See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/379053659

Prospective English language teachers' understandings of global English

language teaching

Article in European Journal of Education · March 2024

DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12631

CITATIONS READS

0 328

3 authors, including:

Reyhan Aslan
Middle East Technical University
10 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Reyhan Aslan on 19 March 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 8 September 2023 | Revised: 14 February 2024 | Accepted: 20 February 2024

DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12631

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Prospective English language teachers'

understandings of global English language
teaching

Reyhan Aslan | Zekiye Özer Altınkaya

Department of Foreign Language Education,

Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University, Niğde, Abstract
Turkey
Despite various calls for a thorough re-­conceptualization
Correspondence of current English language teaching (ELT) practices, incor-
Reyhan Aslan, Department of Foreign porating courses for critical perspectives on linguistic and
Language Education, Niğde Ömer
Halisdemir University, Niğde, Turkey. cultural diversity is still a major challenge in most teacher
Email: [email protected] education programmes in many English as a foreign lan-
guage (EFL) countries. Therefore, we explored the evolving
perspectives of English as a global language among Turkish
pre-­service English teachers (PELTs) in response to a global
Englishes-­focused curriculum. Using self-­report data, the
study reveals participants' complex and diverse views on
language varieties in English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) com-
munication, driven by various reasons. After a GE-­oriented
course, most participants shifted to plurilithic orientations
as they softened their beliefs in native-­speaker English
superiority and developed a more sophisticated under-
standing of English. Seven participants with monolithic
orientation appeared to reduce the complex and dynamic
nature of language to racialized stereotypes associated
with native speaker norms. Based on the findings, how
language orientations and ideologies may inform teacher
preparation in language teaching was discussed. Several
recommendations for further research and preparation of
PELTs were made.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Education published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Eur J Educ. 2024;00:e12631.  wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ejed | 1 of 18

https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12631
2 of 18 | ASLAN and ALTINKAYA

KEYWORDS
global Englishes, global Englishes language teaching, language
ideology, linguistic diversity, pre-­service English language
teachers

1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N

In response to the increased globalization, English is now used as a lingua franca among speakers of different
linguistic and cultural backgrounds with different first languages (Seidlhofer, 2011). The spread and prevalent use
of ELF in different parts of the world has propelled proposals for a paradigm shift in ELT (Rose & Galloway, 2017).
Most researchers have begun to argue that this ‘epistemic break’ (Kumaravadivelu, 2012, p. 14) requires moving
away from a monolingual paradigm targeting monolithic and native-­normed views of English towards a multilingual
paradigm in which the goal is to communicate in multilingual contexts (Galloway & Numajiri, 2020). There are var-
ious calls for a thorough re-­conceptualization of current ELT practices concerning the shifts in the use of English
(Galloway & Rose, 2015). Particularly, recent efforts to challenge the monolithic conceptualizations of English also
have implications for language teacher education (LTE) (Fang & Ren, 2018; Palmer & Martínez, 2013). Most LTE
programmes, including in Türkiye, still lag behind the demands associated with the global status of English and
tend to favour language ideologies underpinning the native-­normed position (Hall et al., 2023 ; Karakaş, 2021).
To address this challenge, scholars have proposed several approaches to L2 (second language) teacher educa-
tion, including WE-­informed teacher training (D'Angelo, 2012), ELF-­informed/ELF-­aware teacher education (Ates
et al., 2015; Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2015; Biricik Deniz et al., 2020; Guerra et al., 2022; Kemaloglu-­Er & Bayyurt, 2016,
2022), EIL-­oriented teacher education (Matsuda, 2017; Selvi, 2017), teaching of pronunciation for intercultural
communication (ToPIC) (Liu & Fang, 2022) and global Englishes language teaching (GELT) (Rose & Galloway, 2017).
Irrespective of different terminology employed, these methodologies possessed an overlapping ideology to equip
learners for English use in a globalized context, to empower them by taking ownership of English and to promote
a critical awareness of the various forms of English uses (Prabjandee & Fang, 2022).

1.1 | The GELT framework

This study is situated within the framework of the GELT paradigm, as research has taken GELT as an innovative
curricular approach in ELT which aims to prepare English users for multilingual and multicultural communication
in various communities of practice (Hall et al.,2023). GE is also used as an umbrella term to subsume findings from
multiple paradigms of ELF, EIL, WE and translanguaging (see Hall et al., 2023; Rose & Galloway, 2017). Compared
to these paradigms, the impact of GELT is believed to extend the realm of education. In fact, its influence is much
more extensive and profound on English usage in real-­life situations (Liu & Fang, 2022).
Furthermore, GE is an inclusive teaching paradigm that has prompted a need to re-­assess current ELT practices
in light of the changing sociolinguistic landscape of English (Rajprasit, 2023). It also challenges the overemphasis
on native speakerism in ELT. In that sense, LTE programmes should (i) encourage prospective language teachers to
re-­evaluate how English proficiency is defined in the 21st century, design assessment aligning with the new defini-
tion of English proficiency as ‘communicative effectiveness’, (ii) promote cultural inclusivity by embracing various
cultures and varieties of English without any bias, (iii) conduct needs analyses and (iv) language tasks that empower
the use of pragmatic strategies for effective communication through GELT-­inclusive classroom practices (Hu, 2021).
GE scholars have been criticized for taking a more theoretical approach rather than a practical one
(Galloway & Rose, 2018). However, research on teacher learning has indicated that theoretical knowledge is not
ASLAN and ALTINKAYA | 3 of 18

automatically transferrable to practice; there should be practical experience and reflection opportunities (Burns
& Richards, 2009). Indeed, a small number of LTE programmes have consistently introduced PELTs to different
paradigms related to the pluricentricity of English and few have offered them direct or indirect reflection oppor-
tunities to critically analyse their own language beliefs and values (Lew & Siffrinn, 2019). Thus, scholars continue
to call for further studies that can contribute to the theory–practice gap of materializing the GELT framework in
practice (Galloway & Rose, 2015).
On the other hand, much of the extant work on the implementations from the global Englishes (GE) paradigm
has focused on undergraduate and secondary school students in diverse settings (e.g. Boonsuk et al., 2021; Rose
& Galloway, 2017; Sung, 2015a, 2018). Little is known about teachers' understanding of GELT as a curriculum in-
novation framework. Moreover, much of the previous research on the GELT practice is situated in Asian countries
(e.g. Boonsuk et al., 2021; Lee & Lee, 2019; Liu et al., 2023; Rose & Galloway, 2017; Sung, 2015a, 2018). Despite
numerous positive results documented, the overall impact has been relatively limited. The scholars highlighted
the significance of exploring teachers' beliefs and knowledge about GELT implementations from diverse contexts
(Montakantiwong, 2023), our primary objective is to gain insights into the understandings of prospective language
teachers within the specific context of Türkiye. In that regard, it is critical for prospective language teachers to
develop an understanding of GELT approaches so that they can incorporate diverse varieties of English into their
teaching, spare more time on intelligibility rather than standard language forms and provide learners with com-
municative strategies for international settings (Rose et al., 2021). Therefore, exploring the changes or lack of
changes in understandings of future implementers of the GELT innovation is important for ‘a meaningful, context-­
relevant change in ELT’ (Montakantiwong, 2023).
In this paper focusing on Türkiye as one of the typical EFL contexts where ELT is deeply impacted by the
native-­normed ideology (Karakaş, 2021), an elective GE-­informed course was designed and offered to raise
awareness of GELT to develop prospective language teachers' understandings of the status quo of English. As a
qualitative, interpretive investigation, the study explored the types of changes in the understanding of a group
of PELTs enrolled in a GE-­oriented course with respect to diversity, and analysed the factors that contributed to
either facilitating or hindering the changes observed among these prospective teachers. This paper sought to
address the following research question:

1. What kinds of change, if any, do prospective English language teacher participants experience while
taking a GE-­oriented course?
2. What are the factors contributing to the change or lack of change these prospective teachers experienced?

2 | R E V I E W O F LITE R AT U R E

Evidence suggests that over 2 billion people speak English as their native and second or foreign languages
(Crystal, 2019). The number of ELF users outnumbers the number of native speakers (Sung, 2014; Vettorel &
Corrizzato, 2016). Despite the changing status of English, teaching standard varieties is still dominant in language
teaching programmes (Boonsuk et al., 2021; Galloway & Numajiri, 2020; Wang & Fang, 2020; Zuniga et al., 2018),
and language users hold negative attitudes towards non-­native accents (Sung, 2016). There is a critical need to
increase the awareness of teachers and students regarding the sociolinguistic reality of English. Therefore, re-
cently, the issue of GE has received considerable attention (e.g. Boonsuk et al., 2021; Jindapitak et al., 2022; Liu &
Fang, 2022; Reynolds & Yu, 2018; Sung, 2015a).
A substantial literature has grown up around the theme of raising GE awareness (Fang & Ren, 2018; Galloway
& Rose, 2018; Rajprasit, 2023; Rose & Galloway, 2017; Sung, 2015b). Rose and Galloway (2017) conducted a
research study with Japanese university students to develop GE awareness and implemented a pedagogical task
to discuss the Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) in Singapore. The task increased participants' knowledge
4 of 18 | ASLAN and ALTINKAYA

about the diversity of English, and they questioned the dominance of native forms in ELT. Likewise, Galloway and
Rose (2018) attempted to raise GE awareness by implementing the student presentation task in the classroom.
Their findings revealed that the use of diverse classroom activities was a convenient way of building GE aware-
ness. Following through with this perspective, Fang and Ren (2018) explored the impact of GE-­aware instruction
on students' awareness of their own English and GE. Their study similarly underscores the significance of the role
of GE-­oriented instruction in fostering heightened awareness among students. These results assist in our under-
standing of the role of classroom procedures in raising GE awareness. Based on these findings, it can be assumed
that integrating the identified teaching practices not only into language classrooms but also into LTE programmes
can be a strategic approach to increase GE awareness among prospective teachers. This integration also ensures
that prospective teachers gain practical experience in adapting teaching methods to linguistic diversity, thus im-
proving their understanding and application of GE principles in teaching practice.
Building on the insights gained from classroom procedures, the existing literature on awareness of GE shifts its
focus particularly on LTE programmes (Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2015; Chen et al., 2023; Kemaloglu-­Er & Bayyurt, 2016;
Suzuki, 2011; Vettorel & Corrizzato, 2016). It has been demonstrated that these programmes need to promote an
‘understanding in teachers of how the language they are studying and will be teaching figures in a more general
framework of communication’ (Seidlhofer, 2011, p. 205). Within this connection, LTE programmes have a pivotal
role in promoting the realization of varieties of English. In Vettorel and Corrizzato's (2016) study, the participants
were asked to attend courses related to WE and ELF. It was revealed that PELTs became familiar with the diversity
of English through WE-­oriented instruction. Similarly, building on this perspective, Karakaş (2021) asserted that
incorporating audio-­ and video-­oriented activities, specifically those carried out in Listening and Pronunciation
classes within LTE programmes, is crucial. This is because participants are exposed to a range of native and non-­
native English accents, thereby enhancing their awareness of WE. These activities play a pivotal role in shaping
PELTs' understanding of linguistic diversity within Englishes.
More recent attention has focused on GE-­aware teacher education programmes and GELT curriculum devel-
opment (e.g. Kemaloglu-­Er & Bayyurt, 2019; Marlina, 2021). In their original study, Galloway and Numajiri (2020)
investigated attitudes towards GELT and GELT curriculum innovation. Their participants displayed positive atti-
tudes towards GELT; however, they shared concerns about the impediments of the curriculum innovation process.
The existing literature on GELT highlights that language teachers are driving forces in the incorporation of GE-­
aware instruction (Biricik Deniz et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2023; Galloway & Rose, 2018). These studies collectively
strengthen the idea that a new curriculum is necessary to develop GE awareness since standard English ideology
does not reflect the status of English as a lingua franca.
So far, however, very little attention has been paid to GELT paradigm in the Turkish LTE context. A seminal
study on GE-­aware teacher education in Türkiye is that of Bayyurt and Sifakis (2015), who propounded EFL-­
aware teaching to refer to ‘understanding ELF-­related concerns and trying out and evaluating activities with their
learners that implement such an understanding’ (p. 15). Building on the insights from Bayyurt and Sifakis's (2015)
study, which emphasized the significance of EFL-­aware teaching in the Turkish educational context, subsequent
investigations thoroughly explored the PELTs' ELF awareness. In their groundbreaking study, Kemaloglu-­Er and
Bayyurt (2019) further explored the practical application of ELF-­aware principles. The implementation of a
project-­based ELF-­aware teacher education model demonstrated the efficacy of this approach within the context
of PELT education, contributing significantly to the development of ELF awareness among participants. Similarly,
in a study by Biricik Deniz et al. (2020), the implementation of the ELF-­aware teacher education model resulted in
participants' re-­evaluation of their existing assumptions, especially those associated with the dominance of native
norms in the field of language teaching. Expanding the discussion to encompass a broader perspective, the study
by Solmaz (2020) also offers a comprehensive analysis of WE instruction to PELTs. It has been demonstrated that
incorporating a broader range of English varieties and cultural perspectives into the teaching curriculum raised
awareness towards WE-­relevant issues. Moreover, some participants expressed intentions to incorporate WE-­
aware practices in their future classes. Considering all of this evidence, broader adoption of GE-­aware instruction
ASLAN and ALTINKAYA | 5 of 18

within Turkish LTE programmes is crucial for equipping PELTs with the necessary tools and perspectives to em-
brace a plurilithic approach in language education.
Evidence suggests that GE-­aware language teaching pedagogy is essential to enhance their awareness of
English as a global language. One of the most obvious findings that emerged from the existing literature is that
PELTs have a fundamental role in developing GE-­aware teaching practices—accordingly, several important changes
in curriculum need to be made to introduce varieties of English into the classroom. As stated by Prabjandee (2020),
teachers need to familiarize students with the sociolinguistic reality of English users. As a threshold matter, the
GELT paradigm should be adopted. While valuable research has been conducted on the implementation of the
GE approach in LTE programmes in Türkiye, there remains a need for more in-­depth investigations to further
deepen our understanding of the GELT paradigm. By refining the GELT paradigm based on ongoing findings, LTE
programmes can adapt their curriculum to better prepare teachers for the demands of contemporary English
language instruction in a global context. By addressing this gap, it is hoped that this study will make an important
contribution to the field of language (teacher) education by providing fresh insights into GE awareness.

3 | TH E S T U DY

In this study, we adopted a descriptive case study approach to answer our research questions as the case study
method is considered suitable for exploring and providing an in-­depth understanding regarding the phenomenon
of widespread use of English as well as the concepts of English as a global language among particular individuals
within a specific context (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Yin, 2014). Although this study is a small-­scale exploration and only
investigated the (lack of) changes in the understandings of a small group of PELTs, rich descriptions of participants'
experiences and the research context might provide ‘elaboration on the complexity and characteristics of that one
case’ (Duff, 2014, p. 6).

3.1 | Setting and participants

This study details part of a larger research project which explored the PELTs' beliefs, attitudes and experiences in an
elective GE-­oriented course, which was offered in an LTE programme at a small public university in Türkiye. The par-
ticipants were 29 prospective language teachers (18 females and 11 males) in the second year of their studies at the
time of the study. They were aged between 19 and 21. This course was designed to help PELTs become more aware of
the GELT framework and equip them with the necessary skills to implement GE pedagogy. This course took place over
a period of 14 weeks, with 2-­hour instruction per week. It featured a variety of issues surrounding the phenomenon
of English as a global language to problematize and challenge the traditional concepts of English such as ownership,
identity, nativeness, language rights and accents. The aims of the course are to foster participants' critical aware-
ness of varieties of English and to inform them about the relationship between language and culture. In our course
design process, the following resources were used (1) Rose and Galloway (2017) and (2) Hall et al. (2023). Rose and
Galloway's (2017) work provided valuable insights into the theoretical underpinnings of the GE concept and the evolv-
ing nature of English as a global language. Moreover, their study allowed us to better understand the diverse linguistic
varieties and their socio-­cultural contexts in which English is spoken across the globe, which in turn contributed to our
understanding of teaching perspective of language teachers about the dynamic nature of teaching English. Moreover,
Hall et al.'s (2023) research provided pedagogical frameworks and practical strategies for incorporating GE-­oriented
methods into language education. We employed the insights from these sources in our course design as we targeted
developing a course that contributes to students' awareness and appreciation of cultural and linguistic diversity in
English use. The course consisted of introducing concepts including the history of English spread, language change
and variation and the future of GE (see Supporting Information Appendix I for the weekly schedule of the course). This
6 of 18 | ASLAN and ALTINKAYA

study was conducted under the approval of the Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects and collected written
consent from the participants.

3.2 | Data collection tools

For the purpose of this paper, the primary data reported in this paper were elicited from written accounts of their
experiences of GE-­oriented courses. Students' written self-­reports (WS) were considered suitable for data collec-
tion since they can provide a more profound analysis and understanding of the context-­sensitive phenomenon,
which is not obtained from positivistic, survey-­based research methods (Clarke, 2020). At the very beginning of
the course module, students were required to post on the course's online discussion forum using the guided ques-
tions about their existing beliefs and knowledge about where they stood on the issue of varieties of English by
asking about their individual experiences of English language learning. At the end of the GE course module, they
were asked to share their experiences of participation in this course, their beliefs about standard language ideol-
ogy and linguistic and cultural diversity in both language use and teaching practice (see Supporting Information
Appendix II for sample guided questions).
In addition to students' written self-­reports, other sources of data were also collected for the purpose of trian-
gulation and providing a thick description for a nuanced understanding of the case: (i) class observations; (ii) relevant
documents (course syllabi, course materials and assignments etc.); and (iii) the field notes of the course instructor
who is one of the authors. As the participants already knew the researchers; both worked as instructors in the same
LTE programme, it is important to clarify the researcher–researched relationship. This acquaintance might potentially
lead to a power imbalance during data collection. To address this, the researchers consistently highlighted the par-
ticipants' rights to withdraw from the study at any point without any influence on their academic grades and took an
anti-­authoritative approach. By explicitly emphasizing this right in our research protocol and communication with the
participants, we aimed to reduce any perceived pressure or coercion and alleviate power imbalances.

3.3 | Data analysis

The data analysis process was iterative and recursive, involving multiple (re)readings of the data obtained from
participants' written self-­reports in the online discussion forum (Patton, 2003). Participants' written self-­reports
were analysed by a two-­stage data analysis strategy—within-­case analysis and cross-­case analysis (Merriam, 2009)
to permit wide-­ranging and helpful insights on cases within their context (Baxter & Jack, 2008). We compared the
themes that emerged from the first elicited written self-­reports from the same participant with those obtained
from the last written self-­reports and looked for themes and patterns that emerged from each meaningful seg-
ment of the data (i.e. within-­case analysis) (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Also, we compared and contrasted patterns
and relationships obtained from one participant with those from other participants (i.e. cross-­case analysis) to get
a deeper understanding of differences and similarities. Throughout the data analysis, the authors strived to be
reflexive about their roles and discussed disagreements about a shared coding scheme. The agreed final inter-
pretations were also cross-­checked from other sources of data. To enhance the trustworthiness of the study, the
analysis was also verified by the participants through a member-­checking procedure (Cohen et al., 2011).

4 | FI N D I N G S

As the data analysis of self-­reports obtained before and after the GE-­oriented course indicated, participants
seemed to display varying levels of understanding and types of changes concerning the concept of GE after the
ASLAN and ALTINKAYA | 7 of 18

TA B L E 1 Participants varied understandings before/after the GE-­oriented course.

Before the course After the course

Number of participants with monolithic 26 7

understanding
Number of participants with plurilithic 3 19 + 3
understanding

course (see Table 1 below). A total of 26 of 29 participants tended to express their desire to use native-­like English
and adopted monolithic perspectives while three participants reported displaying a more plurilithic understanding
of English before taking the GE-­oriented course. Additionally, seven participants expressed their understanding of
GE did not change despite their positive perceptions of both GE and the course in general.
The analysis revealed that the changes or non-­changes in participants' understandings of GE were influenced
by different factors. What follows is an analysis of the (lack of) changes and the factors contributing to these (lack
of) changes these prospective language teachers experienced. The presented quotes below are taken from the
written self-­reports and are included to provide insightful examples for illustrating the themes. Respective identi-
fication numbers were given to individual participants to ensure their anonymity.

4.1 | Reasons for taking a plurilithic orientation to use English

Following the data analysis procedure, our study showed that 19 of 26 participants with monolithic perspectives
before taking the course had greater tendency to embrace a plurilithic approach towards English, which was sup-
ported by the critical reflection opportunities in the course. Also, it was found that among the participants (3 of
29) who already displayed sophisticated approach to English use before the course, none of them experienced
any noticeable changes in their understanding, rather they expressed that the course contributed to their critical
awareness of the nuances in GE implementations. We will now present an evaluation of the alterations observed
and the factors contributing to these changes experienced before and after the course among a group of 22 par-
ticipants with plurilithic understandings.

4.1.1 | From unquestioned beliefs to sophisticated understandings of English

Among the 22 participants who took a plurilithic position to English use, a recurring reason for their changing
beliefs is their heightened awareness of the plurilithic reality of English in a globalized world after taking the GE-­
oriented course. These participants had previously associated sounding native like in English or ‘native speaker
pronunciation’ with modern, prestigious and desirable attributes of an English speaker, as evidenced by the fol-
lowing extracts before the course below:

My biggest dream is to speak like a native speaker one day, so I would like to be a native speaker …
When I speak English, I feel modern maybe more prestigious. (#11, female)

Using English slangs and abbreviations with perfect dictations, stops and stress would give people
the desired ‘American style’ that many aspire. (#25, male)

As seen above, there seems to be a desire to have a native-­like English proficiency to index a native-­speaker identity
before taking the GE-­oriented course. Also, following the GE-­focused course experience, which triggered reflections
8 of 18 | ASLAN and ALTINKAYA

on the participants' beliefs about ‘standard’ language ideologies and practices, some participants were more likely to
soften their beliefs about the superiority of native-­speaker English and developed a more sophisticated understand-
ing of English:

I used to believe in the importance of using both British and American English, but my perspective
completely changed after taking the course. It made me realize just how absurd that notion was.
(#11, female)

I had no idea about Global English or such terms … I think this course brings up these different
varieties and gives them a spotlight. (#25, male)

In a similar vein, the participants appeared to raise doubts about the ownership of English thanks to in-­class discus-
sions about native and post-­colonial language ideologies and the history of English. They tended to start supporting
the idea that attributes ownership of English to anyone who speaks it and English belongs to nobody. Another partic-
ipant commented: ‘A language is owned by the people who speak it. It is a shared entity nobody owns it.’ (#18, male)
The views of these participants were also followed by a state of reflexivity in which they pondered on a self-­questioning
process concerning the ‘privileged’ status of native speakers of English thanks to engaging in group discussions and
writing reflections on the issues covered in the lectures.
From their perspective, they used to show unconscious bias against non-­standard language as well as cultural
diversity before the course: ‘We were conditioned to overlook someone different’ (#24, female). The participants
seemed to have such an internalized perception that they previously believed the use of dominant forms of lan-
guage would make them seem more ‘acceptable.’ Similarly, two participants shared their reflexive views as follows:

Of course, I used to disrespect many non-­native English speakers because of their accents, but after
taking this class, my toxicity levels on this topic hit the ground. (#22, male)

I was otherizing some varieties of English before I took this course. Indian English, for example,
sounded funny to me, and I didn't consider this accent to be proper English. I was thinking there
were only American and British English … I had never questioned the idea of standard English. It
doesn't make sense to me anymore … Now, I think we shouldn't stick to certain standards in English.
Well, before that, I was judging people by their accent. (#9, female)

As the data suggest, the participants seemed to first adopt monolithic perspectives at the start of the course; they
started to be self-­aware of the need to challenge those native-­normed forms of language as prospective language
teachers. As for the source of their traditional views of English, which they previously held, all the participants related
to dominant language practices at schools privileging standard English ideology over ‘non-­standard’ language variet-
ies. One participant, for example, talked about the impact of hegemonic native speaker-­based ideologies and practices
on their language learning:

I was thinking non-­standard varieties of English are [sic] inferior to native accents. I think I held
those perceptions because of our way of learning the language. Heavy focus on standard grammar
structures and imposed need to sound native-­like created a sense of insecurity, thus resulted in
self-­doubt. (#8, male)

In line with the previous native speaker-­conformed ideologies and practices, the participants also emphasized unfa-
miliarity with the concept of ELF as the source of their accent and cultural prejudices. Moreover, their negative con-
notations associated with non-­native varieties appeared to impact their self-­assessment of their competence in ELF
ASLAN and ALTINKAYA | 9 of 18

contexts. As these participants perceived themselves as someone who is unable to speak a ‘pure’ variety of English,
they had challenges in building positive self-­images as a confident English user and a prospective language teacher.

4.1.2 | Pragmatic concerns

The participants' previous association of non-­native accents with a sense of inferiority reflects deeply entrenched
beliefs in the superiority of native speakers and standard language norms. By acknowledging and challenging
these biases, these participants appeared to embrace linguistic diversity by rejecting the concepts of linguistic
hierarchy. This shift emphasizes the need to move beyond traditional, monolithic paradigms and promote inclusiv-
ity in language (teacher) education.
In investigating the participants' preference for plurilithic understandings of English, this section examines
closely the significance of intelligibility concerns alongside unquestioned beliefs about monolingual dominance,
gaining insights into the factors influencing participants' perspectives prior to the GE-­oriented course. By delving
into these factors, we aimed to build a baseline understanding of their perspectives, which can then be compared
to their perspectives after the GE-­oriented course to assess the influence of the course on their language ideol-
ogies. To begin with, three participants with plurilithic perspectives of English both before and after the course
perceived a native-­speaker accent as a hindrance to effective communication.

I found native speaker pronunciation very complicated, so I don't want to speak like that. (#28,
male).

When people use English, their concern is to be understood by others or to be able to communicate
effectively, not to imitate native speakers. (#29, female)

Although the participants recognized the role of the GE-­oriented course in exposing them to linguistic diversity, it
seems that their underlying perspectives might not have changed significantly as a result. Furthermore, the findings
also did not provide clear evidence of how the given course specifically contributed to enhancing their understanding
of linguistic diversity. In fact, this suggests that whereas exposure to different language ideologies or concepts was
provided in the course, it may not effectively challenge the participants' pre-­existing assumptions or perspectives. The
quotes below indicate how they adopted a more expansive perspective of English use expressing their aspiration to
become a part of a wider, inclusive global community:

I believe that English varieties can contribute to fostering a global mindset. In doing so, people can
go beyond the idea of a specific English and create a more interconnected society. (#29, female)

… in the global world, language is considered as a means of communication, not an accent race.
(#27, male)

However, 19 participants who experienced a shift in their understandings of GE previously related non-­native accents
with ‘a sense of inferiority’ as they used to treat standard English as the correct and idealized variety of English.

Speaking like a native-­speaker makes the conversation more understandable and stronger (#15,
male).

A native-­speaker accent makes me feel in a higher position and maybe more prestigious. (#21,
female).
10 of 18 | ASLAN and ALTINKAYA

The analysis also indicated how the GE-­oriented course successfully contributed to challenging the participants' nar-
row and fixed viewpoints. Following the course, they offered ‘communicating interculturally using English at ease’ to
challenge the associations of native-­like accents with intelligibility.

After taking this course, I can confidently say that I have developed a more flexible approach to-
wards English … more comfortable and relaxed without rigidly adhering to certain language stan-
dard. (#23, female)

I previously harbored a bias towards English varieties, but now I recognize the importance of em-
bracing the diversity of English, rather than associating it solely with a nation or a country. (#19,
female)

Several participants also started to evaluate standard English negatively because of the ‘linguistic insecurity’
(Labov, 1966) they felt in ELF communication. For example, one participant viewed GE as ‘open door to a less stressful
use of English’ as an English major:

I feel pressure when I feel I am expected to use standardized English to imitate the natives … most
English major students feel insecure about that … feeling to compelled to meet specific language
expectations. It's really difficult to change one's accent. (#24, female)

These participants also used to consider English varieties as a great obstacle to ELF communication before taking the
GE-­oriented course. As the participants explained in the extracts below, mutual intelligibility is more important than
‘having native-­speaker pronunciation’ or language proficiency:

Rather than categorizing the speakers as a native or non-­native, today we must consider if they are
understandable in different cultural contexts (#12, male)

I should be able to speak with someone anytime and anywhere … If I am understandable, this is
what makes me proficient English speaker (#9, female)

4.2 | Reasons for taking a monolithic orientation to use English

Among 26 participants having monolithic standpoint before the course, 7 participants conveyed that their under-
standing of GE remained consistent after completing the course, despite their favourable views of both GE and
the course overall. The findings revealed that participants could retain different understandings of English even
after the course. Although they started to question the necessity of using native-­like English, these participants
still expressed dissatisfaction with the non-­native forms of English. When asked about the impact of the GE, one
participant commented:

… in both negative and positive aspects. Variations in English can be accepted as an evolution to
some extent as long as this varieties contributes to enhancing communication. But non-­native vari-
eties complicate matters. (#3, male)

The subsequent discussion involves an analysis of the absence of changes following the course and the factors con-
tributing to enduring presence of this deeply ingrained ideology in these participants' minds.
ASLAN and ALTINKAYA | 11 of 18

4.2.1 | Association of standard English with a sense of superiority

Among seven participants who experienced any discernible changes in their understanding after the course, one
main reason for their preference seems to be related to their perceived association of standard English with cor-
rect and desirable forms of language. Compared to those who maintained a monolithic approach and those who
transitioned to plurilithic perspective, both sets of participants of this study might appear to prioritize standard
varieties; however, the differentiation lies in the underlying motivations shaping their perspectives. The former
primarily seemed to link standard language norms with correctness and desirability, resulting from deeply in-
grained beliefs while the latter underwent a shift in their understanding, possibly impacted by the course content,
interactions or self-­reflection, which might lead them to reconsider their perspectives beyond monolithic lan-
guage conventions. Therefore, despite their similar preferences, the underlying rationale and path towards their
understandings are distinct. The participants previously appeared to idealize standard varieties of English (i.e.
British English or American English) as the legitimate form of language.

… British English, let me say, [is] the most melodic one among many English accents. It sounds more
royal than American or Australian English does … the others don't sound as majestic as British ac-
cent. (#6, female)

In parallel, the participants favouring standard language ideology considered Anglophone cultures and/or countries
as the owners of English who use it in a ‘perfect’ way both before and after the course. In that sense, the participants
tended to reduce the complex, fluid and dynamic nature of language to religious, cultural and racialized stereotypes
associated with native-­speaker English.

I would like to sound more native-­like. Native speakers are those who grew up in an English-­
speaking country. English is their ‘mother tongue’ … English predominantly reflects the cultural
influence of Western Christian traditions with the idioms. (#1, male)

As shown in the analysis, these participants tended to be negative about non-­standard forms of English. The following
quotes illustrated the non-­changes in their understanding of GE:

The Indian accent, for example, seemed very funny to me, and I didn't consider that accent to be
proper English. (#4, female)

I used to disrespect many of the English speakers because of their accents. (#1, female)

As indicated, the participants did not intend to appreciate non-­standard accents of English because of positive con-
notations of native-­speaker pronunciation: ‘It is the perfect representation of the language’ (#5, female). Additionally,
these participants' preference for a monolithic approach appears to be related to their association of high levels of
English proficiency with a sense of superiority. In particular, they held deeply rooted beliefs about the superiority of
native speakers of English. Besides, several participants tended to perceive a high level of English proficiency as part
of a native-­like pronunciation:

Native speaker pronunciation, in my opinion, means knowing all the structures in English (#6,
female)

I would like to sound more native-­like. I think it means speaking English fluently and without mis-
takes. (#2, male)
12 of 18 | ASLAN and ALTINKAYA

As seen above, most participants believed that non-­standard varieties are incorrect forms of English, supposing that
non-­native speakers are ‘deficit’ learners with a low level of English competence. As the data suggest, these partici-
pants felt an overwhelming desire to attain native-­like pronunciation as English speakers using an authentic and ulti-
mate model of English. A common view among participants was that native-­like proficiency would enable them to gain
access to valuable resources to fulfil their future academic, social and professional desires and needs. When asked
how it feels like to be a native speaker, two participants stated:

I would feel on a higher position because a person who speaks English fluently is considered re-
spectable in our country. (#7, female)

It would be pretty easy for me to read academic resources in English. (#6, female)

In conclusion, the data highlight the persistence of standard language ideologies among participants, despite their
participation in the GE-­oriented course. These participants maintained their preference for standard varieties of
English, idealized British or American English, which reflects their deeply ingrained beliefs about correctness and
desirability. Moreover, the participants' association of Anglophone cultures as the legitimate or superior owners
of English reinforces stereotypes and simplifies the complexity of language diversity. The participants' negative
attitudes towards non-­standard varieties, rooted in perceptions of non-­native speakers as ‘deficit’ learners, fur-
ther underscore a reluctance to appreciate linguistic diversity and a preference for native-­like pronunciation as
a marker of superiority and access to diverse opportunities. These findings highlight the persistence of standard
language ideologies and the need for efforts to challenge the dominant language ideologies and encourage inclu-
sive language approaches in language (teacher) education.

4.2.2 | Association of Standard English with a sense of linguistic ownership

The sense of ownership of standard English seems to be another reason for participants' avoidance of non-­standard
varieties of English, which explains non-­changes in their GE understanding after the course. These participants
appear to consider standard English as the ideal and correct form of the language, mainly associating it with author-
ity and prestige. However, the participants in this study who underwent a shift in their understanding might not
necessarily seem to lack a sense of ownership of standard English, rather their shift in understanding could reflect a
broader appreciation of linguistic diversity and openness to non-­standard language norms. The participants unani-
mously believed that native speakers are the sole owners of English. In one case, one participant remarked before
the course: ‘The U.K. owns English because they were born with the English language’ (#4, female). For most partici-
pants taking a monolingual approach before the course, English seems to be a language that originated in England;
therefore, the British own the language. As revealed, the lack of changes in these participants' GE understanding
after the course can also be partly explained by their hesitance to use ELF due to their perceptions of standard lan-
guage forms as the only ‘acceptable’ English. Here, the participants seemed to associate these norms with a sense of
native-­speaker authority. They put forward that non-­native varieties of English are imperfect, which is responsible
for communication breakdowns in ELF contexts and thereupon had the inclination to otherize different language
varieties. Concerning the ‘deficit view’ of English, the participants' opinions after the course are presented below:

…native speaker pronunciation is like a speaking normally true. When you are talk like that, you
make a little mistake, and your speech sounds so good. (#7, female)

It means to me that speaking fluently like a native speaker and having an advanced level of speak-
ing. (#4, female)
ASLAN and ALTINKAYA | 13 of 18

As evident from the provided extracts, the sense of language ownership associated with native-­speaker norms sig-
nificantly contributed to participants' resistance to adopting GE understanding, even after course completion. This
association hinders the acceptance of non-­native varieties of English by reinforcing the belief that these variations are
imperfect. Their resistance, seen through a ‘deficit view’ of English, underscores the challenge of embracing varieties
of English.

4.2.3 | Association of standard English with intelligibility

In addition to the reasons for adopting a monolithic stance to English after the course identified above, these
participants' understandings were also found to be driven by their concerns about the intelligibility of non-­native
varieties in ELF interactions. Closer inspection revealed that these participants assumed that the standard variety
of English is necessary to communicate effectively. As shown below, one participant considered non-­standard
forms of English as ‘unnecessary’:

I would like to sound more native. They have a really good accent, and almost everyone who knows
English can understand them very well. (#3, male)

As shown in several participants' expressions of their admiration for native-­like pronunciation because of its compre-
hensibility seemed to explain the non-­changes in their GE understandings after the course. For instance, one partici-
pant saw native-­like proficiency as ‘the ultimate goal to attain as a future English teacher’ (#5, female).
Overall, it can be concluded that their emphasis on Standard English reflects their perception that this form
is generally recognized and understood in ELF interactions, unlike non-­native forms. As described in previous
section, some participants who embrace plurilithic perspectives mentioned that diverse linguistic forms enhance
comprehension, especially in ELF interactions and they questioned the intelligibility of native forms. The differ-
ence is due to their contrasting perceptions of what contributes to clear communication. Additionally, participants'
diverse attitudes might not be solely a result of theoretical perspectives but might be related to diverse linguistic
experiences and individual aspirations as future English teachers. The journey each participant takes during lan-
guage development might contribute to their different perspectives.

5 | D I S CU S S I O N A N D CO N C LU S I O N S

The present inquiry set out to explore a group of PELTs' types of change (if any) in their understanding of English
as a global language following a GE-­oriented course with a specific focus on the factors contributing to the change
or lack of change they experienced. While the findings and interpretations might not be easily generalizable to
other contexts, this study might contribute to our understanding of the pluricentricity of English and English users
in today's globalized world and provide insights into the LTE programmes in other EFL countries. It was found that
the GE-­informed course appeared to change most participants' monolithic perspectives of English use, native
norms, different accents and the ownership of English as the analysis revealed exposure to critical reflections and
discussions during the course allowed PELTs to challenge their pre-­existing notions and embrace a more pluri-
lithic approach to English. This finding was in line with previous research (Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2015; Biricik Deniz
et al., 2020; Galloway & Numajiri, 2020; Rose & Galloway, 2017; Vettorel & Corrizzato, 2016). This shift empha-
sizes the role of promoting critical awareness and inclusivity in language (teacher) education to challenge deeply
entrenched standard language ideologies.
The findings suggest that the changes and non-­changes in participants' understandings of English seemed to
be guided by various reasons. Particularly, pragmatic concerns about intelligibility in EFL interactions were more
14 of 18 | ASLAN and ALTINKAYA

likely to be among the main practical considerations concerning their orientations to English use. In the case of
participants who took a plurilithic stance following the course, using different varieties of English appears to be
considered pragmatic and comprehensible to other interlocutors in ELF contexts.
However, participants who still displayed monolithic orientations after the course had different interpreta-
tions of intelligibility in ELF settings. These participants associated standard English with intelligibility and ap-
peared to consider non-­native varieties of English as a source of intelligibility problems. A possible explanation
for this might be that native speaker pronunciation is labelled as ‘clearer’ and ‘more recognizable.’ (Biricik Deniz
et al., 2020). Furthermore, since native speakers were regarded as highly proficient users, participants attributed
great importance to sounding native like. This finding indicates that participants could imitate native speaker ac-
cents to gain intelligibility in ELF interactions (Galloway, 2013) and were likely to achieve mutual intelligibility by
using standard language forms (Jindapitak et al., 2022). Given a subset of participants maintained their preference
for monolithic perspectives even after the course, these findings suggest the persistence of standard language
ideologies and stress the need for continued, systemic efforts to challenge dominant language norms and promote
inclusive language approaches in language (teacher) education.
In addition to their beliefs about intelligibility, the participants with monolithic orientations not only consid-
ered native accents as the single correct way of pronunciation but also had the inclination to otherize different lan-
guage varieties (Sung, 2015b). These participants tended to idealize standard varieties of English as the legitimate
and superior form of language, which reveals that native speakerism affects participants' beliefs about different
varieties of English (Boonsuk et al., 2021). A previous study has demonstrated that students had negative attitudes
towards non-­standard varieties of English since these variations were regarded as ‘imperfect’ (Sung, 2015a). As
a result, students preferred to use only standard forms in consideration of their superiority over other varieties.
It can, therefore, be seen that participants appear not to respect linguistic diversities due to their prejudiced at-
titudes towards non-­native speakers. Monolithic orientations might be responsible for such biased orientations
towards native-­like accents. This supports the idea that PELTs should be exposed to all varieties of English so that
they realize the sociolinguistic reality of English (see Jindapitak et al., 2022).
An alternative explanation is that the participants seemed to relate effective language classroom practices
to standard language ideologies. These language ideologies were more likely to be developed as a result of their
previous experiences with linguistic supremacy (Zuniga et al., 2018). Thus, the native speaker ideology appears
to give rise to the belief that standard language practices should be assumed as a reference point to assess lan-
guage proficiency. Given some participants' lack of familiarity with non-­native varieties as well as the prevalence
of native-­speaker-­conformed materials and practices, native-­speaker normative pedagogy seemed to be a com-
monly accepted assumption. What is notable here is that a lack of awareness of the GE paradigm might lead to
the aspiration to conform to native speaker norms and resources (Rajprasit, 2023). These findings also suggest
how classroom practices often align with dominant language ideologies, indicating the belief that proficiency in
English should be measured against native speaker norms. To address this concern, raising awareness of GE para-
digms to change the focus towards inclusivity and appreciate diverse linguistic realities within language (teacher)
education.
The findings suggest that it is, therefore, important to GE-­informed pedagogy as well as exposure to different
accents (Sung, 2015a) in language teacher education to provide an in-­depth understanding of the hybridity and
legitimacy of English (Fang & Ren, 2018). Considering the changing understandings of most participants, their
appreciation for English varieties to English and their interest in intelligibility, not ‘correctness’ for less stressful
communication, GE and GELT seem to deserve a more visible place in language teacher education curriculum so
that they can develop a ‘lingua-­franca ideology’ as opposed to an ‘a deficit ideology’ and consequently encourage
flexibility towards diverse varieties of English in their future practices.
As offering prospective language teachers such a single-­shot GE-­wise course, which may limit exposure
to varieties of English, might not be sufficient to fully alter their understanding of English as a global language
(Ates et al., 2015; Galloway & Numajiri, 2020), participants should be provided with language and intercultural
ASLAN and ALTINKAYA | 15 of 18

communication courses to develop their appreciation of linguistic and cultural diversity (Suzuki, 2011). Given
the potential resistance of prospective language teachers to alter their established views on English language,
by providing a more comprehensive curriculum, participants are more likely to actively engage with GE-­aware
instruction and gain a deeper understanding of language diversity. These further courses can also encourage
participants to critically reflect on their existing beliefs and experiences. Through this process, they may be
more open to re-­evaluating their established views and recognizing the richness and complexity of global
communication. In this sense, the further courses can provide exposure to varieties of English and, in turn, can
promote positive changes in participants' attitudes. To promote a critical awareness of diversity, as Liu and
Fang (2022) note, eliminating all native speaker-­conformed teaching materials is not necessarily a solution.
Instead, teacher education curricula should be guided by critical perspectives of language and culture to pre-
vent the reproduction of hegemonic language ideologies in language classrooms (Palmer & Martínez, 2013).
As for the transformation to more nuanced understandings of many participants concerning the current use
of English, the GE-­oriented course seemed to provide them with opportunities to have a heightened sensitiv-
ity to linguistic varieties and critically reflect on their racialized stereotypes and fixed, ethnocentric views of
cultural concepts. Therefore, GE pedagogy can also help student teachers promote ethno-­relative worldviews
and ‘linguistic responsibility’ in relation to their increased language awareness of functional varieties of English
(Ates et al., 2015; Friedrich, 2009).
Apart from developing prospective teachers' critical linguistic and cultural awareness, LTE programmes
should provide students with opportunities for critical and reflective discussions about teaching and learn-
ing pronunciation, their accent preferences and the meanings attached to their accent choices (Sung, 2016).
Implementing an approach called ‘teaching of pronunciation for intercultural communication (ToPIC)’ would
help to challenge the deeply entrenched ideology of native speakerism in the minds of the participants (see
Liu & Fang, 2022).
Guided by recent studies on ELF communication, teacher educators should take concrete actions to prioritize
‘lingua-­franca intelligibility of English’ over native speaker competence (Reynolds & Yu, 2018). Seen in this light, it
is fair to argue that such a need reflects how the native speakerism ideology is still a concern to be dealt with in
the field of language teacher education (Wang & Fang, 2020).
Furthermore, the plurilithic understandings of these participants seem to correlate with a sense of affiliations
with a global community in addition to a desire to express their identity. As Sung (2014) notes, language users
might appropriate their English and re-­invent their desired identities to be able to engage in hybridized linguistic
practices. As a result, it can be stated that language users' tendencies in ELF communication are not an issue of
‘either-­or choice’ but a complex one (Sung, 2016). Therefore, policy implications should suggest and support the
diverse linguistic identities of language users, moving away from such binary concepts of language choice towards
a more comprehensive understanding of plurilingual communication.
In closing, it should be acknowledged that this study is not without limitations. For instance, the study focused
on Turkish PELTs' written self-­reports of their experiences of GE-­oriented courses to draw a holistic picture of
their changing perspectives about hegemonic language ideologies and diversity in both language use and teaching
practice. Further studies could also complement written data with other data sources to probe into the complex
issues surrounding the current status of English in ELF settings.

C O N FL I C T O F I N T E R E S T S TAT E M E N T
The author(s) declare no competing interests.

DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding
author upon reasonable request.
16 of 18 | ASLAN and ALTINKAYA

ORCID
Reyhan Aslan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6099-8990
Zekiye Özer Altınkaya https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8673-8687

REFERENCES
Ates, B., Eslami, Z. R., & Wright, K. L. (2015). Incorporating world Englishes into undergraduate ESL education courses.
World Englishes, 34(3), 485–501.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice research-
ers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559. https://​doi.​org/​10.​46743/​​2160-­​3715/​2008.​1573
Bayyurt, Y., & Sifakis, N. C. (2015). ELF-­aware in-­s ervice teacher education: A transformative perspective. In H.
Bowles & A. Cogo (Eds.), International perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca (pp. 117–135). Palgrave
Macmillan.
Biricik Deniz, E., Özkan, Y., & Bayyurt, Y. (2020). ELF-­awareness in pre-­service English language teacher education: A case
study from Turkey. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(2), 270–284.
Boonsuk, Y., Ambele, E. A., & McKinley, J. (2021). Developing awareness of global Englishes: Moving away from ‘native
standards’ for Thai university ELT. System, 99, 102511. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​system.​2021.​102511
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Burns, A., & Richards, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education. Cambridge University
Press.
Chen, Z., Chen, X., & Fang, F. (2023). Global Englishes and teacher education: Present cases and future directions. RELC
Journal, 54(3), 873–880. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0 0336​88221​1044872
Clarke, D. W. (2020). First my dad, then my iPhone: An autoethnographic sketch of digital death. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 21(2), Art. 8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​17169/​​fqs-­​21.2.​3258
Cohen, S., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Routledge.
Crystal, D. (2019). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English language (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1017/​97811​0 8528931
D'Angelo, J. (2012). WE-­informed EIL curriculum at Chukyo: Towards a functional, educated, multilingual outcome. In
A. Matsuda (Ed.), Principles and practices of teaching English as an international language (pp. 138–157). Multilingual
Matters.
Duff, P. A. (2014). Case study research on language learning and use. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 233–255.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S0267​19051​4 000051
Fang, F., & Ren, W. (2018). Developing students' awareness of global Englishes. ELT Journal, 72(4), 384–394. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1093/​elt/​ccy012
Friedrich, P. (2009). World Englishes and peace sociolinguistics: Towards a common goal of linguistic understanding. In
T. Hoffmann & L. Siebers (Eds.), World Englishes—Problems, properties and prospects (pp. 407–414). John Benjamins
Publishing.
Galloway, N. (2013). Global Englishes and English language teaching (ELT)–bridging the gap between theory and practice
in a Japanese context. System, 41(3), 786–803. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​system.​2013.​07.​019
Galloway, N., & Numajiri, T. (2020). Global Englishes language teaching: Bottom-­up curriculum implementation. TESOL
Quarterly, 54(1), 118–145. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​tesq.​547
Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2015). Introducing global Englishes. Routledge.
Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2018). Incorporating global Englishes into the ELT classroom. ELT Journal, 72(1), 3–14. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1093/​elt/​ccx010
Guerra, L., Cavalheiro, L., Pereira, R., Kurt, Y., Oztekin, E., Candan, E., & Bayyurt, Y. (2022). Representations of the English
as a lingua Franca framework: Identifying ELF-­aware activities in Portuguese and Turkish Coursebooks. RELC Journal,
53(1), 134–150. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0 0336​88220​935478
Hall, C. J., Gruber, A., & Qian, Y. (2023). Modeling plurilithic orientations to English with pre-­service teachers: An explor-
atory international study. Tesol Quarterly, 57(4), 1167–1196. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​tesq.​3181
Hu, G. (2021). Language assessment in global Englishes. In A. F. Selvi & B. Yazan (Eds.), Language teacher education for
global Englishes (pp. 199–206). Routledge.
Jindapitak, N., Teo, A., & Savski, K. (2022). Bringing global Englishes to the ELT classroom: English language learners'
reflections. Asian Englishes, 24(3), 279–293. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13488​678.​2022.​2033910
Karakaş, A. (2021). Enhancing global Englishes awareness among pre-­s ervice language teachers through audio/
video-­b ased resources. In A. F. Selvi & B. Yazan (Eds.), Language teacher education for global Englishes (pp. 20–26).
Routledge.
ASLAN and ALTINKAYA | 17 of 18

Kemaloglu-­Er, E., & Bayyurt, Y. (2016). ELF-­aware teacher education with pre-­service teachers: A transformative and
technology enhanced case from Turkey. In N. Tsantila, J. Mandalios, & M. Ilkos (Eds.), ELF: Pedagogical and interdisci-
plinary perspectives (pp. 261–267). Deree—The American College of Greece.
Kemaloglu-­Er, E., & Bayyurt, Y. (2019). Project-­based and ELF-­aware pre-­service teacher education in Turkey: Sample
cases of discovery, creativity, interaction, and multilingual and multicultural diversity. In A. Gras-­Velazquez (Ed.),
Project-­based learning in second language acquisition (pp. 82–97). Routledge.
Kemaloglu-­Er, E., & Bayyurt, Y. (2022). Implementation of blended learning in English as a lingua franca (ELF)-­aware pre-­
service teacher education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 60–73.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012). Individual identity, cultural globalization, and teaching English as an international language:
The case for an epistemic break. In L. Alsagoff, S. L. Mckay, G. Hu, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for
teaching English as an international language (pp. 9–27). Routledge.
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. The Center for Applied Linguistics.
Lee, J. S., & Lee, K. (2019). Perceptions of English as an international language by Korean English-­major and non-­English-­
major students. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(1), 76–89. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01434​
632. ​2018.​1480628
Lew, S., & Siffrinn, N. E. (2019). Exploring language ideologies and preparing preservice teachers for multilingual and
multicultural classrooms. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 68(1), 375–395. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​
23813​36919​8702
Liu, H., & Fang, F. (2022). Towards a global Englishes-­aware national English curriculum of China. ELT Journal, 76(1),
88–98.
Liu, H., Zhang, X., & Fang, F. (2023). Young English learners' attitudes towards China English: Unpacking their identity
construction with implications for secondary level language education in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 43(1),
283–298. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02188​791.​2021.​1908228
Marlina, R. (2021). Curriculum development in global Englishes. In A. F. Selvi & B. Yazan (Eds.), Language teacher education
for global Englishes (pp. 239–247). Routledge.
Matsuda, A. (Ed.). (2017). Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language. Multilingual Matters.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Montakantiwong, A. (2023). Bridging conceptual gaps in global Englishes language teaching: Ethnographic insights
from Thai higher education. Asian Englishes. Advance online publication. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13488​678.​2023.​
2251736
Palmer, D., & Martínez, R. A. (2013). Teacher agency in bilingual spaces: A fresh look at preparing teachers to educate
Latina/o bilingual children. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 269–297.
Patton, M. Q. (2003). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage Publication.
Prabjandee, D. (2020). Teacher professional development to implement global Englishes language teaching. Asian
Englishes, 22(1), 52–67. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13488​678.​2019.​1624931
Prabjandee, D., & Fang, F. (2022). ‘I was like, just wow!’: Insights from global Englishes teacher professional development.
Asian Englishes, 24(3), 294–311.
Rajprasit, K. (2023). 'Do as WE Do': Teaching world Englishes in a general English course to Thai students. RELC Journal,
54(1), 291–299. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0 0336​88221​1011276
Reynolds, B. L., & Yu, M. H. (2018). Addressing the language needs of administrative staff in Taiwan's internation-
alised higher education: Call for an English as a lingua franca curriculum to increase communicative competence
and willingness to communicate. Language and Education, 32(2), 147–166. https://​d oi.​o rg/​10.​1080/​13488​678.​
2019.​1624931
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. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0 0336​
88216​68428​
Rose, H., McKinley, J., & Galloway, N. (2021). Global Englishes and language teaching: A review of pedagogical research.
Language Teaching, 54(2), 157–189. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S 0261​4 4482​0 000518
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford University Press.
Selvi, A. F. (2017). Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language: Reflections from Northern Cyprus.
In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language (pp. 149–163). Multilingual
Matters.
Solmaz, O. (2020). World Englishes instruction in an ELT department in Turkey: Student teachers' reflections. International
Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 12(2), 474–493.
Sung, C. C. M. (2014). English as a lingua franca and global identities: Perspectives from four second language learners of
English in Hong Kong. Linguistics and Education, 26, 31–39. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​linged.​2014.​01.​010
18 of 18 | ASLAN and ALTINKAYA

Sung, C. C. M. (2015a). Implementing a global Englishes component in a university English course in Hong Kong: Student
perceptions and implications for course development and implementation. English Today, 31(4), 42–49. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1017/​S 0266​07841​5000383
Sung, C. C. M. (2015b). Exposing learners to global Englishes in ELT: Some suggestions. ELT Journal, 69(2), 198–201.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​elt/​ccu064
Sung, C. C. M. (2016). Does accent matter? Investigating the relationship between accent and identity in English as a
lingua franca communication. System, 60, 55–65. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​system.​2016.​06.​0 02
Sung, C. C. M. (2018). Investigating perceptions of English as a lingua franca in Hong Kong: The case of university stu-
dents: Insights into the complexity of ELF perceptions in the era of globalization. English Today, 34(1), 38–44. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S 0266​07841​7000293
Suzuki, A. (2011). Introducing diversity of English into ELT: Student teachers' responses. ELT Journal, 65(2), 145–153.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​elt/​ccq024
Vettorel, P., & Corrizzato, S. (2016). Fostering awareness of the pedagogical implications of world Englishes and ELF in
teacher education in Italy. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 487–511. https://​doi.​org/​10.​14746/​​
ssllt.​2016.6.​3.​6
Wang, L., & Fang, F. (2020). Native-­speakerism policy in English language teaching revisited: Chinese university teach-
ers' and students' attitudes towards native and non-­native English-­speaking teachers. Cogent Education, 7, 1778374.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​23311​86X.​2020.​1778374
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Zuniga, C. E., Henderson, K. I., & Palmer, D. K. (2018). Language policy toward equity: How bilingual teachers use policy
mandates to their own ends. Language and Education, 32(1), 60–76.

AU T H O R B I O G R A P H I E S

Reyhan Aslan (Ph.D., in Middle East Technical University) is an assistant professor at Niğde Ömer Halisdemir
University. Her current research interests include language and identity, world Englishes, language ideology,
second-­language teacher education and international and comparative education.

Zekiye Özer Altınkaya is an assistant professor at Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University, English Language
Teaching Department. She earned her MA and PhD degrees at Hacettepe University. Her areas of interest
include individual differences, emotion and positive psychology in SLA.

S U P P O R T I N G I N FO R M AT I O N
Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this
article.

How to cite this article: Aslan, R., & Altınkaya, Z. Ö. (2024). Prospective English language teachers'
understandings of global English language teaching. European Journal of Education, 00, e12631. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ejed.12631

View publication stats