World Englishes, 2015 0883-2919

doi: 10.1111/weng.12149

Incorporating world Englishes into undergraduate ESL education courses

BURCU ATES,∗ ZOHREH R. ESLAMI,∗∗ AND KATHERINE LANDAU WRIGHT†

ABSTRACT: English has become the language of global communication and users around the globe
are adapting it to meet their needs. It is essential for teachers to keep pace with the changing expectation
of its users to be able to prepare students for the realities they encounter in today’s globalized world. The
purpose of our study was to incorporate world Englishes perspectives into required undergraduate ESL
education courses in a teacher education program that prepares PreK-6 generalist and grades 4–8 content
area teachers in the southwestern United States. Qualitative and quantitative research findings revealed
that preservice teachers vastly benefited from exposure to world Englishes perspectives. The study has
pedagogical implications for teacher education programs.

INTRODUCTION
English is the language of globalization, is spoken by millions as a first language, and a
billion more as an additional language. According to Qiong (2004), by 2050 approximately
half the world will be proficient in English. Because of the large number of people speaking
English, more varieties of the language are emerging. World Englishes (henceforth WE) is
used to describe such varieties, where the plural form ‘Englishes’ emphasizes the diversity
found in the language and stresses that ‘English no longer has one single base of authority,
prestige, and normativity’ (Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 3). As described by Seargeant (2012:
1), the English language needs to be viewed ‘not as a single, monolithic entity, but as
something that has multiple varieties and forms.’
In the literature WE is mostly used to refer to the ‘institutionalized second-language
varieties of English spoken around the world’ (Wolf & Polzenhagen 2009: 2). Kachru
(1985) conceived the idea of three concentric circles of influence where the English
language is used. The Inner Circle includes traditional native speaker locations (e.g. UK,
USA, and Canada) where English is the primary language of the population; the Outer
Circle refers to places where institutionalized English had a historical significance and
is used in some or all of the country’s institutions as a medium of instruction rather
than as a subject to be studied (e.g. India, Singapore, and Nigeria); and the Expanding
Circle includes countries where English is widely studied as a foreign language (e.g.
Japan, China, and South Korea). However, due to recent developments in the spread of
English language, Jenkins (2009) and other scholars (e.g. Bruthiaux 2003; Crystal 2003)
problematize Kachru’s description of English users, stating that it no longer reflects the
realities of English as it is being used in the world. Kubota and Ward (2000) define WE

∗ Sam Houston State University, 2119 LLSP, Huntsville, TX, 77341, USA. E-mail: bxa013@shsu.edu
∗∗ Texas A&M University, 4232 TAMU, College Station, TX, 77843, USA. E-mail: zeslami@tamu.edu
† Texas A&M University, 4232 TAMU, College Station, TX, 77843, USA. E-mail: kel.wright@tamu.edu


C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
486 Burcu Ates, Zohreh R. Eslami, and Katherine Landau Wright

in terms of the linguistic diversity of English users around the world, both within Inner
Circle countries and internationally. According to Kachru and Nelson (2006: 2), the term
WE is ‘inclusive and does not associate any privilege with English in any one circle or in
any one of its specific varieties.’ These authors further discuss not the language but the
variety of English people speak. In this paper we regard WE beyond the general description
of post-colonial and institutionalized varieties of English and define the concept as the
linguistic diversity of English users both within Inner Circle countries and internationally
(Kubota & Ward 2000).
The WE paradigm recognizes the hybrid nature of English and its ability to allow el-
ements of the local culture to be incorporated into its linguistic system (Graddol 1997;
Canagarajah 2006). Kubota (2012) also notes that the WE paradigm challenges the ho-
mogenous entity and offers a heterogeneous viewpoint. It challenges mainstream American
and British linguistic norms and standards. Matsuda (2008) discusses pedagogical implica-
tions of the global spread of English from the viewpoints of English language teachers and
researchers, questioning whether it is appropriate to continue using American and British
standards as the instructional model in language classrooms when there are multiple stan-
dardized varieties of English. She further notes that the implications of WE perspectives
are relatively unexplored in teacher education and that there is a need to examine how WE
perspectives can be incorporated into teacher educator programs both within and outside
the United States. Teacher education programs must inform teachers of the current use and
status of English. As stated by Matsuda (2008), if we wish to empower English language
learners (ELLs) and help them overcome the native-speaker bias, we need to ensure that
teachers who work directly with them are respectful and accepting of the linguistic and
functional diversity that exists in English today.
Previous studies of WE and teacher education have either focused on English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) contexts (e.g. Kay 2006; Matsuda 2009) or on English as a Second
Language (ESL) teacher education programs (e.g. Brown 2005). However, migration has
led to dramatic demographic changes in student populations in countries such as the US.
The changes in demographics require teacher preparation programs to prepare all teachers
to affirm linguistic and cultural diversity in their professional practice. Increasingly in
general education settings, mainstream teachers, not ESL teachers, are responsible for
teaching ELLs. Yet these teachers often cannot communicate with or effectively instruct
culturally and linguistically diverse students (Doorn & Schumm 2013). Therefore, the
present study focuses on preservice teachers who were enrolled in a teacher training
program that prepares PreK-6 generalist and grades 4–8 content area teachers at a university
in the US. It is imperative for preservice teachers who are from Inner Circle countries to
be aware of the WE paradigm so they can better understand and be prepared to meet
the needs of English language learners in their future classrooms. Future teachers need
to have the knowledge and competency to discourage monolithic native speaker norms
and de-stigmatize ELLs’ language in the classroom context. We believe incorporating WE
perspectives into teacher education programs supports these goals.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Globalization and migration have impacted the growing presence of English language
learners in US schools. According to the US Census Bureau (2010), by the year 2023,
50% of the public school student population will consist of ethnic, racial, and linguistic

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Incorporating world Englishes into undergraduate ESL education courses 487

minority students. The changes in demographics have brought new linguistic realities
into US classrooms. However, according to the National Center for Education Information
(NCEI), the teaching force remains predominantly homogenous; teachers are white, female,
and monolingual (Feistritzer 2011).
The need to prepare mainstream teachers to work with linguistically and culturally
diverse students is well documented by researchers (Fitts & Gross 2012). Some of the
recommendations for preservice teachers include ‘study a second language; develop
knowledge of language learning and linguistics; understand the socio-political aspects of
language use’ (Fitts & Gross 2012: 76). In an effort to increase awareness toward ELLs and
the issues they face, many US states require preservice teachers to take Teaching English
as a Second Language (TESL) related courses and strongly encourage teachers to acquire
state ESL endorsement. However, as submitted by Dogancay-Aktuna and Hardman (2008),
these courses may make narrow assumptions regarding the cultural and linguistic context
of teaching and use ESL-centric models of teaching. Despite the increasing attention
given to teaching WE in applied linguistics and the creation of curricula that take into
account the linguistic and sociocultural complexity of English today (e.g. Burns 2005),
there is a relative lack of research on how WE are dealt with in general teacher preparation
programs (Matsuda 2009). For example, in her 2009 study, Matsuda explored how the
perspectives of WE and English as an International Language (EIL) are incorporated into
teacher preparation programs that prepare teachers of EIL in Japan. In addition, Sharifian
and Marlina (2012) discussed how an Australian EIL department incorporated the EIL
and WE paradigm into the undergraduate and graduate courses. Similarly, Brown (2005)
discussed incorporating a WE course into an MA TESOL degree plan. However, there is a
dearth of research-based publications on incorporating WE perspectives into mainstream
preservice teacher training in the US. Although the studies cited above are all important gap
in enhancing our awareness about WE in teaching and in teacher education programs,
and they provide critical implications for EIL teaching and teacher preparation, it is not
clear what needs to be done in mainstream teacher education programs in Inner Circle
countries where English is the dominant language.
In 2001, Kubota published a paper in World Englishes on her study at a public high
school in North Carolina. The aim of the pilot project was to raise ‘high-school students’
awareness of issues on WE and assisting them in exploring ways to better communicate with fill the
gap
WE speakers’ (Kubota 2001: 59). Kubota asserted the necessity of affirming linguistic
diversity at all educational levels and creating a pedagogical environment conducive to
developing critical consciousness of the global spread of English. Her paper concluded
with a call to expand the research to larger groups and work towards educating native
speakers about WE.
This present study was conducted to fill the gap in current literature and examine the
effect of incorporating a WE perspective into a mainstream preservice teacher education gap
program in the US. Kubota’s (2001) study with high school students in US provided insights present
for the present study. Through carefully planned coursework and classroom activities, we study
examined the effects of our intervention on preservice teachers’ perceptions and attitudes
toward WE and diverse English users. The study was guided by the following research
questions:

1. Do the perceptions of preservice teachers change after instructional activities aimed at

raising awareness of world Englishes speakers?

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
488 Burcu Ates, Zohreh R. Eslami, and Katherine Landau Wright

2. What are the perceptions of preservice teachers on the effectiveness of instructional

activities aimed at raising awareness of world Englishes speakers?

METHODS
A mixed methods design was used to investigate the effect of an intervention focused on
raising preservice teachers’ awareness about WE. The pre- and post-intervention ques-
tionnaire data mean scores were compared using t-tests to estimate the effectiveness of the
intervention. The open-ended questions from the post-questionnaire were analyzed using
content analysis in order to identify emerging themes.

Context
A large land-grant university in the southwestern US was selected as the site for this study.
According to fall 2011 demographics published in the university’s statistical fact book,
65.8% of students enrolled were White, 15.2% were Hispanic, 4.5% were Asian, 3.4% were
Black, 8.6% were international, and the other 2.5% were from other races or ethnicities.

Participants
This study’s participants were preservice teachers seeking a Bachelor of Science degree
in Interdisciplinary Studies enrolled in the College of Education. The teacher credential
program requires all preservice teachers to take multicultural education and TESL-related
courses as part of the teacher education curriculum. We selected the 15-week, semester-
long ESL methodology course in which to conduct our study. Our study involved a total
of 215 preservice teachers from five ESL methodology courses in spring 2011.

Activities
The activities consisted of four in-class sessions and two online sessions. All five ESL
methodology section instructors volunteered to be part of the study and included the WE
activities in their syllabus. On the first day of the course, the researcher who would be in
the classrooms all semester visited each section to introduce herself, talk about the project,
and share the link where students can fill out the pre-study questionnaire before the end of
the first week of school. The researcher specifically stated it was voluntary to complete the
pre- and post-study questionnaires. Activities were taught and implemented every other
week throughout the semester. In order to maintain consistency across the course sections,
only one researcher implemented the activities.
The students were not given any course credit as incentive to fill out the questionnaire;
however, points were allocated to each study-related activity. The points were earned based
on their classroom attendance rather than the amount of participation or involvement in
the activity. Although they knew the purpose of the study, we believe they did not know
how we were examining change. In the first in-class activity, called Introduction to world
Englishes, the researcher presented the audio from two YouTube videos by speakers of WE
(one of European descent who was French/German and the other of East Asian descent
who was Chinese/Vietnamese). After listening to the audio, the preservice teachers were
asked to complete a ‘Speech Sample Questionnaire’ (Kubota 2001). Indian English, the

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Incorporating world Englishes into undergraduate ESL education courses 489

second activity, began by showing the preservice teachers samples of Indian English from
YouTube. Following the videos, the researcher gave a PowerPoint presentation about the
history of Indian English to the students. Next, clips from the TV series Outsourced
were shared. The researcher then led a short discussion with the class, asking, ‘What is
outsourcing?’ ‘Why is it used?’ and ‘To which countries are jobs outsourced the most?
Why?’ After the discussion the researcher discussed the dichotomy between native and
non-native English speakers and issues related to the marginalization of non-native English
speakers due to their cultural and linguistic diversity, the ownership of English, and the three
concentric circles (Inner, Outer, Expanding) of English language users (Kachru 1985) and
asked preservice teachers’ about their existing knowledge of English as an international
language and WE.
For the third activity, Guest Speakers, twelve international graduate students who were
enrolled in the graduate ESL Education program were invited to the classroom. The
objective of this activity was to introduce some of the social and cultural issues related to
English and its use in other countries where a variety of WE exists. Each graduate student
gave a short introduction about him/herself, the status of English in his or her country,
and the varieties of English in that country. Preservice teachers were divided into groups,
and each graduate student functioned as a discussion leader. The preservice teachers
asked questions, replied to prompts by the leaders, and expressed their opinions related
to the group’s discussion. The objective of the fourth activity, Miscommunications, was to
observe miscommunications between interlocutors using different varieties of English and
how these miscommunications could be dealt with by the speakers. Audio from YouTube
clips exemplifying miscommunication between native and non-native English speakers
(NES and NNES) was shared. One of the videos was an actual audio-recording of a NNES
Chinese pilot trying to communicate with a NES air traffic controller. In the example,
the miscommunication between the pilot and the air traffic controller almost caused an
accident.
Activity 5, Animated Characters, was completed online using the discussion board
on the Blackboard website. In this activity the preservice teachers were asked to choose
a character from a Disney movie (or any animated film) who speaks with an accent.
They were asked to identify the character, the movie, the accent, and discuss in one
paragraph (300–500 words) why they think this accent was chosen for that character.
We asked, ‘In your opinion; is it to serve a particular function? Is it because of popular
stereotypes of that variety of English?’ We provided examples of animated films to guide
this activity. The sixth and final activity, American Tongues, was also completed online
using the Blackboard discussion board. American Tongues (1988) is an award-winning
documentary that provides insight into American dialects and accents. The objectives of
this activity were: (1) to become aware of English varieties in America; (2) to examine
one’s own perceptions about the different English varieties in America; and (3) to reflect on
one’s own experiences interacting with speakers of different English varieties in America
(Kubota 2001: 51). A series of guiding questions was used for students’ online reflections
and discussions. The activities used in this study can be classified into two main types:
activities aimed at raising students’ awareness (activities 1, 2, 4, 5, 6) and an activity which
offers opportunity for interaction with WE speakers (activity 3). Activities aimed at raising
awareness were further divided into awareness about Expanding Circle varieties (activity 1),
Outer Circle varieties (activity 2), Inner Circle varieties (activity 6), and combination of


C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
490 Burcu Ates, Zohreh R. Eslami, and Katherine Landau Wright

varieties from Expanding and Outer Circles (activities 4 and 5). We wanted the first two
activities to be awareness raising activities, the next one to be interactive with actual WE
speakers. Activities such as Miscommunications and Animated Characters which require
critical reflection and application were sequenced specifically after the awareness raising
activities.

Data collection
Before the WE study began, preservice teachers enrolled in the ESL methodology courses
were given an online pre-study questionnaire. The questionnaire contained 31 items making
up four categories: ‘Beliefs about language learnings’ (5 items); ‘Perceptions of linguistic
diversity and English varieties’ (12 items); ‘Desire for communication’ (5 items); and
‘As a teacher . . . ’ (9 items). Twenty items were adopted from Kubota’s (2001) survey
(provided by the author). The remaining questions elicited teachers’ opinions, attitudes,
and knowledge about varieties of English. A Likert scale was used, and the choices ranged
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In order to avoid a response set, some
questions were worded negatively and reverse keyed in the analysis. The survey was then
checked by three researchers in ESL education familiar with the WE perspective and the
instructors of the relevant courses for face validity and relevance. Following that, the survey
was piloted with a small group of preservice teachers, and feedback was received as far as
the clarity of the questions and the amount of time needed to complete the survey. Based
on the received comments, minor wording changes for clarity were implemented.
During the last week of the semester, when all activities had been completed, the students
were given an online post-study questionnaire. The students were asked the same questions
posited in the pre-study questionnaire, though the post-questionnaire included an additional
six open-ended questions:
1. Please rate the research activities conducted in class in terms of effectiveness and
influence in introducing world Englishes to you on a scale from 1 to 4.
2. Now, if you wanted to choose the most effective classroom activity which developed
your awareness of world Englishes, which one would it be? Please explain why you think
that activity was effective.
3. Did the fact that the instructor conducting the activities spoke a different variety of
English influence the way you perceive world Englishes?
4. Briefly explain how these activities may influence the way you teach in the future or the
way you would deal with students who speak different varieties of world Englishes.
5. Please write any comments, concerns, or suggestions for future studies in world Englishes
with preservice teachers. Think about what you would change in order to improve the
effectiveness of these activities.
6. Suggestions for any other activity that you think might be effective?

Quantitative data analysis

The pre- and post-study questionnaire results were tabulated, and when necessary, the
data was reverse coded so that a higher mean would indicate a stronger understanding
of the intended concept. For example, if a student selected 5 (‘strongly agree’) as his/her
response to the question ‘All immigrants to the United States can develop native-like


C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Incorporating world Englishes into undergraduate ESL education courses 491

English skills after about one year if they try hard to learn,’ the student’s response would
indicate a poor understanding of the concepts related to WE. Therefore, the data for this
and other items were reversed so higher means always reflect a more preferable response,
and data can be compared across items. The means were then compared using a t-test to
derive statistical and practical significance statistics for each item. Cronbach’s reliability
coefficients were estimated for each subsection of the pre- and post-questionnaire as well
as for each subsection ignoring pre- and post- group membership. Additionally, t-tests
were performed to compare pre- and post-questionnaire means. Finally, r effect sizes were
calculated. As this intervention aimed at changing long-held student perceptions, ‘strong’
effect sizes were not expected. However, calculating effect sizes allowed the researchers
to see in what areas the intervention had the strongest impact. The post-questionnaires
underwent additional analyses to evaluate the follow-up questions. Students were asked to
rate each of the activities on a Likert scale of 1 to 4, with 1 indicating that an activity was
not very effective or a waste of time and 4 indicating that it was a very effective activity and
a good use of class time. Data from students who evaluated at least 80% of the activities
were included, and descriptive statistics were calculated. Additionally, an average effective
score was calculated for each student, and these scores were compiled to estimate overall
activity effectiveness.

Qualitative data analysis

The qualitative data from post-questionnaire open-ended questions was analyzed using
content analysis. The researchers identified the frequent comments given related to a topic
area in response to open-ended questions and examined the emerging patterns. The results
of this analysis are reported and comparison of views expressed by participants before and
after being exposed to WE concepts and activities are made.

FINDINGS
Changes in perceptions
The first research question, (‘Do the perceptions of preservice teachers change after
instructional activities aimed at raising awareness of world Englishes speakers?’) was
addressed by analyzing the results of the pre- and post-questionnaires. We first searched
for missing data. Any participant who answered at least 80% of the questions in each
subsection (i.e. ‘Beliefs about language learnings,’ ‘Perceptions of linguistic diversity
and English varieties,’ Desire for communication,’ and ‘As a teacher . . . ’) was included,
and the respondent’s mean for each subsection was used to complete any missing data.
While mean substitution is a viable solution for missing data, this method can skew results
(Thompson 2006). Therefore, participants who answered less than 80% of the questions
from each subsection were removed from the sample. In total, over 99.5% of the original
data was present.
Cronbach’s alpha was estimated for each of the subsections for the pre- and post-
questionnaires. These results are displayed in Table 1. Most subsections’ scores had relia-
bility estimates ranging from 0.523 to 0.731. A reliability estimate for the ‘Perceptions of
linguistic diversity and English varieties’ subsection was not calculated, as these questions
measured multiple constructs. As reliability is a measure of the correlation between scores,
it is necessary that the scores be unidimensional, (i.e. measuring only one construct), so

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
492 Burcu Ates, Zohreh R. Eslami, and Katherine Landau Wright

Table 1. Reliability coefficients by subsection

Beliefs about
language learning Desire for communication As a teacher . . .

Cronbach’s N of Cronbach’s Cronbach’s N of

alpha items alpha N of items alpha items

Pre-questionnaire 0.597 5 0.523 5 0.705 9

Post-questionnaire 0.678 5 0.558 5 0.731 9
Overall 0.644 5 0.539 5 0.717 9

that it may be assumed a participant’s scores across one section will be similar (Grayson
2004). The reliability estimates for the sub-constructs were acceptable, allowing for further
statistical analysis.
A t-test was run to compare the means of each of the 31 items. From those t-tests, r effect
sizes were calculated. As the aim of this study was to affect long-held personal beliefs,
large effect sizes were not expected. While many researchers use effect-size benchmarks
established by Cohen (1988), even Cohen intended these to be guidelines rather than rules.
Small effect sizes on important concepts are worthy of notice and should not be disregarded
simply because they do not meet subjective standards (Thompson 2006). The items with
statistically significant p values (p < 0.05) and effect sizes of at least 0.10 are displayed in
Table 2.
Ten items’ means had statistically significant changes from the pre-questionnaire to the
post-questionnaire. The items with the greatest shifts (r > 0.2) included ‘All immigrants
to the United States can develop native-like English skills after about one year if they try
hard to learn,’ indicating that students gained a greater understanding of the challenges
facing English Language Learners. The statement ‘I think world Englishes (varieties of
English that exist around the world) is worth considering and maybe introducing to my
students’ also had a strong shift. The item with the greatest effect size (r = 0.282) was the
statement ‘English belongs to everyone who speaks it.’ The change evident on these items
is noteworthy as it shows more acceptance and understanding of diverse Englishes being
used by English language learners and the challenges they face in schools.

Effectiveness of activities
During the post-questionnaire, students were asked to score the class activities for their
effectiveness at introducing world Englishes and enhancing their awareness about the
linguistic and functional diversity of English. The students scored the activities on a scale
of one (not effective) to four (very effective). These results are summarized in Table 3.
All six activities received relatively similar high scores (ranging from 3.17 to 3.41),
with an overall average effectiveness rating of 3.27. However, the activities that ranked the
highest were Guest Speakers (3.27), Miscommunications (3.37), and American Tongues
(3.41). To support the participants’ effectiveness scores, we turned back to the pre- and post-
questionnaires to see if items related to these activities showed statistically and practically
significant growth. These results are demonstrated in Table 4.
To provide support for the students’ perceptions of the effective activities, we identified
pre- and post-questionnaire items that we would expect to see a change in based on the

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Incorporating world Englishes into undergraduate ESL education courses 493

Table 2. Items with statistically and practically significant mean changes

Subsection - Beliefs about language learning

Pre-questionnaire Post-questionnaire

Items N Mean Std. deviation N Mean Std. Deviation r

All immigrants to the 154 3.240 1.010 188 3.670 1.047 0.205
United States can
develop native-like
English skills after
about one year if they
try hard to learn.
It is easy for ELLs . . . to 154 3.864 0.840 188 4.032 0.766 0.104
change their English
accent if they want to.
Subsection - Perceptions of linguistic diversity and English varieties

World Englishes . . . are 154 3.591 0.853 188 3.926 0.811 0.192
legitimate varieties of
English and should be
valued the same as
American English.
Learning a foreign 154 2.156 0.901 188 2.372 0.907 0.119
language is important
for American people.
The global spread of 154 2.175 0.658 188 2.010 0.686 0.123
English is a good thing.
English belongs to 154 3.779 0.754 188 4.224 0.761 0.282
everyone who speaks it.
To me, some accents are 154 1.922 0.805 188 1.766 0.612 0.110
more attractive than
others.
Subsection – As a Teacher . . .

I think world 154 3.740 0.675 188 4.016 0.666 0.205

Englishes . . . is worth
considering and maybe
introducing to my
students.
We should only teach 154 3.325 0.914 188 3.058 1.025 0.135
American English in
our schools.
Only native speakers of 154 3.481 0.857 188 3.229 1.140 0.126
English should teach
English classes.
Note: All items had p-calculated values < 0.05.


C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
494 Burcu Ates, Zohreh R. Eslami, and Katherine Landau Wright

Table 3. Students’ perceptions of effectiveness of classroom activities

Activity N Mean Std. deviation

Activity 1: Introduction to WE: European variety and Asian variety 187 3.21 0.565
Activity 2: Indian English 186 3.22 0.606
Activity 3: Guest Speakers: Graduate Students 186 3.27 0.722
Activity 4: Miscommunications 184 3.37 0.568
Online Activity 1: Animated Characters 187 3.17 0.754
Online Activity 2: American Tongues 188 3.41 0.652
Average effectiveness 188 3.27 0.455
Note: While students had to score at least 5 activities for their data to be included, not all students scored all activities.

Table 4. Items corresponding to student-perceived effective activities

Guest Speaker

Pre-questionnaire Post-questionnaire

Related Items N Mean Std. deviation N Mean Std. Deviation p-calculated r

All immigrants to the 154 3.240 1.010 188 3.670 1.047 < 0.001 0.205
United States can develop
native-like English skills
after about one year if
they try hard to learn.
It is easy for ELLs . . . to 154 3.864 0.840 188 4.032 0.766 0.054 0.104
change their English
accent if they want to.
I would make friends with 154 4.305 0.619 188 4.394 0.561 0.167 0.075
people who use varieties
of English . . . that are
different from mine.
Miscommunications
I would date a person who 154 3.870 0.853 188 4.011 0.814 0.121 0.084
uses a different variety of
English from mine.
The responsibility of 154 4.026 0.749 188 4.165 0.738 0.086 0.093
facilitating
communication and
making an effort to
understand each other
falls on both the native
speakers and the
non-native speakers of
English.

students’ reported favorite activities. None of the questionnaire items directly addressed
the American Tongues activity (the most favorite activity as reported by the participants).
However, three items related to Guest Speakers and two items related to Miscommu-
nications had p-calculated values less than 0.2. These items and their effect sizes are

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Incorporating world Englishes into undergraduate ESL education courses 495

presented in Table 4. While these items did not produce effect sizes that would tradi-
tionally be identified as large, changing long-held perceptions takes time and substantial
credible counter-evidence (Chinn & Brewer 1993). Therefore, these modest effect sizes
were considered noteworthy.
As shown in Table 3, preservice teachers found the American Tongues activity to be
the most effective. This belief was echoed in the answers of open-ended questions as well.
Among 129 remarks, the majority of the participants commented on this activity. Their
responses revealed that many preservice teachers were not familiar with the diversity
of American English, including the variety of accents and dialects that existed in their
language. For example, one preservice teacher who believed American Tongues was the
most effective activity stated:

I think that if one of the activities was really going to hit home the point of accepting different varieties on
American English, this would be the activity to do so. Even if somebody stereotypes those from different
countries that try to speak English, by seeing that somebody may speak differently even though they’re
possibly both from the same town, they may realize that the accent doesn’t make the person different or
less intelligible (Participant #25).

Another preservice teacher also explained why he or she thought the American Tongues
activity was the most effective:

American Tongues was the most effective activity for me because I realized the diversity within the
United States. It was very surprising to me of how different each dialect is from mine. This made me
realize that the diversity of my students in my future classroom will be great (Participant #18).

Through the American Tongues activity, the preservice teachers who commented above
realized how much diversity exists even within one variety of English. Another student
commented that the American Tongues activity made him or her ‘face realities that I usually
want to avoid thinking about when it comes to discrimination against different varieties
of English.’ These comments remind us the importance of providing opportunities for
preservice teachers to evaluate their possible biased predispositions towards linguistic and
cultural diversity.
The second highest rated activity was ‘miscommunications.’ As stated by Kubota (2001),
the stereotypes and prejudices against the marginalized varieties held by members of a
dominant language group are constructed by the discourses and social practices that
surround them. These stereotypes can lead to and actually be reinforced and revalidated
through miscommunication instances. As one of the preservice teachers stated, ‘Discussing
different events and times where communication can be affected was important to show us
how to respond or how to handle the situation.’ In relation to miscommunication activity,
another preservice teacher indicated the importance of making an effort to communicate
and understand individuals whose first language is not English, and commented:

made me understand how easy it is to misunderstand what a non-native English speaker is speaking. It
made me understand how important it is to make an effort to understand ELL or ESL people (Participant
#126)


C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
496 Burcu Ates, Zohreh R. Eslami, and Katherine Landau Wright

The third most effective activity listed was having the guest speakers in class talk about
their country and the variety of English spoken in their country. To communicate success-
fully with other speakers, both the speaker and the listener should share responsibilities.
However, as stated by Lippi-Green (1997), often a speaker who uses non-mainstream lan-
guage carries the main communicative burden. Research shows that awareness of WE and
related issues, as well as experiences interacting with WE speakers, can help mainstream
English speakers accept their part in communicative responsibility (Kubota 2001). As
the students’ reflection reveals, this authentic experiential activity has been a beneficial
experience to develop awareness and attitudes necessary for functioning in a culturally
and linguistically diverse setting. Preservice teachers valued the authentic nature of this
experience. One expressed surprise that the interaction ‘wasn’t awkward,’ describing the
experience as ‘insightful.’ Another preservice teacher stated:

I thought it was very effective because we actually got to talk to people with different accents of English.
Instead of just learning about it or watching a YouTube video, we got to experience it firsthand. We had
to use skills that we have learned this semester to be able to communicate with the graduate students. For
example, speaking clearly and slowly and listening and paying close attention to the graduate student
(Participant #117).

Overall, the comments shared by preservice teachers provide evidence that the instructional
strategies used fostered increased understanding of the cultures and communities of WE
speakers and helped create an awareness of the varieties of English spoken by these
students.
exposed/interacted WE => reshape
instructional => improving perceptions
DISCUSSION
The purpose of our study was to examine and measure the effectiveness of incorporating
WE perspectives in a teacher education program. We incorporated several instructional
activities aimed at promoting a WE perspective into our ESL education courses. It was
assumed that if preservice teachers were exposed to the WE perspectives and interacted
with WE speakers, they would be able to reshape their perceptions of English language
varieties and English users and enhance their ability to communicate more successfully
with WE speakers in their future classrooms. The findings from both quantitative and
qualitative analysis of the data are promising and show that instructional activities were
helpful in improving preservice teachers’ perceptions.
The 150 optional written comments from the preservice teachers indicate that the study
activities have changed their thoughts and beliefs. As evidenced in preservice teacher’s
responses, the intervention activities have been effective, as the participants seem to have
grasped the implications for their own teaching and seem ready to put knowledge into
practice by designing and implementing similar activities in their own future classrooms.
While not quantitatively measured by the pre- or post-questionnaires, the qualitative
data revealed that preservice teachers believed they were most affected by the American
Tongues activity. Preservice teachers commented that they realized even native speakers
are not immune to linguistic marginalization. As one preservice teacher stated, it ‘hit
home.’ Exposing preservice teachers to the stigmatization of their own accents and dialects
(e.g. Southern accent being perceived negatively in the documentary) may help them to

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Incorporating world Englishes into undergraduate ESL education courses 497

empathize with ELLs’ language struggles and marginalization. As Nelson (2011: 98) has
argued:

Nothing in the history of English or of any other language gives us any reason to believe that many
users are going to use language in exactly same ways, from the levels of pronunciation up to how they
choose to express their intentions in their lexicons and grammar choices. This is easily observable in the
everyday experience of any English user, including those in the Inner Circle.

Preservice teachers stated that having guest speakers was meaningful for them. Lee (2012)
noted inviting guest speakers who are from different countries than the students in the
classrooms allows both sides to compare and contrast their linguistic and cultural orien-
tations. Teacher education courses need to raise preservice teachers’ awareness of their
own variety of English language and its key differences from other varieties of English.
The native speakers of English rarely receive training to develop the awareness and com-
municative skills needed for interacting with speakers of Englishes that are different from
their own variety (Kubota 2001). Using available resources in the community, such as
the international students and guest speakers, provides the authentic experience needed to
promote awareness and understanding amongst the teachers. important: authentic environment
In relation to beliefs about language learning, two items (‘All immigrants to the United
States can develop native-like English skills after about one year if they try hard to learn’
and ‘It is easy for ELLs to change their English accent if they want to’) demonstrated
statistically significant changes. This shift in belief demonstrates that the preservice teach-
ers realized language development is a long journey, accents are not easy to change, and
teachers should be able to accommodate WE speakers with different accents and accept
communication responsibility (Lippi-Green 2007). Prospective teachers need to be able
to communicate with various WE speakers in their future classrooms and work places
and need to validate and appreciate linguistic diversity among their students and teacher
colleagues. We also hope that with more awareness of functional and linguistic diversity
among English language users, the native-English-speaking preservice teachers will not
enforce the monolithic native speaker norms when they are working with ELLs. These
goals are parallel to arguments developed by Kubota (2001).
evident There was an evident shift in the preservice teachers’ perceptions related to the statement
shift ‘English belongs to everyone who speaks it.’ Agreeing with this comment would indicate
that
ownership students did not believe English is a proprietary object to be controlled by native
speakers. Additionally, there was a positive shift in participant agreement with the statement
that ‘World Englishes are legitimate varieties of English and should be valued the same
as American English’ indicating greater acceptance of WE. World Englishes speakers
should feel they have ownership of the language they use and be empowered to not always
comply with the judgments of native speakers or native speaker norms and standards. The
acceptance of ownership of English by all its users requires a certain amount of tolerance
by Inner Circle users (Haberland 2011). Same: have higher ownership of English
Preservice teachers were asked to explain how these activities influenced the way they
will teach and interact with students who speak different varieties of English. Their re-
sponses to this question revealed positive changes in their perceptions. Many of the 150
responses to this question included phrases such as ‘more aware,’ ‘more respect,’ ‘more
open-minded,’ ‘more accepting,’ ‘opened my eyes,’ and so forth. Most preservice teachers
experienced positive transformations, and they commented that these experiences helped

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 498 Burcu Ates, Zohreh R. Eslami, and Katherine Landau Wright

them become aware of issues related to functional and structural diversity in English and
English language users. The responses evidenced attitudinal change in preservice teachers
and revealed that they were better informed about WE discourses and had developed ac-
ceptance of multiple varieties of English and the need to view these varieties as a resource.
In addition, the preservice teachers indicated willingness and preparation to engage with
the WE students in their future classrooms. For instance, one student commented on her
expanded knowledge and explained that she was ‘more prepared to talk about them [WE]
with a group of children.’ This student also specifically stated that she ‘could include a unit
on different parts of the world and include their varieties of English, providing examples
for the class through videos and guests,’ indicating that the impact of the intervention
activities may be evident in future classrooms.
Kubota’s (2001) study aimed at raising American high school students’ awareness of the compare
global spread of English and having them explore ways to communicate effectively with previous
WE speakers. Her t-test results for questionnaires did not show a statistically significant research
reason effect on most items. This could be due to her small sample size (17 students), the students’
age and maturity level, and the setting of her study (rural area). Through her findings Kubota
revealed the difficulty of critically engaging students on issues related to the global spread
of English since they are privileged to be at the top of the global linguistic hierarchy of
power, given that they are native speakers of English. As Kubota submitted, for those who
are privileged, it may not be easy to imagine a situation where one’s language variety
is stigmatized or a situation where English is appropriated to express a different world
difference view. Additionally, while Kubota’s students frequently discussed the connection between
language discrimination and racism, our participants commented on hidden racism and
subtle institutionalized disadvantages faced by language minority students and how they,
as future teachers, could play a role in reversing these effects. Kubota’s article ended
with a call for institutions to affirm ‘linguistic diversity’ and encourage ‘students to share
the communicative responsibility with speakers of a variety of world Englishes’ (Kubota
2001: 62). Our study extends her research to preservice teachers. Our aim was to promote
how
present awareness of the linguistic and functional diversity of English and its users and provide
research competency for these teachers to foster their acceptance of diverse students in their future
extend classrooms. Our findings are promising, as we witnessed a shift in perceptions over a
relatively short period of time, as indicated by positive comments shared by the preservice
teachers on issues of linguistic diversity and acceptance of English varieties. It is our hope
that the current intervention may impact not only those directly involved, but also students
in the preservice teachers’ future classrooms.
the way they put analysis!!
CONCLUSION
Incorporating WE into mainstream preservice teacher education programs provides a
plethora of opportunities to prospective teachers for exposure to linguistic diversity. All
teachers and administrators need preparation to better understand diverse students, their
English varieties, and the relationship of these varieties to standardized American En-
glish (Crandall 2003). As linguistically and culturally diverse learners increasingly come
to dominate public school demographics, teacher education programs need to appropri-
ately train teachers to have greater respect for English varieties among their students.
In addition, teachers must be prepared to modify instruction so they may assist WE
speakers in developing the academic English expected in American schools while also

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Incorporating world Englishes into undergraduate ESL education courses 499

maintaining pride in their own variety of English and in the culture and identity that variety
represents.
It would certainly be valuable to infuse more than just these six activities into teacher
preparation courses. However, as Sharifian and Marlina (2012: 149) state, ‘if a program is
genuinely informed by the EIL/WE paradigm and aims to promote diversity, then this aim
will also need to be clearly reflected in the positive “climate” and a positive and prevailing
attitude in the program towards diversity.’ To promote acceptance and validation of cultural
and linguistic diversity, as Sifakis (2007) argues, there is a need to confront and change
a range of long-held and deeply rooted viewpoints. As Kachru (2006: 27) argues, ‘The
first task is for institutions of teacher education in the Inner Circle centers of ELT to adopt
a curriculum that encourages respect for all varieties of English.’ A collection of papers
published in a book by Dogancay-Aktuna and Hardman (2008) addresses challenges in
creating teacher education programs that incorporate WE perspectives and illustrate the
problems with current practices in teacher education programs, highlighting the need for
change. Although Dogancay-Aktuna and Hardman’s recommendations are specifically for
English language teacher education curricula, we believe that demographic changes in
the student population in our schools requires WE perspectives to be incorporated into
mainstream teacher education courses as well. We have attempted to address this need with
our preservice teachers with the hope that they will carry their newfound understanding
and tolerance into their future classrooms.
limitation Like all research attempts, this study has its limitations. For example, while the pre-
and post-questionnaire analysis indicated that students would consider taking a WE per-
spective to their future classrooms, personal feelings and beliefs do not always translate
into classroom practices. Future studies should examine the actual implementation of WE
perspectives in classrooms by conducting classroom observations. Singh and Han (2010)
argue that critically engaging preservice teachers in WE perspectives is likely to improve
their capabilities for teaching in multicultural learning environments; however, until lon-
gitudinal research is conducted we cannot precisely describe the impact. Additionally,
since the changes in beliefs and perspective transformations refer to deeply rooted as-
sumptions and values, it is necessary to adopt instructional techniques that are relevant to
each individual teaching culture. The study needs to be implemented in other settings with
teaching and learning cultures that tend to cast more or less emphasis on knowledge of
native-speaker English (Kay 2006).
We understand that changing students’ perceptions takes more than a semester (Maio &
Haddock 2009); however, preservice teachers who were introduced to the WE perspective
through our study stated they now have more awareness and acceptance of WE speakers
and would incorporate similar activities in their future teaching to promote respect for
cultural and linguistic diversity. Our research demonstrates that appropriate interventions
can foster awareness and acceptance of linguistic and functional varieties of English. The
instructional activities used in this research fostered awareness and acceptance of WE
perspectives in preservice teachers and helped them develop the competency necessary
to effectively meet the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse learners in school
environments that are constantly changing. As Friedrich (2009: 413) has noted; ‘Linguistic
awareness breeds linguistic responsibility.’ Our hope as teacher educators and researchers
is that the preservice teachers who were part of this study are currently fulfilling this
responsibility and advocating for linguistic diversity in their own classrooms.


C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
500 Burcu Ates, Zohreh R. Eslami, and Katherine Landau Wright

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are very grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback and valuable suggestions to improve the
quality of the manuscript.

REFERENCES
Brown, Kimberley. 2005. World Englishes: Pedagogical practices in the TESOL preparatory sequence. In Anne Burns
(ed.), Teaching English from a global perspective 19–33. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Bruthiaux, Paul. 2003. Squaring the circles: Issues in modeling English worldwide. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics 13(2). 159–178.
Burns, Anne (ed.). 2005. Teaching English from a global perspective. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Canagarajah, A. Suresh. 2006. Negotiating the local in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
26. 197–218.
Chinn, Clark & William Brewer. 1993. The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework
and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research 63(1). 1–49.
Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
Crandall, Jodi. 2003. They do speak English: World Englishes in US schools. ERIC/CLL News Bulletin 26(3) 1–3.
Creswell, John W., Vicki L. Plano Clark, Michelle, L. Gutmann, & William E. Hanson. 2003. Advanced mixed methods
research designs. In Abbas Tashakorri & Charles Teddlie (eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral
research, 209–240. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crystal, David. 2003. English as a global language (2nd edn). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dogancay-Aktuna, Seran & Joel Hardman, (eds.). 2008. Global English teaching and teacher education: Praxis and
possibility. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Doorn, Kristen & Jeanne Shay Schumm. 2013. Attitudes of pre-service teachers regarding linguistic diversity in general
education classroom. Journal of Reading Education 38(3). 28–37.
Feistritzer, C. Emily. 2011. Profile of teachers in the US 2011. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Informa-
tion.
Friedrich, Patricia. 2009. World Englishes and peace sociolinguistics: Towards a common goal of linguistic understand-
ing. In Thomas Hoffmann & Lucia Siebers (eds.), World Englishes – problems, properties and prospects, 407–414.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Fitts, Shanan & Lisa A. Gross. 2012. Teacher candidates learning about and learning from English learners: Constructing
concepts of language and culture in the Tuesdays’ Tutors afterschool program. Teacher Education Quarterly 39(4).
75–95.
Graddol, David. 1997. The Future of English? A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language in the 21st
century. London: The British Council.
Grayson, David. 2004. Some myths and legends in quantitative psychology. Understanding Statistics 3(1). 101–134.
Haberland, Hartmut. 2011. Ownership and maintenance of a language in transnational use: Should we leave our lingua
franca alone? Journal of Pragmatics 43(4). 937–949.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2009. English as a lingua franca: Interpretations and attitudes. World Englishes 28(1). 200–207.
Kachru, Braj. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In
Randolf Quirk, Henry G. Widdowson, & Yolande Cantù (eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the
language and literatures, 11–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kachru, Yamuna. 2006. World Englishes and language education. In Shondel J. Nero (ed.), Dialects, Englishes, creoles,
and education, 19–38. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kachru, Yamuna & Cecil L. Nelson. 2006. World Englishes in Asian contexts. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Kay, Roddy. 2006. Arguments against teaching English as an international language in Brazil. Humanising Language
Teaching 8(1), http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jan06/mart01.htm (10 July 2013)
Kubota, Ryuko. 2001. Teaching world Englishes to native speakers of English in the USA. World Englishes 20(1). 47–
64.
Kubota, Ryuko. 2012. The politics of EIL: Toward border-crossing communication in and beyond English. In Aya Matsuda
(ed.), Principles and practices of teaching English as an international language, 55–69. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Kubota, Ryuko & Lori Ward. 2000. Exploring linguistic diversity through World Englishes. English Journal 89(6). 80–
86.
Lee, Kang-Young. 2012. Teaching intercultural English learning/teaching in world Englishes: Some classroom activities
in South Korea. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 11(4). 190–205.
Lippi-Green, Rosina. 1997. English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. London:
Routledge.
Maio, Gregory R. & Geoffrey Haddock. 2009. The psychology of attitudes and attitude change. London: Sage.
Matsuda, Aya. 2008. Foreword. In Seran Dogancay-Aktuna & Joel Hardman (eds.), Global English language teaching
and teacher education, v–vii. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.


C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Incorporating world Englishes into undergraduate ESL education courses 501

Matsuda, Aya. 2009. Desirable but not necessary? The place of world Englishes and English as an international language
in English teacher preparation program in Japan. In Farzad Sharifian (ed.), English as an international language:
Perspectives and pedagogical issues, 169–189. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Mesthrie, Rajend & Rakesh M. Bhatt. 2008. World Englishes: The study of new linguistic varieties. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nelson, Cecil L. 2011. Intelligibility in world Englishes: Theory and application. New York: Routledge.
Qiong, Hu Xiao. 2004. Why China English should stand alongside British, American and other “World Englishes.”
English Today 20(2). 26–33.
Seargeant, Philip. 2012. Exploring World Englishes: Language in a global context. Abingdon: Routledge.
Sharifian, Farzad & Roby Marlina. 2012. English as an International Language (EIL): An innovative academic program.
In Aya Matsuda, (ed.), Principles and practices of teaching English as an international language, 140–153. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Sifakis, Nicos C. 2007. The education of the teachers of English as a lingua franca: A transformative perspective.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17(3). 355–375.
Singh, Michael & Jinghe Han. 2010. Teacher education for world English speaking pre-service teachers: Making transna-
tional knowledge exchange for mutual learning. Teaching and Teacher Education 26(6). 1300–1308.
Thompson, Bruce. 2006. Foundations of behavioral statistics: An insight-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
US Census Bureau. (2010). An older and more diverse nation by midcentury. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/
releases/archives/population/cbOS-123.html (3 September 2013).
Wolf, Hans-Georg & Frank Polzenhagen. 2009. World Englishes: A cognitive sociolinguistic approach. Applications of
Cognitive Linguistics 8. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(Received 8 March 2015)


C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd