Faculty of Education and Society
Department of Culture, Languages and Media
Degree Project in English Studies and Education
15 Credits, Advanced Level
Teaching English with a Pluricentric
Approach:
a Compilation of Four Upper Secondary Teachers’
Beliefs
Att undervisa i engelska med ett pluricentriskt tillvägagångssätt: en sammanställning av fyra gymnasielärares föreställningar
Agnes Rauer and Elena Tizzano
Master of Arts/Science in Education, 300 Credits Supervisor: Vi Thanh Son 2019-06-09 Examiner: Anna Korshin Wärnsby
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the upper secondary teachers who agreed to participate in our study, without them it would have been no study at all. We also want to thank Malin Reljanovic Glimäng for making us aware of how the English language is used in the globalized world and also for guiding our first steps in this field of research. And last but not least, we would like to thank our supervisor Vi Thanh Son for guiding and supporting us through this writing process.
Contribution to the Synthesis
This degree project is a result of a collaborative and equally divided effort. The research, collecting of data and the writing has been fairly distributed among the students/writers. The writing was carried out in a process made of virtual, as well as physical meetings, and facilitated by the use of Google Docs. By using this tool it was possible to follow each other’s creative process and give thorough feedback in order to improve the project. The workload was continuously discussed and adjusted throughout the writing-process and we both gained a deep knowledge of the contents of the text. Every paragraph was carefully discussed and processed by both authors.
The stated above is certified by our signatures:
Agnes Rauer Elena Tizzano
________________________ ________________________
Abstract
One of our first courses at the teacher education program introducedus to how the English language could be taught with an approach we had not thought of before. In particular, the course discussed what it could mean for educators of English to implement a pluricentric approach in their teaching. As future teachers, we gained a whole new perspective on the implications of teaching an international language as English and the benefits it could have by doing so, such as the increment of intercultural awareness. However, during our internships we noticed that in-service teachers often have a rather monolithic way of teaching English, mostly targeting varieties in their teaching that originated from native-speaking countries such as, the United States and the United Kingdom. We conducted a qualitative research with the aim to investigate the beliefs of four upper secondary teachers of English, currently working at two different schools in Malmö, about teaching English with a pluricentric approach. To gather the data we used semi-structured interviews. The findings of the study show that on the one hand, most of the participating teachers express a desire to expose the students to different varieties of English and think of this as important. On the other hand, the investigation shows that the participating teachers prioritise other aspects in their choices, such as content, level and availability of the teaching material and consider variety not as a priority.
Key words: pluricentric approach, varieties of English, English as an International Language, World Englishes, teacher beliefs.
Table of Content
1. Introduction ...1
2. Purpose and Research Questions ...3
3. Theoretical Background and Literature Review ...4
3.1 Terminology ... 4
3.1.1 The Pluricentric Approach... 4
3.1.2 English as an International Language (EIL) and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) ... 5
3.1.3 English as a Global Language (EGL) and World Englishes (WEs) ... 6
3.1.4 The native speaker ideal ... 7
3.1.5 Teachers’ beliefs ... 7
3.2 Theoretical Background ... 8
3.2.1 The exposure to many varieties of English ... 8
3.2.2 The representation of a multiplicity of speakers ... 9
3.2.3 The exposure to different cultural contexts ... 10
3.2.4 The possibility to develop skills to facilitate intercultural communication 11 3.2.5 Identity and second language learning ... 11
3.3 The Curriculum for Upper Secondary Schools ... 12
3.4 Previous Research ... 12
3.4.1 Different beliefs in the Three Circles ... 12
3.4.2 Native speakers’ norm in Iran, Australia and Chile ... 13
3.4.3 The Pluricentric Approach in China: an expanding circle country’s point of view ... 15
3.4.4 The importance of teachers’ beliefs for implementing a change ... 17
4. Methods ...19
4.1 The Participants ... 19
4.2 The Procedure ... 20
4.3 Procedures for Analysis and Data Collections ... 21
4.3.1 Instruments Used for Data Collection ... 22
4.3.2 Semi-structured teacher interviews ... 22
4.5 Ethical Considerations ... 24
5. Results ...25
5.1 Varieties of English in Classroom Teaching ... 25
5.2 The Ideal Way of Teaching English ... 26
6. Discussion ...29
6.1 To what Extent do English Teachers Expose their Learners to Different Varieties of English in their Classroom? ... 29
6.2 In what Learning Situations are Different Varieties Used? What are the Reasons for that Choice? ... 30
7. Conclusion ...33 7.1 Limitations ... 34 7.2 Further Research ... 34 References...35 Appendix ...40 Appendix 1 ... 40 Appendix 2 ... 42
1. Introduction
The shift in the use and function of the English language, due to its worldwide diffusion as a consequence of globalization, has been accounted for by many scholars. They state that nowadays English is predominantly used by non-native speakers, rather than by native speakers (Graddol, 2006; Young & Walsh, 2010; Marlina, 2014; Bhowmik, 2015; Matsuda, 2018). Jenkins (2006) points out that English has become the mostly used lingua franca, and for that reason, she advocates for a pluricentric approach to the teaching of English. Her claims is that teachers should take into consideration the state of the language and aim to raise the learners’ awareness of the multifaceted reality of the English language today.
This aligns with the suggestions of other scholars in the field who assert that to develop an understanding of the diversity of English it is necessary to enable the learners to successfully participate in international interaction. The learners who are exposed to English in a varied and pluralistic way will be better equipped to engage in exchanges in multicultural settings, will become more skilled communicators, increase their intelligibility, and broaden their openness toward different varieties of the language (Matsuda & Friedrich, 2011; Modiano, 2009; Jenkins, 2006; Marlina, 2018; Dogancay-Aktuna & Hardman, 2018).
However, according to these scholars, there are several factors that slow down the implementation of the pluricentric approach and make it difficult to advance from theory to practice. During our teacher practice at different upper secondary schools in Malmö, we had the impression that some teachers had a more monolithic view of English than the one proposed by the curriculum. We noticed that many of the teachers we had the possibilities to observe had a rather monocentric approach to English and showed a preference for the varieties originated from Great Britain and the United States. Lundahl (2012) asserts that this kind of focus in English teaching is not indeed mirroring the contemporary use of English around the world and suggests that teachers dissociate from the native speaker ideal. A similar statement is made by Matsuda and Friedrich (2012) who emphasize that, “Proposing and teaching a ‘standard’ or ‘core’ variety of English in international contexts would create an additional layer in the English language hierarchy to which different people would have different degrees of access, […]” (p. 19). The idea to not reduce teaching to a single standard, and consequently a single culture, is also
expressed in the Swedish curriculum of English for the upper secondary schools. The following quote clearly exemplifies the position of the curriculum on the matter:
Students should be given the opportunity to develop knowledge of living conditions, social issues and cultural features in different contexts and parts of the world where English is used. Teaching should encourage students' curiosity in language and culture, and give them the opportunity to develop plurilingualism where skills in different languages interact and support each other (Skolverket, 2011, p. 53).
Hult (2017) lingers on the following statement in his analysis of the Swedish curriculum, “[…] different contexts and parts of the world where English is used” (Skolverket, 2011, p. 53) and explains that this formulation broadens the possibility of using different varieties of English. He maintains that this new wording, by not explicitly focusing on countries who have English as their first language (L1), not only unlocks the door to the use of varieties originated from all the countries where English is used, but implies that a Swedish variety of English could be acknowledged and developed. Similarly, Sharifian (2009) highlights the shift in the Swedish curriculum from a norm-based curriculum, that considered British English as the only standard to follow, to a more communicative approach to language teaching.
Our interest in teaching English with a pluricentric approach originates from a course that we took, involving the concept of English as an International language (EIL), during our teacher education program at Malmö University. This course revolutionized our way of viewing ourselves and others as possible owners of the English language and gave us new perspectives on the use and function of English in a world-wide context. This new found interest led us to choose this topic for our Independent Project in the major subject (SAG). There we investigated the benefits and challenges of teaching English as an International Language (TEIL) in global settings, and noticed that the research about the EIL paradigm was mostly limited to the university level. In addition, it was almost absent in the upper secondary schools and completely absent in the Swedish context. The results of our research showed that while there are some benefits with TEIL, there are still many challenges, mostly due to the beliefs held by teachers. For those reasons, we have decided to conduct a small scale survey to investigate the approach to English teaching in upper secondary schools in the Swedish context.
2. Purpose and Research Questions
This degree project will explore the beliefs and attitudes, provided by four upper secondary teachers of English, towards teaching English with a pluricentric approach. More precisely, we aim to examine how the beliefs held by the interviewed teachers shape their pedagogical choices when it comes to including different varieties of English in their teaching. Moreover, the study will investigate the reasons for their choices of teaching materials.
The questions below will inform the research:
1. To what extent do English teachers in upper secondary schools expose their learners to different varieties of English in their classrooms?
2. In what learning situations are different varieties of English used? What are the reasons for that choice?
3. Theoretical Background and Literature
Review
The following section is divided in four subsections. Firstly, some key terms that are important to mention will be defined: Pluricentric Approach, English as an International Language, English as a Lingua Franca, English as a Global Language, and World Englishes. This part also provides an explanation of the concepts of the native speaker
ideal and teachers’ beliefs. Secondly, the theories that underpin this study are presented.
Thirdly, the curriculum for English for upper secondary schools in Sweden are discussed, in relation to the teaching of English with a pluricentric approach. Lastly, previous research in the field are reviewed.
3.1 Terminology
The Three Circle model, created by Kachru (1985), is almost inevitable to mention when engaging in our research field. This model divide the world into three categories based on their use of English: the Inner Circle (IC), the Outer Circle (OC) and the Expanding Circle (EC) (Graddol, 2006). Inner Circle countries are countries, like the USA and the UK, where English is the primary native language (Matsuda, 2012). The Outer Circle countries, like Nigeria or India, commonly have English as an official language due to colonization (Kachru & Nelson, 2006). The Expanding Circle is represented by countries, like China and Sweden, that use English as a tool for international communication (Matsuda, 2012). Even though the original concept of the circles is considered outdated in some aspects, scholars in the field still refer to this model and, for that reason, we are going to refer to it in this study as well.
3.1.1 The Pluricentric Approach
To adopt a pluricentric approach when teaching English means to broaden the perspectives of what the English language signifies today and incorporate this new perspective in the teaching. Marlina (2014, 2018) defines the pluricentric approach as a model that expose the students to many varieties of English, several cultural contexts, and
including a broad representation of speakers. Jenkins (2006) states that students should not learn one variety of English but about Englishes, and that is possible only if teachers themselves are aware of the multifaceted reality of English. By moving away from a monocentric approach, the learners increase their ability to adapt their speech, to enhance intelligibility, and become more comfortable in using their own variety of English (Jenkins, 2006). Matsuda and Friedrich (2011) support the pluricentric approach by stating that only using one standard of English in the teaching may give the learners an impression that the variety they are learning is the only desirable one. There is also a risk for the students to develop negative attitudes toward other varieties. Thus, their desire to communicate in international contexts can suffer. According to the scholars, this risk can be avoided by using multicultural teaching materials, exposing learners of English to many different varieties, and encouraging the students to interact with speakers with different linguistic backgrounds (Jenkins, 2006; Matsuda & Friedrich, 2011; Modiano, 2009). The term pluricentric approach is generally used, and will be used in this study, as an umbrella term that include the different models that are presented in the following subsections.
3.1.2 English as an International Language (EIL) and English as a Lingua
Franca (ELF)
Smith (1976), who was the first in the field to use the term international language, defines it as a language that “is used by people of different nations to communicate with one another” (p. 38). However, McKay (2002, 2010) prefers a broader definition. She considers EIL as a communication tool, that can be used both in a local and global setting, allowing people with different first languages to interact with each other, both in the same or in different countries. At the same time, some scholars are careful to point out that EIL should not be considered as a variety of the language, but a function. They argue that it is neither possible nor desirable to try defining a standard of EIL that will suit all purposes and contexts. Conversely, in a EIL context all speakers bring the variety they are more comfortable with, together with their culture and use strategies to achieve intelligibility (Friedrich & Matsuda, 2010; Matsuda, 2018).
Friedrich and Matsuda (2010) define the term lingua franca as, “any situation where a common language, including a transplanted language, is used by speakers from different
language backgrounds in a particular community, domain or focus” (p. 21). Although this definition of ELF is similar to the one of EIL given by McKay (2002), Friedrich and Matsuda (2010) oppose to the fact that EIL and ELF could work interchangeably. They consider the definition of EIL too narrow and maintain that it fails to include the use of ELF in a more local context. In addition, the authors state that ELF is not a variety of the language but a function of it when addressing communication issues. Harmer (2013) has an even more narrow definition of ELF and claims that English as a Lingua Franca is in process when people, who do not share the same mother tongue and are not native speakers of English, communicate in English. In this way, all the native speakers of English are excluded from the ELF context.
3.1.3 English as a Global Language (EGL) and World Englishes (WEs)
It is not a simple task to define English as a Global Language, but Crystal (2003) states, “A language achieves a genuinely global status when it develops a special role that is recognized in every country” (p. 3). According to the author, this role is obvious in countries where it serves as a mother tongue, where it is used as an official language or where it is emphasized in countries’ education policies. English has all those characteristics in fact, besides serving as a mother tongue in many areas, it has the status of an official language in over seventy different nations and is taught as a foreign language in over a hundred countries (Crystal, 2003).
The term World Englishes (WEs) is defined by Crystal (2003) as specific varieties of English that have developed into distinctive forms of the language and have expanded on a national scale. In addition, WEs can define and identify a specific group of people and may reveal where in the world they have learned English. Graddol (2006) asserts that in the future “[…] as English becomes more widely used as a global language, it will become expected that speakers will signal their nationality, and other aspects of their identity, through English” (p. 117).
Educators of English who want to implement the EIL approach in their teaching may use the WEs perspective due to it providing different instructional varieties of the language. Matsuda and Friedrich (2012) claim that students who get exposed to WEs will be better prepared in their EIL interactions. The authors point out that all WEs can be used as a teaching variety of English and that instructors of English do not need to use
only one established variety, like British or American English, but can choose between both IC and OC varieties (Matsuda & Friedrich, 2012). Kachru and Nelson (2006) go even further by suggesting that WEs can include varieties from any of the three circles. The authors argue that all varieties of English are equally credible and valid in a pluricentric approach. Jenkins (2006) supports this inclusive view of all varieties of English around the world and maintains that by including both standard and non-standard varieties of English in the teaching, they will be secured the same status.
3.1.4 The native speaker ideal
The concept of native-speaker ideal implies that the learner should strive to acquire a native-like command of the language. Lundahl (2012) argues that this “ideal” way of using English is not something desirable in today's world and that such a goal is not very realistic for several reasons. Firstly, very few students can reach this level of proficiency. Secondly, it is very difficult to decide which native-speaker variety is to be considered as the ideal. Thirdly, the concept of native-speaker reinforces the idea that only a few speakers of English own the language. Lastly, the author underlines that there is not such a requirement in the Swedish curriculum for upper secondary school (Lundahl, 2012). Jenkins (2006) was one of the first researchers who promoted a shift from the native speaker ideal, and the focus on Inner Circle countries, to an EIL approach in education. Her primary argument was that all educators of English should consider teaching English with a pluricentric approach because “This exposure [to different varieties of English] is likely to encourage learners’ confidence in their own English varieties, and in turn reduce the linguistic capital that many learners still believe native-like English to possess” (p. 174).
3.1.5 Teachers’ beliefs
The research about teacher beliefs has been very active in the last decade and its importance has been largely recognised in the field of language teaching. Borg (2011) defines teachers’ beliefs by asserting, “beliefs are propositions individuals consider to be true and which are often tacit, have a strong evaluative and affective component, provide a basis for action, and are resistant to change” (pp. 370–371). According to the scholars,
it is very important to make research in this field because teachers’ beliefs inform instructional decisions and consequently classroom practices (Farrell & Vos, 2018; Phipps & Borg, 2009; Rahman, Singh & Pandian, 2018).
Teachers’ beliefs may be influenced by many factors. Some factors that contribute to their formation are culture, personality, personal experiences during education, and working experiences (Farrell & Vos, 2018; Phipps & Borg, 2009). Moreover, the research in the field shows that teachers’ beliefs are very complex, can conflict with each other, and can be resistant to change (Farrell & Vos, 2018; Phipps & Borg, 2009). However, Phipps and Borg (2009) claim that sometimes the stated beliefs do not align with classroom practices creating what they define as “tensions”. Contextual factors, such as curriculum, time issues, examinations school policies etc., may also impact the formation of those tensions (Phipps & Borg, 2009; Rahman, Singh & Pandian, 2018).
3.2 Theoretical Background
In the last few years many books and articles describing how to implement a pluricentric approach in teaching English have been published. Regardless of which paradigm informed them, whether it was EIL, ELF or WEs, they shared some features in their theoretical model. For that reason, it is possible to consider those shared features as the bases of the pluricentric approach. According to Marlina (2014, 2018) what underpins a successful pluricentric approach is the exposure to many varieties of English, the representation of a multiplicity of speakers, the exposure to different cultural contexts, and the possibility to develop skills to facilitate intercultural communication.
3.2.1 The exposure to many varieties of English
To help students develop an awareness of the multifaceted reality that the English language symbolizes today is one of the most important things when implementing the pluricentric approach. According to the scholars in the field this goal can be achieved by exposing the students to many different varieties of English. In this way they will understand that the variety they learn and use is not the only possible one and that it is likely to be different from the variety used by the interlocutors they may encounter in the future (Lwin & Marlina, 2018; Marlina, 2014; 2018; Matsuda & Friedrich, 2011; McKay,
2010; Modiano, 2009). Modiano (2009) argues, “An understanding of the diversity of English, for production as well as for comprehension, makes one a better communicator” (p. 59).
This strategy should show the students that the English spoken by non-native speakers is as legitimate as the one spoken by native speakers. McKay (2010) argues that it is paramount to expose the students to many different varieties and to make them aware of how the different varieties can be a source of social identity. She claims the importance of recognising equal status to all varieties and exposing the students to the varieties they are more likely to encounter in their everyday exchanges. This strategy, according to the author, will both improve learners’ receptive skills and make them aware that the owners of the language are not only native speakers (NS) (McKay, 2010).
3.2.2 The representation of a multiplicity of speakers
Some of the teaching materials that are used in the ELT today have still a quite monocentric representation. Marlina (2018) asserts that they usually depict interaction among native speakers or, if non-native speakers (NNS) are involved, they are often depicted from “a deficit perspective” (p. 27). In other words, the NNS are not portrayed as competent speakers of the language. This can develop a sense of inferiority in the students that will never see themselves as legitimate speakers of English. Those representations are likely to reinforce the ideas that the only owners of the language are the native speakers and that the only varieties that are legitimate are the Inner Circle varieties (Marlina, 2018; Lwin & Marlina, 2018).
For many teachers, the choice of a standard to teach is a very sensitive issue, even more if they aim to teach English with a pluricentric approach. The standard language, as defined by McKay (2010), is the “variety of a language that is considered the norm” (p. 109). In other words, the variety that is considered ideal to teach and the one that is used as benchmark for assessment. McKay (2010) explains that the WEs model propose the use of many varieties of English as possible standards depending on the teaching context, and what is to be considered a standard need to be decided locally. However, she admits that some scholars fear that to have many varieties could lead to a lack of intelligibility among the speakers of English (McKay, 2010).
globalised, as in the case of English, the problem of the creation of different varieties and the unintelligibility that they bring is a natural phenomenon. They stress that to be concerned about this is useless because this is not something that will happen in the future, but it has already happened and will not stop (Smith & Nelson, 2006). The scholars who share this view affirm that the development of varieties is something natural that occur as a result of the spread of English, moreover, many speakers will use the different varieties to display their identity (Graddol, 2006; McKay, 2010). For those reasons, McKay (2010) advocates for a inclusion of exchanges among non-native speakers in the teaching. She argues that because the most part of the exchanges nowadays are among second language (L2) speakers it is important to expose the learners to those interactions. In this way, the learners will understand that learning English will enable them to take part of all kinds of international exchanges, regardless of the variety they use.
3.2.3 The exposure to different cultural contexts
Even if Smith (1976) argues for a denationalization of the EIL approach, it does not mean that the language can be completely dissociated from culture. Marlina (2018) maintains that language and culture are intertwined, and that the way people use the language is linked to their culture. For that reason, the main goal of culture in ELT should not be to learn about culture but to develop interculturality, or what Kramsch (1993) defines a “sphere of interculturality” (p. 205). To make this possible, the students should be enabled to use the language to communicate their own cultural norms, beliefs and values, while learning about the cultures that they are likely to come in contact with (Marlina, 2018; Lwin & Marlina, 2018; McKay 2000; 2010; Smith, 1976). However, to foresee who the students are likely to encounter is difficult. For that reason, in order to become interculturally competent, they should learn about as many cultures as possible both from native and non-native speaker countries (Marlina, 2018; Matsuda, 2017).
In addition, it is important not to include only stereotypical information about other cultures in the teaching but to allow the students to reflect upon their own culture in relation to the one that is targeted at the moment, and to discuss its values, norms and beliefs (Kramsch, 1993; Marlina, 2018). As Matsuda (2012) emphasises, “Developing intercultural competence demands an understanding of culture and the role of culture and cultural variation in all communication” (p. 118). In her opinion, one of the most
problematic things in intercultural encounters is the fact that beliefs are deeply rooted in individuals that often are not prepared for the possible differences that they will encounter. The authors’ solution is for the learners to expect that they will be surprised and keep an open attitude towards their own experiences (Matsuda, 2012).
3.2.4 The possibility to develop skills to facilitate intercultural
communication
In addition to learn about the different varieties of the language and culture they are likely to encounter, the students need to learn what to do in case of a communication breakdown. As Marlina (2018) points out, the students should be given the possibility, “to learn how to negotiate across difference” (p. 30). To do so, the author explains, they need to learn
interpersonal strategies, such as rephrase, clarify, provide support, and to develop attitudinal resources as for example patience and tolerance. As the author underlines, EIL
teachers need, “to teach their students to better understand that differences are normal and necessary [...]” (p. 30). In other words, they need to develop openness toward other speakers and understand that the language can be used by different people, with different background, and for different purposes.
3.2.5 Identity and second language learning
Lightbown and Spada (2013) underline the influence that identity can have on second language learning. According to the authors, the power structures between languages can affect learners’ attitudes toward a language and, consequently, their learning. They state that learners have a great sensitivity to the power imbalance and the impact on the identity that can originate from learning a new language (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). They assert that “[...] learners’ identities impact on what they can do and how they can participate in classrooms, this naturally affects how much they can learn” (p. 90). Identity, as pointed out by Lundahl (2012), is a complex concept. The author explains that identity is often bound exclusively to ethnicity but, actually, identity is much more than that and it is important to acknowledge it to avoid generalizations. Furthermore, Lundahl (2012) explains that gender, class, preference of music, hobbies, political views etc. contribute to the formation of a person's identity.
3.3 The Curriculum for Upper Secondary Schools
A noticeable shift from a native-speaker ideal to a more pluricentric approach in English teaching is supported in the present curriculum for the upper secondary schools in Sweden. Sharifian (2009) asserts that the curriculum has changed the teaching perspective from a language that saw British English (BrE) as the only acceptable norm to an approach focused on intercultural communicative ability. It clearly promotes a use of English that is more suited for the globalized world the students are going to live and work in. In fact, the curriculum makes this idea very clear when it states that students should develop, “The ability to discuss and reflect on living conditions, social issues and cultural features in different contexts and parts of the world where English is used” (Skolverket, 2011, p. 54).
According to Hult (2017), the curriculum encourages a pluricentric approach to ELT. As the author maintains, the new phrasing used in the curriculum has the purpose of de-nationalising the language making it no longer connected to a specific country(s). Moreover, he claims that the syllabus emphasises the importance of engaging in culture teaching in languages instruction. With this said, Hult (2017) highlights that the teaching of English in Swedish schools is thereby open to endless possibilities and suggests that even a Swedish variety of English could emerge and be recognized as legitimate.
3.4 Previous Research
The research in the fields of EIL, ELF and WEs has been very active in the last years but, as some scholars mention, while many studies have been done on the student perceptions concerning the pluricentric approach, few of them have explored teachers’ beliefs (Rose & Montakantiwong, 2018; Young & Walsh, 2010).
3.4.1 Different beliefs in the Three Circles
One of the earlier studies exploring this issue is the one done by Timmis (2002). In his study the author explored the attitudes of 180 teachers from 45 different countries including all the three circles. He looked at different aspects of language but focused
mostly on pronunciation and accents. The results of the study show that the majority of the teachers considered “accented intelligibly” (Timmis, 2002, p. 243) to be the most desirable outcome of language learning. However, during the interviews the researcher understood that, even if he asked about the most desirable outcome, many of the respondents answered with the option that they found more realistic. In fact, the majority of the interviewees acknowledged that native speaker competence is the goal to aim at, even if some informants mentioned the disadvantages of aiming to native likeness considering more relevant the context in which the students are going to use the language (Timmis, 2002). Furthermore, Timmis (2002) noticed that the tendency to favour NS competence is more evident among NNS teachers.
Khatib and Monfared (2017) conducted a study that reported similar results as the aforementioned one. The researchers made a study including participants from Iran, India, USA and UK, in order to explore if the attitudes toward EIL in pronunciation varied across the three circles. The results showed that 68.2% of the informants considered comprehensibility as the main issue in communication, however, the percentage of Expanding Circle (EC) participants who considered accuracy according to a NS standard as the most important goal was substantially higher than in the other two groups. The EC teachers showed a greater preference toward NS varieties, especially AmE, than the other two groups. Outer Circle (OC) teachers also valued NS varieties high, mostly BrE, but they showed also a very positive view toward Indian English. On the contrary, NS teachers pointed out that the most important thing is not the variety that is spoken but clarity and intelligibility (Khatib & Monfared, 2017).
The researchers also investigated the ownership of English and the majority of EC participants expressed the idea that English belongs to its NS (53.3%) while the OC participants reputed the ownership of English to belong to anyone who can speak it fluently (46.7%) or to no one (36.7%). They explain this difference with the lack of awareness of the sociolinguistic positioning of English today and the assumption that NS norms are superior to the globalised world’s norms (Khatib & Monfared, 2017).
3.4.2 Native speakers’ norm in Iran, Australia and Chile
A more recent study involving Persian teachers of English has been made by Tajeddin, Alemi, and Pashmforoosh (2018). They explored the teachers’ perceptions about NS
norms in communication in the EIL context. The results of this study are in line with the previous one, in fact, they showed that 60% of the participants held the belief that the linguistic norms of NS should be followed in all communication, even in the interaction among NNS. Even if many of the participants were positive toward the EIL approach, some found NN varieties as “unacceptable and undesirable” (Tajeddin, Alemi, & Pashmforoosh, 2018, p. 306). The respondents affirmed that NNS should conform to NS norm rather than developing their own varieties of English. They also contested the ownership of English affirming that the owners of the language are the NS and that NNS should adapt to their norms and strive for native likeness even in EIL exchanges. The informants considered BrE and AmE as the most desirable variety to teach and learn and regarded native speaker-like pronunciation as a benchmark for achievement and a way to get prestigious and well-paid jobs.
A different view was held by the teachers in Sadeghpour and Sharifian’s (2017) study. They explored the beliefs about WEs of 27 NS and NNS teachers of English working in the Australian context. The findings of this study showed that some of the teachers had a very narrow view of the varieties that are acceptable in the learning teaching environment. In fact, they considered “dialects” not only Outer and Expanding Circle Englishes but also some Inner Circle varieties. The majority of the teachers that held this view were NS of English. According to the authors, the denomination given to those varieties, namely pidgins and creoles, shows that, “these participants hold prejudicial attitudes towards Englishes other than the Inner Circle Englishes that they speak” (Sadeghpour & Sharifian, 2017, p. 247). 55.5% of the participants did not recognise the legitimacy of EC varieties considering them as incorrect and, when asked to name some varieties of English, they only named IC varieties (Sadeghpour & Sharifian, 2017, p. 252).
A more pluricentric view of English was found among Chilean teachers. McKay (2003) investigated the beliefs of 50 teachers regarding the most appropriate cultural contents to include in ELT and the teachers’ views of NNS versus NS teachers. The results of the study show that the most part of the teachers had a pluricentric approach to ELT. They favoured cultural contents from several countries including Chile over cultural contents from native English-speaking countries. The respondents believed that to include diversified cultural contents would help the students in their international exchange. Moreover, the inclusion of Chilean cultural contents was aimed “to reinforce the values of our culture” (McKay, 2003, p. 143). In addition, the study showed that Chilean teachers are very self-confident and recognise their strength as teachers, such as the knowledge of
the cultural context and of the education system, together with the ability to speak the students’ first language. However, they admit that in some contexts, for instance private schools, NS teachers may be preferred because there is still the perception that they may give prestige to the institution. McKay (2003) concludes that even if the native speaker ideal is difficult to replace this seems to be happening in Chile where the teachers are taking responsibility for the development of an EIL pedagogical model that is appropriate for their local context.
3.4.3 The Pluricentric Approach in China: an expanding circle country’s
point of view
Xie’s (2014) study is designed based on McKay’s (2003) research but reports different results. The author investigates the beliefs of 104 Chinese in-service teachers of English about pronunciation, cultural contents and NS versus NNS teachers. The results showed that NS standard pronunciation is the main goal for the great majority of the teachers. Only 14% of them stressed the importance of intelligibility in communication as one of the teachers expressed it, “the goal of English learning is to cultivate students’ communicative ability in English, not native-like pronunciation” (Xie, 2014, p. 47). When asked about the cultural contents to include in the teaching, the majority of the teachers (63%) affirmed that Anglo-American culture was the most relevant to include in ELT, supporting a monocentric view of ELT. However, 33% of the informants saw favourably the inclusion of various world cultures in the teaching. Surprisingly, the participants did not consider relevant the inclusion of local culture contents.
When asked about strength and weakness of NS versus NNS teachers, the informants displayed a perspective very similar to the one observed by McKay (2003). While the teachers are aware of the linguistic strength of the NS teachers, they strongly believe that those strength are outweighed by the NS teachers limited knowledge of the local language and culture as well as the syllabus. For those reasons they believe that Chinese teachers of English are better suited for the job than NS teachers. Although, no one of the informants showed a positive attitude toward NNS teachers from the OC and EC countries showing that, “the longdominant monocentric Inner Circle or NS model of English teaching still has a deep influence on local ESL/EFL teachers” (p. 49).
context. He and Li (2009) investigated the attitudes held by one thousand students and teachers about the local variety of English, China English, in contrast with the pedagogical model that favours NS based varieties in ELT. The results showed that the majority of the participants (84.2%) had heard about WEs and China English and many (56,5%) argued that China should have a local variety as a tool to fully express the Chinese culture. Nonetheless, 81,9% of the participants aimed to sound like native speakers and the majority of the teachers adopted BrE and AmE as teaching varieties. Even if the 78.6% of the respondents expressed a preference for AmE, the rest of the informants argued that it is not necessary to aim for NS likeness as long as the students can communicate successfully (He & Li, 2009). Those results indicate that a little change is in act but that the monocentric approach to EIL is still very strong.
The persistence of the monocentric approach may be due to the importance of examinations in the Chinese contexts and to what is required by the tests. This is confirmed by a study made by Pan and Block (2011) who investigated the language beliefs of mainland Chinese learners and teachers of English by focusing on the status of English in China and the approach to ELT. The results of the research revealed that over the 60% of the informants acknowledged that English is the dominant global language and the participants attributed English very high status. These findings reveal some common views to what is reported by Tajeddin, Alemi, and Pashmforoosh (2018), namely that English is considered the key to further education and future employment by the participants.
The problem is that the current approach to teaching English is greatly examination oriented. Pan and Block (2011) explain that the examination culture in China is very strong and that tests have an enormous relevance for the students’ academic and, later on, work career. For that reason, teachers teach for the tests at the expenses of communicative abilities. Moreover, examinations often do not include speaking and for that reason the development of this ability is overlooked. As the authors argue, “[...] the perceived importance of English, and above all the importance of being able to communicate in English, does not seem to have affected how it is taught…” (Pan and Block, 2011, p. 400).
3.4.4 The importance of teachers’ beliefs for implementing a change
When it comes to the varieties that the teachers will include in their pedagogical practices, a particular focus on the importance of teachers’ beliefs is stressed in the two following studies. The first study made by Young and Walsh (2010), the beliefs of 26 teachers from Europe, Asia and Africa who studied in the UK, were investigated. The authors explored different beliefs that shape the pedagogical practices such as, the varieties the informants learned, those they aimed to teach, their notion of EIL and ELF, and their beliefs about the varieties that will be predominant in the context they teach. The results of the study show that the majority of the teachers (81%) report the aim to teach AmE because they believe it is the most useful variety in their context. However, some teachers display a rigid idea of what is an acceptable standard to teach and maintain that BrE is “the standard” and even consider AmE a variety. Some respondents reported that they did not get to choose the variety to use because it is dictated by the policy documents (Young & Walsh, 2010).
When asked about the varieties they would like to teach, the participants expressed the need for a standard with a preference for AmE because "ENS variety, especially AmE, was the most widely understood by the majority of people" (Young & Walsh, 2010, p. 132). Although EIL and ELF were considered conceptually attractive, the participants did not see them as teachable. Nonetheless, a little support for the EIL/ELF paradigm came from the European teachers that believed that in the long term a variety of “Euro English” could arise. In line with the results reported in other studies (McKay, 2003; Xie, 2014), the informants seemed to be comfortable in their status of NNES teachers. And it was clear that the participants were more concerned about selecting a standard that is appropriate for their local teaching context than with the issue of the usefulness of the EIL/ELF approach (Young & Walsh, 2010).
In their study, Rose and Montakantiwong (2018) accounted for their own attitudes as English teachers implementing the EIL approach. The researchers explored three themes that they found relevant when examining the approach to TEIL: motivation to teach EIL, experimentation with teaching EIL, and reflective practice on teaching EIL (pp. 94–96). The reasons for implementing the EIL approach was similar for both teachers; they wanted to broaden their students’ communicative possibilities by teaching them about the actual status of the English language in the world. However, the outcomes of their
experimentation with TEIL was very different. While Rose’s course had very positive results, Montakantiwong felt hers as a failure.
The reasons for the different outcomes, according to the researchers, is to be found in the different beliefs that they held. Rose was convinced that TEIL was what his students needed and tried to implement the change by enforcing small modifications in the curriculum. Montakantiwong, on the other hand, failed to draw her students attention to the new paradigm and continued to stick to the native speakers’ norms she had been taught during her own education. She attributes her failure mainly to her deeply ingrained beliefs but also to the fact that she did not have the possibility to reflect on her practice during the course due to her busy schedule. The authors conclude that in order to successful implement the EIL approach in the classroom it is necessary to have an environment that supports the change as well as “a regular self-reflective practice” (Rose & Montakantiwong, 2018, p. 97). That will enable the teachers to see the nuances in their beliefs system and to understand how those beliefs affect their pedagogical choices (Rose & Montakantiwong, 2018).
4. Methods
The following section presents the methods used for carrying out this study. We choose to use the qualitative method due to the nature of the study. In fact, we aim to investigate teachers’ beliefs and attitudes. For that reason, the qualitative method, carried out through semi-structured interviews, seems to be the most appropriate, as explained further on. In this section, we introduce the participants and shortly describe both them and the schools they are currently working at. Afterwards, we present the data collection process and explain the method chosen to gather the empirical data. Finally, we discuss the ethical considerations that are relevant for the study.
4.1 The Participants
This study is a small-scale qualitative research with four participants. The participants are all in-service teachers of English at two different schools situated in the central area of Malmö, a city in the south of Sweden. The schools have almost the same programs that are preparatory for further studies. School 1 is considered a small school with circa 850 students and offers two programs: the science and social science programs. The school has been active for about one hundred years, making it one of the oldest in the town. School 2 is a bigger school with about 1150 students. This school also offers the science and social science programs alongside with an economy program and a tourism and hospitality management program. Moreover, they have the International Baccalaureate (IB) program and a career-related program. In the IB programs, the language mainly used in teaching is English. We interviewed two teachers from each school. The participants have been chosen based on their profession and experience. We have also taken into consideration the different programs they usually teach in order to gain a broader understanding of the field of enquiry. All the teachers have graduated from Swedish teaching programs. To completely anonymize the teachers interviewed we are going to call them Teacher 1, Teacher 2, Teacher 3 and Teacher 4. The name has been assigned based on the order we interviewed them.
Teacher 1 (T1) has been a teacher of English for 26 years and has been working in School 2 for 15 years. The informant has taught both in upper secondary schools and adult education. In the school, the interviewee has mainly worked as a teacher, but has also
been head of the English department for a few years. The informant attended the teacher education program at Lund University and has some living and teaching experiences abroad.
Teacher 2 (T2) is also a teacher in School 2. The participant is teaching English in the IB programme and has been a teacher in upper secondary schools for about 20 years. The participant attended the teacher education program partly at Malmö Högskola, partly at Lund University and partly in the United Kingdom. The informant has also lived in Australia for a period of time.
Teacher 3 (T3) is a teacher at School 1 and has been working for 38 years at several upper secondary schools in Malmö after graduating from Lund University. The informant has worked at different levels in ELT such as adult education and has not had any experiences of teaching abroad.
Teacher 4 (T4) is also a teacher from School 1 and has worked for 5 and a half years. The participant has been teaching since the graduation from Uppsala University in 2014. The teacher has experience from teaching English in an African country and is currently involved in a school exchange program with the same country.
4.2 The Procedure
The gathering of the data and especially finding the participants was our main concern at the beginning of the study. We contacted several teachers via email that we had the occasion to meet at the partner schools where we had our internships. We contacted only teachers that we already knew because of our conviction that it is not easy to find teachers willing to participate in studies if they do not know the researchers. Of the teachers contacted, four were willing to participate in our research and in the interview. The date and time for the interviews was scheduled according to the teachers’ availability. The first interview was done during a pilot study for the degree project in 2018. The three remaining ones were conducted in a two weeks period during Spring 2019.
Each interview took approximately thirty minutes and was recorded using a dictaphone. The choice to record the interviews was based on several considerations. To begin with, it was difficult for both the researchers to be present during all the interviews. Furthermore, to have the possibility to relisten to the interviews simplified the analysis because it avoided things to be forgotten or lost which could happen when only taking
notes. Last but not least, recording the interviews helped to create a more relaxed atmosphere in which the interviewer was able to concentrate on the interviewee’s answers and had the possibility to ask follow-up questions.
To create a relaxing atmosphere is regarded as one of the most relevant issues to consider when making interviews (Alvehus, 2013; Mackey & Gass, 2016). To have a relaxed interview situation, while making sure to gather quality data for the study, we took different steps. Firstly, we informed the participants beforehand about the topic of the interview. However, we decided not to share the questions before the interview because we wanted the answers to be as spontaneous as possible. Secondly, we let the participants chose the time and place for the interviews both to facilitate their participation and to create an atmosphere in which they felt free to share their ideas. Thirdly, as suggested by Mackey and Gass (2016), we placed the more relevant questions in the central part of the interview to avoid the stress that could arise from being nervous, in the beginning of the interview, or tired at the end. Lastly, we decided to begin the interview with questions on the background of the teacher because we believed this to be the more relaxing part of the interview. Although all the participants have Swedish as their first language, we chose to conduct the interviews in English. This choice was made in order to avoid that something could be lost in translation or misinterpreted during the analysis.
4.3 Procedures for Analysis and Data Collections
The data has been organized according to the structure of the interview guide (see Appendix 1). We examined the data from the interviews searching for similarities and differences in the approach and confronting them with findings of previous research and with the theories on the pluricentric model. The structure of the analysis follows the organisation suggested by Rennstam and Wästerfors (2018). The different
excerpt-commentary units will be constructed in slightly different ways depending on the content
of the unit. The most part of the units in the Results section will contain an analytical
point where the topic will be described, an orientation that will serve as an introduction
to the data presented, the empirical excerpt in the form of a quotation or a short summary. The Discussion section that will follow will contain an analytical point and an analytical
comment where the excerpts will be analysed and commented on the basis of the
to transcribe only the part of the recordings that are quoted and not the parts that are summarized by us.
4.3.1 Instruments Used for Data Collection
As already mentioned, this study is a small-scale qualitative research and the data are gathered using semi-structured interviews. Lapan, Quartaroli and Riemer (2011) describe qualitative research as a method to gather data with the aim to investigate small scale research in a descriptive manner. They point out that the data, in qualitative research, is based exclusively on the interviewees’ attitudes and experiences. Correspondingly, Creswell and Poth (2017) suggest using qualitative research when investigating a complex and multifaceted issue that is possible to fully understand by talking with people, and when it is important to give voice to some categories and to highlight their opinions on a relevant matter.
4.3.2 Semi-structured teacher interviews
The choice to use interviews for the data collection is due to the type of information that we aim to gather in this study. As Alvehus (2013) asserts it is imperative to use interviews when the objective is to explore people’s behaviors and the reasons behind their actions. Interviews are the better way to understand how people build their beliefs and shape their attitudes. To have an understanding of the reasons behind the pedagogical choices that the teacher made in their work is the main reason for making this study. Similarly, Mackey and Gass (2016) suggest, using interviews to investigate phenomena that are not easily observable such as attitudes is an effective method. We are aware that using only one method to gather data may cause our method to be questioned (Alvehus, 2013; He & Li, 2009). However, due to the limited time frame for the degree project, we could not make a longitudinal study that through many observations could have allowed us to see if the teachers implemented the pluricentric approach. For that reason, we decided to rely only on interviews.
The interviews will have a semi-structured form. According to the scholars in the field, the interviews can take different forms, such as structured, semi-structured and unstructured. Structured interviews are mostly used in quantitative research where there
are few questions often with very limited answer alternatives. In this case the interview resembles a questionnaire and the conversation between the informant and the interviewer is limited to the preset questions. The semi-structured interview consists mostly of predefined themes, that will serve as a basis for the conversation, and of a number of open questions that have the objective to guide the discussion without limiting it. With this interview form the respondents are free to express their opinions, to share their point of view and also to digress. At the same time, the interviewer can lead the conversation by asking the interviewee to elaborate on interesting information that could arise during the conversation or return to the topic if there are too many digressions. An unstructured interview is usually a very informal conversation on a specific topic, and the risk with this interview form is that the data that are gathered does not correspond with the aim of the interviewer (Alvehus, 2013; Mackey & Gass, 2016; Bailey, 2007). The choice of conducting a semi-structured interview is the more appropriate to our study because, as pointed out by Galetta (2013), this will give us the possibility to have a relaxed and pleasant interview session and at the same time to provide us with the information needed while not excluding any interesting sidetrack that could arise during the conversation. Our interviews are based on three main themes: teacher’s background, varieties of English in classroom teaching, and ideal teaching of English. The first part of the interview aims to set the tone of the interview and to gather some background information about the teachers such as their experiences, studies and so on. Our objective is, by discussing the varieties of English they have been exposed to during their formation years, the conversation will smoothly proceed towards the choices they make as teachers, namely the second theme. The last part of the interview aims to investigate the ideal teaching situation. In this way we would like to gather information about the practical limits, perceived or real, that the teachers meet when structuring their pedagogical activities. Moreover, this will give us an idea of the importance of the teachers’ beliefs in the pedagogical choices compared with other external factors that can contribute to the selection of specific materials such as school policies or difficulties in acquiring material and so on.
4.5 Ethical Considerations
When it comes to research involving people, it is important to be respectful of the ethical rules that are required by the regulamentation of the country where the study is conducted. The Swedish Research Council (2017) provides the information needed in order to conduct a study that is in line with these ethical rules. The publication determines that personal data is anything that can identify a physical person through the collected information. In addition, it also gives information about how to treat the collected data. The council gives research ethic codes that makes it clear how the researcher should behave towards people who participate in the study. The suggested procedure that the researcher should follow is the following: before: getting approval and providing information, during: eliminating potential dangers and storing properly the materials and
after: distributing and destroying the material (Swedish Research Council, 2017).
These regulations are in line with the relatively recently introduced General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which was enforced in 2018. This new law implies that researchers need to take precautionary measures regarding the storage of the personal information, and thereby also information collected through interviews (European Commission, 2018). The storage of data collected for this research project will be done on the data server of Malmö University and the collected information will be destroyed when the end date for the re-submission has passed. In addition, the collected information will only be used for the single purpose of our degree project and will therefore only represent this specific study. The participants to the study signed a consent form issued by Malmö University for this specific purpose. The form explains the purpose of the research and how the collected data will be handled. The consent form is in Swedish and because all the participants have Swedish as their first language it has not been necessary to provide a translation. The data are completely anonymised, and the participants will be assigned epithets based on the order they have been interviewed.
5. Results
In this section the data collected through the interviews are presented. To make the section clear the data are organised according to two of the three main themes used in the interview guide (see Appendix 1), namely varieties of English in classroom teaching and the ideal way of teaching English. Each subheading includes the relevant findings and some quotes from the interviews that highlight the beliefs of the interviewees.
5.1 Varieties of English in Classroom Teaching
In the discussion about how the teachers select the materials for the pedagogical activities they all admitted that the pluricentric approach is not their main priority. Even if all the teachers recognise the importance of including different varieties in the classroom activities, what influences them in their choices are many different factors. All the teachers agreed that the most important aspect to take into consideration is the contents of the materials. They argue that it is paramount that the materials are aligned with the curriculum, the program the students are enrolled in, and the students’ interests. Other factors that are mentioned is the availability of the materials and the examination requirements. T3 was especially concerned with choosing materials that will help the students to succeed in the national tests. The informant admitted that even if the teachers want to include diverse materials, they have to consider what will help the students to pass the tests. T3 explains, “That’s a sore point I would say. We are so structured and constrained really by the national tests of English”. Nonetheless, when asked to reflect on the use of different varieties in their teaching, most of the teachers reported to consider also the importance of including different varieties. T2 goes even further explaining that, “I aim for variety because it is cultural variety as well. Language and culture go hand in hand”. The participant seems to accept the legitimacy of almost all variety of English except EC. However, the teacher admits, “I will probably not choose a Swedish text… but now I realise that I do”.
However, T3 has a different opinion. The teacher maintains that variety does not matter, and the most important things are the topics discussed in the materials, such as human rights, racism and so on. T3 states, “That’s more important than if they speak Irish or Indian English”. The informants also warn the students from mixing different varieties too much, “It’s good not to mix too much because it gets a bit confusing to native
speakers, but it’s ok as long as you make yourself understood”.
When asked about what variety the students are most likely to encounter in everyday interactions the opinions of the teachers vary slightly. Two of the teachers consider AmE as the variety that the students are most likely to encounter. Referring to the great dominance of AmE, T1 claims, “There is no discussion about it. But that’s the way it is! You can disagree with this, but you cannot argue with it. That is not the case”.
Conversely, T2 and T3 are convinced that the students are exposed to many different varieties of English in their everyday life. T3 does not consider exposing students to different varieties a priority because, in the teacher’s opinion:
They [the students] are already exposed to varieties of English in their own lives. I think they are good at that through computer games, when they talk to people all over the world and through everything. Music, online chats or whatever.
Moreover, T2 explains that the students who are enrolled in the IB program often do not speak Swedish. For those students, English is the main language of communication in a country where English is not the first language. Many of those students are multilingual and use English as a school language and as a lingua franca in all situations in which they cannot use their mother tongues. T2 consider English so ingrained in the students’ life that it has become a language that they own completely. As the informant explains, “I think for many of my students English isn’t a language they think about as a language. It’s a language that they just are. […] It’s a part of their identity as a student and a teenager”. That is the reason why the teacher does not consider it important to prepare them for those interactions. In the teacher’s opinion, the students are already very good in applying the strategies that may be needed in order to successfully interact because they practice every day. Therefore, the informant focuses more on the students’ academic development.
5.2 The Ideal Way of Teaching English
When the teachers of English were asked how their teaching of English would look like in an ideal situation without external limitations, they admitted being happy with their situations; their answers were somehow varied. T1 declared to be quite satisfied with the
teaching situation. The teacher ascribes that feeling to the former involvement as head of the English department. The informant reports to have had the possibility to choose literature and suitable material for the different English courses. The teacher’s idea of what could be improved is the organisation is by including more field trips to English speaking countries and to expose the learners more to the language by attending theatrical plays. In the concluding remarks T1 points out the importance for teachers to be aware of the sociocultural reality of English, because the teacher explains, “If you are aware you will transfer that to the students”. In addition, the informant states, “Raising their [the students’] understanding and awareness is more important than actually teaching English”.
In a similar way, T2 declares to be content with the teaching situation, however, the informant would like to have the possibility to work more with different varieties of English. T2 would like to teach about the connections between language and identity and emphasizes how important the choice of words is when communicating. The teacher states that your choice of words is a way to reflect who a person is and that it has an impact on who this individual will become. In addition, T2 would like to explore the way speakers categorise other speakers based on the different varieties of English they use. In this way, the students would raise their awareness of how language and cultural stereotypes are intertwined. The teacher is well aware of the necessity to do it and states:
[English] it’s changing shape so with more English speakers we have to accept that English will change without any status or any value to the sort or the type the dialect or variety of English that you speak. Just as long as you can communicate and of course, we have to, sort of, accept the need to have certain rules so that we understand each other, basic communication. I think English becomes more colourful with all these influences. And I wish I was better at it.
Even if T3 is happy with the overall situation in the school, the teacher is quite critical of the school policies. The teacher states that they have a good management and a good budget at school 1, and that they have the possibility to buy books and have subscriptions at different newspapers. Nonetheless, the informant discusses extensively the limitations and restraints that are posed by the national test in English and how they affect the teaching of the subject. The participant has two main complains, firstly, T3 believes that the national tests are not in line the recommendations of the current curriculum; secondly,
