Native and Non-native English Language Teachers

Cynthia Hsin-feng Wu 吳信鳳 cwu@nccu.edu.tw Ruth Martin 馬誼蓮 rmartin@nccu.edu.tw Peter Herbert 何炳德 peterh@ntu.edu.tw

Department of English, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan

This paper aims to provide a theoretical platform for future research areas in order to (1) establish a common set of professional standards/criteria for professional expertise of ELT teachers in the EFL context of Taiwan, and (2) inform curricular initiatives in designing effective and sustainable collaborative teaching English programs/models at the elementary school level in Taiwan.

A unique issue in the context of English language teaching (ELT) is the distinction between native versus non-native English-speaking teachers (NETs vs. NNETs). In commenting on the perceived differences between NETs and NNETs, Carless and Walker (2005) claim that the main differences are that the NETs possess a breadth of vocabulary, can use appropriate idiom, have intuitiveknowledgeaboutusageand providean insider’s cultural knowledge of a language community. Their strengths are the relative weaknesses of the local English teachers, whose strengths reflect the weaknesses of the NETs. NNETs can bepositiverolemodelsforstudents,arebetterplaced to anticipatestudents’language difficulties and make profitable use of the mother tongue with thus richer resources for explaining grammar points. In addition, NNETs are likely to have better familiarity with local syllabuses and examinations and may find it easier to develop close relationships with students.

Nevertheless, there have been numerous arguments against the native vs. non-native dichotomy in terms of ELT professionalism (Braine, 1999; Cook, 2002; Liu, 1999;

Medgyes, 1994; Samimy & Brutt-Griffler, 1999; Tang & Absalom, 1998), and most of them are legitimate on various grounds. Inbar (2001) further indicates that the division between native versus non-native teachers regarding the superiority of the native speaking English teacher was seen to indicate a power struggle over professional status between the two groups.

Professionalism in ELT obviously cuts across the line of nativeness, i.e., both NETs and NNETs can be effective English teachers. The myth of native speakers being better English teachers persists and the distinction between NETs and NNETs is perceived as important by many. If there is a distinction between them, is it reflected in their teaching practices and their concept of professionalism? Is there a common set of standards/criteria for professional expertise shared by both NETs and NNETs? Further, in line with the perceived difference between NETs and NNETs, collaborative teaching has generally been considered as the best partnership between them. Although the problems are complex, the lack of a common set of professional values, ethics, and standard practices in the ELT profession seems to lie at the core of the issue. True collaboration between NETs and NNETs can not take place unless they share a professional common ground.

A study of the current research in the “professional common ground”for ELTs in this paper shows a lack of consensus. Tsui (2003) explored the concept of expertise in teaching of ELTs in Hong Kong. She describes the expert teacher as having a rich knowledge base including (1) content knowledge, the major facts and concepts of the discipline; (2) pedagogical content knowledge, i.e. how to represent this knowledge to students, using analogies, examples, illustrations, explanations and demonstrations; (3) curricular knowledge of programs and materials; (4) general pedagogical knowledge of teaching and learning; (5) knowledge of educational aims and objectives; (6) knowledge of learner characteristics; and (7) knowledge of other content, outside the teacher’s specific subject domain. She also adds that true expert knowledge is knowledge in action: theory refined and tested dialectically by practice thus becomes “situated knowledge.”

The president of TESOL Association 1999-2000, David Nunan, asked the question:

“What is professionalism?” It seems to be an unfamiliar construct in an ELT context. In

Nunan’s (1999, 2001) view, it is fundamental that a set of criteria be established for deciding whether an area of activity, such as English language teaching, qualifies as a profession. The TESOL Association has thus developed an elaborate set of standards for ESL teachers as well as programs in 2003: “TESOL/NCATE Program Standards”, i.e.,

“Standards for the accreditation of initial programs in P-12 ESL teacher education.”

These standards are used to evaluate whether an English teacher preparation program can receive national recognition. The standards are based on five domains, which are language, culture, instruction, assessment and professionalism (see the figure below).

Figure 1. An interrelated framework of domains and standards for the accreditation of initial programs in P-12 ESL teacher education (Adapted from TESOL, 2003, p.4)

These domains are not independent of one another; they are interrelated, with professionalism positioned at the center of the framework. For example, an understanding of language acquisition in the language domain will definitely affect applications in

instruction, culture and assessment; knowledge of issues of assessment is bound to be related to the domains of language, instruction, and culture.

The criteria in the TESOL/NCATE Program Standards are not completely applicable to ELT teachers in Taiwan, since they are primarily established standards for L2 teachers in U.S. classrooms, using U.S. methods and materials, working within the local educational systems to help immigrant children learn English and integrate into the predominately English-speaking society. However, their list does provide a clear framework and taxonomy of skills that can shed light on creating a profile of the kind of ELT teacher needed in Taiwan classrooms.

This paper urges that it is time to move beyond the native and non-native debate to expert and non-expert among TESOL professionals. In addition to an in-depth review of important and pertinent studies and explorations along the issue of professionalism in the field of English language teaching, a questionnaire was devised to elicit NETs’and NNETs’

views on the defining features of a professional ELT regardless of the native and

non-native distinction. It is hoped that a benchmark could be established with which to evaluate the professional practice of NETs and NNETs in Taiwan and in other areas of the world as well. Therefore, the questions guiding this research are as follows.

1. If there is a perceived distinction between NETs and NNETs in terms of their professionalism, is it reflected in their professional practice and perception?

2. What is professionalism for ELT teachers; in particular, what is the common set of professional standards or criteria for professional expertise for ELT teachers in Taiwan?

3. What are the educational implications/applications of the NETs and NNETs in relation to their professionalism on curriculum, pedagogy, and teacher education?

The issue of non-native English teachers’efficacy has received much attention.

Research into this specific area is especially warranted, considering that the overwhelming majority of English teachers throughout the world are non-native speakers and the steady increase in the importance of English as a global means of communication. While

English has become the lingua franca for international business, technology, and academia in the ever changing process of globalization, the number of non-native speakers of English in the world has out-numbered native speakers 3 to 1 (Crystal, 1997; Power 2005). The non-native speakers are actually transforming the global language; Queen’s English may not be the norm. The question “Who owns English?”is attracting global attention. The issue of NETs and NNETs is thus all the more pertinent for the local and global English education.

REFERENCES

Braine, G. (1999). From the periphery to the center: One teacher’sjourney. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp.15-27). New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.

Carless, D. & Walker, E. (2005). Effective team teaching between local and native speaking English teachers. Language and Education.

Cook, V. J. (Ed.) (2002). Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Inbar, O. (2001). Native and non-native English teachers: Investigation of the construct and perceptions. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Tel Aviv University, Israel.

Liu, J. (1999). Nonnative-English-speaking professionals in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 85-102.

Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan Publishers.

Nunan, D. (1999). President’s message. TESOL Matters, 9(4), August/September.

Nunan, D. (2001). Is language teaching a profession? TESOL in Context, 11(1), 1-8.

Power, C. (March 7, 2005). Not the Queen’s English. Newsweek, 10, 42-45.

Samimy K. K. and Brutt-Griffler J. (1999). To be a native or non-native speaker:

Perceptionsof“non-native”studentsin agraduate TESOL program. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp.127-143). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.

Tang, D. & Absalom, D. (1998). Teaching across cultures: considerations for Western EFL teachers in China. Hong Kong Journals Online, 3(2).

TESOL (2003). TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.)/

NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education) Program Standards: Standards for the accreditation of initial programs in P-12 ESL teacher education. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Tsui, A.B.M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Professionalism and Practice of