(PDF) Localizing Global English

Localizing Global English English is the most widely taught and learned language in the world and is used for communication among speakers from different language backgrounds. How it can be effectively taught and learned, what English means to, and how it can be “owned” by, non-native speakers of English in Asia and elsewhere, are all issues that warrant contemplation. This edited collection addresses these issues and more by looking at a wide range of topics that are relevant and timely in contexts where English is taught as a foreign language. The authors offer novel perspectives gleaned from theory and actual practice that can inform English language teaching in Asia and beyond. This book will be of interest to researchers, policymakers, curriculum developers, and practitioners in the ﬁeld of English teaching and learning. Hikyoung Lee is a Professor of TESOL and applied linguistics in the Department of English Language & Literature at Korea University, Korea. She has held administrative positions such as the Director of Teaching and Learning and Director of the Institute of Foreign Language Studies at Korea University and has served as vice-president of several academic associations in Korea. Her recent publications are on English in higher education, language policy, materials writing, and English as a lingua franca. Bernard Spolsky has taught at schools and universities in New Zealand, Australia, Israel, Canada, and the United States. He retired as Professor Emeritus from Bar- Ilan University in 2000. He has published a number of books, including Condi- tions for Second Language Learning, Measured Words, The Languages of Jerusalem, the Handbook of Educational Linguistics, Language Policy, Language Manage- ment, The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy and The Languages of the Jews. He was a foundation editor of the journals Applied Linguistics, and Language Policy. He has been President of International TESOL: He served as Publications Director of Asia TEFL, editor-in-chief of its journal, and has co-edited ten of its books. He has held Guggenheim and Mellon fellowships, and is a Fellow of the Linguistic Societies of America and India. Routledge Critical Studies in Asian Education Series Editors: S. Gopinathan, Wing On Lee and Jason Eng Thye Tan Teacher Education for English as a Lingua Franca Perspectives from Indonesia Edited by Subhan Zein The Governance and Management of Universities in Asia Global Inﬂuences and Local Responses Chang Da Wan, Molly N.N. Lee, and Hoe Yeong Loke Building Teacher Capacity in Vietnamese English Language Teaching Research, Policy and Practice Edited by Van Canh Le, Hoa Thi Mai Nguyen, Thi Thuy Minh Nguyen, Roger Barnard Is it Time to Let Meritocracy Go? Examining the Case of Singapore Nadira Talib Localizing Global English Asian Perspectives and Practices Edited by Hikyoung Lee and Bernard Spolsky Internationalization of Teacher Education and the Nation State Rethinking Nationalization in Singapore and Beyond Rita Z. Nazeer-Ikeda Education and Social Justice in Japan Kaori H. Okano For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/ Routledge-Critical-Studies-in-Asian-Education/book-series/RCSAE Localizing Global English Asian Perspectives and Practices Edited by Hikyoung Lee and Bernard Spolsky First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 selection and editorial matter, Hikyoung Lee and Bernard Spolsky; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Hikyoung Lee and Bernard Spolsky to be identiﬁed as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identiﬁcation and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Lee, Hikyoung, editor. | Spolsky, Bernard, editor. Title: Localizing global English : Asian perspectives and practices / edited by Hikyoung Lee and Bernard Spolsky. Description: London ; New York : Routledge, 2020. | Series: Routledge critical studies in Asian education | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identiﬁers: LCCN 2020019375 (print) | LCCN 2020019376 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367536398 (hardback) | ISBN 9781003082705 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: English language–Study and teaching–Asia. | English language–Study and teaching–Asian speakers. Classiﬁcation: LCC PE1068.A7 L63 2020 (print) | LCC PE1068.A7 (ebook) | DDC 428.0071/05–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020019375 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020019376 ISBN: 978-0-367-53639-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-08270-5 (ebk) Typeset in Galliard by Taylor & Francis Books Contents List of tables vii List of contributors viii Preface xii BERNARD SPOLSKY Introduction xv HIKYOUNG LEE PART 1 Perspectives 1 1 Considering English teaching in the context of ELF 3 PAUL MCBRIDE 2 Knowledge construction in World Englishes 20 RUANNI TUPAS AND ALEJANDRO S. BERNARDO 3 TESOL and Tesology in East Asia: A critical review 34 ORYANG KWON 4 Unequal Englishes: Re-envisioning the teaching of English in linguistically diverse classrooms 47 RUANNI TUPAS AND WILLY A RENANDYA PART 2 Practices 63 5 Intercultural Communicative Competence development in an EFL context in Thailand 65 PRAGASIT SITTHITIKUL AND MALINEE PRAPINWONG vi Contents 6 English across the curriculum: Four journeys of synergy across disciplines and universities 84 JULIA CHEN, CHRISTY CHAN AND ANGELA NG 7 The 3E (engages, empowers, and emancipates): ESL teacher education curriculum in the development of future teachers 104 RAJA NOR SAFINAS RAJA HARUN 8 Literacy sponsorship, language ideologies, and identity construction of EFL learners and users 125 YANTY WIRZA 9 The role of mediation in classroom interaction 139 LE PHAM HOAI HUONG Index 157 List of Tables 2.1 Recent exemplary studies in Linguistic Landscapes with a language- focus orientation 26 3.1 Courses offered in the English Education Department, SNU 40 3.2 TEFL methodology course syllabus (1) 42 3.3 TEFL methodology course syllabus (2) 42 3.4 Papers and themes in 11 Tesology journals in Korea 45 6.1 Comparison of employers’ perceived importance score and performance score of 2016 ﬁrst degree graduates 85 6.2 Faculty survey on EAC 91 Contributors Alejandro S. Bernardo is Associate Professor at the Department of English of the University of Santo Tomas, the oldest university in the Philippines and in Asia. He is the current president of the Linguistic Society of the Philippines (LSP) and sits as a member of the Asian Journal of English Language Studies (AJELS) Editorial Board. Christy Chan is Senior Tutor and Manager of English Language Support Services at the English Language Centre of City University of Hong Kong. She is a co- investigator of two UGC Teaching and Learning Grants on developing a capstone project app and setting up a professional development hub for university English teachers in Hong Kong. She is the principal investigator of three internal grants on OBTL learning and entrepreneurship education. She is a reviewer of two regional journals and an appointed English subject specialist for HKCAAVQ. Julia Chen, PhD, is Director of the Educational Development Centre at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. She is a two-time recipient of her uni- versity’s President Award for Excellent Performance, ﬁrst in teaching and then in service. She was also shortlisted by the Hong Kong University Grants Com- mittee for the UGC Teaching Award and by QS Quacquarelli Symonds for the Reimagine Education Learning Assessment Award. She is the Principal Investi- gator of several large-scale government-funded inter-university projects on developing English Across the Curriculum, learning analytics, and using technology to develop students’ academic English skills. Le Pham Hoai Huong is an Associate Professor in the English faculty, Hue University of Foreign Languages, Hue University, Vietnam. She received a BA in English from Hue University, Vietnam, an MS in TESOL from California State University, Fullerton, USA, and a PhD in education from Victoria Uni- versity of Wellington, New Zealand. Her research interests include sociocultural theory, classroom interaction, teacher training, and teaching and learning vocabulary. This paper was her featured presentation at the 17th Asia TEFL international conference in Bangkok, Thailand in June, 2019. Oryang Kwon received his PhD from the University of Texas at Austin, USA. His career had been devoted to ELT and research before he retired from the List of contributors ix Department of English Language Education, Seoul National University, where he is currently a Professor Emeritus. He served as the President of Korea TESOL, Korea Association of Teachers of English (KATE), and Korea English Language Testing Association (KELTA). He also served as an editorial board member of Language Testing, the journal of the International Language Test- ing Association, and of Asian Englishes. He has written numerous secondary school English textbooks, co-authored A History of English Language Educa- tion in Korea, and edited a book titled, New Horizons in English Education Research (2014). He is currently translating books in education. Hikyoung Lee is a Professor of TESOL and applied linguistics in the Department of English Language & Literature at Korea University, Korea. She has held administrative positions such as the Director of Teaching and Learning and Director of the Institute of Foreign Language Studies at Korea University and has served as vice-president of several academic associations in Korea. Her recent publications are on English in higher education, language policy, materials writing, and English as a lingua franca. Paul McBride is an Associate Professor of English as a lingua franca (ELF) and Acting Director at the Center for English as a Lingua Franca at Tamagawa University in Tokyo. He is interested in pedagogical implications of ELF, including issues of language, literacy, meaning, and knowledge as they are interrelated in the generation, validation, and maintenance of structural power within academic institutions. He is a member of the AsiaTEFL Lingua Franca Research Network. Angela Ng served as Senior Lecturer and Head of English Section of the Lan- guage Centre, Hong Kong Baptist University. She oversaw the offering of all credit-bearing courses and the English Across the Curriculum collaboration within the University. She serves as External Examiner and Consultant for English and Foreign Language Programs in several tertiary institutions in Hong Kong. She moved to Vancouver in January 2019 and is now completing her EdD at Northeastern University. Malinee Prapinwong was an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University. She earned a PhD in Language Education from Indiana University, Bloomington. Her research interests include intercultural commu- nicative competence, critical literacy, and technology integration in the lan- guage classroom. Her recent work is on the blended learning model to enhance pre-service teachers’ language proﬁciency and intercultural competence. Raja Nor Saﬁnas Raja Harun (PhD) is an Associate Professor at the English Language and Literature Department, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris. Her research interests and publications are mainly on TESL/TEFL teacher educa- tion, TESL methodology, innovative pedagogy, and classroom discourse. She was the recipient of the Malaysian prestigious National Academic Award under x List of contributors the category of Teaching and Learning in 2015. She is active in conducting research and has secured several research grants at the national level. Willy A Renandya is a language teacher educator with extensive teaching experience in Asia. He currently teaches applied linguistics courses at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He has given numerous plenary presentations at regional and international conferences, and published extensively in the area of second language educa- tion. His latest publications include, Simple, Powerful Strategies for Student Centered Learning with George Jacobs and Michael Power (2016), and Cooperative Learning in Language Education (2019) with George Jacobs. Pragasit Sitthitikul, is an Associate Professor at the Language Institute, Tham- masat University in Bangkok, Thailand. He earned a doctorate in Language and Literacy Studies, with a concentration in second language reading pro- cesses, at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. His areas of interest include second language literacy, cognitive and sociocultural factors in second language learning, and intercultural issues in second language learning. Bernard Spolsky has taught at schools and universities in New Zealand, Australia, Israel, Canada, and the United States. He retired as Professor Emeritus from Bar-Ilan University in 2000. He has published a number of books, including Conditions for Second Language Learning, Measured Words, The Languages of Jerusalem, the Handbook of Educational Linguistics, Language Policy, Language Management, The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy, and The Languages of the Jews. He was a foundation editor of the journals Applied Linguistics and Language Policy. He has been President of International TESOL: He served as Publications Director of Asia TEFL, editor-in-chief of its journal, and has co- edited ten of its books. He has held Guggenheim and Mellon fellowships, and is a Fellow of the Linguistic Societies of America and India. Ruanni Tupas lectures in Sociolinguistics in Education at the Centre for Applied Linguistics, Institute of Education, University College London. He has taught in the University of the Philippines, Virginia Polytechnic University and State University, National University of Singapore, and the National Institute of Education, Singapore. He is an Associate Editor of the International Journal of the Sociology of Language and is on the editorial boards of several journals such as Language Teaching, Language Policy, and TEFLIN Journal. He is sole editor of Unequal Englishes: The Politics of Englishes Today (2015), and co-editor of Why English?: Confronting the Hydra (with Bunce, Phillipson, and Rapatahana, 2016) and Language, Education and Nation-Building: Assimilation and Shift in Southeast Asia (with Sercombe, 2014). Yanty Wirza is an Assistant Professor at the English Education Study Program, Universitas Pendidikan, Indonesia. She received her PhD from Ohio State University in 2017. Her research interests include L2 identity, literacy educa- tion, TESOL, teacher education and professional development, and qualitative List of contributors xi research. She is currently involved in several research projects on English teaching and English teacher education and professional development. She has published her work on L2 identity and has been invited to give talks at several conferences. She has won academic scholarships and awards for her community service. Preface Bernard Spolsky In the summer of 2002, Dr. Hyo Woong Lee, immediate past-president of the Korea Association of Teachers of English (KATE), founded The Asian Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language (AsiaTEFL) as a way of realizing a 30-year career goal he had held as an English language teaching (ELT) practi- tioner and researcher. AsiaTEFL started its activities with a series of conferences and a journal. Since 2007, it has annually published collections of major invited papers written by leading scholars nominated by the national member organiza- tions. For the ﬁrst few years, these were published by the Association; since 2012, except in 2014 when a volume was published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, they have been published in the Routledge Critical Studies in Asian Education. This volume continues this association. As I write this Preface in the middle of February 2020, this productive tradition is under threat. The 18th Annual AsiaTEFL Conference is scheduled for June in South Korea, but we cannot predict whether it will take place: COVID-19 has closed schools, universities, and factories in China and other East Asian countries, and international airlines, including American, Delta, United, Lufthansa, and British Airways, have cancelled ﬂights to China; Cathay Paciﬁc has cancelled half its ﬂights. The epidemic is spreading, with European countries and the USA also reporting cases and deaths. No one is predicting how long it will last, and international conferences planned for June are being postponed. But fortunately, preparation of this volume does not require travel. The papers have already been presented, and the editing process has been through email. The chapters in the book present current perspectives and research by a select group of featured speakers from the 17th AsiaTEFL International Conference held in June, 2019 in Bangkok, Thailand. They were tasked with discussing the conference theme “ELT for Glocal Synergies across Disciplines and Multilingual Ambiences”. To avoid the perhaps puzzling coinage, the title of the book is Localizing Global English: Asian Perspectives and Practices. It thus recognizes the growing concern over the potential conﬂict between global and local processes, something that applies not just to lan- guage education, but to climate change and major pandemics like COVID-19, the name that the World Health Organization has started to use for the disease. This of course leads us to think about the effects on local policies (by which we mean regional, national, or even smaller communities) of the growing importance Preface xiii of world languages and in particular of English. The spread and growing sig- niﬁcance of English language teaching was noticeable in the period after the Second World War, with the formation of US-sponsored International Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) in 1966 and, a year later, of the British-sponsored International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language (IATEFL), two international organizations for teachers of English. This happened at much the same time as an ethnic movement which called for recog- nition of the signiﬁcance of heritage and minority languages, setting up a conﬂict between economic and identity values for language. The tension continues; even in the People’s Republic of China where the main direction of language policy is the diffusion of Mandarin as Putonghua, the common language, there is some support for topolects like Cantonese and Shanghainese and for selected minority varieties. AsiaTEFL, as the E signals, is concerned with increasing the proﬁciency of Asians in the world language, but as the theme of the 17th annual conference proclaimed, it also recognizes the need for continued loyalty to national and local concerns. The aim is not a shift to English, but an expansion of individual and community repertoires to add English. It claims a role for English not just as a foreign language for communication with those for whom it is the mother tongue, but also as a way of communicating with others for whom it is an additional language. It follows the recognition of World Englishes, based on the three circle model proposed by the Asian scholar, Braj Kachru. The term “glocal English” was used by another Asian scholar, Anne Pakir, at a conference in honor of the late Professor Kachru, and deﬁned there as “global yet rooted in the local contexts of its users”. Pakir posited that “English will acquire a new status as a global language supporting local users of English in the Outer and Expanding Circles and their speciﬁc uses for the language”. Pakir raises a question that this book helps answer: “What will be the impact of English-knowing bilingualism on the ELT profession?” (Pakir, 1997). The contributors to this volume continue to represent the best scholarship in the ﬁeld. They include past presidents of the Linguistic Society of the Philippines, of the Korean Association of Teachers of English, and of Korea TESOL, and they have published extensively in the ﬁeld of English language teaching, edited and contributed to many books and collections, and have written up to 30 papers each in the ﬁeld. Their papers in this book consider issues raised by the contrasting pressures of global and local needs. It is noteworthy that many of the papers are written by two or three scholars, a sign showing the collaboration needed in scholarship. Paul McBride asks how local curricula should change in response to the grow- ing recognition of English as a lingua franca. Ruanni Tupas and Alejandro S. Bernardo note the development of World Englishes, and are interested in how this should be applied to individual users of the language. Oryang Kwon criticizes current Asian approaches to teaching English such the Grammar-Translation Method, and the approach to language as a subject rather than as a means of communication. Ruanni Tupas and Willy A Renandya tackle the problem of diversity of learners, and argue that multilingualism suggests we should be xiv Preface teaching Unequal rather than Standard English. Pragasit Sitthitikul and Malinee Prapinwong call for the import of Intercultural Communicative Competence into English language teaching in Thailand. Julia Chen, Christy Chan, and Angela Ng report on three universities that have initiated English across the Curriculum pro- grams that build on cooperation between teachers of English and other subjects. Raja Nor Saﬁnas Raja Harun describes a ﬁve year experimental English teacher education program in Malaysia and suggests how it can be improved. Yanty Wirza describes and recommends literacy sponsorship practices in Indonesia. Le Pham Hoai Huong argues for the application of Vygotskyan mediation practices to English language teaching. What this shows is a healthy concern about current practices, and suggests improvements in English language teaching on the basis of the recognition of the role of English in countries where it is not the ﬁrst language. English in Asia (as in much of the world) is no longer a foreign language but part of the expanding linguistic repertoires of individuals and communities. Reference Pakir, A. (1997). English: Multiforms, multimedia, multidisciplines. Paper presented at the Three circles of English: A conference in honor of Professor Braj Kachru, National University of Singapore. Introduction Hikyoung Lee The ever-increasing status and role of English in Asia underscores the notion of English as a lingua franca (ELF) and makes clear that English is used not only for non-native speakers to communicate with native speakers but also for interaction among non-native speakers (Kirkpatrick 2009; Jenkins, 2006; Seidlhofer, 2005). It also draws attention to the heightening of perceptions that English can be “owned” by non-native speakers (Higgins, 2003; Norton, 2012) and used in particular regions, such as Asia, to foster communication, enhance similarities, and respect differences. Under these circumstances, newly emerging issues as well as traditional topics in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) need to be (re-)examined, especially in terms of how synergy can be achieved across similar yet different contexts and what ambiences these multilingual contexts entail. This book follows in the tradition of publishing timely and noteworthy research on English Language Teaching (ELT) and learning issues in Asia by The Asian Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language (AsiaTEFL). At its annual international conferences, renowned scholars from a diverse array of Asian countries are nominated to give a featured talk on a topic of high interest. These scholars have authored chapters that have led to the publication of nine books dealing with ELT practices across the spectrum. The chapters in this book present current perspectives and research by a sampling of the featured speakers from the 17th AsiaTEFL International Conference held in June, 2019 in Bangkok, Thai- land. The book is, thus, aligned with the conference theme, “ELT for Glocal Synergies across Disciplines and Multilingual Ambiences”. The key aim of this book is to showcase the synergies and ambiences in TESOL through diverse perspectives and practices that are not readily found in journals or other similar books. As the title, Localizing Global English: Asian Perspectives and Practices, suggests, local and global processes can and do co-exist and complement each other. The title also underscores that Asia is the undisputed epicenter of local global English in today’s world (Bolton, 2008; Kirkpatrick, 2012; Nunan, 2003). All of the chapters are original works by authors who are authoritative researchers and practitioners. Additionally, the present book has a clear focus on the teaching and learning of English across Asia, where recent research in TESOL is burgeon- ing. The book is also at once timely and timeless in terms of the range of topics it xvi Introduction addresses and their implications for the future. The present book starts with cri- tical perspectives on English language and teaching in Asia and then moves on to actual practice, so readers can follow a trajectory that leads to pedagogical implications. The present book is comprised of nine chapters. These chapters are divided into two parts, perspectives and practices, that together holistically present a current snapshot of English language learning and teaching in Asia. The ﬁrst part presents critical perspectives on ELF. In Chapter One, Paul McBride looks closely at Eng- lish as a Foreign Language (EFL) and its pedagogical and ideological implications and the need to break free from “Western TESOL” practices which are not com- patible with EFL contexts. His critical lens is directed toward EFL needs in the Asian curriculum by examining latent essentialism, reductionism, and exclusion. He challenges the status quo and calls for gradual change by outlining speciﬁc measures that EFL teachers can take to customize English learning for their stu- dents. Chapter Two by Ruanni Tupas and Alejandro S. Bernardo offers a view of knowledge construction in World Englishes (WE) that has not been previously considered. It sets out to document research threads and how they developed in the ﬁeld of WE. While recognizing the importance of past research, they claim that now is the time to look at the individual and their lived experiences as legit- imate users of English in daily life. This chapter provides insight into the future of the ﬁeld through recommendations for expanding the methodological reach of current WE research. In Chapter Three, Oryang Kwon expands the ﬁeld of TESOL by coining the term “Tesology” as a cover term to encompass all the different disciplines related to TESOL, including learning, testing, materials and so forth. This novel approach notes with regret that English teaching in Asia is still enamored of the Grammar-Translation Method and proposes that English learn- ing should no longer be considered subject matter but rather full-ﬂedged language learning. Chapter Four starts with the contemporary implications of globalization on the use of English. Ruanni Tupas and Willy A Renandya rightfully claim that English teaching must be reconceptualized and that a multilingual English should be taught in classrooms. They call for attitudinal change, recognizing the sig- niﬁcance of identity to facilitate English learning. Their cogent argument attempts to rectify the inequality, or rather in their terms, the unequal Englishes, that still pervades English teaching and learning in localized contexts today. Part Two of the book deals with practice and how the teaching of English is actually played out in Asian contexts. In Chapter Five, Pragasit Sitthitikul and Malinee Prapinwong discuss the role of Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) in English teaching in Thailand. They ﬁrst start off with a review of ICC and Byram (2012)’s ICC model and how they have been implemented in Thai education. This look into Thai contexts offers a critical review of policy, research, and classroom practices. The authors also provide practical guidelines for ICC implementation in wider EFL contexts. Chapter Six by Julia Chen, Christy Chan, and Angela Ng document a Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) collaborative program among Hong Kong Polytechnic University, City University of Hong Kong, and Hong Kong Baptist University. This detailed chapter on practice Introduction xvii illustrates not only the individual efforts of each university but also the synergy that the three universities achieved through the use of a mobile app among other endeavors. In Chapter Seven, Raja Nor Saﬁnas Raja Harun describes a teacher preparation program in Malaysia and the role of the 3Es (engages, empowers, and emancipates) curriculum framework for teachers. The results described in this chapter come from an extensive, government-funded, ﬁve-year research project on developing a teacher education model for the Malaysian EFL context. The student teachers’ learning experiences provide robust support for the use of a transforma- tive pedagogy. Next, Yanty Wirza in Chapter Eight presents the results of an in- depth study of graduate students and their narratives about learning and using English in the local Indonesian context. As graduate students are a relatively less- studied population, this chapter provides valuable insight into how multifaceted literacy sponsorship and ideologies can affect Indonesian EFL leaners’ identity formation. Their voices ring loud in this chapter. Lastly, in Chapter Nine, Le Pham Hoai Huong revisits a previous study of EFL university students in Vietnam and reviews other studies to shed new light on how verbal interaction used as mediation facilitates English learning. The chapter goes on to re-examine the mediational role of teachers, peers, and artifacts and how Vygotsky (1978)’s “Zone of Proximal Development” can be harnessed in EFL classrooms. All in all, this book contributes diverse perspectives and conveys the uniﬁed desire of scholars and practitioners in Asia to further advance English language teaching and learning, a discipline which has the potential to grow more in Asia, considering the sheer number of non-native speakers of English and continued interest in English in this region. This book serves as not only a current slice of time but also a tome which looks into the future of Asia and TESOL. As most of the chapters are written by non-native speakers of English, the English varieties used are diverse, which in turn reﬂects the reality of English used and owned in today’s world. References Bolton, K. (2008). English in Asia, Asian Englishes, and the issue of proﬁciency. English Today, 24(2), 3–12. Byram, M. (2012). Conceptualizing intercultural (communicative) competence and inter- cultural citizenship. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and inter- cultural communication (pp. 85–97). New York: Routledge. Higgins, C. (2003). Ownership of English in the outer circle: An alternative to the NS- NNS dichotomy. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 615–644. Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157–181. Kirkpatrick, A. (2009). English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kirkpatrick A. (2012) English as an international language in Asia: Implications for lan- guage education. In A. Kirkpatrick, & R. Sussex (Eds.), English as an international language in Asia: Implications for language education (Multilingual Education, Vol. 1) (pp. 29–44). Dordrecht: Springer. xviii Introduction Norton, B. (2012). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409–429. Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Paciﬁc region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589–613. Seidlhofer, B. (2005). English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59(4), 339–341. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological pro- cesses. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 19–120). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Part 1 Perspectives 1 Considering English teaching in the context of ELF Paul McBride The pervasive use of English as a lingua franca is not widely reﬂected in classroom practice (Widdowson, 2016), not least because, as Jenkins (2014) explains, there is an “uncritical tendency … to persist in traditional ways of thinking about Eng- lish that do not take account of the major structural changes in the use and users of English around the globe” (p. 18). Correctness and appropriateness of English language teaching, testing, and materials tend to be driven largely by the standards of native speaking communities (Jenkins, 2012), despite the restricted relevance of such standards to vast numbers of people (Seidlhofer, 2011). Curricular choices tend to be made on the basis of norms of English as it is used in communities of English native speakers with little regard for the present or future communication context students may experience (Jenkins, 2012, p. 487). Presented in this chapter are aspects of ELF and language teaching which may be useful as teachers and administrators consider implications of ELF in their contexts. The ﬁrst is understanding ELF and reﬂecting on pedagogical implica- tions. It is not uncommon in my experience to spend considerable time locating and reading through resources which present the various aspects of ELF which require synthesizing. One excellent resource is Chapter 8 of Understanding Eng- lish as a Lingua Franca (Seidlhofer, 2011), and another is an article “What is ELF? Introductory Questions and Answers for ELT Professionals” by Ishikawa and Jenkins (2019). In the following section I present aspects of English as lingua franca which I have found helpful for teachers to be aware of. The second aspect I believe teachers need to consider is ideology in curriculum. Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) in the English- speaking West (Holliday, 2005), hereafter referred to as “Western TESOL”, has embedded within it practices which are incompatible with ELF contexts (Seidlhofer, 2011; Jenkins, 2014; Toh, 2016b). Essentialism, reductionism, and exclusion (Oda & Toh, 2018), present and yet tending to be hidden in everyday teaching situations, may obstruct transition to ELF-aware teaching practices. Resistance to change among English language teachers is heightened by factors enumerated by Toh (2016b): Western TESOL’s naturalized essentialisms, evi- denced by deﬁcit notions of pedagogy; adherence to exportable curricula; inat- tentiveness to local sociocultural aspects of education; reductionism associated with discrete and bounded views of language and culture, manifested in proliﬁc 4 McBride drills and routines; and exclusion, exempliﬁed by assumptions about the super- iority of native versions of English. Writing in academia is examined in section two, where the taken-for-granted rhetorical norms of language in higher educa- tion are scrutinized in accordance with Turner’s approach, as “part of wider cul- tural practices and the effects of social and political power, rather than (an) independent codiﬁcation of rules which must be adhered to” (2011, p. 2). The ﬁnal aspect of ELF and language teaching to be considered is how teachers might change classroom practices in response to ELF, a recently developing area of ELF research. According to Seidlhofer (2011): What really matters is that the language should engage the learners’ reality and activate the learning process. Any kind of language that is taught in order to achieve this effect is appropriate, and this will always be a matter of local decision. (p. 198) Strikingly, Seidlhofer (2004) characterizes “typical ‘errors’ that most English tea- chers would consider in urgent need of correction and remediation”, as “generally unproblematic and no obstacle to communicative success” even though they are allocated considerable time and effort in English lessons (p. 220). Understanding EFL and considering pedagogical implications Presented in this section are aspects of ELF which I have found useful for teachers and learners to understand as they make decisions about how they might respond to its widespread use. It can be helpful to introduce the concept of ELF by telling the story of how Jennifer Jenkins ﬁrst became aware of ELF in London during the 1980s, teaching students from a range of backgrounds according to the conven- tions of native English. She noticed that “although they generally ‘learnt’ the rules they were taught, these students tended not to use them in natural(istic) con- versation” (Jenkins, 2012, p. 487) and that “in most cases, their use of these alternative forms did not impede their mutual understanding” (p. 488). Seidlhofer (2011) points out that regardless of the prestigious status of native versions of English, “it needs to be recognized that they are indeed only versions, historically shaped to suit the social and communicative requirements of certain communities and so necessarily of restricted relevance to other users of the language with very different needs and purposes” (p. 148). Another useful aid to understanding ELF is an analogy offered by Sampson (2007): The grammatical possibilities of a language are like a network of paths in open grassland. There are a number of heavily used, wide and well-beaten tracks. Other, less popular routes are narrower, …but there are no fences anywhere preventing any particular route being used. (pp. 10–11) English teaching in the context of ELF 5 Discussing Sampson’s analogy and differences of opinion between educated native speakers about acceptable grammar variation within Standard English, Widdowson (2012), remarks that determining which sequences are grammatical and which are not is, “to say the least … a difﬁcult thing to do” (p. 10) and that “a moment’s reﬂection makes it obvious that the concept of the educated native speaker is simply an idealized construct, a convenient abstraction” (p. 13). Descriptions of standard language in grammar books and dictionaries, he continues, rather than being “empirically sub- stantiated accounts of the actual language”, essentially represent “versions of conventionalized constructs that are sanctioned by linguistic tradition” (p. 13). In lingua franca communication, language appropriate for speciﬁc contexts is important. On the topic of adaptation (Widdowson, 2015) notes: So when, as with ELF use, the language is required to relate to social and personal needs other than those served by NS [native speaker] English, it will naturally get adapted in various ways that are functionally appropriate to dif- ferent contexts and purposes. (p. 368) The subject of language variability is also of interest in comprehending another important distinction which arises in understanding ELF. Widdowson (2015) comments on the distinction between ELF and World Englishes (WE), writing in the Journal of English as a Lingua Franca that as ELF is studied, variability is considered “not in terms of variety at all but as the variable use of English as inter- community communication, as communication across communities” (p. 362). After commenting that World Englishes scholars and sociolinguists tend to deny the validity of ELF research, he explains that WE adheres to sociolinguistic tradi- tion by emphasizing the description of language varieties, being concerned mainly with associations between language and community, whereas ELF research is pri- marily concerned with associations between language and communication, being an inquiry into the variable use of language to accomplish intelligible commu- nication (p. 363). Seidlhofer (2017) reiterates the distinction, observing that ELF is said not to be a variety of English because it is used ﬂuidly and irregularly, and cannot be characterized as a particular system, adding that ELF may therefore not be taken seriously as an object of socio-linguistic inquiry (p. 10). Signiﬁcantly, non-native ELF users experience English not by “primary sociali- zation whereby language, culture, and social identity are naturally and inseparably interconnected” as native speakers do, but rather “as an extension of a language resource they already have, acquired through secondary socialization and separated from these primary and inherent connections with culture and identity” (Widdowson, 2012, pp. 18–19). A summary of conceptual differences between English as a foreign language (EFL) and ELF (Seidlhofer, 2011, p. 18), although idealized and simpliﬁed according to the author, indicates that lingua cultural norms associated with lingua franca communication are ad hoc and negotiated, in contrast with foreign lan- guage lingua cultural norms which are preexisting and reafﬁrmed. Lingua franca 6 McBride objectives, according to the summary, include intelligibility and communication in non-native speaker interactions or in mixed interactions between non-native speakers and native speakers, in contrast with foreign language objectives which are said to be integration and membership of a native speaking community. Further, lingua franca processes involve accommodation and adaptation, whereas foreign language objectives involve imitation and adoption. Fundamental in understanding ELF is the notion that “forms and grammars that deviate from the ‘system’ as deﬁned by linguists or native speakers are still communicative” (Canagarajah, 2013, p. 80). A related concept is that, “it is … lingua franca English rather than native academic English that characterizes the mainstream of academic English use” (Jenkins, Cogo, & Dewey, 2011, p. 300). The English as a Lingua Franca in the Academia (ELFA) corpus (WrEFLA, 2015) allows insights into English use “in academic lingua franca settings, in its own right rather than against some ‘standard’ academic English predicated on the way native English academics, a tiny minority of global academia, choose to speak (and write)” (Jenkins et al., 2011, p. 300). Seidlhofer (2011) holds the view that, “what is learnt of English does not, and cannot, correspond with the language that is currently taught and … the speciﬁca- tion of NS competence as the primary objective has to be abandoned”, proposing instead that the purpose of teaching should become “the development of a cap- ability for effective use which involves the process of exploiting whatever linguistic resources are available, no matter how formally ‘defective’” (p.197). Insistence that learners conform exclusively to native speaker constructs, she says, “can only inhibit the development of this capability” (p. 189). This is not to suggest that native speaker models are without pedagogical worth. They are valuable, according to (Björkman, 2013, p. 196) especially if learners are likely to communicate with native speakers. Nevertheless, Walker (2010) states that, “using ELF-informed approaches in pronunciation is not the same as lowering standards, but implies a change to “different, more achievable standards” (p. 51), and Cogo and Dewey (2012) com- ment that “deciding what constitutes an error is not only a complex issue, it is possibly not an ELF-compatible way of thinking about language” (p. 78). Having considered concepts helpful in understanding ELF: That successful communication for the needs of the majority of users of English is not conﬁned to the parameters of native English use, that ELF involves a focus on language use in diverse and variable contexts rather than a focus on language form according to historically sanctioned constructs of native speakers, and that consequently tea- chers might consider corresponding shifts in emphasis, it is relevant to investigate some sources of inertia in curricula change. Scrutinizing ideology in curriculum Culturally embedded values inhibit curricular change in response to ELF whether ELF-aware change is being sought or not. The purpose in examining some of the ideological inﬂuences on English Language Teaching (ELT) curricula in this sec- tion is to focus on issues which may enable a more critical orientation and a basis English teaching in the context of ELF 7 from which to make informed decisions about curricular change in response to ELF use and research. Toh (2016b) remarks that, “maintaining ﬁdelity to ELF thinking can prove difﬁ- cult given the ideologies that time and again try to undermine its transformative and humanizing values” (p. 356). It is useful, for example, for teachers to examine the social and cultural power of scientiﬁc rationality which, according to Turner (2011), shaped modern academic writing. Turner’s account probes rhetorical norms of lan- guage in higher education as “part of wider cultural practices and the effects of social and political power, rather than as an independent codiﬁcation of rules which must be adhered to” (2011, p. 2). The reality is that English is a “heterogeneous language with a plural grammatical system and norms” (Canagarajah, 2006, p. 211). The values associated with power and knowledge are maintained and perpe- tuated at the points of their dissemination (Foucault, 1980, p. 98). In their class- rooms, teachers may be implicated as points of dissemination, or agents, often in ways not immediately visible, in maintaining and perpetuating normalizing world views and practices. Despite reluctance among English language teachers to reﬂect the diverse and variable nature of ELF interaction in classroom contexts (Jenkins, 2014; Seidlhofer, 2011) a deliberate rethinking (Dewey 2012, p. 163) and a transformation of deeply held convictions (Sifakis, 2014) are advocated. Turner (2011) invites teachers, as reﬂexive practitioners, to “recognize their position as ‘subjects’ of culturally constructed value systems, in their turn positioning their students within the same value system or possibly choosing not to” (pp. 24–25). Social theory of literacy When literacy is treated as social practice the interconnected nature of language, lit- eracy and power relations becomes more visible than when literacy is conceived of as having merely technical dimensions (Barton, 2007; Lillis, 2013; Toh, 2016a). Bar- ton’s (2007) social theory approach to literacy as contextualized social practice com- plements ELF-aware orientations, and contrasts with a view of literacy as discrete technical skills. In pointing out the need to position writing in its cultural, social, and historical contexts, inseparable from considerations of diversity and the practices of institutions, Toh (2016b) cautions against conceptual reductionism resulting from behaviorist epistemologies (p. 361). Rather, he argues, “as a paradigm with a critical orientation, ELF needs to be identiﬁed with approaches that interrogate dominant hegemonies, while enabling teachers to disencumber their practice from the trappings and circumscription of Western TESOL” (p. 362). Yamada (2014) concludes that a lack of understanding of the diversity of English “possibly reinforces prejudice and discrimination about English speakers and hinders teachers and students from considering issues of social justice” (p. 123). Historical inﬂuences on Western TESOL The practices cautioned against in the previous section, being shaped by Western TESOL, tend to be regarded as normal and ideologically neutral (Toh, 2016a, 8 McBride p. 356). The historical perspective presented in this section is intended to manifest some ideological processes which ELF-aware pedagogy might mitigate against. In referring to the inﬂuence of scientiﬁc rationality on modern academic writing in her examination of the rhetorical norms of language in higher education, Turner (2011) comments: The social and cultural power accruing to scientiﬁc rationality in the wake of its success in the European political, cultural and economic ethos of the 17th and early 18th centuries meant that its scientists’ preferred ways of using lan- guage, in effect the inscription of the values of their scientiﬁc culture, became rhetorical values. Those values are now the taken for granted rhetorical norms deemed appropriate for academic writing. (p. 6) Investigating knowledge production practices in the 17th century, she notes that scientists of the time produced knowledge by observation and that seeing clearly became epistemologically important to verify that scientiﬁc claims were true and therefore constituted new knowledge. The powerful Royal Society of London was the body responsible to make judgments about whether scientiﬁc claims were true, and Turner (2011) presents arguments to demonstrate that Sir Isaac Newton altered the way he wrote about his experimental results, making them appear as facts rather than the result of speculation and the manipulation of scientiﬁc vari- ables, and mapping out his arguments so they were authoritative. Newton, want- ing to portray his experiments as valid, and to convince readers of the reliability of the reasoning process he used, invoked deductive logic and incontrovertible geo- metric proofs to give greater authority to his argument (Turner, 2011, p. 62). Turner (2011) is particularly interested in the way the values of scientiﬁc ration- ality were “rhetorically inscribed” (p. 69), a phenomenon which she sees as an effect of the process of power/knowledge, described by Foucault (1980) as a way of governing or regulating under which the origin of the power and knowledge are not visible, but their values are maintained at the points of their dissemination, a process constituting a “discourse of truth” (Foucault, 1980, p. 93) operating effectively by technologies which regulate or discipline. Foucault (1977) had previously used a type of prison building as a metaphor in his work on the social history of punishment and prison. From the structure, Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon, prisoners may be watched at any time. Turner (2011) explains that the panopticon metaphor exempliﬁes the process of power/ knowledge. Since prisoners, or anyone subject to any other type of control, know that at any time they are “subjected to a ﬁeld of visibility” they assume “respon- sibility for the constraints of power”, beginning to police themselves and changing their behavior to be compatible with expectations (Foucault, 1977, p. 11). The effect of the panopticon was: To induce in the inmate a state of consciousness and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the English teaching in the context of ELF 9 surveillance is permanent in its effects even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unne- cessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they themselves are the bearers. (Foucault, 1977, p. 10) Inferring similarities between the rhetorical practice of academic writing and the techniques of surveillance discussed by Foucault, Tuner (2011) characterizes aca- demic writing as being “policed by a visibilizing economy of rationality, language and knowledge” (p. 7). In claiming that academic language has been disciplined by the demands of rationality and knowledge since the period of the European Enlightenment, she compares it with the human body which, in the case of pris- oners is disciplined by surveillance: The “body” of written language is disciplined by culturally embedded rheto- rical values, including the rigors of an explicit step-by-step deductive logic, conceptual precision, and clear and concise representation, in other words, a visibilizing rhetorical technology of clarity, concision and brevity. (p. 71) The conduit metaphor The importance of discovering new knowledge during the 17th and 18th cen- turies coincided with a concern that language might interfere in the process of communicating knowledge accurately (Turner, 2011, pp. 54–55), and so “scien- tiﬁc rationality, in privileging knowledge, conceptualized the communication of knowledge as a conduit” (p. 56). In 1689, the philosopher Locke explicitly refer- red to language as the “great Conduit” (Locke, 1689, Book III. Chapter II Section 5). As Turner points out, although the conduit model remains entrenched in English, as evidenced by expressions such as “put things into words”, “get ideas across”, and “transmit messages” (p. 57), linguists such as Michael Halliday oppose the conceptualization of language as a conduit, preferring instead the social semiotic model which shows how language both reﬂects and shapes society. The directness, security, and freedom from error in the transmission of ideas associated with the conduit model (Turner, 2011, p. 57) reﬂect an assumption that the language being “transmitted” accords with the customs and conventions of powerful groups in society, whether they be scientists of centuries past or con- temporary native English speakers. In a later account Turner (2018) points out that the Lockean perspective, although no longer applicable in linguistic episte- mology (p. 15) is institutionalized in higher education, clashing with the func- tionalist view that meaning is created in the process of language use. She observes that the tendency is for the clash to be ignored rather than opened to debate, resulting in the conduit model continuing to constitute and construct institutional 10 McBride discourse (Turner, 2018, pp. 5–6). Rather than regarding the successful commu- nication of knowledge as the mechanistically unidirectional expression of clearly deﬁned ideas as the conduit model would construct it, she notes that the process of attempting to express ideas in writing may actually clarify the ideas in the mind of the writer (Turner, 2018 p. 23). Turner’s (2011) account of the embeddedness of ways of thinking and doing things as “an effect of power working overtime, and no longer visible as such” (p. 110) and her insight into remedial discourses associated with language in aca- demic settings as regulatory sustainers of a “rhetorical power/knowledge” (p. 88) are complemented by Holliday’s description (2005, p. 51) of a subtle form of control in Western TESOL resembling the corrective training studied by Foucault, maintained in part by teacher control and hidden beneath an apparent democracy. Holliday (2005, pp. 53–54) comments on the ritualistic nature of educational routines (beyond the element of ritual in all classrooms which is valuable for cohesion and identity) as being inﬂuential to the extent that even if a student teacher is experiencing difﬁculty with a lesson, the students, knowing the expectations, will tend to compensate. The role of educational institutions Schools not only control people but play a role in controlling meaning by preser- ving and distributing knowledge of a kind regarded as legitimate: The knowledge which everyone should have (Apple, 2004). For the purposes of this discussion, legitimate knowledge is represented by varieties of English used by communities of native speakers. Although curriculum design is intrinsically moral and political, the common- sense view in education seems rather to be that curricular decisions are perceived as technical problems requiring instrumental approaches informed by technical experts (Apple, 2004, p. 104). Such perceptions are attributed by Giroux (2014, p. 198) to neoliberal capitalism’s “ever-expanding support for (a culture in which) market-driven values and relations (act) as the template for judging all aspects of social life”. There is a tendency for English language teachers to comply uncritically with market-driven practices in their use of commercially produced textbooks and tests, believing their actions to be ideologically neutral (Toh, 2016a). English only discourse Educational institutions may therefore uncritically promote English only discourse. Toh (2016b), drawing on Holliday’s characterization of Western TESOL char- acterizes English only discourse as promoting the monolingual learning of English, as disapproving of ﬁrst language use in ELT, and as constituting a hegemonic regime stemming from “colonial and imperialistic discourses” (p. 358), exempli- ﬁed by a historical insistence that immigrants to America be patriotically loyal to English teaching in the context of ELF 11 English. Adherence to English only may involve a similar kind of protectionism and insularity, incompatible with ELF communication (Toh, 2016a). Critical thinking and critical literacy Teachers can be explicit about the ideological function of language so that learners become consciously aware of it (Fairclough, 1989). Critical literacy, according to Luke (2013), is one of the few educational innovations not sourced from the ubi- quitous Eurocentric educational traditions of the English-speaking West, having its origin in revolutionary movements in countries like Brazil and Argentina, and the work of people like Paulo Freire, which has a strong emphasis on critiquing dominant ideologies. Luke (2013) notes that critical literacy and critical thinking, although having different lineages and emphases, meet practically in classrooms. Critical literacy may involve learners engaging with texts, discourses, and modes of information, attending to the ways texts function ideologically and hegemoni- cally, and analyzing not only how texts work, but also how texts “might be manipulated otherwise by authors and readers” (Luke & Dooley, 2011 p. 8). Some attempts to have students attend to ideological messages contained in tele- vision advertisements are outlined in the following section. Taking a critical approach to language learning involves situating languages, discourses, texts, authors, and readers culturally and historically, bringing attention to their “natural” unquestioned status, and understanding how it is possible to construct, deconstruct, and reconstruct texts and discourses in order to “represent, contest and, indeed, transform material, social and semiotic relations” (Luke & Dooley, 2011, p. 1). Native English speaker custodianship of English Two notions associated with Western TESOL are called into question by ELF research: That native speakers of English have ownership of English and that they have custodianship over the way it is used. Widdowson (1994) asserts that because English is an international language it cannot be subject to the custody of any nation, and that to take custody of the language would be to restrict its develop- ment, subverting its international status (p. 385). He argues “as soon as you accept that English serves the communicative and communal needs of different communities, it follows logically that it must be diverse” (1994, p. 385). Under- mining standard English, a symbol expressive of the values of native speaking communities, is perceived as undermining the security of the community and its institutions to the extent that a decaying of standards in grammar is associated with an undermining of what it stands for: The security of the community and its institutions (p. 381). Some members of the international scientiﬁc community, concerned about excluding the ideas of scientists whose writing is not expressed according to con- ventions of native English speakers, argue that scientists whose ﬁrst language is not English can write effective manuscripts, and that during editorial processes their 12 McBride science should be evaluated rather than their degree of conformity to native norms (Drubin & Kellogg, 2012). Just as scientists might be expected to be concerned primarily with scientiﬁc knowledge, so teachers might be expected to be concerned primarily with learn- ing. Nevertheless, teachers tend to test what is taught rather than what is learned, assuming learning to be reactive rather than proactive (Widdowson, 2019, p. 4). When learners continually do not meet the expectation to conform to the native English taught, Widdowson asserts, teachers penalize the learners, attributing the “failure” to them, whereas it would be more reasonable to attribute it to teachers who, by specifying unrealistic objectives, have failed to have their learners obtain the objective (p. 4). Teachers could therefore consider Widdowson’s position (2019), that the E in TESOL should be “based on how English is actually used by speakers of other languages” and the T in TESOL should be “process oriented whereby teachers give reactive support to what learners actually do rather than focus on what they ought to be doing (p. 5) (emphasis original). Perspectives on essentialism, reductionism, and exclusion delineated in this sec- tion lend support to Wang’s conclusion that teachers, rather than working towards satisfying the endeavors of learners to conform with native norms, should give critical thought to such aspirations (2013, p. 278). Conceptualizing and enacting curricular The main purpose of the previous section was to examine ideology which may undermine liberating change in classroom practices. Outlined in this section are some measures for teachers to consider, and some of my attempts to integrate ELF-aware writing and speaking tasks by employing videos of ELF-related com- munication in the context of the complementary relationship between critical awareness and ELF-awareness. Measures for teachers to consider Assumptions held in the past by English language teachers have been challenged, and so need to be reconsidered in a critical way (Widdowson, 2019, p. 5). Tea- chers might consider approaching English as a subject to be taught by emphasiz- ing diversity and variability, accommodation and adaptation, and by focusing on intelligible language which is effective for its purpose, and communication strate- gies to support mutual understanding. ELF-aware curricular change may imply “a respect for locality, heterogeneity and the potential for fresh meaning making” and a harnessing of student “histories, interests and motivations” to create meaning in new ways (Toh, 2016b, pp. 363–364). Change can be liberating without being sudden and conspicuous. “Be wary of radical change” warned Professor Widdowson (2017), speaking about pedagogical implications of ELF at a Japan Association of College English Teachers seminar. His point was that he was not advocating a revolution, but rather speaking about English teaching in the context of ELF 13 doing what good teachers have always done, for example, extending and devel- oping textbook materials to meet the needs and interests of learners in their clas- ses, and regarding text contained in textbooks as “just text”. Seidlhofer (2017), taking a similar view, does not suggest that teaching prac- tices can or should undergo immediate radical change. Instead she points out (p. 20) that teachers can: reﬂect on giving emphasis to appropriate communication rather than operat- ing by a principle of conformity to correctness, give priority to the formal features of the language in proportion to their communicative worth, and allow learners to cultivate a “communicative capability”. Björkman (2013, p. 192) suggests teachers could consider including: listening comprehension materials with diverse accents and examples of com- munication which does not proceed smoothly, authentic recordings as course materials, allowing learners to practice com- prehension activities and note taking, and pragmatic strategies during speaking and listening activities such as role plays. She puts forward the view that teaching time may be spent better in ways other than emphasizing grammatical accuracy in cases where the grammatical structures may not be critical for communicating the message. Some ELF-aware teaching practices The classroom activities described in the following section were used with ﬁrst year Japanese university students at beginning to pre-intermediate levels of proﬁ- ciency. English was a compulsory subject for these English language education and tourism majors, who shared Japanese as a ﬁrst language. A process writing task Students were asked to write 200 words for each of three drafts to be posted on a class blog to be discussed between teacher and learner. The instruction was: Find two TV advertisements for one product. The advertisements should be from different countries. There should be some spoken or written English. Short is best (20–30 seconds). You may choose one country (not two) where English is often used as a ﬁrst language. Step 1: Paste the product name, country, and two URLs. Step 2: Write the English words. Step 3: Describe what happens in each advertisement. Step 4: (Comment) Would this advertisement be successful in Japan? Why/Why not? 14 McBride Step 5: Comment on any linguistic or cultural points you notice, for example words, body language, clothes, music… Step 6: (Comment) Which obvious (everyday/direct/easily seen) “messages” can you see in the advertisements? Step 7: (Comment) Which hidden (ideological/indirect/not easily seen) “mes- sages” are there? Time was allocated in each class to work with students individually, discussing whether what they had written accurately reﬂected the content of the advertisements, and how they could provide evidence for their opinions. In my experience, attending to form with the purpose of accurately reﬂecting the nature of the advertisement is engaging for both teacher and learner. Accuracy in such a context can be determined in relation to the advertisement’s content and meaning rather than to the degree of conformity to the conventions of native speaking communities. Early in the semester students had read Piggybook by Anthony Browne. This children’s story is comprehensible to learners not yet at pre-intermediate level. It conveys an easily identiﬁable message about gender roles and housework. By paraphrasing the message in one sentence students were practicing an ELF-related strategy. Students compared and contrasted messages in Piggybook with messages in the opening scenes of the Academy Award winning movie Fiddler on the Roof, concluding that in both, “Housework is done by the mother”. The difference was that tradition was portrayed as having provided balance and stability in the case of the community in Fiddler on the Roof, but as having led to inequality in the case of the mother being responsible for most of the housework. A degree of reconstruction and recontextualization of sometimes hidden ideo- logical messages was achieved by watching some advertisements which students had selected. An Indian confectionery advertisement shows young women in positions of authority controlling sophisticated video surveillance equipment at an airport, publicly announcing to a middle-aged male passenger that he is late for his ﬂight, and cleverly ensuring his compliance despite his initial unresponsiveness. Another advertisement for a car in South Africa shows native English speaking children being creative with language, as ELF uses are. Claiming that the car their family owned was “tougherer” (meaning tougher) or even “tougherest” (meaning the toughest), the children also used pronunciation which is unlikely to be familiar to the majority of English speakers regardless of their ﬁrst language background, saying “Oh yah?” (meaning Oh yeah?) and “Oh yah!” as they contested the point. Feedback was intended to help the learners decide for themselves on more appropriate forms of language to use. The writers were not required to conform to the conventions of communities where English is used as a ﬁrst language. Other classroom practices Various classroom practices were also employed. As Björkman (2013) suggests, learners were informed that they do not need to conform to native speaker accents to receive the highest grade in speaking tests. According to a message to students English teaching in the context of ELF 15 from the director at the Center where I am employed, learners were not penalized for not imitating native speaker English perfectly. Introducing the work of Ike (2010), who concluded that a high frequency of backchannel behavior among Japanese speakers of English reﬂects cultural identity, I explained that although the frequent use of head movements to acknowledge an interlocutor may accurately communicate a Japanese speaker’s thoughts and feel- ings, the frequency of such acknowledgments may be subject to negotiation as a conversation between Japanese and Australian speakers progresses. After spending so much lesson planning time searching for online videos con- taining ELF interactions, I instead decided to ask students to search as homework. They used the content of their videos to suggest questions for use in speaking activities. Japanese ice skater Yuzuru Hanyu, for example, spoke in English with a French interviewer about winning a competition, prompting the question, “Can you tell me about something you are good at?” Communication strategies used by the skater were identiﬁed as being similar to those recommended for emphasis in teaching by Kaur (2016), namely, “repeat, paraphrase and ask direct questions in contexts where mutual understanding is under threat” (p. 251). Having decided that class time would be proﬁtably spent viewing and discussing online videos I tended to “ﬂip” classroom activities, assigning reading and listening activities formerly done in class to be completed as homework activities. Instead we watched the videos not only as an introduction to speaking activities, but also to practice thinking critically about the writing task. For example, the ideological mes- sage conveyed by one Malaysian advertisement for a confectionery product could be interpreted as reinforcing negative attitudes about women’s participation in physical activity. The advertisement features young men skillfully playing soccer while a female goalkeeper is distracted by falling ﬂower petals, her performance not meeting the expectations of the male players. When the men tell her that their grandmother could play better than her, she tells them to go and get their grandmother to play. The image is one of frailty, disinterest, and ineffectiveness. At other times the classes watched a video featuring former United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon speaking with an American child “celebrity” to explain the purpose of World Humanitarian Day. Students rated each of the speakers according to how easy it was to understand the language used in the video in terms of speaking pace, intelligibility, pronunciation, intonation, and word choice. Most students found that the non-native speaker’s language was easier to comprehend. Another activity I have used successfully in similar contexts, was suggested by Professor Anna Mauranen (personal communication, October 24, 2016). The activity was to record, transcribe, and analyze an interview with a person who has a different linguistic background (see Appendix 1). Finally, I have employed a teaching idea suggested during a lecture about the pedagogic implications of ELF by Professor Widdowson (2017): Students construct sentences from prompts which convey only the essential aspects of the information to be communicated, for example, a noun such as exercise and a verb such as do in order to produce a question such as, “What kind of exercise do you like to do?” This idea forms the basis of speaking test prompt cards for my current classes. 16 McBride Conclusion Teachers and administrators contemplating a response to widespread ELF use might begin by considering how the needs and purposes of most users of English are different from those who use English as a ﬁrst language. Teachers might reﬂect on their role in preserving, distributing, and legitimizing English as a native lan- guage as proper and correct regardless of communicative context, and reducing complex educational issues to merely technical dimensions. With the critical orientation of ELF in mind, teachers may integrate ELF into English language teaching, possibly exploring ideological functions of language, engaging learners by evaluating texts to show how texts may otherwise be presented or manipulated. Some measures for teachers to consider, and some writing and speaking tasks involving videos found online were outlined, and a conversation analysis activity was brieﬂy described. ELF-aware pedagogy may involve emphasizing language diversity and variability, processes of linga-cultural accommodation and adaptation, and communication strategies to enable intelligible communication. Rather than introducing radical change, teachers bearing in mind the locally situated nature of ELF could, for example, extend and develop textbook materials, and make it clear that students who do not perfectly imitate native speaker English will not be penalized. By reconsidering “one size ﬁts all” approaches they may enable students to beneﬁt from learning experiences more closely aligned with current and potential communication contexts. Appendix 1 Conversation analysis task Instructions 1 Find someone who has a different ﬁrst language (NOT a native speaker of Japanese). 2 Select a conversation topic (for example, travel, pets, food, hobbies…). 3 Record a 10-minute conversation. 4 Select 3 minutes of the recording and write the words. 5 Write an analysis* of the words (about half a page of notes or sentences). 6 Present your analysis in a small group and answer any questions (minimum 3 minutes). 7 Give your written analysis and your transcription to your teacher. * Suggestions for your analysis: 1 Comment on speaking pace. 2 Comment on how well you understood each other. 3 Comment on pronunciation differences. 4 Comment on intonation differences. 5 Comment on pauses (How many were there? How long were they? Why did they happen?). English teaching in the context of ELF 17 6 Comment on who spoke more and why. 7 Comment on cultural inﬂuences (For example, did you use acknowledgments [backchannels] as you do with a Japanese ﬁrst language speaker?). 8 Did you have any trouble with speaking, or listening? What did you do then? 9 How did each speaker change their speaking to better understand each other? 10 Did you ﬁnd any other patterns in the conversation? 11 What was your impression of the conversation’s content? 12 How did you feel? References Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum. New York: Routledge. Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: an introduction to the ecology of written language. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Björkman, B. (2013). English as an academic lingua franca: An investigation of form and communicative effectiveness. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Browne, A. (1986). Piggybook. New York: Knopf. Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Negotiating the local in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 197–218. Canagarajah, S. (2013). Theorizing a competence for translingual practice at the contact zone. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilin- gual education (pp. 88–112). New York: Routledge. Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a lingua franca: A corpus-driven investigation. London: 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. Drubin, D. G., & Kellogg, D. R. (2012). English as the universal language of science: opportunities and challenges. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 23(8), 1399–1399. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. (A. Sheridan, Trans.). London: Penguin. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. (C. Gordon, Ed.). New York: Pantheon. Giroux, H. A. (2014). Neoliberalism’s war on higher education. Chicago: Haymarket Books. Harris, R., & Taylor, T. J. (1997). Landmarks in linguistic thought: The western tradition from Socrates to Saussure (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ike, S. (2010). Backchannel: a feature of Japanese English. In A. M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT2009: The teaching-learning dialogue: An active mirror (pp. 205–215). Tokyo: JALT. Ishikawa, T., & Jenkins, J. (2019). What is ELF? Introductory questions and answers for ELT professionals. Center for English as a Lingua Franca Journal, 5, 1–10. Jenkins, J. (2012). English as a Lingua Franca from the classroom to the classroom. ELT Journal, 66(4), 486–494. Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a lingua franca in the international university: The politics of academic English language policy. Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. 18 McBride Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), 281–315. Kaur, J. (2016). Pragmatic strategies for ELF communication. In K. Murata (Ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts: Conceptualisation, research and pedagogic implications (pp. 240–254). London: Routledge. Lillis, T. (2013). Sociolinguistics of writing. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Locke, J. (1975). An essay concerning human understanding. (P. Nidditch, Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1689) Luke, A., & Dooley, K. T. (2011). Critical literacy and second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research on second language teaching and learning: Volume II (pp. 856–868). New York: Routledge. Luke, A. (2013). Critical thinking and critical literacy [video ﬁle]. Retrieved from http s://vimeo.com/87212871 Oda, M., & Toh, G. (2018). Signiﬁcant encounters and consequential eventualities: A joint narrative of collegiality marked by struggles against reductionism, essentialism and exclusion in ELT. In B. Yazan & N. Rudolph (Eds.), Criticality, teacher identity, and (in)equity in English language teaching: Issues and implications (pp. 219–216). New York: Springer. Sampson, G. R. (2007). Grammar without grammaticality. Corpus Linguistics and Lin- guistic Theory, 3(1), 1–32. Seidlhofer, B. (2004). 10. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209–239. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Seidlhofer, B. (2017). English as a lingua franca: Why is it so controversial? In JACET International Convention Selected Papers: Volume 5 (pp. 2–24). Tokyo: JACET. Sifakis, N. C. (2014). ELF awareness as an opportunity for change: A transformative perspec- tive for ESOL teacher education. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(2), 317–335. Toh, G. (2016a). English as medium of instruction in Japanese higher education: Presump- tion, mirage or bluff?Basel: Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Toh, G. (2016b). Doing justice to an English as a lingua franca paradigm. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 5(2), 355–367. Turner, J. (2011). Language in the academy: Cultural reﬂexivity and intercultural dynamics. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Turner, J. (2018). On writtenness: The cultural politics of academic writing. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Walker, R. (2010). Teaching the pronunciation of English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wang, Y. (2013). Non-conformity to ENL norms: A perspective from Chinese English users. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(2), 255–282. Widdowson, H. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 377–389. Widdowson, H. (2012). ELF and the inconvenience of established concepts. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), 5–26. Widdowson, H. (2015). ELF and the pragmatics of language variation. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(2), 359–372. Widdowson, H. (2016). Competence and capability: Rethinking the subject English. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 12(1), 1–17. Widdowson, H. (2017, August). Lingua franca and lingual capability: The pedagogic implications of ELF. Lecture given at the JACET (Japan Association of College English Teachers) 44th Summer Seminar, Tokyo, Japan. English teaching in the context of ELF 19 Widdowson, H. (2019). TESOL: What does the acronym stand for? JACET Journal, 63, 1–6. WrEFLA. (2015). The corpus of written English as a lingua franca in academic settings. Director: Anna Mauranen. Compilation manager: Ray Carey. Retrieved from: https:// www.helsinki.ﬁ/en/researchgroups/english-as-a-lingua-franca-in-academic-settings/ Yamada, M. (2014). The role of English teaching in modern Japan: Diversity and multi- culturalism through English language education in a globalized era. London: Routledge. References Adityarini, H. (2014). An examination of the suitability of a pluricentric model of English language teaching for primary education in Indonesia (Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion). Curtin University, Australia. Ansaldo, U. (2009). The Asian typology of English: Theoretical and methodological con- siderations. English World-Wide, 30(2), 133–148. Backhaus, P. (2005). Signs of multilingualism in Tokyo: A diachronic look at the linguistic landscape. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 175/176, 103–121. Backhaus, P. (2007). Linguistic landscapes. A comparative study of urban multilingualism in Tokyo. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Bao, Z. (2003). Social stigma and grammatical autonomy in nonnative varieties of English. Language in Society, 32(1), 23–46. Bhatia, T. K. (1989). Bilinguals’ creativity and syntactic theory: Evidence for emerging grammar. World Englishes, 8, 265–276. Bhatt, R. M. (2001). World Englishes. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 527–550. Bolton, K. (2005). Where WE stands: Approaches, issues, and debate in world Englishes. World Englishes, 24(1), 69–83. Bolton, K. (2006). Varieties of world Englishes. In B. B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & C. Nelson (Eds.), The Handbook of World Englishes (pp. 289–312). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub- lishing Ltd. Bolton, K., Graddol, D., & Meierkord, C. (2011). Towards developmental world Eng- lishes. World Englishes, 30, 459–480. Buripakdi, A. (2008). Thai English as discourse of exclusion and resistance: Perspectives of Thai professional writers on the notion of Thai English (Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion). Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania. Chiba, R., Matsuura, H., & Yamamoto, A. (1995). Japanese attitudes toward English accents. World Englishes, 14(1), 77–86. Dovchin, S. (2017). Translocal English in the linguascape of Mongolian popular music. World Englishes, 36(1) 1–12. Gonzalez, A. (1976). Content in English language materials in the Philippines: A case study of cultural and linguistic emancipation. Philippine Studies, 24, 443–454. Gove, P. B. (1966). Englishes of other lands. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 52(2), 125–130. Halliday, M. A., Mcintosh, A., & Strevens, P. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman. He, D., & Li, D. (2009). Language attitudes and linguistic features in the ‘China English’ debate. World Englishes, 28(1), 70–89. He, D., & Zhang, Q. (2010). Native speaker norms and China English: From the per- spective of learners and teachers in China. TESOL Quarterly, 44(4), 769–789. Higgins, C. (2003). “Ownership” of English in the Outer Circle: An alternative to the NS- NNS dichotomy. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 615–644. Ho, D. G. E., & Deterding, D. (2016). The grammar of Brunei English. World Englishes, 35, 542–553. Hopwood, D. (1961). South African English pronunciation. English Studies in Africa, 4(1), 68–74. Huebner, T. (2006). Bangkok’s linguistic landscapes: Environmental print, codemixing and language change. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 31–51. Kachru, B. B. (1961). An analysis of some features of Indian English: A study in linguistic method (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh. Kachru, B. B. (1965). The Indianness in Indian English. Word, 21(3), 391–410. Kamwangamalu, N., & Tovares, A. (2016). English in language ideologies, attitudes, and educational practices in Kenya and South Africa. World Englishes, 35, 421–439. Lanham, L. W., & Traill, A. (1962). South African English pronunciation. English Studies in Africa, 5(2), 171–208. Lawrence, C. B. (2012). The Korean English linguistic landscape. World Englishes, 31(1), 70–92. Llamzon, T. (1969). Standard Filipino English. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University. Lok, I. M. (2012). World Englishes and postcolonialism: Reading Kachru and Said. World Englishes, 31(4), 419–433. Lorente, B. P. (2010). Packaging English-speaking products: maid agencies in Singapore. In H. Kelly-Holmes, & G. Mautner (Eds.), Language and the Market (pp. 44–55). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Lorente, B. P. (in press). Scripts of servitude: language, labor migration and transnational domestic workers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Lou, J. J. (2012). Chinatown in Washington, DC: The bilingual landscape. World Eng- lishes, 31(1), 34–47. Orikasa, M. (2016). The intelligibility of varieties of English in Japan. World Englishes, 35, 355–371. McArthur, T. (1987). The English languages? English Today, 3(3), 9–13. Morrow, P. R. (1987). The users and uses of English in Japan. World Englishes, 6(1), 49–62. Nelson C. (1995). Intelligibility and world Englishes in the classroom. World Englishes, 14, 273–279. Pan, L. (2015). Glocalization and the spread of unequal Englishes: Vernacular signs in the center of Beijing. In R. Tupas (Ed.), Unequal Englishes: The politics of Englishes today (pp. 163–184). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Parakrama, A. (1995). De-hegemonizing language standards: learning from (post)colonial Englishes about ‘English’. London: Macmillan Press. Qiong, H. X. (2004). Why China English should stand alongside British, American, and the other ‘world Englishes’. English Today, 20(2), 26–33. Rowland, L. (2016). English in the Japanese linguistic landscape: A motive analysis. Jour- nal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(1), 40–55. Sarmah, P., Gogoi, D. V., & Wiltshire, C. R. (2009). Thai English: Rhythm and vowels. English World-Wide, 30(2), 196–217. Seilhamer, M. F. (2015). The ownership of English in Taiwan. World Englishes, 34, 370–388. Shim, R. J. (1999). Codiﬁed Korean English: process, characteristics and consequence. World Englishes, 18(2), 247–258. Smith, L. E. (1992). Spread of English and issues of intelligibility. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 75–90). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Smith, L. E., & Nelson, C. L. (1985). International intelligibility of English: directions and resources. World Englishes, 4(3), 333–342. Sridhar, S. N. (1992). The ecology of bilingual competence: language interaction in the syntax of indigenized varieties of English. World Englishes, 11, 141–150. Stanlaw, J. (2004). Japanese English: Language and culture contact. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Strevens, P. D. (1964). Varieties of English. English Studies, 45(1), 20–30. Stroud, C., & Mpendukana, S. (2009). Towards a material ethnography of linguistic land- scape: Multilingualism, mobility and space in a South African township. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13(3), 363–386. Tan, Y. Y. (2014). English as a ‘mother tongue’ in Singapore. World Englishes, 33(3), 319–339. Tay, M. (1991). Southeast Asia and Hong Kong. In J. Cheshire (Ed.), English around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 319–332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taylor-Leech, K. J. (2012). Language choice as an index of identity: Linguistic landscape in Dili, Timor-Leste. International Journal of Multilingualism, 9(1), 15–34. Tiffen, B. W. (1974). The intelligibility of Nigerian English (Unpublished doctoral dis- sertation). University of London, London. Tongue, R. K. (1974). The English of Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore: Eastern Uni- versities Press. Trakulkasemsuk, W. (2012). Thai English. In E. L. Low, & A. Hashim (Eds.), English in South- east Asia: Features, policy and language use (pp. 101–111). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tupas, R. (2006). Standard Englishes, pedagogical paradigms and their conditions of (im) possibility. In R. Rubdy, & M. Saraceni (Eds.), English in the world: Global rules, global roles (pp. 169–185). London: Continuum Press. Tupas, R. (2014). The unequal production of knowledge in the sociolinguistics of Eng- lishes. In R. Marlina, & R. A. Giri (Eds.), The pedagogy of English as an International Language (pp. 159–173). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Walsh, N. (1967). Distinguishing types and varieties of English in Nigeria. Journal of the Nigerian English Studies Association, 2(2), 47–55. Wiebesiek, L., Rudwick, S., & Zeller, J. (2011). South African Indian English: A qualitative study of attitudes. World Englishes, 30, 251–268. Willis, P., & Trondman, M. (2002). Manifesto for ethnography. Critical Methodologies, 2(3), 394–402. Yajun, J. (1995). Chinglish and China English. English Today, 11(1), 51–56. “Ajikdo dokhae munbeop jungsim—siheomen ‘bareum giho sseora’” (Still focusing on translation and grammar—Test requires students to write phonological symbols). (2006, April 13). Joon-Ang Ilbo. Retrieved from: https://news.joins.com/article/2263028 Hou, Z. M. (1987). English teaching in China: Problems and perspectives. TESOL News- letter, 21(3), 25–27. Iino, M. (2002). Language and English education in Japan. In R. E. Silver, G. Hu, & M. Iino (Eds.), English language education in China, Japan and Singapore (pp. 52–96). Singapore: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (2011). Re-evaluating traditional approaches to second language teaching and learning. In E. Hinckley, (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 558–575). New York: Routledge. Kwon, O. (2014). Hanguk yeongeo gyoyuk hakjadeuleui hakmun yeongu teukseonggwa gyeonghyang [Characteristics and trends of academic research by Korean scholars of English education]. English Teaching, 69(2), 199–225. Kwon, O., Boo, K. Y., Shin, D., Lee, J. K., & Hyun, S. B. (2006). A survey on the ten years of English education in Korean elementary schools, and suggestions for the improvement of English education: A research report to the Ministry of Education. Seoul: Ministry of Education. Kwon, O., & Kim, J. R. (2010). Hanguk yeongeo gyoyuksa [History of English education in Korea]. Seoul: Hankuk Munhwasa. Kwon, O., Lee, M. W., Choi, M. Y., Chung, W. G., Yang, S. Y., Park, L. W., & Gray, E. R. (2012). Middle school English. Seoul: Kyohaksa. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Løfsgaard, K. A. (2015). The history of English education in Japan - Motivations, attitudes and methods (Unpublished master’s thesis). The University of Oslo, Norway. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Nunan, D. (Ed.). (2003). Practical English language teaching. New York: McGraw Hill. O’ Donnell, K. (2005). Japanese secondary English teachers: Negotiation of educational roles in the face of curricular reform. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 18(3), 300–315. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Savage, K. L. (Series Editor) (2007). Teacher training through video: ESL Techniques [DVD-ROM]. New York: Pearson Education ESL. Ahn, H. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards Korean English in South Korea. World Eng- lishes, 33(2), 195–222. Alfaro, C., & Bartolomé, L. (2017). Preparing ideologically clear bilingual teachers: Hon- oring working-class non-standard language use in the bilingual education classroom. Issues in Teacher Education, 26(2), 11–34. Bacon, C. K. (2017). Dichotomies, dialects, and deﬁcits: Confronting the “Standard Eng- lish” myth in literacy and teacher education. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 66(1), 341–357. Bernardo, A. (2017). Philippine English in the ESL classroom: A much closer look. Phi- lippine ESL Journal, 19, 117–114. Canagarajah, S. (2012). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. London & New York: Routledge. Chen, H. (2016). “Chinese helicopter”: Singlish OED entry bafﬂes Singaporeans. BBC. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-36283670 Cheshire, J., Hall, D., & Adger, D. (2017). Multicultural London English and social and educational policies. Languages, Society & Policy. doi:10.17863/CAM.9804 Chisholm, J. S., & Godley, A. J. (2011). Learning about language through inquiry-based discussion: Three bidialectal high school students’ talk about dialect variation, identity, and power. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 430–468. Cummins, J., Bismilla, V., Chow, P., & France, S. C. (2005). Afﬁrming identity in multi- lingual classrooms. The Whole Day, 63(1), 38–43. Decker, K. (2000). The use of Belize Kriol to improve English proﬁciency. Paper presented at the 5th International Creole Workshop, Florida International University. Dovchin, S., Sultana, S., & Pennycook, A. (2016). Unequal translingual Englishes in the Asian peripheries. Asian Englishes, 18(2), 92–108. Fasold, R. W. (1971). What can an English teacher do about nonstandard dialect? English Record, 21(4), 82–91. Floris, F. D., & Renandya, W. A. (2020). Promoting the value of non-native English- speaking teachers. PASAA, 59(1), 1–19. Godley, A., & Escher, A. (2012). Bidialectal African American adolescents’ beliefs about spoken language expectations in English classrooms. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Lit- eracy, 55(8), 704–713. Godley, A. J., Sweetland, J., Wheeler, R. S., Minnici, A., & Carpenter, B. D. (2006). Pre- paring teachers for dialectally diverse classrooms. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 30–37. Ha, P. L. (2015). Unequal Englishes in imagined intercultural interactions. In R. Tupas (Ed.), Unequal Englishes: The politics of Englishes today (pp. 223–243). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Harrison, N. (2004). Self-recognition and well-being: Speaking Aboriginal English in healthy classrooms. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 33, 7–13. Henry, E. S. (2015). “Just an old joke”: Chinglish, narrative, and linguistic inequality in the Chinese English classroom. In R. Tupas (Ed.), Unequal Englishes: The politics of Englishes today (pp. 95–110). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Higgins, C. (2016). Towards sociolinguistically informed language teacher identities. In G. Barkhuizen (Ed.), Reﬂections on language teacher identity research (pp. 45–50). New York: Routledge. Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385–387. Holquist, M. (1990). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world. London: Routledge. Horner, B., NeCamp, S., & Donahue, C. (2011). Toward a multilingual composition scholarship: From English only to a translingual norm. College Composition and Com- munication, 63(2), 269–300. Jenkins, J. (2005). Implementing an international approach to English pronunciation: The role of teacher attitudes and identity. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 535–542. Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Kachru, B. B. (Ed.) (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Karimi, L. (2018). Effect of using colloquial versus Standard English to teach EFL listening comprehension. International Journal of Listening. doi:10.1080/10904018.2018.1443009 Kelly, L. L. (2013). Hip-hop literature: The politics, poetics, and power of hip-hop in the English classroom. English Journal, 102(5), 51–56. Kirkpatrick, A. (2011). English as an Asian lingua franca and the multilingual model of ELT. Language Teaching, 44(2), 212–224. Kubota, R. (2001). Teaching world Englishes to native speakers of English in the USA. World Englishes, 20(1), 47–64. Labov, W. (1969). The logic of nonstandard English. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), 20th Annual Round Table: Linguistics and the teaching of Standard English to speakers of other lan- guages or dialects (no. 22). Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press. Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lee, E., & Canagarajah. S. (2019). The connection between transcultural dispositions and translingual practices in academic writing. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 14(1), 14–28. Lee, J. S. (2019). Teacher as change agent: attitude change toward varieties of English through teaching English as an international language. Asian Englishes, 21(1), 87–102. Leong, W. K. (2016, May 28). Petition to drop derogatory Singlish term from OED. Asia One. Retrieved from: https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/petition-drop-derogator y-singlish-term-oed Li, Wei (2017). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30. Litzenberg, J. (2016). Pre‐service teacher perspectives towards pedagogical uses of non‐native and native speech samples. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 168–189. Lüdi, G., & Py, B. (2009). To be or not to be…a plurilingual speaker. International Journal of Multilingualism, 6(2), 154–167. Mahboob, A., & Golden, R. (2013). Looking for native speakers of English: Discrimination in English Language Teaching job advertisements. Voices in Asia Journal, 1(1), 72–81. Martin, I. P. (2014). English language teaching in the Philippines. World Englishes, 33(4), 472–485. Martin, I. P. (Ed.). (2018). Reconceptualizing English education in a multilingual society: English in the Philippines. Singapore: Springer. Martin, I., & Morgan, B. (2015). Preparing teachers for “unequal Englishes”: The D- TEIL experience in Cuba. In R. Tupas (Ed.), Unequal Englishes: The politics of Englishes today (pp. 244–264). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Martínez, R. A. (2010). Spanglish as literacy tool: Toward an understanding of the poten- tial role of Spanish-English code-switching in the development of academic literacy. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(2), 124–149. Matsuda, A. (2003). Incorporating world Englishes in teaching English as an International Language. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 719–729. Matsuda, A. (2012). Teaching materials in EIL. In L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for the Teaching of English as an Interna- tional Language (pp. 168–185). New York: Routledge. Matsuda, A., & Matsuda, P. K. (2017). Teaching English as an international language: A WE-informed paradigm for English language teaching. In E. L. Low & A. Pakir (Eds.), World Englishes: Rethinking paradigms (pp. 104–117). London: Routledge. Matsuda, P. K. (2014). The lure of translingual writing. PMLA, 129(3), 478–483. McKay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Nero, S. (2006). Language, identity, and education of Caribbean English speakers. World Englishes, 25(3‐4), 501–511. Pennycook, A. (2003). Global Englishes, rip slyme, and performativity. Journal of Socio- linguistics, 7(4), 513–533. Pennycook, P. (2008). Translingual English. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 1–9. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Piller, I. (2016). Linguistic diversity and social justice: An introduction to applied socio- linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Quismundo, T. (2015, June 26). 40 Filipino-coined words now in Oxford dictionary, Inquirer.net. Retrieved from: https://globalnation.inquirer.net/125245/40-ﬁlipino-coi ned-words-now-in-oxford-dictionary Rose, H., & Galloway, N. (2017). Debating standard language ideology in the classroom: Using the “Speak Good English Movement” to raise awareness of global Englishes. RELC Journal, 48(3), 294–301. Rowland, L. (2013). The pedagogical beneﬁts of a linguistic landscape project in Japan. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(4), 494–505. Sabaté-Dalmau, M. (2018). “I speak small”: Unequal Englishes and transnational identities among Ghanaian migrants. International Journal of Multilingualism, 15(4), 365–382. Salazar, D. (2014). Towards improved coverage of Southeast Asian Englishes in the Oxford English Dictionary. Lexicography, 1(1), 95–108. Salazar, D. (2018, Jan 5). From datus to trapos: reading Philippine history in the OED. new mandala: New perspectives on Southeast Asia. Retrieved from: https://www.newma ndala.org/datus-trapos-reading-philippine-history-oed/ Saraceni, M., & Jacob, C. (2019). Revisiting borders: named languages and de-coloniza- tion. Language Sciences, 76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2018.05.007 Sato, C. J. (1989). A nonstandard approach to standard English. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 259–282. Sayer, P. (2009). Using the linguistic landscape as a pedagogical resource. ELT Journal, 64(2), 143–154. Siegel, J. (1997). Using a pidgin language in formal education: Help or hindrance? Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 86–100. Siegel, J. (2006). Language ideologies and the education of speakers of marginalized lan- guage varieties: Adopting a critical awareness approach. Linguistics and Education, 17(2), 157–174. Siegel, J. (2008). Pidgin in the classroom. Educational Perspectives, 41, 55–65. 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. Sung, C. C. M. (2016). Exposure to multiple accents of English in the English Language Teaching classroom: From second language learners’ perspectives. Innovation in Lan- guage Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 190–205. Tan, P. K., & Tan, D. K. (2008). Attitudes towards non‐standard English in Singapore. World Englishes, 27(3‐4), 465–479. Trudgill, P. (1979). Standard and non-standard dialects of English in the United Kingdom: Problems and policies. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 21, 9–24. Tupas, R. (Ed.). (2015). Unequal Englishes: The politics of Englishes today. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Tupas, R., & Salonga, A. (2016). Unequal Englishes in the Philippines. Journal of Socio- linguistics, 20(3), 367–381. Van Der Wildt, A., Van Avermaet, P., & Van Houtte, M. (2017). Multilingual school population: Ensuring school belonging by tolerating multilingualism. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(7), 868–882. Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054. Wee, L. (2014). Linguistic chutzpah and the Speak Good Singlish movement. World Eng- lishes, 33(1), 85–99. Wheeler, R. (2016). “So much research, so little change”: Teaching Standard English in African American classrooms. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2, 367–390. Wheeler, R. S. (2006). “What do we do about student grammar—All those missing - ‘ed’s’ And -‘s’s’?” Using comparison and contrast to teach Standard English in dialectally diverse classrooms. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(1), 16–33. Wolfson, N., & Manes, J. (1985). Language of inequality. Berlin: Mouton. Ahn, H. J. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards Korean English in South Korea. World Englishes, 33(2), 195–222. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (n.d.). World-readi- ness standards for learning languages. Retrieved from: https://www.actﬂ.org/publica tions/all/world-readiness-standards-learning-languages Baker, W. (2008). A critical examination of ELT in Thailand: The role of cultural aware- ness. RELC, 39(1), 131–146. Baker, W. (2011). From cultural awareness to intercultural awareness: Culture in ELT. ELT Journal, 66(1), 62–70. doi:10.1093/elt/ccr017 Bernaisch, T. (2012). Attitudes towards Englishes in Sri Lanka. World Englishes, 31(3), 279–291. Bradley, N. (2018). Essentialism in the concept of culture: Gauging belief. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 21, 1–21. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Cleve- don: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2006, October). Languages and identities. Paper presented at the Inter- governmental Conference: Languages of Schooling Towards a Framework for Europe, Strasbourg, France. Byram, M. (2012). Conceptualizing intercultural (communicative) competence and inter- cultural citizenship. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and inter- cultural communication (pp. 85–97). New York: Routledge. Byram, M., Gribkova, B., & Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the intercultural dimension in language teaching: A practical introduction for teachers. Language Policy Division Directorate of School, Out-of-School and Higher Education DGIV. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Cheewasukthaworn, K., & Suwanarak, K. (2017). Exploring Thai EFL teachers’ percep- tions of how intercultural communicative competence is important for their students. PASAA, 54, 177–204. Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2000). The development and validation of the inter- cultural communication sensitivity scale. Human Communication, 3, 1–15. Committee on Foreign Relations. (2001). Exchange programs and the national interest. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Ofﬁce. Deardoff, D. K. (2006). Identiﬁcation and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 241–266. Deardoff, D. K. (2009). Implementing intercultural competence assessment. In D. Deard- off (Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural communication (pp. 477–491). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Drewelow, I., & Mitchell, C. (2015). An exploration of learners’ conceptions of language, culture, and learning in advanced-level Spanish courses. Language, Culture and Curri- culum, 28(3), 243–256. Furstenberg, G. (2010). Making culture the core of the language class: Can it be done? The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 329–332. Hanson, M. J., & Lynch, E. W. (1998). Developing cross-cultural competence. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks. Holliday, A. R. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 237–264. Holliday, A. (2012). Culture, communication, context and power. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 37–51). New York: Routledge. Hymes, D. H. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gum- perz, & D. H. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 35–71). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Inkaew, M. (2016). An analysis of intercultural communicative competence: Hotel front ofﬁce personnel in Bangkok. PASAA, 11, 185–214. Jäämaa, S. J. (2015). Cross-culture management for foreign managers at hotel industry in Thailand. Journal of Advanced Management Science, 3(2), 103–108. Jackson, J. (2012). Introduction and overview. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 1–13). New York: Routledge. Jackson, J. (2014). Introducing language and intercultural communication. New York: Routledge. Jandt, F. E. (2013). An introduction to intercultural communication identities in a global community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jindapitak, N., & Teo, A. (2010). Thai in blood, American in taste: English learners’ pre- ferences for varieties of English. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Huma- nities and Social Sciences. Faculty of Arts, Prince of Songkla University, Songkla, Thailand. Karabinar, S., & Guler, C. Y. (2013). A review of intercultural competence from language teachers’ perspective. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1316–1328. Kramsch, C. (2014). Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 296–311. Laopongharn, W., & Sercombe, P. (2009). What relevance does intercultural communica- tion have to language education in Thailand. ARECLS, 6, 59–83. Lázár, I., Huber-Kriegler, M., Lussier, D., Matel, G. S., & Peck, C. (2007). Developing and assessing intercultural communicative competence: A guide for language teachers and teacher educators. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Lavrenteva, E., & Orland-Barak, L. (2015). The treatment of culture in the foreign lan- guage curriculum: An analysis of national curriculum documents. Curriculum Studies, 47(5), 653–684. Liddicoat, K. R. (2011). Introduction: From the learner to the speaker/social actor. In G. Zarate, D. Lévy, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Handbook of multilingualism and multi- culturalism (pp. 17–23). Paris: Éditions des Archives Contemporaines, Ltd. Loo, D. B., Trakulkasemsuk, W., & Zilli, P. J. (2018). The state of the intercultural com- municative competence: An exploration through trajectories in English teachers’ dis- course. PASAA, 56, 33–64. Matsuda, A. (2003). International understanding through teaching world Englishes. World Englishes, 21(3), 436–440. Matsuo, C. (2012). A critique of Michael Byram’s intercultural communicative competence model from the perspective of model type and conceptualization of culture. Fukuoka University Review of Literature & Humanities, 44(2), 347–380. Ming, H. (2018). Cross-cultural differences and cultural stereotypes in tourism: Chinese tourists in Thailand. Journal of Hotel and Business Management, 1(1), 1–5. doi:10.4172/2169-0286.S1-001 Ministry of Education. (2008). The Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E.2551 (A.D2008). Thailand: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from: http://www.act.ac.th/document/ 1741.pdf Mitchell, P.J., Pardinho, L.A., Yermakova-Aguiar, N. N., & Meshkov, L.V. (2015). Lan- guage learning and intercultural communicative competence: An action research case study of learners of Portuguese. The XXVI Annual International Academic Conference, Language and Culture. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 200, 307–312. Moeller A., & Nugent, K. (2014). Building intercultural competence in the language classroom. In S. Dhonan (Ed.), Unlock the gateway to communication: 2014 report of the central states conference on the teaching of foreign languages (pp. 1–18). Richmond, VA: Robert M. Terry. Noels, K. A., Yashima, T., & Zhang, R. (2012). Language, identity and intercultural communication. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and inter- cultural communication (pp. 52–66). New York: Routledge. Nomnian, S. (2013). Review of English language basic education core curriculum: Peda- gogical implications for Thai primary level teachers of English. Kasetsart Journal of Social Science, 34, 583–589. Ofﬁce of the Basic Education Commission. (2008). Basic education core curriculum B.E. 2551 (A. D. 2008). Bangkok, Thailand: Ministry of Education. Olaya, A., & Rodriquez, L. F. G. (2013). Exploring EFL pre-service teachers’ experience with cultural content and intercultural communicative competence at three Colombian universities, Proﬁle, 15, 49–67. Prapinwong, M. (2018). Developing intercultural awareness for pre-service teachers in Thailand. ABAC Journal, 38(2), 21–35. Reynolds, A. (2015). Educators’ global competence development: Implications for teacher education and language teaching. The Language Educator, 10(3), 51–53. Reid, E. (2015). Techniques developing intercultural communicative competences in English language lessons. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 939–943. Reisinger, D., & Clifford, J. (2015). Transforming learners through intercultural compe- tence. The Language Educator, 3, 70–73. Richardson, A. (2012). The cultural boundary: How awareness informs teaching practice (Unpublished master’s thesis). SIT Graduate Institute, Brattleboro, VT. Risager, K. (2007). Language and culture pedagogy: From a national to a transnational paradigm. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Risager, K. (2012). Linguaculture and transnationality: The cultural dimensions of lan- guage. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural com- munication. (pp. 101–115). New York: Routledge. Rui, L. (2012). Practical use of Moran’s theoretical frameworks in teaching culture: A case study in an EFL university reading and writing class. Sino-US English Teaching, 9(3), 988–995. Ryan, P. (2012). The English as a foreign or international language classroom. In J. Jack- son (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 422–433). New York: Routledge. Sucher, W., & Cheung, C. (2015). The relationship between hotel employees’ cross-cul- tural competency and team performance in multi-national hotel companies. Interna- tional Journal of Hospitality Management, 49, 93–104. Suwannasom, T. (2016). Intercultural competence: A critical competence for Thai learners of English in the ASEAN community. Journal of Humanities Naraesuan University, 12 (3), 1–12. UNESCO. (2013). Intercultural competences: Conceptual and operational framework. Paris: UNESCO. Vos, L. (2018). Teaching intercultural communicative competence alongside language pro- ﬁciency (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from Utrecht University Repository. https://dspace. library.uu.nl/handle/1874/360047 Xu, Z. (2006). Rectifying ‘Chinese English’. In A. Hashim & H. Norizah (Eds.), Varieties of English in Southeast Asia and beyond. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. Young, T., & Sachdev, I. (2011). Intercultural communicative competence: Exploring English language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Awareness, 20(2), 81–98. Zerzová, J. (2018). Opportunities to develop intercultural communicative competence in Czech lower-secondary schools: Findings of the IRSE video study of German. Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 6(3), 101–121. Alvarado, N. C., Coelho, D., & Dougherty, E. (2016). Mobile apps for ELLs: Supporting language learning with engaging digital tools. Argentinian Journal of Applied Linguis- tics, 4(1), 43–58. Anson, C. M., & Dannels, D. P. (2018). Handing over the reins: Ownership, support, and the departmentally-focused model of communication across the curriculum. In M. Cox, J. Galin, & D. Melzer (Eds.), Sustainable WAC: a whole systems approach to launching and developing WAC programs (pp. 5–7). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Braine, G. (2001). When professors don’t cooperate: A critical perspective on EAP research. English for Speciﬁc Purposes, 20, 293–303. Braine, G., & McNaught, C. (2007). Adaptation of the ‘Writing Across Curriculum’ model to the Hong Kong context. In J. Liu (Ed.), English language teaching in China: New approaches, perspectives and standards (pp. 311–328). London: Continuum International. Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong SAR Government. (2016a). Hong Kong as an information society. Retrieved from http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp120. jsp?productCode=B1110006 Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong SAR Government. (2016b). Thematic household survey report no. 59. Retrieved from https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/ sub/sp140.jsp?productCode=B1130201 Chapin, L. (2018). Implementing writing intensive Gen Ed seminars at a small, catholic university. Composition Forum, 38. Retrieved from http://compositionforum.com/ issue/38/gwynedd-mercy.php Chen, C. M., Hsu, S. H., Li, Y. L., & Peng, C. J. (2006). Personalized intelligent m- learning system for supporting effective English learning. 2006 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 6, 4898–4903. Chen, J. (2018). Comprehensive review of university English subjects: Results and reﬂec- tions. JACET Journal, 62, 1–14. Chen, J., Chau, J., Lim, G., & Li, V. (2016). Improving university students’ English reading and listening skills through online language learning. International Journal for 21st Century Education, 1, 35–54. Cheng, W., Chan, M., Chiu, H., Kwok, A., Lam, K. H., Lam, K. M. K., Lim, G., & Wright, R. (2014). Writing across the curriculum: A critical sourcebook. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Cox, M. (2011). WAC: Closing doors or opening doors for second language writers? Across the Disciplines, 8(4). Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/atd/ell/ cox.pdf Cox, M., Galin, J., & Melzer, D. (2018). Building sustainable WAC programs: A whole systems approach. The WAC Journal, 29. Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/ docs/journal/vol29/cox.pdf Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learn- ing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davis, D. J. (1987) Eight faculty members talk about student writing. College Teaching, 35(1), 31–35. Dick, J. A. R., & Esch, R. M. (1985). Dialogues among disciplines: A plan for faculty dis- cussions of Writing Across the Curriculum. College Composition and Communication, 36(2), 178–182. Eblen, C. (1983). Writing Across the Curriculum: A survey of a university faculty’s views and classroom practices. Research in the Teaching of English, 17(4), 343–348. Education Commission. (2000). Reform proposals for the education system in Hong Kong. Retrieved from https://www.ec.edu.hk/doc/en/publications_and_related_documents/ education_reform/Edu-reform-eng.pdf Evans, S. (2017). English in Hong Kong higher education. World Englishes, 36(4), 591–610. Ferris, C., & Smith, R. (2000). Writing-intensive courses: Tools for curricular change. In S. H. McLeod, & M. Soven (Eds.), Writing across the curriculum: A guide to developing programs (pp. 52–62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Harvey, A., Russell-Mundine, G., & Hoving, E. (2016). Modelling interdisciplinary colla- boration to build cultural competence and academic literacy. Journal of Academic Lan- guage & Learning, 10(1), A101–A117. Holdsworth, A., Watty, K., & Davies, M. (2009). Developing capstone experiences. Mel- bourne: The University of Melbourne: Centre for Study of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/resources_teach/curriculum_design/docs/Cap stone_Guide_09.pdf Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2004). Integrative learning: Mapping the terrain. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Kuriloff, P. C. (1992). The writing consultant: Collaboration and team teaching. In S. H. McLeod, & M. Soven (Eds.), Writing across the curriculum: A guide to developing pro- grams (pp. 134–149). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lam, P., Wong, S., Wong, K., & McNaught, C. (2010). Ownership and use of mobile technologies: Planning mobile learning strategies for a Hong Kong university. Online proceedings of the Enhancing Learning Experiences in Higher Education: International Conference. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong. Retrieved from www.cetl.hku. hk/conference2010/pdf/Lam.pdf Liaw, S. S., Hatal, M., & Huang, H. M. (2010). Investigating acceptance toward mobile learning to assist individual knowledge management: Based on activity theory approach. Computers & Education, 54(2), 446–454. McLeod, S. H., & Soven, M. (2000). Writing across the curriculum: A guide to developing programs. Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate. edu/books/mcleod_soven/ Rademaekers, J. K. (2015, October 27). Is WAC/WID ready for the transdisciplinary research university? Across the Disciplines, 12(2). Retrieved from https://wac.colostate. edu/docs/atd/articles/rademaekers2015.pdf Rowles, C. J., Koch, D. C., Hundley, S. P., & Hamilton, S. J. (2004). Toward a model for capstone experiences: Mountaintops, magnets, and mandates. Assessment Update, 16(1), 1–2, 13–15. Sageev, P., & Romanowski, C. J. (2001). A message from recent engineering graduates in the workplace: Results of a survey on technical communication skills. Journal of Engi- neering Education, 90(4), 685–693. Thomas, K., Wong, K. C., & Li, Y. C. (2014). The capstone experience: student and aca- demic perspectives. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(3), 580–594. Townsend, M. (2008). WAC program vulnerability and what to do about it: An update and brief bibliographic essay. The WAC Journal, 19, 45–61. Tudor, J., Penlington, R., & McDowell, L. (2010). Perceptions and their inﬂuences on approaches to learning. Engineering Education, 5(2), 69–79. Ware, R., Turnipseed, N., Gallagher, J. R., Elliott, C. M., Popovics, J. S., Prior, P., & Zilles, J. L. (2019). Writing across engineering: A collaborative approach to support STEM faculty’s integration of writing instruction in their classes. American Society for Engineering Education 2019 Annual Conference, paper ID #26720. Retrieved from http s://peer.asee.org/writing-across-engineering-a-collaborative-approach-to-support-stem -faculty-s-integration-of-writing-instruction-in-their-classes.pdf Wolfe-Quintero, K., & Segade, G. (1999). University support for second-language writers across the curriculum. In L. Harklau, K. M. Losey & M. Siegal (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL (pp. 191–209). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Zawacki, T. M., & Cox, M. (2014). WAC and second-language writers: Research towards linguistically and culturally inclusive programs and practices. Perspectives on Writing. Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press. Retrieved from http s://wac.colostate.edu/books/perspectives/l2/ Zawacki, T. M., & Rogers, P. M. (2011). Writing across the curriculum: A critical source- book. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s Adie, L., Van der Kleij, F., & Cumming, J. (2018). The development and application of coding frameworks to explore dialogic feedback interactions and self-regulated learning. British Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 704–723. Al-Ahdal, A. A. M. H., & Al-Awaid, S. A. A. (2014). Reﬂective teaching and language teacher education programmes; a milestone in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(4), 759–768. Al-Huneidi, A.M., & Schreurs, J. (2013). Constructivism based blended learning in higher education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies i-JET, 7(1), 1–7. Azadi, G., Biria, R., & Nasri, M. (2018). Operationalising the concept of mediation in L2 teacher education. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(1), 132–140. Borg, S. (2011). The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs. System, 39, 370–380. Boyles, D. (2019). Ethics, curriculum, teaching and learning in a hostile learning environ- ment. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 21(1–2), 21–44. Brownell, M. T., Adams, A., Sindelar, P., Waldron, N., & Vanhover, S. (2006). Learning from collaboration: The role of teacher qualities. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 169–188. Carlson, J. R. (2019). “How am I going to handle the situation?” The role(s) of reﬂective practice and critical friend groups in secondary teacher education. IJ-SoTL, 13(1), Article 12. Chan K., Cheung G., Wan K., Brown I., & Luk G. (2015) Synthesizing technology adoption and learners’ approaches towards active learning in higher education. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13(6), 431–440. Charteris, J. (2014). Learner agency, dispositionality, and the New Zealand curriculum competencies. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 11(2), 175–186. Charteris, J., & Smardon, D. (2018). A typology of agency in new generation learning environments: Emerging relational, ecological and new material considerations. Peda- gogy, Culture and Society, 26(1), 51–68. Christensen, R., Knezek, G., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2011). SimSchool: An online dynamic simulator for enhancing teacher preparation. International Journal of Learning Technol- ogy, 6, 201–221. Clapper, T. C. (2010). Role-play and simulation: Returning to teaching for understanding. Education Digest, 75(8), 39–43. Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Reinventing student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 104–118. doi:10.1177/002248719104200204 Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics (Tech. Rep. No. 403). Cambridge, MA: University of Illinois, Centre for the Study of Reading, BBN Laboratories. Cortright, R. N., Collins, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2005). Peer instruction enhanced meaningful learning: Ability to solve novel problems. Advance Physiology Education, 29(2), 107–111. Crockett, M. D. (2002). Inquiry as professional development creating dilemmas through teachers’ work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 609–624. Daniel, G. R., Auhl, G., & Hastings, W. (2013) Collaborative feedback and reﬂection for professional growth: Preparing ﬁrst-year pre-service teachers for participation in the community of practice, Asia-Paciﬁc Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 159–172. Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). Teaching and the change wars: The professional hypothesis. In A. Hargreaves & M. Fullan (Eds.), Change wars (pp. 45–68). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291–309. Dawson, V., & Shand, J. (2019). Impact of support for preservice teachers placed in dis- advantaged schools. Issues in Educational Research, 29(1), 19–37. Donahue-Keegan, D., Villegas-Reimers, E., & Cressey, J. M. (2019). Integrating social- emotional learning and culturally responsive teaching in teacher education preparation programs: The Massachusetts experience so far. Teacher Education Quarterly, 46(4), 150–168. Dumlao, P. R., & Pinatacan, J. R. (2019). From practice to writing using reﬂective journal instruction in enhancing pre-service teachers’ professional development. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 459–478. Edge, K., Reynolds, R., & O’Toole, M. (2015). Contextual complexity: The professional learning experiences of seven classroom teachers when engaged in “quality teaching”. Cogent Education, 2(1), 1120002. doi:10.1080/2331186X.2015.1120002 Edwards, F. C. E., & Edwards, R. J. (2017). A story of culture and teaching: The com- plexity of teacher identity formation. The Curriculum Journal, 28(2), 190–211. Egeberg, H. M., McConney, A., & Price, A. (2016). Classroom management and national professional standards for teachers: A review of the literature on theory and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(7), 1–18. Ferguson, K. (2017). Using simulation to teach reading assessment to pre-service teachers. Reading Teacher, 70(5), 561–569. Flores, M. A., & Day, C. (2006). Contexts which shape and reshape new teacher’s iden- tities: A multi-perspective study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 219–232. Fluck, A., & Fox, A. (2011). Engaging training simulations for socially demanding roles. In G. Williams, P. Statham, N. Brown, & B. Cleland (Eds.), Changing demands, changing direc- tions. Proceedings Ascilite (pp. 398–406). Hobart, Australia: The University of Tasmania. Fulton, K. (2012). Upside down and inside out: Flip your classroom to improve student learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(8), 12–17. Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2007). Supervision and instruc- tional leadership. Boston, MA: Pearson. González-Gómez, D., Jeong, J. S., Rodríguez, D. A., & Cañada-Cañada, F. (2016). Per- formance and perception in the ﬂipped learning model: An initial approach to evaluate the effectiveness of a new teaching methodology in a general science classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 450–459. Guerrero, M. C. M. (2007). Applications of Vygotskyan concept of mediation in SLA. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 9, 213–228. Gutierez, S. B. (2015). Teachers’ reﬂective practice in lesson study: A tool for improving instructional practice. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 61(3), 314–328. Graziano, K. J. (2017). Peer teaching in a ﬂipped teacher education classroom. TechTrends, 61, 121–129. Han, E. P. (1995). Issues in education: Reﬂection is essential in teacher education. Child- hood Education, 71(4), 228–231. Hammond, H. G. (2018). Teacher empowerment and teachers’ perceptions of the princi- pal’s servant leadership. Luthuan Education, Spring, 23–33. Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reﬂection in teacher education: Towards deﬁnition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49. Heran, M., & Thompson, H. (2019). How do trainee teachers engage with a ﬂipped learning approach. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 92–106. Hussein, S. (2009) Towards the development of a murabbi. In Rahman, F. A., Shaﬁee, F. P., & Elias, H. (Eds.), Teachers’ learning, curriculum innovations and knowledge appli- cations (pp.73–87). Selangor, Malaysia: Universiti Putra Malaysia Press. James, F., & Augustin, S. D. (2018). Improving teachers’ pedagogical and instructional practice. Educational Action Research, 26(2), 233–348. Jurkowski, S., & Hanze, M. (2015). How to increase the beneﬁts of cooperation: Effects of training in transactive communication on cooperative learning. British Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, 85, 357–371. Kathard, H., Pillay, D., & Pillay, M. (2015). A study of teacher–learner interactions: A continuum between monologic and dialogic interactions. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 46, 222–241. Kaufman, D., & Ireland, A. (2016). Enhancing teacher education with simulations. Tech- Trends, 60(3), 260–267. Klein, S. R. (2008). Holistic reﬂection in teacher education: reﬂection and strategies. Journal of Reﬂective Practice, 9(2), 111–121. Knight, J. K., & Brame, C. J. (2018). Peer instruction. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 17(5), 1–4. Kong, S. C., & Song, Y. (2015). An experience of personalized learning hub initiative embedding BYOD for reﬂective engagement in higher education. Computers & Educa- tion, 88, 227–240. Kostaris, C., Sergis, S., Sampson, D. G., Giannakos, M. Ν., & Pelliccione, L. (2017). Investigating the potential of the ﬂipped classroom model in K-12 ICT teaching and learning: An action research study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 261–273. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. Lane, K. L., Pierson, M. R., & Givner, C. C. (2003). Teacher expectations of students’ behaviour: Which skills do elementary and secondary teachers deem necessary for success in the classroom?. Education and Treatment of Children, 26(4), 413–430. Pawan, F., & Fan, W. (2014). Sustaining expertise through collaborative/peer-mediated and individual reﬂections: The experiences of Chinese English language teachers. Tea- cher Education Quarterly, 41(4), 71–88. Pazhoman, H., & Sarkhosh, M. (2019). The Relationship between Iranian English high school teachers’ reﬂective practices, their self-regulation and teaching experience. Inter- national Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 995–1010. Porter, L., Bailey-Lee, C., Simon, B., & Zingaro, D. (2011). Peer instruction: Do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on computing education research (pp. 45–52). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. Leitch, R., & Day, C. (2000). Action research and reﬂective practice: Towards a holistic view, Educational Action Research, 8(1), 179–193. Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. London, UK: Routledge. Liu, K. (2015). Critical reﬂection as a framework for transformative learning in teacher education. Educational Review, 67(2), 135–157. Mardapi, D., & Herawan, T. (2019). Community-based teacher training: Transformation of sustainable teacher empowerment strategy in Indonesia. Journal of Teacher Education and Sustainability, 21(1), 48–66. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mena, J., Hennisen, P., & Loughran, J. (2017). Developing pre-service teachers’ profes- sional knowledge of teaching: The inﬂuence of mentoring. Teaching and Teacher Edu- cation, 66, 47–59. Mercer, S. (2011). The beliefs of two expert EFL learners. Language Learning Journal, 39, 57–74. Meyer, M. A., Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2009). Teachers in professional communities: Improving teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 79–82. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Nenonene, R. L., Gallagher, C. E., Kelly, M. K., & Collopy, R. M. B. (2019). Challenges and opportunities of infusing, social, emotional and cultural competencies into teacher preparation: One program’s story. Collopy Teacher Education Quarterly, 46(4), 92–115. Ng, P. T., & Tan, C. (2009). Community of practice for teachers: Sense making or critical reﬂective learning? Reﬂective Practice, 10(1), 37–44. Niemi, H., Nevgi, A., & Aksit, F. (2016). Active learning and promoting student teachers’ competences in Finland and Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 471–490. O’Bannon, B. W., & Thomas, K. M. (2015). Mobile phones in the classroom: Preservice teachers answer the call. Computers & Education, 85, 110–122. Oddone, K., Hughes, H., & Lupton, M. (2019). Teachers as connected professionals: A model to support professional learning through personal learning networks. Interna- tional Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(3), 1–20. O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of ﬂipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85–95. O’Gallchoir, C., O’Flaherty, J., & Hinchion, C. (2018). Identity development: What I notice myself as a teacher. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 138–156. O’Grady, A., Simmie, G. M, & Kennedy, T. (2014). Why change to active learning? Pre- service and in-service science teachers’ perceptions. European Journal of Teacher Educa- tion, 37(1), 35–50. Ovens, A. (2017). Putting complexity to work to think differently about transformative pedagogies in teacher education. Issues in Teacher Education, 26(3), 38–51. Pawan, F., & Fan, W. (2014). Sustaining expertise through collaborative/peer mediated and individual reﬂections: The experiences of Chinese English language teachers. Tea- cher Education Quarterly, 41, 71–88. Pazhoman, H., & Sarkhosh, M. (2019). The relationship between Iranian English high school teachers’ reﬂective practices, their self-regulation and teaching experience. Inter- national Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 995–1010. Pillay, A. (2015). Transformative and critical education praxis in a teacher education lecture room. Education as Change, 19(3), 4–23. Prabjandee, D. (2019). Becoming English teachers in Thailand: Student teacher identity development during teaching practicum. Issues in Educational Research, 29(4), 1277–1294. Qi, J., & Vandersall, K. (2007). Facilitating reﬂective practice for pre-service teachers through electronic portfolio development. In R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2007–Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2609–2616). San Antonio, TX: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Raja Harun, R. N. S. R., Low, J. Omar, A., Haniff, H., & Rahman, A. A. (2017). The development of high impact practices curriculum framework for 21st century teacher education in Malaysia. Proceedings of London International Conference on Education 2017, 375–385. Ratnavadivel, N., Hoon, C. L., Salih, M., Low, J., Karuppiah, N., Omar, A., & Hashim, A. T. M. (2014). Curriculum framework for preparing quality teachers for the future: Developing guiding principles. Teacher Education, 4(2), 32–44. Reeves, D. B. (2010). Transforming professional development into student results. Alexan- dria, VA: ASCD. Roehl, A., Reddy, S. H., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The ﬂipped classroom: An opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning strategies. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 44–49. Ryan, T. G. (2013). The communicative elements of action research. Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research, 15(2), 1–2. Ryan, T. G., Young, C. D., & Kraglund-Gauthier, W. (2017). Action research within pre- service teacher education. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal, 10(3), 1–14. Sardabi, N., Biria, R., & Golestan, A. A. (2018). Reshaping teacher professional identity through critical pedagogy-informed teacher education. International Journal of Instruc- tion, 11(3), 617–634. Sezen-Barrie, A., Tran, M., Mc Donald, S. P., & Kelly, G. J. (2014). A cultural historical activity theory perspective to understand preservice science teachers’ reﬂections on and tensions during a macroteaching experience. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9, 675–697. Shim, S. Y., & Kim, H. B. (2018). Framing negotiation: Dynamics of epistemological and positional framing in small groups during scientiﬁc modelling. Science Education, 102, 128–152. Shulman, L. (2011). Feature essays: The scholarship of teaching and learning: A personal account and reﬂection, International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learn- ing, 5(1), Article 30. Slade, M. L., Burnham, T. J., Catalana, S. M., & Waters, T. (2019). The impact of reﬂec- tive practice on teacher candidates’ learning. IJ-SoTL, 13(2), Article 15. Stigmar, M. (2016). Peer-to-peer teaching in higher education: A critical literature review. Journal of Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 24(2), 124–136. Tomas, L., Evans, N., Doyle. T., & Skamp, E. (2019). Are ﬁrst year students ready for a ﬂipped classroom?: A case for a ﬂipped learning continuum. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(5), 1–22. Tsang, K. K., & Jiang, L. (2018). Positive emotional experiences in teaching, teacher identity, and student behaviours. Schools: Studies in Education, 15(2), 228–248. Ukpokodu, O. N. (2009) Pedagogies that foster transformative learning in a multicultural education course: a reﬂection. Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, 4(1), Article 4. Urbani, J. M., Roshandel, S., Michaels, R., & Truesdell, E. (2017). Developing and mod- eling 21st century skills with pre-service teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 44(4), 27–50. Van Wyk, M. M. (2017). An e-portfolio as an empowering tool to enhance student self- directed learning in a teacher education course: A case of a South African university. South African Journal of Higher Education, 31(3), 274–291. Von Esch, K. S. (2018). Teacher leaders as agents of change. The Elementary School Jour- nal, 119(1), 152–178. Watson, C. (2014). Effective professional learning communities? The possibilities of teachers as agents of change in schools. British Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 18–29. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wilcox, K. C., & Lawson, H. A. (2018). Teachers’ agency, efﬁcacy, engagement, and emotional resilience during policy innovation implementation. Journal of Educational Change, 19(2), 181–204. Wise, A. (2006). Preface. In H. Sockett (Ed.), Teacher dispositions: Building a teacher edu- cation framework of moral standards (p. 3). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. Xiao, J. (2014). Learner agency in language learning; The story of a distance learner of EFL in China. Distance Education, 35(1), 4–17. Xiong, Z. (2016). The impact of teacher education on in-service English teachers’ beliefs about self. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(3), 519–526. Zeichner, K. M. (2009). Teacher education and the struggle for social justice. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge. Zur, A., & Ravid, R. (2018). Designing the ideal school as a transformative process: An approach to promoting teacher identity in pre-service teachers. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(1), 120–136. Alwasilah, A. C. (2000). Perspektif pendidikan bahasa inggris di Indonesia: Dalam konteks persaingan global. Bandung, Indonesia: Andira. Alwasilah, A. C. (2001). Language, culture, and education: A portrait of contemporary Indonesia. Bandung, Indonesia: Andira. Alwasilah, C. (2013). Policy on foreign language education in Indonesia. International Journal of Education, 7(1), 1–19. Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reﬂections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso. Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). (2019). The ASEAN charter. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. Retrieved from https://asean.org/storage/2012/05/The-A SEAN-Charter-26th-Reprint.pdf Bire, J. (2010). Mismatch English education in Indonesia. Linguistika, 17, 271–290. Block, D. (2008). Language education and globalization. In N. Hornberger (Ed.), Ency- clopedia of language and education (pp. 31–43). New York, NY: Springer. Brandt, D. (2001). Literacy in American lives. New York, NY: Routledge. Brandt, D. (2007). Narrating literacy. In S. Carter (Ed.), Literacy in context (p. 11–37). Southlake, TX: Fountainhead Press. British Council. (2019, August 13). Finance. British Council. Retrieved from https:// www.britishcouncil.org/about-us/how-we-work/ﬁnance Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Canagarajah, A. S. (2000). Negotiating ideologies through English: Strategies from the periphery. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Ideologies, politics and language policies: Focus on English (pp. 121–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Canagarajah, A. S. (2007). Lingua Franca English: Multilingual communities, and language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 91, 923–939. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Clandinin, D. J., & Rosiek, J. (2007). Mapping the landscape of narrative inquiry: Bor- derlands spaces and tensions. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 35–76). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Collins, P. (2006). Grammar in TEFL: A critique of Indonesian high school textbooks. TEFLIN Journal, 17, 1–10. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015a). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguis- tics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 36–56. Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015b). Language, identity, and investment in the twenty-ﬁrst century. In T. L. McCarty & S. May (Eds.), Language policy and political issues in edu- cation (pp. 1–15). Berlin: Springer. Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2016). Investment and language learning in the 21st century. Langage et société, 3, 19–38. Emmerson, D. (2005). What is Indonesia? In J. Bresnan (Ed.), Indonesia: The great tra- dition (pp. 7–74). New York, NY: Rowman & Littleﬁeld Publisher. Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237–259. Gee, J. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. Goebel, Z. (2010). Language, migration and identity: Neighbourhood talk in Indonesia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hamied, F. A. (2003). Kebijakan pengajaran bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa asing di Indonesia. In A. C. Alwasilah & H. Abdullah (Eds.), Revitalisasi Pendidikan Bahasa (pp. 11–30). Bandung, Indonesia: Andira. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NY: New York University Press. Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 157–181. Jenkins, J. (2009). English as a lingua franca: Interpretations and attitudes. World Englishes, 28, 200–207. Kachru, B. B. (1992). World Englishes: Approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching, 25, 1–14. Kirkpatrick, A. (2006). Which model of English: Native-speaker, nativized or lingua franca? In R. Rubdy & M. Saraceni (Eds.), English in the world: Global rules, global roles (pp. 71–83). London: Continuum. Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). Researching English as a lingua franca in Asia: The Asian corpus of English (ACE) project. Asian Englishes, 13, 4–18. Kirkpatrick, A. (2011). English as an Asian lingua franca and the multilingual model of ELT. Language Teaching, 44(2), 212–224. Kirkpatrick, A. (2012). English as an Asian lingua franca: The ‘lingua franca approach’ and implications for language education policy. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1, 121–139. Larson, K. R. (2014). Critical pedagogy(ies) for ELT in Indonesia. TEFLIN Journal, 25(1), 122–138. Lauder, A. (2008). The status and function of English in Indonesia: A review of key fac- tors. Makara, Sosial Humaniora, 12, 9–20. Lie, A. (2007). Education policy and EFL curriculum in Indonesia. TEFLIN Journal, 18(1), 1–14. Lie, A. (2017). English and identity in multicultural contexts: Issues, challenges, and opportunities. Journal TEFLIN, 25, 71–92. Lotbiniere, M. (2012, November 13). Indonesia to end teaching of English in primary school. The Guardian, Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/ 2012/nov/13/elt-diary-november-indonesia-english McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McKay, S. L (2010). English as an international language: Where we are and where we need to go. Journal of English as an International Language, 5, 27–54. McKay, S. L. (2012). Principles of teaching English as an international language. In L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as an international language (pp. 28–46). New York, NY: Routledge. Musthafa, B. (2001). Communicative language leaching in Indonesia: Issues of theoretical assumptions and challenges in the classroom practice. TEFLIN Journal, 12, 184–193. Norton, P. B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quar- terly, 29, 9–31. Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational change. London: Pearson. Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Pasaribu, B. (2001). The use of Bahasa Indonesia in the ELT classroom. TEFLIN Journal, 12, 142–148. Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued. New York, NY: Routledge. Renandya, W. A. (2018). What kind of English proﬁciency is needed for effective teaching? Indonesian TESOL Summit, Century Park Hotel, Jakarta. Riessman, C. K. (2003). Narrative analysis. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. Futing Liao (Eds.), The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods (pp. 1–8). London: Sage. Sadtono, E. (1997). The development of TEFL in Indonesia. Malang, Indonesia: The Eng- lish Department of IKIP Malang. Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 1, 133–158. Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209–239. Squire, C. (2008). Experience-centered and culturally oriented approaches to narrative. In M. Andrews, C. Squire, & M. Tamboukou (Eds.), Doing narrative research (pp. 41–63). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Strauss, V. (2015, September 30). How much do education non-proﬁts pay their bosses? Quite a bit, it turns out. The Washington Post, Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost. com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/09/30/how-much-do-big-education-nonproﬁts-pay- their-bosses-quite-a-bit-it-turns-out/?noredirect=on Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Street, B. (2001). Introduction. In B. V. Street (Ed.), Literacy and development: Ethno- graphic perspectives (pp. 1–18). London: Routledge. Street, B., & Leung, C. (2010). Sociolinguistics, language teaching and new literacy stu- dies. In N. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 290–316). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Suherdi, D. (2012). The use of quality pedagogic language in the teaching of English in Indonesian setting. International Journal for Educational Studies, 4, 111–124. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems: The career of a concept. In C. Blackmore (Ed.), Social learning systems and communities of practice (pp. 179–198). London: Springer. Wirza, Y. (2018). A narrative case study of Indonesian EFL learners’ identities. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 473–481. Wodak, R. (Ed.). (1989). Language, power and ideology: Studies in political discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Woolard, K. A., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23(1), 55–82. Wright, S. (2016). Language policy and language planning: From nationalism to globalisa- tion. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Zein, M. S. (2017). Elementary English education in Indonesia: Policy developments, current practices, and future prospects: How has Indonesia coped with the demand for teaching English in schools? English Today, 33(1), 53–59. Abdul, R. F., Hood, P., & Coyle, D. (2009). “Becoming experts”: Learning through mediation. Malaysian Journal of Learning & Instruction, 6, 1–21. Barnard, R. (2002). Peer tutoring in the primary classroom: A sociocultural interpretation of classroom interaction. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 37(1), 57–72. Beauvois, M. H. (1997). Computer-mediated communication (CMC): Technology for improving speaking and writing. In M. D. Bush & R. M. Terry (Eds.), Technology- enhanced language learning (pp. 165–184). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Bird, E. M. (2018). The mediational role of teacher discourse in students’ opportunities to learn and become academic writers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle. Castells, M. (2000). Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society. The British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 5–24. Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cheng, X., & Kia, L. (2011). Mediative functions among China’s EFL teachers in inter- active classrooms. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(1), 187–192. Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context, 1, 39–64. Cheon, H. (2008). Sociocultural theory and computer-mediated communication-based language learning. Studies in Applied Linguistics and TESOL, 8(1), 1–3. Dao, P., & Iwashita, N. (2018). Teacher mediation in L2 classroom task-based interaction. System, 74, 183–193. Dang, T. K. A., & Marginson, S. (2013). Global learning through the lens of Vygotskian sociocultural theory. Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), 143–159. DeNicolo, C. P. (2010). What language counts in literature discussion? Exploring linguistic mediation in an English language arts classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 33(2), 220–240. Dobao, A. F. (2014). Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and small group work. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 497–520. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 33–54). Nor- wood, NJ: Ablex Press. Fernández, M., Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Rojas-Drummond, S. (2015). Re-con- ceptualizing “scaffolding” and the zone of proximal development in the context of symmetrical collaborative learning. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 54–72. Fernyhough, C. (2008). Getting Vygotskian about theory of mind: Mediation, dialogue, and the development of social understanding. Developmental Review, 28(2), 225–262. Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273. Guk, I., & Kellog, D. (2007). The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and stu- dent-led interactional mediation of tasks. Language Teaching Research, 11(3), 281–299. Haider, M., & Yasmin, A. (2015). Signiﬁcance of scaffolding and peer tutoring in the light of Vygotsky’s theory of zone of proximal development. International Journal of Lan- guages, Literature and Linguistics, 1(3), 2015. Huong, L. P. H. (2003, July). The mediational role of language teachers in sociocultural theory. English Teaching Forum, 41(3), 31–35. Huong, L. P. H. (2007). The more knowledgeable peer, target language use, and group participation. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(2), 329–350. Huong, L. P. H., & McDonald, G. (2004). Mediation through the ﬁrst language: A sociocultural study of group work in Vietnam. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguis- tics, 10(1), 31–49. Hynninen, N. (2011). The practice of “mediation” in English as a lingua franca interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 965–977. Kozulin, A. (1990). The concept of regression and Vygotskian developmental theory. Developmental Review, 10(2), 218–238. Kozulin, A. (1998). Psychological tools: A sociocultural approach to education. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Knowledge of language in foreign language teacher education. The Modern Language Journal, 93(2), 270–274. Lantolf, J. P. (2012). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics, (2nd ed.) (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second lan- guage development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural theory and L2 development. In B. VanPatten, G. D. Keating, & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 207–226). New York: Routledge. Levykh, M. G. (2008). The affective establishment and maintenance of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. Educational Theory, 58(1), 83–101. Li, L., & Gao, F. (2016). The effect of peer assessment on project performance of students at different learning levels. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(6), 885–900. Lin, A. M., & Lo, Y. Y. (2017). Translanguaging and the triadic dialogue in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Language and Education, 31(1), 26–45. Mahn, H., & John-Steiner, V. (2002). The gift of conﬁdence: A Vygotskian view of emo- tions. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century, (pp. 46–58). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Martin-Beltrán, M. (2014). “What do you want to say?” How adolescents use trans- languaging to expand learning opportunities. International Multilingual Research Jour- nal, 8(3), 208–230. Martin-Beltrán, M., Guzman, N. L., & Chen, P. J. J. (2017). “Let’s think about it toge- ther”: How teachers differentiate discourse to mediate collaboration among linguistically diverse students. Language Awareness, 26(1), 41–58. Martin-Beltrán, M., Daniel, S., Peercy, M., & Silverman, R. (2017). Developing a zone of relevance: Emergent bilinguals’ use of social, linguistic, and cognitive support in peer-led literacy discussions. International Multilingual Research Journal, 11(3), 152–166. Mazzotta, M. (2017). The impact of dialogic CF on L2 Japanese writers’ linguistic and affective outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgia State University, Atlanta. McCormick, D. E., & Donato, R. (2000). Teacher questions as scaffolded assistance in an ESL classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 183–202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McDonald, G., Kidman, J., & Clarke, V. (1991). Junior school study: A study of classrooms containing ﬁve-year-olds. Wellington: New Zealand Council of Educational Research. McDonald, G., Huong, L. P. H., Higgins, J., & Podmore, V. (2005). Artifacts, tools, and classrooms. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(2), 113–127. Mohan, B., & Beckett, G. H. (2003). A functional approach to research on content-based language learning: Recasts in causal explanations. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 421–432. Nieto, C. H. (2007). Applications of Vygotskyan concept of mediation in SLA. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 9, 213–228. Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Lear- ner-learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 93–121. Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second lan- guage learning (pp. 51–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ohta, A. S. (2017). Sociocultural theory and second/foreign language education. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl & S. May (Eds.), Second and Foreign Language Education, (pp. 57–68). New York: Springer International Publishing. Olmedo, I. (2003). Language mediation among emergent bilingual children. Linguistics and Education, 14(2), 143–162. Poehner, M. E. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 323–340. Poehner, M. E., & van Compernolle, R. A. (2011). Frames of interaction in dynamic assessment: Developmental diagnoses of second language learning. Assessment in Edu- cation: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(2), 183–198. Shabani, K. (2014). The effects of computerized instruction of vocabulary through hyper- texts on L2 learners’ cognitive functioning. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149, 868–873. Swain, M. (2009). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proﬁciency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Hal- liday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum. Swain, M., & Deters, P. (2007). “New” mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 820–836. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(2), 320–337. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2013). A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education: The L1/L2 debate. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 101–129. Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thorne, K. (2003). Blended learning: How to integrate online & traditional learning. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Tocalli-Beller, A. (2003). Cognitive conﬂict, disagreement and repetition in collaborative groups: Affective and social dimensions from an insider’s perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(2), 143–172. Van Compernolle, R. A. (2015). Interaction and second language development: A Vygots- kian perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecolo- gical perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, (pp. 245–259). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Villamil, O. S., & Guerrero, M. C. (2019). Sociocultural Theory: A framework for under- standing the socio-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback (pp. 25–44). In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanf- mann & G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press. Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470–481. Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31(2), 57–71. Warschauer, M. (2006). Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. Columbia: Teachers College Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wei, L. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1222–1235. White, C. (2018). Agency and emotion in narrative accounts of emergent conﬂict in an L2 classroom. Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 579–598. Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social con- structivist approach. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wu, W. (2018). A Vygotskyan sociocultural perspective on the role of L1 in target lan- guage learning. Cambridge Open-Review Educational Research e-Journal, 5, 87–103. Notes 1 Sources of the desired graduate attributes: HKU - https://tl.hku.hk/quality-manual/chapter-1/ CUHK - https://www.cuhk.edu.hk/clear/qm/A2-1.pdf HKUST - http://cei.ust.hk/ﬁles/public/attributes_of_hkust_graduates.pdf CityU - http://www.cityu.edu.hk/qac/city_university_graduate_outcomes.htm PolyU - https://www.polyu.edu.hk/ogur/student/4yr HKBU - http://chtl.hkbu.edu.hk/main/hkbu-ga/ Lingnan - https://www.ln.edu.hk/teaching-and-learning/lingnan-s-liberal-arts-education/ graduate-attributes EduHK - https://lt.eduhk.hk/graduate-attributes/peer-i/ 2 Source of Employers’ opinion survey: https://www.cspe.edu.hk/en/resources-surveys.html 3 Source of Employers’ opinion survey: https://www.cspe.edu.hk/en/resources-surveys.html