ReCALL (2020), 32: 1, 47–62

doi:10.1017/S0958344019000181

ARTICLE

Informal digital learning of English and strategic

competence for cross-cultural communication:
Perception of varieties of English as a mediator
Ju Seong Lee
The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China (jslee@eduhk.hk)

Abstract
This exploratory study examined the potential connections between informal digital learning of English
(IDLE), strategic competence for cross-cultural communication and perception of varieties of English.
A total of 266 Korean EFL university students, who had no overseas experience, filled in a questionnaire
survey. Follow-up semi-structured interviews were also carried out to complement the quantitative data.
Results of structural equation modelling showed that perception of varieties of English mediated the
relationship between IDLE and strategic competence for cross-cultural communication. The qualitative
data also confirmed that EFL students without overseas experience tended to adopt more effective
cross-cultural communication strategies when their perception of different varieties of English became
more positive through their engagement in IDLE activities. These results can offer pedagogical insights
into how ELT researchers and teachers can better prepare contemporary English learners for cross-cultural
interactions in multicultural environments, whether in digital or face-to-face milieus.

Keywords: informal digital learning of English; strategic competence for cross-cultural communication; perception of varieties
of English; English as an international language

1. Introduction
In today’s digital and multicultural world, it has become increasingly common to interact with
English speakers from various linguistic and cultural backgrounds (Chen, 2012; Marcoccia,
2012). Against this shifting sociocultural landscape, English language teaching (ELT) professionals
have made consistent efforts to prepare English learners to function successfully by enhancing their
perceptions of different varieties of English, as well as their perceived ability to adopt strategies
for effective cross-cultural communication (Matsuda, 2017). With the development of technology
and its greater affordance for language learning, ELT scholars have recently begun studying
the pedagogical benefits of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) on the perceptional
development of varieties of English, in addition to strategic competence for cross-cultural commu-
nication among English as a foreign language (EFL) learners in in-class and extracurricular CALL
settings (Lee, Nakamura & Sadler, 2018) and in extramural CALL settings (also known as informal
digital learning of English [IDLE]) (Lee & Lee, 2019a).
Although young EFL learners are increasingly interacting with diverse users of English in a
range of IDLE environments (Lee & Lee, 2019b), to date little attention has been paid to the
potential relationship between EFL students’ IDLE practice, perception of varieties of English,
and strategic competence for cross-cultural communication, which points to the focus of the
current study. Consequently, the findings of this study can further our comprehension of these

Cite this article: Lee, J.S. (2020). Informal digital learning of English and strategic competence for cross-cultural communi-
cation: Perception of varieties of English as a mediator. ReCALL 32(1): 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000181

© European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2019.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000181 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 48 Ju Seong Lee

interactions and offer pedagogical insights into how ELT researchers and teachers can better
prepare contemporary English learners for cross-cultural interactions, whether in digital or
face-to-face milieus.

2. Literature review
2.1 Perception of varieties of English and strategic competence for cross-cultural
communication
With a profound shift in the sociolinguistic and sociocultural landscape of English and its users
(e.g. English is spoken in 101 countries, and there are over 1.5 billion people learning English
worldwide, Noack & Gamio, 2015; 80% of English interaction is between non-native speakers,
Crystal, 2010), critically oriented ELT professionals have, for the past four decades, continuously
challenged the monolithic and static perspectives of English and the conventional approach to
ELT (Matsuda, 2017; Smith, 1976). Among others, Matsuda (2017) has emphasized the functional
aspect of English under the conceptualization of English as an international language (EIL):
“a function that English performs in international, multilingual contexts, to which each speaker
brings a variety of English that they are most familiar with, along with their own cultural frames of
reference, and employs various strategies to communicate effectively” (p. xiii). This definition,
which is composed of constructs such as perception of varieties of English and strategic competence
for cross-cultural communication, has two implications – that is, (1) in today’s multicultural
contexts, English learners are likely to communicate with diverse speakers who have different
English accents and cultural backgrounds, and (2) consequently, they need to be capable of
employing appropriate and effective cross-cultural communication strategies.
Perception of varieties of English can be understood as one’s perceptions about different varieties
of English and English users who have different kinds of English accents. Varieties of English include
the ones used by both native English speakers from inner circle countries (where English is a native
language; e.g. USA and UK) and non-native English speakers from outer circle (English is used as an
official or second language; e.g. Singapore and India) and expanding circle countries (English is
learned and considered as a foreign language; e.g. China and Korea) in light of Kachru’s (1985)
three circles model. However, because contemporary EFL learners increasingly experience
non-native varieties of English in comparison to native varieties of English (which have relatively
minor differences) across online and offline environments (Sockett, 2014), the current study focuses
on varieties of English spoken mainly in the outer and expanding circle societies. At the instructional
level, several EIL pedagogies have been put into practice with the goal of helping students develop
more positive perceptions of varieties of English. For instance, Galloway and Rose (2013, 2014)
found that Japanese EFL students held a more positive perception of varieties of English as a result
of their exposure to diverse speakers and accents in English. Tanghe (2014) and Hino (2012, 2017)
also had their Korean and Japanese EFL students experience multiple varieties of English through
authentic EIL materials such as blogs and exposure to global English news. More recently, Lee et al.
(2018) showed the pedagogical benefits of a videoconferencing-embedded classroom for improving
EFL students’ perceptions of varieties of English in a Japanese university.
The strategic competence for cross-cultural communication can be defined as one’s self-perceived
ability to employ an effective cross-cultural communication strategy. Several instructional efforts
have been made to help students use strategies for effective cross-cultural communication.
Juan-Garau and Jacob (2015) showed that Spanish and Polish secondary EFL students could
communicate more effectively in multicultural contexts as a result of content- and task-based
EIL activities situated in a digital, transcultural environment. Ke and Suzuki (2011) also found that
online communication between Taiwanese and Japanese EFL university students via computer-
mediated communication (CMC) could positively foster their affective variables, thereby increasing
L2 confidence as well as strategies for multicultural communication (e.g. using simpler, less

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000181 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 ReCALL 49

complicated forms of English for non-native interlocutors). Similarly, Ke and Cahyani (2014)
showed that EIL online exchange activities between Taiwanese and Indonesian EFL university
students exerted a positive influence on their perceptions of non-standard English and strategies
for multicultural communication. For instance, it increased their acceptance of diverse varieties
of English and led them to adjust their English conversations according to their interlocutors’
linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

2.2 Informal digital learning of English

Bax (2003) envisioned the future of CALL as normalization in which “CALL finally becomes
invisible, serving the needs of learners and [being] integrated into every teachers’ everyday
practice” (p. 27). While Bax’s vision appeared to focus more on teachers’ computer competency,
teaching pedagogy and institutional support in formal language classroom settings, with the recent
advent and affordance of new technologies, increasing attention has been paid to the way students
learn and use their second language (L2) in informal, out-of-class, and digital settings (Reinders &
Benson, 2017). Against this backdrop, out-of-class autonomous language learning with technology is
considered to be an emerging area of inquiry in the field of CALL (Lai, 2017). Although similar new
concepts, such as online informal learning of English (Sockett, 2014), extramural English (Sundqvist
& Sylvén, 2016), and fully autonomous self-instructed learners (Cole & Vanderplank, 2016), are
increasingly available in the literature, this CALL inquiry is still a relatively unexplored research
area (Lai, 2017).
The current author has devised the term informal digital learning of English (IDLE) in order to
explore this emerging CALL phenomenon among digital native EFL students. It is firmly
underpinned by Benson’s (2011) four dimensions of L2 learning beyond the classroom (i.e.
formality, location, pedagogy, and locus of control). In general, the concept “IDLE” shares much
in common with the other similar notions (e.g. online informal learning of English and extramural
English) in relation to its visions and pedagogical suggestions. For instance, they all recognize
greater opportunity for L2 learning beyond the classroom thanks to the growth in affordances
of digital devices and resources. There also seems to be a shared understanding that autonomous
learning is significant in informal, out-of-class, and relatively unstructured contexts (see details in
Lai’s [2017: 11–14] three dimensions of autonomy).
Specifically, IDLE can be classified into two domains: IDLE in extracurricular and IDLE in
extramural contexts. The former category refers to a semi-autonomous L2 activity in out-of-class
digital environments that is still structured by a formal language teacher. For instance, EFL students
carry out homework activities by viewing subtitled YouTube tutorial videos in out-of-class settings,
and later their teachers evaluate their outcomes. The latter indicates a fully autonomous L2 activity
in out-of-class digital environments that is not linked to a formal language instruction. For example,
L2 learners autonomously write on or view others’ Facebook walls in English for the purpose of
connecting with others. Unlike IDLE in extracurricular contexts, as a teacher does not affect this
behaviour, it is regarded as IDLE in extramural contexts. This study adopts IDLE in extramural
contexts (hereafter referred to as IDLE) as its operational definition, as the present study aims to
examine EFL students’ autonomous L2 practice in informal, digital contexts from which teacher
intervention is absent. Empirically, IDLE seems to contribute significantly to EFL learners’ affective,
cognitive, cultural, and linguistic outcomes (Cole & Vanderplank, 2016; Jensen, 2017; Lai, Zhu &
Gong, 2015; Sundqvist & Wikström, 2015; Sylvén & Sundqvist, 2012). Yet Lai et al. (2015) cautioned
that EFL learners may have a limited ability to sustain IDLE practice on their own. Therefore, by
means of constant monitoring and support, teachers could play a critical role in facilitating and
sustaining students’ IDLE engagement (Lai, 2017).
EIL educators have also begun integrating a range of technology into their approaches to EIL
pedagogy (Ke & Cahyani, 2014; Lee et al., 2018; Tanghe, 2014). Nevertheless, these studies have
taken place in formal CALL contexts, in which EIL educators primarily structure and assess such

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000181 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 50 Ju Seong Lee

activities. Only recently did researchers begin to explore the relationship between students’
engagement with IDLE activities and their EIL perceptions. Specifically, Lee and Lee (2019a)
reported qualitative findings that Korean EFL students experienced diverse English forms and
speakers through engagement in various IDLE activities (e.g. watching Indian movies, socializing
with other non-native English speakers on social media, and interacting in English with other
game players from around the world). Consequently, these students became more positive about
other varieties of English and tended to employ more effective strategies when engaging in
cross-cultural communication. For example, Young-sik, one of the Korean interviewees in the
study, first struggled to understand English communicated in a heavy Vietnamese accent. But
as Young-sik began to socialize with his Vietnamese friend, first face to face and later online,
he became increasingly comfortable with his friend’s Vietnamese-influenced English accent
and interacted more effectively with his friend in English in both verbal and written forms on
KaKaoTalk (Korea’s popular social media). Later, Lee and Lee (2019b) sought to corroborate their
qualitative findings by conducting a structural equation modelling analysis with a sample from
317 Korean EFL university students. The researchers provided additional evidence that Korean
students who practised IDLE activities had positive perceptions of different varieties of
English, and perceived themselves as having a greater ability to employ effective strategies for
cross-cultural communication. Although there was no sampling bias in terms of demographic
information (e.g. location of university, gender, academic year, major), overseas experience, which
was reported to influence EFL students’ EIL perceptions (Kaypak & Ortaçtepe, 2014), was not
adjusted for in the model.
Although a growing body of knowledge is accumulating on the topics of IDLE and EIL, the
association between IDLE practice, perception of varieties of English, and strategic competence
for cross-cultural communication remains unexplored. Considering that an increasing number of
EFL students are participating in authentic EIL communication in a range of IDLE environments
without going abroad, it would be worthwhile to examine the possible relationship among these
three variables so as to better prepare our English learners for cross-cultural interactions in today’s
digital and multicultural environments.

3. Research models and hypotheses

Due to the nature of an exploratory study, only two proposed research models were hypothesized
based on Lee and Lee (2019a, 2019b). The first research model indicates that IDLE practice has a
direct effect on one’s strategic competence for cross-cultural communication. That is, EFL
students’ engagement in IDLE activities may lead directly to enhancing their strategies for
cross-cultural communication. The second model contains three constructs, namely IDLE
practice, perception of varieties of English, and strategic competence for cross-cultural commu-
nication. As indicated in Figure 1, IDLE practice has a direct effect on learners’ self-perceived
ability to employ strategies for cross-cultural communication. However, IDLE practice also acts
on learners’ perceptions of varieties of English, which in turn affects their strategic competence for
cross-cultural communication.

Based on these models, two hypotheses were postulated:

• Hypothesis 1: IDLE practice has a direct effect on students’ use of the cross-cultural
communication strategy.
• Hypothesis 2: Students’ perception of varieties of English mediates the relationship
between IDLE practice and their use of the cross-cultural communication strategy.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000181 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 ReCALL 51

Figure 1. The second model

4. Method
4.1 Context and participants
Based on Kaypak and Ortaçtepe’s (2014) study, which reported that EFL students’ study abroad
experience could affect their perceptions of EIL, data were gathered from 266 Korean EFL students
(153 females, 113 males) from nine EFL classes in three different universities across South Korea.
None of these students had any overseas experience. Written informed consent was obtained from
students prior to their participation in the survey. The average age was 21 years, the range in age
from 19 to 30. Participants consisted of English majors (n = 103, 38.7%; e.g. English literature)
and non-English majors (n = 163, 61.3%; e.g. engineering, sciences). The students owned, on
average, at least two different types of digital gadgets (e.g. desktop computers, tablet PCs, mobile
devices, wearable devices) (M = 2.15, SD = 0.70).

4.2 Instrument and data collection

The questionnaire consisted of four parts: (1) demographic information, (2) IDLE practice, (3)
perception of varieties of English, and (4) strategic competence for cross-cultural communication.
Content validity of IDLE, perception of varieties of English, and strategic competence for
cross-cultural communication were factors that were confirmed through two rounds of the
modified Delphi survey. This was achieved by selecting 10 experts from the fields of CALL,
EIL, and language testing (Hsu & Sandford, 2007). A total of 16 items were derived as showing
acceptable content validity. The conceptual meaning and the number of items of each construct
are exhibited in Table 1.
The first part was used to obtain participants’ demographic information, such as gender, age,
university major and overseas experience. In part 2, students were asked about their IDLE
activities during the previous six months. Briefly, the concept of IDLE, which is discussed in
the literature review, was introduced to the students using relevant examples prior to
administering the survey. IDLE practice was measured with the following question: “How often
do you engage in the following IDLE activities?” Respondents were asked to answer eight items
with regard to IDLE practice. They were asked to choose only one answer among “never” (coded
1), “rarely (once a week)” (coded 2), “sometimes (2 or 3 times per week)” (coded 3), “fairly often
(once a day)” (coded 4), and “very often (many times per day)” (coded 5).
Parts 3 and 4 were used to measure their perceptions of varieties of English (4 items) and strategic
competence for cross-cultural communication (4 items) levels by asking the following question (Lee
& Lee, 2019b): “How do you rate your EIL perception level?” Responses were scored on a 5-point
Likert scale: “strongly disagree” (coded 1), “disagree” (coded 2), “neutral” (coded 3), “agree” (coded
4), and “strongly agree” (coded 5). Question items of parts 2, 3, and 4 are shown in the Appendix. In
order to reduce potential difficulty in comprehension, the Korean version was administered in the
participants’ classrooms under the supervision of the researcher and instructors.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000181 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 52 Ju Seong Lee

Table 1. The theoretical construct and definitions

Number of items (content

Construct Definitions validity confirmed)

IDLE A fully autonomous L2 activity in out-of-class digital environments 8

that is not linked to formal language instruction
PVE One’s perceptions about different varieties of English and English 4
users who have different kinds of English accents

SCCC One’s self-perceived ability to employ an effective cross-cultural 4

communication strategy
Note. IDLE = informal digital learning of English; PVE = perception of varieties of English; SCCC = strategic competence for cross-
cultural communication.

In order to complement the exploratory quantitative data, the explanatory qualitative data
were collected based on Creswell’s (2009) sequential explanatory strategy: “ : : : the mixing of
the [quantitative and qualitative] data occurs when the initial quantitative results infor[m] the
secondary qualitative data collection. Thus, the two forms of data are separate but connected”
(p. 211). After the questionnaire (quantitative data) collection was finished, the voluntary,
semi-structured interviews (qualitative data) were conducted with two Korean students, who
had no overseas experience but practised IDLE activities on a regular basis. Each one-on-one
interview was audio-recorded and administered in Korean for 30–40 minutes using open-ended
guiding questions, such as: “What do you think of Indian English, German English, and Korean
English?”, “Can you explain Korean culture to foreigners in English?”, “Can you describe how you
practise IDLE activities?” and “Do you think IDLE activities, perception of varieties of English,
and strategic competence for cross-cultural communication are connected? If so, how?”

4.3 Data analysis

Using the IBM SPSS Statistics V25.0 and the IBM SPSS Amos V22.0, six steps were taken to test
the hypotheses through the measurement model (individual item reliability, internal consistency,
and convergent and discriminant validity) and structural model assessment (structural equation
modelling [SEM]). First, the normality of data distribution (the mean, standard deviation,
skewness and kurtosis) was checked (Table 4). Second, the loading values of each item for the
corresponding construct were examined for the reliability of individual items. Based on a principal
axis factor analysis with the varimax rotation technique, this analysis resulted in three latent
factors with factor loadings of well above 0.5, ranging from 0.67 to 0.87, which indicated that
all items’ loadings met an acceptable standard (Table 2). Specifically, the first factor consisted
of eight items related to IDLE practice. A specific example is, “I talk with English users (e.g.
American, British, Korean) in English online.” The second factor consisted of four items that
theoretically corresponded to perception of varieties of English, such as “Different varieties of
English, such as Hong Kong English, Indian English, and Singaporean English, are acceptable
today.” Lastly, the third factor theoretically corresponded to strategic competence for cross-
cultural communication and consisted of four items, such as “I can behave appropriately
according to English users I speak with.”
Third, the internal reliability coefficient for the instrument was tested through Cronbach’s
alpha (α). The result found that α exceeded a minimum threshold of 0.7, ranging from 0.85
to 0.91. Fourth, convergent validity was assessed through the use of composite reliability (CR)
and average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct. The results showed that CR values were
above the threshold value of 0.8, and AVE from each construct was also above 0.5, which
confirmed that all items for each variable shared in common a significant proportion of variance
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000181 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 ReCALL 53

Table 2. Reliability and convergent validity

Sample (N = 266)
Construct Item Loading (> 0.5) α (> 0.7) CR (> 0.8) AVE (> 0.5)

IDLE practice IDLE 1 0.68 0.91 0.92 0.61

IDLE 2 0.80
IDLE 3 0.80
IDLE 4 0.67
IDLE 5 0.87
IDLE 6 0.82
IDLE 7 0.76
IDLE 8 0.80
Perception of varieties of English (PVE) PVE 1 0.82 0.85 0.88 0.65
PVE 2 0.76
PVE 3 0.87
PVE 4 0.77
Strategic competence for cross-cultural SCCC 1 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.63
communication (SCCC)
SCCC 2 0.79
SCCC 3 0.67

SCCC 4 0.84
Note. α = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; IDLE = informal digital learning of English.

Table 3. Squared correlation coefficient matrix and discriminant validity

IDLE practice PVE SCCC

IDLE practice 0.61 0.16** 0.31**

PVE 0.16** 0.65 0.54**

SCCC 0.31** 0.54** 0.63

Note. The square root of AVE is presented along the diagonal line in bold type; IDLE = informal digital learning of English;
PVE = perception of varieties of English; SCCC = strategic competence for cross-cultural communication.
**p < 0.01.

Fifth, discriminant validity was evaluated by comparing AVE and squared inter-construct
correlation (SIC) estimates. The results (Table 3) demonstrated that the AVE estimate for
each construct was larger than for the other corresponding SIC estimates, which indicated that
each construct was distinct from the others. Finally, a three-factor SEM was constructed and used
to scrutinize the association between IDLE practice, perception of varieties of English, and
strategic competence for cross-cultural communication.
In terms of qualitative analysis, at the outset, the interview data were transcribed and translated
into English. Then the accuracy of the translation was verified through member checking (Birt,
Scott, Cavers, Campbell & Walter, 2016). Only excerpts, which helped interpret the quantitative
results, were reported using pseudonyms in the results section (Twining, Heller, Nussbaum &
Tsai, 2017).

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000181 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 54 Ju Seong Lee

Table 4. Descriptive statistics

Constructs Items M SD Skewness Kurtosis

IDLE practice IDLE 1 2.29 1.13 0.64 −0.36

IDLE 2 1.94 1.02 0.87 −0.02
IDLE 3 1.79 0.96 1.22 1.15
IDLE 4 1.68 0.90 1.15 0.61
IDLE 5 1.83 0.98 0.96 0.02
IDLE 6 1.84 1.03 0.97 0.01
IDLE 7 2.30 1.17 0.45 −0.84
IDLE 8 2.12 1.08 0.60 −0.64
Perception of varieties of English (PVE) PVE 1 3.55 1.01 −0.22 −0.49
PVE 2 3.41 1.05 −0.32 −0.39
PVE 3 3.46 0.98 −0.19 −0.25
PVE 4 3.28 1.01 −0.22 −0.31
Strategic competence for cross-cultural SCCC 1 3.24 0.98 −0.23 −0.22
communication (SCCC)
SCCC 2 3.01 1.06 −0.06 −0.50
SCCC 3 3.84 0.92 −0.55 0.09

SCCC 4 3.42 0.92 −0.23 −0.03

Note. IDLE = informal digital learning of English.

5. Findings
5.1 Descriptive statistics
Table 4 presented the mean (M), standard deviations (SD), skewness and kurtosis. The absolute
values for skewness and kurtosis were within the acceptable range of 2, confirming that the data
were normally distributed (Field, 2009). Although participants had more than two bits of digital
devices each, they did not seem to use these frequently for language learning. For example,
students were found to rarely practise IDLE activities (almost once a week), as indicated in
below-average agreement for all IDLE items (ranging from 1.68 to 2.30). This suggests that in
this study the IDLE perspective does not seem to have been particularly successful among
Korean participants. However, respondents generally had a positive perception of varieties of
English as well as a higher self-perceived competence in employing strategic competence for
cross-cultural communication, as shown in above-average endorsements of perception of varieties
of English (ranging from 3.28 to 3.55) and strategic competence for cross-cultural communication
(ranging from 3.01 to 3.84).

5.2 Assessment of structural equation modelling

To scrutinize the association among three latent factors, two proposed models were constructed.
As depicted in Table 5, both models showed a good fit with the data: χ2 divided by the value of
degree of freedom (χ2/df) was less than 3, the comparative fit index (CFI), the normed fit index
(NFI), and the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) were above 0.9, the adjusted goodness-of-fit index
(AGFI) was above 0.85, and the root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) was less than
or equal to 0.08 criterion (Hair, Tatham, Anderson & Black, 1998).

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000181 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 ReCALL 55

Table 5. A summary of goodness-of-fit indices of the structural equation modelling models

χ2/df CFI NFI GFI AGFI RMSEA

The first model 2.76 0.96 0.93 0.91 0.87 0.08

The second model 2.20 0.95 0.92 0.90 0.87 0.07

Recommended value <3 > 0.9 > 0.9 > 0.9 > 0.85 ≤ 0.08
Note. CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = normed fit index; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA = root
mean square of approximation.

5.3 Hypotheses testing

The first hypothesis (the first model) was used to examine the direct effects of IDLE practice on
strategic competence for cross-cultural communication. The parameter estimate (β = 0.37) was
significant at the p < 0.001 level, thereby accepting the first hypothesis. The R2 of the first model
(explanatory power of IDLE practice) was 0.13, indicating that IDLE practice accounts for 13% of
the total variance of strategic competence for cross-cultural communication. It suggests that
students’ engagement in IDLE activities has a direct impact on their self-perceived ability to
employ the cross-cultural communication strategy.
The second hypothesis (the second model) was devised to examine the mediation of perception
of varieties of English over IDLE practice and strategic competence for cross-cultural communi-
cation (Figure 2). As summarized in Table 6, IDLE practice had a significantly positive effect on
perception of varieties of English (β = 0.17, p < 0.05), explaining approximately 3% of the total
variance. Perception of varieties of English had a significantly positive effect on strategic competence
for cross-cultural communication (β = 0.54, p < 0.001). Approximately 41% of the total variance in
strategic competence for cross-cultural communication was accounted for by IDLE practice and
perception of varieties of English. This indicates that the second research model, as evidenced
by the significant increase in R2 in comparison to the first model, can better explain the relationship
between IDLE practice and strategic competence for cross-cultural communication.
The mediating role of perception of varieties of English on the relationship between IDLE practice
and strategic competence for cross-cultural communication was assessed in light of Baron and
Kenny’s (1986) and MacKinnon and Dwyer’s (1993) recommendations. First, there should be a
significant association between the independent and the dependent variables (IDLE → strategic
competence for cross-cultural communication) when the mediator (perception of varieties of
English) is absent. Second, a relationship between an independent variable and a presumed mediator
(IDLE → perception of varieties of English) should be significant. Third, there should be a significant
relationship between a presumed mediator and a dependent variable (perception of varieties of
English → strategic competence for cross-cultural communication) when controlling for the
independent variable. Finally, when the mediator is introduced, the previously significant association
between independent and dependent variables should be reduced in magnitude, or else disappear.
Table 6 depicts the standardized direct, indirect, and total effects of the second model.
Accordingly, the standardized indirect effect was computed for each of 1,000 bootstrapped
samples, which was statistically significant (p < 0.001), with bias-corrected 95% confidence
intervals ranging from 0.02 to 0.17. The standardized indirect effect of IDLE practice on strategic
competence for cross-cultural communication through perception of varieties of English was 0.09.
After controlling for perception of varieties of English, the direct effect of IDLE practice
on strategic competence for cross-cultural communication was also significant (β = 0.27,
p < 0.001). Hence, the effect of IDLE practice on strategic competence for cross-cultural
communication was partially mediated by perception of varieties of English, with both direct
and indirect effects being significant, which supports the second hypothesis.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000181 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 56 Ju Seong Lee

Table 6. Results of the second hypothesis testing

Bootstrapping 95%
confidence interval BC
β p Lower Upper

Total effects
IDLE → PVE 0.17 < 0.05 0.03 0.31
PVE → SCCC 0.54 < 0.001 0.38 0.67
IDLE → SCCC 0.36 < 0.001 0.24 0.49
Direct effects
IDLE → PVE 0.17 < 0.001 0.03 0.31
PVE → SCCC 0.54 < 0.001 0.38 0.67
IDLE → SCCC 0.27 < 0.001 0.16 0.38
Indirect effect

IDLE → SCCC 0.09 < 0.001 0.02 0.17

Note. BC = bias corrected, 1,000 bootstrap samples; PVE = perception of varieties of English; SCCC = strategic
competence for cross-cultural communication.

Figure 2. Structural equation modelling results of the second model

Qualitative data further supported the second model that EFL students are likely to adopt a
more effective cross-cultural communication strategy when their perception of different forms
and users of English becomes more positive through their engagement in IDLE activities. Two
excerpts are presented as prime examples. First, there was Jun Sung, a male, 19 years, first-year
majoring in business administration. On a daily basis, for more than two hours, he practised 14
different IDLE experiences, which seemed to make a positive impact on his perception of varieties
of English and strategic competence for cross-cultural communication. In his own words:

I am an amateur rapper. I listen to all kinds of English rap music produced by singers of
around the world for at least three hours everyday from my MP3 player and YouTube.
So, I feel comfortable hearing German English, Indian English, or whatever English may
be. I also think that different kinds of English accents are acceptable because each
English represents its own style and culture : : : I upload my original songs to rap commu-
nities on Facebook, Instagram and SoundCloud. I often talk to rappers and rap fans from
other countries in English. For example, I became a Facebook friend with a German amateur
rapper who had approached me after listening to my songs from SoundCloud. Although I

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000181 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 ReCALL 57

found it difficult to understand his German-English accent at first, as we continuously talked

about various topics, I became used to his accent and style of speaking : : : Now, I have no
problem communicating with him. He told me I am a good English speaker.

Another salient example was Mi-kyung, a female, 21 years, second-year majoring in English.
She spent more than two hours daily involved in 14 different IDLE activities, which also appeared
to be associated with her perception of varieties of English and strategic competence for cross-
cultural communication. She commented:

Since I was an elementary school student, I have spent a great deal of time talking to
various English speakers while playing massively multiplayer online role-playing games
[MMORPGs] : : : These days, I play Overwatch on the North American servers. Since it
is a multiplayer first-person shooting game, I need to talk quickly to my team players via
mic in English. Since game players are diverse in their nationality, I can hear a variety of
English accents from my team members. When I can’t understand their accent, I simply
ask them to say it again. It has helped me become more open-minded toward varieties of
English accents and communicate more effectively with other game players from different
backgrounds : : : I can easily talk to anyone from any country in real-life situations because I
just talk as I normally do during digital gameplay.

6. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential connections between IDLE practice,
perception of varieties of English, and strategic competence for cross-cultural communication.
Results showed that EFL students who practised IDLE activities more frequently perceived
themselves as more effective users for the cross-cultural communication strategy. This finding
provides additional evidence of the beneficial effects of digital technology (e.g. CMC; Ke &
Suzuki, 2011) and IDLE activities (e.g. socializing with other users of English via social media;
Lee & Lee, 2019a) on EFL students’ enhanced ability to employ the cross-cultural communication
strategy. However, previous interventional studies (Ke & Cahyani, 2014; Lee et al., 2018) were
primarily organized and monitored by teachers in a formal classroom. Moreover, a potential
confounding factor (participants with overseas experience) was not contained in the analyses
of the previous study (Lee & Lee, 2019b). In this regard, the findings of the present study seem
to be more relevant and applicable to typical EFL students, who do not have any international
experience but practise IDLE activities.
Another significant finding was that perception of varieties of English mediated the
relationship between IDLE and strategic competence for cross-cultural communication. This
result indicates that EFL students without overseas experience are likely to adopt a more effective
cross-cultural communication strategy when their perception of different varieties of English
becomes more positive through their engagement in IDLE activities. In particular, IDLE practice
(e.g. watching international movies in English and interacting in English with foreign speakers on
social media and during digital game play) allows EFL students to experience various forms and
users of English, in turn helping them hold more positive attitudes toward different varieties of
English (Lee & Lee, 2019a, 2019b). Students with higher levels of perception of varieties of English
may have become more willing to (and thus have more opportunity to) talk with people with
different cultural backgrounds than do those with lower levels of perception, leading ultimately
to enhancing their cross-cultural communication strategy. The cases of Jun Sung and Mi-kyung
also support this quantitative result. For example, Jun Sung seemed to communicate more
effectively with other English speakers (e.g. a German amateur rapper) when his perception of
varieties of English including a German-English accent became more positive through his

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000181 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 58 Ju Seong Lee

engagement in IDLE activities, such as listening to rap songs in different English accents from
YouTube and interacting with rappers and rap fans from other countries in English on
Facebook, Instagram and SoundCloud. Mi-kyung also perceived herself as a more effective
cross-cultural communicator both in online and offline contexts when she became more positive
toward different varieties of English through her frequent interaction in English with other
international game players during MMORPGs.
This mechanism can be also explained by the case of Young-sik (a Korean EFL university
student without overseas experience) who was introduced in Lee and Lee’s (2019a) study: At first,
Young-sik had a low level of perception of Vietnamese English because he had no experience with
Vietnamese-style English. Then, he befriended one international student from Vietnam during a
cultural exchange program and continued to socialize with him, for example, speaking to him via
text messages and video calls on KaKaoTalk. Young-sik commented, “ : : : over time I became
familiar to his English accent. Now I regard it as just one of the local English dialects spoken
in Vietnam” (p. 9). Ultimately, he became open minded in accepting a Vietnamese-attached
English accent and communicated more effectively and appropriately with his Vietnamese friend
in English, both orally and written. This result also corroborates the findings of previous studies
(Galloway & Rose, 2013, 2014; Hino, 2012, 2017; Lee et al., 2018), which found a positive
relationship between exposure to diverse English users and materials made available to EFL
students and their corresponding perception of varieties of English. However, the present study
provides new insight into the mediating role of perception of varieties of English and the indirect
effects on strategic competence for cross-cultural communication.
More importantly, in the perception of varieties of English (PVE)-mediating model, IDLE
practice and perception of varieties of English explains 41% of the variance in the dependent
variable (strategic competence for cross-cultural communication). This suggests that the higher
students score on perception of varieties of English and IDLE practice, the greater is the likelihood
that they will attain a higher level of strategies for multicultural communication. The data also
indicate that the PVE-mediating model can better account for such an association in comparison
to the IDLE-strategic competence for cross-cultural communication (SCCC) model, as
demonstrated by a significant increase in R2. This finding may help us better understand the
complex (direct or indirect) effects of IDLE practice and the perception of varieties of English
on strategic competence for cross-cultural communication. This finding may allow future
researchers to apply the PVE-mediating model to other research contexts, thereby making
cross-cultural comparisons and advancing our understanding of IDLE practice, perception of
varieties of English and strategic competence for cross-cultural communication, all of which will
ultimately contribute to a global body of IDLE and EIL knowledge.
From a pedagogical point of view, English teachers can provide opportunities for EFL students
to engage in IDLE activities and experience diverse English forms and speakers. Over time,
students are likely to have more positive perceptions of different varieties of English and, in turn,
adopt a more effective cross-cultural communication strategy. More specifically, during the initial
stage, as is the case with most of the existing EIL interventional studies (Ke & Cahyani, 2014; Lee
et al., 2018; Matsuda, 2017), teachers can primarily organize and monitor technology-integrated
EIL pedagogy in a formal classroom (e.g. having their EFL students interact with other non-native
English users via Skype). However, teachers are gradually handing over control to their students
by encouraging them to engage in receptive IDLE activities (e.g. reading and watching English
content for better understanding, and appreciating other cultures via YouTube), which would help
them become exposed to more diverse and authentic accents and usages of English. Concurrently,
teachers can support students to practise productive IDLE activities (e.g. joining an online
community based on students’ interests, in which they can speak with both native and non-native
English speakers). Ultimately, teachers can help students up to the point at which they take control
of choosing appropriate EIL resources and materials online, organizing and implementing
IDLE-embedded EIL activities, and critically evaluating these processes on their own.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000181 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 ReCALL 59

However, it is also worth noting that students may easily initiate IDLE activities but may find it
difficult by themselves to sustain IDLE practice (Lai, 2017). Therefore, by means of constant
monitoring and support, teachers could play a critical role in facilitating and sustaining students’
IDLE engagement.
From the perspective of CALL research, the results seem to be aligned with previous studies,
which have reported a significant relationship between IDLE and EFL learners’ affective, cognitive,
cultural, and linguistic outcomes (Lai et al., 2015; Sundqvist & Wikström, 2015). Concurrent with
Lai’s (2017) argument, however, extant IDLE studies have focused on limited aspects of English
learning outcomes. Hence, the findings of this study could contribute to adding new knowledge
(e.g. perception of English playing a mediating role in the effect of IDLE practice on strategic
competence for cross-cultural communication) to the current CALL literature.

7. Conclusion
This study set out to investigate the relationship between IDLE practice, strategic competence for
cross-cultural communication and perception of varieties of English with two proposed research
models. The IDLE-SCCC model demonstrated that IDLE practice was significantly associated
with strategic competence for cross-cultural communication. Additionally, the PVE-mediating
model showed that perception of varieties of English mediated the relationship between IDLE
and strategic competence for cross-cultural communication, which was also supported by the
qualitative data. It suggests that EFL students without overseas experience tended to adopt more
effective cross-cultural communication strategies when their perception of different varieties of
English became more positive through their engagement in IDLE activities. This study also found
that the PVE-mediating model better explained the relationship among these variables in
comparison to the IDLE-SCCC model.
Nonetheless, the current findings should be interpreted in the context of five limitations. First,
due to the nature of an exploratory study, as a starting point, only two research models (IDLE-
SCCC and PVE-mediating models) were hypothesized, which makes the current study somewhat
restrictive. For example, the IDLE-SCCC model accounted for 13% of the variance in the
dependent variable, and the PVE-mediating model explained 41% of such a variance. This
indicates that a significant portion of the variation in the dependent variable remains undetected
in current models, which merely represent a small portion of such a relationship. Although quali-
tative data somehow complement the quantitative results, future studies may warrant scrutinizing
potential independent variables that are not captured in the present models, such as demographic
(e.g. age, gender, major), affective (e.g. level of enjoyment, self-confidence, L2 anxiety, degree of
motivation), and cognitive (e.g. vocabulary knowledge, school grade) factors. Second, this study
examined only EFL university learners in Korea and therefore its findings may not be applicable to
other participants from different age or linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, future
research should consider recruiting participants from different institutions and sociocultural
backgrounds in order to substantiate the findings of the current research.
Third, as it is an observational study, the survey data were collected for a short period of time,
with interviews being limited to two participants. Similarly, the quantitative findings were solely
based on self-reported data, which could be affected by respondents’ subjective opinions or
inaccurate recollections about the phenomena in question (Akbulut, 2015). Therefore, a future
study should consider obtaining data through additional sources, such as focus groups and obser-
vations, so as to elicit more reliable data and comprehend the nuances of the current inquiry.
Fourth, the present study took only two dimensions of EIL into consideration based on
Matsuda’s (2017) conceptualization. As many more factors could constitute EIL from other
theoretical frameworks, adding other aspects of EIL, such as English speakers’ identity (e.g.
Ha, 2009; Widdowson, 2003), would certainly merit further study. Finally, although the current

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000181 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 60 Ju Seong Lee

study adds to our understanding of IDLE, strategic competence for cross-cultural communication,
and perception of varieties of English with practical implications, to help ELT professionals
implement these pedagogical ideas at the instructional level more effort is needed by researchers
and practitioners. Specifically, this would include a follow-up study that could provide detailed
descriptions of how to incorporate IDLE-embedded EIL pedagogy into practice in a more quali-
tative manner and to disseminate anecdotal and empirical evidence as a result of such an inter-
vention. Additionally, future studies may delve deeply into teachers’ and students’ perceptions
that take place during the intervention process. Such in-depth understanding could inform the
development of contextually appropriate instructional materials and activities that support
teachers in providing quality teaching. Consequently, this could contribute to bridging EIL
theory and practice, a research topic that is in much demand but is quite limited in volume
(Matsuda, 2017).
With the advent of new technology and increasing interaction via cross-cultural communi-
cation occurring in various IDLE contexts (Marcoccia, 2012), the conventional pedagogical model
of EIL within its heavily restricted classroom contexts would appear to be limited. In this regard,
this study addresses an important research gap by unravelling the interaction of two aspects of EIL
(strategic competence for cross-cultural communication and perception of varieties of English)
and IDLE practice, from which teacher intervention is absent. With their potential for significant
pedagogical benefits, many additional intriguing research agendas centring on this topic may also
warrant attention.
Ethical statement. This research project was conducted in accordance with and the approval of the institutional review board
at the author’s university. Participants were volunteers. There was no potential conflict of interest in this study.

References
Akbulut, Y. (2015) Predictors of inconsistent responding in web surveys. Internet Research, 25(1): 131–147. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IntR-01-2014-0017
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986) The moderator–mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173–1182. https://doi.org/
10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bax, S. (2003) CALL—past, present and future. System, 31(1): 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00071-4
Benson, P. (2011) Language learning and teaching beyond the classroom: An introduction to the field. In Benson, P. &
Reinders, H. (eds.), Beyond the language classroom (pp. 7–16). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/
9780230306790
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C. & Walter, F. (2016) Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely
a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13): 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
Chen, G.-M. (2012) The impact of new media on intercultural communication in global context. China Media Research, 8(2): 1–10.
Cole, J. & Vanderplank, R. (2016) Comparing autonomous and class-based learners in Brazil: Evidence for the present-day
advantages of informal, out-of-class learning. System, 61: 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.07.007
Creswell, J. W. (2009) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
SAGE.
Crystal, D. (2010) The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Field, A. (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981) Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra
and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3): 382–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313
Galloway, N. & Rose, H. (2013) “They envision going to New York, not Jakarta”: The differing attitudes toward ELF of
students, teaching assistants, and instructors in an English-medium business program in Japan. Journal of English as a
Lingua Franca, 2(2): 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2013-0014
Galloway, N. & Rose, H. (2014) Using listening journals to raise awareness of global Englishes in ELT. ELT Journal, 68(4):
386–396. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu021
Ha, P. L. (2009) English as an international language: International student and identity formation. Language and Intercultural
Communication, 9(3): 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708470902748855
Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E. & Black, W. C. (1998) Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River:
Prentice.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000181 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 ReCALL 61

Hino, N. (2012) Participating in the community of EIL users through real-time news: Integrated practice in teaching English as
an international language (IPTEIL). In Matsuda, A. (ed.), Principles and practices of teaching English as an international
language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 183–200. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847697042-014
Hino, N. (2017) Training graduate students in Japan to be EIL teachers. In Matsuda, A. (ed.), Preparing teachers to teach
English as an international language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 87–99. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783097036-008
Hsu, C.-C. & Sandford, B. A. (2007) The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 12(10): 1–8.
Jensen, S. H. (2017) Gaming as an English language learning resource among young children in Denmark. CALICO Journal,
34(1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.29519
Juan-Garau, M. & Jacob, K. (2015) Developing English learners’ transcultural skills through content- and task-based lessons.
System, 54: 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.017
Kachru, B. B. (1985) Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In Quirk, R.
& Widdowson, H. G. (ed.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 11–30.
Kaypak, E. & Ortaçtepe, D. (2014) Language learner beliefs and study abroad: A study on English as a lingua franca (ELF).
System, 42: 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.01.005
Ke, I.-C. & Cahyani, H. (2014) Learning to become users of English as a lingua franca (ELF): How ELF online communication
affects Taiwanese learners’ beliefs of English. System, 46: 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.008
Ke, I.-C. & Suzuki, T. (2011) Teaching global English with NNS-NNS online communication. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 8(2):
169–188.
Lai, C. (2017) Autonomous language learning with technology: Beyond the classroom. New York: Bloomsbury.
Lai, C., Zhu, W. & Gong, G. (2015) Understanding the quality of out-of-class English learning. TESOL Quarterly, 49(2):
278–308. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.171
Lee, J. S. & Lee, K. (2019a) Perceptions of English as an international language by Korean English-major and non-English-major
students. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 40(1): 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1480628
Lee, J. S. & Lee, K. (2019b) Informal digital learning of English and English as an international language: The path less traveled.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3): 1447–1461. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12652
Lee, J. S., Nakamura, Y. & Sadler, R. (2018) Effects of videoconference-embedded classrooms (VEC) on learners’ perceptions
toward English as an international language (EIL). ReCALL, 30(3): 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401700026X
MacKinnon, D. P. & Dwyer, J. H. (1993) Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17(2): 144–158.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X9301700202
Marcoccia, M. (2012) The Internet, intercultural communication and cultural variation. Language & Intercultural
Communication, 12(4): 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2012.722101
Matsuda, A. (ed.) (2017) Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783097036
Noack, R. & Gamio, L. (2015) The world’s languages, in 7 maps and charts. The Washington Post. https://www.
washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/23/the-worlds-languages-in-7-maps-and-charts/?
noredirect=on&utm_term=.37d4c3efcd4e
Reinders, H. & Benson, P. (2017) Research agenda: Language learning beyond the classroom. Language Teaching, 50(4):
561–578. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000192
Smith, L. E. (1976) English as an international auxiliary language. RELC Journal, 7(2): 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/
003368827600700205
Sockett, G. (2014) The online informal learning of English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/
9781137414885
Sundqvist, P. & Sylvén, L. K. (2016) Extramural English in teaching and learning: From theory and research to practice.
London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-46048-6
Sundqvist, P. & Wikström, P. (2015) Out-of-school digital gameplay and in-school L2 English vocabulary outcomes. System,
51: 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.001
Sylvén, L. K. & Sundqvist, P. (2012) Gaming as extramural English L2 learning and L2 proficiency among young learners.
ReCALL, 24(3): 302–321. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401200016X
Tanghe, S. (2014) Integrating world Englishes into a university conversation class in South Korea. English Today, 30(2): 18–23.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S026607841400008X
Twining, P., Heller, R. S., Nussbaum, M. & Tsai, C.-C. (2017) Some guidance on conducting and reporting qualitative studies.
Computers & Education, 106: A1–A9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.002
Widdowson, H. G. (2003) Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000181 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 62 Ju Seong Lee

Appendix. Items for IDLE practice, perception of varieties of English, and strategic
competence for cross-cultural communication
IDLE practice
IDLE 1. I read English contents online (e.g. news, shopping, travelling).
IDLE 2. I write to communicate with others in English online (e.g. sending an email, chatting
via SNS).
IDLE 3. I talk with English users (e.g. American, British, Korean) in English online.
IDLE 4. I practise speaking English using online English contents/programs.
IDLE 5. I use technology to connect with native speakers of the language (e.g. American, British).
IDLE 6. I use technology to connect with non-native speakers of English all over the world
(e.g. Japanese, Chinese).
IDLE 7. I use technology to help myself understand and appreciate the target culture better.
IDLE 8. I use technology to help myself to increase my ability to interact with the target culture.

Perception of varieties of English (PVE)

PVE 1. Different varieties of English, such as Hong Kong English, Indian English, and
Singaporean English, are acceptable today.
PVE 2. Teachers can use English listening materials that are recorded by people who have different
kinds of English accents.
PVE 3. Different varieties of English, such as Indonesian English, Taiwanese English, and Japanese
English, are acceptable today.
PVE 4. Teachers can include the interaction between non-native and non-native English speakers
(e.g. Indonesian-Japanese speakers) in English listening materials.

Strategic competence for cross-cultural communication (SCCC)

SCCC 1. I can adjust my conversational style according to my interactions with people of other
cultural backgrounds.
SCCC 2. I can explain my own culture and customs clearly in English to people from other
cultures.
SCCC 3. I am open-minded in accepting speaking/pronunciation patterns that are different from
those of my home country.
SCCC 4. I can behave appropriately according to English users I speak with.

About the author

Ju Seong Lee is an assistant professor in the Department of English Language Education at the Education University of Hong
Kong. His research interests include informal digital learning of English, English as an international language, communication
behaviours, and affect in second language learning.

Author ORCiD. Ju Seong Lee, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3996-1303

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000181 Published online by Cambridge University Press