Developing awareness of Global Englishes: questioning the native-speakerist paradigm of ELT at a Polish university

2.1 Defining global Englishes

While the traditional view of English as a homogenous and static entity remains prevalent in many ELT contexts, scholars have argued that it should be seen as fluid, dynamic, and shaped by its diverse users worldwide; thus, the notion of GEs developed. Pennycook (2007) defines it succinctly as: “the spread and use of diverse forms of English within processes of globalisation”. In other words, the term refers to the many ways in which English is spoken worldwide, each with its unique features and characteristics. Nevertheless, Galloway and Rose elaborate on the definition further so that it is no longer only about varieties of English around the world but also the different cultural contexts and identities that shape the language use and users, i.e., it is: “an inclusive paradigm looking at the linguistic, sociolinguistic and sociocultural diversity and fluidity of English use and English users in a globalised world” (2019]: 4).

Quite a relevant framework included within GEs that has sparked considerable debate is ELF, which, in its earlier conceptualisation (which Jenkins (2015) later referred to as ELF1), focused on establishing a separate and distinct variety of the language. Numerous researchers criticised or outright rejected the idea. For instance, Trudgill’s (2005) main contention stemmed from his stance that ELT simply needs a model, and if one already exists, there is no need to establish a new one. Sobkowiak (2005) and O’Regan (2014) criticised ELF for what they perceived were its weak philosophical foundations. Sobkowiak (2005), in particular, argued that the fact that non-native speakers outnumber native speakers should not automatically dictate what variety should be used in ELT. Additionally, O’Regan (2014) accused ELF scholars, who mostly hailed from Inner Circle countries, of discouraging non-native speakers from choosing the varieties they wish to speak under the guise of advocating for linguistic liberation and inclusivity. Nevertheless, these criticisms only remain valid for the ELF 1 phase, the early stage of the framework’s development, from which the field has long progressed. As Jenkins (2015]: 51) notes, there has been “a change of emphasis” towards what is often referred to as ELF 3. In this more recent stage, the focus has shifted from defining a potentially emerging variety to understanding English as a flexible and malleable tool used in diverse, international, multilingual settings.

Nevertheless, despite this noticeable change in research focus, the ELF label seems unable to leave behind the perceptions of its early shortcomings. Consequently, GEs also serves as an umbrella term that encompasses various related concepts, such as World Englishes, English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), English as an International Language, and translanguaging (Rose and Galloway 2019), while also aiming to break away from the negative perceptions the ELF label may bring in its wake. Simultaneously, it attempts to provide a more comprehensive framework for understanding the English language and its circumstances.

2.2 Global Englishes Language Teaching (GELT)

Researchers involved in the work devoted to GEs have faced considerable criticism for their apparent negligence in applying their theories to actual ELT practice (Rose et al. 2020). In an attempt to provide a more realistic foundation to build future ELT curricula, Galloway (2011]) proposed a new framework, namely GELT. Rose et al. (2020]: 3) list six proposals for GELT:

1. Increasing WE and ELF exposure in language curricula

2. Emphasising respect for multilingualism in ELT

3. Raising awareness of Global Englishes in ELT

4. Raising awareness of ELF strategies in language curricula

5. Emphasising respect for diverse cultures and identity in ELT

6. Changing English teacher-hiring practices in the ELT industry

Understandably, such a far-reaching curricular innovation is a complex and challenging endeavour as to implement GELT successfully, several barriers must be addressed. Galloway and Rose (2015) identify some of the most prominent ones, e.g., attachment to standard language ideology, reliance on the idealised native speaker, teacher education, shortage of appropriate materials, and teacher recruitment practices. Consequently, as Prabjandee and Fang (2022) argue, it is vital to ensure that future teachers are equipped with the necessary knowledge and tools to integrate the GELT approach into their teaching practice. Furthermore, relatively few studies have explored the influence of GE-informed teaching on teachers’ attitudes; therefore, it is a timely issue requiring extensive research.

2.3 GELT-awareness for language teachers

A comprehensive literature review reveals that several scholars have researched the inclusion of GEs-related training programs and their subsequent effects. Researchers such as Kaçar and Bayyurt (2018), Sifakis and Bayyurt (2015), and Snow et al. (2006) attempted to introduce ELF-aware teacher pedagogy. Similarly, courses related to World Englishes and ELF were also offered to pre-service teachers in studies by Ates et al. 2015, Chern and Curran 2017; Eslami et al. 2019. Wiese et al. (2017) conducted anti-bias teacher training that focused on raising critical language awareness. Finally, Prabjandee (2020) and Prabjandee and Fang (2022) explored the influence of GELT in teacher training programmes. As Prabjandee and Fang (2022) argue, the results of this line of research to date indicate that teacher training programmes geared towards increasing the awareness of GELT and related phenomena can positively influence future teachers’ attitudes and opinions. Notwithstanding such optimistic viewpoints, Crowther (2021) identifies a need for GEs pedagogical practices to become more aligned with Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research to empirically measure how such awareness-rising interventions impact students’ future language development. Moreover, in his recent review of GEs course syllabi, Selvi (2023) advocates for more critical reflection to be incorporated into such courses as he rightly critiques overemphasis placed on lower-order thinking skills.

Considering this broader discourse, it becomes evident that a research vacuum exists in the Polish educational context. To the best of the author’s knowledge, no such teacher training programme studies have been conducted in Poland, and the current study aims to fill this void.

However, several studies on ELF perceptions have been conducted whose results may shed some more light on the study’s results. For example, Wach (2011) explored the attitudes of BA students’ attitudes towards ELF and native-speaker pronunciation norms at two Polish universities. Her study revealed a general preference for native-speaker norms, especially among students who received more intensive pronunciation training. Similarly, Niżegorodcew (2014) found that despite her students’ awareness of the ELF framework, their main goal remained to achieve native-speaker proficiency. Mystkowska-Wiertelak and Bielak’s (2014) study also revealed a strong preference of English philology students towards native-speaker norms regardless of growing ELF awareness. Nevertheless, the authors suggest that such a state of affairs may be attributed to the lack of any appropriate ELF-oriented teaching materials.

More recently, Szymańska-Tworek’s (2016) study conducted on pre-service teachers showed similarly ambivalent results. While the participants acknowledged that their future students are more likely to communicate with non-native speakers rather than native speakers, most of them continued perceiving native-speaker proficiency as their own and their students’ goal. These results were also corroborated by Szymańska-Tworek and Sycz-Opoń’s (2020) study, which found similar results among interpreting students from two Polish universities.

Additionally, Paciorkowski's (2022a) study on in-service teachers reinforced the previous findings. The participants demonstrated an awareness of the ELF framework, if superficial; nevertheless, they remained sceptical and continued prioritising native-speaker norms, especially in the areas of pronunciation and grammar. Importantly, teachers expressed contradictory attitudes – on the one hand, they claimed to focus on preparing their students for the realities of international communication, while, on the other hand, they insisted on holding on to native-speaker norms as their benchmark for achievement in ELT.

Considering the gap in teacher training scholarship and continued ambivalent attitudes towards ELF-related concepts and ideas, this paper provides an ample opportunity to address this conspicuous gap in the research landscape.

3.1 Global Englishes lectures

The course, officially entitled: “Contemporary English and its varieties”, has been taught to master-level students at the author’s university for an extended period of time. Its primary objective was to equip students with an in-depth understanding of contemporary English and its varieties, with the focus centred on the Inner Circle, which they could apply in their future professional activities. Nevertheless, when the author of the present paper was assigned to teach the course, they decided to restructure it around the six principles of GELT outlined above. The main coursebook that also helped structure the course was Jenkins (2014). Although the aim of the lecture series remained relatively the same, its focus shifted towards highlighting the present global nature of the English language by introducing topics such as ELF, Euro-English, native speakerism, and others (cf. Appendix 1 for an overview of the curriculum).

Regarding the nature of the lectures themselves, they were taught in a fairly traditional manner. Nevertheless, the teacher employed certain additional tools to enhance the effectiveness of the teaching process: multimedia presentations were used to outline key points, YouTube videos to provide more context together with visual and audio examples, and selected excerpts from documentaries to offer a more in-depth analysis. All of these were used as springboards for further classroom discussions that allowed students, to a certain extent, to engage with the material more critically. Oftentimes, such discussions were centred around the practicality and potential applicability of the concepts in future classroom settings and professional practices. At times, the students were asked to discuss some of the issues that could be considered more controversial in pairs before an open classroom dialogue ensued. Finally, it should be noted that while attendance in the lectures was optional, students were required to receive a passing grade on the final test, which theoretically encouraged them to attend lectures voluntarily. Importantly, there were no other additional evaluation criteria; the reasoning behind such an approach was to allow students to critically engage with the material in a relaxed and open-minded manner, without evaluation-related anxiety throughout the semester.

3.2 Participants and research design

The study’s pre-course sample comprised 38 postgraduate students pursuing a master’s degree in English philology, English–German linguistics, and English–Russian linguistics who completed the questionnaire. The post-course sample was smaller, with 33 students completing the survey. The participants consisted of both full-time and extramural students. Full-time students had to attend 30 h of lectures, while extramural students had to attend 15 h. Despite following the same curriculum, the extramural students had to complete a more compact version of the course due to time limitations. Additionally, a total of 12 participants expressed interest in participating in the interviews, and 5 of them finally took part in it.

3.3 Research instruments

The pre- and post-course surveys were designed with a similar structure, albeit with minor variations, and were based on the questionnaire employed by Paciorkowski (2022a) to examine Polish teachers’ attitudes towards ELF. Both questionnaires were divided into three sections, namely the demographic section, followed by two research ones. The first research section consisted of questions concerning attitudes to Inner and Outer Circle Englishes. In addition, participants were requested to provide a list of adjectives they associated with both Polish and native-like accents. The second research section comprised 25 Likert-type statements (see Appendix 2 for their translated list) and questions aimed at assessing the degree of agreement of participants with each item on a scale of 1–5, where 1 indicated strong disagreement and 5 indicated strong agreement. As mentioned before, the pre- and post-course questionnaires exhibited some minor differences. In particular, the pre-course questionnaire had an additional contact section where students could provide their email addresses if they were interested in participating in the interview phase of the research. Moreover, the post-course questionnaire had an exclusive section devoted to the number of lectures that students had attended, with the available options being dependent on whether they were full-time or extramural students. Additionally, in the post-course questionnaire, students could openly answer two open-ended questions pertaining to the quality of the lectures, i.e., whether the lectures influenced their opinions on any of the discussed topics and whether there was anything that surprised them about the lectures.

Semi-structured interviews were employed as an integral component of the mixed methods design, aimed at facilitating a more nuanced and in-depth understanding of the participants’ attitudes and beliefs pertaining to native-speaker and GE-oriented ELT. The interviews were also envisioned to provide more insight into the potential shifts in participants’ attitudes over the course of the lectures. Semi-structured interviews were selected as an appropriate qualitative methodology because we live in “interview societies” (Atkinson and Silverman 1997: 309), where most individuals in Western societies are accustomed to participating in or observing interviews.

Additionally, prior to the study proper, both instruments were piloted on a group of students in the previous academic year, which resulted in several changes introduced, especially to the structure of the questionnaire; most importantly, Likert-scale type questions were redesigned to measure two separate orientations among students, i.e., the native-speaker model orientation and the GEs orientation.

3.4 Data collection and analysis

The survey utilised in the research was developed and distributed through Google Forms to students who enrolled in the course. The choice of this platform was based on the author’s belief in its reliability and recognisability among Internet users. Students were encouraged to complete both questionnaires; nevertheless, it must be underscored that the completion of any of the two surveys was fully optional.

The interviews were conducted online using Teams and were recorded with the participants’ written consent. The questions were developed based on the results of the quantitative phase of the study. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and later analysed. The results of the interviews were used to supplement and enrich the findings from the preceding phase.

The quantitative data analysis was conducted using the SPSS Statistics 29 software through non-parametric tests. A statistically significant result was considered to be present if p < 0.05. On the other hand, qualitative data was analysed using Thematic Analysis, which involves breaking the data into smaller units, identifying and naming themes, and drawing conclusions from them (Cohen et al. 2018). All data were also subjected to mixed-methods analysis, which according to Creswell and Plano Clark (2011]: 250): “consists of analytic techniques applied to both the quantitative and the qualitative data as well as the integration of the two forms of data”.

Note finally that the Likert-type items in the study were shown to be internally consistent for the native-speaker model orientation and Global Englishes orientation in both pre-course and post-course questionnaires (cf. Table 1).

4.1 Areas of change in attitudes and opinions

The analysis of the survey findings revealed notable shifts in certain opinions and attitudes throughout the course of the lecture series (cf. Table 2). Firstly, the general awareness of what ELF is has changed, with post-course students being more aware of it (U = 511.5; p = 0.01). The participants who completed the course were also more likely to believe that Englishes from countries such as Singapore, Nigeria, or India, should be considered native varieties (U = 327.5; p = 0.01). Comments in the post-course questionnaire further corroborated this observation., i.e., “I no longer consider the English used by native speakers from the Inner Circle to be the model and the only legitimate variety. I have begun to respect more the English used by people from Africa and also consider them native speakers on par with those from the UK and the US”. The lectures also influenced the attitudes towards teaching pronunciation, i.e., post-course students were less likely to claim that it should focus on native-provided norms (U = 426; p = 0.01). One student commented:

Now, I believe that it is possible to have a pronunciation characterised by traces of one’s own native language while still being a more advanced speaker of a foreign language than a native speaker. So, I now know that pronunciation is only one of many aspects of a language (which, by the way, can be worked out) that in no way determines overall language skills.

It was also observed that individuals who had completed the course exhibited a higher inclination towards asserting the utility of instructing English as an international language (U = 476.0; p = 0.025), e.g., one participant remarked that:

I have certainly started to analyse more what communication and English teaching should look like. I’m also paying more attention to who and how I talk to at work and adjusting myself and my skills relative to communication and the perception of native and non-native speakers. It’s certainly helped me understand a lot of aspects of language for sure.

Significantly, the individuals who completed the course were also more inclined to advocate for the adaptation of English by native speakers to facilitate international interactions (U = 462.0; p = 0.047).

Furthermore, the results suggest a noteworthy relationship between the extent of students’ attendance at lectures and their opinions and attitudes. Specifically, a higher frequency of lecture attendance was positively associated with the inclination to perceive Englishes originating from Outer Circle nations as native varieties (r = −0.375; p = 0.01). Conversely, an increased number of lectures attended corresponded to a decreased likelihood among participants to endorse the notion that English pronunciation instruction should adhere strictly to a native-speaker model (r = −0.296; p = 0.012) and the necessity of teaching English based on such a model.

4.2 Students’ perceptions of the lecture series

Although no quantitative questions were asked in the survey about the students’ overall impressions after completing the course, they were provided with an opportunity to offer comments. In this section, some students expressed their satisfaction with the course. Some of the opinions include: “[t]he classes were very interesting, and learning about the different varieties of one language was very useful”, “[a]ll the topics were interesting”, “[t]he modern approach to classes motivates me to go to optional classes”. Some students also pointed out that they were happy about learning about native speakerism because, e.g., “I didn’t realise that inferior treatment from native speakers as an English teacher is discrimination and you can fight against it and even win a case in court for it. I’m glad I found out about it”.

On the other hand, the interviewees were explicitly questioned about their opinions on the value of attending these lectures and if they would recommend the course to their peers. All five of them believed that it was a course that all English university students should take and that they would recommend it. S4 suggested: “I’m glad that there was this kind of lecture, and I hope for more such creativity at this university because it was cool. And in my opinion, it was a lecture that you attended with so much curiosity (…) we could have room for our own thinking also. I think it was so cool”.

It seems important to underscore that, despite the course’s optional nature, it was diligently attended by the majority, with 65 % (n = 11) of full-time and 94 % (n = 15) of extramural participants attending either all or missing only one lecture. Moreover, S2 suggested that not only had the course changed their opinions and attitudes, but that it also started influencing colleagues around them: “in addition, I personally share this knowledge that I have learned also with my friends. And this also changes their perspective, and they are often surprised by it”.

The interviewees were also asked about the most surprising and thought-provoking topics addressed in the lecture series. In this case, the participants were also like-minded, as they all mentioned the issues of native speakerism and ELF as a new approach to teaching and learning English. They believed they were vital to discuss as they affected their lives personally: “[w]ell, certainly as I say, it’s the approach to a native speaker versus a regular teacher, because I’m a teacher myself, so it’s a very close issue” (S3).

All in all, it seems that the students’ comments and feedback regarding the course were overwhelmingly positive. The participants expressed their satisfaction, interest and considered the course valuable and useful. Furthermore, indications were given of a potentially transformative force that extended beyond the individual interviewees as they shared their new knowledge with peers.