See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/365086803

Global issues in a series of EFL textbooks and implications for end-users to

promote peace education through teaching English

Article in Journal of Peace Education · November 2022

DOI: 10.1080/17400201.2022.2140403

CITATIONS READS

0 199

2 authors, including:

Yunus Emre Akbana

Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University
24 PUBLICATIONS 52 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yunus Emre Akbana on 17 November 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Peace Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjpe20

Global issues in a series of EFL textbooks and

implications for end-users to promote peace
education through teaching English

Yunus Emre Akbana & Aysun Yavuz

To cite this article: Yunus Emre Akbana & Aysun Yavuz (2022): Global issues in a series of EFL
textbooks and implications for end-users to promote peace education through teaching English,
Journal of Peace Education, DOI: 10.1080/17400201.2022.2140403

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2022.2140403

Published online: 02 Nov 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjpe20
JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2022.2140403

Global issues in a series of EFL textbooks and implications

for end-users to promote peace education through
teaching English
a b
Yunus Emre Akbana and Aysun Yavuz
a
English Language Teaching, Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University, Kahramanmaras, Turkey;
b
English Language Teaching, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

English has long been accepted as lingua franca (ELF) to Received 24 July 2021
share values, beliefs and opinions. ELF can be interrelated Accepted 23 October 2022
with the paradigms of Global Englishes Language Teaching KEYWORDS
(GELT), English as an International Language (EIL) and English English as a foreign
as Medium of Instruction (EMI). Textbooks should present language; English prep-
content covering global issues (GIs), leading to a better program; language of peace
understanding of the spread of English and its connection approach; global issues;
with globalization where peace education (PE) should be peace education; textbook
built on. English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) teachers usually analysis
feel under pressure to follow textbooks in English prep-
programs in Turkey. Therefore, the extent that EFL textbooks
offer GIs is crucial for developing learners’ understanding of
PE beyond national boundaries. Although relevant literature
has well documented the place of GIs in language teaching
and paucity of research on PE in language education, EFL
textbooks have remained under-researched. For this reason,
a comprehensive checklist of GIs was used to examine a five-
level series of coursebooks (A1-C1). Data analysis showed
that three lower-level coursebooks employed less GIs than
those with higher-levels. Issues ranged from environment to
health, whilst specific content for PE appeared moderately.
Several implications are made for a meaningful match of GIs
and GELT, EIL, EMI and EFL teaching with Language of Peace
Approach.

Introduction
Peace education could be delivered in comfortable teaching zones where
curriculum designers allow teachers, teacher educators and teacher trainers to
cover issues that ultimately assist learners raise awareness to issues and chal­
lenges that the world faces (Cremin 2016). Frequent arguments have been
made around the crisis of legitimation, representation and praxis in the follow­
ing domains: peace, education, peace education, research and peace education

CONTACT Yunus Emre Akbana yunusemreakbana@gmail.com English Language Teaching,

Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University, Kahramanmaras, Turkey
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 Y.E. AKBANA AND A. YAVUZ

research (Bajaj 2015; Bajaj and Brantmeier 2011; Dietrich 2012; Echavarría and
Cremin 2019; Kurian and Kester 2019; Zembylas and Bekerman 2013).
These domains highlight the need for dealing with any forms of violence,
inequality, injustice, non-western traditions of peace, social and educational
dissonance, contestation and exclusion in structural or cultural norms (Cremin
2016). These forms can be accomplished by education and education can well
prepare the grounds for shaping the future of peace in the world. However, the
future of the world might be shaped by the local issues of today’s world. To
ensure global peace, GIs could be of primary focus or have a mutual interaction
with global peace. Therefore, the scope of the present study attempts to
operationalize GIs as content for peace education in language teaching.
There is a plethora of GIs interacting with peace education. The issues range
from education on peace directly or human rights, health, linguistics, socio-
economy to gender indirectly (Cates 2000; Çavdar 2006; Kaplan 2019; Phillipson
1992; Yoshimura 1993). To deal with these topics, language teachers can be
seen among the most fortunate ones since they can embed GIs into their classes
by using any or all of four language skills; reading, listening, speaking and
writing (Kruger 2012). However, they can still be bond to the textbooks in
intensive language teaching programs (Chen 2005). In intensive language
teaching programs such as one year preparatory English programs at tertiary
level in Turkey, teaching English is based on a series of textbooks (Kirkgöz 2009).
Therefore, textbook selection is high of importance to implement such long-
lasting intensive programs. Similarly, the topics in textbooks are equally impor­
tant to serve for the needs of programs locally and the cultural interests of
a nation. For example, textbook authors are not advised to include topics on
‘Politics, Alcohol, Religion, Sex, Narcotics, Isms and Pork (PARSNIP)’ within ELT
publishing (Gray 2010, 119). The PARSNIP topics can be regarded inappropriate
topics; however, these topics can be discussed in classroom environment with
young adults with a particular emphasis on content selection (Gray 2010), but
there is still a need for expanding awareness on GIs in textbooks as they are not
restricted only to few issues (Salı and Gürsoy 2014). Of these GIs, mostly
environmental issues are covered in Turkish EFL contexts (Arikan 2009; Başarır
2017; Gürsoy 2010; Gürsoy and Sağlam 2011; Gürsoy and Salı 2014).
Though the 21st century language teachers can exploit the top-down
selected coursebooks in a global outreach of international concerns, the con­
tent of textbooks may still remain a driving force for them to urge their students
get prepared for exams. Such exams mainly rely on the textbooks where the
curriculum is built on. However, teachers should bring appealing topics into
classroom teaching. Therefore, teachers need to be equipped with the aware­
ness of GIs either in their pre-service education period, in their own self-
commitments (Gray 2013), in professional development programs (Cates 1990;
Pratama and Yuliati 2016) or by the best guidance of the textbooks. For this
reason, having textbook as the central guiding material in an English prep-
 JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION 3

program of a state university has garnered the attention of the researchers of

this study. The reason is also due to the fact that in this globalized world, or
simply in this global village (McLuhan 1964), students should be aware of GIs or
problems by mastering language skills through English as the lingua franca
(ELF), in order to be get equipped with peace education. Oxford, Gregersen, and
Olivero (2018) also see this need to be met by the Language of Peace Approach
(LPA) because it focuses on the interaction of peace education and language
education. The authors also report on Curtis’s (2017) study which reviewed
14 years of articles in the Journal of Peace Education and 20 years in
International Journal of Peace Studies and found the paucity of studies inter­
relating peace education and language education together. Since Journal of
Peace Education relates GIs with PE in their journal aims and scope page, the
following questions are waiting attention to be answered in the relevant
literature: ‘How could Global Peace and GIs interact with each other?’; ‘What
are GIs and what makes them global?’; ‘What is the rationale of teaching GIs?’;
‘How can we raise awareness of students?’; ‘How to incorporate these issues in
teaching basic skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking) based on lan­
guage level and department necessities?’; ‘How to assess and/or evaluate the
learning or learning outcomes?’; ‘How can we develop curriculum/syllabus/
course content/materials accordingly?’; ‘How can we cope with sensitive/
taboo/political issues in classroom while teaching GIs?’. To answer these ques­
tions, textbook analysis is the initial stage to see any possible properties of LPA.
Olivero’s (2017) dissertation remains as an outstanding research where the LPA
is related to peace concepts and dimension in language teaching. The aim in
LPA is to offer peace language activities (Oxford, Gregersen, and Olivero 2018).
These activities can incorporate several GIs dealing with gender issues (gender
equality), human rights (freedom of expression), socio-economic issues (social
inequality), health issues (intention of pandemics), linguistic issues (linguistic
imperialism) and so forth on with a focus on peace education issues (coex­
istence, conflict resolution, crimes, warfare) (Kaplan 2019) because peace in the
LPA has several dimensions starting from the person’s own heart to their
relationship with all the nature (Oxford, Gregersen, and Olivero 2018). For
example, seeing terrorism as a GI but a true threat to the global peace, Ford’s
(2019) study on textbooks can be a good example of this kind in LPA. Ford
(2019) examined British school textbooks in terms of how they covered terror­
ism and concludes that the way terrorism is taught in the discourses of text­
books causes a division between communities with a term ‘us’ and ‘them’, which
Ford finds delegitimizing ‘the non-state violence, rendering it as threatening,
profoundly immoral and destructive’ (Ford 2019, 709). As Pennycook (2000, 98–
99) notes that ‘all textbooks, all teaching materials carry cultural and ideological
messages’; it is important to see issues that need attention and bring peace
through English, for which Pennycook (2001) states: ‘English is in the world and
the world is in English.’
4 Y.E. AKBANA AND A. YAVUZ

Regarding the ultimate attainment in language learning, Sciamarelli (2017)

views covering such issues will help learners not only master the language but
also have knowledge and a set of skills to solve some GIs. By doing so, peace can
be built on GIs, kept and felt at the interplay of language teaching through EFL
textbooks. For this purpose, the present study seeks answers to the following
research questions:

(1) Which global issues are employed in the EFL textbooks of a prep-school
program?
(2) What are the foci of the explored global issues in terms of students’
language development and overall gains?

Literature review
Global issues in language teaching textbooks

GIs have garnered the attention of governmental and non-governmental orga­

nizations in an effort to ensure international understanding via English lan­
guage teaching programs. In this regard, as for the governmental
organizations, UNESCO initiated the first project – Linguapax in Kiev in 1987 –
touching upon the effectiveness of language teaching programs exploiting
extracurricular activities and international cooperation (UNESCO 2016) in liaison
with students’ needs and interests (Cates 2002). Regarding the non-
governmental organizations; Teachers of English to Other Languages (TESOL)
based in the US, International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign
Language (IATEFL) in the UK and Japanese Association of Language Teachers
(JALT) in Japan are the most prominent ones among others to organize con­
ferences, seminars, workshops, featured talks, and editing and publishing news­
letters, journals, materials corners, textbook implications or collaborating
academic research targeting practice in language teaching espousing with GIs
as the input of classroom teaching (Rascón-Moreno 2013).
As integrating GIs in language teaching became a common concern in
the second half of the 20th century, the rationale has laid behind the input/
content shaped by the global concerns, and motivating learners for ‘what of
education’ (Cates 1997). Rascón-Moreno (2013) argues that this has trig­
gered centralizing content in approaches to language teaching with
‘Content-Based Instruction’ (CBI), ‘Content-Based Learning’ (CBL), or
‘Content and Language Integrated Learning’ (CLIL). As for shaping the
content, the trendiest term – GE (Global Education) – has taken its place
aiming to establish a global culture of common shares which include the
‘values, attitudes and behaviour which enable the realisation of democracy,
development and human rights’ (Osler 2005, 6). The match of CLIL and GIs
has been seen ‘a meaningful match’ (Strakova 2020). Following that, the
 JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION 5

term – Global Citizenship – has also been promoted through teacher

education programs at tertiary level (Guo 2014). For these reasons, the
textbook companies have started to design coursebooks employing con­
tents of GIs by promoting use of English (Rascón-Moreno 2011, 2013)
because textbooks play a major role in satisfying learners’ needs (Erfani
2012).
The world problems were unfortunately presented in textbooks insufficiently
earlier, but recently many commercial English language textbooks have
appeared to include topics dealing with GIs (Cates 1990). Therefore, topic
selection in textbooks is of utmost importance since textbooks prepare the
grounds for teachers to build discussions, cultural debates and interactional
communication among learners (Gray 2002). Hino and Oda (2015) see textbooks
integrating multiple pedagogical concepts, where GE incorporates peace.
Gimenez, Calvo, and El Kadri (2015) state that learners should start to feel that
English does not only belong to native speakers and they learn it to commu­
nicate with non-natives as well not just to communicate with those in the UK
and the USA for geopolitical reasons. Gimenez, Calvo, and El Kadri (2015, 230)
also purport that ‘meaningful conversations around global issues and critical
awareness raising activities can be better explored within an ELF approach
rather than an EFL one’.
Employing a GELT framework can offer several tangible assets to research-
informed and teacher-led innovations bringing bottom-up constructs beyond
the learning domains. Rose and Galloway (2019) call for studies on materials in
relation to GELT. The studies can be shaped by considering the egalitarian
perspective that the initial G ponders. In other words, to serve something for
global concerns, equity should be sought first. In our case, GIs can prepare the
grounds for touching upon issues that need global concerns.
EFL teaching is backed up with programs preferring English as a Medium of
Instruction (EMI), most commonly in Eastern Asian countries (Rose and Galloway
2019). This may mean ELF but ELF may stand an objection to the construct of
GEs but it can turn into an opportunity by seeing the apparent advantage on the
initial E of the EMI, where the E can stand for Global Englishes (GEs). This can
challenge native speaker centrality and monolingual hegemony that ELF may
potentially cause. From an equality perspective of peace education, GELT can
help students see English as egalitarian because it provides the space for
communication in one language or in other words the ELF. This is due to the
affordance in EMI that both content and language proficiency can be mastered
but whose English to use amongst the teachers and the students may remain
a challenging topic to cover (Galloway 2017). Any GELT curriculum, regardless of
EMI, but a part of preparatory program can challenge the dogmatic notions of
English because the GELT ‘framework can be applied to other areas of teaching
to help highlight areas of needed curriculum change’ (Rose and Galloway 2019,
221). Materials can be designed in spoken and written forms with diversity of
6 Y.E. AKBANA AND A. YAVUZ

linguistic norms and cultural values and they could be informed of real-time
news across the world to bring GELT into Peace Education in LPA (Hino and Oda
2015; Oxford, Gregersen, and Olivero 2018). Although there could be any
confusion between the terms such as GELT, ELF, English as an international
language (EIL), Global Englishes (GEs), English as medium of instruction (EMI),
the most salient feature among them is the use of English as a common
language among individuals from various linguistic and cultural backgrounds
(Bayyurt and Dewey 2020). The common use of English can be seen as
a treatment for not only communication but also for psychological repairs. For
example, Aldana Gutiérrez, Fonseca Guerrero, and Jerez Bohórquez (2020) used
EFL classes as the place for building memory artifacts of the victim students of
the armed conflict in Colombia in an effort to bring their recognition, recon­
struction and reparation under the scope of peace education. By doing so, the
authors conclude that not only the students used English to express their
experiences on violence, but also the teachers had the opportunity to support
them to repair their fragmented identities.
The related literature also portrays a growing number of academic studies
examining the integration of GIs in foreign language teaching that could
ultimately serve for the global peace. For example, Sunderland (1992) focuses
on gender in EFL classroom, Loffredo and McArthur (1996) describe their
teaching experience of AIDS in an Italian context, and Matz (2003) brings
alternative ways on how to handle racism in teaching. The nature of such
studies advocates integration of GIs into language teaching. To illustrate such
combination, Rascón-Moreno (2011) favors integrating GIs in EFL settings
because they did not observe any debilitative effect on learners’ communicative
competence. Further, Rascón-Moreno et al. (2012) report such an incorporation
motivating, rich in input and catering for the students’ interests in their courses
of Translation and Use of English (Rascón-Moreno 2013).
Since the aim is enabling learners’ use of EFL communicatively and effectively
in real life, students engage in learning the issues serving to their interests more
willingly (Dupuy 2000). Therefore, there is a transformation of EFL textbooks
from the mainstream pedagogy into a critical pedagogy with a new manifesta­
tion of thoughts by using English (Davari and Iranmehr 2019). It may be inviting
for teachers to initiate debates in classroom and take advantage of ‘an endless
supply of topics and material’ based on GIs (Gonsior 2011, 83). Supporting this,
a large number of commercially English language textbooks have already
started to appear by dwelling on GIs; to name a few; ‘Making Peace by Brooks
and Fox, The World Around Us by Hoppenrath and Royal, and The Global
Classroom by de Cou-Landberg’ (Cates 1990) as cited in (Pratama and Yuliati
2016, 721), and sample units have appeared integrating GIs in language teach­
ing (see Thomas and Vychodilová 2008).
However, there are still some arguments made on the content and teaching
procedures which have impacts on society norms, learner’s language
 JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION 7

development and teachers’ willingness among researchers. For example,

Tomlinson (2008) criticizes the state of the global textbooks since they do not
serve for the locally derived language use purposes and sees such materials
focusing on the content (what to teach) rather than the function (promoting
language acquisition). Gray (2013) also stresses that the global textbooks could
be ideological by transferring a monolingual structure of language imperialism
through the norm of pervasive native-speakerism. In addition, there were much
more stereotypical representations through gender, sexual orientation and
social class earlier; however, from 1980s and on, the shift has changed because
global textbook companies and authors have started to pay particular attention
to ensuring nonstereotypical representations of different societal groups (Ilieva
2018). Inclusion of GIs has brought a considerable number of affordances. In
their textbook analysis study, Davari and Iranmehr (2019) found that the EFL
textbooks in Iranian context employed GIs with awareness-raising and contro­
versial topics and aiming at transmitting more of socially responsible citizens.
Also, Ho (2017) analyzed English textbooks used at a high school in Taiwan and
found that the textbooks deal with GIs ranging from equity to environmental
protections as well as other topics, which aim at educating students by building
a sense of global citizenship. More than that, the teachers also found such
contents motivating and awareness-raising and further touched upon the
need for such kind supplementary materials to increase the depth of debates.
Due to the large evidence grasped from the related literature built on the
various stimulating effects of incorporating GIs in language teaching, there
seems a need to be met through textbooks which play the pivotal role in
classroom teaching and learning.

Studies in Turkish context

To run studies with a GELT paradigm in mind, incorporating ELF and GEs in
classroom research seems significant. Three outstanding examples of these
can be of Biricik Deniz (2017), Biricik Deniz, Özkan, and Bayyurt (2020) and
Sifakis and Bayyurt’s (2015) studies conducted in Turkey. First, Biricik Deniz
(2017) designed courses with ELF-awareness in her dissertation, applied it with
26 pre-service teachers and concluded that the course raised teachers’ aware­
ness of ELF phenomenon. Second, Biricik Deniz, Özkan, and Bayyurt (2020)
conducted a qualitative study with a focus on globalization in ELT and
reported on the facilitating impact of a theoretical ELF-aware teacher educa­
tion course, which is an outcome of the syllabus designed from Sifakis and
Bayyurt’s (2015) ELF-aware teacher education (ELF-Ted) project. The common
idea arising from these studies falls into incorporating GEs and ELF together to
reveal a change of mindset. This mindset is examined by another study in
Turkey (Karakaş 2021) that ponders such achievement by using GEs and
creating English language speaker profiles informed of ethnolinguistically
8 Y.E. AKBANA AND A. YAVUZ

different in international communication. The developed materials that can be

used within this mindset are also offered in Bayyurt and Selvi (2021) with
recommended language teaching methods in GEs. The aforementioned stu­
dies call for the similar change in the materials that Rose, McKinley, and
Galloway (2021) posit: The materials should involve multilingual and multi­
cultural characteristics of the English language to bring GEs, ELF-aware ped­
agogies into the framework of GELT. Supporting this, Rose and Galloway
(2019) point the intensive English language preparatory programs at higher
education in Turkey and Middle Eastern countries and purport that a GE
approach to language teaching would work and see English as an academic
lingua franca under GELT curriculum preparing students both for post-
graduation and future professions. This is the ground set for this unique
present study where using GIs and the extent to which Peace Education is
covered at textbooks can work for bringing multi-segmented depictions of
GEs at English preparatory programs.
In addition to the studies conducted around the world in different settings
with the integration of GIs to content, approaches or techniques, curriculum or
lesson plans and extracurricular activities (Pratama and Yuliati 2016), EFL edu­
cators in Turkish context have already incorporated GIs into their language
teaching settings or investigated the meaningfulness of such incorporation.
For example, Arikan (2009) found that integrating environmental peace educa­
tion into language teaching affords favorable opportunities for grammar teach­
ing from the lenses of fourth year pre-service ELT teachers and secondary school
students. On the other hand, Başarır (2017) concluded that the lecturers teach­
ing at tertiary level viewed grammar-based teaching as a hindrance to incorpo­
rate global citizenship education in language teaching. Be it environmental
peace education or global citizenship education, the focus is the portrayal of
global topics or issues in language teaching, and by doing so, students’ interests
and teachers’ willingness should encompass with each other by bringing attain­
ments on intercultural or international competences among different ages and
groups. This is also supported by Gürsoy (2010) in that environmental education
should be given at relatively early ages optimally starting from primary school
and be applicable at tertiary level, which is further evidenced with third year
pre-service ELT teachers’ advocacy of integrating environmental issues in their
teaching (see Gürsoy and Sağlam 2011; Gürsoy and Salı 2014). Özbaş and
Güryay (2014) used a survey including open-ended questions with 30 pre-
service ELT students in Turkey and found that EFL teacher candidates were
considerably eager to integrate GIs in language teaching. On the other hand,
Salı and Gürsoy (2014) found that although ELT trainees did favor the inclusion
of GIs as content of particularly environmental issues in foreign language
teaching, they did not expect more learning attainments in the form of lan­
guage development. Additionally, Kaplan (2019) investigated Turkish EFL tea­
chers and students’ practices and perceptions and found that both parties
 JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION 9

provided favorable responses but on the other hand only a minority of teachers
included GIs in their teaching heavily due to the politically sensitive nature
of GIs.

Method
Gray (2010) states that most of the textbook analyses are comprised of check­
lists but they are normative and reflect the authors’ beliefs; therefore, suggests
to include frameworks to provide discoveries of what is attempted to be
explored. For this reason, a comprehensive classification of GIs developed by
Kaplan (2019) was selected to discover the issues under question. In addition to
the subtypes presented by Kaplan (2019), crimes was included under the topic
of Peace Education. Although the categories of GIs serve for peace education,
there was a unique category of Peace Education in the list. It was not altered
intentionally in order to find the specific sub-topics under this category. The
adopted framework of classification of GIs is presented in Appendix 1.
A five-level series of course books entitled Pioneer from M&M publications
(Mitchell and Malkogianni 2015) were analyzed (Levels: A1, A2, B1, B2 & C1
according to Common European Framework of References [CEFR]). Following
Tomlinson’s (2003) suggestion for taking the initial steps, the textbooks focus­
ing on the contents were scanned manually in order to get a potential value in
liaison with the particular purpose. During the textbook analysis step, the
researchers of this study conducted a content analysis following the GIs check­
list (Appendix 1). Firstly, the researchers analyzed the books independently
based on this checklist, which enabled the researchers to find differences and
similarities in their decisions. Following the independent ratings, researchers
met online and made discussions on making agreements between the judg­
ments, which revealed the inter-rater reliability with a Kappa score of .90
(p< .001). The same procedure was also applied for determining the learning
foci – the gains for students’ learning over the proposed learning objectives.
Accordingly, teacher’s guidebooks were analyzed in an effort to reveal the
interconnectedness between the topic selections and the learning attainments.

Findings and discussion

Regarding the first question, the GIs listed in Appendix 1 were cross-checked at
each level of coursebook and the findings are illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1 shows that there are totally 58 units in the five books and four
categories of GIs. Environmental issues are the most common GIs among others
and the classifications of Others, Health Education and Peace Education are
addressed as the following ones. At this very first glance, it is possible to claim
that environmental issues are the prominent topics observed in textbooks,
which is also reported in Gürsoy and Salı’s (2014) and Salı and Gürsoy’s (2014)
10 Y.E. AKBANA AND A. YAVUZ

Table 1. Distribution of the detected global issues categories over each level.
Course book Units Units (n) on Units (n) on Health Units (n) on Peace Units (n) on
Level (N) Environmental Education Education Education Others
A1 10 2 0 0 0
A2 12 2 0 0 1
B1 12 1 0 0 1
B2 12 2 1 0 1
C1 12 1 1 1 1
Total 58 8 2 1 4

studies. Table 1 further shows that the only category in Level A1 is environ­
mental issues and backed up with the Others category in Level A2. Similarly, in
their textbook analysis, Curdt-Christiansen (2020) found environmental literacy
texts in lower primary grades, and Mliless and Larouz (2018) found environ­
mental issues in different levels out of seven English language textbooks. To dig
in the details of the accessed categories of GIs, which is the core answer of
the second research question, Table 2 shows each textbook (TB) level, the
frequency of GIs, related unit, with the types of GIs and their subtypes, and
finally the foci and gains below.
Table 2 shows that the categories of GIs range from the most familiar ones to
the less familiar ones for students who potentially experience such topics in
their previous education. The textbooks in concern do not have rich content
central to GIs yet Environmental Education is the most apparent one among
others (Peace, Health and other issues), which was also evidenced in the related
literature (Arikan 2009; Gürsoy 2010; Gürsoy and Sağlam 2011; Gürsoy and Salı
2014; Kaplan 2019). For example, students are introduced with pollution, recy­
cling, depletion of natural resources, global warming and climate change under
the category of environmental education up to Level B2; however, the sub-types
change by the illustration of endangered animals, ocean trash, depletion of
natural resources with a focus on deforestation and acid rains under the same
category at higher levels (B2 and C1). This finding is in line with Curdt-
Christiansen’s (2020) results in that when the level of textbooks increases, the
textbooks employ more GIs that can stimulate debates through English. Also,
the language learning foci and gains show a similar change with the increasing
level. In lower levels, the students are aimed to be able to build awareness and
create or activate their world knowledge not through all four skills. However,
starting from Level B, they are aimed to increase this targeted awareness and
develop critical thinking skills by using four language skills. This finding shows
similarity to Pratama and Yuliati’s (2016) study in that speaking, reading and
listening at lower levels are mostly seen appropriate to discuss and explore GIs.
Further touching upon the learning foci and gains, as students are aimed to
develop actions and critical thinking skills, the analyzed textbooks show
a liaison with employing a critical thinking pedagogy particularly starting from
higher levels (B1 and B2), which is similarly revealed in the related literature
(Davari and Iranmehr 2019; Gonsior 2011). Other categories, – Health Issues
Table 2. Global issues and the related language learning foci and gains in EFL textbooks.
GI Related units In
TB level (f) TBs Types of GI Sub-types of GI Foci and gains
A1 2 5, 9 Environmental Pollution (rubbish, plant trees) Building Awareness
Education Recycling (bins, newspapers, bottles, cans) Vocabulary Development
Depletion of Natural Resources (water) Skill Development (Listening, Speaking,
Endangered Animals (Snow leopards, Mountain gorillas) Reading)
A2 3 8, 9 Environmental Recycling (battery, glass bottles, old mobile phones, metal cans) Building Awareness)
Education Depletion of Natural Resources (water, energy) Saving Time and Money
Pollution (car fumes, plastic bags, disposable plates, cups and batteries) Vocabulary Development
Use of Grammar
Skill Development (Listening, Reading)
11 Others Intercultural Awareness (culture, gestures, taboos) World Knowledge
Vocabulary Development
Use of Grammar
Skill Development (Listening, Speaking,
Reading)
B1 1 6 Environmental Recycling Increasing Awareness
Education Pollution (carbon dioxide, rubbish, plastic bags) Developing
Depletion of Natural Resources (food) Critical Thinking Skills
Natural Disasters (flood) Vocabulary Development
Global Warming (melting ice, dry parched land, deserts) Use of Grammar
Climate Change (Higher temperatures) Skill Development (Four Skills)
6 Others Globalisation (technology) Building Awareness
Developing Critical Thinking Skills
Vocabulary Development
Use of Grammar
Skill Development
(Four Skills)
JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION

(Continued)
11
 12

Table 2. (Continued).
GI Related units In
TB level (f) TBs Types of GI Sub-types of GI Foci and gains
B2 3 7 Environmental Endangered Animals (rhinos, toads, turtles, whales) Increasing Awareness
Y.E. AKBANA AND A. YAVUZ

Education Depletion of Natural Resources (water) Developing

8 Environmental
Education
8 Health Issues
Education
Critical Thinking Skills
Vocabulary Development
Use of Grammar
Skill
Development
(Speaking, Listening, Reading)
Pollution (smog, toxic waste, poisonous chemicals, fossil fuels) Developing Critical Thinking Skills
Ocean Trash (oil from ships or tankers Vocabulary Development
Endangered Animals (Marine animals) Use of Grammar
Depletion of Natural Resources (Deforestration, Acid Rains) Skill Development (Reading, Speaking,
Listening)
Improvement of Sanitary Conditions (Organic farming) Building Awareness
Access to healthcare (healthy and safe foods and drinks) Vocabulary Development
Skill Development
(Four skills)
(Continued)
Table 2. (Continued).
GI Related units In
TB level (f) TBs Types of GI Sub-types of GI Foci and gains
C1 4 8 Peace Education Crimes (bullying, cyberbullying, stalking, burglary, kidnapping, shoplifting, robbery, Building Awareness
vandalism, hacking) Developing Actions
Vocabulary Development
Use of Grammar
Skill Development (Four skills)
9 Health Issues Immunization (artificial preservatives, chemical additives, unhealthy foods and drinks) Increasing Awareness
Education Developing Actions
Vocabulary Development
Use of Grammar
Skill Development
(Four Skills)
12 Environmental Recycling (second hand/old organic materials for clothing, curtains) Taking Action
Education Developing Critical Thinking Skills
Vocabulary Development
Skill Development
(Reading, Speaking)
5 Others Globalisation (Technology) Developing Critical Thinking Skills
Vocabulary Development
Use of Grammar
Skill Development
(Four Skills)
JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION
13
14 Y.E. AKBANA AND A. YAVUZ

Education, Peace Education and Others – are mainly dealt with at higher levels
which may require particular world knowledge and language proficiency
because Table 2 presents vocabulary development and use of grammar as the
central learning foci starting from the lowest levels and ending with the highest
level. For example, a student could be supposed to express their opinion on
artificial preservatives and chemical additives in Level C1 after being exposed to
some set of prior knowledge. In this regard, Table 2 shows evidence in line with
critical pedagogy where the overall educational process ensures learners the
ability of reflective thinking, thinking deeply, being open minded and sensitive
to the world problems (Dummett and Hughes 2019). The topics covering peace,
inequality, poverty, environmental concerns and as such could ensure appro­
priate content for the learners at higher levels of language proficiency.
Additionally, incorporating GIs in language classes has attracted favorable
results from teachers, students and curriculum designers (Omidvar and
Sukumar 2013). Therefore, it is justified by creating both awareness and pro­
ductivity among learners as it is evidenced in Table 2. This finding also paves the
way for touching upon different topics in classroom; for example, culture. The
analyzed textbook series are designed for enabling students to talk about
various English-speaking countries and cultures (Mitchell and Malkogianni
2015). Jacobs and Cates (1999) point out the need for contextualizing textbooks
in line with contextual and local interests to access GIs by building responsibility
of learning, and social responsibility (Gürsoy and Salı 2014). On the other hand,
Hadley (2013) presents evidence from a longitudinal study (a six-year empirical
study) that global textbooks hamper the development of local cultures and
pave the way for cultural imperialism. All in all, Kruger (2012) finds EFL teachers
among the most fortunate amenable ones to educate students for peace, which
could play a peripheral role for embedding GIs into the curriculum by adding
social consciousness to their teaching philosophy.

Conclusions and implications

This study set out to identify the GIs at a series of textbooks employed at an EFL
prep-school program at a state university in Turkey. The findings revealed insuffi­
cient content with a focus on the variety of GIs classified under the comprehensive
framework of Kaplan’s (2019). The classified GIs can cater for peace education in
language teaching but they were limited in the analyzed textbook series. The
findings indicate that Environmental Education was largely presented in comparison
to other types of GIs. The categories ‘Health Issues Education, Peace Education and
Others’ were illustrated in some degree but the categories ‘Human Rights Education,
Gender Issues Education, Socio-Economic Issues Education and Linguistic Issues
Education’ were not addressed in the analyzed textbooks. This was also highlighted
in Pratama and Yuliati’s (2016) study that not all the EFL textbooks are indifferent to
GIs, most Asian EFL textbooks cover issues related heavily to Environmental
 JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION 15

Education. On the other hand, EFL textbooks could be of use with a strong pivotal
focus on peace education rather than environmental issues. By doing so, peace
education can be delivered by embedding other GIs into textbooks and further it
can stimulate conscientization among students as a precursor to transforming
societies towards nonviolence and justice (Gelot 2019). This is significant to make
sense among EFL students since they are exposed to language learning content
around 800 class hours in a year over a series of EFL coursebooks at tertiary level in
Turkey. Different from our study in terms of level of education context, Yastibas
(2020) examined ELT program at secondary level in Turkey and found that English
coursebooks include themes of peace education with personal peace, human family
peace and peace with nature with nine units. Additionally, in Galloway’s (2017)
study, there is an argument against English in terms of equality and access to an
effective education. The evidence comes from Japanese students who wanted to
express themselves in L1 rather than only in English because they believed English
did not allow them to freely express the words in the actual meanings. This is due to
using English at higher education where classes involve international students.
Therefore, Rose and Galloway (2019) argue that English should not be seen only
the means to internationalization in higher education but for the betterment of
human resources through internationalized experiences. In our case, it yields the call
for touching upon the GIs beyond national boundaries via EFL coursebooks in
Turkey. From an equality perspective of peace education, GELT can help students
see English as egalitarian because it provides the space for communication in one
language or in other words ELF. It is also evidenced in Aldana Gutiérrez, Fonseca
Guerrero, and Jerez Bohórquez (2020) project that the victim students of conflict in
Colombia expressed their experiences through memory artifacts in EFL settings and
the teachers felt they touched their students’ hearts with the scope of peace
education.
Although there has been a growing number of EFL textbooks heavily informed of
GIs in the last three decades (Pratama and Yuliati 2016), there still remains a gap in
the textbooks to be designed with the locus of GIs in the content preferences of
textbook authors and companies, and such gap can be fulfilled by teachers. In this
regard, Thomas and Vychodilová (2008) in their book entitled ‘Global Issues in the
ELT classroom’ offer hands-on lesson plans for language teachers.
Also, this study found that the analyzed textbooks cover language skills
which are gradually presented from a light to heavy intensity of use of both
vocabulary and grammar. Similarly, Maley and Peachey (2017) project into the
benefits of students’ vocabulary and language skill developments through
integration of GIs with regard to the UN sustainable development goals in
language teaching contexts. Particularly, the UN sustainable goals share
a common mapping with the outcomes of peace education by touching upon
issues of equality, equity, inclusive societies, justice, non-violence, healthy and
clean better world. The findings of the present study can set two other implica­
tions with reference to the related literature. Maley and Peachey (2017) see
16 Y.E. AKBANA AND A. YAVUZ

extensive reading as a way to raise awareness of issues of equality and justice.

Firstly, GIs can help students master their language skills. Also, Gelot (2019)
discusses how to promote peaceful and inclusive societies through university.
Secondly, this can be accomplished by using language as a tool for promoting
peace education and the accompanying GIs in formal education.
In addition, it was identified from the notes for teachers on the analyzed text­
books that the learners are aimed to build an awareness towards GIs and later
develop this sense with the tasks designed for taking actions to spark debates in
classroom teaching. These findings are high of importance to note that the analyzed
content helps learners develop their critical thinking skills hence the teachers should
embed critical thinking pedagogy into their teaching philosophy. This can help
developing reflexivity for fostering mindsets towards peace education (Cremin
2016). Furthermore, Gonsior (2011) presented both the merits and the possible
objections of including critical thinking pedagogy in EFL writing courses serving
with GIs and came to the conclusion that merits outweigh the objections present in
the literature.
Not only the textbook authors but also the language teachers should be
equipped with intercultural communicative competence (Alptekin 2002)
because they should prepare materials up-to-date covering recent topics or
issues to bring the truest and the most recent forms of the constantly changing
knowledge on something that can become a GI (Peaty 2004) – as the case of the
novel COVID-19 pandemic which threatened the peace in many terms in the
world (UNESCO 2020). Therefore, there should be teachers’ manuals for inte­
grating GIs in teaching syllabi and the topics should be inviting for the youth to
exhibit their sense of a global self in the future (Gonsior 2011). Since GIs are
mostly real-world problems, they should be solved not only by governments
but with the power of education which can bring topics such as peace, respect,
mutual understanding, global citizenship enriched by values and knowledge
(Pratama and Yuliati 2016). Similarly, Cates (1997) advises to include GIs in
teaching English to enable students sound successful otherwise they could be
unsuccessful if they would be ignorant of problems in the real world.
To touch upon further suggestions, selecting the coursebook content, students’
English level, needs and interests, age, language proficiency and major should
always be kept in mind for curriculum designers and educational policy makers.
Regarding the teaching approach the textbooks employ, skill-based, CLIL, content-
based teaching are fundamental in teaching GIs. Though the textbooks employ such
gains, the level of global education in relation to knowledge, skills, attitude and
action may seem insufficient in the pertinent literature (Başarır 2017). Therefore,
Content-Based Instruction in FLT Methodology can be suggested (Cates 1997, 2000;
Dupuy 2000; Strakova 2020). Although the Content-Based Instruction advocates the
idea that English is taught through the subject-content knowledge, which is most
common in EMI, it may challenge the notion of Englishization with internationaliza­
tion because as depicted in Rose and Galloway’s (2019, 213–4) a Japanese student
 JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION 17

uttered: ‘I think that just because the program aims for internationalism, doesn’t
necessarily mean they should only use English in the program’.
Furthermore, textbooks should also be designed serving for the compatibility
of international virtual classrooms to spread the word in this globalized era, built
upon a database for GI lesson plans and materials for teachers’ use (Thomas and
Vychodilová 2008), adopt a social responsibility theory to create internationally
aware students (Gürsoy 2020), and encourage teachers to join GI Online Teacher
Groups (e.g. GILESIG) (Gonsior 2011) since globalization trends also follow:

(1) usage of English as the lingua franca in research and teaching;

(2) a growing international student movement;
(3) ICT-based delivery of education;
(4) education models at overseas level (international universities);
(5) massive open online courses;
(6) cooperation and competition at the international level;
(7) international curriculum (Knight 2004, 2015; TEPAV and British Council
2015).

From this perspective, GELT is beyond language-related depiction of the commu­

nication. It is the key to reflecting political and cultural beliefs and attitudes. For this
very reason, Rose and Galloway (2019) call for further research to dwell into this
notion by how English is operated in GELT framework. The present study can be
informative for textbook writers to prioritize GIs and garner the attention on LPA,
where peace can be saliently provided for a transformative GELT framework.
Additionally, the rationale of internationalization and globalization could be foster­
ing research, knowledge production, and building up standards for quality and local
and international curriculum development in order for ensuring peace education.
EFL lecturers and teachers underline the sensitive, political, ethnic, religious nature
of the GIs as they are not only about environmental issues, disasters and diseases
(Kaplan 2019). Peace education, human rights education, gender issues education,
socio-economic issues and linguistic issues education, such as linguistic imperialism,
euphemism, doublespeak, covert grammar and stereotypes are also among other
GIs. Language level and cognitive maturity, students’ and academics’ professional
needs and interests depending on their departments to conduct skill-based courses
are stressed by EFL teachers repeatedly. In order to accomplish these goals educa­
tional institutions have important roles such as developing international and/or
global curriculum, conducting research, social network, organizing conferences,
seminars, workshops and training programs.
Taking a critical perspective out of the EMI programs run in Eastern Asia, it can
be stipulated that employing GELTS in EFL settings can bring a myriad of similar
benefits because Rose and Galloway (2019) reported that Japanese and Chinese
students see EMI helpful in developing their language proficiency with the
subject-content knowledge that they are exposed to. Therefore, in EFL settings
18 Y.E. AKBANA AND A. YAVUZ

incorporating GIs can be helpful for attracting students’ attention. This move­
ment can also be found beneficial when the peace education is considered with
a critical pedagogical approach in terms of legitimating political, cultural and
economic aspects. The politically ideological philosophy behind ELF may mean
to include a risk of spreading linguistic imperialism due to native speaker
centrality and monolingual hegemony (Rose and Galloway 2019). Regarding
cultural viewpoint, the communities would be at risk of assimilation by using
GEs; however, Rose and Galloway (2019) refer to Airey (2011, 213) in that there
could be several materials designed for allowing students to ‘switch between
languages depending on the shared languages of the student cohort’. This can
also be used for peace education as a precaution to discrimination. This may be
a small step, but it might potentially make sense when the total number of
students who are exposed to such EFL textbooks globally is considered. Finally,
the economical purposes fall into the scope of income, mostly gained from
international students at EMI programs. This can be extended to the use of
EFL, EIM, ELT and ELF in that all require resources written in English and the
huge market relies on English-only textbooks binding to the native political and
cultural constructs. Therefore, it could be considered as a threat to peace educa­
tion, where this study deals with comprehensive topics of GIs that could raise
awareness through textbooks. Textbooks are agents to accessing millions of
students, who will lead the next generations of today’s world in peace.
Ultimately, textbooks can initially bring a peace-building philosophy and then
focus on peace-keeping and peace-making for the violence, injustice and conflict
(Cremin 2016). Therefore, textbooks should be informed of GIs which can afford
today’s students with the opportunities for mastering English and peace.

Acknowledgments
This paper was presented as an oral presentation in the 11th International ELT Research
Conference with the theme of Localising Global Issues in ELT in Çanakkale between 03 and
5 September 2020 by the authors.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Yunus Emre Akbana is an Assistant Professor of English Language Teaching at
Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University. His research interests include integrating global
issues in English language teaching and developing instructional designs informed of
Education 4.0.
 JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION 19

Aysun Yavuz is a Professor of English Language Teaching at Canakkale Onsekiz Mart

University. Her research interests include professional development of teachers and teacher
education pedagogy.

ORCID
Yunus Emre Akbana http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5707-3564
Aysun Yavuz http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6838-8695

References
Airey, J. 2011. ‘Talking about teaching in English: Swedish university lecturers’ experiences of
changing teaching language’. Ibérica 22: 35–54. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2870/
287023888003.pdf
Aldana Gutiérrez, Y., M. D. Fonseca Guerrero, and G. Jerez Bohórquez. 2020. “Peace Education:
Memory Artifacts in EFL Environments.” Voces Y Silencios. Revista Latinoamericana de
Educación 11 (1): 21–45. doi:10.18175/VyS11.1.2020.2.
Alptekin, C. 2002. “Towards Intercultural Communicative Competence in ELT.” ELT Journal
56 (1): 57–64. doi:10.1093/elt/56.1.57.
Arikan, A. 2009. “Environmental Peace Education in Foreign Language Learners’ English
Grammar Lessons.” Journal of Peace Education 6 (1): 87–99. doi:10.1080/
17400200802655064.
Bajaj, M. 2015. “‘Pedagogies of Resistance’ and Critical Peace Education Praxis.” Journal of
Peace Education 12 (2): 154–166. doi:10.1080/17400201.2014.991914.
Bajaj, M., and E. Brantmeier. 2011. “The Politics, Praxis, and Possibilities of Critical Peace
Education.” Journal of Peace Education 8 (3): 221–224. doi:10.1080/17400201.2011.621356.
Başarır, F. 2017. “Examining the Perceptions of English Instructors regarding the Incorporation of
Global Citizenship Education into Elt.” Online Submission 5 (4): 409–425. doi:10.18298/ijlet.2127.
Bayyurt, Y., and M. Dewey. 2020. “Locating ELF in ELT.” ELT Journal 74 (4): 369–376. doi:10.
1093/elt/ccaa048.
Bayyurt, Y., and A. F. Selvi. 2021. “Language Teaching Methods and Instructional Materials in
Global Englishes.”Language Teacher Education for Global Englishes, edited by Selvi, Ali Fuad,
Yazan, 75–81. Abingdon: Routledge.
Biricik Deniz, E. 2017. “A case study on ELF-aware pre-service language teacher education
model: Theory into practice” (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Çukurova University, Adana.
Biricik Deniz, E., Y. Özkan, and Y. Bayyurt. 2020. “ELF-awareness in pre-service English
Language Teacher Education: A Case Study from Turkey.” Hacettepe University Journal of
Education Faculty 35 (2): 270–284. doi:10.16986/HUJE.2019055867.
Cates, K. 1990. “Teaching for a Better World: Global Issues in Language Education.” The
Language Teacher 14 (5): 3–5.
Cates, K. A. 1997. “New Trends in Global Issues and English Teaching.” The Language Teacher
Online 21 (5). Retrieved from: http://jaltpublications.org/old_tlt/files/97/may/cates.html
Cates, K. A. 2000. “Entry for ‘Global Education’.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Language
Teaching and Learning, edited by M. Byram, 241–243. London: Routledge.
Cates, K. A. 2002. “Teaching for A Better World: Global Issues and Language Education.”
Human Rights Education in Asian Schools 5: 41–52.
Çavdar, S. S. 2006. “Increasing EFL teachers’ Awareness on Global Issues in ELT Classroom.”
Unpublished master’s thesis, Çukurova University.
20 Y.E. AKBANA AND A. YAVUZ

Chen, W. Y. 2005. “Analysis of Teachers’ Textbook Literacy and Its Promotion.” Journal of
Elementary Education 20: 67–88. doi:10.1080/02188791.2014.959469.
Cremin, H. 2016. “Peace Education Research in the twenty-first Century: Three Concepts
Facing Crisis or Opportunity?” Journal of Peace Education 13 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1080/
17400201.2015.1069736.
Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. 2020. “Environmental Literacy: Raising Awareness Through Chinese
Primary Education Textbooks.” Language, Culture and Curriculum 34 (2): 1–16. doi:10.1080/
07908318.2020.1797078.
Curtis, A. 2017. “Back from the Battlefield: Resurrecting Peace Linguistics.” TESL Reporter 50 (1):
20–34.
Davari, H., and A. Iranmehr. 2019. “Critical Pedagogy in Textbook Development: A Comparative
Study of the Previous and the New Iranian High School English Language Textbooks.” Iranian
Journal of Comparative Education 2 (3): 324–345. doi:10.22034/IJCE.2020.103835.
Dietrich, W. 2012. Many Peaces: Interpretations of Peace in History and Culture. Newyork:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Dummett, P., and J. Hughes. 2019. Critical Thinking in ELT: A Working Model for the Classroom.
Sherrise Roehr, USA: National Geographic Publication.
Dupuy, B. C. 2000. “Content-based Instruction: Can It Help Ease the Transition from Beginning
to Advanced Foreign Language Classes?” Foreign Language Annals 33 (2): 205–222. doi:10.
1111/j.1944-9720.2000.tb00913.x.
Echavarría, J, and H. Cremin. 2019. “Education for Territorial Peace in Colombia: What Role for
Transrational Peace?” Journal of Peace Education 16 (3): 316–338. doi:10.1080/17400201.
2019.1697068.
Erfani, S. M. 2012. “The Rationale for Introducing Global Issues in English Textbook
Development.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2 (11): 2412–2416. doi:10.4304/
tpls.2.11.2412-2416.
Ford, K. 2019. “This Violence Good, that Violence Bad: Normative and state-centric Discourses
in British School Textbooks.” Critical Studies on Terrorism 12 (4): 693–714. doi:10.1080/
17539153.2019.1618643.
Galloway, N. 2017. Global Englishes and Change in English Language Teaching. Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
Gelot, L. 2019. “Training For Peace, Conscientization Through University Simulation.” Journal
of Peace Education 16 (2): 195–214. doi:10.1080/17400201.2019.1576514.
Gimenez, T., L.C.S. Calvo, and M.S. El Kadri. 2015. “Beyond Madonna: Teaching Materials as
Windows into pre-service Teachers’ Understandings of ELF.” Current Perspectives on
Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca, edited by Bayyurt, Y, Akcan, S, 225–237. Berlin:
De Gruyter Mouton.
Gonsior, M. 2011. “Critical Thinking and Global Issues in the ESL Writing Classroom.” In
MITESOL Conference Proceedings, Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, 77–89.
Gray, J. 2002. “The Global Coursebook in English Language Teaching.” In Globalization and
Language Teaching, edited by D. Block and D. Cameron, 151–167. London: Routledge.
Gray, J. 2010. The Construction of English: Culture, Consumerism and Promotion in the ELT
Global Coursebook. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gray, J. 2013. Critical Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials. Basingstoke, England:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Guo, L. 2014. “Preparing Teachers to Educate for 21st Century Global Citizenship: Envisioning
and Enacting.” Journal of Global Citizenship & Equity Education 4 (1): 1–23. Retrieved from:
https://journals.sfu.ca/jgcee/index.php/jgcee/article/view/121/168
Gürsoy, E. 2010. “Implementing Environmental Education To Foreign Language Teaching To
Young Learners.” Educational Research 1 (8): 232–238.
 JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION 21

Gürsoy, E. 2020. “Global Issues in Elt.” In Preparing Teachers for a Changing World:
Contemporary Issues in EFL Education, edited by S. Aydin, S. Çelik, K. Dikilitaş, E. Gürsoy,
Y. Kırkgöz, V. Inci Kavak, and E. Üstünel, 1–22. Ankara: Vizetek.
Gürsoy, E., and G. T. Sağlam. 2011. “Elt Teacher Trainees’ Attitudes Towards Environmental
Education and Their Tendency to Use It in the Language Classroom.” Journal of
International Education Research 7 (4): 47–52. doi:10.19030/jier.v7i4.6046.
Gürsoy, E., and P. Salı. 2014. “A Language Course within the Scheme of Socially Responsible
Teaching: ELT Trainees’ Expectations.” Journal of Educational and Social Research 4 (2): 355.
doi:10.5901/jesr.2014.vl4n2p355.
Hadley, G. 2013. “Global Textbooks in Local Contexts: An Empirical Investigation of
Effectiveness.” In English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content, Consumption, Production,
edited by N. Harwood, 205–238. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hino, N., and S. Oda. 2015. “Integrated Practice in Teaching English as an International
Language (IPTEIL): A Classroom ELF Pedagogy in Japan.” Current Perspectives on
Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca, edited by Bayyurt, Yasemin, Akcan, Sumru,
35–50. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Ho, Y. R. 2017. “Negotiating Global Views: High School English As a Foreign Language
Curriculum and Global Citizenship in Taiwan.” PhD dissertation, UCLA.
Ilieva, R. 2018. “Textbooks.” In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, edited by
J. I. Liontas, T. International Association, and M. Delli Carpini, 1–13. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons, .
Jacobs, G. M., and K. Cates. 1999. “Global Education in Second Language Teaching.” KATA
1 (1): 44–56. doi:10.9744/kata.1.1.44-56.
Kaplan, M. 2019. “Perceptions and Practices of Turkish Efl Teachers and Students on The Use
of Global Issues.” Upublished master’s thesis, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University.
Karakaş, A. 2021. “Enhancing Global Englishes Awareness among pre-service Language
Teachers through audio/video-based Resources. ”Language Teacher Education for Global
Englishes, edited by Selvi A. F, and Bedrettin. Y, 20–26. Abingdon: Routledge.
Kirkgöz, Y. 2009. “Globalization and English Language Policy in Turkey.” Educational Policy
23 (5): 663–684. doi:10.1177/2F0895904808316319.
Knight, J. 2004. “Internationalization Remodelled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales.”
Journal of Studies in International Education 8 (1): 5–31. doi:10.1177/1028315303260832.
Knight, J. 2015. “International Universities: Misunderstandings and Emerging Models.” Journal
of Studies in International Education 19 (2): 107–121. doi:10.1177/1028315315572899.
Kruger, F. 2012. “The Role of TESOL in Educating for Peace.” Journal of Peace Education 9 (1):
17–30. doi:10.1080/17400201.2011.623769.
Kurian, N., and K. Kester. 2019. “Southern Voices in Peace Education: Interrogating Race,
Marginalisation and Cultural Violence in the Field.” Journal of Peace Education 16 (1): 21–48.
doi:10.1080/17400201.2018.1546677.
Loffredo, L., and L. McArthur. 1996. “Teaching about AIDS in the English Classroom: An Italian
Experience.” TESOL Matters 6 (1): 1–6.
Maley, A., and N. Peachey. 2017. Integrating Global Issues in the Creative English Language
Classroom: With Reference to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. UK: British
Council.
Matz, M. 2003. “Talking About Racism.” English Teaching Professional 28: 10–12.
McLuhan, M. 1964. Understanding Media. New York: Mentor.
Mitchell, H. Q., and M. Malkogianni. 2015. Pioneer Course Book Series. EU: MM Publications.
Mliless, M., and M. Larouz. 2018. “An Ecolinguistic Analysis of Environment Texts in Moroccan
English Language Teaching Textbooks.” International Journal of Research in Environment
Studies 5: 103–116.
22 Y.E. AKBANA AND A. YAVUZ

Olivero, M. M. (2017). Cultivating peace via language teaching: Pre-service beliefs and emotions in
an Argentine EFL practicum. Unpublished dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Omidvar, R., and B. Sukumar. 2013. “The Effects of Global Education in the English Language
Conversation Classroom.” English Language Teaching 6 (7): 151–157. doi:10.5539/elt.v6n7p151.
Osler, A. 2005. “Education for Democratic Citizenship: New Challenges in A Globalised World.”
In Citizenship and Language Learning: International Perspectives, edited by Audrey Osler and
Hugh Starkey, 3–22. UK: British Council.
Oxford, R. L., T. Gregersen, and M. M. Olivero. 2018. “The Interplay of Language and Peace
Education.” TESL Reporter 51: 24.
Özbaş, B. Ç., and B. Güryay. 2014. “Can Social Studies and Language Lessons Be Integrated via
Global Education? English Language Teacher Candidates’ Perceptions.” Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences 116: 1132–1136. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.357.
Peaty, D. 2004. “Global Issues in EFL: Education or Indoctrination?” The Language Teacher
28 (8): 15–18.
Pennycook, A. 2000. “The Social Politics and the Cultural Politics of Language Classrooms.” In
The Sociopolitics of Language Teaching, edited by Joan Kelly Hall and William G. Eggington”,
89–103. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pennycook, A. 2001. “English in the world/The World in English.” In Analysing English in
a Global Context, edited by Anne Burns and Caroline Coffin, 78–89. Sydney: Routledge.
Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pratama, H., and Y. Yuliati. 2016. “Global Education in English Classroom: Integrating Global
Issues into English Language Teaching.” International Journal of Social Science and
Humanity 6 (9): 719. doi:10.18178/ijssh.2016.6.9.739.
Rascón-Moreno, D. 2011. “Cross-Curricular Teaching By Means Of ICT In The Compulsory
Education English Classroom.” PhD dissertation, Universidad de Jaén.
Rascón-Moreno, D . 2013. “Combining Global Issues and English Teaching.” In Global Issues in
the Teaching of Language, Literature and Linguistics, edited byDíaz-Pérez, FJ, BelénDíez-
Bedmar, M, 15–38. Bern: Peter Lang.
Rascón-Moreno, D.R., Pérez, D., Díez-Bedmar, M.B., Garcia-Ramirez, P. 2012. Developing Global
Citizenship Competence in English Studies: A Proposal of Activities. CD-ROM. München:
LINCOM.
Rose, H, and N. Galloway. 2019. Global Englishes for Language Teaching. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Rose, H., J. McKinley, and N. Galloway. 2021. “Global Englishes and Language Teaching:
A Review of Pedagogical Research.” Language Teaching 54 (2): 157–189. doi:10.1017/
S0261444820000518.
Salı, P., and E. Gürsoy. 2014. “Evaluation of A Language Course within the Framework of
Socially Responsible Teaching.” ELT Research Journal 3 (3): 140–152. Retrieved from: https://
dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/63643
Sciamarelli, M. 2017. “Should Language Teachers Avoid Global Issues When Teaching?” Voices
Magazine 18 (18): 1. Retrieved from: https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine
/should-language-teachers-avoid-global-issues-when-teaching
Sifakis, Nicos C., and Y. Bayyurt. 2015. “Insights from ELF and WE in Teacher Training in Greece
and Turkey.” World Englishes 34 (3): 471–484. doi:10.1111/weng.12150.
Strakova, Z. 2020. “Clil and Global Education: A Meaningful Match.” In Proceedings of the
International Scientific Conference, Rezekne, Volume 5: 546–557.
Sunderland, J. 1992. “Gender in the EFL Classroom.” ELT Journal 46 (1): 81–91. doi:10.1093/elt/
46.1.81.
TEPAV and British Council. 2015. The State of English in Higher Education in Turkey. Ankara:
British Council-TEPAV.
 JOURNAL OF PEACE EDUCATION 23

Thomas, J. E., and R. Vychodilová. 2008. Global Issues in the English Language Teaching
Classroom. The Czech Republic: Fair Trade.
Tomlinson, B., ed. 2003. Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London, England:
Continuum.
Tomlinson, B., ed. 2008. English Language Learning Materials: A Critical Review. London,
England: Continuum.
UNESCO 2016. “Textbook Pave the Way to Sustainable Development: Policy Paper № 28, Meeting
of Experts.” Paris: UNES.
UNESCO 2020. COVID-19 Impact on Education. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/covid19/
educationresponse
Yastibas, A. E. 2020. “Evaluating an English Language Teaching Program in Terms of Peace
Education.” Shanlax International Journal of Education 8 (4): 11–19. doi:10.34293/education.
v8i4.3274.
Yoshimura, M. 1993. “Teaching Global Issues to Children.” The Language Teacher, Kyoto- JALT
17 (5): 11–15.
Zembylas, M., and Z. Bekerman. 2013. “Peace Education in the Present: Dismantling and
Reconstructing Some Fundamental Theoretical Premises.” Journal of Peace Education
10 (2): 197–214. doi:10.1080/17400201.2013.790253.
 24 Y.E. AKBANA AND A. YAVUZ

Appendix 1. Framework of classifications of Global Issues used as

a Checklist for Textbook Analysis (Adopted from Kaplan 2019)

Environmental Education Tick if it suits Gender Issues Education Tick if it suits

1 Climate Change 1 Gender Equality
2 Depletion of Resources 2 Gender Perspective
3 Endangered Animals 3 Gender Stereotyping
4 Global Warming 4 Feminism
5 Natural Disasters 5 Patriarchy
6 Ocean Trash 6 Woman Empowerment
7 Overpopulation Health Issues and Education
8 Pollution 1 Access to Healthcare
9 Recycling 2 AIDS, Pandemics
Peace Education 3 Drug use, Addictions
1 Coexistence 4 Immunization
2 Conflict Resolution 5 Improvement of Sanitary
Conditions
3 Crimes 6 Plagues
4 Democracy Education 7 Obesity
5 (Nuclear) Arms Race 8 Water and Sanitation
6 Refugee Influx & Migrant Socio-Economic Issues
Crisis
7 Warfare 1 Poverty
Human Rights Education 2 Sharing of Wealth
1 Child Rights Abuse 3 Social Classes
2 Death Penalty 4 Social Inequalities
3 Disability Linguistic Issues Education
4 Freedom of Expression 1 Covert Grammar
5 Human Trafficking 2 Doublespeak
6 Minorities 3 Euphemism
7 Racism/Segregation 4 Linguistic Imperialism
8 Social Security Others
9 Slavery 1 Globalisation
2 Intercultural Awareness
Total = 7 Issues, 50 Sub-Issues. 3 Postmodernism

View publication stats