See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282664320

Native Speaker versus Non Native Speaker Teachers in TESOL

Conference Paper · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

6 8,616

1 author:

Ribut Wahyudi
Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang
46 PUBLICATIONS 136 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ribut Wahyudi on 09 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Native English Speaker Teachers (NESTs) versus Non Native English
Speaker Teachers (NNESTs) in TESOL
By: Ribut Wahyudi

[UIN Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang]

Introduction

There is an open debate whether native speaker teachers or non native speakers teach better.
There are complex explanations behind this debate. However, much current studies indicate
that both have advantages in their own ways. It is indeed unnecessary to draw a demarcation
line between NESTs and NNESTs in the TESOL field (Phothongsunan & Suwanarak 2008)
as different varieties of English are getting more recognised (Kachru and Nelson, cited in Liu
1999; Kachru, 2005; Braine, 2010). In this paper, I will discuss the advantages of NNESTs
and NESTs professional, followed by the suggestions for NNEST. Prior to this, I elaborate
my teaching context in which I try to engage my own experience as both students and
NNESTs in each discussion as a reflection.

Particular English Teaching Context

The teaching context in this case is restricted to the place where I was doing bachelor at
Faculty of Letters, the University of Jember from 2000-2004, at Indonesia-Australia
Language Foundation (IALF) Bali March-September 2008 and at the University of Sydney
March 2009-June 2010, for my Master Degree. In the University of Jember I was taught by
NNS while at IALF Bali and the University of Sydney I was taught by NS, and my present
status as NNS as well.

Advantages of NNESTs

The advantages of being taught by NNS are the fact that both teachers and students share the
same culture, they better explain grammatical rules, serves as the role model for successful
language learners (Braine, 2010: Medgyes, 1992).

The fact that teachers are from the same background provides benefit. This is because the
teacher can explain English using student‟s first language in the case when students
encounter problems. e.g. in my bachelor, my teacher associated the word „‟rather‟‟ with
„‟rada‟‟ as these words have similar meaning. This explanation made the comprehension
easier. In my teaching context last semester, teaching Introduction to Linguistics I tried to
incorporate LA Light advertisement “Rumput gue lebih hijau dari rumput loe” to introduce
the concept of Halliday‟s concept of register (field, tenor and mode) and the concept of inter-
textuality through the description Andrea Hirata, his biography, his works and what other
people wrote about him. These seem provide a clearer picture of those notions compared
through teaching only with reference to a book.

The 4 NELTAL Conference, March 31, 2012. The State University of Malang. Page 1
Having teacher from the same background may also create a closer rapport. Liu (1999)
reported that one of NNESTs in his research was Korean American. In his research, he found
that teacher‟s emphasis on his Korean, this created a rapport with Asian students.

Other advantage of having NNESTs in the classroom is that they often can teach grammar
better. This might correspond to the idea that NNESTs may be able to predict student‟s
difficulties in learning the rules of language as they might have similar experience. Aurbach
1993 (cited in Liu 1999: 99) argues that “it is not just the experience as a language learner,
but the experience of sharing struggles as a new comer that is critical”. In this context, I
usually share my learning experience of learning English, e.g., the habit of reading out-loud
to improve pronunciation, the strategies to face TOEFL test, the tips to write concisely in an
essay etc.

NNESTs may also serve as the role model for successful language learners who can share the
learning strategies. This is also underlined by Medgyes (1992) who states that „‟teachers can
serve as imitable models of the successful learner of English‟‟ and Lagabaster and Siera
(2005 cited in Watson Todd and Pojanapunya 2009) who state that in learning strategies,
NNESTs were perceived to be strong (student‟s attitude toward NNESts). This may not
happen for NESTs as they learn the language for „granted‟. The strategies to handle TOEFL
test, improve pronunciation, put the ideas succinctly in Writing course may also correspond
to this.

Advantages for NESTs

Being a native teacher provides at least three advantages in general; they have better
proficiency, better at explaining cultural issues in the target language, and are more flexible
for topic changes.

It is no doubt that learning first language is done automatically for native speakers. This helps
them teach communicative skill easily. Arva and Medgyes (1992) said that NESTs are
excellent in a spontaneous language use in various settings Therefore they are appropriate for
teaching conversation, pronunciation and serve as the role model for students in these areas.
This may describe IALF and other language courses teaching context in which native
speakers are assigned to teach conversation. Lagabaster and Siera (2005 cited in Watson
Todd and Pojanapunya 2009) described that students expressed strongest preference to be
taught by NESTs than NNESTs especially in pronunciation areas.

Teaching first language also makes easy for NESTs to teach cultural issues as language is
social practice. Therefore teaching language means that teaching culture itself (Cramsch
1993). In accordance with this, NESTs are most likely be able to teach English along with the
embedded values such as idiomatic expressions, slang words, what to ask and what not to ask
to native speakers.

Another positive thing that NESTs teachers could give to students is that they can flexibly
change the topic in the classroom. This is reasonable as their language proficiency is
unquestionable (Arva and Medgyes, 2000). Moreover, NNESts also argued that „‟any

The 4 NELTAL Conference, March 31, 2012. The State University of Malang. Page 2
NEST‟s stock of colloquial expressions, idioms, and phrasal verbs was comparably richer
than any non NEST‟s so they can answer any questions‟‟ (Arva and Medgyes, 2000). This
would benefit classroom especially when students get bored with the topic in the book. In my
experience at IALF Bali, NESTs most of the time were able to answer student‟s questions.
This might also be due to the teacher‟s background at IALF in which they are usually Master
graduate and have long experience in teaching not like those of „young and unexperienced
native teachers in the case of Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET), English Program in Korea
(EPIK) as the examples etc (Braine, 2010).

Extrinsic and Intrinsic Challenges of NNESTs

Extrinsic Challenges of NNESTs

The NNESTs both in the outer circle and the expanding circle have been disadvantaged of
„political English‟. Braine (2010) outlines some challenges of NNESTs in the TESOL
professionals such as; hiring practices (US, UK cases), „native speaker fallacy (the idea that
only native speakers can be good language teachers (Philipson, 1992 in Mahboob in
www.moussu.net/nnest/articles/Mahboob.pdf)‟, „Indigenous English teacher‟s unawareness of
the rise NNESTs movement and the respect that NNESTs gained in ESL context‟, e.g. in
Asian contexts (p.74), and student‟s correcting mistakes and parents‟ grade for teachers
(Mousavi, 2007).

In the US setting, Mahboob et al (2004 cited in Braine 2010) reported that most of the
NNESTs were hired as part timer, reaching only 7.9% of the total 1,425 teachers and the
native speaker status was an important criterion accordingly. Similar study by Clark and
Paran (2007 cited in Braine 2010) in the United Kingdom under the topic „‟ the employability
of non-native teachers of EFL‟‟, the study shows that the 73,9% among of the total 90
surveyed administrators judged that the „native speaker criterion‟ is to be either moderately or
very important (p.86). In these examples it clearly can be seen that the discrimination over
the NNESTs is still high. This may also be the case in Asian contexts (China, Japan,
Hongkong, Korea, Taiwan) especially in the affluent countries where they are able to pay
„higher‟ salary for NESTs. This might also appear in the developing country (Indonesia) but
merely for some institutions, such as EF, and may be international schools.

In many Asian countries, as Braine (2010) reported, NNESTs should face a number of
discriminations. They are considered less competent than NESTs. Further, he cited, an
anecdotal example in which Ozgur Parlak, Caucasian teacher from Turkey was hired to teach
English in Thailand just because his physical performance resembles to those of native
speaker not because of his language competence. Another phenomenon is the case of teachers
from resource poor countries were not aware of the existence of NNESTs current movement
in the world, even the case when some of them teach NS students in English speaking
countries. This might still prevail the assumption that NESTs is always superior to NNESTs.
On par income offered by the growing number of English courses, Schools especially in high
income Asian countries such as Japan, Hongkong, Taiwan, Korea attracts NESTs to do
teaching work in the continent, Native English Teacher (NET) scheme in Hongkong, Japan

The 4 NELTAL Conference, March 31, 2012. The State University of Malang. Page 3
Exchange and Teaching (JET), English Program in Korea (EPIK) as the examples. This
inevitably strikes challenges for the local teachers (Braine, 2010).

Another extrinsic challenge faced by NNESTs is the fact that most of conferences in TESOL
related area tend to be dominated by NESTs. This as Braine (2010) claimed „not only
perpetuates native speaker fallacy but also ironic because the theories and pedagogies
expounded by „‟travelling key note speakers” are irrelevant in EFL context‟ (p.88). This is
not only in Hongkong, Japan, Korea but also in the conferences held by the Minister of South
East Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) which the country members
include Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand etc. This indicates
heavy reliance on those NESTs. This phenomenon seems to be undeniable fact for Indonesian
context. The Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language in Indonesia
(TEFLIN) conference seems to underline this fact.

Slightly different to Braine (2010), Mousavi (2007) reported the case of 8 Native teachers
from language centres at UK universities and 8 Non Native teachers enrolled in MA TESOL
at 2 UK Universities in relation to the challenges above. Accordingly, student‟s correcting
teacher‟s mistakes make the teacher stress and the evaluation from the parents in Hongkong
to teachers (whether they achieve a „good grade‟, a good teacher or not) make the teacher
stress too.

Intrinsic Challenges of NNESTs

Apart from the external aspects, NNESTs should also face the problems of their own. Braine
(2010) reports that the occasional English use, the fear of losing proficiency if teaching in the
school where NNESTs are dominant, lack of commitment of English for NNESTs and
graduate student, un-qualified teachers (Hongkong case), never read English newspaper and
reading for pleasure, the anxiety of their own accent (inferiority complex) and lack of
confident, unfamiliarity with materials (Mousavi, 2007).

As Braine (2010) reports that most graduate students in Hongkong use Englsih merely for
academic reading and writing, consultation to non-Chinese supervisor and rarely for reading
English Newspaper, Watching English TV programs, etc, the cases which can facilitate their
English. This might indicate the lack of commitment of them. Not surprising therefore these
affect their competence. When given English Proficiency Assessment Test (2001) by
government to make sure that all English teachers gain minimum proficiency to teach English,
many of them failed. The lack of commitment for English seems to occur (in many cases) in
our teaching context, in which English is mostly used inside classroom, and less used outside
the classroom. But, it is (hardly) can be found that our government the minimum proficiency
test such as that of in Hongkong.

The last aspect considered as intrinsic is the NNESTs‟ being not confident upon their own
accent and high appreciation of NS accent (Jenkin 2005 cited in Braine, 2010). Similar to
this, Rajagopalan (2005 cited in Braine, 2010) reported that 400 NNESTs in Brazil „‟were
worried about being underprepared, undervalued in their profession, handicapped in career
advancement, and treated as „‟second class citizen‟‟ in the workplace‟ (p. 79). Rajagopalan

The 4 NELTAL Conference, March 31, 2012. The State University of Malang. Page 4
ends up by arousing NNESTs to wake up and nothing to lose, and get away from the
inferiority complex feeling. Even though it is not necessarily the case, high appreciation of
NS accent exists for teachers and students in Indonesian schools, at least in my experience as
a student.

In line with the above phenomenon, Mousavi (2007) mentioned that the respondents in his
research confessed that the teachers are not confident talking to native speaker teachers
working in the same school, and that would end up with not confident to talk to young
learners. The unfamiliarity with the new texts stressed the teachers as they get difficulties in
explaining to students and they do not have time to prepare for them. Regarding the NEST
just the „same‟ as us (NNEST) seems to be important so that the worry about accent while
talking to native speaker could be managed. In the case of unfamiliarity with the texts should
not a big problem because we may utilise internet to help us understand about them.

Suggestions for NNESTs in Indonesia

Having observed the advantages that NNESTs have and also the constraints they may
encounter, it might be better for them to cooperate with NESTs as a team learning and
teaching in that they can learn from each other along with students (Tajino & Tajino, 2000;
Braine, 2010) as the more important is not about the dichotomy between them but ‘teacher’s
knowledge, training in ELT and expertise’ (Phothongsunan & Suwanarak 2008, p.27) and the
fact that the ideal NNESTs are the ones who have achieved ‘near native proficiency’ and the
ideal NESTs are those who have achieved a high degree of proficiency in learner’s mother
tongue (Medgyes 1994 cited in Moussu 2006, p.22). In their proposal (Tajino & Tajino,
2000) suggest that NNESTs and NESTs teach collaboratively in the classroom, moreover this
collaboration involves students in the teaching and learning process (Tajino & Tajino, 2000).
The following is the five interaction patterns suggested.

Pattern A Pattern B

NNEST NEST NNEST NEST

Ss Ss

Pattern C Pattern D

NNEST NEST NNEST NEST

Ss SsA SsB

The 4 NELTAL Conference, March 31, 2012. The State University of Malang. Page 5
 Pattern E

NNEST NEST Outsiders

Ss

Ss = students

SsA = Students in Group A

SsB = Students in Group B

In Pattern A, in this pattern NEST and NNEST cooperate to decide the lesson topic given in
the classroom. It is the traditional form of team teaching where students merely serve as the
„recipient‟ in the classroom.

In Pattern B, the team consists of „NNEST and Ss‟, students may prepare the topic with the
help of NNEST and could initiate communication practice with NEST. In this way students
teach NEST the topic of their culture and NEST could learn.

In Pattern C, NEST and students work together as a team. This enables students to
communicate more with the NEST and learn more about linguistics and culture.

In Pattern D, half of the students work with the NEST and the other half with NNEST. This
facilitates the students to have different kinds of intercultural experiences. E.g. they discuss
about culture related topic e.g. breakfast both in student‟s and teacher‟s culture.

In Pattern E, all participants work together as a team to improve their communicative

competence through interaction.

In similar context, Braine (2010) exemplifies both NNESTs and NESTs perform role play in
the classroom so that students can make more sense about their learning (input) as they can
directly observe what‟s presented. This is much more a live learning compared to only
learning from the book.

Conducting training for English teachers is another example of this cooperation e.g. In-
Service Education Training (INSET) programmes would possibly enhance their professional
development where the teachers are trained for their own research in their classroom such as
making question, data collection and analysis and results. This was proved to have positive
impacts to EFL teachers in Turkey despite some difficulties that they faced (Atay, 2008).

Another aspect that NNESTs could benefit from NESTs is that NNESTs can learn more on
the command of English so that they could perform better in classroom communication
(Medgyes, 1992). This may happen in the proposal by Tajino & Tajino (2000) above.

Last but not least is the possibility that NNESTs could learn more about the cultural issues of
the target language. This would facilitate their classroom teaching activities as mentioned

The 4 NELTAL Conference, March 31, 2012. The State University of Malang. Page 6
previously that language is social practice (Cramsch, 1998) and both language and culture are
mutually implicated (Atkinson,1999). Aside from the above notion, the following issues on
world‟s English are salient as these portrait the intersection of different varieties of Englishes
and their effects on teaching for NESTs and NNESTs.

Current Proposals on Teaching Based on World’s Englishes

The notion of World‟s Englishes is identical with Kachru‟s proposal, pluricentric model
rather than monolithic (Kachru 2005; Cook 2003; Jenkins, 2006) about inner circle of English
(American, Australian etc), outer circle, English colonies (Singaporean, Indian etc) and
expanding circle (Chinese, Indonesian, etc). This advocates that different varieties of English
are more and more accepted. Stemming from this idea, the notion of native speaker is
becoming a complex issue.

In line with this complex issue Kumaravadivelu (1993; 33-42) proposed ten emerging
strategies in second/foreign language teaching; maximize learning opportunities in which the
teachers ought to create learning opportunities for learners and utilisers of opportunities
created by the learners, facilitate negotiated interaction (the learners take an active role in
iniating talk not just react and respond, minimise perceptual mismatch (sensitizing potential
source of mismatch between teacher intention and learner interpretation), activate intuitive
heuristics (one of ways by providing adequate textual data so that the learner can infer certain
underlying grammatical rule), foster language awareness (about consciousness raising and
input enhancement), contextualise linguistic input, integrate language skills, promote learner
autonomy, raise cultural consciousness, ensure social relevance (the need to be sensitive
about economic, societal, political and educational environment in which L2 learning and
teaching take place.

Similar to the above proposal, a reflection of thirty year of teaching of Jack Richard (2002: 4)
shows the following variables; English as a practical tool, English as a world commodity,
English learning not necessarily linked to British and US cultural values, English teaching
linked to national values, mother tongue influenced accent acceptable as well as native
speaker accent, comprehensibility of language is the target.

Jenkins (2006) also proposed the idea of teaching in today‟s world Englishes issues. She
elaborated that „‟there is a growing consensus among researchers on the importance of
language awareness for teachers and teacher trainers and educators in all three circles‟‟
(Bolton, 2004; Canagarajah, 2005b; Seidlhofer, 2004 in Jenkins 2006; p.173). Furthermore it
is explained that “teachers and their learners, it is widely agreed, need to learn not only (a
variety of) English, but about Englishes, their similarities and differences, issues involved
intelligibility, the strong link between language and identity, and so on (p.173)‟‟

The above proposal and notions seem to be very enlightening, insightful and more democratic
view of teaching as non-native culture is appreciated. Especially for Kumaravadivelu‟s
(1993) ideas, those may serve a concrete example on the current need on teaching methods in
the classroom practice rather than drawing the dichotomy between NESTs and NNESTs.
(3088 words)

The 4 NELTAL Conference, March 31, 2012. The State University of Malang. Page 7
 References

Atkinson, D. 1999. TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 4, 625-654.

Arva, V. & Medgyes, P. 2000. Native and non-native teachers in the classroom. System 28, 3,
355-372.

Atay, D. 2009. Teacher research for professional development. ELT Journal, 62, 2, 139-147.

Braine, G. 2010.Non-native speakers English teachers. New York: Routledge.

Cook, G. 2003. Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hayes, D. 2009. Non-native English speaking teachers, context and English language
teaching. System 37, 1, 1-11.

Jenkins, J. 2006. Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua
franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 1, 157-175.

Kachru, B. 2005. Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hongkong: Hongkong University
Press.

Kramsh, C .1998. Language and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kumaravadivelu, B. 1994. The Postmethod condition; (E)merging strategies for

second/foreign language teaching, TESOL Quarterly, 28, 1, 27-48.

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

Mahboob, A. No Year. Beyond the native speaker in TESOL. In

www.moussu.net/nnest/articles/Mahboob.pdf. Accessed on March 9, 2012.

Medyes. 1992. Native or non-native: who‟s worth more? ELT Journal 46, 4, 340-349.

Mousavi, E.S. 2007. Exploring teacher‟s stress in non-native and native teachers of EFL.
ELTED. 10, 33-41.

Moussu, L.M. 2006. Native and non-native English-speaking English as a second language
teachers: Student’s attitude, teacher’s self perceptions, and intensive English
administrator’s belief and practices. Purdue University. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation.

Phothongsunan, S. & Suwanarak, K. 2008. Native and non native dichotomy: Distinctive
stances of Thai teachers of English. ABAC Journal, 28, 2, 10-30.

Richard, J. 2002. 30 years of TEFL/TESL: A personal reflection. RELC Journal, 33, 2, 1-7.

The 4 NELTAL Conference, March 31, 2012. The State University of Malang. Page 8
 Samimy, K.K., & Kurihara, Y. 2006. Non native speaker teachers. In K.Brown (Ed),
Encyclopaedia of language and Linguistics (pp.679-686). Science
Direct/Elsevier.

Samimy, K.K. 2008. The Voice of native speaker in the land of non-native English speakers.
TESOL Quarterly, 42, 1, 123-132.

Swoden, C. 2007. Culture and the “good teacher” in the English Language classroom. ELT
Journal, 61, 4, 304-310.

Tajino, A.& Tajino, Y. 2000. Native and non-native: What they can offer? Lessons from
team teaching in Japan. ELT Journal 54, 1, 3-11.

Watson-Todd, R. & Pojanapunya, P. 2009. Implicit attitudes towards native speakers and
non-native speaker teachers. System 37, 1, 23-33.

The 4 NELTAL Conference, March 31, 2012. The State University of Malang. Page 9

View publication stats