Ideological and Hegemonic Practices in Global and Local EFL Textbooks Written for Turks and Persians

Open access


Introduction: Studies on the relationship between ideology, hegemony and textbooks in applied linguistics have been incremental in recent decades because emergence of critical theory, critical pedagogy, and critical thinking skills from the 1920s on has led scholars to develop a critical perspective towards EFL (English as a Foreign Language) textbooks taking the elements of ideology and hegemony into consideration. These two terms encompass an innumerable number of elements or compounds ranging from nationalism to religion. The importance of meta-narratives originating from the tenets of modernism or modernization has been downgraded from 1960s on because it has been postulated that the world has entered a new age called postmodernism and post-structuralism that have emphasized the role of individuals and criticized the efforts to reinforce post-colonialism, the effects of which can be seen in EFL textbooks. Therefore, it remains crucial to analyze EFL textbooks taking the main elements of ideology and hegemony into account. The aim of this study is to investigate the ideological and hegemonic practices included in globally and locally written EFL textbooks.

Methods: Using a mixed method research design, ideological and hegemonic representations included in EFL textbooks were examined qualitatively through descriptive content analysis technique employed to make valid assumptions by interpreting and coding content of textual materials. For the qualitative data, based on a descriptive research design, textbook analyses, documentary analysis, were conducted. As for the inductive content analysis, both globally and locally EFL textbooks were examined. The themes were extracted with the help of the experts since this study entailed inductive content analysis. Each theme was analyzed and perused by the experts. After a rigorous analysis, each theme was compared, and in the last stage common themes were formed.

Results: The findings of the present study show that ideology and hegemony of inner and expanding circle cultures are dominant in EFL textbooks. While the expanding circle culture is dominant in the locally written EFL textbooks, the inner circle culture is extensively included in the globally written ones. However, outer circle countries are excluded and marginalized. Besides, while specific ideologies such as economy and history were highly included in both globally and locally written textbooks, some of them such as law and gender were weakly detected.

Discussion: This present study showed that locally written textbooks dwell more on expanding circles, whereas globally written textbooks except for national geographic textbooks, to a large extent, mention only inner circle. Correspondingly, Abdullah (2009) scrutinized the textbooks in Malaysia and concluded that their textbooks covered local cultures from expanding circles. A similar finding was detected in various textbooks in Chile also including the local culture instead of the target one (McKay, 2003). In our study, the most dominant ideological component was culture (75.87% in global textbooks and 77.80% in local textbooks) whose components contain social norms, traditions, beliefs, social values (Williamson, 2000). Surprisingly, in both locally and globally written textbooks, the ideology of culture was prevalent (75.87% in global textbooks and 77.80% in local textbooks). This component was both implicitly and explicitly presented in the textbooks analyzed in this study.

Limitations: Taking the extent of the study into consideration, specific limitations already subsist in hand. Initially, choosing textbooks for the analysis of the existing ideological and hegemonic practices in the materials is a difficult task; hence, a particular and convenience selection criterion was selected. Additionally, as the scope of the study is constructed on English as a foreign or second language - a lingua franca, the selection was built on textbooks written globally and locally.

Conclusion: In locally written textbooks, multiculturalism and law-related issues were barely mentioned, while few religion, politics and gender-related issues were directly mentioned. Some topics, although they were very pivotal across the globe, were never mentioned. The topics of poverty, slavery, and racism were by no means focused on in the textbooks. Thus, it can be said that some topics are underrepresented or never represented owing to the fact that these topics might be too risky. As for the ideology of language, this element was emphasized in both global and local textbooks. The element of education was moderately stressed. Another important element is sport that is prevalent in both global and local EFL textbooks.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Abdullah N. (2009). Cultural Elements in a Malaysian English Language Textbook. Retrieved from

  • Apple M. & Christian-Smith L. (Eds.). (2017). The politics of the textbook. New York: Routledge.

  • Asghar J. (2014). Thou shalt not think: Editors’ voice in an English textbook to propagate vested agendas. Education Research International 1-8.

  • Bajtoš J. & Kmecová I. (2013). Analysis evaluating the results from the research of textbooks’ didactic efficiency in technical education. Acta Technologica Dubnicae3(1) 60-72.

  • Ballena M. K. R. & Shim Y. S. (2018). Representation of social struggles in Korean and Philippine ELT textbooks. 사회언어학 26(1) 201-228.

  • Canale G. (2016). (Re)Searching culture in foreign language textbooks or the politics of hide and seek. Language Culture and Curriculum29(2) 225-243.

  • Cortez N. A. (2008). Am I in the book? Imagined communities and language ideologies of English in a global EFL textbook. Retrieved from

  • Cunningsworth A. (1995). Choosing Your Coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann.

  • Curdt-Christiansen X. L. & Weninger C. (Eds.). (2015). Language ideology and education: The politics of textbooks in language education. New York: Routledge.

  • Darder A. (2014). Cultural hegemony language and the politics of forgetting: Interrogating restrictive language policies. In Affirming Language Diversity in Schools and Society New York: Routledge.

  • Fairclough N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Routledge.

  • Fotopoulos N. Karra V. & Zagkos C. (2017). Education ideology and social effigies: Exploring facets from the English course books of the Greek state primary education. International Journal of Education9(3) 48-59.

  • Freire P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (Trans. M. Bergman Ramos). New York: Continuum.

  • Garcia M. D. C. M. (2005). International and intercultural issues in English teaching textbooks: The case of Spain. Intercultural Education 16(1) 57-68.

  • Gómez-Rodríguez L. F. (2015). The cultural content in EFL textbooks and what teachers need to do about it. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development17(2) 167-187.

  • Gramsci A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers.

  • Gray J. (2000). The ELT coursebook as cultural artefact: How teachers censor and adapt. ELT Journal54(3) 274-283.

  • Gray J. (2016). ELT materials: Claims critiques and controversies. In The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teaching. New York: Routledge.

  • Giroux H. A. (1985). Teachers as transformative intellectuals. Social Education 49(5) 376-79

  • Giroux H. (2018a). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory culture and schooling: A critical reader. New York: Routledge.

  • Giroux H. A. (2018b). The New Henry Giroux Reader: The Role of the Public Intellectual in a Time of Tyranny. USA: Stylus Publishing LLC.

  • Gugová G. R. & Heretik A. (2011). Gender differences in attachment styles using Slovak version of the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised (ECR-R). Acta Technologica Dubnicae 1(2) 29-36.

  • Hahl K. Niemi P. M. & Longfor R. J. (Eds.). (2015). Diversities and interculturality in textbooks: Finland as an example. The UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

  • Hamiloğlu K. & Mendi B. (2010). A content analysis related to the cross-cultural/intercultural elements used in EFL coursebooks. Sino-US English Teaching 7(1) 16-24.

  • Han C. (2015). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. Australian Journal of Linguistics35(4) 415-418.

  • Heywood A. (2017). Political ideologies: An introduction. The UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Hinkel E. (2014). Culture and pragmatics in language teaching and learning. Teaching English as a second or foreign language4 394-408.

  • Horvat A. & Nilsson K. (2018). An Analysis of Swedish EFL Textbooks-Reflections on Cultural Content and English as an International Language. Malmö University Electronic Publishing 1(40). Retrieved from

  • Hurst N. R. (2012). The Hidden Curriculum: issues and angst about cultural content in ELT materials. Retrieved from

  • James P. & Steger M. B. (Eds.). (2010). Globalization and culture: ideologies of globalism. The UK: Sage.

  • Johnstone B. (2018). Discourse analysis. The USA: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Kachru B. B. (1990). World Englishes and applied linguistics. World Englishes9(1) 3-20.

  • Kmecová I. (2018). Efficiency of Teaching Based on the Comparison of Textbooks. Acta Educationis Generalis 8(1) 50-62.

  • Kramsch C. (2014). Identity role and voice in cross-cultural (mis) communication. In Misunderstanding in social life. NewYork: Routledge.

  • Lara C. (2012). ELT coursebooks and the elite. TESOL-Spain Convention35 1-20.

  • Lee I. (2009). Situated globalization and racism: An analysis of Korean high school EFL textbooks language and literacy. English Teaching: Practice and Critique11(1) 1-14.

  • Lee I. (2011). Teaching how to discriminate: Globalization prejudice and textbooks. Teacher Education Quarterly38(1) 47-63.

  • Lee D. (2017). Competing discourses: Perspective and ideology in language. Routledge.

  • Liu Y. (2005). Discourse cultural knowledge and ideology: A critical analysis of Chinese language textbooks. Pedagogy Culture & Society13(2) 233-264.

  • Mahadi M. A. & Shahrill M. (2014). In pursuit of teachers’ views on the use of textbooks in their classroom practice. International Journal of Education 6(2) 149.

  • May S. (2015). The problem with English(es) and linguistic (in)justice. Addressing the limits of liberal egalitarian accounts of language. Critical Review of International Political and Social Philosophy18(2) 131-148.

  • McKay S. L. (2003). The cultural basis of teaching English as an international language. TESOL Matters 13(4) 1–6.

  • Melliti M. (2013). Global content in global coursebooks: The way issues of inappropriacy inclusivity and connectedness are treated in Headway Intermediate. Sage Open3(4) 1-12.

  • Nault D. (2006). Going global: Rethinking culture teaching in ELT contexts. Language Culture and Curriculum19(3) 314-328.

  • Nowosad I. & Karmolińska-Jagodzik E. (2014). Contemporary Education - Changes of the System Research Reports and the Dimensions of Real Social Expectations. Acta Technologica Dubnicae 4(2) 43-59.

  • Ordem E. (2017). Participatory Approach in EFL Classes. Electronic Turkish Studies 12(3) 505-516.

  • Ordem E. & Yükselir C. (2017). Views of Turkish EFL instructors on critical pedagogy. Electronic Turkish Studies 12(14) 285-294.

  • Osaďan R. & Safir Y. (2014). A Cross-Cultural Examination of Curriculum and Sexuality Outcomes in Primary School. Acta Technologica Dubnicae 4(2) 67-72.

  • Pennycook A. (2007). The myth of English as an international language. Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. 90-115). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD.

  • Pennycook A. (2003). Beyond Homogeny and Heterogeny: English as a Global and Wordly Language. In The Politics of English as a world language: new horizons in postcolonial cultural studies. New York: Editions Rodopi.

  • Phillipson R. (2017). Myths and realities of ‘global’ English. Language Policy16(3) 313-331.

  • Polit D. F. & Beck C. T. (2006). The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in nursing & health 29(5) 489-497.

  • Roshan S. (2014). A critical comparative evaluation of English course books in EFL context. Journal of Studies in Education 4(1) 172-179.

  • Safari P. & Razmjoo S. A. (2016). An exploration of Iranian EFL teachers’ perceptions on the globalization and hegemony of English. Qualitative Research in Education5(2) 136-166.

  • Shah S. K. Tariq W. & Bilal M. (2013). Ideology in English textbooks: A case study of matric level books in Punjab. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences3(11) 113-120.

  • Stern H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching: Historical and interdisciplinary perspectives on applied linguistic research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Stoddart M. C. (2007). Ideology hegemony discourse: A critical review of theories of knowledge and power. Social Thought & Research 191-225.

  • Tajeddin Z. & Teimournezhad S. (2015). Exploring the hidden agenda in the representation of culture in international and localised ELT textbooks. The Language Learning Journal43(2) 180-193.

  • Tollefson J. W. (1995). Introduction: Language policy power and inequality. Power and inequality in language education (pp. 1-8).

  • Tomlinson B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language teaching 45(2) 143-179.

  • Van Dijk T. A. (2004). Racism discourse and textbooks. In The coverage of immigration in Spanish textbooks. Retrieved from,%20discourse,%20textbooks.htm

  • Van Dijk T. A. (2015). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 63-74).

  • Wachholz S. & Mullaly B. (2001). The politics of the textbook: A content analysis of the coverage and treatment of feminist radical and anti-racist social work scholarship in American introductory social work textbooks published between 1988 and 1997. Journal of Progressive Human Services11(2) 51-76.

  • White A. (2014). Evaluation of an ELT course book based on criteria designed by McDonough and Shaw. Retrieved from

  • Williamson O. (2000). “The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock Looking Ahead”. Journal of Economic Literature 38(3) 595-613.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 215 215 14
PDF Downloads 155 155 13