University students' perceptions of English as an International

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

ISSN: 0143-4632 (Print) 1747-7557 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

University students’ perceptions of English as an International Language (EIL) in Taiwan and South Korea Ju Seong Lee & Jun Chen Hsieh To cite this article: Ju Seong Lee & Jun Chen Hsieh (2018): University students’ perceptions of English as an International Language (EIL) in Taiwan and South Korea, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2018.1438448 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1438448

Published online: 13 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmmm20

JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1438448

University students’ perceptions of English as an International Language (EIL) in Taiwan and South Korea Ju Seong Leea and Jun Chen Hsiehb a

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA; Graduate Institute of Network Learning Technology, National Central University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan

b

ABSTRACT

ARTICLE HISTORY

This study investigated Taiwanese and Korean students’ perceptions of four aspects of English as an International Language (EIL): Current Status of English (CSE), Varieties of English (VE), Strategies for Multilingual/ Multicultural Communication (SMC), and English Speakers’ Identity (ESI). The authors surveyed a total of 246 non-English majors at one university (N = 105) in Taiwan and at two universities (N = 141) in South Korea. Three major findings were identified in this study: first, these contemporary Far Eastern EFL students positively endorse general concepts of EIL. Second, both groups perceive their English ownership in a similar, positive manner in contrast to their own local varieties such as Taiwanese English and Korean English. Third, English listening materials that include non-native English-speaking (NNES) accents, and interaction between NNESs seem to be less accepted by Korean students than is the case for Taiwanese students. Along with practical suggestions, this study will add new knowledge to the current EIL literature and expand our understanding of this issue across different contexts.

Received 16 December 2017 Accepted 4 February 2018 KEYWORDS

English as an International Language (EIL); perception; the expanding circle; Taiwan; South Korea

Introduction With the rapid advancement in technology, combined with the proliferation of globalisation, interaction with diverse English users in multicultural and multilingual contexts has become the norm today (Mrak 2000; Friedman 2005a). The spread of English as an International Language (EIL) has consistently posed new challenges to conventional English language teaching (ELT), particularly in non-native English-speaking (NNES) countries. Therefore, the topic of EIL has garnered much research attention in TESOL and applied linguistics during the past four decades (Smith 1976; Kachru 1985; McKay 2002; Matsuda 2017). In particular, perception studies of EIL have significantly evolved in various NNES contexts (Sasayama 2013; Ahn 2015; Hundt, Zipp, and Huber 2015; Bernaisch and Koch 2016). In recent years, several studies have also attempted to examine EFL students’ perceptions regarding EIL in cross-cultural contexts (Jeon and Lim 2013; Ke and Cahyani 2014). However, these studies focused mainly on EIL users in one geographic area or those having a similar first language (L1) linguistic background (e.g. Ren, Chen, and Lin 2016). Therefore, to date, cross-cultural perspectives of EIL users have yet to be fully clarified by empirical research. Further, past research mainly concentrated on narrow dimensions of EIL such as phonology and lexcio-grammar, overlooking other aspects of the field (Ren, Chen, and Lin 2016). Hence, insights into students’ multifaceted perceptions of EIL across diverse cross-cultural contexts are much needed in the field in order to expand our understanding of this issue in light of a CONTACT Jun Chen Hsieh

[email protected]

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2

J. S. LEE AND J. CHEN HSIEH

more macro perspective. Given such a timely and critical issue with regard to EIL, but having limited research efforts in addressing students’ perceptions of EIL across different contexts, this study aims at filling these research gaps by shedding light on the EIL perceptions between Taiwanese and Korean university students.

Literature review English as an International Language With the rapid development in technology and proliferating globalisation, interaction with diverse English users in multicultural and multilingual contexts has become the norm today. Dicken (1998, 5) conceptualised this process of globalisation as ‘not merely the geographical extension of economic activity across national boundaries but also – and more importantly – the functional integration of such internationally dispersed activities’ (Italics added by the authors). Concurrent with Dicken’s concept, Mrak (2000) conceptualised globalisation as ‘the process of continuing integration of the countries in the world … [, which] marks a qualitative break with the past’ (1). Friedman (2005b) coined this phenomenon as ‘a flat world’, with a particular emphasis on the critical role of technology: ‘web-enabled playing field … allows for multiple forms of collaboration on research and work in real time, without regard to geography, distance or, in the near future, even language’ (251). As the role and status of English has become more important and prestigious in this interconnected world, ELT has significantly evolved, particularly in NNES countries, because of their national development and global competitiveness (Graddol 1997; Nunan 2003). However, EIL scholars have consistently challenged the notion that ELT does not reflect the reality of English usage and its users today (Smith 1976, 1983; Kachru 1985; McKay 2002; Matsuda 2012, 2017). In a broad sense, Matsuda (2017) conceptualised EIL as a function that English performs in international, multilingual contexts, to which each speaker brings a variety of English that they are most familiar with, along with their own cultural frames of reference, and employs various strategies to communicate effectively (xiii, Italics added by the authors).

In other words, English is now used as an international language (a.k.a. English as an International Language –EIL) globally between people from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Nevertheless, conventional ELT is still confined within a monolingual and static paradigm of English and ELT teachers (Kachru 1976, 1985, 1986; Smith 1976, 1983; McKay 2002; Sharifian 2009; Matsuda 2012, 2017; McKay and Brown 2016). For example, ELT practices and tests tend to adopt standard varieties (e.g. American or British English) as the absolute criterion and push their students to speak like a native English speaker (NES) (Crystal 2003, 2010; McKay and Brown 2016). Similarly, ELT textbooks do not manifest diverse perspectives of cultural content but focus predominately on British and American culture (Shin, Eslami, and Chen 2011). In addition, in many NNES countries, NESs, who are often ELT teachers from inner circle countries, are deemed ideal ELT teachers regardless of their qualifications or relevant experience (Kachru 1985; Oda 2017). Perceptions of EIL Against this background, during the past two decades several perception studies on the topic of EIL have been conducted in various NNES countries.1 In Sri Lanka, Bernaisch (2012) showed that standard varieties such as American English (AmE) and British English (BrE) were highly preferred in comparison to Sri Lankan English (SLE) and Indian English (IE). In India, Bernaisch and Koch’s (2016) study was consistent with Bernaisch (2012), reporting that Indians favoured BrE over the other varieties of English (i.e. AmE, IE and SLE). In the Republic of Fiji, BrE and AmE enjoyed their popularity among Fijian university students (Hundt, Zipp, and Huber 2015). Tan and Tan (2008) reported that standard varieties are highly favoured among Singaporean secondary students. In Turkey, Coskun (2011) found that prospective English teachers often perceived NES accents as

JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

3

the yardstick and ideal pedagogical model in the classroom. These studies showed that Standard English such as AmE and BrE was generally considered prestigious languages, while the respondents held mixed perceptions regarding their local varieties, such as SLE, IE, Fiji English, and Singaporean English (or Singlish). In Far Eastern regions, the topic of EIL perceptions has also garnered much research attention. In Japan, Japanese students have consistently reported that they prefer native English accents such as AmE and BrE over their local variety (i.e. Japanese English [JE]) (Chiba, Matsuura, and Yamamoto 1995; Matsuda 2003; Tokumoto and Shibata 2011), although Sasayama’s (2013) recent study found that Japanese EFL university students considered JE as the acceptable form of English for international communication. Yu (2010) showed that Chinese university students were generally aware of varieties of English and held positive perceptions toward their own local variety (i.e. Chinese English [CE]). In contrast, Wang (2015) found that Chinese university students (N = 1589) were unwilling to accept CE as the legitimate version in the English classroom, in that they had a strong aspiration to achieve NES-like pronunciation. In studies examining the attitudes of Taiwanese people to different varieties of English, researchers found an overwhelming preference for AmE as regards status and solidarity (Liou 2010; Chien 2014). In Korea, Ahn (2014, 2015) showed mixed findings: although Korean ELT teachers seemed to accept a local variety (Korean English [KoE]) as the appropriate one in her 2014 study, they seemed hesitant to approve other regional varieties such as CE, SE, IE, and JE in her 2015 study. EIL users’ perceptions in cross-cultural contexts The literature above indicates that, to date, most studies on EIL perceptions have focused on a homogeneous group of EIL users. Hence, several recent studies have attempted to explore EFL students’ perceptions regarding EIL in different cross-cultural contexts in order to advance our understanding of their perceptions. For instance, Ke and Suzuki (2011) showed that Taiwanese EFL university students enhanced their multicultural and multilingual awareness and communication strategies through a cross-cultural online exchange project, focusing on Japanese students, which ‘helped them better prepare for future interactions with other NNSs’ (180). However, they also found that most Taiwanese EFL university students who participated in the study still perceived NNS as the ideal model after the nine-week intervention. Similarly, Ke and Cahyani (2014) found that Taiwanese EFL university students engaged in a transcultural online exchange project with Indonesian students for eight months and, consequently, began to recognise the role of English as an EIL in crosscultural contexts. Jeon and Lim (2013) showed that Korean EFL elementary school students were placed in cross-cultural contexts with Taiwanese students via videoconferencing, and, as a result, improved their transcultural and communication competencies. In a more recent study, Lee, Nakamura, and Sadler (2017) also used videoconferencing technology to construct an authentic EIL environment in a Japanese private university. There, Japanese students interacted with EIL users with diverse English accents who represented three circle countries, thereby showing mostly positive perceptions toward EIL. Despite their attempts to explore EIL users’ perceptions in cross-cultural contexts, the above studies mainly concentrated on EIL users in one geographic area. Consequently, cross-cultural perspectives of EIL users have yet to be fully clarified by empirical research. Only recently did Ren, Chen, and Lin (2016) examine Chinese and Taiwanese students’ perceptions of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF)2/EIL, and report that there were variations on the perceptions of ELF between the two groups. Although the students were recruited from two different geographical areas, they still shared a similar L1 linguistic background (i.e. Mandarin Chinese). Further, Ren, Chen, and Lin (2016) focused solely on linguistic aspects of EIL – namely, phonology and lexcio-grammar – leaving out other dimensions of EIL. Thus, insights into students’ multifaceted perceptions of EIL across diverse cross-cultural contexts are much needed in order to further enrich our understanding of this inquiry on a global scale. Given the importance of EIL and the limited research efforts in documenting

4


students’ perceptions of EIL across different contexts, this study aims to examine EIL perceptions of Taiwanese and Korean university students. Specifically, it focuses on four research questions (RQ): RQ#1: To what extent do students in Taiwan and Korea differ in their perceptions of Current Status of English (CSE)? RQ#2: To what extent do students in Taiwan and Korea differ in their perceptions of Varieties of English (VE)? RQ#3: To what extent do students in Taiwan and Korea differ in their perceptions of Strategies for Multilingual/ Multicultural Communication (SMC)? RQ#4: To what extent do students in Taiwan and Korea differ in their perceptions of English Speakers’ Identity (ESI)?

Methods Participants and contexts As part of a larger study, the data (N = 246) were gathered from 105 students (Female = 63; Male = 42) from one Taiwanese university and 141 students (Female = 73; Male = 68) from two Korean universities based on a convenient sampling. They were all Taiwanese and Korean ethnicities, who spoke Standard Mandarin Chinese and Korean as their first languages. Taiwanese and Korean were chosen because, unlike Ren, Chen, and Lin’s (2016) study, both countries do not share the same L1, cultural, and sociopolitical systems. Thus, this study allowed for an investigation into whether or to what extent university students with different cross-cultural backgrounds perceive EIL. At the discretion of researchers and instructors, Taiwanese and Korean students’ English proficiency levels were considered as lower-intermediate, based on their Advanced Subjects Test results (Kuo 2016; Chou 2017) and the Productive Vocabulary Levels Test (Laufer and Nation 1999). Students from both groups were older than 18 years of age, and the average age of Taiwanese and Korean students was 19 and 21, respectively. At the time of this study, all Taiwanese students (100%) and 127 Korean students (90.1%) had been studying English for more than six years. The Taiwanese students consisted of freshmen (N = 40, 38.1%) and sophomores (N = 65, 61.9%), and the Korean group was composed of freshmen (N = 64, 45.4%) and sophomores (N = 77, 54.6%). Both groups were composed of non-English majors: Taiwanese students majored in Business (N = 41, 39%), Tourism Management (N = 3, 0.3%), Digital Media Design (N = 18, 17.1%), and Visual Communication Design (N = 43, 40.9%), and Koreans also represented a mixture of: the Humanities (N = 54, 38.3%), Engineering (N = 61, 43.3%), Science (N = 3, 2.1%), and various other majors (N = 23, 16.3%). Instrument and procedure The present study employed a self-report questionnaire, with two sections. The first section asked participants about their background information, such as gender, age, grade, major, and length of time studying English. In light of the EIL Perception Scale (Lee et al. 2017), the second section encompassed a 5-point Likert scale, with 14 items being scored from 1 ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’, which addressed students’ perceptions about four aspects of EIL, namely, Current Status of English (CSE), Varieties of English (VE), Strategies for Multilingual/Multicultural Communication (SMC), and English Speakers’ Identity (ESI). Lee et al. (2017) ran a pilot study twice, with 186 ESL/EFL university students participating, to ensure the clarity and precision of the questionnaire items through the forward- and backward-translation technique and reverse-coding items. They also checked for content validity, internal consistency, and the factorial structure of the questionnaire items by employing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). This study carried out exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using the IBM SPSS Statistics 24 program, and found that the new data also identified the four constructs of EIL. Principal components


5

analysis was employed as the extraction technique, with promax rotations. A minimum eigenvalue of 1, factor loading greater than 0.5, and communality above 0.5 were all applied (Hair et al. 1998). Researchers also rechecked reliability (i.e. internal consistency) and validity (i.e. construct validity) of the questionnaire in order to generate more quality data and credible information. First, its reliability was evaluated through Cronbach’s alpha (a) and composite reliability (CR). Accordingly, Cronbach’s a for all factors passed the minimum threshold of 0.7, ranging from 0.71 to 0.85. CR, which is less biased than Cronbach’s a, also exceeded the threshold of 0.70, ranging from 0.80 to 0.85 (Hair et al. 1998). Second, construct validity was assessed through convergent validity. Specifically, the average variance extracted (AVE) assessed the convergent validity of the questionnaire, which exceeded the acceptable level of 0.50, ranging from 0.50 to 0.65 (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Prior to the implementation of the study, the students were informed of the purpose of the current study, and their participation was voluntary. The authors and the course instructors administered the survey in the classroom (Table 1). Data analysis Given the satisfactory reliabilities, corresponding items loaded onto each construct were standardised as CSE (three items), VE (four items), SMC (four items), and ESI (three items). Subsequently, the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) for each variable were averaged, and the descriptive statistics concerning these four factors were examined (see Table 2). Finally, an independent samples ttest was performed to examine the differences between Taiwanese and Korean students with respect to their EIL perceptions.

Results As presented in Table 2, the overall results of the EIL survey revealed that the participants expressed positive responses to the four constructs, with CSE receiving the highest positive responses, followed by ESI, VE, and SMC. In terms of CSE aiming to assess perceptions about the CSE, English was recognised by most of the participants as an international language for global communication in Table 1. Results of EFA, reliability and validity. Factor structure coefficient Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Eigenvalues Explained variable (%) Cumulative variable (%) Cronbach’s α (retained items) CR AVE Factor name

1

2

3

4

Communality

.83 .80 .79 .29 .25 .16 .07 .27 .10 .47 .21 .20 −.02 .22 5.55 39.66 39.66 .85 .85 .65 CSE

.17 .21 .25 .73 .76 .79 .71 .22 .25 .23 .20 .14 .09 .04 1.69 12.08 51.74 .82 −.84 .56 VE

.20 .17 .20 .22 .16 .17 .27 .71 .80 .51 .77 −.14 .41 .04 1.17 8.35 60.09 .79 .80 .50 SMC

.12 .16 .15 .16 −.07 .22 .06 .03 −.06 .20 .13 .79 .71 .80 1.14 8.13 68.21 .71 .81 .60 ESI

.77 .73 .75 .69 .67 .73 .59 .63 .71 .56 .66 .70 .68 .69

6


Table 2. Descriptive data on the four constructs of EIL. Constructs

No. of items

M

SD

3 4 4 3

4.12 3.49 3.44 3.53

0.77 0.79 0.75 0.79

CSE VE SMC ESI

diverse aspects, such as business, culture, and education. With respect to VE addressing attitudes about English-related varieties, the participants in both countries expressed their acceptance of different varieties of English and of teachers’ using listening materials that contained interactions among non-native English speakers. With regard to multilingual/multicultural communication strategies included in SMC, the results indicated a self-adjustment in conversational styles and behaviour, the ability to explain personal cultural tendencies and customs, and open-mindedness to foreign cultures. Finally, in the evaluation of the participants’ perceptions of English speakers’ identities, their responses highlighted the identities they belong to and the importance of mutual intelligibility of English usage in preference to the pursuit of correct or native-like English. An independent-sample t-test was employed to determine whether the mean scores of the four EIL constructs significantly differed between the two groups. Table 3 shows that there were significant differences between the two groups in CSE [t(243.4) = 2.68, p < .01], VE [t(244) = 5.32, p < .01], and SMC [t(244) = 4.55, p < .01]. However, there was no significant difference for Korean or Taiwanese students in ESI [t(275) = −1.16, p > .05]. This finding indicates that while Taiwanese students and their Korean counterparts both agreed on the identity issue, as well as on the issue of mutual intelligibility of English, significant differences existed in their understanding of EIL for global communication in diverse aspects, their attitudes toward English-related varieties, and their strategies adopted for multilingual/multicultural communication. RQ#1: CSE To answer RQ#1, addressing the extent to which students in Taiwan and Korea differ in their CSE, the researchers examined the students’ responses to the three items in CSE. Table 4 shows the results of the construct of CSE, with both groups responding positively to a higher degree – with all of the mean scores being greater than 3.89 (out of the five-point Likert scale). On average, responses from the Taiwanese students in the three items were higher than those of the Korean participants. A closer probe into the three survey items revealed mixed results between the two groups. Specifically, the score on CSE 1 from the Taiwanese students (M = 4.5, SD = 0.71) was significantly higher than that of the Korean students (M = 4.19, SD = 0.91) [t(275) = 2.83, p < .05]. In addition, the score on CSE 2 was higher for the Taiwanese (M = 4.12, SD = 0.87) than for Koreans (M = 3.89, SD = 0.9) at a significant level [t(227.1) = 2.09, p < .05]. Levene’s test indicated unequal variances (F = .03, p = .86), so degrees of freedom were adjusted from 244 to 227.1. However, significant differences in CSE 3 were not found between the two groups [t(275) = 1.9, p > .05]. Table 3. Korean and Taiwanese students’ average responses to the four EIL constructs. Constructs CSE VE SMC ESI Note: **p < 0.01.

Group Taiwanese Korean Taiwanese Korean Taiwanese Korean Taiwanese Korean

M (SD) 4.27 (0.65) 4.01 (0.83) 3.78 (0.62) 3.27 (0.83) 3.68 (0.57) 3.23 (0.82) 3.47 (0.73) 3.59 (0.83)

t 2.68**

Cohen’s d 0.34

5.32**

0.64

4.55**

0.55

−1.16

−0.14


7

Table 4. The results on the construct of ‘CSE’. Items (CSE 1) English is used today as an international language to communicate effectively with people from around the world. (CSE 2) Many non-native English-speaking countries currently use English as their official or working language. (CSE 3) English is the language of business, culture, and education around the world today.

Group

M (SD)

t

Taiwanese Korean Taiwanese Korean Taiwanese Korean

4.5 (0.71) 4.19 (0.91) 4.12 (0.87) 3.89 (0.90) 4.18 (0.90) 3.96 (0.87)

2.83* 2.09* 1.9

Note: *p < 0.05.

RQ#2: VE In the exploration of the students’ VE, embedded in RQ#2, their results from the four survey items indicated relatively higher responses among the Taiwanese students than their Korean counterparts. Furthermore, significant differences in all of the items were found between the two participating groups (as shown in Table 5). To be more specific, scores on VE 1 were higher for the Taiwanese students (M = 3.74, SD = 0.91) than for the Koreans (M = 3.36, SD = 1.02) at a significant level [t(234.6) = 3.11, p < .05]. Levene’s test indicated unequal variances (F = 1.92, p = .17), so degrees of freedom were adjusted from 244 to 234.6. With respect to VE 2, the results showed that the Taiwanese students scored significantly higher (M = 3.71, SD = 0.97) than the Korean students (M = 3.26, SD = 1.06) [t(233.9) = 3.53, p < .01]. Levene’s test indicated unequal variances (F = 0.58, p = .45), so degrees of freedom were adjusted from 244 to 233.9. In addition, the analysis of VE 3 yielded differences between the Taiwanese participants (M = 3.71, SD = 0.85) and their Korean counterparts (M = 3.3, SD = 0.95) at a significant level [t(235.5) = 3.55, p < .01]. Levene’s test indicated unequal variances (F = 1.05, p = .31), so degrees of freedom were adjusted from 244 to 235.5. Last but not the least, the score on VE 4 was significantly higher for Taiwanese students (M = 3.95, SD = 0.7) than for Korean students (M = 3.16, SD = 1.00) [t(244) = 7.01, p < .01]. VE 4 showcased the largest differences between the two groups. RQ#3: SMC A deep probe into RQ#3, focusing on strategies the participants adopted for multilingual or multicultural communication revealed a similar pattern between the two groups, as observed in RQ#2, with significantly higher responses among the Taiwanese students than the Korean counterparts. Table 6 shows the participants’ responses to the four items included in the construct of SMC. The score on SMC 1 was significantly higher for Taiwanese (M = 3.77, SD = 0.68) than for Koreans (M = 3.15, SD = 1.01) [t(244) = 5.44, p < .01]. Such a tendency could also be identified in SMC 2, with the Taiwanese students scoring significantly higher (M = 3.39, SD = 1.01) than the Korean students (M = 2.8, SD = 1.08) [t(232.4) = 4.19, p < .01]. Levene’s test indicated unequal variances (F = 0.001, p = .98), so degrees of freedom were adjusted from 244 to 232.4. In terms of SMC 3, Table 5. The results on the construct of ‘VE’. Items (VE 1) Different varieties of English, such as Hong Kong English, Indian English, and Singaporean English, are acceptable today. (VE 2) Teachers can use English listening materials that are recorded by people who have different kinds of English accents. (VE 3) Different varieties of English, such as Indonesian English, Taiwanese English, and Japanese English, are acceptable today. (VE 4) Teachers can include the interaction between non-native and non-native English speakers (e.g. Indonesian-Japanese speakers) in English listening materials. Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Group Taiwanese Korean Taiwanese Korean Taiwanese Korean Taiwanese Korean

M (SD) 3.74 (0.91) 3.36 (1.02) 3.71 (0.97) 3.26 (1.06) 3.71 (0.85) 3.30 (0.95) 3.95 (0.70) 3.16 (1.00)

t 3.11* 3.53** 3.55** 7.01**

8


Table 6. The results from the construct of ‘SMC’. Items (SMC 1) I can adjust my conversational style according to my interactions with people from other cultural backgrounds. (SMC 2) I can explain my own culture and customs clearly in English to people from other cultures. (SMC 3) I am open-minded about accepting speaking/pronunciation patterns that are different from those of my home country. (SMC 4) I can behave appropriately according to English users I speak with.

Group

M (SD)

t

Taiwanese Korean Taiwanese Korean Taiwanese Korean Taiwanese Korean

3.77 (0.68) 3.15 (1.01) 3.39 (1.01) 2.83 (1.08) 4.0 (0.76) 3.75 (0.95) 3.55 (0.88) 3.29 (0.91)

5.44** 4.19** 2.20* 2.27*

Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

the score was again higher for Taiwanese (M = 4.0, SD = 0.76) than for Koreans (M = 3.75, SD = 0.95) at a significant level [t(244) = 2.20, p < .05]. Moreover, the score on SMC 4 was significantly higher for Taiwanese (M = 3.55, SD = 0.88) than for Koreans (M = 3.29, SD = 0.91) [t(229.1) = 2.27, p < .05]. Levene’s test indicated unequal variances (F = 0.14, p = .71), so degrees of freedom were adjusted from 244 to 229.1. Among the four survey items, the largest difference between the two groups existed in SMC 1. Extra attention should also be given to SMC 2, as it deals with explaining native culture and customs in English to people having different cultural backgrounds. In this context, the level of the Korean students’ responses was below 3. RQ#4: ESI Finally, with regard to the participants’ perceptions of ESI, as examined in RQ#4, the results in Table 7 show that while the two groups were both positive about the identify issue and the mutual intelligibility of English usages, significant differences in the three survey items were not found among the participants. Furthermore, the Korean students scored higher than their Taiwanese counterparts on all of three items. Both groups responded with above-average agreement to ESI 1 ‘English teachers should not push me to speak like a “native” English speaker’ and ESI 3 ‘It is unnecessary to speak like American or British English speakers as long as my English is intelligible (or understandable) to others’, while reacting relatively lower in ESI 2, stating, ‘I don’t mind if people laugh at my English accent when I speak because it is my own English’.

Discussion This study yielded three major findings. First, both Taiwanese and Korean university students gave, on average, positive ratings for all four dimensions of EIL. This finding suggests that these contemporary Far Eastern EFL students who do not major in English positively endorse general concepts of EIL. Previous studies have indicated that more exposure to diverse EIL users and materials could contribute to enhancing students’ awareness and attitudes regarding EIL (Ke and Suzuki 2011; Hino 2012, 2017; Jeon and Lim 2013; Ke and Cahyani 2014; Lee et al. 2017). However, these past studies employed an EIL-integrated instructional intervention as a means to raise students’ EIL awareness, whereas the current study investigated EIL perceptions through the use of a Table 7. The results on the construct of ‘ESI’. Items (ESI 1) English teachers should not push me to speak like a ‘native’ English speaker. (ESI 2) I don’t mind if people laugh at my English accent when I speak because it is my own English. (ESI 3) It is unnecessary to speak like American or British English speakers as long as my English is intelligible (or understandable) to others.

Group

M (SD)

t

Taiwanese Korean Taiwanese Korean Taiwanese Korean

3.52 (1.02) 3.68 (0.97) 3.23 (0.98) 3.30 (1.02) 3.65 (0.98) 3.77 (0.98)

−1.21 −0.59 −0.93


9

cross-sectional survey. In this regard, this finding helps us obtain more accurate information concerning the current status of the phenomenon in question among EFL students in Far East regions. Specifically, this study found that CSE (M = 4.12, SD = 0.77) was scored highest, followed by ESI (M = 3.53, SD = 0.79), VE (M = 3.49, SD = 0.79), and SMC (M = 3.44, SD = 0.75). In reference to previous studies (Lai and Zheng 2017; Lee 2017), it can be implied that more exposure to global issues and cross-cultural content by means of a range of digital devices (e.g. smartphone) and resources (e.g. social media) readily available to today’s young EFL students may have contributed to a higher level of CSE. In this regard, it remains to be empirically verified whether and to what extent the digital technology can be conducive to the EFL students’ CSE, which may merit further investigation. In contrast, VE and SMC were relatively lower, perhaps due to limited opportunities and resources in EFL settings for exposure to and use of EIL (Hino 2012, 2017). Second, Taiwanese and Korean students shared a common perception of ESI [t(275) = −1.16, p > .05]. This finding indicates that both groups have a similar degree of ownership over their own local varieties of English, such as Taiwanese English (TaE) and KoE. In particular, the result from ESI 2 seems contrary to earlier findings. While Japanese (Matsuda 2003) and Korean EFL learners (Ahn 2014) did not seem to strongly claim ownership of JE and KoE, Taiwanese and Korean university students in this study were found to positively perceive their English ownership as indicated in above-average endorsement of this item (Taiwanese = 3.23; Korean = 3.30). Although values of ESI 2 provided quantitative evidence, further studies may consider using a parallel scale measuring the same construct to substantiate this claim. In addition, Taiwanese students scored higher in CSE [t (243.4) = 2.68, p < .01], VE [t(244) = 5.32, p < .01], and SMC [t(244) = 4.55, p < .01] than was the case for Korean students. This indicates that significant differences exist between two groups in their understanding of EIL for global communication in diverse aspects, as well as in their attitudes about English-related varieties and strategies that might be adopted for multilingual/multicultural communication. Intriguingly, there were significant statistical differences between the two groups on VE and SMC. Two interpretations are possible to explain this phenomenon: first, Korean students might have scored lower on VE and SMC due to Korea’s distinctive sociopolitical context; this could include the washback effect of high-stakes English tests (e.g. college entrance exam and TOEIC) or teaching styles (e.g. didactic, form-focused teaching) (Choi 2008; Kim 2010). For example, most Korean high school students are very serious about taking the College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT) for university admission. Since the English listening questions on the CSAT contain solely an AmE accent, Korean students tend to practice the English listening skill mainly with American pronunciation during their secondary education. Additionally, a CSAT-oriented curriculum and method of instruction (e.g. emphasis on form-focused lessons, reading comprehension, and grammar/translation) seem to prevent Korean students from fostering their SMC. However, it is also well documented that Taiwan students are heavily influenced by similar sociopolitical influences (Yai 2008; Yu 2008; Tsai and Tsou 2009), including the utilitarian purpose of memorisation for tests in a testoriented English learning environment, English teaching and learning for passing international standardised English tests such as TOEFL, TOEIC and IELTS, and the adoption of such standardised English proficiency tests as a graduation benchmark among Taiwanese universities. Therefore, an alternative interpretation could be found in context-specific educational factors, such as teacher-related influences and curricula. That is, such external factors may have influenced Taiwanese students’ VE in a more positive manner (Bartram 2010). For instance, a Taiwanese instructor who taught Taiwanese participants has received a MA degree in the field of EFL from the UK. According to her account, she has actively attended international conferences and has traveled to several outer and expanding circle countries on a regular basis. During class time, she shared her multilingual and multicultural experiences with her students. She also made an effort to integrate the acceptance of and appreciation for diverse cultures and language varieties into her teaching approach and materials. In comparison with the Taiwanese instructor, in-class observations of those Korean instructors revealed a greater emphasis on linguistic accuracy, as evidenced by their

10


focuses on correct grammar and translation usages rather than on international communication. Because of this teacher factor, therefore, the Taiwanese students’ VE might have been positively affected. In the same vein, the course and curriculum factor might also have come into play. At the time of this study, the Taiwanese instructor taught the course ‘Business English’ with the objectives of promoting learners’ communicative skills in diverse business scenarios while interacting with other English users from all over the world. The nature of such courses might also have significantly affected the students’ mindsets about English. However, a follow-up, semi-structured interview may be necessary to back up this claim and tap deeper into participants’ opinions on this matter. With regard to the last major finding among the questionnaire items, VE 4 [t(244) = 7.01, p < .01] demonstrated the largest difference between the two groups. Specifically, English listening materials containing NNS accents and interaction between NNSs seem to be less accepted by Korean university students (M = 3.16, SD = 1.00) than by Taiwanese (M = 3.95, SD = 0.7). This finding is parallel to an earlier observation that the exclusive use of AmE on the CSAT English listening test may not be conducive to enhancing Korean students’ positive VE (Ahn 2014). According to the National Curriculum Information Center (2016), there had been a gradual increase in the number of English listening questions in the CSAT, from 10 (out of 50 questions; 20% of the English test) in 1994 to 22 (out of 45; 49%) in 2014, for the purpose of strengthening Korean students’ communicative competence. Given that Korean students aspire to acquire high English scores on the CSAT due to instrumental and competitive L2 motivation (see Kim [2010], 215, for a detailed discussion), it seems plausible that the sole inclusion of AmE on such a high-stakes test may have forced students to focus mainly on standard English and, consequently, suffer detrimental effects with regard to their VE. Although Chou (2015, 2017) discussed the washback of English listening on Taiwanese students’ attitudes about English learning, its impact on students’ VE was not addressed, and it did not appear as strong as in Korea. In other words, the Test of English Listening Comprehension was initially introduced in 2012 and used as a public examination until 2015. For this reason, English teachers in Taiwan tend to focus significantly more on English reading, grammar, and translation than listening in the classroom (Chou 2017). Hence, it can be implied that Taiwanese EFL learners might not have received as much exposure to a particular standard variety accent (e.g. AmE) as Koreans who received massive input on AmE through formal, non-formal, and informal teaching and learning approaches (Kang 2015). In this regard, future research may consider investigating the impacts of high-stakes English listening tests and English teachers’ models with respect to students’ perceptions about VE. These findings, along with previous studies, may offer important implications for L2 practitioners. First, the pedagogical benefits of technology, such as online collaboration and telecollaboration via CMC, could be integrated into language curricula so that EIL learning contexts could be effectively constructed. Although these results were not specifically revealed in our data, online technologies have been found to help learners to overcome geographic barriers and create more interactional opportunities with other English speakers located in far-away places (Mullen, Appel, and Shanklin 2009; Jeon and Lim 2013; Ke and Cahyani 2014). In addition, CMC creates an authentic and meaningful setting for language learners and diverse English speakers to interact anytime and anywhere if granted access to an Internet connection (Lee et al. 2017). Further, as a method that provides a collaborative learning context, CMC has proven to prepare language learners to be culturally appropriate, given that intercultural awareness increases when learners from different countries and cultures mutually interact (Alonso-Belmonte and Fernández-Agüero 2015; Vinagre 2016). Consequently, such online collaboration can create an online learning community that enables EFL learners to develop socially and intellectually through interaction with and help from other English users (Vikneswaran and Krish 2016). In addition, online resources, including interactions between NNSs, are recommended for use in language instruction, with an aim to provide students with diverse forms of linguistic input. As widely reported in a number of existing studies (e.g. Matsuda 2012, 2017), exposure to varieties of English other than ‘standardised’ AmE and BrE in the classroom helps EFL students to increase their awareness of English as an EIL. Thus, EIL educators have incorporated the presence of


11

international guests (Galloway and Rose 2013) and the use of blogs (Tanghe 2014) into their lesson plans in an effort to construct an authentic EIL classroom environment. Correspondingly, instructors can optimise the potential effects that online technologies and resources generate to help students experience EIL and, thereby, enhance their overall perception of EIL, including their understanding of the CSE, attitudes about different varieties of English, strategy adjustments for multicultural communication, and perceptions of English speakers’ identities.

Conclusion This study set out to unravel Taiwanese and Korean EFL university students’ perceptions of four aspects of EIL (i.e. CSE, VE, SMC, and ESI). Three main findings were identified. First, Taiwanese and Korean students positively approve general concepts of EIL. Second, both groups perceive their English ownership over their own local varieties, such as TaE and KoE, in a similar, positive manner. Third, English listening materials that include NNES accents and interaction between NNESs seem to be less accepted by Korean university students than by their Taiwanese counterparts. Hence, these findings offer significant pedagogical implications. Nonetheless, we are aware of several limitations of the study. First, due to the nature of this exploratory study, our data were obtained from one Taiwanese university and two Korean universities, through a convenient sampling. Therefore, the findings may not be representative of the vast majority of Taiwanese and Korean students. Participants from different universities in various regions of both countries should be recruited to substantiate our findings. However, given that a study on EIL users’ perceptions in cross-cultural contexts is quite limited in the existing literature, we believe that this study can be a good starting point to prompt more such comparative studies with regard to examining the effect of heterogeneous linguistic and sociocultural backgrounds on EIL users’ perceptions (Ren, Chen, and Lin 2016). Second, as indicated in the Taiwanese case, in-class pedagogy conducted by the instructor might have affected the participants’ EIL perceptions. Given the critical role that teachers play in potentially influencing their students’ perceptions of EIL, future studies may need to consider teacher factors, such as teacher belief and teaching style, to better account for these potential influences. Third, caution may be needed when analysing self-reported questionnaire data. Although these data can be used to understand the participants’ EIL perceptions, students could also under-report. Additionally, some respondents may have a varying degree of understanding or interpretation about a particular question. For future research, therefore, additional data sources such as interviews and observations should be supplemented, which will allow us to have a more nuanced, accurate understanding of the current phenomenon. Finally, previous studies (e.g. Kaypak and Ortaçtepe 2014) showed that students’ perceptions of EIL could be affected by their overseas experience. Although we included nonEnglish majors for the analysis to reduce potential compounding effects, future studies should take students’ study abroad experiences – including their respective destinations – into account as a potential covariance, so as to strengthen this finding. With the advancement of digital technology and the rapid global increase in EIL communication, it is of paramount importance for ELT educators and researchers to understand EFL students’ perceptions regarding EIL in cross-cultural contexts. This study offers novel insights into students’ multifaceted perceptions of EIL across diverse cross-cultural contexts and enriches our understanding of this issue from a global perspective. Future research may merit examining students’ EIL perceptions in diverse cross-cultural contexts, which will advance our understanding of this issue and contribute to the current EIL attitudes research.

Notes 1. In light of Kachru’s (1986), three concentric circles of world Englishes, NNES countries encompass both outer (i.e. English is used as official and additional language) and expanding circle (i.e. English is used as foreign language) classifications.

12


2. According to Matsuda (2017), although similar concepts such as English as a lingua franca, Global Englishes and World Englishes carry slightly different meanings, their visions and practical suggestions have much in common, which can be subsumed in a broad sense under the concept of EIL.

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References Ahn, H. 2014. “Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Korean English in South Korea.” World Englishes 33 (2): 195–222. Ahn, H. 2015. “Awareness of and Attitudes to Asian Englishes: A Study of English Teachers in South Korea.” Asian Englishes 17 (2): 132–151. Alonso-Belmonte, I., and M. Fernández-Agüero. 2015. “Practical Proposals for the Development of Intercultural Communicative Competence in EFL: What Textbooks Won’t Tell you.” In Productive Foreign Language Skills for an Intercultural World: A Guide (Not Only) For Teachers, edited by Michal B. Paradowski, 163–178. Bern: Peter Lang. Bartram, B. 2010. Attitudes to Modern Foreign Language Learning: Insights from Comparative Education. London: Continuum. Bernaisch, T. 2012. “Attitudes Towards Englishes in Sri Lanka.” World Englishes 31 (3): 279–291. Bernaisch, T., and C. Koch. 2016. “Attitudes Towards Englishes in India.” World Englishes 35 (1): 118–132. Chiba, R., H. Matsuura, and A. Yamamoto. 1995. “Japanese Attitudes Toward English Accents.” World Englishes 14 (1): 77–86. Chien, S. C. 2014. “Varieties of English: Taiwanese Attitudes and Perceptions.” Newcastle and Northumbria Working Papers in Linguistics 20: 1–16. Choi, I. C. 2008. “The Impact of EFL Testing on EFL Education in Korea.” Language Testing 25 (1): 39–62. Chou, M. H. 2015. “Impacts of the Test of English Listening Comprehension on Students’ English Learning Expectations in Taiwan.” Language, Culture and Curriculum 28 (2): 191–208. Chou, M. H. 2017. “Impacts of the Test of English Listening Comprehension (TELC) on Teachers and Teaching in Taiwan.” Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education 2 (5). doi:10.1186/s40862-017-0028-9. Coskun, A. 2011. “Future English Teachers’ Attitudes Towards EIL Pronunciation.” Journal of English as an International Language 6 (2): 46–68. Crystal, D. 2003. English as a Global Language. 2th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. 2010. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dicken, P. 1998. Global Shift. London: Paul Chapman. Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (3): 382–388. Friedman, T. 2005a. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Friedman, T. 2005b. “It Is a Flat World, After All.” In The Globalization and Development Reader: Perspectives on Development and Global Change, edited by J. T. Roberts and A. B. Hite, 247–256. Oxford: Oxford Press. Galloway, N., and H. Rose. 2013. “They Envision Going to New York, not Jakarta: The Differing Attitudes Toward ELF of Students, Teaching Assistants, and Instructors in an English-Medium Business Program in Japan.” Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2 (2): 229–253. Graddol, D. 1997. The Future of English. London: British Council. Hino, N. 2012. “Participating in the Community of EIL Users Through Real-Time News: Integrated Practice in Teaching English as an International Language (IPTEIL).” In Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language, edited by Aya Matsuda, 183–200. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hino, N. 2017. “Training Graduate Students in Japan to be EIL Teachers.” In Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language, edited by Aya Matsuda, 87–100. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hair, J. F., R. L. Tatham, R. E. Anderson, and W. Black. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall International. Hundt, M., L. Zipp, and A. Huber. 2015. “Attitudes in Fiji Towards Varieties of English.” World Englishes 34 (4): 688–707. Jeon, H. Y., and H. W. Lim. 2013. “The Effects of Korean-Taiwanese Students’ Telecollaboration on Korean Students’ Intercultural Competence and English Speaking Ability.” English Language Teaching 25 (3): 365–386. Kachru, B. B. 1976. “Models of English for the Third World: White Man’s Linguistic Burden or Language Pragmatics?” TESOL Quarterly 10 (2): 221–239.


13

Kachru, B. B. 1985. “Standards, Codification and Sociolinguistic Realism: The English Language in the Outer Circle.” In English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures, edited by R. Quirk and H. Widdowson, 11–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kachru, B. B. 1986. The Alchemy of English. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Kang, O. 2015. “Learners’ Perceptions Toward Pronunciation Instruction in Three Circles of World Englishes.” TESOL Journal 6 (1): 59–80. doi:10.1002/tesj.146. Kaypak, E., and D. Ortaçtepe. 2014. “Language Learner Beliefs and Study Abroad: A Study on English as a Lingua Franca (ELF).” SYSTEM 42: 355–367. Ke, I. C., and H. Cahyani. 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. Ke, I.-C., and T. Suzuki. 2011. “Teaching Global English with NNS-NNS Online Communication.” The Journal of Asia TEFL 8 (2): 169–188. Kim, T. Y. 2010. “Socio-political Influences on EFL Motivation and Attitudes: Comparative Surveys of Korean High School Students.” Asia Pacific Education Review 11: 211–222. Kuo, Y. 2016. “The Interrelationship Among Senior High School Students’ English Proficiency, Vocabulary Knowledge and Lexical Richness in Writing.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan. Lai, C., and D. Zheng. 2017. “Self-directed use of Mobile Devices for Language Learning Beyond the Classroom.” ReCALL 1–20. doi:10.1017/S0958344017000258. Laufer, B., and P. Nation. 1999. “A Vocabulary-Size Test of Controlled Productive Ability.” Language Testing 16: 33–51. Lee, J. S. 2017. “Informal Digital Learning of English and Second Language Vocabulary Outcomes: Can Quantity Conquer Quality?” British Journal of Educational Technology, 1–12. doi:10.1111/bjet.12599. Lee, J. S., M. Dressman, Y. Nakamura, K. Lee, S. Eliane, N. Drajati, and J. Chen Hsieh. 2017. “Development and Validation of the EIL Awareness Measurement Questionnaire.” Paper presented at TESOL 2017 International Convention and English Language Expo, Washington, USA, March 23. Lee, J. S., Y. Nakamura, and R. Sadler. 2017. “Effects of Videoconference-Embedded Classrooms (VEC) on Learners’ Perceptions Toward English as an International Language (EIL).” ReCALL 1–18. doi:10.1017/S095834401700026X. Liou, Y. S. 2010. “Who Wants EIL? Attitudes Towards English as an International Language: A Comparative Study of College Teachers and Students in the Greater Taipei Area.” College English: Issues and Trends 3: 133–157. Matsuda, A. 2003. “The Ownership of English in Japanese Secondary Schools.” World Englishes 22 (2): 483–496. Matsuda, A., ed. 2012. Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Matsuda, A., ed. 2017. Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. McKay, S. L. 2002. Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking Goals and Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McKay, S. L., and J. D. Brown. 2016. Teaching and Assessing EIL in Local Contexts Around the World. New York: Routledge. Mrak, M. 2000. Globalization: Trends, Challenges and Opportunities for Countries in Transition. New York: United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Mullen, T., C. Appel, and T. Shanklin. 2009. “Skype-based Tandem Language Learning and Web 2.0.” In Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning, edited by M. Thomas, 101–118. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. National Curriculum Information Center. 2016. National Curriculum of Korea Source Inventory. http://ncic.kice.re. kr/english.kri.org.inventoryList.do. Nunan, D. 2003. “The Impact of English as a Global Language on Educational Policies and Practices in the Asia-Pacific Region.” TESOL Quarterly 37 (4): 589–613. Oda, M. 2017. “CELF Reflection: A Journey to the Establishment of a University ELF Program.” JACET ELF SIG Journal 1 (1): 3–17. Ren, W., Y. S. Chen, and C. Y. Lin. 2016. “University Students’ Perceptions of ELF in Mainland China and Taiwan.” SYSTEM 56: 13–27. Sasayama, S. 2013. “Japanese College Students’ Attitudes Towards Japan English and American English.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 34 (3): 264–278. Sharifian, F. 2009. English as an International Language: Perspectives and Pedagogical Issues. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Shin, J., Z. R. Eslami, and W. C. Chen. 2011. “Presentation of Local and International Culture in Current International English-Language Teaching Textbooks.” Language, Culture and Curriculum 24 (3): 253–268. Smith, L. E. 1976. “English as an International Auxiliary Language.” RELC Journal 7 (2): 38–42. Smith, L. E., ed. 1983. Readings in English as an International Language. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Tan, P. K. W., and D. K. H. Tan. 2008. “Attitudes Towards non-Standard English in Singapore.” World Englishes 27 (3/4): 465–479.

14


Tanghe, S. 2014. “Integrating World Englishes into a University Conversation Class in South Korea.” English Today 30 (2): 18–23. Tokumoto, M., and M. Shibata. 2011. “Asian Varieties of English: Attitudes Towards Pronunciation.” World Englishes 30 (3): 392–408. Tsai, Y., and C. H. Tsou. 2009. “A Standardised English Language Proficiency Test as the Graduation Benchmark: Student Perspectives on its Application in Higher Education.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 16 (3): 319–330. Vikneswaran, T., and P. Krish. 2016. “Utilising Social Networking Sites to Improve Writing: A Case Study with Chinese Students in Malaysia.” Technology, Pedagogy and Education 25 (3): 287–300. Vinagre, M. 2016. “Promoting Intercultural Competence in Culture and Language Studies: Outcomes of an International Collaborative Project.” In Technological Advances in Specialized Linguistic Domains: Practical Applications and Mobility, edited by E. Martín-Monje, I. Elorza, and B. G. Riaza, 23–35. London: Routledge. Wang, W. 2015. “Teaching English as an International Language in China: Investigating University Teachers’ and Students’ Attitudes Towards China English.” SYSTEM 53: 60–72. Yai, S. N. 2008. “The Concept and Characteristics of New High-School English Curriculum.” Journal of Education Research 166: 25–32. Yu, M. C. 2008. “Teaching and Learning Sociolinguistic Skills in University EFL Classes in Taiwan.” TESOL Quarterly 42 (1): 31–53. Yu, Y. 2010. “Attitudes of Learners Toward English: A Case of Chinese College Students.” PhD diss., Ohio State University, USA.