Non-native English Speaking Teachers in the Field of English Language Teaching: A Korean EFL teacher’s Perspective
Seong Man Park, Republic of Korea
Dr. Seong Man Park received his PhD in Second Language Education from McGill University, Canada, in 2010. He taught both English and Korean to Korean international students and to Korean immigrant secondary and college students in the Korean language school at the Hosanna church in Montreal, Canada for over 9 years. He also taught a teacher certificate course (i.e., Second language learning in Aboriginal communities) through the First Nations and Inuit Education programs at McGill University in 2011. He currently teaches English at Dankook University in Korea. He is interested in helping Korean students for their effective English learning as a major foreign language in Korea. E-mail: seongmanpark@dankook.ac.kr
Menu
Introduction
NEST and non-NESTs dichotomy
Differences between NESTs and non-NESTs
Pedagogical implications for the non-NESTs in the field of ELT
The role of the non-NESTs in the field of ELT
Conclusion
References
In the area of English language teaching (ELT), there are a growing number of teachers who are not native speakers of English. Although great part of the teachers in the field of ELT all over the world is non-native English speaking teachers (non-NEST), their role and importance have not been emphasized in the ELT profession (i.e., Arva & Medgyes, 2000; Maum, 2002; Liu, 1999). With regard to the status of non-NESTs, Phillipson (1996) defines non-NESTs as possibly the ideal EFL teachers due to the fact that they have gone through the same process of acquiring English as a second (or foreign) language as their respective students. In addition to non-NESTs’ first-hand experience in learning English as a second language, several researchers (e.g., Jeon, 2009; Maum, 2002) claim that there are also other factors that can give advantages to the non-NESTs as ideal teachers, such as their good background knowledge of the learners’ linguistic and cultural problems and their familiarity with the local community. Non-NESTs, those who have the same first language and culture as their students in particular, have developed a keen awareness of the differences between English and their students’ first language; thus, “this sensitivity gives them the ability to anticipate their students’ linguistic problems” (Maum, 2002, para. 6).
In this paper, the important roles of the non-NESTs, their status and identity in the field of ELT will be examined by the comparison between native English speaking teachers (NEST) and non-NESTs from a Korean EFL teacher’s viewpoint as one of the non-NESTs. In addition, the several ways to improve non-NESTs’ strengths, their public image, and their self-perception will also be explored, so that the non-NESTs can have a keen sense of awareness in their own advantages and disadvantages, develop their strengths, and supplement their weaknesses as EFL teachers in comparison with the NESTs in the field of ELT.
The native and non-native speaker dichotomy has a reasonable ground based on the linguistic and pragmatic features (Arva & Medgyes, 2000). However, there is still a huge debate on this dichotomy. According to Cook (1999), a native speaker is a person who learnt the native language first during his or her childhood. Meanwhile, Medgyes (1992) defines a native English speaker as a person who was born in English speaking countries and can use the English language fluently and accurately with native-like competence as a first language. With regard to the definition of a non-native English speaker, Liu (1999) defines a non-native English speaker as a person who was born in non-English speaking countries and who can use the English language as a second or foreign language with non-native-like proficiency and competence.
Concerning this dichotomy, Auerbach (1993) argues that this dichotomy is meaningless, especially in the field of ELT, since there are several more significant factors than this useless and non-theoretical matter of whether English is used as the teachers’ first language.
In a similar vein, Medgyes (1992) also mentions that this distinction might be meaningless unless other factors such as “age, sex, education, intelligence, profession, and experiences” (p. 343) should be considered. Liu (1999) also states that this distinction cannot be fully explained only through the linguistic matters without considering teachers’ “culture, identity, and environmental matters” (p. 93). Thus, several researchers (e.g., Medgyes, 1992; Rampton, 1990) suggest that this dichotomy should be replaced with more appropriate terms such as “educated English speaker” (Medgyes, 1992, p. 342) and “expert speakers” (Rampton, 1990, p. 99).
It is apparent that the main difference between NESTs and non-NESTs is directly related to the linguistic matters. Arva and Medgyes (2000) claim that “the primary advantage attributed to the NESTs lies in their superior English-language competence” (p. 360). This means that NESTs can use English spontaneously and present any kinds of communicative situations in English through their linguistic advantage over non-NESTs (Arva & Medgyes, 2000). The other important advantage of the NESTs is their motivational impact on their learners in the classroom (Arva & Medgyes, 2000; Turnbull, 2001). Turnbull (2001) claims that NESTs’ exclusive use of English can make learners consider English as a real language in their real life instead of just an academic subject. Arva and Medgyes (2000) also mention that NESTs can give their learners the motivation “by virtue of using English as a genuine vehicle of communication” (p. 364). Tang (1997) also mentions that NESTs are superior to non-NESTs in the area of proficiency and competency in the use of English. However, there is a warning against the overemphasis on the lack of native-like competency of non-NESTs. Cook (2001) claims that the goal of the second language teaching should not be identically treated as the goal of the first language teaching in order not to make non-NESTs failures in their EFL teaching simply due to their lack of native-like proficiency and competency.
With regard to the advantages of non-NESTs in the field of ELT, several researchers (e.g., Maum, 2002; Medgyes, 1992; Tang, 1997) mention that non-NESTs’ same first language as their students and their experience as second language learners would be their most important advantages over NESTs. This means that non-NESTs share the same first language as their learners and thus have experienced a similar if not the same process of learning English as their second or foreign language as their learners. Concerning the use of their same first language in their EFL teaching, Maum (2002) emphasizes that non-NESTs “have developed a keen awareness of the differences between English and their learners’ first language” (p. 3). In particular, several researchers (Arva & Medgyes, 2000; Polio & Dyff, 1994) also point out that non-NESTs’ use of the same first language is their most important asset in teaching grammar. Arva and Medgyes (2000, p. 362) also claim that non-NESTs’ “in-depth knowledge of the structure of English as well as a metacognitive awareness of how it worked” can help learners acquire English grammars efficiently. This implies that non-NESTs’s use of their first language is more efficient than NESTs’ exclusive use of English especially in the field of teaching English grammars. The second most significant advantage of non-NESTs is their experience of learning English as their second (or foreign) language. With regard to the advantage of a non-NEST’s experience, Medgyes (1983, p. 6) clearly states that “through his own experience as a persistent learner of English on the one hand, and through the experience gained over the years as a foreign language teacher on the other, he should know best where the two culture and, consequently, the two languages converge and diverge”. Moreover, Medgyes (1983) claims that “more than any native speaker, he is aware of the difficulties his students are likely to encounter and the possible errors they are likely to make” (p. 6). In a similar vein, Maum claims that “non-NESTs have had to adopt language-learning strategies during their own learning process, most likely making them better qualified to teach those strategies and more empathetic to their students’ linguistic challenges and needs” (Maum, 2002, para. 7).
Several researchers (e.g., Auerbach, 1993; Megyes, 1992) provide the following three pedagogical implications for the non-NESTs in the EFL classroom. First, the non-NESTs should judiciously use the students’ first language to the best advantage, because the sharing of the same first language in the EFL classroom can be the most effective asset of the non-NESTs particularly within the highly monolingual Korean context where “the majority of Koreans are rarely in regular contact with speakers of languages other than Korean, and practically all aspects of life are conducted in Korean” (Jeon, 2009, p. 232). The sharing of the same first language between teachers and learners can help the learners develop “meta-cognitive awareness” (Auerbach, 1993, p. 24). Second, the non-NESTs should be role models to their students, since non-NESTs have passed through the same process as their pupils in the same monolingual context. Thus, non-NESTs should make every effort to be a good role model for their learners in the class setting. Third, the non-NESTs should make the most use of the deep background knowledge about the linguistic and cultural differences between their first language and the English language. Although the NESTs have an advantage in their own linguistic and cultural background knowledge over the non-NESTs, this knowledge cannot exceed the limitation of their lack of knowledge on the learners’ own language and culture. In this regard, non-NESTs should play a mediator role between the students’ first language and English by utilizing their expertise and information relevant to the English language teaching.
In comparing NEST and non-NESTS, it seems to indicate that the most non-NESTs feel that their disadvantages mostly come from their lack of native-like proficiency and competency (Medgyes, 1992). However, native-like proficiency and competency in English language teaching is merely one part of the qualities that both native and non-native teachers should possess as English language teachers. Should the native-like proficiency and competency in English be the only necessary proficiency expected of the English language teachers, then the non-NESTs can never surpass the NESTs’ superiority in the English teaching in the field of ELT. However, this does not mean that the non-NESTs can ignore the importance of native-like proficiency and competency in their English language teaching. In order to overcome this weakness, the non-NESTs should be fully prepared linguistically and pedagogically in their English teaching. They should constantly work to improve their proficiency in English through continuous self-development and enthusiastic learning. In addition, they should try to make every effort to help their students to learn English more efficiently and correctly through application of their similar experience as foreign language learners and the sharing of the same first language and cultural background as their students.
In spite of the advantages and strengths of the non-NESTs, their important role and status in the field of ELT have been ignored and undervalued by the NESTs, educational authorities, and their students. In the Korean context, Jeon (2009, p. 231) clearly states that “the ideology of the native English speaker as the ideal teacher, readily adopted by the Korean government and people, does not grant native English teachers legitimacy as teachers in their everyday interactions with Korean teachers of English and Korean students”. She also claims that “the dichotomy of the native speaker of English as a superior teacher, and the non-native speaker of English as an inferior teacher, is too simplistic to explain real-life experiences of EFL teachers” (Jeon, 2009, p. 231).
Now it is time to avert our eyes from the meaningless NEST and non-NEST dichotomy as Auerbach (1999) claims that the ideal EFL teachers should be the ones who receive adequate and abundant English teaching training. Thus, the non-NESTs who are well trained and fully qualified with the sharing of the same first language and culture, familiarity with their local society and environment, and the same experience as second language learners can yield a great contribution to the EFL students’ English learning. As Maum (2002) claims, the non-NESTs should make every effort to become the ideal English teacher and reclaim “their position as equal partners in the field of English language teaching” (para. 15).
Arva, V., & Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the classroom. System, 28, 355-372.
Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. Tesol Querterly, 27, 9-32.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. Tesol Quarterly, 33, 185-209.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402-423.
Jeon, M. (2009). Globalization and native English speakers in English Programme in Korea (EPIK), Language, Culture and Curriculum, 22(3), 231-243.
Liu, J. (1999). Nonnative-English-speaking professionals in TESOL. Tesol Quarterly, 33, 85-102.
Maum, R. (2002). Nonnative-English-Speaking teachers in the English teaching profession (Report No. EDO-FL-02-09). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED470982)
Medgyes, P. (1983). The schizophrenic teacher. ELT Journal, 37(1), 2-6.
Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: Who’s worth more? ELT journal, 46(4), 340-349.
Phillipson, R. (1996). ELT: the native speaker’s burden. In T. Hedge & N. Whitney (Eds.), Power, pedagogy & practice (pp. 23-30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Polio, C. G., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language classroom: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 313-326.
Rampton, M. B. H. (1990). Displacing the ‘native speaker’: expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. ELT Journal, 44(2), 97-101.
Tang, C. (1997). The identity of the nonnative ESL teachers on the power and status of nonnative ESL teachers. Tesol Quarterly, 31(3), 577-579.
Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, But....The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), 531-540.
Please check the How to be a Teacher Trainer course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Creative Communication Skills for Teachers and Teacher Trainers course at Pilgrims website.
|
