4.2.2.1 Global, Local and Intercultural Issues in Tutors’ Language Development Seminars. The participants of the study were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 means not at all likely and 5 means very likely) how likely they were to deal with a list of global issues in their classes, and if they had already dealt with the topic, to mark 6 (Table 4.4). Based on their answers (which are displayed in Table 4.5), university tutors are very likely to deal with the topics of climate change (M = 5.59), health (M = 5.59) and youth (M = 5.38) in their classes, and less likely to address issues such as decolonization (M = 3.76), peace (M = 3.74) and AIDS (M = 3.00).

 

 

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare how male and female teachers relate to these global topics. A significant difference was found between how likely female and male tutors are to talk about gender-related topics in their classes and data suggests that female tutors (M = 5.44; SD = .91) are more likely to address these issues than their male counterparts (M = 3.89; SD = 1.96); t = –3.16; p < .05. Other than this one gender-related difference, no significant differences were found in how likely teachers are to deal with these issues based on their location or their age group.

 

Finally, they had to rate their likeliness to include certain intercultural issues in their classes. As Table 4.6 shows, the tutors generally rated their likeliness to include intercultural issues quite high, and they seem to be the most likely to address topics, such as cultural differences (M = 5.71), stereotypes (M = 5.62) and intercultural communication (M = 5.50) in their language development seminars. From this list, tutors would be least likely to include topics like racism (M = 4.79), class differences (M = 4.76) and ethnocentrism (M = 4.09), however, it must be noted that even these topics received very high scores.

 

 

The tutors were then asked to enumerate other global, local, or intercultural topics they would deal with in their classes. These answers were then subjected to content analysis. Some tutors indicated that they thought the lists presented to them were detailed enough or they listed issues or sub-topics of the issues that were already mentioned in the list. In the new lists they proposed, some commonalities were found. For example, the topic of the EU and being European was mentioned by two respondents (#9 and #19), the topic of domestic violence was put forward by two tutors (#16 and #17), and two tutors listed the topic of sustainability as an umbrella topic (#1 and #16). Apart from these, two respondents claimed that the artistic perception of the world (#3 and #30), abortion (#20 and #33) and digital literacy and fake news (#9 and #19) should also be included in these lists. The participants enumerated a wide range of issues of global, local, and intercultural interest they include in their classes, including universal basic income (#2), multiculturalism (#10), alternative relationship types (e.g., polyamory) (#7), Indigenous Rights (#5), animal rights (#16), extremism (#17), and English as a lingua franca (#31).

 

4.2.2.2 Global, Local, and Intercultural Issues Tutors Do Not Deal with in their Language Development Seminars. In open-ended questions, the tutors were asked whether there were any taboo topics that they would not deal with in their language development seminars. Out of the 34 participants, 8 stated that there are no taboos in their classes. In Respondent 33’s words, he would be “ready to discuss anything that students bring up as a relevant topic” and as Respondent 8 saw it, “students need to think and talk about all issues”. Respondent 20 also would not treat any topic as taboo; however, she would be “very delicate in [her] approach to them”.

Other respondents also referred to the practice of dealing with such issues from a safe distance. For instance, Respondent 2 stated that he would not bring party politics into the discussions, but he would talk about politics in general.

Finally, they also alluded to the fact that it is not the same whether the tutor or the students bring up the issue. Respondent 26 posited that she is “open to discussing any topic that students might raise, but there are some [she is] less likely to raise [her]self” and Respondent 2 saw it similarly: “Suicide, sex, abortion, political parties […] If they bring them in, of course, we can talk about them, but I would not start the discussion on these topics.”

 

4.2.2.3 Tutors’ Feelings about Dealing with Global, Local and Intercultural Issues in their Classes. The participants were asked to mark to what extent they liked dealing with issues of global, local, and intercultural significance and whether it changed based on who initiates these discussions. As Table 4.7 shows, they prefer dealing with intercultural issues, mostly if the students initiate the discussions in these matters (M = 4.68, SD = .59), but they place it quite similarly to the situation where they are the ones who bring in these issues (M = 4.65, SD = .54). Out of the three types, global issues come second, and just as in the first case, teachers prefer if the students bring up these issues (M = 4.53, SD = .79) to when they initiate these discussions (M = 4.47, SD = .89). Discussing local issues comes third in tutors’ preference lists.

 

 

A Paired-Samples t-test was conducted to compare how they related to discussing global issues if they brought them into class and local issues if the students brought them in. There was a significant difference in the scores for global issues (initiated by the teachers) (M = 4.47, SD = .89) and local issues (initiated by the students) (M = 4.12, SD = .95); t = 2.24, p < .05, therefore, it can be assumed that teachers relate to talking about local issues differently from global or intercultural issues. Tutors’ least preferred way of discussing global content was when they were the ones who initiated discussions about local issues (M = 3.82; SD = 1.11), and even though the mean was not low, there was one tutor who absolutely disliked (2.9%), and three tutors (8.8%) who disliked talking about local issues if they initiated the discussions.

4.2.2.4 The Frequency of the Inclusion of Global, Local and Intercultural Issues in Tutors’ Language Development Classes. There were no significant differences found between the age groups or genders based on how often they deal with global content in class; however, the different types of discussions proved to have different levels of frequency. The tutors were asked to mark their answers on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 meant never and 5 meant on a weekly basis. As it can be seen in Table 4.8, they most frequently deal with intercultural issues (M = 3.47, SD = .93) and global issues (M = 3.44, SD = .89), and least frequently with local issues (M = 3.09, SD = .83) and current public affairs (M = 2.79, SD = 1.09).

 

 

Paired-Samples t-tests were performed to find out whether there were any significant differences between the scales. There was no significant difference between how frequently tutors discuss intercultural and global issues; however, teachers deal significantly less frequently with issues they deem controversial (M = 3.12, SD = 1.12) than with global issues (M = 3.44, SD = .89), t = 2.14; p < .05. As there was no significant difference found either in how frequently they discuss other controversial issues, local issues, or current public affairs, it seems that tutors deal with these three topics significantly less frequently than with intercultural or global affairs.

 

4.2.2.5 The Importance of the Inclusion of Global, Local and Intercultural Issues in Tutors’ Language Development Classes. The participants were asked to rate how important they thought it was to deal with global, local, intercultural, and controversial issues in their language development seminars on a five-point Likert scale. The results suggest that the participating tutors feel that it is important to deal with global content in their language development classes, as in all four cases, the means of the scales were above 4.0 (important).

 

 

Just as in the previous cases, the tutors rated the importance of dealing with intercultural and global issues similarly, as no significant difference was found in their answers in the Paired-Samples t-test. As it can be seen in Table 4.9, the participants rated the importance of dealing with controversial topics the same as the importance of dealing with local issues. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference between the perceived importance of dealing with global issues (M = 4.44, SD = .79) and controversial issues (M = 4.00, SD = 1.04), t = 3.27; p < .05, therefore it can be assumed that tutors think it is more important to deal with intercultural and global issues in their classes than with controversial and local ones.

Two participants, while admitting the importance of dealing with local issues, remarked on the difficulties of addressing such matters in language development seminars:

 

Some of the comments in this section already blended into the background variables influencing the integration of global content in language development seminars. For instance, referring to the importance of keeping in mind who the students are, Respondent 34 remarked that “discussions regarding these issues also depend on the level and maturity of the class and would only realistically work in later secondary school grades and with university students”. Respondent 20 commented on the usefulness of creating a safe space for discussing these topics: “I think there is always a time and a place to discuss these things, we just need to make sure it is the right time and [it is] well managed.” Filling in the questionnaire also served as a learning opportunity for one of the participants, who left the following comment:

 

4.2.2.6 Aspects Influencing the Inclusion of Global Content in Language Development Classes. The interview results backed up by the literature served as a useful starting point to construct the questionnaire, mostly regarding the aspects influencing teachers’ decision to incorporate global content in their classes. From the interview study, students’ interests and the topicality of the issues emerged as the most important decisive factors, together with the course materials and the language value of the materials. As considering the language value of the materials used in the lessons seemed an essential element of planning any language lesson, this factor was not included as a construct in the questionnaire study. The course material seemed to be an important factor, and finally, two constructs were created from it, one encompassing the decisive nature of coursebooks, and one encompassing teachers’ ability to supplement the core material (usually the coursebook) with supplementary materials about global content. Interestingly, the students’ interests and topicality scales did not work properly and did not make up reliable constructs, and they had to be eliminated from further analyses. Therefore, it would be worth examining these factors more closely in future studies to find out whether there are mismatches between the importance tutors attach to these factors in face-to-face interviews and anonymous questionnaires.

 

As reported in Table 4.10, the participants rated their attitude towards bringing global content into their classes relatively high, which was also corroborated in Sections 4.2.2.3–4.2.2.5. It means that they gave a high score to items measuring to what extent they enjoy those classes when they deal with global content (M = 4.38; SD = .82), and to what extent they love learning about such issues in their free time as well (M = 4.29; SD = .80). They also rated the item which enquired about their feeling of apprehensiveness when dealing with such issues relatively low (M = 1.91; SD = 1.13) with larger individual differences. The mean of the teachers’ competence to deal with these issues scales came second, meaning that they rated their capabilities to deal with possible conflicts (M = 4.09; SD = .77), their well-informedness in these topics (M = 4.12; SD = .90), and their methodological repertoire (M = 4.09; SD = .76) relatively high. The average of the materials scales came third, as they found that it is relatively easy to access materials with the help of which they can teach about global content (M = 3.94; SD = 1.09), they supplement the compulsory course materials with extra materials about global content (M = 4.53; SD = .70) and they know some websites where they can find such materials (M = 3.79; SD = 1.75). The participants seem to attach less importance to the group, their relationship with the group (M = 2.94; SD = 1.22), the group dynamics (M = 2.79; SD = 1.06), the possible conflicts which may arise among group members (M = 2.35; SD = 1.34), or whether there is a great atmosphere in class (M = 3.23; SD = 1.23). Contrary to what the literature suggests, the participants did not attach too much importance to time as a background variable either: they rather agreed that they have to prepare more for classes when they deal with global content (M = 3.91; SD = 1.19), or that they would need more time to prepare for these classes (M = 3.35 SD = 1.20) but they did not agree that they would only deal with such issues if there is time left for them (M = 1.56; SD = .83). The participants rated their participation in professional development sessions quite low as well, mostly in connection with learning about dealing with global content during their university years (M = 1.97; SD = .97), however, they rather agreed that their university studies contributed to them becoming global citizens (M = 3.38; SD = 1.39). Some of them did and some of them did not learn about how to deal with global content in their classes during continuous professional development sessions (M = 2.64; SD = .97). Also contrary to the literature, based on the means, tutors attach the least importance to the coursebook (which might be because not all tutors are required to use a coursebook in their classes), they do not avoid global content because they cannot link them to coursebook texts or activities (M = 1.79; SD = 1.08) or coursebook topics (M = 2.29; SD = 1.38) or because these topics are not even present in the coursebooks (M = 2.36; SD = 1.60).

 

As it is shown in Table 4.11, there is a strong correlation between the teacher attitude and materials variables (r = .81, p < .01), which entails that there is a very strong relationship between teachers’ attitudes towards dealing with global content and whether they bring in other materials to deal with global, local, and intercultural issues in class and whether they know where to look for these materials. Also, there is a strong correlation between the time and group variables (r = .70; p < .01), which may mean that there is a strong relationship between how much teachers are willing to prepare for these lessons and the quality of the relationships in the groups and their relationship with the group they teach. A strong correlation was also found between the teacher competence and materials variables (r = .60; p < .01), indicating a strong relationship between how prepared tutors feel to deal with global content in their classes and whether they bring in materials (and know where to find materials) to deal with these topics.