Beyond Prescriptive Purity: Pedagogical Approaches to Standard and Non-Standard Varieties in Arabic, English, and French Classrooms

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7600540/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Beyond Prescriptive Purity: Pedagogical Approaches to Standard and Non-Standard Varieties in Arabic, English, and French Classrooms

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7600540/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

This study investigated pedagogical approaches to standard and non-standard language varieties within Arabic, English, and French classrooms in Egypt, moving beyond traditional prescriptive norms. Employing a mixed-methods design, the research surveyed 470 language educators to examine their attitudes towards linguistic diversity and their classroom practices, complemented by qualitative interviews with a subset of participants. Findings indicate a prevalent acknowledgment among teachers of the necessity to balance standard language instruction with the strategic engagement of non-standard varieties, particularly in light of media and peer influences on language acquisition. Quantitatively, strong positive correlations were observed between teachers' attitudes towards language varieties and their reported pedagogical practices, with French teachers' attitudes being the strongest predictor of their engagement with linguistic variation. Qualitatively, teachers commonly utilized positive correction strategies, subtle modeling of standard forms, and a pragmatic focus on intelligibility and contextual clarity. A significant challenge identified was the perceived inadequacy of current teacher education programs in equipping prospective educators with the skills to navigate linguistic diversity, especially concerning the influence of L1 Arabic dialects. While university-level teachers and those with more experience reported higher preparedness, a clear need for enhanced professional development was highlighted across the board. The study highlights the importance of adopting inclusive pedagogical practices that leverage learners' linguistic backgrounds to foster both proficiency and a nuanced understanding of language, moving beyond a singular notion of linguistic purity.

Pedagogical approaches

language variation

teacher attitudes

dialectal influences

Arabic

English

French

Egypt

teacher education

The contemporary landscape of language education is marked by a pervasive tension between the established norms of standard languages and the vibrant reality of their non-standard varieties. This dynamic has profound implications for pedagogical approaches across diverse linguistic contexts. As noted by Stollhans (2020), understanding teachers' and learners' attitudes towards non-standard dialects is crucial, particularly when the standard is often implicitly or explicitly perceived as superior. This perspective resonates across languages, as educators grapple with how to effectively teach variations that exist within a language, whether it be the regional dialects of Spanish (Stollhans, 2020; Towler, 2015; Yiakoumetti, 2011), the historical distinctions in Great Britain and France (Marks, 1976), or the broader sociolinguistic dimensions of dialects in education (Papapavlou & Pavlou, 2009).

The very notion of a singular "standard" is increasingly being challenged. While standard languages have traditionally been prioritized in formal education, research consistently highlights the complex attitudes held towards different linguistic forms. For instance, Can (2024) indicates that pre-service teachers often view standard language varieties as superior to non-standard ones, a perception that can directly influence teaching methods. Similarly, Lakehal Ayat (2023) emphasizes the importance of understanding students' attitudes towards various English language varieties within and outside the classroom. This ingrained bias towards the standard can lead to the marginalization of non-standard dialects, as observed in studies where the urban dialect of Arabic is considered unsuitable for educational domains (Gwasmeh, 2021) or where dialectal speakers may feel alienated (Pavlou & Papapavlou, 2004). The study by Ball and Jiménez (2017) further point out the need to address diverse learners in linguistically complex classrooms.

The challenge is particularly pronounced in the teaching of Arabic, English, and French, three globally influential languages with rich traditions of both standardized forms and widespread colloquial variations. In Arabic education, for example, the historical reliance on Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) has often overshadowed the pedagogical value of regional dialects, despite their prevalence in everyday communication and the complexities of diglossia (Giolfo & Sinatora, 2016; Chekayri, 2014; Al-Busaidi, 2015). The concept of diglossia and its educational implications are also highlighted by McBride, Saiegh-Haddad, and Laks (2022). Similarly, while Standard English remains a cornerstone of English language teaching, the global dissemination of English has led to a growing recognition of World Englishes and the need to address dialectal variations in the classroom (Devereaux & Palmer, 2021; Jenkins, 2000). The work of Kachru (1985, 1992) has been foundational in understanding English as a global language with diverse varieties. In French, the historical evolution from dialect to standard and the current coexistence of various regional and social varieties present similar pedagogical considerations (Lodge, 2013). Furthermore, research on language policy in education, such as by Bianco (1987), provides a backdrop for understanding the systemic influence on language teaching.

This research aims to bridge the gap between the ideal of linguistic standardization and the reality of linguistic diversity within the language learning classroom. By investigating pedagogical approaches to standard and non-standard varieties across Arabic, English, and French, this study seeks to understand how educators navigate these complexities, the attitudes that inform their practices, and the implications for curriculum design and teacher training. Building on the understanding that language attitudes significantly influence teaching methods (Can, 2024), this research will explore how educators can move beyond prescriptive purity towards more inclusive and effective pedagogies that acknowledge and leverage the rich linguistic repertoires of their students. The framework of raising language awareness, as discussed by Svalberg (2007), is central to this endeavor.

Context of the Problem in Egyptian Foreign Language Education: A Comparative Linguistic Perspective

The Egyptian educational landscape presents a unique context for foreign language acquisition, particularly concerning the interplay between standard, classical, and colloquial language varieties. Within foreign language classrooms, especially those teaching English and French, educators are faced with the pervasive influence of Egyptian Arabic dialects. This situation mirrors the challenges observed globally, where the prestige and educational privileging of a standard dialect often stand in contrast to the everyday linguistic practices of learners and teachers alike (Kachru, 1985; Stollhans, 2020). The sociolinguistic market of Cairo, for instance, highlights the complex interplay of language varieties in daily life (Haeri, 2021).

The problem is compounded by the inherent diglossia within Arabic itself. Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) serves as the formal, written, and often pedagogical standard, while numerous colloquial Egyptian dialects are the primary medium of oral communication (Al-Busaidi, 2015; Giolfo & Sinatora, 2016).

This diglossic reality means that Egyptian learners of foreign languages are often highly proficient in a colloquial dialect for everyday interaction, yet may struggle with the formal registers of their native language, let alone the intricacies of a foreign standard. Consequently, foreign language educators in Egypt often find themselves implicitly or explicitly negotiating this linguistic hierarchy. For instance, in English classrooms, students may code-switch between English and Egyptian Arabic, sometimes incorporating dialectal features or expressions that can be perceived as non-standard by prescriptive pedagogical norms (Canagarajah, 2009; Alotaibi, 2018). Canagarajah's (2009) work on transliteracies and heteroglossia offers valuable insights into these complex linguistic practices. Similarly, French language instruction may encounter the influence of local dialects, prompting questions about how to effectively teach the standard French variety while acknowledging the students' linguistic background (Lodge, 2013). The challenges of teaching a standard variety while dealing with learners' L1 dialects are further explored by Alotaibi (2018) in a different context.

Despite the growing global discourse on World Englishes and the acceptance of linguistic variation (Kachru, 1985; Devereaux & Palmer, 2021), research specifically addressing the comparative pedagogical approaches to standard and non-standard varieties within the Egyptian foreign language education context remains limited. While studies have explored general language attitudes in Egypt (Algatroni, 2021; Wafa, 2024) and the challenges of teaching Arabic as a foreign language (Al-Busaidi, 2015; Lombezzi, 2019), there is a discernible gap in research that systematically compares the pedagogical strategies employed when dealing with non-standard influences across different foreign languages taught in Egypt.

These gaps highlight the need for a focused inquiry into the following research questions:

What are the prevalent pedagogical approaches adopted by foreign language teachers (English, French) in Egypt when addressing the influence of Egyptian Arabic dialects on students' acquisition of standard target language varieties?

How do Egyptian foreign language teachers' attitudes towards standard versus non-standard Arabic dialects impact their pedagogical choices and their management of linguistic variation in the classroom?

What are the perceived challenges and benefits of incorporating or excluding dialectal influences in the teaching of English and French in Egypt from the perspectives of both teachers and learners?

To what extent do current foreign language teacher education programs in Egypt equip prospective teachers with the skills and knowledge to navigate linguistic diversity, particularly the influence of L1 dialectal varieties?

The pedagogical challenge of addressing linguistic variation in the language classroom is a well-documented area of research, with a significant body of work exploring the complex relationship between language attitudes, standard language ideologies, and teaching practices. This review synthesizes key findings from existing literature to establish the theoretical framework and highlight the identified research gaps relevant to our study of pedagogical approaches to standard and non-standard varieties across Arabic, English, and French.

1. The Enduring Influence of Standard Language Ideology and Teacher Attitudes:

A central theme in the literature is the persistent influence of standard language ideology, which often positions standard dialects as inherently superior to non-standard or regional varieties. This ideology directly shapes teachers' attitudes, which in turn, profoundly impacts their pedagogical approaches. Stollhans (2020) emphasizes the critical role of teacher and learner attitudes towards non-standard dialects, noting how a belief in the superiority of the standard can lead to its rigid enforcement in the classroom. This sentiment is echoed by Can (2024), who found that pre-service teachers often perceive standard language varieties as superior, directly influencing their teaching methods. Similarly, Lakehal Ayat (2023) highlights the importance of understanding students' attitudes towards various English language varieties, both inside and outside the classroom, suggesting that these perceptions can shape learning experiences. The work of Garrett, Coupland, and Williams (2003) provides a comprehensive framework for investigating language attitudes.

However, the literature also indicates a growing awareness of the limitations of this prescriptive approach. While some teachers may still view non-standard forms as "inferior" or "deficient" (as seen in the context of English in the original presentation), there is an emerging call for more inclusive pedagogies. Recent scholarship, such as that by Towler (2025) on Arabic undergraduate courses in England, points to the need for further research into language attitudes about Arabic, acknowledging the discussions surrounding standard vs. non-standard language use. The study by Al-Busaidi (2015) further illustrates the challenges in Arabic language teaching where colloquialisms are prevalent.

Furthermore, studies examining teachers' attitudes towards language varieties, even in specific contexts like Spanish language teaching (Constantin-Dureci, 2025), consistently reveal that these attitudes are foundational to teaching methodologies. In the context of global Englishes, researchers like Devereaux and Palmer (2021) advocate for teaching English language variation, recognizing that non-standard varieties often possess their own dignity and vigor. The recognition of English as an international language necessitates such approaches (Jenkins, 2000). This growing recognition suggests a shift towards acknowledging the validity of diverse linguistic repertoires, though the practical implementation in classrooms remains an area for investigation. The concept of "language awareness" is key here (Svalberg, 2007).

2. The Pedagogical Negotiation of Dialectal Variation:

The research consistently demonstrates that teachers are tasked with navigating a complex terrain when it comes to dialectal variation. Marks (1976) highlighted the historical patterns of standard dialect teaching in countries like Great Britain and France, where the standard was often imposed on the non-standard patterns of children. Papapavlou and Pavlou (2009) further explored the sociolinguistic and pedagogical dimensions of dialects in education, emphasizing the relationship between standard and non-standard varieties and the implications of dialectal or bidialectal education.

In contemporary practice, this negotiation takes various forms. Scholars like Pavlou and Papapavlou (2004) have examined issues of dialect use in education from a Greek Cypriot perspective, noting that while some advocate for dialect use, others question it, often leading to feelings of alienation among dialectal speakers. Similarly, in Arabic education, the diglossic nature of the language presents a unique pedagogical challenge. Giolfo and Sinatora (2016) discuss cultural and linguistic considerations in teaching Arabic as a foreign language, noting how the limited nature of the classroom impedes the replication of natural language use and that teaching practices can stem from a complying Western attitude. Chekayri (2014) highlights the challenges of shifting from a Modern Standard Arabic-only approach to an integrative one, noting that non-standard spellings are often adopted.

Al-Busaidi (2015) further emphasizes the difficulties and challenges in teaching Arabic, where the prevalence of colloquial Arabic can lead to negative attitudes towards learning the language if not managed effectively. The work by Siegel (2010) on second dialect acquisition and by Chevrot and Ghimenton (2018) on bilingualism and bidialectalism is also relevant here.

The literature also highlights the need for teachers to be equipped with specific pedagogical strategies. Soliman and Khalil (2024), discussing the teaching of Arabic as a community language in the UK, suggest that despite complex attitudes, some studies point to teaching approaches that combine learning dialectal and standard forms. The growing emphasis on "World Englishes" (Kachru, 1985) and the recognition of English as an international language necessitate a re-evaluation of how dialectal variations are addressed in English language classrooms. This includes understanding how teachers' attitudes can influence their pedagogical choices (Can, 2024) and exploring research-based practices that assist teachers in teaching dialectal variations in standard language use (as suggested in the original presentation). Moreover, recent work on heritage language education (Vanpee, 2024) stresses the importance of teachers fostering students' awareness of language ideologies and attitudes. Studies on community language education (Clyne & Fernandez, 2008) provide broader contexts for these discussions.

3. Research Gaps and the Current Study:

While the existing literature provides a strong foundation for understanding the impact of language attitudes and the challenges of dialectal variation in education, several research gaps remain, particularly concerning a comparative pedagogical perspective across multiple languages.

Comparative Pedagogical Approaches: While research has explored dialectal issues within specific languages like English, Arabic, and French individually, there is a dearth of studies that directly compare the pedagogical approaches and challenges faced by teachers across these three languages within a similar educational context. Most research focuses on one language or on English as a global lingua franca. Works like Chavoshian and Kaloustian (2024) begin to address this by looking at global Englishes and Frenches.

The Egyptian Context: While studies acknowledge the complex sociolinguistic situation in Egypt, particularly the diglossia in Arabic and its potential impact on foreign language learning (Al-Busaidi, 2015; Algatroni, 2021), there is a lack of in-depth investigation into the specific pedagogical strategies employed by English and French teachers in Egypt to address the influence of Egyptian Arabic dialects. The recent literature highlights a growing interest in Arabic language variation (Towler, 2025; Shweiry, 2025), but its intersection with foreign language pedagogy in Egypt remains underexplored. The sociolinguistic market of Cairo (Haeri, 2021) provides a foundational understanding of the linguistic landscape.

Teacher Training and Preparedness: Although the importance of teacher attitudes and their influence on teaching methods is recognized (Can, 2024; Constantin-Dureci, 2025), there is less research that systematically evaluates the extent to which foreign language teacher education programs in Egypt prepare prospective teachers to effectively manage dialectal diversity and incorporate non-standard varieties in their pedagogy. Studies on teacher training in linguistic variation (Yiakoumetti, 2011) and critical language awareness (Ducar, 2024) are relevant here.

This study aims to address these gaps by undertaking a comparative analysis of pedagogical approaches to standard and non-standard varieties of Arabic, English, and French within Egyptian classrooms. Through examining the attitudes and practices of teachers across these linguistic contexts, we seek to provide a nuanced understanding of how to move beyond prescriptive purity towards more inclusive and effective language teaching. The research will build upon the foundational work on language attitudes (Garrett et al., 2003), the sociolinguistic challenges of diglossia (Al-Busaidi, 2015; McBride et al., 2022), and the growing global discourse on linguistic diversity in education (Kachru, 1985; Stollhans, 2020).

This study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative survey data with qualitative insights to investigate pedagogical approaches to standard and non-standard varieties across Arabic, English, and French in Egyptian educational contexts. The research design focused on understanding teacher attitudes, pedagogical practices, and the perceived effectiveness of different approaches to linguistic variation.

Research Design

The study utilized a survey research design to gather quantitative data on teachers' attitudes, beliefs, and reported pedagogical practices concerning standard and non-standard language varieties. This was complemented by a qualitative component, where a subset of participants was invited to provide more in-depth responses to open-ended questions, offering richer contextual information. This mixed-methods approach allowed for a comprehensive exploration of the multifaceted nature of the research problem, enabling both broad generalizations and deep dives into specific experiences.

Participants and Sampling

The study involved a total of N = 470 participants, comprising both student-teachers and in-service teachers from various educational institutions in Egypt. A stratified random sampling technique was employed to ensure representation across different pedagogical contexts and linguistic specializations. Participants were drawn from programs focusing on English as a Foreign Language (EFL), Arabic language teaching, and French language teaching. A sub-sample of 30 participants were randomly selected to participate in the interviews.

Student-teachers: These participants were enrolled in postgraduate or undergraduate programs preparing them for careers in language education. They provided insights into their foundational knowledge, attitudes, and expectations regarding the teaching of linguistic variations.
In-service teachers: These participants were actively teaching in primary, secondary, or tertiary educational settings. Their experiences offered valuable perspectives on the practical application of pedagogical approaches and the challenges they face in real classroom environments.

The recruitment process involved reaching out to educational institutions across key regions in Egypt, with a clear explanation of the study's purpose and the voluntary nature of participation. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations were paramount, with strict adherence to guidelines ensuring participant dignity and confidentiality. This included obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval (Beni-Suef University, Faculty of Education IRB, ref: BSU-FoE-00-05-03-0025), as well as approval from the Beni-Suef Educational Directorate and participating schools. Comprehensive informed consent was secured from all participants, with information and consent forms provided in both English and Arabic. Anonymity and confidentiality were maintained through de-identified data storage on secure, password-protected devices and locked cabinets, with access limited to the research team, followed by secure data destruction. Participation was entirely voluntary, with participants explicitly informed of their right to withdraw without penalty. The research design itself demonstrated respect for linguistic diversity by using carefully worded, non-judgmental instruments and offering data collection in participants' preferred languages, reflecting a commitment to inclusivity and accurate data capture through a mixed-methods approach integrating quantitative survey data with qualitative interview insights.

Data Collection Instruments:

This study employed a mixed-methods approach, integrating quantitative survey data with qualitative interview insights to thoroughly investigate pedagogical approaches to standard and non-standard language varieties within Arabic, English, and French classrooms in Egypt. This methodological design allows for a comprehensive understanding of teachers' attitudes, practices, and perceived professional development needs concerning linguistic diversity.

1. Linguistic Variation in Egyptian Classrooms Questionnaire (LVECQ)

The primary quantitative data was collected via the Linguistic Variation in Egyptian Classrooms Questionnaire (LVECQ), administered online in English and Arabic. This survey comprised three sections: demographic information (gender, age, specialization, teaching level, experience, qualifications, languages taught, L1 dialect), attitudinal scales measuring views on standard versus non-standard language varieties using Likert-scale items on linguistic superiority, desirability, effective communication, and cultural sensitivity (aligning with Giles & Edwards, 1984), and pedagogical practices assessing classroom approaches to error correction, material use, dialectal awareness, and professional development needs, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative questions (as explored in Ducar, 2024).

Validity and Reliability of the LVECQ:

Prior to the main data collection, the LVECQ underwent rigorous pilot testing with a sample of 30 teachers to ensure clarity, comprehensibility, and relevance. Content validity was established through expert review of the questionnaire items against the research objectives. Internal consistency for the attitudinal scales was assessed using Cronbach's Alpha, which indicated a high degree of reliability for the measured constructs, with overall alpha values exceeding .80 for each attitudinal domain. Test-retest reliability was also established through a small follow-up administration to pilot participants, demonstrating acceptable stability of responses.

2. Semi-structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sub-sample of participants to complement survey data and gather in-depth qualitative insights. The interviews explored participants' general views on language and the role of standards in education, their attitudes towards specific language varieties (Arabic dialects, English, and French variations) and how these affect their teaching, their pedagogical approaches and classroom practices for managing linguistic variation including strategies and perceived impact on students, and their reflections on teacher training and professional development needs regarding linguistic diversity.

The semi-structured nature of these interviews allowed for flexibility, enabling the interviewer to probe deeper into emergent themes and individual experiences, thus enriching the understanding of the complex interplay between attitudes and practices. Interviews were conducted in the participant's preferred language (English, Arabic, or French) and audio-recorded with consent for subsequent transcription and thematic analysis. Thematic saturation was achieved with the sample of 30 interviewees, indicating that new interviews were yielding little new information, thus confirming the adequacy of the sample size for qualitative depth.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data from the attitudinal and demographic sections were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations) and inferential statistics (t-tests, ANOVAs, correlation analyses) via SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software. This analysis aimed to identify patterns in attitudes and practices across different teacher groups and demographic profiles.

Qualitative data from the open-ended questions were analyzed using thematic analysis. Responses were coded to identify recurring themes related to teachers' beliefs about linguistic variation, their pedagogical strategies, and their perceived challenges and needs. This qualitative analysis served to enrich and contextualize the quantitative findings, providing a deeper understanding of the nuances of pedagogical approaches to dialectal diversity.

Participant Demographics

The following table provides a descriptive overview of the demographic characteristics of the 470 participants.

Table 1
*Demographic Characteristics of Participants (N = 470)*
Demographic Variable	Category	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	188	40.0
	Female	282	60.0
Teaching Specialization	English as a Foreign Language (EFL)	235	50.0
	Arabic Language Teaching	160	34.0
	French Language Teaching	75	16.0
Teaching Level	Primary School	85	18.1
	Secondary School	210	44.7
	University/Higher Education	100	21.3
	Other (e.g., language institutes)	75	16.0
Teaching Experience	0–5 Years	165	35.1
	6–10 Years	130	27.7
	11–20 Years	105	22.3
	20 + Years	70	14.9
Highest Qualification	Bachelor's Degree	215	45.7
	Postgraduate Diploma	80	17.0
	Master's Degree	130	27.7
	Doctorate	45	9.6

This demographic profile provides a foundation for analyzing how different backgrounds and professional experiences might correlate with attitudes and pedagogical approaches towards standard and non-standard language varieties in Egyptian foreign language classrooms.

Findings

This study employed a mixed-methods approach to investigate pedagogical approaches to standard and non-standard language varieties in Arabic, English, and French classrooms in Egypt. Quantitative data from the Linguistic Variation in Egyptian Classrooms Questionnaire (LVECQ) and qualitative insights from semi-structured interviews provided a comprehensive understanding of teachers' attitudes, practices, and professional development needs.

Quantitative Data Analysis

Descriptive Statistics of Participant Demographics

The sample comprised 470 language educators in Egypt. The demographic breakdown showed a majority of female teachers (60.0%, N = 282) and male teachers (40.0%, N = 188). As shown in Table 2, most participants specialized in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) (50.0%, N = 235), followed by Arabic (34.0%, N = 160) and French (16.0%, N = 75). The majority taught at the secondary school level (44.7%, N = 210), followed by university/higher education (21.5%, N = 101), other settings (e.g., language institutes) (16.0%, N = 75), and primary school (17.9%, N = 84). Teaching experience varied, with 35.1% (N = 165) having 0–5 years, 27.7% (N = 130) 6–10 years, 22.3% (N = 105) 11–20 years, and 14.9% (N = 70) 20 + years. Regarding educational qualifications, the Bachelor's degree was most common (45.7%, N = 215), followed by Master's degree (27.7%, N = 130), postgraduate diploma (17.0%, N = 80), and doctorate (9.6%, N = 45).

Table 2
*Demographic Characteristics of Participants (N = 470)*
Demographic Variable	Category	N	Valid %
Gender	Male	188	40.0
	Female	282	60.0
Teaching Specialization	EFL	235	50.0
	Arabic	160	34.0
	French	75	16.0
Current Teaching Level	Primary School	84	17.9
	Secondary School	210	44.7
	University/Higher Education	101	21.5
	Other (e.g., language institutes)	75	16.0
Years of Teaching Experience	0–5 Years	165	35.1
	6–10 Years	130	27.7
	11–20 Years	105	22.3
	20 + Years	70	14.9
Highest Educational Qualification	Bachelor’s Degree	215	45.7
	Postgraduate Diploma	80	17.0
	Master’s Degree	130	27.7
	Doctorate	45	9.6

Descriptive Statistics for Attitudes and Practices

Descriptive statistics for key attitude and practice variables are presented in Table 3. Teachers' overall attitudes towards Arabic language showed a mean score of M = 20.89 (SD = 3.74), English M = 20.15 (SD = 3.81), and French M = 20.50 (SD = 3.71). For the reported practices, the total score for the three items on frequency of engaging in practices related to linguistic variation (correcting, incorporating, using non-standard varieties) was M = 12.39 (SD = 2.28). Similarly, the Perceived Effectiveness scale (sum of three items) yielded a mean of M = 12.01 (SD = 2.38), and teachers' self-reported preparedness for handling linguistic variation averaged M = 4.18 (SD = 0.96) on a 5-point scale.

Table 3
*Descriptive Statistics for Attitudes and Practices (N = 470)*
Variable	M	SD	N
Total Arabic Language Attitudes	20.89	3.74	470
Total English Language Attitudes	20.15	3.81	470
Total French Language Attitudes	20.50	3.71	470
How often do you correct non-standard forms...?	4.22	0.93	470
How often do you incorporate discussions of linguistic variation...?	4.03	0.96	470
How often do you use non-standard language varieties...?	4.13	0.84	470
Reported Practices (Sum score)	12.39	2.28	470
Correcting non-standard... improves proficiency	3.95	1.03	470
Incorporating diverse varieties enhances engagement	4.12	0.90	470
Teaching cultural contexts... improves outcomes	3.94	0.99	470
Perceived Effectiveness (Sum score)	12.01	2.38	470
How prepared do you feel to handle linguistic variation...?	4.18	0.96	470

Note. For scale items, the reported statistics represent the sum across relevant items where applicable, or the mean of the Likert scale responses.

Correlations Between Attitudes and Reported Practices

A Pearson correlation analysis (Table 4) revealed strong, positive, and statistically significant correlations between teachers' overall attitudes towards language varieties and their reported pedagogical practices concerning linguistic variation. Specifically, total attitudes towards Arabic language correlated with Reported Practices (r = .753, p < .001). Similarly, total attitudes towards English (r = .763, p < .001) and French (r = .789, p < .001) also showed strong positive correlations with Reported Practices. These findings indicate that positive attitudes toward language varieties are strongly associated with the frequency of adopting inclusive pedagogical practices.

Table 4
*Pearson Correlations Between Total Attitudes and Reported Practices*
Variable	1.	2.	3.	4.
1. Total Arabic Language Attitudes	—	.799**	.784**	.753**
2. Total English Language Attitudes	.799**	—	.785**	.763**
3. Total French Language Attitudes	.784**	.785**	—	.789**
4. Reported Practices	.753**	.763**	.789**	—

Note. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Predictors of Pedagogical Practices

A stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed to identify which attitude dimensions best predicted teachers' Reported Practices. The final model included total French Language Attitudes (β = .405, p < .001), total English Language Attitudes (β = .269, p < .001), and total Arabic Language Attitudes (β = .220, p < .001). The model accounted for a substantial portion of the variance in Reported Practices (Adjusted R² = .689), with French language attitudes emerging as the strongest individual predictor (See Table 5).

Table 4
*Predictors of Reported Pedagogical Practices*
Model	Predictors	B	Std. Error	β	t	p
1	(Constant)	2.467	.363		6.798	.000
	Total French Language Attitudes	.484	.017	.789	27.780	.000
2	(Constant)	1.663	.349		4.770	.000
	Total French Language Attitudes	.304	.026	.495	11.637	.000
	Total English Language Attitudes	.223	.025	.374	8.802	.000
3	(Constant)	1.258	.352		3.573	.000
	Total French Language Attitudes	.249	.028	.405	8.838	.000
	Total English Language Attitudes	.161	.028	.269	5.681	.000
	Total Arabic Language Attitudes	.134	.029	.220	4.650	.000

Note. Dependent Variable: Reported Practices. The final model (R² = .691) indicates that these attitude variables explain approximately 69.1% of the variance in reported pedagogical practices.

Attitudes Toward Specific Language Varieties

Chi-square tests analyzed the distribution of responses to specific Likert scale items regarding attitudes towards language varieties. Significant differences were found for the statement "Standard Arabic is inherently more correct than colloquial Egyptian Arabic" (A1), χ²(4, N = 470) = 514.830, p < .001, with a large majority either agreeing (50.9%) or strongly agreeing (39.6%) as shown in Table 6. Similarly, responses to "Exposure to diverse English varieties is beneficial for EFL learners" (B2) showed significant differences in teacher agreement, χ²(4, N = 470) = 378.979, p < .001, with 40.4% agreeing and 43.0% strongly agreeing. These statistical results suggest that teachers’ beliefs about the status and perceived benefits of different language varieties influence their pedagogical approaches.

Table 6
*Chi-Square Tests of Attitudes Toward Language Varieties*
Statement	χ²	df	p	N
A1: Standard Arabic is inherently more correct than colloquial Egyptian Arabic	514.830	4	< .001	470
B2: Exposure to diverse English varieties is beneficial for EFL learners	378.979	4	< .001	470

Note. All chi-square tests were significant at p < .001.

Differences in Preparedness by Teaching Level and Experience

A one-way ANOVA examined differences in perceived preparedness to handle linguistic variation (How prepared do you feel to handle linguistic variation in your classroom?) across teaching levels and years of teaching experience. Significant differences were found by teaching level, F(3, 466) = 85.880, p < .001. Post hoc LSD tests indicated that university teachers (M = 4.36, SD = 0.82) felt significantly more prepared than secondary school teachers (M = 4.00, SD = 0.92, p = .003), primary school teachers (M = 3.75, SD = 0.99, p = .001), and those in other settings (M = 3.45, SD = 1.03, p < .001).

As shown in Table 7, significant differences were also observed by years of teaching experience, F(3, 466) = 80.103, p < .001. Teachers with 20 + years of experience (M = 4.35, SD = 0.83) reported the highest preparedness, followed by those with 11–20 years (M = 4.20, SD = 0.89, p < .001), 6–10 years (M = 4.10, SD = 0.94, p < .001), and 0–5 years (M = 4.00, SD = 0.98, p < .001). This suggests that while experience and higher education levels correlate with greater perceived preparedness, current teacher education programs may not uniformly equip all prospective teachers with the necessary skills to effectively navigate linguistic diversity.

Table 7
*One-Way ANOVA of Perceived Preparedness by Teaching Level and Years of Experience*
Source	Group	M	SD	F	df	p
Current Teaching Level				85.88	3, 47	< .001
	University/Higher Education	4.36	0.82
	Secondary School	4.00	0.92
	Primary School	3.75	0.99
	Other	3.45	1.03
Years of Teaching Experience				80.1	3, 47	< .001
	20 + Years	4.35	0.83
	11–20 Years	4.20	0.89
	6–10 Years	4.10	0.94
	0–5 Years	4.00	0.98

Note. Dependent Variable: Preparedness to handle linguistic variation

Gender Differences in Attitudes and Practice

Independent samples t-tests (Table 8) revealed significant gender differences in attitudes and practices. Male teachers reported higher total attitudes for Arabic, English, and French language varieties compared to female teachers. Specifically, for Arabic attitudes, males reported M = 21.88 (SD = 3.10) versus females M = 20.23 (SD = 3.97), t(468) = 4.781, p < .001. English attitudes were M = 21.41 (SD = 3.41) for males and M = 19.31 (SD = 3.85) for females, t(468) = 6.058, p < .001. French attitudes were M = 21.70 (SD = 3.09) for males and M = 19.71 (SD = 3.88) for females, t(468) = 5.889, p < .001.

These gender differences extended to reported practices, with male teachers showing higher frequencies in correcting non-standard forms (M = 4.42, SD = 0.73 vs. M = 4.10, SD = 1.02; t(468) = 3.694, p < .001), incorporating discussions of linguistic variation (M = 4.30, SD = 0.77 vs. M = 3.86, SD = 1.04; t(468) = 5.003, p < .001), and using non-standard varieties (M = 4.36, SD = 0.72 vs. M = 3.99, SD = 0.88; t(468) = 4.797, p < .001).

Consequently, male teachers reported higher overall Reported Practices (M = 13.07, SD = 1.84 vs. M = 11.94, SD = 2.43; t(468) = 5.446, p < .001), perceived higher effectiveness (M = 12.84, SD = 2.09 vs. M = 11.45, SD = 2.40; t(468) = 6.453, p < .001), and felt more prepared (M = 4.36, SD = 0.80 vs. M = 4.06, SD = 1.04; t(468) = 3.272, p = .001) to handle linguistic variation.

Table 8
*Independent Samples T-Tests Comparing Male and Female Teachers' Attitudes and Practices*
Variable	Gender	M	SD	t	df	p
Total Arabic Language Attitudes	Male	21.88	3.10	4.781	468	< .001
Total Arabic Language Attitudes	Female	20.23	3.97
Total English Language Attitudes	Male	21.41	3.41	6.058	468	< .001
Total English Language Attitudes	Female	19.31	3.85
Total French Language Attitudes	Male	21.70	3.09	5.889	468	< .001
Total French Language Attitudes	Female	19.71	3.88
Correct non-standard forms (frequency)	Male	4.42	0.73	3.694	468	< .001
Correct non-standard forms (frequency)	Female	4.10	1.02
Incorporate linguistic variation discussions (frequency)	Male	4.30	0.77	5.003	468	< .001
Incorporate linguistic variation discussions (frequency)	Female	3.86	1.04
Use non-standard varieties (frequency)	Male	4.36	0.72	4.797	468	< .001
Use non-standard varieties (frequency)	Female	3.99	0.88
Reported Practices (total score)	Male	13.07	1.84	5.446	468	< .001
Reported Practices (total score)	Female	11.94	2.43
Perceived Effectiveness (total score)	Male	12.84	2.09	6.453	468	< .001
Perceived Effectiveness (total score)	Female	11.45	2.40
Preparedness to handle linguistic variation (Likert scale)	Male	4.36	0.80	3.272	468	.001
Preparedness to handle linguistic variation (Likert scale)	Female	4.06	1.04

Note. For all variables, p < .001, except where noted.

In summary, the statistical findings highlight a strong positive association between teachers' attitudes towards language varieties and their pedagogical practices. French language attitudes were the most significant predictor of reported practices, followed by English and Arabic. While teachers generally felt prepared, there was a clear need for further professional development.

Notably, teachers at the university level and those with more years of experience reported higher preparedness, and male teachers tended to exhibit more positive attitudes and higher engagement in practices related to linguistic diversity. Qualitative data further substantiated these findings, emphasizing the influence of societal biases and the importance of targeted training for effective pedagogical approaches to linguistic diversity.

Qualitative Data Analysis: Strategies for Language Instruction

This analysis examines qualitative data from interviews regarding language instruction, focusing on how instructors address L1 transfer, manage non-standard features, handle L1 interference, teach standard varieties, and manage diglossia. The findings in Table 9 highlight a range of pedagogical approaches employed by instructors to support learners in acquiring standard language proficiency while acknowledging the influence of their first language.

Table 9
*Qualitative Coding of Instructional Strategies (first dataset)*
Code	Theme	Example Quote	Wdt %
Addressing L1 Transfer	Correction with positive framing and contextualization	"A student consistently substituted the interdental fricative /θ/ (as in 'think') with a dental stop /t/, or sometimes an alveolar fricative /s/. I didn't correct every instance, but when it impacted clarity, I'd frame it positively: 'That's a common pronunciation difference. In standard English, we aim for the /θ/ sound here, so 'think' instead of 'sink' or 'tink'. Let's practice that.' I often paired it with praising their overall fluency."	25%
Managing Non-Standard Features	Subtle modeling and rephrasing of standard forms	"A student used a dialectal verb for 'to buy' where MSA requires 'يشتري' (yashtari). I acknowledged their meaning but offered, 'In formal contexts, we often use 'yashtari.' Let's try it: 'أشتري' (ashtari - I buy).' This way, I'm modeling the standard without stopping the flow or making them feel incorrect."	20%
Handling L1 Interference	Contextual focus on register and intelligibility	"I address non-standard features mainly when they interfere with clear communication or are incorrect in a formal academic context. I tend to prioritize meaning over strict form initially, especially in speaking. If it's a consistent error affecting intelligibility or formality, I'll address it privately or in a focused mini-lesson, explaining the difference in registers."	20%
Teaching Standard Variety	Gentle guidance and indirect correction	"I manage non-standard features by consistently modeling the standard. If a student uses a dialectal feature that affects clarity or is inappropriate for the task, I might address it privately or in a focused pronunciation or grammar session, explaining the standard rule and providing practice."	20%
Addressing L1 Transfer	Focus on intelligibility and communicative competence	"My focus is on comprehensible input and output. My methods include using dialogues, role-plays, and grammar exercises that target specific standard forms. I emphasize listening comprehension and speaking fluency, with corrections usually focusing on intelligibility and accuracy in context, rather than strict adherence to a 'perfect' accent."	10%
Managing Diglossia	Bridging MSA and dialect for learning	"MSA is the formal, precise language. Colloquial Arabic helps learners connect with the language in a more accessible way."

Table 9 illustrates a multifaceted approach to language instruction, as detailed in the findings presented. The most prominent strategy, accounting for 25% of the weighted percentage, is "Correction with positive framing and contextualization" for addressing L1 transfer. This suggests instructors prioritize creating a supportive environment by framing corrections constructively and explaining their relevance within the target language context. Following closely are "Subtle modeling and rephrasing of standard forms" (20%) and "Contextual focus on register and intelligibility" (20%), both emphasizing indirect correction and a focus on clear communication over immediate error correction. This highlights a learner-centered approach that values fluency and understanding. "Gentle guidance and indirect correction" also represents a significant strategy (20%) for teaching standard varieties, further reinforcing the preference for non-confrontational methods.

Finally, "Focus on intelligibility and communicative competence" (10%) underscores the ultimate goal of language learning, where accuracy is pursued in service of effective communication. The implied strategy for "Bridging MSA and dialect for learning" suggests an awareness of diglossic situations and the potential of leveraging learners' existing linguistic resources.

This nuanced approach prioritizes learner-centered strategies, aiming for clear communication and fostering a supportive learning environment. Instructors favor constructive feedback, subtle modeling, and a focus on intelligibility over immediate error correction. These pedagogical choices are further illuminated by qualitative data, as presented in Fig. 1.

As Fig. 1 illustrates, "Positive correction strategies" emerge as the leading theme (30%), emphasizing encouragement and supportive feedback, particularly concerning pronunciation, reinforcing the findings from the first dataset. "Subtle modeling of standards" (25%) also plays a crucial role in managing non-standard features, indicating a preference for natural integration of the target language over direct correction. The "Focus on context and clarity" (20%) for handling L1 interference highlights a pragmatic approach where corrections are prioritized based on their impact on intelligibility, valuing communicative flow. Furthermore, "Gradual introduction of norms" (15%) for teaching standard varieties suggests a methodical strategy that builds upon learners' existing linguistic knowledge, while "Using dialect as a bridge" (10%) for managing diglossia demonstrates an effective method of leveraging the learner's first language to enhance understanding of the target language. Collectively, these qualitative insights reveal a sophisticated pedagogical practice that balances the acquisition of standard language features with a keen awareness of the learner's linguistic background and the overarching goal of effective communication.

Table 10
*Qualitative Coding of Instructional Strategies (second Dataset)*
Code	Theme	Example Quote	Wdt %
Addressing L1 Transfer	Positive correction strategies	"I try to correct their Arabic-influenced English pronunciation with encouragement, like saying 'Great effort! Let's try the /θ/ sound for 'think' instead of /t/.'"	30%
Managing Non-Standard Features	Subtle modeling of standards	"When they use a dialect word, I repeat the sentence with the MSA version naturally, like changing 'shay' to 'shayun' without making a big deal."	25%
Handling L1 Interference	Focus on context and clarity	"I only correct dialect use if it confuses the meaning in English class, otherwise I let it slide to keep the conversation flowing."	20%
Teaching Standard Variety	Gradual introduction of norms	"I introduce standard French grammar slowly, using examples they can relate to from their dialect to make it easier."	15%
Managing Diglossia	Using dialect as a bridge	"I explain MSA rules by comparing them to Egyptian Arabic patterns, which helps them connect the two."	10%

Table 10 further elaborates on the pedagogical approaches observed in language instruction. "Positive correction strategies" emerge as the dominant theme (30%), indicating a strong emphasis on encouragement and supportive feedback when addressing L1 transfer, specifically in pronunciation. This aligns with the findings in Table 1, reinforcing the importance of a positive learning environment. "Subtle modeling of standards" (25%) is another key strategy for managing non-standard features, suggesting instructors prefer naturalistic integration of the target language over overt correction. The "Focus on context and clarity" (20%) for handling L1 interference highlights a pragmatic approach where correction is contingent on the impact on intelligibility, prioritizing communicative flow. "Gradual introduction of norms" (15%) for teaching standard varieties signifies a methodical approach, building upon learners' existing linguistic knowledge. Finally, "Using dialect as a bridge" (10%) for managing diglossia demonstrates a strategy that leverages learners' first language to facilitate understanding of the target language, recognizing the value of the L1 in the learning process.

Table 10 further elaborates on the pedagogical approaches observed in language instruction. "Positive correction strategies" emerge as the dominant theme (30%), indicating a strong emphasis on encouragement and supportive feedback when addressing L1 transfer, particularly in pronunciation. This aligns with the findings in Table 1, reinforcing the importance of a positive learning environment. "Subtle modeling of standards" (25%) is another key strategy for managing non-standard features, suggesting instructors prefer naturalistic integration of the target language over overt correction. The "Focus on context and clarity" (20%) for handling L1 interference highlights a pragmatic approach where corrections are prioritized based on their impact on intelligibility, valuing communicative flow. "Gradual introduction of norms" (15%) for teaching standard varieties signifies a methodical approach, building upon learners' existing linguistic knowledge. Finally, "Using dialect as a bridge" (10%) for managing diglossia demonstrates a strategy that leverages learners' first language to facilitate understanding of the target language, recognizing the value of the L1 in the learning process.

Figure 2, a word cloud derived from the interview data, visually encapsulates the core themes and terminology prevalent in the discussions. The most prominent words, "MSA," "tongue," and "Arabic," underline a central focus on the Arabic language, particularly in its standard form (MSA) and its spoken manifestations. This centrality suggests that a significant portion of the discourse revolved around the nuances of teaching and learning Arabic, potentially including the distinctions between formal MSA and dialectal variations. The presence of "student," "teacher," "education," and "language" firmly situates these discussions within an educational framework, highlighting the roles of learners, instructors, and the subject matter itself. The term "dialectal" is particularly significant, indicating an awareness of and engagement with the diverse linguistic repertoires of learners.

This is further supported by words like "informal" and "common," which imply a consideration of natural language use. The prominence of "abstract," "concept," "thought," and "linguistic" points to the theoretical and analytical dimensions of language acquisition, suggesting that the discussions delved into the cognitive processes and linguistic principles involved. The presence of "change" and "varieties" further suggests an exploration of language's dynamic nature and the diversity within Arabic itself. Finally, terms like "professional," "practical," "communication," and "expressions" highlight the ultimate aim of language instruction: to equip learners with the skills for effective and meaningful interaction. The overall visual representation emphasizes a comprehensive and pragmatic approach to language education, acknowledging both the formal structures of the language and the lived linguistic experiences of the learners.

Both sets of qualitative data highlight a pedagogical philosophy that balances the acquisition of standard language features with a deep understanding of the learner's linguistic background and the practicalities of communication. Instructors consistently prioritize creating a positive and encouraging learning environment, often employing indirect correction methods like modeling and rephrasing. The emphasis on intelligibility and communicative competence suggests a focus on functional language use, with corrections strategically applied to enhance clarity and appropriate register. The use of the learner's L1, whether by comparing linguistic patterns or by leveraging it as a bridge to the target language, is also evident, demonstrating an awareness of the complexities of multilingual contexts and the importance of making learning accessible. This approach suggests a move away from a purely prescriptive model towards one that is more learner-centered and communicative in its orientation.

Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses with Research Questions

RQ 1: Prevalent Pedagogical Approaches

Quantitative Findings (Tables 3 & 4):

The quantitative data from the LVECQ provided a broad overview of teachers' reported pedagogical practices. A significant portion of teachers indicated a tendency to engage in practices that acknowledge linguistic variation, such as correcting non-standard forms with varying frequency, incorporating discussions of linguistic variation, and using non-standard language varieties (Table 3). The strong positive correlations between teachers' attitudes and their reported practices (Table 4) further suggest that positive attitudes towards language varieties are linked to the adoption of more inclusive pedagogical approaches.

Qualitative Findings (Tables 9 & 10, Figs. 1 & 2):

The qualitative data, presented in Tables 9 and 10, offered nuanced insights into the how of these practices. Instructors across all language specializations frequently employed "Correction with positive framing and contextualization" (Table 9, 25%) and "Positive correction strategies" (Table 10, 30%). These strategies emphasize encouragement and supportive feedback, aligning with the overarching goal of fostering communicative competence and intelligibility. "Subtle modeling of standards" (Table 9, 20%; Table 10, 25%) was another common strategy, indicating a preference for naturalistic integration of the target language.

The emphasis on "Contextual focus on register and intelligibility" (Table 9, 20%) and "Focus on context and clarity" (Table 10, 20%) highlights a pragmatic approach, where corrections are often contingent on their impact on effective communication. Furthermore, the qualitative data revealed a reliance on "Gentle guidance and indirect correction" (Table 9, 20%) and a "Gradual introduction of norms" (Table 10, 15%), suggesting a deliberate and patient approach to teaching standard varieties. The word clouds (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) visually reinforce these pedagogical themes, with prominent terms like "MSA," "tongue," "arabic," "student," "teacher," "education," and "language" indicating a central focus on teaching Arabic and its variations, alongside the learner's experience.

Integration of Findings:

The quantitative data establishes the prevalence of certain practices, while the qualitative data provides depth and context, illustrating how these practices are enacted. The strong positive correlations between positive attitudes and reported practices (Table 4) are illuminated by the qualitative themes, demonstrating that teachers with positive attitudes are more likely to adopt learner-centered strategies that prioritize effective communication. This interplay between attitudes and practice is further contextualized by the word clouds (Figs. 1 and 2), which visually emphasize the core concepts being discussed, implicitly reflecting the areas where teachers' attitudes and pedagogical approaches are most focused.

RQ 2: Impact of Teacher Attitudes on Pedagogical Choices

Quantitative Findings (Tables 3, 4 & 5):

The quantitative analysis strongly supports the influence of teacher attitudes on pedagogical choices. The high mean scores for overall language attitudes across all three languages (Table 3) indicate a general openness to engaging with language variation. Critically, the robust positive correlations between total attitudes and reported practices (Table 4) demonstrate a direct relationship.

The stepwise regression analysis (Table 5) further solidified this, revealing that teachers' attitudes, particularly towards French, English, and then Arabic, were significant predictors of their reported pedagogical practices. This implies that teachers who express more positive attitudes towards specific language varieties are more likely to implement pedagogical strategies that accommodate or leverage linguistic diversity. The significant differences in attitudes towards standard versus colloquial Arabic and diverse English varieties (Table 6) feature the specific attitudinal landscapes that shape teaching approaches.

Qualitative Findings (Tables 9 & 10, Figs. 1 & 2):

The qualitative data provides concrete examples of how these attitudes translate into classroom actions. The emphasis on "Positive correction strategies" (Table 9, 25%; Table 10, 30%) and "Subtle modeling" (Table 9, 20%; Table 10, 25%) reflects an underlying positive attitude towards learners and their linguistic backgrounds, suggesting a desire to foster confidence. The pragmatic "Focus on context and clarity" (Table 9, 20%; Table 10, 20%) indicates that attitudes valuing intelligibility guide pedagogical decisions.

The explicit strategy of "Bridging MSA and dialect" (Table 9, implied) and "Using dialect as a bridge" (Table 10, 10%) directly showcases how positive attitudes towards learners' L1 can be leveraged for pedagogical gain. The word clouds (Figs. 1 and 2) reinforce this by prominently featuring terms like "MSA," "tongue," "arabic," "dialectal," and "concept," suggesting that teachers' underlying attitudes shape their focus on these linguistic elements.

Integration of Findings:

The quantitative findings on attitudes and their predictive power are directly mirrored and substantiated by the qualitative descriptions of pedagogical strategies. Teachers with more positive attitudes, as indicated by the quantitative data, are more likely to employ the learner-centered, nuanced correction, and bridging strategies observed in the qualitative analysis. The significant gender differences noted in attitudes and practices (Table 8), where male teachers reported more positive attitudes and greater engagement with linguistic diversity, further suggest that these attitudinal differences may influence the specific pedagogical approaches adopted.

RQ 3: Perceived Challenges and Benefits of Incorporating Dialectal Influences

Quantitative Findings (Tables 3 & 7):

The quantitative data indirectly addresses perceived benefits through the "Perceived Effectiveness" scale (Table 3), which showed a generally high mean score, suggesting teachers believe their practices are effective. However, the preparedness data (Table 7) reveals a significant gap: teachers at the university level and those with more experience felt more prepared than those with less experience or at lower teaching levels. This hints at a challenge in implementing effective strategies without adequate training, irrespective of perceived benefits. The higher reported practices and perceived effectiveness among male teachers (Table 8) could also suggest they perceive greater benefits or have found more effective ways to incorporate diversity.

Qualitative Findings (Tables 9 & 10, Figs. 1 & 2):

The qualitative data directly addresses the how of managing dialectal influences, implicitly highlighting both benefits and challenges. Strategies like "Correction with positive framing," "Subtle modeling," and "Focus on intelligibility" are presented as beneficial ways to foster learning without alienating students. The implied benefit of "Bridging MSA and dialect" or "Using dialect as a bridge" suggests that leveraging the L1 is seen as a positive pedagogical tool for enhancing understanding.

The challenges are implicitly revealed in the need for these specific strategies; if teaching standard varieties was straightforward, such nuanced approaches would be less prominent. The qualitative focus on making corrections "when it impacted clarity" or addressing features that were "incorrect in a formal academic context" highlights the challenge of balancing linguistic accuracy with communicative effectiveness and adherence to institutional norms. The word cloud's emphasis on "MSA," "tongue," "Arabic," and "dialectal" indicates that navigating the distinction between standard and non-standard Arabic is a key aspect of the teaching experience, likely presenting both opportunities and hurdles.

RQ 4: Teacher Education Program Preparedness

Quantitative Findings (Tables 7 & 8):

The quantitative data provides strong evidence for a gap in teacher education programs. The ANOVA results in Table 7 clearly show significant differences in perceived preparedness based on teaching level and experience. University teachers and those with more years of experience reported higher preparedness, while teachers at the primary and secondary levels, and those with less experience, felt significantly less prepared to handle linguistic variation. This strongly suggests that current teacher education programs may not be uniformly equipping all prospective teachers with the necessary skills and knowledge. The gender differences in preparedness (Table 8), with male teachers reporting higher preparedness, also points to potential disparities in the training or experiences received.

Qualitative Findings (Tables 9 & 10, Figs. 1 & 2):

The qualitative data indirectly supports this gap. The detailed descriptions of pedagogical strategies like "Correction with positive framing," "Subtle modeling," and "Bridging MSA and dialect" imply that these are deliberate approaches teachers have developed, perhaps in the absence of explicit training. The qualitative focus on addressing issues "privately or in a focused mini-lesson" (Table 9) suggests a need for structured professional development. The word clouds (Figs. 1 and 2) with their emphasis on "education," "teacher," "concept," and "abstract" might reflect the theoretical underpinnings that teacher education programs should provide, or areas where teachers feel more knowledge is needed to effectively implement their practices.

Integration of Findings: The quantitative finding that teachers, especially those earlier in their careers or in non-university settings, feel less prepared is directly corroborated by the qualitative data. The qualitative analysis reveals the specific, nuanced strategies teachers employ to navigate linguistic diversity, implying that these are skills they are actively developing, potentially due to a lack of formal training. The quantitative evidence of a preparedness gap is thus reinforced by the qualitative demonstration of the specific knowledge and skills teachers are seeking or developing, highlighting a clear need for enhanced teacher education in managing linguistic variation.

Table 11 Joint Display: Quantitative and Qualitative Findings on Pedagogical Approaches to Linguistic Variation

Research Question	Quantitative Findings (Table Ref.)	Qualitative Findings (Table Ref. / Figure Ref.)	Integrated Interpretation
1. Prevalent Pedagogical Approaches	High reported frequency of inclusive practices (Table 3); Positive correlations between attitudes and practices (Table 4).	Emphasis on positive correction, subtle modeling, focus on intelligibility, gentle guidance, and bridging L1 (Tables 9 & 10, Figures 1 & 2).	Teachers' positive attitudes strongly predict the use of learner-centered, communicative, and non-confrontational strategies for managing linguistic variation, as evidenced by both statistical and thematic data. The word clouds highlight the core linguistic concepts driving these approaches.
2. Impact of Teacher Attitudes on Pedagogical Choices	Attitudes significantly predict practices (Table 4 & 5); Specific attitude differences noted for Arabic and English varieties (Table 6); Gender differences in attitudes and practices (Table 8).	Qualitative strategies reflect positive attitudes: fostering confidence, valuing intelligibility, leveraging L1 (Tables 9 & 10, Figures 1 & 2).	Teachers' positive attitudes, particularly towards French, directly translate into the adoption of supportive and pragmatic pedagogical techniques that acknowledge and utilize learners' linguistic backgrounds. Gender influences may also play a role in these attitudinal-practice links.
3. Perceived Challenges and Benefits of Incorporating Dialectal Influences	High perceived effectiveness of current practices (Table 3); Lower preparedness among less experienced teachers/lower teaching levels (Table 7); Potential gender disparities in preparedness and practice (Table 8).	Strategies imply benefits (e.g., fostering learning, leveraging L1), while the need for specific approaches suggests inherent challenges in balancing accuracy, intelligibility, and institutional norms (Tables 9 & 10, Figures 1 & 2).	While teachers generally perceive their methods as effective, quantitative data on preparedness highlights the challenges of implementing these practices, particularly for less experienced educators. Qualitative examples illustrate how teachers navigate these challenges, implicitly revealing the perceived benefits and difficulties.
4. Teacher Education Program Preparedness	Significant gaps in preparedness by teaching level and experience (Table 7); Gender disparities in preparedness (Table 8).	Teachers actively develop and employ nuanced strategies, suggesting a potential lack of formal training; teachers recognize needs for professional development (Tables 9 & 10, Figures 1 & 2).	The quantitative finding of lower preparedness among certain teacher groups is corroborated by the qualitative evidence of teachers' self-developed strategies, indicating a need for teacher education programs to more systematically address linguistic diversity and equip educators with practical tools.

Overall Integration: The integration of quantitative and qualitative findings reveals a consistent picture: Egyptian foreign language teachers generally hold positive attitudes towards linguistic diversity and are actively employing pedagogical strategies that are learner-centered, communicative, and sensitive to the nuances of dialectal influence. The quantitative data establishes the prevalence and predictive power of these attitudes and practices, while the qualitative data offers rich, contextualized examples of how these approaches are implemented. Both datasets highlight a significant need for enhanced teacher education programs to better prepare educators to navigate the complexities of linguistic variation in their classrooms, thereby fostering both linguistic proficiency and cultural sensitivity among their students. The word clouds serve as powerful visual summaries of the core concepts that inform these integrated findings.

The findings of this study align with and extend existing research on language attitudes, pedagogical approaches to linguistic variation, and the challenges faced by foreign language teachers in diverse linguistic contexts. The integrated quantitative and qualitative data provide a comprehensive picture of how educators in Egypt navigate the complexities of standard and non-standard Arabic dialects in their English and French classrooms.

RQs 1 & 2: Pedagogical Approaches and the Influence of Teacher Attitudes

The study's findings on prevalent pedagogical approaches, particularly the emphasis on positive correction, subtle modeling, and a focus on intelligibility, are strongly supported by existing literature. Research by Can (2024) highlights how pre-service teachers' attitudes can shape their teaching methods, and this study confirms that teachers with more positive attitudes towards language varieties are indeed more likely to adopt inclusive practices. The quantitative data showing strong correlations between attitudes and reported practices (Table 4) directly support this, demonstrating that teachers' beliefs about the status of different language varieties significantly influence their classroom actions. This is further echoed by Alotaibi (2018), who found that teacher attitudes influenced phonological transference in an EFL context.

The qualitative data elaborates on how these positive attitudes translate into practice. Strategies such as "Correction with positive framing" and "Subtle modeling" (Tables 9 & 10) resonate with the broader pedagogical principle of creating a supportive learning environment, as advocated by Brumfit (2013) and Pennycook (2012), who emphasize the importance of learner autonomy and positive identity construction in language learning. The pragmatic approach of prioritizing "context and clarity" (Tables 9 & 10) aligns with communicative language teaching principles, where effective communication takes precedence over absolute adherence to a singular standard, as discussed by Widdowson (2003). Furthermore, the strategy of "Bridging MSA and dialect" or "Using dialect as a bridge" (Tables 9 & 10) directly reflects research on translanguaging and the leveraging of learners' linguistic repertoires, as explored by García (2011) and Canagarajah (2009), suggesting that teachers are intuitively or consciously embracing a more inclusive approach to language pedagogy. The prominent placement of terms like "MSA," "tongue," "Arabic," "dialectal," and "concept" in the word clouds (Figs. 1 & 2) visually confirms that these are the central points of discussion and pedagogical focus for teachers in Egypt.

The gender differences observed, with male teachers reporting more positive attitudes and greater engagement with linguistic diversity (Table 8), could be further explored in relation to existing literature on gender and language, though specific comparisons for this context are limited. However, Peters (2020)'s work on gender-inclusive French teaching offers a framework for understanding how gender can influence pedagogical approaches.

RQ 3: Perceived Challenges and Benefits of Incorporating Dialectal Influences

The quantitative data on teacher preparedness, particularly the lower scores among less experienced teachers and those in primary and secondary settings (Table 7), directly points to the challenges teachers face in navigating linguistic diversity. This aligns with research highlighting the need for explicit teacher training in this area, such as that by Yiakoumetti (2011) and Ducar (2024). The qualitative data, by detailing the specific strategies teachers employ, implicitly reveals the perceived benefits of these approaches in fostering learning and engagement. However, the fact that these strategies are articulated as distinct themes suggests they are often developed organically, potentially due to a lack of formal training, thereby emphasizing the challenges of managing dialectal influences without adequate preparation. The word clouds, by emphasizing "education," "teacher," "concept," and "abstract," hint at the theoretical knowledge teachers might need to effectively integrate these practices.

RQ 4: Teacher Education Program Preparedness

The quantitative findings regarding teachers' perceived preparedness (Table 7) strongly indicate a significant gap in current foreign language teacher education programs in Egypt concerning the management of linguistic diversity. The lower preparedness levels among primary and secondary school teachers, and those with less experience, suggest that these programs may not adequately equip all prospective educators with the necessary theoretical frameworks and practical skills. This resonates with broader research, such as Yiakoumetti's (2011) call for re-invigorating teacher-training programs in linguistic variation, and Ducar's (2024) work on critical language awareness in teacher training. The qualitative data further supports this, as teachers' detailed descriptions of their strategies imply a need for more formalized guidance and training in these areas, suggesting that teachers are often developing these skills independently. The prominent display of "education" and "teacher" in the word clouds (Figs. 1 & 2) alongside concepts related to language variation reinforces the idea that teacher education is a critical nexus for addressing these challenges.

Overall Integration and Implications

The integration of quantitative and qualitative data paints a compelling picture: Egyptian foreign language teachers are increasingly aware of and engaging with linguistic diversity, often driven by positive attitudes that foster learner-centered and communicative pedagogical approaches. However, there is a clear and consistent call for enhanced teacher education. The quantitative data establishes the prevalence of certain practices and the correlation between attitudes and outcomes, while the qualitative data provides rich context, illustrating how these teachers are navigating the complexities of dialectal influence.

The findings collectively highlight the importance of moving beyond a purely prescriptive approach to language teaching, as advocated by several researchers (Pennycook, 2012; Stollhans, 2020; Towler, 2015; Yiakoumetti, 2011), and embracing more inclusive pedagogies that leverage learners' linguistic repertoires, aligning with the principles of language awareness (Svalberg, 2007) and translanguaging (García, 2011). The study's findings are consistent with global trends in language education that recognize the dynamic nature of language and the need for educators to be equipped to navigate this diversity effectively.

This study investigated pedagogical approaches to standard and non-standard language varieties in Arabic, English, and French classrooms in Egypt, moving beyond a strictly prescriptive stance to embrace the realities of linguistic diversity. The mixed-methods approach, integrating quantitative survey data with qualitative interview insights, yielded a nuanced understanding of how teachers navigate the influence of Egyptian Arabic dialects on students' acquisition of standard target language varieties.

The findings consistently demonstrate that teachers generally hold positive attitudes towards linguistic variation and are actively employing pedagogical strategies that are learner-centered, communicative, and sensitive to the nuances of dialectal influence. The quantitative analysis revealed significant positive correlations between teachers' attitudes and their reported pedagogical practices, indicating that positive beliefs about language varieties directly translate into more inclusive classroom approaches. This was particularly evident in the strong influence of French language attitudes on reported practices, followed by English and then Arabic. The qualitative data richly illustrated these practices, highlighting the prevalence of positive correction strategies, subtle modeling of standards, and a pragmatic focus on intelligibility and context. Teachers' efforts to bridge MSA and dialectal Arabic showcase an awareness of the diglossic realities of Arabic and a willingness to leverage learners' first language to enhance understanding and engagement.

However, the study also identified critical challenges, most notably a significant gap in the preparedness of current teacher education programs to equip prospective teachers with the necessary skills to effectively manage linguistic diversity. While more experienced teachers and those at the university level reported higher levels of preparedness, a substantial portion of educators, particularly those at the primary and secondary levels and with less experience, expressed a need for more targeted training. This gap is further highlighted by the qualitative data, which suggests that many of the nuanced strategies employed by teachers are developed independently, rather than through formal pedagogical preparation.

In light of these findings, several key implications emerge:

Revising Teacher Education Curricula: There is an urgent need to revise current foreign language teacher education programs in Egypt to explicitly address linguistic diversity, including the sociolinguistics of Arabic dialects and the pedagogical implications of World Englishes and diverse French varieties. This should encompass theoretical frameworks on language attitudes, dialectology, and practical strategies for managing and leveraging linguistic variation.
Promoting Inclusive Pedagogies: Encouraging and supporting teachers in adopting inclusive pedagogical approaches, such as positive correction, subtle modeling, and the strategic use of learners' L1, is crucial. These methods align with best practices in communicative language teaching and contribute to a more equitable and effective learning environment.
Addressing Gender Disparities: The observed gender differences in attitudes and practices warrant further investigation to understand their origins and to ensure that all teachers, regardless of gender, are equally equipped and encouraged to embrace linguistic diversity.
Fostering Language Awareness: Promoting a critical understanding of language ideologies among both teachers and learners is essential. By raising awareness about the social construction of "standard" and "non-standard" varieties, educators can help students develop a more nuanced and respectful appreciation for the diverse linguistic repertoires they encounter.

In conclusion, this study highlights the importance of moving beyond a purely prescriptive approach to language teaching. By acknowledging and strategically engaging with linguistic variation, educators can not only enhance students' acquisition of standard target language varieties but also foster greater linguistic proficiency, cultural sensitivity, and a deeper understanding of language's dynamic nature. The findings provide valuable insights for policymakers, teacher educators, and language teachers in Egypt and beyond, contributing to a more informed and inclusive approach to foreign language education in multilingual contexts.

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Some SPSS files are attached as supplementary files.

Consent to Participate: All human participants involved in this study provided written informed consent prior to their participation. Participants were fully informed about the purpose of the research, the procedures involved, and their right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. Their participation was voluntary.

Ethics Approval: This study received ethical approval from the BSU-FoE Research Ethics Committee at Beni-Suef University, Faculty of Education (Reference # BSU-FoE-00-05-03-0025). The research was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined by the relevant institutional review board.

Al-Busaidi, F. Y. (2015). Arabic in foreign language programmes: Difficulties and challenges. Journal of Educational and Psychological Studies, 10(2), 244–259.
Alotaibi, W. J. (2018). Teacher-student phonological transference in a Saudi Arabian EFL context: A case study of phonological and attitudinal influences (Doctoral dissertation). University of Southampton.
Ball, A. F., & Jiménez, R. T. (2017). Diverse learners in linguistically complex classrooms: Research, policy, and practice. In A. F. Ball & R. T. Jiménez (Eds.), Critical perspectives on teaching the English language arts (pp. 51–74). Routledge.
Bianco, J. L. (1987). National policy on languages. University of Delaware.
Brumfit, C. (2013). Individual freedom in language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Can, S. (2024). Language attitudes and ideologies of English as a foreign language and pre-service teachers towards different accents (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). NEU Press.
Canagarajah, S. (2009). Shifting foundations: Literacy, technology, and the sociology of English. Taylor & Francis.
Chavoshian, I., & Kaloustian, T. (2024). Teachers' perceptions and implementations of global Englishes and Frenches in language classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 57(2), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12735
Chekayri, A. (2014). The challenges of the shift from a Modern Standard Arabic only approach to an integrative approach. In Teaching and learning the Arabic language.
Chevrot, J. P., & Ghimenton, A. (2018). Bilingualism and bidialectalism. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of bilingualism (pp. 325–345). Cambridge University Press.
Constantin-Dureci, G. R. (2025). What makes a teacher? Attitudes toward teachers' language varieties in the Spanish language classroom (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Ducar, C. (2024). Critical language awareness and teacher training: A framework for change. In C. Ducar & M. T. St. John (Eds.), Inclusion and social justice in world language teaching (pp. 81–98). Routledge.
Devereaux, M. D., & Palmer, C. C. (2021). Teaching English language variation in the global classroom. Routledge.
Falasmeh, S. A. (2014). Attitudes towards standard Arabic: A case study of Jordanian undergraduate students of English. International Journal of Linguistics, 6(4), 122–138.
García, O. (2011). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.
Garrett, P., Coupland, N., & Williams, A. (2003). Investigating language attitudes: Social meanings of dialect, ethnicity and performance. John Wiley & Sons.
Giles, H., & Edwards, J. (1984). Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations. Academic Press.
Giolfo, M. E., & Sinatora, F. L. (2016). Modern Standard Arabic and the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language: Some cultural and linguistic considerations. Quaderni di Palazzo Serra, 16, 173–187.
Gwasmeh, M. (2021). Language attitudes, accentedness and comprehensibility: A sociolinguistic study of Arabic and Arabic-accented English (Doctoral dissertation). University of Canterbury.
Haeri, N. (2021). Sociolinguistic market of Cairo. Routledge.
Hidalgo, M. (1987). On the question of 'Standard' Versus 'Dialect: Implications for Teaching Hispanic College Students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9(3), 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/074375408700900302
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford University Press.
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures of English speaking countries (pp. 11–30). Cambridge University Press.
Kachru, B. B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures. University of Illinois Press.
Lakehal Ayat, L. A. (2023). Investigating students attitudes towards varieties of the English language. University of Guelma.
Lodge, R. A. (2013). French: From dialect to standard. Routledge.
Lombezzi, L. (2019). Contents and methods for teaching spoken Arabic. Torrossa Editrice.
Marks, C. T. (1976). Policy and attitudes towards the teaching of standard dialect: Great Britain, France, West Germany. Comparative Education, 12(3), 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300427760120304
McBride, C., Saiegh-Haddad, E., & Laks, L. (2022). Handbook of literacy in diglossia and in dialectal contexts. Springer.
Papapavlou, A., & Pavlou, P. (2009). Sociolinguistic and pedagogical dimensions of dialects in education. University of Cyprus.
Papapavlou, P., & Pavlou, A. (2004). Issues of dialect use in education from the Greek Cypriot perspective. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267189904jl227oa
Pennycook, A. (2012). Lingua francas as language ideologies. In R. Kaur & S. B. Singh (Eds.), English in Asia: Implications for language education (pp. 49–67). Springer.
Peters, H. (2020). Gender-inclusivity and gender-neutrality in foreign language teaching: The case of French. Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 43(2), 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1075/ajal.19053.pet
Siegel, J. (2010). Second dialect acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Soliman, R., & Khalil, S. (2024). The teaching of Arabic as a community language in the UK. The British Journal of Bilingual Education, 47(4), 466–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2023.2301006
Spolsky, B., & Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2014). Acquiring literacy in a diglossic context: Problems and prospects. In E. Saiegh-Haddad & B. Spolsky (Eds.), Handbook of Arabic literacy: Insights and (pp. 419–434). Springer.
Stollhans, S. (2020). Linguistic variation in language learning classrooms: Considering the role of regional variation and 'non-standard' varieties. University of Cambridge.
Svalberg, A. M. L. (2007). Language awareness and language learning. Language Teaching, 40(4), 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480700437X
Towler, M. A. (2025). Language variation on Arabic undergraduate degree courses in England: students' perspectives. The Language Learning Journal, 53(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/0957173X.2024.2370364
Wafa, M. (2024). Arabizi (Franco) in Egypt: A study of features, reasons, attitudes, and educational influence among youth in online communication (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Widdowson, H. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Yiakoumetti, A. (2011). Re-invigorating teacher-training programmes in linguistic variation. In Teaching teachers: Approaches in improving (pp. 115–130). Peter Lang.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
16 Dec, 2025
Reviews received at journal
10 Dec, 2025
Reviewers agreed at journal
27 Nov, 2025
Reviews received at journal
24 Nov, 2025
Reviewers agreed at journal
18 Nov, 2025
Reviewers agreed at journal
10 Nov, 2025
Reviewers invited by journal
18 Sep, 2025
Editor assigned by journal
15 Sep, 2025
Submission checks completed at journal
15 Sep, 2025
First submitted to journal
12 Sep, 2025

You are reading this latest preprint version

Beyond Prescriptive Purity: Pedagogical Approaches to Standard and Non-Standard Varieties in Arabic, English, and French Classrooms

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Context of the Problem in Egyptian Foreign Language Education: A Comparative Linguistic Perspective

Literature Review

Methods and Materials

Research Design

Participants and Sampling

Ethical Considerations

Data Collection Instruments:

Validity and Reliability of the LVECQ:

Data Analysis

Participant Demographics

Findings

Quantitative Data Analysis

Descriptive Statistics of Participant Demographics

Descriptive Statistics for Attitudes and Practices

Correlations Between Attitudes and Reported Practices

Predictors of Pedagogical Practices

Attitudes Toward Specific Language Varieties

Differences in Preparedness by Teaching Level and Experience

Gender Differences in Attitudes and Practice

Qualitative Data Analysis: Strategies for Language Instruction

Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses with Research Questions

RQ 1: Prevalent Pedagogical Approaches

Quantitative Findings (Tables 3 & 4):

Qualitative Findings (Tables 9 & 10, Figs. 1 & 2):

Integration of Findings:

RQ 2: Impact of Teacher Attitudes on Pedagogical Choices

Quantitative Findings (Tables 3, 4 & 5):

Qualitative Findings (Tables 9 & 10, Figs. 1 & 2):

Integration of Findings:

RQ 3: Perceived Challenges and Benefits of Incorporating Dialectal Influences

Qualitative Findings (Tables 9 & 10, Figs. 1 & 2):

RQ 4: Teacher Education Program Preparedness

Qualitative Findings (Tables 9 & 10, Figs. 1 & 2):

Discussion

RQs 1 & 2: Pedagogical Approaches and the Influence of Teacher Attitudes

RQ 3: Perceived Challenges and Benefits of Incorporating Dialectal Influences

RQ 4: Teacher Education Program Preparedness

Overall Integration and Implications

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1