System 46 (2014) 163e175

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Framing English language teaching

Martha C. Pennington a, *, Barbara J. Hoekje b, 1
a
City University of Hong Kong, Department of English, Run Run Shaw Creative Media Centre, Cornwall Street, Kowloon Tong, Kowloon,
Hong Kong
b
Drexel University, Department of Culture & Communication, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: English language teaching (ELT) can be characterized in different ways, considered as
Received 19 August 2013 specic frames or framings. ELT work can be conceptualized as instruction, business, service,
Received in revised form 26 July 2014 profession, and disciplinary eld. ELT has further framings in terms of sociocultural context,
Accepted 17 August 2014
including an internal framing determined by the types of people involved in ELT practice
and an external framing by larger institutions and social structures. The latter type of so-
Keywords:
ciocultural context incorporates an interactive dynamic of global and local forces
ELT
impacting ELT and its sites of practice. Viewed through these diverse frames, ELT is
Higher education
Frames
revealed as a complex, hybrid enterprise incorporating rather different, sometimes con-
Framing icting, goals and priorities. The complex work of ELT and its many contextual factors
Community of practice require a balancing of priorities and innovation within an evolving social and educational
Profession ecology, and the multi-faceted and changing nature of ELT work can be examined through
Discipline practice-based inquiry questions. The discussion addresses potential conicts across the
different facets of ELT work, issues of disciplinary positioning, and the academic status of
ELT. It is argued that recognizing the types of expertise underlying the diverse frames of
ELT can lead to a stronger positioning within higher education.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

English language teaching has a long history that intersects with other kinds of language teaching. The eld that is referred
to as ELT, or sometimes as TESOL, was largely consolidated in the 20th century and specically since the 1940s, through such
inuences as [l]arge-scale movement of people through immigration as well as the internationalization of education since
the 1950s[a]nd in more recent times, globalization, the rise of the Internet, and the global spread of English (Richards &
Rodgers, 2014, p. 3). Since the 1960s, ELT has become a focus of teaching and learning at all levels of education as well as a
major industry connected to globalization and the use of English as a worldwide lingua franca. The history of the eld has
created different and sometimes competing demands and forces impacting English language teaching.
Both the ELT eld and the individual teaching units and sites where ELT takes place make up multiple communities of
practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998), such as those teaching ELT in different countries or at different levels of
education; those who work in ELT and afliated academic units as teachers versus non-instructional staff, administrators, or
researchers; and those centers, programs, or departments that function as self-supporting or autonomous units versus those

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 852 3442 9875.

E-mail addresses: mcpenn@cityu.edu.hk, marthap17022@yahoo.com (M.C. Pennington), hoekje@drexel.edu (B.J. Hoekje).
1
Tel.: 1 215 895 2067.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.08.005
0346-251X/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
164 M.C. Pennington, B.J. Hoekje / System 46 (2014) 163e175

WORK FRAMES
DISCIPLINARY
FIELD BUSINESS

INSTRUCTION

PROFESSION SERVICE

INTERNAL SOCIOCULTURAL CONTEXT FRAMES

LANGUAGE ADMINISTRATOR
LEARNER CHARACTERISTICS
CHARACTERISTICS

TEACHER RESEARCHER
CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS

EXTERNAL SOCIOCULTURAL CONTEXT FRAMES

Ethnoscape
Linguascape
GLOBAL Technoscape LOCAL
Financescape
Mediascape
Ideoscape

Fig. 1. Frames of ELT.

are within larger units and do not have an independent budget or program control. ELT practices are sometimes also found
within an integrated classroom containing signicant numbers of immigrant or international students; and, increasingly,
such practices are advocated for any educational context of diversity, which in the present day is often the norm. In a
community of practice approach, each site where ELT takes place has its own unique set of values, understandings, and
practices, which include both formal and informal understandings and practices shared among instructors as well as non-
instructional staff and administrators (Hoekje, 2013). In addition, the knowledge base of each individual site of practice in-
forms the ELT eld.
In what follows, we explore the nature of English language teaching (ELT) and attempt to characterize its signicance and
richness as a eld, while also raising some issues of importance to the eld, through an application of the notion of frames or
framing to the description and analysis of ELT work. A frames perspective makes it possible to analyze the eld in terms of the
various facets or elements which compose it and the sometimes competing tendencies these have introduced, and then to
consider their differential impacts and interactions within the eld as a whole as well as in specic sites of ELT practice.
 M.C. Pennington, B.J. Hoekje / System 46 (2014) 163e175 165

Our aim is to open up discussion and point to new ways of thinking about the activity taking place in and around ELT, its
history and its future, and how the eld and its practices might be further examined and theorized. To these ends, we train
different lenses on ELT in order to describe its unique features in ways which can differentiate the eld of ELT from other
academic elds, ELT work from other kinds of work, and ELT units from other academic units. We seek to show that the
ongoing evolution of the eld and its different frames has an effect upon the positioning of those who work in ELT and the
students who study English language. We also seek to build the case that the various kinds of knowledge and skills
comprising ELT and the diversity of factors affecting its practices have made it a complex, hybrid eld which is highly relevant
in today's world and which merits a stronger and more central position in higher education than it currently has.

2. A frames orientation for ELT

The nature and current state of English language teaching can be seen as having been shaped by the way in which the
educational eld of ELT has been constructeddas instruction, disciplinary eld, profession, business, and servicedas well as
by the sociocultural characteristics of: (i) the eld as a reection of the people directly involved in it as learners, teachers,
researchers, and administrators; and (ii) the larger institutions, societies, and cultural and political forces impacting ELT,
including its historical and ongoing interactions within global and local contexts. These different factors that shape as well as
reect ELT practices can be described as different kinds of frame.
A frame is a way of perceiving and conceptualizing a situation, event, or activity that gives it a certain meaning and
provides a basis for interpreting its signicance. Scholars such as Bateson (1955/1973), Goffman (1974), and Tannen (1993)
have used the notion of frames and framing to describe and theorize types of social practices and interactions. The
concept of frames and framing has also been applied to organizations by Bolman and Deal (2003) as a way to view them
through different lenses and so gain different kinds of perspectives on and insights into their functioning. A frames
orientation has proved useful for conceptualizing the work done in organizations and also for purposes of planning, assessing,
and developing those organizations.
We group the relevant frames of ELT into the categories of Work Frames and two types of Sociocultural Context Frames, as
modeled in Fig. 1. The rst of these we see as a set of frames of the work itself, that is, different ways in which ELT work can be
characterized: as instruction, disciplinary eld, profession, business, and service. Each of the frames in this set can be considered
different angles or perspectives from which to view ELT work, or as the different aspects or facets of ELT work. However, as the
gure is meant to illustrate, these are not independent frames but rather interrelate in ways which are discussed below. Also
as illustrated by the gure, the instructional facet is a central one within ELT.
The second category comprises two kinds of sociocultural context frames. The rst is an integrated set of internal, eld-
specic sociocultural frames that reect the nature of the people who are directly involved in ELTdlanguage learners,
teachers, researchers, and administrators. The sociocultural characteristics of these groupsdwhich are intersecting cate-
gories, since the same people may have roles as teachers, researchers, administrators, and/or language learnersdhave played
a central role in creating the character of English language teaching in its different aspects. The other is the external socio-
cultural framing of the eld within larger social and political structures that incorporate an interactive dynamic of global and
local forces that produce local adaptations of global inuences which may then impact global trends. These two aspects of
sociocultural context, internal and external, have been instrumental in evolving the nature of ELT work in its different aspects
as characterized by the rst set of frames.
These frames represent the different facets of the ELT eld and the different aspects of practice that may be present in
every ELT workplace. When combined, as they have been through evolution over time, these facets have created the unique
hybrid enterprise that is ELT, with its associated values and practices, the kinds of educational units and programs where ELT
is carried out, and the specic requirements for ELT work, as a complex interaction of a large set of intersecting factors. The
unique characteristics of ELT can be appreciated through a consideration of each of these frames or facets individually and in
terms of their interactions, which we do in sections which follow. While our focus is on ELT, we note that our model can also
be applied to other kinds of educational work and academic elds, and it may be of particular interest for comparing and
contrasting English language teaching with foreign language teaching and English composition, both of which share many
features in common with ELT.

2.1. Frames of ELT work

The work of ELT as a eld or as a site of practice can be described in a number of different ways, as instruction, disciplinary
eld, profession, business, and service.

2.1.1. Instruction
Instruction is naturally the focus of ELT, and any kind of ELT unit is rst and foremost a site of instruction, that is, teaching
and learning language is its core reason for existing. A language teaching unit in which, in any sense, teaching and learning are
not taking place, or are not effective, will not long exist. Everyone in the unitdincluding students, instructional staff, non-
instructional staff, and administratorsdand many outside itdsuch as parents, student sponsors, and higher level admin-
istratorsdwill have a strong interest in the teaching and learning that goes on there.
166 M.C. Pennington, B.J. Hoekje / System 46 (2014) 163e175

There are multiple specializations within the ELT eld, such as EAP (English for Academic Purposes) or ESP (English for
Specic Purposes) with reference to specic elds such as English for Business or English for Engineering, or with reference to
specic types of employment such as call centre operator (Woydack, 2013) or physician (Hoekje & Tipton, 2012). These
different specializations can be viewed as representing a set of distinct yet overlapping specialized instructional microelds
within an overarching instructional macroeld of ELT that also includes generalized courses in English as a second or
foreign language (ESL/EFL) as well as courses focused on oracy (speaking and listening) or literacy (reading and writing), and
specic skill or language areas such as grammar and pronunciation. The instructional content of an ELT course or unit may be
determined by its ESP, EAP, or other course orientation, and/or by a specic curricular orientation. In ELT, many different types
of curriculum or syllabus have been proposed. Fig. 2, which draws on the categories reviewed by Richards and Rodgers (2014)
and on the syllabus types given by Breen (2001, p. 155), lists some of the curriculum emphases which have been inuential in
ELT and language teaching more generally. All of these curriculum orientations can be found in ELT today, with considerable
variation across individual courses, teachers, and programs, and with shifting emphases or combinations of emphases over
time.
The different types of curriculum and the different kinds of content and skills which may be taught in ELT dene di-
mensions of instructional variation in specic sites of ELT practice. Not only English language content and skills such as
grammar, reading, writing, speaking, listening, but also thematic content and disciplinary content and skills may be included
in the English language curriculum. In addition, beyond the basic goals for language learning, English language teaching can
incorporate goals related to culture learning or intercultural communication and critical pedagogy. From an intercultural
viewpoint, English language teachers [like their students] must become border-crossers and practice a pedagogy that ne-
gotiates competing discourses and cultures (Canagarajah, 1999, p. 194). From a more critical viewpoint, English language
teachers need to develop in themselves and their students the critical language awareness and skills for contesting and
challenging academic discourses (Fairclough, 1995, p. 222) as well as the other dominant discourses of their sociocultural
contexts (see below).
The instructional frame of ELT work is highly interactive with the other frames. Changes in education and the world at
large (i.e., in the external sociocultural context) may trigger changes in ELT instruction, such as all of the changes brought
about by the Internet and new technologies which facilitate teaching and learning at a distance, offer new kinds of oppor-
tunities for collaboration, and provide many kinds of instructional supports and enhancements that are potentially useful to
language learners and teachers. Changes within the instructional facet of individual ELT programs or units will be driven as
well by changes in the students and the instructional staff (which directly affect the internal sociocultural framing of teaching
and learning). The curriculum and the specic instructional focus of an ELT program are in fact organic with the nature of the
students, the faculty, the administration, and the other interacting frames of the unit.

2.1.2. Disciplinary eld

Disciplines have been described as bundles or bodies of knowledge (Clark, 1983, p. 16) or as organizational structures
of knowledge (Neumann, 2009, p. 487). The disciplinary status of a eld is determined by those areas of knowledge and by its
specic disciplinary heritage, which together determine the practices of the eld and the professional competencies and
identities of the people who carry out those practices.
English language teaching has a disciplinary heritage derived from a number of elds. Primary among these are linguistics
and psychology, which were highly inuential in the early development of language teaching (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 3),
and education, which has had an increasing inuence in more recent years (Freeman & Johnson, 2004, 2005). These heritage
disciplines represent different kinds of academic elds. According to Becher's (1989, 1994) classication, academic disciplines
may be pure (research for its own sake, to advance knowledge) or applied (research with a utilitarian or practical purpose)
and hard (physical sciences) or soft (social sciences, arts, and humanities). Whereas work in linguistics is often pure

Type of Curriculum Focus

Formal Forms, system, and rules

Functional Language use in social functions

Communicative Language use for communication

Content-based Language in specific content areas (CBI and CLIL)

Competency-based Acquisition of specific competencies (CBE)

Needs-based Learning goals based on learner needs

Task-based Communicative, specific-purposes, and

metacommunicative tasks

Process-oriented Meanings derived and created through

interaction with content and with others

Fig. 2. Types of language teaching curriculum.

 M.C. Pennington, B.J. Hoekje / System 46 (2014) 163e175 167

science (hard) or social science (soft), work in education is generally classied as applied and soft, and work in
psychology may be either hard (e.g., brain research) or soft (e.g., research on group dynamics) and either pure or
applied. Thus, while ELT falls within the soft-applied disciplinary category, its history links it to both pure and hard
disciplinary activity as well.
Applied linguistics (or SLA) is generally seen as the home discipline of ELT. It is also sometimes seen as the parent (or big
brother/sister) discipline of language teaching, although, as noted by Richards and Rodgers (2014), principles for language
teaching developed by linguists (notably, Henry Sweet, Wilhelm Vie tor, and Paul Passy) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries
reect the beginnings of the discipline of applied linguistics e that branch of language study and research concerned with the
scientic study of second and foreign language teaching and learning (p. 11). Whichever is the parent or older sibling,
clearly applied linguistics and language teaching are closely interconnected in their history and development. Through applied
linguistics, ELT relates to many specialist areas of study and research such as the following named scientic commissions of
AILA, the International Association of Applied Linguistics: Adult Language Learning, Child Language, Discourse Analysis,
Educational Technology and Language Learning, Foreign Language Teaching Methodology and Teacher Education, Language
and Education in Multilingual Settings, Language Testing and Evaluation, Psycholinguistics, Second-Language Acquisition,
Sociolinguistics, Literacy, Language and Media, Communication in the Professions, etc. The range of academic specialisms
which are considered to be part of applied linguistics suggests the richness of the disciplinary heritage and connections of ELT.
Yet the disciplinary status of ELT is far from clear. The extent of the connection between ELT, applied linguistics, and its
other feeder disciplines has been the subject of much debate, especially as regards the knowledge base which English
language teachers need to acquire. In the view of Richards and Farrell (2011, chap. 2), the disciplinary knowledge base of
language teachers might include courses in the history of language teaching and critical pedagogy as well as in linguistic
theory, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics, while pedagogical content knowledge might be gained from education-
focused course work in areas such as curriculum, assessment, teaching the four skill areas (speaking, listening, reading,
writing), the teaching of children, and reective teaching. However, the content of degree courses in ELT and TESOL varies
quite widely (see, e.g., the courses listed in the TESOL International Association Resource Guide to Degree and Certicate
programs at http://englishlanguageprofessionalsresourceguide.com/), and there has been heated debate about the relative
value for ELT of knowledge from linguistics versus education (see, e.g., Bartels, 2004; Freeman & Johnson, 1998, 2004, 2005;
Muchisky & Yates, 2004; Yates & Muchisky, 2003).
The lack of an agreed-upon disciplinary afliation and knowledge base is a reason that ELT is considered by many not to be
itself an academic discipline but rather to be properly classied as a eld of activity (Freeman & Johnson, 2004, p.125) or eld
of studydwhich is the term used by Shulman (1988, p. 5) rather than academic discipline to describe education. In this
connection, it is noteworthy that education has traditionally been devalued in the academy as compared to pure research
eldsda tradition still carried on in divisions of linguistics or literature versus language teaching. These divisions have been
associated with a gender divide in which education and teaching-oriented disciplines including ELT have been primarily female
(see below under Section 2.2.1). The lack of agreed disciplinary status or afliation within an established academic discipline
may be a reason that ELT, although made up of specialized knowledge expressed in concepts and constructs, and in modes of
reasoning and types of practice for both instruction and research, with eld-specic histories and signicances, is nonetheless
widely perceived and treated as having a second-class status within academia (Pennington, 1989, 1992).
Another reason for its second-class status within academia may be the general acceptance of a master's rather than a
doctoral qualication as the appropriate terminal degree for ELT or TESOL (as opposed to applied linguistics or other afliated
elds). Of the 572 graduate programs in TESOL listed as of 1 June 2014 on the Gradschools.com website (http://www.
gradschools.com/search-programs/tesol-education), fewer than 9% of the listed degree programs specify a doctoral level
qualication. The high ratio of master's to doctorally qualied practitioners negatively affects the status of ELT within higher
education.
The disciplinary status of ELT has important ramications in terms of academic power and politics. Ultimately, the power
of an academic discipline or eld is related to the power of its subject matter and the ideology surrounding it, as well as the
participants who engage with it:
As in the case of other commodities, scarcity or inaccessibility of information to the average consumer drives up its
value and, by projection, the value of anyone who possesses it. Unfortunately, English language teaching is generally
perceived as entirely transparent and ordinary in the extreme, as a type of work that nearly any native speaker can
perform or claim to perform. (Pennington, 1992, p. 9)
Yet if one takes seriously the status of English as an international language (EIL), as the primary communication medium
and tool (along with technology) mediating globalization (Tsui & Tollefson, 2007), one can argue that academic activitydboth
research and instructiondthat focuses on teaching English language is among the most important types of academic work,
since the English language is:

(i) the primary lingua franca and so the basis for effective communication within and across cultures, and thus critical to
education, politics, and international business and exchange; and
(ii) the primary medium within which much of the specialized knowledge which humans possess is transmitted and
comprehended.
168 M.C. Pennington, B.J. Hoekje / System 46 (2014) 163e175

These are facts about the sociocultural context of ELT that impact its academic positioning (see below). However, another fact
about the sociocultural context of ELT is that the ideology of EIL may run counter to some core beliefs of ELT educators about
learners' rights to their own languages, as supported by critical pedagogy. ELT educators may therefore be conicted about EIL
and their own role in encouraging the learning of the English language.
Many English language programs have little or no connection to academic departments or to researchers, and may
themselves include no members functioning in researcher roles. Key to establishing validity as a disciplinary eld, however, is
the necessity of a research agenda and cumulative research ndings on issues underlying the teaching of English and related
areas such as English as an international language, intercultural communication, and second language acquisition. Although
there may not be complete agreement on which areas of research specically apply to ELT, it is clear that without a recognized
research culture underpinning its other practices the disciplinary status of ELT will not be secure.

2.1.3. Profession
The work of ELT connects to a profession of English language teaching and of language teaching more generally with
certain requirements and oversight.
Being a profession means developing in practitioners highly specialized knowledge and the skills to handle unpre-
dictable situations, to be able to solve problems as they arise. Being a profession also means recognizing and applying
peer-developed standards for evaluating performance. (Pennington, 1992, p. 14)
Being a profession means that there is an accepted set of knowledge and competencies conferring professional status within
the particular type of practice, as well as people who are recognized to have the requisite expertise to assess professional
knowledge and skills in others for purposes of educating practitioners and granting certicates and degrees. Professions also
have associated professional bodies which oversee practices, promote research, and organize conferences for members to
develop and share expertise. To take the example of the recognized profession of nursing, there are hundreds of professional
associations, such as, in Canada alone, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Aboriginal Nurses Association of Canada, the
Canadian Federation of Nurses' Union, and regional bodies such as the Manitoba Nurses Uniondto name only a few.
ELT framed as profession means that the values and practices of individual practitioners connect to a set of values and
practices of the larger eld and collective of other practitioners, experts, and professional bodies (Pennington, 1999). Many
organizations around the world have been in the vanguard in promoting certain values, practices, and standards for language
teaching and learning and for language program curriculum and management, including, to name just a few:

Accreditation UK (run by the British Council and English UK)

American Association of Intensive English Programs (AAIEP)
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)
Commission on English Language Program Accreditation (CEA)
Consortium of University and College Intensive English Programs (UCIEP)
European Association for Quality Language Services (EAQUALS)
International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language (IATEFL)
Modern Language Association (MLA)
TESOL International Association

This is only a sampling of the associations promoting good practices in language teaching and learning, including ELT, sug-
gesting the growing professionalization of the eld over time.
Professional action and decision-making are a highly evolved form of practice (Scho n, 1983) which is based in higher-order
values and understandings that language teachers develop through the knowledge and expertise acquired both in formal
education and in response to specic teaching contexts and experiences. In recent years, views of teacher education have
focused increasingly on the site of practice, especially the classroom but also the school or other location where teachers carry
out their work, as the place where professional expertise is acquired, through a variety of activities which teachers can engage
in to develop higher-order values and understandings of teaching, such as team teaching, action research, teaching portfolios,
journals, peer observations, narrative inquiry, classroom ethnography, and other forms of applied research and reective
teaching (Farrell, 2007; Richards & Farrell, 2011; Richards & Lockhart, 1994). Through such activities, English language
teachers develop professionally by both connecting and contributing their own values, practices, and contexts of practice to
those of the larger collective of ELT practitioners and English language teaching units, and hence to the collective knowledge
and expertise of the eld.

2.1.4. Business
The worldwide interest in studying English over the past twenty years has created a market where there is considerable
prot to be made, as can be seen in:

 the creation of relatively autonomous English language teaching units within universities with separate tuition structures
and admission policies as well as the rise of private proprietary (for prot) programs;
 M.C. Pennington, B.J. Hoekje / System 46 (2014) 163e175 169

 an enormous industry of English language textbooks and audiovisual resources;

 a strong support industry of English language teacher education and professional development materials, journals, and
programs, including the proliferation of Master's in TESL/TEFL certicate and degree courses.

Within a business facet or framing, ELT can be viewed as a commodied service or product with the learner as customer and
the administrator and the instructor as provider (the seller or distributor) of the desired commodity or product.
As is increasingly common in all of education (Andrews, 2006; Lerner, 2008; Pilbeam, 2009), ELT and the ELT program,
department, or center involve the practices of business. Nowadays, educational institutions are frequently run largely on a
corporate model in which business affairs are managed separately from academic affairs by those with qualications in
management and nance. This contrasts with a strictly academic, collegium model of education (Pilbeam, 2009) in which
educators are in charge of running all aspects of institutional affairs above the level of routine clerical work. The emphasis on a
business model means that administrators are expected to keep costs down and avoid nancial losses, to bring in income and
return some proportion of that income to the parent organization (if any), and in general to manage the bottom line. Under
these circumstances, even heavily subsidized academic departments are expected to be run like a business, that is, to be cost-
effective and to be managed in a scally sound manner. Exceptions might be ESL programs run entirely by volunteers, such as
informal conversation circles or church-sponsored survival English programs for refugees; and other ELT units (e.g., ESL
support services in state-run schools) may have little or no involvement in scal management. In such cases, the business
frame may have no immediate relevance for front-line practitioners, though it may be relevant for others operating behind
the scenes or at a higher level of the organization.
The discourse and practices of business are increasingly present in education as in other spheres of public life. Gebhard
(2005) has problematized this as a hybrid discourse of the business of education. Even in ELT units where there is no
focus on money, a business frame may provide powerful metaphors for describing practices, such as selling the course,
serving the client, being efcient, and spending time well. In stressing values and practices associated with revenues,
expenses, management, human resource management, and budgets, ELT and individual language programs viewed in
business terms may reinforce or be in conict with the discourses and practices of instruction, disciplinary eld, profession,
and service. As an illustration of the potential for conict, Winkle (2011, 2014) presents case studies from the perspective of
ELT instructors and administrators, together with his own analytical insights, on the effects of current attempts by corporate
entities (e.g., INTO and Kaplan, Inc.) to form partnerships with universities for purposes of recruiting international students
into matriculation-pathway programs, which are designed and managed by the corporate partner to provide English lan-
guage and general education courses that bridge to university study. A main point raised in the case studies is that rather than
outsourcing these functions, individual language programs could have provided (and in some cases were providing) the same
functions as the corporate providers offered, as a potentially more effective and cost-effective option for the universities
involved in terms of quality instruction and student admissions and services. The fact that the ELT administrators and
instructional staff in these cases did not play a role in the university decision-making processes that led to the corporate
partnerships is an illustration of the lack of power and status within academic contexts of ELT and its associated language
teaching units.

2.1.5. Service
An often dominant framing positions ELT as language support to another, primary activity such as international ex-
change or for-credit academic work. In this frame, ELT is a support service and the English language program or
department is a service unit. From this perspective, the major purpose of teaching English is to serve the needs of learners
for language as an instrumental resource that allows them to achieve their focal purposes and diverse ends. Instruction in
English language is then something provided by teachers who, by virtue of being language experts and/or native speakers,
can help students because they have expertise that the students lack. Instructors as well as administrators are often
positioned as helpers with qualities of empathy, understanding, and patience. In the case of a volunteer-led ESL program,
service is a primary framing of its activity. In other cases, the service aspect of a program is one among its multiple
framings and priorities.
For those programs situated within a larger academic unit, the service perspective is one of providing support or
infrastructure for the larger unit, such as a department, school, or university. The service frame may be comple-
mentary to the business and other frames within which ELT and particular ELT units are situated, and service-oriented
goals are often complementary to those of enhancing instructional quality and business success. On the other hand,
service goals can conict with the rigor or demands of instructional, professional, and disciplinary goals; and service
goals may force a language program administrator's attention and actions to be highly focused on and driven by the
wider needs of the institution rather than attending to the internal priorities of the unit or external priorities outside
the institutional context. Walker's (2003, 2011) research on ELT management shows that the ELT unit viewed as
service, in order to be effective, must be coupled with a high degree of competence in its instructional, professional,
disciplinary, and business aspects. At the same time, the relative emphasis placed in a specic ELT unit on service
rather than revenue in its business aspect, on instructional concerns such as class size or new equipment and fa-
cilities, on professional concerns such as accreditation, or on disciplinary concerns such as research will be deter-
mined in each context of practice.
170 M.C. Pennington, B.J. Hoekje / System 46 (2014) 163e175

Humanistic (Teaching Orientation)

Focus on relationships;

Focus on satisfaction of needs;

Idealistic, even altruistic, view of people;

Facilitative and supportive, not directive, to students and staff;

Cooperative and interactive in decision-making and power-sharing.

Pragmatic (Administrative Orientation)

Bottom-line view of program operation;

Highly achievement-oriented instruction;

High responsiveness and willingness to change as needed to satisfy

customer and market demands and remain viable.

Fig. 3. Internal sociocultural framing of ELT (adapt. fr. Pennington & Hoekje, 2010, p. 54).

2.2. ELT Sociocultural Context Frames

Having described the frames of ELT work itself, this section focuses on the sociocultural factors affecting ELT work, taken to
encompass both the ELT eld and specic sites of ELT practice. The two types of sociocultural frames to be examined are the
internal sociocultural context of ELT determined by the people who are directly involved in practicing itdthat is, its language
learners, teachers, researchers, and program administratorsdand the external sociocultural context that includes the larger
social, political, and institutional forces impacting ELT in both global and local dimensions, and interactions of these. The
different levels and types of sociocultural context of the eld have been instrumental in evolving the nature of ELT work in its
different facets as characterized by the rst set of frames.

2.2.1. Internal sociocultural context

English language teaching as a eld and its associated language teaching units can be characterized in terms of the people
involveddlanguage teachers, researchers, administrators, and learnersdreecting its internal, eld-specic sociocultural
characteristics. The sociocultural characteristics of these groupsdincluding the ways in which they partially overlap and
intersectdhave played a central role in creating the character of English language teaching and the different aspects of ELT
work. In addition, ELT may be viewed differently in terms of its nature and priorities when considered from the perspective of
one or another of these constituencies.
There are many striking characteristics of its eld-specic sociocultural characteristics that have implications for ELT, such
as rst-language (L1) versus second-language (L2) speaker status (though this distinction is not always clearcut in an age of
multilingualism, EIL, and World Englishes), the specic mix of linguistic and ethnic backgrounds, and the proportion of males
and females among administrators, teachers, researchers, and the student body within the eld and in specic sites of
practice. The cultural and language background of students, teachers, researchers, and administrators and whether or not
they share a common cultural and social background with each other and with those in the larger, macro-context are
important factors affecting each group's orientation and their inter-relationships, and are also a determinant of how ELT work
is framed. For example, teachers, administrators, and researchers with bilingual competence can both perform and under-
stand interactions (e.g., in classrooms or other settings) conducted in two languages, giving them options which are not open
to monolinguals functioning in the same roles.
Differences in the status of language learners as ESL (immigrant) or EFL (home-country) students, and of both ESL and EFL
learners as compared with other students, affect specic ELT units in other dimensions, such as in instructional approaches,
disciplinary status, and service orientation. Although native speaker status may seem to confer an advantage in teaching a
language, it has the disadvantage that a key aspect of the teacher's identity is not shared with the students (Pennington &
Richards, 2014). Similarly, administrators and researchers who do not share background characteristics with teachers and/or
learners may view their work differently, and may need to function differently, from those who do have these characteristics
in common with either or both of the other two groups. The high proportion of speakers of English as a second or additional
language teaching English in many countries and the high proportion of females distinguish ELT from some other elds while
at the same time aligning it with certain others such as foreign language teaching and rst-year writing (freshman
composition) in the United States. There is also a similarity in the high service expectation for those kinds of work.
The gendered history and reality of ELT (Davis & Skilton-Sylvester, 2004; Willett, 1996) has affected the evolution of the
eld and its practices in a number of ways, including its research traditions, disciplinary knowledge, approaches to in-
struction, employment practices, professionalization of language teaching, and level and type of power and prestige. While
some gender effects have been negative, especially in terms of power and prestige, others have been positive, such as
 M.C. Pennington, B.J. Hoekje / System 46 (2014) 163e175 171

development of a highly diversied set of person-centered, qualitative research approaches, which we attribute in part to the
high proportion of female researchers in ELT, to complement quantitative methodologies. In this ELT is similar to the nursing
eld, which has over the past 40 years developed its own qualitative research perspectives to supplement the quantitative
tradition of medical research. The diverse ELT instructor and student populations and the strong female base of the eld can
be assets in positioning English language teaching in innovative ways to counter tradition in meeting new realities and
changing conditions, and in evolving communities of practice with critical awareness to inform all types of ELT activity-
dincluding research, teaching, learning, and the running of language programs.
A further point about the internal sociocultural framing of ELT work is that although a business frame has evolved strongly
in the eld, the majority of its practitioners have a humanist orientation similar to that found in other elds with roots in
humanities and education, such as English composition (Myers, 1996, p. 4). In addition, administrators in the eld often have a
pragmatic orientation (Fig. 3) as a result of the need to maintain high-quality instruction, high enrollments, and nancial
viability within changing conditions in the external sociocultural context (Pennington & Hoekje, 2010).
We note that these characteristics of humanism and pragmatism emphasize instructional, service, and business aspects of
ELT and individual language programs without any specic orientation to academic or professional status, underscoring the
fact that the characteristics of the ELT eld have perhaps underemphasized academic and professional power and positioning
within academia. It can also be noted that the humanist and pragmatist orientations of the eld may be in conict with one
another, as the latter supports the teaching of EIL and English in general and its associated global culture whereas the former,
as alluded to above, recognizes learners' rights to their own language and culture.

2.2.2. External sociocultural context

Global connectivity is occurring today on a scale never before seen or imagined. As observed by Appadurai (1996), today's
world involves interactions of a new order and intensity (p. 46) that have created a major tension between cultural ho-
mogenization and cultural heterogenization (p. 49). Appadurai characterizes these interactions as global cultural ows of
people, technology, capital, information, and ideology (the ethnoscape, technoscape, nancescape, mediascape, and ideoscape).
Educational sites such as universities are intimately involved in, and contribute towards, these global scapes or ows (Singh &
Doherty, 2004, p. 15) even as they are affected by themdfor example, by the movement of students from their home countries
for university study and by new types of technologies and their global availability.
We connect Appadurai's model to ours by acknowledging the key notion of the moving and changing scapes which ow
through and feed the various frames discussed here. The business frame of ELT, for example, is fed by the global movement of
all these ows: the movement of students in international exchange; ows of technology in facilitating communication
exchange and the use of English; the ow of international monetary exchange to support mobility; the ows of media and
information in English driving the utility of English as a medium of business and hence a desired object of study; and the
ideology underlying education and language as means to success. Each frame we have discussed is inuenced by these ows,
and it is in fact liquid modernity (Bauman, 2000)din the sense of the uidity, mobility, and constantly changing conditions
of the current eradthat is driving the differentiating and sometimes conictive nature of the frames.
As a central feature of the sociocultural context of ELT, the English language is at the convergence of many types of forces
favoring its adoption as a major language around the world. As the movement of people changes the world's ethnoscape,
English functions as a means of communication across group boundaries and national borders and is having major impacts on
other languages in terms of lexical borrowing, grammatical change, and contexts of use. We could say that it is creating a
whole new kind of linguascape (Pennington & Hoekje, 2010, p. 4). In many cases, the spread of English is interacting with
other factors of language need and language choice that are marginalizing already restricted or endangered languages. In the
international nancescape, transactions are carried out using English to move money and nancing around the globe. As the
primary language of science, technology, and computing, English is impacting the global technoscape, which is highly
interactive with the scapes of nance, media, and ideas and ideology. The face of the mediascape worldwide is strongly shaped
by English-based television, lm, online news, and print media of books, newspapers, and magazines. Additionally, education
at undergraduate and postgraduate levels in universities is dominated by English language journals and textbooks, with
effects on the creation and dissemination of knowledge and ideology in the global ideoscape. The fact that so much of in-
formation of all kinds is disseminated in the English language greatly affects communication and the ow of ideas worldwide.
The fact of its global orientation gives ELT and individual language programs a cutting-edge position in terms of leading in:

 Internationalizing education to include a wide diversity of educational experiences and perspectives from different cul-
tures in teachers and students;
 Creating disciplinary knowledge to incorporate strong intercultural and international components;
 Providing valuable service for the larger educational and community contexts to assist them in dealing with students,
teachers, and workers from other cultures and their outreach to other countries; and
 Positioning the language program and the larger academic unit or community in which it exists strategically in terms of
growing businesses and the economy in a global marketplace.

Yet it can be noted again that the eld overall as well as individual language programs do not sufciently highlight and build
on these areas of value as a way to ensure the most advantageous position within academia.
172 M.C. Pennington, B.J. Hoekje / System 46 (2014) 163e175

As part of the context in which ELT and individual language programs operate all over the world, one can see not wholesale
adoption of global culture, but rather selective incorporation of global features in local scapes, and local features in global scapes,
creating new hybrid glocalized (Robertson,1995) forms of language, culture, and identity. Those who work in ELT and individual
language programs must be sensitive to students' need to maintain their local or ingroup cultural and linguistic community ties
even as they develop new global ones. Beyond becoming border-crossers able to negotiate competing cultures and discourses as
Canagarajah (1999, p.194) stated, English language learners and teachers need to be border-crossers in another sense, cross[ing]
the borders of the classroom to investigate broader social, cultural, political, and historical structures that have a bearing on
classroom input and interaction (Kumaravadivelu, 2009, p. 16), as they learn to recognize the power relations and ideology
inherent in the contexts of teaching and learning and the larger society (Kumaravadivelu, 2009, pp. 71e74).
Since the focus of any program or department involved in ELT is on language, hence what we are calling the linguascape, it
is important to consider that scape in a localdand glocaldcontext. The linguascape can be considered in its connection to
students' identities as bilinguals and second-language speakers, which brings up glocal issues for the ELT eld as well as
specic language programs of both English as lingua franca (ELF; Jenkins, 2003, 2006, 2012; Seidlhofer, 2007, 2011) and
indigenous varieties of New Englishes or World Englishes (Kachru, 1992) in relation to the teaching of standard English
varieties. A key issue for specic student groups is the relative utility and value for the learner of different varieties of English,
including different inner-circle varieties such as British, American, or Australian English; an ELF variety, whether of the
simplied, reduced type stressed by Jenkins or the more creative and complex, open-ended type stressed by Seidlhofer; and
specic localized varieties that include novel lexis and grammar as well as language switching and mixing patterns known to
members of a local speech community.
Even as ELT responds to global scapes and their interconnecting ows, it must equally be part of and responsive to local
scapes and to the immediate context, and so to the needs of specic student groups and teachers. Social and political realities
at the local level may shape instruction and the nature of the teaching unit just as much as, if not more than, more distant
social and political forces in the global context. Hu (2005), for example, showed the strong inuence of the local educational
culture in China on the teaching of English there. In addition, an English language program is impacted by and impacts upon
the community as well as any higher level unit, such as an academic department or school, within which it exists. A particular
feature of ELT units in higher education is that wherever they are situated in the university structure, they are unusual in the
pan-institutional role they play that serves the institution at large. The program or unit that is charged with delivering English
language instruction must articulate with the wider context, and the unit's members (administrators, teachers, researchers,
students) need to engage in politics to establish both relationships and a power base in the local institutional and wider
context. The educational unit housing ELT may have connections all around its local institutional environment. Yet these
connections may be undernourished and underutilized.

3. A frames view of the ecology of English language teaching

As the depiction in terms of frames suggests, ELT as a eld and individual programs where English language teaching
takes place can be viewed not as unitary enterprises but as an ecology (Pennington & Hoekje, 2010), a complex set of frames
and practices fed by global ows. The complexity of ELT and the educational units where ELT takes place is magnied by
such factors as changing student populations, changes in language and culture, political events, and curricular modications
necessitated by these. ELT and individual ELT units inevitably must shift orientation as different aspects of the eld evolve in
interaction with global and local scapes and the sociocultural make-up of practitioners and students. These contextual
factors require dynamic interactions and frequent innovation in order to maintain relevance in an evolving social and
educational landscape.
A frames perspective offers different angles from which to compare ELT to other elds; to problematize issues in the eld;
or to examine an ELT program, center, department, or other unit for practical purposes of program review as well as planning,
strategizing, and problem-solving. For such purposes, ELT as a eld or as a site of practice can be considered in terms of its
individual frames of activity, but it is also important to consider the relative status and mutual functioning of its different
facets. The multiple frames operate more or less interactively, although at any point in the history of the eld or of a specic
language program, some frames may have a greater weighting and be more dominant than others; and there is always a
potential for conicting priorities. With these considerations in mind and drawing on the discussion in Pennington and
Hoekje (2010, pp. 296e298), we suggest a series of questions related to the frames and their interactions that can provide
viewpoints on program development and the running of an English language program or other type of educational unit in a
specic site of practice.
The instruction frame provides an orientation to the performance and values of the students and the teachers and to the
curriculum in both its structure and functioning as a central process holding the entire ELT unit together and as an important
focus of program development. Within this frame, questions which might be asked are:

 Is the administration ensuring the kinds of work and classroom conditions that facilitate a high-quality teachingelearning
process, including such factors as teaching load, class size, classroom facilities, and availability of media?
 Is there sufcient innovation in instruction to keep pace with global trends in the linguascape, ethnoscape, mediascape,
technoscape, and ideoscape?
 M.C. Pennington, B.J. Hoekje / System 46 (2014) 163e175 173

 Are program administrators facilitating adaptation of instructional innovations to the local context and connecting these
to the build-up of disciplinary knowledge and academic prestige?

Attending to the frame of disciplinary eld emphasizes the articulation of the ELT unit with scholarship, research, and
publication, and with other academic elds and departments. Questions related to the disciplinary status and position of the
unit might be the following:

 Are administrators and teachers maintaining or pursuing productive linkages with other departments and elds for ac-
ademic advancement?
 Are administrators and teachers fostering quality and high-level achievement in development of the unit and its academic
reputation?
 Are members involved in research, and are appropriate research questions being dened and investigated, and the results
of research published?

The frame of profession brings in issues of the status of English language teachers and other staff in relation to benets,
salary, and career structure. This frame is also one through which to examine the unit's accreditation and articulation with
bodies such as TESOL and IATEFL. Questions which might be asked about the unit in the frame of profession are:

 Are teachers provided with opportunities for regular and ongoing professional development?
 What is the performance and the record of the administrative leadership in securing or raising the status of instructional
and non-instructional staff, and in ensuring good employment conditions?
 How are practitioners who have roles as administrators, teachers, or researchers connecting to professional bodies and
using them to develop themselves and the unit?

The business frame is an essential one to pay regular attention to in order to keep tabs on revenues and expenses, and to
monitor value against expenditures at any given point in time and in the long-range evolution of the unit. Relevant questions
about the ELT unit as business are:

 How well does the unit function as a business in terms of bringing in revenues and operating on a balanced budget, and
how has this functioning been enhanced in program development?
 Is revenue being spent wisely and productively to ensure ongoing development and improvement?
 What is the effect of business activities on the other frames of activity?

The service frame offers a view of the ELT unit and its functioning in terms of human values, stakeholder needs, and
satisfaction. It also raises issues of giving back to the community and to the larger unit and institution in which the ELT unit is
housed. Illustrative questions that might be asked about the ELT unit as service are:

 In what ways and how effectively is the unit functioning as a service unit?
 Is enough being done to achieve high service and satisfaction, even to exceed expectations?
 Are all constituenciesdwhether administrators, teachers, researchers, or studentsdcontributing to the various com-
munities connected to the unit, in ways that enhance relationships, local and global connections, and non-tangible goods
such as goodwill, prestige, and reputation?

In connection with sociocultural context, it can be asked whether and to what extent the ELT unit's planning and decision-
making respond to change and lead development in relation to local and global forces and in relation to the characteristics of
the people connected to the program and the larger eld:

 Is attention to local context taking away needed attention to global factors, or vice versa, in program development?
 Is the internal sociocultural context of the unit as represented by the characteristics of the student body, teachers,
researchers, and administrators being considered in terms of its positive or negative effects on instruction and other
quality issues?
 What potentials are not being developed and what opportunities are being missed in relation to the different aspects of
sociocultural context?

A particular strength of ELT and its associated language teaching units is its instructional practices, which form the heart of
the eld and of those teaching units. All other frames are ultimately answerable to the frame of instruction as primary focus.
Yet all of the frames are also interrelated. Hence, the primary frame of instruction cannot thrive or survive without attention
to the other frames of ELT workdincluding disciplinary eld, profession, business, and servicedand of its sociocultural
contextdinternal and externaldall of which are in fact mutually interactive and supportive. This mutual interactivity means
174 M.C. Pennington, B.J. Hoekje / System 46 (2014) 163e175

that administrators of English language programs or other educational units within which ELT is housed must always consider
the linkage of what the unit is doing in one facet in relation to the other facets and specically to the facet of instruction. Thus,
for example, a language program administrator may judge that the program cannot afford to focus on disciplinary status, such
as by carrying out academic research, unless it is of an applied nature that relates to concerns of instruction. Alternatively, the
administrator may judge that academic research is of value to a number of other aspects of the program that support in-
struction, such as research on program management seen as enhancing the status of the program in relation to its framing as
disciplinary eld, profession, business, and service.
The focus on instruction, while a strength of ELT and specic sites of practice in their educational orientation, has at the
same time represented a dilemma in terms of status as disciplinary eld and profession. Likewise, the focus on service, a
strength of ELT related to its humanistic orientation, can be detrimental to its status as disciplinary eld and profession. A
service focus may also work against an English language program in terms of business or instructional quality. ELT and its
afliated academic units can gain power through their ability to make money. On the other hand, a single-minded focus on
business may put revenues and prots above instruction, research and other disciplinary concerns, and service. Thus, a future
goal of the eld of ELT and of individual English language programs might be to develop a stronger prole as disciplinary eld
and profession while also maintaining a primary strength in instruction and secondary strengths in service and business.
Other strengths of ELT are its global orientation and its unique sociocultural prole as a highly international and feminized
profession. The value of the global context of ELT has not always been sufciently realized as a competitive advantage, nor has
the value of its unique sociocultural framing been fully appreciated or developed. These aspects of the ELT eld and of in-
dividual ELT units remain to be further explored in the future.
As a general point, the value of the expertise contained within the eld and within individual language teaching units
has not been sufciently realized in terms of giving ELT and its afliated academic units a strong position within academia.
Yet who other than ELT professionals have the kind of specialized academic knowledge and skillsdabout languages, the
teaching of languages, and the linguistic and larger communicative skills necessary for academic study, international
business, and effective communication in the home community, overseas communities, and across culturesdin addition to
the business acumen and experience in service, required to equip the world for EIL and for universities to successfully
operate in a global context? By taking a more political stance in truly owning all of its areas of expertise, supporting and
developing the eld and its associated language teaching units in recognition of their specic types of value, ELT as a eld
and specic English language programs and departments could move into a much more advantageous position than they
currently occupy.

4. Conclusion

English language teaching has developed as a worldwide community with its own practices that have resulted from the
history of the eld and the many different aspects of this activity, each of which emphasizes certain aspects of ELT work and
its associated values, as these have evolved interactively in context. Because of the many facets of ELT work, which practi-
tioners have to balance in terms of their differing priorities, the ELT eld and individual sites of ELT practice are complex,
hybrid enterprises made even more complex by the changing global and local landscapes which interactively create the
sociocultural context within which ELT work is carried out. Understanding the complex, hybrid nature of ELT and its sites of
practice is a necessary step in advocating for the status and value of the eld.
A frames perspective and the specic frames model that we have developed make it possible to view English language
teaching in a context that goes considerably beyond its core instructional activities and thus offers an expanded perspective
on and conception of the eld. We believe it is time to reframe ELT as a far more complex enterprise than one dened only by
instructional concerns, incorporating also the concerns of business, service, profession, and disciplinary eld, and as a far
richer set of practices and areas of knowledge and expertise operating within an international, multilingual, and multicultural
environment affected by the dynamic interplay of global and local forces. It is moreover time to take greater notice of the
specic constituencies involved in ELT work and their unique characteristics, and how they differ from other groups con-
nected to education, business, and service sectors. Such a reframing can help to dene and hence to gain recognition for the
different kinds of human resources and expertise resident in ELT sites of practice, professional bodies, and practitioner groups,
and to advance the status of the eld within academia, even as its disciplinary identity remains undecided. In the meantime,
the lack of agreed disciplinary status should not prevent ELT from continuing to tie the different aspects of its work into an
ongoing research agenda with increasingly specic research questions and goals, thereby helping to gain prestige within
higher education as academic work.

Acknowledgement

The current discussion develops the concept of frames as briey introduced within an ecological framework for the
description and theorization of English language program administration in the rst chapter of Pennington and Hoekje
(2010). The categories of the model presented here overlap those of Pennington and Hoekje (2010) but also diverge in several
ways from them, and the discussion is substantially new. Pennington (forthcoming) is a different development of the concept
of frames as applied to teacher identity in TESOL.
 M.C. Pennington, B.J. Hoekje / System 46 (2014) 163e175 175

References

Andrews, J. G. (2006). How we can resist corporatization. Academe, 92(3), 16e19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10780-013-9177-z.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Bartels, N. (2004). Another reader reactsLinguistics imperialism. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 128e133.
Bateson, G. (1955/1973). Steps to an ecology of mind. London: Paladin.
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Oxford: Polity Press.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham, U. K.: Open University.
Becher, T. (1994). The signicance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151e161.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Breen, M. P. (2001). Syllabus design. In R. Carter, & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 151e159).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective (pp. 11e26). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Davis, K. A., & Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2004). Looking back, taking stock, moving forward: investigating gender in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 38(3), 381e404.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3588346.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2007). Reective language teaching: From research to practice. London: Continuum Press.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-based of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 397e417.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (2004). Readers reactCommon misconceptions about the quiet revolution. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 119e127.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (2005). Response to Language teacher-learning and student language learning: Shaping the knowledge base. In D. J. Tedick (Ed.),
Language teacher education: International perspectives on research and practice (pp. 25e32) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gebhard, M. (2005). School reform, hybrid discourse, and second language literacies. TESOL Quarterly, 39(2), 187e210.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Hoekje, B. J. (2013, January 25). The language program as community of practice: Principles and implications for IEPs. In Poster presented at the American
Association of Intensive English Programs (AAIEP) Professional Development Workshop. San Francisco.
Hoekje, B. J., & Tipton, S. (2012). English language and the medical profession: Instructing and assessing the communication skills of international physicians.
Bingley, UK: Emerald/Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. Bingley, UK: Emerald/Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Hu, G. (2005). Contextual inuences on instructional practices: a Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 635e660.
Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.
Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspective on teaching World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 157e181.
Jenkins, J. (2012). English as a lingua franca from the classroom to the classroom [sic]. English Language Teaching Journal, 66(4), 486e494.
Kachru, B. (1992). Teaching world Englishes. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.). (pp. 355e366). Chicago: University of
Illinois Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2009). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. New York: Routledge. (Reprinted from original version published
2006 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahway, New Jersey).
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lerner, G. (2008). Corporatizing higher education. The History Teacher, 41, 219e227.
Muchisky, D., & Yates, R. (2004). The authors respondDefending the discipline, eld, and profession. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 134e140.
Myers, D. G. (1996). The elephants teach: Creative writing since 1880. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Neumann, R. (2009). Disciplinarity. In M. Tight, K. H. Mok, J. Huisman, & C. C. Morphew (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of higher education (pp.
487e500). New York and London: Routledge.
Pennington, M. C. (1989). Faculty development for language programs. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 91e110). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Pennington, M. C. (1992). Second class or economy? The status of the English language teaching profession in tertiary education. Prospect, 7(3), 7e19.
Pennington, M. C. (1999). Rules to break and rules to play by: implications of different conceptions of teaching for language teacher development. In H.
Trappes-Lomax, & I. McGrath (Eds.), Theory in language teacher education (pp. 99e108). London: Longman.
Pennington, M. C. (forthcoming). Teacher identity in TESOL: a frames perspective. In Y.L. Cheung, S.B Said, & K. Park (Eds.), Teacher identity and development
in applied linguistics: Current trends and perspectives. New York and London: Routledge.
Pennington, M. C., & Hoekje, B. J. (2010). Language program leadership in a changing world: An ecological model. Bingley, UK: Emerald/Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Pennington, M. C., & Richards, J. C. (2014). Teacher identity in language teaching (Unpublished ms).
Pilbeam, C. (2009). Institutional structures. In M. Tight, K. H. Mok, J. Huisman, & C. C. Morphew (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of higher
education (pp. 343e356). New York and London: Routledge.
Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. (2011). Practice teaching: A reective approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reective teaching in second language classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In M. Featherstone, S. Lash, & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global modernities (pp.
25e44). London: Sage.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Aldershot Hants, England: Avebury.
Seidlhofer, B. (2007). Explaining English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shulman, L. (1988). Disciplines of inquiry in education. In R. Jager (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 3e17). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Singh, P., & Doherty, C. (2004). Global cultural ows and pedagogic dilemmas: teaching in the global university contact zone. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 9e42.
Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tsui, A., & Tollefson, J. (2007). Language policy and the construction of national cultural identity. In A. Tsui, & J. Tollefson (Eds.), Language policy, culture, and
identity in Asian contexts (pp. 1e21). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Walker, J. (2003). English language centre service climate and client satisfaction: An investigation of New Zealand English Language Centres Offering TESOL
courses (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massey University.
Walker, J. (2011). Service, satisfaction, and climate: Perspectives on management in English language teaching. Bingley, UK: Emerald/Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Willett, J. (1996). Research as gendered practice. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 344e347. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3588150.
Winkle, C. A. (2011). A narrative inquiry into corporate unknowns: Faculty experiences concerning privatized-partnership matriculation pathway programs
(unpublished doctoral dissertation). Miami Shores, Florida: Barry University.
Winkle, C. A. (2014). University partnerships with the corporate sector: Faculty experiences with for-prot matriculation pathway programs. The Netherlands:
Brill.
Woydack, J.eE. (2013). Standardisation and script trajectories in a London call centre: An ethnography of a multilingual outbound call centre (unpublished Ph.D.
thesis). King's College London.
Yates, R., & Muchisky, D. (2003). On reconceptualizing teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 135e147.