Introduction
This study aimed to investigate Taiwanese university students’ perceptions and preferences toward their Native English-Speaking Teachers (NESTs) and Non-Native English-Speaking Teachers (NNESTs) in English education. An overview of literature associated with the study is presented in this current chapter, which is divided into seven sections: (1) native vs. nonnative English speaker, (2) the controversy of the native speaker ideal, (3) discussion on strengths and weaknesses of native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) and non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs), (4) perceptions of students toward native speaking teachers (NESTs) and non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs), (5) an effective English language teacher, (6) effective second language instruction, and (7) English as foreign language education in Taiwan.
Native vs. Nonnative English Speaker
As the English language expands all around the world, the term “nativeness” is actively discussed by researchers. In general, it means “who is a native speaker of English and who is not” (Al-Omrani, 2008, p. 25). According to Braine (1999), Ellis (2002), and Mahboob (2004), there is no precise definition for “native speaker,” because people cannot empirically define what a native speaker is. Medgyes (1999b) thus, indicated that “there is no such creature as the native or non-native speaker” (p. 9).
Most people believe Americans born in the U.S. to be the only native English speakers in the country. However, if we reconsider this statement, there is a group of
non-12
Americans who attend American daycare centers or kindergarten schools, resulting in learning English before they fully acquire their parents’ mother tongue. Should they be considered as native speakers of English? Also, how about those second generations of non-Americans who were born and have grown up in the U.S. and speak English with accurate American accent? Should they be categorized as native English speakers? Hence, Medgyes (1999b) believed that “being born into a group does not mean that you
automatically speak the language – many native speakers of English cannot write or tell stories, while many non-native speakers can” (p. 18). Kramsch (1997) added that “native speakership … is more than a privilege of birth or even of education” (p. 363).
Modiano (1999) indicated that the ability to use English in an appropriate and effective way decides whether someone is proficient in speaking English or not. In other words, “nativeness should not be related with birth, because birth does not determine proficiency in speaking English” (Al-Omrani, 2008, p. 27). Al-Omrani (2008) indicated five features that could determine whether someone was native English speaker or not (p.
28):
The linguistic environment of the speaker’s formative years.
The status of English in his/her home country.
The length of exposure to English.
His/her age of acquisition.
His/her cultural identity.
In this study, the researcher referred to English teachers who acquired English as a first language and spoke it as a mother tongue as native English-speaking teachers
13
(NESTs), while English teachers who spoke or acquired English as a second or foreign language were referred to as non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs).
The Controversy of the Native Speaker Ideal
There is a stereotype in English instruction that a native speaker by nature is the best person to teach his or her native language. The myth of the idealized native speaker originated from Chomsky (1986). He believed that “linguistic theories primarily
explained the actual performance of an ideal native speaker who knew his language perfectly and was not affected by such irrelevant grammatical elements as a distraction, a lot of interest or attention in a homogeneous speech community” (Liaw, 2004, p. 36). To be more specific, he viewed grammar of a language as “a description of the ideal speaker-hearer’s intrinsic competence” (p. 4) that coincided to the linguistic intuition of an ideal native speaker. Native speaker, thus, was viewed superior in the English language; on the contrary, a nonnative speaker, whose native language was one other than English, bore the negative stereotype and experienced a disadvantage in terms of recognition and employment (Bae, 2006). The following examples support this statement.
Freudenstein (1991) demonstrated a policy statement, which indicated that the standard foreign language teachers within European countries should be a native speaker of a language. Ngoc (2009) claimed that only native speaker teachers were capable to teach an authentic language in daily life because they had “a better capacity in
demonstrating fluent language, explaining cultural connotations, and judging whether a given language form was acceptably correct or not” (p. 2).
Moreover, Phillipson (1992) pointed out that NESTs who had better English competence were more qualified to teach than NNESTs. Clark and Paran (2007)
14
described a hiring policy implemented among numerous ESL and EFL institutions, which emphasized only NESTs were qualified to be recruited because “students do not come to be taught by someone who doesn’t speak English” (Thomas, 1999, p. 6). The mystery of the native speakers was that they were better English teachers due to a better command of the English language, while the negative stereotype of the NNESTs had been widely disseminated in present day (Bulter, 2007; Davies, 2003; Lee, 2005). Admittedly, this theory has influenced the perceptions of language teachers, students, and the public, which leaves little room for NNESTs in the field of ELT.
However, there have been several arguments against this assumption (Barratt &
Kontra, 2000; Benson, 2012; Medgyes, 2001; Modiano, 1999; Moussu & Llurda, 2008;
Sommers, 2005; Thomas, 1999; Wu & Ke, 2009). These opposite opinions believed that English teachers should not be valued just by their first language; other factors such as teaching experience, professional preparation, and linguistic expertise were equally important to represent a good foreign language teacher model. Medgyes (1992) claimed that NNESTs were effective and should be equally likely to reach professional success in the English instruction. Phillipson (1992) argued that NNESTs,
may, in fact, be better qualified than native speakers, if they have gone through the complex process of acquiring English as a second or foreign language, have insight into the linguistic and cultural needs of their learners, a detailed awareness of how mother tongue and target language differ and what is difficult for learners, and first-hand experience of using a second or foreign language (p. 15).
15
Medgyes (2001) explained that both NESTs and NNESTs could be equally good teachers;
however, NNESTs could further “provide a better learner model, teach language-learning strategies more effectively, supply more information about the English language, better anticipate and prevent language difficulties, and be more sensitive to their students” (p.
436).
Cheng and Braine’s (2007) study served as an example along the same line. In their research, EFL students in Hong Kong universities were investigated for their attitudes and opinions towards NESTs and NNESTs, the pros and cons of the teachers from students’ points of views, and the capability of these teachers to assist students’
academic learning. The results revealed that both students and their families showed positive attitudes to Hong Kong EFL NNESTs. This surprising point contradicted a previous result (Lee, 2004) which had revealed the negative perceptions of students’
families toward EFL teachers. Looking more closely, participants did not face any problems regarding a teacher’s “nativeness;” instead, they believed that NNESTs taught EFL effectively with no genuine differences while comparing to NESTs. In this case of NNESTs, their ability to empathize with students, a shared cultural background, and their stricter expectations were seen as strengths. Another significant result of the study was that senior students showed a more positive attitude toward NNESTs than other lower grade participants. The result might suggest that beginning EFL students entered the learning process with the view that NESTs were better than NNESTs, but the perception changed with experience (Lee, 2004).
Overall, it was difficult to make a straightforward comparison on the better
qualified teacher between NESTs and NNESTs, particularly when realizing the following
16
facts: (1) teachers were educated or taught rather than born with native like competence or proficiency (Kim, 2008) and (2) effective teaching included many different elements, not simply the ability to sound like a native speaker (Laborda, 2006; Ngoc, 2009).
Discussion on Strengths and Weaknesses of Native English-Speaking Teachers (NESTs) and Non-Native English-Speaking Teachers (NNESTs)
There have been debates on whether NESTs are better language instructors than NNESTs, and no agreements have been reached on this controversial issue. Even so, the strengths and weaknesses of NESTs and NNESTs have been examined and documented in the field of ELT. Regarding the positive aspects of NESTs, Villalobos Ulate and Universidad Nacional (2011) noted that NESTs included the following characteristics: (1) subconscious knowledge of rules, (2) intuitive grasp of meanings, (3) ability to
communicate within social settings, (4) range of language skills, (5) creativity of
language use, (6) identification with a language community, (7) ability to produce fluent discourse, (8) knowledge of differences between their own speech and that of the
“standard” form of the language, and (9) ability “to interpret and translate into the L1 (p.
62). Stern (1983) further indicated that NESTs’ linguistic knowledge, proficiency or competence of the target language was a crucial reference for the concept of language proficiency in English teaching. Widdowson (1992) pointed out that a NEST could be a reliable informant of linguistic knowledge due to their native language learning
experiences.
Similarity, according to Medgyes’ (2001) study, NNESTs tended to have
advantages in terms of six characteristics: (1) good role models for imitation, (2) effective providers of learning strategies, (3) supplies of information about the English language,
17
(4) better anticipators of language learning difficulties, (5) sensitive and empathetic to language learners’ needs and problems, and (6) facilitators of language learning as a result of a shared mother tongue (p. 436). Phillipson (1992) explained that the L2 learning experiences of NNESTs detailed the awareness of how the mother tongue and the target language differed and what was difficult for learners, which gave insight into the linguistic and cultural needs of learners. Cook (2005) indicated that NNESTs
“provide models of proficient [second language] users in action in the classroom, and also examples of people who have become successful [second language] users” (p. 57).
Modiano’s (2005) study further showed that NNESTs would be more aware of learning an international variety of English and would be in a better position to encourage diversity since they did not belong to a specific variety of English. As a result, students would “learn more about how English operates in a diverse number of nation states so that they can gain better understanding of the wide range of English language usage” (p.
40).
Thus, Medgyes (1992) concluded that an ideal NEST was the one who had achieved a high level of proficiency in the learners’ native language; as for the ideal NNESTs, one should achieve near-native proficiency in English (p. 348). As for an ideal school, Medgyes (2001) suggested that the school should have NESTs and NNESTs complemented each other in their advantages and disadvantages (p. 441).
As for the weaknesses of NESTs, Tang (1997) enumerated several points: (1) different linguistic and cultural backgrounds from learners, (2) lack of the awareness of learners’ needs, (3) unable to perceive the difficulties of learning the target language, and (4) unfamiliar with learners’ learning contexts. Shaw (1979) explained that NESTs lacked
18
the necessary insights into lesson preparation and delivered because they were not willing to learn the host languages and cultures (Widdowson, 1992). In Barratt and Kontra’s (2000) study, NESTs rarely made useful comparison and contrasts with the learner’s first language and did not empathize with students going through the learning process, which discouraged learners easily. Additionally, Boyle (1997) pointed out that NESTs might understand the accuracy in grammar but were not able to explain language rules like NNESTs did.
Regarding the disadvantages of NNESTs, it is undeniable that NNESTs’ may not be as confident as NESTs in speaking aspects. Canagarajah (1999) and Moussu (2010) noted that NNESTs’ higher anxiety on their accent and pronunciation greatly influenced their English instructions and the interactions, which might lead to the failure of language teaching. Tang’s (1997) study revealed similar results that NESTs were superior in terms of speaking, accents and pronunciation while NNESTs’ shortcomings included the foreign accent, insufficient knowledge of American culture, and the lack of self-confidence (Moussu, 2006a).
While discussing the different teaching behaviors, Arva and Medgyes’ (2000) study explored the different teaching styles between NESTs and NNESTs based on their backgrounds of language, qualifications, and experiences. The results showed that NESTs tended to implement a wider variety of cultural resources and more structured activities, such as newspapers, posters, and videos, rather than a formal textbook. Besides, NESTs often failed to manage the time for class discussion and did not provide a fair opportunity for each student to participate. NNESTs, on the contrary, preferred a step-by-step approach based on course books. The atmosphere in class was formal with less
19
interaction with students. NNESTs better explained language rules, served as a role model for students, and demonstrated how to make sense of the English language.
Furthermore, Medgyes’ (1994) investigated the teaching behaviors of 325 NESTs and NNESTs. The following table shows the results of teachers’ self-perceptions (see Table 2.1).
20
Table 2.1. Perceived Differences in Teaching Behavior between NESTs and NNESTs
NESTS NNESTs
Adopt a more flexible approach Are more innovative
Adopt a more guided approach Are more cautious
Colloquial registers Teach items in context Prefer free activities
Favour groupwork/pairwork Use a variety of materials Tolerate errors
Set fewer tests
Use no/less first language (L1) Resort to no/less translation
Use more first language (L1) Resort to more translation Assign more homework Attitude to Teaching Culture
Supply more culture information Supply less cultural information Note. Adopted from The non-native teachers by Peter Medgyes, 1994, London:
MacMillan.
21
As Table 2.1 (p. 20) demonstrates, the teaching behavior between the two groups of teachers has a number of significant differences. However, “different does not imply better or worse” (Medgyes, 1994, p. 76). That is, teachers should be valued solely on the basis of their professional virture, regardless of their language background (Arva,&
Medgyes, 2000; Watson-Todd & Pojanapunya, 2009).
In Smith et al. (2007) personal observations, teachers taught as they were taught, and the strongest predictor of language teaching success was having successful foreign or second language classroom learning experiences. That is, successful language learning classroom experiences play a crucial factor for both NESTs and NNESTs alike, which lead them to achieve the route of successful teaching (Cheng, Chen, & Cheng, 2012).
Hence, Medgyes (1992) concluded, “the more proficiency in English, the more efficient in the classroom is a false statement” (p. 347).
Perceptions of Students toward Native English-Speaking Teachers (NESTs) and Non-Native English-Speaking Teachers (NNESTs)
In the past few years, studies on examining the differences between NESTs and NNESTs from students’ points of view had been recognized by researchers. This is crucial because “students, by nature, are the consumers of their teachers’ product and, as a result, can offer valuable feedback on and insight into the discussion” (Torres, 2004, p.
13).
In regard to Lasagabaster and Sierra’s (2005) study in the Basque Autonomous Community of Spain, there were 76 EFL undergraduate students who completed a Likert scale questionnaire about their preferences toward NESTs’ and NNESTs’ English
instruction. The results showed that students preferred to learn with NESTs in general,
22
but the differences in preferences for NESTs and NNESTs were based on specific language skill areas. For example, learners preferred NESTs in “the production skills of speaking, pronunciation, and writing” (p. 136), while a swing towards NNESTs when it came to the teaching of grammar.
Liu and Zhang (2007) surveyed and interviewed 65 third year college students majoring in English language and literature in South China to determine the differences between NESTs and NNESTs in terms of attitude, means of instruction and teaching results. The findings revealed that there was no significant difference found between the two groups of teachers. That is, students perceived both groups as hardworking and competent. Specifically, the foreign teachers’ approaches to text materials were more varied, while Chinese teachers were believed to be more effective in teaching test-oriented courses such as Comprehensive English and Business English.
In another study that investigated 32 ESL students’ perceptions toward their NESTs and NNESTs, Mahboob (2004) utilized a novel and insightful
“discourse-analytic” technique. The participants were required to write an essay about their opinions in regard to their NESTs and NNESTs. The results showed that ESL students had no preference for NESTs and NNESTs, since the two categories of teachers were perceived to have strengths and weaknesses in English teaching. Some participants believed NESTs as better teachers of vocabulary and culture, while others supported NNESTs for the using of good teaching methods, the ability to answer students’ questions, and being responsible for their English instruction.
Similar results could be found in Park’s (2009) study. No overall preferences for NESTs over NNESTs were concluded by 177 Korean university students while
23
investigating their preferences for English language teachers. It was remarkable that the participants in this study considered that an integration and cooperation of NESTs and NNESTs was appropriate and workable to enhance the possibility of learner’s academic success.
The related studies discussed above indicated no consensus in regard to the ideal English language teacher, native or nonnative. They showed that “both NESTs and NNESTs have their own merits and demerits and it is unfair to judge one group based on their disadvantages” (Alseweed, 2012, p. 45). Celik (2006), therefore, emphasized the need for NESTs and NNESTs to embrace each other and to work in a partnership; for example, co-teaching between NESTs and NNESTs could contribute to the improvement of the teaching quality of both of them (Liu, 2008).
An Effective English Language Teacher
According to Arikan (2010), “teacher effectiveness is one of the most profound factors affecting the quality of the language learning process” (p. 210). A question, thus, comes to mind: What is a good English language teacher? According to Astor (2000), a qualified teacher of English should be “a professional in at least three fields of knowledge:
pedagogy, methodology, and psycho - and applied linguistics” (p. 18). Borg (2006) further provided five different criteria to identify the characteristics of good English language teachers: “personal qualities, pedagogical skills, classroom practices, subject matter and psychological constructs such as knowledge and attitudes” (p. 8). In this regard, simply being a native or non-native speaker of the mother tongue language would not be used to identify as an effective English language teacher. Rather, all these above areas and criteria must be learned and practiced by language teachers (Astor, 2000). That
111 REFERENCES
Alkhawaldeh, A. (2011). The professional needs of English language teachers at Amman 1st and 2nd directorates of education. College Student Journal, 45(2), 376-392.
Al-Omrani, A. H. (2008). Perceptions and attitudes of Saudi ESL and EFL students toward native and nonnative English-speaking teachers. (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI: 3303340).
Alseweed, M. A. (2012). University students’ perceptions of the influence of native and non-native teachers. English Language Teaching, 5(12), 42-53.
Amin, N. (1997). Race and the identity of the nonnative ESL teacher. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 580-583.
Amin, N. (2004). Nativism, the native speaker construct, and minority immigrant women teachers of English as a second language. In L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience: Perspectives of nonnative English-speaking professionals (pp.61-80). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Arikan, A. (2010). Effective English language teacher from the perspectives of pre-service and in-pre-service teachers in Turkey. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 9(31), 209-223.
Arikan, A., Taser, D., & Sarac-Suzer, H. S. (2008). The effective English language teacher from the perspectives of Turkish preparatory school students. Eğitim ve Bilim, 33(150), 42-51.
Arva, V. & Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the classroom. System, 28(3), 355-372.
112
Astor, A. (2000). A qualified non-native English speaking teacher is second to none in the field. TESOL Matters, 10(2), 18-19.
Ates, B. & Eslami, Z. R. (2012). Teaching experiences of native and nonnative English-speaking graduate teaching assistants and their perceptions of preservice teachers.
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 23(3), 99-127.
Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Re-examining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9-32.
Azar, B. (2007). Grammar-based teaching: a practitioner's perspective. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 11(2), 1-12.
Bae, S.Y. (2006). Language learners’ perceptions of nonnative English speaking teachers of English (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation
Bae, S.Y. (2006). Language learners’ perceptions of nonnative English speaking teachers of English (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation