowledge and skills on how to educate their future students about ASEAN identity and ASEAN integration through their English classes’ (Widiati & Hayati, 2015: 138); and they recommend the ASEAN curriculum sourcebooks as providing examples of relevant materials. Conclusion

As the chapters in this volume have demonstrated and as is illustrated by the global use of English, there is a need to reconceptualise ELT (Seidlhofer & Widdowson this volume) so that ‘the global learning of English needs to be based on its global use’. At the same time, we must be conscious of the extraordinarily diverse contexts in which ELF is currently being used worldwide and the resultant different needs and motivations of ELF users (Kohn this volume). Given such complexity and diversity, it would be foolhardy to develop a single teaching method for ELF. At the same time, given that ELF itself is a dynamic construct and constantly changing depending on the linguistic and cultural backgrounds of the participants in any ELF interaction, it would be meaningless to try to teach ELF as a stable variety. A single method to teach a

Concluding Chapter  259

stable variety is not what is needed. What is needed is a series of ideas, concepts and principles upon which an ELF-aware approach to ELT can be based. The chapters in this volume all contribute to this in their own and often context-specific ways. This concluding chapter has attempted to summarise the key points and then suggest a number of principles that might underpin an ELF-aware approach to language teaching. Care must be taken to stress, however, that the complexity and diversity of ELF contexts means that perhaps the most fundamental principle underlying an ELF-aware approach to language teaching is its sensitivity to context. As Newbold pointed out in the context of assessment (this volume) teachers would like ELF-aware assessment to be ‘open, inclusive and flexible’. Any ELF-aware approach to ELT must similarly be ‘open, inclusive and flexible’. Note (1) The 10 countries of ASEAN are: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, The Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

References ACE (2014) The Asian Corpus of English. Director: Kirkpatrick, A.; Researchers: Lixun, W.; Patkin, J.; Subhan, S. See http://corpus.ied.edu.hk/ace/ (accessed on 30 December 2014). Archibald, A., Cogo, A. and Jenkins, J. (eds) (2011) Latest Trends in ELF Research. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Braine, G. (2010) Non-native Speaker English Teachers. New York: Routledge. Dudzik, D and Nguyen Q.T.N. (2015) Vietnam: Building English competency in preparation for ASEAN 2015. In R. Stoupe and K. Kimura (eds) ASEAN Integration and the Role of English Language Teaching (pp. 41–70). Phnom Penh: IDP. Honna, N. (2008) English as a Multicultural Language in Asian Contexts. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Jenkins, J. (2007) English as a Lingua Franca: Attitudes and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kirkpatrick, A. (2010) English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN: A Multilingual Model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kirkpatrick, A. (2012) English as an Asian lingua franca: A lingua franca approach. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (1), 212–140. Kirkpatrick, A. (2017) Language education policy among the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. European Journal of Language Policy 9 (1), 7–25. Kirkpatrick, A. and Subhan, S. (2014) Non-standard or new standards or errors? The use of inflectional marking for present and past tenses in English as an Asian lingua franca. In S. Buschfeld, T. Hoffman, M. Huber and A. Kautsch (eds) The Evolution of Englishes (pp. 386–400). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kirkpatrick, A., Deterding, D. and Wong, J. (2008) The international intelligibility of Hong Kong English. World Englishes 27 (3/4), 359–377. Kirkpatrick, A., Patkin, J. and Wu J. (2013) The multilingual teacher and the multilingual curriculum: An Asian example of intercultural communication in the new era. In F. Sharifian and M. Jamarani (eds) Intercultural Communication in the New Era (pp. 263–285). London: Routledge.

260  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

Kirkpatrick, A., Walkinshaw, I. and Subhan S. (2016) English as a lingua franca in East and Southeast Asia: Implications for diplomatic and intercultural communication. In P. Friedrich (ed.) English for Diplomatic Purposes (pp. 137–166). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kohn, K. (2011) English as a lingua franca and the standard English misunderstanding. In A. De Hower and A. Wilton (eds) English in Europe Today (pp. 71–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Liddicoat, A., Eisenchlas, S. and Trevaskes, S. (eds) (2003) Australian Perspectives on Internationalising Education. Melbourne: Language Australia. Littlewood, W. and Yu, B. (2009) First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teacher 42, 1–14. Medgyes, P. (2002) Native or non-native. Who’s worth more? ELT Journal 46 (4), 340–349. Moussu, L. and Lurda, E. (2008) Non-native English speaking English language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching 41 (3), 316–348. Preece, S. (2011) Universities in the Anglo centre: Sites of multilingualism. In L. Wei (ed.) Applied Linguistics Review Volume 2 (pp. 121–145). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rusdi, T. (1999) Schema of group presentations and rhetorical structures of presentation introductions. A cross-cultural study of Indonesian and Australian students in university academic settings. Asian Englishes 23 (2), 66–89. Smith, L.E. and Rafiqzad K. (1979) English for cross-cultural communication. The question of intelligibility. TESOL Quarterly 13, 371–380. Swain, M., Kirkpatrick, A. and Cummins, J. (2011) How to Have a Guilt-free Life. Using Cantonese in the English Classroom. Hong Kong: Research Centre for Language Education and Acquisition in Multilingual Societies, Institute of Education. Walker, R. (2010) Teaching the Pronunciation of English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widiati, U. and Hayati, N. (2015) Teacher professional education in Indonesia and ASEAN 2015. In R. Stoupe and K. Kimura (eds) ASEAN Integration and the Role of English Language Teaching (pp. 121–148). Phnom Penh: IDP.

Index

abiding, 4, 164, see also norm-abiding accommodation, 42, 148, 216, 219, 222–223 accommodating, 35 accommodation strategies, 141, 227, 233–246 accuracy, 35, 41, 57–58, 84, 183, 196, 214, 229–241, see also situational appropriateness, fluency & normativity ACE, 248–259 action research, 53, 54, 56–65 adaptation, 42, 97, 103, 138, 148, 152, 160, see also materials, & teacher education alternative way(s) of, 27–30, 151, 180–183 practices, 133–134, 140, see also alternative assessment ambiguity, 42, 80, 82, 84, 88, 216, 231 AmE/American English, 121–129, 141–142, 230 ASEAN, 81–93, 247–260 appropriate, 20, 23–26, 31, 37, 41–44, 54, 56, 62, 73, 75, 77, 79, 86–87, 90–91, 99, 103, 104, 106, 118, 140, 149, 162, 187, 202, 204–205, 208, 217, 218, 221, 222, 225, 232, 234, 236, 240, see also materials appropriateness contextual, 22 situational, 35, 38 of standardized testing, 245 approach(es), 4–6, 7, 17, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 43–44, 46, 55, 57, 60, 73, 78, 101, 126, 127, 129, 130, 140, 163, 164, 171, 178, 185, 212, 213 communicative, 19, 20–21, 27, 215, 217 critical, 100

ELF, 125, 133, 183, 231, 233, 234, 247–248 ELF-aware, 8, 72, 74, 106, 114, 129 ELF-sensitive, 145 ethnocentred, 118 ELF-EIC, 86–91 functional, 214 global English, 179 linguacentered, 118 lingua franca, 9, 247–260 norm-bound, 195, 201, 202 plurilithic, 8, 98, 104, 105,112 socio-interactional, 141 structural, 18 transformative, 199 assessment alternative assessment, 224, 227–245 assessment grid, 9, 211, 216, 222–224 backwash, 213 formative, 240 high-stakes, 164, 212, 213, 230, 234 interview, 214, 222 mutual assessment, 43 observation assessment framework, 237–239 oral assessment, 227 oral performance, 228, 235–239 summative, 230, 234 attitudes, 38, 40, 42, 46, 56, 64, 150, 155, 163–164, 166, 170, 175–190, 193, 219 authentic, 1, 4, 7, 8, 22, 26, 98, 101 language, 103, 105, 106, materials, 97–112, 122–129 tasks, 105, 106 tests, 224 (ELF) communication 33, 34, 41–46 ELF encounters, 36

261

262  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

authentic (Continued) ELF interactions, 42, 104, 237, 238 ELF talk, 253, see also teacher education authenticity, 63, 101, 105–109, 176, 220, 221–222 autonomy/autonomous, 28, 34, 36 teacher autonomy162, 166 BACKBONE, 43–44 BrE/British English, 36, 60, 75 Bakhtin, 145 see also Bakhtinian dialogic perspective CEFR, 57, 222 code-switching, 126, 149, 181 coherence, 38, 41, 85, 223 collaborative approach, 127 reflection, 43, 44 task, 222 competence, 6, 7, 18, 19, 26–29, 32, 33, 34, 37, 39, 40–45, 57, 64, 182, 183, 195, 212, 214, 216–218, 223, 247 strategic, 232, 238, 239 intercultural, 78, 100, 150, 223, 228, 254–256, see also communicative competence complexity/ies, 83, 98, 106, 107, 231, 233, 247, 258, 259 communicative, 2, 19–28, 32–49, 136, 142, 161, 164, 179–189, 214–218, 222, 232, 236–237, 250 ability, 7, 229, 254 goals, 183–185, 189, 241 language teaching (CLT), 5, 19–23, 214 competence, 19, 22–25, 34, 35, 37, 42, 61, 98, 107, 214, 235 capability, 17, 28–30, 238 interaction(s), 32, 33, 35, 40, 42, 47, 117, 219, 230 language test, 214, 217, 223 purpose(s), 19, 62, 65, 187, 222 skills, 107, 227, 233 strategies, 42, 105, 107, 109–110, 112, 239–241, 248, 250, 253 tasks, 101, 215, 233 see also communicative approach

comprehension, 34, 40–42, 44–47, 64, 104, 121, 122, 127, 128, 136, 214, 218–220, 235, 253 conceptual shift, 54 conformity, 4, 17, 21, 23–24, 27–28 contact language, 1, 135 contextualisation, 7, 72, 90, 233 construct, 18, 201, 215, 216, 218, 224, 230–232, 258 ELF construct, 2–4, 6, 54–56, 59, 62, 66, 161, 164, 171–172, 185, 194, 228, 240 test construct, 213, 214–220, 223, 234, 238 constructivist, see social constructivist and constructivist perspective conversation(s), 24, 25, 42, 45, 63, 64, 108, 110, 127, 181–184, 188, 214, 217 conversational interaction, 38 correctness, 22, 26, 27, 38, 41–42, 215, 229, 232 courseware, 5, 8, 10, 11, 66, 137, 198 creativity, 32, 33, 37, 43, 222 NNS creativity, 34, 40, 42, 43, 46, 47 criteria, 8, 10, 33, 35, 46, 63, 97, 99–101, 102, 111, 120, 213, 223–224, 230, 231, 234, 236–238, 240, 258 curriculum/curricular, 56, 57, 62, 66, 73, 79–83, 86–90, 98, 104–105, 118–119, 124, 137–138, 165, 197, 198, 202, 204, 249, 255, 258 design, 8, 32, 56, 63, 73, 90, 97–98, 117, 124, 128, 159, 160, 161, 196–197, 212, 223, 227 designed, 18, 20, 39, 42, 43, 54, 62, 63, 72, 124, 145, 161, 166, 170, 198, 215, 216, 237, 238, 241 curriculum design, 5 development, 5, 9, 21, 22, 23, 28–30, 32, 33, 37–40, 43, 44–45, 54, 57, 82, 97, 99, 118, 133, 134, 141, 143, 146, 177, 179, 180, 184, 198, 214, 216, 218, 224, 232, 235, 238, 254, 258 of materials, 2, 4, 6,102 developmental process, 55, see also teacher development

Index 263

diversity, 9, 39, 45, 83–85, 99, 119, 126, 127, 135, 141, 149, 150, 175, 179–181, 183–185, 198, 253, 255, 258, 259 discourse, 2, 3, 25, 104, 176, 185, 186, 235, 249, 250 ELF, 5, 62, 63, 238, 241, 250 coherence, 38, 41 NS/NNS, 62, 240 education, 79, 81, 84, 118, 119 educational policy, 118 compulsory/basic education, 118, 119, 132, 137, 138, 198 elementary/primary education, 119 language education, 4, 77, 78, 102, 132, 137, 138, 153 secondary/middle education, 134, 137, 213 see also teacher education and intercultural education endonormative, 33, 36, 46, 230, 240 EFL/English as a foreign language, 1, 113, 119, 120, 121, 124, 125, 129, 132, 133, 134, 140, 145, 149, 151, 161, 162, 164, 165, 170, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 201, 223, 228, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237 ENL/English as a native language, 8, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 132, 135, 145, 248 EIC/ English for Intercultural Communication, 8, 72–94, 193, 231 EIL/English as an International language, 1, 2, 3, 11, 56, 78, 99, 161, 171, 179, 193, 232 ELF/English as a lingua franca, 8, 9, 11 ELFA, 34, 184, 248 ELF Awareness, 8, 34, 47, 54, 97, 134, 146, 159, 164, 175, 196, 205, 217, 223 ELF-aware approach/perspective, 8, 98, 159, 247, 248, 259 intercultural purpose, 72–94 pedagogy, 135, 159, 160, 162–164, 173, 206, 239 teaching, 6, 7, 9, 33, 45, 53–71, 147, 189, 193, 196, 204, 253–254, 257

materials, 97–116, 117, 118, 124–129, 248, 253, 254 practice(s)/activities, 6, 132, 134, 151, 152, 164, 193, 194, 196, 197, 199, 202, 205, 206 test(s)/assessment, 9, 211–224, 227–245 transformative teacher education, 45 ELF-oriented pedagogy, 135, 163–164, 206, 239 see also authentic ELF communication/encounters & teacher education ELF-informed, 30, 97, 102, 240 ELF-pedagogy, 117, 118, 126, 132–133, 196, 202, see also ELF perspective ELFL/English learned as a foreign language, 17, 26, 27, 28, 30 efficacy, 9, 175, 191 self-efficacy, 9, 194, 195, 201 teachers’ efficacy in teaching, 191–208 ELT, 6, 11, 54, 55, 57, 59, 61, 66, 72, 74, 79, 81, 89, 98, 118, 123, 124, 129, 132, 133, 135, 136, 138, 139, 149, 150, 176, 177, 182, 187, 188, 189, 229, 232, 253, 255, 258–259 classroom, context/settings, 80, 117, 119, 120, 129, 134, 159, 179 pedagogy, 239 see also ELT practitioners, stakeholders, ELT materials, & curriculum/curricular empathy, 42, 45, 188, 256, see also tolerance and ambiguity empowerment, 150, 175–177, 188–189, see also NNESTs endogenous, 8, 175, 178–179, see also exogenous enrich, 38, 42, 44, 56, 66, 101, 136, 152, 162, 170, 171, 180, 183, 198, 199, 203 ESP/English for Specific Purposes, 165 ESOL, 152, 196, 222, 230 errors, 26, 27–28, 38, 64, 85, 218, 220, 224, 235, 238–240, 242 ETFL/English taught as a foreign language, 17, 26, 27, 28, 30, 248 evaluation, 4, 8, 10, 55, 56, 88, 97, 98, 99–101, 103, 137, 161–162, 197, 201, 230

264  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

exogenous, 8, 175, 178 Expanding Circle, 2, 3, 78, 79, 86, 90, 129, 133, 134, 136, 138, 140, 167, 170, 241 explicit(ly), 8, 35, 41, 59, 74, 78, 81, 84, 87, 119, 147, 159–174, 217, 223, 232, 251, 258, see also implicit familiarity, 64, 132, 167 fluency, 35, 38, 41, 42, 78, 124, 169, 196, 214, 223 fluidity, 1, 61, 136, 231, see also hybridity and variability flexibility, 11, 42, 45, 98, 100, 136, 165, 216 fossilization, 218 functional(ly), 20, 27, 42, 214 approach, 214 proficiency, 258 General American, 11, 121, 124 global language, 60, 79, 135, 143, 150 homogeneity, 6, 75, 76 hybridity, 11, 100, 106, 135, 152, 231, see also complexity and variability identity, 3, 7, 25, 35, 44, 87, 154, 166, 169, 188, 190, 196, 258, see also teacher identity IELTS, 216, 230 implicit(ly), 8, 36, 39, 73, 81, 159–174, 232 Inner Circle, 3, 8, 79, 91, 102, 120, 121, 132, 141, 145, 180, 217, 232, 233, 241, 255 intelligibility, 9, 35, 57, 58, 62, 63, 67, 118, 146, 162, 164, 166, 183, 185, 195, 196, 201–204, 206, 223, 230, 232, 233, 235, 237, 239, 240, 241, 242, 247, 254 integrative, 97, 214 interaction, 1–2, 4–6, 9, 32, 34, 35, 37–40, 42, 44, 45–46, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 74, 76, 77, 81, 84, 91, 104–108, 110, 112, 118, 119, 127, 128, 135, 136, 145, 147, 150, 162, 164, 167, 184–186, 193, 202, 214–216, 218–224, 230, 231, 233, 235–242, 249–250, 258

interculturality, 133, 135, 136 intercultural, 6, 38, 42, 44, 72–94, 100, 104, 106, 107, 111, 112, 117, 147, 152, 228, 231 competence, 9, 100, 150, 227, 254–257 (ELF) communication, 8, 34, 42, 46, 133–135, 193, 232, 235–237, 240 education, 88, 93 (ELF) exchanges, 7, 32, 43, 46, 193 telecollaboration, 33, 45 see also EIC/English for Intercultural Communication, & interactions interlanguage, 27, 152, 218 L1/first language, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 30, 148, 164, 166, 171, 184, 185, 187, 220, 231, 246, 249, 250 L2/second language, 20, 21, 22, 27, 30, 187, 188, 189, 228, 229, 230, 232 learner English language learner, 2, 256 learner English, 17, 26, 27, 29 learning goals, 36 materials, 8, 11, see also ELT materials lexical, 18, 20, 37, 44, 218, 222, 251 limitations, 5, 6, 43, 44, 46, 175, 176, 178, 179, 212, 240 linguistic prejudice, 146, 147 linguistic repertoire, 42, 182, 242, 253 macro-level, 80, 81, 84, 85, 87, 90 measurement, 216, 229, 230, 240, see also assessment & tests meso-level, 80, 81, 85, 87, 90 model, 3, 5, 9, 22, 32, 39, 40, 42, 43, 74, 76, 78, 79, 86, 91, 99, 125, 129, 136, 138, 144, 146, 149, 166, 175, 177, 179, 183, 186, 187, 189, 194, 195, 201, 202, 204, 230, 231, 233, 253, 256 motivation, 38, 42, 45, 205, 247, 258 motivational disposition, 36 materials ELT, 8, 97–116, 117–131, 132–156 development, 4, 6, 102, see also authentic materials

Index 265

multiliteracies, 143 multimodality, 141 mutual(ly), 36, 42, 58, 61, 119, 136, 216, 235, 236, 238, 240, 241, 242 assessment, 43, see also intelligibility and accommodation NS/Native speaker, 1, 57, 60, 83, 85, 129, 136, 167, 168, 175, 178, 188, 201, 215, 216 competence, 218 NS norms, 4, 8, 11, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27–30, 63, 75, 85, 91, 118, 138, 139, 164, 221, 229, 232, 239, 248, 254–258 model, 133, 202 native-speakerism, 161, 177, 179 nativized, 135 negotiation, 42, 182, 233, 236, 238 strategies, 61, 63, 124, 241, 250 Native teachers, 178 NNE cultures, 141 NNS/Non-native speaker, 1, 33, 61, 77, 83, 102, 129, 168 NNEST/non-native (English language) teachers, 9, 175, 176, 177–179, 180, 182, 183, 189, 192 non-standard varieties, 107, 128, 141 nonconformities, 43 norm(s) 2, 9, 22, 26, 39, 57, 74, 76, 84, 85, 99, 102, 152, 161, 162, 177, 221, 230–234, 240–241, 255 ENL/SE norms, 28, 39, 145, 172, 228, 229 norm-abiding, 195 normativity, 196 observation, 6, 7, 25, 38, 106, 145, 169 see also observation assessment framework observation-based assessment, 227–245 systematic observation, 227, 236, 237, 239 observation checklist, 238, 246 ownership, 43, 46, 58, 59, 61, 66, 76, 106, 176, 188, 196

parameters, 8, 137, 219 pedagogy, 2, 4, 5, 7–8, 11, 27, 29, 136, 138, 140, 143, 160, 161, 228, 239, 256, see also, ELF-aware pedagogy, ELF pedagogy & ELT pedagogy pedagogical construct, 32, 33, 38 pedagogical objectives, 88 perspective(s), 2–11, 22, 32–34, 36, 40, 42, 46, 79, 118, 123, 124, 127–128, 135, 136, 142, 143, 150, 160–162, 181, 189, 201, 228 alternative, 239, see also alternative assessment Bakhtinian dialogic, 141 constructivist, 37–40 ELF, 46, 98–116, 120, 122, 133, 145, 147, 152, 159, 179 pedagogical, 42, 43, 129 Teacher’s, 53–71 Vygotskian socio-historical, 143 phonological, 20, 37, 107, 222, 249 approximation, 221 accommodation, 219 policy, 2, 3, 4–7, 11, 72, 81, 137, 139, 140, 145, 197 practitioners, 2, 7–9, 65, 56, 72, 79, 80, 91, 117, 152, 174, 196, 197, 227–228, 240, see also stakeholders pragmatics, 2–3, 61, 128, 231, 233 production, 9, 32, 34, 40–42, 44–46, 149, 185, 211, 214–216, 220–224, 233, 236 proficiency, 44, 57, 98, 137, 169, 180, 184, 187, 194–196, 201, 202, 204–206, 218, 222–224, 228–230, 232–234, 236, 239, 253, 256–258 reconceptualise ELT, 258 RP/Received Pronunciation, 76, 121 resources, 25, 47, 89, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110–111, 125, 126, 145, 151, 152, 188–189, 212, 221, 224 linguistic, 28, 30, 34, 35, 42, 43, 45, 75–76, 182 online, 7, 32, 103, 43, 45, 46 plurilingual/multilingual, 136, 182 teaching/instructional, 97, 101, 133 pedagogical, 188 reliable, 213, 239

266  English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts

satisfaction, 40, 43, 60, 65, 200 speaker satisfaction, 5, 33, 34, 36, 38, 41, 43, 45, 46 scoring, 212, 219, 229 SE/Standard English, 1, 5, 104, 128, 162, 204 skills, 1, 5, 9, 36, 37, 57, 62, 64, 76, 82, 102, 104, 107, 119, 125, 142, 164, 177, 178, 184, 187, 190, 195, 198, 205, 211, 214, 218, 220, 223, 228–230, 232, 236, 239, 258 communication, 1, 35, 82–84, 193, 227, 233 comprehension, 41, 47, 47 interaction, 34, 40, 222 production/productive, 41, 211, 212, 221 strategic, 42 receptive, 109, 211, 212, 214, 220, 221, 222 social constructivist, 32–49 socio-interactional, see approach stakeholders, 2, 6–8, 56, 132, 134, 152, 160, 163, 164, 172, 197, 204, 206 strategic(ally), 10, 34, 35, 37, 40–42, 44, 45, 81 handling, 38 competence, 46, 217, 232, 238, 239 structural approach, see approach syllabus design, 5, 211 tasks, 7, 8, 32, 41–43, 46, 62, 97, 98, 101–107, 109, 111, 177, 200, 214, 215, 220, 233, 237, 239, 242, 258 teacher/teaching development, 8, 33, 54, 192–204 education, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 33, 40, 45, 46, 54, 97, 98–100, 102, 104–107,111, 112 ELF-aware teacher education, 159–174, 175–191, 192–208, 253, 258 identity, 3, 175, 187, 196 teachee(s), 4, 28, 29 alternatives, 29 transformative teacher education, 33, 45, 46

TOEFL, 216, 230 telecollaboration, 33, 43–45, 107 TESOL, 90, 240 test/testing, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9–11, 27, 72, 138, 164, 211–226, 227–240 fair(ness), 9, 211, 213, 220, 224, 232, 233, 239 impact, 4, 56, 65, 112, 134, 172, 179, 193, 194–196, 201, 205, 213 measurement, see measurement scoring, see scoring valid, 18, 24, 33, 124, 140, 180, 184, 211, 213, 224, 230, 232, 233, 239 validity, 7, 9, 34, 213, 237 textbook, 6, 8, 18, 21, 57, 58, 62, 73, 80, 85, 88, 89, see also ELT materials traffic controllers, 216, see chapter 12 threshold level, 22, 23 tolerance, 41, 42, 64, 119 transformation(al), transformative, 34, 188, 189, 219 transcripts, 43, 47, 128, 129, 253 turn-taking, 257 turn-stealing, 257 user(s), 1–11, 17, 24, 26, 29, 44, 62–64, 76–77, 82, 91, 100, 127, 135, 136, 140, 142, 144–146, 148, 150, 152, 162, 164, 169, 177, 178, 180, 182–183, 190, 193, 201, 213, 222–223, 231, 247, 254–255, 258 intercultural user, 134 User English, 17 validity, see test validity construct validity, 211, 213, see test construct variability, 1, 61, 141, 231 variation, 3, 88, 90, 99, 128, 129, 141, 146, 164, 167, 176, 212, 216, 218, 219, 233 VOICE, 24–25, 34, 127, 248, 253, 255 Vygotsky, 145 WE/World Englishes, 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 97–107, 111, 128, 129, 133, 161, 253