2007 - Sifakis - Education of Ts of Eng As Lingua Franca
2007 - Sifakis - Education of Ts of Eng As Lingua Franca
2007 - Sifakis - Education of Ts of Eng As Lingua Franca
3 w 2007
The article responds to the emerging need for a general framework for
ELF (English as a lingua franca) teacher education that would appropriately
inform and sensitize ESOL (English for speakers of other languages) practi-
tioners about ELF teaching matters. The teacher education model put forward
is based on the transformative framework for adult education suggested by
Mezirow and has five phases. The framework aims at bringing about the
much-needed paradigm shift in postmodern ESOL pedagogy by transform-
ing ESOL teachers’ worldviews about English and English language pedagogy
and empowering them in bringing about the necessary changes in their own
teaching context.
Keywords: English as a lingua franca, teacher education, reflective teaching,
transformative learning
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
356 w Nicos Sifakis
Introduction
The spread of English on a global scale has greatly impacted ESOL research.
In the past few years, such research has provided vital information on the
use of English by international (or ‘non-native’) users around the world
(Crystal 2003; Graddol 1997, 2006). It has concentrated on areas such as the
sociolinguistics of English as a global, international or world language
(Melchers and Shaw 2003) and raised issues that emerge from international
and intercultural communication via English, such as the ownership of the
language by its users (Widdowson 1994) or the processes involved in the
negotiation and projection of their identity (Pavlenko and Blackledge 2004).
Some studies have shed light on the historical processes that contributed
to bringing about the global character of English (Phillipson 1992, 2003;
Pennycook 1994, 1998; Brutt-Griffler 2002), while others have focused on the
shifting roles of ‘native’ speakers (NSs) and ‘non-native’ speakers (NNSs)
(Leung, Harris and Rampton 1997; Davies 2002), the nature of standard
language (Widdowson 2003; Crystal 2003; papers in Rubdi and Saraceni
2006), or the attitudes and beliefs of learners and teachers around the world
regarding different aspects of this phenomenon (e.g. Sifakis and Sougari
2005; Timmis 2002).1
Despite the fact that reference to the international use and influence of
English has been around in the ESOL literature for the past thirty years
(Smith 1976), the vast complexities of the issue are still very “new” and far
from resolved. This is probably why there is still a lot of debate concerning
basic terminology (see e.g. the discussion on the proper terming of the
different facets of NNS English in Seidlhofer 2004: 210ff.). Nevertheless, a lot
of research in the past few years is providing increasing evidence of lingua
franca discourse (Mauranen 2003) that gives important insights into ELF
lexicogrammar (Seidlhofer 2001, 2004), pronunciation (Jenkins 2000) and
pragmatics (House 1999). There are also substantial contributions on teaching
(McKay 2002; Pennycook 1999) and language teaching policy (e.g.
Canagarajah 1999, 2005; Phillipson 2003).
While there is a great deal of information on the international spread of
English, there seems to be much less debate regarding the education of
teachers who would be interested in teaching English as a lingua franca
(ELF), i.e. English intended for communication mainly between non-native
users (Jenkins 2006a: 169; Sifakis 2004). Nevertheless, the demand for a
comprehensive orientation for ELF teacher development is increasing (see
e.g. Jenkins 2005; Seidlhofer 2004; Snow, Kamhi-Stein and Brinton 2006,
papers in Gnutzmann and Intemann 2005). No specific proposals have been
made to date (but see Seidlhofer 1999), as prominent ELF scholars such as
Jenkins and Seidlhofer seem to believe that more data should be gathered
before specific suggestions for teacher education are put forward. While this
is certainly true, current ELF research already raises issues that could
challenge many established beliefs and preconceptions of ESOL practitioners,
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
The education of teachers of English as a lingua franca w 357
and this is unlikely to change with more research. There is an eminent need
for a general framework for ELF teacher education that would inform and
sensitize ESOL practitioners about ELF matters.
Such a need becomes clear when one considers, for example, the
disagreement between Quirk and Kachru concerning the meaning and
importance of Standard English and the role of native speakers that took
place in 1990–91 on the pages of English Today (Quirk 1990; Kachru 1991; for
a presentation of the controversy, see Seidlhofer 2003). There are further
examples of a mismatch between what ESOL teachers seem to believe about
the English that they teach to non-native learners and the competences and
abilities that they believe these learners need when communicating with
other non-native users (see e.g. the research presented in Sifakis and
Sougari 2005). What current research shows is that, when it comes to actual
teaching concerns, most ESOL practitioners around the world seem to share
the more traditional, established beliefs regarding the importance of a single
variety (usually British English or General American) for their teaching
situation.
It comes as no surprise, therefore, that all this research has reduced, to
some extent, some teachers’ and materials designers’ prioritization of the
native-speaker element but “has not so far led to noticeable changes in
English teaching and teacher education policy” (Jenkins 2006a: 169). According
to Seidlhofer, raising teachers’ awareness about ELF-oriented issues and
preparing them for the complex decisions they have to make should be a
major, and far from easy to achieve, concern for teacher educators:
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
358 w Nicos Sifakis
In view of the above, ELF teacher education should stand for a radical
change in the worldviews of ESOL teachers. To achieve this, it is my position
here that a truly transformative approach to ELF teacher education is called
for. By ‘transformative’, I am referring to teachers’ need to confront and
change a whole range of long-held and deeply rooted viewpoints on
many levels concerning: the importance of Standard English, the role of
native speakers and the negotiation of non-native speakers’ identities in
cross-cultural communication; the imposition of an imperialistic attitude
permeating ESOL course design and pedagogy (Phillipson 1992); and the
particular pedagogical decisions that need to be made (Sifakis 2004). For such
a transformation to occur, mere exposure to and awareness of the relevant
literature will not be enough. It should also involve a seriously critical
outlook and a reflective overview of past learning experiences and previous
and current teaching (i.e. curricular and pedagogical) situations (Freeman
and Johnson 1998). It goes without saying that, for such a transformation to
be successful, it is likely to be time-consuming and far from easy (Holliday
2005). Teachers will be expected to become exposed to excerpts of authentic
lingua franca communication and understand for themselves the processes
involved.
In following a transformative approach to ELF teacher education, I am
adopting the perspective put forward in the transformative learning
framework of Jack Mezirow. Mezirow’s theory of transformative (or, as it is
sometimes called, transformational) learning builds on and expands
Freire’s (1970) emancipatory model of social transformation and Boyd’s
(1991) analytical transformative education perspective. It has been implemented
in many diverse domains that involve adult learning, which vary from
peacemaking to AIDS education, and from social justice to spiritual
education (see case studies in Mezirow and Associates 2000). It has also
been extensively adopted in many programs in adult ESOL literacy and
numeracy (e.g. Comings, Garner and Smith 2004) and cultural awareness
(e.g. Silver, Klyne and Simard 2003), and to some extent in ESOL teacher
education (e.g. Pickering 2003; Crosby 2004). It aims at bringing participants
to confront and change their established viewpoints about a particular issue
by providing hands-on information and asking them to (a) realize and
critically examine their assumptions, (b) openly explore new terrains by
trying new roles, (c) plan a course of action, (d) acquire knowledge and skills
for implementing that plan, (d) build self-confidence in the new roles,
and (e) become reintegrated on the basis of conditions dictated by the new
perspective.
The proposed perspective is viewed within the broad teacher education
framework put forward by Freeman and Johnson (1998). It integrates current
theorizing in ESOL action research and critical social theory (Fairclough 1989;
Pennycook 2001) and adopts the model of narrative reconstruction of
teachers’ experiences suggested by Golombek (1998). It will be argued that
transformative learning in ELF teacher education will result not only in
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
The education of teachers of English as a lingua franca w 359
whole-hearted engagement with the issues raised in ELF research but also in
participants’ essential empowerment as users of English and as pedagogues.
Such an approach to teacher education will have great experimental and
research interest in that it can contribute substantial information on teachers’
varied practices in different local contexts, ultimately helping to establish an
ELF teacher community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991; Johnson 2006).
In what follows, I first present a brief overview of the ELF situation,
followed by a list of concerns that should problematize an ELF teacher
education program. I then present an overview of reflective learning and
action research procedures and discuss the transformative model for adult
learning put forward by Mezirow. I further problematize the necessity of
integrating the transformative learning perspective for ELF teacher education
programs and put forward a preliminary model of ELF teacher education.
Throughout this discussion I will refrain from using the terms ‘training’ and
‘trainer’, as these tend to bring to mind a much more rigid process than the
one I am referring to here. I will instead be using the terms ‘education’ (to
refer to the transformative learning process in action), ‘educator’ (to refer to
the organizer, leader or facilitator of this process) and ‘participant’ (to refer
to the teacher-practitioner going through the transformative process).
This is not the place to present a full theory of ELF. Interested readers can
consult the exhaustive discussions in Jenkins (2006a), Seidlhofer (2004) and
McKay (2002). For our purposes, it should suffice to say that ELF refers to
the (mainly spoken) English used in communication among the so-called
‘non-native’ users of the language. Such communication raises issues that can
be broadly distinguished into two categories: those that are immediately
evident by looking at samples of ELF discourse (let us call those primary), and
those that require more extensive awareness of communication and
attitudinal, cultural, policy-related, history-related and pedagogical concerns
(let us call those secondary).
The primary issues raise mainly linguistic and communication concerns
that bear upon ELF discourse itself. This covers elements of the ELF
lexicogrammar such as the non-use of the third person singular marker, the
use of all-purpose question tags, and the heavy reliance on verbs of high
semantic generality (for more extensive lists, see Seidlhofer 2004: 220 and
Jenkins 2006a: 170). It also includes generalizations about the pragmatics of
ELF regarding, for example, the importance of intelligible discourse and the
scarcity of misunderstandings or L1 interference, the use of communication
strategies such as rephrasing and repetition, and the overall mutually
supportive cooperation among interlocutors (Seidlhofer 2004: 218).
The secondary issues raise more general concerns (cf. Seidlhofer 2004:
214; Jenkins 2006a):
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
360 w Nicos Sifakis
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
The education of teachers of English as a lingua franca w 361
(Edge 2001; Freeman 1998; Wallace 1998), which stresses the importance of
active reflection and collaboration in ESOL pedagogy (Burns 1999; Freeman
and Richards 1996) and implements a variety of instruments (Mackey and
Gass 2005; Richards and Lockhart 1994; Richards and Nunan 1990) as a
means of achieving teacher autonomy (Little 1995). As we saw above, in the
ELF domain many well-established beliefs and pedagogical practices are
under scrutiny. While there is as yet no definitive ELF pedagogy, it is certain
that a more radical approach to teacher education is called for that would
integrate the reflective and action research frameworks described above to
help ELF teachers appreciate the issues involved in ELF discourse and work
autonomously towards a reconceptualization of their worldviews about
ESOL teaching.
In the rest of the article, I present a framework for ELF teacher education
that prioritises active reflection, based on Mezirow’s model of transformative
learning.
This theory was first introduced by Jack Mezirow in 1978 and has since
evolved “into a comprehensive and complex description of how learners
construe, validate, and reformulate the meaning of their experience”
(Cranton 1994: 22). Based partly on psychoanalytic theory (Boyd and Fales
1983) and partly on critical social theory (Mezirow 1989), the transformative
learning model breaks down the adult mind into sets of habits and
expectations that have been formed as a result of experience over time.
These habits and expectations are of two types. On the one hand, they
are what Mezirow calls meaning schemes, which are “made up of specific
knowledge, beliefs, value judgments, and feelings that constitute interpreta-
tions of experience” (Mezirow 1991: 5–6). Meaning schemes are tangible
determinants of particular views or behaviors that inform our evaluation of
and reaction to all kinds of different life events, (e.g. a musical concert,
someone’s joke or a particular governmental policy). They are tangible in the
sense that they are “known” to us and can therefore be consciously
monitored by us, and are easy to change in the sense that an individual can
add to or integrate experiences and ideas within an existing scheme. On the
other hand, they are what Mezirow calls meaning perspectives or frames of
reference, which refer to higher-order
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
362 w Nicos Sifakis
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
The education of teachers of English as a lingua franca w 363
i.e. our very perceptions, thoughts, feelings and actions that bring to life that
experience. For example, deciding that Standard English is the ideal model
for our learners is the outcome of a series of mental processes (what Mezirow
calls a ‘thoughtful action’, 1991: 107) that are based on personal experience
or prior learning. The second type, process reflection, addresses the ways in
which an experience is worked upon in our mind and involves examining
our perceptions, thoughts, feelings and actions and assessing their efficacy.
For example, we might reconsider the circumstances that led to our forming
the impression that Standard English is the ideal model. Finally, premise
reflection involves careful reviewing of the foundations of our perceptions,
thoughts, feelings and actions by referring, when necessary, to long-held,
socially constructed assumptions, beliefs, and values about a particular
experience or problem. It means seriously questioning whether ‘standard’
and ‘ideal model’ are adequate, appropriate or fair concepts for understanding
communication in English among NNSs.
According to Mezirow (1998), it is only by engaging in the latter type of
reflection that adult learners foster transformative learning. Such reflection
refers to assumptions that we have concerning ourselves (‘narrative’), the
cultural systems in which we live (‘systemic’), our workplace (‘organizational’),
our ethical decision making (‘moral-ethical’) and our feelings and dispositions
(‘therapeutic’). The transformative process “always involves critical reflection
upon the distorted premises sustaining our structure of expectation”
(Mezirow 1991: 167).
In the adult education domain, transformative learning means engaging
in a series of processes that merge all three types of reflection mentioned
above and culminate in premise reflection (Mezirow 2000). Participants in
adult education programmes respond to a variety of tasks that prompt them
to bring their assumptions concerning that experience or problem to the fore
and then critically reflect on and assess those assumptions. The aim of these
tasks is the “fundamental questioning and reordering of how one thinks or
acts” (Brookfield 2000: 139). The whole process is triggered by participants
experiencing an initial problem or “disorienting dilemma” that makes them
aware of certain thoughts and feelings they may have concerning a particular
experience or problem. At this stage, the learner engages in self-examination
that is often accompanied by “feelings of fear, anger, guilt or shame”
(Mezirow 2000: 22). In the next stages, learners are asked to critically examine
these reactions, share their feelings with the rest of the group, explore
possibilities for adopting new roles, relationships and actions, and plan a
course of action that would help them build up competence and self-
confidence in their new roles and relationships. The final stage of the
transformative process calls for a reintegration of the new perspective into
the participants’ life and practice. It is essential that participants act upon that
new perspective and do not merely critically reflect on these new ideas
(Taylor 1998). If the process is successfully fulfilled, transformative learning
leads to the participant’s autonomy, self-learning and, ultimately, empowerment.
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
364 w Nicos Sifakis
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
The education of teachers of English as a lingua franca w 365
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
366 w Nicos Sifakis
Phase 1: Preparation
Before the start of the actual session, participants are asked to respond to
some questions concerning their own professional background, studies and
interests. They are also asked to briefly sketch how they use English, which
skills are usually involved (e.g. some may use it to send emails, others to chat
with their friends on the phone), who they use it with (native or non-native
users) and for what reasons (e.g. to attend conferences or just to teach
English). The questions can be answered following Golombek’s (1998) narrative
orientation. Their purpose is to help the educator form a comprehensive
idea not only of individual participants but of how coherent participant
groups can be formed.
Although these questions are not supposed to go any further than
gathering preliminary information about the participants’ teaching experience
and use of English, they can also touch upon issues that will be raised in the
seminar. Participants can be asked to engage in content reflection by, for
example, giving their definition of the notion of ‘error’ in the use of English,
saying whether they are at all conscious of such errors when they use English
and what kind of errors those are (e.g. communication-oriented errors target
comprehensibility while language-oriented errors target grammar, use of
lexis, pronunciation, etc.). The aim here is nothing more than to get a first
response from the participants that will be expanded upon later. Once the
group sessions begin, these responses will provide the raw material for further
discussion and exploration of the issues raised in the training sessions.
At this stage, educators get to know one another (by using typical ice-
breaking techniques) and engage in content reflection, i.e. slowly become
aware of both (a) what is involved in ELF communication and (b) their own
interpretations of and reactions to it. This is an important, yet subtle, phase
because it aims at involving participants in the discovery of ELF, sensitizing
them about the primary issues involved and preparing them for the more
extensive, secondary issues that it raises. For this reason, the methodology
adopted here should carefully consider participants’ backgrounds and needs,
the local ESOL tradition, etc.
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
The education of teachers of English as a lingua franca w 367
• On first hearing the discourse, what was your initial reaction to such
communication? What made you “happy” or “unhappy” about it?
(Participants’ sense of norm-boundness is expected to emerge here,
but elements concerning comprehensibility might also come up.)
• What problems did you have in transcribing the discourse? (Participants
are asked to concentrate on issues that relate to the language used, e.g.
pronunciation, grammar, use of lexis, rather than technical problems.)
• Which strengths and weaknesses did you find in the communication?
(e.g. language competence levels, accommodation capabilities of different
interlocutors, etc.)
• Did you consider the communication successful? What elements in the
interlocutors’ discourse made it successful/not successful? (Participants
are asked to shift their focus from language-centered to communication-
centered issues.)
• To what extent do you think that such discourse deviates from a certain
norm? To what extent do you consider these deviations to be important?
Why are they important?
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
368 w Nicos Sifakis
Participants are expected to discuss and realize how ELF works by carrying
out a form of discourse analysis of these excerpts. In this process, they go
through three steps. It is expected that they will initially have a lot more to
say about the linguistics-specific characteristics of a discourse excerpt; they
should be left to exhaust their views on those issues. Next they should be
prompted to look deeper into the pragmatics of each excerpt. They can be
asked to describe the communication situation as fully and comprehensively
as possible by referring to who is involved, what the topic of the conversation
is, and participants’ communication strategies.3 Finally, participants will
focus on noting down their own reactions, attitudes or judgments regarding
all the above characteristics of each discourse excerpt. For example, they may
have strong preferences for certain NS accents and be judgmental about
possible grammar, vocabulary and pragmatic errors made by NNSs and NSs
with other accents/dialects.
In Mezirow’s terms, these steps aim at making participants aware of their
own meaning schemes, i.e. their implicit views regarding the primary issues
involved in ELF teaching. This process involves content reflection, in that it
invokes participants’ thoughts, feelings and actions that are related to
experiencing these discourse excerpts.
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
The education of teachers of English as a lingua franca w 369
them to the entire class. Even though not every possible issue involved in the
ELF debate will be covered, it is important that participants become
immersed in the complexity and inter-relatedness of those secondary issues
that interest them – it is the only way they will make sense of them and
perhaps reach some tangible realizations. If these discussions are to be truly
critical and reflective, they should relate the ELF readings to the issues that
arose from the previous phase, i.e. participants’ perceptions about ELF
discourse.
If properly administered, this phase is very likely to result in making
participants realize, probably for the first time in their professional lives, the
true dimensions of the matter at hand (this would correspond to Mezirow’s
‘disorienting dilemma’ stage). They might, for example, feel that they
themselves have overemphasized the importance of native speakers of
English. On the other hand, they might choose not to “take sides” on the
matter at that particular moment. What is important is that they will have
seriously reflected on the key issues of the ELF debate by relating them to
their own very personal and familiar way of looking at English. The
educator’s role is to facilitate participants’ reflection and not try to influence
or force their decisions.
As the sessions progress, the issues discussed will start to become more and
more centered around participants’ individual teaching situations, and
influences and choices that have formed their professional identity. Following
a narrative orientation, participants should be prompted to extensively
reflect on the elements that have helped them form their professional
identity. Questions to pose include: What made me choose this profession?
What are its rewards and difficulties? How autonomous have I been/am I in
what I do? To what extent am I happy with my progress? What are my
aspirations for the future? What kind of learners have I taught? What were
their motivational levels? How effective at communicating were/are they?
Which teaching methods have I been using/do I use?
Participants are expected to become fully aware of their own meaning
perspectives about English and ESOL pedagogy and engage in process and
premise reflection. This can be achieved by asking them to reflect on video/
audio recordings of their classes (if available), teaching processes, the curricular
situation, textbooks used, learner assessment and testing, and learners’
needs. It is important for them to understand why they teach what they teach
and why they teach it the way they do. Also, their roles and expected
professional behaviors inside and outside the classroom should be discussed.
This may involve, for example, what/how their learners, employers and
learners’ sponsors expect them to teach and assess, or how important their
role as guardians of Standard English is for them, their learners and local
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
370 w Nicos Sifakis
society. These issues are likely to raise further discussion on the ethics of an
ELF pedagogy for participants’ specific teaching contexts, i.e. whether it is
ethical, and to what extent it is safe, for them to change their meaning
perspectives about English and ESOL teaching. In each case, it is important
that such reflection slowly builds on material gathered from previous phases.
Once participants are aware of all the major issues involved in ELF discourse
and pedagogy and have grasped the implications for their own teaching
context, they should be ready to put that knowledge into practice by
designing, implementing and evaluating an ELF action plan. Such a plan
would integrate instruments from current ESOL research with the difference
that the basis for action would be the ELF principles as participants understand
them. In this way, participant teachers are reintegrated into their own
practice and are prompted to implement the new ELF perspective where
necessary. It is important that teachers have a full understanding of what is
involved in ELF, as they may have to use many of the transformative
techniques that they themselves have experienced with their own learners.
Conclusion
In this article, I have put forward a five-phase framework for ELF teacher
education based on Mezirow’s transformative adult learning paradigm.
The framework aims at enabling ESOL practitioners to become fully aware
of the characteristics and challenges that ELF discourse and teaching
engender and, essentially, open up to change by realizing and transforming
their worldviews and perspectives about ESOL teaching. This is achieved in
many ways: exploring authentic ELF discourse, reading the ELF bibliography,
reflecting on their own feelings, reactions, attitudes to ELF (and its principles),
confronting preconceived notions in their own teaching/testing environment
(geographical, cultural, societal), ultimately exploring and projecting
their role as ELF teachers and educators. A basic assumption of such an
approach is that mere description of the established theories and analyses
of the ELF case is not enough, as it may oversimplify the issues and lead
to reinforcing existing stereotypes. It is important for teachers in different
parts of the world to become immersed in ELF, become fully aware of
its primary and secondary features, and actively reflect on the issues
that emerge by relating them to their own experiences, beliefs and teaching
contexts.
The transformative framework for ELF teacher education raises some
further concerns that were beyond the scope of this article. For example,
what right does teacher education have to plan for teachers’ perspective
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
The education of teachers of English as a lingua franca w 371
Notes
1. For a recent review of the issues involved in lingua franca and World English, see
Jenkins (2006a).
2. This can be done in various ways, but it is important for the educator to record or
videotape as relaxed and communication-bound a discourse as possible. To that
end, special ELF discourse sessions can be organized, e.g. small parties where
participants can mingle and chat in English (they could actually be part of the
ice-breaking procedures that take place at the beginning of training – as partici-
pants do not know each other, they have to get used to each other’s discourse
habits). The recording/video quality will not be high but it should not obstruct
participants from following the discourses.
3. Significant information on these issues can be found in the work of Dornyei
and Thurrell (1991) and Dornyei and Kormos (1998). Also, extensive hands-on
information on analyzing spoken discourse can be found in Riggenbach (1998:
62–145).
References
Arnold, R., B. Burke, C. James, D. Martin and B. Thomas (1991) Educating for a change.
Toronto: Doris Marshal Institute for Education and Action, Between the Lines
Press.
Boyd, E.M. and A.W. Fales (1983) Reflective learning. Journal of Humanistic Psychology
23.2: 99–117.
Boyd, R.D. (ed.) (1991) Personal transformations in small groups. New York: Routledge.
Brookfield, S.D. (2000) Transformative learning as ideology critique. In J. Mezirow
and Associates (eds.), Learning as transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 125–
50.
Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002) World English: a study of its development. Clevedon, UK: Multi-
lingual Matters.
— and K.K. Samimi (2001) Transcending the nativeness paradigm. World Englishes
20.1: 99–106.
Burns, A. (1999) Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge
University Press.
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
372 w Nicos Sifakis
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
The education of teachers of English as a lingua franca w 373
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
374 w Nicos Sifakis
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
The education of teachers of English as a lingua franca w 375
— (2001) Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a lingua
franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11.2: 133–58.
— (ed.) (2003) Controversies in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
— (2004) Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics 24: 209– 39.
Sifakis, N. (2004) Teaching EIL – teaching international or intercultural English: what
teachers should know. System 32.2: 237– 50.
— and A.-M. Sougari (2005) Pronunciation issues and EIL pedagogy in the periphery:
a survey of Greek state school teachers’ beliefs. TESOL Quarterly 39.3: 467–88.
Silver, J., D. Klyne and F. Simard (2003) Aboriginal learners in selected adult learning
centres in Manitoba. Manitoba: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Smith, L.E. (1976) English as an international auxiliary language. RELC Journal 7.1:
38–43.
Snow, M.A., L.D. Kamhi-Stein and D.M. Brinton (2006) Teacher training for English
as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26: 261–81.
Taylor, E.W. (1998) Theory and practice in transformative learning: a critical review.
Information Series No. 374. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult,
Career, and Vocational Education.
— (2000) Analyzing research on transformative learning theory. In J. Mezirow and
Associates (eds.), Learning as transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 285–328.
Timmis, I. (2002) Native-speaker norms and international English: a classroom view.
ELT Journal 56.3: 240–9.
Wallace, M.J. (1998) Action research for language teachers. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1994) The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28.2: 377–89.
— (2002) Language teaching: defining the subject. In H. Trappes-Lomax and
G. Ferguson (eds.), Language in language teacher education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
66–81.
— (2003) Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Zeichner, K.M. and D.P. Liston (1996) Reflective teaching: an introduction. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd