Dewey - Towards A Post-Normative Approach - Learning The Pedagogy of ELF - 2012

Towards a post-normative approach:
learning the pedagogy of ELF
Martin Dewey
Abstract
This paper considers the impact on pedagogy of ELF research and theory in
relation to language teacher education and development. As has been much
remarked, research in ELF has reached the point where established principles
and sanctioned good practice in ELT (English Language Teaching) require
substantial reassessment. Empirical work and theoretical discussions pose
profound questions to the ELT profession, with major implications for common
beliefs and assumptions about all manner of concerns, especially the language
syllabus, teaching materials, and language assessment. Yet, as we have also
seen, any discussion of major change in pedagogy tends to provoke contro-
versy and unease among practitioners. There has thus far been relatively little
in-depth exploration of what teachers might do to incorporate an ELF per-
spective in practice. Modifying the curriculum or materials in response to ELF
requires fundamental rethinking and (re)training in approaches to teaching.
This paper reports ongoing attempts to engage and work collaboratively with
ELF-aware teachers to re-examine current methodology and practice in
context- relevant ways. Only by working with teachers can we properly explore
the feasibility of incorporating an ELF perspective in order to move beyond a
norm-driven approach.
Keywords: current practice, ELF, language pedagogy, post-normative ap-

proach, teacher education
Post-normatif bir yaklaşıma doğru: ELF pedagojisinin öğrenilmesi
Özet
Bu çalışma İngilizce’nin lingua franca dili (English as a Lingua Franca)

olarak araştırılması ve teorisinin dil öğretmenlerinin eğitimine ve gelişimine
Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1–1 (2012), 141 – 170 2191–9216/12/0001–0141

DOI 10.1515/jelf-2012-0007 © Walter de Gruyter
Brought to you by | University of Warwick

Authenticated
Download Date | 2/13/18 12:28 PM
142 Martin Dewey
pedagojik etkisini değerlendirmektedir. Bu alanda yapılan daha önceki çalışma

larda da belirtildiği üzere, ELF alanındaki araştırmalar göstermektedir ki,
ELF’nin kuruluş ilkeleri ve onay görmüş İngiliz dili öğretimindeki etkili uygula
maları sağlam ve dayanıklı bir yeniden değerlendirme gerektirdiği bir noktaya
ulaşmıştır. Deneysel çalışmalar ve teorik tartışmalar bu mesleğe, her türlü
mesleki kaygılar hakkında ortak inanç ve varsayımlara önemli etkileri olan
özellikle dil öğretimindeki ders planı, öğretim materyalleri ve değerlendirmeyi
kapsayan, derin tartışmalar getirmiştir. Ancak bizim de gözlemlediğimiz gibi,
pedagojideki temel değişikliklerle ilgili her tartışma uygulayıcıları arasında
tartışma ve huzursuzluk çıkartmaya kışkırtma eğiliminde olmuştur. Bu neden-
ledir ki, şimdiye kadar ELF bakış açısını pratikle birleştirmek için öğretmenlerin
ne yapabileceği ile ilgili geniş kapsamlı araştırmalar nispeten az sayıda
yapılmıştır. ELF’ye karşılık olarak müfredatta ya da materyalde değişiklik
yapılması temelden yeniden düşünmeyi ve eğitim yaklaşımlarını geliştirmeyi
gerektirir. Bu çalışma ELF konusunda farkındalığı olan öğretmenlerle irtibat
sağlayarak ve onlarla iş birliği içinde çalışarak mevcut öğretim ortamlarındaki
yöntem ve uygulamaları gözden geçirmek amacıyla yürütülmekte olan
girişimleri açıklamaktadır. Çünkü sadece öğretmenlerle çalışarak ELF bakış
açısını pratikle birleştirmenin uygulanabilirliğini tam olarak keşfedebilir ve
böylelikle bunu norm odaklı bir yaklaşımın ötesine taşıyabiliriz
Anahtar sözcükler: Mevcut uygulamlar, lingua franca dili olarak İngilizce

(ELF), dil eğitimi, post-normatif yaklaşım, öğretmen
eğitimi
1. Introduction
The main objective of this article is to address the relationship between ELF
research and current beliefs and practices among English language teachers.
Clearly, ELF has major implications for language learning and teaching. This
has already been discussed in some depth (see e.g. Jenkins, 2006, 2007; Seidl-
hofer, 2011, chapter 8). The empirical findings of ELF researchers have already
provided us with valuable insights into the nature of ELF interaction, revealing
in particular that effective communication in this lingua franca entails espe-
cially dynamic and adaptive use of language resources (see especially papers
in Archibald, Cogo & Jenkins, 2011; and in Mauranen & Ranta, 2009). In
short, the descriptions of English made possible by ELF corpora present us
with a vision of language and communication that runs contrary to received
wisdom in ELT professional discourse. ELF research and theoretical debate
have thus given rise to some profound questions with regard to current practice
and thinking in ELT. There have already been several notable attempts to
incorporate an ELF-orientation in current practice (see, in particular, Walker,

Authenticated
Towards a post-normative approach: learning the pedagogy of ELF 143
2010 on pronunciation teaching), especially in light of what ELF means for

teacher education (see e.g. Sifakis, 2007). Discussions of ELF are also gradu-
ally filtering into the more practice-oriented ELT publications (see e.g. Jenkins,
Cogo & Dewey, 2011 for a review article on ELF written for an ELT audience).
The growing significance of ELF is such that it is becoming increasingly
untenable for language teachers not to consider its particular relevance for their
own teaching contexts. Yet, if ELF is to have an impact in any practitioner-
relevant way, it is essential that we give very careful consideration to teachers’
awareness and understanding of the phenomenon in order that we can begin to
explore ways in which an ELF-orientation to English might be developed in
practice. My key argument here is that it is not enough to simply say that ELF
has implications for pedagogy, that teachers need to be aware of ELF, and that
it would therefore be useful for language teachers to adopt an ELF perspective
in classroom practice. Instead, we need to undertake a close examination of
what research findings in fact mean for our conceptual approach, especially
where these findings might be incongruous with existing ideas about language.
In short, discussions about the pedagogic implications of ELF have to be
directly related to teachers’ perceptions of what counts as good practice.
A good deal of what we have learnt about ELF interaction is at variance with
current principles and practice as established by the ELT profession. It is there-
fore paramount that we consider what ELF means with regard to teacher
knowledge about language and language teaching methods. This requires sys-
tematic long-term empirical engagement with practising teachers. With this in
mind, I report here on an ongoing investigation into the likely implications of
ELF in light of both the challenges and opportunities our field presents for
ELT professionals. In particular, I address current practices in language teacher
education, with a particular focus on the (un)suitability of conventional frames
of reference for learning/teaching English, as well as traditional assumptions
about the nature of language itself.
Up to now language teacher education in the UK has been primarily con-
cerned with approaches and methods, with relatively little attention given to
the subject matter ‘English’. The research project described below is an
attempt to redress this imbalance by investigating teachers’ and teacher educa-
tors’ understanding and uptake of recent theoretical/empirical debates and
curriculum changes regarding ELF. Before discussing the research, though, I
first consider the backdrop against which this work is carried out, especially
in relation to the burgeoning presence of ELF in ELT professional discourse.
2. Institutional responses and reactions to ELF

Given the volume of published debate about the implications for language
pedagogy of research in ELF and Global Englishes more generally, we might

Authenticated
144 Martin Dewey
assume that there has already been some impact on current practices. Indeed,
the growing discourse surrounding the globalization of English has already
begun to permeate policy documents in ELT. In 2008, Cambridge ESOL, the
main UK provider of teaching awards, revised its longstanding Diploma
scheme, the Delta award (Diploma in Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages, formerly known as DELTA). Among recent additions to its cur-
riculum are World Englishes, Global English, and English as a lingua franca,
which are now included in the syllabus specifications as subjects about which
candidates are required to develop awareness (see UCLES 2008/2011). This is
a significant development in the professional discourse of ELT, as Delta is an
influential teaching award, administered by an exam board with a prominent
presence in the profession1.
Cambridge ESOL describe Delta as being ‘internationally recognised,
highly respected and a benchmark for quality’. According to the Cambridge
ESOL website, the objectives of the Delta programme are to:
● extend your knowledge and understanding of the principles and practice of

English language teaching
● encourage you to critically examine your current beliefs and practices as a
teacher
● help you apply your new knowledge and understanding to your current
teaching role
● extend your knowledge of English language teaching in contexts other than
adult learners
● develop your career by allowing you to apply for more senior roles.
(http://www.cambridgeesol.org/exams/teaching-awards/delta.html. Accessed
20/07/2011)
The crucial phrases here are ‘extend your knowledge and understanding’, ‘crit-
ically examine your current beliefs and practices’, and most especially ‘help
you apply your new knowledge and understanding’. In other words, the Delta
is presented as an advanced level teaching qualification aimed at experienced
ELT professionals with an interest in developing existing knowledge and
expertise. A key aspect of this critical examination will inevitably involve
teachers and teacher educators evaluating the relevance of recent research and
theory to current practice.
The fact that policy documents are beginning to include reference to ELF is
surely a welcome development, a step in the right direction towards acknowl-
edging the relevance of the field for practitioners (learners and teachers). It is
likely though that this will take some time to filter through, first to teacher
trainers and ultimately to candidates on the Delta scheme. The evidence, how-
ever, suggests that beyond simply having an entry in the Delta syllabus docu-

Authenticated
mentation, ELF has so far had little if any substantive impact on current teacher
beliefs.
The Delta programme comprises three separate modules, each one standing
alone as a separate certificate, which when combined together constitute the
full Delta qualification. Reference to ELF occurs in Module 1, ‘Understanding
Language, Methodology and Resources for Teaching’, which focuses primarily
on the underlying principles of approaches and methods, theories of language
acquisition, language systems, as well as materials and resources, and finally
approaches to language assessment. The content of this module includes the
following six sub units:
● theoretical perspectives on language acquisition and language teaching;
● different approaches and methodologies including current developments;
● language skills and learner’s problems;
● language systems and learners’ linguistic problems;
● knowledge of resources, materials and reference sources for language
learning;
● key concepts and terminology related to assessment.
The positioning of ELF within the syllabus specifications, however, reveals
that awareness of ELF has in fact had very little influence on the approach to
English, as well as on the models, norms and methods, currently favoured by
the profession. Intriguingly, and rather worryingly, reference to ELF is made in
Unit 3, ‘language skills and learner’s problems’. Although one of the learning
outcomes of this unit is described in relation to candidates being able to
‘[a]nalyse the relationship between language and society’ (UCLES 2011: 3),
other aims of the unit appear to be somewhat incompatible. The wording of
these learning outcomes conveys a very strong sense that the syllabus guidelines
display a deficit approach to language learning.
The relationship between language and society is not particularly well
reflected in the accompanying descriptions of ‘indicative content’ for example.
Descriptors of what candidates should be aware of in this unit include ‘common
or typical errors related to L1 or other contextual features’ and ‘error analysis’
(ibid ). If teachers are to truly develop an understanding of ‘how language is
used to form, maintain and transform identity’ as well as an awareness of ‘dif-
ferences in English in different world contexts’ (ibid ), a necessary consequence
of this must be that they also foster a critical understanding of the (un)suitabil-
ity of the norms conventionally used to determine what counts as an error, or
what might constitute a ‘linguistic problem’ for the learner.
In short, this module is firmly rooted in a rather traditional approach to lan-
guage, one still very much concerned with established notions of correctness,
and which orients to language learning in terms of accuracy. The syllabus con-
tinually makes reference to the importance of context, stipulating throughout

Authenticated
146 Martin Dewey
that an essential developmental requirement for teachers is to learn how to

identify the contextual characteristics of a teaching situation in order to then
relate these to the methodological choices available. However, context appears
to be characterized here in a fairly limited way – whenever context is men-
tioned in the syllabus specifications it is done so in relation to the educational
background of learners, or to issues connected with the immediate classroom
environment. The Delta candidate is asked to reflect on these issues in light of
the implications they have for syllabus preference (i.e. whether a grammatical,
functional, lexical or more ‘task-based’ syllabus might be regarded as appro-
priate) and subsequent choice of methodology.
There is, though, no sense anywhere in the Delta documentation that macro-
contextual issues are relevant to teachers’ decision-making. Nowhere is the
candidate asked to reflect, for example, on which variety/ies of English are
most suitable for learners to be exposed to, or what implications choices such
as these would have on the classroom model to be presented. The unwritten
assumption throughout the document is that standard ENL (English as a Native
Language) varieties are the only appropriate models available to teachers, and
that all learning goals and measures of learner performance should be oriented
towards either standard British or American English. In other words, when
language teachers are required to make choices, they draw from a repertoire of
methods and techniques, but never from a repertoire of Englishes. When they
are expected to reflect on their teaching practice this is done only in relation to
micro-contextual matters, such as individual learner styles, group dynamics,
classroom management and so on. Indeed, as Seidlhofer (2001: 140) points out,
‘as far as linguistic models as targets for learning are concerned, these usually
do not figure as a focal concern, or matter for reflection, at all’.
This is strongly corroborated if we look a little further into the syllabus
specifications. In Module 2, ‘Developing Professional Practice’, which, as the
title suggests, is concerned with the development of ‘awareness and expertise
in relation to the principles and professional practice of teaching ESOL in a
range of contexts’ (ibid:4). The focus of the first unit of Module 2 is The
language learner and the language learning context. The stipulated learning
outcomes state that candidates should be able to ‘relate the role of English as a
global language to developments in learning and teaching in a range of inter-
national contexts’ (ibid ). But, in the accompanying descriptions of ‘indicative
content’, the impact of context on practice relates primarily to individual
learner differences in motivation, learning styles, learning strategies and the
like. Encouragingly, the specifications for this module do in fact mention ‘the
impact and ramifications of studying English in local contexts’ (ibid ). How-
ever, the syllabus document goes on to refer to language in very normative
terms, in other words as if it were entirely unaffected by these ramifications.
Given this disparity in the Delta syllabus specifications, i.e. stating on the one

Authenticated
hand that teachers need to become aware of the implications of the role of
English globally, but then continuing on the other hand to refer to learners’
language simply in relation to ‘problems’, ‘errors’ and ‘mistakes’, it is essen-
tial that we undertake careful and systematic investigation of teachers’ beliefs
about language, as well as their awareness of ELF and global Englishes.
In addition to the Delta syllabus specifications, several other potentially
valuable policy statements have been made in response to global develop-
ments. Notably, TESOL, one of the largest and most influential professional
organizations for English language teachers worldwide, have in recent years
released a number of ELF relevant ‘position statements’ (regular programmatic
pronouncements issued by TESOL to outline the association’s official policy
on current issues). In particular, the following two statements can be seen as
direct responses to research and debate surrounding the role of English as a
global lingua franca: ‘Position Statement Against Discrimination of Nonnative
Speakers of English in the field of TESOL’ (March, 2006); and ‘Position State-
ment on English as a Global Language’ (April, 2008), (for details of the state-
ments visit http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/seccss.asp).
The first of these statements addresses the ‘longstanding fallacy’ that native-
speakers ( NSs) are automatically preferred to non-native speakers ( NNSs) as
language teachers because of misguided assumptions about the formers’ sup-
posed preeminent linguistic competence. In a challenge to the employment
discrimination often faced by NNS teachers as a result, the position statement
makes clear that NNS teachers provide a ‘uniquely valuable perspective’. The
statement also highlights that the native versus non-native distinction is an
oversimplified one, and that language proficiency (regardless of first language)
should be only one out of many criteria for determining the expertise of a lan-
guage teacher. The second of these position statements is still more explicit in
establishing a policy that would fit well with an ELF perspective on language
teaching. It makes the vital point that:
Given the broad geographic spread of English, and the variety of world Englishes being
spoken globally, English is seen less and less as a “foreign” language, and more and
more as an additional language.
And crucially, it goes on to say that:
With English being taught globally for very diverse purposes, a singular or monolithic
approach to the modeling of English is no longer tenable.
(TESOL Position Statement on English as a Global Language)
Evidently, in terms of recent documentation regarding the current policies of

at least some ELT professional bodies, there have been some interesting devel-
opments in the right direction. The essential question, however, remains what
does this mean in practice?

Authenticated
148 Martin Dewey
There are several issues here. First, we cannot assume that policy, no matter
how effectively it is communicated through the various institutional channels
of the profession, will be sufficiently implemented at the local level to make
any difference to the current state of affairs. Second, what happens on the
ground in language teaching is by and large dependent on the actions of
individual teachers. Even where a governing body or an individual institution
adopts and aims to implement a new policy, without teacher engagement with
that policy, very little will change in practice. If we are to properly understand
the extent to which work in ELF has potential impact on current thinking and
practice in ELT, it is essential that we first investigate levels of awareness of
ELF and related phenomena among practising language teachers.
3. Researching teacher awareness and responses to ELF
In order to determine the degree to which ELF as a concept has begun to enter
the consciousness of language teachers, I conducted a questionnaire study2. All
respondents were at the time of the study enrolled in MA TESOL/ELT and
Applied Linguistics programmes at UK-based Higher Education institutes,
with participants stemming from a wide range of teaching backgrounds and
levels of experience. The questionnaire forms part of a longer-term ongoing
study whose purpose is to establish teachers’ level of understanding and
engagement with recent theory and research in ELF. The research I describe
here was undertaken to specifically find out from teachers about their knowl-
edge of and responses to ELF. A particular aim of mine has been to explore the
relationship between theory, research and practice in and across ELT and
Applied Linguistics, and to consider the role of theory and research in teacher
development. In particular, the study was undertaken from the premise that ELF
research has far-reaching implications for teachers’ knowledge about language.
Understanding practitioner engagement (or disengagement) with ELF the-
ory and research requires systematic empirical investigation of teachers’ indi-
vidual contexts of practice. The initial items in the questionnaire thus ask
participants to record details of their linguistic and teaching profiles, such as
languages spoken, number of years experience, as well as brief information
about teaching and teacher training contexts. The questionnaire is then divided
into three subsequent sections, entitled Teacher Knowledge, Varieties of En
glish, and Evaluation of English. In the first of these participants are asked to
describe what they understand by the following terms English as a Global
language, World Englishes, and English as a lingua franca (as given in the
Delta syllabus guidelines discussed above), and to then write brief comments
describing whether and in what ways they feel these concepts are relevant to
language teaching.

Authenticated
In the second subsequent section, participants are asked to rate a number of

named varieties, including American English, British English, other ENL vari-
eties, Indian English, other Outer Circle varieties, as well as Expanding Circle
Englishes. Respondents are asked to rate each variety/type of English on a
scale from 0 (not at all) to 5 (very) in terms of its general importance, specific
importance for a participant’s teaching context, its level of familiarity, and
finally the level of prestige associated with it. This rating task is then followed
by a more open-ended question in which teachers are asked to provide addi-
tional comments about the named varieties, including which variety(ies) they
feel are most suitable as the basis of classroom models in their own teaching
contexts (see Jenkins, 2007 for a similar study involving an ELF-based rating
task).
In the final section, participants are asked to evaluate a series of utterances
that have been selected from ELF corpora (see also Dewey, 2011). For each
item respondents are asked to give a rating score (again selecting from 0 to 5)
on the following dimensions, level of correctness, acceptability, intelligibility,
and importance (in terms of being ‘corrected’ in the classroom). These ques-
tions are then followed by a final open space in which teachers can add any
further comments about the issues raised in the study, especially with regard to
how relevant the participants feel the concepts of Global Englishes and ELF
are in ELT and language teacher education.
For the purpose of making sense of my research findings to date, in this
paper I will focus on the more qualitative aspects of the questionnaire. This is
primarily because it is an ongoing study, and at the time of writing the on-line
questionnaire is still ‘live’, so any attempt to analyse the numerical aspects of
the data would at this stage be incomplete. By contrast, a close-up analysis of
only a few participants has already begun to provide a revealing picture of how
individual teachers are developing an awareness of ELF as well as beginning
to respond to ELF in relation to their own practices.
The teachers discussed here were selected for several reasons: first, they
provided relatively detailed and lengthy answers to the open-ended questions;
second, their responses include some telling comments; and finally, each of
them took part in other phases of the larger study, including interviews, and in
some cases classroom observations. My intention therefore is to provide a
snapshot of the current situation for one particular group of teachers, a portrait
within a much broader landscape that is likely to emerge more gradually as
research into the relevance of ELF for policy and practice continues over time.
3.1. Teacher perceptions of ELF

There is a very strong sense emerging from the more qualitative parts of the
questionnaire that experienced language teachers have a growing awareness of

Authenticated
150 Martin Dewey
ELF, and of how this fits with related concepts and paradigms such as World
Englishes. Among the first cohort (numbering 26) to complete the question-
naire, only two teachers opted not to respond when asked to define the terms
English as a Global language/World Englishes/English as a lingua franca.
The percentage of participants responding to this question may well change as
the number of respondents increases, but at least at this stage it is clear that the
majority of the practising teachers who have taken part in the study have suf-
ficient awareness of these terms to comment on them.
Not only are teachers aware of these concepts, in many cases they demon-
strate a sophisticated understanding of the terms and related issues, with
several teachers providing precise and nuanced definitions. In the first of these,
English as a Global Language, participants tended to comment on the wide-
spread diffusion and functions of the language, as represented in the following
answer, ‘Due to the globalization and the new media, English is the pre
dominant language used i.e. in business, on internet, in academic publications’.
However, in addition, participants often commented on the consequences of
this diffusion, as in the following, ‘English does not belong to the ‘native’
speakers, it belongs to all people who use it’. This answer is especially note-
worthy because in addition to raising the issue of ownership, the respondent
also shows a critical awareness of the unsuitability of the conventional native
versus non-native distinction by using scare quotes around the word ‘native’.
Below is a selection of additional responses, each of which provides evi-
dence that the participants in this study have what can be described as an
advanced understanding of the terms and associated concepts.
World Englishes
● The different variety of Englishes, e.g. Indian English, Singaporian English
● There are many varieties of English used in Outer Circle countries, such as
India or Nigeria, that have their own grammatical, lexical, phonological
and pragmatic conventions
● It is “plural” English vs “singular” Standard English, where correctness
and adherence to one standard was a sign of proficiency
● English is written and spoken back by people belonging to different cultures
English as a lingua franca

● English used between speakers, perhaps transnationally, where at least one
speaker doesn’t have English as a first language.
● English is being used between mainly non-native speakers as a common
language to facilitate communication across national and cultural borders
● A simplified, instrumental and creative language able to favour communi-
cation between people of different mother tongues.
● It is the non-codified form of English(es) used among non-native speakers,
native and non-native speakers

Authenticated
In short, there is a general consensus of understanding here, with many par-

ticipants willing to provide sophisticated definitions of the three terms. In
particular, these teachers are aware of several fundamental points, including
the nativization of the language that has given rise to indigenized varieties with
distinct linguistic properties; the agency of English speakers outside traditional
ENL contexts; as well as the broad diversity and plurality involved in the glo-
balization of English. In none of the responses is there any reference or allu-
sion to a universal global variety of the language. In other words, participants
who responded to this question have so far managed to avoid one of the com-
mon misconceptions that has been expressed in the past, i.e. that ELF research
is concerned with identifying a single monolithic form of English (see e.g.
Jenkins, 2007 for a critical account of this misconception; for evidence that
even among academic scholars this misconception in some cases persists see
Canagarajah, 2007, and see especially Matsuda & Friedrich, 2011; in the case
of the latter the misconception is central to the somewhat spurious claims made
about their ‘curriculum blueprint’).
What is most encouraging from an ELF point of view is the extent to which
this group of teachers appears not only to be aware of ELF, but also to be well
informed about some of its properties. First, there is fairly unanimous aware-
ness among participants of the communal nature of ELF, that it is a shared
means of wider ‘transnational’ communication, that it can ‘cross cultural
and national borders’, and that it can involve native speakers as well as non-
native speakers. Only one of the above comments – that it is ‘simplified’ and
‘instrumental’ – contains a hint of the popular misconceptions about ELF. Of
course, empirical descriptions of ELF have already shown that the linguistic
adaptations made by ELF speakers do not necessarily represent a process of
simplification; in fact, some entail a greater level of complexification. While
simplification can occur in ELF, many of the adjustments made by speakers
can more accurately be described as systematic ‘regularizations’, similar to
those found in ENL variation. There is also plenty of empirical evidence that
illustrates just how much linguacultural investment can take place, with many
ELF interactions routinely going far beyond merely an ‘instrumental’ use of
language (see, e.g., Cogo & Dewey, 2012 chapters 3 and 4 on the complexities
of ELF lexicogrammar and chapters 5 and 6 on linguacultural issues). Impor-
tantly, however, this same respondent also describes ELF as ‘creative’, indicat-
ing some awareness of the adaptive, transformative ways in which speakers
draw on language resources.
Of particular interest though is the respondent who describes ELF as ‘non-
codified’. This is precisely the aspect of ELF communication that represents
the most fundamental departure from conventional thinking in ELT about lan-
guage. It is also therefore potentially the most unsettling aspect for language
teachers to deal with. In terms of attempting to introduce an ELF perspective

Authenticated
152 Martin Dewey
in the classroom, it is the changeable nature of English in lingua franca com-

munication that is most challenging. The non-stability found in ELF appears to
represent something of a mental barrier for many language teachers. It runs
counter to prevailing wisdom about language and communication, and most
importantly it runs counter to everything they have been trained to think and do
in the classroom. This becomes apparent when teachers are asked to elaborate
on the relevance of ELF and related concepts in connection with their own
professional contexts.
When asked in the questionnaire to comment on the relevance of ELF to
current practice, participants tend to display far less consensus than when
simply commenting on their awareness and understanding of ELF. Clearly, the
practical (ir)relevance of ELF is not a straightforward matter. If we look at the
way teachers answer this question, we see an extraordinary array of different
positions being expressed, ranging from the all embracing,‘they [English as a
Global language, World Englishes, ELF ] are all relevant’ to the dismissive, ‘a
nice idea but a bit pie-in-the-sky’ (in other words, ELF is acceptable in theory
but in terms of a practical teaching reality it is a little fanciful, an illusion lack-
ing in substance). Below are the verbatim responses in which these two com-
ments appear, as well as a number of comments from other participants, each
of which has been selected to illustrate the broad range of teacher perceptions.
These have been organized according to descending level of acceptance of
ELF, beginning with what is apparently a very favourable response to the ques-
tion of practical classroom relevance, and ending with the ‘pie-in-the-sky’
comment.
Responses to the question: In what ways, if any, are these concepts relevant in
language teaching?
● They are all relevant. Student needs change depending on what aspect of
language they need to learn, improve, develop and what for. E.g. a native
speaker still needs to improve their skills for specific purposes as does a
non native speaker.
● all are relevant to a certain degree, we live in a globalised world and the
different varieties might be encountered at some point or another, but it
depends on the origins and needs of students in the class.
● It is good to raise teachers and students’ awareness towards different vari
eties of English. However, it is still important to teach the Standard form
of English, as in reality, it is the form of English that is used by the gate-
keeper in universities, in the academic world, in many kinds of careers. It
is the responsibility of the teachers to teach students the ‘accepted’ and
‘recognized’ variety, that is Standard English.
● In my country they are not very relevant at the moment. The English
teachers still teach Standard English. Students, though, semplify (sic) the

Authenticated
language (i.e. no use of do/does, etc to the great despair of teachers!) and
use it in the growing contexts of multicultural communication.
● I think there are a lot of varieties in Outer and Expanding Circle Englishes
already. Usually teachers do not have the time to be aware of so many
varieties.
● A nice idea but a bit pie-in-the-sky, at least until a lot of people (students,
teachers, govt./education/examination policy-makers, general public . . .)
change their perception of what language is, and what it means to know/ be
able to use a language. Sorry :-(
We can see reflected in the first three of these responses a general acceptance
of the current diversity of English(es), with varying degrees of acknowledge-
ment of the inherent plurality in the way the language is used, and with some
teachers actively orienting towards this in relation to the needs of language
learners. There are, however, some concerns expressed by a number of respon-
dents about the perceived practical difficulties involved in making space for
this diversification of English in the classroom. While a growing number of
teachers may be starting to share the view that ‘we live in a globalised world
and the different varieties might be encountered at some point or another’, the
feeling that ‘[u]sually teachers do not have the time to be aware of so many
varieties’ is likely to chime with many. In addition, a strong sense of the impor-
tance of codification to language pedagogy pervades many of the teachers’
responses, with a number of participants expressing on the one hand an accep-
tance of language diversity, but on the other a firm attachment to ‘the Standard
form of English’.
In short, if ELF is a non-codified form of English displaying high levels of
diversity, how do teachers reconcile their knowledge of ELF with their inher-
ited beliefs about standardization and the monolithic approach this entails?
This is without doubt a pressing issue for language teachers, who may well be
entirely receptive to the idea of ELF in theory – as much of my data is begin-
ning to show – but who may then struggle to translate this into possibilities for
actual classroom practices. A close examination of additional comments pro-
vided by the above respondents suggests that this is indeed a contentious issue
for some teachers. Cross-referencing the teachers’ responses to the above ques-
tions with comments made elsewhere in the study demonstrates that the rela-
tionship between theory, research and practice is a rather complex matter.
Some revealing issues arise, for instance, when we compare the two rating-task
responses given by the first and last participants quoted above. These are
respectively the teacher who reports that ‘they are all relevant’ (referred to
henceforth as Eve) and the teacher who describes ELF as ‘pie-in-the-sky’
(henceforth Adam). If we take a look at the task in which participants are asked
to rate the named varieties according to perceived importance, familiarity and

Authenticated
154 Martin Dewey
prestige, the responses of Eve and Adam correspond very closely with their
comments in response to the relevance question. The following screen shot
taken from the on-line questionnaire, shows the importance ratings selected by
Eve.
Figure 1. Variety ratings (Eve)
As we would expect from a teacher who reports that ELF as a concept is very
relevant to her own teaching context, Eve gives the highest rating (5) to each
of the varieties in terms of their general importance, selecting either 3 or 5 for
those varieties she feels are specifically important in her current teaching con-
text. She adds in her subsequent comments that ‘any type of English makes up
the whole body of language which people neeed to learn’, further reinforc-
ing her favourable disposition towards ELF. This contrasts directly with the
answers given by Adam, our ‘pie-in-the-sky’ teacher.
Figure 2. Variety ratings (Adam – importance)

Authenticated
As can be seen above, Adam assigns a rating of 5 to British English only, in

terms of both general and specific importance. Apart from American English
(4) and Australian English (3) all other types of English are given a low or very
low general importance rating (2 for nativized varieties and 1 for the expand-
ing circle). In terms of his current teaching context (the same London-based
private language school as Eve), Adam assigns a moderate value to American
English (3), a very low value (1) to the expanding circle, and a zero rating to
all nativized varieties. This appears to corroborate what he reports in answer to
the earlier questions. These findings can be interpreted to mean that for this
teacher, only standard ENL varieties (and only a limited number of these) have
any practical relevance in language classrooms. Adam’s position is further
reflected in his response to the familiarity and prestige rating task.
Figure 3. Variety ratings (Adam – familiarity and prestige)
Adam assigns prestige to the named ENL varieties only (all other types of
English are given a score of 0), and surprisingly, given his teaching context,
he reports low levels of familiarity with nativized varieties. By contrast, it is
notable that he reports a high level of familiarity with expanding circle En
glishes, presumably the result of teaching English in a multilingual classroom in
London, in a school which attracts large numbers of students from around the
world. It is striking that this does not, however, appear to influence his prefer-
ence for standard ENL varieties. When, in the additional comments, Adam
concedes that there may be some value in teachers’ having an awareness of
varieties of English, he appears to orient towards this idea from a deficit per-
spective. In other words, it may be of pedagogic value for teachers to be aware
of non-ENL varieties, but only so as to identify the ways in which students
need to develop linguistically in order to achieve ENL goals.
However, as suggested above, the full picture is somewhat complicated –
and the positions of Eve and Adam in relation to their professional orientations

Authenticated
156 Martin Dewey
to ELF are not entirely as they first seem. The language evaluation task pro-
vides contradictory findings for these two teachers when we bear in mind
their earlier comments regarding the relevance of ELF in language teaching.
Although Eve’s responses tend to be favourable, suggesting that she is proba-
bly more predisposed to adopting an ELF perspective than Adam, this is not
then corroborated in her evaluation of the non-standard language items. In
fact, Adam appears in practical terms to be closer to an ELF-compatible
orientation than Eve. This is illustrated in the following screen shots taken
from each teacher’s responses to the first three utterances they are asked to
evaluate.
Figure 4. Evaluation task (Adam)
When we look at the more practice-focused aspects of the study, these teachers
appear to have distinctly contrasting approaches to language. In line with the
broad trend among all participants in the questionnaire, Eve and Adam tend to
rate each item with a very low score on the correctness dimension (mean rating
1.33) but a very high score for intelligibility (mean rating 4.81). In fact, in
terms of teachers’ perceptions of correctness and intelligibility of the ELF
utterances, we see a close correspondence between the responses of Eve and
Adam, as well as remarkable levels of agreement across all participants (see

Authenticated
Figure 5. Evaluation task (Eve)
the discussion of similar findings in Dewey, 2011). In short, the teachers con-
sistently report that they find these language forms highly intelligible, despite
judging them to be very ‘incorrect’ when compared to established norms. This
much is unequivocally the case in all my research conducted with teachers to
date.
By contrast, there are substantial differences in the way participants rate
these items on the other two dimensions, acceptability and importance for cor-
rection. If we look at the first three items shown in the above screen shots, Eve
and Adam both assign a rating score of 5 for intelligibility. However, Eve eval-
uates the utterances very lowly on the acceptability scale (respectively 1, 0,
and 1), thus judging these forms to be much less acceptable than Adam, who
gives each the maximum rating of 5. This suggests that in practical terms,
Adam is far more willing to accept non-standard forms (or at least claims to
be), provided they are intelligible.
Adam’s acceptance of these items is further substantiated in his rating
scores regarding their importance for classroom correction, which are consid-
erably lower than Eve’s. This can be seen in the following table, which shows
Eve’s, Adam’s, and overall mean ratings for the eight utterances provided in
the task.

Authenticated
158 Martin Dewey
Figure 6. Rating values for ‘important to correct’
By comparing the rating scores given by Adam and Eve for each utterance, first
with each other’s scores, and then with the overall mean ratings, we can see
that Adam reports far less concern about correcting these utterances than Eve,
and in fact than many other teachers in the study. Adam’s correction ratings are
consistently lower than Eve’s and those of the ‘average’ teacher. In other
words, language forms that teachers judge to be incorrect are thought by Adam
to be largely acceptable, and relatively unimportant to correct in the classroom.
By comparison, Eve appears to display a more conventional orientation to
acceptability and correctness in that she is far less inclined to regard non-
standard forms as acceptable and far more inclined to correct them.
These findings can be interpreted as representing two divergent approaches
to language norms in relation to classroom practices, in that some teachers are
more norm-oriented and accuracy-driven than others. This in itself is not nec-
essarily a finding at all; we should of course expect to see varying approaches
among practising language teachers, differences that are bound to reflect their
educational backgrounds, diverse contexts of training, experience, and ongo-
ing professional development. What is telling, however, is the apparent unpre-
dictability of a teacher’s stance with regard to normativity, and how this may
well not correspond to his or her professed receptiveness to ELF as a concept.
Although Adam has previously described the idea of ELF in practice as ‘pie-
in-the-sky’, and elsewhere in the study has consistently shown a strong affilia-
tion with standard ENL varieties, he seems predisposed to accept some of the
consequences of adopting an ELF perspective. In fact, he expresses a sophisti-
cated critical awareness of current practice, in his comment that ELF will
remain ‘pie-in-the-sky’, ‘at least until a lot of people (students, teachers, govt./

Authenticated
education/examination policy-makers, general public . . .) change their percep-

tion of what language is, and what it means to know/ be able to use a language’.
Conversely, Eve, who is outwardly receptive to ELF in principle, may in fact
encounter greater difficulty when attempting to translate this thinking into
pedagogic action. The situation with regard to the potential uptake of new
ideas is evidently a complicated one. The data discussed so far thus indicates
that looking into the possible interaction between research, theory and practice
requires comprehensive and meticulous empirical attention.
3.2. Teacher talk on current practices

As a follow-up to the questionnaire study, a series of teacher interviews and
focus groups was set up. Asking participants to engage in face-to-face talk with
the researcher and/or with colleagues enables the researcher to delve more
deeply into this complex matter of responding to research and theory in current
practice. I adopted a semi-structured approach to gathering the qualitative data,
first introducing a few guiding questions and prompts, which were aimed at
focusing the discussion on teachers’ perceptions of ELF, but then allowing
conversation to develop in a more exploratory way. This proved to be a valu-
able way of activating teachers’ current thinking with regard to established
practices, and of engaging teachers in relevant professional talk, both with a
researcher and with other ELT practitioners. In some cases this also involved
‘confronting’ teachers with data they had provided in the questionnaires, and
probing their answers to explore the more salient issues emerging. In particular,
discussions tended to focus on the potential conceptual conflicts that knowl-
edge about ELF seems to trigger among language teachers.
As with the questionnaire, the interview findings described here constitute a
subset of a much larger dataset that is still being added to as part of the ongoing
project. To date I have conducted five one-to-one interviews and three focus
groups (involving three or four teachers in each) with teachers who participated
in the questionnaire study. To further understand the relationship between per-
ceptions of ELF and current pedagogic practice, the apparent contradictions
between Eve’s and Adam’s comments on ELF and their responses in the evalu-
ation task proved to be a productive discussion topic. Both teachers also agreed
to take part in the subsequent interview phase of the study, Eve in a one-to-one
conversation, and Adam in a three-way conversation involving a colleague
from the same school and the researcher. This interview has been especially
valuable in terms of understanding the key issues underlying teachers’ orienta-
tions towards ELF.
In his open-ended questionnaire responses, Adam shows a good deal of
skepticism about the potential relationship between ELF and classroom prac-
tice. Yet, we have also seen how he is willing to accept non-standard language

Authenticated
160 Martin Dewey
forms. In interview it became evident that Adam’s perceptions regarding the

implications of ELF for pedagogy might best be attributed to a recognition
of institutionally sanctioned beliefs and practices, what Leung (2009) would
describe as his ‘sponsored professionalism’. In the following extract, for ex-
ample, in which Adam is describing the nature of his current teaching context,
we can readily infer how wider institutional conditions have an influence on
what happens in a typical classroom.
Adam Interview – extract 1
A: it’s focused on (.) EXact language (.) if you get if you (.) you write some-
thing grammatically incorrect it’s incorrect (,) even if it makes sense
I: mm mm right
A: I mean it’s still quite textbooky in that sense
These comments were made in reference to the Cambridge Certificate in
Advanced English (CAE), specifically the ‘Use of English’ paper (see www.
cambridgeesol.org/exams/cae/index.html). Adam comments that exam prepa-
ration classes make up a major part of his usual teaching timetable. A number
of teachers in the interviews similarly comment on the growing extent to which
their current teaching experience involves preparing students for high-stakes
proficiency exams, especially IELTS (International English Language Testing
System). This may be a particular feature of language schools and university-
based language centres in London, many of which organize ‘pre-sessional’
courses aimed at preparing students for university entrance (an IELTS score
is an entry requirement for UK degree programmes for NNSs of English).
Nevertheless, we can also see this as indicative of a much broader ELT trend
for learning goals to be assessment-focused (see McNamara, 2011 on ‘measur-
ing deficit’), and often therefore overwhelmingly norm-driven. In the extract
above, Adam describes how the focus of his teaching often needs to be accu-
racy based (‘Exact language’), since correctness of form is privileged over
meaning in language testing: ‘it’s incorrect even if it makes sense’ (see Dewey,
2009 for a critique of the emphasis on ‘accuracy’ and ‘control’ in the Common
European Framework of Reference).
It is not the case that Adam simply ‘accepts’ this state of affairs, however. In
addition to describing the influence of proficiency-based assessment on his
classroom practices, he also articulates a more individual response to the insti-
tutional setting of his teaching, what Leung (2009) would describe as his
‘independent professionalism’. In the following extract Adam describes his
personal approach to language in the classroom.
Adam interview – extract 2
A: I mean cos my technique is (.) pretty much (,) I mean when I’m teaching
I’m not that: focused on: ERRORS as such because I mean people make

Authenticated
them (,) i if you look at th the the grammar eh s: prescriptive grammar

people make errors all the time
I: yeah (,) mm
A: I mean even so called native speakers even though I shouldn’t say that
word to a sociolinguist @@
I: mm
A: but I’ll tell them in: I I’ll tell them (,) in the exam I’ll make a distinction
saying ok (,) in REAL life or: in this: it’s ok to say this but in the exam you
wouldn’t (,) get away with saying this: so:
[ . . . ]
I’ve always done that (,) no I’ve always done that because I think it’s: it’s
fairer (,) it’s more accurate use of: it’s a representation of how language is
actually used (,) it’s not (.) people don’t speak like erm Mr Murphy writes
in his textbooks
It is clear from this dialogue that in his approach to teaching, Adam moves
between sponsored and independent notions of professionalism. On the one
hand, he displays his professional responsibility to advise students on how to
be successful in language tests, thus meeting his more contractual obligations
as a teacher of exam classes. On the other hand, he also displays a more per-
sonal responsibility to the communicative needs of his students as language
users. He makes an important working distinction between language as a set of
norms, the ‘text-booky’ version of English as codified in grammars and dic-
tionaries, and the way language is used in communication, or ‘a representation
of how language is actually used’.
In terms of his practical orientations to language in the classroom Adam is
thus applying a crucial distinction between two dissonant representations of
language: English as a fixed set of codified forms versus English as a dynamic
means of communication. Understanding this distinction is essential if teachers
are to adopt an ELF-informed perspective. What is most important, though, is
Adam’s realization that working with language norms and providing scope for
learners to move beyond those norms are not mutually incompatible approaches.
Clearly, at some point during his professional development Adam has come
to the understanding that teachers can adopt multiple perspectives in their
approach to language, and that this can be beneficial to language learners.
By contrast, in response to the idea of ELF, many teachers express concern
about diversity and plurality. These tend to be seen in a threatening light, often
characterized as concepts that undermine a teacher’s role, particularly with
regard to ‘the responsibility of the teachers to teach students the “accepted”
and “recognized” variety’ (as one teacher put it). The issue here is the singular-
ity with which teachers tend to view language models and norms. The charac-
teristic variability of ELF is seen as too unstable to be workable in pedagogic

Authenticated
162 Martin Dewey
terms. The plurality involved in considering alternative language models is for

many teachers an unsettling notion. In many respects, teachers are likely to
inherit a highly normative conception of language from their formal training
(see Dewey, 2009 on the conceptualization of language in ELT). In this respect
there have already been several ELF-related discussions that reconsider cur-
rent practices in light of what ELF means for conventional approaches to ped-
agogy (see e.g. Mimatsu, 2011; Sifakis & Fay, 2011).
4. Moving beyond current representations of English in ELT
We can probably best interpret Adam’s skepticism in response to a question

about the pedagogic relevance of ELF as an articulation of his professional
knowledge base. He is signalling his identity as an experienced language
teacher and member of a professionalized community with highly established
codes of behaviour. In doing so – and in common with many teachers in this
study – Adam chooses to foreground an indexical aspect of this knowledge
base by orienting to language models and norms, which clearly have a central
position in institutionally-sanctioned versions of ELT expertise. In short, when
asked to talk about ELF research, or for that matter, any research which has
potential impact on current thinking, teachers will inevitably tend to invoke
those aspects of their professional knowledge that are most familiar. When it
comes to adopting an ELF perspective in practice there should still be plenty of
room for manoeuvre, however.
Adopting an ELF perspective should not require teachers to take on an
entirely new and radical way of doing things. In fact, in Adam’s own words,
‘you could have language teachers doing things which seem to be quite (.)
ELF friendly with (.) having no clue what ELF is about’. Understanding what
teachers might do in order to incorporate ELF research in practice is not
immediately obvious, but responding to ELF will also not require teachers to
abandon all current thinking. The language syllabus, especially with regard to
the relative importance attached to standard norms, as well as existing teaching
materials and resources, can all be modified in response to ELF. What is
undoubtedly required for most teachers, though, is a certain amount of rethink-
ing, not least of all because ELF poses some profound questions about many
central precepts enshrined in the profession. Knowing how to adopt an ELF
perspective in a practical way is bound to involve some major reassessment of
common beliefs and assumptions (see also Seidlhofer, 2011 on this matter). In
particular, the way English is represented in existing teaching materials is
problematic. In his critical study of the ‘construction of English’ in textbooks,
Gray for instance concludes the following.

Authenticated
[T]he representational repertoires in the coursebooks analyzed [ . . . ] suggested a high

level of continuity in the representation of language – namely, a focus on Standard
British English, a privileging of the RP cluster of accents and relatively little representa-
tion of outer/expanding circle varieties of English. (Gray, 2010: 174)
By contrast, ELF communication is typified by a fluidity of relations and inter-

actions which develop in evolving and often transitory contexts. ELF research
has shown that these contexts are usually characterized by a high degree of
linguacultural diversity, routinely resulting in highly variable and creative use
of linguistic resources. This is wholly at odds with the characterization of lan-
guage in ELT (see also Dewey, 2011), in which received wisdom maintains
that intelligibility is norm driven (thus privileging grammatical accuracy), and
that effective communication in English is best achieved by conforming to the
arbitrarily fixed language forms of Standard varieties (see e.g. Cogo & Dewey,
2012; Hülmbauer, 2009). These are thus seen as the only valid models for the
classroom, so learning and teaching are focused on the promotion of the norms
of a limited number of ENL varieties.
One potential impact of ELF research, therefore, is a reorientation of think-
ing about language in the curriculum, of moving beyond the singularity that
typifies current approaches in order to better encapsulate the diversity and plu-
rality of communication (see Suzuki, 2011 on introducing diversity in teacher
education). This notion is captured by Jenkins’ observation that:
Teachers and their learners, it is widely agreed, need to learn not (a variety) English, but
about Englishes, their similarities and differences, issues involved in intelligibility, the
strong link between language and identity, and so on. (Jenkins, 2006: 173)
Understanding, accepting and then incorporating this diversity in practice will

require some deliberate rethinking from teachers and teacher educators. In par-
ticular this should involve teachers and educators incorporating the following
objectives:
● Investigate and highlight the particular environment and sociocultural con-

text in which English(es) will be used
● Increase exposure to the diverse ways in which English is used globally;
presenting alternative variants as appropriate whenever highlighting lin-
guistic form
● Engage in critical classroom discussion about the globalization and grow-
ing diversity of English
● Spend proportionately less time on ENL forms, especially if these are not
widely used in other varieties; and thus choose not to penalize non-native-
led innovative forms that are intelligible
● Focus (more) on communicative strategies (see Baker, 2011 for details of
what these might entail; cf Kirkpatrick, 2010; cf Seidlhofer, 2001, 2011):

Authenticated
164 Martin Dewey
e.g. by prioritizing accommodation skills; gauging and adjusting to inter-

locutors’ repertoires, signalling (non)comprehension, asking for/providing
repetition, paraphrasing etc.
The question that remains of course is, how can this be achieved, and where
does most responsibility for instigating pedagogic change lie?
The distinction often made in the teacher education literature between ‘train-
ing’ and ‘development’ is a useful one here. Richards & Farrell (2005) portray
the training aspects of teacher education as the prerequisite principles and tech-
niques that teachers need to learn to apply, often in pre-service contexts, while
development relates more to longer-term, less specific goals, which ‘often
involves examining different dimensions of a teacher’s practice as a basis for
reflective review’ ( p. 4). In relation to building ELF into a knowledge and
skills base, it is likely that teachers will need to rethink existing beliefs about
language and current practice. This will require more of a teacher education
and development focus than a ‘training’-based one. In fact, recent develop-
ments in ELF give new and added poignancy to Widdowson’s comments that
training ‘is directed at providing solutions to a set of predictable problems and
sets a premium on unreflecting expertise’; while by contrast, education ‘pro-
vides for situations which cannot be accommodated into preconceived patterns
of response but which require a reformulation of ideas and the modification of
established formulae’ (1990: 61).
Moving beyond the knowledge about language that teachers learn during
initial training will no doubt require a good deal of reflective reviewing. We
cannot assume, though, that all teachers will do this as a matter of course. In
many cases it seems that teachers can gain an awareness of ELF, and express
favourable views about its relevance, but then continue to do what they have
always done, regardless of the implications of ELF research. As Bartels (2005)
points out, increased knowledge about language is of potential value to the
teacher, but simply helping teachers to acquire knowledge and conceptions
about language will not promote significant change in pedagogy. Developing
expertise requires active engagement on the part of the teacher. For teachers to
be able to respond to ELF in a practice-relevant way, their on-going profes-
sional development needs to include an explicit focus on language needs and
to involve ‘deliberate practice’ (Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer, 1993).
Guskey (2002) describes three major goals of teacher development, ‘change
in the classroom practices of teachers, change in their attitudes and beliefs, and
change in the learning outcomes of students’ ( p. 383). He also makes clear
though that the relationship among these is hugely complex, and that any
attempt to instigate change must be undertaken in light of the specific, prac
tical needs of teachers and their day-to-day classroom-based actions. Further-
more, as Roberts (1998) points out, and as Jenkins (2007) reiterates with spe-

Authenticated
cific reference to ELF, teachers tend to be unsettled by innovations in the

curriculum and all aspects of pedagogic change more broadly. Introducing
change in pedagogy tends to provoke controversy and feelings of unease among
practitioners.
Mainstream educational policy has in recent years gradually moved towards
more evidence-based practice (see Thomas & Pring, 2004), thus increasing the
likelihood of pedagogic innovations being implemented. This move follows
the argument that teachers’ engagement in and with research is beneficial
to teaching and learning (though see Borg 2006 for a systematic review of
teachers’ degree of engagement with research). Any attempt to bring ELF into
practice must therefore be underpinned by an awareness of the situated nature
of continued professional development (see e.g. Clarke & Hollingsworth,
2002). Teachers need to be encouraged to reflect on ELF research findings in
ways that will require them to reassess current practice in their own specific,
situated teaching contexts, and incorporate changes in approach to whatever
extent is most appropriate to the continued development of their individual,
personalised knowledge base.
In terms of understanding what an ELF-informed or ELF-oriented pedagogy
should look like we need to engage in much more empirical research. But this
must involve teachers directly. So critical reflection is something that teachers
themselves need to do, but it is unlikely that this will happen automatically and
without guidance and support. We can perhaps best understand the current
situation regarding language models and norms in ELT in terms of what Kull-
man (2003) describes as ‘discourse paralysis’. In other words, language teach-
ing has continued to remain so attached to a highly standardized notion of
language, because ‘the core discourse of ELT has arguably failed to incorpo-
rate perspectives from other related fields’ ( p. 74). If this is the case, it does not
matter what researchers say about the pedagogic relevance of ELF, as the
findings of this work are discussed in discourse contexts unfamiliar, and often
inaccessible, to large numbers of practitioners.
On the possibility of greater uptake of ELF and ELF-related concepts in
pedagogy, however, I remain optimistic. We seem to be at the beginning of
a potential turning point in current approaches to language in educational
contexts. There is a propitious parallel here in recent ELT history. The current
questioning of language norms can be seen as an echo of earlier challenges to
the concept of method, which Kumaravadivelu (1994) describes as the ‘post-
method condition’. He describes this condition as being the result of ‘a steady
stream of evaluative thoughts on the nature and scope of method’ ( p. 27), crit-
ical reflective thinking that raises questions not only about existing and poten-
tial new methods, but which signals a challenge to the concept of method itself.
If we look in detail at the arguments Kumaravadivelu puts forward, it is not
difficult to see how they are relevant to the current situation.

Authenticated
166 Martin Dewey
If the conventional concept of method entitles theorizers to construct knowledge-

oriented theories of pedagogy, the postmethod condition empowers practitioners to
construct classroom-oriented theories of practice. If the concept of method authorizes
theorizers to centralize pedagogic decision making, the postmethod condition enables
practitioners to generate location-specific, classroom-oriented innovative practices.
(Kumaravadivelu, 1994: 29. My italics)
We can easily rewrite the italicized phrasing above to fit with the concept of a
‘postnormative’ condition, in which methods are replaced with norms and
models. In short, the postnormative condition can be described as an approach
to language in the classroom in which practitioners can be empowered to ‘con-
struct classroom-oriented theories of language and communication’, and which
enables practitioners to ‘generate location-specific, classroom-oriented inno-
vative language models’. In other words, ELF is relevant not so much in terms
of identifying alternative sets of norms, but more in terms of enabling us to
move beyond normativity.
From my own perspective as both a researcher working in ELF and a teacher
educator, ELF findings are most valuable for their capacity to ‘open up’ our
conception of language. Adopting an ELF perspective might not in fact be so
much concerned with developing a multi-norm approach (see e.g. Canagarajah
2005), but rather with incorporating a postnormative orientation to language
learning and use (cf Seidlhofer, 2011, chapter 8). What this means in practice
might not be as radical as first appears. The notion of postnormativity can be
articulated to teachers as a framework of choices available when deciding
whether/to what extent/which (if any) language norms are relevant to their im-
mediate teaching contexts. Figure 7 shows a flowchart of the kinds of questions
teachers need to ask themselves about the precise contextual conditions of their
teaching situation. By posing these questions in a systematic, practice-oriented
way, teachers can develop a more rationalized, informed perspective on the
(de)merits of selecting language norms in the classroom.
Figure 7. Adopting a ‘post-normative’ approach

Authenticated
Up to now there has been relatively little in-depth exploration of what

teachers might reasonably do to incorporate an ELF perspective in practice.
Bearing this in mind, the pedagogic implications of ELF are not likely to be
anything more than a professional curiosity unless researchers do more to work
collaboratively with teachers. In addition to conducting research into teachers’
perceptions of ELF, we need to instigate ELF-relevant teacher development.
This can be achieved through classroom-based action research (see Burns,
2009), involving academics as well as language teachers in re-examining cur-
rent methodology and practice in context-relevant ways.
This alone, however, will not suffice. My research has shown that teachers
can display a fundamental ambivalence about ELF. This is related to the dual-
ity inherent in teachers’ professional responsibilities. On the one hand, teachers
have a responsibility as educators to respond to the immediate learning needs
of their students. On the other hand, meeting these needs has to be reconciled
with teachers’ institutional responsibilities, which are so often determined by
norm-based accounts of language and language testing. One way this ambiva-
lence can be resolved is through developing greater awareness of the socio
linguistics of English, allowing teachers to better comprehend how language is
always modified to fit local contextual uses (see especially Jenkins, 2000 on
the importance of sociolinguistics in teacher education). By working collab-
oratively with teachers as part of a broader project of (re)education, incorporat-
ing an ELF perspective and thus moving beyond a normative approach becomes
much more feasible. The ‘learning’ of my title refers not only to teachers, but
to all of us involved in researching this field. After all, we still have much to
learn about what an ELF-oriented pedagogy might eventually become. So far,
early attempts to collaborate with teachers through classroom observation and
critical discussion are proving extremely fruitful. Watch this space.
Notes
1. The Delta teaching award is very much a UK-based scheme. It was originally designed as an
in-service language teaching qualification to be taken primarily by native-speaker teachers,
and typically on return to the UK from a period spent teaching abroad after initial training.
However, Cambridge ESOL is an exam board with growing presence and influence globally:
part of the redesign of the Delta scheme in 2008 can be seen as an attempt to further interna-
tionalize the scope of this qualification in fact. According to Cambridge ESOL, the Delta
award is currently offered by 137 centres worldwide, the majority of which are located outside
the UK (where 28 institutions currently offer the exam), and in contexts that range geographi-
cally from Argentina to Vietnam (http://cambridgeesol-centres.org/centres/search.do). The
Cambridge teaching awards are being marketed much more to non-native speaker teachers
than they were in the past. In other words, despite the many arguments against the assumed
relevance of ENL norms and ENL-devised teaching methods, the UK model of teacher prepa-
ration continues to exert disproportionate influence worldwide. Much of my focus in this

Authenticated
168 Martin Dewey
paper is on the implications of ELF for teacher education in the UK context. Nevertheless, a
good deal of the research findings and their discussion are (sadly) also relevant more widely,
especially in contexts where government departments of education are actively attempting to
implement Western-based TESOL methods (see e.g. Choi, 2011 on the current situation in
Korea).
2. The questionnaire described here is based on one used in an earlier research study, as reported
in Dewey (2011). The objectives remain the same as in the previous study, which has proven
to be a useful pilot for the current and longer-term empirical project being discussed. In addi-
tion to the questions provided in the earlier study, the questionnaire described here includes a
more detailed section that focuses on global varieties of English and the perceived relevance
of these in practice. The questionnaire also includes greater scope for participants to provide
more open-ended commentary. The only other difference is in the respective scale of the two
studies: in the first, the questionnaires were paper-based and distributed locally, while the
later one was administered on-line, enabling much wider participation and facilitating system-
atic collation of much larger volumes of data through electronic means of analysis.
References
Archibald, Alasdair, Cogo, Alessia & Jenkins, Jennifer (Eds.) (2011) Latest Trends in ELF
Research. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Baker, Will (2011) Global cultures and identities: Refocusing the aims of ELT in Aisa through
intercultural awareness. In Muller, Theron, Herder, Steven, Adamson, John and Shigeo Brown,
Philip (Eds.) Innovating EFL Education in Asia. Basingstoke: Pagrave Macmillan, 49– 62.
Bartels, Nat (2005) Applied Linguistics and Language Teacher Education: What we know. In
Bartels, Nat (Ed.) Applied Linguistics and Language Teacher Education, pp. 405– 424.
Borg, Simon (2006) Research engagement in English language teaching. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 23, 731–747.
Burns, Anne (2009) Action Research in Second Language Teacher Education. In Burns, Anne &
Richards, Jack (Eds.) Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 289–297.
Canagarajah, Suresh (2005) Introduction. In Canagarajah, Suresh (ed.) Reclaiming the local in
language policy and practice. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Canagarajah, Suresh (2007) Lingua Franca English, multilingual communities and language
acquisition. Modern Language Journal 91, 923–939.
Choi, Taehee (2011) Teacher evaluation: Perceptions, impacts and conflicting demands. Paper
given at the 7th BAAL Language Learning and Teaching SIG conference (Aston University).
Clarke, David & Hollingsworth, Hilary (2002) Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967.
Cogo, Alessia, & Dewey, Martin (2012) Analyzing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-driven
Investigation. London: Continuum.
Dewey, Martin (2009) English as a lingua franca: Heightened variability and theoretical implica-
tions. In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), pp. 60 –83.
Dewey, Martin (2011) Accommodative ELF talk and teacher knowledge. In Archibald, Alasdair,
Cogo, Alessia & Jenkins, Jennifer (Eds.), pp. 205–208.
Ericsson, K. Anders, Krampe, Ralf & Tesch-Römer, Clemens (1993) The role of deliberate prac-
tice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363– 406.
Gray, John (2010) The Construction of English: Culture, Consumerism and Promotion in the ELT
Global Coursebook.

Authenticated
Guskey, Thomas (2002) Professional Development and Teacher Change. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice. 8(3/4), 381–391.
Hülmbauer, Cornelia (2009) We don’t take the right way. We just take the way that we think you
will understand – The Shifting Relationship between Correctness and Effectiveness in ELF. In
A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), pp. 323–347.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2000) The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2006) Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a
Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly 40(1), 157–181.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2007) English as a lingua franca : attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer, Cogo, Alessia & Dewey, Martin (2011) Review of developments in research into
English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), 281–315.
Kirkpatrick, Andy (2010) English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN. A Multilingual Model. Hong
Kong: University of Hong Kong Press.
Kullman, John (2003) The Social Construction of Learner Identity in the UK-published ELT
coursebook. Unpublished PhD thesis, Canterbury Christ Church University College.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994) The Postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for Second/foreign
language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 28(1), 27– 48.
Leung, Constant (2009) Second language teacher professionalism. In Burns, Anne & Richards,
Jack (Eds.) Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 49–58.
Matsuda, Aya & Friedrich, Patricia (2011) English as an international language: A curriculum
blueprint. World Englishes, 30(3), 332–344.
Mauranen, Anna & Ranta, Elina (Eds.) (2009) English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings.
Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
McNamara, Tim (2011) Measuring deficit. In Candlin, Christopher & Crichton, Jonathan (Eds.)
Discourses of Deficit. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 311–326.
Mimatsu, Toshie (2011) ELF versus EFL: Teaching English for International Understanding in
Japan. In Archibald, Alasdair, Cogo, Alessia & Jenkins, Jennifer (Eds.), 251–268.
Roberts, Jon (1998) Language Teacher Education. London: Arnold.
Richards, Jack & Farrell, Thomas (2005) Professional Development for Language Teachers: Strat-
egies for Teacher Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seidlhofer, Barbara (2001) Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a
Lingua Franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2), 133–158.
Seidlhofer, Barbara (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Sifakis, Nicos (2007) The education of teachers of English as a lingua franca: a transformative
perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 355–375.
Sifakis, Nicos & Fay, Richard (2011) Integrating an ELF Pedagogy in a Changing World: The Case
of Greek State Schooling. In Archibald, Alasdair, Cogo, Alessia, Jenkins, Jennifer (Eds.), 285–
298.
Suzuki, Ayako (2011) Introducing diversity of English into ELT: student teachers’ responses. ELT
Journal 65(2), 145–153.
Thomas, Gary & Pring, Richard (Eds.) (2004) Evidence-based Practice in Education. Milton-
Keynes: Open University Press.
UCLES (2008/2011) Delta Syllabus Specifications. Cambridge: UCLES.
Walker, Robin (2010) Teaching the Pronunciation of English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Widdowson, Henry (1990) Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Authenticated
170 Martin Dewey
About the Author
Martin Dewey is based at King’s College London, where he teaches Sociolinguistics, World En
glishes, Teacher Education, and provides PhD supervision in areas related to the globalization of
English and English language teaching. His primary research focus is English as a lingua franca
(ELF), especially exploring the implications of ELF for pedagogy, and reconsidering contempo-
rary conceptions of knowledge and expertise in teacher education. He has written and presented
extensively on his empirical research, and is co-author with Alessia Cogo of Analyzing English as
a Lingua Franca: A corpus-driven investigation (Continuum, 2012).
Dept of Education & Professional Studies
Waterloo Campus
King’s College London
London SE1 9NH
UK
E-mail: Martin.dewey@kcl.ac.uk

Authenticated

Dewey - Towards A Post-Normative Approach - Learning The Pedagogy of ELF - 2012

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Dewey - Towards A Post-Normative Approach - Learning The Pedagogy of ELF - 2012

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Towards a post-normative approach:

learning the pedagogy of ELF

Keywords: current practice, ELF, language pedagogy, post-normative ap-

Post-normatif bir yaklaşıma doğru: ELF pedagojisinin öğrenilmesi

Bu çalışma İngilizce’nin lingua franca dili (English as a Lingua Franca)

Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1–1 (2012), 141 – 170 2191–9216/12/0001–0141

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

pedagojik etkisini değerlendirmektedir. Bu alanda yapılan daha önceki çalışma­

Anahtar sözcükler: Mevcut uygulamlar, lingua franca dili olarak İngilizce

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

2010 on pronunciation teaching), especially in light of what ELF means for

2. Institutional responses and reactions to ELF

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

● extend your knowledge and understanding of the principles and practice of

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

that an essential developmental requirement for teachers is to learn how to

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

And crucially, it goes on to say that:

Evidently, in terms of recent documentation regarding the current policies of

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

3. Researching teacher awareness and responses to ELF

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

In the second subsequent section, participants are asked to rate a number of

3.1. Teacher perceptions of ELF

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

English as a lingua franca

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

In short, there is a general consensus of understanding here, with many par-

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

in the classroom, it is the changeable nature of English in lingua franca com-

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

Figure 1. Variety ratings (Eve)

Figure 2. Variety ratings (Adam – importance)

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

As can be seen above, Adam assigns a rating of 5 to British English only, in

Figure 3. Variety ratings (Adam – familiarity and prestige)

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

Figure 4. Evaluation task (Adam)

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

Figure 5. Evaluation task (Eve)

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

Figure 6. Rating values for ‘important to correct’

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

education/examination policy-makers, general public . . .) change their percep-

3.2. Teacher talk on current practices

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

forms. In interview it became evident that Adam’s perceptions regarding the

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

them (,) i if you look at th the the grammar eh s: prescriptive grammar

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

terms. The plurality involved in considering alternative language models is for

4. Moving beyond current representations of English in ELT

We can probably best interpret Adam’s skepticism in response to a question

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

[T]he representational repertoires in the coursebooks analyzed [ . . . ] suggested a high

By contrast, ELF communication is typified by a fluidity of relations and inter-

Understanding, accepting and then incorporating this diversity in practice will

● Investigate and highlight the particular environment and sociocultural con-

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

e.g. by prioritizing accommodation skills; gauging and adjusting to inter-

Brought to you by | University of Warwick

pedagojik etkisini değerlendirmektedir. Bu alanda yapılan daha önceki çalışma

Anahtar sözcükler: Mevcut uygulamlar, lingua franca dili olarak İngilizce

● extend your knowledge and understanding of the principles and practice of

● Investigate and highlight the particular environment and sociocultural con-

If the conventional concept of method entitles theorizers to construct knowledge-