研究ノート

Evolving Perceptions of English:
Investigating Contemporary International English Pedagogy

Daniel DEVOLIN

要

旨「現代国際英語専攻」（CIE）は比較的新しい専攻であり、設立時から方向性を探りながら発展してきた。現在、嘱託助教二人は多くの専攻科目を担当し、学生が卒業研究に力を発揮できるため、科目内容や教授法に工夫してきた。CIEのまとまりを維持するため、国際英語の役割、学生や大学にとってCIEの意義について教員同士が絶えず意見交換をする必要があると考える。それは担当する教員の入り替わりが多いため、共通認識を保つには欠かさないのだ。本稿では上記の課題の解決策としてコアの教授法の必要性について論じる。すでに応用されている二つのコンセプトTriple
Bottom LineとRealm of Intelligibility、また二つの方法、つまりELF lensの応用と教員同士メンタリングについて説明する。教授法の質的維持や国際英語の最新情報の共有はCIEの発展につながる。

Contemporary International English (CIE) is a relatively new major (inthe Faculty of Letters) still finding its feet. CIE currently has two shortterm contract instructors shouldering the bulk of CIE courses that
prepare students for one of three seminar instructors. Maintaining thecontemporary nature of the program involves continuous, open, andfrank discussions about what CIE is, the role of international English,
and the value of the program to students and the university at large. The

113

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 39impermanence of preparatory CIE instructors, highlights challenges tothis dialogue and the need for CIE to have core pedagogy that
accommodates faculty changes and maintains its ‘contemporary’ focus
on international English. This paper aims to discuss two CIE concepts,
the Triple Bottom Line and the Realm of Intelligibility, and two CIE
practices, applying an ELF Lens and Faculty Mentoring, that are flexible
to faculty changes and maintain a contemporary outlook.
キーワード：Triple Bottom Line Analysis トリプルボトムライン分析, Realmof Intelligibility 明瞭性の範囲, My English 私の英語, ELF Lens
英語共通語レンズ,

Language Identity 言語アイデンテテイ,

Faculty Mentoring 教員同士メンタリング

Emerging Elements of CIE
In the Faculty of Letters, Contemporary International English (CIE) is a relatively
new major that is still finding its feet. Since 2011, two seminar lecturers (three as of 201718) have been tasked with crafting and guiding a program investigating various aspects ofInternational English. Under the guidance of the seminar lecturers, two short-term contract
instructor positions are filled each year to teach ‘set-up’ classes aimed at preparing students
for their seminar selection. The contract positions are for terms of one year renewable up
to five years (originally four years). Shouldering the bulk of the courses CIE students
take, each short-term instructor teaches 10 lessons per week comprised of 6 to 8 courses
per semester, not all of which are for CIE.
Short Term Contract Courses *non-CIE courses•

Oral Comprehension•

Oral Strategies•

Preparation for TOEIC/TOEFL•

Listening Strategies•

Essential Grammar•

Basic Composition•

Current Issues 1114

Evolving Perceptions of English: Investigating Contemporary International English Pedagogy•

Current Issues 2•

Current Issues 3•

Current Issues 4•

New Media English•

Principles of Foreign Language Teaching•

Communicative English 1*•

Communicative English 2*•

Communication Skill 1*•

Communication Skill 2*•

Communication Skill 3*•

Communication Skill 4*•Advanced Reading 1*•

Advanced Reading 2*

Only one short-term contract instructor from 2011 to 2018, with eligibility to renew
their contract the maximum number of advertised times (4-5), has elected to fulfill the
maximum term. CIE hired its fifth instructor for 2018-19 and a sixth will be hired for the
2019-20 academic year, to fill vacancies in both short-term contract positions. CIE’s
short-term instructors are key to helping students grasp CIE concepts and their relevanceto a student’s chosen seminar. The transient nature of the short-term contract positions andfrequent turnover however, impede thorough transmission of program developments andcourse pedagogy from one short-term contract instructor to the next. Furthermore,
students may be negatively affected by faculty changes, causing diminished motivation or
confusion through shifts in course and program direction. Finally, frequent faculty changes
cannot assure CIE seminar instructors that students have acquired the knowledge andskills in the preparatory courses that are required for the respective seminars.
To accommodate and ameliorate the position’s normalized turnover, short-term CIE
instructors, thus far, in collaboration with CIE’s seminar instructors, have engaged inopen and frank discussions about CIE’s past, present, and future pedagogical direction.
From these discussions, transferable concepts and practices have started to emerge. This
paper aims to investigate four emerging elements shaping the development and trajectoryof CIE; the Triple Bottom Line (TBL), the Realm of Intelligibility (RoI), the ELF lens,and Faculty Mentoring.

115

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 39The Triple Bottom Line in CIE
The Triple Bottom Line (TBL) is a concept that developed out of work exploring theshifts towards sustainable development and their effects on businesses and corporations(Elkington, 1997). TBL was originally an accounting approach that encouraged businesses
to measure social, economic, and environmental prosperity. TBL critics such as Norman& MacDonald (2004) raised valid concerns about the approach, but the point to be takenfrom the TBL, as Pava countered, is that the TBL puts “the notion of accountability backinto accounting” (2007:109-110).
The TBL approach requires comprehensive assessment and consideration of thebenefits and harms in three spheres, the environmental, the social, and the economic. The
assessment of an individual sphere results in a sum benefit/harm bottom line. Taken
together, the bottom lines of the three spheres are used to inform and anchor corporate,
small business, government, or individual decision-making processes. The aim of TBL
accounting is to make the given entity sustainable.
Similarly, sustainability has long been a theme addressed in education manifestos andpolicy releases from the United Nations (UN), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Japan’s Cabinet Secretariat, and the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (UN 1992, 2017; OECD
2018, Cabinet Secretariat 2014; MEXT 2013, 2016). As an education policy actor, Aichi
University adopts and reflects the policy aims borne out of these policy releases andmanifestos. The university’s English advertising slogan, ‘Imparting Wisdom for a
Globalized World’, is a reflection of MEXT’s desire for learners to become “global
individuals who will lead society in the future” (MEXT, 2016:8). In order to develop these
globalized citizens, the UN prescribes “teaching and learning methods that motivate andempower learners” so learners can “change their behaviour and take action for sustainable
development” (2014). For CIE, the TBL contributes to achieving these aims.
The TBL plays a significant role in developing media literacy and critical thinking
skills, particularly in CIE’s New Media, and Current Issues courses. Current Issues (I, II,
III, and IV), as a set of courses, is the heart of CIE and embodies the major’s name; thecontent is contemporary and international, and the primary language of research andcommunication is English. Current Issues presents several challenges for both instructors
and students. For instructors, revealing a personal position on an issue may influence a116

Evolving Perceptions of English: Investigating Contemporary International English Pedagogy

student’s performance whereby a student caters to the instructor’s viewpoint. Creating
conditions that encourage free, safe and respectful debates and discussions, requires
students to be informed and able to research a given topic. For students, often ignorant of
the issues and wary of public conflict and disagreement with their peers, the challenge is
voicing an informed opinion and engaging in the classroom and online discussions. The
greatest challenge for students is accessing international resources and processing theinformation in English.

Overcoming these challenges determines the success andenjoyment of the course for both students and instructors.
For two years, CIE students research, explore, discuss, debate, present, and predict,domestic and international current issues from the six TBL perspectives:
			•Socially Harmful			•Socially Beneficial

			•

Economically Harmful			•Economically Beneficial			•

Environmentally Harmful			•Environmentally Beneficial

The TBL approach, as used in Current Issues, follows a general pattern. The firstissue is chosen by the instructor and students are assigned to groups. Each group represents
one of the six TBL perspectives. Subsequent issues and TBL perspective groups arechosen by students. Students research and explore issues from the TBL perspective andprepare a digital presentation. Each group presents and leads part of a class; ensuringclassmates are informed of a perspective. Following the presentations, students from thebeneficial perspectives assemble and review the TBL benefits. Likewise, students fromthe harmful perspectives assemble and review the TBL harms. Students are then assigned
debate groups containing one member from each of the six TBL positions. Following thesmaller group debates, students engage in a plenary benefit/harm debate contributing
arguments from their groups` perspective. Finally, small group and plenary debates arerepeated with students free to discuss and debate from their personal perspective on theissue, if they choose. Students then reflect on, summarize, and submit their experiencesand viewpoints using digital audio and digital word-processing formats.
For students, the TBL involves finding the source of information, filtering out fakenews, synthesizing facts, reflecting on social, economic, and environmental values, andexploring how individuals, businesses, and governments can change or be held accountable
117

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 39for their environmental, social, and economic choices. Through these activities, students
acquire contemporary English language, diversify their domestic and international
perspectives, and foster their sense of empathy. The realization of the extent of international
English content, available beyond their preconceived notion of English speaking countries(U.S., U.K, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland), also occurs at various points in thecourse. Students notice the English used in a news source from China and a news sourcefrom India are similar to that of the UK or the US, but the content and perspectives aredifferent. Students appreciate how English is an international medium of information
dissemination. Finally, students become aware of how TBLs are manipulated. For
example, a company may focus resources and media on contributions to sports, the arts,and environmental stewardship, in order to distract from its tax avoidance or productrecalls. The TBL approach in CIE, provides students with life-long analytical skills thatempower them to address issues and push for more sustainable solutions.
For instructors, the TBL frees them from unconsciously revealing their positions on
topics because students lead the research and discussion. Instead, instructors can focus
on scaffolding the TBL with empowering skills such as critical thinking, primary andsecondary research, assessing the quality of information, information synthesis, debate
language, discussion approaches, presentation skills, and any harms/benefits possibly
overlooked or less developed by a given group’s presentation.
The TBL approach prepares students for the discussions and debates through the six
presentations designed to inform and the peer support from a given group’s assigned
perspective. The nature of the assigned or chosen position on an issue provides a more
comfortable environment for students to build their skillsets. The final free discussions
and debates become less intimidating and devoid of ignorance and awkwardness. Most
importantly for CIE, the TBL concept is transferable to other courses and provides ascaffold for incoming short-term contract instructors to build on.

The Realm of Intelligibility
Realm is widely defined as a kingdom, a field, or a domain. Intelligibility is widely
defined as the quality of being intelligible which itself means clear, understandable, orcomprehensible. The Realm of Intelligibility (RoI) then, could be defined as the domainof being understandable. This domain is fluid and the keys to the kingdom lay in the118

Evolving Perceptions of English: Investigating Contemporary International English Pedagogy

skillsets of those who are engaged in an effort to understand.
A communicative event is an interaction between individuals, usually with theintention of being understood. Two or more individuals attempting to understand eachother engage in communicative activity. Communicative activity is comprised of one ormore communicative events. When actors in a communicative event engage skills that
accomplish the desired communicative outcome(s) of its participants (mutual
understanding) the RoI is established. If none of the actors understand each other, theRealm of unIntelligibility is established (RoIx). Both the RoI and RoIx exist for theduration of a communicative event and are changed by the engaged skillsets from one
communicative event to another.
If actors continue successful communicative activity, meaning all participants or aknowledgeable observer can confirm that the involved parties understand each other, or
activity becomes successful through accommodation (Beebe & Giles, 1984), the skills
engaged to achieve the communicative outcome(s) are within the established RoI/establish
the RoI. If actors continue communicative activity that is unsuccessful or becomes
unsuccessful, meaning all participants or a knowledgeable observer can confirm that the
involved parties do not understand each other, the skills engaged that result in the negative
communicative outcome(s) are outside the RoI and maintain or establish the RoIx.
In a communicative event, one participant may not understand the other(s). Thispossibly leaves one or all participants questioning the communicative abilities of theother(s) and/or themselves, or worse, one participant thinks they understand when thereality is that they do not. The same participants however, may have different outcomes ina similar communicative event context with different participants. Different participants
have different skillsets at their disposal thereby redefining the parameters of the RoI.
The RoI may be broad or narrow depending on the collective communicative L1 andL2/L2+ skillsets of the participants. For participants using a common L1, the likelihoodof accessing the RoI is quite high, though by no means guaranteed. The RoI for L1 actors
would likely be broad since common L1 skillsets could be harnessed by all participants.
For L2/L2+ participants the focus is on transferring relevant L1 skills to the L2 andacquiring the necessary L2 skills to more frequently access the RoI.
As participants in communicative events in their L1 and L2/L2+, CIE students
examine sensory and non-sensory aspects that might expand or contract the RoI. Aspects
include a participant’s education, pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, speed, intonation,
119

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 39L1, L2/L2+ experience, other lingua franca, negotiation of meaning, clarification style,culture, TBL perspectives, and motivation to achieve understanding. Students are
essentially relieved of the perceived requirement to communicate with high degrees ofaccuracy in their L1 or L2/L2+.
A CIE goal is to produce students that are functional in several language scenarios byarming them with enough skills to increase the likelihood of accessing the RoI. Thisrequires students to focus less on accurate grammar and vocabulary production, and moreon the communicative event itself. Understandably, students who, prior to joining CIE,
have been inculcated with the idea they must use the prescribed absolute, pure,authoritarian, or nativist approaches to language, are shoved outside of their comfort
zones.
The introduction and development of the ‘My Language’ concept, particularly as it
is addressed by Widdowson (1994, 2003), Norton (1997, 2013) and Kohn (2012a,2012b,
2018), eases the transition away from high accuracy language production and demonstrates
the importance of accessing the RoI. If a language is defined by the sum of its users, eachlanguage user will use a version that is different, by varying degrees, to that of anotheruser. The more a language has users the more My Language versions and the likelihoodof a language’s diversity. The aim is to use My Language in a way that can access the RoI
with as many other users of a given language as possible. CIE students come to realizethat if everyone is using their version of a language, sensitivity to their interlocutor’s
version of a language, and the skills they engage, is necessary to access the RoI. Whenparticipants engage the same skills in a communicative event, a skill spectrum is created
to which users will have to adapt to varying degrees, in order to have successfulcommunicative events. The more knowledgeable of a skill spectrum, the more comfortable
CIE students become. By the end of the program, CIE students should expect languagethat is not part of their preconceived or prescriptive notion of a language. For CIE, thelanguages are English, Japanese and any other L1s, L2/L2+s CIE students encounter.
Students develop a wider sense of motivation and culture analyzing the RoI. CIE
students learn to identify what skills motivate them and where in a skill spectrum theywould like to be. The RoI allows students to define their goals and determine what
successful communication is for them. Students are more creative in the ways they cancommunicate and the new-found approaches to communicating are often counter to theirprescriptive textbook language teachings, and represent a parallel language reality to120

Evolving Perceptions of English: Investigating Contemporary International English Pedagogy

explore.
For CIE instructors, the RoI is a transferable concept used in several CIE and nonCIE courses. For example, Listening Strategies, Essential Grammar, Current Issues, orOral Comprehension, address the RoI and the skills and skill spectrums possibly engaged
in a communicative event, from the perspective of the course title. Through various CIE
courses, students identify relevant sensory and non-sensory information and skills thatthey can engage to access the RoI, and how to recognize or apply any communicative
accommodations. For CIE students the RoI becomes a journey of self-reflection, noticing,and communication skill assessment. Students identify aspects of their communicative
abilities they can improve, those they are proficient in, those they are satisfied with, thosethat they can accommodate, and those that others will need to accommodate. For CIE
short-term contract instructors, the RoI contributes to maintaining program and content
continuity between instructors by providing a framework in which instructors can address
their academic specialities.

Applying an ELF Lens
The author conceptualizes language, for CIE students, as a fluid multidimensional
spectrum of means of communication that is artificially divided by time, space, and users.
English and Japanese, for example, are far enough apart on the language spectrum to be
ascribed their own language segments. Language segments have perceived or prescribeduser centers, for example Japanese  Japan, Portuguese  Portugal, French  France,
English  England. The constructed centers are fluid; shifting in space (e.g. borders),
time (e.g. variation), and users (e.g. sustainable populations). The temporary, sustained,or historic ties of one segment with another, forms a segment spectrum fringe between
ascribed segment centers. Centers and fringes can expand, contract, envelop, or separate
from other language segment spectrums.
Every communicator is a My Language user. Collectively, My Language users form
the fluid multidimensional spectrum that is Language. Each user primarily identifies withan ascribed language segment whose center would be referred to as their L1. If, forexample the identified L1 is Japanese, then the user is a My Japanese user. Not every user
will apply their identified L1 in the same way. As a result, all users identifying their L1
as being from the same segment center, influence the ascribed center spectrum for that
121

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 39language segment. No real center, or prime example of a language user exists; not because
the user population affecting the spectrum and multidimensional nature of any language
segment is in constant flux, but because the entire segment and spectrums are subjectively
ascribed by its ‘My Language’ nature. When L1 users form or establish ties with anotherlanguage segment, the user adopts that My Language segment’s center moniker. For
example, the My Japanese user that establishes ties with the English segment is also a My
English user.
Far short of conducting a global survey of second language course textbooks andinstructors and basing assertions solely on language learning experiences in 5 languages
and informal perspective surveys of past and present students, the author speculates a very
high percentage of second language textbooks and instructors currently apply a native
speakerism approach to second language acquisition. Second language textbook publishers
and instructors applying a native speaker approach are trying to define and make static alanguage segment center that does not exist; a centrist approach. This centrist approach
focusses primarily on communicative efficiency and intelligibility relative to a nondescript
L1 user model. Students A and B are led to believe they must follow the prescribed ABAB
model (e.g. A communicates something, B responds, A concurs, B acknowledges theresult) to be understood in a given communicative event or any communicative activity.
What seemingly fails to be addressed or answered is what students A and B are to do if A,
B, or both A and B, deviate from the model. What if A and B use different L1s? What if A
and B use different cultural reference points? What if A and B have different communicative
motives? What if A or B are located at different positions on the English spectrum? What
if C joins the communicative activity and reshapes the RoI skillset for better or worse? If
students are only exposed to a nativist language model, how can textbook publishers andinstructors, as learning facilitators, help learners overcome the pressures, whether
institutionally mandated or self-inflicted, of attaining a native/centrist proficiency level?
Considering the infinite variability of possible combined skillsets My English users could
engage in a communicative event, and the resulting spectrums of skills affecting thespectrum of English, publishers and instructors could be forgiven for choosing centrist
examples for the sake of ink and paper. However, the examples ignore the whole of the
English spectrum and are injustice to users. For learners the narrowed examples reinforce
the myth of a native or centrist ideal. The message is that access to the RoI requires
learners to become the native or get as close as possible to the segment center; not My
122

Evolving Perceptions of English: Investigating Contemporary International English Pedagogy

English but Their English.
What centrist second language textbooks and instructors ignore, the academic fieldof ELF addresses directly; the entirety of the English spectrum from its elusive center to
its numerous fringes. An oft cited definition of ELF is “any use of English among speakers
of different first languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice,and often the only option” (Seidlhofer, 2011: 7). In a more recent incarnation, Jenkins(2015) broadens the ELF definition to include multilingual contexts. Jenkins’ English asa Multilingua Franca (EMF) is “Multilingual communication in which English is available
as a contact language of choice, but is not necessarily chosen” (2015: 73).
The field of ELF has amassed corpus, analyzed a range of skills, and provided
insights into communicative events from a variety of My English user perspectives andskillsets. The work of ELF academics is creating awareness of the breadth and flexibilityof English use. Research focussing on the spectrum of English such as the minimum
skillset composition of non-L1 My English users that have successfully accessed the RoI,
for example Jenkins’ phonology related work (2000), and complex compositions of My
Language user skillsets, locations, and L1s, in communicative events where English may
or may not be part of the primary means of communication (Seidlhofer, 2011; Mauranen,
2012; Kirkpatrick, 2014), are pushing boundaries of the English spectrum.
CIE approaches the English world with an ELF Lens, exploring the English segmentfrom its center(s) to its fringes. The ELF Lens refocuses instructor approaches to theEnglish language and English CLIL components of the program. Instructors are tasked
with taking a wider and less prescriptive position towards English than current norms. In
CIE, ELF could be defined as one My English user communicating with other My English
users to access the RoI. For CIE seminar and short-term contract instructors, the ELF
Lens is both practical and necessary. The approach is practical for developing My English
skillsets for international communication and necessary to stay abreast of temporary,sustained, and historic language ties influencing the English spectrum to maintain programcontemporariness.
The journey for CIE students might go something like this. A student joins CIE.
Some join still hanging on to their nativist indoctrination or wondering how on Earth they
can communicate intelligibly and efficiently without the prescriptive ABAB model. When
CIE students realize the skills and skill spectrums involved in successful communication,
via the RoI, and the international scope of information dissemination using English, via
123

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 39the TBL, English as a Lingua Franca becomes the ‘attain native proficiency’ pressure
release valve. Students shift their approach to English from the narrow ABAB, to what is
possible when A or B or both A and B deviate from the centrist model. Students come tounderstand that users choose to use My English, or not, as an L1 or L2/L2+, based on thegiven skillsets of My English users participating in a given communicative event.
The ELF Lens, as it is applied in short-term contract instructor courses, aims tohighlight the spectrum of English communication. Listening Strategies, Oral Strategies,
and Oral Comprehension, for example, draw attention to the varieties of language in both
Japanese and English. Examining selections of My English and My Japanese users
courtesy of the students themselves, online accent tags, and various corpuses, students
learn the more exposure they have to a user’s listening or speaking styles the more attune
they become to the range of My Englishes. Accommodation techniques, such as clarifying
or asking for repetition, are also examined. Students are exposed to flipped scenarios
where students try to understand various examples of the instructor’s non-prescribed My
Japanese grammar and pronunciation. The goal is to demonstrate how correct, perfect,
native, or centrist notions of language are not necessary to communicate a message
effectively. For example, the instructor says and writes, “say tah he rooh E on ahkah kah
ooh ya suey key no.” Students who do not immediately understand the example areaccommodated by those who do. Eventually, all participants decipher the non-prescribedJapanese to a version of:
kinou no hiru, Aeon de, yasui no aka seetaa o kaimashita

昨日の昼, イオンで安いの赤セーターを買いました。
Yesterday afternoon, I bought a cheap red sweater at Aeon.
Following the activity students reflect on the process of understanding non-prescribedJapanese. Students discover the irrationality of thinking a My English interlocutor will
not be as flexible as the students were with the instructor, when students use My English
outside the classroom.

Students often shift the discussion to whether katakanapronunciation falls within the RoI. The students form a consensus that for those familiar
with Japanese, katakana pronunciation would more likely fall within the RoI; ELF with aJapanese flavour. Students also realize most people are unfamiliar with the Japanese
language and katakana pronunciation would likely fall outside the RoI in many
communicative events, requiring greater accommodation to access the RoI. Students
often place katakana pronunciation in the My English spectrum but at the fringes.
124Evolving Perceptions of English: Investigating Contemporary International English Pedagogy

The ELF Lens is also applied in Essential Grammar, a course addressing, language
accommodation, and the RoI. Students examine textbook examples of English used by
Japanese, considered errors by their prescriptive publishers, from the perspective ofaccessing the RoI. With the help of the instructor, students discuss the degrees to whichaccommodation would be necessary to access the RoI. Furthermore, the students, most ofwhom are Japanese, become aware of a concentration of users on the English spectrum
that is identified as Japanese English.
An example of Japanese English is the use of the word ‘live’. Commonly used as an
adjective or adverb in centrist English, Japanese English also uses ‘live’ as a noun. For
example:A: What did you do last night?

		

B: I went to a live.

		

A: Who did you see?

		

B: A local band.

In the example above, A is likely to be familiar with Japanese English. A conversation
with someone unfamiliar with Japanese English may proceed as follows:		

A: What did you do last night?

		

B: I went to a live.

		

A: A live what?

		

B: What do you mean? / looks confused

Essential Grammar asks students to consider the degree of importance each individual
places on the various skills involved in English communication. Students must address
what the minimum requirement is to access the RoI in a given communicative event if
everyone is using their own My English? Taking the ‘live’ example, students often
minimize the exchange to:		

A: Last night?

		

B: Live.

		

A: See? /(gesture)		

B: Local/City band.

The ELF Lens as it is applied to CIE’s course set, enables students to grasp the scopeof the English language segment through exploration outside centrist notions of language.
In conjunction with the concepts of the RoI and TBL, student perceptions of English are
evolving. The TBL expands global awareness of English use, the RoI broadens the notionof understandable English, and an ELF Lens removes the pressures of achieving unrealistic
125

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 39language goals.

Faculty Mentoring
The Faculty Mentoring of today lays the foundation for the human resource
development and knowledge creation legacies of tomorrow. As the norm of impermanent
instructors pervades, rather than viewing short-term contracts as token positions to be
filled, institutions are best served by investing in these instructors. An instructor’s status
should not preclude their engagement in research, program development, or exchanges ofideas and opinions. Engagement contributes to a person’s job satisfaction and motivation
to invest in oneself and their place of employment.
CIE’s Faculty Mentoring includes all its instructors engaging in open and frank
discussions about CIE’s pedagogical direction. In more involved CIE Faculty Mentoringa CIE seminar instructor working with a non-faculty member invited one short-term CIE
instructor to join their research group. Participation in the research group provided theshort-term contract instructor several opportunities to develop their research, publication,and international presentation portfolios. The seeming success of this collaboration leadto the inclusion of both short-term instructor positions in the research group. The shortterm contract instructor first invited to join the research group and the CIE seminar
instructor that initiated the invitation, have moved on from CIE however they both remain
involved with the research group and current CIE faculty.
Aichi University’s current English slogan, Imparting Wisdom for a Globalized World,
is not limited to its students. CIE’s Faculty Mentoring has benefitted the program throughits exchange of ideas, perspectives, and curriculum development. The university has also
benefitted through CIE’s faculty presence and research contributions at academic
conferences. The continued involvement of past CIE faculty is the potential beginning ofa human resource and knowledge legacy.

The Future of CIE
The very nature of short-term contracts forces instructors to constantly have an eye
on academic opportunities elsewhere. The turnover of such positions affects a program’s
course content delivery and continuity to various degrees. CIE needs short-term contract126

Evolving Perceptions of English: Investigating Contemporary International English Pedagogy

instructors to maximize their eligible contract renewals to ensure smooth facultytransitions, program continuity, and contribution to research. The contributions of CIE’s
impermanent preparatory instructors thus far, highlights both the strengths of current
practices and the challenges of maintaining the developed momentum of core pedagogy.
Without Faculty Mentoring, the TBL, the RoI, and the ELF lens elements would not havedeveloped to their current extent. These elements contribute to maintaining CIE’s program
continuity during faculty transitions and, most importantly, evolving student perceptionsof English. Before short-term faculty leave Aichi University and achieve varying degrees
of global success, it is imperative Aichi University invests in their development to claim
its contribution to the legacies and assert achievement of its English slogan.

References
Beebe, L. M., & Giles, H. (1984). Speech-accommodation theories: A discussion in terms of secondlanguage acquisition. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 46, 5-32. Retrieved
from doi:10.1515/ijsl.1984.46.5
Cabinet Secretariat (Japan) (2014). Released The United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable
Development – Japan Report. Retrieved fromhttps://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/kokuren/pdf/report_h261009_e.pdf
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Oxford:
Capstone.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Jenkins, J. (2015). ‘Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca.’ Englishes
in Practice, 2(3), 49–85. Retrieved from doi:10.1515/eip-2015- 0003
Kirkpatrick, Andy. (2014). The language(s) of HE: EMI and/or ELF and/or multilingualism?. Asian
Journal of Applied Linguistics. 1. 4-15. Retrieved fromhttps://www3.caes.hku.hk/ajal/index.php/ajal/article/view/23
Kohn, K. (2012a). 'My English': Second Language Acquisition as Individual and Social Construction.
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCfpD49YhSg& feature=youtu.be
Kohn, K. (2012b), My Language – My English. Towards a Lingua Franca Pedagogy. Retrieved fromhttp://www.sprachlernmedien.de/my-language-my-english-toward s-a-lingua-franca-pedagogy/
Kohn, K. (2018). MY English: a social constructivist perspective on ELF. Journal of English as a
Lingua Franca, 7(1), pp. 1-24. Retrieved from doi:10.1515/jelf-2018-0001
Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2013). ESD Quest. Retrieved from

127

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 39http://www.esd-jpnatcom.mext.go.jp/pdf/ESDQUESTstorybook.pdf
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2016). Overview of the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/en/about/pablication/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2017/02/15/1374478_001.pdf
Norman, W. & MacDonald, C. (2004). Getting to the Bottom of “Triple Bottom Line”. Business Ethics
Quarterly ,14(2), 243-262. Retrieved from doi:10.5840/beq20041 4211
Norton, B. (1997). Language, Identity, and the Ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409–29.
Retrieved doi:10.2307/3587831
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.). Bristol,England: Multilingual Matters.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2018). The Future of Education and Skills:
Education 2030. Retrieved fromhttp://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E 2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf
Pava, M. (2007). A Response to "Getting to the Bottom of 'Triple Bottom Line'". Business Ethics
Quarterly, 17(1), 105-110. Retrieved from doi:10.2307/27673160.
Seidlhofer, B (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
United Nations (1992). Agenda 21. Retrieved fromhttps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/c ontent/ documents/Agenda21.pdf
United Nations. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (2014). What is
ESD? Retrieved fromhttp://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco-world-conference-on-esd-2014/resources/what-is-esd/
United Nations. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (2017). UNESCO
Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable development. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002462/246270e.pdf
Widdowson, H.G. (1994). The Ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly Vol. 28, No. 2 (Summer), pp.
377-389. Retrieved from doi:10.2307/3587438
Widdowson, H.G. (2003). Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. OUP. Chap. 4: The ownershipof English.

128