3. Humanites - Ijhss - Nigerian Englishteachers'Awareness - Esther n. Oluikpe - Nigeria

www.iaset.us [email protected]

NIGERIAN ENGLISH TEACHERS’ AWARENESS OF THE BASIC TENETS OF EIL AND

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

ESTHER N. OLUIKPE1 & NGOZI L. NWODO

2

1Department of Arts Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka Campus, Nigeria

2Research Scholar, The Use of English Unit, School of General Studies, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, Nigeria

ABSTRACT

This study attempts to determine Nigerian teachers’ awareness of the basic tenets of English as an International

Language (EIL). Respondents were 100 teachers from the school in the south-eastern part of Nigeria. The chosen schools

in this part of Nigeria were determined by cluster sampling technique. Respondents from the selected schools were

selected, using stratified random sampling. Data were generated, using a self-constructed 4 point Likert-type questionnaire.

Data were analyzed, using mean and standard deviation. A criterion mean value of 2.50 was chosen for decision.

Although the findings revealed that all the parameters scored a grand mean value above the criterion value, there were two

critical factors that scored below the criterion value – ownership and norms of usage. Since these are critical issues in EIL,

the study concluded that the awareness of the population was inconclusive. This conclusion has implication for teacher

education both in Nigeria and her Anglophone neighbors.

KEYWORDS: EIL Concept, EIL Features, EIL Methodology

INTRODUCTION

This study is designed to survey the Nigerian English language teachers’ awareness of the concept, features, and

pedagogical principles of English as an International Language (EIL). This study is motivated by the growing popularity

of the concept of EIL, the compelling advocacy for its pedagogy to replace English Language Teaching (ELT), and the

need for English language teachers in non-native speaker (NNS) countries where ELT is currently entrenched to become

aware of this wave of change in order to prepare ‘their mindset’ (Matsuda, 2009) toward the new movement. Nigeria, one

of the Anglophone West African countries, which is yet to embrace the new movement, is used to represent this group of

ELT adherents. To this end, the study is set against the following background:

Concept of EIL

Advances in research to actualize EIL pedagogy

In the view of this study, Kachru’s (1985) three concentric circles revolutionized the concept of the English

language as the property, as it were, not only of the native speakers (NS) but also of all those who use it for intra- and

international communication. From the circles, it is noted that there are three categories of users of English as follows:

Kachru’s inner circle comprising the NS: UK, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand regarded as (NS).

Kachru’s outer circle consisting of NNS countries where English is used as an additional language for intra- and

international communication: India, Singapore, Nigeria, Ghana, Liberia, etc

International Journal of Humanities

and Social Sciences (IJHSS)

ISSN(P): 2319-393X; ISSN(E): 2319-3948

Vol. 3, Issue 3, May 2014, 13-26

© IASET

14 Esther N. Oluikpe & Ngozi L. Nwodo

Impact Factor (JCC): 2.3519 Index Copernicus Value (ICV): 3.0

Kachru’s expanding circle composed of NNS countries where English is used as a foreign language: China, Japan,

Russia, France, Germany, etc.

McArthur (1992) and Kachru (1996) estimate the ratio of the number of English language speakers at 2:1 and 4:1

respectively in favour of the NNS countries. On the other hand, Crystal (1997) provides numerical estimates of speakers of

the English language as follows:

Inner circle 320-380 million

Outer circle 150-300 million

Expanding circle 100-1000 million [sic]

These highly subjective estimates have led to the generally accepted view that NNS outnumber the NS of the

English language. The revolt against linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992), the rise of democracy, and globalization

have resulted in the feeling that the English used by the majority of the NNS countries for intra- and international

communication characterized by innovations distinct from NS English has the right to be independent of NS English in

terms of norms of usage and pedagogy. It is in this context that Brumfit (2001:116) asserts that the NS of English are in the

minority for determining “language use, language change, language maintenance… and beliefs associated with the

language.” This means, therefore, that the NNS countries have the right to influence language use, language change,

and language maintenance of the English language they use. In other words, the English language used by the vast majority

of the English language users should have its own set of norms different from those of the minority users and that the

minority users should accommodate such set of norms if they are to be relevant in the globalised (italics ours) world

(Rajagopalan, 2004).

The English language used by the majority of users is variously called English as a global language

(Crystal, 1997), English as a lingua franca (Gnutzmann, 2000), English as an international language

(McKay, 2002, 2003, 2013), World English (Brutt-Griffler, 2002) and English as a World language (Seidlhofer, 2003).

It is not clear why these linguists have chosen these names to characterise the English which is the subject of this study.

However, House (2013) has provided a clear reason for the more popular nomenclatures-- English as an international

language (EIL), World English (WE), and English as alingua franca (ELF). According to House (2013), EIL represents the

English used between non-native speakers irrespective of cultural identity and between native speakers and non-native

speakers. EIL may be regarded as a super ordinate term which incorporates the term World English (WE) which represents

domesticated varieties of English in the Kachruian sense. These varieties belong to the outer and expanding circles of

Kachru’s concentric circle. EIL is regarded as the most comprehensive nomenclature as it captures:

The vast formal and functional plurality of English indicating national, regional,

local, cross-cultural variation, the distinct identities of these varieties, their degree of

acculturation and indigenization and their embeddedness in a multilingual and multicultural

context (House, 2013:187).

On the other hand, English as a lingua franca (ELF) is used to represent the English language as ‘a default means

of communication’ House (2031:187) when people of different nationalities come into contact with one another. Of all

these names, the one most preferred in the literature is English as an International Language (EIL), according to

Nigerian English Teachers’ Awareness of the Basic Tenets of EIL and Implications for Teacher Education 15


Seidlhofer (2003), because of its function as the means of intra- and international communication in the outer and

expanding circle countries of Kachru. Underhill (1981) had earlier underscored such a function for EIL. For the purposes

of this study, the term English as an international language (EIL) is used to represent the English of the majority of users

for both intra- and international communication. It is, therefore, a global lingua franca (Seidlhofer, 2003) which, by the

numerical strength of its users, belongs no longer to speakers of English as mother tongue (MT). Consequently, it is

characterized by a “multilingual communicative competence” (Rajagopalan, 2004:.117). This is because interlocutors in

EIL interact intersubjectively in communication (Canagarajah, 2007) by mutually monitoring each other’s English

proficiency to determine “appropriate grammar, lexical range, and pragmatic conventions” (Canagarajah, 2007:.925)

necessary for enhancing mutual intelligibility which is often marred by differences in cross-cultural pragmatics.

The awareness of multilingual communicative competence which serves as one of the major features of EIL has

led to the advocacy for changing English Language Teaching (ELT) to a different pedagogy which recognizes the major

features of EIL in terms of new mode of communicative competence, phonology, and culture of learning. The major

advocates of the change from ELT to EILare Kachru (1984, 1992), McKay (2002, 2003, 2013), Burns (2005),

Matsuda (2006) and Kumaravadivelu (2013) to mention but a few. As Seidlhofer (2003) points out, a major inhibiting

factor in the advocated shift in pedagogy is the lack of comprehensive linguistic description of EIL to provide the needed

subject content for its teaching. Because of this lack, ELT has continued to enjoy a privileged position in English pedagogy

in NNS countries. In ELT, learners are subjected to the norms of the English of the native speakers in speaking, pragmatics,

and writing. In speaking, they are trained to engage in a sustained, successful discourse with native speakers to enable them

to understand the native speakers and be understood by them especially when the learning takes place in the expanding

circle countries. However, Matsuda (2006) provides an example of a “feeble push” towards transition in ELT.

The transition appears to be a shift from emphasis on correctness as typical of ELT classroom to appropriateness and

intelligibility; but the emphasis on intelligibility is biased in favour of the native speakers of English. Learners are taught to

be intelligible to native speakers and to be able to understand them. Such bias is a violation of the “doctrine” of EIL

pedagogy which advocates that native speakers should learn to accommodate non-native speakers in their speech patterns

and pragmatics.

The benefits and, therefore, the need for EIL pedagogy have been described (Brumfit, 1982; Hüllen, 1983;

Smith, 1983, 1984, McKay, 2013). EIL pedagogy has the benefit of inspiring confidence in the non-native teacher of

English as a competent, authoritative speaker and teacher of EIL as they have been highly disadvantaged in ELT enterprise

(Tang, 1997). Similarly, EIL pedagogy frees native speaker English from the responsibility of catering for the needs of

non-native speakers in its pedagogy in order to concentrate on the needs of native speakers alone. Because of the

recognition of the realistic learning and teaching benefits of EIL pedagogy, serious research is underway to remove those

impediments in the actualization of EIL pedagogy. The research efforts are in three directions—research in linguistic

description of EIL, teaching EIL, and EIL teacher education. Because of constraints in the number of words imposed on

this paper, the review of literature will be limited to the first two areas of research.

The focus of linguistic description of EIL is on the spoken medium. There are two reasons for this emphasis. First,

it is the focus of EIL pedagogy. Second, research in the spoken form provides insights into the strategies that facilitate

mutual intelligibility. Written discourse is not the concern of EIL pedagogy because it is institutionalized.

As institutionalized variety of English (IVE), each variety has its own culture which conforms to the norms of Standard



English (Swales, 1990; Bhatia, 1993, Gupta, 2013). Typical IVEs is academic writing, officialese, legal writing, etc.

Both native and non-native speakers learn and use these varieties as appropriate.

One of the major impediments to mutual intelligibility in EIL is pragmatics which is culturally-bound,

consequently, research in cross-cultural pragmatics is the concern of Firth (1996), House (1999, 2002), Meierkord (2002)

among others. The over-all purpose is to characterize cross-cultural pragmatics in terms of its problems and features,

using non-native speakers as participants in various speech events. The findings are as follows:

Cross-cultural pragmatics are marked by misunderstanding, usually resolved either by changing the topic or

meaning negotiations, using such strategies as repetition or rephrasing

Interactions were insensitive to native speaker norms

Interactions were “cooperative, mutually supportive, and consensus-oriented” (Seidlhofer, 2003: 15).

While these findings are informative for EIL pedagogy, they do not provide the needed subject content in EIL

pedagogy. Consequently, there is need for a research that provides core cross-cultural pragmatics for EIL pedagogy to

minimize the problem of misunderstanding common in EIL interaction. This lack forms one of the objectives of the

Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) research project to be discussed shortly.

In the area of phonology, Jenkins (1998, 2000, and 2002) provides the answer on content, models, syllabus for

EIL pedagogy. In Jenkins (1998), the norms and models for EIL phonology are described. Similarly, Jenkins (2000)

describes the phonological features that are salient to EIL pedagogy in what she terms “phonological lingua franca core”

cited by Seidlhofer (2003: 16). The core features serve as the subject content in the phonology of EIL. Finally,

Jenkins (2002) is the syllabus worked out from the phonological lingual franca core for EIL pedagogy. The major strength

of Jenkins’ effort is that it has globalised application. In other words, it takes care of the issue of phonology

cross-culturally.

To complement the work of Jenkins in EIL phonology, Seidlhofer (2003) leads a research project at the University

of Vienna sponsored by Oxford University Press tagged Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) with the

objective, among others, to describe “the common grammatical constructions, lexical choice, and discourse features of

non-native speaker English” (Seidlhofer, 2003:18). The research will provide a corpus of all forms of spoken English from

non-native speaker countries. No mention is made whether Anglo-phone African countries are represented in the corpus.

However, when completed, the VOICE project will provide valuable information on core grammatical constructions,

lexical preferences, and core discoursal features (core cross-cultural pragmatics).

In addition to providing for the subject content of EIL pedagogy, many resource materials have emerged.

The following are typical: Yoneoka et al. (2000), McKay (2002), Shaules et al. (2004), Burns (2005) and

Alsagoff et al. (2013). Yoneoka et al. (2000) and Shaules, et al. (2004) are textbooks designed for EIL learners while Burns

is a collection of articles on EIL curriculum based on the linguistic and sociolinguistic consideration of sampled non-native

speaker countries and tips on the teaching of EIL. The implication of this collection of articles is that EIL pedagogy has to

respond to the needs of individual non-native speaker countries. One of the differences between Jenkins (2002) and

Burns (2005) is that Jenkins is phonology- specific curriculum for EIL teaching while Burns is a generalized curriculum.

McKay (2002) sets the basic considerations in the teaching of EIL. It is the antecedent of Burns in terms of information on



the teaching of EIL. Of great importance to this study is McKay’s rejection of western method of teaching EIL. According

to her, the most appropriate method in EIL pedagogy is one based on the culture of learning of a given non-native speaker

country. Alsagoff et al. (2013) is another collection of articles which provide socio cultural- driven principles for the

teaching of EIL and the practices that are consistent with the principles. Among some of the practices discussed are

curriculum development, resource materials, teaching of oral skill, grammar, and lexical variation, among others.

From the brief state-of-the-art, it appears that the obstacles which stood in the way of EIL pedagogy—subject

content, curriculum, resource materials—have been addressed to make EIL pedagogy sustainable. Consequent on advances

in research to provide linguistic descriptions of EIL to provide salient features for subject content, curriculum to guide in

the teaching, and resource materials as basis for teaching, awareness of EIL pedagogy is gaining grounds in such countries

as Japan (Matsuda, 2009), Singapore (Alsagoff, 2013) and countries comprising the Council of Europe (Seidlhofer, 2003)

to mention but a few, but not in Anglophone West African countries where ELT is strongly entrenched as a result of their

colonial heritage.. Against the foregoing background, the purpose of the study is to determine Nigerian English language

teachers’ awareness of the concept, features, and pedagogical principles of EIL in the context of globalization of the

English language. The following research questions are posed to guide the study:

What is the mean response of Nigerian English language teachers on their awareness of EIL concept?

What is the mean response of Nigerian English language teachers on their awareness of EIL features?

What is the mean response of Nigerian English language teachers on their awareness of EIL pedagogical

principles?

METHOD

The respondents of this study were drawn from secondary schools in the South-east geopolitical zone of Nigeria

comprising the states of Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu, and Imo. There were 100 respondents selected from the many

schools in the zone. Using cluster sampling technique, 20 secondary schools were selected. From each school,

five respondents were selected, using stratified random sampling. The respondents had a minimum qualification of a

National Certificate in Education (NCE) and a maximum of a Bachelor of Arts degree in English or Education with subject

specialization in the teaching of the English language. Each had a minimum teaching experience of five years.

Data were collected, using a self-constructed questionnaire tagged Nigerian English teachers’ awareness of EIL

(NETEA-EIL). NETEA-EIL is a 4 point Likert-scale questionnaire comprising two sections – bio-data and questionnaire.

The bio-data elicited information on the respondents’ gender, educational qualification, location of educational institution

where teaching is done, and length of teaching experience. On the other hand, the questionnaire had three clusters with

eight statements each. The clusters dealt with the concept, features, and pedagogical principles of EIL respectively.

The respondents were to react to each statement in each cluster by ticking any of the following:

SA=strongly agree (4)

A=agree(3)

D=disagree (2)

SD =strongly disagree (1)



The questionnaires were distributed either by our postgraduate students. The respondents were made to respond to

the questionnaire on the spot. Thereafter, the questionnaires were collected. There was, therefore, zero mortality rate in the

returns.

Data were analyzed, using mean (X) and standard deviation (STD). A criterion value of 2.5 is chosen for decision.

No variables were examined and tested for this study –the concern of another study.

FINDINGS

The clusters that constituted this study are divided into the following heads:

Awareness of EIL concept

Awareness of features of EIL

Awareness of EIL pedagogical principles

Each of these is examined in turn.

SECTION I: AWARENESS OF EIL CONCEPT

Table 1: Mean Response of Respondents’ Awareness of EIL Concept here (See Appendix B)

No. Statements SA A D SD

1 EILis a global lingua franca.

2 Itis spoken by all educatednon-native speakers globally.

3 It is the language used globally by speakers for inter-social,

technological, economic and diplomatic interaction.

4 No nation claims ownership to it.

5 Globalization accounts for its emergence.

6 It is a language of accommodation ( i.e interlocutors

accommodate deviants from Standard English).

7 Types of interaction consist of non-native speakers speaking to

one another and non-native speaker speaking to native speakers.

8 Population of non-native speakers outnumbers native speakers by

available statistics.

Table 1 indicates that the mean response of the respondents with regard to statements 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8

(See Appendix B) are 3.22, 2.63, 3.20, 2.95, 3.12, 3.63, 3.67 respectively. The table also reveals that statement 4 has a

mean value of 2.42 below the criterion value of 2.50. Based on the above values, it is seen that 7 statements have a mean

value greater than the criterion value of 2.5 whereas one statement has a mean value less than the criterion value of 2.5.

A grand mean value of 3.11 is recorded, indicating that the respondents are aware of the concept of EIL

SECTION II: AWARENESS OF FEATURES OF EIL

Table 2: Mean Response of Respondents’ Awareness of the Features of EIL here (See Appendix B)


1 It is characterized by various national accents.

2 Intelligibility is its concern.

3 In spoken English, correctness to norms of Standard English is rejected.

4 Acceptability of usage forms by the majority of users is the basic norm.

5 Adaptations of Standard English idioms occur (e.g. Nigerian English: cut

cloth according to size)



Table 2: Contd.,

6 Non-standard English collocations occur (e.g Nigerian English: discuss

about)

7 National pragmatics occur (e.g Nigerian English: I’m coming = Wait a

minute)

8 Appropriateness of usage is emphasized

The above table reveals that the mean response of the respondents as regards statements 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8

(See Appendix B) are 3.52, 3.37, 3.05,3.05, 3.17, 3.30, and 3.42 respectively. Statement 3 has a mean value of 2.03 lower

than the criterion value of 2.50. The grand mean value is 3.11, indicating that the respondents have adequate knowledge of

the features of EIL.

SECTION III: AWARENESS OF EIL TEACHING PRINCIPLES

Table 3: Mean Response of Respondents’ Awareness EIL Pedagogical Principles here (See Appendix B)


1 Spoken English is based on national accent.

2 Learners are encouraged to develop their national

accents to be internationally intelligible.

3 Reading materials are drawn from both national

and other cultures.

4 Established teaching methods are preferred to new

methods.

5

Adaptations of Standard English idioms,

collocations, and culturally induced innovations

are regarded as appropriate.

6 National pragmatics (e.g. Nigerian English: I’m

coming =Wait a minute) are accommodated.

7

The teacher is encouraged to develop proficiency

as a non-native speaker rather than aspire to be a

native-speaker.

8 Prefers non-native teacher to native teachers.

The table above reveals that none of the statements in this cluster has a mean response value below the criterion

value of 2.50. The mean response value for statements 1-8 (See Appendix B) are 2.82, 2.65, 3.15, 2.55, 2.95, 2.87, 3.17,

2.81 in that order. The grand mean value is 2.87, indicating that the respondents are aware of EIL pedagogical principles.

DISCUSSIONS

Although the grand mean value in the responses for each cluster is above the criterion value of 2.50, indicating

that the respondents are aware of the concept of EIL, its features, and pedagogical principles, the statements in each cluster

with a mean value below the criterion value of 2.50 are significant. It is noted that in Table 1, statement 4 which states:

“No nation claims ownership of EIL” has a mean value of 2.42. That this statement has a mean value below the criterion

value indicates that the respondents are not aware of the underlying argument for the concept of EIL, which is that, as a

result of the globalization of the English language, the plurilinguals outnumber the monolingual (Seidlhofer, 2003).

To buttress this claim, McArthur (1992), Kachru (1996), and Crystal (1997) provide estimates of English language users

globally. Mc Athur’s and Kachru’s ratio estimates tilt the ratio in favour of the non-native speakers (the plurilinguals).

Similarly, Crystal’s (1997) numerical estimates points also in that direction – the non-native speakers (the plurilinguals)

outnumber the native speakers (the monolinguals). Based on the numerical strength of the plurilinguals, two important



views that shape the concept of EIL emerged. First, Seidlhofer (2003) declares that English is a global lingua franca,

which, by the numerical strength of its users, belongs no longer to the speakers of English as a mother tongue

(the monolinguals). Second, Brumfit (2001) rejects the privileged position of the monolinguals in determining norms of

English language usage because they are in the minority, a position which makes an intuitive appeal in the wake of

democracy, linguistic imperialism, and globalization.

In Table 2 which surveys the respondents’ awareness of the features of EIL, statement 3 which states:

“Correctness in spoken English, based on the norms of Standard English, is rejected” has a mean response value of 2.03

which is below the criterion value of 2.50.This mean response value reveals that the respondents, as teachers of English

who are used to norms of Standard English as criteria of assessment of students’ spoken and written English, find it

inconceivable to use a different norm other than Standard English for assessing students’ proficiency in both spoken and

written English. Consequently, the innovations which characterize EIL are regarded by the respondents as deviant forms.

Current practice in English language classrooms in Nigeria and other Anglophone West African countries is to insist on the

use of the Received Pronunciation (RP) as the model for spoken English, Standard British grammar, and pragmatics as

criteria of assessment in both spoken and written English. One of the researchers attended a workshop organized by one of

the publishing companies in Nigeria for the promotion of its English language textbooks. Among the resource persons was

a highly placed Ministry of Education official responsible for choosing textbooks for recommendation to schools. In her

presentation, she attacked the use of American English among teachers and students. For her, American English is barbaric

and its use is a mark of illiteracy. The view of this Ministry official reflects the views of many Nigerian education

planners- a view which needs to be corrected if EIL and its pedagogy is to take root in Nigeria and, indeed, all Anglophone

West African countries because of their colonial educational heritage and their post-colonial educational bond in the

establishment of a common external examination body—West African Examination Council (WAEC) for the Secondary

School Certificate Examinations. Matsuda’s (2009) advice that EIL pedagogy requires a different mindset is most

appropriate here. The respondents require this mindset in order to practise EIL pedagogy. The respondents need to

understand that, because of the globalization of the English language, many varieties of English called World English’s

(Brutt-Griffler, 2002; House, 2013) have emerged as domesticated forms of English in use. These varieties of the English

language cannot be swept under the carpet in the context of globalization. Thus, Rajagopalan (2004) has advised native

speakers of English to understand these varieties of English if they are to be relevant in a globalized world. In the spirit of

globalization and in recognition of the importance of these varieties of English in a globalized world, EIL pedagogy has

been advocated to replace ELT pedagogy, which is based on the traditional Western norms and methodology

(Brumfit, 1982; Hüllen, 1982; Smith, 1983, 1984; Kachru, 1984, 1992; McKay, 2002, 2003, 2013; Matsuda, 2005, 2006,

Kumaravadivelu, 2013).

Table 3 represents respondents’ awareness of EIL pedagogical principles. It is interesting to note that none of the

statements in this cluster registered a mean value below the criterion value of 2.50. This means that, even though EIL

pedagogy is not practiced in Nigeria, the respondents claim to know its pedagogical principles. This awareness waters the

ground for its acceptance in the Nigerian classroom if teachers understand the underlying argument for the advocacy of

EIL pedagogy. If teachers do not understand the underlying argument for EIL pedagogy, any attempt to practice it would

be meaningless and unproductive. When the philosophy of EIL is actually understood by teachers and practiced,

teachers in Nigeria and Anglophone West African countries will discover that its pedagogy provides them the confidence



which they lack in ELT enterprise as it frees them from the futile attempt to act like a native speaker of English in the

language classroom (Brumfit, 1982; HÜllen, 1982; and Smith, 1983, 1984).

CONCLUSIONS

Although all the clusters have a grand mean response value above the criterion value of 2.50, it not valid, in the

view of this study, to conclude that the respondents are aware of the concept, features, and pedagogical principles of EIL

because the critical issues which inform EIL and its pedagogy have scored mean values below the criterion value of 2.50.

These issues, as pointed out above, are ownership and norms of usage. A logical conclusion is that the mean

scores on individual statement in each cluster is a more reliable indices for determining teachers’ awareness of EIL than the

grand mean scores. Therefore, it could not be assumed that the teachers are completely aware of EIL. Rather, it is better to

conclude that the result is inconclusive. Although this conclusion is drawn from a small sample of respondents, the

findings and the conclusions are predictive of the awareness of EIL among Nigerian teachers of English and, by extension,

the English language teachers of Anglophone West African countries for reason already given above. The conclusion from

this study has pedagogical implications for teacher education in Nigeria, and, indeed, all the Anglophone West African

countries.

Implications for Teacher Education in Nigeria

The implication of this study to teacher education is that courses designed to address the lacks among teachers in

regard to their awareness of EIL should be included in any meaningful teacher education programs in Nigeria and other

Anglophone West African countries. The following core courses are deemed relevant:

EIL ideology

West African English

Phonology of EIL

Grammar and lexis of EIL

Cross-cultural studies

Culture of learning as appropriate to each country.

The proposed courses for EIL pedagogy in Anglophone West African teacher education programme differs,

in some measures, from those proposed by Matsuda (2009) for Japan as follows:

Different varieties of English

World English literature

English speaking cultures other than U.K. and the U.S.

Concept of World English and EIL

The differences in the nature of the courses for teacher education program in EIL pedagogy imply that the

linguistic problem which each non-native country has in interacting in a global lingua franca varies from country to



country. Consequently, each non-native speaker country should address its peculiar linguistic problems associated with EIL

interaction in addition to striving for a globalized programme as evident in the works of Jenkins (1998, 2000, 2002)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I acknowledge the following persons who have assisted us in various ways in the preparation of this work:

Professor B. Oluikpe for his objective criticisms and recommendations which have shaped this study; Dr J. Agah, expert in

Measurement and Evaluation of the Faculty of Education, University of Nigeria, who assisted in the data analysis, and

Mr. B.N. Anasiudu, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Linguistics, University of Nigeria for proof-reading the

manuscript and all our postgraduate students who helped in distributing and collecting the instrument for the study.

REFERENCES

1. Alsagoff, L., McKay, S., Hu,G., and Renandya, W.(eds) 2013. Principles and practices for teaching English as an

international language. New York: Routledge.

2. Bhatia, V.K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language in use in professional setting. London: Longman.

3. Brumfit, C. J. (Ed), (1982). English for international communication. Oxford: Pergamon.

4. Brumfit, C. J. (2001). Individual freedom in language teaching: Helping learners to develop a dialect of their own.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

5. Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

6. Burns, A. (Ed), (2005). Teaching English from a global perspective. Alexandria, VA.: TESOL

7. Canagarajah, S. (2007).Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition.

Modern Language Journal, 91(focus issue), 923-939.

8. Crystal, D (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9. Dogancay-Aktuna, S., and Hardman, J. (Ed), ( 2007). Global English teaching and teacher education: Praxis and

possibility. Alexandria, VA: TESOL

10. Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca ‘English and conversation

analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237-259.

11. Gnutzmann, C. (ed), (2000). Teaching and learning English as a global language. Tübingen: Stauffenburg

12. Gupta, A2013. Grammar teaching and standards. In L Alsagoff, S. McKay, G. Hu, W. Renandya (Eds.),

Principles and practices for teaching English as an international language (244-260). New York: Routledge.

13. House, J. (1999). Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in English as a lingua franca and

the myth of mutual intelligibility. In C. Gnutzmann (Ed), Teaching and learning English as a global language

(pp. 73-89). Tübingen: Strauffenburg.

14. House, J. ( 2002). Pragmatic competence in lingua franca English. In K. Knapp and .Meierkord (Eds). Lingua

franca communication (pp. 245-267). Frankfurt a. M: Peter Lang.



15. House, J. 2013. Teaching oral skill in English as a lingua franca. In L. Alsagoff, S. McKay, G.Hu., W. Renandya

(Eds), Principles and practices for teaching English as an international language (186-205). New York: Routledge.

16. Hüllen, W. (1982).Teaching a foreign language as a ‘lingua franca’.GruzerLinguistischeStudien, 16, 83-88.

17. Jenkins, J. (1998). Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an international language? ELT Journal,

52, 119-126.

18. Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

19. Jenkins, J. (2002). A socio linguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an

international language. Applied Linguistics, 23, 83-103.

20. Jing, H., Meddegama, I., Morris, R., & Wicaksono, R. (2008).Preparing U.K. teachers to teach English as an

international language: A microanalytic perspective. Retrieved from www.yorksj.ac.uk on March 28, 2013.

21. Kachru, B.B. (1984). World Englishes and the teaching to native speakers: Contexts, attitude, and concerns.

TESOL Newsletter, 18 (5), 25-26.

22. Kachru, B.B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle.

In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures

(pp. 11-30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

23. Kachru, B.B. (1992). Teaching world Englishes. In B.B. Kachru (Ed), The other tongue: English across culture

(pp. 355-365). Urbana, Il: University of Illinois Press.

24. Kachru, B. B. (1996). The paradigm of marginality. World Englishes, 15, 241-255.

25. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2013). Individual identity, culturalglobalization, and teaching English as an international

language: The case for an epistemic break. In L. Alsagoff, S. McKay, G. Hu, and W. Renandya (Eds), Principles

and practices for teaching English as an international language (9-27). New York: Routledge.

26. Matsuda, A. (2005). Preparing future users of English as an international language.In A. Burns (Ed), Teaching

English from a global perspective (pp. 63-72). Alexandria, VA.: TESOL.

27. Matsuda, A. (2006). Negotiating ELT assumptions in EIL classroom.In J. Edge (Ed), (Re) locating TESOL in an

age of empire (pp. 158-170). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

28. Matsuda, A. (2009). Desirable but not necessary? The place of world englishes and English as an international

language in teacher preparation programmes in Japan. In F. Sharif an (Ed), English as an international language:

Perspectives and pedagogical issues (pp. 170-190). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

29. McArthur, T. (1992).The Oxford companion to the English language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

30. McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

31. McKay, S. L. (2003). Toward an appropriate EIL pedagogy: Re-examining common ELT assumptions.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13 (1), 1-22.

http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/



32. McKay, S. 2013. English as an international language: A time for change. In L. Alsagoff, S. McKay, G. H. and

W. Renandya (Eds), Principles and practices for teaching English as an international language (337-346). New

York: Routledge.

33. Meierkord, C. (2002). Language stripped bare or ‘linguistic masala?’ Culture in lingua franca communication.

In K. Knapp and C. Meierkord (Eds), Lingua franca communication (pp. 109-133). Frankfurt a. M: Peter Lang.

34. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

35. Rajagopalan, K. (2004). The concept of world English and implication for ELT. ELT Journal, 52(2), 111-117.

36. Seidlhofer, B. (2003). A concept of international English and related issues: From ‘real English’ to ‘realistic

English’. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

37. Smith, L. E. (Ed), (1983). Readings in English as an international language. Oxford: Pergamon.

38. Smith, L. E. (1984). Teaching English as an international language. StudienLinguistik, 15, 52-59.

39. Shaules, J., Tsujioka, H., & Iida, M. (2004).Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

40. Swales, J. (1990).Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

41. Tang, C, (1997). On the power and status of nonnative ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly,31 (3), 577-583

42. Underhill, N. (1981). Your needs are different from my needs. World Language English, 1 (1), 15-18.

43. Vavrus, F. S. (1991). When paradigms clash: The role of institutionalized varieties in language teacher education.

World Englishes, 10 (2), 181-195.

44. Yoneoka, J., and Arimoto, J. (2000).English of the world. Tokoyo: Sanshusha.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Nigerian English Teachers’ Awareness of English as an International Language (Netea-Eil) Questionaire

The questionnaire is in two parts as follows:

Bio-data

Questionnaire comprising the following:

o Section I Your awareness of EIL

o Section II Yours awareness of the essential features of EIL

o Section III Your awareness of EIL teaching principles

PART A: BIO-DATA

Tick as appropriate

SEX Male Female



EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

NCE

B.A

PLACE OF TEACHING

Urban Secondary School

Rural Secondary School

LENGTH OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE

0-5 years

6-10 years

10+ years

PART B: QUESTIONNAIRE

Tick the appropriate column against each statement. The abbreviations mean the following:

SA Strongly agree

A Agree

D Disagree

SD Strongly disagree

APPENDIX B

Table 4: Mean Response of Respondents’ Awareness of EIL Concept

Statements SA A D SA Mean STD Decision

1 24 28 5 3 3.22 0.84 Agree

2 14 23 10 13 2.63 1.07 Agree

3 24 28 4 4 3.20 0.84 Agree

4 8 18 25 9 2.42 0.91 Disagree

5 15 31 10 4 2.95 0.83 Agree

6 17 35 6 2 3.12 0.72 Agree

7 41 17 1 1 3.63 0.61 Agree

8 35 17 3 5 3.67 0.92 Agree

Grand Mean 3.11 0.84

Table 5: Mean Response of Respondents’ Awareness of the Features of EIL

Statements SA A D SD Mean STD Decision

1 35 22 2 1 3.52 0.65 Agree

2 28 28 2 2 3.37 0.71 Agree

3 5 13 21 21 2.03 0.96 Disagree

4 16 36 3 5 3.05 0.81 Agree

5 14 39 3 4 3.05 0.75 Agree

6 17 38 3 2 3.17 0.67 Agree

7 23 33 3 1 3.30 0.65 Agree

8 29 29 - 2 3.42 0.67 Agree

Grand Mean 3.11 0.73 Agree



Table 6: Mean Response of Respondents’ Awareness EIL Pedagogical Principles

Statements SA A D SD Mean STD Decision

1 18 25 5 12 2.82 1.01 Agree

2 13 26 8 13 2.65 1.05 Agree

3 26 25 1 8 3.15 0.99 Agree

4 12 24 9 15 2.55 1.08 Agree

5 18 28 7 7 2.95 0.95 Agree

6 14 30 10 6 2.87 0.87 Agree

7 25 23 6 6 3.17 0.96 Agree

8 11 34 8 7 2.81 0.87 Agree

Grand Mean 2.87 0.98 Agree

3. Humanites - Ijhss - Nigerian Englishteachers'Awareness - Esther n. Oluikpe - Nigeria

Documents

Transcript of 3. Humanites - Ijhss - Nigerian Englishteachers'Awareness - Esther n. Oluikpe - Nigeria