Welcomed but Locked Out: Exploring Teachers’ and Learners’ Beliefs about the Inclusion of English as an International Language in ELT Textbooks

INTRODUCTION

Globalization and the need for a shared medium of communication necessitated a common language for intercultural communication, setting the stage for the emergence and spread of English as an international language (EIL). Spoken by more than two billion people around the world, English serves as the most prevalently used language for diverse purposes (Crystal, 2008; Hino, 2018; Kang et al., 2020). The rise of EIL has challenged the English language teaching (ELT) profession that had traditionally advocated the native-speaker model of language competence (Bolton, 2019; Flores & Rosa, 2023; Matsuda, 2019). There have been calls for the ELT to break with the idealized native speaker model and fine-tune its theory and practice accordingly (e.g., Cogo, 2022; Kumaravadivelu, 2016). In response to this paradigm shift, ELT practitioners contended that it seemed inevitable for teaching methodology, language assessment measures, teacher education programs, and English textbooks to be modified (Bayyurt & Selvi, 2021; Lowenberg, 2012; Sifakis, 2007). At the core of the ELT, textbooks have been recognized as the primary resource for teaching and learning English (e.g., Chen, 2005; Zheng & Borg, 2014), as they “create the context for the participants to function as language learners” (Ellis, 2003, pp. 5-6). While many teachers do not have the time or expertise to develop pedagogically efficient materials for their classrooms, ready-made textbooks offer lessons, lesson plans, activities, and assessment tasks and hence exert influence on all sections of the educational system (Su, 2016). Such a privilege is more appreciated when a substantial amount of change is abruptly brought into the curriculum, requiring teachers to put the new theory into everyday classroom practice. More significantly, textbooks can “shape students’ attitudes and dispositions towards themselves, other people and society” (Ndura, 2004, p. 143). In fact, language teaching textbooks alongside other print or digital materials can (re)shape, modify, or instill values in language learners that are desired by policymakers (Liu et al., 2022; Ilieva, 2018).

As Llurda (2004) posits, if the mission of the ELT is to develop internationally intelligible language users, textbooks should not be founded on the traditional model of an ideal native speaker and their cultural and language norms. Instead, the ELT materials need to break with the monopoly of native-speakerism and encompass intelligible varieties of English. Studies on the ELT materials in different contexts, however, attested to the dominance of Inner Circle cultural and language norms in the published textbooks for English teaching (e.g., Dang & Seals, 2016; Liu et al., 2022; Shin et al., 2011; Syrbe & Rose, 2018; Zhang et al., 2022). The inclination of international publishers toward the overrepresentation of Inner Circle norms and the underrepresentation of other varieties of English can be attributed to the cost-effectiveness of developing Anglo-American-oriented textbooks led by marketing forces, or the tendency of native-speaker authors of the current ELT materials to represent their own linguistic and cultural standards (Alptekin, 1993; Byram, 1990). Since textbooks portray values and reflect policies, analysis of textbooks and exploration of beliefs of materials developers and textbook users (i.e., teachers and learners) seem crucial. Generally, the majority of the studies up to date have analyzed the existing ELT textbooks to explore how Inner, Outer, or Expanding Circles’ cultural and language norms are represented. However, whether teachers and learners in diverse language learning contexts embrace the idea of representation of nonnative norms in textbooks also needs to be explored.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Due to the unprecedented sociocultural contact among human beings brought mainly by technological advancements, the number of nonnative speakers of English has increased by as much as five times its native speakers (Crystal, 2008). Innovative ways of using English by nonnative speakers created localized varieties of the language that diverge in many aspects from native speaker norms. The new situation has challenged the monopoly of native English standards and given rise to English as a lingua franca (ELF), World Englishes (WE), and English as an international language (EIL). As Seidlhofer (2011) posits, ELF is “any use of English among speakers of different first languages for whom English is the communication medium of choice, and often the only option” (p. 7). Originating from the former British colonies, WE refers to all English varieties used in the world (Bolton, 2004; Marlina, 2014; McKay, 2018). EIL is defined as “English as a means of communication between people of different nations” (Smith, 1976, p. 17) and can potentially liberate language learners from the mere duplication of native norms (Sharifian, 2017). While the three terms may differ slightly, they have been used interchangeably by researchers to refer to the pluricentric entity of today’s English (e.g., Jenkins, 2005; Tajeddin et al., 2020). In line with the recent framework, the current study uses EIL to refer to all English varieties (e.g., American, British, Indian, Nigerian) used for internationally intelligible communication.

Some ELT practitioners have highlighted the need to represent EIL in textbooks to portray a more factual account of the messy reality of today’s English (e.g., Marlina, 2017; McKay, 2018). Studies suggest that presenting nonnative varieties of English in the ELT materials can positively affect learners’ beliefs about the legitimacy of EIL and raise consciousness among English teachers and learners. Ates et al. (2015) examined the impacts of EIL-aware materials on teachers and found that exposure to nonnative varieties positively influenced teachers’ attitudes about EIL. Eslami et al. (2019) exposed preservice teachers of English to EIL and suggested that participants, as a result of exposure, showed more understanding and respect toward nonnative varieties. Similarly, Galloway and Rose (2018) studied the effects of exposure to EIL on Japanese students’ beliefs and found that exposure to nonnative varieties could cater to the participants’ increased appreciation of EIL. Korean students were also found to benefit from exposure to nonnative varieties (e.g., Lee, 2019). Moreover, it is suggested that out-of-classroom exposure through social media can bring about positive changes in the judgment of teachers and learners about EIL (e.g., Bozoglan & Gok, 2017; Lee et al., 2024).

Analysis of the existing ELT textbooks in various contexts, however, portrays the dominance of Anglo-American norms of language use, representation of the idealized native speaker, and the manifestation of Western (especially American) cultural etiquette (e.g., Karimi & Nafissi, 2017; Liu et al., 2022; Matsuda, 2002; Ren & Han, 2016; Roohani & Molana, 2013; Tajeddin & Teimournezhad, 2015). In Japan, Matsuda (2002) analyzed seven English textbooks and found that the textbooks advertised the hegemony of the native norms by presenting American English as the standard variety and offering conversations among native speakers. In China, in a study by Hu and McKay (2014), an English textbook taught in junior secondary school was found to prominently feature linguistic norms and cultural practices of American and British English. In a similar vein, Liu et al. (2022) and Zhang et al. (2022) analyzed English textbooks in China and suggested the prevalence of American and British English and the underrepresentation of Chinese culture in the textbooks. In Hong Kong, Yuen (2011) showed that Inner Circle countries’ culture was overrepresented in English textbooks. Analysis of Korean high school textbooks by Lee (2009) revealed the predominance of American culture and Western cultural values that led to the under-representation of nonnative speakers and their cultures. Similarly, Jang et al. (2023) explored multicultural representation in five Korean elementary EFL textbooks and concluded that the textbooks advertised English as belonging to its white native speakers. Shin et al. (2011) analyzed 25 ELT textbooks published by international publishers and taught in some Asian countries. Their study revealed that cultural norms of native speakers of English dominate the textbooks and that other cultures are largely neglected. Likewise, Syrbe and Rose (2018) studied three English textbooks taught in the region of North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany and found that the books prominently overemphasized British English variety and its cultural norms. Rose and Galloway (2019) investigated the representation of English varieties in six commercial textbooks used widely in ELT classrooms internationally. Results of the study suggested that American or British English was prioritized in five of the textbooks. Analyzing locally developed English textbooks in Vietnam, Nguyen et al. (2020) found that native speakers of English were overrepresented in the books, signaling the dominance of the idealized native speaker model. Other studies also reflect similar findings (e.g., Dang & Seals, 2016; Joo et al., 2020; Ren & Han, 2016). Criticizing the hegemony of the Inner Circle linguistic and cultural norms in ELT textbooks, Mostafaei Alaei and Parsazadeh (2020) proposed what they called a synergistic blueprint for the representation of culture in ELT textbooks to ensure that Inner Circle culture, international culture, and source culture are represented more fairly. In their proposed blueprint, they emphasized that the international culture needs to be represented more frequently than the inner or source culture, regardless of the language learners' proficiency level.

Analysis of the current ELT published textbooks attests to the prioritization of Inner Circle linguistic norms, overrepresentation of Anglo-American cultural standards, promotion of the idealized native speaker model, and underrepresentation (and sometimes neglect) of nonnative speakers of English, their localized variety of English, and their culture. Meanwhile, the beliefs of language teachers and learners, as the main stakeholders of ELT, about the inclusion of linguistic and cultural norms of English varieties have remained largely underexplored. Inspired by this gap, the current research attempts to shed more light on the beliefs of teachers and learners about the inclusion of EIL in ELT textbooks. Therefore, the present study is aimed at scrutinizing the following research question:

1. What are Iranian teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about the inclusion of EIL in ELT textbooks?

METHOD

Design of the Study

The present study used a mixed-methods research (MMR) design with the questionnaire and interviews as data collection instruments. Creswell’s (2003) concurrent triangulation strategy, which means using both quantitative and qualitative research methods to cross-validate the findings of a single study, was used. Therefore, in the quantitative phase of the study, a survey questionnaire was employed to collect data regarding the participants’ beliefs about EIL-aware materials development. Then, in the qualitative phase and to triangulate the data, semi-structured interviews were used to obtain deeper insight into their beliefs.

Participants

Participants of the current study consisted of 251 nonnative Iranian English teachers and 254 English learners. The teachers included 138 females and 113 males, ranging in age from 23 to 48. The majority of teachers (n = 237) stated that they had never resided in an English-speaking country. They held different educational degrees (B.A., M.A., and Ph.D.) and worked as English language instructors in private language institutes in Iranian language centers. Their experience in English teaching ranged from 2 to 26 years. The learners included 156 females and 98 males, the majority of whom had never resided in an English-speaking country (n = 228). Their English learning experience ranged from 2 to 8 years, and their age ranged from 16 to 31.

Instruments

The Questionnaire

The questionnaire was an adapted version of Tajeddin et al.’s (2020) EIL questionnaire, modified to serve the objectives of the current study. The questionnaire was piloted in two stages. First, five expert teachers read items, evaluated the questionnaire’s content and language, and clarified its content and language. Next, the questionnaire was piloted on 88 participants (42 teachers and 46 learners). Consisting of 10 items, the questionnaire aimed at investigating teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about the inclusion of nonnative English varieties in ELT textbooks. The items of the questionnaire were on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree = 1” to “strongly agree = 5”. Calculation of the index of internal reliability, Cronbach’s alpha, indicates a reliability coefficient of .83 for teachers and .86 for learners, which are acceptable reliability indexes (Pallant, 2010).

Semi-Structured Interviews

To provide a more detailed account of teachers’ and learners’ beliefs, the current study took advantage of semi-structured interviews. There were five interview questions corresponding to the themes of the questionnaire. The first question was aimed at investigating the participants’ beliefs about the inclusion of varieties of English in ELT textbooks. Interview question two asked whether it is necessary to include nonnative English varieties in textbooks. Questions three and four explored the beliefs of the interviewees about the inclusion of cultural and linguistic norms of nonnative varieties of English in ELT textbooks. Finally, interview question five asked whether current ELT textbooks should be adapted to include nonnative speakers and their varieties of English.

Data Collection

Collecting data in the present study was carried out in two separate phases. First, the questionnaire was administered to the teachers and learners (making a total of 505 respondents) to obtain their demographic data and their beliefs about the inclusion of EIL in ELT materials. Hagaman and Wutich (2017), in their study on the number of interviewees needed for data saturation, suggested that 16 or fewer interviews are sufficient to extract relative themes. Therefore, in the second phase of the study, 20 teachers and 20 students were voluntarily interviewed through WhatsApp. They were assured of the confidentiality of their answers and the anonymity of their identities in the final report of the study. Depending on the number of details the participants provided in their responses, each interview lasted 10-20 minutes. Researchers adopted an unbiased position throughout the interview. Given the number of the interviewees, the study achieved data saturation.

Data Analysis

To analyze the quantitative data collected through the questionnaire, descriptive statistics including mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated. Additionally, to ensure the normality of the questionnaire items, kurtosis and skewness of items and the questionnaire were calculated. Concerning the qualitative data, interviews were transcribed and analyzed to extract the main themes through content analysis using a systematic coding method. Researchers extracted themes by comparing the responses of each participant with other responses of the same participant and responses of the other participants. First, responses to the first interview question by the first participant were analyzed and explored for the themes and then compared with the responses of the other parties to the same question. The same process was pursued for all the interview questions. Then, the responses of each individual to all the questions were compared and analyzed to extract the themes as accurately as possible. Codes were labeled according to the participants’ responses. For instance, the sentence “ELT textbooks should include all varieties to learners so that they are exposed to those varieties” was categorized under the code “Inclusion of all varieties.” Or the sentence “Textbooks should not change to have more Indian, Persian, or African English” was related to the theme “No adaptation needed.” To ensure the maximum validity of coding, a second round of coding was carried out one week later. A comparison of the first and second rounds of coding showed inter-coder reliability of .91. Extractions of the themes continued until no more themes could be identified in the interview data.

RESULTS

Questionnaire Results

The questionnaire data analysis indicated that teachers agreed with the statement that ELT textbooks should represent language norms and cultural values of native and nonnative varieties of English (Items 4 and 5, M = 3.96 and M = 3.90, respectively). On the other hand, learners agreed with the inclusion of nonnative cultural values in the textbooks (Item 5, M = 3.71); however, they did not welcome the idea of inclusion of nonnative language norms in the textbooks (Item 4, M = 2.93). The same is true regarding Item 8, where the learners disagreed with the statement that textbooks should represent nonnative-nonnative interaction (M = 2.08). Teachers believed that the textbooks should be adapted to include nonnative varieties of English, while learners disagreed with the statement (Item 10, teachers’ M = 3.90, learners’ M = 2.85). Moreover, the majority of the teachers and learners mentioned that ELT textbooks in a nonnative context should not represent English variety specific to that context (Item 9, teachers’ M = 2.13, learners’ M = 1.94). Concerning teaching and learning nonnative varieties, analysis of the data extracted from the questionnaire revealed that both teachers and learners strongly disagreed with the statements that nonnative varieties of English are legitimate for instructional objectives. The majority of the respondents opposed teaching nonnative English varieties and their language norms including their nonnative accents of English (Items 1, 2, 3). Results of responses to Items 6 and 7 show that teachers disagreed with teaching nonnative norms although they welcomed the inclusion of cultural and linguistic norms of nonnative English in ELT textbooks (M = 2.10, 2.27). Similarly, the learners disagreed with teaching nonnative norms presented in ELT textbooks (M = 2.25, 2.64). Table 1 presents the questionnaire items and teachers’ and learners’ mean ratings.

Table 1: Mean Ratings for Teachers (First Rows) and Learners (Second Rows)

Interview Results

The five interview questions were used in the current study to further explore teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about the inclusion of EIL in ELT textbooks. Interview question one asked what English variety (i.e., native or nonnative) should be included in the textbooks for teaching and learning English. Teacher 2 and Learner 6 posited that:

English users around the world can communicate through any accent or variety of English, but ELT textbooks should provide teachers and learners with the standard, I mean native variety of English. (T2)

I strongly believe that American English should be used for language learning. Learners like to speak English as spoken by American native speakers, with nice accent and correct grammar. (L6)

Teachers’ and learners’ responses to this question, exemplified by the preceding two excerpts, indicated that they unanimously believed that ELT textbooks should advocate teaching and learning native English rather than nonnative varieties. This strong aspiration of the teachers and learners for the inclusion of native varieties of English suggests prioritization of native English varieties.

Interview question two aimed at exploring the perceived need for the inclusion of nonnative varieties of English in the textbooks with the goal of exposing learners to those varieties.  Teachers 19 and 10 contended that:

English is now an international language spoken in a lot of different parts of the world like India, Iran, and Germany. ELT textbooks should present all varieties to learners so that they are exposed to those varieties. (T19)

Many of my students laugh at foreign accents of English such as Nigerian or Persian. I think exposing them to nonnative varieties can produce respect in language learners toward world Englishes. (T10)

Conversely, Learner 3 argued against exposing learners to EIL:

Nonnative English is not correct and if learners are exposed to various pronunciations of words and incorrect grammar, they will get confused. How do they know what is standard to learn? They will learn a mixture of native and nonnative English. (L3)

Responses to this question attested to the disparity between the beliefs of teachers and learners. As the excerpts indicate, teachers argued in favor of including EIL in textbooks, magnifying the multiplicity of English varieties in today’s world. The teachers contended that using English as an international language necessitates communication with interlocutors from different linguistic backgrounds; therefore, learners need to get prepared. Learners, on the other hand, did not welcome the idea of nonnative varieties being included in textbooks, possibly due to their firm belief in the accuracy, legitimacy, and supremacy of native English varieties.

Questions three and four investigated respondents’ beliefs regarding the inclusion of cultural and linguistic norms of nonnative English varieties in ELT textbooks. Teachers and learners contended that:

Nonnative culture of English should be included in the textbooks because people need to know about different people who speak English, their culture, their behavior and customs. (T14)

It is good to present samples of different uses of grammar or vocabulary of nonnative English in the textbooks so that students can see the difference. (T6)

I believe that language norms of nonnative English like nonnative grammar should not be in the textbooks because learners may learn those errors. But cultural values can be included because they are very interesting for the learners and they want to know more about the world. (L1)

As revealed by the excerpts, there is a consensus between the teachers and the learners in favor of the representation of nonnative English culture along with the native cultural norms. Both parties contend that the inclusion of nonnative culture in textbooks can be intriguing for language learners since it raises their consciousness toward the values and customs of a wide range of English users. Regarding language norms, however, the opinions of the teachers and learners diverge. While the teachers argued that exposing language learners to samples of nonnative English can help them see the differences between native and nonnative language norms, the learners contended that the representation of nonnative English may induce errors in language learners.

Interview question five explored whether ELT textbooks should be adapted to include nonnative speakers and their varieties of English. Responses to this question by teachers and learners attested to their different attitudes toward applying changes in the textbooks:

It seems that ELT textbooks need to change to have more examples of international English, how it is spoken in different countries, and how it differs from native English. (T16)

Textbooks should not change to have more Indian, Persian, or African English. We like to learn standard English from the books. If books are not in standard English, what should we learn? (L9)

As evidenced by the excerpts, the teachers advocated for the adaptation of ELT textbooks to be more inclusive and representative of different varieties of English. The learners, on the contrary, opposed the idea, contending that the textbooks should include only a standard native English variety around which all pedagogical activities in the classroom should pivot.

DISCUSSION

The present study aimed to explore the beliefs of Iranian teachers and learners regarding the inclusion of EIL in ELT textbooks to portray an all-varieties-inclusive picture of English as it is used today around the world. Analysis of the data obtained from the questionnaire and interviews revealed key findings. First, it was found that language teachers embraced the idea of inclusion of EIL (both their cultural and linguistic norms) in ELT textbooks, emphasizing the unprecedented function of English as a widely used international language used by both native and nonnative speakers. This finding corroborates the results of other similar studies suggesting that the majority of teachers acknowledged the rise of diverse varieties of English and admitted the need to represent EIL in language teaching materials (e.g., Jenkins, 2005; Lim, 2020; McKay, 2003; Tajeddin et al., 2020; Tarrayo et al., 2021). It is also in line with the calls to revisit the ELT materials based on the theoretical underpinnings of EIL to encompass nonnative varieties of English (e.g., Bayyurt & Selvi, 2021; Cogo, 2022; Galloway, 2017; Kiczkowiak, 2020). Teachers’ aspiration in the current study for exposing language learners to EIL, adapting ELT textbooks, and representation of nonnative varieties of English in the textbooks indicates their knowledge of the changing nature of English and the necessity of exposing language learners to EIL. Several studies have documented the positive effects of exposing language teachers and learners to a range of English varieties on their evaluation of the legitimacy of EIL (e.g., Eslami et al., 2019; Galloway & Rose, 2018; Lee, 2019). Eslami et al. (2019) found that exposure to EIL can be conducive to the establishment of a positive demeanor for nonnative varieties of English. Similarly, Lee (2019) and Lee et al. (2024) suggested that explicit instruction of EIL and exposing learners to digital materials can offer a positive image of nonnative varieties. The inclusion of EIL in the ELT materials, as evidenced in this study, provides empirical foundations for the need to reshape the current materials, helps to counteract the hegemony of the Inner-Circle developed materials (Matsuda, 2012; Flores & Rosa, 2023), and assists language teachers by providing the EIL-aware materials to be used in the classrooms (Vodopija-Krstanović, & Marinac, 2019). 

Second, our findings indicated that while language learners disagreed with the inclusion of linguistic norms of nonnative varieties of English, they believed that nonnative cultural norms need to be represented in ELT textbooks. The learners contended that learners’ exposure to nonnative culture can motivate them to raise their consciousness of nonnative speakers of English, and their sociocultural values that may differ from those of native speakers. This finding is paramount since the analysis of the current ELT materials evidences the predominance of Anglo-American cultural norms (e.g., Liu et al., 2022; Ren & Han, 2016; Shin et al., 2011) which can offer a unidimensional image of English culture, and neglects the pluricentric reality of today’s English caused by the recent social mobility. Learners’ desire to witness different cultures in ELT textbooks, evidenced in this study, showcases their consciousness of the multicultural nature of today’s English. It has been argued that native culture, nonnative culture, and culture of learners in every learning context should be represented in the ELT materials (e.g., Galloway, 2017; Rose & Galloway, 2019; Nguyen et al., 2020; Su, 2016; Syrbe & Rose, 2016; Yuen, 2011) to portray and advocate multilingual and multicultural speakers using English in multiethnic societies who have been traditionally -and unfairly- stigmatized as “nonnative” speakers.

Third, our findings suggest that language teachers and learners disapprove of using EIL in ELT classrooms for teaching and learning English even if ELT textbooks encompass nonnative varieties. This finding does not resonate with the first finding since the teachers embraced the inclusion of cultural and language norms of EIL, and the learners agreed with the representation of cultural values of nonnative English varieties in ELT textbooks. The mismatch found in this study consolidates the results of the previous studies suggesting that language teachers and learners admitted the existence of EIL and prioritized native varieties but delegitimized nonnative varieties for instructional purposes (e.g., Moradkhani & Asakereh, 2018; Sung, 2014; Tajeddin et al., 2020; Tarrayo et al. 2021). Studies suggest that nonnative varieties are evaluated as fake, funny, not genuine, and not authentic (e.g., Jenkins, 2005), attaining a native-like pronunciation produces a positive self-image (e.g., Sung, 2014), native accent can guarantee successful interaction with native speakers (e.g., Tanaka, 2010), and having a nonnative accent can bring communication breakdown (Tsang, 2020). Therefore, language teachers were found to be reluctant to teach nonnative English varieties (e.g., Vodopija-Krstanović & Marinac, 2019; Zhang, 2022). Such unwillingness to teach EIL may originate from the participants’ firm belief in the superiority and legitimacy of native English, its grammatical accuracy, phonological intelligibility, and social desirability as evidenced in other similar studies (e.g., Lee & Ahn, 2021; Lim, 2021; Mısır & Gürbüz, 2022). Furthermore, other factors relating to the policymakers in the educational system may hinder language teachers from putting their beliefs about nonnative varieties of English into practice. As Harsanti and Nasanius (2023) argued, while the teachers admit the multiplicity of English varieties, they are not ready to teach World Englishes because of the pressure imposed by the school curriculum.  

CONCLUSION

The findings of the present study evidenced two significant conflicts regarding the inclusion of EIL in ELT textbooks. The first conflict was documented when teachers advocated for the inclusion of EIL in textbooks while learners agreed solely with the representation of cultural values of the nonnative speakers of English, and not EIL as a legitimate variety of English. The second conflict originated from teachers’ agreement with the inclusion of EIL in the textbook on the one hand, and their strongly negative attitude toward teaching EIL on the other hand. These findings can add to the growing body of our understanding related to the perceptions of teachers and learners about EIL-aware ELT materials.

The insights obtained in this study bear implications for materials development informed by EIL philosophy. First, the overrepresentation of the idealized native speaker model encouraged by the current ELT materials that have shaped the beliefs of learners and teachers about the legitimacy of native English varieties, on the one hand, and the de-legitimization of EIL needs to be deemphasized. As McKay (2012) contended, second language teaching has been traditionally founded upon the false premise that all nonnative English users desire to attain native-like proficiency in pronunciation, grammar, and lexis. Therefore, the ELT profession in general, and ELT materials development especially, should represent nonnative varieties of English as they are used in international communication contexts to reshape language teachers’ and learners’ beliefs (e.g., Galloway & Rose, 2021; Selvi & Yazan, 2021). Moreover, materials developers need to make a balance between the cost-effectiveness of Anglo-American-oriented ELT textbooks and the representation of nonnative varieties of English to portray a pluricentric picture of EIL (Flores & Rosa, 2023; Kumaravadivelu, 2016) and to boost sensitivity, consciousness, and respect toward English varieties as they are, not as they should be (Matsuda, 2012).

While the findings of the current study shed light on the beliefs of the teachers and learners regarding the inclusion of nonnative varieties of English along with the native English norms, this study suffers from its own limitations. The participants in the present study consisted of English teachers and learners only, but not other stakeholders of the profession. Further studies can focus on how policymakers and materials developers, as agents of change, approach this issue. Beliefs of the ELT policymakers – at the world level in general and in each country in specific – should be explored to provide comprehensive insights into their (un)willingness for representation of the nonnative varieties. Similarly, the attitudes of the ELT materials developers need to be examined since they finally decide about the inclusion/exclusion of the nonnative English varieties. As McGrath (2013) warned, despite the theoretical shifts in ELT, daring to be different and publishing a book series representing nonnative English varieties remains a daunting challenge.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID