JELF 2016; 5(1): 135–145

Topic & Comment

Éva Illés*
Issues in ELF-aware teacher education
DOI 10.1515/jelf-2016-0006

1 Introduction
What transpires from research is that most teachers have knowledge and
personal experience of what is happening in and to English outside their class-
rooms but their awareness and disposition towards ELF vary considerably (Illés
and Szatzker 2013; Jenkins 2007; Schekulin and Dorn 2013). Practitioners’ think-
ing is often fraught with conflicting views, uncertainties and ambiguities, which
might have different reasons and explanations. When making decisions about
targets and norms, for example, teachers may be constrained by their specific
teaching contexts, especially by ones with strong exam-orientedness (Ranta
2010). According to a study carried out in Switzerland, even when teachers
acknowledge the primacy of intelligibility over accuracy in principle, they are
reluctant to make changes in their approach to teaching English (Murray 2003).
This finding corroborates the general observation that “teachers tend to be
unsettled by innovations in the curriculum and all aspects of pedagogic change”
(Dewey 2012: 165). In addition, factors such as practitioners’ proficiency (Llurda
and Huguet 2003) and the type of institution where they work can also influence
their attitude towards ELF (Decke-Cornill 2003). Despite clear arguments as to
why this cannot be so (Seidlhofer 2011: Ch. 4), the outdated view of ELF as a new
variety of English which should be described, codified and then taught still holds
strong. In a recent study conducted in Hungary (Magnuczné Godó 2014), partici-
pating teachers perceived ELF as a variety which may replace or threaten
Standard English. Medgyes (2014: 183) seems to support a similar conception of
ELF in his action plan for teacher education where he suggests that a “grammar
of ELF” should be delineated. Overall, it seems that even though teachers of
English are aware of the major developments that have taken place in the use of
English, they are unsure about how they are to be understood, or how they are to
be related to their own teaching practice. They appear to be in a limbo where
“they have already pulled native speakers off their pedestal but are not confident

*Corresponding author: Éva Illés, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary,

E-mail: illes.eva@btk.elte.hu

Brought to you by | Universität Osnabrück

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/18/16 4:43 PM
136 Éva Illés

enough to take their place” (Illés and Csizér 2015: 181) and make decisions under
their own steam.
In the circumstances, the design and implementation of a teacher education
programme aiming to help teachers to grapple with the pedagogic implications
of ELF is a desirable and laudable undertaking. Transformative ELF-aware
teacher education, a Turkish-Greek project, is therefore a much awaited and
welcomed development which offers a framework to “appropriately inform and
sensitize ESOL […] practitioners about ELF teaching matters” (Sifakis 2007: 355).
ELF-aware teacher education within ELF-oriented language pedagogy is the
most recent in the series of many innovations that have been introduced in
English language teaching over the past decades. Approaches and methods
effecting considerable changes, such as Communicative Language Teaching
(CLT), the humanistic approach, or the teaching of culture were usually applied
unilaterally, imposed on teachers who were supposed to take the recommenda-
tions of applied linguists at face value, without subjecting them to critical
appraisal. Almost inevitably, the lack of debate and consultation with teachers
created resentment, frustration and confusion among some practitioners
(Medgyes 1986). In fact, the effect and uptake of courses run by outside experts
were sometimes only skin-deep, resulting in “lamination” (Claxton 1984) or
something even less effective, “tissue rejection” (Holliday 1992).
The transformative ELF-aware teacher education programme introduced in
Greece and Turkey is an exciting new development which provides ample food
for thought about these and other issues concerning the implementation of
change. In what follows, I will pose questions triggered by the stimulating
papers about the project (Sifakis 2007, Sifakis 2009, Sifakis 2014a, Sifakis
2014b; Sifakis and Bayyurt 2015). By querying some of the issues raised in
connection with the transformative approach, the aim is to initiate a debate to
ensure that the implementation of change in ELF-aware teacher education will
not succumb to the pitfalls earlier innovations were unable to avoid.

2 Beyond the critical approach

Studies about the transformative perspective (Sifakis 2014a, Sifakis 2014b;
Sifakis and Bayyurt 2015) refer to the critical approach as an alternative frame-
work for teacher education. In the absence of specification, my assumption is
that the perspective to which the references have been made is the approach
advocated by Widdowson (1990, Widdowson 2003), where the aim is not to
transform teachers but to make it possible for them to pursue critical inquiries
into what they think and do. By developing a sound understanding of theory

Brought to you by | Universität Osnabrück

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/18/16 4:43 PM
 Issues in ELF-aware teacher education 137

and the ability to exploit it to one’s own purposes, the intention here is not only
to enable teachers to critically appraise new ideas and proposals suggested by
policy makers, researchers and teacher educators but also to evaluate and
improve their own teaching practice, make principled choices as well as insti-
gate and manage change.
The basic tenet of the critical approach is that teaching is an intellectual
undertaking, where teachers subject the findings and proposals offered by applied
linguists to critical appraisal in order to establish their relevance to the particular
teaching contexts in which they work. Teachers are, therefore, encouraged “to
treat […] pronouncements and findings [by applied linguists] with circumspection,
enquire into them, probe them for their conceptual validity and supporting
evidence and then use them only as initial hypotheses to be tested against class-
room experience” (Widdowson 1984: 89–90). ELF-aware teacher education pro-
grammes adopting a critical approach, therefore, view the study of applied
linguistics and ELF in particular as “a way of encouraging theorizing, in which
the teachers’ own thinking would be necessarily involved” (Widdowson 2003: 13).
Transformative ELF-aware teacher education was introduced as a result of
the dissatisfaction with the critical approach which, according to the advocates
of the transformative perspective, fails to go far enough despite setting out in the
right direction (Sifakis 2014b). The step beyond the scope of the critical approach
entails, in addition to exposing teachers to ELF-related theory and research,
questioning and transforming teachers’ deep-rooted beliefs and convictions
about teaching, learning and communication (Sifakis 2014a, Sifakis 2014b;
Sifakis and Bayyurt 2015). The transformative perspective focuses on the inner
self of the teachers and intends “to change the individual” (Sifakis 2014b: 326).
In other words, the aim of the transformative approach is to engage the whole
self in confronting and transforming teachers’ established worldviews.
Given the repeated reference to the critical approach as the perspective
which has played an important role in the development of the transformative
framework, in future research it would be necessary not only to specify the
critical perspective but to subject it to close scrutiny as well. The results of such
an inquiry would make it possible to verify the claims made about the critical
approach and would also provide sound justification for transformative
ELF-aware teacher education.

3 Theoretical background
The alternative perspective of ELF aware teacher education is based on Mezirow’s
transformative learning theory (TLT) which is claimed to be the “essence of adult

Brought to you by | Universität Osnabrück

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/18/16 4:43 PM
138 Éva Illés

education” (Mezirow 1997: 11). The objective is to develop autonomous learning by

means of transforming frames of reference through critical self-reflection. Frames
of reference or meaning perspectives in Mezirow’s interpretation comprise those
fundamental assumptions which provide the filter through which we interpret our
experiences. Meaning perspectives are expectations generated by “ideologies,
learning styles, neurotic self-deceptions” which govern our judgement in relation
to what we regard as right or wrong, true or false, or acceptable or unacceptable
(Mezirow 1991: 4). Within Mezirow’s theory, these frames consist of habits of mind
and points of view, and once set, they become so deeply rooted that they remain
essentially unaltered, as opposed to meaning schemes, which are specific beliefs
and knowledge of which we are aware and therefore are more prone to change
than frames of reference (Mezirow 1991, Mezirow 1997; Sifakis 2007). It is these
frames of reference that both transformative learning and the transformative
perspective aim to alter so that they become “more inclusive, discriminating,
self-reflective, and integrative of experience” (Mezirow 1997: 5).
Since its introduction more than thirty years ago, Mezirow’s theory has
attracted considerable interest among scholars, which has resulted in an increas-
ing number of publications. Recent studies about TLT started to take stock and
assess the theory and the research that has been conducted into TLT. Taylor and
Cranton (2013), for example, claim that what was called by Mezirow a “theory in
progress” is now more of a theory at a standstill where much of the research is the
replication of earlier studies, coupled with the need for a thorough theoretical
analysis. The explanations for the stagnation include “a failure to ground research
in primary sources, an over-reliance on literature reviews of transformative learn-
ing, lack of critique of original research; marginal engagement in positivist and
critical research paradigms, and a lack of involvement in transformative learning
by European adult education scholars” (Taylor and Cranton 2013: 33).
Taylor and Cranton (2013) also argue that key notions of Mezirow’s theory,
such as inherently good transformation, empathy, experience and the desire to
change should be subjected to renewed theoretical analysis so as to be able to
have them properly defined for the purposes of TLT. The authors also suggest
that in addition to the routine retrospective interviews, researchers should
experiment with other methodologies such as action research, narrative inquiry
or “positivistic paradigms” in order to be able to offer new perspectives in the
research of TLT (Taylor and Cranton 2013: 44).
Since the criticism of TLT has reached a stage where the usefulness of the
concept of transformative learning has been called into question, it would be
important to know whether any of the misgivings about TLT have been taken
into account when deciding on what shape and form Mezirow’s theory should
take in ELF-aware teacher education.

Brought to you by | Universität Osnabrück

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/18/16 4:43 PM
 Issues in ELF-aware teacher education 139

4 The application of TLT

As the information on the website of the transformative ELF-aware teacher
education programme indicates, the project

[…] takes up a transformative perspective because we believe that notions/convictions of

native-speakerism are deeply rooted in the minds of most non native speaker teachers
operating in expanding contexts such as Turkey and Greece. We believe that Mezirow’s
TLT is ideally suited as a framework that allows teachers to (a) become aware of and
(b) critically examine these mental constructs, with an aim towards endorsing an
ELF-aware pedagogy in their day-to-day teaching practice. (http://teacherdevelopment.
boun.edu.tr/syllabus.html accessed 20 November 2015)

Mezirow’s transformative learning model has been adopted in various adult

learning contexts that “vary from peacemaking to AIDS education, and from
social justice to spiritual education” (Sifakis 2009: 347). Despite the wide range
of contexts of application, the question remains whether it is possible to
generalize and assume that because TLT has worked in adult education else-
where, it is suitable for ELF-aware teacher training in Europe as well. When
discussing the issue of transferability in reference to language teaching,
Widdowson (2003) argues against generalizing from someone else’s experi-
ence. He argues that ideas proposed to teachers should always be subjected to
critical examination and their relevance to local conditions should be estab-
lished before implementation.
The starting point for a feasibility study investigating the readiness of higher
education for transformative learning in Canada was the assumption that “trans-
formative learning is not for everyone, and neither is it applicable to all fields of
study” (Moore 2005: 83). As a consequence, it is necessary to carefully consider
both the context in which TLT is to be adopted and the possible consequences
and implications of the practical application of TLT. In the article, the author
first discusses alternative approaches and addresses issues which may emerge
as a result of the adoption of transformative learning (Moore 2005). Among
others, she queries whether both the educators and students would be able to
handle the emotional upheavals and troubling experiences transformation may
cause. Moore also raises ethical questions, some of which may pertain to
ELF-aware teacher education as well. In any case, it would be worthwhile to
consider some of the following issues raised in the article:

What are we transforming students into? Are we biased toward certain outcomes for the
transformation? […] Is it ethical for the educator to decide which of a learner’s beliefs
should be questioned or problematized? Is it ethical for an educator to present his or her
own perspective, which may influence the learner? (Moore 2005: 86–87)

Brought to you by | Universität Osnabrück

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/18/16 4:43 PM
140 Éva Illés

Moore also warns against the potential negative effects of transformative learn-
ing and argues for a critical appraisal of TLT prior to its application:

Educators need to be aware of their own goals and desires with respect to transformative
learning to ensure that it does not become brainwashing, coercion or indoctrination.
Educators are cautioned to think critically why they might choose to engage with trans-
formative models of education. (Moore 2005: 86)

It would then be necessary to provide the missing link and present the argu-
ments that have led to the seemingly unproblematic adoption of Mezirow’s
model in ELF-aware teacher training. Elaborating on the reasons for the applica-
tion of TLT could provide a fertile ground for a debate to which teachers could
and should contribute on a par with researchers. Such a discussion could also
create an opportunity to reappraise the critical approach and identify those of its
elements which have been or could be incorporated into ELF-aware teacher
education.

5 Teachers’ beliefs
In relation to ELF and its pedagogical implementation, the fundamentals that
have to be challenged by the transformative approach include teachers’ beliefs
regarding the ownership of English, normativity, the position of native and non-
native speakers, the role of Standard English, the notion of standardness and the
effects of language exams on teaching and learning as well as teachers’ attitudes
and feelings of shame and embarrassment about being non-native speakers of
English (Sifakis 2014a, Sifakis 2014b; Sifakis and Bayyurt 2015).
Studies into teachers’ beliefs (Borg 2003) highlight that the object to
undergo a radical change within ELF-aware teacher education is laden with
problems. One such problem in the literature is the conceptualisation of belief
and the distinction between knowledge and beliefs (Borg 2003; Pajares 1992).
The reason for this is that knowledge, beliefs, convictions and intuitions are
inextricably intertwined and constitute more than the sum of the components.
Beliefs, like knowledge, are “mental constructions of experience” (Sigel 1985:
351) which “are created through a process of enculturation and social construc-
tion” (Pajares 1992: 316). Features that seem to be specific to beliefs include
values and the elements of evaluation and judgement (Basturkmen et al. 2004;
Pajares 1992). Beliefs also have a strong affective component. They are resistant
to change, and the earlier beliefs are established, the less likely they are to alter
even when it would be necessary or logical, or when there is evidence to the
contrary (Pajares 1992).

Brought to you by | Universität Osnabrück

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/18/16 4:43 PM
 Issues in ELF-aware teacher education 141

In the case of teachers, some beliefs concerning teaching are created very
early, through the apprenticeship of observation (Borg 2003). This then implies
that in order to make any changes in teachers’ deep-seated beliefs, which give
them a sense of security, requires a major upheaval. Pajares claims that it is not
argument or reason but “conversion or gestalt shift” (Nestor cited in Pajares
1992: 311) that can alter belief systems. A famous example of a complete change
of faith is that of St Paul’s whose conversion to Christianity was brought about
by no ordinary means: he was blinded by a great light in which Jesus appeared
to him.
Teachers’ beliefs about education, teaching and learning have a powerful
influence on everything they do, including their objectives, the choice of meth-
odology and materials, the patterns of classroom interaction or the many online
decisions teachers have to make in a single lesson. Inevitably, beliefs also affect
teacher education or training in that “teachers interpret and respond to innova-
tions only in the ways which relate to their existing beliefs and practices”
(Kuzborska 2011: 102–103). Therefore, before practical implementation it would
be necessary for teacher education programmes intending to impact on teachers’
beliefs not only to research the notion of belief and draw on studies investigat-
ing the belief systems of teachers but also to find out what views the participants
hold about the issues to be addressed in the planned project.
Another question which needs to be addressed is whether teacher education
should engage in a psychological exercise which aims to trigger drastic changes
in teachers’ worldviews. If the answer is yes, the next question is whether
teacher educators are prepared to handle the emotions, embarrassment, dis-
comfort and other consequences of such a major change (Moore 2005) in an
individual’s psyche.
The outcomes of the Turkish-Greek project indicate that the programme has
indeed resulted in some important changes. The findings show differences in
two areas. Teachers’ self-awareness and consequently their confidence as non-
native speakers and teachers have increased, and the way teachers view and
handle errors and error correction has also changed (Sifakis and Bayyurt 2015).
However, in the absence of a clear definition of what constitutes a deep-rooted
belief, it is difficult to establish whether these results can be viewed as the
successful transformation of the participating teachers’ convictions. In other
words, does raising confidence and self-awareness count as a major reorienta-
tion of teachers’ deep-rooted beliefs?
A study into the impact of an intensive in-service teacher education pro-
gramme on language teachers’ beliefs (Borg 2011) demonstrates that the assess-
ment of impact may depend on how change is conceptualised by the researcher.
For example, teachers’ beliefs can be extended and confirmed, new beliefs can

Brought to you by | Universität Osnabrück

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/18/16 4:43 PM
142 Éva Illés

be added or awareness and verbalisation of beliefs can be developed or

increased. Although such changes occurred as a result of the intensive teacher
education programme, the conclusion was that if impact was to be interpreted as
a radical transformation of beliefs, the course did not exert a significant effect.
It therefore seems that in order to be able to set the goal of a transformative
programme and to assess its impact, key notions such as belief and conviction
have to be defined clearly. As the recommendations of the article (Borg 2011)
indicate, the impact of a course or project can be influenced by the way
participating teachers are engaged. This then implies that if the goal is to
exert a major change, a locally appropriate methodology of engagement would
facilitate the achievement of this aim.
With regard to the findings relating to the participants’ changed perception
of error and error correction, it should be noted that Communicative Language
Teaching, too, aimed to alter the rigid view of learner errors of previous methods
and approaches: “Errors are tolerated and seen as a natural outcome of the
development of communication skills” (Larsen-Freeman 2000: 127). This, how-
ever, is not the only similarity that the transformative perspective shares with
CLT. Some of the features suggested as components of ELF-aware lessons
(Sifakis 2014a) have been part of the Communicative Language Teaching arsenal
as well. The primacy of speaking and fluency has been promoted by CLT,
together with role-play (Richards and Rodgers 1986).

6 Conclusion
I have been arguing that the introduction of an innovation requires more than
the straightforward application of a theory, and should be preceded and fol-
lowed by extensive and thorough research as well as the posing of relevant
questions. This should include not only drawing on past experiences but also
the critical appraisal of the particular theoretical framework and the examina-
tion of the local context in which the theory is to be adopted and, if necessary,
adapted. It is also important that all parties concerned should be involved in a
constructive debate before making decisions about change.
With ELF gaining ground, it would be necessary to avoid missionary zeal with
which previous innovations, such as the communicative approach or the teaching
of culture, were introduced and imposed on the English language teaching
profession. ELF should not become the next bandwagon offering the magic
formula for teachers. It, rather, should be a springboard for stimulating thought
and generating discussion. And as in all sharing of ideas and debate, there must
be dissenting voices which should not be silenced, especially if they come from

Brought to you by | Universität Osnabrück

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/18/16 4:43 PM
 Issues in ELF-aware teacher education 143

concerned practitioners. Doubts and criticism expressed by teachers can contri-

bute to a fruitful and necessary dialogue between teachers and researchers which
can have long-term effects on teachers and their teaching of English.

Too often in the past the emphasis has in contrast been on critique of existing practice and
on the merits of proposed research-based changes. […] The consequence has frequently
been that the innovators have appeared to win the argument but that teachers then either
successfully resist the innovation or, if obliged to implement it, do so in ways that divest it
of many if not all of the benefits it might have. When, on the other hand, research-based
proposals are accepted on the basis of honest dialogue, the proposals are not only likely to
be implemented thoughtfully in practice but are also likely to lead to genuine improvement
in teaching, because they will have been accepted as offering appropriate solutions to
professionally recognised problems and as providing real opportunities for improvement.
(McIntyre 2005: 366)

It is hoped that this paper is a small step in the latter direction.

References
Basturkmen, Helen, Shawn Loewen & Rod Ellis. 2004. Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental
focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics 25(2). 243–272.
Borg, Simon. 2003. Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what
language teachers think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching 36. 81–109.
Borg, Simon. 2011. The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs.
System 39. 370–380.
Claxton, Guy. 1984. Live and learn. London: Cassell Education Ltd.
Decke-Cornill, Helene. 2003. ‘We would have to invent the language we are supposed to teach’:
The issue of English as lingua franca in language education in Germany. In Michael Byram
& Peter Grundy (eds.), Context and culture in language teaching and learning, 59–71.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Dewey, Martin. 2012. Towards a post-normative approach: Learning the pedagogy of ELF.
Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(1). 141–170.
Holliday, Adrien. 1992. Tissue rejection and informal orders in ELT projects: Collecting the right
information. Applied Linguistics 13(4). 404–424.
Illés, Éva & Kata Csizér. 2015. Hungarian teachers of English and the international use of the
English language. In Dorottya Holló & Krisztina Károly (eds.), Inspirations in foreign
language teaching: Studies in applied linguistics, language pedagogy and language
teaching, 170–183. Boston & London: Pearson Education Limited.
Illés, Éva & Orsolya Szatzker. 2013. Dualities in teacher cognition: ELF awareness of prospective
teachers. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference of English as a Lingua
Franca, Roma Tre University, 4–7 September.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2007. English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Brought to you by | Universität Osnabrück

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/18/16 4:43 PM
144 Éva Illés

Kuzborska, Irena. 2011. Links between teachers’ beliefs and practices and research on reading.
Reading in a Foreign Language 23(1). 102–128.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2000. Techniques and principles in language teaching, 2nd edn.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Llurda, Enric & Àngel Huguet. 2003. Self-awareness in NNS EFL primary and secondary school
teachers. Language Awareness 12(3–4). 220–233.
Magnuczné Godó, Ágnes. 2014. Lehet-e az angol mint lingua franca pedagógiai alternatíva?
Tanári vélemények itthon és külföldön. [Can English as a lingua franca offer a pedagogical
alternative? Teacher opinions in Hungary and abroad.] Modern Nyelvoktatás 20(4). 3–18.
McIntyre, Donald. 2005. Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge Journal of
Education 35(3). 357–382.
Medgyes, Péter. 1986. Queries from a communicative teacher. ELT Journal 40(2). 107–112.
Medgyes, Péter. 2014. The native/non-native conundrum revisited. In József Horváth & Péter
Medgyes (eds.), Studies in honour of Marianne Nikolov, 176–185. Pécs: Lingua Franca
Csoport.
Mezirow, Jack. 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, Jack. 1997. Transformative learning: Theory and practice. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education 74. 2–12.
Moore, Janet. 2005. Is higher education ready for transformative learning? A question explored
in the study of sustainability. Journal of Transformative Education 3(1). 76–91.
Murray, Heather. 2003. Swiss English teachers and Euro-English: Attitudes to a non-native
variety. Bulletin VALS-ASLA (Vereinigung für angewandte Linguistik in der Schweiz) 77.
147–165.
Pajares, Frank M. 1992. Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research 62(3). 307–332.
Ranta, Elina. 2010. English in the real world vs. English at school: Finnish English teachers’ and
students’ views. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 20(2). 156–177.
Richards, Jack C. & Theodore S. Rodgers. 1986. Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schekulin, Claudio & Nora Dorn. 2013. Teachers as multipliers: Raising awareness for ELF in
teacher training. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference of English as a
Lingua Franca, Roma Tre University, 4–7 September.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sigel, Irving E. 1985. A conceptual analysis of beliefs. In Irving E. Sigel (ed.), Parental belief
systems: The psychological consequesnces for children, 345–371. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sifakis, Nicos. 2007. The education of teachers of English as a lingua franca: A transformative
perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17(3). 355–375.
Sifakis, Nicos. 2009. Teacher education in the post-modern era: introducing a transformative
dimension in the teaching of English as a lingua franca. Selected papers from the 18th
ISTAL. 345–353.
Sifakis, Nicos. 2014a. Towards a transformative ELF-aware education: Challenges and oppor-
tunities for teaching, learning and teacher education. Paper presented at the Seventh
International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca, The American College of Greece,
4–6 September.
Sifakis, Nicos. 2014b. ELF awareness as an opportunity for change: A transformative perspec-
tive for ESOL teacher education. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(2). 317–335.

Brought to you by | Universität Osnabrück

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/18/16 4:43 PM
 Issues in ELF-aware teacher education 145

Sifakis, Nicos & Yasemin Bayyurt. 2015. Educating the ELF-aware teacher: Insight from a teacher
training project. World Englishes 34(3). 471–484.
Taylor, Edward W. & Patricia Cranton. 2013. A theory in progress? Issues in transformative
learning theory. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults
4(1). 33–47.
Widdowson, Henry G. 1984. The incentive value of theory in teacher education. ELT Journal
38(2). 86–90.
Widdowson, Henry G. 1990. Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, Henry G. 2003. Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Bionote
Éva Illés

Éva Illés teaches in the Department of English Applied Linguistics at Eötvös Loránd University,
Budapest. She holds a PhD in ESOL from the Institute of Education, University of London. She
has a wide range of experience including teaching English in Britain and Hungary. Her current
research areas are pragmatics, translation, English as a lingua franca, World Englishes and
teacher education.

Brought to you by | Universität Osnabrück

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/18/16 4:43 PM