Introduction
The English language teaching (ELT)
profession has been developed by the
globalization of the English language. Due
to the spread of the English language as a
lingua franca throughout the world, English
proficiency has been considered a key
priority for progress in different areas such
as science, technology, finance and business
in order to facilitate international
communication. Based on the results of a
survey reported by the British Council in
1995, over ninety percent of the English
language teachers around the world who
participated in the study believed that the
English language will, in the future, be the
dominant language in world media and that
it will be the world’s language for the next
twenty-five years (Crystal, 2003).
In one sense, globalization refers to the flow
of information, along with educational and
expert access as well as communication
across borders (Wong, 2007). Consequently,
globalization has undoubtedly facilitated the
transmission of knowledge throughout the
world the outcome of which has mostly been
observed in the context of education
(Carnoy, 2005). It is beyond any doubt that
in this process, the English language _ as an
international language _ plays a pivotal role.
Despite its wonderful appearance, however,
globalization is regarded as the agent of
social inequality (McMichael, 2008). Most
importantly, it has a propensity for the
homogeneity of cultural norms and values
(Stromquist & Monkman, 2000). That is to
say, the foreign countries are supposed to
give up their own cultural values and adopt
the American way of life. That is why
globalization, in Giddens’ (2000) words, is
almost equal to westernization or, more
specifically, Americanization.
When it comes to English education,
globalization directly influences the form of
English and the method through which it
should be taught in foreign countries. As
Matsunuma (2011) has recently put it, the
education system whose obligation is to
close the gap between the developed and
developing countries, is ironically making
the gap wider. She further argues that
English language teachers need to face the
reality that “not only is the English language
itself an obstacle to some learners but also
technological access and cultural innuendos
within curriculum have created, arguably, a
silent form of virtual imperialism” (p. 36).
In the following paragraphs, the ELT field
will be discussed with regards to the
colonial and postmodern eras, along with the
need for the localization of English, granted
the fact that the cultural identities of the
English language learners around the world
must be respected, embraced, and accepted
as legitimate. Next, the authors will refer to
the EFL context of Iran, and via discussing
some inherent problems which, if not
resolved, may put the cultural and religious
identities of Iranian learners of English in
jeopardy, will further argue that the field of
TEFL in Iran is in urgent need of critical
reconsiderations.
Colonialism and English Language
Teaching
The English language has become a global
language due to its colonial and imperialist
history (Pennycook, 1994; Phillipson, 1992).
In fact, the spread of English has been
orchestrated first and foremost by the
professionals in Core countries such as the
UK, USA and Canada (Phillipson, 1986). In
his attempts to demonstrate linguistic (or
language) imperialism, Kachru (1985)
proposed a concentric model of global
Englishes including three circles, namely the
inner-circle whose ownership is taken solely
by the native English-speaking countries, the
outer-circle which comprises countries that
use English as an additional language, and
the expanding-circle which involves those
countries which need English for
international communication. He further
argued that the nexus between these
concentric circles reflects an unequal state of
power, and that such a relationship
negatively influences the cultures of those
societies in which English spreads.
In addition, Phillipson (1992), whose aim
was to preserve minority languages, has
questioned the economic, linguistic, and
cultural motives of the ELT profession. He
has shown concerns about the fact that
English-speaking professionals view the
ELT field as a business whose aim is to
provide significant economic gains for their
countries’ industries to such an extent that it
makes us cast doubt upon the identity of the
ELT field as to whether it is really a
profession or an industry. On the other hand,
these professionals do not seem to be much
worried about ethical language teaching, i.e.
language teaching aimed solely at
empowering learners; they merely intend to
improve their trade and protect investments
overseas.
In another vein of argument, Kachru (1988)
contends that the English-speaking countries
such as, the United Kingdom, the United
States, Australia and Canada have always
wanted to maintain the gap between the
colonizer and the colonized countries (those
nations outside of the English-speaking
countries such as, Iran, Malaysia, India,
Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey, to name
just a few). That is to say, the English
language was considered a tool of power in
the hands of colonizers not only to further
marginalize and bulldoze the peripheral
countries but also to stereotype, dehumanize
and treat them as undistinguishable masses
(Said, 1978), the acts which were
condemned by many prominent critics (e.g.,
Ashcroft, 2001; DeGraff, 2005;
Hornscheidt, 2008; Kachru, 1996; Karmani,
2005; Pennycook, 1998; Phillipson, 1992).
In the case of English language teaching, the
English-speaking professionals have gone
too far in constructing images of the non-native learners of English. These images
have now become stereotypes for the whole
populations of the periphery countries. For
example, Malay people are depicted as
merely good imitators who lack originality
in thought and culture (Alatas, 1977). Arabs
are also seen as dogmatic, narrow-minded
people (Porter, 1994). Moreover, Chinese
students’ resistance to informal class
discussion is interpreted as their
backwardness (Pennycook, 1994).
Unfortunately, these biased stereotypes have
been overgeneralized to all Asian students to
such an extent that they are generally
thought to be lacking the skills for
evaluation and critical thinking
(Samuelowicz, 1987). It has also been
argued that Asian learners are not willing to
take part in class discussions (Devos, 2003;
Liu & Jackson, 2008). Besides, unfair
evaluation of international students merely
on the basis of their non-native accent can
lead to these learners being granted lower
grades in most classroom activities (Munro,
Derwing & Sato, 2006; Nakane, 2006).
Pennycook (1994) finds part of Phillipson’s
(1986, 1992) argument about the notion of
“English linguistic imperialism”
convincing that ELT is an outcome of
imperialism due to its intact representation
of the values and beliefs of the Core
countries. To give but one example of
Phillipson’s English linguistic imperialism,
it might be useful to return to Daniel
Defoe’s (1910) Robinson Crusoe in which
Crusoe sought to teach Friday, a black slave,
“everything that was proper to make him
useful, handy and helpful” (p. 195).
Therefore, instead of teaching Friday’s own
language, Crusoe made every attempt to
teach him the English language, the fact that
is exemplary of the global spread of English,
along with its political, economic, and
ideological implications.
As shown above, English language teaching
has been a tool in the service of colonizers
for a long time. Not surprisingly, ELT
theories and practices also represent aspects
of the dominant, i.e. Western, culture.
Accordingly, in a propensity to marginalize
other languages as well as their cultures,
Western teaching methods are also deemed
to be superior to other traditional ones (Ha,
2004). From a traditional, colonialist
perspective, the native English-speaking
teacher is regarded as the best English
language teacher, and monolingual
instruction as the best form of teaching the
English language. This is in line with Said’s
(1993) remarks that imperialism should be
examined not only in relation to material
exploitation and control but also in terms of
cultural practices, theories and attitudes.
Such exploitation in Freire’s (1985) words is
called ‘cultural invasion’ in which “invaders
penetrate the cultural context of another
group, in disrespect of the latter’s
potentialities; they impose their own view of
the world upon those they invade and inhibit
the creativity of the invaded by curbing their
expression” (p. 133).
Simply put, a great part of linguistic
imperialism involves cultural imperialism.
That is to say, the spread of English around
the globe has brought forth the idea that the
Western culture is superior to the culture of
the periphery countries, as are the theories of
English language teaching they tend to
prescribe. Such a view of culture is endemic
to a great deal of the ELT profession. Hence,
as Phillipson (1992) puts it, the English
language imperialism still continues in the
sense that the linguistic and cultural realms
of the Periphery countries are being
controlled by professionals in the Core
countries. For example, the English
language in India is said to be a “means of
continuing the suppression of Indian
thought, and of preserving an alien, elite
culture” (Tully, 1997, p. 157).
A major drawback of such linguistic and
cultural domination is ESL/EFL learners’
loss of identity. This unfortunate
phenomenon is still prevalent in English
language classrooms when learners are
asked to assume English names. According
to Pennycook (1998), renaming learners is a
sign of disrespect, contempt and
insensitivity to the different linguistic,
historical and cultural backgrounds the
learners bring to the language classrooms.
The same ethnocentrism is observed in
Defoe’s novel “Robinson Crusue” when
Crusoe shows a sort of indifference and
disrespect to Friday’s identity by renaming
him and asking the black man to call him
‘master’.
English Language Teaching in
postmodern era
However, the time finally arrived when the
political, social, economic and ideological
domination of England, as one of the largest
colonizers and imperial powers in the world,
began to diminish thanks to the emergence
of Postcolonialism as a liberation
movement. Postcolonialism significantly
delegitimized authority and opted for a more
egalitarian society (Pishghadam & Mirzaee,
2008). When it comes to SLA, the aim of
Postcolonialism is to decolonize the
colonized ELT (Bressler, 2007).
During the 1960s and 1970s,
Postmodernism, along with its elements of
subjectivism, constructivism, relativism,
localism, and pragmatism, cast doubt upon
the credibility of the mainstream Western
scientific practice (Kuhn, 1962).
Accordingly, during the postmodern era of
ELT, the idea of method which was
associated with colonialism was put into
serious question by many prominent critics
such as Kumaravadivelu (1994, 2003),
Pennycook (1989), Prabhu (1990), Richards
(2003), and Stern (1991). These critics
denounced the idea of method on the
grounds that, in Brown’s (2000) words, it
tended to introduce a set of specified
classroom techniques to be prescribed for a
wide variety of contexts and audiences
around the world.
Most importantly, Kumaravadivelu (2003)
regards the concept of method as a way of
marginalization in the sense that it
“valorizes everything associated with the
colonial Self and marginalizes everything
associated with the subaltern Other” (p.
541). From the theorizer’s point of view,
each teaching method, be it a language-centered, learner-centered, or learning-centered one, is a composite of theoretical
principles and classroom procedures. From
the teacher’s point of view, on the other
hand, none of these methods can be realized
in the emergent classroom conditions
(Kumaravadivelu, 1994) because they are
not informed by actual classroom experience
but are awkwardly imported into the
classroom (Nunan, 1991; Pennycook, 1989;
Richards, 1989).
Therefore, Kumaravadivelu (1994, 2003)
encourages the practitioners of the ELT field
to find an organized, meaningful, and
relevant alternative to method instead of an
alternative method. He further argues that in
order to decolonize the English language
teaching, there is a need to shift from the
notion of method to the notion of
postmethod. Inspired by Widdowson (1990),
who believed that the connection between
theory and practice can only be realized
through the immediate act of teaching,
Kumaravadivelu (1994) introduces the idea
of “principled pragmatism” whereby
classroom learning is supposed to be shaped
and controlled by teachers as a result of their
sense of plausibility, or their subjective
understanding of their own teaching
(Prabhu, 1990). Such understanding should
therefore be sensitive to English language
practitioners’, and not theorizers’, local
needs.
Another contribution of Postmodernism to
the ELT field was that native speakers were
no longer considered the sole owners of the
English language and native-like
pronunciation was no more considered to be
the only English proficiency benchmark. For
this reason, learners were allowed to violate
the British and American pronunciations and
structures unless these violations made their
language unintelligible. Accordingly, many
scholars (e.g., Swales, 1993; Walker, 2001;
Widdowson, 2003) contend that there is no
longer any particular distinction between the
native and non-native speakers of English,
and that non-native speakers have now taken
the ownership, through appropriation, of the
English language.
Moreover, during the postmodern era of
ELT, the idea of World English was
replaced with the notion of World Englishes,
with an emphasis on the inclusivity and
pluricentricity of new varieties of English
(Kachru, 1982). To rest solely on the
Standard English was, as Kachru (1990)
states, inadequate. Hence, instead of
adhering to the norms of one global
language, i.e. British or American English,
learners were allowed to use varieties of the
same language. Therefore, in the process of
learning English as an international
language, learners were not necessarily
recommended to internalize the cultural
values of English native speakers (Smith,
1976). Moreover, in this process, the
ownership of the English language became
de-nationalized (Smith, 1976; Widdowson,
1994). Last, but by no means least, learning
the English language entailed enabling
learners to communicate their ideas and
cultural values to others (Smith, 1976). In
this way, the juggernaut of the Standard
English was bound to diminish due to the
emergence of other language varieties.
As Widdowson (2003, p. 46) puts it, “the
point about the control of people by
language is that it is bound to fail because as
soon as the language is used it cannot be
kept under your control. People appropriate
it.” That is to say, the English language is
not a set of stable forms or norms; rather, it
is a language which can be employed in
diverse ways for different purposes. The
ESL textbooks which allocate units to the
variations and adaptations of the English
language are but some examples in this
regard. In fact, postmodernism may be
regarded as the cultural crisis of the Western
countries in the sense that they are not the
unchallenged center of the world any more,
and that other cultural possibilities are
increasingly being generated and introduced
to the world (Young, 1990).
Postmodernism seems to have influenced
the ELT profession in other ways as well.
For example, the teacher-centered
instructivism of the modern era was replaced
by learner-centered constructivism
(Cahoone, 2003). Moreover, more
importance was attached to the styles and
strategies of individual learners and teachers
(Oxford, 1990; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990;
Reid, 1987) thanks to Gardner’s (1983)
proposal of the diversity, and not unity, of
intelligences. There was also another line of
argument, namely chaos/complexity theory,
which Larsen-Freeman (1997) applied to
TESOL, and maintained that second
language learning is a complex, dynamic,
non-linear, emergent, unpredictable and self-organizing system. Finally, as another
element of Postmodernism, the emergence
of critical theories (Pennycook, 1999) is, as
Kumaravadivelu (2006a) says, concerned
with “connecting the word with the world,”
“recognizing language as ideology, not just
as system,” “extending the educational space
to the social, cultural, and political dynamics
of language use,” and “creating the cultural
forms and interested knowledge that give
meaning to the lived experiences of teachers
and learners” (p. 70).
To summarize thus far, English is no longer
the property of the Core countries; rather, it
is now the property of whoever chooses to
speak it (Pennycook, 1998). Even the
universality of Western teaching
methodologies has been discredited by many
scholars such as Ellis (1996), Kramsch and
Sullivan (1996), Pennycook (1994, 2010)
and Phillipson (1992).
Localization in English Language
Teaching
Although one liability of Postmodernism
was to liberate the colonized countries from
the confines of the Core countries, it seems
that the effects of colonialism on colonized
nations still linger today (Pennycook, 1998).
A major part of these effects are cultural
issues which, Pennycook believes, have
survived colonialism and still live on in
many forms today.
In the context of language teaching, a
composite of sociopolitical and historical
factors is involved in shaping a learner’s
self-identity and voice (Kumaravadivelu,
2006b). As Weedon (1997) has correctly
pointed out, language is “the place where
actual and possible forms of social
organization and their likely social and
political consequences are defined and
contested. Yet it is also the place where our
sense of ourselves, our subjectivity, is
constructed” (p. 21). This seems to be even
more applicable to L2 learning where
languages and cultures come into a close
contact. Norton (2000) maintains that this
contact between the cultures of two
languages can lead to identity conflicts
among learners. Therefore, there is always a
danger that language teachers might ignore
the sociocultural conditions that form
learners’ identity in the classroom.
Accordingly, Pennycook (1998) calls for a
movement towards the de-colonization of
the English language, seeking alternative
possibilities which, he states, “need to be in
our classes, our English classes, our
linguistics and applied linguistics classes,
our ESL classes, our teaching materials. We
need to work in and against English to find
cultural alternatives to the cultural
constructs of colonialism; we desperately
need something different” (pp. 217-8).
Deeply inspired by Foucault’s (1973)
concepts of discourse and power, Pennycook
further warns us that the unequal status of
the colonizer and the colonized will persist,
unless ELT professionals in Periphery
countries try their best to separate the
discourses of colonialism from the English
language and to introduce alternative
discourses around the world.
Having denied both the total efficiency of
the Western ELT and the total inefficiency
of its Asian version, Pennycook (1994)
suggested that “perhaps language – and
particularly English as an international
language – should also be replaced by a
vision of powerful discursive formations
globally and strategically employed” (p. 64).
That is to say, English language teaching
professionals around the world should
appropriate the language, along with the
materials for teaching the English language,
to the local specificities and the situated
conditions of their own countries.
This is quite in line with Giroux and
Aronowitz’s (1991) statement which refers
to teachers as ‘transformative intellectuals’
rather than merely professionals whose first
and foremost job is to transfer a body of
knowledge to students. Teaching should thus
involve, among other things, teachers’
political engagement, and curriculum
development should be concerned with
issues which are socially relevant to
particular groups of students (Pennycook,
1994, 2010).
In a similar manner, Kumaravadivelu’s
(2006b) first pedagogic parameter, namely
the parameter of particularity, states that any
postmethod pedagogy “must be sensitive to
a particular group of teachers teaching a
particular group of learners pursuing a
particular set of goals within a particular
institutional context embedded in a
particular sociocultural mileu” (p. 171). Put
another way, advancing a location-specific
pedagogy which is based on a clear
understanding of linguistic, sociocultural,
and political localities of particular students
is of prime importance to any postmethod
pedagogy. Such an attempt necessarily
entails a critical understanding, on the part
of English language teachers, lesson
planners, materials developers, and policy
makers, of the local conditions of learning
and teaching. Teachers’ understanding of
local conditions matures over time as they
practice, either individually or as team work,
observing and assessing their teaching acts,
while trying to figure out solutions to
inherent problems.
As stated above, drawing on Pennycook’s
(1989) words, there is a need in ESL/EFL
teacher education “to validate other, local
forms of knowledge about language and
teaching” (p. 613). Most importantly,
learners’ local culture and the culture of
their learning style should be respected in
English language classes (McKay, 2000).
English teachers are also recommended to
help learners reflect on their own culture
whilst learning the English language. For
instance, Canagarajah (1999) reported that,
motivated by their own cultural and
historical backgrounds, English learners in
Sri Lanka refused to accept the English
language and culture as depicted by the
West. Rather, they adapted the language to
their own aspirations, needs, and values
through re-writing and re-interpreting the
content of their Western-produced
textbooks. As a case in point, they included
their comments and graphics in the margins
of their ESL textbooks which Canagarajah
regarded as an archetype of “the strategic
ways by which discourses may be
negotiated, intimating the resilient ability of
human subjects to creatively fashion a voice
for themselves from amidst the deafening
channels of domination” (p. 197).
Many scholars from different parts of the
world have thus called for the localization of
English language teaching; among these
scholars are Kramsch and Sullivan (1996)
and Ellis (1996) who have appreciated the
works of those language teachers from
periphery regions who have been teaching
English effectively without blindly
following Western teaching standards.
Similarly, some countries have made
attempts at influencing the English language
by their local cultures and languages through
acculturation and indigenization, and in this
way, they have developed their own
varieties of English (Kirkpatrick, 2007).
These new varieties are regarded as forms of
a nativised English which, in Pishghadam
and Saboori’s (2011) words, best suits their
local context of language use, represents
their culture and nationality, and helps them
express their own experiences and ways of
thinking.
The current status of TEFL in Iran: A
call for localization
Iran has been marginalized like any other
country of the Periphery. Its subjugation has
recently been intensified due to the political
sanctions imposed by the West. Not
surprisingly, the practice of TEFL in Iran
has not been able to leave this predicament
untouched. Although a great part of this
marginalization may be due to the political
issues between Iran and the West, it may
not, however, be the best option for us to
point a blaming finger solely on the Core
countries for the marginalization of the
Iranian culture or the loss of Iranian EFL
learners’ identities, because language
institutes in Iran are themselves very much
responsible for such marginalization and
identity loss. Regrettably, it seems that these
institutes are indirectly smoothing the way
for the maintenance, via the legitimation, of
the status quo, i.e. the dominance of the
Western culture in an Iranian and Islamic
context, under the guise of competitiveness
and professionalism.
One of the most unfortunate facts about the
current status of TEFL in Iran is that Iranian
English language teachers place a very high
premium on acquiring and conforming to the
Standard English which is often regarded as
a key criterion for the recruitment of English
teachers by most language institutes.
Likewise, learners of English are often
obsessed with imitating a particular variety
of English, either British or American
English, because the more native-like they
are, the more proficient they are considered
to be (Pishghadam & Saboori, 2011).
Javdani, Mahboudi and Ghafoori (2009)
reported how English language learners in
Iran show positive attitudes towards the
American culture, while trying to act like
native speakers of English. In a similar vein
of argument, Pishghadam and Navari (2009)
maintain that, contrary to the Bakhtinian
beliefs, when two cultures come together,
there is no guarantee that the two cultures be
automatically enriched. As Pishghadam
(2011) points out, English language learning
classes have the potential to be the sites for
developing the cultural and national identity
of language learners. Therefore, English
language teachers play a pivotal role in
shaping learners’ national and cultural
identities. However, if they are not well-trained enough to cope with cultural issues,
cultural derichment is inevitable. Moreover,
in their attempts to study the relationship
between mimicry of the native-like accent
and Iranian EFL learners’ deculturation,
Pishghadam and Kamyabi (2008) found out
that there was a negative relationship
between accent and culture in the sense that
the more the learners tried to mimic the
native-like accent, the more they were
alienated from their home culture (Persian
culture). This does not at all mean that
aiming a high English proficiency (i.e.
Standard British or American accent) could
lead to marginalization and cultural
derichment; for these things, by themselves,
may not necessarily hurt students’ culture
and identity. What the authors do intend to
convey is the fact that this way of learning
English limits people’s creativity in using
the language and does not let them express
their way of thinking and present their
culture through language; rather it makes
them turn into a tool for it, which is similar
to what has been done through linguistic
imperialism.
In another vein of argument, from a critical
discourse analytic perspective to analyzing
the culture of Iran in English language
textbooks, it can be easily discerned that
Iran is now experiencing an unprecedented
era of marginalization more than any other
country of the Periphery. For instance, in a
recent series of English textbooks, namely
World English 3/the Middle East edition
(Johannsen & Chase, 2011), designed
specifically for the Middle East region in
which Iran is one of the most important
countries, there is no sign of Iran in texts,
maps and pictures in terms of its people,
culture, religion, history, etc. as though Iran
has been an ethnic minority not worthy to be
mentioned at all. This is in line with
Fairclough’s (1995) notions of
foregrounding and backgrounding in the
sense that, in this series of English
textbooks, Iran and Iranian people are in the
background while other countries in the
Middle East are in the foreground. On the
other side of the coin, no exaggeration, it
seems that without Iran, the puzzle of the
Middle East is incomplete. As a case in
point, there are different historical and
monumental places in Iran such as, to name
just a few, Persepolis/Pasargad in Shiraz,
Hegmataneh in Hamadan, Mosques with
unique architectures in Isfahan, the Burnt
city in Sistan o Balouchestan, and the Castle
of Falakol Aflak in Lorestan, which may be
interesting and fascinating not only for the
Middle East residents but for all people
around the world.
Hence, it may not be unfair to suggest that
what can be seen from the current practice
of TEFL in Iran is reminiscent of
colonialism and the global conditioning of
the modern era. Teaching the English
language to learners who bring with
themselves a confluence of political, social,
historical, cultural and religious
backgrounds to the ELT classrooms may not
be fully accomplished through mere
exposure and blatant ballyhoos of the
Western culture which is prevalent in the
market of their English teaching materials.
Hence, it is recommended that Iranian
professionals within the field be cognizant
of their dual role in the alleviation or
maintenance of the unfortunate loss of
identity among Iranian EFL learners.
It is therefore suggested that ELT
professionals in Iran not lose sight of the
real localities of the Iranian culture. It may
be implied that a shift from seeing learners
as followers of Western norms and values,
which is seemingly the current practice of
TEFL in Iran, to seeing them as socially,
culturally, religiously and historically
located individuals, which is the future
direction that TEFL in Iran should take,
needs to be a mandate for Iranian English
teachers, materials developers and policy
makers. As is clear from recent research on
teaching English in Iran, we need to take a
look beyond the current state of TEFL in
Iran and into the future, with an emphasis on
the importance of including the local
specificities of the Iranian culture and
religion, coming up with a new notion, i.e.
Iranian TEFL, which reflects not only the
Iranian people’s Islamic thesaurus, as part of
their religious identity, but also their
cultural, social, and historical perspectives.
For this reason, it is suggested that language
teachers in Iran pay greater attention to the
extent to which Iranian EFL learners, out of
individual and social interest, reshape the
resources which are available to them,
becoming, in this process, not mere imitators
of Western way of life but constructors of
their own English varieties through which
they become capable of expressing their
unique ways of thinking and presenting their
local cultures. Similarly, another obligation
would be to make attempts at fostering the
development of local teachers who have a
high degree of knowledge regarding Iran’s
local conditions and Iranian EFL learners’
local needs.
If TEFL in Iran thus wants to liberate itself
from the bonds of Western domination, it
must first recognize its purpose within the
context of the Iranian culture. First and
foremost, elements of the Iranian culture,
history, religion, values, customs, etc.
should be outlined exclusively by Iranian,
not Western, ELT professionals. Next, it is
recommended that new English textbooks be
designed by teams of native and non-native
experts within the ELT field. That is to say,
taking a Kachruvian approach, there should
be more communication between the ELT
professionals in both the Core countries and
Iran to better understand the pragmatic
needs of the Iranian English learners. The
design of these textbooks should be
informed by what Pishghadam and Zabihi
(2012) refer to as life syllabus which
highlights the importance of enhancing
learners’ life qualities, say cultural identity
(as it is the primary concern of this paper),
in ELT classes alongside their language
proficiency.
Concluding remarks
In this paper the authors have tried to show
how the West has made every effort to
ensure that the English language in its pure
British and American forms, along with
their specific ideological, cultural, and
attitudinal views, are kept as
uncontaminated as possible by other
localities. Be that as it may, the continuing
global tendency of TEFL in Iran is making
matters even worse.
The authors have also attempted in this text
to discuss what it means to teach English as
a foreign language in an Iranian context and
to remind the Iranian professionals within
the field of their national commitment.
Having considered the colonial and
postmodern views of English language
teaching, it was argued that, regrettably,
TEFL in Iran still lives in the modern era
and that the ELT professionals in Iran are
themselves very much responsible for the
marginalization of Iran by showing positive
attitudes towards the American culture. It
also seems that most of the Iranian learners
still try to conform to the Standard English,
as the prestige language, and tend to
consider it superior to other varieties;
accordingly, they try their best to strictly
imitate either of these varieties in every way
possible.
The authors further argued that there were
obvious dangers with this for, as they saw in
the discussion of the current practice of
TEFL in Iran, the more the learners tried to
achieve a native-like mastery of English, the
more they were alienated from their own
home culture. This deculturation, in turn,
was found to lead to learners’ loss of
identity. This potential problem is
accentuated by the fact that the West is
working side by side with the Iranians’ self-marginalization, to further subjugate the
national, religious and historical identities of
Iranian people.
As it was pointed out, language learning for
Iranians cannot be something simply found
in Western-produced textbooks but should
be nationally and culturally accomplished
and struggled over. It was therefore
suggested that we take greater control of
what takes place in the Iranian context of
English language teaching. Though it is the
fashion of Western countries to denigrate
other, not prestigious, English varieties, the
progress of the Iranian TEFL, i.e. the
successful assertion of Iranian local culture
against the cultural and ideological
domination of the Core countries, can be an
antidote to the harshness of all
marginalizations Iranians have suffered for
centuries. A crucial part of our argument
was thus the attempt to show the
significance of going beyond the simple
representation of Western cultural values in
an Iranian context.
Due to the emancipatory potential of Iranian
TEFL and its contribution to the betterment
of language teaching in Iran, it is thus
recommended that further research into the
application of Iranian TEFL be carried out,
and that, having sought consultations from
teams of native English and native Iranian
experts in the field, this research should lead
to the construction of a national language
curriculum which is domesticated to reflect
the real localities of the Iranian culture. This
curriculum would then be appropriate to the
local needs of Iranian EFL learners, and
would consider language-related
components as well as learners’ specific
sociocultural, historical, and religious
identities.
