Keywords

1 Introduction

As a result of the intercultural nature of communication in the twenty-first century, and the kaleidoscopic plurality of the English language, its users, and cultures, the discipline of TESOL has shifted its paradigm from Teaching English as a Second/Foreign Language (ESL/EFL) to English as an International Language (EIL), placing a strong emphasis on teaching intercultural communication skills and fostering awareness of World Englishes.

One implication of EIL on TESOL teacher-education is the need for a teacher-education curriculum that engages teacher-candidates in developing a repertoire of pedagogical strategies to foster intercultural understanding and respect for lingua-cultural diversity in ELT classrooms. Although such implication has been repeatedly proffered by EIL scholars and researchers, its operationalisation in teacher education courses is still not visible (Selvi & Yazan, 2021). This is because, as Bayyurt and Sifakis (2017) explained, “while ESL/EFL is readily specified as teaching and learning construct, EIL/ELF (English as a Lingua Franca) is still not (p. 6).

Since there is a paucity of teacher-education curricula for preparing teachers to promote intercultural understanding and respect for lingua-cultural diversity in ELT classrooms (Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2017; Marlina, 2021; Selvi & Yazan, 2021), this chapter will discuss what can or should be incorporated in the curriculum of an EIL-informed teacher education programme.

As goals, content, and assessment practices form the fundamentals of curriculum development, this practice-oriented chapter uses the EIL paradigm as well as Sifakis and Bayyurt’s (2017) model of EIL-aware teacher education to address the following questions: what can be the overall goals of an EIL-informed TESOL teacher-education programme? What should form the key content of the programme? In other words, what should teacher-candidates be engaged in learning? What teaching and assessment practices can teacher-educators use to help meet the goals of the programme?

Prior to addressing the aforementioned questions, the following section explains the paradigm of EIL and its implications for TESOL teacher-education.

2 The EIL Paradigm

As previously mentioned, the changing sociolinguistic reality of English, evidenced in the pluralisation of the use, users, and cultures of English in the world, has led to a paradigm shift in the field of TESOL (Selvi & Yazan, 2021). The traditional ESL/EFL paradigm of language teaching and research, advocating the teaching of the so-called ‘native’ English speakers’ linguistic and cultural practices, has been deemed anachronistic, irrelevant, and pragmatically counter-productive (Marlina, forthcoming; Matsuda, 2020). Variationist scholars have also been casting doubts upon the relevance of classroom practices informed by the aforementioned paradigm to the real communicative needs of today’s English language users whose communicative encounters in English often do not involve ‘native’-English speakers (Marlina, 2018; Matsuda, 2020). Prompted further by the unprecedented growth in the number of multilingual users of English and their dominance in today’s exchanges in English, the plurilithic nature of English, and the forces of globalisation that have made the nature of today’s communication dizzyingly diverse and complex, the paradigm of language teaching and research has shifted towards what seems to be a more liberal and democratic one, i.e., the EIL (English as an International Language) paradigm (Sharifian, 2009; McKay, 2018; Matsuda, 2020). This paradigm provides researchers, scholars, and educators with a lens to critically:

  • revisit and reconsider their ways of conceptualising English,

  • re-assess their analytical tools and the approaches they adopt in the sociolinguistics of English and TESOL disciplines, and

  • revise their pedagogical strategies for English language education in the light of the tremendous changes that English has undergone as a result of its global expansion in recent decades (Marlina, 2014, p. 4).

Scholars and researchers working within the scholarship of EIL have been urging ELT researchers and practitioners to critically re-examine their teaching methodologies, instructional variety and model, curriculum and syllabus materials, language assessment and testing, and TESOL teacher-education program. Specifically, what implications does this paradigm shift have for TESOL teacher-education program? This question is addressed in the next section.

3 Implications of EIL for TESOL Teacher Education

Given the complex nature of English and communicative encounters in the twenty-first century, TESOL teacher-educators have been advised to provide their teacher-candidates with “a comprehensive education that fosters an understanding of language variation and change, the new forms and functions of English, the relationship between language and identity, the negotiated nature of intercultural communication and a more nuanced understanding of bilingual language proficiency” (Dogancay-Aktuna & Hardman, 2017, p. 19). Extending this suggestion, Sifakis and Bayyurt (2017, p. 7) have further proposed a specific model (see Fig. 1 below) that EIL-inspired teacher-educators can refer to when designing or delivering an EIL-informed teacher-education programme:

Fig. 1
A flow diagram of foundations of an E I L aware teacher education. From top to bottom it has, phase A exposure, exposure to the heterogeneous nature of English, phase B, critical awareness, awareness of one's own assumptions, and phase C, action plan, planning, implementing learning activities.

Foundations of an EIL-aware teacher education

Full size image

In phase A or the Exposure stage, Sifakis and Bayyurt (2017) advise that teacher-educators expose teacher-candidates to various literature and research on the global expansion of the English language, its positive and negative outcomes, and the characteristics of successful intercultural interactions between users of English from different lingua-cultural backgrounds. In phase B, teacher-educators invite their teacher-candidates to critically reflect on their own assumptions or deepest convictions about language use, language learning, and language teaching in light of what they have learned in the previous phase. Finally, in phase C, teacher-candidates are tasked to plan or develop EIL-oriented learning activities based on what they have learned in the previous two phases, and on the needs analysis results of their own learners. They then trial these activities with their students in a real classroom setting, and critically evaluate the effectiveness of the activities.

Though there has been a collection of literature showcasing how EIL can be incorporated into a TESOL teacher-education programme (see Galloway, 2017; Matsuda, 2017), empirical research has revealed that many teacher-education programmes are still dominated by the native-speakerism ideology (Snodin & Resnik, 2019). As Wheeler (2016) once asserts, “so much research, and yet so little change” (p. 367). Even after a series of exposures to literature on World Englishes, English as a Lingua Franca or Global Englishes, many teacher-candidates still show strong preferences towards learning and teaching native-speakers’ linguistic and cultural practices, and hold a deficit perspective of those classified as ‘non-native’ speakers (Marlina, 2019; Prabjandee, 2020; Chen et al., forthcoming). For example, after completing a 3-week professional development course on World Englishes and Intercultural Communication, linguistic and cultural differences were ‘patronisingly sympathised’ – rather than recognised as legitimate and sociolinguistically normal – by a group of in-service ELT teachers from the ASEAN region (Marlina, 2019). In a study by Prabjandee (2020) who used transformative-learning-theory-informed activities in a 16-hour workshop on Global Englishes Language Teaching, preferences towards teaching and learning native-speakers’ lingua-cultural practices were still observed in the attitudes of Thai ELT teachers upon completion of the workshop. This has suggested three things.

Firstly, any future writings about teaching EIL should attempt to avoid what Canagarajah (1999) once referred to as “bury[ing] our eyes ostrich-like to the political evils and ideological temptations outside” (p. 201). Secondly, in order to inspire teachers to develop respect for lingua-cultural diversity and to see this diversity as sociolinguistically normal, an EIL-informed TESOL teacher-education programme should “go beyond simply ‘talking about’ the current reality of English or how to teach EIL” (Marlina, 2017, p. 107). Lastly, EIL-inspired teacher-educators may wish to consider critically revisiting their EIL-oriented teacher-education curricular materials, courses, or programmes in order to bring about long-lasting effects on their teacher-candidates’ ideological beliefs and pedagogical practices (Rose et al., 2021; Galloway & Rose, 2021; Selvi & Yazan, 2021). Based on a review of various empirical studies and one’s extensive experiences in teaching EIL to both language practitioners and teacher-educators, the following section presents suggestions on possible goals, curricular materials, and assessment practices that EIL-inspired teacher educators may wish to consider or re-consider when designing an EIL-oriented TESOL teacher-education programme.

4 Goals of an EIL-Informed TESOL Teacher-Education Curriculum

In various writings on EIL-informed TESOL teacher-education (Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2017; Dogancay-Aktuna & Hardman, 2012, 2017), EIL-inspired teacher-educators have been advised to gear their teacher-education programmes towards “teacher-development, not the indoctrination of EIL” (Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2017, p. 15). With ‘teacher-development’ as an overarching orientation, the goals of an EIL-informed TESOL teacher education curriculum are to:

  • “critically engage teachers into forming a comprehensive understanding of EIL (ELF/WE) construct;

  • prompt teachers to become conscious of their deeper convictions about teaching, learning, assessing etc., vis-à-vis English, and to help them begin to change these perspectives to the extent they want/are able to;

  • prompt teachers to understand the implications of the EIL construct for their own teaching context; and

  • assist teachers in applying the EIL construct in their own teaching context, to the extent they want/are able to” (p. 15).

Though the above goals seem achievable, and should continue to serve as the guidelines for developing an EIL-informed TESOL teacher education curriculum, it is equally important to be aware of the possibility of experiencing ‘cognitive disequilibrium’ when engaging teacher-candidates in learning to achieve those goals, or more specifically to think and act differently from usual. One often encounters tensions, dilemmas, and conflicts when one’s deeply-ingrained convictions are challenged or when one is prompted to learn to think and act differently (Marlina, 2018). In the journey of forming a comprehensive understanding of EIL constructs and, therefore, learning to develop appreciative attitudes towards lingua-cultural diversity, one is likely to encounter moments whereby one questions whether diversity is welcomed or positively constructed in the socio-political context in which one lives (Nieto, 2018). As Tupas (2018, 2021) has observed, varieties of English may be sociolinguistically acceptable and yet still socio-politically unacceptable. Hence, in addition to the listed goals above, an EIL-informed teacher education curriculum should prompt teachers to avoid falling into the trap of romanticising the equality of all languages, cultures, and lingua-cultural practices. In other words, teachers can be prompted to avoid assuming that all Englishes and languages spoken within a community exist in harmony or all lingua-cultural practices are legitimately recognised and valued. As language and culture are also sites of struggle whereby the existing relations of domination and marginalisation are constantly (re)negotiated and (re)defined, EIL-informed teacher-educators can engage teachers in unpacking the politics of lingua-cultural differences in their respective contexts, learning how to grapple with various elitist and ethnocentric discourses, and assisting them in finding ways to address these politics in a language-learning classroom. The following section will discuss a possible way of fostering critical dialogues on linguistic diversity as well as the politics of differences in an EIL-informed teacher education curricular content.

5 Re-envisioned Curriculum Content

In order to achieve the goals outlined in the previous section, Sifakis and Bayyurt’s (2017) framework has suggested that teacher-candidates should be firstly exposed to scholarly works on the global expansion of the English language, its positive and negative outcomes, and the characteristics of successful intercultural interactions between users of English from different lingua-cultural backgrounds. They then reflect critically on their own assumptions or convictions about the global spread of English and its implications for teaching, learning, and assessment. Though Sifakis and Bayyurt’s (2017) framework is useful and implementable, one would like to propose a different way of approaching this framework especially in light of the persistent favourable attitudes towards the lingua-cultural practices of the so-called ‘native’ English speakers even after being exposed to scholarly works on World Englishes (Marlina, 2019; Prabjandee, 2020).

5.1 Exploration of the Nature of Language Variation

ELT teacher-candidates may come to the classroom with a particular view of or ideological belief about the English language. Prompting them to engage with research studies on the global expansion of English at the early stage of learning with a hope of fostering respect and appreciation for lingua-cultural diversity might run the risk of being interpreted as an act of indoctrination. It may even, as Marlina’s study (2018) has revealed, lead to a strong resistance towards the perspectives advocated by EIL scholars.

In the spirit of teacher development and of inspiring ELT teachers to develop respect for lingua-cultural diversity (including their own lingua-cultural practices), one would like to propose the possibility of raising at the outset teacher-candidates’ awareness of the nature of language variation. This awareness goes beyond knowing about the structural aspects of language. Awareness of the nature of language as a dynamic entity entails knowing (1) how language is a complex system of choices, (2) how these choices are not stochastic, and (3) how language users are linguistically creative in nature. As Seidlhofer (1996) suggested, teacher education courses should get the candidates “to stand back and think hard about not only the [linguistic] choices that have to be made, but also about the choices that can be made” (p. 6), especially when they deviate from the established norms or so-called the ‘standard variety’.

Undergirded by the philosophy of language as a dynamic entity and a complex adaptive system, teacher-candidates can be engaged in a series of dialogues on how language, as a self-regulating system, varies at national, regional, social, contextual, and individual level. For example, if teacher-candidates speak languages other than English, they can be engaged in exploring or reflecting on how their L1 or dominant language varies. If English is the dominant language or the only language spoken by the teacher candidates, then teacher educators should involve them in learning activities that raise their awareness of the complexity of dialect variation in their own communities. Most importantly, an in-depth reflection about why language naturally varies should be promoted to stimulate a further general discussion on the intricate relationship between language, cultures, and identities, and the interplay between social/contextual variables and language variation or change. One practical way to explore language variation is, as Li (2017) suggested, “an autobiographic sketch or linguistic self-study in which teachers are asked to write (through traditional essays or using new technologies) their reflection on their own language and cultural experiences in their homes, schools and communities such as family cultural histories, language and literacy practices in their lives” (p. 260). Not only should the above learning activities help to prompt teacher-candidates to develop linguistic self-respect (Li, 2017) and to debunk various myths arising from a view of language as a static and monolithic entity, but it should also prompt a critical reflection on their views of normativity, appropriateness, accuracy, intelligibility, comprehensibility, and linguistic ownership.

In brief, the overall key teaching points that need to be established at the early stage of a re-envisioned EIL-oriented teacher education programme are that:

  1. 1.

    language is protean in nature,

  2. 2.

    language variation is socio-linguistically normal and necessary,

  3. 3.

    no one can avoid bathing in the sea of linguistic variety (Crystal, 1999),

  4. 4.

    language users are linguistically creative in nature,

  5. 5.

    those who use language differently have their reasons for doing so, and

  6. 6.

    language variation is a reflection of diverse and complex interplay of values, beliefs, and identities.

5.2 The Global Expansion of the English Language

To expose teacher-candidates to the multiplicity and complexity of the English language, teacher-candidates can be prompted to use the above established six key teaching points as a conceptual lens or frame in guiding their exploration of the recent development of the English language. To what extent is the English language dynamic in nature? How does it vary? Why does it vary? How does English acquire the status of an international lingua franca? Their exploration should aim to professionally foster the development of a well-informed understanding of the outcomes of the global spread of the language that lead English to acquire the status of an international heterogeneous language. Hence, in order to scaffold their understanding of the pluralisation of the uses, users, and forms of English (as a result of its expansion) and provide a more solid intellectual ammunition to help contest the monolithic view of English, teacher-candidates, as suggested by Sifakis and Bayyurt (2017), should be engaged with some of the following key research areas in the field of World Englishes or English as a Lingua Franca.

Firstly, the diaspora of the English language: in addition to reading about the global expansion of English, there should also be discussions on how language contact situations ecologically contribute to the plurality of the linguistic and cultural practices even within a single community. For example, as opposed to learning about a monolithic variety of Australian English and reified forms of Australian cultures, teacher-candidates can explore the rich and complex sociolinguistic reality of English in Australia and the Englishes spoken in Australia, such as Aboriginal Englishes and other varieties of Englishes as a result of the increased human mobility across the globe e.g., migration, travel, or study-abroad.

Secondly, the emergence of different varieties of English in the world: discussion on this will include the newly emerged or emergent varieties of English in countries where English does not hold an official or administrative status and is used in conjunction with other languages. Scholarly works from the journal of World Englishes, Asian Englishes, or English Today can be prescribed either as mandatory or supplementary readings. In their engagement with the literature, teacher-candidates can be prompted to explore the ecological influence of other languages on the role of English, its uses, and its usage. Most importantly, they need to see how English and other languages co-exist and are used meaningfully and effectively by the multilingual locals. At the same time, teacher-educators can engage the candidates in critical dialogues, wherein concepts such as ‘native/non-native’, ‘Standard English’, ‘norm-providing countries’, and ‘norm-dependent countries’ are problematized.

Thirdly, moving from exploring the sociolinguistic reality of English in the above-mentioned multilingual countries, teacher-candidates should be also exposed to various samples of successful interactions between multilingual users of English. This can be done in two ways. First, as suggested by Sifakis and Bayyurt (2017), teacher-candidates should be given the opportunity to engage in authentic communicative exchanges with ‘non-native’ users. Second, there should also be an opportunity to study and analyse excerpts from available ELF corpora such as the VOICE corpus, the ELFA corpus, and the ASEAN corpus (see Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2017 for more details). Most importantly, the analysis of the interactions between multilingual users of English should be informed by key learning points from the earlier stage, paying specific attention to (1) how these users creatively draw on their communicative strategies and plurilingual repertoires to negotiate meanings and to ensure mutual intelligibility, comprehensibility, and interpretability; and (2) how they use accommodation skills and compensatory strategies to reduce the likelihood of intercultural miscommunication.

Lastly, the hegemonic spread of English: teacher-candidates should also be exposed to discourses about both positive and negative outcomes of the English language (Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2017). Although English is often chosen to be the medium of communication in various international economic and cultural arenas, ELT teachers may need to be aware and critical of the imperialistic nature and possible undesirable consequences of the language being a popular medium for global communication. In the re-envisioned EIL-oriented teacher education curriculum, there need to be critical dialogues on linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 2018), linguicism (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2015), and language commodification (Cameron, 2012). In addition to discussing these issues or getting teacher-candidates to critically explore the implicit unequal importance placed on English vis-à-vis other languages (national, regional, minority, migrant, or foreign) in their context, they can be engaged in a critical reflective inquiry into their own awareness of how their values, biases, or ideological beliefs about the English language may cloud their interpretations of prospective learners’ needs of learning the language.

As a part of the process of inspiring ELT teachers to develop respect for lingua-cultural diversity, the overall key teaching points that need to be established at this stage of a re-envisioned EIL-oriented teacher education programme are that:

  1. 1.

    English, as a result of its global spread, is no longer a unitary concept, but a heterogeneous language, reflecting complex or diverse identities, worldviews, and practices.

  2. 2.

    As a result of the emergence of World Englishes, concepts such as ‘standard’, ‘native/non-native’, and ‘norm-providing / norm-dependent’ countries are problematic and are likely to become anachronistic. This is evidenced in the successful interactions between multilingual users of English who creatively use various communicative strategies and rich linguistic repertoires to achieve their immediate communicative aims (see Matsumoto, 2011 for more details).

  3. 3.

    Though the choice of English as a tool for international communication may bring communicative conveniences, it may also bring undesirable consequences or disruptions to the local linguistic ecosystems.

5.3 The Politics of Differences

To inspire teachers to learn to develop respect for lingua-cultural diversity, teacher-education curriculum should go beyond simply getting them to read scholarly works on world Englishes, intercultural communication, and their pedagogical implications with a hope that their view and attitudes towards diversity will change. This liberal approach to the teaching of linguistic and cultural diversity (Banks & Banks, 2006) has been proven by EIL-oriented pedagogical research studies to be relatively ineffective in changing pre-/in-service teachers’ negative attitudes towards the so-called ‘non-native’ English speakers’ lingua-cultural practices (Marlina, 2019; Prabjandee, 2020). What needs to be further emphasised is that this approach may fail to “deal adequately with the politics of difference and all too often declines into a romantic and anti-intellectual celebration of individual difference” (Pennycook, 1990, p. 308). Kubota (2021) also cautioned that “the celebration of superficial diversity obscures deep-rooted inequalities of race, gender, class, sexuality and so on, as well as unequal power relations of power in society and institutions” (p. 139). Therefore, educational programmes that specialise in teaching linguistic and cultural pluralism should attempt to avoid distancing themselves from socio-political questions especially when many Englishes are still not yet socio-politically legitimate (Tupas, 2021). These kinds of arguments suggest that in terms of EIL-oriented teacher-education curriculum, political issues need to be taken into consideration or openly discussed. How are these everyday political issues different from the one about linguicism or linguistic imperialism?

In order to organise the huge complexity of issues associated with politics, Janks (2010) divides the notion of politics into two areas of exploration: Politics (with a “big P”) and politics (with a “little p”). By big-P Politics, she refers to “the big stuff, worldly concerns…[such as] government and world trade agreements and the United Nations peace-keeping forces, ethnic or religious genocide, money laundering, and linguistic imperialism” (p. 40). Little-p politics refers to the “micro-politics of everyday life…[such as] the minute-by-minute choices and decisions that make us who we are; it is about politics of identity and place such as how we treat people day-by-day” (p. 40). In relation to EIL, Matsuda (2003) and Kubota (2012) emphasise the importance of incorporating these issues in an EIL-oriented curriculum. However, these issues are mainly big-P ones. For example, Matsuda (2003) asserts that an EIL curriculum “must address the politics of the language [such as] the colonial and possibly the postcolonial presence of the language and the power inequality associated with its history” (p. 722). Echoing a similar viewpoint, Kubota (2012) also argues about the importance of raising awareness of the global expansion of English as a potential threat to the multilingualism of a nation. Though these big-P issues should remain in the curriculum, they may not necessarily be the politics that teacher-candidates may encounter in their everyday lives. As transformative intellectuals, teacher-educators should enable their teacher-candidates to “critically engage with the conditions of their lives and thereby achieve a better sense of their possibilities as human beings and members of a larger community” (Doecke & Kostogriz, 2008, p. 82). Therefore, the re-envisioned EIL-oriented teacher-education curriculum can engage teacher-candidates in unpacking the everyday politics of lingua-cultural differences in their respective contexts and in learning how to grapple with various elitist and ethnocentric discourses.

To be more specific, teacher-candidates can observe their surroundings and share critical incidents whereby people are unjustly treated on the basis of their racial backgrounds, socio-economic status, and sexuality; racial violence, assimilationist policy, accent-reduction therapy, and linguistic/racial discrimination may impact language teaching employment. Not only are these politics of differences encounterable, but also “working with the politics of the local enables us to effect small changes that make a difference in our everyday lives and those of the people around us” (Janks, 2010, p. 41). One acknowledges that simply having a dialogue about these issues is not likely to be sufficient as they may end up becoming a rather tired set of social issues. Another mechanism of challenging oppression is by making visible and audible the underlying assumptions that (re-)produce structures of domination or possibly institute any ideologies that may favour certain groups and marginalise others. Specifically, teacher-candidates can be prompted to question how those elitist/ethnocentric discourses have come to be as they are, and how discourses have structured peoples’ lives. In light of their responses to these questions, they envisage or propose versions of a more just world, or alternative possibilities for organising social life (Marlina, 2018). It is through this questioning that teacher-candidates can learn to be critical of their sociopolitical surroundings as well as their own ideological beliefs, especially the implications of those beliefs on themselves and others.

In short, the key learning points that need to be clearly established after engaging teacher-candidates in learning about the plurality of the English language are:

  1. 1.

    Language and culture are also sites of struggle whereby certain practices are intentionally or unintentionally constructed as more favourable than others. In relation to Englishes, although all varieties of English are sociolinguistically legitimate, the political legitimacies of those Englishes may not necessarily be evenly weighted. Hence, discussions on world Englishes need to be situated within one’s socio-political context.

  2. 2.

    Given the prevalence of unjust ideologies and treatments arising from those ideologies, teacher-candidates need to be aware of their roles in helping to deal with the everyday politics of differences in their own socio-political surroundings. Through a series of professional dialogues on dominant ideologies, they should learn to equip themselves with sufficient intellectual strategies to critically contest elitist discourses or ideological beliefs (including their own, if any).

6 Re-envisioned Curriculum: The Action Phase – “So What?” and “So How?”

Similar to the Sifakis and Bayyurt’s (2017) framework of EIL-oriented teacher education, the last phase of this re-envisioned teacher education curriculum is the ‘Action Phase’ (cf. Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2017) where teacher-candidates are prompted to suggest pedagogical implications of what they have learned about the pluralisation of English, to try translating these implications into classroom practice, and to critically reflect on the efficacy of their classroom practices. This phase is crucial for teacher-candidates’ ideological development as they are provided with opportunities for hands-on experiences in developing pedagogical strategies to foster understanding and respect for lingua-cultural diversity in ELT classrooms, and in developing themselves as twenty-first century language educators. As Doecke and Kostogriz (2008) remind us, “challenging ideology can never be a matter of simply persuading people to think otherwise” (p. 82). They have to experience various learning encounters and learn from those experiences. In the next section, I will discuss some assessment tasks that EIL-inspired teacher-educators may wish to use to assess their candidates’ learning in this proposed teacher-education curriculum. In particular, as the ‘Action Phase’ involves planning, implementing, and evaluating, I will describe what teacher-candidates can be engaged in doing in each stage.

6.1 The Planning Stage

In the planning stage, teacher-educators should engage teacher-candidates in developing an EIL-oriented lesson plan which they can implement in the next stage (Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2017). To plan a lesson, the teachers need to know their classroom contexts as well as that of the learners. Therefore, prior to lesson plan development, teacher-candidates should firstly be assessed on how much they know about their learners’ sociolinguistic, sociocultural, and sociopolitical contexts, and how this knowledge can be used to inform their pedagogical strategies and instructional materials. Here are some examples of assessment tasks:

  1. 1.

    Ethnographic work: teacher-candidates can be tasked to carry out ethnographic research exploring the linguistic variations found in their own respective contexts. They can observe and document the linguistic choices made by speakers in the community, how these speakers switch judiciously between codes, dialects, or languages, and most importantly in what communicative situations the switching takes place. The results of this ethnographic work are likely to provide ample information about the linguistic or communicative needs of their prospective learners, which can then be used later to design their lessons and instructional materials/activities.

  2. 2.

    A sociolinguistic sketch of (a country): after a series of discussions on the global expansion of English, teacher-candidates can choose a country in which they are likely to teach upon completion of the teacher-education programme. In a form of an oral presentation or a written report, they explain the historical spread of English in the country, the role and function of English in the country, the specific contexts in which English is used, the demographics of English language users, any instance of indigenisation of English, and any competing language ideologies as a result of the status of English in the country. This will add to the sociocultural profile of the learners that the teacher-candidates are likely to teach and to design the instructional materials for.

  3. 3.

    Reflective journal entries: Teacher-candidates can be required to submit two entries. For the first entry, teacher-candidates suggest the implications of the above ethnographic work and sociolinguistic sketch on language teaching, learning, and assessment in their own contexts. In light of the scholarly works on the pedagogy of EIL (Marlina, 2014; McKay & Brown, 2016; Matsuda, 2020) where those scholars put forward general implications of the pluralised uses, users, and forms of English on language learning, teaching, and assessment, they can be tasked in the second entry to respond to and/or critique the implications. Specifically, they will explain and justify which of the implications are (or are not) relevant as well as feasible within their context. While discussing those that are not relevant, teacher-candidates can be prompted to situate the discussions within their own socio-political contexts, addressing how the politicisation of differences hinders the implementation of the implications, and proposing (if possible, together with the teacher-educators) alternative ways of operationalising them.

  4. 4.

    Textbook evaluation: There are two versions of this task that have been suggested by EIL scholars (see details in Selvi & Yazan, 2021). For the first version, teacher-candidates choose any prescribed ELT textbooks in their contexts, and evaluate them in light of what they have learned from the above ethnographic work and the sociolinguistic sketch of the country of their choice. For the second version, teacher-candidates evaluate the prescribed textbooks in light of the diversification of the uses, users, and forms of English. Framed within the EIL paradigm, teacher-candidates critically consider the extent to which linguistic and cultural aspects of the textbooks have sufficiently equipped language learners with knowledge, skills, and attitudes for operating effectively in today’s communicative exchanges that are international and intercultural in nature. In terms of the linguistic aspect, they can analyse whether the textbook exposes learners to diverse varieties of English or prioritises certain varieties. Based on the characters in the textbook, who are portrayed as the linguistic role models? In terms of the cultural aspect, the analysis can focus on whose cultures are represented, and whether they all equally portrayed. Are learners’ cultures respectfully referred to? Are there tasks where students are engaged in learning how to use English to communicate across cultures? Are there questions that prompt learners to explore lingua-cultural norms and practices beyond the ones found in the textbooks? If not, what should teachers do especially when they have no control over what goes into the curriculum? What are the instructional questions that teachers can supplement so that they still teach the prescribed materials and, at the same time, engage students in learning to communicate across cultures and Englishes? (see Marlina, 2021). Not only will this task allow teachers to develop their own original EIL-informed instructional materials for their learners, but it will also alleviate the dearth of instructional materials that are based on a paradigm that advocates the development of respectful attitudes towards lingua-cultural diversity in ELT classrooms (Vettorel, 2021).

  5. 5.

    Field Observation 1 (ES/FL-based classroom): teacher-candidates can be tasked with observing language lessons that may be largely informed by the traditional ESL/EFL paradigm. While observing these lessons, they critically analyse whether the materials, pedagogical strategies, corrective feedback strategies, and assessment practices (a) respond to the learners’ needs (gathered from the ethnographic work and sociolinguistic sketch) and (b) prepare learners to use English effectively across cultures and Englishes. If the classroom observation analyses have revealed shortcomings, they can suggest ways to improve them. For example, if the teacher-candidates notice that the learners’ lingua-cultural knowledge is not appreciated and not treated as an invaluable source of knowledge, they should propose some pedagogically efficacious ways of leveraging learners’ linguistic and cultural capital in an ELT classroom. This proposal can be used as a stepping stone to develop an EIL-oriented lesson plan. At the time of coming up with a proposal, teacher-candidates need to think about potential resistance from various stakeholders that may prevent them from operationalising those changes. Such scenarios may need to be acknowledged, foregrounded, and critically addressed.

  6. 6.

    Field Observation 2 (TEIL-based classroom): Before developing and implementing their own EIL-informed lesson plan, teacher-candidates need to be given a model of what is considered to be an EIL-oriented ELT lesson, one that inspires learners to develop respect for lingua-cultural diversity (Marlina, 2017). If possible and available, they can observe these lessons, compare what they have observed in Field Observation 1, and analyse aspects of the lessons that are reflective of the EIL paradigm. In their observational report, they can be prompted to discuss, as I outlined elsewhere (Marlina, 2017, p. 104–105):

    • What have you learned from the lessons you have observed?

    • How does the teacher implement the principles of teaching EIL?

    • Do you believe that his or her teaching materials and pedagogical approaches have raised his/her students’ awareness of linguistic and cultural diversity, and have inspired them to appreciate this diversity? Explain.

    • Is there anything you would have done differently? If yes, what is it and why?

  7. 7.

    TEIL-lesson plan development or adaptation: In light of what they have learned from their sociolinguistic enquiry, reflective entries, textbook evaluation exercises, and field observations, teacher-candidates are required to develop an original EIL-informed ELT lesson that suits their targeted learners’ communicative needs (see an example in Marlina, 2017). Alternatively, they can critically analyse any pre-existing lesson plans, and then revise those lesson plans based on the principles of teaching EIL. Prior to implementation, there needs to be a pre-conferencing session wherein the teacher-educator and teacher-candidate discuss the overall effectiveness of the lesson plan, and the unexpected awkward/unpleasant encounters (e.g., ethnocentric speech or culturally insensitive remarks observed during an intercultural learning activity) as well as any intervention strategies in response to the encounters.

6.2 The Implementing Stage

This is the stage whereby the teacher-candidates put into practice the lesson plan that they have developed. Two assessment tasks that can be carried at this stage are:

  1. 1.

    Teaching Demonstration or Peer Teaching: before getting the teacher-candidates to implement the lesson plan in a classroom setting with language learners, teacher-educators may wish to consider getting them to try out the lesson plan or to do a ‘teaching demonstration’ on their fellow teacher-candidates first. They then make adjustment to their lesson plan upon receiving feedback from their peers after the demonstration.

  2. 2.

    Teaching practicum: this is where the teacher-candidates implement the above adjusted or revised lesson plan in a classroom setting with language learners under the teacher-educators’ supervision. During the lesson, the candidates can be prompted to constantly monitor and observe their students’ responses to the EIL-informed teaching materials, their students’ discourses of linguistic and cultural diversity, and their students’ attitudes towards their classmates from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds (if the lesson is conducted in a multicultural classroom setting).

6.3 The Evaluating and Future Goal-Setting Stage

This is the post-conferencing stage in which teacher-candidates are engaged in self-reflection (Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2017; Chen et al., forthcoming) as well as critical dialogue with the teacher-educators on the efficacy of their lessons in terms of their strengths and areas of improvement. Since lingua-cultural differences may still be socio-politically illegitimate in some contexts, teacher-educators should also engage the candidates in thinking about the potential struggles that they are likely to encounter when teaching students to appreciate lingua-cultural diversity. Therefore, the reflective dialogue can be guided by the following questions:

  • Do you believe that your lessons have successfully raised students’ awareness of linguistic and cultural diversity, and have inspired them to appreciate this diversity? If so, what did you do?

  • Did you experience any challenges in teaching intercultural communication skills, or inspiring your learners to appreciate lingua-cultural diversity? If so, what are the challenges, and why?

  • Did you encounter any unexpected awkward/unpleasant scenarios? What did the learners say/do? What do you think are the reasons underlying what they said/did? How did you respond to it? Do you think you were successful?

  • If you are to implement it again, do you think you will face similar problems, scenarios, or constraints? What strategies do you think you can employ when encountering similar problems or scenarios?

It is hoped that these critical reflective practice and critical thinking tasks can help “teachers become not only aware of current concerns in English language teaching, learning and communication, but also more autonomous practitioners and, by extension, develop themselves and their practice” (Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2017, p. 462).

7 Conclusion

In this chapter, I have attempted to propose a re-envisioned EIL-oriented teacher education curriculum in response to a paucity of teacher-education curriculum that engages prospective ELT teachers in learning how to promote intercultural understanding and respect for lingua-cultural diversity in ELT classrooms (Selvi & Yazan, 2021; Chen et.al, forthcoming). Like many other EIL/WE/ELF scholars, I have argued throughout the chapter that prospective ELT teachers need to be aware of the nature of language variation and the messy sociolinguistic reality of English as a result of its global expansion. This can be done through engagement with EIL/WE/ELF research that contests perspectives and practices informed by a monolithic view of English and a monolingual/cultural-chauvinistic approach to language teaching. However, as proven by some research studies, such engagement does not seem to be sufficient especially when there is a scholarly call for developing teacher-candidates to be autonomous ELT teachers who can continue fostering intercultural understanding and respect for lingua-cultural diversity in ELT classrooms. Therefore, in addition to familiarising themselves with current EIL theoretical assumptions, teacher-candidates need to be engaged in various experiential learning assessment tasks whereby they explore the nature of language variation and the current sociolinguistic reality of English in their choice of context. The results from this sociolinguistic exploration should be constantly used as frames of reference to inform their choice of ELT instructional materials, pedagogical strategies, lesson plan development, and lesson delivery.

Although no one can “avoid bathing in the sea of linguistic variety” (Crystal, 1999, p. 19), I and other critical applied linguists (Kubota, 2021; Tupas, 2021) have also argued that no one can avoid encountering scenarios wherein differences are politicised on the basis of race and other social variables. As revealed in Marlina (2018), these everyday micropolitics of differences and their disturbing ideologies are often the ones that cause teachers the struggle to continue advocating the EIL perspective in their own practices. Hence, these little-p issues need to be acknowledged and addressed in an EIL-oriented teacher education curriculum. While addressing these issues, teacher-candidates need to be given the opportunity to anticipate potential struggles or scenarios they may face when teaching an EIL-informed ELT lesson, and be ready to propose communicative and pedagogical strategies that can help to minimise the possibilities of those ideologies being normalised, perpetuated, or instituted. As there has been a dearth of scholarly writing on this, I would like to encourage future pedagogical research to enquire into ways to incorporate little-p issues or Unequal Englishes (Tupas, 2021) in an ELT-teacher education programme. This is so that the TESOL community can have a more solid teacher-education curriculum that not only produces twenty-first century language educators, but also ones who can help to continue advocating linguistic equality and social justice in ELT and through EIL.