PEDAGOGICAL RESISTANCE OF FILIPINO ENGLISH TEACHERS

TOWARD PHILIPPINE ENGLISH: IMPLICATIONS

FOR DECOLONIZATION OF ENGLISH
LANGUAGE TEACHING

A Dissertation
Presented to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of Education
University of the Visayas
Cebu City

In Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN EDUCATION
Major in English Language Teaching

JOEMAR T. MIÑOZA
July 2025
 ii

APPROVAL SHEET
This dissertation titled ―PEDAGOGICAL RESISTANCE OF ENGLISH
TEACHERS TOWARD PHILIPPINE ENGLISH: IMPLICATIONS FOR
DECOLONIZATION OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING” prepared and
submitted by JOEMAR T. MIÑOZA, in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of DOCTOR OF PHOLOSPHY IN EDUCATION major in ENGLISH LANGUAGE
TEACHING, has been examined and is recommended for acceptance for ORAL
EXAMINATION.

JUNIFER ABATAYO, EdD

Professor, Graduate school of Education
University of the Visayas
Adviser

THE DISSERTATION COMMITTEE

ANNALOU CABUENAS, EdD

Professor, Graduate school of Education
University of the Visayas
Chairman

KRISTINE DE LEON, PhD JOSE CRISTINA PARINA, PhD

Professor, Sohar University Professor, Southern Cross University
Member Member

GINO SUMALINOG, EdD

Professor, Graduate school of Education
University of the Visayas
Member

Accepted and approved for Oral Examination.

AILEEN C. COSTAS, EdD

Dean, Graduate School of Education
University of the Visayas
 iii

PANEL OF ORAL EXAMINERS

Approved by the Committee on Oral Examinations with a grade of PASSED.

ANNALOU CABUENAS, EdD

Professor, Graduate school of Education
University of the Visayas
Chairman

KRISTINE DE LEON, PhD JOSE CRISTINA PARINA, PhD

Professor, Sohar University Professor, Southern Cross University
Member Member

GINO SUMALINOG, EdD

Professor, Graduate school of Education
University of the Visayas
Member

Accepted and approved in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN EDUCATION major in ENGLISH LANGUAGE
TEACHING.

Comprehensive Examination : September 20, 2023

Oral Examination : July 23, 2025
Book Submission : July 2025

AILEEN C. COSTAS, EdD

Dean, Graduate School of Education
University of the Visayas
 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I want to express my deepest gratitude to all those who have contributed to the
successful completion of this dissertation, "Pedagogical Resistance of Filipino English
Teachers Toward Philippine English: Implications for Decolonization of English
Language Teaching." My heartfelt appreciation goes to my esteemed adviser, Dr. Junifer
Abatayo, whose guidance and expertise were invaluable throughout this journey.

I am also profoundly thankful to the members of my dissertation committee: Dr.

Anna Lou Cabuenas, my Chairperson; Dr. Kristine De Leon; Dr. Jose Cristina Parina;
and Dr. Gino Sumalinog, for their insightful feedback and rigorous scrutiny during the
oral examination held on July 23, 2025, following the comprehensive examination on
September 20, 2023. Their collective wisdom significantly strengthened this work.

Finally, I extend my sincere gratitude to Dr. Aileen C. Costas, Dean of the

Graduate School of Education at the University of the Visayas, for her continuous
support and for accepting and approving this dissertation for the fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education, Major in English
Language Teaching.

JOEMAR T. MIÑOZA
 v

PEDAGOGICAL RESISTANCE OF FILIPINO ENGLISH TEACHERS

TOWARD PHILIPPINE ENGLISH: IMPLICATIONS
FOR DECOLONIZATION OF ENGLISH
LANGUAGE TEACHING

Joemar T. Miñoza
University of the Visayas
joemar_minoza@[Link]

ABSTRACT. With the continuous existence of World Englishes, ELT landscapes in the
Philippine Education system remains adamant to recognize Philippine English as part of the
curricula which widens the gap between students‘ linguistic needs and the social context they
belong to. Hence, this research explores the awareness, pedagogical attitudes, experiences, and
practices of 8 purposively selected Filipino English Teachers towards Philippine English. To
investigate how English teachers interpret their lived experiences and realities, this study used a
grounded theory research approach. After speaking with eight English teachers, theoretical
saturation was reached through in-depth interviews with participants who were purposefully
chosen. Three main categories emerged: Decolonial mentality where informants acknowledged
Philippine English (PhE) as intelligible, embraced linguistic diversity, and viewed PE as a means
of expressing cultural identity and promoting decolonized pedagogy; (2) Resurrection of the
colonial past, which reflected unwavering adherence to Western norms, doubts about the global
and economic viability of PhE, and unease with its role in ELT; and (3) Sources of resistance, in
which informants connected their reluctance to Americanized curricula with their limited
exposure to PhE. Hence, positive disposition towards PhE is a good development to consider in
the advocacy of decolonizing ELT; however, this does not directly translate to the pedagogical
practices in ELT landscapes which implies that English classrooms nowadays are still mono-
lingual and American English dominated, unable to bridge the gap between the linguistic needs
and social context, confirming their pedagogical resistance. Therefore, this heeds a stronger
advocacy towards decolonization of ELT landscapes to provide a more abreast, practical, and
contextualized language learning to every learner of language as pedagogical resistance towards
PhE still exists.

Keywords: World Englishes, Philippine English, English Language Teaching, decolonization,

grounded theory
 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE i
APPROVAL SHEET ii
PANEL OF ORAL EXAMINERS iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF APPENDICES ix
I INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction 1
Conceptual Framework 4
Statement of Purpose 6
Literature Review 7
II METHODOLOGY 11
Design 11
Environment 11
Informants 12
Instrument 12
Data Gathering Procedures 13
Data Analysis 14
Ethical Considerations 14
III RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 16
Decolonial Mentality 16
Resurrection of the Colonial Past 20
Sources of Pedagogical Resistance 24
IV CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 28
Conclusion 28
Recommendations 31
V EPILOGUE 32
 vii

Summary of Results 33
Implications 33
Reflection 34
REFERENCES 35
APPENDICES 42
BIONOTE 52
 viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1 Schematic Diagram of the Conceptual Framework of the Study 4
2 Schematic Presentation of Emergent Theories on Recognition and 28
Resistance towards PE
 ix

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Title Page
A Transmittal Letter to the Dean 43
B Transmittal Letter to the President 44
C Transmittal Letter to the Participants 45
D Informed Consent Form 46
E Research Instrument 47
F Notice to Proceed 49
G Originality Certificate 50
H Grammar Certificate 51
 1

INTRODUCTION
English has been colonizing and invading all realms of life including the
education sector, leading to the existence of variation of the English language, which is
better known today as the world Englishes (Jenkins, 2015; Kachru, 2005; Kirkpatrick,
2007; Sadeghpour & Sharifian, 2019; Matsuda & Friedrich, 2011). This phenomenon of
World Englishes can be linked to the imposition of a superior language to weaker ones,
which is known as linguistic colonialism (Lai, 2019). Villaceran (2019) as cited in
Roman-Tamesis and Villaceran (2023) stated that colonialism has carved a niche to the
organizations and institutions and has apparently shaped the colonial mindset of some
Filipino English teachers. According to Liu and Cheng (2017) this phenomenon leads to
becoming prescriptive in the pedagogical approach, imposing the roles of English
language based on traditional notion of the conventional English language teaching,
aiming to imitate the nativeness of the language.
Consequently, this phenomenon has a direct impact to English language teaching
landscapes. Based on Schumann's (1978) acculturation theory of second language
acquisition (SLA), which holds that the social and psychological gap that learners
establish between themselves and the language they are attempting to learn determines
the rate at which certain learners progress in learning a second language (Krisna, 2009).
This suggested that the target language and the students‘ culture should matched, in other
words, ELT should be contextualized. Labiste (2019) found that integrating a culture
guarantees a meaningful language experience for both teachers and students and that
contextualization is essential to the development of students' language skills. Hence,
embracing Philippine English in ELT does not only challenge western-dominated
language teaching standards but also reclaims local knowledge, affirming linguistic
identity and decolonizing classrooms (Tupas, 2018; Roman-Tamesis & Villaceran, 2023).
Philippine English is one of these legitimate varieties that exist - a variety spoken
by the Filipinos and is the English of the Filipinos which is at par with other English
varieties (Borlongan, 2024). Bautista (2000 as cited in Dayon 2018) asserts that
Philippine English conforms to the standards of standard American English. It is also not
English that was badly taught and acquired as a second language, since the characteristics
 2

that set it apart are not mistakes made by English speakers who are not proficient in the
American standard. It would be more accurate to characterize it as a nativized form of
English with features that set it apart from other standards. The influence of the Filipinos'
mother tongue, their distinct culture, and the language's rigid grammatical rules are
responsible for these traits. Gonzales (1997 as cited in Sy Tamco, 2022) described
Philippine English as ―Filipinos learning English from Filipinos.‖
However, there are still many prescriptivist English teachers who consider PhE as
indicating a lack of proficiency in "standard" English or a lower level of education
(Gonzales & Cubillo, 2020 as cited in Babanto et al., 2023). According to Martin (2014),
educated individuals are still ambivalent regarding PhE's position in fields like English
language instruction, and that attitudes toward it should be investigated, with a focus on
English language learners and teachers who have a significant influence on the
acceptability of PhE. Hence, the long overdue issue on the concept of standard English
has again been challenged. In fact, this is a serious dilemma among Filipino English
teachers who are known to be prescriptive and meticulous on the concept of standard
English, yet they are speaking a variety of the language they are teaching – that is
Philippine English.
With this phenomenon of prescriptivism, colonial mentality and nonacceptance to
the Philippine English, multiple research undertakings were initiated to get rid of this
kind of colonial mindset and approach towards Philippine English and its pedagogy.
These studies include but are not limited to the study of phonological features by
Llamzon (1969) in which PE studies commenced. In the following and recent years,
studies on phonological features have expanded in the studies of Flores, (2014), Llamzon,
(1997); Tayao, (2004) and Moniva et al. (2024). In addition, studies on lexical features
and word formations (Bautista, 1997; Dimaculangan & Gustilo, 2018; Salazar, 2017 &
Dimaculangan & Sarmiento, 2024) and grammatical features (Bautista, 2001a, 2001b;
Borlongan, 2013; Morales, 2015) had been explored to advocate the acceptability of this
English variety. In fact, studies on it became more complicated to the extent of studying
the discourse level especially on PE‘s intelligibility as explored and revealed in the
studies of Dayag (2007) De Leon et al. (2021), Dita and De Leon (2017).
 3

Moreover, studies on the awareness, attitudes and perceptions towards PE of

Filipino English teachers (Dimacalungan, 2018; Dimaculangan & Gustilo, 2018; Alieto
& Rillo, 2018; Babanto et al., 2023; Dangilan & Asuncion, 2023 & Sy Tamco, 2022)
graduate students (Hernandez, 2020) and college students (Umayam et al., 2022; Guray
et al., 2022& Quinto, 2024) were sought. Majority of the studies revealed that English
teachers and graduate and college students had general awareness and ambivalent and
skeptical attitudes towards PE which is reflected in the review paper of Dimaculangan
(2023). This study argued that ambivalent and poor awareness of Filipinos rooted on the
pedagogical acceptance and its non-inclusion to the curriculum. Hence teachers of
English play an indispensable role in advocating PE. The way that students view
language acquisition is greatly influenced by their language teachers (Rillo & Alieto,
2018). In the effort to promote PE's acceptance, teachers' attitudes about the subject
matter are crucial (Dangilan & Asuncion, 2023).
However, there were only few studies that have attempted to delve into the
pedagogical landscapes of PhE which includes the study of Sy Tamco (2022) that
explored the beliefs, experiences and pedagogical practices of English teachers in Higher
Education. Studies on integrating PhE in the ELT curriculum have also been proposed
and conducted by PhE advocates (Alieto & Rillo, 2018; Bautista, 2001; Bernardo &
Madrunio, 2015; Borlongan, 2009). Hence, this would like to contribute to the limited
discussions of decolonizing ELT in the Philippines. Roman-Tamesis and Villaceran
(2023) underscores the need to decolonize academic fields and has become increasingly
important in light of how quickly the world is changing. Martin (2020) emphasizes how
important it is to adapt language instruction to the multilingual environment of the
Philippines' use of English.
Thus, this study explores the awareness, pedagogical attitudes, and practices and
experiences of Filipino English Teachers towards Philippine English, specifically English
Teachers of Northern Cebu who have not been subject to studies relevant to PhE and its
pedagogy, making them fit as research subjects. This study would help in the advocacy of
decolonizing English Language Teaching in the Philippines by accepting and
accommodating the fact that the English language is not solely owned by the people in
the inner circle but also a property of the extended circles. Likewise, this would create an
 4

ELT classroom that recognizes our own Philippine English and bridges the gap between
sociolinguistic and linguistic contexts in learning a second language, upholding SDG 4 of
the United Nations which desires for quality education. Finally, this research generates a
grounded theory that will contribute to the decolonization of ELT, which previous studies
have not attained.
Conceptual Framework
This study argues English teachers‘ awareness, pedagogical attitudes, and
practices and experiences towards PE is influenced by their colonial mentality, believing
and imposing that American English is the standard English, while other variety like PE
is an incorrect rendition. This resulted to linguistic and sociolinguistic gaps in the
teaching of English, heeding the decolonization of ELT by embracing the existence of
PE. This is illustrated in Figure 1 and will be discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.
Figure 1
Schematic Diagram of the Conceptual Framework of the Study

Linguistic Colonialism

Linguistic and
World/Philippi
sociolinguistic
ne English
GAP in ELT

Linguistic Decolonization

Linguistic Colonialism or imperialism is ―the imposition of the colonizers of their

language and power; nurturing a group of local elites and a privileged class, proficient in
 5

the colonizer‘s language, acting as agents to perpetuate the system in the interest of the
colonizer; ideological persuasion through the use of media and technology.‖ (Lai, 2019).
Similarly, Zen and Yang (2022) defined linguistic imperialism, also known as
colonialism, as the establishment and ongoing reconstitution of language dominance
through the claim and upkeep of structural distinctions between a language and the
cultures of other languages. They go on to say that an imperialist framework permeates
politics, the economy, social media, entertainment, and education, and that linguistic
imperialism or colonialism is part of this. It essentially includes the exploitation,
injustice, and inequality of the dominant language as well as its hierarchical usage.
This linguistic colonialism/imperialism has resulted to different varieties of
English language as illustrated by Kachru‘s (2005) World Englishes concentric model.
Likewise, problems in English Language Teaching arises in the colonized countries, as
the imbalance of linguistic and sociolinguistics features of language become evident. This
is further illuminated in succeeding paragraphs.
World Englishes is the byproduct of the revolutionary spread of English which
was introduced and illustrated by Kachru‘s concentric model in 1985 (Al-Mutair, 2020).
According to Nelson and Kachru (2006) as cited in Quinto (2024) and Chen (2018), two
dispersions have been ascribed to the expansion of English language – the immigration of
the English speakers and the imposition of the language to the colonized, which gave
birth to World Englishes like Philippine English. The inner circle belongs to the native
speakers of the English language, while expanded circles are for those countries
considering English as foreign language, which means that they only use it when
speaking to people from the inner and outer cirlces (Al-Mutairi, 2020).
Due to the persistent notion of unequal varieties of English and the reinforcement
of English's social dominance, linguistic colonialism continues to exert a substantial
impact on the English language teaching (ELT) environment in the Philippines (Zeng &
Yang, 2022). This enduring condition contributes to a disconnect between the linguistic
realities of Filipino learners and the sociolinguistic context of ELT classrooms. Stern
(1983, as cited in Soto-Molina & Pilar, 2020) underscored the imbalance that arises when
languages and cultures come into contact, a dynamic that mirrors the Philippine context.
In line with this, Tupas and Salonga (2016) conceptualize such disparities as "Unequal
 6

Englishes"—an English variety that is ―more acceptable and privileged‖ in comparison to

other variants such as Philippine English (PhE). This hierarchy is attributed to the
enduring influences of colonialization and [Link], linguistic and cultural
contexts dominate in an ELT classroom which learners who have different linguistic and
cultural backgrounds need to assimilate, which becomes an issue in learning. Studies
have shown that contextualized learning is essential for students' language development,
and integrating culture guarantees that students and teachers will have meaningful
language experiences (Labistre, 2019). According to Liyanage and Canagarajah (2019),
more equitable and successful English learning would come from ELT pedagogies that
comprehend and incorporate community language practices like code-switching. Thus, in
ESL classrooms, efforts to match English language instruction with regional variants,
such as Philippine English, are essential for developing a more inclusive and culturally
relevant pedagogical approach (Bernardo, 2022).
Any attempt to contextualize ESL classrooms, adopting customary teaching
methods that have their roots in regional languages and cultures and acknowledging what
works in multilingual classrooms is decolonization of English language teaching
(Education 2.0). Katundu (2020) considers decolonization as a process of demanding
transformation in the curricula and liberating people to strategize and execute their own
ideas and programs in their classrooms. He further claims that decolonization is not
isolating their classrooms from other languages and cultures, but it is a way of thinking of
teaching that works and benefits the learners by contextualization – seeing the needs and
problems in their own classrooms. Thus, embracing and integrating Philippine English
upholds the advocacy of decolonizing ELT landscapes in the Philippines.
Statement of Purpose
This study explored the awareness, pedagogical attitudes, experiences, and
practices of Filipino English Teachers towards Philippine English.
Specifically, this sought to answer the following questions:
1. How aware are Filipino English teachers of the use of Philippine English in
their teaching?
2. What are the pedagogical attitudes of Filipino English Teachers towards
Philippine English?
 7

3. What are the pedagogical practices and experiences of Filipino English

Teachers towards Philippine English?
4. What are the significant themes derived from attitudes, experiences and
practices?
5. What theory can be drawn from the findings to inform pedagogy and the
impact on the use of Philippine English in learning and teaching?
Literature Review
English language is undisputedly a politically powerful as it permeates every
nook of the world and education is not an exemption. Hence, various studies on World
Englishes including Philippine English were the interest of many linguists, applied
linguists and academicians, as it undeniably affects the teaching of English language and
flourishes the notions of standard language that is acceptable and intelligible which
becomes the subject of the endless debates. Philippine English advocates desire to pacify
these debates through research undertakings such as analyzing the linguistics features of
PE, some advocates focused on the cognizance, attitude and beliefs of English teachers
on PE with the belief that teachers are the forerunner of English Language Teaching in
ESL classrooms in the Philippines. These empirical studies are presented in the
succeeding paragraphs.
Students’ Awareness, Attitudes and Beliefs towards PE
Heeding the lack of research on Filipino Graduate Students‘ (FGS) attitude and
awareness towards PE, Hernandez (2020) investigated this area which were participated
by ninety-six (96) graduate students of Applied Linguistics, English Language Education,
English Language Teaching, Linguistics, and Reading from premier universities in the
Philippines. With the descriptive design used, the study revealed that respondents
possessed a generally positive attitude towards educated PhE, which indicated their
confidence in using both educated PhE and American English as well leading to a
pluricentric model of English pedagogy in the Philippines. It was further revealed that
respondents are uncertain of the issues concerning PhE and American English which
brought the proposition of clear educational policies in the ELT in the Philippines.
In addition, Umayam et al. (2022) initiated a study to find out how college
students thought about PhE. The participants were pursuing bachelor's degrees in English
 8

language studies and Filipino studies. The results show that the general preference,
attitude, or perception that the student has about their home language and PhE is
unaffected by the differences in language focus between those fields. The stigma attached
to the continuous use of the English language is undermining the idea of diversification.
Additionally, the use of PhE shows that the native tongue can be developed and polished
while also potentially decolonizing the effects of the colonizers. In the same year, Guray
et al. (2022) revealed that university students are aware of the PhE vocabularies but are
oblivious of their meaning in the American English.
In the following year, Francisco et al. (2023) revealed negative perceptions
towards phonological features of PhE, while positive acceptance was exhibited towards
grammatical structure of PE. Furthermore, the very recent study on the perception
towards PhE among university students was of Quinto (2024), who found that university
students were aware but on average level, implying of their limited understanding of PE.
Likewise, a positive attitude of university students towards PhE was revealed, as they
approve positive notions of this variety.
As revealed on these studies, students are not oblivious of the existence of PhE,
yet they do not possess full acceptance and knowledge, heeding efforts by teachers in the
ELT classrooms, who are also resisting on the existence of this variety as discussed in the
succeeding paragraphs.
English Teachers’ Awareness of, Attitudes and Beliefs towards PE
With the argument that there are still many English teachers in the provinces are
still unaware and adamant of the existence of PhE, Dimacalungan (2018) reviewed
literature and studies relevant to PhE in the last two decades, which revealed that English
curriculum in the Philippines manifests a little concern and relevance to PhE resulting to
incompatibility on the objectives, instructional materials and assessment tools to assess
learners‘ proficiency to the language that Filipinos really speak which is the PhE, leading
the students to be grammatical but incompetent communicators. Moreover, the review
revealed that the attitudes of Filipino speakers of English including the Filipino English
teachers are still skeptical of the variety of English they are using and are still in belief
that only the English spoken by the native speakers are acceptable and intelligible
English language, which reflects and supports the finding of Jerkins (2009). Five years
 9

later, Dimaculangan (2022) in her review of literature, revealed that ―ESL teachers and
students have an ambivalent attitude toward PhE and are not yet open to celebrating its
existence‖; however, Dimaculangan et al. (2024) recently found that the ambivalent
attitude has changed over time resulting to favorable attitude towards PhE, which
contradicted her previous findings.
The advocates of PhE, Dimaculangan and Gustilo (2018) concentrated on how
200 Filipino English teachers felt about 21st-century writing in Philippine English. The
results of the acceptability test showed that respondents' perceptions of the Philippine
English vocabulary are negative. Out of the 99 lexical elements that were tested for
acceptability, only five were found to be suitable for formal writing, and only two were
found to be suitable for informal writing. This finding implied that Filipino English
Teachers are still incognizant and are not yet accepting the notion of World Englishes
including the PhE, which could have been the reason of their ambivalent attitude and
indifference towards currents sociolinguistic landscape in the Philippines.
Still on the same year Alieto and Rillo (2018) examined the language attitudes of
52 high school Filipino English teachers in the secondary using a self-made Language
Attitude Questionnaire. Results indicated positive attitudes among respondents towards
Philippine English contrary to the results of Dimaculangan (2018) and Dimaculangan and
Gustilo (2018). Results further indicated that respondents‘ gender, socio-economic status,
educational attainment and years in service do not have direct influence on the
respondent‘s language attitude towards PhE which contradicts various results from
empirical studies.
Considering the continuous debate on the acceptability of Philippine English
despite that it is widely used across the country, Tamco (2022) provided insights on
beliefs, experiences and pedagogical practices of English teachers in the Higher
Education. Utilizing thematic analysis of the responses from the predetermined interview
questions, it was revealed the teachers‘ and students‘ lack of knowledge and awareness
toward PE and its features and value as legit and accepted variety of English. It was
further revealed that teachers are still in belief that American English is the standard
language for writing, while PE is acceptable only for speaking.
 10

Seeing Philippine English as the result of the manifestation of dynamicity of

English that is also a result of its contact with different languages and dialects and
believing that PE has slowly become accepted as a local norm of English, Dangilan and
Asuncion (2023) utilized descriptive design to reveal English teachers‘ attitude and
awareness towards the use of PhE. The study found that English Teachers had high level
of awareness and positive attitude towards PE but could not integrate it in the curricula,
for they do not consider it as a standard. It was further found that younger and female
teachers had higher level of awareness. Moreover, Echalico- Bermillo and Calvez-
Amilbahar (2023) revealed positive attitudes were displayed by language teachers
towards positive and negative claims about PE, which is not influenced by their
demographic profile.
As years go by, English teachers have gradually accepted PhE as a variety of
English as positive attitude towards PE was revealed in the recent studies (Dimaculangan
et al., 2024; Echalico- Bermillo & Calvez- Amilbahar, 2023; Dangilan and Asuncion,
2023; Alieto & Rillo, 2018). However, resistance on the acceptability of PE as a standard
variety to be part of ELT landscapes was also revealed (Dangilan & Asuncion, 2023;
Tamco, 2022; Dimaculangan & Gustilo, 2018; Dimacalungan, 2018; Dimaculangan,
2023). Hence, further studies on PE‘s acceptance among teachers in the university,
especially on their pedagogical practices towards PhE, which commenced in the study of
Tamco (2022), should be explored. Thus, this study would like to contribute on the scarce
literature on teachers‘ pedagogical practices towards PhE.
 11

METHODOLOGY
This chapter presented the design that was employed in the study, the
environment for gathering data from respondents, the study's participants, the instruments
needed for data gathering, the data gathering procedure that was followed, the data
analysis that was followed, and the ethical considerations. This chapter provided an in-
depth explanation of the various processes that were conducted to achieve the study's
aims.
Design
This research utilized grounded theory of Glaser and Strauss (1999), as this paper
intends to generate a theory grounded from the data on the awareness, attitudes, practices
and experiences of English Teachers towards Philippine English. Cullen and Brennan
(2021) state that grounded theory is recognized for its ability to study human behavior
and to make knowledge claims about how people interpret reality. It also allows for the
abstraction of people's subjective experiences into theoretical statements. Finally, it is a
suitable research methodology to develop theory because it has established principles for
conducting research and interpreting data.
Environment
This study was conducted within the five northern campuses of Cebu
Technological University. The participants, referred to as informants, consisted of ten
(10) Filipino English teachers from these campuses. A purposive sampling technique was
employed to select the informants based on a set of specific inclusion criteria. To qualify,
individuals had to be graduates of the Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSED) in
English, possess a minimum of three years of teaching experience, and be actively
teaching English courses at the university level. The requirement for a BSED English
degree was crucial, as graduates from this program were specifically trained to teach the
norms of standard English, which made their perspectives particularly valuable to this
research. Furthermore, the criterion of at least three years of teaching experience ensured
that the informants could provide meaningful and deep insights drawn from their
professional practice. In cases where more than two teachers from a single campus met
these criteria, a fishbowl technique was used to randomly select the two final informants,
ensuring a fair and unbiased representation from each of the five locations.
 12

Informants
There are 10 informants participating in this study who are Filipino English
Teachers from the five (5) north campuses of Cebu Technological University. The
informants were selected using purposive sampling according to the inclusion criteria
which are: 1. graduate of BSED English; and 2. with at least 3 years of teaching
experience; 3. They must be teaching English Courses in the university. Specifically, a
fishbowl technique will be utilized to select two (2) informants, qualifying from the
criteria set, from each campus if there are more than two qualifies. The inclusion criterion
is considered since the orientation of a BSED English graduate is to teach the norms of
the standard English making their views and perceptions valuable in this study.
Moreover, years of experience is another inclusion criteria being considered to gain
meaningful insights from the years of experience of the informants.
The informants‘ responses from the interview questions are the main source of
data. The number of 10 informants is sufficient in qualitative research since the quality of
the data is more important than the quantity of participants. According to Ellis (2016), six
(6) to twenty (20) individuals is a sufficient number. Smaller sample sizes are common in
qualitative research methods. This is because qualitative research methods, which are
often oriented on the how and why of a given issue, process, scenario, subculture, scene,
or collection of social interactions, are often focused on meaning (Charmaz, 1990).
Furthermore, a number of 10 participants is a starting point but not the end point as
saturation of the data may reduce or increase this number. In this study, the awareness,
pedagogical attitudes, experiences, and practices of Filipino English teachers toward
Philippine English attained saturation on the 8 th informant as no fresh conceptual
developments emerged. Peer review and reflective memoing backed up this decision.
According to Creswell & Poth (2018), the study's theoretical sufficiency demonstrate that
the emergent theory adequately explains the fundamental mechanisms at work.
Instrument
A researcher-made interview guide was used as the main instrument of this
research. It has four main parts: the before the interview, during the interview, ending the
interview, and after the interview. This interview format is adapted from Sample
Interview Guide by Wa-Mbaleka (2019). The ‗before the interview proper includes
 13

setting the tone and the discussion of the informed consent form. ‗During the interview‘
section includes the main interview questions which are composed of open-ended
questions, factual questions, probe questions, and concluding questions. ‗Ending the
interview‘ section is where the interviewee is asked for additional information he could
provide pertaining to the topic, and this is also the time the interviewer extends his thanks
to the participant. ‗After the Interview‘ is the time the interviewer checks the audio-
recorder, puts the interview place in an organized manner, and makes necessary write
ups. This interview guide is valid and reliable as this is cross-checked by the experts in
the field which includes the dissertation advisers and members.
Data Gathering Procedures
The gathering of the data needed for this research takes several steps or
procedures, from the research title proposal to actual collection of data through interview.
Each procedure was presented in this section.
Pre-data Gathering. The first step was the submission of three research titles to
the Dean‘s office of the graduate school of the university. One research title was chosen
by the research committee to be pursued. Research proposal based on the approved title
was written and submitted to the dissertation adviser for cross-checking to assess the
soundness of the proposal and to decide whether the paper is ready for the design hearing.
After the adviser‘s recommendation, the proposal was scheduled for a design hearing.
The paper was subject to scrutiny from the panel. Corrections, suggestions, and
comments were made to further improve the paper. After compliance on the technical
part of the paper, it was submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for an ethical
review. Once the ethical review was done, a Notice to Proceed (NTP) was provided.
Actual Data Gathering. The second step is on actual data gathering. To gather
the necessary data, permission from the campus directors was sought. Transmittal letters
were also provided to the participants of this study as a formal invitation to them. Once
schedules were set between the researcher and the participants, the interview was
conducted. In accordance with grounded theory approach, data was gathered iteratively to
investigate Filipino English teachers' awareness, pedagogical attitudes, experiences, and
practices about Philippine English. Open coding of the first interviews and survey
responses allowed for the natural emergence of noteworthy themes and categories from
 14

the data. These emerging patterns allowed for a responsive and dynamic inquiry process
by informing later rounds of data collection through theoretical sampling. Continuous
conceptual category refinement was made possible by the constant comparative method,
which also made sure that the theoretical insights produced were firmly grounded in the
pedagogical contexts and lived realities of the participants.
Post Data Gathering. After the interview, the researcher ensured that data
gathered were treated with utmost confidentiality. Right after the conduct of this study,
the recorded interviews were omitted from the researchers‘ file.
Data Analysis
The primary grounded theory techniques for analyzing the interview transcripts
will be used are coding – initial, focused/axial, selective – memo writing and sorting, and
constant comparison of codes, which are conducted iteratively.
Initial coding is the stage where initial codes are constructed from the interview
transcripts. Charmaz (2015) stated that researcher ask, ―What is happening here?‖ about
the data collected.
Focused/Axial Coding is the stage where the researcher groups the initial codes
based on their similarities and differences to connect these data into categories.
Selective Coding is the stage where the researcher connects all the categories into
a core category or categories which may come from the categories of the axial coding or
may be created as new category.
Memo writing is done simultaneously with the coding process used to note issues,
links or connections between codes and their relationship to the other codes (Scott, 2009
as cited in Triad 3, 2016). Furthermore, this helps in the constant comparison of codes by
recording analysis of these comparisons (Charmaz, 2015).
Sentiment Analysis is an additional feature. It is a technique of analysis to
determine whether the data is positive, negative or neutral (Gillis, 2024). This helps the
researcher gauge the attitudes of the informants towards PE.
Ethical Consideration
This study strictly adheres to ethical guidelines, ensuring the confidentiality and
privacy of respondents throughout the research process. It upholds the principles of
beneficence, aiming to minimize harm and maximize benefits by promoting an inclusive
 15

classroom environment that recognizes Philippine English and reduces discrimination.

Respect for participants' rights, dignity, and self-determination, regardless of race or
religion, is paramount, with strict confidentiality maintained for all responses. Justice is
ensured through equitable treatment of all participants, particularly English teachers at
Cebu Technological University, without preferential treatment. Informed consent is
meticulously obtained, detailing study goals, data type, procedures, potential risks and
benefits, and the voluntary nature of participation, with no coercion or financial
compensation. Anonymity is guaranteed through the use of codes, and data will be
shredded after use. The researcher has no conflict of interest and provides contact
information for any concerns.
 16

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section presented the results grounded from the responses of the informants
on their awareness, pedagogical attitudes, experiences, and practices towards Philippine
English. Based on the informants‘ utterances, there are three major categories classified.
The first major category is named ―Decolonial Mentality‖ as it supports PE integration
and recognition.
Decolonial Mentality
Acknowledging PhE as an Existing Intelligible English Variety. Informants
agree that Philippine English is an intelligible English variety that exists. Likewise, they
believe that the use of PE promotes comprehensible communication regardless of whom
one is communicating with. Furthermore, intelligibility of PE though has not yet reached
the fullest nativized form has been believed to continually developed which is evident in
the inclusion of some Philippine terms such as ―Bondoc‖ "Imeldific" and among others.
It is further stressed out that the existence of PE is an assertion of identity as Filipinos.
These claims are reflected in the utterances of the informants as presented:
“For me it is 90% intelligible, though it’s not yet that advance, but it has been
developing.” (Informant 2)
“Philippine English is very…., not new, it's really rooted in our own uniqueness
as …..which allows us to assert our agency as human beings in Southeast Asia..”
(Informant 3)
Philippine English is intelligible because basically if we are to speak Philippine
English, like what I've said, we use words that are non- transferable….(Informant 5)
PhE is an existing, acceptable, and comprehensible variety of English. …..PE is
intelligible inside and outside Philippines. (Informant 6)

These assertions regarding PhE's intelligibility mostly support Kachru's (2004)

assertion—quoted in Flores (2014)—that PhE is a recognized and institutionalized
variety of World Englishes. Furthermore, the study by Salazar (2017) shows that some
Philippine terms have been added to the Oxford English Dictionary, confirming that they
can be used as a separate variety. The words Mabuhay, adobo, letson, kare-kare, and
bahala na are proof that the inclusions demonstrate how PE will continue to advance. In
fact, PhE has evolved to nativized form and achieved endonormative stabilization,
according to Martin (2014) and Borlongan (2013), while Gonzales (2017) proposed that it
is already in the differentiation phase. Finally, the assertion of identity in the existence of
PhE echoes in the findings of Dayon (2018) which argued that PhE is distinct variety
 17

shaped by local linguistic and cultural identities. Hence, PhE is a variety of English that
does existing and intelligible. Furthermore, looking PhE on this perspective means
accepting that its works similar way to other varieties like the American and British – a
decolonial mindset indeed.
Embracing Linguistic Diversity and Multilingual and Flexible Learning
Perspectives. Another decolonial theme grounded from informants‘ perspectives and
experiences is recognizing Philippine English's contribution to education and accepting it
as one of the World Englishes (WE). Likewise, it is believing that Philippine English
enhances ELT by offering pluricentric teaching and learning perspectives. Specifically,
informants argued that embracing linguistic diversity is learning other varieties of
English like PE, which make them a more flexible teacher, making conversation with
their students more comfortable and effective, leading to productive teaching and
learning. These claims are reflected in the utterances below:
“To learn more about other varieties so we could be more flexible. Also, in the
intercultural aspect we can communicate well, or we can understand more if we also
know their varieties”. (Informant 2)
“Using our English variety makes more connection when you make someone
feel comfortable with you in a conversation, it adds layer to the relationship, and it gives
you more value to him”. (Informant 3)
“I think learning PE will make teaching-learning more meaningful since being
able to adapt to the kind of English that your students would be using or the teacher
would be using ah will make the message...the transition of the message easier and more
smooth-sailing, more spontaneous”. (Informant 4)
“I think it is really a must for us to understand the whole perspective of learning
American English, Philippine English and other Englishes in the world because it will
basically pave way for a better understanding in interaction, communication and sharing
your ideas and thoughts”. (Informant 5)

“I would say it would make me a better English teacher if I had more knowledge
on those Englishes”. (Informant 6)

A classroom that embraces language variations makes learning for students more
meaningful. Scholars called this phenomenon as pluricentric model in the teaching of
English, where the medium of instruction used is not isolated in one variety but
embracing on the local linguistic identity and resources of the students (Borlongan, 2017;
Esquivel, 2019; Hernandez, 2020; Espino et al., 2021). Pluricentric model is relevant to
translanguaging in the classroom, allowing students to develop sociolinguistic
competence across different English varieties (Martin (2014), to enhance student
participation and comprehension in multilingual classrooms (Perfecto, 2020), and to
 18

promote multilingual competence (Espino et al, 2021) and effective communication (de
los Reyes, 2018). While arguing for multilingual and adaptable pedagogical approaches
that take into account local sociolinguistic realities, Bernardo (2024) emphasizes how
schoolscapes in Philippine educational settings promote linguistic diversity by promoting
Philippine English and encouraging endonormative practices.
Moreover, Arranz (2019) found that when standard English is used for
instruction, students do poorly in oral communication in context. When taught in PhE,
learners do well in oral communication in context. When it comes to teaching oral
communication in context, PhE is quite efficient. This result is consistent with Matsuda
and Matsuda (2017), who highlight how the globalization of English has given rise to
new varieties, such as PhE, which better meets regional communication demands than the
prevailing colonial versions.
These advantages of embracing language variations in the classroom are
exemplifying the advocacy of Hernadez (2020) that policymakers and teachers to
consider the implementation of the pluricentric model in teaching English in the country.
Hence, embracing PhE does not only make the informants a better and more effective
teacher, but also makes learning more meaningful for the students as they can express
thoughts and can be heard without bias of judgement of the use of language.
PhE as a Tool for Cultural Identity and Decolonization. Advocating for the
integration of PhE as part of a movement to establish Filipino linguistic independence.
Informants believe that integration of PhE in the curriculum can widen the perspectives
in the teaching of language and may change our Americanized curriculum. Furthermore,
informants deem that the integration of PhE is gradually decolonizing the ELT landscape
by providing Filipinos independence in speaking their own variety of English, not strictly
conforming on what is imposed. They further believe that integration of PhE in the ELT
landscapes will establish the ELT identity. These are reflected in the following excerpts:
“When there is an integration of the Philippine English, we can widen our
perspectives. It is good if this ends with orientation among teachers on PhE because we
still have Americanized curriculum….” (Informant 2)
In an ELT classroom, there's this employment for sure of Philippine English and
in doing so, we are gradually decolonizing ourselves so that we are not saying that you
know, you can only use English all throughout…..(Informant 3)
Because doing away with what was introduced to us by the Americans
makes..uh..gives us the independence of speaking the kind of language that we can speak.
Though there is a model, the standard American English but we are speaking English in
 19

a manner that we can easily speak. …. decolonizing our ELT landscapes is also
establishing our own identity. Informant 4
I think that including Philippine English in our curriculum will also help them
understand that we also have to develop a sense of cultural identity. (informant 5)
I believe Philippine English Integration is ELT decolonization. People,
particularly students, were not just informed about this. If they were, there could be
wider acceptance of Philippine English. (Informant 6)

The contention that the integration of PhE is tantamount to decolonization of ELT

landscapes and establishing ELT identity is in consonance to the compelling discussions
of Tupas (2018) and Roman-Tamesis and Villaceran (2023). Tupas (2018) claimed that
integration of PhE in the ELT curriculum can recover local knowledge and enable
students to perceive their language identity as valid and worthwhile. He further argued
that the idea of decolonizing ELT can transform a classroom that affirms its cultural
identity rather than just assimilating the foreign cultural identity. Roman-Tamesis and
Villaceran (2023) emphasize how integrating regional English varieties, such as PhE,
promotes a freer, culturally based teaching style and challenges the predominance of
Western standards in ELT. Hernandez (2020) confirmed this, saying that the widespread
use of Filipinisms (specific English expressions) points to a change in attitude toward
embracing linguistic identity.
Hence, the advocacy for rebranding and promoting English Language Teaching
(ELT) landscapes is progressively shifting toward affirming cultural identity— enabling
students to learn a language that reflects their own cultural background while
simultaneously providing them a sense of belonging.
Balanced Approach and Meaningful Language Instruction. Informants
believe that teaching English to Filipino students should have a balance between the
teaching of American English and Philippine English. Furthermore, they believe that
demarcation lines should be placed, and students should be knowledgeable about the
distinction between PE and AE. Hence, while encouraging the use of PhE, learning the
standards also remains which can make language instruction more meaningful to
students. Likewise, the use of Philippine English becomes practical in teaching students
who are not specializing English. These perspectives are reflected in the following
excerpts:
 20

We should always remind our students “this is Philippine English” for us to be

able to establish what is ours, right? There is this speck of nationalism and then we have
to introduce to them also what American English is. (informant 1)
Let's say for instance, if our students are in college, it's good to introduce that
concept, the Philippine English but we have to inform the students on what is prescribed
...the prescriptive and descriptive. So, we can draw the line between the two….
(informant 2)
Because I also believe that while we are okay with the use of Philippine English,
our curriculum has its own vision or has its own mandate, right? While we can be
libertarian in allowing them to use Philippine English, but this is an English major
group, and this is an English program as well (informant 3)
The use of Philippine English in the classroom cannot be avoided because as I
have been teaching for almost 20 years, I noticed especially if students are not education
students. …. when you speak to them using the standard American English, they have the
tendency not to understand you in such a manner … you have to repeat yourself...
(informant 4)
So basically, ah, shall I say, ah strictly employ, or strictly restrict them from
speaking Philippine English because it’s part of our culture and we cannot actually
detach that one from our own. So, it’s just a mixture balance of American and Philippine
English for me. (Informant 5)
I am not saying that there will be no learning on American Standard English
anymore, they can while integrating Philippine English.. no judgment of what kind of
English..(informant 6)

The idea that language teaching and learning should not be constrained in one
linguistic and cultural domain is the core message of balanced approach in teaching. This
balanced approach to English language teaching reminds English teachers to inculcate
into their students minds that English classroom should not be confined with one
linguistic variety, eradicating the idea of superior language. Farrel and Martin (2009)
highlighted that balanced approach can promote linguistic confidence and cultural
identity. This is further confirmed in the recent studies of Sy-Tamco (2022) which
revealed that the pragmatic approach to teaching English promotes a dual standard which
fosters motivation, cultural pride, and communicative competence. Dayag (2007)
contends this approach also prepare students to both local and international
communication context.
Hence, PhE can be integrated in the curriculum while students are continually
taught of the American English variety, making language learning becoming more
holistic and meaningful.
Resurrection of the Colonial Past
Fondness for American English as Linguistic standard. Despite awareness and
recognition of PhE among the informants, they still contend and resist that American
English is the linguistic standard, and Philippine English is a sub-standard variety.
 21

Moreover, informants have preference on the sounds of American English over

Philippine English. Informants expect their students especially those specializing English
to imitate the American phonology. One informant even stressed that preference of
American English is rooted on the idea of global competitiveness and PhE is somewhat
erroneous. These partiality for AE and resistance to PhE are reflected in the following
excerpts:
I have to consider standard English most of the time and let my students
understand this what we call standard English, and this is what we call sub-standard
English, ….most of our Instructional Materials, resources about the English language
are taken from the American English, hence we have to give due respect also to the
source of all the Englishes around the world (Informant 1).
When it comes to speech, I’m particular with it. I prefer American English..Oh,
….it's a no-no noh especially they are English majors…..Usually, I encourage American
English…(Informant 2).
In higher levels where I expect a lot from them, or in higher rounds of
discussions like breakout sessions, I invent breakout session with my English majors
here, I would always share to them the beauty of sticking to the good sounds to hear
(Informant 3)
The standard American English, I still believe, that should be the basis for what
English is……, we cannot do away with the fact that the most popular English is the
standard American English so sometimes it becomes the basis of intelligence, if you're
good with the standard American English, you're considered intelligent (Informant 4)
we should always utilize the American accent because I think that's very
necessary in the workplace. (Informant 5)
for me, right now. I implemented the English, the American standard and then
because Philippine English …..In that way, we will not be globally- competitive if PhE
will be implemented in the classroom here in the Philippines. (Informant 8)

Informants may have recognized the significant role of PE in the balanced

approach towards teaching of English; they still have reservations in some linguistic
features of PhE and still have strong preference and partiality to American English
sounds. This somehow contradicts to the recent findings of Dimaculangan et al. (2024)
which revealed equal acceptance to both PhE and AE, suggesting increasing acceptance
of PE alongside with AE due to continuous efforts of education about PE. Nevertheless,
this phenomenon of preference to AE sounds reflects in Sy-Tamco (2022) and
Dimacalungan (2022) who found that many ESL teachers still consider AE the standard,
particularly in writing, reinforcing colonial linguistic hierarchies. Fluency in English,
particularly AE, is often equated with intelligence and social status, a colonial legacy that
persists in Philippine education.
Abayan et al. (2024) likewise found that while the teachers acknowledge the
legitimacy of PE and even make room for it in their pedagogy, American English remains
 22

the preferred and default standard—driven by pragmatic, institutional, and sometimes

ideological concerns. This resonates with Tupas (2006 cited in Paz 2022) which stated
that although teachers accept the political and cultural values of the Englishes that their
students bring in their English classroom, they are still forced to teach standard varieties
because of ―structuring conditions‖ specifically ―socio-economic, political and
ideological conditions‖ that leave many of them without a choice.
This implies that AE still holds phonologic prestige over PhE, which further
suggests that PE phonological features has not reached the full acceptance among
Filipino teachers alongside its acceptance in formal writing.
Skepticism on PhE’s global comprehensibility, Economic and Workplace
Advantages. While informants recognize the existence and value of PhE in English
language classrooms, they still have apprehensions on the comprehensibility of PE in the
international communication context. They argue that English is a variety of English that
is only comprehensible in the Philippine context – a variety exclusive for Filipinos. The
discriminative view on PhE does not stop on its global comprehensibility but reaches as
well on the economic and workplace context. Informants ascribed to this idea by
contending that the use of American English gives an edge to job applicants especially in
Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) industries. Likewise, informants resist that
American English can transform students to become globally competitive individuals.
These claims are reflected in the following utterances:
When we talk about PE, let’s have the two words connected – Philippine and
English. it has to do with English in the Philippines, exclusively in the Philippines…...
and of course we have to embrace internationalization. when we talk about
internationalization, there is what we call standard English…. We have to be intelligent
or knowledgeable enough when it comes to American English for us to be able to adapt
with people having different nationalities. ….it is a must for them(students) also to know
what American English is which has been most of us has been referring to. Because like
what I said a while ago, it is the mother English. (informant 1)
Okay, when we say Philippine English for me sir, is a kind of English only used
in the Philippines. (informant 4)
Specifically, in the BPO, we would always utilize that American accent. It's
because if we do not use that, we will be criticized by our customers or our clients. They
would say, "Oh, you have a very thick accent. Are you an Indian? (Informant 5)
In that way, we will not be globally- competitive if it(PE) will be implemented in
the classroom here in the Philippines…..because we are globally competitive , we are
aiming for that and if we're going to implement that (AE)….(informant 8)

These skepticism on PhE‘s global comprehensibility confirms Hernandez (2020)

findings which revealed Filipino graduate students‘ attitudes toward PhE. Like this
 23

current study, graduate students recognized PhE‘s legitimacy, but they remain skeptical
on its global presence, particularly in spoken and in formal writing. On the other hand,
PhE has not fully been acknowledged to be beneficial in the economic and workplace
aspects, believing that students who can imitate AE have greater chances of getting a job
than those who are not. This discernment to local varieties is reflected in Martinez (2024)
who found discrimination to local varieties of English just like PE in corporate world. Job
seekers are rejected because they do not speak the language that is deemed to be
legitimate, implicitly discriminating against other varieties not regarded as legitimate.
According to Duchêne (2020), multilingualism frequently favors some languages over
others, which can promote linguistic hierarchy. This illustrates how Philippine English is
still disregarded in companies and educational institutions, despite being appropriate in
local situations.
This evident discrimination of local varieties of English like PE is a clear
manifestation of inequalities, seeing languages as hierarchies where the dominant
language gets more privileges. This calls for more intellectual discussion on the
legitimacy of PhE, advocating for equality among languages.
Reservations about PE’s role in ELT. Another form of resistance extracted
from the informants‘ perspectives is their reservation on PhE‘s role in English language
teaching. While informants uphold the pluricentric and balance approach towards English
Language teaching, pedagogical reluctance remains. As mentioned in the extracts
provided, informants do not fully accept the integration of PhE, believing that it is not yet
a fully developed variety. Likewise, it is not yet fully acceptable in formal writing like
research publications, and preference on AE phonology remains reflective in the
pedagogical practices of the informants, believing that AE sounds more correct and
standard. Some see PhE as inconsistent and problematic for formal language instruction
which cannot enhance English learning or promotes linguistic competence, leading to
their apprehension of its role. These are reflected in the following excerpts:
I think there will be confusion if things are not well-identified. What are these
things? The different englishes in the world. I think so. But if things are really clarified, if
there is really this what we call standardized Philippine English that is introduced also in
a standard way, then I think that can alleviate confusion. At the same time, there is this
introduction, standardized introduction of American English. (1)
so there is always a tendency to let them use what's proper which is the
American English.. the standard English especially in research because it's more on
 24

written form…. Even in speech, it cannot be fully embraced because it is an error …… So

our mindset tell us to use AE because it hard to tolerate. If we use English if possible,
American English (2)
Philippines English from the pronunciation down to the sentence structure and
then if we are going to use that one in the Philippines or we're going to implement, it's
best if we are going improvise, like we enhance more becauyse there's something wrong
and it affects to the students (8)

With the given reservations among informants, indeed, PhE remains contested
(Paz, 2022). These reservations are reflected in the findings of Bernardo (2017) who
found that teachers rarely integrate PE in language classes. Hernandez (2020) similarly
revealed that in spite of favorable perceptions of PhE, questions still surround its
worldwide acceptability, especially when it comes to spoken form. Concerns with
academic and professional norms caused some academics to be reluctant to completely
support PE in official writing (Hernandez, 2020).
Moreover, this pedagogical resistance goes beyond the teachers and is even more
evident in the K-12 curriculum. According to Bernardo (2017) World Englishes and PhE
paradigms are not expressly or implicitly represented in the K-12 curriculum, which is
expected to be updated with and cognizant of the needs of the contemporary ELT
industry. With this pedagogical resistance, teachers were encouraged by Esquivel (2019)
to stop using Standard American or British English as the only criteria for assessing
learners' competency and urges them to stop seeing variations from American English as
mistakes and instead acknowledge Philippine English as a valid variety in English
Language Teaching (ELT).
Hence, it is time that academics, especially ELT teachers to fully embrace the
idea of PhE integration in the curriculum. Kato (2024) stressed out that dual-language
instruction equips students for global citizenship by fostering economic advancement and
fairness in education.
Sources of Pedagogical Resistance
Education as Proliferating Tool towards the Prescriptivist and Colonial
Mindset. Informants confirmed that their practices and perspectives towards the use of
PhE and the preference of AE in the teaching of English is influenced by their education
and how English was introduced to them in school. Accordingly, they are taught that
there is a standard English and that they should adhere to it. Hence, English Language
 25

Teaching was introduced in a prescriptive manner – imposing that there is correct and
standard and what deviates is an error.

I think it started when I was in college because my major was English. I took up
BSED-English, that was introduced by our mentors, our professors. Yes, it was explained
to us what English really is, what Philippine English really is. (informant 1)
Based also on my exposure and my training, when you speak in English, if
possible, you have to be native-like. You adhere to the American English standards….
(informant 2)

The source of the pedagogical resistance towards the full acceptance of PhE is the
Americanized curriculum and system of education implemented in the Philippines.
According to Rubin (2025) on her concept of ―gentle resistance‖, Americanized teaching
practices perpetuates curriculum violence by silencing students‘ authentic linguistic
identities and reinforce a singular standard of ―correct‖ English. This is reflective to the
pedagogical practices of Filipino English teachers who avidly stick to the so-called
standard, discouraging the use of local varieties like PhE. This pedagogical practice has
been influenced by the way the curriculum and or the education system that embrace so
much of the American English. Mahboob and Lin (2016) contend that mainstream
TESOL courses, which have their roots in American and British models, have historically
neglected local languages and English dialects, hence promoting internalized resistance
and linguistic inequalities. Ideologies such as native-speakerism and monolingualism,
which influence teacher preparation, pedagogy, and policy to undermine regional English
dialects, are the cause of this resistance.
Thus, it is evident how education curricula shape the way teachers think of their
classrooms. The perpetuation of this kind of education system would continually uphold
language hegemony and hierarchies which widen the gap between language the students
are learning and the social context they belong to.
Limited exposure and Awareness on PhE. The informants have also admitted
that they have limited exposure to PE, leading to limited awareness. This brings to the
contention that this limited exposure, and awareness could have influenced their
pedagogical resistance and partiality towards PE. These admissions are reflected in the
following excerpts:
 26

That's why I'm confused kay during my subjects in college or in master’s

Philippine English was never introduced. (informant 8)
I don’t have actual training and exposure on PhE. I have just happened to read
it in social media coz sometimes it passes by my feed. I guess that is what I
lack..(informant 6)
I actually have limited knowledge about World Englishes and Philippine English
(informant 5)
Just an overview, not much. (informant 4)

The limited exposure and awareness of the informants confirms findings of

previously conducted studies. The contention that limited awareness influence teachers‘
pedagogical resistance on embracing and integrating PhE in ELT is likewise supported by
the findings of literature. Ali (2023) revealed students‘ moderate awareness of PhE‘s
features and slightly aware of its legitimacy as an English variety, which implies that
students are unconsciously using PhE, but they do not recognize it as a variety. Indeed, a
manifestation of resistance that is influenced by limited awareness. In addition, in the
international context, Ahn (2015) revealed that teachers lack training or exposure to
World English resulting to low acceptance and integration of Asian English, strongly
favoring to AE. Furthermore, this leads to a mono-model approach to language teaching
with a strong regard of the inner circle English as standard. This is another manifestation
of the contention that limited awareness results to pedagogical resistance.
Hernandez (2022) likewise argue that teaching language in the Philippines is
heavily influence by the Western standards which is cause by English teachers lack
awareness and exposure to local English varieties like PhE. Hernandez (2022) urges
legislators to incorporate glocalized English into ELT frameworks in order to promote
language justice and cultural affirmation, and that WEs be recognized legally and in
curricula. Hence, to fully make ELT balance, meaningful pluricentric, and contextualized
or decolonized, matching the linguistic needs and social context of the learners, teachers,
policymakers and scholars should work together to raise awareness on PhE.
 27

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion
This paper explores Filipino English teachers‘ awareness, pedagogical attitudes,
experiences, and practices towards Philippine English (PE) and to confirm whether ELT
landscapes in the Philippines have fled from the shadows of the Western Standard, from
the monolingual approach to language teaching, and from the myth of language
standards. Through a qualitative approach through in-depth interviews from the
informants, three major categories were generated grounded from the responses. The first
category is the ‗decolonial mentality‘ where informants acknowledge that PhE exists as
an intelligible English variety, embrace linguistic diversity and multilingual and flexible
learning perspectives, believe that PE is a tool for cultural identity and decolonization,
and uphold balanced approach and meaningful language instruction. While informants
have a positive stance on PE, their responses cannot hide their resistance as well. The
second category that was grounded from informants‘ responses is the ‗resurrection of the
colonial past‘ where informants explicitly and implicitly expressed their resistance to PhE
and still believing language norms of the west. In this category, informants still believe
that AE is the standard and are skeptic of the global comprehensibility and workplace and
economic advantage of PE and apprehensive of its role in ELT. The third category is the
‗sources of pedagogical resistance‘ where informants expressed how their Americanized
curriculum shape their perspectives as English teachers and admitted that they have
limited exposure to PhE. Hence, positive disposition towards PhE is a good development
to consider in the advocacy of decolonizing ELT; however, this does not directly translate
to the pedagogical practices in ELT landscapes which implies that English classrooms
nowadays are mono-lingual and American English dominated, unable to bridge the gap
between the linguistic needs and social context. Thus, confirming the pedagogical
resistance. Hence, a stronger advocacy towards decolonization of ELT landscapes is
needed to provide a more abreast, practical, and contextualized language learning to
every learner of language. It is recommended that the current curriculum in ELT be
reviewed and teachers‘ training on PhE be consistently provided.
 28

Emergent Theory
Based on the responses of the informants on their awareness, pedagogical
attitudes, experiences, and practices towards Philippine English (PE), grounded theories
were generated. These theories are presented through a schematic diagram as shown in
Figure 2
Schematic Presentation of Emergent Theories on Recognition and Resistance towards PE

Positive DECOLONIZATION
Balance in Americanized OF ELT
perspectives
ELT Curriculum LANDSCAPES
on PE do
through continually Addressing linguistic
not directly
linguistic shapes and sociolinguistic
translate to
dualism teachers‘ gap
pedagogical
stances on PE
practice

Curriculum Policy
Review/Professional
Development

The schematic presentation shows that the first emergent theory conveys
informants‘ awareness and recognition of PE through the idea of linguistic dualism in
ELT landscapes which is a good development towards decolonization of ELT landscapes.
However, the second two emergent theories manifest resistance towards PE as
informants‘ awareness and recognition do not directly translate into pedagogical practice
which is ascribed to existing Americanized curriculum. This calls for a curriculum policy
review, which will not only integrate PE in the curriculum but will also provide enough
exposure and trainings to English teachers to strengthen their awareness and to capacitate
them on how a pluricentric classroom works, leading to the full decolonization of ELT
landscapes, addressing the linguistic and sociolinguistic gap and decontextualizing the
 29

ELT classrooms. To further understand each of the three emergent theories, discussions
are provided.
Balance in ELT through linguistic dualism
This grounded theory argues that balance in ELT can be attained through
linguistic dualism which means that local varieties like PE can be integrated in the ELT
while AE is taught. This is grounded on the perspectives of all the informants creating the
concept of balance approach to English Language Teaching. This is a decolonial
development as it welcomes the idea of PE integration supporting the idea of
pluricentricity in ELT which upholds the local and foreign languages in the classroom.
According to Ammon (2005), a language is considered pluricentric if it includes multiple
standard variants that originate from various political or cultural backgrounds. The
English language is pluricentric and is quite complicated, and it is not always clear who is
a native speaker and who is not because there are so many speakers of English around the
world. Therefore, in many ways, it would be preferable to teach languages using the
pluricentric approach (Huber, 2022). Bernardo (2023) promotes grammar education in
the Philippine context that incorporates Philippine English characteristics into ELT and
emphasizes the pluricentric nature of English. Bremner (2021), on the other hand,
advocates for instructional adaptability that considers various linguistic and cultural
situations.
Thus, this emergent theory upholds the nature of English language as pluricentric
language which needs to be taught in a plucentric approach. This theory can be further
explored by investigating if pluricentric approaches exist in ELT landscapes.
Positive perspectives on PE do not directly translate to pedagogical practice.
This grounded theory argues that while Filipino English teachers acknowledge
and recognize the possible role of PE in ELT, pedagogical practice acknowledgement and
recognition remains unseen. The idea has to be translated into practice; however, teachers
may insist to do this, the curriculum and their educational exposure limits them to do so –
indeed, a resistance to the flourishing idea of the role of PE in ELT. Thus, decolonization
of ELT landscape remains a vision in progress and a manifestation of resistance towards
PE and decolonization of ELT. This theory may be validated through looking into how
 30

the current curriculum influence pedagogical practice of English teachers and impede the
integration of PE.
The argument that teachers‘ positive perspectives towards PE are not evident in
their classrooms are also reflected in Bernardo (2017) which investigated the K-12
curriculum and barely sees the integration of WE and PE frameworks especially in the
ELT context. This translates to the classroom as Bernardo (2017) also found that PE has
not been formally used as pedagogical framework in teaching of grammar. Thus,
hegemonic westernized language classroom still exists in the current curriculum.
Furthermore, Molina (2022) recognized the critical role of language teachers in
promoting diverse Englishes and equity in ELT. She argues that through critical-self-
reflection of teachers, colonial frameworks in language teaching can be dismantled.
Hence, these positive perspectives on PE can be translated into practices despite the odds
brought the curriculum if teachers recognize that the teaching of English is pluricentric
and equated. This recognition and the odds lead to clashes. Teachers‘ pedagogical beliefs
are often contradicted by the curricular mandates (Valdez, 2020) and influenced by
institutional goals (Turmudi & Hajan, 2020). Indeed, a clear reflection of what the theory
implies is that curriculum makers should review and revisit the current ELT landscapes.
Americanized Curriculum continually shapes teachers’ stances and
resistance on Philippine English.
This theorizes that the current Westernized curricula in the Philippine Education
system remains the strongest wall towards the full acceptance of PE and its integration
leading to the attainment of a decolonized ELT landscape as it continually influences and
shapes how a teacher implements the language lesson in the classroom. This Westernized
curriculum is a forerunner of resistance that made English teachers partial and fond to the
norms of American English and skeptic to global comprehensibility and corporate
advantage of PE resulting to their preservation on PE‘s role in the ELT landscapes. The
power of curricula cannot be overlooked in advocating the decolonization of the teaching
of English. This theory can be confirmed by conducting future study on how much
influence of Americanized curriculum on the stance of English teachers towards PE role
in ELT.
 31

This argument echoes in Martin (2010) and Barrot (2018) on her assessment that
colonial remnants have eternally molded ELT in the Philippines both politically and
pedagogically, primarily through an Americanized curriculum, which upholds linguistic
hierarchies yet devalues PE despite its wide recognition and usage. Furthermore,
Bernardo (2011) proposed ―de-hegemonizing agents‖ that disrupt Filipinos desire of
wrong standards which are language teachers; educational institutions; government or
state; and modern media. These agents play a significant role towards ―linguistic
liberation‖ and towards reshaping the colonial mentality of the Filipinos. Thus, this is the
high time to reconsider and think our own way – the Filipino way of learning English
language.
To sum it up, this study generally theorizes that linguistic dualism or the
pedagogical balance in ELT landscapes is a positive perspective among English teachers.
However, this remains a perspective and never turned out into practice as Americanized
ELT curriculum perpetually shapes a colonized mentality among English Teachers,
resisting the integration of PE.
Recommendations
Grounded on the emerging categories, subcategories, and theories, a review on the
curriculum policy and consistent teachers‘ training are recommended to successfully
integrate and implement PE in the ELT landscapes. In addition, further studies are
recommended to verify the claims from the emergent theories grounded from the insights
and responses of the informants of this study. First, future studies may investigate if
pluricentric approaches exist in ELT landscapes. Second, investigate how the current
curriculum influences pedagogical practice of English teachers and impede the
integration of PE. Lastly, explore how Americanized curriculum influences on the stance
of English teachers towards PE role in ELT.
 32

EPILOGUE
Philippine English has been a discussion among scholars of language in the
country. In fact, research has been conducted establishing PE‘s existence, intelligibility
and comprehensibility. Despite this recognition, PE has been rarely talked among English
Teachers. This led to the exploration of the rich and dynamic realm of Philippine English
in the lenses of English Teachers‘ pedagogical awareness, attitude, and practices, which
aims not only to augment the limited discussion of PE in ELT classrooms but also to
contribute in closing the linguistic and sociolinguistic gap incurred by both students and
teachers of English language in the Philippines. Moreover, contextualization of ELT
classroom becomes more plausible and possible by augmenting on the scholarly
discussion on PE. With the in-depth interview and rigorous and tedious process of data
coding and categorizing, findings indicated the resistance of English Teachers towards
PE despite their recognition of its role in upholding pluricentric classroom. The
Americanized curriculum was seen to be the biggest factor of this resistance as teachers
are mandated to follow what is set in the curriculum and what has been a part of their
systems for, they had been once a product of this kind of curriculum.
A revisit on the curriculum policy is desired after discovering that PE remains a
concept hanging, awaiting to be integrated in the classroom. Likewise, contextualization
of the ELT classroom remains an objective that needs to be carried out. Furthermore, the
gap remains between the linguistic and sociolinguistic needs of students. Most
importantly, ELT classrooms are kept on setting the wrong standard for our students
believing that American English makes us elite and intelligent, forsaking our own variety
and our identity.
This revision of the curriculum covets not only for the integration of PE but also
the ample training necessary for the teachers for PE to proliferate as our own standard
English, a standard bearer of our ELT identity. Moreover, this revision curriculum is
hoped to provide priorities and opportunities to more academic and scholarly discussion
on Philippine English that will bring the true essence of decolonization of the ELT
landscapes.
 33

Summary of Results
Three major categories emerged from data coding and categorization. These are
Decolonial Mentality, Resurrection of the colonial past, and Sources of Resistance.
Decolonial Mentality has four (4) subcategories namely: Acknowledging PE as an
Existing Intelligible English Variety, Embracing Linguistic Diversity and Multilingual
and Flexible Learning Perspectives, PE as a Tool for Cultural Identity and
Decolonization, and Balanced Approach and Meaningful Language Instruction. These
subcategories recognize the existence of PE which can make ELT classrooms diverse and
flexible and promote balanced teaching. Moreover, these subcategories accept the role of
PE in decolonization of ELT and promoting identity.
Resurrection of the colonial past has three (3) subcategories namely, Fondness for
American English as Linguistic standard, Skepticism on PE‘s global comprehensibility,
Economic and Workplace Advantages, Reservations about PE‘s role in ELT. These
subcategories indicated the resistance of English Teachers towards PE and their partiality
on the American English, believing that it is still the standard, leading to their doubts of
PE‘s comprehensibility in the global, corporate and economic contexts. In fact, while
English teachers are open with PE integration, promoting diverse, multilingual, and
flexible classroom, they still have reservation on PE‘s role in ELT.
Sources of Resistance has two (2) subcategories namely, Education as Proliferating tool
towards the prescriptivist and colonial mindset and Limited exposure and Awareness on
PE. This category is ascribed to be the factors on the revealed resistance among English
Teachers. The system of education which is still patterned to the Americans has been
critical in shaping the mentality of the teachers. Likewise, this limits English teachers to
explore and be aware that PE has existed and has a significant role to play in English
language teaching.
Implications
These findings imply that the current education system, particularly in ELT, is
highly Americanized despite teachers‘ recognition of PE and its role in reaching a
multilingual and pluricentric English classrooms. With this, we are still setting our
students and our teachers a wrong standard. This could have been the reason why we
always perform low in international tests like PISA. Hence, these findings suggest a
 34

serious revisit, review and further studies on the integration of Philippine English in the
curriculum. Likewise, education sectors like DepEd and CHED should consider findings
of scholarly literature calling for the integration of PE by conducting their validation
study to confirm and make some revisions in the curriculum. Moreover, the integration of
PE will not be successfully implemented if teachers responsible in the implementation are
not well equipped. Hence, it is necessary to provide teachers with enough and consistent
training not to replicate the failure of MTB-MLE implementation. MTB-MLE was
already a stepping-stone towards attaining a decolonized education. It did not fail;
teachers lack training.
Reflection
Philippine English is just new to me. It is something that I do not pay attention for
the longest time as a teacher of English and as one of its native speakers. My eyes were
open about PE and decolonization when I attended Linguistic Society of Philippines
International Conference in 2023. My interest increases as I consistently attended
sessions and conferences, listening to comprehensive and compelling talks about it. With
great motivation from these conferences, I even conducted research with my students
about the phonological features of Cebuano English.
My experience conducting this dissertation is a manifestation of personal
disregard of PE as an English teacher reflective to how my informants responded to my
interview questions. We had almost similar view about this English variety, we just knew
and heard about it, but we do not give too much attention to it. Apparently, we also have
the same reason of this disregard, we are all products of curriculum that has partiality of
the American English. Hence, exposure and trainings will change the psyche of English
teachers who are still contained in the idea that American English is the standard English.
 35

REFERENCES
Abayan, M.R., Tribujena, H., Butil, F. (2024). Crossing the Borders in Utilizing English
Varieties: Filipino Teachers‘ Experiences and Perceptions. Psychology and
Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(9), 967-980.
[Link]
Ahn, H. (2015). Awareness of and attitudes to Asian Englishes: a study of English
teachers in South Korea. Asian Englishes, 17(2), 132–151.
[Link]
Ali, M. N. D. (2023). Awareness of philippine english: The case of undergraduate
students. Проблемы языка, 181-191. [Link]
9-14
Al-Mutairi, M. (2020). Kachru‘s Three Concentric Circles Model of English Language:
An Overview of Criticism & the Place of Kuwait in it. English Language
Teaching, 13(1), [Link]://[Link]/10.5539/elt.v13n1p85
Ammon, U. (2005). Pluricentric and Divided Languages. Sociolinguistics, 7(2), 1536-
1543. [Link]
Aperocho, M.D. (2022). Philippine English in Online Depressive Language. Psychology
and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2-
13[Link]
Arranz, A. (2019). English Proficiency of Learners Taught Using Standard English and
Philippine English. Available at SSRN: [Link] or
[Link]
Babanto, M. G., Babanto, M. D., Bante, M. A., Camua, R. D., de Leon, M. A. S., Guinto,
G. G., Macalino, M. S., Mangulabnan, G. O., Mercado, M. F. A., Natividad, R. R.,
Fabian-Perona, E., Santos, P. J. P., Torres, M. L. B., & Anicas, R. P. (2023).
Attitudes Towards Philippine English: The Case of ESL Teachers in Selected
Provinces in Central Luzon, Philippines. International Journal of
Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 4(7), 2525 –
2534. [Link]
Barrot, J. S. (2018). English Curriculum Reform in the Philippines: Issues and Challenges
from a 21st Century Learning Perspective. Journal of Language, Identity &
Education, 18(3), 145–160. [Link]
Bautista, M. L. S. (Ed.). (1997). English is an Asian language: The Philippine context.
Macquarie Library
Bautista, M. L. S. (2001a). Attitudes of English language faculty in three leading
universities towards Philippine English. Asian Englishes, 4(1), 4–32.
[Link]
Bautista, M. L. S. (2001b). Attitudes of selected Luzon university students and faculty
towards Philippine English. In M. L. G. Tayao, T. P. Ignacio, & G. S. Zafra (Eds.),
Rosario E. Maminta infocus: Selected writings in applied linguistics (pp. 236–
273). Philippine Association for Language Teaching, Inc.
Bernardo, A. (2011). De-hegemonizing the Hegemonized: An Exploratory Study on the
Dominion of American English in the Oldest University in Asia. I-manager’s
Journal on English Language Teaching, 1(3), 7-22.
[Link]
 36

Bernardo, A. (2022). Language Teaching. In Borlongan, A.M. (Eds.) Philippine English

Development, Structure, and Sociology of English in the Philippines (1 st ed.,pp.
283-296).
Bernardo, A. S. (2023). Philippine English and Global Englishes-inspired grammar
teaching. Asian Englishes, 26(1), 174–194.
[Link]
Borlongan, A.M. (2013). Corpus-Based Works on the Philippine English Verb
System. Asian English Studies 15, 69-90.
Borlongan, A.M. (2017). Contemporary Perspectives on Philippine English. Philippine
ESL Journal 19(1), 1-8.
Borlongan, A.M. (2024). What is Philippine English? LANGUAGE SPEAKS. The
Manila Times. [Link]
philippine-english/1928017
Bremner, N. (2020). The multiple meanings of ‗student-centred‘ or ‗learner-centred‘
education, and the case for a more flexible approach to defining it. Comparative
Education, 57(2), 159–186. [Link]
Charmaz, K. (1990). ‗Discovering‘ chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social
Science and Medicine, 30(11), 1161-1172. [Link]
9536(90)90256-R
Charmaz, K. (2015). Grounded theory: Methodology and theory construction.
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.), 10,
402-407. [Link]
Chen, B. (2018). Study on colonialism of English and Spanish Language. International
Journal of Language and Linguistics, 5(4), 113-117.
Cullen, M. M., & Brennan, N. M. (2021). Grounded Theory: Description, Divergences
and Application. Accounting, Finance & Governance Review, 27, 1-19.
[Link]
Creswell, J.W. and Poth, C.N. (2018) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design Choosing
among Five Approaches. 4th Edition, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks.
Dangilan, D.M. & Asuncion, Z. (2023). English Teachers' Awareness of and Attitudes
Towards Philippine English: A Basis for a Learning Program [Link]
and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 11, 841-850.
[Link]
Dayag, D. T. (2007). Exploring the intelligibility of Philippine English. Asian Englishes,
10(1),4–23. [Link]
Dayon, C.A. (2018). Semantic Feature of Philippine English: A Qualitative Analysis.
Asian Society of Teachers for Research, Inc., 2(1) 66-76.
Davis, L., Pender T., Eaglestone, R., Boehmer, E. Dick, A. P., Badir, P. and O‘Sullivan, M
(2019). The State of the Discipline: English Studies. Times Higher Education, 25
July 2025. [Link]
english-studies#nodecomments
De Leon, K. D., Parina, J. C. M., & Panopio, J. M. M. (2021). The intelligibility of
Philippine English to a selected ASEAN country—Thailand. Modern Journal of
Studies in English Language Teaching and Literature, 3(1), 31–49.
 37

De Los Reyes, R.A. (2018). Translanguaging in multilingual third grade ESL classrooms
in Mindanao, Philippines, International Journal of Multilingualism, 16(3), 302-
316. [Link]
Dimacalungan, N. (2018). Another Look Into Philippine English: Towards Users‘
Awareness And Celebration. International Journal of Advanced Research and
Publications, 2(8), 17-22.
Dimacalungan, N. (2022). Speakers' Ambivalent Attitude toward Philippine English: An
Issue for Integrating the Variety into ESL Instruction. Journal of World Englishes
and Educational Practices, 4(2) 97-104. [Link]
Dimaculangan, N. & Gustilo, L. (2018). A closer look at Philippine English word-
formation frameworks. Advanced Science Letters, 24(11), 8384-8388.
Dimaculangan N. & Sarmiento, M. (2024). A corpus-based study of word-formation
creativity in Facebook Philippine English. International Journal of Evaluation and
Research in Education, 13(2), 1252-1264.
[Link]
Dimaculangan, N., Sarmiento, M. & Dimaculangan, M.C. (2024). A Periphrastic Glance
at Pre-Service and Basic Education ESL Teachers‘ Attitude toward PhilE and
AmE. Forum for Linguistic Studies 6(3), 74-78.
[Link]
Dita, S. N., & De Leon, K. D. (2017). The intelligibility and comprehensibility of
Philippine English to EFL speakers. Philippine ESL Journal, 19(2), 100–118.
Duchêne, A. (2020). Multilingualism: An insufficient answer to sociolinguistic
inequalities. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 263, 91–97.
Echalico-Bermillo, J. & Calvez-Amilbahar, R.M. (2023). Demographic Profile and
Teachers‘ Language Attitudes Toward Philippine English. International Journal of
English and Education, 12(2), 90-106.
Education 2.0. (2023). Education 2.0 On Decolonization Of English Language Teaching .
Education 2.0 Conference. July 21, 2024.
[Link]
pedagogy
Ellis, P. (2016). Understanding research for nursing students (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage
Publications.
Espino, J.D., Gonzales, D.H.F., Martin, I.P. (2021). Multilingual English Language
Teaching in the Philippines. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 3(3), 110-
125. [Link]
Esquivel, O.J. (2019). Exploring the Filipinization of the English Language in a Digital
Age: An Identity Apart from Other World Englishes. Journal of English as an
International Language, 14(1), 58-72.
Farrell, T. S. C., & Martin, S. (2009). To teach standard English or world Englishes? A
balanced approach to instruction. English Teaching Forum, 47(2), 2–7.
Flores, E. R. (2014). Phonological features of basilectal Philippine English: An
exploratory study. International Journal of English and Literature, 5(6), 128–140.
[Link]
Francisco, A. J. G., Lizaso, D. M., Pendre, K. E., & Adnan, A. H. M. (2023). Perceptions
 38

of Filipino college students towards World English vocabulary, phonology, and

grammaticality. International Journal of Advanced Communication, Media, and
Journalism, 3(1), 1-12.
Gillis, A. (2024, June). What is sentiment analysis? | Definition from TechTarget.
TechTarget. July 21, 2024.
[Link]
sentiment-mining
Guray, D. M. A., Caligan, J. R. I., Fonte, E. R., Veluz, F. J. D., & Adnan, A. H. M. (2022).
Awareness of college students towards Philippine English vocabulary items and
equivalent meanings in American English. International Journal of Advanced
Language and Educational Linguistics, 3(3), 1-14.
Gustilo, L., & Dimaculangan, N. (2018). Attitudes of Filipino English Teachers Toward
21st Century Philippine English Writing. Advanced Science Letters, 24(11), 8349-
8352. [Link]
Hajan, B., Castillo-Hajan, B., & Marasigan, A. C. (2019). Second language academic
writing: A study of teachers' beliefs and pedagogical practices in senior high
school. Asian EFL Journal, 21(2.3), 9–35.
Hernandez, H.P. (2022). Philippine English and Teaching It: Awareness and Attitudes of
Grassroots Filipino English Language Teachers. In: Khine, M.S., Liu, Y. (eds)
Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. Springer, Singapore.
[Link]
Hernandez, H.P. (2020). Filipino Graduate Students‘ Attitudes Toward Teaching Educated
Philippine English: A Sample from a Premier Teacher Education Institution. Asia-
Pacific Social Science Review 20(1), 31-42.
Huber, M. (2022). EFL coursebooks and the pluricentricity of English. Freeside Europe
Online Academic Journal, (13), 1-22. [Link]
Jenkins, J. (2015). Global Englishes: A resource book for students (3rd ed.). Oxford:
Routledge.
Kachru, B. B. (2005). Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press
Kato, N. M. (2024). The role of English language education in multilingual societies. IAA
Journal of Arts and Humanities, 11(2), 53–55.
Katundu, M. (2020). Which road to decolonizing the curricula? Interrogating African
higher education futures. Geoforum, 115, 150-152.
[Link]
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007) World Englishes: Implications for international communication
and English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Krisna, P. (2009). The acculturation theory of second language acquisition. The
Acculturation Theory of Second Language Acquisition | Parta Krisna -
[Link]
Labiste Jr., J. (2019). Contextualization in English Language Education: Navigating the
Place of Maritime Culture in Philippine English Language Teaching. Asian EFL
Journal, 23(6.2), 83-108.
Lai, M. L. (2019). English linguistic neo-imperialism – a case of Hong Kong. Journal of
 39

Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 42(4), 398-412.

[Link]
Liu, P. H. E., & Cheng, Y. C. (2017). Attitudes toward English as an international
language: A comparative study of college teachers and students in Taiwan. Journal
of English as an International Language, 12(1), 66-85.
Liyanage, I. and Canagarajah, S. (2019) Shame in English language teaching: desirable
pedagogical possibilities for Kiribati in neoliberal times. TESOL Quarterly, 53(2),
pp. 430-455.
Llamzon, T. A. (1997). The phonology of Philippine English. In M. L. S. Bautista (Ed.),
English is an Asian language: The Philippine context (pp. 41–48). The Macquarie
Library Pty. Ltd
Mahboob, A., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Using local languages in English language
classrooms. In Willy A. Renandya and Handoyo P. Widodo (Eds.), English
language teaching today: Building a closer link between theory and practice. New
York: Springer.
Martin, I. (2010). Periphery ELT: The politics and practice of teaching English in the
Philippines. In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.). The Routledge Handbook of World
Englishes. London: Routledge.
Martin, I., (2014). Philippine English Revisited. World Englishes, 33(4), 18-25.
Martin, I. P. (2020). Philippine English. In The Handbook of Asian Englishes,
edited by Kingsley Bolton, Werner Botha and Andy Kirkpatrick, 479–500.
Hobocken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
[Link]
Martinez, J. C. (2024). Understanding inequalities of Philippine English in job
interviews. World Englishes, 43(4), 607-623. [Link]
Matsuda, A., & Friedrich, P. (2011). English as an international language: A curriculum
blueprint. World Englishes, 30(3), 332–344. [Link]
971X.2011.01717
Matsuda, A., & Matsuda, P. (2017). Teaching English as an international language: A
WE-informed paradigm for English language teaching. In World Englishes:
Rethinking Paradigms (pp. 64-77). Taylor and Francis.
[Link]
Molina, S. C. (2022). Reducing Colonial Harm in Language Teaching: A Guide to Anti-
racism and Critical Self-reflective Practices for Language Teachers. The
CATESOL Journal, 33(1), 1-12. [Link]
Moniva, K., Garcia, A. Diamante, J., Minoza, J. & Elloran, M (2024). President Rodrigo
Duterte‘s UN Speech: An analysis on L1‘s phonological influences on L2. HO
CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE – SOCIAL
SCIENCES, 15(1), 3-18.
Morales, M. (2015). A grammar of adjunct adverbials in Philippine English.
De La Salle University, Manila. Retrieved from
[Link]
 40

Paz, R. M. (2022). Mental Models on Philippine English in Online Spaces: Challenges

and Opportunities. 3L The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies,
28(2), 18-32. [Link]
Perfecto, M. R. G. (2020). English language teaching and bridging in mother tongue-
based multilingual education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 19(1),
107-123. [Link]
Quinto, J. B. (2024). PINOYLISH: THE AWARENESS AND NOTIONS OF
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN NORTHERN LUZON. TEFLIN Journal, 35(1),
107–122. [Link]
Rillo, R.M, Alieto, E.O. (2018). Language attitudes of English language teachers (ELTs)
towards Philippine English. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 84-110.
[Link]
Roman-Tamesis & Villaceran (2023). Exploring Methods to Decolonize English Studies.
UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies. Diliman, Quezon City 1101.
Rubin, J.C. (2025), "Embracing gentle resistance to the slow violence of traditional
English curriculum", English Teaching: Practice & Critique, Vol. ahead-of-print
No. ahead-of-print. [Link]
Sadeghpour, M., & Sharifian, F. (2019). World Englishes in English language teaching.
World Englishes, 38(1-2), 245-258. [Link]
Salazar, D. (2017). Philippine English in the Oxford English dictionary: Recent
advancements and implications for ESL in the Philippines. Philippine ESL
Journal, 19(2), 45–59
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives in teaching English as a lingua franca.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 209–239.
[Link] S0267190504000145
Sy Tamco, A.B. (2022). Philippine English in the ESL Classroom. A Study of English
Teachers‘ beliefs and pedagogical Practices in Higher Education. Globus Journal
of Progressive Education, 12(1), 152-170.
[Link]
Tupas, R., & Salonga, A. (2016). Unequal Englishes in the Philippines. Journal of
Sociolinguistics. 20(3), 367–381. [Link]
Tupas, R. (2018). Teacher Ideology in English Language Education. In: Martin, I. (eds)
Reconceptualizing English Education in a Multilingual Society. English
Language Education, vol 13. Springer, Singapore. [Link]
981-10-7528-5_6
Turmudi, D., & Hajan, B. H. (2020). Education system and english language teaching in
the Philippines: Implications for Indonesian efl learning. Premise: Journal of
English Education, 9(1), 78-93. [Link]
Triad 3. (2016, February). Grounded Theory: A Down-to-Earth Explanation.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN EDUCATION. July 21, 2024.
[Link]
Umayam, A.R., Icamen, T.B., Merano, C.C., & Adnan, A.H. (2022). Philippine English
and the Attitudes and Perceptions of College Students. International Journal of
Advanced Language and Educational Linguistics, 3(1), 1-16
 41

Valdez, P. (2020). Research in Critical Pedagogy: Implications for English Language

Classrooms in Asia. PASAA, 60(1), 222-236.
[Link]
V iet‘, K.A. (2008). Imperialism of communicative language teaching and possible
resistance against it from teachers in Vietnam as an English foreign languages
context. VNU Journal of Science, Foreign Languages, 24, 167-174.
Zeng, J. and Yang, T. (2022). English in the Philippines from the Perspective of
Linguistic Imperialism. Rupkatha Journal, 14 (1), 1-12.
[Link]
 42

APPENDICES
 43

Appendix A
TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO THE DEAN

February, 2024

AILEEN C. COSTAS, EdD

Dean, Graduate School of Education
University of the Visayas
Cebu City
Dr. Costas,
Good day!
I am Joemar T. Miñoza, a PhD ELT student, who is currently conducting a research title:
―The Resistance of English Teachers toward Philippine English: ―Implications for
Decolonialization of English Language Teaching‖, as a partial fulfillment of my
doctorate degree.

Hence. I would like to humbly ask your approval to conduct the aforementioned study to
the English Teachers of Cebu Technological University-North Campuses. Your favorable
response to this request would be huge help in the realization of this research
undertaking.

Respectfully Yours,

JOEMAR T. MIÑOZA
PhD. ELT Student

Noted: Approved:

Dr. JUNIFER ABATAYO Dr. AILEEN C. COSTAS, Ed.D.

Adviser Dean
 44

Appendix B
TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT
February, 2024

DR. JOSEPH PEPITO

President, Cebu Technological University
Cebu City, Philippines

Dr. Pepito:

Good day!
I am Joemar T. Miñoza, a PhD ELT student, who is currently conducting a research title:
―The Resistance of English Teachers toward Philippine English: Implications for
Decolonialization of English Language Teaching‖, as a partial fulfillment of my
doctorate degree.

Hence. I would like to humbly ask your approval to conduct the aforementioned study to
the English Teachers of Cebu Technological University-North Campuses. Your favorable
response to this request would be huge help in the realization of this research
undertaking.

Respectfully Yours,

JOEMAR T. MIÑOZA
PhD. ELT Student

Noted: Approved:

Dr. JUNIFER ABATAYO DR. JOSEPH PEPITO

Adviser President
 45

Appendix C
TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO THE PARTICIPANTS
February, 2024

Dear Participants:

Good day!
I am Joemar T. Miñoza, a PhD ELT student, who is currently conducting a research title:
―The Resistance of English Teachers toward Philippine English: ―Implications for
Decolonialization of English Language Teaching‖, as a partial fulfillment of my doctorate
degree.

Hence. I would like to sincerely ask your valuable time to honestly answer and respond
important information in a short interview which could be of great help to my endeavors.
Rest assured that your responses will be kept in the strictest confidentiality and for
educational purposes only.
Your time and cooperation are highly appreciated! Thank you and more power!

Respectfully Yours,

JOEMAR T. MIÑOZA
PhD. ELT Student

Noted: Approved:

Dr. JUNIFER ABATAYO Dr. AILEEN C. COSTAS

Adviser Dean
 46
46

Appendix D

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

I understand that I am being asked to participate in research study on The Resistance of

English Teachers toward Philippine English: Implications for Decolonialization of
English Language Teaching through an interview for 30 minutes to an hour. The conduct
of the interview will be in my school. No identifying information will be included in the
conduct of the interview. There are no known risks associated with the study.

I realize that I may not participate in the study if I am not of legal age and I belong to the
criteria. I realize that the knowledge gained from this study, may either help me or the
students act in accordance with the established norms and standards.

I realize that my participation in the study is entirely voluntary, and I may withdraw from
the study at any time I wish. If I decide to discontinue my participation in this study, I
will be continued to be treated in the usual and customary fashion.

I understand that all study data will be kept confidential. However, this information may
be used in publications and presentations.

I understand that if I sustain injuries from my participation in this research undertaking. I

will automatically not compensate by the school.

If I need to contact UV-IRB, Colon Street, Cebu City through 253-7401 local 116 or
email at rec@[Link].

The study has been explained to me, I have read and understand this consent form, all of
my questions have been answered, and I agree to participate. I will understand that I will
be given a copy of this signed consent form.

________________________________ _____________________________
Signature of Participant Date

_________________________________ ____________________________
Signature of Witness Date

_________________________________ ____________________________
Signature of Investigator Date
 47

Appendix E
RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
Before the interview proper
1. The researcher should arrive on time with at least 2 recorders, a pen/pencil,
and a notepad or paper.
2. The researcher will have the informed consent form ready.
3. The researcher will extend thanks to the informant for accepting the invitation
to be part of the study.
4. The researcher will go over the informed consent form and provide brief
explanation of the goal of the research
5. The researcher will answer questions and clarifications from the informant if
there are.
6. The researcher and the research informant will sign the consent form.
7. The researcher will tell the informant that the interview proper will
commence.
During the interview
1. Open-Ended question:
1.1. What do you know about PE? World Englishes?
1.2. As an English teacher, what are your thoughts on language variation?
1.3. What are your views on Standard American English and Philippine
English and all other English varieties that you know?
1.4. Can you talk about your thoughts or beliefs about the use of
Philippine English in the classroom?
1.5. What is your idea on decolonization of ELT in the Philippines?
1.6. Can you describe your experiences and struggles on the use of
Philippine English in the classroom?
1.7. How do you deal with students whose English is strongly influenced
by their L1?
1.8. What are the practices or strategies you employ to
discourage/encourage the use of Philippine English among learners?
1.9. What made you use these strategies in the classroom?
2. Factual Question:
2.1. Were you able to get a chance to learn about language variation,
World Englishes, etc.?
3. Probing Question:
3.1. Do you consider PE intelligible? Why and why not?
3.2. Do you consider yourself and your students as native speakers of
Philippine English? Kindly elaborate.
3.3. Do you think learning more of PE and other varieties would make you
a more effective English Teacher and would learning English language
more meaningful? why?
3.4. Do you think integration of PE in our English subjects is a way of
decolonizing our ELT landscapes? why?
3.5. How do you feel when others/colleagues judge your use of English in
the classroom/teaching, etc
 48

4. Concluding Questions:
4.1. How do you see ELT in the future with the continuous existence and
acceptance of PE?
4.2. How do you see yourself as an English Teacher given the existence of
PE?
Ending the Interview
1. We are about to finish this interview; are there any other important things you
want to add in relation to the topic?
2. Thank the participant.
3. Inform the participant that he/she might be contacted in the near future if
necessary.
After the Interview
1. Make sure the recorder was working well.
2. Leave the interview place organized.
 49

Appendix F

NOTICE TO PROCEED
 50

Appendix G
ORIGINALITY CERTIFICATE
 51

Appendix H
GRAMMAR CERTIFICATE
 52

BIONOTE

Joemar T. Minoza is a Licensed Professional Teacher and a

Naveen Jindal Young Global Research Fellow. He is
currently pursuing a Doctor of Philosophy in Education,
Major in English Language Teaching, at the University of
the Visayas (expected 2025). He holds a Master of Arts in
Education, Major in English Teaching, from Cebu
Technological University (2019), a Diploma in Professional
Education from Mandaue City College (2016), and a Bachelor of Arts in English-Major
in Applied Linguistics from Cebu Technological University (2014).

Mr. Minoza has extensive experience in English education, currently serving as an

Assistant Professor 1 at Cebu Technological University-Consolacion Campus since
January 2024. Prior to this, he was an Instructor 1 at Cebu Technological University-
Tuburan Campus from September 2017 to January 2024, and a Part-time English
Instructor at both Cebu Technological University-Danao Campus (2016-2017) and Cebu
Technological University-Tuburan Campus (2015-2016). He passed the Licensure
Examination for Teachers on March 26, 2017. Born on September 14, 1992, in
Consolacion, Cebu, he is a Filipino national and is proficient in English, Tagalog, and
Cebuano.