NON-NATIVE TEACHERS AND ADVOCACY

Enric Llurda, Universitat de Lleida (Catalonia, Spain)

ellurda@dal.udl.cat

Draft version of a paper published in The Routledge Handbook of Educational

Linguistics, edited by Martha Bigelow and Johanna Ennser-Kananen. New York:
Routledge, pp. 105-116.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

Non-native language teachers have historically remained invisible in mainstream

applied and educational linguistics, their contribution disregarded or looked down on.
The dominant vision on the language teaching profession had entrenched the native
speaker as the ideal teacher, and therefore only native speakers were endowed with the
knowledge and authority to pass on the language to learners, much like a religious guru
can implement certain sacred rituals which are forbidden to non-members of the group.
Only when native speakers were not available would non-natives be tolerated as
teachers of the language, although they could never aspire to the same level of authority
and legitimacy of ‘real’ native speakers. They were accepted as surrogate teachers, but
had no right to claim a legitimate role in the language teaching task, and so their voice
was hardly –if ever– heard. The literature on language teaching and language
acquisition has, therefore, been historically dominated by a native speaker bias, which
has affected the way second language acquisition has been conceptualized as well as the
guiding principles of second language teaching. For instance, if we look into the
different methods and approaches that appeared in the second half of the 20th century,
we can find several discrepancies regarding the teaching of grammar, the type of
materials used in class, and the use of spontaneous language vs. planned structures
(Richards and Rodgers, 2001). What we cannot find is any discrepancy in the teacher
model that underlies all those proposals and ideas for classroom intervention. In all
cases, the native speaker remained the default teacher, the one who spoke ‘with no
errors’, and could therefore guide the student into the realm of the new language. In
short, the unchallenged assumption was that you cannot invite somebody to a place
unless it is ‘your’ place: you cannot teach a language unless it is ‘your’ language, and
you can only claim the language to be ‘yours’ if you are a native speaker. The
invisibility of non-native teachers had its manifestation in how methods of language
teaching were designed, packaged and promoted, but also in research of classroom-
based interaction, in which the issue was not even mentioned or discussed, and more
especially in the whole field of teacher training, completely ignorant of the specificity
and the needs of this particular group of teachers.

What were non-native teachers expected to do at that time? They were supposed to pay
close attention to native speakers’ performance and to work hard to imitate them in all
aspects. Yet, they could never escape a sense of inadequacy, a feeling of being
‘impostors’ pretending to be what they surely were not (Bernat, 2008). This view has,
fortunately, changed a great deal in the last twenty years. Contemporary educational
linguistics has incorporated the notion of the non-native teacher and the need to
challenge the authority of the native speaker as fundamental elements of the discipline,
which has managed to critically deal with previously established notions and
foundations. The leading force questioning the native speaker as the default teacher has
been in the area of English teaching, but there is some evidence that the movement is

1
spreading out onto the teaching of other languages (Callahan, 2006). The reason why
English teaching has been the leader in the advocacy of non-native teachers must be
traced back to the leading role of English as the most widely learned second language,
as well as the increasing presence of non-native speakers of English in influential
academic positions at the international level. Kachru’s influential notion of ‘World
Englishes’ and the nativization of English in ‘outer circle countries’ (Kachru, 1986,
1992) is fundamental to understand this move. The direction initiated by Kachru was
later completed by the formulation of English as a Lingua Franca (Seidlhofer, 2011)
with its challenge to native speaker ownership of English (Widdowson, 1994, 2012).
Kachru opened the door to new varieties of English and engaged the linguistic
community in a description of the English(es) used by multilingual speakers of English
in countries other than the traditionally considered English-speaking countries. His
work was key in promoting the acceptance of diversity among English speakers. The
global presence of English and the increasing use of English among non-native speakers
is one of the reasons why so many people now consider it totally unnecessary to aim at
speaking English like native speakers. The fact that the world has more non-native
speakers of English than native speakers, and the great amount of English interactions
in which participants’ first language is not English gives non-natives the right to claim
the language their own, and consider themselves –as never before in history– co-
protagonists in the ELT profession.

In this context, we need to situate the first studies that brought non-native language
teachers to the fore in academic publications. Medgyes published his first piece on this
topic around thirty years ago (Medgyes, 1983). In that paper, he used the term
‘schizophrenic’ to describe the state of mind of non-native teachers who (openly or
secretly) wish to become native-like. Thus, he openly discussed for the first time the
struggle of non-native teachers wishing to be recognized in the profession while at the
same time feeling somehow inadequate for the job. The first research-based piece
focussing on non-native teachers, however, did not appear until ten years later, with the
publication of the results of an international survey comparing the characteristics of
native and non-native teachers of English (Medgyes, 1994; Reves and Medgyes, 1994).

Medgyes’s survey pictured non-native English teachers (NNESTs) as having a bright

and a dark side as compared to native teachers (NESTs). Medgyes concluded that both
NSs and NNSs needed to be aware of their own strengths and weaknesses and he argued
that a combination of both NSs and NNSs would be ideal in any educational
environment. This approach was empowering although it did certainly simplify and
somehow overgeneralize the picture. Yet, Medgyes’ pioneering work shook the
profession and became the basis upon which a great deal of future research was built, as
can be observed by looking at the wide range of studies that have been inspired by or
have even directly used Medgyes’ questionnaire. Medgyes also emphasized the
language deficit of NNESTs, an approach which was criticized by Samimy (1997),
because “the overemphasis on the linguistic deficit could perpetuate a sense of
marginalization among nonnative professionals rather than promote a sense of
empowerment” (Samimy 1997: 817). However, Medgyes further insisted on the idea of
the importance of language proficiency development by NNESTs (Medgyes, 1999), and
his arguments were supported by other researchers (Derwing and Munro, 2005; Lim,
2011; Llurda, 2005b) who, in addition to acknowledging the unfairness of a situation in
which NNESTs are constantly suspected for lack of (NS) proficiency, emphasised the

2
need to be competent users of the language in order to adequately display their teaching
skills.

This point of departure in research on non-native teachers has undoubtedly determined

the direction of subsequent studies. The need to undermine existing discriminatory
practices generally favouring NESTS over NNESTs, and the commitment to advocate
for NNESTs’ rights and conditions has strongly determined research on NNESTs,
placing the emphasis on the assets of NNESTs, rather than on their potential
weaknesses. This may have been misinterpreted in certain contexts up to the point that
some NSs have felt the need to claim their own status after they may have experienced
some discriminatory practices, especially in countries with regulations preventing
foreigners to access permanent teaching jobs in the state school system.. Such a view
has been more prominent in contexts were foreigners may have been othered and
isolated from the local community (e.g., Japan), creating also a sense of distrust and
potential discrimination (Houghton and Rivers, 2013). The dominant thread of NNEST
research however, has aimed at developing awareness of NNESTs as a tool to increase
self-confidence and overcome marginalization. And thus, in-depth qualitative studies
have flowered in the last few years, focusing their attention on NNESTs’ lives and
ideological construction of reality (Hayes, 2010; Ilieva, 2010; Reis, 2011, 2012; de
Oliveira and Lan 2012).

CORE ISSUES AND KEY FINDINGS

Non-native teachers’ identities have been strongly determined by what Phillipson

(1992) labelled “the native-speaker phallacy”, or in a more elaborate form, what
Holliday (2005) named “native speakerism”, a particular way of “othering” or
marginalising NNSs, and consequently one of the many manifestations of racism
(Holliday, 2005). And race is in fact a key element in the discussion of native and non-
native teachers, as discriminatory practices are often associated with practices of
segregation of “the other”, the foreigner, the stranger who does not belong to the inner
circle or the native community, and such discriminatory practices are conveniently
disguised as common sense. The effects on teacher identities of racialized categories
associated to the native/non-native distinction are explored and discussed in the works
of Amin (1997), Chacon (2006), Kubota and Lin (2006), and Motha (2006).

Native speakerism has contributed to the impression that native teachers are better
suited to teach a language and additionally that students prefer them over non-native
teachers. Such a claim was widely held until some researchers did actually ask students
on their views towards native and non-native teachers and found that students were
much more aware of the virtues of a language teacher than expected, and could
appreciate non-native teachers by their true value rather than applying preconceived
stereotypes (Benke and Medgyes, 2005; Lasagabaster and Sierra, 2005; Mahboob,
2004; Pacek, 2005; Watson Todd and Pojanapunya, 2009). However, using a matched-
guise technique, Butler (2007) found that Korean primary students’ attitude toward the
American-accented English guise were superior to the Korean one, and they preferred
the former as a prospective teacher. In short, when students’ opinions are taken into
account, we find some bias towards NS teachers (Moussu 2010), which is rather
compensated by a high appreciation of NNS teachers’ value and qualities by students
who have experienced both NS and NNS teachers (Benke and Medgyes, 2005; Cheung

3
and Braine, 2007; Lipovsky and Mahboob, 2010; Moussu, 2010; Mullock, 2010;
Pacek, 2005). Moreover, Moussu (2010) focused on students’ first language, expected
grades, teachers’ countries of origin, and class subject (grammar, reading, etc.) in order
to establish a connection between these variables and the attitudinal responses given by
students on native and non-native teachers. For instance, Asian students held less
positive attitudes towards all teachers, and particularly towards NNESTs, than students
from the Mediterranean area. Teachers’ first language was a relevant variable, but as
shown in previous studies (Inbar-Lourie, 2005, Liu, 1999), students did not always
guess the native or non-native identity of their teachers. Interestingly, students’ attitudes
at the end of the semester were better than at the beginning, but this improvement was
more visible in the case of non-native teachers.

These results confirm that preconceived ideas favouring native teachers over non-native
ones are well-extended, although everyday experience has the power to transform those
stereotypes into awareness of actual teaching skills by any given teacher, be it native or
non-native. Yet, non-native teachers have been repeatedly found to have some relative
strengths over natives, and particularly over those native teachers who are monolingual
and monocultural and therefore lack the experience of having learned a foreign
language and ignore the language and culture of their students. Research has found that
bilingual and bicultural non-native teachers can greatly contribute to the language
teaching profession (Llurda, 2005a). Some recurrently found advantages of non-native
teachers are their higher level of language awareness (Llurda, 2005b; Medgyes, 1994),
their higher empathy and role model function (Faez, 2012; Nemtchinova, 2005), and the
capacity to predict the actual difficulties students will encounter in the process of
learning (McNeill, 2005).

Non-native teachers often have to face many instances of overt job discrimination.
Mahboob et al. (2004) and Clark and Paran (2007) respectively found that a majority of
US and UK employers in the ELT sector considered nativeness an important factor in
hiring English teachers. Other factors were also taken into account in the recruiting
process, but certainly being a native speaker appeared to be an asset and, other things
being equal, the native speaker would be preferred over the non-native. In a similar
vein, Selvi (2010) analysed job advertisements posted electronically in two leading
English language teaching recruitment resources, to find that a majority of
advertisements specified nativeness or made some reference to the native condition as
part of the job requirements. In spite of evident cases of job discrimination and some
biased perceptions held by social agents, there is a rather well-established consensus
that the difficulties experienced by non-natives in being recognized and establishing
their professional status are due to their own lack of self-confidence and low
professional self-esteem (Moussu, 2006; Nemtchinova, 2005). Some evidence suggests
that NNS teachers themselves suffer a specific type of self-hatred that has been
metaphorically labelled ‘impostor syndrome’ (Bernat, 2008) or Stockholm syndrome
(Llurda, 2009a), consisting in secretly admiring the native speaker and denying
themselves of the legitimate right to be considered rightful language users and teachers.
Some research has been conducted on establishing ways and procedures to improve the
level of self-confidence and professional self-esteem, especially during teacher
education (Barratt, 2010; Golombek and Jordan, 2005; Lee, 2004; Llurda et al., 2006).
This is often connected to an emphasis on language development. Thus, Lim (2011)
connects language proficiency to student teachers’ career decision-making, and Shin
(2008) provides practical suggestions for improving non-native teachers’ conditions,

4
with a strong emphasis on developing language skills and incorporating the discourses
of local communities. Ilieva (2010) claims that students often end up parroting
discourses on issues such as equity or multicompetence, but at the same time
acknowledges the influence of such discourses on offering new identity options and
empowerment linked to the development of agency. Reis (2011) also offers a socio-
culturally based narrative of the process of empowerment experienced by a Russian
non-native speaker of English in the context of a graduate program in applied linguistics
in the US. The study is based on the idea that “through critical reflection and
collaborative inquiry, NNESTs can challenge disempowering discourses and conceive
of legitimizing professional identities” (Reis, 2011: 34) and recounts the process by
which a non-native graduate student engages in a dialogical questioning of the native
speaker myth. One of the conclusions of this study is that “it is critical for teacher
educators to create mediational spaces that allow NNESTs to collaboratively challenge
disempowering discourses and conceive of legitimizing professional identities” (Reis,
2011: 48).

Attitudes of NNS teachers towards their own competence in teaching a language that is
not their native one are strongly influenced by concepts such as ownership or legitimate
use of a language. Young and Walsh (2010) argue that many NNESTs in their study
show confusion regarding target language varieties in EFL, and yet they do participate
of a standard language ideology, which was defined by Lippi-Green (1997) as “a bias
toward an abstracted, idealized, homogeneous spoken language which is imposed and
maintained by dominant bloc institutions and which names as its model the written
language, but which is drawn primarily from the spoken language of the upper middle
class” (Lippi-Green, 1997: 64). Jenkins (2007) contended that non-native teachers have
“ambivalent attitudes towards their own English accents” (p. 211) with almost all
participants expressing “a strong desire for an NS English accent” (p. 212), due to a
generally assumed accent hierarchy, in which some NS accents are clearly on top. It is
reasonable to assume that users who hold very strong favourable attitudes towards the
preservation of native varieties of the language will tend to deny legitimacy to non-
native speakers of the language. On the contrary, teachers who embrace the idea of
English as an international language or English as a Lingua Franca will legitimize their
role as language educators (Llurda, 2004, 2009a). Interestingly, native-supremacy
attitudes are more strongly held by NNESTs who have had very little contact with
communities of speakers of English. Conversely, NNESTs who have spent a prolonged
period in an English-speaking country display more critical positions towards the
alleged superiority of native varieties and show a stronger appreciation of the legitimacy
of non-native uses of the language (Llurda, 2008).

Asking teachers about the strengths and weaknesses of native and non-native teachers
has been one of the most frequently used sources of data related to this topic. Non-
native teachers have been asked in different contexts and moments to reflect on their
own condition and the specific contribution NNESTs could make to their language
students. Reves and Medgyes (1994), Llurda and Huguet (2003), and Ma (2012) are
three studies conducted in three different decades and geographical contexts. Reves and
Medgyes (1994) conducted an international questionnaire involving teachers connected
to the British Council international network, whereas Llurda and Huguet (2003)
restricted their study to teachers working in the primary and secondary education sector
in the city of Lleida, in Catalonia, with an emphasis on comparing responses given by
teachers in the two educational stages (primary vs. secondary). Ma (2012) specifically

5
attempted to look at strengths and weaknesses of native and non-native teachers in
Hong Kong. In all three studies, the perceptions of the high and low points of non-
native teachers were rather similar, with a perceived advantage of NNESTs over natives
on communication and empathy with students, understanding of local education system,
and increased language awareness, which also implied more clarity in grammar
explanations. Conversely, non-natives were consistently found at a loss in language
skills and target culture knowledge, together with a lack of spontaneity and an excessive
reliance on textbooks.

These results need to be placed in perspective given the strong evidence showing that
NNESTs are not a homogenous group, neatly separated from natives, but rather
constitute a very diverse group, placed alongside a continuum with so-called native
speakers (Brutt-Grifler and Samimy, 2001; Davies, 2003; Faez, 2011; Liu, 1999; and
Moussu and Llurda, 2008). Thus, non-natives teaching in different settings (e.g., US
and Japan) are likely to experience very different challenges, and therefore construct
different identities. Additionally, the educational levels at which teachers are appointed,
or the type of training received, and whether part of that training took place in an
English-speaking country may also contribute to differentiate among NNESTs, as well
as level of target language proficiency, a rather distinctive feature that cannot be ignored
in the characterisation of NNESTs.

RESEARCH APPROACHES

Research on non-native teachers was for a long time dependent on the seminal work by
Medgyes (1994), and therefore relied almost exclusively on survey data. Questionnaires
were used to ask teachers in different contexts about their native-non-native condition
and about their language and teaching skills. Still now, questionnaires are rather used in
research on this topic. However, the field has moved on to incorporate a wider range of
research methods allowing for richer insights.

Moussu and Llurda (2008) offered an extensive overview of research on non-native

English teachers, and also dealt with theoretical and practical implications identifying
past, present and future lines of research. Regarding implications, it was made clear that
status and empowerment were directly involved and affected by research, which could
thus not remain neutral, as it must take a stance on the critical analysis of the socio-
educational environment and conditions in which non-native teachers develop their
professional task. These authors reviewed the main research methods used to investigate
this topic and complained about the excessive reliance on questionnaires and self-
reports. An analysis of the methods employed in the field brought the authors to
conclude that existing research had made use of the following techniques:

1) non-empirical reflections on the nature and conditions of NNS teachers

2) personal experiences and narratives
3) surveys
4) interviews, and
5) classroom observations

One of the points made by Moussu and Llurda (2008) was the need for a higher amount
of research with a more ‘objective’ component. Holliday and Aboshiha (2009) criticized

6
this idea which they considered as being sustained by a modernist viewpoint (p. 671) as
opposed to the postmodern approach supported by them. In criticizing “the struggle to
be objective” (p. 671) they advocated for more complex and varied approaches of
gaining understanding into the nature of non-native teachers, and especially ones that
aim at identifying how ideology remains present, albeit hidden, in the professional
discourses. This point of view is worth looking at, as it emphasizes the value of what
they termed thick description: “a wide range of instances from different locations and
times” (Holliday and Aboshiha 2009, p. 672), although in arguing for the value of this
method they may tend to underemphasize the value of research based on quantitative
data, which in my view very nicely complements postmodern approaches, as well as
experiential or introspective ‘qualitative’ research. In this sense the increasing use of
mixed-methods designs in educational research offers new ways of looking at the
traditional dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative research.

In the last few years, we have seen studies using in-depth interviews (Benson, 2012;
Hayes, 2010) and auto-biographies (Lim, 2011; Park, 2012) to research non-native
teachers’ identities, and thus our understanding of the complex environments and
situations experienced by a diversity of NNESTs has enriched. Yet, the main point in
Moussu and Llurda’s (2008) discussion on research methods still holds true, as there is
a lack of studies taking a more distant, objective, view on non-native teachers. Watson
Todd and Pojanapunya (2009) did use the “Implicit Association Test (IAT)”, thus
incorporating an innovative research design adapted from the field of social psychology,
by means of which they determined implicit attitudes of students towards non-native
teachers in Thailand. But still, research using other methods is strongly needed in order
to complement data obtained through interviews, dialogue and self-reports with data
obtained by other means, such as direct observation of classroom performance and
direct measurement of performance indicators.

An increasing number of studies based on narratives and interview data have been
published. Some particularly insightful studies are Ilieva (2010), Reis (2011) and Park
(2012), all providing reflective accounts on non-native teacher trainees in TESOL
programs in North-America, and Hayes (2010) who contributes the personal history of a
Tamil English teacher in Sri Lanka during times of war. Liou (2008) combines survey
data with interviews to provide a complex picture of multiple identities taken by non-
native teachers of English in Taiwan, relating their professional identities to the current
role of English as an international language. And following Moussu and Llurda’s (2008)
suggestion to explore new methods of research in order to widen the scope of studies on
non-native teachers, Selvi (2010) focused on online job advertisements to demonstrate
the “multifaceted nature of discriminatory hiring practices”, including such aspects as
variety of English spoken, location of academic degrees obtained, and location of
residence (p. 172). All in all, we may conclude that there has been some progress in the
variety of methods and depth of analysis since Moussu and Llurda’s (2008) review
article, and thus the picture is now becoming richer and more complex with good
reasons to expect new studies in the near future that will contribute to our understanding
of non-native teachers.

NEW DEBATES

7
Beyond the comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of NNESTs and NESTs, one of
the main goals of research on NNESTs has been to contribute to the empowerment of
this group of teachers. A defining element was a critical approach to mainstream
assumptions based on the supremacy of the native speaker in ELT. Such assumptions, I
have contended elsewhere (Llurda 2009b), are deeply rooted in the monolingual bias
that has traditionally characterised linguistics, applied linguistics and educational
linguistics. Therefore, focussing on NNESTs brings a new way of approaching
language, language learning and language teaching, which Mahboob (2010) calls the
NNEST lens, characterised by its multilingual, multinational and multicultural
perspective.

Recent work has emphasized the need to move beyond the rather limiting paradigm of
comparing NESTs and NNESTs, as it constrains the work on NNESTs to a never-
ending circle of surveys in which the same results are permanently obtained, and which
do not contribute to increase our understanding of the NNEST condition or to decrease
the level of discrimination and disempowerment experienced by this group. Moussu and
Llurda (2008) stated their vision of what future directions should NNEST research take,
and they explicitly asked for more studies focusing on diversity within NNESTs and
more classroom observation studies. Whereas we have had a few of the former, not
much has been published based on classroom observation of NNESTs. More recently,
Mahboob (2010) and Braine (2010) also referred to what directions should NNEST
research take in the future. Thus, Braine (2010) asked for more collaborative research
by NSs and NNSs, as well as longitudinal studies that provide in-depth insights into
NNESTs, considering “the day-to-day challenges they face as both users and teachers of
English, their relationship with the English language beyond the classroom, their
professional growth, and their place in society” (p. 88).

One area that has repeatedly been referred to in the literature but still suffers from a lack
of research is self-confidence and professional self-esteem. It has been said that one of
the greatest problems experienced by NNESTs is their lack of self-esteem which is
responsible for some of their reported weaknesses as well as for their generalized
acceptance of the discriminatory practices that they experience in the language teaching
profession (Lee, 2004; Llurda et al., 2006; Moussu, 2006). However, there is not yet
any large study, other than tentative approximations to the issue, that deal with NNESTs
and self-esteem, and investigate how to overcome the deficit approach that characterises
many NNESTs’ professional identity.

Undoubtedly, NNEST self-esteem will be narrowly tied to the concept of English as an

International Language (Sharifian 2009) or English as a Lingua Franca (Seidlhofer
2011). NNESTs, especially those working outside the Inner Circle (Kachru, 1992), need
to embrace this concept in order to be accepted as legitimate users of the language,
rather than permanent learners who cannot yet be granted ‘ownership’ of the language.
Supporting the notion of English as a Lingua Franca is basic to establishing NNESTs
side by side to NESTs, equally positioned to claim the status of proficient user of the
language.

Finally, the question of teaching methodology and its adequacy to local contexts and
individual characteristics needs to be critically questioned and problematized. The
traditional assumption of what was acknowledged to be ‘good language teaching’ has
strongly determined the way teachers, both NS and NNS, were judged. However, the

8
notion of what method to use and whether there is such a thing as an ideal method,
regardless of the local context, has been put into question (Kumaravadivelu, 2003),
which calls for a reconsideration of the notion of “good language teaching practices”
against which teachers’ professional competence was measured. Future research needs
to look at NNESTs in their local contexts and establish ways that allow us to understand
what constitutes an adequate/inadequate practice in a given local context. In other
words, we need to move beyond centre-based models of language teaching and develop
new ways of redefining teaching competence, so as to be able to critically appraise
individual NNESTs’ performance.

IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION

All in all, research on NNESTs has had a deep impact on educational linguistics. Let us
now consider some of its most relevant implications. In first place, it has transformed
the way language teaching is construed, evolving from its conception as an activity
ideally involving native speakers to one in which different individuals contribute their
share to the intended goal of helping learners develop their language skills. At the same
time, placing the focus on the contributions made by non-native teachers has brought a
more open view of language models and standards, calling into question the need to
reproduce a restricted set of socially prestigious forms of language. Simultaneously, it
has been instrumental in promoting social justice by raising awareness of the
discrimination encountered by many competent and well-prepared teachers who could
not access jobs to which they were qualified and ready because of their non-native
condition. Discrimination based on accent in the US was amply explored by Lippi-
Green (1997), and the lack of sound reasons for maintaining a critical divide between
native and non-native speakers was convincingly stated by Davies (2003). Research on
NNESTs has shown how much discrimination still exists and how it is embedded on
unfounded and preconceived ideas of what constitutes good language teaching. Such
awareness has enormously contributed to the enhancement of professionals’ self-
esteem, encompassing here language teaching professionals, but also university
professors participating in international meetings and conferences, or teaching assistants
at North-American, British, or Australian universities. Additionally, the NNEST
movement has served as a gathering place for a diversity of researchers interested in
language and education. They have found a platform for sharing ideas and mutual
encouragement to gradually penetrate an academic world vastly dominated by English
native speakers, who act as gate-keepers controlling access to scientific knowledge,
while at the same time imposing their cultural and language norms. Finally, as a
consequence of what has just been said above, research on NNESTs has brought a new
way to look at language teaching, and every area of study related to language. Such a
new way of looking at linguistics in its widest sense is what Mahboob (2010) has
termed “the NNEST lens”, which entails a new way of approaching recurrent problems
in language, language teaching and language-based research.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

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

9
 This book marked the beginning of interest in non-native teachers. It was awarded
with the Duke of Edinburgh Award, a recognition of its innovative postulates and
implications for the language teaching profession.
Braine, G. (ed.) (1999). Nonnative Educators in English Language Teaching. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Braine’s volume initiated the move towards empowerment of NNESTs by providing
a series of personal stories, together with some studies emphasizing the positive
aspects of being a non-native educator. This book prompted several researchers to
turn their attention to this new field of research.
Kamhi-Stein, L. (ed.) (2004). Learning and Teaching from Experience: Perspectives on
Nonnative English-Speaking Professionals. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
This book offered perspectives on research, teacher training and classroom
approaches. It had some empirical studies and some note-worthy reflections on the
issues affecting non-native English.
Llurda, E. (ed.) (2005a) Non-native Language Teachers. Perceptions, challenges and
contributions to the profession. New York: Springer.
This book included some papers showing how non-native teachers could contribute
to the language teaching profession and, more relevantly, it had a series of empirical
studies that expanded the scope of NNEST research, opening new directions and
applying a diversity of methodologies.
Moussu, L. and E. Llurda (2008), ‘Non-native English-speaking English language
teachers: History and research’, Language Teaching, 41, 3: 315–348.
This review article provides a comprehensive view of research done thus far. In
addition to the detailed account of the different topics researched, it also includes an
introductory discussion of the concept of nativeness, and an overview of methods of
research with indications of possible future directions.
Mahboob, A. (2010) The NNEST Lens. Non Native English Speakers in TESOL.
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
This is the most recent compilation of studies on NNESTs, with chapters dealing
with empowerment of NNESTs, and others providing original research furthering
knowledge in the area.
Braine, G. (2010) Nonnative Speaker English Teachers. Research, Pedagogy, and
Professional Growth. New York: Routledge.
George Braine, who had been on the initiators of the NNEST movement, summarises
in this book some of the main findings and discussions in the twelve years since his
first edited volume appeared. This book is a handy and readable compendium of
where and how far research on NNESTs has brought us.

REFERENCES

Amin, N. (1997). Race and the identity of the nonnative ESL teacher. TESOL Quarterly
31, 580–583.
Barratt, L. (2010). Strategies to prepare teachers equally for equity. In Mahboob (ed.),
180-201.
Benke, E. and P. Medgyes (2005). Differences in teaching behaviour between native
and non-native speaker teachers: As seen by the learners. In Llurda (ed.), 195–216.

10
Benson, P. (2012) Learning to teach across borders: Mainland Chinese student English
teachers in Hong Kong schools. Language Teaching Research 16, 4: 483-499.
Bernat, E. (2008) Towards a pedagogy of empowerment: The case of ‘impostor
syndrome’ among pre-service non-native speaker teachers in TESOL. English
Language Teacher Education and Development Journal, Vol. 11: 1-8.
Braine, G. (ed.) (1999). Nonnative Educators in English Language Teaching. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Braine, G. (2010) Nonnative Speaker English Teachers. Research, Pedagogy, and
Professional Growth. New York: Routledge.
Brutt-Griffler, J. and K. Samimy (2001). Transcending the nativeness paradigm. World
Englishes 20,1: 99–106.
Butler, Y. G. (2007) How Are Nonnative-English-Speaking Teachers Perceived by
Young Learners? TESOL Quarterly 41, 4: 731-755.
Callahan, L. (2006). Student perceptions of native and non-native speaker language
instructors: A comparison of ESL and Spanish. Sintagma. Journal of Linguistics. 18,
19–49.
Chacón, C. (2006). My journey into racial awareness. In A. Curtis and M. Romney
(Eds.). Color, race, and English language teaching: Shades of meaning (pp. 49-63).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cheung, Y. L. and G. Braine (2007). The attitudes of university students towards non-
native speakers English teachers in Hong Kong. RELC Journal 38, 3: 257–277.
Clark, E. and A. Paran (2007) The employability of non-native-speaker teachers of
EFL: A UK survey. System 35: 407-430.
Cook, V. and Wei, L. (eds.) (2009). Continuum Contemporary Applied Linguistics,
Volume One: Language Teaching and Learning. London: Continuum.
Davies, A. (2003) The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
De Oliveira, L. . C. and S-W. Lan (2012) Preparing Nonnative English-Speaking
(NNES) Graduate Students for Teaching in Higher Education: A Mentoring Case
Study. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 23, 3.
Derwing, T. M. and M. J. Munro (2005). Pragmatic perspectives on the preparation of
teachers of English as a second language: Putting the NS/NNS debate in context. In
Llurda (ed.), 179–192.
Dogancay-Aktuna, S. and J. Hardman (eds.) Global English Teaching and Teacher
Education: Praxis and Possibility. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Faez, F. (2011) Are you a native speaker of English? Moving beyond a simplistic
dichotomy. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 8, 4: 378-373.
Faez , F. (2012) Diverse Teachers for Diverse Students: Internationally Educated and
Canadian-born Teachers’ Preparedness toTeach English Language Learners.
Canadian Journal of Education 35, 3: 64-84.
Golombek, P. & S. R. Jordan (2005). Becoming ‘lack lambs’ not ‘parrots’: A
poststructuralist orientation to intelligibility and identity. TESOL Quarterly 39, 3:
513–533.
Hayes, D. (2010) Duty and Service: Life and Career of a Tamil Teacher of English in
Sri Lanka. TESOL Quarterly 44,1: 58-83.
Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holliday, A. and P. Aboshiha (2009) The denial of ideology in our perceptions of ‘non-
native speaker’ teachers. TESOL Quarterly 43, 4: 669-689.

11
Houghton, S. and D. Rivers (eds.) (2013) Native-Speakerism in Japan. Intergroup
Dynamics in Foreign Language Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ilieva, R. (2010) Non-native English-speaking teachers’ negotiations of program
discourses in their construction of professional identities within a TESOL program.
Canadian Modern Language Review66, 3: 343-369.
Inbar-Lourie, O. (2005). Mind the gap: Self and perceived native speaker identities of
ELF teachers. In Llurda (ed.), 265-282.Jenkins, J. (2007) English as a Lingua
Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Jenkins, J. (2007) English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: oxford
University Press.
Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of
non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kachru, B. B. (ed.) (1992) The Other Tongue. English across Cultures. Second edition.
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Kamhi-Stein, L. (ed.) (2004). Learning and Teaching from Experience: Perspectives on
Nonnative English-Speaking Professionals. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of
Michigan Press.
Kubota, R., and Lin, A. (2006). Race and TESOL: Concepts, research, and future
directions. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 3, 471-493.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003) Beyond Methods. Macrostrategies for Language Teaching.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lasagabaster, D. and J. M. Sierra (2005). What do students think about the pros and
cons of having a native speaker teacher? In Llurda (ed.), 217–242.
Lee, I. (2004). Preparing nonnative English speakers for EFL teaching in Hong Kong.
In Kamhi-Stein (ed.), 230–250.
Lim, H-W. (2011) Concept maps of Korean EFL student teachers’ autobiographical
reflections on their professional identity formation. Teaching and Teacher Education
27: 969-981.
Liou, I. (2008) English as an international language and teachers’ professional
identity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: Deakin University.
Lipovsky, C. and A. Mahboob (2010) Appraisal of Native and Non-native English
Speaking Teachers. In Mahboob (ed.), 154-179.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an Accent. New York: Routledge.
Liu, J. (1999). Nonnative English-speaking professionals in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly
33,1: 85–102.
Llurda, E. (2004). Non-native-speaker teachers and English as an International
Language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14, 3: 314–323.
Llurda, E. (ed.) (2005a) Non-native Language Teachers. Perceptions, challenges and
contributions to the profession. New York: Springer.
Llurda, E. (2005b). Non-native TESOL students as seen by practicum supervisors. In
Llurda (ed.),131–154.
Llurda, E. (2008) The Effects of Stays Abroad on Self-Perceptions of Non-Native EFL
Teachers. In Dogancay-Aktuna, S. and J. Hardman (eds.), 99-111.
Llurda, E. (2009a) Attitudes towards English as an International Language: The
pervasiveness of native models among L2 users and teachers. In Sharifian, F. (ed.),
119-134.
Llurda, E. (2009b) The decline and fall of the native speaker. In Cook, V. and Wei, L.
(eds.), 37-53.
Llurda, E. and A. Huguet (2003) Self-awareness in NNS EFL primary and secondary
school teachers. Language Awareness 12: 220-233

12
Llurda, E.; B. Brady; S. Dogancay-Aktuna; O. Inbar-Lourie; L. de Oliveira (2006)
Exploring NNESTs’ professional self-esteem and confidence. Colloquium at the 40th
Annual TESOL Convention. Tampa, FL: 15-19 March 2006.
Ma, L.P.F. (2012) Strengths and weaknesses of NESTs and NNESTs: Perceptions of
NNESTs in Hong Kong. Linguistics and Education 23: 1-15.
Mahboob, A. (2004) Native or nonnative: What do students enrolled in an Intensive
English Program think? In Kamhi-Stein, L. (ed.), 121-147.
Mahboob, A. (2010) The NNEST Lens. Non Native English Speakers in TESOL.
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Mahboob, A., K. Uhrig, K. Newman and B. S. Hartford (2004). Children of a lesser
English: Status of nonnative English speakers as college-level English as a Second
Language teachers in the United States. In Kamhi-Stein (ed.), 100–120.
McNeill, A. (2005). Non-native speaker teachers and awareness of lexical difficulty in
pedagogical texts. In Llurda (ed.), 107–128.
Medgyes, P. (1983). The schizophrenic teacher. ELT Journal 37.1, 2–6.
Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan.
Medgyes, P. (1999). Language training: A neglected area in teacher education. In
Braine (ed.), 177–196.
Motha, S. (2006) Racializing ESOL Teacher Identities in U.S. K – 12 Public Schools.
TESOL Quarterly 40, 3: 495-518.
Moussu, L. (2006). Native and non-native English-speaking English as a second
language teachers: Student attitudes, teacher self-perceptions, and intensive English
program administrator beliefs and practices. Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 492 599.)
Moussu, L. (2010) Influence of teacher-contact time and other variables on ESL
students’ attitudes towards native- and nonnative-English-speaking teachers. TESOL
Quarterly 44, 4: 746-768.
Moussu, L. and E. Llurda (2008), ‘Non-native English-speaking English language
teachers: History and research’, Language Teaching, 41, 3: 315–348.
Mullock, B. (2010) Does a good language teacher have to be a native speaker? In
Mahboob (ed.), 87-113.
Nemtchinova, E. (2005). Host teachers’ evaluations of nonnative-English-speaking
teacher trainees – A perspective from the classroom. TESOL Quarterly 39.2, 235–
262.
Pacek, D. (2005). ‘Personality not nationality’: Foreign students’ perceptions of a non-
native speaker lecturer of English at a British university. In Llurda (ed.), 243–262.
Park, G. (2012) “I am never afraid of being recognized as an NNES”: One teacher’s
journey in claiming and embracing her nonnative-speaker identity. TESOL Quarterly
46, 1: 127-151.
Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Reis, D. S. (2011) "I'm not alone": Empowering non-native English speaking teachers to
challenge the native speaker myth. In K. E. Johnson and P. R. Golombek (Eds.),
Research on second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on
professional development (pp. 31-49). New York: Routledge.
Reis, D. S. (2012) “Being Underdog”: Supporting Nonnative English-Speaking
Teachers (NNESTs) in Claiming and Asserting Professional Legitimacy. Journal on
Excellence in College Teaching, 23, 3: 33-58.
Reves, T. and P. Medgyes (1994). The non-native English speaking EFL/ESL teacher’s
self image: An international survey. System 22.3, 353–357.

13
Richards, J. and T. Rodgers (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Second Edition. Cambridge University Press.
Samimy, K. (1997) Review on “The Non-native teacher”. TESOL Quarterly 31, 4: 815-
817.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford UP
Selvi, A. F. (2010) All teachers are equal, but some teachers are more equal than others:
trend analysis of job advertisements in English language teaching.
WATESOLNNESTCaucus Annual Review 1: 156–81.
Sharifian, F. (ed.) (2009). English as an International Language: Perspectives and
Pedagogical Issues. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Shin, S. J. (2008) Preparing non-native English-speaking ESL teachers. Teacher
Development 12, 1: 57-65.
Watson Todd, R. and P. Pojanapunya (2009) Implicit attitudes towards native and non-
native speaker teachers. System 37: 23-33.
Widdowson, H. G. (1994) The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28: 377-389.
Widdowson, H. G. (2012) ELF and the inconvenience of established concepts. Journal
of English as a lingua franca, 1, 1: 5-26.
Young, T. J. and S. Walsh (2010) Which English? Whose English? An investigation of
‘non-native’ teachers’ beliefs about target varieties. Language, Culture and
Curriculum 23,2: 123-137.

14