Finding a Place for Nonnative TESOL Professionals – Examining the Identities
and Beliefs of Nonnative and Native Speaking Teachers
Maiko Hata
maihata@hotmail.com
http://maikosensei.com
Abstract
An often-held assumption is that qualified ESL/EFL teachers are native
speakers of English (NS). Given the fact that nonnative speakers of English
(NNS) account for about 42% of MA-TESOL students in the US, we cannot ignore
their place in the overall TESOL profession. With both NS teachers and NNS
teachers in TESOL, the inevitable question of interest to ask is of the
respective roles NSs and NNSs play in ESL/EFL instructional settings. As a
first step to further investigate the merits and fallout of being NSs or
NNSs in English teaching programs, this study examines the perceptions that
NS and NNS TESOL professionals have of themselves and each other in terms of
what they feel they can offer students. This study, through questionnaires
and interviews, reveals different perceptions of NS TESOL professionals and
identifies skill areas where NNS may have an advantage over NS. Findings
from this study indicate that (1) there are differences in subjects'
perceived strengths and weaknesses as teachers depending on the subjects’
status as NS/NNS, and (2) difficulties with students caused by cultural
differences were observed more often among NSs than in the NNS group. The
implications of these findings are that in order to create better classroom
for both students and teachers, we have to consider the different
qualifications that both NS and NNS teachers have.
INTRODUCTION
& STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
The number of non-native speakers in MA TESOL
programs in the US is substantial. According to a survey by England & Roberts
(1989), 42.5% of the total 2401 programs in the 63 TESOL programs in the US
were NNS. At the same time, many ESL programs in the US and EFL programs
overseas require job applicants to be NS of English. This requirement may be
based on the assumption that the NSs make better language teachers “...
because of greater facility in demonstrating fluent, idiomatically appropriate
language” (Phillipson, 1992, p.14).
The purpose of this study is to investigate this
assumption. In this study, I will not only look at the differences in the
self-perceptions of their strengths and weaknesses of both NS and NNS TESOL
professionals, but will also look at how they perceive each other.
Opinions and perceptions of NS
and NNS TESOL professionals are worthy of consideration in exploring the
previously stated assumption because these teachers have not only had
experience working with each other but they also have the professional
knowledge and expertise that allows them to reflect meaningfully on this
experience.
In addition, the results of this study can also
serve as an indicator of the areas of teaching in which NNS teachers may have
strengths over NS teachers.
There have been some attempts to
help us better understand how NS/NNS are different as teachers. Medgyes (1992)
suggests that that NS/NNS distinction lies in that “NETs (native English
speaking teachers) and non-NETs use English differently and, therefore, teach
English differently” (p.346). Palfreyman (1993) mentions the different types
of approaches that NS and NNS language teachers take when they talk about
language. In doing so, he looks at the approaches the NS teachers take when
planning a lesson together with NS teachers, and compares it with the
approaches of NNS when planning a lesson with NNS teachers. He states that it
seems NNS subjects put more emphasis on the ability to “mean”, rather than
semantic concepts like the native subjects in that study. However, he stays
away from concluding this NNS subjects is entirely a result of NNS subjects’
leaning experience. Also, McNeil (1993) showed NNS subjects were better able
to predict words in a text that would be unfamiliar to students in Hong Kong.
The results showed that the NNS subjects had a clear advantage for such tasks.
Another interesting and related
study is that of Medgyes and Reves (1994), which shows the self-image that NS
and NNS teachers around the world have of themselves. In this study, the
authors conclude that NS and NNS teachers teach differently, which largely
derives from their differences in proficiency. This difference in proficiency,
according to the researchers, might also affect the self-image or
self-confidence of the NNS teachers, which could then also affect their
performance as language teachers. Khami-Stein, Lee, and Lee (1999) reported
that NNS teachers in training perceived themselves as having better empathy,
better understanding of students' needs, the ability to be a role-model, and a
deep knowledge of grammar. They also believe the lack of role-models in the
field, "...a lack of self-confidence..., ...perceived language needs...,
...perceived prejudice" to be their disadvantages.
As Medgyes and Reves (1994) suggest, it is
important to look at the perception that NNS teachers have for themselves,
since self-images might affect their performance as teachers. Another
important issue which can be taken into consideration in order to show the
advantages of NNS language teachers is, as stated earlier, the perception of
NNS language teachers by fellow NS teachers.
This is important in the sense that if we can
show that NS teachers indeed respect NNSs as qualified teachers, then NNS
teachers need not feel insecure about their place in the language classroom.
However, this has not been investigated in the studies mentioned above.
Therefore, in addition to looking at the self perception of NSs and NNSs on
their own different strengths and weaknesses, we should also consider their
perceptions about each other.
The specific question posed in this study is as
follows:
What do NS and NNS perceive to
be their own and each others' strengths and weaknesses as language teachers?
METHOD
Subjects
Both NS and NNS TESOL candidates at the Monterey
Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California were contacted and
asked to participate in this study. There are several studies (Medgyes, 1992;
Rampton, 1990) which suggest the concepts and terms for distinguishing NS and
NNS. In this study, the subjects were simply asked if they consider themselves
NS of English, and those who considered themselves NS were defined as such.
Both the NS and NNS groups of subjects varied in age and gender. Since the
only variable which was examined in this study is that of NS and NNS, the
differences in age and gender were not considered. A total number of 28
subjects participated in this research by answering different questionnaires:
One for NSs, the other for NNSs. 19 subjects are NSs of English, and 9 are
NNSs of English.
Materials
In order to obtain a deeper understanding of the
subjects' perceptions, questionnaire and interview sessions were used.
Questionnaires were first created based on open-ended answers collected from
Japanese college students which had the aim of gaining some general
perceptions on NS and NNS teachers from the students’ perspective. This survey
was conducted by Chang and Endo (1997) for the purpose of their study.
Most of questions on the NS and NNS
questionnaires were the same. However, depending on the status as NS or NNS,
some questions appeared differently. For example, questions such as “[h]ave
you had any difficulties dealing with students who were NNS who shared your
first language?” did not appear on the questionnaire for NSs, since NSs would
not share their first language with their NNS students. The first question on
the questionnaire asked about their teaching experiences. The following
questions asked their perceptions of themselves and teachers with the opposite
NS/NNS status (see Appendix 1 & 2).
The first questionnaire was piloted with two NS
and two NNS TESOL students. Based on this pilot study, revisions were made.
The questionnaires were given to thirty-five TESOL NS and NNS students at the
Monterey Institute. The subjects returned the questionnaires to the researcher
within three weeks.
The researcher then narrowed down this subject
pool for the interviews by the following procedure. Since the subjects who
were chosen had to answer questions reflecting their experience of teaching
together with either NSs or NNSs depending on the subjects’ status as NS/NNS,
the criteria for this procedure were:
(a)
Whether or not NS subjects had had experience teaching with NNS
teachers
(b)
Whether or not NNS subjects had had experience teaching with NS
teachers
5 NSs and 6 NNSs were then asked
to participate in the structured interview sessions where they were asked
basically the same questions as in the questionnaire, only in more detail.
RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS
Results
Responses for the questionnaire were obtained
from a total of 28 MA TESOL candidates at the Monterey Institute (19 NSs & 9
NNSs of English). The NNS subjects had various backgrounds: 4 NSs of Japanese,
2 NSs of German, 1 NS of Korean, 1 NS of French, and 1 NS of Portuguese.
The subjects’ teaching experiences varied. Out
of 6 NNS subjects who had experience working with NSs and teachers, 5 worked
in an ESL setting and 1 worked in an EFL setting. Out of 17 NS subjects who
had experience working with NNSs, 3 worked in an ESL setting and 14 worked in
an EFL setting. Because each subject could choose more than one option, the
number of the options chosen sometimes exceeded the number of the subjects.
A majority of NNSs with
experience working with NSs (6) taught reading, writing, and grammar, while a
majority of NSs with experience working with NNSs (8) taught speaking,
listening, writing, reading, and grammar. 6 of these NSs taught speaking and
listening but not all of the skills listed on the questionnaire. Other
experience includes classes such as content (1 NNS), TOEFL preparation (1 NNS),
5th grade (1 NS), and vocabulary (1 NS).
Lengths of experience teaching with opposite NS/NNS
status teachers also showed wide variations. 3 of NNSs have experience for
less than three months, while 13 NSs have experience from 6 months to more
than 3 years.
Levels of their students showed
variation. 5 of NNS subjects taught either beginner, low- intermediate or
intermediate. On the other hand, 14 NSs taught beginner or intermediate, and 4
NSs taught all levels.
The type of the students varied too. 3 NNSs
taught at junior or high school and 2 NNSs at college, 2 at ESL programs at
the Monterey Institute. 11 NSs taught at junior or high school, and 5 at
college. 5 NSs taught at elementary and preschool level, and 3 NSs taught
adults.
Data Analysis
Two methods were used to collect the data
discussed here. This was done to obtain a deeper understanding of the
perceptions that the subjects had. The first method used was the questionnaire
(see Appendix 1 and 2). For each question which appears on the questionnaire,
the subjects were given an optional opportunity to write their own responses
to the question.
The second method used to collect the data was
the interview. Responses obtained from the interviews are displayed here along
with the open-ended responses obtained from the questionnaire.
The responses from the questionnaire which provided
countable data from questionnaires and notes taken from the interviews were
all compiled on a computer word processor and then subjected to a review.
These data were categorized according to the key words which appeared
repeatedly, as suggested by Nunan (1992). As a result of this process,
patterns emerged concerning following categories: (1) Types of Difficulties
the Subjects Had with NNS Students, and (2) Strengths & Weaknesses as Language
Teachers.
In the following sections, I will discuss my
findings in each of the categories listed above. I will refer to the data
taken from the responses, quotes and statement taken from both the
questionnaire and the interviews.
FINDINGS: Strengths & Weaknesses as Language Teachers
Self-Perceived Strengths
Figure 1. NS/NNS
Strengths (Self-perceptions)
|
|
NS Group |
NNS Group |
|
Fluency |
89% |
56% |
|
Speaking |
79% |
56% |
|
Pronunciation |
68% |
44% |
|
Intonation |
68% |
33% |
|
Idioms |
79% |
56% |
|
Vocabulary |
84% |
44% |
|
Appropriacy |
68% |
44% |
|
Knowledge of Target Culture |
89% |
78% |
|
Listening Comprehension |
53% |
56% |
|
Grammar |
37% |
78% |
|
Reading |
37% |
56% |
|
Writing |
42% |
67% |
|
Knowledge in Students' L1 |
53% |
89% |
|
Language Learning Strategies |
21% |
89% |
|
Speech Acts |
58% |
67% |
|
Cross-cultural Understanding |
53% |
89% |
Here, I would like to show the
responses from both NNS and NS subjects who were asked to choose as many
options as they thought would express their strengths.
There are some skills that NSs
believe as their strengths while not as many NNSs believe as their strengths.
They are: fluency (89% of NS; 56% of NNS), speaking (79% of NS; 56% of NNS),
pronunciation (68% of NS; 44% of NNS), intonation (68% of NS; 33% of NNS),
idiom (79% of NS; 56% of NNS), vocabulary (84% of NS; 44% of NNS), appropriacy
(68% of NS; 44% of NNS), and knowledge in the target culture (89% of NS; 78%
of NNS).
We can see that many of these
skills deal with aural/oral production. Another tendency observed here is that
many of the skills mentioned here seem to be obtained from actually using the
language through orally communicating with people. This results leads to the
argument by Phillipson (1992) that I mentioned earlier in this paper stating
that the reason why NSs are sometimes believed to be better qualified than
NNSs is because NSs can show articulate aural production with more idioms and
vocabulary. If this is the case, NSs do seem to have an advantage over NNSs by
having better aural production and better understanding of idioms.
The skill areas which more NNSs
than NS think as their strengths are: grammar (37% of NS; 78% of NNS), reading
(37% of NNS; 56% of NNS), writing (42% of NS; 67% of NNS), knowledge in
students’ L1 (53% of NS; 89% of NNS), learning strategies (21% of NS; 89% of
NNS), speech acts (58% of NS; 67% of NNS), and cross cultural knowledge (53%
of NS; 89% of NNS).
It has been suggested (Medgyes, 1992) that NNSs can teach
learning strategies more effectively than NSs because NNSs “... have adopted
language learning strategies during their own learning process” (pp.346-347).
This seems to be consistent with the results shown here.
Speech acts and cross-cultural
knowledge are considered to be strengths more often by NNS teachers than NS.
This might be a result of the situation that the NNS subjects were in. The NNS
subjects for this study were living in the US which could have led them to
have a better cross cultural understanding and understanding of speech acts.
By learning the English language and living in US culture, the NNS subjects
had to adapt to a new culture which might promote their deeper understanding
of cross-cultural issues
Perceived Strengths of Each Other
On the questionnaire, the subjects were also asked to express their
perceptions of what strengths and weaknesses teachers with the opposite NS/NNS
status would have. This was an open-ended question.
First, let us look at the
perception that NS subjects have about NNS teachers’ strengths and weaknesses.
The strengths mentioned most frequently by NS subjects (10) was that of
experience learning English as a foreign/second language. The other frequently
expressed strengths were: better empathy for students (9), better knowledge in
grammar and structure (8), and knowledge of the target culture (6).
Here, we can see that NSs
consider NNSs’ strengths derive from their language learning experience, such
as better empathy for students and better knowledge of grammar and structure.
What also can be seen is that NS subjects consider knowledge in the target
culture as NNSs’ strengths. Again, the reason for this might be the
perceptions that NS subjects had that NNSs had to adapt to a new culture by
learning the English language and possibly by living in the US.
The weaknesses mentioned by the
NS subjects most frequently is that of poor pronunciation (9). Other
weaknesses mentioned are: lack of knowledge of appropriacy and pragmatics (7),
lack of respect from students and schools (5), and lack of knowledge of the
target culture (4).
Most of the qualifications mentioned here are already chosen
by NNS subjects as their own weaknesses, and as NSs’ strengths. However, what
is interesting here is that knowledge in the target culture is chosen here
while it was chosen as NS’ own strengths as well. This shows that within the
NS subjects, there are perception differences. The data presented here might
be suggesting that there are NSs who think NNSs do not have a good knowledge
in the target culture, possibly because they do not have as much experience
living in the target culture as the NSs do.
The perceptions of the strengths
of NS teachers that NNS subjects mentioned are: Being able to serve as
authentic input (4), knowledge of the target culture (3), more trust from
students (3), knowledge of idioms and vocabulary (3), and better pronunciation
and intonation (3).
It could be suggested that NNS
subjects put importance on being able to present authentic information in an
authentic manner. This might be a reflection of the NNSs’ perceptions that
authentic language should be taught, which these NNS subjects consider that
they are not as capable as NSs are.
The weaknesses of NS teachers
mentioned by NNS subjects are: lack of cross cultural understanding (5), lack
of language learning experience (3), lack of understanding of the language
learning process (2), and lack of understanding in students’ L1 (2).
Other interesting answers include
such qualities as confidence (1) mentioned by a NS subject as something that
she had but which the NNS teachers she had worked with before did not. Also,
one NNS subject mentioned accuracy as her strength and another thinks her
knowledge of both the target language and students’ L1 helps her as a teacher.
In these findings, we can observe
that a lack of cross-cultural understanding was considered a weakness of NSs.
The qualifications seen as missing in NSs are were those which come from
language learning experience. This was seen in a response by a NNS subject who
said that she believes her experience learning the language that she will be
teaching is a very strong advantage over NS teachers.
From the findings discussed in this section, it
can be clearly seen that NSs perceive themselves as having strengths in the
areas of aural production. This area of language skills is considered a
weakness for NNS teachers by NS subjects, and by NNSs themselves. This might
be an indicator of one area in which NSs are more qualified than NNS teachers
if the goal of the students’ in classroom is to have fluency in aural
production.
Also, in the area of knowledge of the language
which can be gained from actually using the language for a long time, such as
idioms, vocabulary, and knowledge of the target culture, NS teachers to be
considered more qualified than NNS teachers.
As for the advantages of NNS teachers, it was
perceived that they might have better grasp of the structure of English from
their own learning experience. Also, NNS teachers might have more empathy for
the students for the same reason. In addition, even with students from
different cultural backgrounds, NNS teachers might be better qualified in a
way because of their shared experience of learning the target language. The
results suggest that they are perceived to have a good understanding of
cross-cultural issues, possibly because they have learnt the English language
and English-speaking countries’ culture, sometimes by living in
English-speaking countries. These findings were observed in self-perceptions
as well as in the perceptions of the NS subjects. If these strengths are what
is needed for the classroom, NNS teachers could be considered better
qualified.
Findings: Difficulties Subjects Had with Students
Figure 2. Problems with
Students
|
|
NS |
NNS |
|
|
|
students with different L1 |
students with the same L1 |
|
Yes |
42% |
33% |
|
|
No |
47% |
33% |
33% |
|
Depends |
5% |
33% |
33% |
|
N/A |
5% |
0% |
22% |
For the questionnaire, there were two questions
for NNS subjects in this category: Problems with students who shared their
first language with the subjects, and with the ones who did not.
With students from different L1 backgrounds, all
the NNS subjects explained that their frustration was caused because they
could not speak the students’ L1. The difficulties mentioned here are: Could
not communicate effectively (1), could not understand students’ heavy accent
(1), and could not explain vocabulary well in English (1).
The difficulty of not being able to communicate
well with students who did not share their L1 was also observed in the NS
group. 2 NS subjects expressed such frustration. This was obviously caused by
their limited knowledge in the students’ L1. One NS explained that “students
were often more comfortable talking about classroom dynamics/difficulties with
the Japanese NSs.”
Another type of difficulty that the NS subjects
had was of cultural differences. 4 subjects pointed this out. One expressed
his frustration in his beginning days in Japan, saying “[s]ometimes when
Japanese junior high school students were asked a question, they did not
answer at all. They stared blankly or looked down at their desks, etc. This
behavior is culturally based and was tolerated by the NNS teacher, but it was
extremely frustrating for me at first.”
There were some interesting findings from the
interviews as well. With the students from the same L1 background, the NNS
subjects described that they had a hard time motivating students to speak
English with them. It was also observed, on the other hand, that one subject
believes that “[k]nowing Korean culture was a great asset because I knew how
and what the students thought and I was thus able to fulfill their
expectations...” This follows what was suggested by Medgyes (1992) who argues
that NNS teachers can be more empathetic to the students’ problems because
“... they never cease to be learners of English, they encounter difficulties
similar to those of their students...” (p.347). An interesting finding here is
that another NNS subject said that she tended to “baby” her students because
she knew how challenging it was for them to learn English, which she
experienced herself. Depending on their viewpoint, knowing the English
language learning process could work as NNSs’ advantage or disadvantage.
There was only one answer which refers to
difficulties the NNS subject had which was caused by their limited knowledge
of the target language. One NNS subject told me that it was difficult for her
to teach some students at a very advanced level who shared a similar English
educational background. She explained to me that since they had had a similar
English education with emphasis on the same grammatical items, there were not
too many differences in their knowledge of the target language. This subject
told me that she would feel more comfortable teaching students with different
backgrounds, since the difficulties that these students generally have would
be different from those of German students including the subject herself.
In this section, one similarity is observed
between the NS and NNS subjects: They both had difficulties when they lacked
knowledge of students' L1.
In addition, it was observed that NS subjects
expressed frustration caused by cultural differences. This type of difficulty
was not observed among the NNS subjects. This is consistent with the findings
discussed in the previous section where subjects were asked to describe
respective strengths and weaknesses, since cross-cultural understanding was
considered to be a strength of NNS teachers.
LIMITATIONS
One obvious limitation to this study is that it
was conducted in an English-speaking environment. This study was carried out
in such an environment where the researcher could elicit data from
current/future teachers who were trained in the same TESOL program so that the
training of the subjects received would be somewhat homogenous. However, at
the same time, a study conducted in an EFL setting would be informative for a
different population.
Another limitation could be that of the status
of the researcher as a NNS. It might have affected the answers from the
interviews when the subjects were asked questions such as what they considered
weaknesses of a NNS teacher.
In addition, there were not as many NNS TESOL
candidates at the Monterey Institute as that of NS TESOL candidates. This
might have affected the outcome of the study. Another possible limitation is
that of the lack of information about NNS teachers that NSs have worked with
before. It seems extremely difficult to obtain the background information on
the NNS teachers they worked with before. This means that these teachers could
have a range of qualifications. If there was indeed a range in their
qualifications as teachers, that might have affected the subjects’ perceptions
of the teachers with the opposite NS/NNS status, since the subjects might have
built their perceptions based on these teachers with whom they had worked
before.
The responses obtained regarding the strengths
and weaknesses of teachers with opposite NS/NNS status do not necessarily
correspond to what are suggested by the subjects to be their own strengths.
This might be a result of the method of data collection. The subjects were
given a set of options they could choose as their own strengths, but they were
not given the same set of options when asked what they considered to be the
strengths of teachers with the opposite NS/NNS status. This occurred because
open-ended questions were provided for more free responses regarding the
strengths and weaknesses of teachers with the opposite NS/NNS status.
Because of a nature of the perception study, it
cannot be concluded that the strengths and weaknesses that the subjects listed
for themselves and for each other are an actual indication of strengths and
weaknesses. Also, because of the small size of the subject number, the results
obtained from this study cannot be applied to a general population. However,
as the first step in identifying the types of teaching situations in which NS
and NNS teachers can fully utilize their strengths as teachers, this study
provides rich implications.
Future research looking at the differences
between NS and NNS teachers could include perceptions obtained from the
students’ viewpoint. This was something that was not done in this study, but
should be considered because of the fact that teaching should provide what
students want. By providing such information, teachers, including both NS and
NNS, would be able to obtain a deeper understanding of what they can offer to
students.
CONCULUSION
This study has presented data obtained from NS
and NNS teachers to show what the differences are in their perceptions of
their strengths. Also presented are the types of difficulties that the
subjects have had with students.
It was observed that there are
clear differences in the perceived strengths and weaknesses of NS/NNS in
certain areas of language teaching depending on their NS/NNS status. NSs seem
more confident in the areas of aural production, trust from students, idioms,
and appropriacy.
For NNSs, the areas of perceived
strengths were a better grasp of the structure of the English language,
knowledge of learning processes, and the knowledge of the difficulties
students encounter. Another strength of NNSs was considered to be their
cross-cultural understanding.
It can be summarized that the
disadvantages of NS teachers come from their lack of English learning
experience, or even from their lack of any type of language learning
experience. The disadvantages of NNS teachers seem to come from having less
exposure to authentic English which resulted in narrower knowledge of idioms,
appropriacy, and aural production.
It was also observed that with students whose L1 they did
not know, both NS and NNS subjects had difficulties. They both had a hard time
communicating with the students. However, an interesting difference was
observed. The NNS subjects did not express frustration caused by cultural
differences between themselves and their students, even though many of these
NNS subjects have taught in an ESL setting where classroom culture would be
different from the subjects’ own. On the other hand, some NS subjects
expressed their difficulties dealing with students from different cultural
backgrounds. This might be indicating that NNS teachers consider themselves
better qualified when it comes to cross-cultural understanding, which is
consistent with what many of the NS subjects listed as NNSs’ strength.
As mentioned by one NS subject,
confidence in themselves as language teachers could be another quality that
some NNSs seem to lack. If this is the case, NNS teachers must be “...made
more aware of their own advantageous potential as language teachers in
comparison with NETs (native English speaking teachers)” (Reves and Medgyes,
1994, p.364), because our peer NS teachers acknowledge NNS teachers’ strengths
in many different areas.
In order to achieve the ideal
school described in Medgyes (1992, p.349) where “...there should be a good
balance of NSs and non-NSs, who complement each other in their strengths and
weaknesses,” it is extremely important that we recognize our differences and
the assets that we all have as teachers. If the perceptions of the subjects of
this study turn out to be accurate, then the initial assumption, that
qualified teachers are by definition NSs, should be discarded in favor of a
balanced reckoning of the respective strengths of both NS/NNS teachers.
REFERENCES
Chang, M. & Endo, S. (1997). Are
two heads better than one?: A look into the effectiveness of team teaching. Unpublished
manuscript.
England, L. & Roberts, C. (1989). A Survey of Foreign
Students in MA-TESOL Programs. Paper presented at the TESOL
Convention, Antonio, Texas. In Phinney, M. (Ed.) The
Standard Bearer. TESOL Newsletter, 23 (6), 5.
Kamhi-Stein, L., Lee, E., & Lee, C. (1999). How TESOL
Programs Can Enhance the Preparation of Nonnative English Speakers. TESOL Matters, 9, 4.
McNeil, A. (1993). Some Characteristics of Native and
Non-Native Speaker Teachers of English. In Bird, N., and Others. (Eds.)
Language and Learning. Paper presented at the Annual International
Language in Education Conference, Hong Kong.
Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: who’s worth more?
ELT Journal, 46 (4), 340-349. Medgyes, P. & Reves, T. (1994). The non-native English
speaking EFL/ESL teacher’s self-image: an international survey. System, 22 (3),
353-367.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning.
Cambridge University Press. New York; NY.
Palfreyman, D. (1993). ‘How I got it in my head’:
Conceptual models of language and learning in native and non-native trainee EFL teachers.
Language Awareness, 2 (4), 209-223.
Phillipson, R. (1992). ELT:
the native speaker's burden? ELT Journal, 46 (1), 12-18.
Rampton, M. B. (1990). Displacing the ‘native-speaker’:
expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. ELT Journal, 44 (2), 97-101.
Appendix 1. Questions for NNS subjects
Teaching Experience
- Have you worked with NS (native
speaking) teachers before as a NNS (non-native speaking) teacher ?
Teaching Strengths
- Have you had any difficulties dealing
with students who shared your L1? (If you have never taught students who
shared your L1, please write N/A). If you answered yes, please describe the
situation.
- Have you had any difficulties dealing
with students who did NOT share your L1? (If you have never taught students
who shared your L1, please write N/A). If you answered yes, please describe
the situation.
- What are your strengths as a NNS
teacher? Please choose items from below.
- vocabulary
- fluency
- speaking
- pronunciation
- grammar
- listening comprehension
- idioms
- reading
- writing
- appropriateness
- intonation
- learning strategies
- speech acts (e.g. phone, invitation)
- knowledge of the target culture
- cross cultural knowledge
- knowledge of students’ L1
- What do you think would be the
strengths for NS teachers, assuming they are as well trained as you are?
- What do you think would be the
weaknesses for NS teachers, assuming they are as well trained as you are?
Appendix 2. Questions for NS subjects
Teaching Experience
- Have you worked with NNS (non-native
speaking) teachers before as a NS (native speaking) teacher ?
Teaching Strengths
- Have you had any difficulties dealing
with students? If you answered yes, please describe the situation.
- What are your strengths as a NNS
teacher? Please choose items from below.
- vocabulary
- fluency
- speaking
- pronunciation
- grammar
- listening comprehension
- idioms
- reading
- writing
- appropriateness
- intonation
- learning strategies
- speech acts (e.g. phone, invitation)
- knowledge of the target culture
- cross cultural knowledge
- knowledge of students’ L1
- What do you think would be the
strengths for NNS teachers, assuming they are as well trained as you are?
- What do you think would be the
weaknesses for NNS teachers, assuming they are as well trained as you are?