Should Global Englishes be taught? Perceptions from Chinese English teachers in Middle school education

Abstract

This qualitative research explores 10 Chinese middle school teachers’ perceptions of English and English teaching concerning Global Englishes (GE) and the feasibility of incorporating GE into English language education. Through semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis within the framework of 2018 Global English Language Teaching (GELT), the research findings showed that teachers’ perceptions of English were globally defined, and they believed that English users with diverse linguistic and social backgrounds across the globe serve as the foundation for its usage. Regarding its pedagogical implementation, most participants questioned the appropriateness of non-native English in teaching and viewed native English as the most suitable approach in ELT, especially in assessment. However, some participants questioned the conventional ideology of native English standardisation, favouring cultural exchange and mutual intelligibility above the rigorous fixation on grammatical correctness to better equip students for the current English diversity. The contrasting views highlight the need to balance standardisation and linguistic diversity in ELT by finding a middle ground. This paper suggests that ELT stakeholders adopt an inclusive and flexible multicompetence approach with a shifting focus on practical skills and communication effectiveness in curricula design, assessment and classroom activities to better address the needs of English language learners in global contexts.

Keywords:

• Global Englishes
• global Englishes language teaching
• native English
• English language teaching
• Chinese middle school education

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Fan Fang, Shantou University, China

SUBJECTS:

• Middle School Education
• Language & Education
• Language Teaching & Learning

Introduction

As English spread around the globe, it interacted with local languages and diversified into multiple forms and varieties (Butler, 1997). Simultaneously, non-native English speakers were three times the number of native English speakers (Crystal, 2003). This change transformed English into a tool for English speakers from varied linguistic and sociocultural backgrounds (Canagarajah, 2006; Jenkins, 2009; Seidlhofer, 2004). As a result, this has led to the forming of Global Englishes (GE), an emerging paradigm to look at English as a global language (Galloway & Rose, 2015; Jenkins, 2006, 2014; Rose & Galloway, 2019; Seidlhofer, 2004). GE challenges the conventional paradigm, which reflects a hegemonic perspective of the native English-centric ideology (Baker, 2015; Kachru, 1992). On account of the worldwide spread of English, the traditional inner-circle English paradigm fails to effectively represent the complete linguistic landscape in either English language teaching (ELT) or use (Jenkins, 2014; Seidlhofer, 2004). Thus, the appropriateness of rigid adherence to inner-circle English variations has been continuously questioned (Cogo & Dewey, 2012; Galloway & Rose, 2018; Jenkins, 2015; Kirkpatrick & Xu, 2002; Rose & Galloway, 2019).

The evolving landscape of ELT has prompted a re-evaluation of traditional paradigms, with an increasing focus on GE and its implications (Jenkins, 2014; Rose & Galloway, 2019; Widdowson, 2003). The shift towards a multilingual ideology emphasises the importance of accommodating diverse linguistic practices in ELT, as highlighted by the 2018 Global Englishes Language Teaching (GELT) framework (Rose & Galloway, 2019). Integrating GE into the classroom has shown promise in enhancing learners’ sociolinguistic awareness and cross-cultural communication skills (Galloway, 2011; Galloway & Numajiri, 2020; Galloway & Rose, 2018). In China, despite Chinese curricula stressing intercultural communication (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China [MOE], 2018), native English predominance persists, hindering students’ language confidence (Evans, 2010; Fang & Ren, 2018; He & Li, 2009; He & Miller, 2011). This underscores the need to align Chinese ELT with the GE paradigm, facilitating learners’ adaptation to the current multilingual landscape and promoting practical English skills (MOE, 2018).

Understanding teachers’ perceptions in Chinese middle schools regarding GELT can significantly impact English language teaching practices, curriculum development, and policymaking. Teachers’ insights provide valuable information on their readiness to adopt GELT approaches, challenges they might face in implementation, and areas where support and training may be needed. This understanding enables curriculum developers and policymakers to design more relevant and effective language programs, incorporating GELT principles to meet diverse learners’ needs better. Therefore, to advance the paradigm shift to multilingualism and develop GELT approaches practically, it may be helpful to understand teachers’ views of GE, especially those in middle schools. Contexts outside university language classrooms are rarely studied in research related to GE and its implementation (Rose et al., 2021).

Moreover, as GE is emerging in ELT, there’s limited empirical research on its theoretical framework, particularly in Chinese high schools where English is compulsory. To fill the gap, this research investigates how Chinese teachers in middle schools perceive GE and its implementation in ELT classrooms and seek pedagogical implications in Chinese high schools. As mentioned above, the 2018 GELT framework (Rose & Galloway, 2019) compares the GE paradigm to the traditional ELT paradigm in 13 areas like learning material, role model, assessment criteria, learning targets, and more, which informed the perspectives on investigating teachers’ perceptions. Conducted in China’s middle school education setting, this research can expand the 2018 GELT framework study within the broad idea of TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages). This research can inform instructional practices, guide curriculum development, and shape policy decisions in the educational context. With these aims, the study seeks to answer two research questions:

• Research question 1: How do Chinese English teachers in middle school perceive GE?

• Research question 2: How do Chinese English teachers in middle school perceive the incorporation of GE in ELT?

Literature review

Global Englishes and Global Englishes language teaching

This essay adopts the definition of GE by Rose and Galloway (2019) as it is a catch-all term containing the area of World English (WE), English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), English as an International Language (EIL), multilingual turn, and translanguaging. The research of WE looks at variations in English due to the expansion of the British Empire and its pedagogical implications. ELF examines English use among speakers of different first languages and its pedagogical implications. EIL explores the implications of the spread of English worldwide and its pedagogical implications. The multilingual turn means moving away from monolingualism and using one’s linguistic resources to overcome linguistic barriers. Translanguaging looks at languages as a whole without borders. In all, as Rose and Galloway (2019, p. 4) defined GE, ‘We define Global Englishes as an inclusive paradigm looking at the linguistic, sociolinguistic and sociocultural diversity and fluidity of English use and English users in a globalised world’.

Continuing with GELT, the 2018 GELT framework (Rose & Galloway, 2019) was developed to adapt ELT to the backdrop of the globalisation of the world and the English language. It is presented in a table comparing 13 focuses in traditional ELT and GELT (see Table 1). The 2018 GELT framework outlines principles emphasising linguistic diversity, multicompetence, and contextual relevance. Its methodologies advocate for inclusive pedagogies, acknowledging diverse English varieties and learners’ backgrounds. Practical implications include curriculum adaptations to reflect global English use, teacher training to facilitate multilingual instruction and assessment strategies prioritising communicative effectiveness over native-like proficiency. By embracing this framework, language educators can create inclusive learning environments that empower students to engage with English as a dynamic, multilingual resource, better preparing them for real-world communication in diverse linguistic contexts.

Table 1. The 2018 GELT framework (Rose & Galloway, 2019, p. 21).

	Traditional ELT	GELT
Target interlocutors	Native English speakers	All English users
Ownership	Inner Circle	Global
Target culture	Static NE cultures	Fluid cultures
Norms	Standard English	Diverse, flexible and multiple forms
Teachers	Non-NE-speaking teachers (same L1) and NE-speaking teachers	Qualified, competent teachers (same and different L1s)
Role model	NE speakers	Expert users
Source of materials	NE and NE speakers	Salient English-speaking communities and contexts
Other languages and cultures	Seen as a hindrance and source of interference	Seen as a resource as with other languages in their linguistic repertoire
Needs	Inner Circle defined	Globally defined
Assessment criterion	Accuracy according to prescriptive standards	Communicative competence
Goals of learning	Native-like proficiency	Multicompetent user
Ideology	Underpinned by an exclusive and ethnocentric view of English	Underpinned by an inclusive Global Englishes perspective
Orientation	Monolingual	Multilingual/translingual

While the 2018 GELT framework offers valuable insights into the dynamic nature of English language teaching and learning, it is not immune to criticisms and debates. Criticism revolves around the practical feasibility of implementing GELT principles in diverse educational contexts, particularly in settings where standardised testing and native English norms prevail. One concern with implementing GELT is the strong attachment to standard English forms, as teachers fear confusing students by introducing diverse English varieties (Suzuki, 2011). Other concerns include the constraints imposed by testing, reliance on traditional textbooks, and insufficient time for curricular innovation (Cameron & Galloway, 2019; Galloway & Numajiri, 2020). Some argue that the approach may overlook linguistic precision and lower English proficiency requirements (Galloway & Rose, 2015), while others doubt its suitability for conventional schooling (Rose et al., 2021).

However, emerging case studies (e.g. Fang & Ren, 2018; Galloway, 2013; Smidt et al., 2021) have integrated GE and GELT into the English classroom in diverse local contexts worldwide. They have shown that GELT was well received by the students and teachers and has resulted in students’ enhanced awareness of English variations (Boonsuk et al., 2021; Rajprasit, 2022; Rosenhan & Galloway, 2019), improved confidence in English learning (Jindapitak et al., 2022) and raised cross-cultural communication skills (Tardy et al., 2021). Moreover, these case studies successfully integrated GELT into local contexts with varying focuses. For example, Rahimi and Ruzrokh (2016) exposed a group of Arabian middle school students to different English accents in listening classes and helped improve their listening comprehension of English more than the comparison group who was trained in British English.

Incorporating GE and GELT into Chinese ELT classrooms

Recent research in China (e.g. Si, 2019a; Fang et al., 2022; X. Zhang, 2022) has explored teachers’ attitudes towards GE and GELT, revealing evolving perspectives influenced by globalisation. While Wen (2012) initially strongly preferred native English, Fang (2015) indicated a shift towards acceptance of GE and GELT. Despite ingrained native-English biases, teachers and students expressed a need for diverse English to address today’s linguistic diversity (Fang, 2015). Moreover, Fang (2017) demonstrated a call for changes in teaching pronunciation at the tertiary level. X. Zhang (2022) highlighted the growing recognition of cultural aspects in GELT, with participants showing openness to non-native English in the classroom. Fang et al. (2022) also demonstrated acceptance of home culture in learning materials. While native-English biases persist, there is a growing recognition of local English varieties, reflecting an evolving understanding of English in the local context (McKenzie, 2008; Sasayama, 2013).

Although some English teachers were aware of the current linguistic variety of English and supportive of applying GE-related methods in classrooms, there were concerns over GELT-bounded teaching, including resistance from traditionalists, linguistic standards, and cultural adaptation issues. For example, He (2020), Si (2019b), and Y. Zhang and Du (2018) demonstrated that some participants rejected the idea of introducing other Englishes in the ELT classroom. To clarify, native English is nearly exclusively employed as a source of teaching materials (He, 2015) and a native speaker model functions as a developed paradigm with its social-cultural complexity (He & Zhang, 2010). Nevertheless, the participants also expressed favourable views regarding English’s flexible and multiple uses in successful intercultural exchanges (Y. Zhang & Du, 2018). Therefore, the debate between traditional ELT approaches and the principles of GE and GELT in China mainly lies in the controversies of standardisation, cultural relevance and contextualisation, linguistic competence and communicative competence.

Regarding GE implementation, there exists inadequacy in teaching proposals to accomplish a comprehensive shift to the GELT paradigm. However, some work has been done and proved effective in lessening the monopoly of standard English and native speakerism in English education. This was achieved by introducing English variety and facilitating students’ mutual intelligibility in intercultural exchange. Mutual intelligibility occurs when speakers of related languages or dialects understand one another without previous knowledge or effort. For example, such work involves the Teaching of Pronunciation for Intercultural Communication (ToPIC) (Fang, 2015, 2016), ‘languature’ (Wen, 2016, p. 162), incorporating GE modules in English training classes (Sung, 2015), and Higher education GE courses (Fang & Ren, 2018; Lu, 2019; Lu & Buripakdi, 2020). Specifically, Wen (2016) introduced ‘languature’, blending language and culture, with four dimensions: topical, discoursal, situational, and linguistic, placed on a continuum from more to less separable, impacting multilingualism. ToPIC is an ELF-oriented pronunciation teaching strategies aligned with students’ broader language objectives for intercultural communication. Sung (2015) designed GE sections in a tertiary English class to develop students’ skills in making efficient dialogues in ELF contexts. Findings showed that students no longer confined themselves to native English standards, began to appreciate and accept non-native English varieties, and gained recognition of non-native accents. Several studies (e.g. Galloway & Rose, 2015; Sung, 2015; Y. Wang, 2013; Y. Wang & Jenkins, 2016) implied that when incorporating GE-informed approaches into the classroom, it is essential for ELT practitioners to realise language learners’ pragmatic demands for communicative effectiveness.

While teachers acknowledge the evolving landscape of English in the face of globalisation, Si (2019a) and Liu et al. (2023) argue that transitioning from native standards to GE presents considerable complexities due to entrenched norms in assessment, teaching, and learning models. These challenges in Chinese ELT reflect broader global trends and debates in English language education. The tension between standardisation and linguistic diversity mirrors the global discourse on prioritising standardised English forms versus embracing global English varieties (Marlina, 2021; Jenkins, 2014). Similarly, the imperative to contextualise English teaching resonates with worldwide discussions on integrating learners’ cultural backgrounds (Pennycook, 2007; Meer et al., 2021). Concerns about balancing linguistic standards with communicative competence align with global debates on language proficiency and communicative language teaching (Rose et al., 2021). Moreover, the impact of globalisation on ELT in China mirrors the rise of ELF globally, underscoring the necessity for a paradigm shift (Jenkins, 2009). Addressing these challenges within a global framework enables educators to deepen their understanding of language education complexities and exchange best practices across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts.

To sum up, encompassing the concepts of WE, EIL, ELF, multilingual turn, and translanguaging, GE emphasises that the diversity of English users or usage against varying linguistic, sociolinguistic, and sociocultural settings should be acknowledged and addressed. In the 2018 GELT framework, the present linguistic and sociolinguistic flexibility with a multilingual perspective challenged the conventional hegemonic paradigm of native-centric English ideology and standards, both in English usage and English education. However, the GE paradigm is not generally well-received in English teaching and assessment, where standard English ideology still remains dominant while other English varieties are seen as insufficiently standard and formal for education and assessment. Therefore, this study proceeds the investigation on GE and GELT, acknowledging that teachers’ perceptions of GE and GELT will affect the way to make ELT practice more GE-relevant in China and enable learners to learn more about the practical usage of English today in the global world.

Methodology

Setting and participants

This study adopted purposive-convenience sampling (Rose et al., 2020). 10 Chinese English teachers were selected from one middle school in Guangdong Province, China. This school was chosen because it is a comprehensive middle school that enrols students from various areas of the city and teachers from all parts of China, which may reflect diverse teachers’ thoughts. Therefore, participants with a wide variety of teaching experiences were chosen from a range of teachers. The 10 participants ranged in age, education level, length of service and overseas experience in Chinese middle schools (See details in Table 2). This sampling is frequently adopted in qualitative research since it assures that the chosen participants can contribute the most to the research question (Robinson, 2014). Thus, this purposive-convenience sampling enhances the probability of obtaining various perspectives that might help answer research questions and enrich study results.

Table 2. Participants’ demographic information.

Participant	Gender	Experience in teaching English	Current grade	Age	Education degree	Relevant overseas experience
Teacher 1	Female	27 years	Senior 1	50	BA	Thailand travelling experience
Teacher 2	Female	10 years	Senior 1	36	MA	Global travelling experience and one-month summer school in the USA
Teacher 3	Male	15 years	Senior 1	39	BA	None
Teacher 4	Male	32 years	Senior 2	56	BA	travelling in Asian countries and one-year working experience in an international company in China
Teacher 5	Female	8 years	Senior 2	34	MA	Travelling to Thailand and Japan
Teacher 6	Female	16 years	Senior 2	40	BA	None
Teacher 7	Female	17 years	Senior 3	41	BA	3-months study in the UK and global travelling experience
Teacher 8	Female	16 years	Senior 3	40	BA	None
Teacher 9	Male	34 years	Senior 3	57	BA	Travelling to Singapore
Teacher 10	Female	31 years	Senior 3	54	BA	Travelling to Australia

Data collection and analysis

In this qualitative research, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with questions developed by the researcher following the 2018 GELT framework. First, the researcher contacted the School Office and gained permission for research. The researcher expressed the sampling selection strategy to the officers of the School Office and got the contact details of 20 possible teachers.

Second, the researcher contacted the teachers by phone and 10 teachers showed their willingness to participate. The researcher met the 10 teachers in the school meeting room with two school administrators, explaining the study aims and focusing on ethical participation to explain data collection, confidentiality, and withdrawal rights. The participants supported this research and were willing to participate. Then, informed consent was sought from all participating teachers and the school administration. All data were securely stored and accessible only to the researcher to ensure the anonymity and confidentiality of participants’ responses throughout the study.

Third, the interview session. Two pilot interviews were undertaken to evaluate the potential issues with the interview questions. Three phrase modifications were made for more explicit expressions based on the answers and analyses. All interviews, which lasted 10–25 min in the school conference room, were conducted in Chinese for improved understanding and communication. Participants were made aware of the research objectives and the interview procedure and were reassured again about confidentiality and free withdrawal from the interview at any time. The researcher asked the participants whether they had any questions regarding the research and sought their permission to record the interview. All the participants agreed, and the researchers’ computer with code protection was used to record the interview.

Fourth, data analysis. Following Crotty’s (1998) guidelines, data analysis proceeded in several stages. Initially, all interview transcripts were meticulously transcribed. Next, employing the GELT framework, the researcher conducted thematic coding, identifying recurring themes and sub-themes reflective of the interview data. Each theme and sub-theme was labelled with keywords and characterized appropriately. For instance, the theme ‘debates in norms’ encompassed concerns about feasibility, as illustrated by participants’ remarks. The researcher sought peer feedback on transcriptions and coding decisions to ensure rigour and validity. In the third phase, the main and sub-themes were organised into an Excel spreadsheet, with relevant excerpts from participants linked to respective themes, accompanied by participant numbers, page numbers, and line numbers for reference. Fourth, the researcher translated the compiled data into English, facilitating subsequent analysis and interpretation. After the initial translation, the researcher conducted a back translation, rendering the English version back into Chinese. This iterative process aimed to identify discrepancies and maintain fidelity to the original meanings. Challenges included capturing nuances accurately, which were addressed through careful comparison and consultation with bilingual experts. For each theme and sub-theme, the researcher identified similarities and differences inside each group of participants. The researcher reflected on why the participants expressed similar opinions, what they had in common, and why others shared different views. This involved relating their responses to the relevant literature and associating their social background, experience, educational system, etc. The researcher determined how the analysed data answered the research questions and examined the main themes for each research question.

Limitations

First, to mitigate biases in sampling such as self-selection bias, efforts were made to engage a varied range of teachers with a purposive-convenience sampling method. Second, considering that interview questions requested personal views, the researcher anticipated that some participants might feel embarrassed or concerned about revealing their honest thoughts. Assurances of anonymity and confidentiality were provided to encourage honest participation from all eligible teachers. Third, to minimise the impact of researcher bias on the analysis, the researcher continuously engaged in reflexivity, reflecting on assumptions, biases and preconceptions, and documenting these reflections in a reflexive journal.

Findings

Cultural and sociolinguistic awareness

As for the interlocutors, all the teachers expressed that their target English dialogists would be global English speakers, and English became a global language. They also believed that English is not only used in the Inner Circle nations with native English speakers but also in the global world with global English users. Teacher 8 said, ‘Even when I was in the UK, a native-English-speaking country, I spoke English not only to the British but also to the Japanese, Koreans, French, and other non-native English speakers from all over the world’.

When asked about English norms, teachers viewed English as a language that could not be ‘standard’ in any way because there was also no unified form of English among native English speakers. For example, Teacher 1 mentioned that ‘relatively speaking, there is no standard English in reality, just as there is no absolute standard Mandarin because we all have some accents more or less, just like the differences among British English, American English and Australian English’.

Pedagogical considerations

Standard English

Although participants acknowledged no absolute standard English, they maintained that English education should have standards, which should be based on the English in the textbooks or dictionaries, in other words, British English or American, the English used by most people. Teacher 8 mentioned, ‘Standard English is grammatically correct, fitting in with the way British or Americans speak, and the English from a dictionary and textbooks’.

Learning materials

When interviewees were asked whether to add more non-native English materials to the existing learning materials, while some teachers were in favour of this idea because non-native English speaker language materials could broaden students’ cultural knowledge, most participants rejected this practice because of standardisation concerns and students readiness to be exposed to other Englishes. They insisted that the material should be focused on native English speakers because English spoken by other non-native speakers was not standardised, only supplementary to native English speaker language material. Teacher 5 mentioned:

The primary and secondary school stage is a period for laying the foundation. In this primary stage, the greatest choice is to be exposed to more formal and conventional English, whether in reading, listening, or speaking. The student should reach beyond a foundation level to a more proficient level before they are ready to learn more English varieties. For example, when students study English major and go to college, I suggest getting exposed to the accents of various countries, watching a wide range of videos, or listening to audio. If the student gets exposed to different English too early, the child may gain strange pronunciation and intonation.

Nonnative-English-speaking cultures and forms

In addition to learning materials, when asked about introducing nonnative-English-speaking cultures and forms to students in class, although most teachers recognised the benefits of bringing diverse cultures into classrooms, they insisted that considering the teaching reality of senior high schools, such as curriculum, syllabus, time constraints, and student’s learning needs, the cultures of Inner Circle countries should remain dominating and those of other nonnative Englishes only minimal. Regarding non-native English usage and accents, teachers said they could add fun to the classroom but regarded some as barriers to understanding and learning English. Teacher 2 said:

Students have already found it challenging to master the standard English language and the knowledge required by the curriculum. Learning and grasping non-native English, which is harder to understand, will further burden students’ learning.

Teacher 6 mentioned:

Other non-native cultures bring additional knowledge to the classroom, but I think the classroom should focus mainly on native English because students will benefit from it the most. In addition, some non-native English accents are hilarious to teachers and students, making the whole class laugh. We consider these accents and usages of English bad examples to pay attention to.

Language proficiency

Assessment criteria

Regarding the assessment criterion, most teachers attached more importance to prescriptive accuracy over intelligibility because they stuck to standardisation in the examination. They held that examination criteria should be standardised and that the distinction between right and wrong should be clearly outlined. Teacher 4 argued, ‘You cannot turn wrong into right just because others can understand it. It is all messed up’. On the other hand, there were a minority of the participants who supported communicative competence and prioritised the future needs of using English and the intelligibility of communication, as Teacher 10 reflected, ‘In marking the writings, some teachers, including me, will not treat grammatical and spelling mistakes as a serious mistake as long as they do not interrupt communication. Now we have achieved this flexibility in writing’. Regarding the test design, one teacher mentioned adjusting the examination contents to real-life communication needs. Teacher 3 argued:

The exam should be in line with our practical use. English serves as a communication tool, and you can also show it in the exam or be a guiding direction. In addition, students will be able to learn English to serve their real-life purposes so that learning English will not make them feel like a waste of time.

Role models

Regarding role models, some teachers preferred native speakers as role models, some preferred expert users from China, and others thought that any person with advanced English skills, native or not, may act as an example to others. Teachers were open to the choice of role models, mainly depending on their English proficiency. They also considered that nativeness was not the only criterion for choosing a role model. Teacher 7 mentioned:

It seems unreasonable to decide on role models only according to nativeness or nonnatives. Some students can also be role models as their writing can be at a high level. The idiomatic usage of words and sentences matters. And it seems that we cannot compare native and non-native speakers. So, I will look at the language quality. If it is better and more distinctive, I might prefer it. I assume that one’s English is distinguished from others not because of where they come from but how they use it.

Learning goals

In traditional ELT, the learning goal is to obtain native-like competence, while in GELT, the learning goal is to be multicompetent users. Teachers expressed that the learning goal is achieving curriculum requirements and speaking English with individuals from all across the globe without barriers. Additionally, they pointed out the difficulty in achieving native-speaker proficiency. Teacher 9 stated:

It is hard to achieve native speaker proficiency. Achieving the standard of the college entrance examination syllabus will be enough for students, but it will be difficult for them to meet the native language standard. It is enough to be able to communicate with others without barriers.

Discussion

Cultural and sociolinguistic awareness

Teachers understood that English is used by people from all over the globe, with varying language and cultural backgrounds. It aligns with the findings of previous studies such as Fang (2015) and Kirkpatrick and Xu (2002), which demonstrated the increasing recognition of diverse English varieties beyond BrE and AmE. This recognition also resonates with studies in global contexts such as Boonsuk et al. (2023), where Thailand English teachers embraced both WE and Thailand English while acknowledging their divergence from BrE and AmE standards. Teachers recognised the linguistic and sociolinguistic variety of English speakers and English forms in the present linguistic environment (Galloway & Rose, 2015; Jenkins, 2009; Rose & Galloway, 2019).

Pedagogical considerations

Standard English

The participants’ perspectives on the use of standard English in teaching echo the findings from Y. Zhang and Du (2018). For instance, similar to Wen (2012), He (2020) and Si (2019b), this study observed a preference among educators for clear benchmarks and adherence to American and British English standards. Conversely, the notion of inclusivity and the emphasis on cultural contact align with the findings of Fang (2015), X. Zhang (2022) and Fang et al. (2022), which highlighted the importance of mutual understanding over native-like proficiency. These parallels underscore the need for educators to adopt a critical approach to English and ELT, navigating the balance between established rules and the flexibility required to accommodate diverse linguistic and cultural contexts.

Learning materials

Teachers insisted that learning material remain dominated by American or British English (He, 2015; He & Zhang, 2010). They reckoned that as official guiding material, textbooks needed standards and clear benchmarks to distinguish right from wrong in English learning. However, some teachers emphasised GELT learning material (Fang et al., 2022). They thought GELT material could help promote students’ comprehensive development. Therefore, in designing textbooks, designers should balance materials reflecting American or British English and those embracing GE more systematically to cater to diverse student development needs (Fang et al., 2022; He & Zhang, 2010; Widodo et al., 2022).

Nonnative-English-speaking cultures and forms

First, the participants were open to introducing other English cultures and forms in English teaching, just as Fang et al. (2022) and Kirkpatrick and Xu (2002) found. Moreover, in line with Fang and Ren (2018) and Galloway and Rose (2018), some participants agreed that non-native English cultures improved pupils’ cultural and social understanding and growth. However, the contradiction is that they did not recognise non-native English as a formal component of students’ education, the same as He (2015). Specifically, the participants considered the forms of English varieties intriguing but would not consider them valid English for learning. This highlighted a persistent tension in GE and GELT integration. While teachers recognise the cultural value of non-native English forms, they resisted their inclusion in formal curricula, reflecting a deep-seated preference for native models. Therefore, it is essential to raise teachers’ awareness of the legitimisation of other Englishes in ELT classrooms to better integrate them into the classroom for their cultural and linguistic value.

Language proficiency

Assessment criteria

In consistency with Lu (2019) and Si (2019a), most teachers prioritised prescriptive accuracy in assessment, emphasising standardised criteria in examinations and maintaining clear distinctions between correct and incorrect language usage with an emphasis on linguistic precision. In the meantime, a minority of participants prioritised communicative skills and intelligibility in assessment, as evident in Fang (2017) and Lu and Buripakdi (2020). These teachers mark flexibly and prioritise communication above spelling and grammar. They held that test design should also represent learners’ actual communication demands by aligning with practical language use (Fang & Widodo, 2019; Marlina, 2021; Rose et al., 2021). Therefore, in standardised tests, assessment procedures should be calibrated to prepare students for real-world communication (Fang, 2017).

Role models

Teachers were generally GELT-bound in role models, although some remain their priority in considering native speakers as role models. This is different from Galloway and Numajiri (2020), Lu and Buripakdi (2020), Fang and Wei (2018) and Galloway (2013) that revealed a preference for native English speakers as role models. This might be explained by the fact that this study was conducted in a Chinese high school where test-oriented education prevailed. In contrast, the previous studies were conducted in higher education, where testing might have impacted their perspectives less. In the current study, teachers preferred a Chinese role model because they wanted to accommodate their use of English to test for higher marks.

Learning goals

Supporting the research by Y. Zhang and Du (2018), some teachers regarded learning goals as communicating with all English speakers worldwide without obstacles. They admitted that many learners may not achieve native-like competency; therefore, the focus is on communicative capacity. This reflected that teachers appreciated multicompetence in GE-oriented language learning, which helps teachers prepare students for real-world language usage settings and boosts English language confidence and flexibility (Y. Wang, 2013; Y. Wang & Jenkins, 2016). In some educational institutions, standardised examinations and standards may drive teachers to compare pupils’ English to native speakers, according to Boonsuk et al. (2021). The contrast might imply that China’s curriculum’s emphasis on multicompetence and communicative goals may have encouraged teachers to take a more pragmatic and inclusive approach to language instruction.

Global insights and future directions

Relevance to the global contexts

The perceptions of Chinese English teachers in middle school, as revealed in this study, align with broader trends in ELT observed in other parts of the world (e.g. Boonsuk et al., 2021; Galloway & Rose, 2018; Rahimi & Ruzrokh, 2016), while also presenting some unique characteristics. Across the globe, there is a growing recognition of the importance of prioritising communicative effectiveness over native English precision in language teaching to address the real needs of English language learners in a globalised context. Additionally, educators worldwide are increasingly embracing a more flexible approach to language learning, acknowledging and celebrating the diversity of English varieties and language backgrounds among learners.

The perceptions of Chinese English teachers also present some unique challenges and considerations specific to the Chinese middle school context. The deeply-ingrained belief among ELT stakeholders in standardising ELT based on native English norms, as evidenced by the priority given to BrE and AmE in China’s ELT curricula in middle school, presents a notable contrast to trends observed in other educational contexts, especially in tertial levels. Additionally, the pressure to conform to language correctness and precision may be particularly pronounced in Chinese middle schools, given the cultural emphasis on academic achievement and standardised testing.

Implications for ELT

Based on the overall findings, the participants indicated two divergent perspectives regarding integrating the GE paradigm in ELT classrooms. One perception, which most participants shared, revealed a considerable priority for native English as the best model for English education due to ELT stakeholders’ profoundly-ingrained language ideology to standardise ELT based on native English. As is noticeable in most ELT classrooms, curricula, pedagogies, and textbooks, BrE and AmE have widespread dominance over China’s ELT, emphasising linguistic precision and adherence to standardised criteria (Fang & Ren, 2018; Si, 2019b; Y. Wang et al., 2020). The other perception held by a minority of participants demonstrated that English classrooms should prioritise the intelligibility of communication above native English precision and thus help equip learners for the future practice of English in reality and foster students’ comprehensive development in English learning. Based on the findings and discussion, the primary reason for these two contrasted views mainly lies in teachers’ concern over the legitimacy and standardisation of GE in teaching and assessment, underscoring the necessity of striking a delicate balance between standardisation and linguistic diversity in ELT. This balance is crucial as it allows educators to accommodate the standardisation needs while embracing the linguistic richness of global English varieties. Therefore, a middle ground is needed for ELT practices to serve learners’ language learning needs better.

Future research

In summary, this study contributes insights into the field of GE and GELT and identifies potential avenues for future research. It underscores the importance of further investigation into the implementation and effectiveness of communicative language teaching approaches and strategies for promoting multicompetence and embracing linguistic diversity in ELT settings. Additionally, there is a need for research that explores other stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences in navigating diverse language norms and identities.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the findings of this study shed light on the perceptions of Chinese English teachers regarding the integration of GE into ELT. Most participants prioritise native English as the ideal model, reflecting deeply-ingrained beliefs in standardising ELT based on native English norms. However, a minority advocate for prioritising communicative intelligibility over native English precision, recognising the practical realities of global communication and the challenges students face in adopting a perfectionist paradigm. These contrasting perspectives highlight the significance of finding a middle ground to balance standardisation and linguistic diversity in ELT to better address the needs of English language learners in a globalised context.

Based on the above, this paper argues that ELT teachers and planners may develop a more inclusive and flexible multicompetence model that prepares learners to communicate effectively in real-world situations. First, in the curricula design, ELT planners could integrate varied English variations like WE and diversify the sociocultural and sociolinguistic background in the curricula. In this way, it acknowledges the evolving nature of English as a global language and GELT-informed learning will gain more recognition and support from both the students and teachers. Second, in assessment, teachers should be flexible in evaluation and pay more attention to communication effectiveness and multicompetence than language precision alone. This will help create a supportive learning atmosphere that promotes mutual intelligibility, thus encouraging students to focus on practical language skills. Third, teachers should design classroom activities that offer genuine communication experiences or simulate real-life communication circumstances to encourage students to use English to communicate rather than to sound native. This promotes inclusivity and empowers students to navigate diverse communication settings with confidence. Overall, finding this balance fosters a more comprehensive and culturally responsive approach to ELT, ensuring that students are equipped with the skills and knowledge needed for success in an increasingly interconnected world.

However, the findings might not be generalised since they were based on qualitative exploratory research using a modest amount of data collected from one Chinese middle school. Geography, the number of participants, the typology of the school, and the coding and analysis process might influence the results of the findings. Future research can broaden the study to encompass other stakeholders, including students, policymakers, and curriculum designers, and use various data-gathering methods to give a more comprehensive picture of stakeholders’ perceptions of GE and GELT.

Acknowledgements

I would also like to thank the teachers for participating in the study. They contributed an abundant source of data to this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Yajing Fu

Yajing Fu obtained her BA English Teaching from South China Normal University and MA Education from the Institute of Education, University College London, UK. She currently works as an English teacher at Huizhou No.1 Middle School, Guangdong, China. She has led a research project funded by Huizhou University and Huizhou Education Department. Her research interests include Global Englishes, English language teaching and teacher development.