What does it mean to teach English critically in a world marked by linguistic diversity, technological change, and persistent inequalities? Teaching English Otherwise brings together ten essays that examine English language education through critical, situated, and decolonial perspectives. Grounded in Applied Linguistics and written from the Brazilian context, the collection explores English as an international language, critical literacies, multimodality and artificial intelligence, language politics in borderlands, teacher education, postmethod pedagogy, conceptions of language and discourse, intercultural pragmatics, assessment, and practicum supervision. Rather than offering universal methods or ready-made solutions, the essays place established theories in dialogue with local realities and examine how power, identity, access, and legitimacy permeate educational practices. Addressed to teachers, teacher educators, researchers, and students, this book invites readers to question inherited assumptions and envision forms of English language education that are more reflective, inclusive, and responsive to the communities in which teaching and learning take place.
PONTO 01
Global English, Local Realities: Rethinking Initial English Teacher Education
The unprecedented global expansion of English over the past decades has significantly reshaped its sociolinguistic status and its role in education worldwide. Since Kachru’s (1985) seminal Three Circles model, English has increasingly been understood as a pluricentric language, used and appropriated by speakers from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. However, such plurality raises important questions about whose English is considered legitimate, which norms should guide teaching, and how a global language can be meaningfully taught within particular educational contexts. Against this backdrop, understanding English as an international language (EIL) in initial teacher education requires more than acknowledging linguistic plurality; it requires pedagogical reorientation that equips future teachers to critically negotiate linguistic norms and relate the global circulation of English to the diverse realities of their local contexts. To develop this argument, the discussion first examines the tension surrounding linguistic authority and native-speaker norms, then considers how initial teacher education can mediate between global pedagogical knowledge and local educational realities, and finally discusses the implications of EIL for multilingual contexts and the professional legitimacy of future English teachers.
Conceptually, the notion of EIL challenges traditional assumptions about linguistic authority and standardization. Seidlhofer (2011), from an ELF perspective, draws attention to the extensive use of English among speakers from diverse linguistic backgrounds, challenging the assumption that native-speaker norms should provide the exclusive reference point for successful communication. In such interactions, intelligibility and pragmatic negotiation must become central criteria, rather than strict conformity to inner-circle norms. However, as Rajagopalan (2003) argues, the ideology of the native speaker remains deeply embedded in educational systems, shaping expectations about proficiency, legitimacy, and professional competence. Standardized proficiency exams, global publishing markets, and dominant media representations continue to privilege certain varieties, particularly British and American English. As a result, future teachers often experience tension between theoretical acknowledgment of linguistic plurality and institutional expectations that continue to reinforce normative standards.
This tension has consequences for how pre-service teachers perceive their own professional legitimacy, particularly when they are exposed to beliefs that equate effective English teaching with native-like language use. In the Brazilian context, El Kadri and Gimenez (2013) bring this debate directly into teacher education by questioning assumptions about who can be recognized as a legitimate English teacher from an ELF perspective. Initial teacher education therefore plays a crucial role in guiding future teachers to examine these assumptions critically and recognize that professional legitimacy is not grounded in proximity to idealized native-speaker models, but in informed pedagogical practice, linguistic competence, and the ability to negotiate communication across diverse contexts. Addressing this tension does not require a radical rupture with established norms, but rather the development of critical awareness. Initial teacher education should therefore enable future teachers to understand how linguistic hierarchies operate and how they are reproduced through educational practices and materials, so that they enter the profession prepared to make informed pedagogical decisions that strengthen their own professional agency while empowering learners to engage confidently with diverse uses of English.
These tensions have important implications for initial English-language teacher education. Preparing future teachers to work with English as an international language requires programs that move beyond purely technical training and foster critical reflection about language, pedagogy, and context. In the Brazilian context, Celani et al. (2016) question the assumption that globally produced theories and pedagogical models can be uniformly applied across educational settings, arguing instead for the construction of local knowledge informed by the realities of particular classrooms. This perspective resonates with Kumaravadivelu's (2003) postmethod pedagogy, which values contextual sensitivity, teacher autonomy, and the ability to adapt pedagogical decisions to specific learning environments. Such practices include analyzing authentic interactions among speakers from different linguistic backgrounds, discussing the role of intelligibility in relation to accent conformity, and critically examining textbooks that privilege specific varieties as universal models. Drawing on perspectives that value linguistic diversity, teacher education can promote a more inclusive understanding of language practices without disregarding the need for shared communicative norms. The objective is not to abandon shared norms entirely, but to contextualize them within a broader and more realistic view of global language use.
Furthermore, recognizing English as an international language also requires teacher education programs to prepare pre-service teachers for increasingly multilingual realities. From this perspective, EIL should not become another externally established model to be mechanically implemented, but a framework through which future teachers can critically interpret the linguistic realities of their own contexts. In many educational contexts, English is taught and used alongside other languages, reflecting linguistic landscapes shaped by mobility, globalization, and cultural contact. As an example, in border regions such as Mato Grosso do Sul, English is often taught and learned within already multilingual environments, where Portuguese coexists with Spanish and Indigenous languages such as Guarani. In this sense, García et al. (2021) argue that language education must move beyond bound views of language and recognize that bilingual speakers mobilize complex linguistic and semiotic repertoires to make meaning. For teacher education, this implies developing pedagogical approaches that value linguistic diversity while critically examining prescriptive practices that may reproduce linguistic hierarchies. Such pedagogical repositioning can ultimately strengthen pre-service teachers' agency in using English as a resource for meaningful participation in global and local communities.
In conclusion, understanding English as an international language represents more than a descriptive shift in linguistic theory; it entails a pedagogical and institutional reorientation in teacher education. While native-speaker norms remain influential, the global reality of English demands that future teachers be prepared to engage with linguistic plurality, negotiate norms critically, and promote inclusive communicative practices. By integrating conceptual clarity, institutional awareness, and pedagogical reflection, initial teacher education can respond more coherently to the complex status of English in contemporary society.
References
CELANI, Maria Antonieta Alba; FREIRE, Maximina M.; RAMOS, Rosinda de Castro Guerra (orgs.). A Abordagem Instrumental no Brasil: um projeto, seus percursos e seus desdobramentos. Campinas: Mercado de Letras; São Paulo: EDUC, 2009.
KACHRU, B. B. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In: QUIRK, R.; WIDDOWSON, H. G. (eds.). English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. p. 11–30.
KUMARAVADIVELU, B. Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.
PENNYCOOK, A. Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. London: Routledge, 2007.
RAJAGOPALAN, K. Por uma linguística crítica: linguagem, identidade e a questão ética. São Paulo: Parábola Editorial, 2003.
SEIDLHOFER, B. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
GARCÍA, Ofelia; FLORES, Nelson; SELTZER, Kate; LI, Wei; OTHEGUY, Ricardo; ROSA, Jonathan . Rejecting abyssal thinking in the language and education of racialized bilinguals: A manifesto. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 2021. DOI: 10.1080/15427587.2021.1935957.
Celani, M. A. A. (2016). Um programa de formação contínua. In M. A. A. Celani (Org.), Professores e formadores em mudança: Relato de um processo de reflexão e transformação da prática docente (2nd ed.). Mercado de Letras.
El Kadri, M. S., & Gimenez, T. (2013). Formando professores de inglês para o contexto do inglês como língua franca. Acta Scientiarum. Language and Culture, 35 (2), 125–133.
García, O., Flores, N., Seltzer, K., Li, W., Otheguy, R., & Rosa, J. (2021). Rejecting abyssal thinking in the language and education of racialized bilinguals: A manifesto. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 18 (3), 203–228.
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Yale University Press.
Rajagopalan, K. (2003). Por uma linguística crítica: Linguagem, identidade e a questão ética. Parábola Editorial.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford University Press.
PONTO 02
Disrupting the Commonplace: Critical Literacies in Initial English-Language Teacher Education
The concept of critical literacies is closely connected to the tradition of critical pedagogy inspired by Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), in which education is conceived as a practice of freedom rather than domination. Freire’s legacy highlights the importance of enabling learners not only to decode linguistic forms but also to interpret the social and ideological dimensions of language. In the context of English language teaching, this perspective becomes particularly relevant due to the global spread of English and its complex relationship with cultural, political, and economic forces. From this standpoint, developing critical literacies in teacher education means preparing future teachers to question how meanings, identities, and power relations are constructed through discourse. This essay, therefore, argues that critical literacies should play a central role in initial English-language teacher education, enabling future teachers to examine the ideological dimensions of this global language in a critical way, engage with multilingual realities, and mediate the role of digital technologies in contemporary language learning environments.To develop this argument, the discussion first examines the relationship between language, discourse, and power, then considers how critical literacies can respond to multilingual and culturally diverse contexts, and finally discusses their role in preparing future teachers to engage critically with digital technologies and emerging forms of meaning-making.
Building on this critical understanding of education, Lewison, Flint, and Van Sluys (2002) characterize critical literacy through four intertwined dimensions, which involve engaging with texts and social practices that disrupt what is taken for granted, interrogate multiple perspectives, examine sociopolitical relations, and open possibilities for social action. This view positions READERS as ACTIVE participants in meaning-making, capable of questioning whose perspectives are represented, whose voices are silenced, and what interests particular representations may serve. In initial teacher education, this perspective is especially relevant because future teachers need to develop this critical lens themselves before they can create opportunities for their learners to do the same. Therefore, developing critical literacies involves preparing teachers to question dominant representations of language, identity, and society and to transform such awareness into pedagogical practices that open possibilities for alternative meaning through the texts and discourses that circulate in their lives.
When applied to English-language teacher education, disrupting the commonplace also involves questioning assumptions about English and its teaching that have been presented as natural or desirable. From a critical perspective in Applied Linguistics, Pennycook (1999) and Canagarajah (1999) have challenged the supposed neutrality of English language teaching by highlighting its connections to the historical and ideological processes of globalization and cultural power. Phillipson (1992) contributes to this debate by identifying several fallacies that sustain the global expansion of English and reinforce unequal linguistic hierarchies. Among the five fallacies described by the author, two are particularly relevant to critical literacy perspectives: the monolingual fallacy and the subtractive fallacy, which discourage the use of learners’ first languages in the process and portray multilingual repertoires as obstacles to language learning. Challenging these assumptions becomes essential in initial teacher education, as it helps recognize how natural ideas about language may reproduce particular linguistic hierarchies and encourages pedagogical practices that value multilingual repertoires as legitimate resources for meaning-making and learning.
Within the Brazilian context, this critical awareness requires future teacher to consider how broader linguistic hierarchies interact with the sociocultural realities in which English is taught and learned. Rajagopalan (2003) questions the uncritical reproduction of hegemonic linguistic norms and highlights the political impications of privileging particular varieties and speakers of English. Such awareness, however, also needs to inform pedagogical decision-making. Paiva (2005) adds to this discussion the notion of critical autonomy, emphasizing teachers’ and learners’ ability to make choices that respond to specific sociocultural realities. From this critical literacy perspective, English learning does not require the erasure of learners’ linguistic identities and repertoires or the suppression of their first language. In line with this view, Schlatter and Garcez (2009) argue that English teaching in Brazil should not be understood solely as an instrument for professional mobility, but also as a means of promoting citizenship and social participation. This view also resonates with the guidelines of the national educational policies which increasingly position language education as a pluricentric resource for intercultural communication. Therefore, critical literacies can help teachers translate awareness of language and power into situated practices to foster learners’ capacity to critically interpret discourses, question power relations, and participate more actively in the communicative practices that shape their local and global realities.
In recent years, the discussion around critical literacies has expanded to include digital environments and emerging technologies in language education. Pennycook argues (2018), from a posthumanist perspective, argues that language learning emerges from complex interactions among humans, technologies, and material conditions. Such view become relevant once digital tools and artificial intelligence are often perceived as neutral facilitators of learning. However, as Nunes (2019) points out, in her investigation of automated feedback in EFL writing, the theoretical assumptions underlying digital applications need to be critically examined, particularly as human-machine interaction increasingly becomes part of language learning. From a critical literacy perspective, this means disrupting the commonplace notion that technology operates neutrally and engaging with educational tools not only as pedagogical resources but also as objects of critical reflection. This implies preparing future teachers to critically evaluate digital tools, design pedagogical activities that promote reflection on language and technology, and guide learners to use these resources with an informed understanding of their benefits and limitations. Such preparation can foster more agentive and inclusive uses of technology while preventing its uncritical incorporation in to language education.
In conclusion, critical literacies provide future teachers with ways of questioning how meanings, identities, and power relations are constructed and negotiated thrugh texts, discourses, and contemporary communicative practices. Ininitial teacher education, this perspective is especially relevant, as it prepares future teachers to move beyond purely technical approaches to language instruction and engage with the broader implications of English in contemporary society. By questioning linguistic ideologies, valuing multilingual repertoires, and promoting reflective engagement with digital technologies, teacher education can contribute to more inclusive and socially responsible pedagogical practices. Ultimately, integrating critical literacies into teacher education is not only a pedagogical choice but also an ethical commitment to preparing teachers to navigate and transform the complex and hybrid communicative realities of the present.
References
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford University Press.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder.
Lewison, M., Flint, A. S., & Van Sluys, K. (2002). Taking on critical literacy: The journey of newcomers and novices. Language Arts, 79 (5), 382–392. https://doi.org/10.58680/la2002255
Nunes, G. M. (2019). Automated writing evaluation: A posthuman perspective on the development of writing in EFL [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Pelotas].
Paiva, V. L. M. O. (2005). Autonomia e complexidade: Uma análise de narrativas de aprendizagem. In M. M. Freire, M. H. V. Abrahão, & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Linguística aplicada e contemporaneidade (pp. 135–153). Pontes/ALAB.
Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33 (3), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587668
Pennycook, A. (2018). Posthumanist applied linguistics. Routledge.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press.
Rajagopalan, K. (2003). Por uma linguística crítica: Linguagem, identidade e a questão ética. Parábola Editorial.
Schlatter, M., & Garcez, P. M. (2009). Línguas adicionais (Espanhol e Inglês). In Secretaria de Estado da Educação do Rio Grande do Sul, Departamento Pedagógico (Ed.), Referenciais curriculares do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul: Linguagens, códigos e suas tecnologias (Vol. 1, pp. 127–172). Secretaria de Estado da Educação.
PONTO 03
Beyond Technological Adoption:
Multimodality, AI, and Critical Pedagogical Design in English Language Education
Language teaching has always been intertwined with the technological resources available in each historical moment. Digital technologies have expanded the environments in which multimodal meaning-making takes place, while the emergence of generative AI has introduced new possibilities and challenges for language teaching and learning. These developments invite educators to revisit understandings of language, literacy, and pedagogy, as well as the roles of teachers and learners in increasingly technology-mediated practices.
This essay discusses how multimodalities and AI are reshaping English language teaching and learning in higher education, while also arguing that their educational value depends on critical and purposeful pedagogical integration. To develop this argument, I first discuss the shift from monomodal to multimodal perspectives on language and communication. Then, I examine the pedagogical implications of digital technologies and AI in higher education, drawing on both critical and practice-oriented perspectives. Finally, I address the need for critical reflection on the social, ideological, and ethical implications of these transformations, particularly in relation to teacher mediation and linguistic diversity.
The shift from monomodal to multimodal perspectives on language has significantly impacted how meaning is understood and constructed. Traditionally, language teaching privileged written and spoken modes, often under the assumption that language is a system detached from other semiotic resources. However, contemporary perspectives in applied linguistics challenge this view by recognizing that meaning is produced through the interaction of multiple modes, such as image, sound, gesture, and spatial design. In this sense, Kress (2010) argues that communication in the digital age is inherently multimodal, requiring learners to navigate and combine diverse semiotic resources to make meaning. Similarly, the multiliteracies framework proposed by Cope and Kalantzis (2000) expands the concept of literacy to include the ability to interpret and produce texts across different modes and cultural contexts. This has important implications for English language teaching in higher education, where students are increasingly required to engage with multimodal texts in academic and digital contexts.
While these perspectives have been widely discussed in international contexts, their implications acquire particular significance in the Brazilian educational landscape. Rojo (2009) argues that contemporary literacy practices increasingly involve multisemiotic texts, in which written language interacts with images, sound, movement, and other modes of meaning-making. For this reason, education needs to move beyond print-based literacy and engage learners with the multiple languages and media that characterize the social practices of today. Importantly, this expansion should also foster critical and active participation, enabling learners not only to interpret multimodal texts but also to question the meanings and discourses circulating through these texts. Thus, in Brazil, multimodality in language teaching is not merely a methodological shift. It involves expanding the forms of literacy through which learners engage critically with and produce contemporary texts and discourses.
In this context, the role of teachers is redefined as they become designers of learning experiences and critical mediators of technological tools. In higher education, however, technical training alone is insufficient: pedagogical design also requires an understanding of the epistemic conditions under which AI-generated output is produced and presented as knowledge. Paiz, Toncelli, and Kostka (2025) define GenAI literacy as the ability to understand, evaluate, and ethically use AI while recognizing its capabilities, limitations, and societal impacts. For teachers, this means making informed pedagogical decisions about when and how AI can contribute to particular learning goals rather than adopting technology for its own sake. For learners, it involves evaluating AI-generated content, making responsible choices about its use, and maintaining an active role in their own learning. Thus, GenAI literacy becomes a necessary dimension of language education, as both teachers and learners need to navigate AI-mediated practices critically and purposefully.
One possible application involves developing prompt literacy through academic writing practices in higher education. Students may be asked to design prompts for specific writing purposes, such as developing an argument or revising a paragraph. In doing so, they need to clarify their communicative goals and decide what kind of support they expect from the system. After receiving an IA-generated response, learners can evaluate whether it meets those purposes and revise both the prompt and the text accordingly. In this way, prompting becomes a reflective writing practice, requiring learners to make explicit decisions about language, purpose, and audience instead of passively accepting AI-generated content as a whole. Prompts may also be designed around multimodal sources, such as graphs or images, requiring students to interpret these resources and integrate them into their academic writing.
Such practices also show how AI can reconfigure learners’ participation in language production and decision-making. Reinders (2026) argues that, in AI-mediated language learning, control, reflection, and cognitive and evaluative functions may be distributed between learners and intelligent systems. Pedagogical uses of Generative AI therefore should keep learners actively involved in the decisions through which tests are planned, revised, and evaluated. In higher education, this shift makes questions of authorship, responsibility, and assessment particularly relevant.
These concerns are particularly relevant in English language education, since AI systems are not necessarily neutral in the linguistic norms they reproduce. A recent systematic review of AI in higher education ELT/ELL reports limitations associated with native-speaker-oriented design, dialectal variation, and limited cultural adaptability (Wang et al., 2026). From a critical perspective, this raises questions about which varieties of English and forms of linguistic knowledge are recognized and legitimized in AI-mediated learning. Teachers must therefore keep this concern in sight and develop the critical digital literacy needed to guide students into examining how AI can also marginalize non-dominant language varieties and the identities and communities associated with them. This awareness gap in language learning classrooms may reproduce may reinforce linguistic hierarchies rather than contribute to emancipatory practices that value cultural and linguistic diversity.
Thus, multimodalities and AI are reshaping English language education by expanding the resources available for meaning-making and reconfiguring how teaching and learning are mediated. Their integration calls for more than technological adoption, as teachers and learners need critical literacy to engage with these resources purposefully and responsibly. In higher education, these transformations require critical and ethical engagement, since technologies are not neutral and may influence which varieties of English, forms of knowledge, and modes of participation gain legitimacy. Rather than replacing teachers, learners, or institutions, AI therefore demands a reconsideration of their roles and responsibilities. Its educational value ultimately depends on how these technologies are situated within pedagogical, social, and institutional contexts.
References
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. Routledge.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
Paiz, J. M., Toncelli, R., & Kostka, I. (2025). Artificial intelligence, real teaching: A guide to AI in ELT. University of Michigan Press ELT. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.14329762
Reinders, H. (2026). From learner autonomy to hybrid autonomy: A research agenda. Artificial Intelligence in Language Education, 2, 104233. https://doi.org/10.29140/aile.2026.104233
Rojo, R. (2009). Letramentos múltiplos, escola e inclusão social. Parábola Editorial.
Wang, Y., Hasim, Z., Wu, L., & Fang, Y. (2026). The use of artificial intelligence in English language teaching and learning in higher education: A systematic literature review. Cogent Education, 13 (1), 2696619. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2026.2696619
PONTO 04
English in Borderlands:
Negotiating Linguistic Diversity, Power, and Educational Inclusion
The role of English in contemporary societies has been profoundly reshaped by processes of globalization, mobility, and intensified contact among languages and cultures. In borderland regions, these dynamics become even more visible, as different linguistic systems coexist, interact, and often overlap in everyday communication. Rather than functioning as clearly separated entities, languages in these contexts are constantly negotiated, reflecting social identities, historical trajectories, and power relations. Within this framework, English frequently emerges as a lingua franca, used by speakers of diverse linguistic backgrounds, which challenges traditional notions of linguistic norms and ownership. Therefore, understanding English in borderland regions requires examining not only how it is negotiated through multilingual and translingual practices, but also how linguistic policies and educational institutions legitimize certain resources while marginalizing others. This essay argues that English language education in borderland contexts should respond to these tensions through context-sensitive pedagogical and institutional practices that recognize linguistic diversity without disregarding the conventions learners need to participate across different communicative contexts. First, I discuss the multilingual dynamics of borderland regions and the role of English as a lingua franca. I then examine translanguaging practices and the political implications of legitimizing particular linguistic resources. Finally, I consider the pedagogical and institutional implications of these dynamics for English language education and teacher education
Borderland regions are characterized by intense linguistic and cultural contact, in which languages are not used in isolation but in dynamic, fluid interaction. From a sociolinguistic perspective, language in these contexts must be understood as a social practice, essentially shaped by the needs, identities, and histories of its users. As highlighted in Schmitt and Celce-Murcia (2010), applied linguistics seeks to comprehend how language operates in real-world contexts, emphasizing its role in human interaction rather than as an abstract system. In border areas, such as those found here in Latin America, it is common to observe the coexistence of Portuguese, Spanish, and indigenous languages, creating hybrid communicative practices that challenge the rigid distinctions between languages. These multilingual realities become particularly relevant when English enters the equation, since its use no longer follows traditional assumptions based on native-speaker norms or monolingual perspectives.
According to Seidlhofer (2011), English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) refers to the use of English among speakers from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, where communication frequently involves adaptation, negotiation, and flexibility between interlocutors rather than strict adherence to standard norms. Therefore, in borderland regions, English does not simply operate as an external language added to existing linguistic systems. Instead, it becomes integrated into already complex multilingual repertoires, interacting with local languages and identities in ways that challenge traditional notions of ownership and linguistic authority.
This understanding can be further developed through the concept of translanguaging. Pennycook (2017) challenges the view of language as discrete and autonomous systems, highlighting the fluid resources speakers mobilize in situated meaning-making. In the Brazilian context, Rocha and Megale (2023) similarly understand translanguaging as an orientation that challenges monolingual ideologies and recognizes the complex linguistic repertoires through which speakers construct meaning. Such a perspective becomes particularly relevant in borderland regions, where speakers may mobilize Portuguese, Spanish, Guarani, and English as part of complex communicative repertoires rather than as entirely separate linguistic systems. More than describing linguistic fluidity, however, a translingual perspective also raises questions about which linguistic resources are considered legitimate and which remain marginalized in educational and institutional contexts.
Language policies and educational intitutions have traditionally been influenced by monolingual and standardized perspectives, often privileging dominant linguistic norms while marginalizing local practices and multilingual realities. In this sense, García et al. (2021) draw on the notion of abyssal thinking to question educational systems that legitimize particular linguistic practices and forms of knowledge while rendering others invisible or deficient. In borderland contexts, this perspective is particularly relevant, since speakers may bring diverse multilingual repertoires into institutions that do not necessarily recognize all their linguistic resources equally. Thus, linguistic politics concerns not only which languages are present in a given territory, but also whose linguistic practices are recognized, valued, and granted legitimacy.
Therefore, these sociolinguistic and political realities have important implications for English language teaching and teacher education in borderland contexts. A translingual orientation may offer an important pedagogical possibility by incorporating learners’ diverse linguistic resources into classroom interaction rather than requiring strict separation between languages. However, as Rocha and Megale (2023) caution, translanguaging practices do not automatically lead to more equitable educational experiences. Teachers therefore need to consider learners' linguistic and educational trajectories when designing pedagogical practices, while institutions must also examine whether their curricula, assessment practices, and expectations of academic participation respond adequately to the diversity of the populations they serve. This does not imply abandoning linguistic conventions or grammatical structures, but rather teaching them as socially situated resources whose relevance may vary across communicative contexts. In this sense, teacher education in borderland regions should prepare professionals to negotiate global forms of English, local linguistic practices, and institutional expectations critically and contextually.
In practice, such an orientation may take different forms. In the classroom, teachers might allow learners to draw on Portuguese, Spanish, Guarani, and English when discussing a text or planning a task, while helping them consider which linguistic choices are appropriate for the communicative context. At the institutional level, universities might examine whether assessment criteria unnecessarily penalize multilingual practices or whether curricula and expectations of academic participation privilege a narrow model of legitimate language use. These examples illustrate that recognizing linguistic diversity requires changes not only in classroom practices but also in the institutional conditions under which students participate and are evaluated.
In conclusion, the presence of English in borderland regions cannot be understood merely as the circulation of an international language across geographical spaces. Rather, it emerges within multilingual environments in which linguistic practices, identities, and relations of power are continuously negotiated. Recognizing this reality requires moving beyond monolingual assumptions and questioning the hierarchies that determine which linguistic resources are granted legitimacy in educational contexts. English language education in borderland regions should therefore combine attention to linguistic conventions with openness to learners’ diverse repertoires and educational trajectories. Ultimately, responding to the linguistic realities of borderlands requires not only context-sensitive teaching but also educational institutions willing to reconsider their practices in order to promote more meaningful and equitable participation in a globalized world.
References:
García, O., Flores, N., Seltzer, K., Li, W., Otheguy, R., & Rosa, J. (2021). Rejecting abyssal thinking in the language and education of racialized bilinguals: A manifesto. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 18 (3), 203–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2021.1935957
Pennycook, A. (2017). The cultural politics of English as an international language. Routledge.
Rocha, C. H., & Megale, A. H. (2023). Translinguagem e seus atravessamentos: Da história, dos entendimentos e das possibilidades para decolonizar a educação linguística contemporânea. DELTA: Documentação e Estudos em Linguística Teórica e Aplicada, 39 (2), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-460X202339251788
Schmitt, N., & Celce-Murcia, M. (2010). An overview of applied linguistics. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 1–16). Hodder Education.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford University Press.
PONTO 05
From Methods to Situated Teacher Education:
The Impact of Applied Linguistics on English Teaching
Applied Linguistics emerged as a consolidated field in the second half of the twentieth century. Its pivotal role was to reshape understandings of language learning by bridging the gap between language theory and classroom practice. Rather than focusing only on abstract linguistic systems, the field widened its scope to include social, cultural, cognitive and pedagogical dimensions of language learning and use (Corder, 1967; Widdowson, 1979). In this essay, I first revisit some theoretical contributions that reshaped perspectives on language, learning and teacher knowledge. Then, I examine how Applied Linguistics in Brazil reinterpreted these frameworks in response to local educational and social demands. Finally, I discuss how contemporary debates on translanguaging and English as a lingua franca have redefined the preparation of English teachers in multilingual and borderland contexts. This essay argues that Applied Linguistics redefines the education of English teachers by preparing them to move beyond the mechanical application of methods toward critical, situated and research-informed perspectives that value learners’ linguistic repertoires, challenge monolingual assumptions and respond to local realities.
A first major contribution of Applied Linguistics to English teacher education was the shift from purely structural views of language. Hymes’ (1972) notion of communicative competence challenged the idea that knowing a language meant only mastering its grammar rules, while Canale and Swain (1980) later systematized communicative competence into grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic dimensions. These developments, together with communicative and task-based language teaching (Ellis, 2003), emphasized interaction, meaning-making, and contextual appropriateness. For teacher education, this shift was decisive, as teachers had to be prepared not only to teach forms but to create conditions for learners to use English purposefully in socially meaningful situations.
Along with this paradigm shift, the learner became another fundamental concern of Applied Linguistics, and errors started to be seen differently. Building on Corder’s work, “The Significance of Learners’ Errors (1967), Selinker’s (1972) concept of interlanguage helped establish the idea that errors are not deficiencies, but signs of learners’ developing language systems. From this angle, learner language provides evidence of hypothesis testing and developmental stages. Lightbown and Spada (1993) further contributed to this discussion by highlighting that exposure and interaction are important, but instruction, as well as corrective feedback may also be beneficial in promoting linguistic accuracy. In teacher education, this view is crucial because it trains future teachers to read learner language as evidence of development, hypothesis testing and partial system-building, rather than as simple failure, allowing them to redirect their pedagogical practice more effectively.
The path of applied linguistics in Brazil was shaped by conditions that differed from those informing many theories produced in the Global North. Rather than a scenario shaped by social mobility, Brazilian scholars had to address limited classroom conditions as well as unequal access to language education. Against this backdrop, Celani (1983, 2008) helped consolidate a locally responsive agenda for Applied Linguistics at a time when Brazil’s industrialization and academic development made reading in English an urgent educational and professional need. Moita Lopes (2006, 2013) has also been an influential presence in this landscape, arguing that Applied Linguistics must address Brazilian language learning and teaching from a situated standpoint, intertwined with other fields, such as social sciences, cultural and identity studies, as well as educational policies. For language teacher education, these contributions are decisive because they show that teaching a hegemonic language should involve questions of access, emancipation and voice for those who would otherwise remain invisible in society, reinforcing the idea that communicative goals cannot be detached from sociocultural realities.
This locally responsive understanding of Applied Linguistics is especially relevant to English teacher education in borderland contexts such as Dourados. In a region marked by cross-border mobility, multilingual repertoires and the presence of Indigenous communities, the education of English teachers cannot be conceived as a generic process detached from local realities. Future teachers need to be prepared to understand how Portuguese, Spanish, Guarani and English may coexist in learners’ journeys, shaping how they take part in language classrooms. In this context, translanguaging practices seem to respond adequately to the need of legitimizing diverse linguistic and cultural repertoires as resources for meaning-making and identity construction. Therefore, AL offers conceptual and pedagogical tools for designing teacher education programs that value students’ backgrounds, connect English to issues of identity and access, and at the same time avoids reproducing monolingual assumptions about language learning.
This concern with linguistic plurality also dialogues with contemporary debates on English as a global language. Perspectives such as ELF show that English is increasingly used among speakers with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, which challenges the idea that teacher education should be organized around the imitation of an idealized native speaker. Seidlhofer (2011) helps displace the focus from native-like accuracy to intelligibility, negotiation of meaning, and situated communication. In dialogue with this view, Rajagopalan (2003) reminds us that English cannot be understood as a neutral global instrument, since it is crossed by ideological, political, and economic interests. For English teacher education, this means preparing teachers to value linguistic plurality while helping learners participate critically and effectively in global communication.
In conclusion, Applied Linguistics has deeply transformed the education of English teachers by broadening how language teaching is understood. From early debates on communicative competence and learner language to Brazilian critical perspectives, ELF and translanguaging, the field has challenged the idea that teachers should merely apply methods or reproduce imported models. Instead, it prepares teachers to act as reflective and context-sensitive professionals who can make pedagogical decisions according to the realities in which they work. In contexts such as Dourados, this means valuing multilingual repertoires, questioning monolingual assumptions and connecting English teaching to issues of access and identity. Thus, the main impact of Applied Linguistics lies in forming teachers capable of connecting theory and practice in locally responsive ways.
References:
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1
Celani, M. A. A. (1983). Considerações sobre a pesquisa “A necessidade e eficiência do ensino de Inglês Instrumental em universidades brasileiras”. The ESPecialist, 6, 2–9.
Celani, M. A. A. (2008). When myth and reality meet: Reflections on ESP in Brazil. English for Specific Purposes, 27 (4), 412–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.07.001
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5 (1–4), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Penguin.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1993). How languages are learned. Oxford University Press.
Moita Lopes, L. P. da. (2006). Por uma linguística aplicada indisciplinar. Parábola Editorial.
Moita Lopes, L. P. da. (2013). Fotografias da linguística aplicada brasileira na modernidade recente: Contextos escolares. In L. P. da Moita Lopes (Org.), Linguística aplicada na modernidade recente: Festschrift para Antonieta Celani (pp. 15–38). Parábola Editorial.
Rajagopalan, K. (2003). Por uma linguística crítica: Linguagem, identidade e a questão ética. Parábola Editorial.
Rocha, C. H., & Megale, A. H. (2023). Translinguagem e seus atravessamentos: Da história, dos entendimentos e das possibilidades para decolonizar a educação linguística contemporânea. DELTA: Documentação e Estudos em Linguística Teórica e Aplicada, 39 (2), e202339251788. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-460X202339251788
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford University Press.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10 (1–4), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209
Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
PONTO 06
Repositioning Teachers and Learners:
A Decolonial Reading of Postmethod Pedagogy
The English language has spread worldwide and gained relevance as an international language due to historical, economic, and political forces. Therefore, learning English goes beyond mastering a linguistic system, since language education is also shaped by power relations that determine whose voices, cultures, and identities are legitimized. In this scenario, the quest for a single best method proves insufficient, as no universal approach can address such diverse contexts and sociocultural realities. I argue that the post-method condition may be understood as a decolonial response to English language teaching, since it challenges imported methods, native-speaker norms, and hegemonic forms of knowledge, allowing teachers to develop more situated, locally responsive, and critical practices.
Before discussing postmethod pedagogy, it is necessary to clarify what is meant by a decolonial approach in this essay. For Walsh (2013), decolonial pedagogy is not merely a matter of adding new contents to the curriculum or replacing one method with another. It involves practices of learning, unlearning, relearning, resistance, and intervention through which subjects challenge colonial patterns of knowledge, power, and existence. In English language teaching, this perspective becomes necessary because the field has often been organized around hierarchies that define which languages, speakers, cultures, and forms of knowledge are considered legitimate. Therefore, a decolonial approach does not reject English itself, but rejects the idea that English must be taught through universal methods, native-speaker norms, and imported models disconnected from local histories and realities.
In this sense, adopting a decolonial perspective becomes necessary because it prevents English language teaching from treating learners as anonymous recipients of instruction, as if they were only names or numbers on an attendance list. It invites teachers to recognize learners as historical, linguistic, cultural, and social subjects, whose repertoires and experiences matter in the construction of pedagogical decisions. When articulated with postmethod pedagogy, this perspective also legitimizes teachers as situated agents, rather than mere applicators of methods designed elsewhere. In this sense, language education can become a space in which both teachers and learners are displaced from passive positions and repositioned as agents capable of reflection, creativity, and transformation of their realities.
The decolonial dimension of postmethod pedagogy lies precisely in its refusal to treat externally produced methods as universal solutions. Instead, it relocates pedagogical authority in teachers’ ability to interpret their own contexts and construct practices that respond to local histories, languages, identities, and material conditions. Prabhu (1990), in his TESOL paper entitled “There is no best method – Why”, had anticipated this debate, arguing that teacher practice is more guided by a sense of plausibility than by prescriptive methods. This argument opened the path for Kumaravadivelu (2003) to discuss a postmethod pedagogy, in which teaching is oriented by three broad principles, namely, particularity, practicality, and possibility. The author defends a teaching practice involving attention and adaptation to the context of learning, in which theoretical constructs can also arise from teacher practice itself, bridging the gap between those who design pedagogical knowledge and those who enact it in classrooms. Finally, he defends English teaching as a means to enable learners' emancipation, where they can reach other horizons without erasing their local identities. These authors’ constructs redefine teachers’ roles, from passive implementers of imported methods to agents of pedagogical transformation.
The redefinition of teachers’ roles becomes especially relevant when English language teaching is examined through a decolonial lens. In Applied Linguistics, scholars such as Pennycook (1999) and Canagarajah (1999) have long argued that English teaching is not a neutral enterprise, but a practice historically connected to power, ideology and unequal relations between center and periphery. In this debate, Phillipson (1992) shows how the global spread of English has been sustained by assumptions that native speakers are the ideal teachers, that English should be taught only through English, and that learners’ mother tongues hinder the acquisition of an additional language. A decolonial approach challenges these assumptions by questioning native-speaker authority, the monolingual orientation of ELT, and the treatment of local languages, cultures and identities as obstacles to learning. Therefore, postmethod pedagogy becomes decolonial when it enables teachers to resist imported models and construct practices that value learners’ linguistic repertoires and local realities.
From this perspective, a decolonial postmethod pedagogy requires teachers to critically reinterpret English language teaching according to their own educational settings. In the Brazilian context, scholars such as Jordão and Fogaça (2012) and Duboc (2012) have also emphasized that English language education should enable learners to question supposedly natural perspectives presented in materials, examine whose identities are highlighted, and what power relations are visible. It may involve discussing different varieties of English, problematizing the native-speaker model, acknowledging learners’ previous languages and using them as a pedagogical resource, and selecting themes that connect English learning to local and global issues. In this way, teachers can ensure English is no longer taught as a symbol of submission to hegemonic norms, but as a resource for voice, agency, and critical participation in society.
In a context such as Dourados, for instance, where learners may bring Portuguese, Spanish, Indigenous languages, borderland experiences, and different cultural affiliations to the classroom, a postmethod orientation would not require teachers to follow an imported monolingual sequence. Instead, teachers could select or produce materials that dialogue with students’ realities, compare different varieties of English, allow learners’ linguistic repertoires to support meaning-making, and promote critical discussions about identity, territory, mobility, and participation.
In conclusion, the postmethod condition should not be understood as the absence of method, but as a set of informed principles that work as a critical and situated response to the limitations of universal prescriptions. Approaching English teaching from a decolonial perspective allows it to move beyond imported models that rarely represent the plurality of social and cultural realities found in classrooms. In this sense, teachers are not merely expected to apply methods designed elsewhere but to make informed pedagogical decisions in their own contexts of action. Therefore, a decolonial postmethod pedagogy enables English to be taught not as an instrument of linguistic and cultural domination, but as a resource for identity, agency, and critical participation in a highly globalized world.
Acertar aposição no parágrafo
References:
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford University Press.
Duboc, A. P. M. (2012). Atitude curricular: letramentos críticos nas brechas da formação de professores de inglês [Tese de doutorado, Universidade de São Paulo].
Jordão, C. M., & Fogaça, F. C. (2012). Critical literacy in the English language classroom. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Linguística Teórica e Aplicada, 28 (1), 69–84.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Yale University Press.
Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33 (3), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587668
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press.
Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method—Why? TESOL Quarterly, 24 (2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586897
Walsh, C. (2013). Lo pedagógico y lo decolonial: Entretejiendo caminos. In C. Walsh (Ed.), Pedagogías decoloniales: Prácticas insurgentes de resistir, (re)existir y (re)vivir (Tomo I, pp. 23–68). Ediciones Abya-Yala.
PONTO 07
Teaching Language as Social Practice:
Text, Discourse and Critical Literacy in Initial Teacher Education
Every teaching practice presupposes a conception of language. In initial language teacher education, making these conceptions explicit is crucial, since they orient curriculum, materials, assessments, and, last but not least, teacher identity. Drawing on Halliday’s (1978) view of language as a social semiotic system, this essay argues that initial language teacher education must promote the understanding of language as a social practice, texts as spaces for meaning-making, and discourse as a critical dimension through which identities, power relations, curricula, and citizenship are constructed, negotiated, and contested.
A language teacher education program that adopts only a structural view of language risks preparing teachers to teach forms without helping learners understand how those forms operate socially. Although grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation remain relevant, these elements need to be understood as resources for communication and social action. Hymes’ (1972) notion of communicative competence was decisive in demonstrating that knowing a language entails using language appropriately across different social contexts. In the Brazilian scenario, Moita Lopes (2006) expands this debate by emphasizing that language education is inseparable from identities and power relations. For initial language teacher education, this implies preparing future teachers to articulate form, meaning, and use, so that language is not taught as an isolated, monolithic system, but rather as part of situated social practices that may either reproduce or challenge dominant ways of knowing and being.
If language is understood as social practice, texts can no longer be approached as mere sequences of grammatically correct sentences. From a dialogic perspective, Bakhtin’s (1986) view of utterance and speech genres allows us to see texts as situated responses to other texts, produced for particular interlocutors and social purposes. In the Brazilian debate, Marcuschi (2008) reinforces this perspective by approaching textual genres as forms of social action that organize communicative practices in everyday life. Thus, future teachers must learn how to work with texts beyond using them as sources of vocabulary or grammar. They need to see texts as spaces where meanings are produced, negotiated, and interpreted through organization, audience, purpose, and circulation. Putting theory into practice, one may imagine a Gen Z social media post analyzed beyond its slang or abbreviated forms, with learners also guided to examine who produced the text (authorship), who it addresses (audience), what purposes it serves (purpose), how information is organized, and which perspectives are being conveyed.
If texts are spaces where meanings are produced, discourse refers to the broader social practices through which these meanings form a web intertwining ideology and power. Understanding this dimension critically is particularly relevant to teacher education because future teachers need to recognize that classroom texts are never neutral. In Fairclough’s (1992) view of discourse as social practice, texts do not merely represent reality; they also participate in its very construction. In the Brazilian debate on language education, Rojo (2009) expands this concern by linking texts and discourses to literacy practices and the multiple modes, languages, and cultural repertoires that circulate in contemporary life. From this perspective, teaching language learners to read beyond explicit content also means guiding them to examine how discourses position subjects, legitimize certain voices, and silence others.
In practical terms, these concepts should guide how future teachers learn to work with texts in the English classroom. In this direction, Duboc (2014) discusses how teachers can use the “windows” (brechas) in a foreign language lesson to develop critical literacy in students every time a material or activity presents a topic through a single perspective. She argues that asking questions about which meanings may be produced and how differently they can be constructed, inside the same class, as well as globally, offers opportunities to see reality through a different lens and understand meaning-making as heterogeneous, subjective, and contextualized. For initial language teacher education, this is particularly relevant so they can help learners move from merely extracting factual information from texts towards problematizing whose perspectives are legitimized and whose are marginalized.
In conclusion, the concepts of language, text, and discourse are not simply theoretical categories to be studied in isolation. They shape how future teachers envision what language is, what texts do, and how discourses are part of the construction of social life. When initial language teacher education approaches language as social practice, texts as spaces for meaning-making, and discourse as a critical dimension of ideology and power, it prepares teachers to move beyond the transmission of forms and methods. This matters because learners need to recognize that meanings are constructed, perspectives are naturalized, and readings are shaped by social and cultural contexts. Therefore, educating language teachers entails preparing them to expand learners’ access to more critical ways of reading, writing, speaking, knowing, and being in the world.
References:
BAKHTIN, Mikhail. Speech genres and other late essays. Edited by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Translated by Vern W. McGee. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986.
FAIRCLOUGH, Norman. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992.
HALLIDAY, M. A. K. Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold, 1978.
HYMES, Dell. On communicative competence. In: PRIDE, J. B.; HOLMES, J. (ed.). Sociolinguistics: selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972. p. 269-293.
MARCUSCHI, Luiz Antônio. Produção textual, análise de gêneros e compreensão. São Paulo: Parábola Editorial, 2008
MOITA LOPES, Luiz Paulo da. Por uma linguística aplicada indisciplinar. São Paulo: Parábola Editorial, 2006.
ROJO, Roxane. Letramentos múltiplos, escola e inclusão social. São Paulo: Parábola Editorial, 2009.
PONTO 08
Beyond Appropriateness:
Pragmatic and Intercultural Competence in English Language Education
Communication involves interpreting meanings that are not fully expressed by words and grammatical structures. Pragmatics studies how meanings are produced in context, while interculturality considers the cultural repertoires that speakers bring to interaction. This connection is especially relevant in English language teaching, since English increasingly mediates communication among people who may hold different expectations about appropriate language use. Drawing on Hymes’ (1972) communicative competence, Byram’s (1997) intercultural communicative competence, and perspectives on English as a lingua franca, this essay argues that pragmatic competence should be developed through an intercultural approach that prepares learners to understand how meaning is negotiated in context. The discussion examines the relationship between pragmatics and communicative competence, the cultural and ideological dimensions of appropriateness, and their implications for English language teaching.
Pragmatics becomes relevant when linguistic knowledge alone cannot explain what speakers communicate. Austin (1962) demonstrated that utterances do not merely convey information but perform socially situated actions, such as requesting, apologizing, or refusing. Grice (1975), in turn, showed that interlocutors interpret more than what is explicitly stated once they mobilize contextual assumptions and expectations of cooperation. Taken together, these contributions reveal that pragmatic meaning depends not only on linguistic forms, but also on participants’ interpretations of intentions, relationships, and situations. Canale and Swain (1980) gave this knowledge pedagogical relevance by incorporating sociocultural rules of language into sociolinguistic competence. Their model thus established that learning a language also involves understanding how contextual conventions shape the appropriateness of utterances produced in interaction.
However, the contextual nature of pragmatic competence becomes more complex in intercultural communication, since speakers may not share the same assumptions, expectations, and conventions regarding how communicative acts should be performed and interpreted. Byram’s (1997) model of intercultural communicative competence addresses this complexity by replacing the idealized native speaker with the intercultural speaker, whose goal is not to reach supposedly stable native norms to be considered competent. The idea of effective communication emerges from expanding their own identities with different cultural practices, which closely resonates with Kramsch’s (1993) concept of third place, a position between different linguistic and cultural perspectives without abandoning their own roots. Her later concept of symbolic competence deepens the discussion by arguing how discourse constructs meanings, identities, and relations of power. In the English classroom, these perspectives offer teachers a foundation to encourage learners to examine how communicative meanings are culturally situated without reducing individuals to fixed representations of national cultures. Pragmatic competence therefore develops through an awareness of differences and a willingness to reflect critically on both unfamiliar expectations and learners’ own linguistic practices. These considerations become particularly important when English is used as a lingua franca among speakers who do not necessarily share the same pragmatic conventions associated with dominant Anglophone communities. From a Brazilian perspective, Gimenez et al. (2018) argue for moving beyond the Anglocentric models toward pedagogies responsive to the multilingual and multicultural realities of English use. Therefore, appropriateness cannot be reduced to the reproduction of supposedly stable British or North American norms, since communicative meanings are negotiated through the participants’ diverse linguistic and cultural repertoires. This perspective is especially relevant at UFGD, where Camata de Lima and Tavares (2024) examined the beliefs and linguistic attitudes of indigenous students enrolled in the university’s Languages program and identified the linguistic and non-linguistic challenges that may affect their academic experiences and permanence. Although their study does not specifically focus on English language teaching, its findings invite reflection on how English pedagogy can respond to the institution’s linguistic and cultural diversity. In this context, Portuguese, Spanish, Guarani, and Kaiowá, and different forms of knowledge should be recognized as legitimate resources for learning.
In pedagogical terms, developing intercultural pragmatic competence requires exposing learners to diverse communicative situations and encouraging them to examine how meanings emerge and how power relations may influence how they are negotiated in context. Drawing on Silva’s (2019) discussion of intercultural English teaching in Brazil, teachers can promote critical reflection on hegemonic and non-hegemonic models of English use through authentic interactions, critical incidents, and comparisons os speech acts and pragmatic resources. Such pedagogical interventions can help learners explore different interpretations of linguistic practices and make informed communicative choices. In the context of UFGD, teachers can also create opportunities for students to mobilize their own languages, experiences, and ways of knowing in the English classroom. Therefore, teaching pragmatics from an intercultural perspective does not mean transmitting fixed rules or expecting learners to reproduce passively dominant conventions. Rather, it means guiding them to interpret, negotiate, and critically question meanings as agentive participants in communication through English.
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Clarendon Press.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1
Gimenez, T., El Kadri, M. S., & Calvo, L. C. S. (Eds.). (2018). English as a lingua franca in teacher education: A Brazilian perspective. De Gruyter Mouton.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Penguin Books.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence to symbolic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 90 (2), 249–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00395_3.x
Silva, F. M. (2019). O ensino de língua inglesa sob uma perspectiva intercultural: Caminhos e desafios. Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada, 58 (1), 158–176. https://doi.org/10.1590/010318138654189491701
PONTO 09
From Snapshots to Trajectories:
Rethinking Assessment in English Language Teaching
Assessment is one of the most consequential dimensions of English language teaching, since it influences what is taught, how learners understand their progress, and which forms os knowledge and performance are institutionally valued. Far from being a neutral procedure for assigning grades, every assessment practice reflects particular conceptions of language, learning, and education. This essay argues that language assessment in higher education should be understood as a continuous, situated, and consequential process, capable of documenting achievement while also supporting learners’ ongoing development. To develop this argument, this discussion first examines how different conceptions of language shape assessment practices. It then considers the complementary roles of summative, formative, and ipstive assessment in light of complex and non-linear understanding of language development. It also addresses the practical conditions under which more developmental arrangements can be implemented. Finally, it briefly points to the challenges raised by the emergence of generative AI in educational settings.
Language assessment is an ongoing process of gathering, interpreting, and using evidence about what learners know and can do. Brown and Abeywickrama (2019) emphasize that it encompasses a broader domain than testing, including formal instruments as well as learners’ responses, productions, and classroom performances. Lynch (2003) further highlights that such information is systematically used to make decisions about individuals and their language ability. These decisions, however, depend on what teachers and institutions recognize as evidence of knowing and using a language Bachman and Palmer (1996) explain that every assessment is based on a construct, that is, a particular definition of the ability it intends to evaluate. A construct centered on formal knowledge tends to privilege accuracy and the reproduction of predetermined structures. However, when language is conceived as communication and situated meaning-making, learners are required to mobilize linguistic resources according to the sociocultural contexts in which they participate.
In higher education, this broader construct of language may be assessed through academic and professional tasks. Yet, an apparently authentic task does not automatically ensure a more meaningful form of assessment. An oral assessment, for example, may reproduce a traditional logic if students receive only a final grade and without feedback or the opportunity to revise their performance. As Shohamy (2001) argues, assessment is not neutral: its criteria and uses embody particular values and power relations. Therefore, the instrument alone does not determine the orientation of assessment; what matters is the construct it operationalizes, the criteria through which performance is interpreted, and the pedagogical consequences it produces.
Besides reflecting a particular construct of language, assessment practices differ according to how their results are used. Lynch (2003) defines language assessment as the systematic use of information to make decisions about individuals and their language ability. Summative assessment usually documents achievement at the end of a period and supports institutional decisions such as grading and certification, but may offer a partial representation of learning when based on a single performance. Formative assessment, in turn, uses evidence gathered along the learning process to inform teaching and help students move forward. As Black and Wiliam (1998) argue, assessment becomes formative when its results are used to adapt teaching and learning practices. Ipsative assessment complements these functions by comparing learners’ current performance with their own previous work rather than relying only on external standards. Hughes (2011) highlights its potential to make individual progress visible and encourage students to engage with feedback. Together, these functions can meet institutional requirements while supporting learners’ development over time.
The need to combine different assessment functions becomes even clearer when language development is understood through the lens of complex adaptive systems. Larsen-Freeman (1997) describes second language development as a dynamic and nonlinear process in which variation is inherent to change. Applying this perspective to assessment, Bahari, Zhang, and Ardasheva (2021) argue for an individual-centered model that is responsive to learners’ evolving and sometimes unpredictable trajectories. Therefore, a single performance can provide only a partial representation of what learners know and can do at a particular moment. Such a snapshot does not align with the nature of language learning. As Biesta (2009) warns, a culture centered on measurement and comparison may displace the very purpose of education. When standardization becomes the priority, assessment no longer supports pedagogy; it begins to define what counts as learning.
Nevertheless, assessment practices informed by learners’ complex trajectories must also be feasible within actual teaching contexts. Bacham and Palmer (1996) define practicality in relation to the resources required to design, administer, and interpret an assessment. In higher education, limited time, large classes, heavy workloads, and institutional demands may restrict teachers’ ability to collect and respond to evidence of learning over time. Practicality, however, should not be conceived as simply choosing the fastest instrument to administer and grade. When efficiency becomes the main criterion, assessment may privilege what is easiest to quantify rather than what is pedagogically meaningful. The challenge, therefore, is to develop sustainable practices and acknowledge institutional constraints without allowing them to determine what counts as language learning.
A developmental writing portfolio illustrates how summative, formative, and ipsative assessment functions can be integrated into a single practice. As Wang and He’s (2020) review of portfolio research in ESL/EFL contexts indicates, this instrument can connect teaching, learning, and assessment by documenting learners’ work over time. Feedback can inform revision, later productions can be compared to learners’ previous work, and a selected set os samples can contribute to an institutional grade. Its value lies not simply in collecting assignments, but in making development, revision, and learner reflection part of the evidence considered in assessment.
Generative AI adds a still-emerging layer of complexity to language assessment. Educational responses have often focused on prohibiting its use or treating AI-assisted production as evidence of academic dishonesty. Although concerns about authorship, validity, bias, and data privacy remain necessary, excluding these technologies from educational settings seems increasingly unsustainable. Nunes (2019) had already shown, in research on automated writing evaluation, that automated feedback can contribute to a hybrid instructional environment, provided that it complements rather than replaces human mediation. From a critical posthumanist perspective, Buzato and Leite (2024) extend this discussion by conceptualizing writing and assessment as part of cognitive assemblages that involve human and computational participation. The challenge, therefore, is to study how these systems operate so that teachers can redesign assessment practices to make both human and machine participation visible while preserving pedagogical responsibility and contextual judgement.
In conclusion, assessment in English language teaching cannot be reduced to measuring performance at isolated moments; If language development is complex, non-linear, and situated, assessment must draw on varied evidence collected for complementary purposes. Combining summative, formative, and ipsative functions can make learners’ trajectories more visible while still responding to institutional demands for grading and certification. Such an approach must also remain feasible within actual teaching conditions and responsive to the emerging participation of generative technologies in learning and assessment. Rather than excluding AI from education settings, teachers must construct ethical and sustainable human-machine arrangements in which technology supports the production and interpretation of evidence without determining what counts as learning.
References:
BACHMAN, Lyle F.; PALMER, Adrian S. Language testing in practice: designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
BAHARI, Akbar; ZHANG, Xue; ARDASHEVA, Yuliya. Establishing a nonlinear dynamic individual-centered language assessment model: a dynamic systems theory approach. Interactive Learning Environments, p. 4034–4056. Publicado on-line em 2021. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1950769.
BIESTA, Gert. Good education in an age of measurement: on the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, v. 21, n. 1, p. 33–46, 2009. DOI: 10.1007/s11092-008-9064-9.
BLACK, Paul; WILIAM, Dylan. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, v. 5, n. 1, p. 7–74, 1998. DOI: 10.1080/0969595980050102. BROWN, H. Douglas; ABEYWICKRAMA, Priyanvada. Language assessment: principles and classroom practices. 3. ed. Hoboken, NJ: Pearson Education, 2019.
BUZATO, Marcelo El Khouri; LEITE, Ana Luisa Marrocos. Escrita generativa algorítmica e universidade pós-humanista: a redação do ENEM na grande assemblagem cognitiva. Fórum Linguístico, Florianópolis, v. 21, n. 1, p. 10092–10111, 2024. DOI: 10.5007/1984-8412.2024.e98014.
HUGHES, Gwyneth. Towards a personal best: a case for introducing ipsative assessment in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, v. 36, n. 3, p. 353–367, 2011. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2010.486859.
LARSEN-FREEMAN, Diane. Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, v. 18, n. 2, p. 141–165, 1997. DOI: 10.1093/applin/18.2.141.
NUNES, Gisele Medina. Automated writing evaluation: a posthuman perspective on the development of writing in EFL. 2019. 167 f. Tese (Doutorado em Letras) — Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, 2019.
SHOHAMY, Elana. The power of tests: a critical perspective on the uses of language tests. Harlow: Longman, 2001.
PONTO 10
Supervision in Initial English Teacher Education:
Mediation, Identity, and Collaboration in the Practicum
Learning to teach a language involves more than applying theories and methods acquired at university. During supervised teaching practice, prospective teachers encounter actual learners, institutional demands and classroom realities that may challenge their previous beliefs about language, teaching and professional competence. Supervision, therefore, occupies a central position in preservice language teacher education, as it can either reinforce predetermined models of good teaching or create spaces in which student teachers interpret their experiences, reconsider inherited assumptions and develop their own pedagogical judgement. This essay argues that supervision should help preservice teachers connect theory and practice while negotiating who they are becoming in relation to the linguistic and cultural realities of the communities they act in. The discussion first examines supervised teaching practice as praxis and knowledge production, and then it examines how dialogue and reflection can foster teacher agency. It later explores teacher identity as a complex and relational process. Finally, it discusses how power and context shape supervision, particularly within the multilingual and intercultural borderland surrounding UFGD.
It is not uncommon for supervised teaching practice to be understood as the moment when prospective teachers apply theories and methods previously acquired at university. However, this instrumental view separates theory from practice and reduces school experience to the testing of knowledge produced elsewhere. Pimenta and Lima (2008) challenge this division by conceptualizing teaching practice as praxis: a reflective movement through which theoretical knowledge helps teachers interpret educational realities, while school experience raises new questions and contributes to the production of professional knowledge. Thus, the school becomes more than a setting for observation and methodological application; it is a dynamic space in which actual learners, institutional conditions, and pedagogical dilemmas shape teaching experience in ways that cannot be fully anticipated by university coursework. Within this process, supervision should help preservice teachers examine these encounters in order to develop pedagogical responses appropriate to the situations they experience. Therefore, supervised teaching practice can be understood as a formative space in which theory and experience interact to produce professional knowledge and pedagogical judgement.
The production of professional knowledge during teaching practice depends considerably on how supervision is conducted. Gebhard (1990) explains that a directive supervision approach determines what student teachers should change and how they should proceed. A dialogical approach, in turn, distributes this responsibility by engaging prospective teachers in interpreting their own classroom experiences. Wallace’s (1991) reflective model further explains how this development occurs by placing received and experiential knowledge in continuous interaction. The supervisor’s experience and theoretical knowledge become part of this reflective process, gradually enabling student teachers to make informed pedagogical choices, recognize their consequences, and respond more effectively to classroom complexity. Observation and feedback are key to developing preservice teachers' agency, understood here as their active participation in the construction of their own professional practice.
The professional practice that student teachers gradually construct is closely connected to how they understand themselves as English speakers and future teachers. As Barcelos (2006) suggests, our experiences of learning and using the language shape our beliefs about what constitutes proficiency, legitimacy, and what counts as successful language learning. These beliefs enter the classroom through the varieties we value, the language models we present, and the aspects of learners’ performance we place greater emphasis. Barkhuizen (2016) conceptualizes language teacher identity as fluid, constructed, and negotiated across different contexts, arguing that teachers’ personal histories and language use affect their professional practice. Supervision must address this dimension and make these connections visible so that future teachers can perceive how their professional choices emerge. Supervision involves mediating the dialogue between theoretical perspectives and school realities through which preservice teachers can develop awareness of who they are becoming and understand the position they occupy in the classroom.
Another responsibility of the supervisor is to guide student teachers to interpret official educational policies in relation to the material conditions of schooling. It is essential for them to understand how BNCC articulates expectations concerning the social, communicative, and intercultural purposes of the English language in the curriculum (Brasil, 2018). However, this movement must be faced as a moment to investigate and critically examine school realities so that emancipatory and decolonial education remains on the horizon. Thus, the supervisor’s role becomes to mediate the interpretation of curricular principles, the examination of implementation conditions, helping student teachers develop context-responsive practices without allowing material constraints to justify poor and superficial opportunities for English learning.
Mediating between curricular expectations and school realities also requires supervisors to reconsider the position occupied by the university in the practicum. Mastrella-de-Andrade (2020) questions the conventional separation between theoretical study at the university and practical application at school. By recognizing the school as an ecology of knowledge, she shows how its teachers, learners, practices, and local experiences become constitutive of teacher education rather than serving merely as objects of observation. Therefore, the supervisor’s role is not to retain exclusive authority over the practicum, but to create opportunities for student teachers to collaborate with school teachers and value them as educators as well. This requires avoiding ready-made interventions based exclusively on university perspectives or treating the school primarily as a theory-testing arena. By fostering a less hierarchical relationship, supervision enables preservice teachers to build their professional identities through participation in the school community and to recognize teaching knowledge as collectively and contextually produced.
In conclusion, supervising future English teachers is not simply a matter of monitoring their performance and ensuring that theoretical principles are correctly applied. It is a situated and collaborative form of teacher education through which student teachers learn to interpret knowledge, examine their beliefs, negotiate professional identities, and respond critically to curricular expectations and school realities. This process depends on supervisors recognizing school teachers and learners as participants in teacher education, thereby challenging the university’s position as the exclusive source of legitimate knowledge. Supervision should provide support without producing dependency, offer direction without prescribing identities, and challenge student teachers without silencing their emerging professional voices. Ultimately, the supervisor’s responsibility is not to shape teachers according to a predetermined model, but to create conditions in which they can become reflective and ethically committed to educating learners for the realities of a increasingly global society.
References:
BARKHUIZEN, Gary. Narrative approaches to exploring language, identity and power in language teacher education. RELC Journal, v. 47, n. 1, p. 25–42, 2016. DOI: 10.1177/0033688216631222.
BARKHUIZEN, Gary (org.). Reflections on language teacher identity research. New York: Routledge, 2017.
BARKHUIZEN, Gary; MENDIETA, Jenny. Teacher identity and good language teachers. In: GRIFFITHS, Carol; TAJEDDIN, Zia (eds.). Lessons from Good Language Teachers.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. p. 3–15.
MASTRELLA-DE-ANDRADE, Mariana Rosa. Abandonamos a sala da universidade: uma opção decolonial no estágio de inglês e na formação docente crítica. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, Belo Horizonte, v. 20, n. 1, p. 189–216, 2020. DOI: 10.1590/1984-6398201914886.
PIMENTA, S. G; LIMA, M. S. L. Estágio e docência. 3. ed. São Paulo: Cortez, 2008. Coleção Docência em Formação/Série Saberes Pedagógicos.
GEBHARD, Jerry G. Models of supervision: choices. In: RICHARDS, Jack C.; NUNAN, David (org.). Second language teacher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. p. 156–166.
WALLACE, Michael J. Training foreign language teachers: a reflective approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
BARCELOS, Ana Maria Ferreira. Cognição de professores e alunos: tendências recentes na pesquisa de crenças sobre ensino e aprendizagem de línguas. In: BARCELOS, Ana Maria Ferreira; VIEIRA-ABRAHÃO, Maria Helena (org.). Crenças e ensino de línguas: foco no professor, no aluno e na formação de professores. Campinas, SP: Pontes Editores, 2006. p. 15–42.
[...]
Buy now
- Quote paper
- Gisele Nunes (Author), 2026, Teaching English Otherwise. Critical Essays on English Language Education, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1764104
