Iranian EFL Teachers’ Perceptions of Learner Autonomy and their Beliefs about the Role of Textbooks in Fostering it: A Mixed-Methods Study
الموضوعات :
Amir Sarkeshikian
1
,
Sahar Fallah
2
1 - Department of English Language, Qom Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qom, Iran
2 - Department of English Language, Qom Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qom, Iran
الکلمات المفتاحية: EFL, Iranian EFL textbooks, learner autonomy, teacher's perceptions,
ملخص المقالة :
In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of learner autonomy; however, the roles of teachers and language materials in fostering in have not received due attention. This mixed methods study investigated the association between what Iranian teachers perceived of LA and what they thought about the role of textbooks in fostering EFL learners’ LA, and to what extent they believed the principles of LA in their classrooms. The participating teachers were 200 male and female teachers that taught Iranian tenth-grade EFL textbook in senior high schools of Qom, Arak, and Karaj. The first instrument was a questionnaire developed by Borg and Al-Busaidi (2012), which primarily focused on the teachers’ perspectives and opinions about LA. The second questionnaire was used to investigate how Iranian EFL teachers think the EFL textbook Vision 1 helps foster LA. The questionnaire was developed based on the LA principles (Fenner & Newby, 2000). The last instrument was an interview protocol that was developed by the researcher to gain a deeper understanding of teachers’ promoting LA in their teaching. The interview protocol also was based on Fenner and Newbys’ (2000) principles. For this study, the questionnaire data were collected through two questionnaires. Moreover, an interview protocol was used to gather qualitative data from 12 teachers, who participated in the interviews (i.e., 2 face-to-face and 10 online interviews). The result of the bivariate correlation test showed that there was a significant relationship between teachers’ perception of learner autonomy and their opinions about the LA-fostering role of the Iranian 10th-grade EFL textbook. The results of the interview analysis showed that the principles of learner autonomy were largely approved of by the interviewees. The study has some implications for textbook developers, teachers trainers, and teachers.
Ahmadi M., & Izadpanah, S. (2019). The study of relationship between learning autonomy, language anxiety, and thinking style: The case of Iranian university students. IJREE, 4(2). http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-141-en.html
Al-Asmari, A.R. (2013). Practices and prospects of LA: Teachers’ perceptions. English Language Teaching 6(3), 1-10.
Alavi Moghaddam, S.B., Kheirabadi, R., Rahimi, M., & Davari, R. (2016). Vision 1. Iranian Ministry of Education.
Alibakhshi, G. (2015). Challenges in promoting EFL learners' autonomy: Iranian EFL teachers’ perspectives. Issues in Language Teaching (ILT), 4(1), 79-98.
Alibakhshi, G., & Rezaei, S. (2013). On the consequences of the violation of critical pedagogy principles from Iranian EFL teacher trainers’ perspectives. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 5(2), 1-28.
Almusharraf, N., & Martínez Agudo, J.D.D. (2020). Teachers’ perspectives on promoting learner autonomy for vocabulary development: A case study. Cogent Education, 7(1). doi:10.1080/2331186X.2020.1823154
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Longman.
Benson, P. (2005). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning (2nd ed.). Longman.
Borg, S., & Al-Busaidi, S. (2012). Learner autonomy: English language teachers' beliefs and practices. British Council.
Chan, V. (2001) Readiness for LA: What do our learners tell us? Teaching in Higher Education 6(4), 505-18.
Chan, V. (2003). Autonomous language learning: The teachers’ perspectives. Teaching In Higher Education, 8(1). 33-54.
Cotteral, S. (2000). Promoting LA through the curriculum: principles for designing language courses. ELT Journal. 54(2) 109-115.
Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Heinemann.
Daflizar, S. U., & Kamil, D. (2022). Language learning strategies and learner autonomy: The case of Indonesian tertiary EFL students. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 15(1), 257-281.
Dam, L., Eriksson, R., Little, D., Miliander, J., & Trebbi, T. (1990). Towards a definition of autonomy. In T. Trebbi (Ed.), Third Nordic workshop on developing autonomous learning in the FL classroom (pp. 102-103). University of Bergen.
Dickinson, L. (1987) Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Fenner, A., & Newby, D. (2000). Approaches to materials design in European textbooks: Implementing principles of authenticity, LA, cultural awareness. European Centre for Modern Languages.
Green, S. (2000). New perspectives on teaching and learning modern languages. Modern Languages in Practice.
Hashemi, M. R., & Babaii, E. (2013). Mixed methods research: Toward new research designs in applied linguistics. Modern Language Journal, 97(4), 828–852. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12049.x
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Pergamon.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuengbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
Lacey, F. (2007). Autonomy, never, never, never! Independence, 42, 4-8.
Singh Negi J., & Laudari, S. (2022) Challenges of developing learner autonomy of English as a foreign language (EFL) learner in underprivileged areas. IJREE, 7(2).
http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-689-en.html
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems. Authentik.
Little, D. (2022). Language LA: Rethinking language teaching. Language Teaching, 55(1), 64-73. doi:10.1017/S0261444820000488
Littlejohn, A. (1985) Learner choice in language study. ELT Journal, 39(4). 253-261.
Martinez, H. (2008). The subjective theories of student teachers: Implications for teacher education and research on LA. In T. E. Lamb &H. Reinders (Eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities, and responses (pp. 103-124). John Benjamins.
Newby, P. (2010). Research methods for education. Pearson Education.
Nunan, D. (1997). Designing and adapting materials to encourage LA. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 192-203). Longman.
Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English language teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reinders, H., & Balcikanli, C. (2011). Learning to foster autonomy: The role of teacher education materials. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(1), 15-12.
Reinders, H., & Lazaro, N. (2011). Beliefs, identity and motivation in implementing autonomy: The teachers’ perspective. In G. Murray, X. Gao & T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation, and autonomy in language learning (pp. 125-142). Multilingual Matters.
Richards, J. (2001). Curriculum development in language education. Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, B. (2000). LA: The next phase? In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (Eds.), LA, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 4-14). Longman
Smith, R. (2008). LA. ELT Journal, 62(4), 395-397.
Zohrabi, M. (2011). Enhancing LA through reciprocal approach to curriculum development. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 120-127.
Mixed Methods Studies in English Language Teaching (MMSELT)
1(3), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.71873/mslt.2024.1195316
Research Article
EFL Teachers’ Perceptions of Linguistic Imperialism and Globalization in English Language Teaching Curriculum
Mostafa Rafiei1
, Hassan Soleimani2, Hamed Barjesteh3
2Department of Applied Linguistics, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding author)
3Department of English Language and Literature, Ayatollah Amoli Branch, Islamic Azad University, Amol, Iran
Abstract The global expansion of the English language remains a highly debated topic in applied linguistics and political discourse, as it intertwines with issues of power, identity, and cultural dominance. The phenomenon of English spreading globally is often viewed as both a tool for communication and a hegemonic force that imposes linguistic and cultural uniformity. This duality is particularly relevant in contexts with pronounced political, cultural, social, and ideological differences, where the implications of linguistic imperialism and globalization on educational systems are profound. Recognizing the pivotal role of educators in mediating these influences, the present study explores Iranian EFL teachers’ perceptions of linguistic imperialism and globalization within the English language teaching curriculum. Additionally, the study examines how contextual factors influence their attitudes toward these phenomena. To achieve these objectives, a mixed methods research design was employed. Quantitative data were gathered through a comprehensive questionnaire administered to 674 Iranian EFL teachers, while qualitative insights were obtained through semi-structured interviews with a subset of participants. The findings reveal that cultural and contextual factors, including sociopolitical dynamics and local educational policies, significantly shape teachers’ attitudes toward linguistic imperialism. Teachers expressed concerns about the dominance of English potentially eroding local languages and cultures, yet many also acknowledged its utility as a global lingua franca. The study highlights the tension between embracing English for its practical benefits and resisting its perceived role in perpetuating cultural hegemony. The implications of this study extend to policymakers, curriculum designers, and educators, emphasizing the need to balance global linguistic trends with respect for local identities and values. Addressing these complex dynamics requires thoughtful integration of global and local perspectives in English language teaching. The study contributes to the broader discourse on linguistic imperialism, offering insights for fostering a more equitable and culturally responsive approach to English language education. Keywords: English language education, English language hegemony, globalization, linguistic imperialism, language teaching curriculum |
Cite as: Rafiei, M., Soleimani, H., & Hamed B. (2024). EFL teachers’ perceptions of linguistic imperialism and globalization in English language teaching curriculum. Mixed Methods Studies in English Language Teaching, 1(3), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.71873/mslt.2024.1195316
1. Introduction
Globalization has been studied in various fields of science and has forced many concepts to be reconstructed and is not free of ambiguity due to its newness (Daoud & Kasztalska, 2023). One of the areas where globalization is considered very important and sensitive is education. With the emergence of new technologies, this phenomenon has received new attention (Hornberger et al., 2018). We live in a world that is becoming globalized rapidly, but no one knows when exactly the phenomenon of globalization began. However, what plays a systematic role in the expansion of the English language is the English language teaching profession (Mackenzie, 2022; Muslim et al., 2022). The emphasis on language is so significant that many thinkers believe that “language” is the main indicator of a national culture (Hamid & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
In addition, the stagnation of technology, the problem of investing in higher education and the intensification of competition in higher education are factors that provide the basis for the globalization of higher education (Siqueira, 2017; Sorensen & Dumay, 2021; Vo et al., 2022). The increasing expansion of the English language in the era of globalization and the study of various reasons and consequences of this phenomenon is a topic that attracts the attention of a group of experts and researchers in various political, social, cultural, economic, and educational fields (Burn & Menter, 2021; Kidwell, 2021; Slaughter & Cross, 2021).
Today, almost six thousand languages are used in the world to communicate between people. Therefore, it is clear that some of the ethnic groups and nations have lost their languages and strong languages have taken their place, which is the phenomenon of linguistic imperialism or linguistic hegemony. English is at the top of the world languages, followed by French and Spanish. Meanwhile, the English language is not established as a foreign language or a second language, but as an international language, and the increasing interest in learning this language is very intense (Manan & Hajar, 2022).
According to Phillipson (2013), since a significant amount of this imperialism is attributed to the education of this language, he emphasizes that promoting the English language as an educational tool is among the political, cultural, and economic goals of the central countries. By placing the English language and culture and the knowledge and skills of its teaching as the center, they add to the value, position, and prestige of the English language culture and educational models, and reduce the value and prestige of other languages and cultures and create a kind of dependence of the marginal communities to these countries (Dang et al., 2013; Galloway, 2013). In explaining the educational knowledge and skills, they emphasize the approaches, techniques, and methods of teaching this language that they only look at it as a mere educational activity. They remain ideologically cautious and do not pay close attention to the cultural, social, political, and economic components (Hamid & Kirkpatrick, 2016; Jakubiak, 2012).
The interaction and revival of languages and cultures is a challenge for many researchers (Kidwell, 2021; Le et al., 2021). The challenges arising from these developments, including democracy, popular participation, decentralization, and pluralism have provided the ground for a new look at education in this era (Wang & Fang, 2020). What is needed to create new knowledge is social awareness and a practical understanding of the consequences of sociological generalizations in curriculum planning and the field of practice (Smail, 2017; Xu, 2013).
Educational materials and especially textbooks have a special value in foreign language classes in any educational system (Dang et al., 2013). Undoubtedly, the curriculum in universities and higher education centers play a determining role in the success or failure of these institutions (Starks & Nicholas, 2020). In addition, Kidwell (2021) argued that while the program is similar, its implementation is different from context to context. He argued that cultural, contextual, and demographic factors might affect their education policies, and they suggested that more studies are required to confirm this claim.
English language is slowly finding a place in the body of Iranian society and is no longer included in the form of a separate subject (Samar & Davari, 2011). The literature on linguistic imperialism in the Iranian ELT context is not rich and amazingly little research has been done and a few numbers of articles, papers, theses, government documents, and books are available on this topic. All of the above speaks to a necessity to empower the learners, teachers, and ELT policymakers regarding linguistic imperialism and globalization and the way they might have an impact on the ELT curriculum in Iran. When it comes to linguistic imperialism and the perception of teachers, little research has been done in the Iranian ELT education. Therefore, this study was an attempt to explore the views of EFL language teachers toward linguistic imperialism and globalization in the Iranian ELT education. In addition, the study investigated the association between EFL teachers’ demographic factors (age, gender, educational level, and teaching experience) and their differences in their attitudes toward linguistic imperialism in Iran.
2. Literature Review
The term imperialism comes from the Latin imperium, covering military and political control by a prevailing control over subjected people groups and regions (Phillipson, 2012). Realms unavoidably include social qualities and language use as well as control of the state and economy (Hamid & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Phillipson (2012) relates the force of a language to imperialism. In this manner, the control of language in colonized settings has been viewed in the examination as “linguistic imperialism” (Cheng et al., 2015; Phillipson, 2012). One specific way of thinking in language strategy writing claims that English overwhelms as the main language on the planet, and can likewise be perceived as a vehicle for linguistic imperialism (Burner, 2014; McDonald, 2013; Phillipson, 2012). The dissemination of English is a peculiarity, according to Phillipson (2012), in which English linguistic imperialism exists at whatever point English replaces the native language and assaults its way of life. The spread of English is subsequently a type of social imperialism attached to English and American, or “Western” belief systems that are communicated to different people groups. The English language has denoted the improvement of the world throughout the past 100 years. Through this, principles are being set in establishments like companies, transnational associations, and the schooling area, carrying out a homogeneous arrangement of tasks with the English language (Tsui, 2020; Yao et al., 2022).
2.2. English, Cultural Imperialism, and Hegemony
Globalization includes not just political and financial cycles with English as one of its fundamental vehicles but additionally a transnational progression of thoughts and cultural structures and works, causing change and allotment cycles of cultural signs of all structures in numerous nations and settings (Starks & Nicholas, 2020). Phillipson (2012) classifies linguistic imperialism as "a sub-sort of cultural imperialism" where it implants the other subtypes of cultural imperialism, for example, financial, political, military, informative, cultural, and social imperialism (Slaughter & Cross, 2021; Smail, 2017; Vo et al., 2022). Cultural imperialism is a more extensive structure, what capabilities to supplant the way of life of the colonized with the way of life of the prevailing power, supplanting the nearby traditions, customs, conviction frameworks, and values with those held by the outside and persecuting society (Kaschula & Wolff, 2020; Schneider, 2020). An illustration of this is the spread of English books to advance the thoughts and language of English (Kirkpatrick & Lixun, 2020). Specifically, English reading material dispersed in instructive settings is meant to absorb students linguistically and culturally (Holliday, 2005; Phillipson, 2013; Spolsky, 2012; Troudi, 2020). For sure, one of the instances of this is with regards to Indian training where Indian understudies were shown English writing, yet additionally the inborn prevalence of the English race (Boonsuk et al., 2021). One more illustration of cultural imperialism is the “English language instructing” incredible skill that is great for educational planning, material composition, and instructive change, which causes expanding reliance (Daoud & Kasztalska, 2023). An illustration of this, as made through a course of cultural authority, connects with the manners in which English is educated and figured out in Qatar. English isn't just an unknown dialect here, it is considerably more than that to the extent that it goes about as a vehicle of guidance in a few free schools (Lai, 2021). The presence of the English language as a vehicle of guidance in school is related to a more noteworthy measure of eminence than Arabic. This new advancement as far as authoritative cultural guidance can generally be followed by the way that the public authority in Qatar utilized Western associations to survey and establish changes in the country’s schools (Galloway, 2013).
Lai (2021) investigated students’ identities in a multilingual university in Hong Kong. He demonstrated that the program influenced the students’ language usage and identity construction. In addition, he stated that their students had different language attitudes and different linguistic practices in different departments that might influence their choices in their interactions. Boonsuk et al. (2021) designed a program to introduce Thia English and compared it with Global Englishes. After the program, the Thia students appreciated the value of Thia English and they used it confidently. They also argue that all students and teachers reject the dominance of Global English irrespective of their cultures and contexts.
Some Iranian researchers have examined the relationship between culture and language and refer to the views of some experts about the close relationship between culture and language. For instance, Samar and Davari (2011) investigated Iranian ELT professionals’ and university teachers’ attitudes toward English imperialism and found that there is a growing critical recognition of ELT among the Iranian ELT professionals.
Tajeddin and Ghaffaryan (2020) explored language educators’ intercultural personality in the basic setting of cultural globalization and its allegorical acknowledgment. This study utilized polls and meetings to explore Iranian English language educators’ intercultural character and its figurative acknowledgment with regard to cultural globalization. They infer that all educators are impacted by globalization through immediate and circuitous openness.
These studies showed that teachers’ attitudes toward linguistic imperialism can be different from culture to culture, from department to department, and from context to context. They argued that contextual factors might determine teachers’ attitudes toward linguistic imperialism. Since there are controversial arguments over the influence of contextual factors on teachers’ attitudes toward linguistic imperialism, the current study focused on contextual factors and their relationship with Iranian EFL teachers’ attitudes toward this notion. Moreover, until this point, not very enormous scope concentrates on the subject has been led in Iran. Hence, this concentrates as another one covering a few significant classes partakes in a few ramifications for language strategy producers, instructive foundations, ELT experts, specialists, and educators as well as materials and educational program engineers. Considering the above-mentioned statements, the following research questions were put forward.
RQ1. Is there any significant association between EFL teachers’ demographic factors (age, gender, educational level, and teaching experience) and their differences in their attitudes toward English teaching, English education policy, and purposes for learning English in Iran?
RQ2. To what extent do EFL teachers and practitioners believe in linguistic imperialism and globalization in English teaching, English education policy, and purposes for learning English in Iran?
3. Method
3.1. Design
The orientation that guides this research was a cross-sectional analysis approach based on teachers’ attitudes about the principles of globalization and linguistic imperialism in the Iranian language teaching curriculum. Following an explanatory mixed methods design, both qualitative and quantitative data to answer the research questions. Quantitative data were used to investigate EFL teachers’ attitudes towards the place and position of linguistic imperialism and globalization in the EFL curriculum in the context of Iran. Moreover, qualitative data were used to explore the EFL teachers’ attitudes about the tenets of linguistic imperialism and globalization.
3.2. Participants
The participants were 359 EFL instructors at different national and non-profit universities mainly holding a Ph.D. or MA degree in Applied Linguistics (TEFL, English Literature, and Translation Studies) and EFL teachers at the Ministry of Education in the fall semester of 2022. To get a sample from the English teachers, six provinces of Qom, Tehran, Zanjan, Isfahan, Fars, and Hormozgan were chosen based on convenience sampling as the target provinces, which luckily covered all four main geographic directions as well as the central part of Iran. Then, the researchers sent the online version of the questionnaire to these TEFL teachers via email and WhatsApp through the availability sampling technique. Both male and female teachers were sampled (see Table 1).
Demographic Information of the Participants
Information Category | N | % |
Gender |
|
|
Male | 200 | 55.7 |
Female | 159 | 44.3 |
Age |
|
|
Under 30 | 96 | 26.7 |
More than 30 | 263 | 73.3 |
Teaching Experience |
|
|
Less than 10 | 177 | 49.3 |
11-20 | 128 | 35.7 |
More than 20 | 54 | 15.0 |
Educational Levels |
|
|
Bachelor | 65 | 18.1 |
Master | 166 | 46.2 |
PhD | 128 | 35.7 |
Major |
|
|
English Teaching | 203 | 56.5 |
English Translation | 74 | 20.6 |
English Literature | 7 | 1.9 |
Educational Levels |
|
|
Bachelor | 65 | 18.1 |
Master | 166 | 46.2 |
PhD | 128 | 35.7 |
3.3. Instruments
3.3.1. The Questionnaire of Iranian EFL Teachers Perceptions of English
The first instrument was an already validated and reliable questionnaire that inspected Iranian EFL teachers’ perceptions of the English language in Iran. The questionnaire was derived from Fernández (2005). It has 60 6- Likert scale items from 1 strongly disagree to 6 strongly agree, and determines different aspects of linguistic imperialism of the English language in Iran. The first version of the questionnaire has 67 questions. Three experts in the field checked its face validity and delivered their comments. Based on their comments, 9 items were deleted. The final version of the questionnaire (58 items) was piloted by 50 participants of the same study. The results of Cronbach Alpha showed an accepted index of reliability (r = .81).
3.3.1. Semi-Structured Interview
The second data collection tool was a semi-structured interview. After a thorough study of the literature on linguistic imperialism, acculturation, and globalization, and consideration of perceptions of their related constructs, some interview questions and the follow-up components were prepared. The individual questions were examined to ensure that they were capable of tapping the respondents’ perceptions of underlying constructs as targeted by the present study. Throughout the course of examining the interview questions, if the researchers found that the items did not fit well for the study objectives, the questions were given to three experts in the field of TEFL who had a thorough knowledge about linguistic imperialism and globalization and preferably those who had publications in the related areas to check out the items for probable modifications. The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 teachers (nine males and six females). The teachers were selected randomly. In these 30-minute in-person semi-structured interviews, the researchers tried to elicit the teachers’ attitudes over linguistic imperialism and globalization in Iranian EFL contexts. To enhance understanding, the interviews were conducted in Persian language (the teachers’ native language). The interviews were transcribed and translated into English for future analyses.
3.3.3. Procedure
The study was conducted in the fall semester of 2022. At first, the researchers prepared the questionnaire. Then, three experts checked its validity. Next, the questionnaire was piloted by 50 similar participants. In the quantitative phase of the study, via email and WhatsApp, through the availability sampling technique, the online version of the questionnaire was sent to more than 1000 EFL instructors at different national and non-profit universities. To get a sample from the English teachers, six provinces of Qom, Tehran, Zanjan, Isfahan, Fars, and Hormozgan were chosen based on convenience sampling as the target provinces, which luckily covered all four main geographic directions as well as the central part of Iran. Out of them 359 instructors mainly holding a Ph.D. or MA degree in Applied Linguistics (TEFL, English Literature, and Translation Studies) and EFL teachers at the Ministry of Education filled the questionnaire (N = 359). Both male and female teachers were sampled.
In the qualitative phase of the study, 15 teachers were selected randomly for conducting semi-structured interviews. In these 30-minute semi-structured interviews conducted in their universities, the teachers talked about their attitudes toward linguistic imperialism and globalization in Iranian EFL contexts. The interviews were transcribed and translated into English for future analyses.
To answer the first research question, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and AMOS software (version 24) were employed. To answer the second research question, the researchers administered the questionnaire to inspect EFL teachers’ attitudes towards linguistic imperialism, globalization, and acculturation in Iran. In addition, the researchers conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews to gain insights into and to tap the views of the EFL teachers about linguistic imperialism, and globalization. Then the interviews were transcribed and the transcriptions were subject to thematic analysis. To answer the collected quantitative data, the researchers used descriptive statistics.
4. Results
4.1. Quantitative Data Analysis
A priori power analysis was directed utilizing G*Power variant 3.1.9.7 to decide the base sample size expected to test the review speculation. Results demonstrated the expected sample size to accomplish 80% power for identifying a medium impact, at an importance model of α = .05, was N = 143 for Goodness- of -fit tests. Thus, the obtained sample size of n = 359 was adequate to test the study hypothesis. According to the software output, Chi-square = 353.63, Degrees of freedom = 54, and Probability level = .000, Chi-square test was significant (Sig = 0.000 < 0.05), so it can be concluded that there is a significant difference in the frequency of variables. The values of the analyses are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.
Model Fit Result
CMIN/DF | DF | P | CMIN | GFI | NFI | CFI | RMSEA | |
Default model | .06 | 51 | .00 | 3.44 | .93 | .90 | .91 | .08 |
Saturated model |
| 0 |
| .00 | .91 | .89 | 1.00 |
|
Independence model | .06 | 55 | .00 | 3.41 | 1.00 | 1.00 | .00 | .079 |
In Table 2, the result indicated that five determiners are the ratio of CMIN-df, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The model fit indices are all within specifications. Therefore, CMIN/DF is 3.443 (spec. ≤ 3.0), GFI = 0.93 (spec. > 0.9), NFI = 0.90 (spec. > 0.9), CFI = .91 (spec. > 0.9), and RMSEA = 0.082 (spec. < 0.080).
Table 3
Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)
Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | P | |
Gender | 1.42 | .02 | 52.52 | 0.00 |
Age | 1.73 | .02 | 74.99 | 0.00 |
Educational Level | 1.99 | .04 | 49.89 | 0.00 |
Major | 1.87 | .06 | 29.22 | 0.00 |
Years of studying English | 1.65 | .03 | 43.60 | 0.00 |
Native Teacher | 1.73 | .02 | 73.70 | 0.00 |
Native Friends | 1.75 | .02 | 78.00 | 0.00 |
Speaking English country | 1.83 | .02 | 92.90 | 0.00 |
65.78 | .64 | 101.54 | 0.00 | |
English Educational Policy | 100.88 | 1.13 | 89.26 | 0.00 |
Purposes for Learning English | 47.59 | .43 | 110.39 | 0.00 |
As the results of Table 3 indicated, there were significant associations among contextual factors and linguistic imperialism. The analyses showed that there is a significant association between contextual factors such as gender, age, educational level, major and their attitudes toward English, educational policy, and purposes for learning English.
The results of Table 4 demonstrated that there was a significant association between teachers’ contextual factors and their attitudes toward linguistic imperialism.
Table 4
Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)
|
|
| Estimate |
Imperialism | <--- | Contextual Factors | .82 |
Gender | <--- | Linguistic imperialism | .24 |
Age | <--- | Linguistic imperialism | .28 |
Educational Level | <--- | Linguistic imperialism | .16 |
Major | <--- | Linguistic imperialism | .10 |
Years of studying English | <--- | Linguistic imperialism | .17 |
Native Teacher | <--- | Linguistic imperialism | .34 |
Native Friends | <--- | Linguistic imperialism | .29 |
Speaking English country | <--- | Linguistic imperialism | .33 |
Attitudes Toward English | <--- | Imperialism | .39 |
English Educational Policy | <--- | Imperialism | .14 |
Purposes for Learning English | <--- | Imperialism | .26 |
The results estimated that about 82 percent of changes in their attitudes toward linguistic imperialism can be predicted by their contextual factors. The results indicated that having native teachers estimated about 35 percent of changes in their attitudes toward linguistic imperialism.
Model Fit for the Full Model in the Standardized Estimation Mode
The structural model result in Figure 1 shows the achieved stable model fit estimation. The indicators of fit: Cmin/df = .067 (Cmin = 3.44, df = 51); GFI = 0.93 (spec. > 0.9), NFI = 0.90 (spec. > 0.9), CFI = .91 (spec. > 0.9), and RMSEA = 0.08 (spec. < 0.080). In sum, Figure 1 empirically shows that teachers’ contextual factors have a highly significant influence (ß=0.82, p=.00) on EFL teachers’ attitudes toward linguistic imperialism. This figure also shows that teachers’ age, having native teachers, and living in an English-speaking country have a highly significant influence on EFL teachers’ attitudes toward linguistic imperialism. Besides, the importance of understanding teachers’ contextual factors in determining their attitudes toward linguistic imperialism.
To answer the second research question and check EFL teachers’ and practitioners’ perceptions of linguistic imperialism and globalization in English teaching, English education policy, and purposes for learning English in Iran, the researchers conducted descriptive and content analyses. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 5 and Table 6.
EFL Teachers’ Attitudes Toward English: Part I
Items | M | SD | Sig | SD | D | MD | MA | A | SA |
1 | 5.67 | .82 | .001 | 6(1.7%) | 3(0.8%) | 0 | 4(1.1%) | 70(19.5%) | 276(76.9%) |
2 | 5.50 | .85 | .001 | 5(1.4) | 4(1.1) | 0 | 13(3.6) | 30.9(111) | 63(226) |
3 | 5.19 | .80 | .001 | 0 | 3(0.8) | 12(3.3) | 35(9.7) | 171(47.6) | 138(38.4) |
4 | 5.41 | .85 | .001 | 3(0.8) | 7(1.9) | 0 | 15(4.2) | 138(38.4) | 196(54.6) |
5 | 5.34 | 1.08 | .001 | 6(1.7) | 12(3.3) | 5(1.4) | 24(6.7) | 95(26.5) | 217(60.4) |
6 | 2.02 | 1.32 | .001 | 168(46.8) | 111(30.9) | 22(6.1) | 30(8.4) | 18(5) | 10(2.8) |
7 | 4.84 | 1.22 | .001 | 12(3.3) | 16(4.5) | 16(4.5) | 38(10.6) | 167(46.5) | 110(30.6) |
8 | 3.92 | 1.40 | .001 | 21(5.8) | 56(15.6) | 43(12) | 80(22.3) | 127(35.4) | 32(8.9) |
9 | 4.71 | 1.20 | .001 | 4(1.1) | 27(7.5) | 18(5) | 69(19.2) | 143(39.8) | 98(27.3) |
10 | 4.57 | 1.30 | .001 | 16(4.5) | 20(5.6) | 24(6.7) | 64(17.8) | 154(42.9) | 81(22.6) |
11 | 4.81 | 1.22 | .001 | 15(4.2) | 14(3.9) | 8(2.2) | 53(14.8) | 167(46.5) | 102(28.4) |
12 | 3.78 | 1.56 | .001 | 39(10.9) | 65(18.1) | 32(8.9) | 48(13.4) | 151(42.1) | 24(6.7) |
13 | 4.01 | 1.57 | .001 | 18(5) | 88(24.5) | 7(1.9) | 65(18.1) | 121(33.7) | 60(16.7) |
14 | 3.51 | 1.51 | .001 | 34(9.5) | 90(25.1) | 46(12.8) | 60(16.7) | 107(29.8) | 22(6.1) |
15 | 3.51 | 1.61 | .001 | 39(10.9) | 100(27.9) | 23(6.4) | 73(20.3) | 85(23.7) | 39(10.9) |
16 | 4.98 | 1.16 | .001 | 3(0.8) | 25(7) | 8(2.2) | 41(11.4) | 144(40.1) | 138(38.4) |
17 | 2.69 | 1.46 | .001 | 73(20.3) | 146(40.7) | 41(11.4) | 33(9.2) | 52(14.5) | 14(3.9) |
18 | 2.78 | 1.52 | .001 | 78(21.7) | 128(35.7) | 35(9.7) | 47(13.1) | 55(15.3) | 16(4.5) |
The results of Table 5 reveal that more than 90 percent of Iranian EFL teachers agreed that English is the language used most widely in the world, and more than 70 percent showed their inclination to learn this language. In addition, about 80 percent of them prefer to like nativelike English and have doubts about the Iranian version of the English language.
EFL Teachers’ Attitudes toward the Current English Education Policy: Part II
M | SD | Sig | SD | D | MD | MA | A | SA | |
19 | 4.93 | 1.284 | .001 | 6(1.7%) | 30(8.4%) | 5(1.4%) | 53(14.8) | 112(31.2) | 153(42.6) |
20 | 4.21 | 1.490 | .001 | 15(4.2) | 55(15.3) | 29(8.1) | 86(24) | 90(25.1) | 84(23.4) |
21 | 5.08 | 1.168 | .001 | 8(2.2) | 11(3.1) | 14(3.9) | 43(12) | 118(32.9) | 165(46) |
22 | 2.74 | 1.535 | .001 | 80(22.3) | 137(38.2) | 27(7.5) | 46(12.8) | 51(14.2) | 18(5) |
23 | 2.38 | 1.440 | .001 | 114(31.8) | 137(38.2) | 26(7.2) | 32(8.9) | 39(10.9) | 11(3.1) |
24 | 5.06 | 1.178 | .001 | 7(1.9) | 21(5.8) | 5(1.4) | 27(7.5) | 149(41.5) | 150(41.8) |
25 | 3.54 | 1.462 | .001 | 29(8.1) | 83(23.1) | 58(16.2) | 67(18.7) | 99(27.6) | 23(6.4) |
26 | 4.33 | 1.376 | .001 | 10(2.8) | 43(12) | 26(7.2) | 102(28.4) | 94(26.2) | 84(23.4) |
27 | 3.69 | 1.510 | .001 | 30(8.4) | 79(22) | 30(8.4) | 87(24.2) | 99(27.6) | 34(9.5) |
28 | 3.17 | 1.393 | .001 | 28(7.8) | 126(35.1) | 57(15.9) | 70(19.5) | 61(17) | 17(4.7) |
29 | 2.96 | 1.480 | .001 | 51(14.2) | 134(37.3) | 47(13.1) | 52(14.5) | 56(15.6) | 19(5.3) |
30 | 2.32 | 1.444 | .001 | 131(36.5) | 117(32.6) | 30(8.4) | 41(11.4) | 26(7.2) | 14(3.9) |
31 | 2.53 | 1.447 | .001 | 98(27.3) | 128(35.7) | 40(11.1) | 43(12) | 37(10.3) | 13(3.6) |
32 | 3.27 | 1.568 | .001 | 54(15) | 89(24.8) | 51(14.2) | 63(17.5) | 76(21.2) | 26(7.2) |
33 | 2.34 | 1.405 | .001 | 126(35.1) | 116(32.3) | 36(10) | 40(11.1) | 33(9.2) | 8(2.2) |
34 | 3.99 | 1.375 | .001 | 3(0.8) | 73(20.3) | 48(13.4) | 93(25.9) | 86(24) | 56(15.6) |
35 | 3.12 | 1.216 | .001 | 17(4.7) | 113(31.5) | 109(30.4) | 64(17.8) | 43(12) | 13(3.6) |
36 | 4.61 | 1.227 | .001 | 3(0.8) | 35(9.7) | 16(4.5) | 79(22) | 138(38.4) | 88(24.5) |
37 | 3.49 | 1.508 | .001 | 26(7.2) | 105(29.2) | 49(13.6) | 52(14.5) | 101(28.1) | 26(7.2) |
38 | 3.82 | 1.329 | .001 | 10(2.8) | 79(22) | 33(9.2) | 102(28.4) | 112(31.2) | 23(6.4) |
39 | 4.25 | 1.364 | .001 | 10(2.8) | 52(14.5) | 28(7.8) | 75(20.9) | 138(38.4) | 56(15.6) |
40 | 3.74 | 1.467 | .001 | 21(5.8) | 79(22) | 46(12.8) | 72(20.1) | 107(29.8) | 34(9.5) |
41 | 2.35 | 1.396 | .001 | 112(31.2) | 143(39.8) | 21(5.8) | 43(12) | 29(8.1) | 11(3.1) |
42 | 2.46 | 1.431 | .001 | 111(30.9) | 121(33.7) | 28(7.8) | 61(17) | 26(7.2) | 12(3.3) |
43 | 2.37 | 1.517 | .001 | 135(37.6) | 113(31.5) | 20(5.6) | 40(11.1) | 37(10.3) | 14(3.9) |
44 | 2.62 | 1.456 | .001 | 97(27) | 118(32.9) | 28(7.8) | 66(18.4) | 42(11.7) | 8(2.2) |
45 | 2.68 | 1.559 | .001 | 97(27) | 117(32.6) | 33(9.2) | 44(12.3) | 51(14.2) | 17(4.7) |
46 | 3.43 | 1.561 | .001 | 40(11.1) | 100(27.9) | 30(8.4) | 73(20.3) | 88(24.5) | 28(7.8) |
47 | 2.72 | 1.565 | .001 | 99(27.6) | 103(28.7) | 38(10.6) | 60(16.7) | 37(10.3) | 22(6.1) |
The results of Table 6 show that more than 70 percent of Iranian EFL teachers agreed that English education should start from elementary school in Iran, about 70 percent are not satisfied with the English education policy in Iran, and more than 60 percent believed that teaching English does not weaken the Persian language culture.
While more than 70 percent of them like to learn English, the results of Table 7 demonstrated that an important purpose of more than 50 percent of them for their English learning is to get a decent job. Despite the fact that inventories are among the most generally utilized instruments, the information obtained through inventories might be one-layered. Furthermore, to acquire more dependable and solid discoveries, triangulation of the information was noticed.
EFL Teachers’ Attitudes Toward the Purposes for Learning English: Part III
Items | M | SD | Sig | SD | D | MD | MA | A | SA |
48 | 4.79 | 1.268 | .001 | 16(4.5%) | 17(4.7%) | 9(2.5%) | 45(12.5%) | 170(47.4%) | 102(27.4%) |
49 | 5.08 | 1.018 | .001 | 6(1.7) | 6(1.7) | 11(3.1) | 43(12) | 157(43.7) | 136(37.9) |
50 | 4.88 | 1.105 | .001 | 6(1.7) | 12(3.3) | 15(4.2) | 65(18.1) | 148(41.2) | 113(31.5) |
51 | 3.79 | 1.539 | .001 | 31(8.6) | 76(21.2) | 22(6.1) | 73(20.3) | 123(34.3) | 34(9.5) |
52 | 3.41 | 1.578 | .001 | 44(12.3) | 103(28.7) | 16(4.5) | 77(21.4) | 95(26.5) | 24(6.7) |
53 | 4.27 | 1.355 | .001 | 15(4.2) | 43(12) | 19(5.3) | 89(24.8) | 138(38.4) | 55(15.3) |
54 | 4.30 | 1.468 | .001 | 19(5.3) | 40(11.1) | 31(8.6) | 76(21.2) | 110(30.6) | 83(23.1) |
55 | 4.30 | 1.434 | .001 | 17(4.7) | 41(11.4) | 32(8.9) | 68(18.9) | 128(35.7) | 73(20.3) |
56 | 4.82 | 1.195 | .001 | 4(1.1) | 28(7.8) | 12(3.3) | 50(13.9) | 156(43.5) | 109(30.4) |
57 | 4.66 | 1.153 | .001 | 6(1.7) | 21(5.8) | 21(5.8) | 70(19.5) | 163(45.4) | 78(21.7) |
58 | 4.66 | 1.210 | .001 | 3(0.8) | 29(8.1) | 19(5.3) | 82(22.8) | 128(35.7) | 98(27.3) |
4.2. Qualitative Data Analysis
The information was additionally assembled through semi-structured interviews. The fundamental subjects of Iranian perspectives toward imperialism in light of the aftereffects of semi-structured interviews were as follows. To make them secret, the analysts numbered the educators in the interviews.
4.2.1. Improving Education and Curriculum and Familiarity with the Culture of Other Countries
Some teachers believed that globalization has created opportunities for education and curriculum improvement which include: Access to the latest information in curriculum planning, the importance of the principle of cooperation and understanding as the main goal in education, and e-learning.
At the same time, with the expansion of globalization, education has been removed from the religious mode and brings the following threats: monoculturalization, weakening of religious education, and the influence of the penetration and spread of the English language on local languages and their education.
In this era of globalization, English is a well-known language for many people, from the old generation to the young generation, and this English language has caused many changes in the lives of the young generation. One of these reasons can be mentioned the use of technology and social media. If effective methods can be used in learning English, then teachers can weaken its harmful influence. The penetration and spread of the English language should not lead to the penetration and spread of the English culture in EFL contexts (Teachers # 4, 10, & 11 stated in the interview).
4.2.3. Imposing a Specific Culture
A number of teachers believed that the problems of the globalization of English include the imposition of a specific Western culture, the spread of English and the threat of native languages, the early maturity of children, an overemphasis on appearances rather than curriculum content, the visualization of culture, the decline social interactions, de-schooling, lack of connection between content and media, wavering of values and digital divide.
Regarding the position of culture in English language teaching books, teachers stated that reviewing the common English language teaching textbooks shows that almost all of them include the culture of Western societies.
4.2.4. Conflict with National and Cultural Identity
Most of the teachers believed that resorting to such an approach is not only incompatible with Iranian society but also is in serious conflict with the laws and documents that emphasize strengthening the Persian language as the language of education and national and cultural identity.
Regarding the incompatibility of this category of works with the atmosphere of non-English speaking societies, including Iranian society, these textbooks are symbols of Western cultural imperialism and spread the ideas and beliefs of this culture in other societies. They emphasize that one of the results of globalization is the imposition of textbooks produced in English-speaking societies on non-English-speaking countries. Books with international scope are expanding increasingly, and yet, both in terms of subject matter and culture, they are extremely exclusive and disproportionate to the atmosphere of non-English speaking societies (Teacher # 4 stated in the interview).
4.2.5. The Necessity of Educational Decision-Making Considering the Target Context
A number of teachers believed that any educational decision about the English language at different levels should be made by considering the target context.
Considering that the society of Iran, as a marginal society, faces cultural, political, social, and ideological differences from the central societies, and at the same time, it needs this language in various fields, in this section it is necessary to formulate and present a solution (Teachers # 3 & 11 stated similar statements but in different words).
4.2.6. Weakening of Persian Language
Considering the fact that the Persian language is a solid pillar of the national identity and the unity of Iranian society, some teachers spoke about the lack of linguistic awareness regarding the dangers facing the Persian language and consider planning to protect it as one of the necessities that all institutions Subordinates in the country should pay attention to it. According to them, the lack of attention to the Persian language on the one hand and the introduction of the English language on the scene on the other hand have been associated with the weakening of the Persian language.
4.2.7. Lack of Critical Attitude to Education
The lack of a critical attitude towards the position of English language education and its role in the global arena is the result of the unquestioning acceptance of the principles raised in the field of applied linguistics by the teachers of this language; Principles that only emphasize the methodological aspects and do not pay attention to the cultural, social and political issues of this activity and its consequences. In contrast to this dominant trend, the critical education approach deals with the aspects of education, namely lesson planning, curriculum design, appropriate teaching methods and techniques, and the ways of evaluation, and also pays special attention to historical, social, political and cultural aspects.
5. Discussion
This study investigated the Iranian EFL teachers’ perceptions of linguistic imperialism and globalization in English language teaching curriculum and the association between contextual factors and attitudes toward linguistic imperialism. The results demonstrated that there was a statistically significant association between contextual factors such as age, educational level, having native teachers, and living in English-speaking countries and their attitudes towards linguistic imperialism in the Iranian EFL context. The findings are in contrast with Kidwell (2021) and Xu (2013) who found cultural and contextual factors do not have any contribution in shaping teachers’ attitudes towards imperialism. However, the findings broadly support the work of many other studies in this area linking contextual factors to teachers’ perceptions of linguistic imperialism. There are similarities between the attitudes expressed by teachers in this study and those described by Hamid and Kirkpatrick (2016), Kidwell (2021), and Kaschula and Wolff (2020). These results are also in agreement with Lai's (2021) findings which showed that the existence of the English language as a medium of instruction in school is associated with a greater amount of prestige than other languages and creates a process of cultural hegemony. The findings of this study showed that teachers use the English language as a tool for professional growth and improving their education (Burn & Menter, 2021). From the point of view of the supporters of the critical method of education, education is considered a completely political act and is mixed with political and social issues such as justice, race, gender, poverty, and subordination. They should think as active interns and consider the social and ethical consequences of their actions, putting ethical dimensions in their reflective teaching (Daoud & Kasztalska, 2023; Hornberger et al., 2018).
Another important finding was that while teachers’ purpose for English learning was to get a decent job and approximately all of them were aware of the notion of linguistic imperialism, most of them showed their inclination to learn English. In addition, they preferred nativelike pronunciation in comparison with the Iranian English accent. Many teachers agree with Kamusella's (2020) view that English language development remains inextricably intertwined with economic, social, and cultural roots. According to these teachers, a better educational system and more effective teaching methods can significantly help to solve many of these problems. The educational system should recognize the human rights of language and make students sensitive and critical to the reality surrounding them (Lim et al., 2022).
Observing such tangible evidence can indicate the fact that, according to Chen (2022), the spread of this language, especially in the context of English language education, strengthens the cultural hegemony of the West. Meanwhile, textbooks are becoming the most important source of cultural nutrition (Kamusella, 2020). Undoubtedly, the result of the publication of these books, in the absence of any sober, realistic, and critical look at this language and culture, has no result other than the formation of a kind of liberal attitude among the learners and teachers of this language and culture. An attitude that, according to Slaughter and Cross (2021), introduces the English language only as a communication tool, and according to Wang and Fang (2020), it is an overly simplistic view that the global expansion of the English language is a natural and neutral phenomenon.
6. Conclusions and Implications
The current study investigated Iranian EFL perceptions of linguistic imperialism and globalization in English language teaching curriculum and the association between contextual factors and attitudes toward linguistic imperialism. The results indicated that living in an English-speaking country and having native teachers have a great contribution to shaping teachers’ attitudes toward imperialism. The study also demonstrated that no matter what the purposes of learning English, Iranian EFL teachers had a positive view towards using and replacing the English language in their curriculum.
These findings disclosed that creating linguistic awareness of English is an inevitable necessity. From the point of view of the critical approach, English is not just teaching a language in the classroom, but teaching a language dependent on power, which should be introduced in the framework of historical, cultural, social, and economic issues and background. This is why members of society and specifically planners, teachers, learners, and parents should pay attention to the nature and cultural, social and political consequences of this language and not consider it a neutral communication tool.
Since the English language is considered as a foreign language in Iran, the only way to spread this language is through teaching English in EFL contexts. The lack of a comprehensive and codified strategy or plan regarding how to provide English language education is one of the issues that should be investigated more widely so that we do not lose our way in the process of globalization and avoid cultural, political, social, and educational harms. Finally, our national identity will be prevented. In this regard, it is necessary to carry out extensive research by researchers and technical experts and to analyze the attitudes and beliefs of both language learners and English language teachers. Also, the advantages, opportunities, and threats of learning English and the need to master English as an international scientific language should be discussed, and students should be reminded of the main goals of teaching English before starting to learn this language. G*Power and probability sampling were employed to find an adequate sample and counter selection bias. However, factors other than the ones under study such as cultural factors and individual differences might influence the findings of the study and their generalizability. Since this study was conducted in Iranian EFL contexts, replications considering cultural factors and individual differences are required to enhance the generalizability of the findings to other settings and populations.
References
Burn, K., & Menter, I. (2021). Making sense of teacher education in a globalizing world: The distinctive contribution of a sociocultural approach. Comparative Education Review, 65(4), 770-789. https://doi.org/10.1086/716228
Burner, T. (2014). The potential formative benefits of portfolio assessment in second and foreign language writing contexts: A review of the literature. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 43, 139-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.03.002
Cheng, L., Wu, Y., & Liu, X. (2015). Chinese university students’ perceptions of assessment tasks and classroom assessment environment. Language Testing in Asia, 5(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-015-0020-6
Dang, T. K. A., Nguyen, H. T. M., & Le, T. T. T. (2013). The impacts of globalisation on EFL teacher education through English as a medium of instruction: an example from Vietnam. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 52-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2013.780321
Daoud, S., & Kasztalska, A. (2023). Exploring native-speakerism in teacher job recruitment discourse through Legitimation Code Theory: The case of the United Arab Emirates. Language Teaching Research, 0(0), 13621688211066883. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211066883
Hamid, M. O., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2016). Foreign language policies in Asia and Australia in the Asian century. Language Problems and Language Planning, 40(1), 26-46. https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.40.1.02ham
Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language (Vol. null). Oxford University Press.
Hornberger, N. H., Tapia, A. A., Hanks, D. H., Dueñas, F. K., & Lee, S. (2018). Ethnography of language planning and policy. Language Teaching, 51(2), 152-186. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000428
Jakubiak, C. (2012). “English for the global”: Discourses in/of English-language voluntourism. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(4), 435-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.673029
Kamusella, T. (2020). Global language politics: Eurasia versus the rest. Journal of Nationalism, Memory & Language Politics, 14(2), 117-151. https://doi.org/doi:10.2478/jnmlp-2020-0008
Kidwell, T. (2021). Protectors and preparers: novice Indonesian EFL teachers’ beliefs regarding teaching about culture. Language and Intercultural Communication, 21(5), 631-645. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2021.1913179
Kirkpatrick, A., & Lixun, W. (2020). Is English an Asian language? Cambridge University Press.
Lai, M. L. (2021). English linguistic neo-imperialism – A case of Hong Kong. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 42(4), 398-412. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1702667
Le, M. D., Nguyen, H. T. M., & Burns, A. (2021). English primary teacher agency in implementing teaching methods in response to language policy reform: a Vietnamese case study. Current Issues in Language Planning, 22(1-2), 199-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2020.1741209
Mackenzie, L. (2022). Linguistic imperialism, English, and development: implications for Colombia. Current Issues in Language Planning, 23(2), 137-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2021.1939977
Manan, S. A., & Hajar, A. (2022). English as an index of neoliberal globalization: The linguistic landscape of Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan. Language Sciences, 92, 101486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2022.101486
McDonald, E. (2013). Embodiment and meaning: moving beyond linguistic imperialism in social semiotics. Social Semiotics, 23(3), 318-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2012.719730
Muslim, A. B., Suherdi, D., & Imperiani, E. D. (2022). Linguistic hegemony in global recognition: English-mediated internationalisation at Indonesian higher education institutions. Policy Futures in Education, 20(7), 796-811. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103211037285
Phillipson, R. (2012). Imperialism and colonialism. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy (pp. 203-225). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511979026.013
Siqueira, S. (2017). Intercultural language educators for an intercultural world: action upon reflection. Intercultural Education, 28(4), 390-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2017.1334396
Slaughter, Y., & Cross, R. (2021). Challenging the monolingual mindset: Understanding plurilingual pedagogies in English as an Additional Language (EAL) classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 25(1), 39-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820938819
Sorensen, T. B., & Dumay, X. (2021). The teaching professions and globalization: A scoping review of the anglophone research literature. Comparative Education Review, 65(4), 725-749. https://doi.org/10.1086/716418
Spolsky, B. (2012). The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy (B. Spolsky, Ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/CBO9780511979026
Starks, D., & Nicholas, H. (2020). Reflections of Vietnamese English language educators on their writer identities in English and Vietnamese. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 19(3), 179-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2019.1655423Tajeddin, Z., & Ghaffaryan, S. (2020). Language teachers’ intercultural identity in the critical context of cultural globalization and its metaphoric realization. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 49(3), 263-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2020.1754884
Vo, T. D., Gleeson, M., & Starkey, L. (2022). The glocalisation of English-medium instruction examined through of the ROAD-MAPPING framework: A case study of teachers and students in a Vietnamese university. System, 108, 102856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102856
Wang, L., & Fang, F. (2020). Native-speakerism policy in English language teaching revisited: Chinese university teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards native and non-native English-speaking teachers. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1778374. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1778374
Xu, Z. (2013). Globalization, culture and ELT materials: a focus on China. Multilingual Education, 3(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-5059-3-6
Yao, C. W., Collins, C., Bush, T., Briscoe, K. L., & Dang, N. L. T. (2022). English as a ‘double barrier’: English medium instruction and student learning at Vietnamese transnational universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(4), 1372-1386. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1896485
