INTERNATIONALIZATION
AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN A PUBLIC INSTITUTION
Ayla Colares de
Brito Pereira
Instituto
Federal de São Paulo - campus Suzano, Brazil
E-mail: aylabritop@gmail.com
Eliana Kobayashi
Instituto
Federal de São Paulo- campus Suzano, Brazil
E-mail: likobayashi@ifsp.edu.br
Submission: 2/8/2021
Revision: 2/8/2021
Accept: 5/17/2021
ABSTRACT
Internationalization is defined as an integration process of international, intercultural or global dimensions with educational purpose and offers. There are many dimensions of educational institutions internationalization from research partnership to international mobility. Among the several requirements for students to participate in exchanging programs promoted by international universities and organizations is English language proficiency. On the other hand the proficiency level requirements can vary according to the mobility programs which set the minimum English level. One example is the SAKURA Science High School Program promoted by the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) which selected science and technology students to participate in an exchanging program in Japan. In order to be selected, applicants needed to have B1 (CEFRR) as minimum English proficiency level. Thus this study aims to investigate if Brazilian students of an educational institution have such required level to successfully take part in mobility programs. The qualitative methodology of this research includes documents analysis - internationalization documents and English course program - and questionnaires to students and English teacher. The results show that students are expected to achieve B1 level by the end of high school according to the English subject program. However students believe that they do not have such level in speaking skill which would be one of the main skill in JST program. Most of them classify their level in A2. Furthermore the English teacher claims that although some students have already achieved B1 or even higher level the majority is at A2.Thus in order to allow more students to participate in mobility programs the institution should invest in extra-curricular English courses to increase study hours and focus more on developing speaking skills.
Keywords: internationalization; language teaching; English proficiency level
1.
INTRODUCTION
Internationalization
is defined as a process of integrating international, intercultural or global
dimension with the purpose, functions and offers of education, and can be
achieved through the implementation of strategies such as academic programs and
research collaborations (Knight, 2003; De Wit et al., 2015). It can also
increase low enrolments as well as optimize research output and competitiveness
(Ninomiya, Knight & Watanabe, 2009).
In Brazil, the
internationalization process began in the 1970s with actions by the government
and institutions to develop the nation through national programs that offered
international undergraduate scholarships and research partnership (De Wit et
al., 2005). English language plays an important role in the internationalization
process considering its position as lingua franca and global language.
Therefore most of published information nowadays is in English and it is also
the language of instruction (Fonseca, 2016; Finardi
& Rojo, 2015), for example, in Massive Online Open Courses (MOOC) (Finardi & Tyler, 2015).
One example of
internationalization action in Brazil is the student mobility program promoted
by Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) called Sakura Science High School Program (SAKURA SHSP). It offers Rede
Federal de Educação Profissional,
Científica e Tecnológica
students who attend science and technology technical courses a short-term study
exchange program in Japan. The requirements to participate involve a graded
point average (GPA) of 8 (scale 0-10) and English proficiency level B1 of the
Common European Framework of References for Languages (CEFR).
The CEFR is a
comprehensive framework developed by the European Council which “(...) provides
a common basis for elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines,
examinations, textbooks, etc. (...)” (CEFR, 2001, p. 1). It consists of six
levels that describe what language users are able to do: levels A1 and A2
consist of the basic user, the independent user can be at level B1 or B2 and
the proficient user at level C1 or C2.
The importance
of English in this selection process as well as in social and business contexts
shows that Brazilian students must use the language in order to successfully
compete in the globalized world. Having said it, what needs to be investigated
is the expected proficiency level from such students. The JST exchange program
sets CEFR B1 as the minimum level which reveals the linguistic profile of the
international students.
Thus this study
investigated the English proficiency level of students in an educational
institution which has participated in selection processes for the Sakura SHSP program. The main objective
is to identify the English level of students who attended the third year of
high school courses integrated to technical programs in automation and in
chemistry areas. Such school year and areas are usually the ones requested by
the Japanese exchange program.
Although the
educational institution has often participated in the selection process for
Sakura since 2018, its applicants have not been successfully classified to take
part in the international program so far. According to the results of the last
three selection processes, the main issue was the GPA which was higher than the
minimum required but lower than the other applicants’. On the other hand,
English level seems to hinder the participation of more applicants specially
those who have higher GPA but lower English level.
Therefore it is
necessary to investigate the students’ level and identify the main issues which
may prevent them from reaching the CEFR B1 since language is a complex area
which demands specific abilities and skills.
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
International,
intercultural and global form a triad of terms related to internationalization,
in which, international is related to the relations between nations, countries
and cultures. Intercultural is the diversity of culture within countries,
communities and institutions. Finally, global is the world opportunity (Knight,
2003).
The definition
established by Knight became, in general, the most accepted but was further
complemented by De Wit:
The intentional process of integrating an
international, intercultural or global dimension with the purpose, functions
and offers of post-secondary education, in order to improve the quality of
education and research for all students and staff and to make a significant
contribution to the society (De Wit et al.,
2015)
According to De
Wit et al. (2005) higher education in Brazil went through different phases
until reaching the internationalization process. The first phase took place in
the colonial period (1500-1822) and was marked by the dominant classes being
educated abroad. The second era was defined by the opening of Brazilian
universities that followed the Napoleonic model of professional training for
engineering, medicine and law, with more emphasis on teaching than on research
and with an elitist approach.
The third phase
began with the university reform of 1968, which was based on the principles of
American universities, sending Brazilians abroad to receive advanced training
and focusing on administrative efficiency, department structure and on the
triad of teaching, research and extension. It was the beginning of the
Brazilian internationalization process.
The fourth era
started in the early 1990s, and universities followed international trends,
higher education policies became more flexible, the system expanded and the
quality of universities improved. The internationalization process of higher
education started as a result of the actions of the government and institutions
in order to develop the country. Internationalization was seen as an attempt to
revolutionize universities and strengthen Brazilian higher education. This
process reached more significant results in the 1970s with the national
programs that offered scholarships and degrees abroad and joint research,
aiming at exchanging of knowledge and specialists.
In the last
decades, the internationalization process has been growing and most
institutions, both public and private, offer programs in a foreign language
(usually in English), joint research and distance education and
teleconferencing. However, this growth generally follows market trends and a
world dominated by the strongest universities – universities in
English-speaking countries like the United Kingdom, USA, Canada and Australia
–, generating low quality standards (de Wit et al., 2005).
According to
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization),
academic institutions around the world have social responsibility to assist in
the development of scientific knowledge. So the universities activities play a
fundamental role in the integration between nations through the
internationalization process.
Cunha-Melo
(2015) claims that there are different degrees of internationalization which
can be evaluated and measured through the following indicators: budget coming
from other countries; budget coming from other countries and generating
results; international co-authorship in publications; recruitment of
researchers from other countries; international mobility; budget for
collaborative research programs or projects; interactional use of own structure
and; evaluation procedure. Therefore, internationalization aims at the
following goals: broadening territorial and ethnic approaches; make scientific
research data available across the national border; and identifying promising
research areas to help increase knowledge (Cunha-Melo, 2015).
An example of a
Brazilian program that aimed at international mobility was the Science without
Borders (Ciências sem Fronteiras) conducted by the Ministry of Science,
Technology and Innovation and Ministry of Education. It was the largest
internationalization initiative and offered more than one hundred thousand
scholarships especially to undergraduate students of Brazilian public
universities. However the English level of the applicants became an obstacle to
the successful implementation of the program.
Another example
of the importance of English for internationalization is the Japanese SAKURA
Science High School Program (SAKURA SHSP) which aims to promote a short-term
exchange in Japan for Brazilian students in advanced science and technology
fields. Although the program is in a Japanese speaking country, the applicants
are required to have intermediate English level and Japanese language is not a
requirement.
Having said it,
English as lingua franca (Kahane & Kahane, 1976; Firth, 1996; Crystal, 2003; Seidlhofer, 2005) has played a pivotal role in
internationalization for decades. As Fonseca (2016), Finardi
& Rojo (2015) point out Brazilian higher education institutions are trying
to get more internationalized and English is commonly used in publications and
as a medium of instruction. For example, Finardi and
Tyler (2015) showed that most of the educational MOOC courses (Massive Online
Open Courses) that are aimed at a broad audience are offered in English.
However, Brazilians still find difficulties in English learning, especially in
speaking skills since some sound of the English language do not exist in
Portuguese (Pontes & Davel, 2016; Trevisol, 2014).
3.
METHODOLOGY
This
investigation is a case study which was conducted in an educational institution
located in Great São Paulo. Students and the English teacher of two classes of
the third year of high-school integrated to technical courses – Chemistry and
Industrial Automation - were the participants of this study.
The official
documents related to the institution's internationalization policy are
analysed, such as the SAKURA Science High School Program (SAKURA SHSP) public
calls from the IFSP Nº 165/2018[1] and Nº
88/2020[2] and the
CONIF/AI 01/2019[3]. In addition,
the course program that guides the high- school integrated to technical course
in automation[4] and in
chemistry[5] as well
as the English language subject program are discussed. The analysis of these
guiding documents aims to understand the specificities of the English
proficiency level.
Questionnaires
were applied to the students and the teacher. To the former a Likert scale
questionnaire was used to identify the participants’ opinions on their own
ability to use the language, for example, the most used language skills,
contexts of use, lexical knowledge, among others. To the latter a questionnaire
with closed and open items was applied to know the teachers’ view on students’
proficiency and skills.
4.
RESULTS
In this section
the analysis of the documents and the questionnaires data is presented.
4.1.
Official internationalization
documents
There are
underlying assumptions concerning the English abilities and skills expected
from the exchange students in the IFSP Nº 165/2018 and Nº 88/2020, and CONIF/AI
01/2019 calls of the SAKURA SHSP. The schedule of activities available in the
documents includes visits to universities, institutes, high schools, museum and
Tokyo and Nagano cities. There are also cultural activities, lectures with
Nobel Prize winners, oral presentations among other activities with Japanese
and foreign students.
To participate
in this short-term exchange, students must be enrolled in exact sciences or
agronomy courses, according to the public calls of 2018 and 2020, or in courses
of the following axes: control and industrial processes, information and
communication, infrastructure or industrial production, according to the 2019
call. In the three documents, applicants are also required to have at least B1
level of the CEFR.
Considering the
activities the exchange students will participate in, it is possible to
conclude that the most used English skills are listening and speaking since
they must understand lectures, interact with people from other countries, carry
out presentations, attend classes and other activities that mainly require
these two language skills.
Thus,
considering Sakura internationalization program specifically, it seems that the
third year of high school students need to be able mainly to speak and understand
English according to the contexts and demands required from the exchange
students. This does not mean that reading and writing skills are not relevant
in the process, but listening and speaking are fundamental.
4.2.
The English course program
The analysis of
the Automation and Chemistry programs focused on the learning objectives of the
English subject which were compared to the CEFR levels. High school is
comprised of three academic years and English is a mandatory subject in all of
them.
The content and
learning objectives of the first year are the same for both courses and show
that students are expected to be able to use English at the CEFR basic level.
It means to know how to greet, introduce themselves and others and ask and
answer questions about their lives such as where they live. The program also
includes expressing intentions, plans and predictions and simple sentences use
to write personal matters such as family, educational background,
profession/work, etc. These abilities match the A1 and partially the A2 level.
The second year
syllabus includes interview, a genre which is described in CEFR A2 level. The
language user is able to understand and communicate ideas and information in
order to take part in interviews. This genre is also in B1 level but in a
deeper approach since the user is expected to show some initiatives and to be
able to conduct it using a prepared questionnaire. The course program also
includes the ability to communicate via social networks, write text messages
and know how to give reasons and opinions, which are similar to the abilities
described in B1 level such as to write notes and messages with everyday content
and language.
In the third
year students are expected to make comparisons, express conditions and discuss
topics like food in the world, health, intelligence and skills, art and
technology. According to CEFR, comparisons and contrast is a B1 skill, and
both, understanding and expressing conditions and warnings, as well as
discussing family topics and contexts like food and technology, are also at B1.
Therefore,
according to the course program, the student should reach B1 level by the end
of the third year. However, it is observed that the document does not clearly
set a proficiency level to be reached. In addition, the program does not divide
the learning objectives in skills like speaking, listening, writing and reading
as the CEFR does with detailed descriptions. On the other hand, the program
shows a more modern language view focused on language use and no longer focused
entirely on structure and form.
4.3.
Questionnaire to the students
Thirty six
students answered the online questionnaire, twenty one from Chemistry course
and fifteen from Automation. The number of students in each class is 40 and 50
respectively. The questions were related to specific abilities: writing,
reading, listening and speaking skills from B1 CEFR.
There were not
significant differences between the two groups except in three questions. For
this reason, most graphs show the results with students from both courses
together.
Concerning the
writing skill, most students agreed, partially or totally, that they can make
simple notes during a seminar or class in English and write a simple text for a
friend telling about their experiences (Figure 1). However, regarding the
ability to write a short and simple essay on subjects that interest them, most
students of the Integrated Chemistry Technician agreed that they can do it,
while the responses of the Industrial Automation’s students were more distributed
among the alternatives of the question as it is shown in Figure 2.
Most students
totally agree and partially agree that they are able to write a simple text to
a friend telling about their experiences, describing the feelings and reactions
they had (Figure 3).
Thus 65% of the
students’ writing skill can be classified in the CEFR B1 level while 35% are
not confident about it and could be placed at A2 level.
Figure 1: Degree of agreement with the ability to make
simple notes during a seminar or class in English
Figure 2: Degree of agreement with the ability to
write a short and simple essay on subjects that interest the students
Figure 3: Degree of agreement with the ability to
write a simple text to a friend telling about their experiences, describing the
feelings and reactions that the students had
Regarding the
listening skill, most students, both in Chemistry and Industrial Automation,
selected the alternatives “totally agree” or “partially agree”, stating that
they can understand the main ideas of radio or TV programs in English,
lectures, classes and people talking about current issues, their daily lives
and their interests (Figure 4). In addition to it, they can understand a
well-structured lecture/class in English that addresses familiar topics (Figure
5). Similar results were obtained concerning their ability to understand people
talking about every day or work-related subjects as long as they speak in an
accent students are familiar with (Figure 6).
Therefore 69%
of the students claim that they can perform listening activities related to B1
level. 31% can be classified in A2 as such participants believe they are not
able to understand the presented listening situations.
Figure 4: Degree of agreement with the ability to
understand the main ideas of radio or TV programs in English that address
current issues or students' personal/professional interests
Figure 5: Degree of agreement with the ability to
understand a well-structured lecture/class in English that addresses familiar
topics
Figure 6: Degree of agreement with the ability to
understand people talking about every day or work-related subjects as long as
they speak in an accent students are familiar with
As for the
reading skill, most students also agreed, partially or totally, that they can
understand texts and newspaper articles written in English that use everyday
language and approach subjects of their interests and infer the meaning of an
unknown word by the context (Figures 7 and 8). Participants also seem to be
able to understand specific newspaper genres as long as their topics are
familiar (Figure 9).
Such results
show that 74% of the students claim they can perform B1 activities while 26%
can be classified in A2 level.
Figure 7: Degree of agreement with the ability to
understand texts written in English that use everyday language
Figure 8: Degree of agreement with the ability to
deduce or infer the meaning of an unknown word in English by the context of the
text
Figure 9: Degree of agreement with the ability to
understand written articles in newspapers that address students’ subjects of
interest
Concerning the
speaking skill, few students totally disagreed that they can describe
objectives, hopes and ambitions (Figure 10). However, regarding the ability to
have a conversation in English about things in their daily lives or their
interests, most students did not agree nor disagree, but the responses of the
Industrial Automation’s students were more distributed among the alternatives
of the question as it is shown in Figure 11.
Most students
totally disagreed and partially disagreed that they are able to tell a story or
comment on a plot of a film or book, describing the emotions and reactions they
had (Figure 12).
Therefore 42%
of the students claim that they can perform speaking activities related to B1
level, while 58% of the participants can be classified in A2.
Figure 10: Degree of agreement with the ability to have
a conversation in English about things in the student daily life or interests
Figure 11: Degree of agreement with the ability to
describe goals, hopes and ambitions in English
Figure 12: Degree of agreement with the ability to tell
a story in English or comment on the plot of a book / film describing emotions
and reactions
4.4.
Questionnaire to the teacher
The online
questionnaire applied to the teacher had questions similar to the one applied
to the students, some specifically related to CEFR and the JST
internationalization program and three open questions about the English level
of the students. The participant has taught both classes - Chemistry and
Automation - for almost two years. Since the teacher claimed that the groups
have achieved very similar marks in English subject and they perform similarly
in class, the questionnaire was answered considering both groups.
The Figure 13
shows that more than 75% of the students can write three different genres:
simple text to a friend, a short essay and class notes. These questions covered
abilities from A2 and B1 levels according to CEFR. Thus in terms of writing
skills the teacher believes most students’ level is B1.
Figure 13: Teacher's view about the percentage of students that are
able to write in English
Concerning the
listening skill, the participant points out that 75% of the students can
understand daily conversation and well-structured classes both of them about
familiar topics. On the other hand understanding TV or radio shows about
students’ interests is seen as a more complex activity and 50% of the students
would be able to do it (Figure 14).
Figure 14: Teacher's view on students’ listening skills
Similar results
were achieved in reading skill as most students can understand texts written in
an everyday language which is also expected at A2 level. However half students
can deal with a more complex text like a newspaper article and 75% of them have
developed the strategy to grasp words meaning by the context. Therefore in
terms of reading skill the teacher believes most students’ level is B1 (Figure
15).
Figure 15: Teacher's view on students' listening skills
Speaking seems
to be the most challenging skill as 50% of the students can perform more
complex activities like describing movie plots and commenting on them as well
as express their goals and ambitions. On the other hand most students, 75%, can
hold conversations on daily and familiar topics.
Figure 16: Teacher's view on the percentage of students
that are able to speak in English.
The teacher
also claims to know the English requirement set in JSP exchange program.
However in her opinion most students level in the third year is still A2
although there are also students at B1 or even higher.
“(…) the level of understanding and production
of most students is characterized by familiar contexts and concrete everyday
situations. Consequently, they are able to use expressions and grammatical
constructions required in these scenarios, which would classify them at A2
level. (...)
Thus the
teacher’s answers show that students can perform better in reading, writing,
listening and speaking activities which are related to very familiar and
concrete situations and to well-known genres. For this reason, newspaper
articles and TV shows which may bring more complex vocabulary and faster
speaking may be more difficult to be understood by the students. When asked
about what makes it difficult for students to be at level B1, the teacher
replied that “Level B1 requires a greater command of the language that goes
beyond the scope of concrete and allows expressing more abstract and imaginary
situations. (…)”. Although the percentages of students who can use the language
in the presented situations are high in most of the questions, it is safe to
say that the teacher thinks that those situations which demand a higher level of
English or others which she may have worked in class are key to classify
students in B1 level.
Considering the
institution internationalization and the English language requirements, the
teacher emphasizes the importance of increasing study hours, more contact with
the language outside classroom, use of technology to learning autonomy and
extra-curricular courses:
“(…) that those students
who are still in A2 dedicate more hours of study outside the classroom and
increase contact with the language. This reflects a more autonomous learning,
in which the student can use the various technological resources to which he is
already used to in favour of his development (…). On the other hand, it would
be important for the campus to offer extra-curricular courses, to apply
international proficiency tests and to promote language use situations (…).”
Despite the
fact that in general most students’ English level is lower than the one set by
the JSP program, there are several ways to help them improve their skills. On the
other hand some students have already reached B1 level and others are on the
way to. Speaking skill development seems to be the main priority now.
5.
DISCUSSION
As discussed by
Fonseca (2016), Finardi & Rojo (2015) and Finardi & Tyler (2015), this study also proved the
relevance of English language in the internationalization of a public
educational institution. Firstly, the language requirements were analysed
through three documents: the public calls IFSP Nº 165/2018 and Nº 88/2020 and
CONIF/AI 01/2019. Although the documents require CEFR B1 as the minimum
proficiency level, there were not linguistics specifications such as the most
used skills. However the results of the analysis showed that speaking and
listening are probably the most required skills according to the events, duties
and participants involved in the exchange program.
According to
CEFR, the speaker of level B1 is able to understand speeches with standardized
language and to have a conversation about everyday matters or of his/her
interest. Therefore, the level B1 speaker will be able to enjoy, in general,
the activities that are offered by the program, and may find it difficult to
understand oral speeches that have an accent that the scholarship holder is not
familiar with.
The English
subject programs of the Automation and Chemistry courses showed that students
are expected to develop language skills and abilities which range from CEFR A1
to B1 along the three-year high school course. Thus based on such programs and
the English language requirements of the JST Sakura exchange program, students
would be theoretically qualified to participate in that internationalization
selection process.
Nevertheless
the results of the questionnaire applied to the students showed that one of the
main English skills to perform adequately in the exchange program is the most
challenging one in their opinions. 44% of the students think they can not speak at B1 level. However concerning their
listening skill, 69% are able to perform according to the B1 expected
abilities.
In addition,
the teacher confirms that most students would face difficulties speaking at B1
level in the third year as well as understanding more complex aural texts.
Therefore the results point to speaking as the most challenging skill, similar
to other studies developed in English learning area (Pontes & Davel, 2016; Trevisol, 2014).
Besides while the teacher believes students are mostly at A2 level in terms of
general skills and abilities most students classify themselves at B1 level.
These different
views on language proficiency levels can lead to the conclusion that most
students think they have achieved the objectives set in their English subject
program in a broaden way whereas the teacher believes that there is room for
improvement especially in speaking and listening skills. Despite these
contrasting perspectives, students and teacher are aware of the difficulties in
speaking, one of the fundamental skills required in the SAKURA SHSP program.
Such result shows that English may still be an obstacle for Brazilian students
to successfully participate in internationalization programs.
The teacher
also points out the importance of the students’ autonomy to improve their
English. Technology as a way to increase language use and more study hours were
also mentioned. The participant recommends that the institution offer more
extra-curricular activities to promote English learning in order to contribute
to internationalization programs.
6.
CONCLUSION
This paper
shows what English language proficiency level is expected in the Sakura student
exchange program offered by the JST and how it is seen by students and teacher
of two classes of high school course integrated to technical programs in
Automation and Chemistry. Such discussion has been encouraged due to the
importance of internationalization actions in Brazilian educational
institutions.
Results
indicate that although some students can meet the English level required by the
Japanese program, the majority of them are still at a lower level. Speaking and
listening were identified as the main skills in JSP program and the former has
been the most challenging one according to the students and the English
teacher. Such situation eventually prevents students from submitting their
applications.
Thus English
teaching and learning should be more intensified if the investigated
institution aims to broaden its internationalization process and increase
students’ chances to successfully take part in mobility program selections.
REFERENCES
Council of Europe. Council for Cultural Co-operation. Education
Committee. Modern Languages Division. (2001). Common European Framework
of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Crystal,
D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cunha-Melo,
J. R. D. (2015). Indicadores efetivos da internacionalização da ciência. Revista
do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões, 42, 20-25.
De Wit, H., de Wit, J. H., Jaramillo, I. C., Gacel-Avila,
J., & Knight, J. (Eds.). (2005). Higher
education in Latin America: The international dimension, (638). World
Bank Publications.
De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L., & Egron-Polak,
E. (2015). Internationalisation of higher education. The Bloomsbury
Handbook of the Internationalization of Higher Education in the Global South,
23, 328.
Finardi, K.,
& Rojo, R. (2015). Globalization, Internationalization and Education: What
is the Connection?. International E-Journal of Advances in Education, 1(1),
18-25.
Finardi, K. R., & Tyler, J. (2015). The role of English and technology in
the internationalization of education: insights from the analysis of MOOCs. In 7th
international conference on education and new learning technologies, 11-18.
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua
franca’English and conversation analysis. Journal
of pragmatics, 26(2), 237-259.
Fonseca, A. L. S. B. (2016). Inglês:
a língua da internacionalização. Interfaces Científicas-Educação, 4(2), 23-32.
Kahane, H.,
& Kahane, R. (1976). " Lingua Franca":
The Story of a Term. Romance Philology, 30(1), 25-41.
Knight, J. (2003). Updated definition of internationalization. International
higher education, (33), 2-3.
Ninomiya, A., Knight, J., & Watanabe, A. (2009). The past, present,
and future of internationalization in Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13, 117-124.
Pontes, V. D. F., & Davel, M. A. N.
(2016). O inglês na educação básica: um
desafio para o professor. Revista X, Curitiba, 1, 102-117.
Seidlhofer, B. (2005). English
as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59, 339–341
Trevisol, J. R. (2014). Dificuldades gerais de pronúncia para aprendizes
brasileiros de inglês como língua estrangeira. Revista X, 1.
UNESCO (1953). The Use of Vernacular
Languages in Education. UNESCO, Paris.