57

Critiquing ELT in Thailand: A reflection from history to practice

Phongsakorn Methitham
พงศกร เมธีธรรม
Pisarn Bee Chamcharatsri
พิศาล บี แจ่ มจรั สศรี

Abstract
This paper explores the historical aspect of English and English Language Teaching (ELT) in
Thailand. We trace back to the first exposure and acquaintance with English in the country.
English has been playing a significant role in different contexts such as military, trade, and
tourism. In Thai education, English language has been gaining its pre-eminence role since 18th
century. We would like to reflect on linguistic imperialism, a prevailing issue in prototypical
methods developed by western theorists. This issue has been critically examined in different
countries in Asia, but not so much in Thailand. To date, many research studies have been
focused only on how to apply a set of pedagogical principles and techniques in the local
classroom, in which social, cultural, and political dimensions have been excluded from those
studies.
Keywords: English language teaching (ELT), Linguistic Imperialism, English in Thailand

บทคัดย่ อ
บทความชิ ้นนี ้ต้ องการสารวจความเป็ นมาของการเรี ยนการสอนภาษาอังกฤษในประเทศไทย โดยผู้เขียนได้ มองย้ อนไปถึง
การเข้ ามาของภาษาอังกฤษในประเทศไทยว่า ภาษาอังกฤษได้ มีบทบาทสาคัญในหลายบริ บททางสังคมไทย เช่น ด้ าน
การทหาร ด้ านการพาณิชย์ และด้ านการท่องเที่ยว นอกจากนี ้ ภาษาอังกฤษยังได้ รับความสาคัญอย่างมากในระบบ
การศึกษาไทย ตังแต่
้ ศตวรรษที่ 18 เป็ นต้ นมา บทความชิ ้นนี ้ต้ องการสะท้ อนประเด็นด้ านการครอบงาเชิงภาษาที่แทรกอยู่
ในวิธีการเรี ยนการสอนที่ล้วนพัฒนาโดยนักทฤษฎีชาวตะวันตก ซึง่ ได้ เป็ นที่วพิ ากษ์ วจิ ารณ์ในหลายประเทศทัว่ เอเชีย
หากแต่ยงั ไม่ได้ รับความสนใจมากนักในประเทศไทย งานวิจยั ต่าง ๆ ที่ผ่านมาล้ วนมุ่งศึกษาว่าจะนาเอาหลักการและ
เทคนิควิธีการสอนไปใช้ ในห้ องเรี ยนอย่างไร แต่กลับละเลยที่จะศึกษามิตทิ างด้ าน สังคม วัฒนธรรม และ การเมือง

คำสำคัญ: การสอนภาษาอังกฤษ การครอบงาเชิงภาษา ภาษาอังกฤษในประเทศไทย

Methitham, P., & Chamcharatsri, P. B. (2011). Critiquing ELT in Thailand: A reflection from history to practice. Journal of
Humanities, Naresuan University, 8(2), 57-68
 58

Introduction
On his deathbed in 1851, King Nangklao predicted “There will be no more wars with
Vietnam and Burma, We will have them only with the West.” (M. Ngaosyvathn & P.
Ngaosyvathn as cited in C. Baker & Phongpaichit, 2005, p. 39)
As presented in an opening quote, King Nangklao viewed the presence of the
West in Southeast Asia as a threat to not only Thailand‘s independence, but national
identities and solidarity. This view has always been linked to military, economic, and
cultural dominance; but the recognition of this unequal power relationship seems never
to carry over to the language and language education. To illustrate, Thai people observe
that English has gained pre-eminence as a gatekeeper in career prospects, business
opportunities, and higher education. Thai teachers of English experience the dominance
of teaching methods, classroom materials, and testing techniques developed by the West
However, the phenomena have been taken for granted and remains apolitical to Thais
for a long time.
In recent years, a number of language educators have argued that the dominance
of English, promoted by western-led ELT industry, have created linguistic and cultural
inequalities and significantly lessened the traditional and prominent roles of local
languages and cultures. As a result, English-speaking individuals and organizations have
increasingly gained more benefits from the present spread of English. This climate shows
a strong connection to linguistic imperialism (Canagarajah, 1999; Pennycook, 1994;
Phillipson, 1992). Linguistic imperialism has been the reason for ELT professionals to
criticize and examine deep-rooted pedagogical principles and practices from the West in
the local English classrooms. This paper aims at problematizing the prototypical practice
implemented in the language education. We firstly trace back to the first exposure and
acquaintance with English. Secondly, the critical examination on the ELT practices in the
country will be presented. Finally, this article will propose questions for all of those who
are related to English language education to pounder on.

The History of English Language in Thailand

English was introduced to Southeast Asia together with the growing of British
colonial Empire in the region. The Straits Settlements including Penang, Singapore, and
Malacca were in use as trading centers of the British East India Company in 1786, 1819,
and 1824 respectively (Crystal, 2003). After receiving the independence, English language
and its culture still remain very dominant in Singapore and Malaysia, and eventually
marginalize a great diversity of ethnic languages in these countries (Bautista & Gonzalez,
2006). English has gained its predominance not only in the former colonies, but also
throughout Southeast Asian region, namely Cambodia (Chamnan & Cornish, 1997), Laos
(Sithirajvogsa & Goh, 2000), Vietnam (Denham, 1992; Goh & Bang, 2000), Myanmar
(Bautista & Gonzalez, 2006; Fen, 2005), Indonesia (Renandya, 2000; Smith, 1991), and
Thailand (W. Baker, 2008; Foley, 2005; Horey, 1991; Wongsothorn, Hiranburana, &
Chinnawongs, 2003).

Methitham, P., & Chamcharatsri, P. B. (2011). Critiquing ELT in Thailand: A reflection from history to practice. Journal of
Humanities, Naresuan University, 8(2), 57-68
 59

In Thailand, English was introduced to the country in the 18th century. We agree
with Baker and Phongpaichit‘s claim that the country‘s rich agricultural production and
natural resources attract European Empires to make contact with kings with a hidden
intention to seize and colonize the country. Neale (as cited in C. Baker & Phongpaichit,
2005) puts it:
Under a better sway, what country in the East would rival Siam1: rich in its soil and
productions, possessed of valuable mines and gums, spices and pepper, the best and cheapest rice
and sugars, and the land absolutely encumbered with the most luscious fruits in the world…Few
countries are richer than Siam as regards produce suited for and sought after in European
markets, and few countries afford a wider filed for the acquisition of wealth…it would be much
lamented that any other European power should forestall us in seizing such as advantageous
opportunity. (p. 40)
Europeans came to the country in search for the prosperity of the land, but pay
no respect to the people by viewing Thai people as ―at best semi-barbarous…an
oppressed and cringing people…wrapped in the grossest ignorance and superstition, and
lost to all sentiment of moral virtue‖ (Neale as cited in C. Baker & Phongpaichit, 2005, p.
40). Based on David Abeel‘s comments, Baker and Phongpaichit (2005) further claim
that those Westerners look down upon Thailand as ―a land benighted by slavery, opium,
gambling, idolatry, despotism, and ‗shameless indecency of language and dress‘‖ (2005, p.
40).
Siamese elites acknowledge that ―the new westerners had a sense of their own
superiority, and believed this superiority justified them in seizing territory in order to
confer ‗progress‘ and bring ‗benighted‘ people into the modern world.‖ (C. Baker &
Phongpaichit, 2005, p. 40). In this sense, these westerners bring with new technological
advancement as well as new knowledge, English, to the country. English during that time
was widely recognized among, at least, Thai elites as the language for safety and
prosperity as discussed by Sukamolson (1998) as follows:
Due to the influence of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, some foreign countries such
as England, France, Spain, and Portugal turned to a colonial policy. Many countries in
Asia…were colonized…and had to live under the wings of more powerful countries for many
years…To counterbalance the influences of England and France…Thailand decided to sign
trade treaties with both England in 1825 and America in 1832 during King Rama IV’s
reign. This…helped Thailand begin to realize the importance of…English for the safety and
prosperity of the country. The fear [of being colonized] was very great when China was defeated
by England in “The Opium War” in 1842. (p. 69)
In addition, Thais experienced the influence of English through the Protestant
missionaries from the US who arrived in the reign of King Rama III (1824-1851) in the
1830‘s. These missionaries had attempted to convert Thais from Buddhism to
Christianity; however, they ―had virtually no success in [doing so; they] quickly turned to
education, medical work, and the introduction of modern technology…[including] the
first printing press…the first medical dispensary…and…the first newspaper‖ (Darling,
1Thailand was formerly known as Siam. The name Siam was changed to Thailand on June 5, 1939 (C.
Baker & Phongpaichit, 2005)

Methitham, P., & Chamcharatsri, P. B. (2011). Critiquing ELT in Thailand: A reflection from history to practice. Journal of
Humanities, Naresuan University, 8(2), 57-68
 60

1962, p. 93). King Rama III found that such technological advances as introduced by the
missionaries were ―essential and appropriate for modernizing the country‖ (Sukamolson,
1998, p. 69) and this convinced His Majesty to believe the importance of English as the
national security and the key to success in both global and regional competitions.
Influenced by his father, King Rama IV, who reigned from 1851 to 1868, was a great
scholar, interested in language, astronomy, religion, and history (Debyasuvarn, 1981).
Besides Thai language, the King himself spoke and wrote in English, along with both
Oriental and Western languages including Pali, Sanskrit, French, and Latin.
King Rama V ―is regarded as one of the most resourceful monarchs, who
changed Siam into a modern state‖ (Debyasuvarn, 1981, p. 83), and he opened the
country to extensive contacts with the West. Darling (1962) claims that King Rama V
was greatly influenced in modernizing the country by his tutor the Reverend Jesse
Caswell, an American Congregationalist, in his younger days. Also another American
influence came from Dr. Edward H. Strobel of Harvard University whom the King
appointed to work as a foreign affairs adviser to his government.
Despite such evidence of Western influence, King Rama V had always been acutely
aware that the Kingdom of Siam needed to adopt the western advances and technology
with rational, careful, and critical examination. He lost his admiration of European
powers once they invaded and seized countries in the region (C. Baker & Phongpaichit,
2005). His Majesty viewed the West as a threat to not only Siam‘s independence but also
to Thai cultural identities. King Rama V had foresighted on this issue that Thai citizens
would adopt the Western ideas and ideologies uncritically in which he had made a
powerful claim that ―… modernization could be achieved without adversely affecting
Siamese identity and eventually could serve to strengthen national identity and solidarity
in ways responsive to both local traditions and to the challenges presented by the West‖
(Wyatt as cited in Fry, 2002, p. 8). Hence, the fact that Siamese kings embraced the
English language and warmly welcomed English Western tutors into the country was
simply to let Thai people get acquainted with or have ―English as another language with
which to interact with the wider world community…[and] to take advantage of what the
present-day world has to offer‖ (Savage, 1997, p. 314).
During the years 1893-1931, many Thai officers and Thai students were sent
abroad to receive a higher education, particularly in Europe and America (Sukamolson,
1998). This caused the English language to become more and more important in Thai
society and education. In 1921, English served as a mandatory subject in all government
schools beyond Grade 4 (Durongphan et al., as cited in Wongsothorn, 2000). However,
in recent decades, English has gained a new preeminence in the country. In the 1980s,
there was a fast growth in tourism and foreign investment in Thailand. Foreign language
skills were crucial for job recruitment, professional training, and work performance.
English, then, became the preferred first foreign language. Additionally, the Year of
Tourism in 1987 and a laissez-faire policy of development in 1988 led to the widespread
influence of the English language in the country‘s tourist-related enterprises, and joint-
venture factories and companies. In this connection, this caused the role of English has
also played itself out in education as well.

Methitham, P., & Chamcharatsri, P. B. (2011). Critiquing ELT in Thailand: A reflection from history to practice. Journal of
Humanities, Naresuan University, 8(2), 57-68
 61

The History of English Language Teaching in Thailand

The history of formal English Language Teaching (ELT) has its origins in the
reign of the King Rama III by American missionaries with the introduction of Western
education methods (W. Baker, 2008; Durongphan, Aksornkul, Sawangwong, &
Tiancharoen, 1982; Foley, 2005; Wongsothorn, 2000). The increasing number of
westerners from trading, religious, and colonial agenda created the demand for the
English knowledge among higher court officials and administrators. King Rama IV was
the first who was able to communicate both in oral and written English (Debyasuvarn,
1981). He also wanted his wives and children in his court to be educated about the world
beyond Siam. He, thus, arranged for them to receive English lessons from Christian
missionaries and other British and American tutors. One of them was the well-known
Anna Leonowens2, who turned to work as a teacher of English to support her children
after the loss of her husband. After the death of King Rama IV, King Rama V, the
successor, did not invite Anna to continue her teaching in the Siamese court.
Soon after King Rama VI issued the Compulsory Education Act of 1921, English
became a mandatory subject for students beyond Grade 4 in the national curriculum
(Durongphan, et al., 1982). As seen by educational policy marked in Thailand at that
time, ELT served two major purposes: to produce modern thinkers for the country and
to provide children with a sufficient knowledge of English to be able to function in
English-speaking classrooms (Aksornkul, 1980). ELT during the reigns of King Rama VI
and King Rama VII (1910-1932) was based on rote-memorization and grammar
translation (Debyasuwan as cited in Wongsothorn, 2000). The situation remained
unchanged until 1960 when a greater emphasis on English for international
communication came into play in the English curriculum. Foley (2005) adds that this
shift was greatly influenced by the fast-growing involvement of the United States in the
Indochina War. At that time, the army method or audio-lingual method which was used
to train army interpreters was introduced to replace traditional rote-learning and
grammar translation. However, Foley (2005) comments that this approach did not
succeed very well because it ran counter to the rote memorization that was long
ingrained in the Thai educational traditions.
Along with the new national curricula in 1977 and 1980, students in higher
education were required to take six foreign language credits as part of a general education
program. Other languages apart from English were French, German, and Japanese;
however, English was still the preferred first foreign language among Thai students
(Wongsothorn, 2000). This might be because English is a required subject since Grade 4.
At the same time, a new teaching method called ―the communicative approach‖ came
into focus in the ELT circle of professionals worldwide. Around this period the British
Council, an ELT agency from the British government, or, as Bhatt (2001) terms it, ―an
agency of linguistic coercion‖ (p. 532) was (and is still up to now) involved in running
series of in-service training courses to assist ELT professionals in the country (Foley,

2 Anna was the celebrated author of Anna and the King of Siam in the western hemisphere; however, she has
been less respected among Thai people on grounds of historical distortions and cultural hegemony in her
fictionalized story based on her self-perceived experience. Recently, the remake of Anna and the King was
denied from being filmed in Thailand; it was also banned from being released in the country in 1999.

Methitham, P., & Chamcharatsri, P. B. (2011). Critiquing ELT in Thailand: A reflection from history to practice. Journal of
Humanities, Naresuan University, 8(2), 57-68
 62

2005; Phillipson, 1992). In recent years, British Council has supported and arranged free
teacher training series for local teachers in Thailand. Each training session includes one
native English speaker with British accent and approximately 20 local English teachers
attending and listening to ‗how-to‘ techniques for teachers to ‗try‘ in their English classes.
Nunan (2003) claims that his ELT survey across Asian Pacific countries shows
considerable inequality in access to effective English language instruction between the
haves and the have-nots in urban and rural areas. His argument might suggest the case in
Thailand that with more access to effective English language instruction and more
exposure to western learning culture, urban area students found considerable success in
learning English or another foreign language using the communicative approach. The
creative use of such approach shows the potential to develop students‘ language abilities
in the urban areas and major cities where local teachers with high language competence
and native-speaking teachers are sufficiently available or easily recruited. However, the
situation is different in less developed areas where traditional English education went
unchanged.
Another paradigm shift took place in 1996 when English became mandatory for
all primary children from Grade 1. The English language curriculum was developed on
the basis of a new functional-communicative approach (Wongsothorn as cited in Foley,
2005) in order to lay a sound learning foundation. The focus was on the development of
language proficiency so that students could achieve a number of goals: international
communication, acquisition of knowledge, use of English in higher education, and career
prospects. Once again, this fixed pattern of language teaching, which was designed by
native theorists, was the method promoted as an appropriate way of teaching and
learning for the non-native teachers and learners without sufficiently recognizing or
understanding the local teaching and learning contexts.
The most recent change was part of the 1999 Education Act and National
Education Curriculum implemented in 2002 which placed English ―at the forefront of
national intellectual development‖ (Wongsothorn, et al., 2003). The English curriculum is
based on four orientations or 4 Cs: Communication, Culture, Connection, and
Community. Baker (2008) observes that the national ELT has changed from traditional
teacher-centered to more learner-centered methods. This new method also needs to be
combined with practical experience based on local community needs, together with,
independent work, autonomous learning, and self-access.

The Present Status of ELT in Thailand

Critically examining the historical background, one finds evidence that these
shifts in policy and curriculum are entirely initiated from those who have power, and that
local teachers may have played a passive role, never having been empowered to take
charge of their teaching. The impression of this phenomenon is that these teachers have
always been expected to follow a particular set of theoretical principles and classroom
techniques which are conceptualized only by Western theorists, not the local teachers;
however, they are considered as appropriate teaching methods (Kumaravadivelu, 2003).

Methitham, P., & Chamcharatsri, P. B. (2011). Critiquing ELT in Thailand: A reflection from history to practice. Journal of
Humanities, Naresuan University, 8(2), 57-68
 63

Hence, these Western prototypical teaching methods that the local teachers have to
follow disempowered their instructional judgments and devalue their teaching
experience.
Thai teachers and students have long experienced ELT methodologies including
Audio-Lingual in 1960, Communicative Language Teaching in 1977, functional-
communicative approach in 1996 generated by English native-speaking theorists, and a
recent national curriculum issued by the Ministry of Education in Thailand. English is
treated as communicative tools for students as it has been promoted throughout twelve
years of learning English in Basic Education system. Recently, applied linguists such as
Robert Philipson, Alastaire Pennycook, Suresh Canagarajah, and B. Kumaravadivelu , by
looking through critical lens, criticize that those teaching methods contain political
ideologies aiming at prioritizing the Western culture and centralizing the Western
interests. From the partial data taken from questionnaires and interviews among Thai
teachers of English, Methitham (2009) reveals that the majority perceived the Anglo-
American-generated methodological concepts as neutral and apolitical tools in teaching
English, and they believed that these concepts did not contained any hidden ideologies.
Moreover, the most preferred teaching approach among them was still Communicative
Language Teaching (CLT).
CLT has been extensively accredited by many celebrated scholars and promoted
through ELT popular conferences, training programs, and teaching materials (Leung,
2005). Bhatt (2002) also links the popularity of this method to Noam Chomsky‘s notion
of ―an ideal native speaker‖ – a native speaker as an ideal informant of a language –
permeating the TESOL field. This popular methodology is biased on native speakers‘ use
of language. CLT tries to ―define language learners in terms of what they are not, or at
least not yet‖ (Kramsch, 1998, p. 28), or as Cook (1999) adds ―not ever‖ (p. 189). That is,
the methodology tends to evaluate who succeed and fail against the native speaker norms
or standard.
Hence, it is not surprising why CLT is considered as ―the principal methodology
of Western-led TESOL for the past 30 years‖ (Jenkins, 2006, p. 173) and receives the
most preference as ―the most effective, and authoritative for their classrooms‖ (Okazaki,
2005, p. 176) among the local practitioners. In justification of choosing CLT as their
most preferred method, Thai teachers seem to echo the voices and choices of those
celebrated Western scholars who attempt to neutralize the monolingual and
monocultural bias with the promise of communicative competence. To illustrate, one
teacher states in Methitham‘s study (2009) that ―this [method] will help [students] to
study English better if they understand the native culture and perspective. … We need to
understand them. We have to learn the way Westerners think, say, or speak their mind in
different situation so that we can understand them better.‖
If the truth be known, CLT has received a very serious critique as it is heavily
biased toward Western communicative styles and cultures (Holliday, 2005; Leung, 2005).
It is not exaggerated to claim that CLT has as its goal to promote a communicative ability
appropriate for ―the specific purpose culturally empathizing if not culturally assimilating,
with native speakers of English‖ (Kumaravadivelu, 2003, p. 543). Teachers insist on

Methitham, P., & Chamcharatsri, P. B. (2011). Critiquing ELT in Thailand: A reflection from history to practice. Journal of
Humanities, Naresuan University, 8(2), 57-68
 64

―conformity to native-speaker norms‖ (Howatt & Widdowson, 2004, p. 361) and

evaluate students against ―the idealized native-speaker model‖ (Leung, 2005, p. 139). The
students struggle to reach goals ―which are both unrealistic and unnecessary [and the
teachers make them] subservient and prevent them from appropriating the language‖
(Howatt & Widdowson, 2004, p. 361). In such classrooms, both Thai teachers‘ and
students‘ cultural backgrounds and local literacies tends to be ignored in the learning
process.
In addition, Anglo-American culture is not only promoted through teacher-led
processes in, for example, CLT-oriented classrooms, but also reinforced through extra-
curricular activities held by English language departments, such as celebrations to mark
Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. The activities include decorations with
information on such holidays on a large board, role plays, and gift exchanges. Thai
teachers of English in Methitham‘s study (2009) claimed that cultural activities are
promoted to reinforce the students the ideology of ‗nativeness‘ by having them become
acquainted with Western cultures or, at least, as one of the participants answered that
these activities allowed the students to ―get a little bit nearer to the culture of the west...as
we call ourselves Department of Western Languages‖. Celebrating Western events at
schools is a two-sided sword. On the one hand, students will be able to learn more about
historical aspects behind these festivities. On the other hand, if this cultural promotion is
not taken into account critically, the students will run a risk of being subject to linguistic
and cultural imperialism. They are likely to prioritize nativeness as the only way to
become competent in English and devalue their local non-nativeness as it can hinder
their language acquisition.
Thai students are initially imposed and, later on, internalize a heavy burden in the
demand that they try to make themselves ―sound native-like‖ among those particular
speakers from the English-speaking West. They often dream of being able to listen and
respond in either British or American accents, fluent in both speaking and writing. They
are mesmerized by TV programs, music, and Hollywood movies that they, too, could live
like that only if they could speak English that well. To apply Canagarajah‘s (2005)
objection to monoculturalism in a multilingual context, it is impractical and unrealistic to
pay an attention to only one (or a couple) of dominant English-speaking cultures.
Communicative competence in British and American cultures cannot effectively allow
students to fully participate in multicultural communication.
Another issue besides the use of CLT is the myth that there is the best method in
teaching English. This is the residue of the heavily promoted teaching methodologies in
the past. Thai English teachers and educators are always in a quest of finding how to
equip students with English so that they can use it in different contexts effectively.
However, uncritical examination on teaching methods has not been seriously discussed.
The teaching methods from the West always play a significant role in ELT in Thailand.
This is because these promoted teaching methods are research-supported and are
pedagogically sound. Thai English teachers willingly ‗adopt‘ these teaching methods and
materials unknowingly or unrealizingly that the teaching contexts are different. Histories,
festivals, and cultures from the West in the English textbooks are perceived as civilized
and modern, while the local ones are outdated and need to keep up with the world. By

Methitham, P., & Chamcharatsri, P. B. (2011). Critiquing ELT in Thailand: A reflection from history to practice. Journal of
Humanities, Naresuan University, 8(2), 57-68
 65

promoting and immersing students‘ lives with native speakers‘ cultures, we marginalize
ourselves both language and culture. With the help from media and the internet, students
are likely to perceive that the native speakers‘ norms are better than the local ones.

The Future of ELT in Thailand

As we have stated at the beginning of this article, we are not aiming to provide
solution on the discussed issue. Rather, we would like to raise the critical consciousness
in ELT in Thailand. It is not uncommon for us to end this article with more questions
for Thai teachers and educators to find solutions. We also think that English teaching
should not be encapsulated and taken for granted into solely in classrooms; teachers and
educators need to take into consideration the social aspects of language teaching and
learning. The questions we are unable to answer ourselves are as follows:
What impact does the globalization do to the curriculum and role of ELT in the
country? Who has the authorities to comment and make suggestions to the curriculum
and who has not? How practical is the curriculum to the actual teaching practice? How
does English create the impact to the economy in Thailand? Why do we need to use
mass produced teaching materials from the Western countries? Who should make such
decisions? If we use western materials in teaching, is Thai cultural heritage marginalized?
Are we marginalized ourselves? Who are the native speakers? How do you define ―native
speakers‖—by birth, by location? Why do we need them? Is the role of native speakers in
classrooms the facilitators or leaders in class? These are the questions we would like
everyone (government, school, parents, and students) who is involved in decision making
to think about.

Methitham, P., & Chamcharatsri, P. B. (2011). Critiquing ELT in Thailand: A reflection from history to practice. Journal of
Humanities, Naresuan University, 8(2), 57-68
 66

References

Aksornkul, N. (1980). EFL planning in Thailand: A case study in language

planning. Unpublished Dissertation, Georgetown University.
Baker, C., & Phongpaichit, P. (2005). A history of Thailand. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Baker, W. (2008). A critical examination of ELT in Thailand: The role of cultural
awareness. RELC Journal, 39(1), 131-146.
Bautista, M. L., & Gonzalez, A. B. (2006). Southeast Asian Englishes. In B. B.
Kachru, Y. Kachru & C. L. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of World
Englishes (pp. 130-144). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Bhatt, R. M. (2001). World Englishes. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 527-550.
Bhatt, R. M. (2002). Experts, dialects, and discourse. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 12(1), 74-109.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching.
Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2005). Introduction. In A. S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Reclaiming the local
in language policy and practice. Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chamnan, P., & Cornish, A. (1997). Language and education in Cambodia. In B.
Kenny & W. Savage (Eds.), Language and development : Teachers in a changing
world (pp. 39-43). New York: Longman.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 33(2), 185-209.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Darling, F. C. (1962). American policy in Thailand. The Western Political Quarterly,
15(1), 93-110.
Debyasuvarn, M. L. B. (1981). Will EIIL succeed where ESL and EFL fail? In L. E.
Smith (Ed.), English for cross-cultural communication (pp. 83-93). New
York: St. Martin's Press.
Denham, P. (1992). English in Vietnam. World Englishes, 11(1), 61-69.
Durongphan, M., Aksornkul, N., Sawangwong, W., & Tiancharoen, S. (1982). The
development of English teaching in Thailand: A Rattanakosin Experience.
Bangkok: Aksorn Charoentat.
Fen, W. S. (2005). English in Myanmar. RELC Journal, 36(1), 93-104.
Foley, J. A. (2005). English in...Thailand. RELC (Regional Language Centre
Journal), 36(2), 223-234.

Methitham, P., & Chamcharatsri, P. B. (2011). Critiquing ELT in Thailand: A reflection from history to practice. Journal of
Humanities, Naresuan University, 8(2), 57-68
 67

Fry, G. W. (2002). The evolution of educational reform in Thailand. Retrieved from

http://www.worldedreform.com/intercon2/fly.pdf
Goh, E., & Bang, N. (2000). Vietnam. In W. K. Ho & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Language
policies and language education: The impact in East Asian countries in
the next decade (pp. 321-332). Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Horey, P. (1991). Some economic aspects of the use of English in the Thai tourism
industry. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 2(1), 155-174.
Howatt, A. P. R., & Widdowson, H. G. (2004). A history of English language
teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English
as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157-181.
Kramsch, C. (1998). The privilege of the intercultural speaker. In M. Byram & M.
Fleming (Eds.), Language learning in intercultural perspective:
Approaches through drama and ethnography (pp. 16-31). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Critical language pedagogy: A postmethod perspective
on English language teaching. World Englishes, 22(4), 539-550.
Leung, C. (2005). Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative
competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 119-144.
Methitham, P. (2009). An Exploration of Culturally-based Assumptions Guiding
ELT Practice in Thailand, a Non-colonized Nation. Unpublished
Dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana.
Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational
policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4),
589-613.
Okazaki, T. (2005). Critical consciousness and critical language. Second Language
Studies, 23(2), 174-202.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language.
London: Longman.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Renandya, W. A. (2000). Indonesia. In W. K. Ho & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Language
policies and language education: The impact in East Asian Countries in
the next decade (pp. 113-138). Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Savage, W. (1997). Language and development. In B. Kenny & W. Savage (Eds.),
Language and Development: Teachers in a changing world (pp. 283-325). New
York: Longman.

Methitham, P., & Chamcharatsri, P. B. (2011). Critiquing ELT in Thailand: A reflection from history to practice. Journal of
Humanities, Naresuan University, 8(2), 57-68
 68

Sithirajvogsa, S., & Goh, E. (2000). Lao PDR. In W. K. Ho & R. Wong (Eds.),
Language policies and language education: The impact in East Asian
countries in the next decade (pp. 197-207). Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Smith, B. D. (1991). English in Indonesia. English Today, 7(2), 39-43.
Sukamolson, S. (1998). English language education policy in Thailand. Asian
Englishes, 1(1), 68-91.
Wongsothorn, A. (2000). Thailand. In H. W. Kam & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Language
policies and language education: The impact in East Asian countries in
the next decade (pp. 307-320). Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Wongsothorn, A., Hiranburana, K., & Chinnawongs, S. (2003). English language
teaching in Thailand today. In H. W. Kam & R. L. Wong (Eds.), English
Language Teaching in East Asia Today: Changing Policies and Practices
(pp. 441-453). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.

Methitham, P., & Chamcharatsri, P. B. (2011). Critiquing ELT in Thailand: A reflection from history to practice. Journal of
Humanities, Naresuan University, 8(2), 57-68