FOCUS ON ELT Focus on ELT Journal Special Issue, 4(1), 2022 ISSN: 2687-5381  Corresponding Author: tekinmustafa@comu.edu.tr Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to Focus on ELT Journal. An Experimental Study on EFL Teacher Trainees’ Opinions about English as a Lingua Franca Mustafa Tekin Lecturer, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey tekinmustafa@comu.edu.tr APA Citation: Tekin, M. (2022). An experimental study on EFL teacher trainees’ opinions about English as a lingua franca. Focus on ELT Journal, 4(1), 105-123. https://doi.org/10.14744/felt.2022.4.1.8 ABSTRACT The present study investigates three different groups of Freshman year EFL teacher trainees’ opinions regarding the English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Perspective in ELT. A quantitative quasi-experimental research design with repeated measures was used to investigate the initial opinions of the participants, and how their opinions changed after semester-long target culture native speaker-oriented class practices versus intercultural ELF-oriented practices as part of their Listening and Pronunciation course. A total of 83 students participated in the study. To collect data, a six-item mini questionnaire was used as pre and post survey immediately before and after the experiment. The results indicated that the teacher trainees under investigation favored native English varieties over nonnative ones while at the same time accepting the international lingua franca role of English in today’s globalized world. The three different treatments they took during the experiment caused some changes in their initial opinions as will be explained in detail in the coming sections of the paper. The overall findings of the study support previous research on language learners’ opinions about and attitudes towards different varieties of English, and their use in English lessons and course materials. Keywords English as a Lingua Franca, Language learner opinions, World Englishes, Teacher Trainees Article History Received : 17.10.2021 Revised : 06.12.2021 Accepted : 06.12.2021 Published : 04.04.2022 Type Research Article Introduction World Englishes (WE) and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) perspective in ELT The term of World Englishes (WE) was invented by Kachru (1985) and revised by Kachru (1992). Rajagopalan (2004) defines WE as “a hotchpotch of dialects and accents at different stages of nativization” (p. 115). In this respect, WE reflects the diverse ways English is adopted and used locally in different regions of the world; and it has by far the most influential model in reference to English use in the global world (Lai, 2008). In Kachru’s (1985, 1992) three-circle model, there are three concentric circles, each of which refers to a group of countries categorized according to the status and use of English in those countries. In this model, the inner circle countries are the ones where English has an official status, and it is commonly learnt as a mother tongue too. The outer circle countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Nigeria etc. come from a colonial past and therefore, English is learnt and used as a second language in these countries, usually as one of the official languages too. Finally, in the expanding circle, there are countries like Turkey, Japan and Spain, where English has neither an official status nor common use in daily life, but it is usually learnt at mailto:tekinmustafa@comu.edu.tr mailto:tekinmustafa@comu.edu.tr https://doi.org/10.14744/felt.2022.4.1.8 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8487-9718 Tekin, M. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2022, 4(1), Special Issue Focus on ELT www.focusonelt.com 106 schools as a foreign language for practical purposes (Bayyurt & Altinmakas, 2012). These countries do not have a colonial history unlike the ones in the outer circle. Inspired by this early model of Kachruvian concentric circles, some scholars (e.g., Jenkins, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2004) have suggested the idea of English as a Lingua Franca perspective in ELT. Their main argument is that English, today, is an international language which is commonly and widely used for communication across national boundaries and cultures (Jenkins, 2002; McKay, 2003); and the majority of interactions in today’s world do not conform to standardized grammar, lexical and pronunciation forms of English (Seidlhofer, 2004). ELF users acquire the language while at the same time using it in interactions (Canagarajah, 2007). This de facto situation raises the question of who the true owner of the English Language is (Widdowson, 2003), the answer of which, according to Crystal (2003) is that no one owns the English language in the new millennium because as he points out, English does not belong to any single national group in today’s globalized world. In other words, everyone who speaks English owns it too (Jenkins, 2006). Besides, new English forms keep emerging in different parts of the world, particularly in eastern contexts (Kachru, 2005) like China, Singapore, etc. From this aspect, English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) “is simply the product of all those who use it in their daily interactions” (Schmitz, 2012, p. 261). In a later definition, Jenkins (2007) suggests that ELF is “…an emerging language that exists in its own right and is being described in its own terms” (p. 2) [emphasis original]. As Canagarajah (2007) argues, ELF may adopt a variety of forms that change in accordance with different contexts and speakers. Similarly, Suzuki (2010) suggests that nonnative English varieties has a rather "dynamic and hybrid nature" (p. 146). Implications of the ELF perspective for ELT There has been an increasing level of interest on the pedagogical implications of ELF research (Galloway & Rose, 2014; Matsuda & Friedrich, 2011). Besides, there is a growing body of research which investigates the integration of a more ELF-informed (e.g., Galloway, 2013; Seidlhofer, 2011, 2013) and ELF-aware (e.g., Bayyurt & Altinmakas, 2012) perspective into ELT practices. The ELF perspective can contribute positively to the spread of English language because “those who opt for ELF … are free of linguistic and cultural imposition from outside and may be more motivated to learn the language” (Schmitz, 2012, p. 279); because Standard English is only one minority variety of contemporary English (Ling, 2008). From this aspect, emphasizing standardized native varieties as the only acceptable forms of English has a negative effect on the self-confidence of language learners (Farrell & Martin, 2009; Matsuda, 2003; Matsumoto, 2011). Therefore, researchers like Erling (2005) and Bayyurt and Altinmakas, (2012) call for a change in current ELT practices in the direction of their being more inclusive of nonnative varieties of English. Bayyurt and Sifakis (2013) suggest an ELF- aware approach to English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teacher education in order to make teacher candidates more aware of and knowledgeable about the ELF perspective. The ELF- informed pedagogy (see Jenkins, 2012; Seidlhofer, 2011, 2013) is to be achieved mainly through exposure to English varieties; and the transformative ELF-aware teacher education as suggested by Bayyurt and Sifakis (2013) is the recent promising implication of the ELF perspective for ELT. However, as Seidlhofer (2013) suggest, more research is needed, especially on how ELF communications are achieved in real life to implement ELF-informed Tekin, M. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2022, 4(1), Special Issue Focus on ELT www.focusonelt.com 107 and ELF-aware pedagogies in the language classroom. A general look at ELF research on learner attitudes An investigation into the literature reveals that language learners’ attitudes towards English varieties have also been a major area of interest in ELF research. Research on learner attitudes shows that many language learners still prefer a native spoken variety (General American or Received Pronunciation) of English as a reference point and model for their pronunciation skills (e.g., Bayyurt & Altinmakas, 2012; Zhang, 2005). Besides, the majority of language learners believe that the main purpose of learning English is to use it for communication with native speakers, and they usually stick to this belief (Jenkins, 2007) even after they become aware of the ELF perspective (Csizér & Kontra, 2012). Similarly, Ke and Cahyani (2014) emphasize the low speed of change in learners’ beliefs. In an earlier study, Prodromou (1992) found that 75% of the participants preferred British English whereas only 18% opted for the standard American variety as a model for themselves. Timmis (2002), similarly, revealed that language learners still prefer native Englishes as the only models for their language learning. In Friedrich’s (2002) study, when the participants were called to name an English variety, only British and American Englishes were mentioned, pointing to a lack of awareness regarding the other varieties. In Jenkins’ (2007) study on the beliefs and attitudes of nonnative and native speakers of English, the participants similarly preserved their initial feelings that they themselves and their students would rather learn the native speaker phonology than ELF. Similarly, Lai’s (2008) study revealed that language teachers in Taiwan had difficulties in following an ELF-informed pedagogy in their classes, due to the dilemma they face between the desire from language learners to achieve native-like proficiency in the target language on one hand, and the requirements of the ELF perspective on the other. In Suzuki’s (2010) qualitative study, none of the participants accepted L2 varieties as equal to American or British English even after they understood the importance of different English varieties. Pishghadam and Fahimeh’s (2011) study, similarly revealed that most Iranian teachers considered American English as the best standard form of English for teaching; and they added that using precious class time to teach and learn nonnative Englishes would be quite unnecessary. In Galloway’s (2013) study, the participants had more positive attitudes towards native varieties of English than nonnative ones. Their attitudes did not change significantly after voluntary exposure to spoken English varieties from all three circles of Kachru (1985, 1992). According to Galloway, there are a number of different factors that influence learner attitudes, some of which are existing stereotypes about nonnative accents and familiarity with native English accents. When we look at the Turkish context, we see a very similar picture. Based on the findings of a small-scale study conducted in a foreign language teacher education department of a Turkish university, Coşkun (2011) reports that the majority of English teacher candidates hold the belief that pronunciation classes are successful to the level they help them become as native-like as possible. Bayyurt and Altinmakas’ (2012) study, similarly, reveals that language learners at the English language and literature department of a Turkish private university initially report target culture and native varieties-oriented perspectives to ELT. They however Tekin, M. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2022, 4(1), Special Issue Focus on ELT www.focusonelt.com 108 change their initial perspectives after EIL awareness raising activities and ELF-aware practices in a semester-long oral communications class. Kaypak and Ortaçtepe (2014) found, similarly, that Turkish language learners prefer native English varieties over nonnative ones. According to Kaypak and Ortaçtepe, the main problem with Turkish ELT seems to be that English in the Turkish context is still seen as an inner-circle language. Teachers show these countries as role- models (Bayyurt, 2006), and course materials are still overpopulated with images reflecting the cultures and lifestyles of these countries (Dogançay-Aktuna, 2005). To sum up, previous research on attitudes towards English varieties almost unanimously reveals the superiority of native Englishes over nonnative ones in the eyes of language learners (e.g., Abeywickrama, 2013; Bayyurt & Altinmakas, 2012; Kaypak & Ortaçtepe, 2014; Ke & Cahyani, 2014; Kuo, 2006; Timmis, 2002). Nevertheless, language learners can still benefit from ELF-aware practices to be more aware and appreciate of linguistic diversity, as Galloway (2013), and Bayyurt and Altinmakas (2012) suggest. In Ke and Cahyani’s study (2014), for example, the participants became more aware and tolerant of different English varieties, and they developed an understanding about that inner circle norms might not be relevant in intercultural settings. Similarly, the participants of Bayyurt and Altinmakas’ (2012) study benefited positively from ELF-aware practices in an L2 oral communications class. Similarly, Friedrich (2002) and Kaypak and Ortaçtepe (2014) draw attention to the importance of familiarity with ELF as an important step forward to the implementation of an ELF-informed pedagogy in English lessons. In other words, language learners should be exposed to English varieties (Galloway, 2013; Matsuda & Friedrich, 2011; Uygun, 2012) to be more efficiently prepared for global English use in intercultural settings. Besides, Seidlhofer (2004) suggests that it should be a primary concern for teacher educators to raise language teacher candidates’ awareness regarding the ELF perspective, so that they can take better decisions in the light of this new perspective about which cultures and English varieties to include in English lessons. In this respect, the present study was conducted to find out about any attitudinal changes in EFL teacher trainees after exposure to and active involvement in intercultural ELF practices. More specifically the study investigates the following two research questions: Research Question 1: What are Freshman Year EFL teacher trainees’ initial opinions about the global role of English, and English as a Lingua Franca Perspective in ELT? Research Question 2: Would the participants’ opinions change in any way after exposure to different listening passages and active involvement in different culture teaching practices as part of a semester-long experiment? The Study Setting and participants A total of 83 freshman year students participated in the study at the ELT Department of Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University. 63 of them were female and 20 were male. Some of the participants (N=34) had previously attended the prep class, but the majority of them (N=49) had become the students of the department in their first year. The study was conducted on three separate groups of students who had previously been placed in three sections of the course ‘Listening and Pronunciation I’, as Class 1/A (N=29), Class 1/B (N=28), and Class 1/C (N=26). All of the participants were within the 18-25 age-group. Tekin, M. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2022, 4(1), Special Issue Focus on ELT www.focusonelt.com 109 Instruments The data in this study were collected through a mini questionnaire, that is, English as a Lingua Franca Opinion Survey (ELFOS) which was adapted from Miyagi (2006). The initial version of the questionnaire contained 8 structured items and a number of open-ended questions. The first version was piloted on 120 students, and then went through certain revisions accordingly. The results from the piloted ELFOS are not reported here to save space. Due to problems caused by similar items in the initial version during the piloting stage, the total number of items in ELFOS was reduced to six in the revised version. Besides, the semi-structured and open-ended questions were removed from the survey for the sake of clarity and precision. All of the items were thereby ensured to be related to the current position of English in today’s world, and the students’ opinions about it. The data collected through the pre/post ELFOS were analyzed through a number of parametric tests on SPSS for Windows, v.20. The data were first analyzed descriptively to get a better picture of each analysis and to notice any possible errors; and then they were checked for the normality of distribution as a prerequisite for parametric tests. Once it was ensured that there was normal distribution, parametric tests were administered. The results of these parametric analyses are discussed in the findings section of the paper. Procedures A quantitative quasi-experimental research design with repeated measures was used to collect the data, which were used for within-subjects and between-subjects comparisons. The quasi- experimental research design was chosen both for practical concerns, and also due to possible problems that might have resulted from distorting the existing groups and regrouping them for research purposes. The literature reveals the advantages of preserving the intact groups in terms of classroom dynamics (e.g., Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991). The three groups of participants, which were the intact sections of the freshman ELT students, were assigned the roles of two experimental groups and one control group. Preparatory class attendance status of the participants was taken into consideration as a criterion to determine the control group. More specifically, one section of the course hosted the majority of the students who had previously attended the departmental prep class (N=29 out of 34), and it was assigned the role of control group (COG henceforth). The experimental groups, which were the culturalist group (CG henceforth) and interculturalist group (IG henceforth), were similar in terms of the number of students who had attended the prep class; that is the overwhelming majority of the experimental group students (N=44 out of 49) had not attended the prep class. Therefore, the assignment was made randomly between the experimental groups. To put it more clearly, the two sections of the course Listening and pronunciation I were assigned the roles of CG and IG in a random way. The students were informed about the course content and procedures at the beginning of the semester, and their written consent was taken. However, an ethics committee application was not made because it was not required when the study was conducted. The two experimental groups took the semester-long native speaker/target culture oriented treatment (in the CG) versus ELF-informed/intercultural oriented treatment (in the IG). The control group (COG), on the other hand, did not take any culture-related instruction or Tekin, M. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2022, 4(1), Special Issue Focus on ELT www.focusonelt.com 110 listening practice but the students in this group were only exposed to English phonetics with inner circle norms. More specifically, they studied the phonetic rules of the Received Pronunciation (RP). ELFOS was administered twice as pre- and post- survey, that is immediately before the experiment and once more right after the experiment ended. Each of the three groups met once a week for the 135-minute course session under the supervision of the researcher. In the IG, the instruction and materials were of intercultural nature. On the other hand, the activities in the CG followed the traditional facts-transmission orientated culture teaching procedures, which only focused on the cultures of inner circle countries, or the so-called target cultures. All in all, the activities were similar in both experimental groups on the surface level but they differed greatly in terms of their content, aim, and scope. As for the listening exercises, only native varieties were used in the CG, as it is usually the case in a traditional ELT classroom (see Doğançay-Aktuna, 2005). On the other hand, the participants in the IG were exposed to a number of both native and nonnative varieties through their specially prepared textbook. Listening exercises were altogether avoided in the COG. Table 1 displays the classroom procedures that were followed in the same way on each week of the intervention. Table 1. Weekly classroom procedures Experimental Groups Control Group Each weekly class meeting of 11 total intervention weeks Activity Type Duration (min.) Activity Type Duration (min.) 1st Session (60-65 minutes) Brainstorming on the culture topic of the week 5-10 Lectures and exercises on RP phonetics and rules of Standard British English pronunciation 60-65 Presentation on the culture topic of the week 25-30 Whole class discussion about the presentation 5-10 Focus group discussions on the presented topic 10-15 15-minute break 2nd Session (60-65 minutes) Various listening exercises and related discussions 60-65 Lectures and exercises on RP phonetics and rules of Standard British English pronunciation 60-65 Findings Tests of normality When the distributions of the pre and post ELSOS scores were checked with the Kolmogorov- Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests of normality, normal distribution was found at both measures under investigation (p>.05). Therefore, the data were available for the use of parametric tests. The results of the normality tests are displayed in Table 2. Tekin, M. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2022, 4(1), Special Issue Focus on ELT www.focusonelt.com 111 Table 2. Results of normality tests Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df p Statistic df p Pre ELFOS .051 83 .200 .980 83 .236 Post ELFOS .060 83 .200 .983 83 .358 A one-way ANOVA on the pre-ELFOS did not indicate any statistical difference between the groups. In other words, the groups were thinking similarly on the ELFOS items in Time 1, that is before the experiment started. In the first part of this section, the participants’ answers to the pre-ELFOS are given. Bar charts are provided in order to better visualize the results for easier reading. It is worth mentioning here that similar options in the ELFOS such as ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ are presented as one option: ‘agree’ in the bar charts for better representation of the results. Pre-ELFOS results Research Question 1 is answered in this section: What are Freshman Year EFL teacher trainees’ initial opinions about the global role of English, and English as a Lingua Franca Perspective in ELT? Descriptive statistics of the pre-ELFOS are provided in Table 3. Table 3. Descriptive statistics of pre-ELFOS Item # Item Mean SD 1 English is an international common language 2.96 .18 2 English only belongs to the nations who use it as their mother tongue (e.g. England, America, Australia, New Zealand etc.) 1.21 .56 3 As long as one gets the meaning across, how one speaks English does not matter. 2.07 .90 4 I would like to learn about nonnative English accents too as a part of the Listening and Pronunciation course. 2.65 .65 5 I would like the lecturers in my department to use the native accents of English while lecturing. 2.53 .65 6 I would like to speak with a native accent of English. 2.91 .38 For better illustration of the results, the findings are presented and discussed item by item, and under each item, a bar chart is provided in order to visualize the participants’ opinions for easier reading of the findings. Item 1: ‘English is an international common language.’ When the participants were asked about the place of English in today’s globalized world, 96.4% (N=80) agreed that English is an international common language whereas only 3,6% (N=3) disagreed with this statement. The results are displayed in Figure 1. Tekin, M. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2022, 4(1), Special Issue Focus on ELT www.focusonelt.com 112 Figure 1. Percentage bar chart for ELFOS Item 1 This finding clearly indicates that the participants of this study are aware of the global lingua franca role that English plays in today’s globalized word because the overwhelming majority of them perceive English as an international common language. Item 2: ‘English only belongs to the nations who use it as their mother tongue (e.g., England, America, Australia, New Zealand etc.)’ The percent of the replies to this item is given in Figure 2. Figure 2 indicates that the great majority of the participants (85.5%, N=71) disagree with the proposition that the native speakers of English are the only owners of the English language. On the other hand, only 7.2% (N=6) agree with this statement and the same number of the participants neither agree nor disagree with it. Figure 2. Percentage bar chart for ELFOS Item 2 Based on the findings from the first two items, it would not be wrong to claim that the Turkish EFL teacher candidates who were the participants of this study were both aware of the changing role of English (see Item 1) and the implications of this change in terms of the Tekin, M. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2022, 4(1), Special Issue Focus on ELT www.focusonelt.com 113 ownership of English. To put it more clearly, they do not see the inner circle countries as the sole owners of the English language. These findings imply the participants have realized that English has gone much beyond the national boundaries of certain countries in order to become a global lingua franca in today’s globalized world. Item 3: ‘As long as one gets the meaning across, how one speaks English does not matter.’ This statement was included in the ELFOS in order find out about the participants’ priorities: that is, whether communication or oral accuracy comes first in their use of the English language. This particular item was expected to yield important data about the importance of the NS norms to the Turkish EFL teacher candidates under investigation. The results are given in Figure 3. Figure 3. Percentage bar chart for ELFOS Item 3 As can be inferred from Figure 3, the Participants of the study are split into two in terms of their opinions regarding the priority of accuracy or communication (i.e., using the native speaker norms or being able to communicate in English no matter how). To put it more clearly, 44.6% (N=37) of the participants agree that it is important to be able to communicate in English, and also that as long as you can communicate with the other person, how you speak the language is not very important. On the other hand, nearly the same number of them (37.3%, N=31), disagree with this statement, and thereby prioritize accuracy over communication. 15 participants (18.1%) did not state any opinion on the issue. According to these results, it would not be wrong to claim that the participants are split in half regarding Item 3 of the ELFOS. In other words, they have differing ideas about the importance of accuracy over communication or vice versa. More specifically, approximately half of the participants prioritize accuracy, and the other half communication before the experiment. Item 4: ‘I would like to learn about nonnative English accents too as a part of the Listening and Pronunciation course.’ The results of Item 4 are presented in Figure 4. Tekin, M. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2022, 4(1), Special Issue Focus on ELT www.focusonelt.com 114 Figure 4. Percentage bar chart for ELFOS Item 4 This fourth item was incorporated into the questionnaire in order to collect data about the participants’ reactions towards the inclusion of nonnative English varieties in English lessons. This item was worded by targeting a particular course; that is the Listening and Pronunciation course because of two reasons: it seemed to be the most relevant course for the inclusion of nonnative English varieties, and also the researcher was offering this course at the time of data collection. Figure 4 clearly displays that the majority of the participants agree with this statement. More specifically, 74.7% (N=62) of the participants reported a positive opinion about the teaching of different English accents as a part of the Listening and Pronunciation Course. In other words, learning about different English varieties is perceived as a desirable activity by these participants. 15.7% (N=13) participants did not indicate a clear opinion on the item; and only 9.6% (N=8) were opposed to the idea of incorporating nonnative English accents into the course syllabus. According to these results, the majority of the EFL teacher candidates in this study display positive attitudes towards the teaching of different English accents in the Listening and Pronunciation Course. Item 5: ‘I would like the lecturers in my department to use the native accents of English while lecturing.’ The fifth item of the questionnaire aimed to find out about the participants’ expectations about the English used by their lecturers. In a way, it was related to the third item; that is, as long as you can communicate in English, how you speak it is not very important. The results are displayed in Figure5. Figure 5 clearly indicates that for the majority of the participants (61.4%, N=51) the lecturers’ accents are important, and that they would prefer native-like English in lectures. In addition, a relatively high percent of the students (30.1%, N=25) did not state any opinion on the item. Only a small minority of the Participants (8.4%, N=7) disagreed with the proposition in this item. These results clearly indicate that native-likeness is still valued by Turkish ELF teacher candidates. Tekin, M. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2022, 4(1), Special Issue Focus on ELT www.focusonelt.com 115 Figure 5. Percentage bar chart for ELFOS Item 5 The findings from Item 5 may seem to be contradicting the results of Item 4 at first glance. However, a thorough analysis on the results reveals no contradiction. After all, it is one thing to learn about different accents of English as a requirement of the pronunciation course, and yet quite another thing to use them in class for instructional purposes. All in all, the majority of the participants would not welcome nonnative lecturers. Item 6: ‘I would like to speak with a native accent of English.’ This last item aimed to discover the participant’s expectations about themselves; more clearly whether they would prefer to be native-like English users or not. The results are displayed in Figure 6. These results are in keeping with the results of the previous item because in both items the participants clearly indicated how much they valued the native accents of English. Just as most of them favored native-like lecturers in Item 5, the overwhelming majority (95.2%, N= 79) of them reported a desire for the ability to speak English with a native accent in this item. Only 3.6% (N=3) disagreed with the statement, and one student was undecided about it. Figure 6. Percentage bar chart for ELFOS Item 6 When the results from items 5 and 6 are read together, it can clearly be seen that for Turkish ELF teacher candidates, native like usage of English is still an important goal. It is hardly surprising, however, when one thinks about all the emphasis on native-like accuracy and Tekin, M. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2022, 4(1), Special Issue Focus on ELT www.focusonelt.com 116 pronunciation in almost all of the English courses they have taken so far (see Bayyurt & Altinmakas, 2012). Post-ELFOS results Research Question 2 is answered in this section: Would the partipants’ opinions change in any way after exposure to different listening passages and active involvement in different culture teaching practices as part of a semester-long experiment? ELFOS was administered after the experiment as a post scale to reveal the possible changes in the participants’ opinions about the same six items. In order to determine the effects of time and group on the students’ responses, the means of each item in the pre-ELFOS was also compared with the mean scores of the post-ELFOS through a repeated measures MANOVA. The results are reported with one-tailed significance values since the direction of the change was predicted before the experiment. Descriptive statistics of the post-ELFOS are given in Table 3. Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the post-ELFOS Item # Item Mean SD 1 English is an international common language 2.96 .24 2 English only belongs to the nations who use it as their mother tongue (e.g. England, America, Australia, New Zealand etc.) 1.32 .66 3 As long as one gets the meaning across, how one speaks English does not matter. 2.24 .84 4 I would like to learn about nonnative English accents too as a part of the Listening and Pronunciation course. 2.45 .80 5 I would like the lecturers in my department to use the native accents of English while lecturing. 2.54 .66 6 I would like to speak with a native accent of English. 2.80 .57 The results of the MANOVA revealed a main effect of time only on Item 4 (F1,80=3.35, p=.036, ηρ²=.040) and Item 6 (F1,80=3.68, p=.029, ηρ²=.044), as well as an interaction effect between time and group on Item 3 (F2,80=5.85, p=.002, ηρ²=.128). To put it more clearly, the participants’ opinions regarding Item 4 and 6 changed significantly after the experiment; and this change was independent of the groups. More specifically, more participants disagreed with Item 4, and agreed with Item 6 in Time 2. The LSD post-hoc test revealed that the only significant mean difference (p=.013) occurred between the IG (M=4.01, SE=.16) and COG (M=3.50, SE=.15). The main effects of time and group on Item 4 (I would like to learn about nonnative English accents too as a part of the Listening and Pronunciation course) is seen in Figure 7. Tekin, M. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2022, 4(1), Special Issue Focus on ELT www.focusonelt.com 117 Figure 7. Main effect of time on ELFOS Item 4 Figure 7 clearly shows a noteworthy negative change in the COG regarding their views about the teaching of nonnative English varieties. They were less willing to learn about those accents in the classroom. Minor insignificant changes were observed in the other two groups. The IG students more or less preserved their initial positions regarding this item. The main effect of time on Item 6 (I would like to speak with a native accent of English) can be seen in Figure 8. As displayed in Figure 13, more students disagreed with this statement from Time 1 to Time 2, indicating that they would not like to speak with a native accent of English, and the decrease in their mean scores of the item was independent of the groups. The sharpest decrease was determined in the IG. This opinion change can be a result of the participants’ raised awareness levels regarding the difficulty, or impossibility of speaking with a native accent. In this respect, both culturalist and interculturalist practices may have affected their opinions. The participants might have discovered that it was not possible for them to be native-like after they became more acquainted with English varieties and their own accents. Therefore, some students might have abolished the unrealistic goal of being native-like, and adopted the realistic goal of intelligibility. Figure 8. Main effect of time on ELFOS Item 6 Tekin, M. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2022, 4(1), Special Issue Focus on ELT www.focusonelt.com 118 The between-subjects MANOVA results, on the other hand, indicated a statistically significant main effect of group only on Item 3 (F2,80=2.72, p=.036, ηρ²=.064). An investigation into possible interaction effects on the same item revealed that time interacted significantly with group only on Item 3. In other words, only Item 3 (as long as one gets the meaning across, how one speaks English does not matter) differentiated the three groups after the experiment. The time and group interaction can be seen in Figure 9, which clearly shows that the COG students did not change their opinions on this item in Time 2. There was a slight decrease in the number of participants who disagreed with it in the CG. The most radical change was observed in the IG, indicating more positive opinions regarding the priority of communication over accuracy or vice versa. More specifically, the students in the IG reported a stronger belief after the experiment that communication was more important than accuracy. Figure 9. Time and group interaction on ELFOS Item 3 A reading of items 3 and 6 together reveals that ELF-informed interculturalist practices can affect Turkish EFL teacher candidates’ opinions in the sense that they may not want to speak English with a native accent anymore, and they instead start to believe that as long as one gets the meaning across, how one speaks English is not that important. In other words, interculturalist practices help language learners prioritize communication over accuracy. Discussion Learner beliefs and attitudes have a context specific and dynamic nature; therefore, they may show great variation in different contexts and times (Tanaka & Ellis, 2003). The descriptive analysis of the ELFOS revealed strongly positive attitudes towards native English varieties; and generally positive opinions about the teaching of culture and nonnative varieties in the language classroom. These results clearly indicate the superiority of native English accents over nonnative ones as role models for the Turkish EFL teacher candidates in this study. As for the nonnative accents, the majority of them are not against their introduction to the language classroom in the format of general knowledge. However, they would certainly avoid these accents in their own speech. One can also infer from these results that Turkish EFL teacher candidates will mainly use the native varieties of English when they themselves become teachers of English. Tekin, M. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2022, 4(1), Special Issue Focus on ELT www.focusonelt.com 119 The findings of the present study are similar to those of Uygun’s (2012), and Galloway and Rose’s (2014) because in both of these studies, the participants understood the changing global role of English in today’s world, and also prioritized communication over native-like accuracy; but still preferred native English varieties for their own learning. In other words, they had a relatively high level of awareness regarding the ELF perspective but had little or no idea about what this new perspective implied in terms of FL teaching and learning. Csizér and Kontra’s (2012) study, which was conducted on 239 Hungarian language learners, reported similar findings in the sense that their participants were trapped between, on one side, awareness of the ELF perspective, and on the other, the importance of native English as a role model. The standard native English variety exerted a more powerful effect on the participants’ thinking even after becoming aware of the ELF perspective. The Analysis of the ELFOS by means of MANOVA indicated a main effect of time on Item 4 and Item 6, and an interaction effect between time and group on Item 3. In other words, the participants’ opinions regarding items 4 and 6 changed significantly after the experiment irrespective of group; and their opinions about Item 3 created significant group differences. In other words, Item 3 was the only item of the ELFOS that differentiated the groups significantly in Time 2. To put it more clearly, the IG participants agreed more with the statement that ‘as long as one can communicate, how one speaks English is not very important’. In this respect, it can clearly be seen that the experiment was successful in helping the IG members to prioritize communication over accuracy. Although the within-subjects contrasts of MANOVA did not show any time-group interaction on Item 4, the between-subjects analysis revealed a significant main effect of group on this item. Besides, the LSD post hoc test showed a significant difference between the COG and IG, with a noteworthy decrease in the COG’s scores. The IG students preserved their previous position, and the CG participants, though not significant, disagreed less with the statement in Time 2, that is immediately after the experiment. The COG’s responses to Item 4 underline the negative impact of native variety-only (RP in this case) phonetics instruction on attitudes towards the use of nonnative accents in the classroom. From this aspect, undergraduate ELT programs can be redesigned or simply enriched with ELF and intercultural practices. The participants’ opinions changed significantly from Time 1 to Time 2 on Item 6 of ELFOS too. Although this change was not enough to create group differences, it was still noteworthy so see a decrease in the mean scores of all groups. To put it more clearly, significantly more participants disagreed with the idea of speaking with a native accent of English in Time 2. This change might have resulted from a sufficient number of participants’ realization of the fact that it was not possible for them to speak with a native accent of English. Native-likeness is an unrealistic goal anyway (Seidlhofer, 2004). In this respect, the participants of this study prioritized mutual intelligibility more (see Jenkins, 2006) in Time 2. The significant time-group interaction on Item 3 scores also supports this finding. The COG, on the other hand, did not change their opinions significantly, and the CG agreed less with it, thereby putting accuracy before communication. These findings display the effect of the intervention, and clearly emphasize the important effect of presenting linguistic and cultural diversity in the language classroom on language learners’ perceptions about English native accents. IG’s prioritization of intelligibility over native-like accuracy in Time 2 can be seen as a good predictor of their future practices as language teachers. When they become teachers, they are Tekin, M. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2022, 4(1), Special Issue Focus on ELT www.focusonelt.com 120 expected to be concerned more with communication rather than error correction, and thereby contribute positively to their students’ communicative skills. The findings also support Bayyurt and Altinmakas’ (2012) and Uygun’s (2012) studies in the sense that the great majority of Turkish EFL university students take native English varieties as models for themselves, which indicates that sounding native-like is still very important for Turkish EFL learners. 66% of Uygun’s participants, who were EFL teacher candidates, reported that they would prefer a native English variety when they became teachers. Like the participants of Bayyurt and Altinmakas but unlike those of Uygun’s, however, the majority of the participants in the present study reported a preference for the RP rather than the GA. The participants of both Uygun’s study and this study reported similar reasons for preferring one of the two native English accents though; more specifically, the GA is generally perceived to be clearer and easier to understand whereas the RP is seen as the original spoken form of the English Language, and also more prestigious. When it comes to exposing learners to nonnative English varieties, 71% of Uygun’s participants reported that it was important to familiarize students with different Englishes, which is also in keeping with the findings of the present study. When the findings of both studies are taken together, it is clearly seen that for Turkish EFL teacher candidates, the inner circle standard accents are still important both as models for their own learning, and also for instructional purposes. However, they also believe that exposure to nonnative varieties is important, but only for creating familiarity with different English accents. They do not want to take them as models. Conclusion As reported by Coşkun (2010), The Council of Turkish Higher Education supports the ELF perspective from an exposure point of view for the course Listening and Pronunciation II. The council especially suggests the presentation of native and nonnative spoken English varieties together in this course. Although it is an important step to weaken the hegemony of inner circle countries and their Englishes in ELT programs, many teacher educators unfortunately ignore this recommendation, and still prioritize the RP or GA phonetics in their courses. Besides, other EFL teacher education courses prioritize the inner circle countries, their English varieties, lifestyles, literatures too as if they were the sole owners of the English Language (Bayyurt & Altinmakas, 2012). This study shows that such practice has a negative impact on Turkish EFL teacher candidates’ PC. In other words, they become less welcoming of both cultural and linguistic diversity. Needless to say, when these teacher candidates become teachers of English, they are likely to prioritize native countries and their Englishes, and this vicious circle makes a revolutionary change in ELT practices impossible. If language learners realize that there is not only one correct form of English, they will feel better about their own Englishes (see Farrell & Martin, 2009; Matsuda, 2003; Matsumoto, 2011). According to the results of this study, EFL teacher candidates may still set being native- like as a goal in their learning (e.g., Csizér & Kontra, 2012; Galloway, 2013; Galloway & Rose, 2014; Matsuda, 2003; Rivers, 2011; Uygun, 2012), but the realization that even native speakers vary to a large extent in their English will hopefully lead them to become more critical of the whole concept of Native English as well as the superiority of it over nonnative English varieties. In short, this study reveals that, making a significant difference is possible through following different classroom procedures and materials throughout a freshman year course in an ELT Tekin, M. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2022, 4(1), Special Issue Focus on ELT www.focusonelt.com 121 program of a Turkish university; and this finding has implications for future researchers who want to conduct studies on ELF. Acknowledgements The data reported in this article were taken from Mustafa TEKİN’s Unpublished Doctorate Thesis entitled “Effect of a culturalist versus an interculturalist approach in ELT on Turkish EFL teacher candidates’ proteophilic competence”. METU (2015). I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Prof. Gölge Seferoğlu, my PhD thesis supervisor, for making this possible for me. It would have been very difficult to complete my thesis without her encouraging guidance and support. References Abeywickrama, P. (2013). Why not nonnative varieties of English as listening comprehension test input? RELC Journal, 44(1), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212473270 Bayyurt, Y. (2006). Non-native English language teachers’ perspective on culture in English as a foreign language classrooms. Teacher Development, 10(2), 233-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530600773366 Bayyurt, Y., & Altinmakas, D. (2012). A WE-based English communication skills course at a Turkish university. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Principles and practices of teaching English as an international language (pp.169- 182). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847697042-013 Bayyurt, Y., & Sifakis, N. C. (2013, February). Transforming into an ELF-aware teacher: insights from a self- education program. In New frontiers in teaching and learning English: Book of abstracts. Symposium conducted at Verona University, Italy. Canagarajah, A. S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 923-939. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00678.x Coşkun, A. (2010). Whose English should we teach? Reflections from Turkey. ESP World, 9(1), 1-20. Coşkun, A. (2011). Future English teachers' attitudes towards EIL pronunciation. The Journal of English as an International Language, 6, 47-68. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486999 Csizér, K., & Kontra, E. (2012). ELF, ESP, ENL and their effect on students’ aims and beliefs: a structural equation model. System, 40(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.01.002 Doğançay-Aktuna, S. (2005). Intercultural communication in English language teacher education. ELT journal, 59(2), 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1093/eltj/cci023 Erling, E. J. (2005). The many names of English: A discussion of the variety of labels given to the language in its worldwide role. English Today, 21(1), 40-44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078405001094 Farrell, T. S. C., & Martin S. (2009). To teach standard English or World Englishes: A balanced approach to instruction. English Teaching Forum, 2, 2-7. Friedrich, P. (2002). Teaching world Englishes in two South American countries. World Englishes, 21(3), 441- 444. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00263 Galloway, N. (2013). Global Englishes and English language teaching (ELT) – bridging the gap between theory and practice in a Japanese context. System, 41(3), 786–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.019 Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2014). Using listening journals to raise awareness of global Englishes in ELT. ELT Journal, 68(4), 386–96. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu021 https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212473270 https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530600773366 https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847697042-013 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00678.x https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486999 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.01.002 https://doi.org/10.1093/eltj/cci023 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078405001094 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00263 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.019 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu021 Tekin, M. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2022, 4(1), Special Issue Focus on ELT www.focusonelt.com 122 Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991) The Research Manual: Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Heinle & Heinle. Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23, 83-103. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.1.83 Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 157–181. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264515 Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: attitude and identity. Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2012). English as a Lingua Franca from the classroom to the classroom. ELT Journal, 66(4), 486– 494. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs040 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 literature (pp. 11-30). Cambridge University Press. Kachru, B. B. (1992). World Englishes: approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching, 25, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800006583 Kachru, B. B. (2005). Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon. Hong Kong University Press. Kaypak, E., & Ortaçtepe, D. (2014). Language learner beliefs and study abroad: A study on English as a lingua franca (ELF). System, 42, 355-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.01.005 Ke, I., & Cahyani, H. (2014). Learning to become users of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF): How ELF online communication affects Taiwanese learners' beliefs of English. System, 46, 28-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.008 Kuo, I. C. (2006). Addressing the issue of teaching English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 60(3), 219-221. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl001 Lai, H.-Y. (2008). Learning English as an international language or not? A study of Taiwanese students’ motivation and perceptions.’ Unpublished EdD thesis, University of Warwick, U.K. Ling, S. (2008). World Englishes and English language teaching. Sino-US English Teaching, 5(12), 58-62. Matsuda, A. (2003). Incorporating World Englishes in teaching English as an international language. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 719-729. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588220 Matsuda, A., & Friedrich, R. (2011). English as an international language: A curriculum blueprint. World Englishes, 30, 332–344. Matsumoto, Y. (2011). successful ELF communications and implications for ELT: sequential analysis of ELF pronunciation negotiation strategies, The Modern Language Journal, 95(1) 97-114. McKay, S. (2003). Teaching English as an international language: The Chilean context. ELT Journal, 57(2), 139- 148. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.2.139 Miyagi, K. (2006). Japanese EFL teachers’ perceptions of nonnative varieties of English: Are they ready to include other Englishes in their classrooms? Unpublished M.A. thesis. McGill University, Montreal, Canada. Pishghadam, R., & Fahimeh, S. (2011). A qualitative analysis of ELT in the language institutes of Iran in the light of the theory of ‘World Englishes’. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(3), 569-579. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.3.569-579 Prodromou, L. (1992). What culture? Which culture? Cross-cultural factors in language learning. ELT Journal, 46, 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/46.1.39 Rajagopalan, K. (2004). The concepts of “World English” and its implications for ELT. ELT Journal, 58(2), 111- 117. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.2.111 Rivers, D. J. (2011). Japanese national identification and English language learning processes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.09.006 Schmitz, J. R. (2012). ‘To ELF or not to ELF’: English as a Lingua Franca: That’s the question for applied https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.1.83 https://doi.org/10.2307/40264515 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs040 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800006583 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.01.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.008 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl001 https://doi.org/10.2307/3588220 http://www.mendeley.com/research/successful-elf-communications-implications-elt-sequential-analysis-elf-pronunciation-negotiation-str/ http://www.mendeley.com/research/successful-elf-communications-implications-elt-sequential-analysis-elf-pronunciation-negotiation-str/ https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.2.139 https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.3.569-579 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/46.1.39 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.2.111 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.09.006 Tekin, M. / Focus on ELT Journal, 2022, 4(1), Special Issue Focus on ELT www.focusonelt.com 123 linguistics in a globalized world. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 12(2), 249-284. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-63982012000200003 Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209-239. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190504000145 Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford University Press. Seidlhofer, B. (2013, February). ELF-informed pedagogy: from code-fixation to language awareness. In new frontiers in teaching and learning English: Book of abstracts. Symposium conducted at Verona University, Italy. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0243 Suzuki, A. (2010). Introducing diversity of English in ELT: student teachers' responses. ELT Journal, 65(2), 145- 153. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq024 Tanaka, K., & Ellis, R. (2003). Study-abroad, language proficiency, and learner beliefs about language learning. JALT Journal, 25(1), 63-85. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTJJ25.1-3 Timmis, I. (2002). Native speaker norms and international English: a classroom view. ELT Journal, 56(3), 240- 249. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.3.240 Uygun, D. (2012). Attitudes of Turkish prospective EFL teachers towards varieties of English. ELF5 Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca, May 24-26, 2012, Istanbul. Boğaziçi University, (pp. 183-189). Boğaziçi University Press. Widdowson, H. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford University Press. Zhang, L. J. (2005). Awareness-raising in the TEFL phonology classroom: Student voices and sociocultural and psychological considerations. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 145(1), 219-268. https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.145.0.562915 Copyrights Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the Journal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-63982012000200003 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190504000145 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0243 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq024 https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTJJ25.1-3 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.3.240 https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.145.0.562915