Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

Equity or equality: outer and expanding circle

teachers’ awareness of and attitudes towards
World Englishes and international proficiency tests

Abbas Monfared

To cite this article: Abbas Monfared (2022) Equity or equality: outer and expanding
circle teachers’ awareness of and attitudes towards World Englishes and international
proficiency tests, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 43:10, 922-934, DOI:
10.1080/01434632.2020.1783542

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1783542

Published online: 22 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 703

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmmm20
JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
2022, VOL. 43, NO. 10, 922–934
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1783542

Equity or equality: outer and expanding circle teachers’ awareness

of and attitudes towards World Englishes and international
proficiency tests
Abbas Monfared
Department of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper investigates the attitudes of 246 English teachers from Outer Received 22 July 2019
and Expanding Circles (EC and OC) towards the global spread of English Accepted 4 June 2020
and the challenges underpinning international proficiency tests. Using a
KEYWORDS
questionnaire, supplemented with interviews with a smaller group of World Englishes; language
teachers, this study explores how EC and OC teachers perceive the assessment; language
relevance of World Englishes (WE) to the international tests like the awareness; identity; teacher
TOEFL and IELTS and what implications their views have in English education
language teaching. Using quantitative and qualitative research
instruments, the results of the study show a theory-practice gap in the
views of the participants. While the majority of the participants were in
favour of WE in theory, they were actually against the acceptance of WE
norms in the international proficiency tests for different reasons such as
their concerns for standards in language testing, equality, test fairness
and test-takers’ tendency toward international tests. The results of this
study indicate that, together with supporting different varieties of
English, it is important to find ways to raise awareness of teachers and
learners of the existence of diversity in the landscape of English.

Introduction
Although there is a strong belief that language belongs to L1 users (Matsuda 2003a), in the context of
international communication, interaction usually happens among LX users of English (Dewaele
2018). The populations of L1 users of English in the Inner Circle (IC) countries are not only sur-
passed in number LX users of English in the Outer-Circle countries but also far outnumbered by
users of English as a foreign language (EFL) in the Expanding-Circle countries (Hu 2012, 123).
In the field of language testing, the issues of methods to evaluating LX language learners’ profi-
ciency also provoke debates which mostly concern two different ideologies on the norms that test
takers should be assessed against: The world Englishes (WE) pattern and the standard English per-
spective for the sake of fairness measurement results (Hsu 2016). The WE pattern advances that
there is no single way of assessing proficiency and, indeed, no single variety provides the target in
all contexts of learning (Graddol 2006, 82). It is derived from the belief that high-stakes tests like
TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) and IELTS (International English Language Testing
System) are biased against individuals who may be proficient in using English for international com-
munication but have not been exposed to certain nuances of an IC variety of English (Canagarajah
2006a; Davies, Hamp-Lyons, and Kemp 2003; Jenkins 2006a, 2006b; McKay and Brown 2016). On
the other hand, the standard English perspective advances that for the sake of fairness of

CONTACT Abbas Monfared abbasmonfared85@gmail.com

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 923

measurement, the international tests should be limited to the norms followed by L1 speakers of IC
(Elder and Davies 2006; Elder and Harding 2011), especially Great Britain and the United States.
However, with the development of LX varieties of English in recent decades (Crystal 2003), systema-
tic and stable LX norms for Standard English have been developing into LX varieties of English (Hsu
2012; Kachru and Smith 2008; Lowenberg 1993, 2012; Matsuda 2012, 2017).
The current study reports on data from an IELTS and TOEFL study that investigates OC and EC
teachers’ attitudes towards WE and language assessment and makes recommendations to see tea-
chers’ instructions and learners’ needs more synchronous in ELT contexts. The main purpose of
this study is to attract the attention of teachers in EC and OC towards language assessment in
order to help them to raise their awareness towards English in the globalised world, take into account
the sociolinguistic reality of English across the globe and encourage teachers to help learners to build
their own realistic model for their pronunciation instead of looking for native-speaker models.

Review of literature
L1 vs. LX users of English
The traditional dichotomy, ‘native speaker’ versus ‘non-native speaker’, and the view that native
speakers of English are real owners of English and non-native speakers are just users of English
has to be rejected (Cook and Singleton 2014; Dewaele 2018; O’Rourke and Pujolar 2013). Changing
‘non-native speaker’ term to ‘L2 user’ was a giant step in creating a more balanced dichotomy, but it
still had term ‘native speaker’ in the first part – though not essentially a monolingual one (Murahata,
Murahata, and Cook 2016). To avoid misperception, Dewaele (2018) proposed using the term ‘L1
user’ versus ‘LX user’. He further explains that ‘LX’ refers to any foreign language acquired after
the age at which the first language(s) was acquired that is after the age of 3 years, to any level of profi-
ciency. It is then possible to be either specific and compare the person’s L2, L3, or L4, or to make a
more global statement about the person’s LXs. The dichotomy ‘L1 user’ versus ‘LX user’ implies the
fact that one is not inferior to the other, and both are equal and can be complementary.

EIL, ELF and the WE paradigms

The definition of EIL follows that defined by McKay (2002, 12) where it is English used both in a
global sense for international communication between countries and in a local sense as a language
of wider communication within speakers from multilingual backgrounds and communities, that the
cultural norms may not necessarily need to be connected to the L1 user norms in IC. Jenkins (2007)
defines English as a lingua franca (ELF) as a contact language used for communication between two
people/communicators who do not share a common language, which is commonly understood to be
the second language of its speakers. It should be noticed that ELF is not approached in this paper, as
it goes beyond the scope of this study. House (2012, 186) defines WE as ‘institutionalised second-
language varieties of English’ in the sense of Kachru (1986).
Additionally, it can be concluded that EIL, WE and ELF are not conflicting paradigms but as con-
cepts that resonate strongly with each other in terms of thinking about and researching the world-
wide spread of English. EIL includes both WE speakers’ interactions in their own country and
interactions in ELF.

Equity versus equality in language assessment

Lam (1995) classifies fairness in assessment into two antithetical views: equality and equity. The
equality view of fairness proposes that all tests takers be assessed in a standardised fashion, using
the same assessment procedures, administration, scoring and interpretation. Within this approach,
bias will exist when using norm-referenced measures if the student being assessed is somehow
924 A. MONFARED

uniquely different from the norm group. The equity view of fairness, in contrast, suggests that assess-
ment needs to be tailored based on the test takers’ background and experiences, including prior
knowledge, cultural experiences, language proficiency, cognitive style and interest. Bias is minimised
and fairness is maximised when these extraneous and inhibitory factors are taken into consideration
(Lam 1995).

English as an international language and linguistic imperialism

Although the majority of English language speakers in the world are in the ‘Expanding Circle’
(Kachru 1989), hegemony of the ‘centre’ (‘Inner Circle’ countries where English is used as the pri-
mary language) persists when it comes to English language educational management (Zafar Khan
2009). The theory of the hegemonic power of English, known as Linguistic Imperialism, has been
widely discussed by many EIL scholars (McKay and Brown 2016; Phan 2008; Khatib and Monfared
2017; Kirkpatrick 2011, 2015; Matsuda 2003b, 2019; McKay 2018; Monfared 2019; Monfared and
Khatib 2018; Sadeghpour and Sharifian 2019; Tsang 2019). Phillipson (1992) argues that the spread
of English, much of which has occurred through its prominence in global language education, has
served to undermine the rights of other languages and to marginalise the opportunities that should
exist for widespread multilingual education. English alongside its obvious position as a global
language should serve the diverse local needs of its multilingual, multicultural communities of
EIL speakers and learners (Alsagoff 2012). This glocal perspective should raise teachers’ and learners’
awareness that as McKay (2002, 125–128) states English is used within multilingual communities
and by typically bilingual users of English for both global and local purposes and the use of EIL
must be cross-cultural communication. So, acquiring a native-like competence may neither be
desired or necessary.

High-stakes English language tests and linguistic imperialism

Educational imperialism might include all parts of education including testing which is an important
part of education. The hegemony of L1 user norms in English proficiency tests, especially high-stakes
ones like TOEFL and IELTS, has been criticised by many scholars over the last few decades (Cana-
garajah 2006a; Hsu 2016; Jenkins 2006a; McKay and Brown 2016; Taylor 2006). Davies, Hamp-
Lyons, and Kemp (2003, 572) mention that tests like TOEFL are not an accurate reflection of a
test taker’s proficiency because the items assess candidates on just the North American variety of
English which is unfamiliar to many candidates. McKay and Brown (2016) believe that EIL stan-
dards have shifted from how close they are to some a L1 user standard to more locally defined
EIL standards in phonology, grammar, pragmatics, and so on.
Standardised tests like the TOEFL and IELTS still serve to carry on the hegemony of the IC
countries. The ‘prevalent imperialism of international tests’ (Davidson 1994) yields high profits to
publishers of these tests (Graddol 2006) and promotes L1 cultural norms. Many international profi-
ciency tests such as IELTS and TOEFL which are globally accepted and are taken by many test-takers
from different nations and cultures are expected to follow standards in language testing for ethical,
social as well as practical reasons (Hamid 2014).
Hamid (2014) investigated test-takers attitudes on the inclusion of WE standards in international
English tests. While the majority of the participants in his study were L2 speakers of English and
spoke varieties of WE themselves, they strongly believed in the equality view of fairness and main-
taining the standards in international proficiency tests.
Under the effect of World Englishes, in recent years, modifications, like the involvement of profi-
cient LX speakers as raters (Taylor 2002), are likely to make a L1 user normed test ‘more accessible
and fairer’ to test-takers from the Outer and the Expanding-Circle societies without altering the test
construct in an IC variety of English (Elder and Davies 2006; Uysal 2010). Supporting bilingual
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 925

teachers, Brown (2013) (as cited in McKay 2018) refers to the potential power of LX teachers and
raters. He summarises the many potential strengths of LX teachers of English. LX teachers:

. are familiar with learners’ language and culture;

. Know what should be included in learning English;
. Can switch to L1 for more clarifications;
. Can work as a model of successful learners;
. Can adopt methods and materials based on the local context and cultural needs of the learners;
and
. are familiar with the educational needs of learners, parents, and administrators.

Standardised tests, as they are currently designed, serve a purpose in assessing candidates’ profi-
ciency based on L1 norms in IC. However, for many students of WE this may not be their ultimate
goal. More exactly, they may wish to develop the ability to interact in English for specific professional
and personal reasons. Canagarajah (2006a, 235) refers to contextualisation of test. As he states:
Although I am an outer-circle speaker, I do not mind doing the Test of English as a Foreign Language if I am
planning to move to the United States for education or employment. All that I ask is that the testing agency
make clear that these tests (Test of English as Foreign Language, Test of English for International Communi-
cation, etc.) are assessing my ability to use English in Inner Circle contexts.

There has been a hot debate on the inclusion of WE to international proficiency tests such as the
IELTS and TOEFL (Canagarajah 2006a). On one side, there are scholars who are in favour of the
multiplicity of Englishes but support L1 norms for international English tests (e.g. Elder and Davies
2006; Davies 2009). On the other side, there are researchers supporting the inclusion of WE norms
for international tests (e.g. Brown 2004, 2013; Canagarajah 2006a; Hsu 2012, 2016; Jenkins 2006a,
2009; McKay and Brown 2016; Taylor 2006). Hsu (2016) represents a new initiative to examine
raters’ psychological traits as a source of validity evidence in English speaking tests to strengthen
arguments about test-takers’ English language proficiency in response to the change of sociolinguis-
tic landscape. Beyond this debate, there are researcher who accommodate norms and diversities with
existing framework of language assessment (Taylor 2008; Weir 2005; Xi 2010).

Method
Objectives
This study reports on data from IELTS and TOEFL studies which aimed at investigating TOEFL and
IELTS instructors’ perceptions, views and evaluations of the tests from an EIL perspective in OC and
EC. To explore this area of interest further, the following research questions are formulated:

(1) How do TOEFL and IELTS instructors in OC and EC perceive the relevance of WE to the test
and why?
(2) To what extent TOEFL and IELTS instructors in OC and EC take a WE perspective in language
testing?
(3) What are the implications of TOEFL and IELTS instructors’ perceptions in OC and EC for WE
scholars and researchers?

Participants
There were altogether 246 English teacher participants, who expressed their willingness to partici-
pate in this study by responding to an email invitation. The email invitation was linked to a website
(www. esurveycreator.com) where details of the study including research objectives and what
926 A. MONFARED

teachers were expected to do could be found. The participants in this study were chosen based on
availability sampling. Availability sampling is the most commonly used procedure in psychology
research (Ness-Evans and Rooney 2011).
Of the 246 participants, 122 were from India, Malaysia and South Africa as members of OC and
124 were from Iran and Turkey as participants of EC community. Based on Kachru’s model (1992),
in Iran and Turkey, English is a foreign language (EFL) and they are among EC countries. In India,
Malaysia and South Africa, English is a second language (ESL) and also the official language of these
countries and they are among OC countries. Selecting Iran and Turkey as the community of
language in the EC is because of the physical environment where the study was conducted. The
findings of the study and users of the study were located in Iran and Turkey as neighbouring
countries. OC teachers were met in TESOL Arabia conferences in Dubai in 2016 and 2017 and
the author was in direct contact with all the teachers through the linkedin website (www.
linekedin.com). All OC teachers were teaching English in British Council centers. EC teachers
also had a TESOL certificate in teaching English and were teaching in three English centers in Teh-
ran, Istanbul and Ankara. Table 1 provides the general profile of the participants.

Data collection, instrument and procedure

The data of this study were elicited using both quantitative and qualitative research instruments.
The current study was part of a Ph.D. dissertation. Data collection tools for this study were a
questionnaire survey including three parts (teacher’s background information, 18 items and
open comments by each participant) and EC and OC teachers’ interviews. The questionnaire
was a modified version adapted from Hamid (2014) and Hsu (2016) questionnaires. The question-
naire contained close-ended questions. The items attempted to measure TOEFL and IELTS
instructors’ perceptions, views and evaluations of the tests from an EIL perspective in EC and
OC. The teachers were asked to respond to items on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 =
disagree; 3 = moderately disagree; 4 = moderately agree; 5 = agree; 6 = strongly agree) based on
their own perceptions.
In the pilot stage, the questionnaire included 22 items which had been carefully worded. The
Likert scale used was the following: 1 – strongly disagree; 2 – disagree; 3 – moderately disagree;
4 – moderately agree; 5 – agree; 6 – strongly agree. At this stage, the questionnaire was administered
to 42 EC and 25 OC teachers. The research tool was tested for reliability and validity using SPSS:
Namely, Alpha’s Cronbach was checked, and the questionnaire was examined by a group of experts.

Table 1. General profile of participants.

Participants’ general Indian Malaysian South African Iranian Turkish
information teachers teachers teachers teachers teachers
Gender
Male 35 15 8 32 24
Female 45 10 9 45 23
Educational background
BA degree 12 2 3 15 17
MA degree 32 12 8 34 20
PhD 36 11 6 28 10
Age
21–30 12 4 4 12 9
31–40 32 10 8 32 18
41–50 20 5 4 15 15
50 + 16 6 1 18 5
Teaching experience
0–1 5 3 2 8 9
1–5 32 5 6 28 17
5–10 22 5 5 21 15
10+ 21 12 4 20 6
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 927

The Cronbach’s alpha reliability indexes for the questionnaire were .79 for the total sample, .81 for
the EC teachers and .82 for the OC teachers.
After careful analyses of every item in terms of mean, median, kurtosis, and skewness, 4 items
which showed to be skewed were omitted from the questionnaire since skewness affects items mutual
intercorrelations. The final version (see Appendix) was prepared with 18 items. The final version was
used to collect the data for the main phase of the study.
Interviews were conducted with fifteen participants who had previously answered the question-
naire and had expressed their willingness for the interviews. The interviews lasted about fifteen min-
utes. Participants’ responses were audio-recorded. The recordings were played several times to find
the themes referred to by the majority of the research participants. The extracted themes were then
used to supplement the quantitative data of the research study.
The participants’ consent to take part in the study was sought and secured. All research partici-
pants were assured that all the collected data were for research goals only, and their confidentiality
would be respected during the research study. All the interview data were also recorded with the tea-
chers’ permission.

Results
Quantitative data analysis
The results of the study displayed that more than half of the respondents (about 66.5%) agreed or
tended to agree that test takers do not need to speak like L1 users in order for them to assign high
scores. The results also indicated that 81.8 percent of the teachers in both EC and OC groups
agreed or tended to agree that test-takers should not be downgraded when they spoke LX varieties
of English. Regarding the responsibility of teachers for examinees’ intelligibility, the results of the
study showed that about 70 percent of the teachers disagreed or tended to disagree that raters are
not responsible for test-takers’ intelligibility. Based on the results displayed in Table 2, it can be
claimed that more than half of the participants (about 65 per cent) disagreed or tended to disagree
that raters should give high scores to examinees that use expressions as used by the L1 users of
English.
Items 5–13 refer to eight issues related to WE and in each case the majority of participants
responded in pro-WE ways, with majority of the participants (about 95 per cent) believing in devel-
oping an awareness of the global appropriacy and local appropriation of English. They were also in
favour of including all varieties of English in international tests like TOEFL and IELTS. Majority of
respondents (about 70 per cent) also agreed that LX users of English can also create new words of
English. It thus appears that teachers were not willing to accept the dominance or superiority of ‘L1
user’ English in language assessment.
However, when teachers were presented with concrete examples of ‘LX’ user varieties of English,
as in items 14–18, in each case, there were more respondents who considered these items unaccep-
table than those who viewed them acceptable and this was the same as the results reported in Hamid
(2014).

Qualitative data analysis

The collected data from teachers’ responses to semi-structured interviews with 15 participants aimed
to supplement the quantitative data by both providing teachers’ attitudes on WE norms to verify the
quantitative findings and by explaining their views towards international tests like TOEFL and
IELTS considering WE norms. An analysis of the manual coding of the survey participants’ open
comments showed 45 orientations to WE, 25 of which were negative, 18 positives and two mixed.
An analysis of qualitative data showed that those teachers who were against the inclusion of WE
norms in international proficiency tests referred to issues such as maintaining standards, fairness
928 A. MONFARED

Table 2. Participants’ responses to WE items (%).

SD D MD MA A SA
Item1 Examinees do not need to speak like a native speaker in order for me to assign 2.8 6.8 23.9 35.8 24.1 6.5
high scores.
Item2 I do not grade down examinees that speak a variety, as long as they express 0.0 2.8 15.3 35.8 32.1 13.9
themselves well.
Item3 The rater is not responsible for examinees’ intelligibility. 7.4 22.7 39.2 19.9 8.5 2.3
Item4 I give high scores to examinees that use expressions as used by the native 1.4 23.0 40.1 17.9 12.2 5.4
speakers of English.
Item5 Native speakers of English do not best serve as raters of oral English test (e.g. 5.4 7.4 25.0 39.5 17.9 4.0
TOEFL, IELTS).
Item6 Speakers of non-standard varieties (i.e. not British or American English) 0.3 3.4 21.0 36.4 27.6 11.4
currently outnumber native speakers of standard English and their own
varieties of English should be highly valued in international tests.
Item7 Raters of speaking tests (e.g. TOEFL, IELTS) should develop an awareness of 0.0 0.6 5.7 28.4 42.0 23.3
the global apropriacy and local appropriation of English.
Item8 Raters of speaking tests (e.g. TOEFL, IELTS) should have opportunities to be 3.1 3.1 21.0 33.0 27.6 12.2
exposed to varieties of English during training.
Item9 Non-native varieties of English should be accepted as equal to native varieties 2.3 10.5 21.0 34.9 19.3 11.9
in the tests.
Item10 The tests should include all varieties of English, both native and non-native. 0.0 1.1 8.8 33.8 40.1 16.2
Item11 Unless varieties of English are promoted via educational efforts, such as by 0.0 4.3 18.2 42.9 26.4 8.2
being codified in the dictionary, they can’t obtain legal status and become
standard.
Item12 Language learners should be exposed to different varieties of English so that 0.6 4.8 19.3 40.1 27.3 8.0
they can develop a comprehensive understanding of accent varieties of
English such as Indian English/Singaporean English in their real-world
encounters.
Item13 Non-native speakers of English can also create new words of English. 7.1 11.4 13.9 22.2 29.3 16.2
Item14 If a test-taker produces this sentence – The children are still playing together, 30.7 33.0 15.3 11.4 8.0 1.7
isn’t it? – it should be considered acceptable.
Item15 If a test-taker produces this sentence – Why you came late? – it should be 27.8 39.2 17.0 11.6 3.7 0.6
considered acceptable.
Item16 If a test-taker produces this sentence – I wish I have a car – it should be 27.3 37.5 19.0 9.7 5.4 1.1
considered acceptable.
Item17 The boss is outstation – he will be back on Monday. The word ‘outstation’ is 20.5 37.2 21.3 13.1 6.8 1.1
acceptable English in this sentence.
Item18 He is only a paper driver – he has got a license but he can’t drive. The phrase 17.6 39.2 23.3 14.5 4.5 0.9
‘paper driver’ is acceptable English in this sentence.

and equality and practicality of designing and administering tests and test-takers’ performance. This
can be seen in comments by T22 and T126:
Inclusion of WE in international tests is great but then again it might cause problems for all the candidates to
know about all different varieties rather than knowing about just the standard tests.

With the practical need for examiners that can handle and assess all native and non-native varieties available in
all test centres, and the difficulties of implementing this, it would make testing very incoherent and almost
impossible.

The view expressed by some of the teachers implies an understanding of the use of English as an
international language, and the realisation that English used in the TOEFL and IELTS does not rep-
resent the English used by global users of English. Teachers’ views point to their anxiety and frus-
tration with the fact that the linguistic and cultural content of international tests like TOEFL and
IELTS is limited to the L1 dialect of English and is biased against speakers of other varieties. For
instance, T 74 points out:
I believe that the English represented on these tests is ‘only native language … like in the listening section,
they speak in American and British English and not how everyone speaks’. Test items, especially in the sec-
tion on ‘Structure and Written English’ of TOEFL, focus more on form than on use of English in global
scenarios.
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 929

Phillipson’s (1992) concept of ‘educational imperialism’ argues that local decision-makers in the
educational field sustain strong links to IC countries and are inclined to endorse educational ideol-
ogies of those countries, so reinforcing the hegemony of IC countries. Similarly, T45 believes that the
dominance of the IELTS and TOEFL shows the operation of ‘imperialism’:
I thinks that the reading comprehension section in the TOEFL and IELTS tests is loaded with texts that deal
with native speakers’ history and lifestyle … but students do not need to know how people live in America
and the UK. They need to read something interesting … something about their own country.

Narrow discourse focus and the issue of ‘artificiality’ is also one of the main challenges in inter-
national tests like the TOEFL and IELTS (Johnson, Jordan, and Poehner 2005). T187 called for
including LX English of local speakers in the listening and reading components, which ‘may help
people from non-English background to follow the conversations and readings in the TOEFL and
IELTS:
I think pronunciation and the speed of the spoken discourse is appropriate for use in an English speaking con-
text. Learners in a foreign or second language context like Iran and India do not have the same kind of exposure
to English.

One of the teachers referred to denationalisation of English (Smith and Nelson 2006) and that
testing needs to be readjusted based on the goals of a relevant curriculum and should appropriately
predict the strategies that students will internalise (Lanteigne 2006). The issue of unfairness, as raised
by T32, is emphasised by T125, who observed:
I think we need to denationalise English. because learners mostly interact more with non-native speakers
than they do with actual native speakers, and that needs to be mirrored in the tests like TOEFL and IELTS.
I think it is unfair for learners with different cultural background knowledge to take a native variety of
English.

In real situations and communications native speakers encounter LX speakers so they have to
change their accents and apply strategies required to communicate with LX speakers. Why not in
English tests!?
Table 3 provides a summary of the 15 interviewee’s views on WE together with their articulated
reasons.

Table 3. Summary of interviewees’ views on WE in relation to IELTS & TOEFL.

Country of
origin Views on WE in relation to IELTS & TOEFL Reasons
AINF India Advocates WE Communication in a multicultural society
BINF India For local yes, opposition for overseas The main purpose of international tests
CINF India Strong opposition Fairness and test purpose
DINM India Supports different varieties of English in the Globalisation and glocalisation of English
globalised world
AMM Malaysia Supporting inclusion of non-native varieties of Multicultural society with people from different
English cultures
BMF Malaysia Supports local version not for overseas
ASM South Africa Opposition to WE Standards for international tests
BSF South Africa Supports WE
AIRM Iran Strong opposition Fairness and test purpose
BIRM Iran opposition Standards for international tests
CIRF Iran Advocates local varieties of English Globalisation and glocalisation
DIRM Iran Opposition to WE, acknowledgment of its Standards, opportunities to learn other varieties
communicative values
ATM Turkey Opposing inclusion of non-native varieties of Fairness, purpose and standards
English
BTF Turkey Advocates WE Intercultural communication with focus on
varieties of English
CTF Turkey Strong opposition Standards
The last letter (M/F) in the names of participants refers to their gender.
930 A. MONFARED

Discussion
Believe it or not globalisation is real, and English plays a crucial role as an international language in
joining people from different nations with different mother tongues for international and intercul-
tural communication. Many scholars have long argued for alterations in priorities in English
language teaching and testing for fruitful communication in international contexts (Jenkins 2012,
2015; Canagarajah 2006a, 2006b; Kirkpatrick 2011, 2015; Kirkpatrick and Sussex 2012; Monfared
2019).
Teachers’ attitudes towards WE seemed to have been affected by the context and the kind of WE
subjects referred to. Although a general pattern emerging from the data showed raters’ endorsing
WE in the responses of the items of the survey in an abstract, ideological sense, rejecting the super-
iority of a linguistic hierarchy and arguing for the inclusion of both L1 and LX varieties of English in
tests. However, when they were presented with concrete examples of features of WE, the majority of
teachers considered those items insupportable. The contrasting finding can be probably due to a mis-
match between ideology and practice commitment in the context of language revitalisation (Egging-
ton 2010). That is, one may feel obliged to do something (i.e. preference for L1 user norms), but do
the opposite in practice (i.e. a rating that supports standard model). Closely associated with the issue
of teacher’s identity, Petric (2009) believes that the ideology of ‘native-speakerism’ and the myth of
the superiority of the L1 user force English teachers to reflect a pseudo identity which dominates
their professional lives and make them accept this false identity in order to be accepted and appreci-
ated by their students. McKay (2018) also mentions that there is a myth that local bilingual teachers
of English are not and never can be as effective as native speakers of English. This myth was also
pointed out by Phillipson (1992) in his seminal work, Linguistic Imperialism, in which he referred
this belief the ‘native-speaker fallacy’.
This self-denial and linguistic idealism can be referred to as ‘linguistic schizophrenia’ (Kachru
2005; Groves 2011).
Interviews by teachers showed that majority of them were against the inclusion of WE in inter-
national tests like TOEFL and IELTS for different reasons such as their concern for standard, fair-
ness, equality, avoiding the complexity of test design an administration, test performance, and
crucially, the issue of ‘educational imperialism’ (Phillipson 1992) where local decision-makers in
the educational field sustain strong links to IC countries and are inclined to endorse educational
ideologies of those countries, so reinforcing the hegemony of IC countries. Although a minority
of participants were in favour of including varieties of English in international English proficiency
tests, with an emphasis on cultural experiences of learners and the sociolinguistic reality of English
in cross-cultural communication, these views were not supported by their counterparts. By some
means, the two groups were inspired by two related views towards WE in language assessment –
the equality view and the equity view (Lam 1995). The majority group supported the equality
view of fairness in international proficiency tests due to fair measurement results (Elder and Davies
2006; Elder and Harding 2011). They believed that LX varieties of English are useless for all English
test-takers and are just appropriate for local contexts. Supporters of equality view believed that the
Standard English, as a unique model, was considered as global and more accessible to all learners for
international proficiency tests. The minority group, on the other hand, was led by an equity view of
fairness, with minimised biasness, which believed that a single norm ignores the linguistic richness in
the current English global spread, and is biased against test-takers brought up on different norms
(Canagarajah 2006a; Davidson 2006; Spolsky 1993).
Interviews by those teachers who were in favour of the inclusion of varieties of English in inter-
national English proficiency tests indicates the importance of a multi-model approach from a World
Englishes view with introducing varieties of English involving OC and EC Englishes as a main part of
the educational curriculum. This model should be followed by relevant teaching and testing
materials and fundamental changes to the high-stakes tests to include varieties of English with
the emphasis on cultural competence. Finally, implementation of teacher training workshops with
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 931

the purpose of familiarising learners with intercultural communication skills to become proficient
speakers of English should be highlighted. To do so, many scholars (Ahn 2017; Canagarajah
2006a; McKay and Brown 2016) propose that the key to successful communication is developing stu-
dents’ intercultural competency, the ability that allow you to understand different varieties of English
to ease and negotiate the communication. Canagarajah (2006a) also argues that success in commu-
nicating in EIL is not driven by the ‘accurate’ production of a L1 variety of English or by the use of
native lexico-grammar at all. Instead, ‘multidialectal competence’ is the priority. Developing stu-
dents’ intercultural competency could be done through different ways such as introducing cultural
knowledge of different countries, familiarising learners with pragmatic norms of different cultures
and the use of different strategies for negotiation and also understanding of cultural differences
and the ability to accommodate one’s interlocutors. English materials should also include texts
which promote literature written in Outer and Expanding varieties of English. They should also
include conversational dialogues between speakers from different varieties of English.

Conclusion and implications

Teachers’ voices reported in the present study have implications for both WE scholars and testing
agencies. WE scholars may need to raise English teachers’ awareness of varieties of English and to
change their negative attitudes towards them. This will only be possible with comprehensive teacher
training workshops that familiarise teachers with World Englishes concepts and the related pedago-
gical implications in teaching and testing. There is an urgent need to develop teachers’ understanding
of EIL used by different English speakers and governed by different linguistic and pragmatic rules.
AmE in EC countries and BrE in OC countries have been overwhelmingly considered as the ideal
model, and grasping the linguistic manipulation of these varieties of English is the main concern
of many English teachers and learners. The results of this paper can attract the attention of teachers
in EC and OC towards language assessment and can help them to raise their awareness towards Eng-
lish in the globalised world and take into account the sociolinguistic reality of English across the
globe. To be blind followers of such closed attitudes towards other varieties of English is no longer
defensible and will only continue to undermine the established goal of English teaching in countries
EC and OC, which is to develop practical English proficiency.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Abbas Monfared http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3114-3093

References
Ahn, H. 2017. Attitudes to World Englishes: Implications for Teaching English in South Korea. New York: Routledge.
Alsagoff, L. 2012. “Identity and the EIL Learner.” In Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International
Language, edited by L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu, and W. A. Renandya, 104–122. New York: Routledge.
Brown, J. D. 2004. “What Do We Mean by Bias, Englishes, Englishes in Testing, and English Language Proficiency?”
World Englishes 23 (2): 317–319.
Brown, J. D. 2013. “EIL Curriculum Development.” In Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International
Language, edited by L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu, and W. Renandya, 147–167. New York: Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. 2006a. “Changing Communicative Needs, Revised Assessment Objectives: Testing English as an
International Language.” Language Assessment Quarterly 3 (3): 229–242. doi:10.1207/s15434311laq0303_1.
Canagarajah, S. 2006b. “The Place of World Englishes in Composition: Pluralization Continued.” College Composition
and Communication 57 (4): 586–619. doi:10.2307/20456910.
Cook, V. J., and D. Singleton. 2014. Key Topics in Second Language Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
932 A. MONFARED

Crystal, D. 2003. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davidson, F. 1994. “Comments and Replies.” World Englishes 13 (1): 119–120.
Davidson, F. 2006. “World Englishes and Test Construction.” In The Handbook of World Englishes, edited by B.
Kachru, Y. Kachru, and C. Nelson, 709–717. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Davies, A. 2009. “Assessing World Englishes.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 29: 80–89.
Davies, A., L. Hamp-Lyons, and C. Kemp. 2003. “Whose Norms? International Proficiency Tests in English.” World
Englishes 22 (4): 571–584.
Dewaele, J. M. 2018. “Why the Dichotomy ‘L1 Versus Lx User’ is Better Than ‘Native Versus Non-Native Speaker’.”
Applied Linguistics 39 (2): 236–240.
Eggington, W. 2010. “Towards Accommodating the “Tragedy of the Commons” Effect in Language Policy
Development.” Current Issues in Language Planning 11 (4): 360–370.
Elder, C., and A. Davies. 2006. “Assessing English as a Lingua Franca.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26: 282–
301.
Elder, C., and L. Harding. 2011. “Language Testing and English as an International Language: Constraints and
Contributions.” Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 34 (1–34): 11.
Graddol, D. 2006. English Next: Why Global English May Mean the End of English as a Foreign Language. London:
British Council.
Groves, J. 2011. “Linguistic Schizophrenia in Hong Kong.” English Today 27 (4): 33–42.
Hamid, M. O. 2014. “World Englishes in International Proficiency Tests.” World Englishes 33 (2): 263–277.
House, J. 2012. “Teaching Oral Skills in English as a Lingua Franca.” In Principles and Practices for Teaching English as
an International Language, edited by L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu, and W. A. Renandya, 186–205. New York:
Routledge.
Hsu, H. L. 2012. “The Impact of World Englishes on Language Assessment: Perception, Rating Behavior and
Challenges.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Hsu, H. L. 2016. “Removing Bias Towards World Englishes: The Development of a Rater Attitude Instrument Using
Indian English as a Stimulus.” Language Testing 33 (3): 367–389.
Hu, G. 2012. “Assessing English as an International Language.” In Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an
International Language, edited by L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu, and W. A. Renandya, 123–143. New York:
Routledge.
Jenkins, J. 2006a. “Current Perspectives on Teaching World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca.” TESOL
Quarterly 40 (1): 157–181.
Jenkins, J. 2006b. “The Spread of EIL: A Testing Time for Testers.” ELT Journal 60 (1): 42–50.
Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitudes and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. 2009. World Englishes: A Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge.
Jenkins, J. 2012. “English as a Lingua Franca From the Classroom to the Classroom.” ELT Journal 66 (4): 486–494.
doi:10.1093/elt/ccs040.
Jenkins, J. 2015. Global Englishes: A Resource Book for Students. 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
Johnson, K. E., S. R. Jordan, and M. E. Poehner. 2005. “The TOEFL Trump Card: An Investigation of Test Impact in an
ESL Classroom.” Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal 2 (2): 71–94.
Kachru, B. B. 1986. The Alchemy of English. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kachru, B. B. 1989. “Teaching World Englishes.” Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 15 (1): 85–89.
Kachru, B. B. 1992. The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Kachru, B. B. 2005. Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Kachru, Y., and L. Smith. 2008. Cultures, Contexts, and World Englishes. New York: Routledge.
Khatib, M., and A. Monfared. 2017. “Exploring Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Pronunciation Issues and Varieties of
English in Three Circles of World Englishes.” Applied Research on English Language 6 (2): 213–236.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2011. “English as an Asian Lingua Franca and the Multilingual Model of ELT.” Language Teaching 44
(2): 212–224.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2015. “World Englishes and Local Cultures.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture,
edited by F. Sharifian, 460–470. London: Routledge.
Kirkpatrick, A., and R. Sussex. 2012. English as an International Language in Asia: Implications for Language
Education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lam, T. C. M. 1995. “Fairness in Performance Assessment.” ERIC Digest ED391982. http://ericae.net/db/edo/
ED391982.htm.
Lanteigne, B. 2006. “Regionally Specific Tasks of Non-Western ENGLISH Language Use.” TESL-EJ. Accessed
November 17, 2007. http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej38/a2.html.
Lowenberg, P. H. 1993. “Issues of Validity in Tests of English as a World Language: Whose Standards?” World
Englishes 12 (1): 95–106.
Lowenberg, P. H. 2012. “Assessing Proficiency in EIL.” In Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an
International Language, edited by A. Matsuda, 84–102. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 933

Matsuda, A. 2003a. “Incorporating World Englishes in Teaching English as an International Language.” TESOL
Quarterly 37 (4): 719–729.
Matsuda, A. 2003b. “The Ownership of English in Japanese Secondary Schools.” World Englishes 22 (4): 483–496.
doi:10.1111/j. 1467 971X.2003. 00314.x.
Matsuda, A. 2012. “Teaching Material in EIL.” In Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International
Language, edited by Lubna Alsagoff, Sandra L. McKay, Guangwei Hu, and Willy A. Renandya, 168–185.
New York: Routledge.
Matsuda, A. 2017. Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Matsuda, A. 2019. “World Englishes in English Language Teaching: Kachru’s Six Fallacies and the TEIL Paradigm.”
World Englishes 38: 144–154.
McKay, S. L. 2002. Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McKay, S. L. 2018. “Globalization, English Language Teaching, and Teachers.” The TESOL Encyclopedia of English
Language Teaching, 1–7. doi:10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0705.
McKay, S. L., and J. D. Brown. 2016. Teaching and Assessing EIL in Local Contexts Around the World. New York:
Routledge.
Monfared, A. 2019. “Ownership of English in the Outer and Expanding Circles: Teachers’ Attitudes Toward
Pronunciation in ESL/EFL Teaching Contexts.” Asian Englishes 21 (2): 207–222. doi:10.1080/13488678.2018.
1554303.
Monfared, A., and M. Khatib. 2018. “English or Englishes? Outer and Expanding Circle Teachers’ Awareness of and
Attitudes Towards Their own Variants of English in ESL/EFL Teaching Contexts.” Australian Journal of Teacher
Education 43: 2. doi:10.14221/ajte.2018v43n2.4.
Murahata, G., Y. Murahata, and V. J. Cook. 2016. “Research Questions and Methodology of Multi-Competence.” In
The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-Competence, edited by Li Wei and V. J. Cook, 26–49. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ness-Evans, A., and B. J. Rooney. 2011. Methods in Psychological Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
O’Rourke, B., and J. Pujolar. 2013. “From Native Speakers to ‘New Speakers’ – Problematizing Nativeness in Language
Revitalization Contexts.” Histoire Epistemologie Langage 35: 47–67.
Petric, B. 2009. “I Thought I was an Easterner; it Turns Out I am a Westerner: EIL Migrant Teacher Identities.” In
English as an International Language: Perspectives and Pedagogical Issues, edited by F. Sharifian, 135–150.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Phan, L. H. 2008. Teaching English as an International Language: Identity, Resistance and Negotiation. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sadeghpour, M., and F. Sharifian. 2019. “World Englishes in English Language Teaching.” World Englishes 38: 245–
258.
Smith, L. E., and C. Nelson. 2006. “World Englishes and Issues of Intelligibility.” In The Handbook of World Englishes,
edited by B. B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, and C. L. Nelson, 428–445. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Spolsky, B. 1993. “Testing Across Cultures: An Historical Perspective.” World Englishes 12 (1): 87–93.
Taylor, L. 2002. “Assessing Learners’ English: But Whose/Which English(es)?” Research Notes 10: 18–20.
Taylor, L. 2006. “The Changing Landscape of English: Implications for Language Assessment.” ELT Journal 60: 51–60.
Taylor, L. 2008. “Language Varieties and Their Implications for Testing and Assessment.” In Multilingualism and
Assessment: Achieving Transparency, Assuring Quality, Sustaining Diversity, edited by Lynda Taylor and Ceryl J.
Weir, 276–295. Cambridge: UCLES/Cambridge University Press.
Tsang, A. 2019. “Why English Accents and Pronunciation ‘Still’ Matter for Teachers Nowadays: A Mixed-Methods
Study on Learners’ Perceptions.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–17. doi:10.1080/
01434632.2019.1600528.
Uysal, H. H. 2010. “A Critical Review of the IELTS Writing Test.” ELT Journal 64 (3): 314–320.
Weir, C. J. 2005. Language Testing and Validation: An Evidence-Based Approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Xi, X. 2010. “How do We Go About Investigating Test Fairness?” Language Testing 27 (2): 147–170.
Zafar Khan, S. 2009. “Imperialism of International Tests: An EIL Perspective.” In English as an International Language:
Perspectives and Pedagogical Issues, edited by F. Sharifian, 190–205. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Appendix: Questionnaire Items

(1) Examinees do not need to speak like a native speaker in order for me to assign high scores.
(2) I do not grade down examinees that speak a variety, as long as they express themselves well.
(3) The rater is not responsible for examinees’ intelligibility.
(4) I give high scores to examinees that use expressions as used by the native speakers of English.
(5) Native speakers of English do not best serve as raters of oral English test (e.g. TOEFL, IELTS).
934 A. MONFARED

(6) Speakers of non-standard varieties (i.e. not British or American English) currently outnumber native speakers of
Standard English and their own varieties of English should be highly valued in international tests.
(7) Raters of speaking tests (e.g. TOEFL, IELTS) should develop an awareness of the global appropriacy and local
appropriation of English.
(8) Raters of speaking tests (e.g. TOEFL, IELTS) should have opportunities to be exposed to varieties of English
during training.
(9) Non-native varieties of English should be accepted as equal to native varieties in the tests.
(10) The tests should include all varieties of English, both native and non-native.
(11) Unless varieties of English are promoted via educational efforts, such as by being codified in the dictionary, they
can’t obtain legal status and become standard.
(12) Language learners should be exposed to different varieties of English so that they can develop a comprehensive
understanding of accent varieties of English such as Indian English/Singaporean English in their real-world
encounters.
(13) Non-native speakers of English can also create new words of English.
(14) If a test-taker produces this sentence – The children are still playing together, isn’t it? – it should be considered
acceptable.
(15) If a test-taker produces this sentence – Why you came late? – it should be considered acceptable.
(16) If a test-taker produces this sentence – I wish I have a car – it should be considered acceptable.
(17) The boss is outstation – he will be back on Monday. The word ‘outstation’ is acceptable English in this sentence.
(18) He is only a paper driver – he has got a license but he can’t drive. The phrase ‘paper driver’ is acceptable English
in this sentence.