Monocultural Pedagogy on EFL Learners: Language Marginalization and Colonial Legacy in the Chinese Education System

In an increasingly globalized world, linguistic competence plays a vital role in transcending national and cultural boundaries, fostering cross-cultural communication (Crystal, 2003). Proficiency in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) is particularly important for navigating this interconnected landscape. However, EFL teaching and learning environments often perpetuate colonial legacies, marginalizing and disempowering multilingual students, particularly in non-English speaking countries (Aneja, 2016). The Chinese education system exemplifies these issues, prioritizing standardized EFL-focused curricula over diverse and context-sensitive approaches, which has broader societal implications (Chen, 2016; Wang, 2014; Zou & Lee, 2021). In this regard, rooted in the late 1970s, China's Open Door Policy heralded English as a "barometer of modernization" (Ross, 1992, p. 240), and its privileged status facilitated widespread literacy and economic growth. However, this policy has also inadvertently intensified the structural disparities between English and other languages, resulting in the perpetuation of linguistic imperialism and inciting confrontation (Canagarajah, 1999; Pennycook, 2007).

Concerns surrounding the prominence of English in China have been raised, examining its impact on education and culture (Hu & McKay, 2012). In this field, the pervasive influence of Standard English has long been a subject of debate among scholars. Observers have often criticized the hegemonic status afforded to this particular variety of English, arguing that it marginalizes other linguistic forms and perpetuates inequality. Various alternative frameworks have been proposed to challenge the dominance of Standard English, such as the concept of World Englishes (Bhatt, 2001; Kachru, 1997; Kachru & Nelson, 1996), the notion of linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992a, 1997), and the examination of cultural politics (Pennycook, 2017). Following these lines of research, this essay argues that the perpetuation of monocultural pedagogical practices in EFL undermines global citizenship and intercultural communicative competence (see Porto et al., 2018 for a similar argument) and reinforces power imbalances rooted in colonial dynamics (Lowe, 2020). Through the deconstruction of contemporary EFL classrooms' covert colonialism, this essay aims to envision alternative approaches that champion plurality and resist hegemonic pressures. Three critical dimensions will be explored: monocultural learning materials, pedagogy, and policy.

Monocultural Learning Materials

Delving into the intricacies of this matter, a multitude of scholarly inquiries have examined English language textbooks across various nations, drawing parallels to the phenomena of globalisation and localisation, as well as cultural identity, assimilation, amalgamation, and dislocation. Research conducted in a diverse range of geographic locales, such as Korea (Song, 2013), Hungary (Weninger & Kiss, 2013), and Singapore (Curdt-Christiansen, 2015), exemplify this intellectual pursuit. Consequently, significant concerns have emerged from these analyses such as cultural aphasia and burgeoning nationalism within English Language Teaching materials—leaving no tome unturned in this global discourse. In the Asian context, upon scrutinising a century's worth of Japanese English-learning textbooks, Hino (1988) discovered that these resources primarily espoused Anglo-American values, thereby entrenching the notion of native-speaker supremacy. An examination of ELT materials in Hong Kong (Yuen, 2011) and Taiwan (Su, 2016) reveals a conspicuous absence of local and Chinese cultural elements. A parallel conclusion was drawn by Tajeddin and Teimournezhad (2015) in their study of Iranian textbooks, where not a single allusion to the learners' native background was unearthed (p. 188). South Korea presents an intriguing case. Although local cultures manage to find their footing within the pages, the standard-setting paradigm for EFL remains indebted to North American varieties. Yet, these cultural images predominantly revolve around North American lifestyles or occasionally entertain glimpses of British and Australian lives (Yim, 2003, p. 71).

Similarly, most English textbooks in China predominantly present standard British or American English models, limiting students' exposure to authentic linguistic varieties reflective of native speakers' true discourse (Xiong, 2012; Xiong & Qian, 2012). These textually idealized constructions often convey unnatural communication patterns that lack the richness and nuance found in real-world interactions. Overemphasis on standardized norms may foster linguistic insecurity among students who struggle to grasp impeccable grammar and pronunciation rather than nurturing functional language proficiency for effective communication (see Richards & Rodgers, 2014 for a review of how different methods may influence the final achievement). Another consequence of defaulting to British or American standardizations is the inadvertent endorsement of cultural imperialism. By prioritizing these Anglo-centric dialects over other native English varieties (e.g., Australian, Indian, or South African English), the textbooks inadvertently suppress diverse cultural and linguistic perspectives (Xiong & Qian, 2012). Such a monolithic representation reinforces a hierarchical perception of languages that can discourage learners from embracing their own linguistic background, leading to compromised self-expression capabilities. In addition, critical thinking is an invaluable skill that enables individuals to objectively analyse information and communicate effectively. However, standardized language norms in textbooks can potentially hinder the robust development of these critical thinking skills among Chinese students learning English (El Soufi & See, 2019; Osborn, 2005). Uniform presentation of information may foster passive learning, as students simply receive and memorize standard language formats. As a result, students focusing solely on prescribed linguistic structures might lack the necessary foundation to excel in more nuanced and context-dependent communication scenarios. Nevertheless, it is worth noticing that, with the efforts of contemporary practitioners, some contexts in China have already been phased in CLIL or PBL pedagogy (Yang & Gosling, 2014), although it is unknown whether the monocultural norms are still present.

In accordance with the stipulations set forth by the Higher Education Department of China's Ministry of Education (2010), the nation's English language instruction ought to provide learners with a comprehensive understanding of cultural diversity, encompassing both foreign and domestic perspectives. The ultimate objective is to cultivate a multitude of viewpoints, thereby enabling students to become indispensable agents in fostering international dialogue, intercultural comprehension, and cultural exchange. However, upon closer evaluation, it appears that the present state of cultural content within textbooks, spanning across the three concentric 'Circles' of study, falls short of achieving these lofty aspirations (Xiong & Qian, 2012). Instead, it regrettably propagates a confined and oversimplified outlook on global cultures. The prevalence of foreign, predominantly Anglo-American, cultural references in Chinese textbooks ostensibly fosters a cosmopolitan approach to education. However, the sparse portrayal of indigenous traditions risks engendering cultural amnesia among students exposed to these curricula. Such imbalances may inadvertently sow seeds of cultural inequity or even inferiority. Far from smoothing the path towards effective intercultural exchanges, this skewed pedagogical slant may instead erect barriers to transcending cultural divides and preclude the circumvention of misunderstandings.

In response to these concerns, it becomes crucial for educational institutions and material designers to intentionally create more inclusive and diverse learning resources that accurately reflect the rich tapestry of global cultures and linguistic variety. Collaborating with native speakers and cultural experts from various backgrounds ensures unbiased representation within texts, alongside cultivating critical thinking by presenting heterogeneous perspectives.

Monocultural pedagogy

The concept of translanguaging, first introduced by Williams, denotes a deliberate approach to language instruction where input is presented in one tongue or format, such as spoken word, while the output is produced in another, potentially written form (W. Li, 2018). García, 2009 (p. 140) expanded this notion to encompass 'the act enacted by bilinguals to tap into distinct linguistic attributes or diverse modalities of what are deemed independent languages, thereby optimising their communicative capacity.' In contemporary times, this multifaceted term has been extensively employed to synthesise an array of cross-lingual practices within multilingual milieus (García et al., 2014). These bi/multilingual individuals fluidly harness such resources to decipher their complex realities (Creese & Blackledge, 2015). This perspective acknowledges the symbiosis between languages in increasingly interconnected fashions, aptly accommodating the dynamic interplay involving languages, communities, and cultures (S. Li & Luo, 2017). Consequently, the act of "translanguaging" serves as an alchemic transformation; it orchestrates a societal confluence for multilingual speakers by unifying divergent dimensions of their personal history, experiences, and milieu (W. Li, 2022).

However, in China's educational system, restricting multiple language use has been perpetuated to encourage monolingual practices. A prime example is observed in English-medium instructions (EMI) across various institutions in China. Despite the systemic mandate of adopting English as the medium for academic instruction, studies have demonstrated that it can diminish students' comprehension and expression due to linguistic constraints (H. Li, 2020). Restricting learners from employing their native languages to enhance understanding contributes to promoting monolingualism at the expense of diverse language use that fosters learning. Moreover, China’s foreign language policies further discourage translanguaging. Butler (2015) observes that foreign language education policies prioritise standardized language proficiency over bilingualism or functional literacy development. Consequently, educators find themselves reliant on traditional monolingual methodologies that restrict multilingual teaching practices.

One implication is the excessive reliance on native-speaking English educators in institutions across China (Xiong & Yuan, 2018). Often underpinned by the belief that a native-speaker status confers innately superior linguistic skills upon individuals, this predilection engenders a host of detrimental consequences for both local educators and learners (Moussu & Llurda, 2008). The perpetuation of this presumption has given rise to a form of linguistic imperialism which undermines linguistic diversity and reinforces biased perceptions about language proficiency (Phillipson, 1992b). Moreover, the attendant internalization among local educators of feelings of inadequacy can engender profound repercussions for their professional growth and self-perception. As Wang (2014) contends, when educational institutions exhibit preferential treatment towards "authentic" English speakers hailing from traditionally English-speaking regions— such as the United Kingdom or the United States— local teachers might experience disempowerment and marginalization. In turn, these pitfalls could impinge adversely on their motivation levels and commitment to their vocation, thereby hindering their ability to bolster students' learning. Likewise, such preferential treatment may inadvertently foster an environment that encourages superficial judgments about teaching effectiveness. For instance, research reveals that students do not necessarily attain better learning outcomes under native English-speaking instructors compared to their non-native counterparts (Medgyes, 1992). Indeed, Aslan (2015) posits that non-native educators can potentially foster more empathetic learning interactions due to their shared experiences in mastering English as a foreign language. Consequently, placing undue emphasis on native-speaker status might inadvertently curtail educators' willingness to explore diverse instructional techniques or adopt contextually relevant pedagogical approaches that could benefit their students.

Therefore, teachers must be willing to critically assess and challenge the prevailing paradigm of monolingual instruction, exploring alternative teaching methodologies that cater to the diverse linguistic backgrounds of students. By updating pedagogical approaches in line with contemporary research findings, educators can ensure all learners have equal opportunities for academic success. In this context, Cummins (2000) demonstrates that students exposed to bilingual and multilingual educational approaches display increased cognitive flexibility and superior problem-solving abilities compared to their monolingual counterparts. Furthermore, Grosjean (2010) posits that cultivating an atmosphere that supports the growth and use of multiple languages not only bolsters students' linguistic proficiencies but also fosters a deeper comprehension of various cultures and perspectives.

In addition, embracing multilingualism within educational settings entails recognizing and validating the linguistic assets that each student brings to the classroom (García et al., 2014). In many schools, multilingualism is seen as a complementary aspect rather than an integral part of language learning, leading educators to forego its potential benefits. In order to tackle this challenge, it is imperative for educators to embrace a holistic and inclusive pedagogical approach that duly emphasizes the cultivation of students' multilingual competencies (Baker, 2011). This means not only exposing learners to different languages but also identifying unique opportunities for cross-linguistic learning in which students draw from their own language repertoires to foster comprehension and promote cultural exchange (Creese & Blackledge, 2010). Furthermore, educators should consider integrating explicit instruction on the benefits of multilingualism to counter any preconceived notions that may undermine its value. For example, dispelling misconceptions about linguistic interference and promoting the cognitive advantages associated with multiple language acquisition can encourage greater appreciation for diversified language learning opportunities (Cenoz, 2013).

Monocultural Policy

The global educational landscape is significantly shaped by diverse players, including international organizations and influential nations. In this context, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and English-speaking countries have become prominent drivers in shaping educational discourse. Established in 1945, UNESCO has consistently aimed to foster access to quality education for all by promoting collaboration among nations (UNESCO, 2021). Through initiatives such as Education for All and Sustainable Development Goal 4, UNESCO has successfully mobilized resources from both governments and private sectors (Assembly, 2015). Influential educational institutions residing in anglophone nations, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, have contributed substantially to the development and dissemination of global education methodologies. Their influence is evident through academic partnerships, research collaborations, scholarship provisions, and offshore campus establishments (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Additionally, these nations lead the international accreditation landscape with bodies like the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET) in the US and the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in the UK serving as benchmarks for educational institutions worldwide (Al Saad, 2012; Badran & Muwalla, 2019; Van Damme, 2002). Despite these positive developments, it is crucial to critically examine potential adverse effects, such as the propagation of hegemonic educational practices that may undermine local cultures and vernacular strategies.

The incorporation of English Language Teaching (ELT) into China's national curriculum reflects an overt recognition of English's dominant role in global contexts, despite the country's historical resistance to external influence (Fairbank & Goldman, 2006). The increasing Western influence during the late Qing Dynasty (1850-1912) and greater openness in the Republican Era (1912-1949) facilitated the development of English-medium schools. As globalization advanced, this momentum continued, cultivating a context susceptible to linguistic and cultural imperialism (Ritzer & Malone, 2000). China's English education policies may inadvertently contribute to language attrition and the undermining of its own cultural heritage, as English proficiency often correlates with enhanced employment opportunities and social mobility (Hu & McKay, 2012). Furthermore, the prioritization of English above local languages or minority cultures may marginalize non-speakers and exacerbate social divisions (Hornberger & Vaish, 2009). The potential adoption of Western cultural values within ELT might also introduce these values into Chinese society, subtly promoting a process of cultural homogenization (Phillipson, 2009; Stanley, 2013). It is worth noting, however, that recent investigations have suggested a more complex relationship between language education and nationalism, with some findings indicating that English study may not undermine, but rather enhance, Chinese students' national pride (Wei, 2023; Wei et al., 2022). Subsequently, it is imperative to conduct further investigation to explicate the fundamental processes and ramifications associated with this observed occurrence.

In response to these findings, it is imperative for policymakers to actively adopt strategies that emphasize a context-specific and interdisciplinary perspective. First and foremost, when devising and executing educational policies, it is crucial to consider each community's distinct cultural, linguistic, and historical contexts. This may entail engaging local stakeholders, endorsing indigenous knowledge systems, and integrating vernacular pedagogies consistent with community values and customs. Such measures will better prepare policymakers to alleviate detrimental effects of educational hegemony and cultivate a more inclusive learning environment. Moreover, fostering international collaboration between educational establishments should be pursued while upholding cultural diversity. Academic alliances, research cooperation, scholarship programmes, and the establishment of offshore campuses can yield mutual benefits for domestic and international entities by enhancing cross-cultural comprehension and facilitating knowledge exchange. Nevertheless, it is essential that these efforts align with the specific requirements of the involved communities to guarantee their long-term efficacy. Additionally, accreditation organisations such as ABET (US) and QAA (UK) should contemplate devising culturally-sensitive evaluation criteria that address local conditions while preserving high-quality standards. This may require close collaboration with regional accrediting bodies and conducting comparative assessments to discern effective practices from various sources. Furthermore, within ELT programmes - exemplified by those in China - it is vital for policymakers to integrate critical language awareness initiatives empowering students to scrutinize underlying assumptions concerning linguistic hegemony. Such programmes must address the social disparities and marginalization resulting from language prioritization while concurrently promoting opportunities for linguistic diversity.

Conclusion

In this essay, we have examined the pervasive influence of monocultural narratives within EFL education, their implications for both learners and material designers, and the perpetuation of linguistic imperialism. We also assessed the impact of discouraging translanguaging and privileging native-speaker models on educators, and the potential role of global education policies in covertly reinforcing colonial legacies. Drawing from these nuanced analyses, we contend that monocultural pedagogical practices in EFL hinder global citizenship and intercultural communicative competence, exacerbating power imbalances rooted in colonial dynamics.

As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, it is crucial to shift our mindset and practices in EFL teaching and learning. Recognizing the value of multilingualism and cultural diversity in global education remains paramount to fostering cross-cultural communication and dismantling hegemonic structures. This transformation calls for a concerted effort from various stakeholders: material designers should collaboratively create inclusive learning resources, educators should embrace translanguaging to empower students with diverse linguistic repertoires, and policymakers ought to adopt context-sensitive approaches aligned with local values while nurturing international collaborations. As a collective, we must strive towards a more pluralistic vision of English language education, one that transcends boundaries and unites cultures to cultivate global citizens actively engaged with our ever-evolving world landscape.

References

Al Saad, S. N. (2012). ABET and QAA based Framework proposal for Higher Education in Iraq. Al-Mustansiriyah J. Sci, 23(5), 139–150.

Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305.

Aneja, G. A. (2016). (Non) native speakered: Rethinking (non) nativeness and teacher identity in TESOL teacher education. Tesol Quarterly, 50(3), 572–596.

Aslan, E. (2015). When the native is also a non-native:“Retrodicting” the complexity of language teacher cognition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 71(3), 244–269.

Assembly, G. (2015). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 11 September 2015. New York: United Nations.

Badran, A., & Muwalla, M. (2019). Quality assurance and relevance for competitive higher education: Context of Jordan. Major Challenges Facing Higher Education in the Arab World: Quality Assurance and Relevance, 257–276.

Baker, W. (2011). Intercultural awareness: Modelling an understanding of cultures in intercultural communication through English as a lingua franca. Language and Intercultural Communication, 11(3), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2011.577779

Bhatt, R. M. (2001). World Englishes. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30(1), 527–550.

Butler, Y. G. (2015). English language education among young learners in East Asia: A review of current research (2004–2014). Language Teaching, 48(3), 303–342.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford University Press.

Cenoz, J. (2013). Defining multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 3–18.

Chen, Y.-M. (2016). Collaborating with English teachers in developing and implementing a context-sensitive communicative approach in Taiwanese EFL secondary school classes.

Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115.

Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2015). Translanguaging and identity in educational settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 20–35.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge university press.

Cummins, J. (2000). Immersion education for the millennium: What we have learned from 30 years of research on second language immersion.

Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2015). Ideological tensions and contradictions in lower primary English teaching materials in Singapore. In Language, ideology and education (pp. 129–144). Routledge.

El Soufi, N., & See, B. H. (2019). Does explicit teaching of critical thinking improve critical thinking skills of English language learners in higher education? A critical review of causal evidence. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 60, 140–162.

Fairbank, J. K., & Goldman, M. (2006). China: A new history. Harvard University Press.

García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In Social justice through multilingual education (pp. 140–158). Multilingual Matters.

García, O., Wei, L., García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Language, bilingualism and education. Springer.

Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual. Harvard university press.

Hino, N. (1988). Nationalism and English as an international language: The history of English textbooks in Japan. World Englishes, 7(3), 309–314.

Hornberger, N., & Vaish, V. (2009). Multilingual language policy and school linguistic practice: Globalization and English-language teaching in India, Singapore and South Africa. Compare, 39(3), 305–320.

Hu, G., & McKay, S. L. (2012). English language education in East Asia: Some recent developments. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(4), 345–362.

Kachru, B. B. (1997). World Englishes and English-using communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 17, 66–87.

Kachru, B. B., & Nelson, C. L. (1996). World englishes. Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, 11, 71–102.

Li, H. (2020). Changing status, entrenched inequality: How English language becomes a Chinese form of cultural capital. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(12), 1302–1313.

Li, S., & Luo, W. (2017). Creating a Translanguaging Space for High School Emergent Bilinguals. CATESOL Journal, 29(2), 139–162.

Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a Practical Theory of Language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx039

Li, W. (2022). Translanguaging as method. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 100026.

Lowe, R. J. (2020). Uncovering ideology in English language teaching: Identifying the’native speaker’frame (Vol. 19). Springer Nature.

Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: Who’s worth more? ELT Journal, 46(4), 340–349.

Ministry of Education. (2010). National Medium and Long-Term Educational Reform and Development Program (2010-2020) (国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要(2010-2020年)). Ministry of Education. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A01/s7048/201007/t20100729_171904.html

Moussu, L., & Llurda, E. (2008). Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching, 41(3), 315–348.

Osborn, T. (2005). Critical reflection and the foreign language classroom. IAP.

Pennycook, A. (2007). The myth of English as an international language. Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages, 62, 90–115.

Pennycook, A. (2017). The cultural politics of English as an international language. Taylor & Francis.

Phillipson, R. (1992a). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press.

Phillipson, R. (1992b). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press.

Phillipson, R. (1997). Realities and myths of linguistic imperialism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18(3), 238–248.

Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued. Routledge.

Porto, M., Houghton, S. A., & Byram, M. (2018). Intercultural citizenship in the (foreign) language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 22(5), 484–498.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (Third edition). Cambridge University Press.

Ritzer, G., & Malone, E. L. (2000). Globalization theory: Lessons from the exportation of McDonaldization and the new means of consumption. American Studies, 41(2/3), 97–118.

Ross, H. (1992). Foreign language education as a barometer of modernization. Education and Modernization: The Chinese Experience, 11, 239–254.

Song, H. (2013). Deconstruction of cultural dominance in Korean EFL textbooks. Intercultural Education, 24(4), 382–390.

Stanley, P. (2013). A critical ethnography of’Westerners’ teaching English in China: Shanghaied in Shanghai. Routledge.

Su, Y.-C. (2016). The international status of English for intercultural understanding in Taiwan’s high school EFL textbooks. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(3), 390–408.

Tajeddin, Z., & Teimournezhad, S. (2015). Exploring the hidden agenda in the representation of culture in international and localised ELT textbooks. The Language Learning Journal, 43(2), 180–193.

UNESCO. (2021). Meeting report: Ministerial Segment of the 2021 Global Education Meeting. https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/global-education-meeting-2021-final-report-en.pdf

Van Damme, D. (2002). Trends and models in international quality assurance in higher education in relation to trade in education. Higher Education Management and Policy, 14(3), 93–136.

Wang, R. (2014). TESOL Standards for Adults and College English Curriculum Requirements in China.

Wei, R. (2023). National identity and multilingualism: A survey of Chinese Mongolian university students. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–18.

Wei, R., Reynolds, B. L., Kong, M., & Liu, Z. (2022). Is bilingualism linked to national identity? Evidence from a big data survey. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–15.

Weninger, C., & Kiss, T. (2013). Culture in English as a foreign language (EFL) textbooks: A semiotic approach. TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 694–716.

Xiong, T. (2012). Essence or practice? Conflicting cultural values in Chinese EFL textbooks: A discourse approach. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 33(4), 499–516.

Xiong, T., & Qian, Y. (2012). Ideologies of English in a Chinese high school EFL textbook: A critical discourse analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 32(1), 75–92.

Xiong, T., & Yuan, Z. (2018). “It was because I could speak English that I got the job”: Neoliberal discourse in a Chinese English textbook series. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 17(2), 103–117.

Yang, W., & Gosling, M. (2014). What makes a Taiwan CLIL programme highly recommended or not recommended? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(4), 394–409.

Yim, S. (2003). Globalization and national identity: English language textbooks of Korea. New York University.

Yuen, K.-M. (2011). The representation of foreign cultures in English textbooks. ELT Journal, 65(4), 458–466.

Zou, M., & Lee, I. (2021). Learning to teach critical thinking: Testimonies of three EFL teachers in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 1–15.