Abstract
This study employs Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to examine the dynamic negotiation of identities and power dynamics among two English-as-the-first-language (L1) and two English-as-the-second-language (L2) teachers in an undergraduate English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) co-teaching program in China. Data consists of 980 min of audio/video recordings from in-class co-teaching sessions, collaborative lesson-preparation meetings, and group interviews. The analysis integrates Fairclough’s modality framework and van Leeuwen’s legitimation strategies to examine how identities are negotiated in real-time interactive discourse. Findings reveal that co-teachers fluidly adopt multiple identities—mutually supportive facilitators, willing-to-compromise negotiators, experts and learners in EFL teaching, and self-recognized qualified evaluators—through moment-to-moment discursive practices shaped by power equilibrium and disequilibrium. Notably, the study captures how authority shifts contextually based on situated expertise, challenging rigid L1 to L2 dichotomies. A key contribution lies in its methodological innovation: by prioritizing real-time discourse over retrospective narratives, the study unveils the immediacy of identity negotiation, offering granular insights into how teachers strategically position themselves and resist marginalization. The findings underscore the need for co-teaching models that valorize teachers’ complementary strengths, advocating for professional development programs that foster critical reflexivity and equitable collaboration in multilingual contexts.
Keywords
Introduction
The complex and dynamic nature of identity has remained a central focus in language teacher education and professional development for the past two decades (Liu et al., 2023; Moonthiya & Stevenson, 2024; Richards, 2023). Teacher identity shapes our understanding of how educators navigate multiple professional roles, develop context-responsive pedagogies, and engage emotionally in their teaching practice (Gao & Cui, 2021; Richards, 2023; Weng et al., 2024). While there is broad consensus that identity is negotiated through interactions and shaped by how individuals position themselves in relation to others (Richards, 2023; Wodak, 2012), previous studies have primarily examined identity negotiation through retrospective interviews, relying on participants’ self-reported narratives (Qiu, 2024; Yazan, 2018). This approach, however, offers only a subjective and one-sided perspective, overlooking the dynamic and interactive nature of identity construction. As a result, the ongoing, real-time process of identity negotiation in teacher discourse remains underexplored, necessitating a more objective and comprehensive examination of how identity is enacted in situated interactions.
In English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) contexts, co-teaching involving English-as-the-first-language (L1 English-speaking) teachers and English-as-the-second-language (L2 English-speaking) teachers (D. R. Carless, 2006; Ishino, 2018; Nix, 2021; Park, 2014; Wu, 2024) creates an authentic context where teacher identity is actively negotiated through interactive discourse. While some studies have acknowledged the role of classroom interactive discourse in shaping and reflecting L1 and L2 English-speaking co-teachers’ identities (Park, 2014), most have focused on the dichotomy or divide between their identities (Trent, 2016), overlooking the complexity and fluidity of individual teachers’ identities as they are discursively negotiated in collaborative teaching (Faez, 2011). Even less attention has been given to the underlying mechanisms driving this process of identity construction.
As both a theoretical lens and an analytical tool, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) provides a robust framework for exploring the fluid, contested, and power-laden nature of identity and social relations (Wodak, 2012). Therefore, to address the two research gaps identified above, this study adopts a CDA perspective on teacher identity negotiation to move beyond the broad L1 to L2 English-speaking EFL teachers dichotomy (Dervić & Bećirović, 2019; Selvi et al., 2024) and examine how teachers’ identities are dynamically constructed in real-time collaborative discourse. Specifically, it investigates how these teachers—viewed not as representatives of language groups, but as individuals—position themselves in their interactions with the world and with others (Fairclough, 2003). By applying the critical analytical lens to power-laden co-teaching discourse, this study aims to deepen our understanding of identity work in multilingual educational settings and opens new pathways for enhancing co-teaching models. In doing so, it seeks to contribute to both teacher learning and collaborative professionalism in EFL contexts.
Teacher Identity Negotiation in EFL Contexts
Identity negotiation refers to the dynamic and interactive process through which individuals establish, maintain, and adapt their self-conceptions in social interactions (Ting-Toomey, 2005; Swann & Bosson, 2010). In EFL teaching context, this process is particularly complex, as teachers navigate the interplay of linguistic, pedagogical, and sociocultural factors in their professional practices (Gao & Cui, 2021; Gong & Gao, 2024; Liu et al., 2023). Unlike static conceptualizations of teacher identity, research increasingly views it as fluid and continuously negotiated through interactions with students, colleagues, and educational institutions (Varghese et al., 2016).
As EFL teachers’ identity negotiation is influenced by multiple dimensions, including personal teaching philosophies, institutional expectations, and broader sociocultural norms, they must reconcile their own beliefs and professional aspirations with curricular mandates, assessment criteria, and the diverse needs of students (Gong & Gao, 2024). This negotiation becomes particularly salient for L2 English-speaking teachers, who often grapple with issues of legitimacy and authority in comparison to their L1 English-speaking counterparts (Trent, 2016; Wu, 2024). These challenges may lead to continuous repositioning, as teachers adjust their classroom roles and instructional strategies to align with both their own professional identities and external expectations.
While existing studies have provided valuable insights into teacher identity construction, many have relied on retrospective self-reports or narrative accounts (Qiu, 2024; Yazan, 2018). Although these perspectives offer important reflections on identity formation, they may not fully capture the dynamic and interactional nature of identity negotiation as it unfolds in real-time discourse. Given that identity is discursively co-constructed in situated interactions, there is a need for more research that examines how teachers’ identities emerge through moment-to-moment exchanges in authentic classroom and institutional settings. By focusing on real-time authentic teacher discourse, this study seeks to deepen our understanding of the fluid and negotiated nature of teacher identity, contributing to broader discussions on professional identity and teacher development in EFL contexts.
Critical Approach to L1 to L2 Teacher Identity Negotiation Discourse
A critical approach to L1 to L2 English-speaking teacher identity negotiation requires foregrounding power relations and sociopolitical ideologies that shape discourse. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) provides both a theoretical and analytical framework to interrogate how language reflects and reproduces hierarchies, institutional norms, and identity dynamics in educational settings (Anderson & Holloway, 2020; Habib et al., 2021). In co-teaching contexts, where L1 and L2 English-speaking teachers collaborate, CDA deconstructs the interplay of identity, agency, authority, and marginalization embedded in their interactions (Folliard, 2022).
Central to this approach is the understanding that identity negotiation is not merely individual but interwoven with institutional power structures. L1 English-speaking teachers, often referred to as native English-speaking teachers (NESTs), are often positioned as linguistic authorities due to native-speaker ideologies privileging their cultural capital (Selvi et al., 2024). Conversely, L2 teachers, often referred to as non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs), face systemic delegitimization, framed as “non-native” despite their expertise (Selvi et al., 2024). CDA reveals how these hierarchies are discursively reinforced—through lexical choices, interactional patterns, or role allocations—and how teachers resist or reproduce these dynamics (Ershadi et al., 2024). For instance, asymmetrical turn-taking or evaluative language may reflect implicit biases about linguistic ownership, while modality analysis (e.g., expressions of obligation) can expose how teachers position themselves within power-laden discourses (Fairclough, 2013).
A critical lens also emphasizes the fluidity of identity work. Drawing on positioning theory, identity negotiation is a dynamic process where teachers adopt, contest, or redefine roles through moment-to-moment discourse (Yang & Forbes, 2025). An L2 teacher, for example, might resist marginalization by asserting bilingual or multilingual expertise, repositioning themselves as cultural bridges rather than linguistic deficits (Faez, 2011). Such agency emerges in response to structural constraints, illustrating the dialectic between institutional power and individual resistance (Varghese et al., 2016).
While prior studies often reduce L1 to L2 identities to binary oppositions (e.g., “native” vs. “non-native”), CDA illuminates the complexity of their co-construction in situ. Power dynamics—such as transient authority shifts, strategic role adaptation, and resistance to linguistic hegemony—mediate how identities are negotiated (Yang & Forbes, 2025). For example, Sun’s (2025) analysis of translingual practices in Chinese language education demonstrates how power imbalances shape learners’ identity formation, a dynamic paralleled in teacher collaborations where linguistic hierarchies similarly constrain or enable agency. Recent studies further highlight how systemic inequities, such as native-speakerism, generate critical incidents that destabilize L2 English-speaking teachers’ professional identities (Ershadi et al., 2024), necessitating a focus on the mechanisms that sustain or disrupt these hierarchies.
Methodologically, CDA bridges theory and practice. It merges systemic functional linguistics with critical social theory to analyze how language sustains power imbalances and how identities emerge amid power struggles (Fairclough, 2013). Tools like transitivity and modality analysis allow researchers to dissect discursive strategies in real-time interactions, moving beyond descriptive accounts to explain how discourse shapes—and is shaped by—social contexts (Rogers & Schaenen, 2014). For this study, CDA serves as both a theoretical lens and an analytical framework. It guides the examination of how teachers’ identities are negotiated in and beyond classroom discourse, how power dynamics manifest in linguistic choices, and how broader ideologies infiltrate localized interactions. By prioritizing authentic discourse over retrospective accounts, CDA captures the immediacy of identity work, offering granular insights into the mechanisms driving identity construction (Qiu, 2024; Yazan, 2018).
Ultimately, applying CDA to co-teaching discourse advances diverse and inclusive pedagogical partnerships. By exposing real-time dynamic co-teaching practices, this approach empowers stakeholders to challenge the overgeneralized native/non-native divide and reimagine collaboration grounded in mutual respect (Yang & Forbes, 2025). Starck et al. (2024) underscore the need to address covert power mechanisms—such as interest convergence—that perpetuate linguistic hierarchies. For this study, CDA’s dual role as theory and method ensures a rigorous exploration of how power operates in teacher discourse, paving the way for actionable strategies to foster inclusivity.
Method
This study employs the analytical frameworks of CDA (Fairclough, 2003; van Leeuwen, 2008) to delve into the interactions of four L1 and L2 English-speaking teachers from a university in China, with an aim to elucidate the identity negotiation amidst power relations within the interactive discourse. Specifically, it aims to answer a central question:
What power dynamics emerge in the process of co-teaching in EFL contexts, and what categories of identities are negotiated through real-time interactive discourse among L1 and L2 English-speaking teachers?
Context and Participants
The present study is part of a broader longitudinal study on language teacher professional development (Street & Ward, 2012) aimed at investigating the identity negotiation of L1 and L2 English-speaking EFL teachers. In the larger dataset, 22 L1 and L2 English-speaking EFL co-teaching groups from various universities across China were investigated. Data for this study were retrieved from one such co-teaching group that provided their class teaching videos to the authors and shared their lesson-preparation meeting audio recordings for research purposes. Participants also allowed researchers to audio-record their group interviews after each lesson-preparation meeting.
This group of participants was composed of two L1 English-speaking teachers and two L2 English-speaking teachers who co-teach freshmen in an EFL program at a “Double First-Class” university in Northern China. This university started co-teaching between L1 and L2 English-speaking teachers in 2011 to enhance English learning for honors program students and was one of the pioneers in promoting foreign language co-teaching programs involving both L1 and L2 English-speaking teachers in China. The four participants are listed in Table 1. Notably, L1 English-speaking teacher Jane and L2 English-speaking teacher Chang had been co-teachers for 6 years, while L1 English-speaking teacher Dave had been collaborating with L2 English-speaking teacher Wu for nearly 3 years.
Demographic Information of the L1 and L2 English-speaking Teachers.
Data Collection
In the 1-year-long research project starting from September of 2022 and continuing until the summer of 2023, the first author video-recorded four lesson-preparation meetings corresponding to four textbook units in which all four teachers participated. Each meeting lasted approximately 2 hr. During the lesson preparation meetings, the participants assigned tasks, finalized the unit learning objectives, and engaged in discussions regarding the teaching content and activities. Additionally, the first author collected eight co-teaching class videos from the participants, each lasting approximately 45 min. The classroom co-teaching sessions were the realization of the discussions in the preparation sessions, consisting of co-teacher interactions, teacher-student interactions, and student-student interactions. After each lesson-preparation meeting, participants were interviewed in groups to reflect on their co-teaching experiences, challenges, and areas for improvement, for the next unit. Each group interview lasted between 40 and 50 min. The total audio recording duration amounted to 980 min.
The rationale behind selecting the interactions occurring in and out of the L1 and L2 English-speaking co-teachers’ classes as research data is based on the recognition that these interactions represent critical events in the context of teacher learning and change for the participating educators (Woods, 2012). Such discourse practices are considered pivotal in understanding the dynamics of teacher identity development. To provide a comprehensive view of the participants’ collaboration and strengthen the study’s validity, collaborative lesson plans, memos from lesson-preparation meetings, and observation notes of video-recorded lessons during the fall semester of 2022 and spring semester of 2023 were also collected as supplementary data.
The transcribed and reviewed lesson-planning meetings, classroom co-teaching conversations, and after-meeting interviews were used for the analysis. The process of data transcription and triangulation was carried out by both the first and second authors to ensure objective analysis. The coding of the data was thoroughly discussed and validated by both researchers until a unanimous agreement was reached. This rigorous process of verification aimed to enhance the reliability and robustness of the study’s findings.
The researchers obtained ethical approval from the university Social Science Review Board prior to approaching the participants and students involved. They also obtained written informed consent from the participants to record and transcribe meetings, interviews, and classes, and to utilize these video and audio recordings as the primary data source. The students who were present in the classrooms during the video recording periods also provided oral informed consent for the research use of the recordings.
Data Analysis
Two primary tools from CDA were employed: textual feature analysis regarding modality and evaluation to analyze data at the linguistic level (Fairclough, 2003), and the categorization of legitimation strategies to delineate power relations revealed in the data at social practical level (van Leeuwen, 2008).
Modality refers to the different levels of commitment to truth or necessity, whereas evaluation pertains to the degree of commitment to what is (un)desirable or good/bad (Fairclough, 2003). We examined modality markers, such as modal verbs, modal adverbs, modal adjectives, modal nouns, and mental process clauses in the data to illuminate the teachers’ self-identification in relation to others (Fairclough, 2003). Furthermore, we scrutinized how evaluations of other co-teachers are conveyed through the linguistic use of adjectives in the exchanges between L1 and L2 English-speaking co-teachers. These linguistic choices, while revealing identity construction, also manifest the teachers’ social relations by demonstrating who exercises power in the discourse (van Leeuwen, 2008).
The second CDA tool involves the categorization of legitimation strategies, which are employed to justify or explain actions, thus reinforcing arguments and empowering behavior and discourse (van Leeuwen, 2008). The study’s analysis focuses on four principal strategies, as shown in Table 2, to examine the construction of legitimation in the discourse of L1 and L2 English-speaking participants. These strategies can be used either independently or in combination, depending on the context of the text, to highlight the power dynamics between the two parties.
Four Major Legitimation Strategies in Discourse (van Leeuwen, 2008).
The legitimation analysis was complemented by the linguistic analysis of modality and evaluation. Although these two analytical approaches have distinct focal points—modality emphasizing identity negotiation and evaluation highlighting power dynamics—their linguistic manifestations are intricately interwoven with the discursive construction of legitimation (Kim, 2022). Therefore, rather than treating them as separate tools, we integrated their analytical dimensions throughout the study.
Following data transcription, the first two researchers collaboratively developed a coding scheme that incorporated these analytical tools, focusing on discourse features at the lexical and phrasal levels. Coding reliability was ensured through multiple rounds of discussion until consensus was reached. Aligned with the research question, the researchers specifically examined the use of assertive language and hedging devices in co-teachers’ interactions.
Upon completing the coding process, criteria for selecting representative excerpts were established based on the following principles:
(1) Excerpts that are densely populated with expressions of modality and evaluation, prominently foregrounding a specific discourse (Tan, 2021);
(2) Excerpts that illustrate diverse identity positions with explicit justifications or legitimizations (Kim, 2022);
(3) Excerpts featuring strong agreements or disagreements in L1 and L2 English-speaking co-teachers’ conversations, particularly where collaborative and conflictual dynamics emerged. Instances of coding inconsistencies, often signaling conflicting discourses, prompted researchers to conduct further analysis for deeper explanatory insights (Tan, 2021).
Findings
After analyzing the transcribed data from both L1 and L2 English-speaking teachers, we identified two distinct power structures among the participants: (1) power equilibrium established through cooperation or reconciliation, and (2) power disequilibrium arising from knowledge gaps, cultural differences or disagreements. Within these power dynamics, we identified multiple discursive identities: mutually supportive facilitators, willing-to-compromise negotiators, EFL teaching experts and learners, and self-recognized qualified evaluators.
Identities Emerged in Power Equilibrium
Collaborative Facilitator Identity
L1 and L2 English-speaking teachers frequently establish equitable power relations through mutual facilitation, leveraging their complementary expertise to co-construct knowledge. Excerpt 1 illustrates this dynamic during a co-taught lesson on public speaking (see Appendix Table A1 for a guide to transcript formatting conventions).
Except 1 (Classroom Co-teaching)
Jane initiates the discourse by framing the lesson around the shared experience of “we were being watched,” a meta-reference to the research context, which positions her as a reflexive practitioner. Her use of definitive modality markers—are, is, not—asserts authority while humorously contrasting her claimed calmness with Chang’s “nervousness.” This playful tension, however, is discursively balanced by Chang’s strategic use of “actually” and “not … at all,” which challenges Jane’s self-positioning. Chang’s rebuttal, framed through scientific rationale (“body’s physical and chemical reactions”), employs rationalization to legitimize her counter-narrative, thereby asserting her role as a knowledgeable co-teacher rather than a passive subordinate.
The teachers’ collaboration is further evident in their dialogic repetition of the new term “empowerment,” a lexical choice that aligns with the lesson’s objectives while reinforcing their shared authority. Chang’s code-switching to Chinese (“增权赋能”) exemplifies her role as a cultural bridge, a legitimation strategy that merges authorization (invoking institutional goals of bilingual education) with moral evaluation (valuing students’ linguistic heritage). Meanwhile, Jane’s intervention to supply “adrenaline” when students hesitate demonstrates facilitative reciprocity—a moment where power fluidly shifts based on situational expertise.
In this fluid power dynamic, the interplay of modality and evaluation reflects the CDA emphasis on discourse as a site of power negotiation. While L1 English-speaking teacher’s initial dominance mirrors native-speaker ideologies, the L2 English-speaking teacher’s assertive yet collegial pushback illustrates how L2 teachers resist marginalization by mobilizing multilingual and pedagogical capital. The resultant equilibrium hinges on their mutual recognition of complementary roles: Jane as the linguistic model and Chang as the cultural mediator.
Compromiser Identity
Power equilibrium is also achieved through deliberate compromises, as co-teachers navigate conflicting pedagogical philosophies. Excerpt 2, drawn from a group interview, reveals how discursive concessions foster collaborative professionalism.
Excerpt 2 (Group Interview)
Jane’s repeated use of “have to” and “cannot” underscores the obligation modality, framing compromise as an institutional imperative. Her evaluative terms like “headstrong” and “stubborn” construct an opposition between individualism and collaboration, positioning compromise as a moral and professional duty. This aligns with moral evaluation strategy, where actions are justified through shared value systems and reaching a “middle ground” is an ideal situation.
Chang’s response similarly employs “have to” and “can’t,” but her emphasis on identity and agency reframes compromise as an active process of self-positioning rather than passive acquiescence. The phrase “pushed me out of the comfort zone” metaphorically illustrates the transformative potential of co-teaching, resonating with Varghese et al.’s (2016) notion of identity as a negotiated process.
Critically, the interplay of authorization and rationalization legitimizes their compromises. However, the analysis also uncovers a paradox: while compromise fosters equilibrium, it occasionally masks unresolved tensions. For instance, Jane’s use of “I don’t want to say find yourself” hints at ambivalence about identity loss, suggesting that compromise may entail partial suppression of individual teaching philosophies.
Identities Emerged in Power Disequilibrium
Expert Identity
Power disequilibrium often occurs when one teacher assumes the role of an expert, leveraging specialized knowledge to dominate the discourse. Excerpt 3 illustrates this dynamic during a lesson on cultural gestures.
Excerpt 3 (Classroom Co-teaching)
Wu’s authoritative tone and use of evaluative language—“greatest” and “significantly”—position her as the cultural expert, while Dave’s hesitant response—“maybe” and “should”—underscores his reliance on her knowledge. This power shift is reinforced through authorization (invoking China’s national project as a legitimate topic) and mythopoesis (narrating the project’s success as a reward for legitimate actions). Wu’s discursive dominance reflects her role as a cultural mediator, a position often marginalized in native-speaker ideologies. However, rather than reflecting a fixed power hierarchy, this moment illustrates the dynamic negotiation of expertise within co-teaching.
Dave’s admission (“I should admit I have no clue”) contrasts with Wu’s certainty, but rather than reinforcing an inherent ideological asymmetry, it exemplifies the fluid, context-dependent nature of authority in co-teaching. Their interaction highlights how power is co-constructed, shifting based on domain-specific knowledge rather than rigid linguistic hierarchies. Instead of positioning L2 teachers as marginalized, this excerpt illustrates the nuanced and reciprocal nature of identity negotiation in multilingual teaching partnerships.
Conversely, the following excerpt showcases a situation when the L1 English-speaking teacher negotiates a lesson design expert identity.
Excerpt 4 (Classroom Co-teaching)
Jane uses “perfectly fine” to endow students with freedom to search sources, but “had to,”“did not,” and “needed” indicate the strict boundaries of freedom. The modal verbs also show her authoritative role in deciding what task was assigned. This combination of authorization (invoking institutional standards) and moral evaluation (valuing credible sources) legitimizes her control over the lesson’s structure. Chang’s interruption (“Sorry to interrupt”) and subsequent questioning reveal her uncertainty about the task’s implementation, positioning her as a subordinate in this interaction. Jane’s dismissive response (“We are getting to that,”“It’s all in there”) further underscores her dominance, as she deflects Chang’s inquiry without providing substantive guidance. This discursive strategy reflects the broader power dynamics in co-teaching, where L1 teachers monopolize pedagogical decision-making. However, Jane’s assertiveness also highlights the challenge of maintaining a delicate balance between collaboration and control in co-teaching. While her expertise ensures lesson coherence, it also raises questions about how authority and decision-making can be negotiated to foster a more interactive and reciprocal teaching dynamic.
Learner Identity
Power disequilibrium also manifests when co-teachers adopt a learner identity, particularly during reflective discussions outside the classroom. Excerpt 5 illustrates this dynamic:
Excerpt 5 (Group Interview)
In Excerpt 5, Jane’s narrative employs contrastive markers (“but,”“doesn’t,” and “does”) to express ambivalence about co-teaching’s benefits, framing her learner identity as a reluctant yet necessary adaptation. Her use of “actually had to” and “forced” underscores the external pressures driving her transformation, aligning with Fairclough’s (2003) notion of modality as a tool for negotiating power. Dave’s cautious language (“maybe,”“can,” and “just”) reflects his reluctance to assert authority, positioning him as a reflective practitioner who learns through observation. This aligns with mythopoesis, as his narrative constructs co-teaching as a journey of professional growth. Chang’s humility (“I can’t really speak for everyone”) and recognition of Jane’s contributions (“always provides a uniquely different perspective”) highlight her role as a modest learner. However, her emphasis on “my own experience” and “cultivating higher-order thinking skills” subtly asserts her pedagogical expertise, illustrating how L2 teachers navigate power imbalances by blending humility with agency.
Self-Recognized Qualified Evaluator Identity
Excerpt 6 reveals how power disequilibrium arises when co-teachers hold firm to their pedagogical philosophies, particularly in assessment design.
Excerpt 6 (Lesson-Preparation Meeting)
Wu’s use of “do,”“should,” and “not” asserts her authority as a test designer, while her evaluative phrase “very simple and not very smart” delegitimizes Jane’s approach. This aligns with moral evaluation, as Wu frames cognitively challenging questions as morally superior. Jane’s rebuttal (“I would actually want to keep this question”) employs authorization (invoking her professional judgment) and rationalization (arguing for the value of attention to detail). Her repetition of “simple” reinforces her stance, while Dave’s hedging (“tend to,”“maybe”) reflects his attempt to mediate without taking sides.
This discursive struggle reflects a power disequilibrium rooted in contrasting assessment philosophies: Wu values rigor, while Jane prioritizes practical accuracy. Both see themselves as competent evaluators, resisting compromise. Their debate highlights the challenge of negotiating pedagogical authority in co-teaching, where power is shaped by ideological differences rather than linguistic status. Ultimately, the unresolved tension reveals how co-teachers’ firm beliefs about assessment shape decision-making and power relations in EFL teaching.
Discussion
This study unveils the intricate relationship between discourse, identity negotiation, and power relations among L1 and L2 EFL co-teachers, offering fresh insights into how these dynamics shape collaborative outcomes. By employing CDA, the findings reveal that co-teachers negotiate fluid, context-dependent identities—mutually supportive facilitators, compromisers, experts, learners, and evaluators—through discursive practices embedded in both power equilibrium and disequilibrium. These identities are not static but are dynamically negotiated in response to institutional hierarchies, sociocultural ideologies, and interpersonal interactions. Building on recent scholarship that foregrounds the fluidity of teacher identity (Gao & Cui, 2021; Yang & Forbes, 2025) and critiques the native/non-native dichotomy (Ershadi et al., 2024; Selvi et al., 2024), this study advances our understanding of identity negotiation as a multilayered process shaped by discursive agency, power shifts, and collaborative reflexivity. Below, we elaborate on these contributions, situating them within broader theoretical and pedagogical debates in EFL co-teaching research.
Fluid Relational Identity Negotiation in and Outside the Classroom
Consistent with prior teacher-partnership observations (Chan & Clarke, 2014; Dikilitaş & Bahrami, 2023; Tan, 2021), L1 and L2 English-speaking teachers in this study enact multiple relational identities through reciprocal positioning in discourse. In their interactive discourse, when one teacher asserts, the other often adopts facilitative roles. However, this study moves beyond the traditional L1 to L2 dichotomy (Dervić & Bećirović, 2019; Ma, 2012) by illustrating how identities are negotiated not merely through language backgrounds but through situated expertise—such as pedagogical knowledge, cultural insights, and institutional roles. This aligns with Yang and Forbes (2025) call to reconceptualize teacher identities as agentic repositioning rather than fixed categories. For example, Wu’s assertion of her expertise in Chinese sociocultural contexts (Excerpt 3) challenges the marginalization of L2 teachers (Trent, 2016) by reframing “non-native” status as a strategic asset in localized teaching practices. Such findings resonate with Ershadi et al.’s (2024) argument that systemic inequities can paradoxically catalyze agentic identity work when teachers leverage their unique strengths.
Importantly, the inclusion of both in-class and out-of-class discourse uncovers how identity negotiation is multi-sited. While classroom interactions foreground collaborative facilitator identity (e.g., Jane and Chang’s synchronized teaching in Expert 1), out-of-class reflections prioritize learner identities (e.g., Dave’s acknowledgment of cultural knowledge gaps in Excerpt 6). This duality underscores the necessity of triangulating data sources to capture identity fluidity, as emphasized by Ishino (2018) and Dikilitaş and Bahrami (2023). By integrating these perspectives, this study challenges reductionist narratives of L1 to L2 power dynamics, instead portraying identity negotiation as a contextualized, iterative process in which teachers alternately assert, compromise, and adapt their roles.
Power Dynamics Underlying Identity Negotiation
A central contribution of this study lies in its exploration of power as a contested resource that co-teachers strategically deploy or resist. Echoing Fairclough’s (2013) assertion that “power serves those who require it,” the findings illustrate how authority oscillates between L1 and L2 teachers based on situational demands. For example, L1 teacher’s dominance in lesson planning (Excerpt 4) shifts to L2 teacher’s cultural expertise during discussions of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (Excerpt 3), reflecting transient authority shaped by epistemic legitimacy. This aligns with recent critiques of native-speakerism (Leonard, 2019; Selvi et al., 2024), which highlight how linguistic hierarchies are destabilized when L2 teachers assert localized knowledge. However, power equilibrium remains fragile, as seen in Excerpt 6, where unresolved conflicts over assessment design expose institutionalized tensions between pedagogical philosophies. These tensions mirror D. Carless and Walker’s (2006) observation that co-teachers often “agree to differ” to maintain collaboration, yet they also reveal the limits of compromise when core professional identities are at stake.
The study further complicates power dynamics by highlighting the role of intersectional factors—such as gender, seniority, and institutional expectations—in shaping identity negotiations. For instance, Chang’s 11 years of co-teaching experience afford her greater agency to humorously challenge Jane’s assertions (Excerpt 1), whereas Wu’s institutional seniority amplifies her authority in curriculum debates (Excerpt 6). This extends Trent’s (2016) framework by demonstrating how power is not merely linguistic but embodied in teachers’ professional trajectories and social capital. Moreover, the findings align with Gao and Cui’s (2021) metaphor of identity as a journey, where teachers navigate “push-and-pull” forces between institutional mandates and personal agency. By framing power as relational and multidirectional, this study offers a nuanced alternative to top-down models of authority in EFL contexts.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
Theoretically, this study advances CDA’s application in teacher identity research by integrating Fairclough’s modality analysis with van Leeuwen’s legitimation strategies. This dual framework illuminates how linguistic choices and sociopolitical justifications co-construct power relations, where each modality choice may serve dual functions: asserting individual authority while simultaneously invoking institutional discourses of collaboration. Echoing Anderson and Holloway’s (2020) emphasis on discourse as a site of ideological reproduction, such analysis bridges macro-level power structures with micro-level interactions, addressing a gap identified by Rogers and Schaenen (2014).
Practically, the study underscores the need for professional development programs that foster critical reflexivity among co-teachers. By encouraging L1 and L2 teachers to interrogate how their discursive practices reinforce or challenge power imbalances, institutions can promote equitable partnerships. For instance, training modules could incorporate role-switching exercises or collaborative reflection tasks, enabling teachers to experience and critique positional shifts. This aligns with Yang and Forbes (2025) advocacy for identity-based interventions that empower teachers to “reposition” themselves beyond native/non-native labels. Additionally, the findings advocate for policy reforms that recognize L2 teachers’ cultural expertise as complementary to L1 teachers’ linguistic capital, thereby mitigating hierarchies rooted in colonial language ideologies (Phillipson, 1996).
Limitations and Future Directions
While this study provides valuable insights, its focus on one co-teaching group within China’s EFL context may limit the generalizability of the findings. The reliance on teacher-centric data, though analyzed through a critical discourse framework, may restrict the inclusion of perspectives from other key stakeholders, such as students, administrators, and institutional policymakers, thereby offering a partial view of co-teaching dynamics. Future research may address these limitations by adopting comparative case studies across diverse educational settings (e.g., K-12 vs. higher education) to examine how institutional cultures and policies mediate identity negotiations. Expanding data sources to incorporate third-party perspectives—including student feedback, institutional evaluations, and observational data—would yield a more holistic understanding of co-teaching interactions. Longitudinal designs are also needed to trace how identity construction evolves over career stages and in response to policy shifts, such as China’s “Double First-Class” initiative (Gao & Cui, 2021). Finally, future studies could explore intersectional factors (e.g., gender, race, socioeconomic background) that shape power relations and identity negotiations among co-teachers, enriching the discourse on equity and inclusivity in collaborative educational practices.
Conclusion
This study pioneers the application of CDA as both a theoretical and methodological lens to investigate how L1 and L2 English teachers negotiate identity and power in EFL co-teaching. By analyzing in-class and out-of-class interactions, it reveals how co-teachers dynamically negotiate multiple identities within evolving power structures. The findings position identity negotiation as a multilayered process shaped by institutional, cultural, and interpersonal factors, offering a context-sensitive framework for understanding collaborative professionalism.
The study underscores collaborative discourse as a critical space for equitable power dynamics, showing how co-teachers leverage situated expertise rather than relying solely on linguistic proficiency. This disrupts native-speaker privileging and aligns with global calls to dismantle linguistic hierarchies. By framing power as a contested resource, the analysis illuminates how teachers navigate authority shifts, resist marginalization, and achieve temporary equilibria despite unresolved tensions. These insights advocate for teacher education programs to prioritize critical reflexivity and identity-based interventions, empowering educators to transcend reductive native/non-native labels.
Ultimately, this work redefines EFL co-teaching as a negotiated space where discourse, identity, and power intersect in complex ways. It advances efforts to reimagine language education through equitable, multilingual pedagogies, urging stakeholders to valorize diverse teacher identities. By bridging theory and practice, the study provides actionable strategies for fostering inclusive co-teaching models, offering critical implications for policymakers, teacher trainers, and educators committed to transformative praxis in global EFL contexts.
Footnotes
Appendix
Conversation Excerpt Formatting Guide.
| Symbol | Description |
|---|---|
| WORD | Bolded uppercase words signify modality, vocal emphasis or heightened pitch. |
| word | Bolded lowercase words highlight other analytical targets. |
| (Laughs) | Paralinguistic features (e.g., laughter, pauses) in parentheses. |
| … | Ellipses indicate trailing off or incomplete utterances. |
Ethical Considerations
The study involving human participants was reviewed and approved by Jilin University Ethics Committee. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author Contributions
All authors listed above have made substantial, direct, and intellectual contributions to the work, and approved of it for publication.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant number 19BYY219) awarded to the second author, Anne Li Jiang, and supported by the grant from Jilin Province Higher Education Teaching Reform (Grant No. 2025UT323AF0003) and Jilin University (Grant No. 2023XZD007), awarded to the first author, Tong Chu.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
Authors agree to make data and materials supporting the results or analyses presented in their paper available upon reasonable request.