The NNEST Lens

The NNEST Lens:

Non Native English Speakers in TESOL

Edited by

Ahmar Mahboob
 The NNEST Lens: Non Native English Speakers in TESOL,
Edited by Ahmar Mahboob

This book first published 2010. The present binding first published 2010.

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2010 by Ahmar Mahboob and and contributors

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-1911-5, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-1911-4

Dedicated to all TESOL professionals:
NESTs and NNESTs.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword .................................................................................................... xi
Jun Liu
 
Preface ...................................................................................................... xiii
Ahmar Mahboob
 
Acknowledgements ................................................................................... xv

Abbreviations .......................................................................................... xvii

Chapter One................................................................................................. 1
The NNEST Lens
Ahmar Mahboob

Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 18

The Colour of English
Mary Romney

Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 35

Maintaining an Optimal Distance: Nonnative Speakers’ Pragmatic Choice
Noriko Ishihara

Chapter Four.............................................................................................. 54
Ten Principles of Bilingual Pedagogy in EFL
Ross Forman

Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 87

Does a Good Language Teacher have to be a Native Speaker?
Barbara Mullock

Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 114

Empowering Nonnative-English Speaking Teachers in the Classroom
Sibel Tatar and Senem Yildiz
viii Table of Contents

Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 129

The “Who’s Worth More?” Question Revisited: MA TESOL Practicum
Host Teachers’ Perceptions of NES and NNES Teacher Trainees
Ekaterina Nemtchinova

Chapter Eight........................................................................................... 154

Appraisal of Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers
Caroline Lipovsky and Ahmar Mahboob

Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 180

Strategies to Prepare Teachers Equally for Equity
Leslie Barratt

Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 202

Coping Strategies for NNES Teachers’ Development
Ana Wu, John Liang, and Tünde Csepelyi

Chapter Eleven ........................................................................................ 222

Training Non-Native English Speaking TESOL Professionals
Ekaterina Nemtchinova, Ahmar Mahboob, Zohreh Eslami
and Seran Dogancay-Aktuna

Chapter Twelve ....................................................................................... 239

Students’ Evolving Perspectives on World Englishes, Non-Native
English Speakers, and Non-Native English-Speaking Teachers Based
on a Graduate Course
Rebecca L. Oxford and Rashi Jain

Chapter Thirteen...................................................................................... 263

Collaborative Teaching of EFL by Native and Non-native English-
speaking Teachers in Taiwan
Wen-Hsing Luo

Chapter Fourteen ..................................................................................... 285

Strength Through Difference: Optimizing NEST/NNEST Relationships
on a School Staff
Jan Edwards Dormer

Chapter Fifteen ........................................................................................ 305

Using Corpora for Language Enhancement, Teaching and Research
Dilin Liu
 The NNEST Lens: Non Native English Speakers in TESOL ix

Chapter Sixteen ....................................................................................... 325

“With a Little Help from the Corpus”: Corpus Linguistics and EFL
Teaching
Monika Bednarek

Contributors............................................................................................. 345
 FOREWORD

About twenty years ago when I left China for the US to pursue my
doctorate in foreign and second language education at the Ohio State
University, there was no doubt in my mind that I was a nonnative speaker
of English, as I spoke quite differently from American people around me,
and I knew that I needed to brush up my English at full speed in order to
be accepted as an in-group member in the mainstream society. About ten
years ago when I returned to China for the first time after a decade of
living in the US, my former colleagues complimented me for my fluency
in English, though they considered me as an advanced nonnative English
speaker with obvious Chinese accent. When I was invited to lead an
English Program in a university in China six years ago, I was asked to hire
many foreign teachers in order to create an English speaking environment
on campus, which I did. But some English teachers I hired were from
Romania, Malaysia, Russia and Austria. Observations were made that
some of these teachers I hired were not native English speakers, but their
presence as foreign teachers with their diverse cultural backgrounds and
varieties of English contributed immensely to the richness of the campus
culture, and motivated many Chinese students to enhance their English
skills and overall communicative competence. About three years ago, I
expanded my research to the area of teaching Chinese as a second/foreign
language, which allowed me opportunities to observe and reflect on
learning and teaching experiences from the perspective of a native
speaker. Many Chinese teachers I observed were vulnerable and insecure
when they taught Chinese to foreigners, as they did not have the meta-
language to explain to their students whenever “why” questions were
asked. They were exhausted in using the excuses such as “That’s the way
we say it”, or “This is an idiomatic expression”. Deep in my mind was I
aware that being a native speaker of Chinese does not give a person any
guarantee of being a competent Chinese teacher. Credibility needs to be
earned, whether you are a native speaker or nonnative speaker of the
language. Everyone is a native speaker of some language/s, but not
everyone is a nonnative speaker of a language other than their mother
tongue. Those who speak more than one language clearly have advantages
over those monolinguals in teaching a second or foreign language because
of the very experience of learning additional language/s. But the common
xii Foreword

perception of native speaker superiority is still prevailing. Rather than

breaking the divide, which will eventually happen as more and more
people speak more than one language in the world, it is strategically right
for us to dig deeper into this issue to bring more awareness to ourselves,
being native or nonnative English-speaking teachers in TESOL. Because
of this very reason, I am, with immense joy and pride as the first nonnative
English speaking TESOL President in 2006, and co-founder of the
NNEST Caucus in TESOL in 1998, pleased to recommend the volume
“The NNEST Lens” put together by one of the pioneers in NNEST
movement and past chair of NNEST Caucus, Dr. Ahmar Mahboob. In this
volume, contributions range from the theoretical negotiation of identity,
politics, and perceptions, to pedagogical discussion of teaching, teacher
education, and strategies from both native and nonnative professionals’
perspectives. I commend Ahmar for his great effort in putting these pieces
together, and more importantly, I congratulate him for bringing both native
and nonnative English teaching professionals together in dialoguing on
these issues. Such a collaborative effort marks the new beginning of the
necessary discussion on the unnecessary divide in our profession.

—Jun Liu
Jan. 6, 2010
Tucson, Arizona, US
 PREFACE

This book is not really about the non-native speakers of English or about
the native speakers of English in TESOL. Discerning readers might find
this an odd thing to write given the title and the contributions to the
volume; but it is true. This book is not simply about NNESTs or NESTs;
rather it is a step that moves the applied linguistics and TESOL profession
in a direction where one’s mother tongue, culture, nationality, and race do
not define one’s professional identity and position. This book takes this
step by including chapters that discuss various strategies and approaches
that can be adopted in diverse contexts to create a more equitable
professional environment, and by inviting authors to reflect on the state of
applied linguistics research and theory. These chapters raise important
questions about the state of the field and make suggestions that challenge
the underlying monolingual bias in the field that (invisibly) restrain new
ideas, directions, and perspectives from blossoming. This book is therefore
an invitation for us to imagine how the field can develop if we take the
multilingual, multicultural, and multinational perspectives of an NNEST
lens and reexamine our theories and practices.
In order to take this step, this book has flouted many conventions of
academic publishing in applied linguistics and TESOL. While the quality
of the papers included here was monitored and maintained through a
rigorous double blind review process, this volume takes a different
approach to editing. Given our belief in diversity and in World Englishes,
the contributors to this volume were encouraged to maintain their unique
linguistic identities. While I made some edits to enhance the clarity of the
text at times, I refrained from making any changes that would neutralize
the identity that the author(s) chose to project through their linguistic
choices. Therefore, I have not edited the text for variation in spelling
conventions or for the lexico-grammatical choices made by the authors.
One other reason for not editing the contributions for language and style is
that language, as I understand it, both represents and construes reality. The
linguistic choices that authors make are important in how they view and
construct an understanding of the field and of the world around them.
Different language choices create different meanings and this diversity in
our published work is part of the step that we are taking in examining our
discipline through an NNEST lens. This has resulted in some shifts in style
xiv Preface

(and length) across the chapters included in the volume. These variations
are consciously encouraged and I hope that they will add flavor to this
volume and symbolize the value that NNESTs place in diversity.

—Ahmar Mahboob
January 10, 2010
City University of Hong Kong
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This volume has been in preparation for over two-years and during this
period I have received advice, guidance, and support from a number of
friends and colleagues. It would be difficult to list all of them here, but I
would like them to know that I sincerely appreciate their support and
input. I would specifically like to thank George Braine, Brock Brady,
Leslie Barratt, and Jun Liu for supporting this project since its inception. I
would also like to thank my graduate students: Rebecca Dale, Kathleen
Macdonald, Eszter Szenes, Namali Tilakaratna, and Devrim Yilmaz, who
have worked with me at various stages during the preparation of this
volume. I would specially like to thank Alex Stanley, one of our brilliant
Honours students, who has spent long hours helping me format, typeset,
and layout this volume. Special thanks is also due to the many reviewers
who shall remain anonymous, but who spent hours reading, reviewing, and
providing valuable feedback to the authors - without their work, this
volume would not have reached its final shape. I would like to thank the
authors for their valuable contributions and for their hard work in
providing timely responses to my many queries and suggestions. Without
their work and dedication, there would have been no book. I sincerely
appreciate their commitment to the field. Finally, I would like to
acknowledge the hard work that NNESTs and NESTs carry out world-
wide in making English Language Teaching a true profession – a
profession without discrimination, where we share one common goal: the
well-being and success of our students, colleagues, and communities.
 ABBREVIATIONS

EFL English as a Foreign Language

ELT English Language Teaching

ESL English as a Second Language

IELTS International English Language Testing System

L1 First Language

L2 Second Language

NABA North America, Britain, and Australia

NEST Native English Speakers in TESOL

NNEST Non-Native English Speakers in TESOL

NNS Non-Native Speakers

NS Native Speakers

SLA Second Language Acquisition

TEFL Teaching English as a Foreign Language

TESOL Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

TESL Teaching English as a Second Language

TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language

 
 CHAPTER ONE

THE NNEST LENS

AHMAR MAHBOOB

Introduction
NNEST studies, as the chapters included in this book demonstrate, are not
simply studies that look at issues of identity and politics of non-native
English speakers in TESOL, but rather provide a powerful lens that can be
used to study diverse topics of interest in applied linguistics and TESOL.
The NNEST lens is a lens of multilingualism, multinationalism, and
multiculturalism through which NNESTs – as classroom practitioners,
researchers, and teacher educators – take diversity as a starting point,
rather than as a result. The NNEST lens is multilingual because, by
definition, NNESTs speak at least one language in addition to English.
The NNEST lens is multinational because NNESTs come from different
parts of the world and represent diverse ethnic, national, and racial origins.
And, finally, the NNEST lens is multicultural because NNESTs coming
from different national and geographic regions represent different ways of
construing reality (through language). As a result of this, NNESTs cast a
fresh gaze at issues of theoretical, professional, and practical interest in
TESOL and applied linguistics, which have traditionally been plagued
with a monolingual bias (Kachru, 1994).
The monolingual bias in TESOL and applied linguistics research
resulted in practices of discrimination where non-native speakers of
English were seen as life-long language learners, who fossilized at various
stages of language learning as individuals and as communities (Selinker &
Lakshmanan, 1992). The NNEST lens, on the other hand, takes language
as a functional entity where successful use of language in context
determines the proficiency of the speaker and where the English language
reflects and construes different cultural perspectives and realities in
different settings. As a result of this, NNESTs interpret and question
language and language learning and teaching in new ways. The chapters
2 Chapter One

included in this volume illustrate this in different degrees and in different

ways.

Questioning the Privileging of Native Speakers

Studies that focus on NNESTs have now been around for a while (e.g.,
Medgyes, 1986). However, early work on NNESTs compared NESTs and
NNESTs and privileged the native speakers by noting that NNESTs lacked
in comparison with them. For example, Medgyes (1986), in one of his
earlier papers in which he discusses the problems with the communicative
approach in an EFL setting, states:

For all their goodwill, native speakers are basically unaware of the whole
complexity of difficulties that non-native speakers have to tackle. Native-
speaking teachers tend to ignore, among other things, the fact that a great
proportion of the energy of their non-native colleagues is inevitably used
up in the constant struggle with their own language deficiencies, leaving
only a small fraction attending to their students’ problems. (p. 112)

Medgyes’ use of the term “language deficiencies” shows that he had fallen
into the trap of the “comparative fallacy” (Bley-Vroman, 1983) or what
has elsewhere been called the “deficit discourse” (Bhatt, 2002) or the
“native speaker fallacy” (Phillipson, 1992). Furthermore, he is suggesting
that one reason why the communicative approach fails in an EFL setting is
that NNESTs have limited language proficiency and “struggle with their
own language deficiencies”. This is a problematic critique of the
communicative approach because it lays the responsibility of failing to use
the approach on the teachers, and not on the approach itself. The problem
with the communicative approach is not that the teachers in EFL contexts
can’t use it (because of their language proficiency), but that the approach
was not developed in or for EFL contexts and is therefore not inherently
applicable there. The communicative approach was developed in an ESL
context where the “expected” teachers were (monolingual?) native
speakers of English and the goal of language teaching was for the learners
to speak English like native speakers in English speaking contexts (for a
more recent critique of the communicative approach, see Burns 2008). The
literature on NNESTs has, over time, questioned this privileging of the
native speakers and started to point out the unique contributions that
NNESTs make to the profession (e.g., see Braine, 1999; Medgyes, 1992).
This metamorphosis of work on NNESTs from being native-speaker
model dependent to being native-speaker model independent is relatively
recent, and the shift is far from complete.
 The NNEST Lens 3

The shift away from a “comparative fallacy”, a “deficit discourse”, or

“the native speaker fallacy” has been a slow one for a number of reasons.
One key factor contributing to the slowness of the move is that the
privileging of native speakers is deeply seated in applied linguistics and
TESOL literature and has become “invisible” and “axiomised” in the field.
This invisibility is partly due to the borrowing of the notion of “ideal
native speaker” from theoretical and descriptive linguistics and then using
it uncritically in applied linguistics and TESOL research. While the notion
of a native speaker intuition is relevant in descriptive linguistics where
linguists are engaged in getting data from native speakers of a particular
language in order to write a description (grammar) of that language, its use
in applied linguistics and TESOL is counter-productive. The notion of a
native speaker competency/intuition is counter-productive in TESOL and
applied linguistics because it sets up abstract grammatical models derived
from native-speaker informants as “real” non-varying models of language
that all learners of the language need to use as the target of acquisition.
This use of a “native speaker model” in applied linguistics can be
examined by reviewing literature in Second Language Acquisition (SLA).
One example of such use of native speaker model in early, but influential,
research in SLA can be seen in Larry Selinker’s (1972, 1992) work that
established theoretical concepts of “interlanguage” and “fossilization” in
applied linguistics and which have had a continuing impact on the
development of the field. Selinker’s theory of fossilization is grounded in
the assumption that learners of a second language are unable to achieve
“native” proficiency in a second language (as an example of current
research using this terminology, see Kang, 2008). Implied in this theory is
a journey in which second language learners begin with their L1, with an
ultimate goal to achieve native-like proficiency in L2. At any given stage
during this process of language learning, a learner’s language is labelled
“interlanguage”. Selinker (1969) defines interlanguage as,

An 'interlanguage' may be linguistically described using as data the

observable output resulting from a speaker's attempt to produce a foreign
norm, i.e., both his errors and non-errors.

In addition to “interlanguage”, Selinker (1992) also introduces and defines

the term “fossilization” as,

… the real phenomenon of the permanent non-learning of TL [target

language] structures, of the cessation of IL [interlanguage] learning (in
most cases) far from expected TL norms.
4 Chapter One

This definition of “fossilization” defines learners’ language in terms of

their shortcomings in relation to native speaker (target language) norms.
Selinker states that “fossilization” is the end result for most of the
learners-implying that most language learners are unable to achieve
“native proficiency” in their second language. This examination of the
terms “interlanguage” and “fossilization” reveals a hidden ideology that
privileges the native speaker. “Interlanguage” and “fossilization” imply
that the goal of a second language learner is to be just like a native speaker
and that if one does not achieve this goal then s/he has “fossilized” (see
Bhatt, 2002 for a more extensive critique of Selinker). Kachru and Nelson
(1996) also elaborate on the ideological loading of these terms, as well as
on the terms “native” and “second language”. They state,

When we say “English as a second (or even third or fourth) language”, we

must do so with reference to something, and that standard of measure must,
given the nature of the label, be English as someone’s first language. This
automatically creates attitudinal problems, for it is almost unavoidable that
anyone would take “second” as less worthy, in the sense, for example, that
coming in second in a race is not as good as coming in first. (p. 79)

Regardless of the ideological and attitudinal loading of these terms, they

have gained currency not only in applied linguistics and TESOL but in
other contexts as well. This can be measured by their inclusion in
dictionaries such as the “Unabridged Random House Dictionary”, where
these terms are defined as follows:

Interlanguage: “… the linguistic system characterizing the output of a

nonnative speaker at any stage prior to full acquisition of the target
language.” (p. 995)

Fossilization: “… to become permanently established in the interlanguage

of a second-language learner in a form that is deviant from the target-
language norm and that continues to appear in performance regardless of
further exposure to the target language.” (p. 775)

As can be seen, these definitions also refer to the “acquisition of the target
language” and “deviance from the target language” as measures of
language proficiency and performance. The inclusion of these terms in
reference dictionaries legitimizes a particular view of understanding
language acquisition and adds authority to it. Selinker’s focus on the
“target language” norm in the operational definitions of “interlanguage”
and “fossilization” helped give authority to the native-speaker model in
SLA and, by extension, in language teaching models. As a result of this, a
 The NNEST Lens 5

large proportion of research in second language acquisition evaluates

learners in terms of how well they have acquired “native-speaker” norms.
For example, in his the first edition of The Study of Second Language
Acquisition, Ellis (1994) writes: “learners often failed initially to produce
correct sentences and instead displayed language that was markedly
deviant from target language norms” (p. 15). This description of learner
language reflects Selinker’s position. Long’s (1981) stress on the role of
native speakers in their ability to provide ideal language input is another
example of the influence of the native speaker model in SLA. Long states,
“participation in conversation with NS... is the necessary and sufficient
condition for SLA” (p. 275). It needs to be acknowledged here that some
of the current research in SLA has moved away from the comparative
approach. For example, work using the socio-cultural approach,
conversation analysis, and critical approaches to SLA focus more on
language use than on achieving target-like competence. However, these
approaches are not yet considered mainstream in SLA (Ellis &
Barkhuizen, 2005).
Cook (1999), in his evaluation of the use of native speaker norms in
SLA, argues that the native speaker model may have some use as a
“temporary” measure but must not be used to measure final achievement.

An unknown object is often described in terms of one that is already

known (Poulisse, 1996); someone who has never seen a tomato before
might describe it as a rather soft apple with a large number of pips. But this
description is no more than a temporary expedient until the individual has
understood the unique properties of the object itself. The learner’s
language is an unknown object, so SLA research can justifiably use native
speakers’ language as one perspective on the language of L2 learners,
provided it does not make native speakers’ language the measure of final
achievement in the L2. (p. 190)

In addition to the description of learner language in terms of native norms,

SLA research methodologies themselves seem to be influenced by this
“comparative fallacy” (Bley-Vroman, 1983). A number of research
methods used in early (and some current) second language acquisition
studies, including grammaticality judgments, contrastive analysis, and
error analysis, by definition, require a comparison of learner language to
native speaker norms.
This importance of native speaker as being the model and native-like
language being the goal of a language learner was not only restricted to
theoretical research in SLA and applied linguistics, but was also carried
6 Chapter One

over into early research on teacher educators. In one such work, Stern
(1983) states,

The native speaker’s ‘competence’ or ‘proficiency’ or ‘knowledge of the

language’ is a necessary point of reference for the second language
proficiency concept used in language teaching. (p. 341)

Taking this one step further, Sheorey (1986) argues that NNESTs also
need to adopt the teaching practices and methods of NESTS. Sheorey
writes,

… the study gives an indication of which errors are most irritating to native
ESL teachers, a finding which we can use to bring our own error-
evaluation practices in line with those of native teachers. I am assuming
here that acquiring a native-like sensitivity to errors is a proper goal
(however elusive it might be) for non-native ESL teachers, and that we
should seek to adjust our error-evaluation practices accordingly. (p. 310)

The discussion in this section aims to show how assumptions related to

native speaker competence contribute to a discourse that gives higher
status to native speakers and portrays other speakers of English as life-
long learners. And, it is such discourses and associated myths that can be
questioned and reassessed through an NNEST lens as demonstrated in the
chapters included in this book.

The NNEST Movement in Context

The NNEST movement that created the space for questioning monolingual
myths in TESOL and applied linguistics is relatively recent. The
movement can be traced back to the 1996 TESOL Convention where
George Braine organized a colloquium “In their own voices: Nonnative
speaker professionals in TESOL” which resulted in a drive to set up the
NNEST Caucus in the TESOL association. The NNEST Caucus was
established in 1998 and in 2008 the NNEST Caucus became the NNEST
Interest Section. The specific goals of the NNEST Caucus/Interest Section
are:

• to create a non-discriminatory professional environment for all

TESOL members regardless of native language and place of
birth,
• to encourage the formal and informal gatherings of nonnative
speakers at TESOL and affiliate conferences,
 The NNEST Lens 7

• to encourage research and publications on the role of nonnative

speaker teachers in ESL and EFL contexts, and
• to promote the role of non-native speaker members in TESOL
and affiliate leadership positions.

Two of these goals are related to the status and position of NNESTs within
the field, and the other two have to do with issues of advocacy. Since its
establishment, the Caucus/Interest Section has made significant
contributions to achieve these goals, however, all is not yet well. There is
ample evidence of discriminatory hiring and advertising practices against
NNESTs around the world and more needs to be done to make TESOL an
equitable profession. It is in this context that this book was conceptualized
and edited: to question the monolingual bias in applied linguistics and
TESOL by highlighting and demonstrating the importance of applying an
NNEST lens to our current work and practices.
The NNEST movement is not an isolated movement. It evolved after,
and in some ways in tandem with, other similar movements in applied
linguistics. Two areas of scholarship that are most relevant here are
“critical” applied linguistics and World Englishes. Work in critical
discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1995) and critical applied linguistics
(Pennycook, 1994, 2001) focused on issues of power, access, and equality
and therefore were central to developing an awareness of issues of equality
between NESTs and NNESTs. The critical turn in applied linguistics
research showed how both the creation of knowledge in applied linguistics
and the application of that knowledge in classrooms and other contexts
privileges native speakers of English – as discussed earlier. This
awareness led to a call for change within the field and supported research
and scholarship on NNESTs.
The relationship between research on World Englishes and NNESTs
is perhaps less direct, but equally important. One key aspect that reflects
the complementary goals and ideas of the two movements is that both
research on World Englishes and NNEST aim to legitimize and empower
non-Anglo users of English: World Englishes by describing and
legitimizing different dialects/varieties of English, and the NNEST by
recognizing the contributions of NNESTs to the field. There are at least
three areas in which the two academic communities share a common
purpose: a) they point out that there is no one “standard” English
language, b) they argue that being a native speaker of a standard “inner
circle” variety of English is not sufficient to be a successful English
language teacher, and c) they suggest that language learning and teaching
are culturally situated practices and there is no single language
8 Chapter One

teaching/learning approach that is appropriate in all contexts/situations.

We will consider each of these three dimensions in turn.
The first thing that needs to be considered is that English is spoken
and written differently by people in various parts of the world – this is true
for both monolingual and bi/multi-lingual speakers of English. Language
variation is a natural phenomenon and is observed in most languages of
the world – not only English. In monolingual English-speaking
communities (NESTs), these variations are described as dialect variations,
e.g., New York accent vs. Southern accents, or London accent vs. Scottish
accent; however, in the past, the variations in English used by bi/multi-
lingual speakers of English (whose mother tongue is not English, i.e.
NNESTs) were seen as mistakes and errors that needed to be corrected
(Kachru, 1992). The World Englishes movement challenged such thinking
and questioned linguists who argued for a single Anglo-based
“norm/standard” for the English language. Researchers working on World
Englishes point out that given the historical and linguistic processes
involved in the spread of English, English is seen as one of the local
languages in many parts of the world (e.g., Ghana, India, Nigeria,
Philippines, Pakistan, and Singapore) and is given official status and
recognition in the language policies of these countries. These processes of
localization, experts on World Englishes illustrate, have given a local
texture to the English language and have resulted in “indigenized”
varieties of the language with local norms of use. As such, these varieties
cannot and should not be judged in relation to the Anglo (inner circle)
Englishes. The NNEST movement, in many ways, builds on this
understanding of English. Experts working in this area understand the
processes of indigenization of English and how it is used, learnt, and
taught through localized approaches and practices. This understanding of
English having multiple standards and forms leads to the second point of
similarity: speaking “native” or “standard” varieties of English is not in
itself sufficient for being good language teachers.
Experts working on NNEST issues and World Englishes agree that
being a native speaker of a standard “inner circle” variety of English is not
sufficient to be a successful English language teacher. Members of both
communities have argued that expertise and training is essential for
becoming a successful teacher. It needs to be pointed out here that neither
the NNEST movement nor the World Englishes movement recommends a
laissez faire approach to language teaching where anything goes.
Members of these communities recognize, perhaps more than others, the
importance of “standard” English and the power that the use of higher
valued accents carries with it; however, they do not see the need to have
 The NNEST Lens 9

“native” or “native-like” proficiency in the English language in order to be

a language expert or teacher. They take a more functional approach in
relation to the target of language that needs to be acquired and are more
interested in teachers’ teaching skills and credential than the dialect that
they speak.
The third point of similarity is that members of both
communities/movements see language learning and teaching as a
culturally situated practice. They don’t see language acquisition as
necessarily acquiring “native” proficiency and understand that there are
local traditions and practices of (language) education that need to be
considered. Researchers in World Englishes and people who teach these
varieties (mostly NNESTs in non-NABA countries) are aware of the
differences between the “native” varieties of English and their own
indigenized varieties of the language. They are also cognizant of the fact
that the indigenized variety that they use is the model of English that is
used in their community and reflects an achievable local target for their
students. Furthermore, these teachers bring a socio-cultural and socio-
historical understanding of how to teach students in their context and for
what purposes and functions. These localized understandings impact their
pedagogical choices. This is another reason why teacher education
programs that push the “communicative approach” on NNESTs (specially
in EFL contexts) do not work – teachers resist the communicative
approach because they don’t see it being in harmony with the larger
educational culture that they are a part of. Members of the NNEST and the
World Englishes communities are sharply aware of the practices and
models that are relevant to their local settings and make pedagogical
choices that are contextually relevant (see contributions to Canagarajah,
2005 for a discussion of local knowledge in language policy and practice).
The three aspects discussed above show that the two academic
movements resist the mainstream, monolingual models of English and
English language teaching in similar ways. These discussions of
localization of knowledge and practice as well as of power, access and
equality are of central concern to researchers and practitioners who look
through the NNEST lens and show how the NNEST movement developed
in tandem with other movements in the field. The issues raised here are
further developed in several of the contributions to this book.

The Volume
Having shared some of the issues that show the need and significance of
this volume, I will now briefly introduce the chapters included in this
10 Chapter One

book. There are at least five (non-exclusive) areas of focus that are
represented in this volume. The chapters are organized around these areas.
The first group of chapters, chapter 2-4 take up issues with some of
the dominant literature and ways of thinking in Applied Linguistics and
TESOL. In Chapter 2, Romney discusses how race, nativeness, World
Englishes, and the perception of these interact within the context of
TESOL. In her chapter, Romney uses the NNEST lens to examine the
complex relationship between these three issues by raising a number of
strategic questions. She asks: 1) Is race associated with the English
language? 2) Is the notion of the inner circle related to race? 3) Is there a
contrast between the perception and the reality of the English language? 4)
How does the perception of English affect TESOL professionals of colour
and NNESTs? 5) How does the perception of English affect ESOL
students? And 6) What can be done to create an environment in which all
Englishes are valued and English is perceived as a world language,
belonging to all who speak it? By raising these questions, Romney
challenges a number of assumptions made in the field and raises our
awareness of how these assumptions impact our approaches to language
and language teaching.
In Chapter 3, Ishihara questions the assumption that language learners
need to learn or be taught pragmatic norms of the NS alone. Looking
through an NNEST lens, she argues that in understanding pragmatics we
need to realize that NNSs’ language use is intertwined with their
subjectivity. Ishihara shares the findings of a phenomenological inquiry
into NNSs’ resistance to employing perceived NS pragmatic norms. The
participants in her study at times deliberately diverged from perceived
community norms and intentionally maintained a distance from the
community. Rather than attempting to be completely native-like, these
NNSs in fact exercised their agency to selectively emulate NS pragmatic
norms and express their subjectivities. Ishihara argues that given the
complexity of pragmatic choices that bilingual speakers negotiate,
exploration of the potentials of a bilingual model may lead to more
culturally sensitive pedagogy for second-language pragmatics.
In Chapter 4, Ross Forman takes up another critical issue in ELT –
that of the role and use of L1 in L2 classes. Forman explores what happens
in Thai university level EFL classrooms when expert non-native EFL
teachers make use of both L1 and L2 in their lessons. Through classroom
observations and teacher interviews, he identifies seven principles of
positive L1 use. Forman’s study asserts that while teachers should be
supported in their use of L2 whenever appropriate, there are solid reasons
for complementary and judicious use of students’ L1. This is a welcome
 The NNEST Lens 11

finding as it vindicates the teachers’ adoption of locally appropriate

pedagogical choices.
Ross’s discussion of local ways of teaching and learning allows for a
transition into the next area of focus in the volume: attitudes and
perceptions. Chapters 5 – 8 examine what various stakeholders perceive as
good teaching and who they consider better teachers. In Chapter 5,
Mullock asks the question: “Does a good language teacher have to be a
native speaker?” She points out that while it is generally agreed that
quality in teaching is composed of two distinct components, “good
teaching” and “successful teaching”, the notion of quality in teaching, and
what constitutes quality, has been under-researched in EFL environments.
After reviewing the literature on what makes a good language teacher, and
in the light of the debate on NS/NNS teachers, Mullock reports on the
views of Thai university students and their teachers on what makes a good
teacher of English. In this study, the respondents did not explicitly reflect
a preference for either NS or NNS teachers, though students placed high
value on strong pedagogical skills and high levels of declarative and
procedural knowledge of the English language. The chapter also considers
the consequences of the findings for both native and non-native teachers.
Tatar and Yildiz, in Chapter 6, report on the preliminary findings
from the piloting of a larger study on the self-perceptions of nonnative-
English-speaking teachers and teacher candidates in Istanbul, Turkey.
Drawing on qualitative data from in-service English language teachers and
teacher candidates, they report that many NNEST are aware of their
strengths as teachers in local classroom. Participants in their study
identified sharing the L1 and culture with students, the experience of being
an L2 learner of English, managing the class, teaching of grammar, ability
to act as not only language teachers but also educators, as some of the
strengths that they bring to their classes. On the other hand they were
concerned about unequal work conditions, establishing their credibility as
NNESTs, their lack of intuitional use of the language and having to teach
only grammar most of the time. This chapter thus examines issues of
NNESTs in their home countries and questions the privileging of NESTs
(specially untrained NESTs) in contexts where qualified local teachers are
available.
In Chapter 7, Nemtchinova takes a different approach to studying
attitudes and perceptions and reports on a survey of host teachers in MA
TESOL practicum classes. Using a survey, Nemtchinova explored host
teachers’ perceptions of NES and NNES teacher trainees. The findings
indicate that while there is no statistically significant difference in most
aspects of NES and NNES teacher trainees’ performance, the two groups
12 Chapter One

of teacher trainees are found to be different in at least one dimension: their

adaptability to the multicultural climate of the ESL classroom. The results
of the survey have implications for practicum coordinators, host teachers,
administrators, and, particularly, for employers who may feel reluctant to
hire NNES graduates.
Critiquing the dominant methodologies used in the study of attitudes
and perceptions, Lipovsky and Mahboob in Chapter 8 stress the need to
examine and analyse the actual language used by students that reflects
their attitudes. They point out that while the majority of perceptions
studies either use survey data to provide a statistical analysis of
participants’ attitudes or use qualitative data to identify the categories of
comments that emerge from the data, an analysis of the actual language
used by students provides a richer and deeper understanding of what
students believe. Their chapter therefore examines the language used to
comment on NESTs and NNESTs by using the Appraisal Framework in
Systemic Functional Linguistics. The Appraisal analysis highlighted
aspects of N/NESTs’ (lack of) knowledge that are doubled-sided, such as
when it showed that NESTs’ lack of knowledge in their students’ L1 and
NNESTs’ knowledge in their L1 could each be viewed either as an
advantage or a drawback. The Appraisal analysis also highlighted affective
issues that are downplayed by Thematic analysis. The analysis highlighted
that students’ Appraisals of their NESTs and NNESTs often recurred
throughout their essays, with long strings of text devoted to a given
evaluation, with the result of an ongoing cumulative effect. Furthermore,
the students often amplified their evaluations through intensifications or
repetitions. This chapter thus questions ways in which attitudes and
perceptions are studied in applied linguistics and shares an alternative
approach that allows for a deeper examination of the same issues.
Building on the need identified by many of the chapters in the
previous sections, the next four chapters provide a sampling of ideas,
strategies, and approaches to classroom practitioners (both NESTs and
NNESTs), teacher educators, program administrators, and other
stakeholders to develop an awareness of NNEST issues and take action in
order to professionalize the field of ELT and reduce (if not eliminate)
discrimination. Readers will note that there are some overlaps between the
suggestions provided in these chapters; such repetition needs to be seen as
a sign of effectiveness of these strategies in different contexts. In Chapter
9, Leslie Barratt points out that teacher preparation programs have a key
role in the process of developing NEST/NNEST equity. Barratt shares 30
strategies for teacher preparation programs to raise awareness of
inequities, to create discourse of inclusion and equity management, as well
 The NNEST Lens 13

as to foster equity in professional development. These strategies can be

adapted to both ESL and EFL environments, to situations in which all of
the teachers speak the same languages or in which there is a diversity of
backgrounds.
Based on their own experiences of being international students in the
United States and NNESTs, Wu, Liang and Csepelyi, in Chapter 10,
confess that being a NNES graduate student or language teacher can bring
tremendous challenges. However, rather than complaining about the
problems they face as NNESTs, Wu, Liang and Csepelyi confront the
issues and ask: If challenges can be disempowering, how can they, as non-
native English speaking teachers, empower themselves? They answer this
question by sharing 17 strategies (based on their experiences) that NNEST
can adopt to help themselves and their colleagues confront the challenges.
In presenting their taxonomy of strategies, Wu, Liang, and Csepelyi aim to
encourage NNEST, especially non-native teachers in preparation, to
become active, purposeful, strategically minded, self-regulated, and
eventually self-directed in their pursuit of continuous growth as professional
language educators.
While Chapter 9 and 10 provide broad taxonomies of strategies,
authors of Chapter 10 and 11 ground their work in particular contexts. In
Chapter 11, based on a review of the field, Nemtchinova, Mahboob,
Eslami, and Dogancay-Aktuna point out that while many NNES share a
desire to develop their English language skills in graduate programs (see
also Chapter 6, this volume), programs in TESOL and Applied Linguistics
do not see providing language support as one of their jobs. They argue this
mismatch between students’ needs and program goals needs to be
addressed through curricular reforms and that increasing NNES students’
language proficiency should become a legitimate part of teacher education
programs. They offer practical suggestions on how to support NNES
students’ linguistic needs in such programs.
In Chapter 12, Oxford and Jain, continuing the discussion of the role
of language (proficiency) in applied linguistics, argue that raising
students’ awareness of World Englishes and of the politics of English
language is of vital importance in programs in Applied Linguistics and
TESOL. In their chapter, Oxford and Jain share the findings of their
practitioner inquiry during which they developed a course on World
Englishes and then monitored how students first identified language myths
and then challenged these myths. They document how students change
their attitudes and perceptions over the duration of the course. This study
shows the outcome of the adoption of many of the strategies outlined in
14 Chapter One

Chapter 9 and 10 and underlines the importance of critically engaging with

and monitoring the impact of our practices in teacher education programs.
The next two chapters in the volume shift our focus to ways of
achieving productive and meaningful collaboration between NESTs and
NNESTs in the workplace. In Chapter 13, Luo presents the findings of a
study that explores collaboration between NESTs and local teachers in
elementary schools in Taiwan. Based on an analysis of 60 classes,
supplemented by individual interviews with six teachers (including NESTs
and NNESTs) she observes that collaborative teaching by NESTs and
local teachers falls into three categories. Luo shows that optimal
collaborative teaching practices, as perceived by the teachers, consists of
eight components: Respect, Equality, Flexibility, Language, Empathy,
Collaborative Culture, Time and Knowledge (i.e., R.E.F.L.E.C.T.
Knowledge). Luo offers a number of suggestions for incorporating the
eight components into teacher training and other relevant programs.
Following Luo, Dormer, in Chapter 14, reports on a study of the
relationships between NESTs and NNESTs in two sites in Brazil and
Indonesia and identifies some critical determinant in maximizing the value
of having both NNESTs and NESTs on a teaching staff is the school
environment. Dormer introduces a model of relational school
environments that places teacher development and teacher interaction on
two continua and identifies four relational environments that impact
NEST-NNEST relationships: a) shared competence; b) isolated competence;
c) shared frustration; and d) isolated frustration. Dormer shows that
schools which value and promote teacher development and teacher
interaction for both NNESTs and NESTs provide a climate in which both
groups of teachers can grow and learn from one another, resulting in a
positive environment of shared competence. The chapter proceeds to
present six strategies that schools and teachers can employ to foster an
environment of shared competence in their EFL contexts.
Chapters 15 and 16 shift our focus once again. These two chapters,
unlike the other chapters in the volume, share ideas that NNESTs (and
NESTs) can adopt in their teaching. In particular, they advocate for a use
of corpora for teaching, learning and researching English. Corpora work
well for NNESTs because they allow us to understand diverse ways in
which language is used and because they promote a non-prescriptive
approach to analysing authentic language. In Chapter 15, Liu first outlines
reasons why NNESTs should consider using corpora in their teaching. He
then shows, step by step, with specific examples, how to use corpora for
language learning, teaching, curriculum development, and research. The
 The NNEST Lens 15

chapter addresses some of the challenges in corpus use and offers effective
practices for its use.
Chapter 16, the last chapter in the volume, works in tandem with
Chapter 15 as Bendarek draws on and shares her experiences in teaching
corpus linguistics to future non-native teachers of English. Bednarek’s
chapter surveys suggestions for applying corpus linguistics in language
teaching and provides an overview of resources that can be useful to ESL
teachers and teacher educators.

Concluding Remarks
One goal of this volume is to encourage applied linguistics and
TESOL professionals – both NESTs and NNESTs – to identify, examine,
and question the assumptions in the field through an NNEST lens. The
NNEST lens, as described in the introduction to this chapter, is a lens of
multilingualism, multinationalism, and multiculturalism. It takes diversity
as a starting point in TESOL and applied linguistcs practice and research
and questions the monolingual bias in the field. As such, the purpose of
the volume is not only to document the issues of NNESTs in the field, but
also to move the field forward and suggest ways in which the NNEST lens
can contribute to the evolution of the discipline and the profession.
Keeping this purpose in mind, the contributions to this volume –
(co)written by both NESTs and NNESTs – show that far from being
deficient, NNESTs enrich the field by adding multilingual, multinational,
and multicultural perspectives to issues that have traditionally been seen
through a monolingual lens.
The chapters included in this book serve only as a starting point to
further our questioning of the practices in the field (which currently serve
the interests of a particular minority group). We do hope that this book
encourages you to adopt an NNEST lens and further develop the field in
ways that include (rather than exclude) diverse voices and practices.

References
Bhatt, R. M. (2002). Experts, dialects, and discourse. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 74-109.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage
studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33, 1-17.
Braine, G. (Ed.) (1999). Non-native educators in English language
teaching. Mahwah , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
16 Chapter One

Burns, A. (2008) Demythologising CLT: Wanted–a reorientation for

teachers in the 21st century. In Ahmar Mahboob and Naomi Knight
(Eds.), Questioning linguistics (pp. 188–206). Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Press.
Canagarajah, Suresh (Ed.) (2005) Reclaiming the local in language policy
and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185-210.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2005) Analysing learner language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Fairclough N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.
Kachru, B. K. (Ed.) (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd
ed.). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Kachru, B., & Nelson, C. (1996). World Englishes. In S. L. McKay & N.
H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 71-
102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kachru, Y. (1994). Monolingual bias in SLA research. TESOL Quarterly,
28, 795–800.
Kang, Y. (2008). Interlanguage segmental mapping as evidence for the
nature of lexical representation. Language and Linguistics Compass,
2(1), 103-118.
Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H.
Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign acquisition. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences 379 (pp. 259-278).
Medgyes, P. (1986). Queries from a communicative teacher. ELT Journal,
40(2).
Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: Who's worth more? ELT
Journal, 46, 340-349.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international
language. London: Longman.
—. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Selinker, L. (1969). Language transfer. General Linguistics, 9, 67-92.
—. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10,
209-231.
—. (1992) Rediscovering interlanguage. London: Longman.
 The NNEST Lens 17

Selinker, L., & Lakshmanan, U. (1992). Language transfer and

fossilization: The "multiple effects principle". In S. Gass & L. Selinker
(Eds.), Language transfer and language learning (pp. 197-217).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sheorey, R. (1986). Error perceptions of native-speaking and non-native-
speaking teachers of ESL. ELT Journal, 40(4), 306-312.
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
 CHAPTER TWO

THE COLOUR OF ENGLISH

MARY ROMNEY

The issue of race in the TESOL profession has recently begun to emerge
in the literature (Curtis & Romney, 2006; Kubota & Lin, 2006). However,
discussions of the relationship between race and English non-nativeness
have been rare, although it has been dealt with (Amin, 1997, 1999). This
chapter discusses how race intersects with non-nativeness by exploring
answers to these questions:

1. Is race associated with the English language?

2. Is the notion of the inner circle related to race?
3. Is there a contrast between the perception and the reality of the English
language?
4. How does the perception of English affect TESOL professionals of
colour and non-native English-Speaking teachers (NNESTs)?
5. How does the perception of English affect ESOL students?
6. What can be done to create an environment in which all Englishes are
valued and English is perceived as a world language, belonging to all
who speak it?

The racial dimension of the TESOL profession deserves attention not only
because it has been among the most neglected areas affecting TESOL
professionals and ESOL students, but also because English has become a
world language. As the status of English as the first and only global
language solidifies, issues surrounding the identity and definition of the
language come into sharper focus. These issues include those who speak
English. English is a world language not only because it has native
speakers all over the world, but also because it has such a large and
growing number of non-native speakers.
 The Colour of English 19

Is Race Associated with The English Language?

A discussion of the racial dimension of the TESOL profession can begin
with the question of whether the English language is sometimes perceived
in racial terms, because perceptions of a language generally influence
perceptions of who its speakers are and who should teach it. One way of
answering this question is by looking at attitudes of some employers,
students, and administrators. Mahboob (2006) takes this approach in his
analysis of race in the TESOL profession. Many advertisements list
requirements and preferences such as “English as a first language, or
native-like fluency,” “native or native-like English proficiency,” or
“Native English speaker or speaker with near-native fluency preferred.”
Some are more explicit in their demands, such as the following:

Full-time American & Canadian conversational English. . . White people

from America, Canada only. . . Native English-speaker from America or
Canada. . . Fluent verbal (non-accented) and written English. . .
(Appendix A)

How can I get white teachers?

Our school in China needs 6 White ESL teachers (Canadians, Americans,
Australians or Britons) . . . Ok. Native English Speakers. But the students
and parents want just whites. That's the problem. (Appendix B; see
Appendix C for an additional example.)

What is indicated in the attitudes represented in the above job

advertisements is a set of preferences based on English language
nativeness and on race. Norton (1997), commenting on the perceived
relationship between certain native speakers and their English, stated that:

. . . Amin, based on research with five visible-minority ESL teachers in

Toronto, Canada, found that her participants believed ESL students make a
number of problematic assumptions about the authentic ESL teacher.
Among them are that only White people can be native speakers of English
and that only native speakers know “real” English. (p. 423)

Teachers with certain language backgrounds and racial backgrounds are

sometimes perceived to have a kind of value that others do not have. The
embodiment of this value can be referred to as “the idealized native
speaker.” Both race and nativeness are elements of the “the idealized
native speaker,” or the most valued English language teacher. Where race
and nativeness are the elements of the teachers in highest demand, there is
also a tendency to equate race with nativeness, and nativeness with
20 Chapter Two

superiority. Many stakeholders (employers, administrators, students,

students’ parents) equate nativeness with a superior quality of English.
McFarland (2005), in an editorial decrying this type of bias, explained the
phenomenon:

. . . there are some schools in China that openly advocate discriminatory

hiring practices when it comes to English teachers. They will only hire
white teachers. . . These schools do this with the belief that Caucasians,
especially those from native English-speaking countries, are the best
English speakers and therefore make the best English teachers.

The objective here is not to single out any specific part of the world
because advertisements and attitudes such as those above could appear in
any country except the relatively few where discrimination is illegal.
However, all kinds of job advertisements are more abundant in the areas of
the world where demand is highest. In addition, there is more openness
about preferences in some parts of the world than there is in others. Also, I
do not claim that discrimination prevents all NNESTs and teachers of
colour from gaining employment, as the majority of ESOL teachers
worldwide are non-native speakers of English (Canagarajah, 1999). In
many countries, including China, where the demand for English language
education and training is high, there are many EFL teachers from Africa,
Latin America, and Eastern Europe. My own experience as an EFL teacher
in Spain attests to the fact that TESOL professionals of colour are
employed as ESOL teachers in a variety of contexts. However, as an
African American, I was sometimes confronted with insulting stereotypes
and challenges to the legitimacy of my status as a “real” American
(Romney, 2006).

Is the Notion of The Inner Circle Related to Race?

From the above examples, it is clear that some preferences are associated
with perceptions of the English language based on race and nativeness.
Another way of referring to these preferences is to say that they reflect a
high value on inner-circle English and its white native speakers. The
concept of the inner circle originates from Kachru (1985), who proposed
perhaps the most enduring model of the English language based on three
concentric circles representing differences in the role and status of English
worldwide. The inner circle consists of Australia, Canada, Ireland, New
Zealand, the UK, and the US, i.e., the countries where English is the
national language or the only official language (or one of two, in the case
of Canada). The outer circle is where countries such as India, Kenya,
 The Colour of English 21

Nigeria, Pakistan, Singapore, and South Africa are located. Here, English
took root through a later period of colonialism and grew to official status,
which it often shares with indigenous languages. And the expanding circle
is the outermost one, consisting of countries such as Brazil, China, France,
Kuwait, Mexico, and Russia, and most of the other countries of the world,
where English has no official status and is a foreign language.
Although this model has been challenged in recent years (Bruthiaux,
2003; Higgins, 2003; Yano, 2001), and has been revised by Kachru
himself (Graddol, 2006), it continues to be referred to frequently, especially
in the literature on World Englishes and NNESTs. Kachru has adjusted the
model (Graddol, 2006), based on proficiency rather than history, official
status, and geo-political designation. But it is the inner circle of the
original Kachru model – the traditional inner circle – that continues to
represent the way English and English speakers are generally conceptualized
throughout the world.
In the original Kachru model, the inner circle could be defined as the
countries where English is associated with the origins of the language,
where English is the national language or the official language, where it
was first disseminated, where it is the native language of the vast majority
of the population, and where it unquestionably predominates. By this
definition, the Anglophone Caribbean should be included in the inner
circle. (See Appendix D for a definition of the Anglophone Caribbean.)
Because the Caribbean was colonized during the same period as North
America, English began to spread and develop through the Caribbean
around the same time. Yet Caribbean English is not given the same inner-
circle status as American or Canadian English in the traditional inner
circle, and is, in fact, not included anywhere in the rest of the original
Kachru model. Therefore, the question of why it is (intentionally or
unintentionally) not included becomes an obvious one, and the answer
could be connected to race. One salient characteristic contrasting the
Caribbean with the traditional inner circle is a demographic one –
specifically a racial one – rather than any other feature related to history,
official status, or geopolitical designation. The majority populations of the
inner-circle countries are white, while the majority population of the
Caribbean is black. English in the Caribbean extends beyond the countries
and territories where it is the official language. It is the lingua franca or the
national language of some islands where it is not the official language,
e.g., the Netherlands Antilles. I discuss Caribbean English as an example
of how race can affect entire paradigms, and how it can influence ways in
which English is characterized and identified.
22 Chapter Two

I also discuss Caribbean English because it is an example of World

English. Speakers of Caribbean English self-identify as native English
speakers, although they speak the language along a continuum of creoles,
as Nero (1997, 2000, 2001) points out. As we have seen in the original
Kachru model, these creole varieties of English (also referred to as “new
Englishes”) have traditionally been excluded from the sphere of Englishes.
Pennycook (2007) addresses the role of race in the determination of what
English is and who its native speakers are. He quotes Mufwene, who
asserts that “the naming practices of new Englishes has to do more with
the racial identity of those who speak them than with how these varieties
developed and the extent of their structural deviations” (p. 22).
Pennycook adds

The inclusion of creoles, furthermore, would profoundly challenge the

notion of world Englishes: not only would it challenge the racial exclusion
of the wrong sorts of speakers, but it would also challenge what is
understood by language in general and English in particular. (p. 22)

Another reason why Caribbean English is not included in the inner circle
may be because it is not among the “norm-providing” Englishes, i.e.,
standard Englishes, or those Englishes which are traditionally used as
models for learners of English as a foreign language. The reasons why
Caribbean English has not played this norm-providing role are related to
the historical, social, economic and political relationships between the
traditional inner circle (especially the UK) and the Caribbean. For further
discussions of this area, see Nero (2001), Winer (2006), and Pratt-Johnson
(2006). The colonial relationship of the Anglophone Caribbean to the UK
is reflected in the relationship between Caribbean English and standard
English of the UK.

Is there a Contrast between the Perception and the Reality

of the English Language?
I would now like to address the question of whether the perception of
race and nativeness contrasts with the reality of the English language. I
will address this question with a discussion of who speaks English
worldwide. While native speakers of English are usually associated with
the inner circle, the reality of the identity of native speakers of English is a
much more global one, as illustrated in the McArthur model of World
English in Appendix E (McArthur, 1998). From this model, we can see
that English is the native language of people on practically every
 The Colour of English 23

continent, including South America, represented by Guyana, but grouped

with the Caribbean.
As I have stated elsewhere (Curtis & Romney, 2006), the comparison
of native English speakers in the inner circle with the English-speaking
populations in only three countries in the outer and expanding circles can
be informative. China had between 200 million and 300 million users and
learners of English as of 1995 (Yong & Campbell, 1995). India, with
English as one of its official languages, is estimated to have 350 million
English speakers. This is not counting the 15 million people in the Indian
diaspora, most of whom live in the English-speaking countries of the
Americas, Africa, and Europe. Nigeria, with the largest population of any
country in Africa and English as its only official language, is said to have
more English speakers than the population of the UK (Emeagwali, 2005).
China alone could have more English speakers than the total population of
the United States, and India already has more. So the largest English-
speaking country in the world is India. China, which is said to have at
least 600 million people studying English (Qiang & Wolf, 2005), will
probably have an even larger English-speaking population later in the
twenty-first century. The inner circle has approximately 420 million
people, a population that is far outnumbered by the English-speaking
populations of only China, India, and Nigeria. Although the demographics
for India and Nigeria are limited, they can help contextualize the
population of native speakers in the world beyond the inner circle and,
perhaps, contribute to an understanding of the extent to which English is a
world language. As globalization increases, and as India and China grow
in population and in economic power, these demographics also suggest the
possibility of an eventual shift away from the traditional inner circle as the
only core of the English language. Graddol (1997) put it this way: “Those
who speak English alongside other languages will outnumber first-
language speakers and, increasingly, will decide the global future of the
language” (p. 10).
Beyond China, India, and Nigeria, the majority of the world’s
English-speaking population is in the other countries of the outer and
expanding circles. The global demographics of the English language
reveal a racial dimension that is rarely addressed in the literature, i.e., that
the majority of the English speakers worldwide are people of colour. Yet
the notion of English as the language of white native speakers in the inner
circle persists. Matsuda (2003) gives the example of Japan:

. . . examination of English language teaching (ELT) practices in Japan

reveals that English is still being taught as an inner-circle language, based
almost exclusively on American or British English, and textbooks with
24 Chapter Two

characters and cultural topics from the English-speaking countries of the

inner circle. . . (p. 719)

The above quote illustrates the primacy of inner-circle English and its
traditional norm-providing role.
In spite of the fact that the majority of English speakers worldwide
are non-natives and people of color, the perception of these two
populations as “minorities” also persists. This “minority” status originates
from the inner circle, where they are, in fact, minority populations. But in
the rest of the world, they are in the majority. Minority status serves the
disempowerment of these populations and perpetuates contrasts between
the perception and the reality of English worldwide.

How does the Perception of English Affect TESOL

Professionals of Colour and NNESTs?
The primacy of inner-circle English is also observable where employment
is concerned, as we have seen in the job advertisements at the beginning of
this chapter. Inner-circle countries are always mentioned where the
teacher’s nationality is a requirement or a preference for hiring. So the
perception of English as the language of the inner circle and its white
native speakers affects NNESTs and TESOL professionals of colour in
predictable ways. The experiences of two TESOL professionals of colour
– Lin (Chinese) and Govardhan (Indian) – illustrate differential treatment,
unfair treatment, and preference for idealized native speakers in high-
profile positions. Lin (2006) wrote about her experience in Hong Kong.

Some years ago, I was Deputy Programme Leader of our undergraduate

TESOL programme. However, one day I was told by my Chinese male
colleague who was Programme Leader that they would like to have my
British colleague become the Deputy Programme Leader to boost the
public profile of our TESOL programme in the local communities. A
British colleague of mine, and a Caucasian British and native English
speaker, did not have a doctorate but was a playwright doing some English
radio educational programmes part time. The Programme Leader’s exact
words were: “It’d be better to have a native English speaker as our Deputy
Programme Leader—it will increase the prestige of the programme, as
local students and parents look up to foreign, native English speaking
experts.” (p. 71)

Govardhan (2006) recounted his experience in Nigeria.

 The Colour of English 25

. . . when I started working in the Nigerian school system, I realized that in

spite of my advanced degrees and several years of teaching experience, the
state public service commission had placed me lower than native English
speakers who had only bachelor’s degrees and in some cases no experience
at all. For example, White Canadians with bachelor’s degrees were placed
at a higher grade lever than I was, although I had the highest qualifications
among all of the teachers in the school. What was more disturbing was that
one of my colleagues did not even possess a college degree, and yet the
authorities thought that, by virtue of being a native speaker of English, this
individual was qualified to teach English. (p. 140)

One basic reason for preferences for the traditional inner circle and its
racial majority speakers is the perceived ownership of English by the inner
circle. The historical weight of the origin of English, plus the power
relationships through which the language was disseminated throughout the
world, gives the inner circle a relationship to English that the rest of the
world does not have. However, because English has spread so far from its
origins, it has evolved beyond the inner circle.
For about 30 years, English has been referred to as either an
“international language,” a “world language,” or a “global language.” All
these labels have essentially the same meaning, i.e., that English is used
worldwide because there are English speakers all over the world. The
implications of this are significant because they broaden the focus beyond
the original inner circle. This calls into question issues of the ownership
of English, as the inner circle has traditionally held, or been perceived to
hold, custody of the English language. Referring to Smith, McKay (2000)
points out that “the ownership of an international language becomes de-
nationalized” (p. 7). Graddol (1997) stated that “Native speakers may feel
the language ‘belongs’ to them, but it will be those who speak English as a
second or foreign language who will determine its world future” (p. 5).
And, in a well-known quote, Widdowson (1994) posited that

The very fact that English is an international language means that no nation
can have custody over it. To grant such custody of the language, is
necessarily to arrest its development and so undermine its international
status. It is a matter of considerable pride and satisfaction for native
speakers of English that their language is an international means of
communication. But the point is that it is only international to the extent
that it is not their language. . . Other people actually own it. (p. 385)

Notions of non-nativeness as it relates to race are also observable in some

of the ways in which TESOL professionals of colour from the inner circle
are perceived. These notions emerge in a phenomenon that I refer to as
26 Chapter Two

“linguistic racial profiling.” The original context for “racial profiling” is

the criminal justice system in the US, i.e., when police target certain
people as suspects based on race rather than on evidence. So linguistic
racial profiling is the collective term for a set of assumptions about
speakers of English, based on their race, not on their speech. It is the racial
rather than linguistic factors that determine whether someone is perceived
as a native speaker of English or not. The experiences of Fujimoto, a
Japanese American, and Wong, a Chinese American, two TESOL
professionals of colour, exemplify linguistic racial profiling. Fujimoto
(2006) described an incident in Japan.

I had a class of male doctors. . . my boss told me, that after that first lesson,
he had received a call from one of the doctors asking him for another
teacher. My boss asked the student why and asked if I had done anything
wrong. “No, the teacher didn’t do anything wrong,” the doctor responded,
but he still requested a different teacher. Finally, after a bit more probing,
the doctor said the other class members wanted a native speaker. My boss
explained to him that I was indeed a native speaker and that I was trained.
Still, the doctor persisted in his request. My boss finally informed the
doctor that I was the native-speaking teacher that had been assigned to
them. . . (p. 44)

Wong (2006) wrote about a comparable experience at a university in the

US, within the context of nationality.

I find that to this day, although my family has been in the United States
now for six generations, it is often assumed from my appearance that I am
not an American. At a TESOL colloquium in which I participated in 2001,
a White female graduate student related that she had avoided taking a
course I was scheduled to teach when she had seen my picture, because she
had assumed that I was not a native speaker of English and that she
wouldn’t be able to understand me. (p. 88)

In another example of linguistic racial profiling, or “listening with their

eyes” (Curtis & Romney, 2006, p.190), Kubota and Ward (2000) report on
a study by Rubin

… in which one group of undergraduate students was presented with a

picture of a Caucasian female instructor and listened to a lecture recorded
by a native speaker of English from the Midwest, while another group
listened to the same audio recording, while looking at a picture of an Asian
female instructor dressed exactly the same. The results showed that the
group that was presented with the picture of an Asian instructor perceived
 The Colour of English 27

more accent and performed more poorly on a listening comprehension test

compared to the other group. (p. 81)

How does the Perception of English Affect ESOL

Students?
The racial dimension of perceptions of nativeness and non-nativeness can
also affect ESOL students, i.e., they can also be the objects of linguistic
racial profiling. Educators can be responsible for (mis)judgments about
students’ nativeness, based on race and nationality, and therefore
(mis)place them in ESL courses in the US. This has been researched and
documented extensively by Nero (2000, 2001) at the post-secondary level.
Schwartz (personal communication, March 6, 2001) provided an
illustration of how it plays out at the pre-secondary level.

My professional experience has been with students from West Africa,

specifically, Liberia and Ghana. These are students whose only language is
English . . . their previous schooling was in English. However, because
they do not sound like speakers of standard American English, when
[black] students from Liberia or Ghana enter a public school system, they
are often assumed to be non-native speakers of English and in need of ESL
classes.

I strongly believe that if these were [white] students from rural Scotland or
outback Australia, school personnel would have the same degree of
difficulty understanding them, but that they would never be placed in ESL
classes. Does race play a part in this? Probably. . . Does ignorance about
world geography play a part in this? Undeniably. . . There were
professionals in my current school who didn’t know that English was
spoken in Liberia, or anywhere in Africa. (So when students started
coming in from Liberia and people couldn’t understand what they were
saying, they were placed into ESL classes because that’s where kids from
foreign countries go, right?)

. . . while these students often have great academic problems, English is

not the problem, nor is ESL the solution. . .

The categorization of “kids from foreign countries” as non-native speakers

of English is an example of the case made by Shuck (2006), who argues
that

. . . dominant ways of talking about race in the United States persist as

templates for creating arguments about language. (p. 259)
28 Chapter Two

Simplified native-nonnative categories. . . are mapped onto other social

hierarchies – especially class, ethnicity, and race – as well as onto existing
models of educational and political systems. . . These models join to
construct a social order inextricably tied to language use. (p. 260)

Liggett (2009) probes the notion that perceptions of language are

superimposed onto underlying concepts of race to perpetuate existing
stratifications.

. . . language becomes racialized as the native and nonnative English

speaker hierarchy intersects with existing structures that order and rank the
collective conscience. Such ordering works to frame language use in
relation to racial membership. (p. 27)

What can be done to Create an Environment in which all

Englishes are Valued and English is Perceived as a World
Language, Belonging to all who Speak it?
Arguments for a curriculum designed specifically for the kinds of students
referred to by Schwartz have been made by Pratt-Johnson (1993) and by
Nero (2000, 2001), who also recommends education for teachers of
students who speak varieties of English such as those referred to above.
What Schwartz refers to as “ignorance about world geography” can
be interpreted as lack of awareness of English as a global language with
native speakers all over the world. This type of unawareness should be
addressed by teacher education and training. Teacher education needs to
be broadened to include information about (and exposure to) the
worldwide use and users of the English language beyond the inner circle.
Liggett (2009) refers to the role of teacher education in this process:

Exposure to material in teacher education programs that problematizes the

impact of white racial membership on teaching and pedagogy can facilitate
a deconstruction of cultural assumptions and expectations. This entails
including curricular materials that reflect a critical multicultural and
antiracist perspective as well as an activist component that connects
curriculum to lived experience. (p. 33)

Crandall (2003) describes a professional development program in Maryland

for teachers, administrators, and graduate students which accomplishes
this. Sewell et al. (2003) describe a similar project in Virginia, and Kubota
(2001) describes the teaching of World Englishes to native English-
 The Colour of English 29

speaking high school students in North Carolina. Attitudes and judgments

of educators result from their perceptions of who native speakers are, and
this affects the educational experience of students. So these judgments
need to be informed by educated decisions based on the reality of who
speaks English worldwide, rather than on the presumption of inner-circle
ownership of the language.
In the revised Kachru model (Graddol 2006), the inner circle represents
high proficiency without regard to how or where the language is learned
and used. The outer concentric circles represent lower proficiency. So the
revised inner circle is not based on history, official status, or geopolitical
designation, but rather on use, expertise and competence in English. It can,
therefore, be occupied by anyone from any of the three circles in the
original model. This new, inclusive model more accurately reflects the
reality of the language and shifts the focus away from nativeness and race.
If it were more universally recognized and understood, it might influence
the acceptance of the legitimacy of a broader spectrum of English speakers
and the status of English as a world language, rather than as the property
of an idealized few. English as a world language implies a new definition
of the language: English is all its speakers. In this view of English, it is a
global language that belongs to all its speakers.
The presumption of the primacy of the traditional inner circle
subordinates the English – and English speakers – in the outer two circles.
One result is that it can also debilitate the linguistic self-perception of
those speakers as legitimate users of English, by excluding them from the
perceived core of the language. A change is needed in the way ESOL
students perceive their worldwide role as English speakers. They need to
be aware that on a worldwide basis, their interaction in English is likely to
take place with other non-natives and with outer-circle speakers of
English. This is true even in inner-circle countries like the US, which has a
large immigrant population that speaks a wide range of native and non-
native Englishes.
In the same way that teachers need education, training, and
information about the realities of the English language, ESOL students all
over the world also need to be empowered with ownership of the
language. One way of accomplishing this is to expose them to a variety of
Englishes reflecting the global nature of the language, through teachers,
materials, and direct interaction with speakers of diverse Englishes,
including other non-natives. In this way, they can begin to envision
themselves as members of a worldwide community of English users and
their proficiency will legitimize their status as English speakers, regardless
of where they are from or how they acquired the language. If students can
30 Chapter Two

recognize the legitimacy of Englishes beyond the traditional inner circle,

then the value of learning to understand different varieties of Englishes
becomes clear, and they can envision their own membership in the new
multicultural, multiethnic inner circle of highly proficient speakers of
English, without regard to history, nationality, or race.

References
Amin, N. (1997). Race and the identity of the nonnative ESL teacher.
TESOL Quarterly, 31, 580-583.
—. (1999). Minority women teachers of ESL. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-
native educators in English language teaching (pp. 93-104). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bruthiaux, P. (2003). Squaring the circles: Issues in modeling English
worldwide. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 159-178.
Canagarajah, A.S. (1999). Interrogating the “native speaker fallacy”: Non-
linguistic roots, non-pedagogical result. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native
educators in English language teaching (pp.77-92). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crandall, J. (2003). They DO speak English: World Englishes in U.S.
schools. ERIC/CLL news bulletin, 26, 1-3.
Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Curtis, A., & Romney, M. (Eds.). (2006). Color, race and English
language teaching: Shades of meaning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Emeagwali, P. (2005). Globalization not new; Look at slave trade.
Retrieved July 7, 2005 from
http://www.nigeriansinamerica.com/articles/539/1/Globalization-Not-
New%3B-Look-at-Slave-Trade/print/539
Fujimoto, D. (2006). Stories through perceptual frames. In A. Curtis & M.
Romney, (Eds.), Color, race and English language teaching: Shades of
meaning (pp. 37-48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Govardhan, A. (2006). English teaching and ethnic origin. In A. Curtis &
M. Romney, (Eds.), Color, race and English language teaching:
Shades of Meaning (pp. 137-147). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Graddol, D. (1997). Retrieved March 13, 2007 from The future of
English? http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-elt-future.pdf
—. (2006). Retrieved March 13, 2007 from English next, from
http://www.britishcouncil.de/pdf/english-next-2006.pdf
 The Colour of English 31

Higgins, C. (2003). “Ownership” of English in the outer circle: An

alternative to the NS-NNS dichotomy. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 615-644.
Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism:
The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H.G.
Widdowson, (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the
language and literatures (pp. 11-30). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kubota, R. (2001). Teaching World Englishes to native speakers of
English: A pilot project in a high school class. World Englishes, 20,
47-64.
Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (Eds.) (2006). Race and TESOL (Special topic
issue). TESOL Quarterly, 40.
Kubota, R. & Ward, L. (2000). Exploring linguistic diversity through
world Englishes. English Journal, 8, 80-86.
Liggett, T. (Spring, 2009). Intersections of language and race for English
language learners. Northwest Passage: Journal of Educational
Practices. Vancouver, WA: Northwest Association of Teacher
Educators. 7(1), 27-37.
Lin, A. (2006). From learning English in a colony to working as a female
TESOL professional of color: A personal odyssey. In A. Curtis, & M.
Romney (Eds.), Race, color, and English language teaching: Shades of
meaning (pp. 65-79). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mahboob, A. (2006). Confessions of an enraced TESOL professional. In
A. Curtis & M. Romney (Eds.), Race, color, and English language
teaching: Shades of meaning (pp. 173-188). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Matsuda, A. (2003). Incorporating World Englishes in teaching English as
an international language. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 719-729.
McArthur, T. (1998). The English languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McFarland, R. (2005). Say no to race in teaching. Retrieved March 13,
2007 from
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2005-11/03/content_537042.htm
McKay, S.L. (2000). Teaching English as an international language:
Implications for cultural materials in the classroom. TESOL Journal,
Winter 2000, 7-11.
Nero, S. (1997). ESL or ESD? Teaching English to Caribbean English
speakers. TESOL Journal, Winter 1997, 6-10.
—. (2000). The changing faces of English: A Caribbean perspective.
TESOL Quarterly, 34, 483-510.
32 Chapter Two

—. (2001). Englishes in contact: Anglophone Caribbean students in an

urban college. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English.
TESOL Quarterly, 31, 409-429.
Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural lows. New
York: Routledge.
Pratt-Johnson, Y. (1993). Curriculum for Jamaican Creole-speaking
students in New York City. World Englishes, 12, 257-264.
—. (2006). Teaching Jamaican creole-speaking students. In S. Nero (Ed.),
Dialects, Englishes, creoles, and education (pp. 119-136). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Qiang, N. & Wolf, M. (2005). Preface to Articles written by Niu Qiang,
PhD and Martin Wolff, JD about English language teaching in China.
Retrieved April 12, 2007 from http://www.usingenglish.com/esl-in-
china/
Romney, M. (2006). Not a real American: A reluctant ambassador. In A.
Curtis, & M. Romney (Eds.), Race, color, and English language
teaching: Shades of meaning (pp. 149-160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Sewell, D., Rodríguez-McCleary, B., & Staehr, D. (2003). Working with
World English-Speakers fromthe outer circle. Retrieved May 5, 2007
from
http://www.watesol.org/newsletter/v34_1/v34_1_01_worldenglish.html
Shuck, G. (2006). Racializing the nonnative English speaker. Journal of
Language, Identity, and Education, 5, 259-276.
Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The Ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly,
28, 377-389.
Winer, L. (2006). Teaching English to Caribbean English Creole-Speaking
students in the Caribbean and North America. In S. Nero (Ed.),
Dialects, Englishes, creoles, and education (pp. 105-118). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wong, S. (2006). Perpetual foreigners: Can an American be an American?
In A. Curtis & M. Romney, (Eds.), Color, race and English Language
teaching: Shades of meaning (pp. 81-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Yano, Y. (2001). World Englishes in 2000 and beyond. World Englishes,
20, 119-131.
Yong, Z., & Campbell, K.P. (1995). English in China. World Englishes,
14, 377-390.
 The Colour of English 33

Appendix A
6. Full-time American & Canadian conversational English teachers in
XXXXX, XXXXX.

Click here for even more ESL/ EFL job search resources at ESL Job Feed!
Job Board :: Resumes :: TESOL News N' Stuff :: Reviews :: Useful Links
Web www.teachoverseas.ca [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read
Next Msg ] TeachOverseas.ca
... and responsible teachers, able to sign and complete at least 1 year
contract. Being a team player a ... helps a lot. White people from
America, Canada only. General benefits: « RMB 6,000 per month who ha
... « Native English-speaker from America or Canada « Fluent verbal (non-
accented) and written English ... [emphasis added]
http://www.teachoverseas.ca/Jobs/index.pl?noframes;read=6532
cache

Appendix B
How can I get White ESL Teachers?
Our school in China needs 6 White ESL teachers (Canadians, Americans,
Australians or Britons) But I'm finding it hard to get hold of them. I placed
an advert but I don't get the kind of people I want. I need just white
teachers. Graduates or undergraduates are ok, but those with teaching
experience are better.
Additional Details
10 months ago
Ok. Native English Speakers. But the students and parents want just
whites. That's the problem.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006052004444

Appendix C
4. 10 English teacher Rugently Wanted
TesolMAX PORTAL SITES TESOL TRAINING TEACHING
RESOURCES RECRUITERS JOB RESOURCES SCHOOLS Search for
ESL jobs: _______________ ESL Job Board _______________ Teacher
Resumes _______________ RSS Job Feed _______________ Discussion
Forum
... at 2:50 a.m. 10 Native English Teachers Urgently wanted to beplaced in
our middle school and colleg ... White teachers preferable, Contact:
______ ______ Internaitonal Tel:+8610-82601822,51197523,5119752 ...
[emphasis added]
http://www.tesolmax.com/jobs/index.pl?noframes;read=3242 cache
34 Chapter Two

Appendix D
The Anglophone Caribbean is comprised of English-speaking islands in
the Caribbean itself (Jamaica, the US Virgin Islands, the British Virgin
Islands, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St.
Lucia, Barbados, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Montserrat, Trinidad
and Tobago), the neighboring islands of the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands,
and Turks and Caicos, countries in Central America (Belize) and South
America (Guyana), as well as Bermuda in the North Atlantic. In addition,
there are significant populations of Caribbean English speakers in the
Caribbean coastal areas of Nicaragua and Costa Rica, and throughout
Panama.

Appendix E
 CHAPTER THREE

MAINTAINING AN OPTIMAL DISTANCE:

NONNATIVE SPEAKERS’ PRAGMATIC CHOICE1

NORIKO ISHIHARA

Introduction
Status of NS Language in Language Education
Following Phillipson’s (1992) discussion of the native speaker fallacy, the
binary ideological opposition of the terms native and nonnative speakers
has been problematized, and the commonly-held belief that native
speaking (NS) teachers are ideal language teachers has been questioned.
Nativeness or nonnativeness is an elusive construct (e.g., Liu, 1999;
Kachru & Nelson, 1996) and may perpetuate the NS fallacy. Although
various alternatives have been suggested (e.g., Phillipson, 1992; Rampton,
1990), no consensus has been achieved in the field and no single set of
terms has replaced their pervasive use.2 Many have studied perceptions of
nonnative speaker (NNS) teachers, for example, by themselves (e.g.,
Kamhi-Stein et al. 2004; Reves & Medgyes, 1994), by students (e.g.,
Benke & Medgyes, 2005; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Mahboob, 2004),
by students and host teachers (e.g., Nemtchinova, 2005), by practicum
supervisors (Llurda, 2005), and by non-language teachers (e.g., Butler,
2007). Some have investigated NS and NNS teachers’ classroom practices
(e.g., Árva & Medgyes, 2000; Lazaraton & Ishihara, 2005; Macaro, 2005),
and others have described NNS teacher learners’ experiences during their
professional preparation and beyond (e.g., Amin, 2004; Braine, 1999b;
Ishihara, 2005; Liu, 2004; McKay, 2000). This body of literature has not
only identified NS and NNS teachers’ perceived or observed advantages
and possible disadvantages in general, but has also documented NNSs’
teaching experiences, learning to teach a second language in the second-
36 Chapter Three

language community, and various forms of marginalization experienced or

perceived by NNS teachers in the profession.
While linguistic proficiency and professional preparation are central
qualifications for language teachers, NS teachers are often believed to be
more knowledgeable about the target language and culture and better able
to use language more competently (e.g., in a more fluent and idiomatic
manner, Phillipson, 1992). This fallacy is reflected in current unequal
hiring practices for NS and NNS teachers. The fallacy also promotes
unequal distributions of power and resources among speakers of different
English language varieties in the world, and is perpetuated by the larger
political and economic structures of society (e.g., Braine, 1999a;
Canagarajah, 1999; Kachru & Nelson, 1996).
Underlying the NS fallacy is an assumption that NSs better model
language use than NNS teachers. The NS language or its idealized version
(e.g., a standard variety without a single “error”) tends to be viewed as the
best or exclusive model for language learners. It is this assumption that the
present chapter interrogates. Do language learners necessarily look to NS
language as their personal goal in language learning and use? Timmis
(2002) in fact investigated this issue, calling the use of NS syntactic and
phonological norms into question in the teaching of English as an
international language. His survey with 600 students and teachers in over
45 countries found that some respondents (27% to 68%, albeit more
students than teachers) desired to conform to NS norms. Timmis
concludes that “the rather traditional idea of ‘mastering a language’
survives at least among a minority” (p. 248). Although his survey centers
on the areas of grammar and pronunciation and the results cannot be
readily transferred to their views of NS pragmatic norms, his findings are
relevant to this study focusing on NNSs’ language choice. In the following
section, we leave the conventional NS-NNS dichotomy to draw on a
sociocultural perspective in interpreting language learners’ identities and
language use in their communities.

A Sociocultural View of Language Learning

and Second Language Socialization
Although the native speaker model may be compatible with naïve
sentiments of some uncritical or uninformed language learners (Timmis,
2002), it fails to view learners as sociocultural beings who bring their
subjectivities3 (e.g., worldview, identities, values, beliefs, morals, and
personal principles) to the language classroom. Through empirical
research, it has become evident that second language use is intertwined
 Maintaining an Optimal Distance 37

with learners’ identities at multiple levels (e.g., phonological, Jenkins,

2000; Lybeck, 2002; pragmatic and discursive, Duff, 2002; Siegal, 1996).
Language learners are not cognitive processors of the linguistic input who
exist in sociocultural vacuums, but they seek to negotiate in the discourse
their bilingual subjectivities loaded with their complex and sometimes
conflicting values, beliefs, morals, and worldviews (Norton, 2000). Such
subjectivities may not necessarily be expressed through NS norms alone
that are often confined to a particular culture.
Rather than learners acculturating to NS norms entirely and
unidirectionally, norms of communication and learners’ subjectivities may
be socially constructed and shaped in interactive discourse. Language
socialization theory in fact views second language learning as a social
practice. Language socialization studies demonstrate the ways in which
novice community members acquire the social practices of the community
through activities mediated by language (Vygotsky, 1978). These studies
document the process of learning to use language appropriately through
exposure to and participation in social practices. The use of appropriate
pragmatic and discursive practices, in turn, allows novice community
members to become competent participants in the community (e.g.,
Clancy, 1986; Duff, 1995, 2002; Heath, 1982; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Li,
2000; Michaels, 1986; Morita, 2002, 2004; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986a,
1986b; Willett, 1995). While novice members’ accommodation to
community norms can be explained by the notion of socialization,
resistance to or transformation of local norms is also entailed in this
theory. Novice members are in fact not mere passive recipients of
sociocultural practices in the community, but they actively and selectively
appropriate and co-construct existing norms and outcomes of interactions
(Bayley & Schecter, 2003; Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002; Ochs,
1993; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986a, b; Watson-Gegeo & Nielsen, 2003;
Willett, 1995).4 Their resistance to certain community norms may not
necessarily be noticed or overtly attended to, but resistance, especially
when expressed by novices in a position of power, has the potential to
shake up the local practices and consequently, alter them to generate
newly negotiated norms in the discourse.

The Present Study

Drawing from the above-mentioned sociocultural view of language
learning and use, the present chapter questions the status of NS language
in language education at the level of pragmatics in particular. Do language
learners, who are bilingual users of two or more languages navigating
38 Chapter Three

multiple communities, necessarily look to NS pragmatic language as their

own goal in language use? Is the pragmatic language of the NSs
(sometimes in its idealized form) necessarily the sole linguistic model for
learners, as assumed in some second language theories and pedagogical
practices? In this chapter, I report on NNSs’ deliberate pragmatic choices
investigated in a phenomenological (lived-experience) inquiry. Various
studies report, often in passing, learners’ sense of resistance to what they
perceive as NS’s pragmatic norms (or pragmatic norms in a certain variety
of English) and subsequent avoidance of following such norms (e.g.,
Cohen, 1997; Davis, 2007; Kasper & Zhang, 1995; Kubota, 1996;
LoCastro, 1998, 2001; Siegal, 1996; Takenoya, 1995); however, this
phenomenon of resistance has not been studied systematically or in depth.
A few exceptions are LoCastro (1998), Siegal (1996), and Ishihara and
Tarone (2009) that tap into learners’ views to explore the relationship
between learner subjectivity and second language use. Yet, even these
studies do not examine instances of learners’ experience as a whole and
are not comprehensive enough for us to determine the meaning of this
social action and its pedagogical implications. In this chapter, resistance to
perceived second-language pragmatic norms is defined as NNSs’
deliberate rejection of adopting what they perceive as NS pragmatic norms
that they are well aware of and linguistically capable of producing. I
introduce some data from a larger study on NNSs’ pragmatic
accommodation and resistance (Ishihara, 2006) and demonstrate how
NNSs sometimes choose to maintain an optimal distance from perceived
NS norms in the immediate community.

Methods
Grounded in philosophy, phenomenological inquiry seeks the essence of a
phenomenon through research participants’ lived experience and looks
into the meaning of a social action. Empirical work using descriptive
phenomenological methods strives to capture participants’ lived
experience that is in direct, unanalyzed, and primitive contact with the
world as it was immediately experienced without theorizing or
conceptualizing it (Dahlberg, McClelland, & Plihal, 2003). By directly
investigating someone who has experienced the phenomenon first-hand
(“go to the things themselves,” Husserl, 1970, p. 252), phenomenological
studies seek the tacit meaning of our everyday experience as we live the
lifeworld under the level of consciousness.5 Descriptive phenomenology
was selected as the research method for this study in order to capture
 Maintaining an Optimal Distance 39

second language speakers’ lived experiences as precisely and concretely as

possible as experienced by the participants.
The participants, in the larger study, included three Japanese speakers
of English as a second language and three American nationals speaking
Japanese as a second language. They were living or had lived in the
second-language community for three to twenty years. The focal
participants in this chapter are Nobuko and Jason. Nobuko was a Japanese
director of a university volleyball team in her late 30s who had been in the
community for 18 years. Jason was an American in his late 50s, teaching
English literature at a Japanese university. At the time of the interview, he
had lived in Japan for 21 years. They were recruited through my social
network and became acquainted with me during the interview. In
descriptive phenomenology, little acquaintance prior to the interview is
expected to facilitate a precise and concrete description of lived experience
where very little of a participant’s experience is assumed as shared
knowledge. However, it is important to acknowledge that perceived social
identities and relationships between the researcher and the researched can
influence the description of their lived experiences (reflexivity, Patton,
2002).
Based on the participants’ self-assessment and use of the second
language during the interview, Nobuko and Jason’s levels of proficiency
can roughly be described as advanced high (Nobuko) and intermediate low
(Jason) on the ACTFL speaking proficiency guidelines (1999); however,
the point of this investigation was their intended acts of resistance to
perceived NS pragmatic norms that they were aware of and linguistically
capable of producing. Therefore, these participants were selected for the
study not because of their proficiency but because they were both
linguistically and pragmatically competent on the particular occasions on
which they encountered the phenomenon described below.
Phenomenology offers rigorous philosophical principles of reduction
throughout various stages of investigation in order to establish the
credibility of the research. The principles of phenomenological reduction
were practiced as much as possible during the data collection and analysis.
The central efforts included suspending my personal experience,
preconceptions, and theoretical knowledge of the phenomenon as much as
possible (bracketing or brindling) (see Dahlberg, Drew, & Nyström, 2001;
Giorgi, 1997; Polkinghorne, 1989 for more on reductions).6 In unstructured
phenomenological interviews which typically lasted for 60-90 minutes,
on-going data analysis was constantly woven into the process, during
which the methods of reduction were applied in an attempt to invite more
precise descriptions of the participants’ lived experiences (see Ishihara,
40 Chapter Three

2006 for applications of reduction, procedures for obtaining concrete and

precise descriptions, and details of data analysis in this study). Following
the methods of descriptive phenomenology, close analysis of the meaning
of the collected text yielded a list of constituents of the phenomenon and a
narrative expression of the essence of the phenomenon (i.e., general
structure of the phenomenon, Dahlberg et al., 2001), which is presented
below.

Findings
Narrative Description of the Phenomenon of Resistance
to NS Pragmatic Norms

Resistance to using a pragmatic norm of the second-language community

begins when NNSs encounter a second-language norm that conflicts with
the one they subscribe to in interaction with someone of another culture.
As opposed to the default norm that they comfortably take for granted, the
second-language norm arouses negative feelings. NNSs evaluate the
second-language pragmatic practice adversely or even develop a feeling of
repulsion. They have an understanding of what they perceive as typical
pragmatic practices in the second language. Despite this understanding,
however, they decide against following it and act in their own chosen
ways. By refusing what they see as a community norm, NNSs express
their values, culture, and cultural identity, or deliberately keep distant from
the second-language community. They may have no hesitation in resisting
the second-language norm, or may repeatedly feel ambivalent about the
conflicting norms and become recurrently uncertain as to what norms to
follow. Subsequently, community members respond to the NNSs in the
continued interaction. Community members may react to the NNSs
normally as if nothing unusual has happened, or NNSs may face positive
or negative repercussions for diverging from second-language norms. In
the wake of this act of resistance, NNSs feel satisfied, or at least justified
in their decision in the sense that they feel they had no other options in that
situation and could not have avoided acting that way to stay true to their
subjectivities.
The narrative description of the phenomenon of resistance above is an
abstract synthesis of interrelated essential meanings without any of which
the phenomenon would not be the same. Now I illustrate below the
phenomenon of resistance as it manifested to two of the participants at a
more specific and concrete level.
 Maintaining an Optimal Distance 41

Lived Experience of Pragmatic Resistance: Nobuko

One of the participants, Nobuko was a Japanese director of operations for
a US university volleyball team in her late 30s. In her second-language
community in which she had lived for twenty years, she sometimes
encountered a situation where her student players made a casual request on
the volleyball court, “Do you wanna get the ball?” Through their language
use, the students perhaps attempted to construct a relaxed and informal
relationship with Nobuko, or assumed it based on her verbal and non-
verbal demeanor or their previous experience with other directors. Yet,
Nobuko found this language use overly informal and inappropriate, as she
recalled being “disciplined” to speak “properly” and respectfully to
someone senior and of higher status with appropriate honorific language in
Japanese. Because the casual request was uttered by her students 20 some
years younger, the norm being used here was clearly in conflict with her
own subjectivity.
Consequently, Nobuko, who identified herself as a university
educator, attempted to train her student players in the “proper” way of
speaking. In response to what she perceived as an impolite request, she
sometimes refused to comply, even though she thought most Americans
would not be bothered by the students’ language. When she jokingly said,
“Did you say ‘please’ or ‘could you please’?” some students understood
her message immediately and began constructing a more formal
relationship with Nobuko by promptly altering their L1 behavior. Others
appeared to need to hear it repeatedly for a cumulative effect, or persisted
with their informal language longer, attempting to negotiate a more
relaxed rapport. As a result of this “language training,” which often
extended over a few years, Nobuko sometimes noticed change in her
students’ general language use and felt that those students had “grown.”
Witnessing improvement in her students’ “proper” first language use
influenced by her own unique second-language use, she was content:

だからそれ[生徒の言葉の使い方の変化]を見ると、やっぱりこれ[言葉の
トレーニング]はやってよかったな、って感じのこともありますよ。…私は
指導者、大学の中のチームで仕事しているわけで、…それ[今適切な態
度を取れるようになること]のほかにもやっぱりその先にも社会に出たと
きにちゃんとした人間になってほしいっていう、あの、自分の中に希望が
あるんで。…自分が許された範囲で若い子をちゃんと教育しなきゃいけ
ない、っていう頭で多分いると思うんですね。

Looking at it [the students’ change in language use], I sometimes feel that

I’m glad I’ve done this [language training].…As a leader in a university
42 Chapter Three

team,…my hope is that they will be able to do it [behave appropriately

now] and beyond their college years.…I probably feel responsible for
educating young kids whenever allowed.

As Nobuko put it, using language (whether a first or second) properly is an

expression of her Japanese cultural identity, which caused her to
deliberately avoid what she thought was a typical response by most NSs of
English. She was aware of her students’ perception of herself as Japanese,
and felt that she could take advantage of her cultural/ethnic status in
negotiating her pragmatics with her predominantly native English-
speaking students.

Lived Experience of Pragmatic Resistance: Jason

Jason had been an American professor of English literature in Japan for 20
years. Although Jason is an NNS of Japanese and not English, his lived
experience is a case of NNSs’ deliberate divergence from NSs’ pragmatic
norms. Thus, his case has implications for the status of the language model
that NNS teachers in general might provide, and consequently NNS
teachers’ qualifications, which is a central theme of this book. In the
interview, he described one of his every-day brief interactions with his
colleagues at his university. His administrator colleague addressed him by
his last name and title (e.g., Smith sensei “Smith teacher”) to confirm his
room assignment. He remained silent then and just continued his work.
Jason felt that the Japanese convention of addressing others by the last
name seemed “unfriendly,” “cold,” “unnatural,” “stiff,” and “formal.” The
formality seemed to tell him that he could neither be friends nor “relax”
with the colleagues. On the other hand, he characterized his L1 convention
of using a first name or simply using a personal pronoun, you, as natural
and comfortable. He was aware that in this particular situation with the
colleague, standard behavior would be to engage in the conversation to
confirm his understanding of the assigned room (which he demonstrated in
Japanese in the interview). However, he was bothered by the sense of
distance indexed by the address term and disengaged from further
interaction.
Jason’s decision to remain silent was almost automatic; he did not
“feel anything special” as “it was a routine”–“a conditioned response, after
some twenty years” of being in Japan. He further stated that silence was
“one of his defenses” from the disappointment that he could never be on a
first-name basis with his colleagues. His silence was also a refusal “to be
or pretend to be Japanese, which [he] can never be anyway.” Being two
meters [6 feet and 6 inches] tall, blond and blue-eyed, he was always
 Maintaining an Optimal Distance 43

perceived as an “outsider,” or even a “freak” or “oddity.” Jason learned

from another expatriate that the more fluent he would become in Japanese,
the more alienated he would be in the community, because a Western
speaker of fluent Japanese in fact invokes a sense of threat to the Japanese
identity of the locals. Naturally Jason was deprived of his motivation to
learn the language and emulate Japanese pragmatic norms. He stated that
he was in fact content with the distance from the community created by
resisting some cultural practices (such as addressing others by last names),
rather than pretending to be completely integrated into the culture. He
explained:

[My defense is] just a kind of refusal in a way, to be or to pretend to be

Japanese… I can never fit in, we both know that… They [my colleagues]
might prefer … formal interchange… and by staying silent, I refuse to
become part of that system… Maybe in my own way, I’m more
comfortable with that distance… I am able to work kind of independently.

In response to Jason’s act of resistance, his administrator colleague

behaved normally as if nothing extraordinary had happened. She may have
regarded his manners as somewhat divergent; nevertheless, she did not
appear to react any differently. For Jason, there was nothing special about
this brief exchange, as similar ones occurred on a regular basis. Unlike
Nobuko, who felt satisfied and completely positive about her pragmatic
choice for resistance, Jason’s linguistic behavior was only justified in that
he had no options in that situation other than to have acted that way to
express his subjectivity.

Discussion
Summary and Interpretation

The preceding section has described two different manifestations of the

phenomenon of resistance to second-language pragmatic norms. Central
meanings in the phenomenon of resistance can perhaps be best conveyed
by the participants’ words themselves. Rejecting a second-language norm
was an expression of their cultural or ethnic identity (Nobuko) or a
deliberate “maintenance of distance” (Jason) from the community.
Nobuko opted to express herself truthfully, and knowing that she diverged
from second-language norms she negotiated her own subjectivity in the
particular interactions with her students. Jason, in his exchange with a
colleague in Japanese, chose not to participate in a particular aspect of the
culture by withdrawing from contact with the community. These two
44 Chapter Three

meanings – an expression of subjectivity and maintenance of distance –

can be seen as two sides of the same coin; the NNSs’ self-expressions
which were different from the perceived second-language pragmatic
norms distanced them from the second-language communities and this
departure from the second-language norms allowed them to express their
subjectivities.
It should be noted that both Nobuko and Jason (and in fact the other
participants in the study as well) were linguistically capable of producing
what they perceived as native-like pragmatic behavior as demonstrated in
the interviews; yet, they decided not to emulate it for themselves. It is also
remarkable that they were aware of their own status that was different
from that of NSs as Japanese/American, a foreigner, an NNS, a perceived
novice member of the community, and so forth. Regardless of the label,
with this distinct status they deliberately rejected the perceived community
norms and maintained distance from the communities on these particular
occasions. Their pragmatic choices appear to suggest that total integration
into the immediate community may not always be a preferred choice; there
may occasionally be an optimal distance NNSs elect to maintain from their
communities. Even while conversing in the second language in the
community, adoption of second-language pragmatic norms was not
necessarily assumed. Indeed these NNSs chose to either display their
subjectivities disintegrating partially or temporarily, or to conform to what
they perceived as dominant normative behavior in the community for the
time being (Duff, 2002). While doing so, they determined the most
favorable level of socialization in the immediate discourse. Their cases of
non-conformity were expressed through pragmatic use of language, which
seems to suggest that complete compliance with NS norms may not
necessarily be the NNSs’ goals. Notably, when the expression or
negotiation of the self was completed, NNSs were content with it, or at
least felt justified in that it was the only possible option to negotiate their
subjectivities under the circumstances.
In fact, negotiation of pragmatic norms may often be a reality of life
for linguistically and culturally diverse speakers. NNSs may often be
expected to acculturate to second-language norms, or they may look to
second-language norms as the standard and choose to accommodate them.
In other cases, negotiation of norms may simply not be an option when
NNSs are under some social pressure in an asymmetrical power
relationship. However, NNSs are not always in a receptive or powerless
position in the second-language interaction. They may sometimes be in a
leadership position among NSs, just as Nobuko was in this study directing
a volleyball team largely with NSs. In this context, she asserted her
 Maintaining an Optimal Distance 45

subjectivity as to how one should speak to elders and negotiated it

successfully, re-socializing her young university players in their first-
language use (also in Li, 2000). In her case, the consequence of her
pragmatic choice was positive. She was indeed content with the re-
established, co-constructed community norms for general language use
that she was successfully able to enforce as a result of her divergence from
a perceived NS norm. In other cases, however, NNSs could face serious
negative consequences for not complying with pragmatically normative
behavior. Community members may overtly contest NNSs’ divergence
from second-language norms and pressure them to conform, offering little
room for negotiation.7
In any case, in the phenomenon of resistance, it seems that NNSs
have the freedom and capacity to choose the pragmatic expressions with
which they represent themselves. Despite pressure or expectations from
the community, they appear to assert and exercise their agency in their
choice of second-language pragmatic use. Their first-language-based
cultural identity was often their stated reason for their pragmatic choice in
this study (although their subjectivities could be tainted by other cultures
as well). At the same time, participants’ reactions were also highly
subjective and depended on their individual views and perceptions of the
world. In other words, the same first culture did not necessarily lead to one
particular way in which NNSs perceived or reacted to a second-language
norm. It was individual subjective dispositions (e.g., their identities,
worldview, values, beliefs, morals, and personal principles), rather than
fixed, objectively defined categorizations (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity,
nationality, the level of education), that seemed to guide pragmatic
decisions. Moreover, NNSs’ subjectivity or its expression appears to be
dynamic in nature, and may not always be stable under the influence of
community members’ reactions to their pragmatic social actions.
The participants were found to sometimes deliberately diverge from
community norms and intentionally maintain distance from their
communities while expressing their subjectivities. Rather than becoming
completely native-like, these NNSs in fact exercised their agency to
selectively emulate perceived NS norms. This study, focusing on NNSs’
resistance to second-language pragmatic norms, testifies to this creative
language use that fulfills NNSs’ expressive needs and potentially even
contributes to changes in the pre-existing community practices. NNSs’
linguistic divergences from the community norms may not be noticed or
reacted to, or may be overtly contested and not accepted. In other cases,
NNSs may successfully negotiate their creative self-expression in the
second language. This study is limited to investigation of only a few
46 Chapter Three

manifestations of the phenomenon of resistance. Thus, the findings should

be interpreted modestly. The findings are only illustrative of the much
more varied manifestations of the phenomenon and are by no means
exhaustive. Nevertheless, research on second-language speakers’
pragmatic choices and their impact on community practices is presumed to
become increasingly important with the growth of linguistically and
culturally diverse communities in which community norms themselves are
often in flux and negotiable in context.

Pedagogical Implications and Suggestions for Future Research

The findings of this study suggest that the pragmatic use of language that
NSs model may be useful in providing a range of community norms, and
thus assist learners in the development of receptive pragmatic skills.
However, these NS pragmatic norms may not entirely or solely be the
target for learners’ own production. Possible examples include NSs’ use of
terms of address and endearment, swear words, routine phatic exchanges,
and levels of honorifics that NNSs (as well as some NSs) may avoid
incorporating into their own production. Thus, it is important that distinct
strategies are used for teaching and assessing learners’ receptive and
productive pragmatic skills (see Ishihara, 2009).8 Further investigation is
called for to determine whether bilingual speakers, who share learners’
linguistic and cultural identities, model pragmatic language use any
differently from monolingual NSs, and if so, how learners perceive the
“bilingual lens,” namely, the range of bilingual models. The addition of
bilingual model in the second/foreign-language classroom could open a
door to more culturally-sensitive pedagogy, which promotes negotiation of
learners’ bicultural selves.
This line of research in critical pragmatics could potentially have
valuable implications for the dominant or deficit discourse prevalent in
some of the current second language acquisition research, instructional
practice, and teacher education (see the introduction to this volume).
Research in L2 pragmatics and instruction of L2 pragmatics, for example,
often operate exclusively with an NS baseline. Underlying this prevalent
practice may be the assumption that desirable pragmatic competence is
acquired innately, flawlessly, and permanently. Yet, pragmatic
competence can be better understood as being learned through
socialization into the community and negotiated by pragmatically-
competent expert speakers, regardless of their NS or NNS status.
Participants of research can be selected based on their level of expertise in
pragmatic skills and characterized more precisely in those terms.
 Maintaining an Optimal Distance 47

Similarly, teachers and teacher educators can also depart from the
misleading dichotomy of the NS vs. NNS in selecting a model for
learners’ production. Rather than relying on this questionable demarcation
which is now increasingly blurred, instructors of L2 pragmatics can focus
on pragmatically-competent speakers’ intentions, the way that they are
encoded in the target language, and the likely consequences of the
interaction.

Conclusion
Although second language learners and speakers have traditionally been
viewed as deficient language users, with the wealth of the resources and
subjectivities they are able to access in two (or more) languages and
cultures, they might more aptly be re-conceptualized as multicompetent
language users (Cook, 1999) or “translinguistic” beings (Motha, et al., this
volume). Consequently, competent NNS teachers can be viewed as experts
knowing the contexts of language learning and appropriate language use in
that local context (Widdowson, 1994). Knowledge arising from the
everyday life of bilinguals negotiating and appropriating local norms can
inform language acquisition theory and pedagogy that have conventionally
been built on monolingual or monocultural standards. Given bilingual
speakers’ complexity of pragmatic choices, exploration of more
diversified pragmatic models may assist in realizing more culturally
sensitive pedagogy in our future efforts in the development of pragmatic
competence.

References
ACTFL. (1999). ACTFL proficiency guidelines - speaking. Retrieved
March 2, 2009, from
http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3325
Amin, N. (2004). Nativism, the native speaker construct, and minority
immigrant women teachers of English as a second language. In L. D.
Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience:
Perspectives on nonnative English-speaking professionals (pp. 61-80).
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Árva, V., & Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the
classroom. System, 28, 355-372.
Bayley, R., & Schecter, S. R. (2003). Language socialization in bilingual
and multilingual societies. Bilingual education and bilingualism.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
48 Chapter Three

Benke, E., & Medgyes, P. (2005). Differences in teaching behaviour

between native and non-native speaker teachers: As seen by the
learners. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers:
Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession (pp. 195-
216). New York: Springer.
Braine, G. (1999a). From the periphery to the center: One teacher's
journey. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language
teaching (pp. 15-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
—. (1999b). Non-native educators in English language teaching.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Butler, Y. G. (2007). Factors associated with the notion that native
speakers are the ideal language teachers: An examination of
elementary school teachers in Japan. JALT Journal, 29, 7-40.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Interrogating the "native speaker fallacy": Non-
linguistic roots, non-pedagogical results. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-
native educators in English language teaching (pp. 77-92). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Clancy, P. M. (1986). The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese.
In B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across
cultures (pp. 213-250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A. (1997). Developing pragmatic ability: Insights from the
accelerated study of Japanese. In H. M. Cook, K. Hijirida & M. Tahara
(Eds.), New trends and issues in teaching Japanese language and
culture (pp. 133-159). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second
Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 33, 185-209.
Dahlberg, K., Drew, N., & Nyström, M. (2001). Reflective lifeworld
research. Lund, Sweeden: Studentlitteratur.
Dahlberg, K., McClelland, J., & Plihal, J. (2003). Coercion in the
lifeworld of students. Unpublished manuscript.
Davis, J. M. (2007). Resistance to L2 pragmatics in the Australian ESL
context. Language Learning, 57, 611-649.
Duff, P. A. (1995). An ethnography of communication in immersion
classrooms in Hungary. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 505-537.
—. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and
difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school
mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23, 289-322.
Garrett, P. B., & Baquedano-López, P. (2002). Language socialization:
Reproduction and continuity, transformation and change. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 31, 339-361.
 Maintaining an Optimal Distance 49

Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of the

phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. Journal
of Phenomenological Psychology, 28, 235-260.
Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at
home and school. Language in Society, 11, 49-76.
Husserl, E. (1970). Logical investigations: Vol.1. Prolegomena to pure
logic (J. Findlay, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (Original
work published 1900).
Ishihara, N. (2005). Intercultural challenges and cultural scaffolding: The
experience of a nonnative English-speaking student teacher in a US
practicum in second language teaching. In M. Bigelow & C. Walker
(Eds.), Creating teacher community: Selected papers from the third
international conference on language teacher education (pp. 153-173).
Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language
Acquisition.
—. (2006). Subjectivity, second/foreign language pragmatic use, and
instruction: Evidence of accommodation and resistance. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
—. (2009). Teacher-based assessment for foreign language pragmatics.
TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 445-470.
Ishihara, N., & Tarone, E. (2009). Subjectivity and pragmatic choice in L2
Japanese: Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms. In N. Taguchi
(Ed.), Pragmatic competence: Mouton series in pragmatics 5 (pp. 101-
128). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kachru, B. B., & Nelson, C. L. (1996). World Englishes. In S. McKay &
N. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 71-
102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D., A Aagard, A., Ching, A., Paik, M.-S. A., & Sasser, L.
(2004). Teaching in kindergarten through grade 12 programs:
Perceptions of native and nonnative English-speaking practioners. In
L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience:
Perspectives on nonnative English-speaking professionals (pp. 81-99).
Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Kasper, G., & Zhang, Y. (1995). 'It's good to be a bit Chinese": Foreign
students' experience of Chinese pragmatics. In G. Kasper (Ed.),
Pragmatics of Chinese as native and target language. Technical report
#5 (pp. 1-22). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, Second Language
Teaching & Curriculum Center.
50 Chapter Three

Kubota, M. (1996). Acquaintance or fiancee: Pragmatic differences in

requests between Japanese and Americans. Working Papers in
Educational Linguistics, 12(1), 23-38.
Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 7-27.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2005). What do students think about the
pros and cons of having a native speaker teacher? In E. Llurda (Ed.),
Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and
contributions to the profession (pp. 217-242). New York: Springer.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lazaraton, A., & Ishihara, N. (2005). Understanding second language
teacher practice using microanalysis and self-reflection: A
collaborative case study. Modern Language Journal, 89, 529-542.
Li, D. (2000). The pragmatics of making requests in the L2 workplace: A
case study of language socialization. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 57, 58-87.
Liu, J. (1999). Nonnative-English-speaking professionals in TESOL.
TESOL Quarterly, 33, 85-102.
—. (2004). Confessions of a nonnative English-speaking professional. In
L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience:
Perspectives on nonnative English-speaking professionals (pp. 25-39).
Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Llurda, E. (2005). Non-native TESOL students as seen by practicum
supervisors. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers:
Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession (pp. 131-
154). New York: Springer.
LoCastro, V. (1998, March). Learner subjectivity and pragmatic
competence development. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of
American Association of Applied Linguistics, Seattle, WA.
—. (2001). Individual differences in second language acquisition:
Attitudes, learner subjectivity, and L2 pragmatic norms. System, 29,
69-89.
Lybeck, K. (2002). Cultural identification and second language
pronunciation of Americans in Norway. Modern Language Journal,
86, 174-191.
Macaro, E. (2005). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication
and learning strategy. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language
teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession
(pp. 63-84). New York: Springer.
 Maintaining an Optimal Distance 51

Mahboob, A. (2004). Native or nonnative: What do students enrolled in an

intensive English program think? In L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning
and teaching from experience: Perspectives on nonnative English-
speaking professionals (pp. 121-147). Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press.
McKay, S. (2000). An investigation of five Japanese English teachers'
reflections on their U.S. MA TESOL practicum experience. JALT
Journal, 22, 46-68.
Michaels, S. (1986). Narrative presentations: An oral preparation for
literacy with first graders. In J. Cook-Gumperz (Ed.), The social
construction of literacy (pp. 94-116). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Morita, N. (2002). Negotiating participation in second language academic
communities: A study of identity, agency, and transformation.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of British Columbia,
Vancouver.
—. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language
academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 573-603.
Nemtchinova, E. (2005). Host teachers' evaluations of nonnative-English-
speaking teacher trainees—a perspective from the classroom. TESOL
Quarterly, 39, 235-261.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning. Harlow, England:
Pearson Education.
Ochs, E. (1993). Constructing social identity: A language socialization
perspective. Research on Languages and Social Interaction, 26, 287-
306.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In R. S.
Valle & S. Halling (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives
in psychology: Exploring the breadth of human experience (pp. 41-60).
New York: Plenum Press.
Rampton, M. (1990). Displacing the "native speaker": Expertise,
affiliation, and inheritance. ELT Journal, 27, 259-273.
Reves, T., & Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native English speaking
EFL/ESL teacher's self-image: An international survey. System, 22,
353-367.
Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986a). Language socialization. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 15, 163-191.
52 Chapter Three

Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986b). Language socialization across

cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Siegal, M. (1996). The role of learner subjectivity in second language
sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese.
Applied Linguistics, 17, 356-382.
Takenoya, M. (1995). Terms of address in Japanese: Patterns of use by
native speakers and American learners of Japanese. Unpublished
Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Timmis, I. (2002). Native-speaker norms and international English: A
classroom view. ELT Journal, 56, 240-249.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A., & Nielsen, S. (2003). Language socialization in
SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 155-177). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructualist theory (2nd
ed.). Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly,
28, 377-388.
Willett, J. (1995). Becoming first graders in an L2: An ethnographic study
of L2 socialization. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 473-503.

Notes
1
I am grateful to Jerry McClelland for her guidance in phenomenology and Gloria
Park for her invaluable comments for an earlier version of this manuscript.
2
Acknowledging the problems that accompany the terms, NS and NNS teachers I
use them in this chapter for the lack of better ones, but my intention is to
interrogate the NS-NNS dichotomy and the supremacy of or the sole use of the NS
model in language pedagogy.
3
In this study, subjectivity is defined as “the conscious and unconscious thoughts
and emotions of the individual, her sense of herself and her ways of understanding
her relation to the world” (Weedon, 1997, p. 32).
4
Similar arguments regarding the negotiation of standards have been made in the
areas of contrastive rhetoric (e.g., Kubota & Lehner, 2004) and phonology (e.g.,
Jenkins, 2000).
5
More background on this type of research can be found elsewhere (e.g.,
Dahlberg, Drew, & Nyström, 2001; Giorgi, 1997).
6
The sources cited here also discuss principles and procedures unique to
phenomenological methods (e.g., the value of one-time interviews without
triangulation of data sources). Care must be taken not to apply the criteria of
 Maintaining an Optimal Distance 53

ethnographic methods (or other interpretive research methods) in evaluating

phenomenological studies like this one.
7
This was in fact the case with one of the participants in the larger study.
8
Given that NS pragmatic norms may not always be the learners’ goal, classroom
practices for developing second-language pragmatic competence becomes highly
complex. Preliminary attempts to incorporate learner intention into the teaching
and assessment of learners’ pragmatic skills can be found in Ishihara, 2009.

 
 CHAPTER FOUR

TEN PRINCIPLES OF BILINGUAL PEDAGOGY

IN EFL

ROSS FORMAN

Introduction
Probably the greatest single resource enjoyed by a majority of NNES
teachers who work in EFL contexts is the sharing of a common language
between teacher and students. And yet it is this singularly powerful part of
the NNEST lens which is devalued or denied by mainstream ELT in
favour of monolingualist methodologies. Consequently, there exist only a
few studies which document how L1 is actually used in EFL classrooms,
or which seek to explore underlying principles of such practices. Üstünel
and Seedhouse have called for investigation into “how pedagogical focus
and language choice are related in the teaching of other languages and in
different teaching/learning contexts” (2005, p. 322). Liu, Ahn, Baek and
Han have urged that the training of teachers should “focus on strategies for
optimal L1 and L2 use” (2004, p. 633), a call echoed by Carless (2008, p.
336). Turnbull and Daley-O’Cain argue for a ‘full-scale reevaluation’ of
the role of L1 in L2 learning (2009a, p. 14). The present study, by visiting
Thai EFL classrooms and interviewing local teachers, seeks to explore
how in this context, a de facto bilingual pedagogy operates, and to
describe principles for L1/L2 use which may inform good practice in ELT.
The chapter begins by briefly recalling the pedagogic strengths
offered by NNES teachers. It specifies the distinguishing features of
learning EFL, noting the emergence of a “multi-competence” model of the
bilingual learner, and outlines a range of views which oppose or support
the use of L1 in L2 classrooms.
The study then describes the ways in which L1 and L2 were observed
to operate in nine English language classrooms at a provincial Thai
university, and records the views of eight Thai and one Anglo teacher
 Ten Principles of Bilingual Pedagogy in EFL 55

regarding their use of both languages in class. Analysis is in two parts.

Part 1 focuses upon three classes, and includes micro-textual data; Part 2
in turn considers the purposes of L1 use which were articulated by all
participating teachers at interview. Accordingly, there is proposed a new
typology of L1 use in L2 classrooms, which consists initially of seven
principles. Then, incorporated into this typology are a further three
principles which are identified in the literature, but evidence of which did
not appear in the current study.

Non-native English Speaking Teachers

It was noted by Halliday, McIntosh and Strevens as long ago as 1964 that
native English speakers could no longer claim “ownership” of the
language; and Smith could report in 1976 that English was taking on a role
of an “international auxiliary language”. The work of Kachru (1982, 1985)
was then pivotal in creating new perspectives on global varieties of
English, and the inception of the journal World Englishes in 1985
(formerly World Language English, 1981) marked a turning point in
perceptions.
It is nevertheless only since the 1990s that the hegemony of native-
speaking teachers has been problematised (Phillipson, 1992; Widdowson;
1994; Braine, 1999; Canagarajah, 1999; Kamhi-Stein, 2004; Llurda,
2005); and Brutt-Griffler has asserted the need to “reclaim the role and
contributions of non-mother-tongue teachers of English in the international
history of English” (2002, p. xii).
There are indeed grounds for moving beyond a native and non-native
speaker paradigm, and towards a bilingual “expert speaker” status which
disregards language background (Rampton, 1990; Brutt-Griffler &
Samimy, 1999). There are also grounds for reasserting the importance of
pedagogical expertise alongside that of linguistic: Seidlhofer warns of “the
dangers of an automatic extrapolation from competent speaker to
competent teacher” (1999, p. 237; emphases in original).
Medgyes discusses native and non-native teachers of English (1994,
1996, 2001), and summarizes NNESTs as having competencies to:

i. provide a good learner model for imitation

ii. teach language learning strategies effectively
iii. supply learners with more information about the English language
iv. anticipate and prevent learning difficulties better
v. be more empathic to the needs and problems of learners
vi. make use of the learners’ mother tongue (1994: 51).
56 Chapter Four

These competencies have been confirmed and amplified in studies

conducted by Liu (1999), Tang (1997), Mahboob (2004), and Pasternak
and Bailey (2004). Of the six NNEST competencies identified by
Medgyes above, it is the last, L1 use, which is the focus of the present
study. It may be said, however, that it is precisely this competency – the
capacity to operate through the medium of a shared L1 – which serves to
enable several other competencies.

ESL and EFL Contexts

ESL education generally takes place within a context of the target
language and its associated cultures, where the TL is pervasive and
represents a pivotal source of power. Classes are commonly multilingual
in nature, and teachers are monolingual or encouraged to behave as though
they are monolingual (Ellis, 2003, p. 11). In contrast, EFL education in
countries such as Thailand has relatively little connection with the TL or
its associated cultures, beyond the average of two to three hours per week
offered in the classroom. Moreover, here, as in many EFL contexts,
students do share a first language (and culture) with each other and their
teacher; and bilingual teaching in fact operates as a default mode.

The Bilingual Learner

The term bilingual here will be taken to describe a speaker who can
communicate appropriately in various contexts in two languages (Baker,
2001; Kroll & Dussias, 2004). A multi-competence model of the bilingual
speaker has been developed by Cook (1991, 1992, 1999, 2001, 2003) to
describe “the compound state of a mind with two grammars” (1991, p.
112). Cook proposes that the relationship between L1 and L2 in the
speaker’s mind be viewed as an “integration continuum” (2003, p. 6),
where both languages are simultaneously available, a view echoed by
Myers-Scotton (2005). Work in speech processing has similarly concluded
that “the language systems of the bilingual are permeable” (Kroll &
Dussias, 2004, p. 191), and further support for a multi-competence model
is derived from studies into the effect not of L1 on L2, but of L2 on L1
(Cook’s edited volume, 2003).
A repositioning of second language learners as “bilingual plus” rather
than “monolingual minus” is fundamental to an understanding of the
bilingual teaching which characterizes a majority of EFL classes in
Thailand, and indeed a majority of EFL classes worldwide.
 Ten Principles of Bilingual Pedagogy in EFL 57

Roles of L1 and L2 in Language Teaching

Opposing L1 use

According to Kelly, in the 19th Century, translation was viewed by

teachers as the optimum method for conveying meaning from one
language to the other. On the other hand in the 20th Century, “the avant-
garde of language teachers refused to consider translation as a valid
procedure in teaching meaning” (1976, p. 29). It is the latter view, of
course, which persists to this day; and three central arguments in its favour
have been identified by Cook (2001). The first is based on attempts to
reproduce the perceived conditions of L1 learning, and as such formed part
of the rationale for methodologies as diverse as the Direct Method, Audio-
Lingualism, and elements of Communicative Language Teaching, in
particular the minor communicative methods of Total Physical Response,
and the Natural Approach. The second argument, Cook refers to as
“language compartmentalisation”, whereby languages should be kept
separate in order to avoid confusion and to develop competence in an L2.
The third is probably that most commonly held by language teachers: the
need to minimize the use of L1 in order to achieve maximum exposure to
L2.
Briefly taking each argument in turn, we may note first that L2
learning is qualitatively and quantitatively different from L1 learning in
terms of learners and their environments, and attempts to replicate mother-
tongue learning conditions are at best simplistic, and at worst linguistically
impoverishing. Once we have learned to construe the world through one
language, there is no prelapsarian return when faced with learning another
language. Second, the notion that L1 and L2 are separately coded, stored
and produced in the brain, while still a complex issue, appears to have
been superseded by advances in cognitive science and neurolinguistics
(Kecskes & Papp, 2000; Cook, 2003; Thibault, 2004). Third, exposure is
clearly a sine qua non of language learning. However, it is generally
accepted that even when exposure is comprehensible, this does not
guarantee its quality, utility, nor that learning will take place (Turnbull,
2001).

Supporting L1 use

Over the past ten years, there has been evidence of some change in
perception of the role played by the L1 in learning an L2 (Cook, 1999;
Macaro, 2001; Carless, 2007; Cummins, 2007; Scott & De La Fuente,
58 Chapter Four

2008; Song & Andrews, 2009; Turnbull & Dailey-O’Cain, 2009b). Cook
asserts that:

L2 users have L1 permanently present in their minds. Every activity the

student carries out visibly in the L2 also involves the invisible L1 … From
a multi-competence perspective, all teaching activities are cross-lingual …
the difference among activities is whether the L1 is visible or invisible, not
whether it is present or altogether absent. (1999, p. 202; emphases added)

Sociocultural theory offers a view of L1 as mediating L2, and therefore as

an educational tool. Swain (2000) proposes a broadening of the concept of
“learner output” from target language only to “bilingual collaborative
dialogue”, and Swain and Lapkin assert that in the learning of L2, it is L1
which serves as our “most formidable cognitive resource” (2005, p. 181).
A cognitive view of L1 function is supported by Macaro (2001, p.
32), who argues that by making explicit the similarities between L1 and
L2, “storage, processing and retrieval of language is facilitated”. The
effectiveness of L1 in L2 vocabulary development has similarly been
argued by Ramachandran and Rahim (2004). There are several other
positive reports of L1 use by students during collaborative group work
(Brooks, Donato & McGlone, 1997; Antón & DiCamilla, 1998; Swain,
Lapkin, Knouki, Suzuki & Brooks, 2009).
Additional pedagogic reasons which have been put forward for the
use of students’ L1 in the classroom include the effective use of limited
lesson time (Weschler, 1997); its “catalysing” effect on the intake process
(Turnbull & Arnett, 2001); and the enabling of lower-achieving students to
participate equitably (Klassen, 1991; Sparks, Ganschow, Pohlman,
Skinner & Artzer, 1992).
A number of writers have also drawn attention to the socio-affective
impact of L1 use. Katchen (1990) notes how communication in L1 may
create rapport amongst students and teacher; Harbord (1992)
acknowledges “humanistic” reasons for L1 use; and Canagarajah (1999)
observes that L1 is a resource through which teachers may heighten/reduce
their authority/solidarity with students. An issue of the online journal
Humanising Language Teaching (2003) published three articles (Bradley,
2003; Clanfield & Foord, 2003; Owen 2003), all of which support the use
of L1 in EFL classrooms. Owen asks: “Why is there still that lingering
sense of having done something wrong when … we make use of
translation?” (emphases in original); and the journal’s editor affirms “the
linguistic joy of comparing L1 and L2 and of working back and forwards
between them” (Rinvolucri, 2003). When students themselves have been
surveyed in respect of L1-L2 use in disparate EFL settings, they have been
 Ten Principles of Bilingual Pedagogy in EFL 59

found to strongly favour the use of L1 (Tang, 2002; Savignon & Wang,
2003; Myojin, 2007; Brooks-Lewis, 2009).

L1 use in the Thai EFL Context

There is very little published literature which refers to the use of L1 and
L2 in Thai English language classrooms. Ministry policy at university
level is to allow teachers discretion in the use of both languages as
appropriate to the needs of their students. Certainly, Communicative
Approaches which employ exclusive or maximum L2 use are favoured by
imported ELT journals and professional conferences (Wongsothorn,
Sukamolson, Chinthammit, Noparumpa & Rattanotayanonth, 1996;
Chayanuvat, 1997). However, it is also reported that in general, Thai
remains the main medium of instruction in ELT classes (Nakamura, 1998;
Kongpetch, 2004). My own experience is of a significant change in
teaching practice in recent years. When I first taught at a Thai university
twenty years ago, no Thai lecturer there used English to communicate with
students. But when I returned to that institution recently, I observed that
English was now used by every teacher, along with Thai in varying
proportions.

Methodology
Research Setting
The current chapter focuses on one part of a larger project which was
conducted at this Thai university site between 2002 and 2004 (Forman,
2005, 2007, 2008). Nine English language teachers were interviewed in
English, one-to-one, on three or four occasions. One two-hour class of
each teacher was observed in action (with a second class observed in the
case of one teacher).

Research Questions
(1) In what ways do Thai English language teachers make use of two
languages – English and Thai – in their classes with university
students?

(2) What do the teachers in this study perceive to be the purposes of their
use of L1 in this context?
60 Chapter Four

When pursuing question one, that relating to methodology, I will for

reasons of space confine analysis to lessons conducted by three participating
teachers. However, when turning to question two, that relating to
rationale/purpose, I will draw upon the views of all nine participating
teachers.

Participants
Eight of the participating teachers were native Thai who held high levels
of English language proficiency, resulting in part from having studied in
English-speaking countries for extended periods. The ninth teacher was an
Anglo-Australian who held a high level of bilinguality in English and
Thai. I would describe all these teachers as multi-competent, “expert”
speakers of both Thai and English. Five teachers were female, and four
male. Participants self-selected a pseudonym, and chose the pseudonym of
Isara for the university itself.
While the first two of the three classes which are the focus of Section
1 below were low-level non-English Major, the third class was English
Major, and this is a distinction of considerable importance at Isara, as at
other Thai universities (Boonkit, 2002). Places for the study of English
Major courses are highly sought after; both proficiency levels and
motivation of English Major students are considered to be high. On the
other hand, English is also a compulsory subject of study for all first and
second year university students. The English language proficiency of such
non-English Major students, and their motivation, is expected to be
markedly lower in comparison (Wiriyachitra, 2001; Noon-ura, 2008).
In classes 1 and 2, according to my informal assessment, students’
English language proficiency appeared to fall into IELTS Band 2
(approximately equivalent to TOEFL 350-400). This band’s summary
descriptor is as follows:

Conveys and understands only general meaning in very familiar situations.

Frequent breakdowns in communication occur. (International English
Language Testing Scheme, 2002, n.p.).

Students in class 3, on the other hand, I would gauge to be at a proficiency

of around 6.0 on the IELTS scale (or around 500 TOEFL), that is they
have:

…generally effective command of the language despite some inaccuracies,

inappropriacies and misunderstandings. Can use and understand fairly
complex language, particularly in familiar situations. (IELTS, 2002, n.p.) 
 Ten Principles of Bilingual Pedagogy in EFL 61

Data Collection
All lessons were audio-recorded. The Thai language spoken by teachers
was transcribed and translated into English by Thai research assistants. I
transcribed selected parts of lessons where teachers spoke in English, and
summarized other parts. Interviews, conducted in English, were also
audio-recorded and transcribed. Audio-tapes, field notes, and both English
and Thai transcriptions were drawn upon to build a picture of the ways in
which L1 and L2 functioned in each lesson, and the ways in which
teachers regarded their practices.

Findings
I will present findings in two parts.

Part 1: Research Question (1)

In what ways do Thai English language teachers make use of Thai in their
classes with university students?

For reasons of space, I will confine discussion of this question to three

classes which are representative of the nine classes surveyed. In each case
I will analyse some key moments of pedagogy, and will also draw upon
the teacher’s own views as expressed at interview.

(1) Ajarn Laksana

Class Oral English, Year 2 (non-English Major)

No of students 52
Faculty Nursing
Text Journeys: Listening and Speaking,
by Adams and Setsuko (2001)
Unit 12: How much is it?

The first class was held in the university’s language laboratory; the teacher
was a female senior lecturer with a calm presence and resonant voice. The
lesson was based on a monolingual English textbook. It was conducted as
what I will call a “Bilingual Blend”, that is, where English and Thai were
interspersed and received approximately equal time and attention.
62 Chapter Four

In the discussion which follows, classroom text which has been

translated from Thai into English appears underlined; a teacher’s own
words at interview will either be indented, or will appear within the text in
italic font.

Extract 1

At this point of the lesson, the teacher was following the textbook’s focus
on “a pair of”. After reading aloud the textbook passage, the teacher went
through amplifying it in English, and commentating in Thai.

Teacher
English Thai
Could you give me the name of
some more items that we call “a pair
of”? We have got socks, jeans,
gloves, what else?

คุณเปนนิสิตพยาบาล
คุณตองใชอะไรในการทําแผล a
pair คะ
You are nurses. What do you need
when you clean a wound? A pair of
what?

Table 1: Ajarn Laksana: Extract 1

This microtext shows how the teacher was able to draw upon Thai in order
to both localize and deepen students’ field of knowledge. While the
monolingual English textbook had presented grammar-based forms, the
teacher, by moving into Thai, could operate at a more demanding
cognitive/linguistic level, and at the same time relate the lesson to
students’ needs: You are nurses. What do you need when you clean a
wound? A pair of what? Ajarn Laksana thus linked new to known,
connecting new English forms with students’ existing semantic knowledge
in Thai. This is a process which served to embed L2 within L1, and
Extract 1 above may be seen as a miniature instantiation of the broader
 Ten Principles of Bilingual Pedagogy in EFL 63

process of second language learning: that is, as we enter an L2, so do its

forms/meanings become embedded within our existing L1 forms/meanings.

Extract 2

In the following extract which occurred later in the same lesson, the
teacher was commentating in Thai upon the written English text.

Teacher
English Thai

ดูสํานวนตรงนี้ดวยนะคะ
See this idiom here

“Can I have a look?”

หมายความวาไง
What does this mean?

ขอดูใชไหมคะ
ขอดูเสื้อตัวนั้นหนอย
[I] would like to see, right?
[I] would like to see that coat.

Table 2: Ajarn Laksana: Extract 2

This bilingual explanation illustrates the capacity of L1 to provide

semantic and metalinguistic information in a speedy and accurate manner
– in this case, where idiomatic language is concerned.

Extract 3

The following is an instance of language mediating culture which arose

not in the lesson itself, but in the later process of translating it.
64 Chapter Four

Teacher
English Thai

“Have a nice day.” อวยพรกัน

a blessing.

Table 3: Ajarn Laksana: Extract 3

My Thai translator had construed the Thai, อวยพรกัน as a blessing in

English. I was not sure if this Thai term carried the restricted meaning of
“blessing” in English (i.e. a religious one), and on checking, discovered
that it in fact does not do so. However, there exists no equivalent English
word; and in order to translate into English more accurately, we would
need to paraphrase the Thai into something like “wishing someone well”. I
found that this step offered an interesting insight into the way in which a
language and culture might well be re-termed a “linguaculture” (Friedrich,
1989, p. 295) in recognition of the ways in which the two are bound
together.
At our interviews, Ajarn Laksana noted that she aims to use English
as much as possible, and finds that she can do so for most of the time with
English Major students, but for much less of the time with the non-Major
students observed in the current lesson. She noted that if English was used
beyond students’ capacity to follow the lesson, the following situation
could occur:

At the end of the class, they [students] came to the teacher and asked:
“What did you say, teacher? I did not understand anything at all.”

And commented that:

If the situation is like this, is it worth speaking all English through the
period? Or is it better if we use some L1 to understand some difficult
points?

According to Ajarn Laksana, part of the value of L1 in teaching is to

enable the making of direct contrasts between the less familiar L2, and
what is known to students from their L1. She gave the example of English
answers to negative questions, as in:

You’re not coming? No, I’m not.

 Ten Principles of Bilingual Pedagogy in EFL 65

But in Thai (in common with a number of SE Asian and other languages):

You’re not coming? Yes [I’m not].

Ajarn Laksana asserted that the use of L1 enables teachers to communicate

with accuracy, to check understanding, and to save time. However, she
stressed that these uses of Thai were only to be seen as a support and not a
replacement for striving to achieve maximum use of English:

It is the duty of the teacher to guide students, not to tell at the beginning.
Try to guide until they don’t know how or where to go, then end with some
translation.

These comments are an important statement of educational philosophy,

which may be seen to resonate with Vygotsky’s notion of working within
students’ Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978; Bruner, 1986).
And as Ajarn Laksana points out, in maximizing student learning
opportunities, it is crucial to stretch students as far as possible in the target
language. But I would argue that experiencing L2 alone cannot access
students’ full learning potential. For paradoxically, L1, when appropriately
used, can be one of the most powerful tools in L2 learning, as only L1
allows for students to draw upon the intellectual richness of their native
tongue in developing the relatively limited second language.

(2) Dr Chai

Class EAP, Year 2 (non-English Major)

No of students 30
Faculty Science
Text No written text
Topic: Making สมตำ som tam
(papaya salad)
Aim: To create a recipe in English

This second class was composed of students from the Department of

Information Technology in the Faculty of Science. The teacher, a male in
his twenties, was both relaxed and enthusiastic in his teaching. Unlike the
previous class discussed, the bulk of this lesson took place in Thai; it is
therefore termed “Thai-dominant”.
66 Chapter Four

The object of the lesson was to have students create English written
text, and the means by which they were to do so was through collaborative
group work in Thai. The process of using L1 to write L2 may be freshly
viewed through the process of “inner speech”, that internal sub-
vocalization which is produced with a lesser or greater degree of linguistic
formality (Vygotsky, 1986; Guerrero, 2005). For language learners, inner
speech may occur as either L1 or L2, but it has been hypothesized that
learners will continue to think in L1 at all but advanced levels of L2
proficiency, and that generally, until those levels are reached, L2 will
occur mentally only as rehearsal or “preparation for output”, rather than
for cognition (Cohen, 1998; Centeno-Cortés & Jimenéz Jimenéz, 2004).
At interview, Dr Chai indicated that he believes that students’ L2 writing
operates in a similar way: They think or write Thai first, then translate into
English. Why? The brain has already been colonized by Thai. And for this
reason, he favoured the approach described, where the first language
mediated the second.
In general, Dr Chai believes that the use of L1 and L2 must depend
upon students’ English language proficiency levels. For English Major
students, lessons can be conducted largely or entirely in L2, but for non-
Major students he judged this impossible. Dr Chai said that when he
started teaching the class, he had used L2 as the main medium of
instruction, but student evaluations had asked him to translate into Thai.
He said of this:

I could speak English, but I don’t want to, because the students will not get
any knowledge.

As students completed their task, the teacher moved around the room,
giving assistance to individual students. The following text illustrates the
use of L1 to provide speedy metalinguistic information, and occurred
when a student queried whether “fish salt” was the correct term to use.
 Ten Principles of Bilingual Pedagogy in EFL 67

Extract 1

Teacher
English Thai

เฮ ไมตองใส salt. Fish แลวก็ sauce ที่แปลวา

s.a.u.c.e. ไง Sauce มะเขือเทศอะไรยังงี้

No, it’s not “salt”. “Fish” and then “sauce”.

“Sauce” is spelled s.a.u.c.e., right? It’s the same
spelling as in “tomato sauce”.

Table 4: Dr Chai

Dr Chai indicated that Vygotskian constructivist learning principles were

explicitly followed in his classes. His intent was that students would be led
to new understanding through undertaking a task which was set within
their ZPD, and that they should be supported in this process by peer
collaboration. While the task product was linguistic – L2 written text – the
goals were not simply linguistic, but also cognitive and affective.
Dr Chai related that he had become interested in the social
constructivist theories of Vygotsky and Bruner because of his own ideas
on how language is learnt by social means. He commented that Although
in Thailand we don’t have these theories, we know anyway. I interpret this
latter comment as a view of theory being answerable to practice; that is,
where one is not privileged over the other. Moreover, there appears a
welcome affirmation of the NNEST lens as Dr Chai positions the
experiences of Thai teachers as being of equal value to, rather than subject
to, the Western academy.

(3) Ajarn Nanda

Class Critical Reading, Year 3 (English Major)

No of students 41
Faculty Humanities
IELTS levels Band 6.0
Text Selected reading passages
68 Chapter Four

The teacher of the third class was a female senior lecturer, whose lessons
were conducted with authority as well as with a highly expressive
vocalization of the written texts under study.

The subject was Critical Reading. The texts for these lessons were taken
from a number of published readings which had been collated into a
workbook. The lesson observed was based on Chapter 5: An author’s
attitude and tone. The short texts were in a variety of styles and genres,
including both fiction and factual writing; five were covered in this lesson.
Because this was a third year English Major class, Ajarn Nanda felt it
appropriate to conduct nearly all the lesson in the target language, creating
what I will call an “English-dominant” lesson. The teacher drew upon L1
infrequently, but such use did appear to play a disproportionately powerful
role in assisting comprehensibility and depth of learning. One of the texts,
for example, dealt with Meteorology, and the teacher made use of L1 to
explain what she referred to as the technical concepts of “hurricane” and
“typhoon”, and importantly, how to distinguish in meaning between the
two related concepts. In another text dealing with Animal Characteristics,
the Thai language enabled Ajarn Nanda to explain idioms such as “Indian
Summer”, as well as to describe creatures which do not exist in Thailand,
such as “skunk” and “rattlesnake”.
The following episode occurred in relation to a reading passage
entitled “Fire at the Old Depot”. In order to localize and personalize this
text, the teacher drew upon a related current issue in Thailand, which
concerned protests by local residents against plans to build a Munitions
Depot close to a populated area.
(It should be noted that the projected response of the then Prime
Minister is in fact ironic, as the latter was known for his tendency to speak
rather than act.)
In this text, we see how the teacher, by virtue of her shared language
and culture with students, can embed L2 in existing L1 cultural
knowledge. She does so by drawing upon students’ familiarity with a
current political issue in Thailand, by identifying a salient characteristic of
the Prime Minister, and by linking his stance to a familiar Thai proverb.
The fragment of L1 in the shape of a Thai proverb is small, but it
represents a unique retrieval of a traditional linguistic/cultural artefact; and
serves both to recontextualize students’ learning experience and to provide
a socio-affective connection amongst teacher and students.
 Ten Principles of Bilingual Pedagogy in EFL 69

Teacher
English Thai
And so what’s the comment from the present
Prime Minister here?

คิดใหมทาํ ใหม
[Proverb]: “Think [something]
new; do [something] new.”

He went there [R] and [R] and he talked to

the mob, and what did he say?
Yes. “I understand what’s the problem, I
have got all the problems, I won’t do
anything that will? cause the problem to? the
environment, to the communities, to the
country.”

Table 5: Ajarn Nanda

It may be said that that there are four “voices” being heard in this part
of the lesson. The first is the foreign language voice of the English text
under study. Then there are three voices projected by the teacher: her own,
that of the Thai Prime Minister, and the Thai Prime Minister’s projection
of a Thai proverb. Moreover, the PM’s voice is articulated in both Thai
and in English. The following diagram demonstrates how each of the four
voices is embedded in the other. It may be noted that each step of
embedding takes the students further back to their own linguaculture,
thereby deepening the semantic links between English and Thai, and
enhancing learning.
At interview, Ajarn Nanda discussed in general why she found it
valuable to draw upon the L1, albeit briefly, even with advanced students,
indicating that its use ensures that students and instructor are focusing on
the same thing. Additionally, Ajarn Nanda nominated social reasons for
her use of L1, explaining that it allows for that all students to participate in
learning, not only those proficient in L2, and that L1 enables close
interaction, emphasising that …we are native Thai.
70 Chapter Four

 
 
 
  (4) A Thai proverb

 
  (3) The Prime Minster’s voice
 
(2) The teacher's voice
(1) Fire at the old depot text

Figure 1: Ajarn Nanda: embedding of four voices

In these three classes briefly illustrated above, we see variety in the

amount of L1 used, as well as a range of purposes for its use. Ajarn
Laksana in Class 1 applied the shared L1 to a close and extended
commentary on English grammar and usage. Dr Chai in Class 2 positioned
the study of English as one part of broader educational goals. And in Class
3, Ajarn Nanda used L1 only sparingly, but to great effect, in achieving
depth of meaning.

Part 2: Research Question (2)

The study also sought to discover teachers’ own views on why they used
English and Thai in the ways that they did. Up to this point, the illustration
of textual examples has been limited for reasons of space to three teachers,
but when dealing with interview data from here on, I will deal with all
nine teachers.

This second question was framed as follows:

What do the teachers in this study perceive to be the purposes of their use
of L1 in this context?

At interview, teachers identified seven principles for L1 use (of course

sometimes overlapping) which could be constrained to three categories:
Cognitive, Affective and Pedagogic. These are summarised in Table 6
below.

I will comment on each of these seven principles in turn.

 Ten Principles of Bilingual Pedagogy in EFL 71

1 Cognitive L2 knowledge to explain L2 vocabulary,

grammar, usage, culture
2 Affective solidarity to facilitate easy, “natural”
interaction amongst students and
teacher
3 interpersonal to develop collaborative, team-
development work abilities
4 Pedagogic time-effectiveness to make good use of limited
classroom time
5 comprehensibility to convey meaning successfully

6 inclusivity to ensure that all students can

participate
7 contingency to respond to immediate
teaching/learning needs

Table 6: Seven principles of L1 use in L2 teaching

(1) Cognitive: L2 knowledge

Using L1 to Explain L2 Vocabulary, Grammar, Usage, Culture

It was perceived necessary by teachers to use L1 in order to explain

various formal, semantic and pragmatic features of L2. The Thai language
was used for these metalinguistic reasons by every teacher in the study,
and sometimes as a dominant classroom technique. Rationale for such L1
use has been embraced by a number of commentators, for example, Cook
(1999), Swain (2000), Macaro (2001), Butzkamm (2003), Song and
Andrews (2009). Liu et al (2004, pp. 616-617) nominated this as the most
common function of L1 in their English language classes, as did teachers
in Crawford’s large-scale study of foreign language teaching (1999).
The first two lessons discussed in Part 1 of this chapter have
demonstrated some of the ways in which L1 was used for this purpose.
Another teacher, Ajarn Somchay noted that whenever we come to difficult
vocabulary, I find it’s a waste of time to describe and explain it in English.
And in regard to writing, he believes that students usually try to make
logical sense in their L1, and then convert into English in their minds. As
72 Chapter Four

that teacher put it to me at interview: If you study L2 in Australia, do you

think in L1? To which I, of course, responded yes.
A similar dimension of cognition was captured in a comment made
by Dr Patcharin:

If we would like to get down into the real meaning, the deep meaning, we
can use Thai.

This comment again brings out the embeddedness of learning; how we

experience the new from within the known. For what is more familiar and
comfortable than the mother tongue; and what feels more foreign than new
language imperfectly understood?

(2) Affective: Solidarity

Using L1 to Facilitate Easy, “Natural” Interaction amongst Students and

Teacher

At every level of students’ English proficiency, teachers in this study

made reference to the affective power of L1:

Using L1 gives close interaction [because] we are native Thai. (Ajarn

Nanda)

I feel relief; they [students] feel relief: we understand the same point now.
(Ajarn Rajavadee)

My field notes, too, record that when teachers moved into the shared L1,
there was often a visible easing of tension in the classroom. This is a
function of L2 extensively recorded in the literature, e.g. Harbord (1992),
Lin (1996), Canagarajah (1999) and Cook (2001). Chambers (1992)
describes his own feeling of frustration as a teacher at the artificiality and
time required to provide task instructions in L2 only (in this case,
German), and his consequent support of mother tongue use in L2 learning.
For learners, there has been identified in the foreigh language learning
field a particular kind of negative emotion associated with L2 learning:
“foreign language anxiety”. The concept is related to “performance
anxiety” but distinguished from it by the tendency of the foreign tongue to
force a:
 Ten Principles of Bilingual Pedagogy in EFL 73

disparity between the “true” self as known by the language learner and the
more limited self as can be presented at any given moment in the foreign
language. (Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986, p. 128)

The L1, then, may serve to reduce anxiety on the part of students. It may
also support a sense of solidarity amongst students and their teacher. As
Dr Chai put it:

It’s like you’re sharing your Thai-ness at the same time…because you’re
both [teacher and students] engaging in a foreign language.

And as Ajarn Somjay commented of his use of Thai in the classroom:

I find it alien to do otherwise.

It is my experience and observation that the native language constitutes

intensely-thought and sensually-felt dimensions of the self. I would
suggest that to ignore it is to turn away from who we are, and how we see
ourselves in the world.

(3) Affective: Interpersonal Development

Using L1 to Develop Collaborative, Team-work Abilities

This principle for using L1 was one not anticipated by me, and to my
knowledge, has not been discussed in the literature with regard to L2
classrooms. It was discernible in the class of Dr Chai as demonstrated in
Part 1, where Thai, rather than English, was favoured in order to realize
learning goals which were broader than purely linguistic (L2) ones. As
noted, that class was composed of low English language proficiency
students who were engaged in mandatory study and who were generally
perceived to have low motivation for such study. Dr Chai seemed to be
less concerned with actual English language outcomes – perhaps expecting
that these could not be very high – than with socio-affective educational
processes. Another teacher, Ajarn Nuteau, espoused this same principle as
follows:

[students] have ability, they have creative ideas, but they don’t know how
to express themselves … And if I force them to speak English, then this
may obstruct their real ability.
74 Chapter Four

That is, particularly in the case of low level students, Ajarn Nuteau’s focus
is on achieving collaboration amongst students; he identified in particular
the need to develop in students the team-work qualities which Thai
employers seek of graduates. Thus in his classes, while the completion of
exercises related to an English text would contribute to developing
students’ L2 reading and writing proficiency, it was the process of
achieving the written task together which would develop their deeper
learning. Ajarn Nuteau stressed the social goal of the group task: If one
fails, the others fail.

(4) Pedagogic: Time-effectiveness

Using L1 to Make Good Use of Limited Classroom Time

Successful teaching in any context involves judicious time management on

the part of the teacher. In many EFL contexts, students’ exposure to the
target language outside the classroom may be limited or non-existent, and
the time allocated to that subject often amounts to only a few hours a
week. In this case there is an additional challenge for teachers in providing
the best balance between two languages: how to maximize students’
experience of the target language without “losing” students in the process.
A number of teachers in the study commented on the time dimension of
L1-L2 use. Dr Bua, for example, was a teacher whose classes with
advanced English Major students were clearly English-dominant, but she
reported that colleagues had said to her: Because you use so much English
in your class right now, you cannot catch up with your lessons (that is,
cannot cover the set curriculum in time). Dr Bua acknowledged that this
was a dilemma, as on the one hand she strongly believed in using as much
English as possible in her classes, but on the other, using Thai would be
more time-effective.
Again, this is a principle widely documented in the research literature
(e.g. Macaro, 1997; Nation, 2003; Nagy & Robertson, 2009).

(5) Pedagogic: Comprehensibility

Using L1 to Convey Meaning Successfully

Teachers frequently commented on the need to adjust proportions of L1

and L2 according to the level of students’ comprehension. This principle is
one commonly noted, e.g. Stern (1992), Lin (2001), Tang (2002), Savignon
and Wang (2003), Carless (2008). Ajarn Rajavadee, for example, indicated
 Ten Principles of Bilingual Pedagogy in EFL 75

that she preferred to begin her lessons in the L2, English, and If I see that
a lot of students don’t understand the lesson, then I have to change into
Thai. She indicated that she checks students’ comprehension by attending
to the look on their face, or by asking display questions, asserting that, if
you keep going on, you just lose them, right? Ajarn Laksana spoke of a
similar situation, and as noted in the earlier section, commented that in this
case:

…is it worth speaking all English through the period? Or is it better if we

use some L1 to understand some difficult points?

Ajarn Murray also spoke at length about the value of translation, and
compared it with the time-consuming and less accurate practice of
attempting to convey meaning through exclusive L1 use.
There are two other dimensions of achieving comprehensibility
through L1 which have been alluded to in the literature. The first was also
seen here, where teachers used L1 in order to make salient some important
information (Lin, 1996). The second was not observed in the present
study, but is said to occur in situations where teachers’ lower L2
proficiency limits their ability to use L2 in class (for example, as self-
reported by teachers in a study conducted by Liu et al, 2004, p. 621).

(6) Pedagogic: Inclusivity

Using L1 to Ensure that all Students Participate

Teachers were mindful of the range of ability which exists in each class,
with Dr Bua referring back to her own experiences of learning English,
when she herself had benefited from exposure to the target language, but
weaker students learnt nothing and wasted time. Ajarn Nanda similarly
noted that when she uses L1, All students can participate in the lesson, not
only those proficient in L2. Ajarn Somchay asserted that if some students
are seen to follow the lesson, while other are lost, the latter will become
nervous and frustrated … will not be confident … [and] may hate English.
This inclusivity principle is less often examined in the EFL literature,
although see Klassen (1991) and Sparks, Ganschow, Pohlman, Skinner
and Artzer (1992). However, first-hand reports of language learning can
leave us in no doubt about students’ reactions to being “left behind” in a
language lesson (e.g. de Courcy, 2005; Edstrom, 2006).
This inclusive function of L1 classroom use takes on a heightened
political hue in non-EFL contexts such as ESL in the USA (Auerbach,
76 Chapter Four

1993), or in post-colonial contexts where English is the medium of school

instruction (Martin-Jones & Heller, 1996).

(7) Pedagogic: Contingency

Using L1 in Response to Students’ Immediate Level of

Attention/Participation

This principle is regarded as linked to but distinguishable from principles

of inclusivity and comprehensibility. It was particularly notable in two
higher-level classes conducted by Ajarn Nanda, where students were of a
similar English language proficiency, and were following the same
syllabus on the same day. Despite these similarities, the first class, held in
the early morning, was conducted largely in English, whereas the second
class, held in the afternoon, made significantly greater use of Thai. As the
teacher noted at interview, that second class was held in the heat of the
day…it’s stifling, and she moved to greater use of the L1 because she
perceived students to be exhausted. That is, contingency upon immediate
learning conditions was a determining factor of L1/L2 use. Another form
of contingent L1 use is referred to by Macaro (1997): the tiredness of the
teacher her/himself, and this was also apparent to me as I observed the
class in question.

Additional Principles of L1 Use

As noted earlier, my second research question sought to discover
principles of teachers’ use of L1 in their L2 classes. Having outlined above
the principles for L1 use which characterized the classrooms of the present
study, it may be of interest now to briefly note additional principles which
have been commonly identified in the literature, but evidence for which
did not appear in this context. These were three in number, and relate to
classroom discipline, or classroom management, which I will call
principle (8); globalized communication (9); and political positioning (10).

(8) Pedagogic: Classroom Management

Using L1 to Maintain Discipline

Without wishing to essentialize Thai culture or its educational practices, it

must be said that Thai cultural traits of respect, courtesy, and harmony are
readily observable in daily life (Komin, 1990) and in classroom settings
 Ten Principles of Bilingual Pedagogy in EFL 77

(O’Sullivan & Tajaroensuk, 1997; Hallinger & Kantamara, 2001). Teachers

are highly respected in Thailand, and in my experience, the classroom
behaviour problems common in Western settings are rarely seen. In the
present study, no teacher made reference to this principle for L1 use, nor
did I observe it. However, studies conducted in contexts other than
Thailand commonly refer to L1 use as beneficial or necessary in
maintaining classroom discipline (Duff & Polio, 1990; Lin, 1996; Cook,
2001; Ferguson, 2003).

(9) Socio-political: Globalised Communication

Using L1 to Enable Students to Move Flexibly and Effectively across Two

Languages

The blending of two languages, often known as code-switching or code-

mixing, has been documented by sociolinguists as a staple of
communication amongst bilinguals. Liu et al (2004, p. 621) point out that
such practice forms “a required life skill in this increasingly globalised
economy”, and urge that it should accordingly become a part of L2
pedagogy (see also Cook, 2001; Turnbull & Daley-O’Cain, 2009a).
However, this view does not appear to have achieved currency; and neither
was it suggested by teachers in the present study that effective bilingual
discourse could be a classroom goal in itself.

(10) Socio-political: Political Positioning

Using L1 to Resist the Political Dimensions of Global English

The position of English in post-colonial contexts is necessarily politically

charged: attitudes towards its global and local presence are often complex.
In such contexts, the use of L1 in the L2 classroom can be an act of
resistance and/or solidarity. Such use has been documented by Phillipson
(1992), Canagarajah (1995), and Lin (1996), as well as in a great deal of
African writing (see the volume edited by Martin-Jones & Heller, 1996).
For a critique of post-colonial ELT discourses located in the S E Asian
region, see Toh, 2003. However in Thailand, English does not play a post-
colonial role. And while some teachers in the present study were critical of
Western cultural influences on young Thai people, there was evident no
antipathy towards the current status or role of English. On the contrary,
there was a general welcoming of English as a “lingua franca”, some
positive suggestions that it could become Thailand’s official as well as de
78 Chapter Four

facto second language; and disquiet only that Thailand was not keeping
pace with its neighbours in English language educational outcomes. It
would appear, then, that to date the instrumentality of English has
generally precluded discourses of dissent in Thailand – at least amongst
these teachers who are involved in its spread.
Having discussed seven principles of L1 use in the present study, and
then briefly identified three principles which did not appear, I will, for
completion, set out all ten in the table below.

(A) Purposes of teachers’ use of L1 with English language students –

identified within this study
1 Cognitive L2 development to explain L2 vocabulary,
grammar, usage, culture
2 Affective solidarity to facilitate easy, “natural”
interaction amongst students and
with teacher
3 interpersonal to develop collaborative, team-
development work abilities
4 Pedagogic time-effectiveness to make good use of limited
classroom time
5 comprehensibility to convey meaning successfully
6 inclusivity to ensure that all students can
participate
7 contingency to respond to immediate
teaching/learning needs
 

(B) Purposes of teachers’ use of L1 with English language students –

identified beyond this study
8 Pedagogic classroom to maintain discipline
management
9 Socio- globalised to enable students to move
political communication flexibly and effectively across
two languages
10 political to resist the political dimensions
positioning of global English

Table 7: Ten principles of L1 use in L2 teaching

 Ten Principles of Bilingual Pedagogy in EFL 79

Conclusion
This study has used the NNEST lens to explore how teachers of English in
Thailand make use of both L1 and L2 in their university classes. It has,
through classroom observation, teacher interview, and micro-textual
analysis, shown something of the ways in which a distinctive bilingual
pedagogy operates in this EFL context. It is hoped that the principles set
out above, derived from local teachers’ practices and reflections, may
begin to address the calls noted earlier for exploration of how and why
teachers draw upon the first language in the teaching of a second. For as
Canagarajah notes (1999, p. 110), the vernacularization of EFL classrooms
is nothing new in such contexts: “We have simply started discovering
what has always been true.”
The Thai EFL classrooms explored in this study raise important
questions for teacher educators in Western settings. The great majority of
TESOL/Applied Linguistics programs in the West focus upon the teaching
of English as a second language through monolingual methods. However,
large numbers of current TESOL teachers at the postgraduate level in
English-speaking countries are in fact bilingual NNESTs, who globally
constitute the majority. Such teachers’ needs have been for the most part
disregarded or unconsidered in these programs (Braine, 1999; Lin et al
2002; Llurda, 2005; Phan, 2008). While the socio-political dimensions of
global ELT are sometimes addressed through subjects of a similar name or
those more traditionally called Language Planning, appropriate
methodology and curriculum for bilingual EFL classes in Expanding
Circle countries are rarely addressed. And so, crucial issues are neglected,
such as optimum use of L1 and L2; the creation of teaching materials
which are monolingual/bilingual, global/local; how to balance NEST and
NNEST expertise/models; and the place of translation in pedagogy. It is
hoped that the present study may make a contribution to informing such
programs, so that they better address the needs of world-majority NNEST
participants.

References
Adams, C., & Setsuko, T. (2001). Journeys: Listening and speaking.
Singapore: Pearson.
Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1
collaborative interactions in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 54(3), 314-342.
80 Chapter Four

Auerbach, E. (1993). Re-examining English only in the ESL classroom.

TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9-32.
Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism,
(3rd ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Boonkit, K. (2002). Listening strategies with television texts: A study of
Thai university students of English as a Foreign Language. PhD thesis.
Hobart, Australia: University of Tasmania.
Bradley, C. J. (2003). A “diglot-weave” experience with EFL university
students. Humanising Language Teaching, 5(1). Retrieved September
24, 2004 from http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jan03/edit.htm.
Braine, G. (Ed.). (1999). Non-native educators in English language
teaching, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
The British National Corpus, accessed via the interface portal offered by
Brigham Young University Professor Mark Davies at
http://corpus.byu.edut/bnc/x.asp. (2007).
Brooks, F. B., Donato, R., & McGlone, J. V. (1997). When are they going
to say “it” right?: Understanding learner talk during pair-work activity.
Foreign Language Annals, 30, 524-541.
Brooks-Lewis, K. A. (2009). Adult learners’ perceptions of the
incorporation of their L1 in foreign language teaching and learning.
Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 216-235.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Brutt-Griffler, J., & Samimy, K. (1999). Revisiting the colonial in the
postcolonial: Critical praxis for nonnative-English-speaking teachers in
a TESOL program. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 413-429.
Butzkamm, W. (2003). We only learn language once. The role of the
mother tongue in FL classrooms: Death of a dogma. Language
Learning Journal, 28, 4-14.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1995). Functions of codeswitching in ESL classrooms:
Socialising bilingualism in Jaffna. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 6(3), 173-195.
—. (1999). Resisting linguistic Imperialism in English teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Carless, D. (2008). Student use of the mothertongue in the task-based
classroom. ELT Journal, 62(4) 331-337.
Centeno-Cortés, A., & Jimenéz Jimenéz, A. F. (2004). Problem-solving
tasks in a foreign language: The importance of the L1 in private verbal
thinking. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 7–35.
 Ten Principles of Bilingual Pedagogy in EFL 81

Chambers, G. (1992). Teaching in the target language. Language Learning

Journal, 6, 66-67.
Chayanuvat, A. (1997). Diversity and learners’ choices: The true
challenges of Thailand’s EFL classrooms. In G. M. Jacobs (Ed.),
Language classrooms of tomorrow: Issues and responses (pp. 1-15).
RELC Anthology Series 3. Singapore: SEAMEO.
Clanfield, L., & Foord, D. (2003). Using L1 in the classroom. Humanising
Language Teaching, 5(1). Retrieved September 24, 2004, from
http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jan03/edit.htm.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language,
Harlow: Longman.
Cook, V. (1991). The poverty of the stimulus argument and multi-
competence. Second Language Research, 7, 103-117.
—. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42(4),
557-591.
—. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 33(2), 185-209.
—. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 57(3), 402-423.
—. (Ed.). (2003). Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Crawford, J. (1999). Teacher response to policy and practice in the
teaching of LOTE. Ph D thesis. Queensland, Australia: Griffith
University.
Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in
multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10,
221-240.
de Courcy, M. (2005). The effect of learning a new language on ESL
teachers’ beliefs about language pedagogy. Australian Language and
Literacy Matters, 2 (3 & 4), 7-12.
Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in
the foreign language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 74, 154-
166.
Edstrom, A. (2006). L1 use in the L2 classroom: One teacher’s self-
evaluation. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(2), 275-292.
Ellis, E. (2003). Bilingualism among teachers of English as a Second
Language. PhD thesis. Queensland, Australia: Griffith University.
Ferguson, G. (2003). Classroom code-switching in post-colonial contexts:
Functions, attitudes and policies. AILA Review, 16, 38-51.
Forman, R. (2005). Teaching English in Thailand: A bilingual study. PhD
thesis. Sydney: University of Technology.
82 Chapter Four

—. (2007). Bilingual teaching in the Thai EFL context: One teacher’s

practice. TESOL in Context, 16(2), 19-24.
—. (2008). Using notions of scaffolding and intertextuality to understand
the bilingual teaching of English in Thailand. Linguistics and
Education, 19(4), 319-332.
Friedrich, P. (1989). Language, ideology and political economy. American
Anthropologist, 91(2), 295-312.
Guerrero, M. C. M. de (2005). Inner speech–L2: Thinking words in a
second language. New York: Springer.
Halliday, M. A. K., Macintosh, A., & Strevens, P. (1964). The linguistic
sciences and language teaching. London: Longman.
Hallinger, P., & Kantamara, P. (2001). Exploring the cultural context of
school improvement in Thailand. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 12(4), 385-408.
Harbord, J. (1992). The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELT
Journal, 46(4), 350-355.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language
classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70(1), 125-132.
International English Language Testing Scheme (IELTS) (2002).
Information for candidates. Canberra: IDP Education.
Kachru, B. B. (1982). The other tongue: English across cultures. Oxford:
Pergamon.
—. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The
English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. Widdowson
(Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and
literature (pp. 11-30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (Ed.). (2004). Learning and teaching from experience:
Perspectives on non-native English speaking professionals. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kecskes, I., & Papp, T. (2000). Foreign language and mother tongue.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kelly, L. G. (1976). Twenty five centuries of language teaching. Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Klassen, C. (1991). Bilingual written language use by low-education Latin
American newcomers. In D. Barton & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Writing in the
community (pp. 38-57). London: Sage.
Komin, S. (1990). Psychology of the Thai people: Values and behavioural
patterns. Bangkok: Research Centre for National Institute of
Development Administration.
Kongpetch, S. (2004). The Implications of the Genre-Based Approach on
the teaching of English writing at the Department of Foreign
 Ten Principles of Bilingual Pedagogy in EFL 83

Languages, Khon Kaen University in North-Eastern Thailand. Ph D

thesis. Sydney: University of Technology.
Kroll, J. F., & Dussias, P. E. (2004). The comprehension of words and
sentences in two languages. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.),
The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 169-200). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Lin, A. M. Y. (1996). Bilingualism or linguistic segregation? Symbolic
domination, resistance, and codeswitching. Linguistics and Education,
8(1), 49-83.
—. (2001). Symbolic domination and bilingual classroom practices in
Hong Kong. In M. Heller & M Martin-Jones (Eds.), Voices of
authority: Education and linguistic difference (pp. 139-168). West
Port, Connecticut: Ablex.
Lin, A., Wang, W., Akamatsu, N., & Riazi, A. M. (2002). Appropriating
English, expanding identities and re-visioning the field: From TESOL
to Teaching English for Glocalized Communication (TEGCOM).
Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 1(4), 295-316.
Liu, D. (1999). Training non-native TESOL students: Challenges for
TESOL teacher education in the West. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native
education in English language teaching (pp. 197-210). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Liu, D., Ahn, G-S., Baek, K-S., & Han, N-O. (2004). South Korean high
school English teachers’ code switching: Questions and challenges in
the drive for maximal use of English in teaching. TESOL Quarterly,
38(4), 605-638.
Llurda, E. (Ed.). (2005). Non-native language teachers: Perceptions,
challenges, and contributions to the profession. New York: Springer.
Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and
autonomy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
—. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language
classrooms: Theories and decision making. Modern Language Journal,
85(4), 531-548.
Mahboob, A. (2004). Native or non-native: What do students enrolled in
an intensive English program think? In L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.),
Learning and teaching from experience: Perspectives on non-native
English speaking professionals (pp. 121-147). Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
Martin-Jones, M., & Heller, M. (Eds.). (1996). Special issues on
“Education in multilingual settings: Discourses, identities and power”,
Linguistics and Education, 8(2 & 3), 1-228.
Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan.
84 Chapter Four

—. (1992/1996). Native or non-native: Who’s worth more? In P. Hedge &

N. Whitney (Eds.), Power, pedagogy and practice (pp. 31-42). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
—. (2001). When the teacher is a non-native speaker. In M. Celce-Murcia
(Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.) pp.
429-442. Boston: Heinle.
Myers-Scotton, C. (2005). Multiple voices: An introduction to
bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Myojin, C. (2007). The effect of teacher talk in EFL classrooms: The
nonuese or use of learners’ L1 by an instructor. K@ta, 9(1), 1-18.
Nagy, K., & Robertson, D. (2009). Target language use in English classes
in Hungarian primary schools. In Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O’Cain, J.
(Eds.), First language use in second and foreign learning (pp. 66-86).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Nakamura, I. (1998). Personal observations of EFL teaching and learning
in Thailand. ThaiTESOL Bulletin, 11(2), pp. 21-24.
Nation, I. S. P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language
learning. Asian EFL Journal, 5 (2). Retrieved August 4, 2004 from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/june_2003_PN.html.
Noon-Ura, S. (2008) Teaching listening skills to Thai students with low
English proficiency. Asian EFL Journal 10(4) Article 9. Retrieved
January 26, 2009, from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/December_08_sna.php.
O’Sullivan, K., & Tajaroensuk, S. (1997). Thailand: A handbook in
intercultural communication. Sydney: NCELTR, Macquarie
University.
Owen, D. (2003). Where’s the treason in translation? Humanising
Language Teaching, 5(1). Retrieved September 24, 2004 from
http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jan03/edit.htm.
Pasternak, M., & Bailey, K. M. (2004). Preparing nonnative and native
English-speaking teachers: Issues of professionalism and proficiency.
In L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience:
Perspectives on non-native English speaking professionals (pp. 155-
175). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Phan, L. H. (2008). Teaching English as an international language:
Identity, resistance and negotiation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ramachandran, S. D., & Rahim, H. A. (2004). Meaning recall and
retention: The impact of the translation method on elementary level
learners’ vocabulary learning. RELC Journal, 35(2), 161-178.
 Ten Principles of Bilingual Pedagogy in EFL 85

Rampton, M. B. H. (1990/1996). Displacing the “native speaker”:

Expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. In P. Hedge & N. Whitney
(Eds.) Power, pedagogy and practice (pp. 9-22). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Rinvolucri, M. (2003). Editorial. Humanising Language Teaching, 5(1).
Retrieved September 24, 2004 from
http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jan03/edit.htm.
Savignon, S. J., & Wang, C. (2003). Communicative language teaching in
EFL contexts: Learner attitudes and perceptions. International Review
of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(3), 223-249.
Scott, V. M. & De La Fuente, M. J. (2008). What’s the problem? L2
learners’ use of the L1 during consciousness-raising, form-focused
tasks. Modern Language Journal, 92(1) 100-113.
Seidlhofer, B. (1999). Double standards: Teacher education in the
Expanding Circle. World Englishes, 18(2), 233-245.
Smith, L. (1976). English as an international auxiliary language. RELC
Journal, 7(2), 38-43.
Song, Y., & Andrews, S. (2009). The L1 in L2 learning: Teachers’ beliefs
and practices. Muenchen: Lincom Europa.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Pohlman, J., Skinner, M., & Artzer, S. (1992).
The effects of a multisensory, structured language approach on the
native and foreign language aptitude skills of high-risk foreign
language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 42, 25-53.
Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. P. Allen &
B. Harley (Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating
acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.),
Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114).
London: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2005). The evolving sociopolitical context of
immersion education in Canada: Some implications for program
development. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 169-
186.
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, B., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L. (2009).
Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of
voice in French. Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 5-29.
Tang. C. (1997). On the power and status of non-native ESL teachers.
TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 577-580.
Tang, J. (2002). Using L1 in the English classroom. English Teaching
Forum, January, 36-43.
86 Chapter Four

Toh, G. (2003). Toward a more critical orientation to ELT in Southeast

Asia. World Englishes, 22(4), 551-558.
Thibault, P. J. (2004). Brain, mind and the signifying body: An ecosocial
semiotic theory. London: Continuum.
Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign
language teaching. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), 531-
540.
Turnbull, M., & Arnett, K. (2001). Teachers’ uses of the target and first
languages in second and foreign language classrooms. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 22, 204-218.
Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2009a). Introduction in First language
use in second and foreign learning, pp. 1-14. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (Eds.). (2009b). First language use in
second and foreign learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Üstünel E., & Seedhouse, P. (2005). Why that, in that language, right
now? Code-switching and pedagogical focus. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 302-324.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. (A. Kozulin, Trans.). London: Harvard
University Press.
—. (1986.) Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weschler, J. V. (Ed.). (1997.) Uses of Japanese in the English classroom:
Introducing the functional-translation method. Journal of Kyoritsu
Area Studies, Tokyo, 12, 87-110.
Widdowson, H. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly,
28(2), 377-388.
Wiriyachitra, A. (2001). A Thai university English scenario in the coming
decade. ThaiTESOL Newsletter, 14(1), 4-7.
Wongsothorn, A., Sukamolson, S., Chinthammit, P., Noparumpa, P., &
Rattanotayanonth, P. (1996). National profiles of language education:
Thailand. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Language Institute.
 CHAPTER FIVE

DOES A GOOD LANGUAGE TEACHER

HAVE TO BE A NATIVE SPEAKER?

BARBARA MULLOCK

Introduction
Does a Good Language Teacher Have to be a Native Speaker?
What makes a good teacher of a second or foreign language1? While a
considerable body of research into quality teaching exists in mainstream
education exists (see, for example, Ethell & McMeniman, 2000;
Fernstermacher & Richardson, 2005; Glaser, 1987, as cited in Berliner,
1987; Westerman, 1991), similar research in second or foreign languages
is under-represented in the literature (Breen, 2001; Peacock, 2002). Unlike
mainstream content teaching, where teaching is conducted in the students’
first language (L1) (which is, more often than not, shared by the teacher),
English as a Second or Foreign language (ESL/EFL) classes are often
taught by teachers who do not share the students’ L1 and culture, and who
may have little knowledge of either. Alternatively, classes may be taught
by teachers who share the students’ L1, but have variable levels of
proficiency in English.
A further aspect of any consideration of what characterizes a good
language teacher is the importance of the social and educational context in
which the teaching takes place. As Fernstermacher and Richardson (2005)
observe,

There are, as any teachers of more than a few years will inform you,
interactions between the context for teaching and the practices of the
teacher. One aspect of these interactions is that a person may be a good
teacher in one context and a mediocre one in different context with
virtually no variation in basic pedagogical form from one context to the
other. (p. 207)
88 Chapter Five

Because much of the literature on quality teaching originates in native

English-speaking cultures such as the USA, Canada and the UK, we are
still some way from understanding how good teaching is construed in
other cultures. Alexander (2000), in his comparison of primary teaching
practices in England, France, Russia, India and the USA, found that while
there were surface similarities in practices in all five systems, there were
significant differences at every level: education system, school, classroom,
and the day-to-day transactions of teachers and children. In the field of
TESOL, Cortazzi and Jin (1996) showed clearly the differences between
the teaching cultures of native-English speaking teachers (NESTs) and
non-native-English speaking teachers (NNESTs) in China. This strongly
suggests that there are significant differences in conceptions of good
teaching cross-culturally.
In recent years, a significant research literature has emerged in
relation to the issue of native- and non-native- English-speaking teachers.
Phillipson (1992) noted a number of fallacies regarding the place of native
speakers (NS) in language teaching, including the belief that “the ideal
teacher of English is a native speaker” (p. 185), and that non-native
speaker (NNS) teachers are relatively ineffective. A complicating factor in
this debate is that defining what a native speaker is has been the subject of
much discussion, as has the distinction between native and nonnative
speakers. Though space does not permit discussion of the issue here,
Pacek’s (2005, p. 243) point that the NS/NNS distinction “certainly does
exist in the minds of [the] general public not directly engaged in the
NS/NNS debate” is worth keeping in mind.
The current chapter is concerned with identifying the qualities that
make a good teacher of English, and examining these qualities from the
framework of the NS/NNS debate. It begins by summarizing relevant
literature on the good teacher in both general education and the teaching of
English to speakers of other languages (TESOL), and goes on to focus on
literature concerned with students’ attitudes towards native and non-native
speaker teachers. It then reports on a study of the conceptions of good
teaching of English as a foreign language (EFL) in Thailand and discusses
the findings in the light of the NS/NNS debate.
 Does a Good Language Teacher have to be a Native Speaker? 89

Literature Review
What Makes a Good Teacher: Views from Mainstream
Education

Fernstermacher and Richardson (2005) distinguish between good teaching

and successful teaching, and view the integration of the two as quality
teaching. Thus, good teaching involves teaching the subject matter content
adequately and completely, in accordance with methods of instructional
practice that are age appropriate, morally defensible, rationally sound, and
undertaken with the intention of enhancing the learner’s competence with
respect to the content. Successful teaching, on the other hand, is teaching
that produces the intended learning: learners acquire “to some reasonable
and acceptable level of proficiency” (Fernstermacher & Richardson, 2005,
p. 191) what the teacher is engaged in teaching. A recent study by Leigh
(2007) shows that successful teachers of literacy and numeracy can
achieve in half a year what other teachers achieve in a full year.
Good teaching does not always entail successful teaching, and vice
versa, but a high-quality teacher is proficient in both dimensions (see also
Berliner, 1987, on the difference between good and effective teaching).
Quality teaching engages students while presenting subject matter in ways
that best suit the students at the particular stage of their learning, and
providing them with the opportunity to learn what they are supposed to
learn (Berliner, 1987). In doing so, quality teaching fosters achievement
and success in the learning environment, and this in turn develops in
students a self-concept that is positive and secure.
Quality teachers possess superior content knowledge and superior
pedagogical knowledge. They have superior cognition and knowledge
structures, consisting of large, highly organized knowledge bases with
complex interconnected schemas which are easily accessed, and well-
developed but flexible and adaptive sets of strategic knowledge which are
used for planning (Ethell & McMeniman, 2000). Their conceptual
knowledge includes detailed knowledge of the subject matter, how it is to
be taught, how to manage the classroom, and how to deal effectively with
matters such as explaining a particular learning difficulty in ways that best
suit students at particular stages of their learning (Biggs & Moore, 1993).
While much research in general education is based on studies of
“good” teachers who are identified by senior school and/or school district
administrators, or by researchers, other research takes into account the
views of students (see, for example, Brown & McIntyre, 1993, for views
from Scottish schools, and Batten, Marland & Khamis, 1993, for views on
90 Chapter Five

Australian schools), on the grounds that as students are constantly and

directly exposed to a wide range of teachers and to a wide range of
teaching styles, they are well-placed to comment on what characteristics
they value most in teachers. Brown and McIntyre (1993) and Batten et al.
(1993) found that for lower secondary levels, student and teacher views
reflected similar qualities, namely the teacher’s ability to explain clearly
so that the students could understand, and the willingness to help students
with their work. Differences were also evident, and reflected the different
perspectives of teachers (who tended to focus more on teaching practices)
and students (who focused more on their own feelings, reactions, and
motivations). Batten et al. (1993) observed that a crucial factor in the
nomination by students of “good teachers” appeared to be the quality of
relationship the students established with that teacher, the teacher’s
friendliness, leadership and organization, empathy and understanding. It
appears to be the case, though, that the importance in students’ eyes of
these qualities may diminish as students progress through to the higher
levels of secondary education (Nikolov, 1999).

What Makes a Good Teacher: Views from TESOL

In the field of foreign languages and TESOL, one of the earliest data-
based studies of what learners believe characterizes a good teacher is
Brosh’s (1996) study of the characteristics of an effective language teacher
at secondary level in Israel2. Brosh’s participants were 406 ninth-grade
secondary students and 200 teachers of English, French, Arabic or Hebrew
(none of whom were native speakers of the language). The teachers and
students in this study considered an effective teacher to be one who:

1. Has adequate command of the language

2. Is skilled in lesson preparation and organization:
3. Is able to motivate the students with a variety of teaching skills and
techniques
4. Is able to transmit knowledge in a way that is easy to understand and
remember
5. Treats students fairly and equitably
6. Is available for help after class time.

An interesting finding, in view of the Scottish and Australian studies noted

above, was the comparative lack of importance accorded by either teachers
or students to the caring quality of relationship they established with the
students, or the teacher’s friendliness, empathy and understanding. Less
importance was placed on knowledge of and positive attitudes towards the
 Does a Good Language Teacher have to be a Native Speaker? 91

target language culture, conducting the lesson in the target language, a

classroom research orientation, readiness for in-service training, and the
teacher’s sex and appearance. However, both teachers and students
considered a good command of the foreign language was vital, i.e. that the
teacher is able to read, speak, write and understand the language.
Cortazzi and Jin (1996, p. 186-7) used questionnaires with 135
university students at two Chinese universities to determine the qualities
of a good English Language teacher. The most frequently mentioned
teacher characteristics were knowledge of the subject matter, patience, a
sense of humor, setting a good moral example, showing friendliness, and
teaching students about life.
Peacock’s study (2002) of what 100 Hong Kong university students
perceive makes a good TESOL teacher found the qualities mentioned most
frequently were patience, proficiency in English, being well-prepared for
class, giving interesting lessons/activities, and giving clear illustrations
and explanations.
Mullock (2003), in a study of the conceptions of 42 postgraduate
students of TESOL at three Australian universities, found significant
differences from Cortazzi and Jin’s study. The respondents, both
experienced and novice teachers but most of whom were NNESTs from
Asia, considered a good TESOL teacher to be one who (in rank order):

1. Knows and understand students’ needs and expectations, strengths and

weaknesses.
2. Has a thorough knowledge of the subject matter,
3. Is skilled in teaching techniques and methods,
4. Treats students with courtesy and respect, shows empathy towards the
students
5. Keeps up-to-date in knowledge and skills.

The study concluded that not only may teachers and students find different
qualities important, but that differences may exist between Asian
countries. In addition, it emerged that respondents conceptualized the
“good teacher” in two different ways: pragmatic teachers who get good
exam results (and who are highly sought after because they assist learners
pass high-stakes examinations); and empathetic teachers who meet learners’
wider interpersonal, social and affective needs, and who may act in a major
life-changing way (the nurturing, supportive teachers). The chapter
concluded that a quality teacher displays both pragmatic and empathetic
dimensions (cf. Fernstermacher & Richardson, 2005).
A limitation of this study was the diversity of the participants, who
came from over ten different language and cultural backgrounds, and
92 Chapter Five

taught (or intended to teach) not only adults but also primary and
secondary students. No one group was large enough to represent any
particular educational culture. The study was also restricted to the views of
teachers (albeit both novice and experienced).
Pacek (2005) studied the views of what characterizes a good teacher
from the perspective of 43 international students in a British university, 22
from Asia, and 21 from Europe and South America. She found the two
groups agreed on only three features: sensitivity to students’ needs and
problems, giving clear explanations, and being well prepared. There were
sharp differences between the perceptions of the two groups, with the
Asians valuing teachers’ personal qualities most (sensitivity, kindness,
patience, sense of humour, and enthusiasm) rather than knowledge of
everyday/idiomatic language, and variety of teaching methods and
resources, which were highly valued by the European and South American
respondents. Personality characteristics were not considered significant by
the latter group.

The NS/NNS Issue

The number of NNS teachers of English in the world today outnumbers

the number of NS teachers, and a significant issue concerns the relative
merits and disadvantages of NESTs and NNESTs, and which type of
teacher students prefer. Considerable agreement in the literature appears to
be emerging on the strengths and weaknesses of each in the eyes of
students (Benke & Medgyes, 2005; Lasagabaster & Manuel-Sierra, 2005;
Mahboob, 2004; Pacek, 2005), NNS teachers (Arva & Medgyes, 2000;
Medgyes, 1994; Reves & Medgyes, 1994; Samimy & Brutt-Griffler, 1999;
Tang, 1997), and both students and teachers (Barratt & Contra, 2000, as
cited in Lasagabaster & Manuel-Sierra, 2005). To summarize the findings
in brief, NESTs’ strengths are their pronunciation, fluency in speaking,
listening (though see Mahboob (2004) for a contrary view), wide
knowledge of vocabulary (especially slang and idiomatic expressions) and
knowledge of the cultural context of the target language. They provide
linguistic authenticity (Barratt & Kontra, 2000, as cited in Lasagabaster &
Manuel-Sierra, 2005) and “real language” (Medgyes, 1994). They display
more relaxed attitudes towards grades and error correction (Barratt &
Kontra, 2000, as cited in Lasagabaster & Manuel-Sierra, 2005, Arva &
Medgyes, 2000), and do not rely so heavily on the course book (Benke &
Medgyes, 2005). However, whilst they possess procedural or implicit
knowledge of English, the same cannot be said for their declarative or
explicit knowledge of the language: in the eyes of many students, they
 Does a Good Language Teacher have to be a Native Speaker? 93

tend to be “not fond of grammar” (Lasagabaster & Manuel-Sierra, 2005, p.

219), and are at times unable to satisfy learners’ need for clear and
understandable explanations of grammar and vocabulary difficulties (see
especially Mahboob, 2004). This is exacerbated if they lack knowledge
and/or awareness of their students’ mother tongue and culture, and these
factors can make accurate predictions of learner problems difficult. A
further problem noted by some researchers (Barratt & Contra 2000, as
cited in Lasagabaster & Manuel-Sierra, 2005; Lasagabaster & Manuel-
Sierra, 2005) is that in some teaching contexts, the NESTs that are
employed lack experience, teaching competence and professionalism, and
appropriate qualifications. If the NEST has non-standard English, students
may well find them unintelligible (Lasagabaster & Manuel-Sierra, 2005).
On the other hand, it is clear from the literature that NNESTs derive
considerable strength if they share their learners’ mother tongue, as this
allows them to pinpoint their learners’ problems and provide good
definitions of difficult words (sometimes better than NESTs, according to
a respondent in Mahboob, 2004) and explanations of grammar. Lower
level students, especially, benefit from the bilingual skills of NNESTs, as
these allow the teacher to translate or explain clearly, and resolve
problems and doubts that students have. Because they have had the
experience of learning English as a second language, NNESTs are in a
better position to understand and empathize with the problems their
students may face. Other strengths, as seen by some students, include the
NNESTs’ focus on accuracy, ability to teach reading (though see
Lasagabaster & Manuel-Sierra, 2005), willingness to work hard
(Mahboob, 2004), provision of appropriate learning strategies
(Lasagabaster & Manuel-Sierra, 2005; Mahboob, 2004), and thorough
exam preparation (Benke & Medgyes, 2005; Samimy & Brutt-Griffler,
1999).
On the other hand, there are a number of areas noted by researchers
as areas which NNESTs were not as well positioned as NESTs to deal
with: pronunciation, as most do not possess “the original English accent”
(Lasagabaster & Manuel-Sierra, 2005, p. 232); limited vocabulary
(especially colloquialisms and slang); limited target language cultural
knowledge; speaking; and listening skills. Assessment and teaching style
are also noted by some as negative features of NNESTs. In some contexts,
NNESTs are also seen as more demanding, setting more homework and
tests than NESTs (Benke & Medgyes, 2005). In the words of a Spanish
university student, with a NNEST, “you need more effort to pass the
subject, you learn less, [and] you don’t practice much English”
(Lasagabaster & Manuel-Sierra, 2005, p. 232). However, students in
94 Chapter Five

Mahboob’s (2004) study spoke positively about NNESTs' ability to

employ methods that promoted enhanced learning, because, in the words
of one student, “They knew how I could feel” (Mahboob, 2004, p. 134).
The picture is thus complex, and what some students see as a strength,
others view as a weakness.
There is evidence (Cook, 2000; Mahboob, Uhrig, Newman, &
Hartford, 2004; Medgyes, 1994) that administrators prefer to hire NESTs
over NNESTs, partly on the grounds that students have an expectation that
they will be taught by a Native Speaker teacher. Pacek (2005) found that
“while it seems more acceptable for students to have a NNST in their
home country, when they go abroad they expect to be taught by NSs” (p.
260). However, she found the underlying assumption that NS teachers are
necessarily superior is overturned when students are taught by a well-
qualified, highly-skilled NNEST. While 35% of students initially
expressed negative reactions at finding their English teacher at a British
university was not a NEST, by the end of the course only 2% were still
slightly worried (see Moussu, 2002, as cited in Braine, 2005, for similar
findings). It is also worth noting that 47% of Pacek’s respondents did not
realize until the end of the course that their teacher was a NNEST (see
Kelch & Santana-Williamson, 2002, for similar findings).
Mahboob (2004), reporting on the views of 32 students in Intensive
English Programs in the US, found no clear preferences emerging for
either NESTs or NNESTs. Lasagabaster and Manuel-Sierra (2005), on the
other hand, found that of 76 Spanish university students, there was a slight
general trend towards preferring NESTs: 50.6% preferred NESTs, though
35.5% had no clear preference, and 3.9% expressed a preference for
NNESTs. However, respondents expressed a preference for NNESTs at
lower educational levels, and for NESTs at higher educational levels, and
considered that, overall, a combination of the two was preferable (72%).
Benke and Medgyes (2005) made a similar finding: 82% of Hungarian
student respondents thought that having both NS and NNS teachers was
the ideal situation. Interestingly, Pacek (2005) found that a preference for
NESTs was more common amongst European and South American
students than among Asian students. A possible reason for this, according
to Pacek, is that NESTs were more common in Europe and South
America.
The current study, which is a partial replication of Mullock (2003),
reports on the views of undergraduates (and some of their lecturers) from
Thailand on what characterizes a good English language teacher. The
results are then examined from the perspective of the NNEST/NEST
 Does a Good Language Teacher have to be a Native Speaker? 95

debate. In addition, the study aims to explore ways in which conceptions

of good language teaching may vary across educational cultures.

The research questions are as follows:

1. What are the typical qualities that Thai students (and some of their
lecturers) think characterize a good teacher of English?
2. To what extent do the views of students and lecturers correspond?
3. What are the implications for NNESTs and NESTs?

Method
The data, in the form of a short, open-ended questionnaire, was gathered at
two Thai universities, in Bangkok and Chiang Mai. The informants were
134 undergraduates and 6 of their lecturers. All students had been taught
by Thai teachers of English, and most by native and/or non-Thai NNESTs
as well. Student participants, who were randomly selected, were given a
short oral introduction to the project, and then asked to recall an excellent
language teacher who had taught them and to describe to their neighbor
what qualities made this teacher so good. Then they were provided with a
short written prompt, which had been back-translated in Thai3, asking
them to describe the qualities they believed made a good English language
teacher in general. They were not asked to distinguish between NNESTs
and NESTs. The majority wrote their responses in Thai, and these were
then translated into English by Thai nationals who had recently completed
post-graduate studies in TESOL in Australia. Some responses were given
in English.
The lecturers, all of them Thai Nationals, were interviewed in
English, singly or in one case a group of four, for a period of between 30
minutes and 1 ½ hours. In all interviews the same basic question as in the
questionnaire was asked: What do you think makes a good teacher of
English? In the group interview, the lecturers were asked to indicate if
they agreed with what a colleague had said, in order to improve parity
between the interviews and questionnaires. Their responses were recorded
on audio-cassette, and then transcribed.
The data was subjected to content analysis in the manner outlined in
Lincoln and Guba (1985, pp. 347-8). After reading the questionnaire
responses several times, I entered each good teacher quality that was
mentioned into a database. Then, obviously similar qualities were
combined, giving a list of around 265 qualities. These qualities were then
written onto index cards, together with the database entry number, and then
re-categorized, according to whether, on an intuitive basis, they were similar
96 Chapter Five

or different (“look alike, feel alike”), to yield a list of 30 basic qualities. To

improve reliability, I repeated the categorization process three times. Then
the comments were given a descriptive label. Wherever possible, wording
from the translations of the students’ responses was used to form the
descriptive labels. Finally, the frequency of comments in each category
was calculated.
The 30 categories were then sorted into more general emergent
themes, using the same “look alike, feel alike” criteria, each theme was
given a descriptive title. In the sorting process, categories and themes from
previous studies were not used consciously. Instead, I tried to let the
categories and themes emerge from the data. In cases where there were two
possible categories in which a quality could be placed, I consulted with a
Thai research assistant for clarification on the translation. Some responses
remained enigmatic, however, such as a good teacher “is a real male or
female” and a good teacher is one who “teaches well”, and were classified
in the “miscellaneous” category.
In the case of the Thai student data, there are, of course, dangers in
drawing conclusions from data in which the words analysed have been
translated, and are not the words offered, or where participants have an
uneven command of English. However, to further assist with reliability
and validity, copies of the findings, drafts of the current chapter, were
forwarded for comment to the translators and to academics familiar with
the Thai teaching context. Their comments have been incorporated into the
findings. I also drew on my own knowledge of Thailand from numerous
previous field trips.

Results
In what follows, the views of the Thai undergraduates are presented first,
and then the views of their lecturers.

The five most frequently mentioned qualities of a good teacher from the
perspective of the undergraduates are presented in Table 1 below. The
most frequently mentioned quality was the teacher’s oral proficiency in
English, rather than the more general “having an adequate command of the
language” (in Brosh, 1996) or “knowledge of the subject matter” (in
Cortazzi & Jin, 1996). This appears to indicate the importance of
procedural knowledge of the language in the eyes of the respondents. The
second and third qualities relate to pedagogical matters: the teacher’s
declarative knowledge of the language and culture, and the motivational
value of using different technologies in pedagogy. The third quality makes
 Does a Good Language Teacher have to be a Native Speaker? 97

specific reference, echoed elsewhere in the data, to the creation of a fun

environment in the classroom, a quality which is fundamental to Thai
culture (discussed below). The fourth and fifth qualities concern
harmonious teacher-student relationships, indicating the importance of
mutual empathy, understanding and respect. On a deeper level, these two
qualities reflect the importance of a strong relationship orientation
between Thai students and their teachers, in contrast to a task-oriented
relationship which may be more common in other cultures (see
Runglertkrengkrai & Engkaninan, 1987, and Thompson, 1988, for a
discussion of the important of relationship-orientation and the creation of a
fun environment in the Thai work environment).

Quality No. of % of
tokens n
(n =
134)
1 Speaks English clearly & fluently with NS- 67 50
like pronunciation
2 Has a thorough understanding of English 64 48
language & culture
3 Makes learning fun & easy using A/V 58 43
resources e.g. Games, movies, TV, DVD,
songs
4 Understands us and respects our culture and 56 42
psychology, has empathy
5 Is friendly, cheerful, and easy going 46 34

Table 1: The five most frequently mentioned qualities of a good

English teacher-Thai University students: Number of tokens
and percentages

As stated above, the list of qualities of a good teacher were then sorted
into emergent themes, which are presented in Table 2, and discussed
below. In the process of moving from the list of qualities to emergent
themes, every attempt was made to preserve the integrity of the data, and
to avoid overgeneralization, but inevitably some of the richness of the data
has been lost. To try to compensate for this, in what follows below I
elaborate on the themes, using quotations from questionnaires (indicated
by the use of italics inside single quotation marks).
98 Chapter Five

Theme No. of
tokens
Has good general pedagogical skills 155
Has a kind, friendly, fun personality, gets on well with us 146

Understands us and cares about us 138

Has thorough knowledge of content area 131
Makes learning natural and fun 91
Emphasizes listening and speaking and interaction in class 87
Has a professional attitude 84
Is enthusiastic and challenges us 28
Miscellaneous 29

Table 2: The good English teacher – Themes and their number

of mentions emerging from the responses of Thai University
students

Has Good General Pedagogical Skills:

“Has good methods to aid understanding”
Students considered a good English language teacher to be one who has
effective strategies to make them understand & learn easily (n=29),
particularly in relation to grammar and vocabulary. Such a teacher “can
explain problems with grammar and vocabulary so students can understand”
(n=4), and is “always willing to explain further” (n=13), “until the students
understand”. This finding that students believe a conscious conceptual
grasp of the points of grammar is necessary and beneficial supports
Johnston and Goettsch (2000), and reflects the importance of a teacher
being able to turn declarative knowledge of the language (i.e. content
knowledge) into forms that are pedagogically powerful for the target
learners in terms of ability and background.
Included in this theme were references to the importance of
preparation: a good teacher is one who “is well-prepared” (n=25), with
good, systematic lesson plans. Effective planning assumes that the teacher
is aware of how much (or little) the students know (“understands our
background knowledge”) and when teaching “uses language and
classroom activities that are appropriate to students’ proficiencies”. A
good teacher is “active when teaching”, with “good teaching rhythm”.
 Does a Good Language Teacher have to be a Native Speaker? 99

When correcting student’s mistakes s/he “explains why they are wrong”,
and “gives advice for things need improving” (n=23). This theme also
contained 26 references to classroom management: a good teacher is not
too strict (and not too lenient) but can control the class and keep
discipline.

“Has a Kind, Friendly, Fun Personality

and Gets on Well with Us”
This theme encompassed a number of related personal qualities, including
47 specific references to the teacher quality of being fun, cheerful and not
boring. In general, good teachers “get along well with students” and
“know how to reach them”. They are “cheerful or jolly” and “do not bore
students” (n=13), achieving this through the use of “jokes and funny
stories” and “a sense of humour”. This important attribute appears to relate
to the important Thai cultural concept of “sanuk”, which the anthropologist
Embree (1969, p. 12) defines as “fun loving or pleasure loving”. Embree
claims the term also reflects “a deep interest in something momentarily to the
exclusion of all else”, and argues that for Thais, things that are not sanuk
automatically become drudgery. That good teachers display this quality is a
reflection of a wider Thai cultural value (see also Runglertkrengkrai &
Engkaninan, 1987; Thompson, 1988).

Understands and Cares About Us:

“Understands us and makes us feel comfortable”
The fact that the nurturing, caring qualities attracted such a high number of
tokens may be surprising when we consider the informants were tertiary
students. Informants’ responses indicated that they placed high value on
the English teacher who “understands Thai students, their culture and
psychology” (n=23), and/or who is “able to listen to students’ problems
and help them” (n=11). Such a teacher can “remember their own
difficulties in learning L2 when they teach L2”, and they share not only
their ideas and opinions but also their experience with students “to help
[them] live their lives”. They “understand students’ [individual] problems
needs, and weaknesses” (n=16), “know students’ potential” (n=2), and
“believe in us”, regardless of academic aptitude.
It is probable that the importance given to these caring, nurturing
qualities is related to the origins of teaching in Thailand, where Buddhist
monks provided the only education for youngsters (c.f. Hawkey &
Nakornthai, 1980). However, it is also part of the Thai value system. In
100 Chapter Five

order for people in positions of power to be judged worthy of loyalty and

respect they must show genuine concern for the well-being of their
subordinates, and considerable social pressure is exerted on people to
conform to this expectation (Thompson, 1988).
Students also wrote in terms of what a good teacher does not do: a
good teacher “doesn't humiliate students” (n=21), does not “reprimand or
blame students if they make a mistake” (n=10), or “make students feel
nervous” by “finding fault with them” or “exposing [their] mistakes to
their peers”. These comments reflect the importance of “face” and the
maintenance of harmonious relations in Thai culture, as well as the
avoidance of conflict and open confrontation (cf. Thompson, 1988).

Has Thorough Knowledge of Content Area:

“Has a profound understanding of English”
This theme included the two categories, Speaks English clearly & fluently
with NS-like pronunciation (n=67) and Has a thorough understanding of
English (n=64) The former included references to accent: a good teacher is
one who speaks with a “clear accent” (n=19), with a “standard accent”
(n=15), and not “too fast” (n=5). Only a small number of respondents
specifically mentioned the teacher should be a native speaker (n=5, 4%),
and this may have either been an expression of recognition of the need for
high levels of proficiency in the language, or, more probably, given
previous research, a concern with receiving appropriate models for
pronunciation. 14 respondents (10%) stated that a good teacher has a
“standard accent”, and does not speak with a non-Thai NNS accent.
Having a thorough understanding of English included variations on “Has a
good/very good/sound knowledge of English” (n=57) and “has accurate
grammar” (n=5). Cultural knowledge was also mentioned in this category:
a good teacher “knows about English or US culture to help with students’
knowledge” (n=4).

Makes Learning Natural and Fun: “Uses activities and games

in class to make learning English fun”
In this theme, students considered a good teacher to be one who “can
maintain students’ attention by fun activities, interesting questions”
(n=22), “games” (n=10), “new technology”, or any “other teaching media
such as film, music, poems, songs” (n=7), in fact, any activities that “help
students get closer to English”. A key point for these students is that
classroom activities should “make students enjoy the teaching learning
 Does a Good Language Teacher have to be a Native Speaker? 101

process” and “find learning fun and easy” (n=19), a further reference to
the “sanuk” environment. Some students specifically mentioned the use of
pair and group work, where they are allowed to select their own partners,
as one way ‘to make English less boring’.

Emphasises Listening, Speaking and Interaction in Class:

“Teaches us how to use English in everyday life”
This theme reflects the importance for respondents of being given the
opportunity to use the language in genuine communication. The students
in the current study considered a good teacher to be one who enabled them
to communicate in simple, basic English about everyday life (n=17): a
good teacher “teaches students how to apply English to everyday use,
doesn’t just teach grammar” (n=4). A good teacher “makes us speak in
English, not memorize or read from books”. This strongly suggests that
participants valued procedural knowledge over than declarative knowledge
(n=44). Holme and Chalauisaeng (2006) mention a similar desire in
pharmacy students in Khon Khaen University (Thailand), even though
these students were required only to read course material in English.
The participants particularly valued teachers who encouraged them
and provided opportunities to discuss issues in English during classes: a
good teacher “allows students freedom in speaking and expressing
opinions in class” (n=14), or “encourages us to speak English in class even
if we make mistakes”. Building student confidence in speaking was a
recurrent theme in this student cohort. Interestingly, only a small number
of students thought a good teacher “uses only English in explaining and
teaching lesson” (n=5). However, some commented that using only
English in the classroom had the advantage of making students “be more
familiar with English”, and “making it look normal to speak English”.

Has a Professional Attitude: “Has good ethics and is a good

model for us”
The next theme, relating to personal demeanor, included the categories of
being even-tempered, controlled, calm, and not letting personal affairs
interfere with teaching. A good teacher “is not temperamental in class”
(n=3), but “can control their emotions appropriately” (n=3). He or she
“pays full attention to teaching” (n=6), and does not “show upset feelings”
or “get angry with students if they don't understand” (n=4). Fairness and
ethics were also mentioned: a good teacher “is fair in grading” (n=6) and
“is not biased in respect of [students’] socio-economic status or
102 Chapter Five

[perceived] ability” (n=4). A good teacher is also “highly responsible”

(n=8), “punctual” (n=4), and “well dressed” (n=3). While some aspects of
professional behaviour for teachers would seem to be universal, such as
being punctual, even-tempered, fair, ethical, and responsible, other aspects
may be culturally specific. For example, in Thailand, dress is a very
important measure of social status, and teachers are required to display
high standards of dress, higher, for example, than in an average Australian
teaching context. In fact, in most Thai secondary schools, teachers are
allowed relatively little free choice over what they wear4. There is also a
dress code for university lecturers, and university students are required to
wear a uniform. According to one informant (a Thai lecturer who had
studied in the West) it is not uncommon to find very senior administrative
staff members ensuring student dress compliance on campus, for example,
asking male students to tuck their shirts into their trousers.

Is Enthusiastic and Challenges Us “Makes Us Eager to Learn

English, and trains us to be courageous enough to speak to NS”
This theme concerned the qualities of communicating enthusiasm and a
love of both teaching and the English language: “makes students love and
want to learn English” (n=8), “loves teaching and is proud to be a teacher”
(n=10), and “makes the students not afraid of English”.

Miscellaneous
Finally, there were a number of single comments that were hard to classify
or relate to one another, such as “is not old”, “is smart”, “is beautiful/good
looking/attractive”, and “does not give too much homework or assignments”.
Many of these comments appeared to have been made tongue-in-cheek.

The Thai University Lecturers

When asked to nominate the qualities of a good teacher, the six Thai
lecturers’ responses were broadly similar to those given by the students, as
shown in Table 3 below. This correspondence between student and teacher
views is common in the literature. However, given the small number of
informants in this study, caution should be taken in interpreting the
findings.
 Does a Good Language Teacher have to be a Native Speaker? 103

Rank Theme No. of Tokens

1 Has good skills in language teaching 11
2 Has appropriate personal qualities 9
3 Understands and cares about the students 8
4 Constantly upgrading own knowledge and 7
skills
5 Has profound knowledge of content area 6
6 Makes lessons enjoyable and fun (sanuk) 5
7 Has professional attitude 5
TOTAL 49

Table 3: The good English teacher: Views of Thai University

lecturers (N=6) – Themed categories

Has Good Skills in Language Teaching

This theme included comments such as “is student-centred - gives students
choices”, “gets students to use English as much as possible to make
efficient use of class time”, and “presents language so it connects with the
students and, makes a deep impression”. Also included were more general
pedagogical skills such as a good teacher “is prepared to repeat themselves,
paraphrase, until students understand”, “is well prepared, “can adapt
teaching style to suit different individuals in the class” and “is prepared to
exploit every opportunity that arises in class”.

Has Appropriate Personal Qualities

Appropriate personal qualities, in the eyes of the lecturers, (cf. Benke &
Medgyes, 2005; Pacek, 2005), included patience, creativity, a sense of
humour, and a sense of sacrifice. S/he also Understands and cares about
the students: s/he “shows sensitivity, concern, willingness to help
students”, and “loves to see students grow, academically, intellectually”.
Further, good teachers Constantly upgrade their own knowledge and skills.
This involved sacrifice: teachers spoke of expending time, energy, and,
often, financial resources to maintain and upgrade their English language
skills in a foreign language environment. Methods which they used
included reading novels and newspapers; watching TV, videos and
movies; and talking to native speakers. They also spoke about the need to
keep abreast of world affairs, youth trends (such as sport, film and music),
104 Chapter Five

and general knowledge of the world, so as to be able to connect more

easily with students.

Has Profound Knowledge of Content Area

A good teacher has “knowledge of English in terms of linguistic and
communicative competence”, and “is able to teach the varieties and
variations of English”. This quality was mentioned less frequently by the
lecturers than by the students, perhaps because they assumed their
colleagues would possess this quality. However, the importance of the
attribute is evident from one lecturer who, when considering the quality of
kindness (mentioned by students as being important), commented that
“being kind is good, but if you are not good at the language… it doesn’t
help. It doesn’t help.” (Lecturer 6).

Makes Lessons Enjoyable and Fun

Compared to students, the lecturers mentioned Making lessons enjoyable
and fun (sanuk) less frequently. In the words of Lecturer 6, “you should
make the class, the atmosphere, like, to have fun sometimes, sanuk, but
not sanuk all the time”. In other words, sanuk activities should be used
only as leverage to engage the students, not an end in itself.

Has a Professional Attitude

The final category, Has professional attitude, included comments such as
“is fair, consistent, does not have favorites”, “models correct behaviour,”
and, “is responsible”.

Discussion
Turning now to the question raised in the title of the chapter, we examine
the qualities of a good language teacher, as identified by Thai undergraduates
and their lecturers, from the perspective of the NS/NNS teacher debate.
Very few responses explicitly reflected a preference for either NS or NNS.
A very small number of participants (n=5, 4%) explicitly specified a
preference for NS (“Is a non-Thai and uses English as L1”). Fourteen
student participants (10%) expressed a preference for a “standard English
accent” and specifically excluded non-Thai NNS accents. However, it is
likely that this relates more to comprehensibility than anything else: Thai
students find it difficult to understand some accents5 (cf. Lasagabaster &
 Does a Good Language Teacher have to be a Native Speaker? 105

Manuel-Sierra, 2005). Other respondents explicitly stated that Thai

nationals with high levels of proficiency in English made good teachers,
especially those who had spent time in a NES country.
In principle, both NNESTs and NESTs can possess the majority of
the qualities identified by the respondents. However, some qualities may
favour one over the other, and some qualities appear to favour a particular
personality type. For example, a number of qualities mentioned in the
study appear to favour (Thai) NNESTs, including the following:
Understands us and respects our culture and psychology, has empathy;
Uses strategies that make us understand & learn easily-transfers
knowledge to us; Understands our backgrounds and knowledge of English
and teaches accordingly; and Explains until we understand before moving
on and is always willing to explain more. These qualities relate to
pedagogical reasoning skills, which Shulman (1987) views as constituting
the essence of teaching, located at the intersection of content and
pedagogy, and comprising the ability of a teacher “to transform the
content knowledge he or she possesses into formats that are pedagogically
powerful yet adaptive to the variations in ability and background presented
by the students” (p. 15). Respondents in the current study expressed a
need to have grammar and vocabulary problems explained clearly so that
they can understand easily. To do this effectively, the teacher needs a
knowledge of the language and how it works, as well as the ability to
contextualize, situate, and personalize the content for the learners in order
to facilitate learning. A good teacher knows what aspects of a subject are
difficult or easy for students, and has a store of powerful explanations,
illustrations, demonstrations, and examples for representing the subject
matter to the students, and these can be provided at speed. This relates to
knowledge of the students, of what they know, what their needs and
interests are, and how to connect the new content with what they know
already (Berliner, 1986; Livingstone & Borko, 1989).
Pasternak and Bailey (2004) point out that TESOL teachers, whether
native or non-native speakers, must have both declarative and procedural
knowledge of the language in order to be considered professional teachers.
However, while NNESTs may be weaker than NESTs in their procedural
knowledge of language, the literature suggests they are stronger than
NESTs in the area of declarative knowledge of language. They are said to
be able to provide clearer and more understandable explanations of
grammar and vocabulary to students based on shared L1 and cultural
backgrounds (Arva & Medgyes, 2000; Benke & Medgyes, 2005;
Mahboob, 2004; McNeill, 2005). In relation to vocabulary in reading
texts, McNeill (2005) found that NNS teachers who share students’ L1 are
106 Chapter Five

more likely to be successful in identifying areas of potential difficulty. In

his study, expatriate native speaker teachers performed less well than NNS
counterparts in identifying sources of lexical difficulty. McNeill found
novice NNS teachers to be better at predicting which words students
would find difficult, attributing this to closeness in age and experience to
the students. The worst performers were experienced expatriate native
speaker teachers who based their predictions on the properties of words
(such as inflections and derivations, transparency, or polysemy) rather
than on students’ prior knowledge and reading habits. However, such
findings may not apply to productive vocabulary use and vocabulary
learning.
Other findings suggest that this NNS advantage, while important at
low levels (Benke & Medgyes, 2005), tends to recede at more advanced
levels where the NS facility with the teaching of vocabulary and
knowledge of idioms, colloquialisms and slang is valued by students
(Lasagabaster & Manuel-Sierra, 2005, Reves & Medgyes, 1994).
Moving now to qualities which favour NESTs, we find these include
the two most frequently mentioned qualities Speaks English clearly &
fluently with NS-like pronunciation and Has a thorough understanding of
English language & culture, and the sixth most frequently mentioned
quality, Emphasises listening and speaking and interaction in class. The
importance of having a good command of the language (procedural
knowledge) rates very highly in almost all literature on the NS/NNS
debate, as well as in the good language teacher studies of Brosh (1996),
Cortazzi and Jin (1996), and Mullock (2003). Medgyes (1999) comments
that many of the differences in teaching practices between NS and NNS
teachers can be attributed to differences in language proficiency. Having
command of the target language is an area where the NEST has an obvious
advantage, and many NNESTs feel at a disadvantage. For example, Reve
and Medgyes (1994) report that 84 percent of their international teacher
respondents perceived they had language difficulties, and in most studies
of student attitudes, NESTs are regarded as being better positioned to
model the language. In the current study, however, it is clear that students
had no problems with NNESTs as long as they had a high level of
proficiency.
With respect to teaching interactive speaking and listening skills, the
literature suggests that NS are generally valued over NNS, because of their
pronunciation and procedural knowledge of the language, especially their
knowledge of idioms, colloquialisms and everyday language, and of
culture (Lasagabaster & Manuel-Sierra, 2005; Pacek, 2005), and also their
ability to get learners to speak (Benke & Medgyes, 2005; Lasagabaster &
 Does a Good Language Teacher have to be a Native Speaker? 107

Manuel-Sierra, 2005). If NESTs do not know the students’ L1, then the
students are forced to use more English, which can improve their language
ability. However, this facet needs to be balanced with students’ need to
understand what is going on in the classroom, especially at the lower
levels, and students’ responses in the current study reflect this. Benke and
Medgyes (2005) found that at lower levels, NES teachers who do not share
the students’ L1 tend to be difficult to understand, and may leave the
learners with many problems unexplained. Mahboob (2004) also
underlines the importance of students receiving satisfactory explanations
to their language-related problems.
Finally we move to qualities which may favour a particular personality
type. While NNESTs have an advantage over NESTs in general in respect
of qualities which have special salience in the Thai context, some NESTs
may have little trouble adjusting their classroom behaviour to reflect these
qualities, especially the quintessential Thai cultural value “sanuk”. For
others, displaying qualities such as Makes learning fun, Is fun, funny, has
sense of humour and does not bore us; and Uses a variety of engaging,
interesting, non-boring activities, may prove challenging in part because
of the difficulty of identifying exactly what it is that makes a lesson
“sanuk”. Anecdotal evidence from NESTs who have taught in the Thai
context suggests it is not always easy to consistently make the language
classroom fun and never boring, and at the same time ensure that learning
takes place. As a veteran expatriate teacher cited in Mullock (2009)
commented, “teaching in Thailand’s tough, Thais are tough. Don’t let
anyone kid you that Thais are easy to teach, they are absolutely not. They
are very, very difficult” (p.14).
A further characteristic which favours a particular personality type,
and appears to be culturally situated, relates to the warm, supportive
teacher personality: Is kind; Understands our individual problems and
weakness & believes in us; and Cares for us all and is always ready to
help us. Of the TESOL studies cited earlier, only the studies of Mullock
(2003) and Pacek (2005) place such a high level of importance on these
qualities. This finding strongly suggests that the empathetic teacher (cf.
Mullock, 2003) is highly valued in the Thai context, and reflects the
importance of relationship orientation in Thai society (Runglertkrengkrai
& Engkaninan, 1987).
A final personal quality which favours a certain personality is the
quality Is even-tempered, controlled, calm, and does not let personal
affairs interfere with classroom behaviour. In some cultures the open
display of emotions is acceptable, but a higher degree of control is
expected in the Thai context than, say, in the Australian (or British)
108 Chapter Five

context. The ability of a teacher to stay calm and unruffled under pressure
is mentioned in other studies (e.g., Batten et al., 1993), but while
Australian students will forgive a teacher who loses their temper
occasionally, loss of temper in Thailand results in considerable loss of face
(Runglertkrengkrai & Engkaninan, 1987, Sriussadaporn, 2006). There are
implications for NESTs in this matter.
While other qualities mentioned by participants do not appear to
particularly favour either NNESTs or NESTs, amongst them is a
conundrum which warrants further examination. Qualities related to
correction, such as Corrects our mistakes sensitively & explains why we
are wrong and Doesn't reprimand/humiliate us if we make a mistake, are
mentioned by a relatively high number of students (n=23, 17%). I have
argued above that the nurturing, empathetic qualities of the teacher are
highly valued in the Thai education culture, and this appears to favour the
NNEST. Why, then, is this quality mentioned so frequently? One
interpretation is that not all students’ errors and mistakes are dealt with
sensitively by teachers (NNEST or NEST, there is no indication that
respondents were referring to either). This remains an area in need of
further research. Treatment of student error within the language classroom,
particularly from the point of view of Thai students, may be a more
delicate matter than has been thought to be the case. As Pacek (2005)
observes, it may be the case that having Asian students practice using the
target language, while vital to improving oral proficiency, carries with it
the danger that they may be more easily demoralized and deflated by
teacher (and peer) reactions to errors and mistakes than we realize.

Implications for NNESTS and NESTs

We turn now to the implications for NNESTs and NESTs. The major
implication for NNESTs from these findings are, first and foremost, the
importance of attaining (and maintaining) the highest possible levels of
proficiency in the target language, and acquiring a comprehensive
knowledge of the target language culture. The second implication relates
to using the target language as much as possible in the classroom. Both
students and lecturers in this study considered it important that the teacher
use the target language in class, and to resort to the first language only
when comprehension is compromised.
For NESTs, the major implication is to develop a comprehensive
declarative knowledge of English so they may identify and explain clearly
vocabulary and grammar difficulties the students may face. The second
implication is the need to become familiar with Thai language and culture,
 Does a Good Language Teacher have to be a Native Speaker? 109

including behavioral norms for Thai classrooms and the wider society. The
study supports comments by Lasagabaster and Manuel-Sierra (2005) that
the more NS teachers learn about the host language and culture, the better
they will be able to predict students’ problems in the learning environment.
An implication for both NNESTs and NESTs is that from the point of
view of students, strong pedagogical skills are crucial, especially those
that focus on developing students’ oral language skills, encouraging
interaction in the classroom (especially through pair and group work) and
the providing stimulating and appropriate learning activities. The issue of
giving feedback is especially salient. Giving sensitive correction which
does not embarrass or humiliate students in front of their peers is
important for both NNEST and NEST.

Conclusion
Research from general education strongly suggests that good teaching is
dependent on knowing one’s students, and understanding which classroom
practices and teacher qualities have the greatest leverage on their learning.
From the current study, it is clear that those with an “insider knowledge”
of the Thai educational context are in a superior position to possess this
knowledge. These insiders are, of course, NNESTs, but they may also be
NESTs who have familiarized themselves with Thai language and culture.
The respondents in this study expect TESOL teachers to have
thorough knowledge of the target language and culture, and to be able to
predict student difficulties and explain language points clearly. They also
expect teachers to be familiar with the host culture, to treat all students
with empathy and respect, and establish a harmonious relationship with
them. A sense of humour in the teacher and the creation of a fun learning
environment, with an emphasis on developing the spoken language, are
major aspects that will “hook” Thai students, and motivate them most
easily.
Finally, returning to the question posed in the title of this chapter, a
good teacher does not have to be a native speaker. As long as the teacher
possesses sufficient knowledge of the target language and its culture,
teaching the subject matter content adequately and completely and in
harmony with prevailing cultural norms and beliefs (cf. Fernstermacher &
Richardson, 2005) is likely to be an easier task for the NNEST than for the
average NEST. In fact, a NES teacher without sufficient knowledge of
Thai cultural norms or requisite personal qualities may face significant
challenges in fostering achievement and success in the Thai learning
environment, despite having superior knowledge of the language.
110 Chapter Five

Acknowledgements
A version of this paper was presented at The 26th Annual Conference of
Thai TESOL, Chiang Mai, Thailand, January, 2006. I would like to thank
all the administrators, lecturers, and students who gave their time so freely
and generously to help with the research. Without their help, the research
would not have been possible. My particular thanks also go to Dr Nussara
Wadsorn for her help with translations, and Ms. Unchalee Sersongswad
and Mr. Tim Noble for their very helpful comments on an earlier version
of this paper.

References
Alexander, R. (2000). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons
in primary education. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Arva, V., & Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the
classroom. System, 28, 335-372.
Batten, H., Marland, P. & Khamis, M. (1993). Knowing how to teach well.
Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Benke, E., & Medgyes, P. (2005). Differences in teaching behaviour
between native and non-native speaker teachers: As seen by the
students. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-Native Language Teachers (pp. 107-
128). New York: Springer.
Berliner, D.C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational
Researcher, 15, 5-22.
—. (1987). Simple views of effective teaching and a simple theory of
classroom instruction. In D.C. Berliner, & B. Rosenshire (Eds.), Talks
to teachers (pp. 93-110). New York: Random House.
Biggs, J. B., & Moore, P. J. (1993). The process of learning (3rd Edn.).
New York: Prentice Hall.
Braine, G. (2005). A history of research on non-native speaker English
teachers. In Llurda, E. (Ed.) Non-native language teachers. (pp. 13-
23). New York: Springer
Breen, M. P. (2001) The social context for language learning: A neglected
situation? In C.N. Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds.), English language
teaching and its social context. (pp. 122-144). London: Routledge.
Brosh, H. (1996). Perceived characteristics of the effective language
teacher. Foreign Language Annals, 29(2), 125-137.
Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1989). Making sense of teaching. Edinburgh:
Scottish Council for Research in Education.
Cook, V. (2000). The author responds … TESOL Quarterly, 34, 329-332.
 Does a Good Language Teacher have to be a Native Speaker? 111

Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: Language

classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language
classroom (pp. 169-206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Embree, J. F. (1969). Thailand - A loosely structured social system. In H.
Evers, (Ed.), Loosely structured social systems: Thailand in comparative
perspective (pp. 3-15). New Haven, CN: Yale University South East Asia
Studies.
Ethell, R. G., & McMeniman, M. M. (2000). Unlocking the knowledge in
action of an expert practitioner. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 87-
101.
Fernstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making
determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers College Record,
107(1), 186-215.
Hawkey, R., & Nakornthai, C. (1980). Thai students studying. In ELT
Documents 109: Study Modes and Academic Development of Overseas
students (pp. 70-78). London: The British Council.
Holme, R., & Chalauisaeng, B. (2006). The learner as needs analyst: The use
of participatory appraisal in the EAP reading classroom. English for
Specific Purposes, 25(4), 403-419.
Kelch, K., & Santana-Williamson, E. (2002) ESL students’ attitudes towards
native-and nonnative-speaking instructors’ accents. The CATESOL
Journal, 14(1), 57-72.
Johnston, B., & Goettsch, K. (2000). In search of the knowledge base of
language teaching: Explanations by experienced teachers. Canadian
Modern Language Journal, 54, 437-468.
Lasagabaster, D., & Manuel-Sierra, J. (2005). What do students think
about the pros and cons of having a native speaker teacher? In E.
Llurda (Ed.) Non-Native Language Teachers (pp. 217-241). New
York: Springer.
Leigh, A. (2007, June). Estimating teacher effectiveness from two-year
changes in students’ test scores. Retrieved 25 June, 2007, from
http://econrsss.anu.edulau/~aliegh/
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Livingstone, C., & Borko, H. (1989). Expert-novice differences in
teaching: A cognitive analysis and implications for teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 36-42.
Mahboob, A. (2004). Native or nonnative: What do students enrolled in
an Intensive English Program think? In L.D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.),
Learning and teaching from experience (pp. 121-147). Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
112 Chapter Five

Mahboob, A., Uhrig, K., Newman, K., & Hartford, B.S. (2004). Children
of a lesser English: Status of non-native English speakers as college-
level English as a second language teachers in the United States. In L.
D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.) Learning and teaching from experience (pp. 100-
120). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Medgyes, P. (1994/1999). The non-native teacher (2nd edition). London:
Macmillan. Ismaning: Max Hueger Verlag.
Mullock, B. (2003). What is a good teacher? The perceptions of
postgraduate TESOL students. Prospect, 18(3), 3-25.
—. (2009). Motivations and rewards in teaching English overseas:
Aportrait of expatriate TEFL teachers in South East Asia. Prospect, 24
(2), 4-19
McNeill, A. (2005). Non-native speaker teachers and awareness of lexical
difficulty in pedagogical texts. In E. Llurda (Ed.) Non-native language
teachers (pp. 107-128). New York: Springer.
Nikolov, J. (1999) “Why do you learn English?” “Because the teacher is
short”: A study of Hungarian children’s foreign language learning
motivation. Language Teaching Research, 3, 33-65
Pacek, D. (2005) ‘Personality not nationality’: Foreign students’
perceptions of a non-native speaker lecturer of English at a British
university. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers (pp. 243-
262). New York: Springer.
Pasternak, M., & Bailey, K.M. (2004) Preparing nonnative and native
English-speaking teachers: Issues of professionalism and proficiency.
In L.D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience
(p.155-175). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Peacock M. (2002). The good teacher of English as a Foreign Language.
Perspectives. 14(1), 61-73.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Reves, T., & Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native English speaking
EFL/ESL teacher’s self-image: An international survey. System,
22(3), 353-367.
Richards, J.C. (1998). Beyond training. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Runglertkrengkrai, S., & Engkaninan, S. (1987). The pattern of managerial
behaviour in Thai culture. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 5(1),
8-15.
 Does a Good Language Teacher have to be a Native Speaker? 113

Samimy, K. K., & Brutt-Griffler, J. (1999).To be a native or non-native

speaker: Perceptions of “non-native” students in a graduate TESOL
program. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language
teaching (pp. 127-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new
reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Sriussadaporn, R. (2006) Managing international business communication
problems at work: A pilot study in foreign companies in Thailand. Cross
Cultural Management: An International Journal, 13(4), 330-344.
Thompson, A.G. (1988) Cross-cultural management of labour in a Thai
environment. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 6(2), 323-338.
Westerman, D. A. (1991). Expert and novice teacher decision making.
Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 292-305.

Notes
1. I use the term “second language" to refer to second and subsequent languages,
and to refer to language learning in both second and foreign language contexts.
2. Brosh does not distinguish between good teachers, effective teachers, successful
teachers, or quality teachers.
3. Back-translation entailed the questionnaire instructions being first translated
from English into Thai by one translator. This translation was then back-translated
into English by another translator. This process ensured that the translation was
true.
4. On Mondays Thai secondary school teachers are required to wear government
civil service uniform, on Tuesdays (or Thursdays, depending on the province) boy
scouts/girl guides uniform, and on Fridays the national dress of the province or
country. Freedom of choice over dress is possible only twice a week.
5. Thanks to Professor Unchalee Sersongswad for this insight.
 CHAPTER SIX

EMPOWERING NONNATIVE-ENGLISH
SPEAKING TEACHERS IN THE CLASSROOM

SIBEL TATAR AND SENEM YILDIZ

Introduction
We are looking for İngilizce öğretmeni/Native speaker English Teacher
with university degree in a related field, preferably with a masters degree,
has received teacher training, is a native speaker, has at least 5 years of
professional experience in the field (Human resources insert of a daily
newspaper)

We are teaching English to your kids with native speaker teachers, through
16 hours of English per week (Banner in front of a private school)

Advertisements of this kind are becoming more and more common in

Turkey, especially in İstanbul, the largest city of the country. The market-
driven educational system in this city and most of the country as well as
the competition among schools to recruit more students lead
administrators to pursue advertising tactics that they believe are attractive
to potential students and/or their caregivers. One of the more common of
these tactics is to hire and advertise “native speakers”. With English
becoming a world language and mastery in English language being a key
factor in getting a well-paid job, there is a growing demand for English
language centers. This demand and the competition for students has led
administrators to exploit the common misperception that native speakers
are better teachers than non-native speakers. For them, the presence of
native speaking teachers in schools, as in the above advertisement, has
proven itself as an important marketing tool.
As in many EFL countries in the world, teaching of English language
in Turkey has been mostly carried out by Turkish teachers of English who
were born in Turkey and studied English at schools in Turkey. Until a
 Empowering Nonnative-English Speaking Teachers in the Classroom 115

decade ago, the presence of native speaker teachers (NEST) as part of the
school staff was limited to a few private schools in wealthy neighborhoods.
Such being the case, the dichotomy between native and nonnative English
speaking teachers could have seemed to be irrelevant in the Turkish
context due to the overwhelming number of nonnative speaker teachers
(NNEST). However, as many primary, secondary and tertiary schools in
the last decade started to recruit increasing numbers of teachers coming
from both the inner circle countries such as the US, the UK, Canada or
Australia and from outer circle counties such as India or Pakistan, the
NEST-NNEST division became a legitimate area of discussion. For the
purposes of this chapter, we will use “NEST” as an umbrella term to refer
to expatriate teachers, teachers coming to Turkey to teach English from
inner, outer, and expanding circle countries since we believe a sub-
division among expatriate teachers will not assist our understanding of the
Turkish context in the context of this study.
Although no statistics or empirical studies exist as to the profile of
English teachers in Turkey, it is not uncommon to come across unqualified
NESTs being hired by private schools in order to advertise the school and
attract caregivers and students to the institution. The lack of knowledge on
the part of school administrators and employers about the differences
between untrained NESTs and trained NNESTs (or perhaps their
indifference to this) leads to a preferential treatment of NESTs in making
hiring decisions. This is observed in all levels of educational institutions:
from university preparation schools to small-scale language schools. In
addition to being given preferential treatment, NESTs are better paid than
NNESTs. NESTs in Turkey (mostly in big cities like Istanbul or Ankara)
are also usually offered several fringe benefits such as competitive and
tax-free salary, airfare, furnished accommodation, private health insurance,
and fewer working hours. Most of these benefits are unavailable to
Turkish NNEST teachers. Providing such benefits to NESTs only leads to
discrimination on the part of Turkish teachers of English and bears very
important implications regarding language teacher education programs in
Turkey. Many teacher candidates tend to lose self-confidence as early as
when carrying out their practicum and believe that they step into the
professional life disadvantaged in many ways due to their nonnative status.
While NESTs, described by Anchimbe as “someone born in one of
the native English-speaking countries: Britain, USA, Australia, New
Zealand, and Canada” (2006), are assumed to be superior in teaching
language compared to NNESTs, this assumption is being called into
question and challenged by many researchers. Research on NESTs and
NNESTs has explored many facets of the issue including self-perceptions
116 Chapter Six

of NNESTs and their identities (Liu, 1999; Medyges, 1994; Reves &
Medgyes, 1994), differences in the teaching behavior of NESTs and
NNESTs (Arva & Medyges, 2000), students’ perceptions of NNESTs
(Benke & Medgyes, 2005; Braine & Moussu, 2006; Mahboob, 2004),
NNS students in TESOL graduate programs (Brinton, 2004; Kamhi-Stein,
2004; Moussu, 2006), and the challenges NNESTs face in the classroom
and in the profession. Many studies conclude that NESTs and NNESTs
have their own strengths and possess the capacity to teach effectively
regardless of their being native or nonnative speakers of the language.
With regard to the particular issue of language teaching, some of the
advantages of NNESTs are (Medgyes, 1994):

• NNESTs can teach language learning strategies more effectively,

• NNESTs are able to compare L1 and L2 and use this in teaching,
• NNESTs have a higher metalinguistic awareness of the language,
• NNESTs provide a better learner model,
• NNESTs can anticipate and prevent language difficulties more effectively.

However, although “nonnative-speaker teachers have been reported to

have several advantages over native speakers, especially over those who
are monolingual speakers of English” (Llurda, 2004), the strengths of
NNESTs are still somewhat unknown or might be underestimated –
especially in the context of Turkey, as this study will document.
Considering that a large majority of the English teachers worldwide are
nonnative speakers of English and will continue to be (Pasternak &
Bailey, 2004), there is a need and demand for further exploration of the
importance of being a NNEST and the successful practices and strategies
used by NNESTs in the EFL classroom. An awareness of the role and
strengths of NNESTs in the EFL context needs to be raised. In Llurda’s
words:

…if we pause to reflect on the options that lie ahead of them in the new
framework of EIL, rather than ESL or EFL, we will see that many teachers
in EFL settings (particularly nonnative speakers) do not seem to be very
sensitive to the new perspectives that are opening up in front of them, and
are still anchored in the old native-speaker dominated framework in which
British or American norms have to be followed and native speakers are
considered the ideal teachers. (Llurda, 2004, p. 319)

Informed by this literature, the current study focuses on NNESTs in

Turkey and addresses the following two questions:
 Empowering Nonnative-English Speaking Teachers in the Classroom 117

(1) What are the major concerns of NNESTs in Turkey?

(2) What are the strengths of NNESTs in a Turkish EFL classroom as
perceived by in-service teachers and teacher candidates?

Methodology
This chapter focuses on the preliminary findings from the piloting of a
larger study on the self-perceptions of nonnative-English-speaking
teachers and teacher candidates in Istanbul, Turkey. The purpose of the
study is to explore the hiring criteria of the school administrators in
Istanbul district and the role of native-speakerness in hiring decisions, to
describe the profile of in-service NESTs, and to explore the strengths of
NNESTs as perceived by in-service teachers and teacher candidates. This
small-scale study aims at exploring the major concerns of non-native
speaker in-service teachers and teacher candidates in the EFL context,
their perceptions about their strengths in the classroom and gaining
insights into their views on the native versus nonnative distinction.

Participants
Eight in-service teachers and forty teacher candidates participated in this
study. The eight in-service teachers worked at the foreign languages
departments of three different primary and secondary schools in Istanbul.
They all learned English in Turkey, although many had the opportunity to
spend some time in English-speaking countries like the US or the UK. All
teachers had at least three years of teaching experience at primary and
secondary levels at the time of the study. The teachers were selected on a
voluntary basis. The schools these teachers worked for were all private
primary and secondary schools that offer the most hours of English
instruction possible in the Turkish educational system, ranging from 10 to
16 hours per week. All schools were well-known and preferred by
caregivers for the quality of their English instruction. The language
departments in these three schools were composed of more than 90 foreign
language teachers, a majority of them being English teachers. About one
third of the English teachers were native speakers of English coming from
countries like Canada, the U.S., the U.K. and India.
Teacher candidate participants of the study were forth year students
in the English teacher-training program of a highly respected university in
İstanbul. Forty teacher candidates participated and they were carrying out
their fieldwork during the time of the study. Their ages ranged from 18 to
20. As part of their fieldwork, teacher candidates were required to observe
118 Chapter Six

45 hours of classes at primary and secondary schools and teach a

minimum of 6 hours. Almost all of the teacher candidates had the
opportunity to observe a NEST and an NNEST during their fieldwork.

Data collection and analysis

Data for the study was collected by means of (a) formal and informal
interviews (face-to-face, or e-mail) with in-service English teachers, (b) a
focus group interview with in-service English teachers, (c) teacher
candidate journals. The in-service teachers interested in the study were
contacted and interviews were carried out in the schools teachers worked
for. In one school, a group of five English teachers took part in the focus
group interview. All interviews were tape-recorded and partially
transcribed. Teacher candidates were asked to write a journal on their
thoughts about the concerns and strengths of Turkish teachers of English
based on their observations at the schools.
Content analysis approach was used to analyse the interview data and
the journals. The researchers listened to the interviews and read the
journals several times to identify main categories. After the initial
categories were formed, the data were examined again for any additional
categories.

Teacher Perspectives
In this part, findings of the data collected through the interviews and
teacher candidate journals will be presented. The findings will be
presented under two main themes: (1) concerns, and (2) strengths.

What are the Major Concerns of Turkish in-service Teachers

in the Turkish Context?
Based on the findings of the study, it can be fairly stated that Turkish in-
service teachers experienced difficulties in the EFL context due to being a
nonnative speaker. We will take a brief look at the most frequently
mentioned difficulties by the participants.

Hiring practices and working conditions

A major problem, as perceived by Turkish in-service teachers, seems to be

the discrimination against nonnative teachers in the hiring decisions. As
one in-service teacher very strikingly puts it, “they (schools) employ
 Empowering Nonnative-English Speaking Teachers in the Classroom 119

foreigners no matter where they are from or what kind of education

background they have. Some of them are not even native speakers of
English, but they just have foreign names.” (e-mail interview, May 27,
2007). This is particularly important in the sense that native-speakerness
may be associated with appearance, name, or even attitude. As long as one
“looks” or “sounds” native, he/she could easily be hired. This also implies
that nativeness is about “looking foreign” more than anything. Some
participants stated that for some schools being a native-speaker is a
precondition for a job application.
Especially private schools, as perceived by the in-service teachers,
use the number of native speaker teachers in their teaching staff to claim
high quality. This usually leads to favoring NESTs over NNESTs. In-
service teachers involved in the study mentioned working hours, monthly
salary, health insurance, accommodation and other fringe benefits as
examples of the differences in the working conditions of local Turkish
teachers and NESTs. In order to be able to hire more NESTs, schools
administrations tend to offer some or many of these benefits.

Establishing credibility

The participants identified establishing credibility as another challenge in

the profession. Many Turkish in-service teachers perceived that they
suffered from the prejudice and suspicion on the part of the students and
their caregivers as to their linguistic knowledge or their ability to teach the
language. According to the teachers, gaining students’ respect and trust
might take a while because students have a tendency to question the
English knowledge of their Turkish teachers of English, something that
they would not dare to do with NESTs. Trust that the learner places in
their teacher is an important building block in the teaching and learning
process. Establishing NNEST’s credibility continues to be a problem as
school administrations value and promote NESTs more in the schools. As
one teacher puts it “NNESTs start the game behind anyway.”

Inadequate language skills and knowledge of target culture

Both the experienced in-service teachers and many teacher candidates in

the study identified lack of intuitional language use and nonnative
pronunciation as a major problem in terms of teaching the language. Since
all study participants studied English in Turkey, they reported problems in
the production of correct, idiomatic utterances, accurate use of phrasal
verbs, use of articles and some prepositions. Most of the study participants
120 Chapter Six

were aware that a successful nonnative teacher needs to be proficient in

both the local language and English language. However, the interviews
documented that, due to economic factors, many Turkish teachers of
English may have never been to an English-speaking country or have
cross—cultural experiences. Therefore many study participants perceived
that some Turkish teachers of English may be concerned about their low
English proficiency and lack of communicative skills as a result of lack of
experience in an English-speaking country.
Teacher candidates of the study reported feelings of low self-
confidence or embarrassment during their fieldwork due to their perceived
lack of fluency and pronunciation difficulties. They also very frequently
mentioned difficulties such as lacking the knowledge of words,
expressions, and sayings that are popular at the time in the English
language. Although it cannot be denied that an English teacher should
have adequate language skills to teach the language, as Cook (2005)
suggests “the type of English needed for successful use as a language
teacher may be different from that of the native speaker” (p. 58).
In addition to language-related difficulties, some in-service teachers
observed that they were being assigned to preparation classes where they
heavily focus on form rather than advanced level classes where
communication skills gain more importance. NESTs are considered a
natural representative of the target language and community, although
“this way of thinking is changing rapidly… and language teachers are no
longer called on to act as ambassadors of the foreign culture” (Llurda,
2004, p. 319). Therefore while many qualified and experienced NNESTs’
professional teaching skills are downgraded to teaching grammar, NESTs
are regarded more apt in teaching the usage of language and to have an
advantage teaching cultural issues as well as speaking, listening, and
writing skills. Therefore where and when possible, school administrators
prefer to seek and recruit NESTs for teaching communicative skills. Such
a distinction, especially due to the heavy emphasis on “communication” in
language teaching methodologies, seriously constrains the role of NNESTs
in the language teaching arena and underestimates their potential.

What are the Strengths of NNESTs in the EFL Classroom?

The analysis of the interview data, combined with data from teacher
candidates’ journals, reveal some important issues as to the essential role
of NNESTs in the EFL context.
All in-service teachers who were interviewed or observed for this
study emphasized the crucial role of NNESTs in the EFL context. They
 Empowering Nonnative-English Speaking Teachers in the Classroom 121

indicated that being a nonnative speaker teacher in the EFL context is

advantageous in many ways and nonnative teachers have a great potential
to teach the language effectively given that they have a high proficiency in
the English language in all skills. Teacher candidates were also aware of
some of the following strengths of NNESTs in the EFL context.
The term NNEST in the context of this study refers to the local
teachers who share their students’ native tongue and culture. Therefore,
especially compared to a monolingual native speaker who is unfamiliar
with the local culture and the local language, NNESTs in EFL contexts
have several advantages. These advantages were pointed out by many of
the participants in the current study and support the findings of previous
studies that have examined this question in other contexts. The five main
advantages described by the participants are discussed below.

Using the L1 and shared culture as a pedagogical tool in the EFL

classroom

One of the strengths of NNESTs in EFL contexts lies in the fact that they
can make use of the shared L1 and culture with students as a resource and
therefore assist, guide and improve their students’ learning process.
Although prevailing language teaching methodologies attempt to minimize
the use of L1 in the foreign language classroom, careful and planned use
of L1 has numerous advantages-especially in lower level classes. It has, in
fact, been argued that “English-only” strategies in the classroom can be
more damaging for students than limited use of their L1 (Auerbach, 1993).
There are several benefits of using L1 and sharing the students’ culture.
The use of L1 can improve teacher-student communication ensuring,
among other things, effective instructions, raising consciousness regarding
L2 forms and structures by comparing and contrasting them with L1 forms
and structures. All participants of the study were aware of the above
mentioned advantages and made use of the L1 and shared culture as a
pedagogical strategy in the classroom.
NNESTs also have the potential to communicate better and
empathize with the learners due to sharing the L1. When the learner faces
specific problems in English, using the L1 could help in identifying the
problem and explaining it to the learners in a more effective manner. Cook
(1999) also considers students’ L1 as a valuable instrument in presenting
meaning. Some in-service teachers in this study argued that
communication in English poses a problem at the beginning stages of
language learning since students are not able to comprehend the
instructions and they do not possess any language skills in English to
122 Chapter Six

express themselves. Some participants also mentioned that in the lower

levels, the difficulty in communication in English can have detrimental
effects on the learning and motivation of the student, causing the learner to
develop a negative attitude towards the English language and learning
languages in general. In describing this, one in-service teacher said:

When you see a student looking down and uninterested, it does not mean
much to the student when you go up to him and say, ‘hey, what is the
problem?’. The learner wants to feel safe, being able to express his feelings
in Turkish (focus group interview, May 2007).

Being educated in the local education system, NNESTs could also be more
aware of students’ needs. In the Turkish context, the classroom dynamics,
the standardized examinations, the language needs of the learners, and the
requirements of the curriculum are best known by local teachers who were
also trained in the same system. This puts NNESTs at an advantage in
developing an understanding of their learners’ needs and expectations and
grasping their attention since they can effectively make use of the popular
culture, T.V. shows, up-to-date news, and common jokes in creating
classroom activities. The shared culture here serves as a medium through
which the NNEST can reach the learner.

Experience as an L2 Learner

One of the biggest strengths of NNESTs compared to monolingual NESTs

is the fact that they went through a similar language learning experience as
their learners and that they can empathize with the learner in that sense
(McNeill, 2005). The conscious knowledge of the language and the
grammar helps the NNEST to better explain and elaborate the language
structures, often supporting their explanations by the use of L1. The
foreign language learning experience helps the NNESTs to develop certain
language learning strategies, understand and address the language needs of
the students, predict language problems and tailor their instruction
accordingly. The in-service teachers in the study seemed to be well aware
of this strength and make use of it in their classes. One participant stated:

I had a hard time learning the perfect tense since it does not exist in
Turkish. I know my learners would feel the same so I spent more time
teaching the structure and did more exercises to make it understood.

NNESTs have the potential to provide a good learner model in the

learners’ eyes and show them how much they can accomplish. The
 Empowering Nonnative-English Speaking Teachers in the Classroom 123

language used by a native-speaker teacher could be perceived as an

unattainable goal, something the students can never really acquire;
whereas the language used by a proficient NNEST provides an attainable
model. As such NNESTs are a perfect example of a good language learner
who went through the same learning experience and gained competence in
the language.
NESTs, especially monolingual NESTs with little or no experience in
teaching English as a foreign language, might have difficulty in anticipating
the needs of their learners and using appropriate techniques in the
classroom. For example, one in-service teacher in the study stated that
NESTs, at times, can overestimate learners’ ability and their language
proficiency and therefore fail to provide appropriate support and
scaffolding to them. This participant also stated that as a local teacher, she
realizes the importance of repetition and that she and other NNESTs
consistently use repetition in their classes. She argued that NESTs’ lack of
experience of learning a foreign language may lead them to have
unrealistic expectations of their learners, which may demotivate and
frustrate the learners.

Better Classroom Management and Discipline

Sharing the same language and culture with students seems to be an

effective factor in managing the class well. In-service teachers perceived
that the body language, the looks or the gestures are culturally shared and
learners are used to similar patterns of body language in the family with
their caregivers, which create a similar impact on the learner.
Many in-service teachers emphasized the effectiveness of using L1 in
the classroom as a classroom management tool. They observed that
students often do not take seriously the commands or warnings in English;
the same warning or command would be more likely to be effective if
given in the native language. Students’ perceptions of and expectations
from the native and nonnative teacher also seem to effect the classroom
management of teachers. The NEST without at least some proficiency in
the local language poses a good opportunity for learners to display
disruptive behavior through use of L1. This was a common observation
shared by many of the in-service teachers. They observed that many
NESTs new to the country and the culture had a hard time managing their
classrooms and asked for help from their colleagues. The following
quotation taken from Dave’s ESL Café, Job Discussion Forums Turkey
Section on the Internet illustrates how dramatic the situation can be for
NESTs:
124 Chapter Six

I still find it interesting that the students seem incapable of seeing a

yabancı [foreigner] as an authority figure even though we give grades as
well. I have some fierce discipline problems in my lise 1 [high school 1]
classes… They just seem noisily oblivious-- Out of 26 kids, maybe 5 will
bother to look at me, open their books, and participate. They will make
some effort for the turkish english teacher though...It's frustrating.

Teaching of Grammar and Giving Feedback

It is widely believed that NNESTs have the potential to teach grammar

effectively since they possess conscious knowledge of grammar and are
able to explain the grammar by making use of comparisons with L1.
Macaro (2005) describes how NNESTs use code-switching in the EFL
classroom as a communication and learning strategy. He believes that
through principled and systematic guidelines, L1 use in the classroom
could be advantageous for learners. Investigating the self-perceptions of
NNESTs in the United States, Mahboob, Uhrig, Newman, Harford (2002)
found that NNESTs saw teaching of grammar as a strength. Teachers
involved in this study expressed similar opinions.
The NNEST is able to detect the common mistakes of students with
the same L1 background and develop strategies to deal with these errors.
The following is an example of an in-service teacher’s comment
emphasizing NNEST’s strength:

In teaching writing, sharing the L1 is very beneficial. If I didn’t know

Turkish, I wouldn’t be able to make sense of some of the written work of
my students because students sometimes think in Turkish and write
accordingly, something that might seem completely nonsense to a NEST.

NNESTs are often equipped with appropriate training and strong

methodology knowledge in English language teaching. Participants in the
study stated that while many NESTs with teaching background tend to be
experienced in teaching English to native speakers or teaching English in
the ESL context, but they are not prepared or trained to teach in EFL
contexts. They pointed out that the needs and demands of the EFL context
are different and NESTs may need additional support in equipping
themselves with the skills to teach in the EFL classroom.
Giving positive and negative feedback to learners and correcting
mistakes is accepted as an essential part of language teaching. One of the
strengths of NNESTs is their ability to anticipate areas of difficulty from
the learner’s perspective and give appropriate feedback when needed.
Some of the teacher candidate participants of the study mentioned many
 Empowering Nonnative-English Speaking Teachers in the Classroom 125

NESTs might prefer not to correct mistakes worrying that this might cease
“communication”, especially due to the heavy focus on communicative
skills. NNESTs, on the other hand, can better anticipate why or at which
stage a certain mistake is made by the student because of sharing the L1.

NNEST’s Role as an Educator

The in-service teachers involved in this study seemed to perceive their role
as a teacher in the learners’ lives important. Many believe that being the
citizens of this country, they have the responsibility of serving their
students well and they see their jobs not as merely teaching English but
also making their students into good citizens. According to these teachers,
NNESTs seem to be more dedicated and willing to take responsibility
compared to a NEST, who might simply be interested in the job due to the
high payment or fringe benefits, or simply cross-cultural experience. One
teacher, who was also in an administrative position at a primary school,
stated that unqualified and inexperienced NESTs may be unwilling to
dedicate the time and energy to their jobs simply because they come with
the expectation to work not as hard as their NNEST colleagues.

Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, we suggest that two major concerns of
NNESTs-difficulty in using daily, conversational English and integrating
target language culture in their classes-be taken into serious consideration
since this seems to affect teachers’ self-confidence. NNESTs knowledge
and experience in using the language spontaneously should be addressed
more seriously in both language teacher training programs and in-service
teacher training. In this respect, instead of spending a great deal of
finances and resources on NESTs—sometimes unqualified—NNESTs
should be given opportunities to improve their language skills through
professional development activities and more cross-cultural experiences.
School administrators, curriculum planners and teacher training programs
could aim for more training in intercultural competence in order to
empower NNESTs in integrating culture in the classroom. As English is
becoming a global language and cultural integration taking place
throughout the world, there is a growing need for communication in
English with nonnative speakers of the language. Our understanding of
“culture” has changed and NNESTs should be made aware that cultural
knowledge is not limited to British or American culture anymore. In EFL
settings, it makes more sense to prepare learners for English as an
126 Chapter Six

International Language. Looking from this perspective, NNESTs’ fear of

not being able to teach the target language culture should be revisited.
One interesting point that emerged in the teacher candidates’ journals
was that those teacher candidates who completed their field work in state
schools and encountered less successful NNESTs seem to have more
negative attitudes towards NNESTs and praised NESTs more. However,
those who observed good examples of NNESTs, seem to become more
aware of the strengths of NNESTs. Seeing the differences between natives
and non-natives through first-hand experience helped them better evaluate
the role “nativeness” in teaching. As the first hand experience spreads and
the number of successful models of NNESTs increase, NNESTs will start
to reevaluate their importance in the EFL context.

Conclusions
Based on the findings of this study, the major concerns of Turkish in-
service teachers and teacher candidates are unfair hiring practices,
establishing their credibility as NNESTs, and perceived problems in using
English effectively. Although the data comes from a small group of
participants in Istanbul, these concerns may be shared by many NNESTs
teaching in Turkey and in other contexts. According to the findings,
NNESTs’ knowledge of L1 and familiarity with the local culture, their
insights as a language learner, their ability in managing the class and
teaching grammar, and their role as a good model put them at an
advantage over NESTs. In conclusion, although NNESTs have some
concerns, they feel empowered at the same time due to these strengths.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Boğaziçi University Scientific Research Projects
(Project number 07HD601), for financing our research and the language
teachers who contributed to the study with their insightful comments.

References
Anchimbe, E. A. (2006). The native-speaker fever in English language
teaching (ELT): Pitting pedagogical competence against historical
origin. Linguistik Online, 26(1). Retrieved August 16, 2007, from
http://www.linguistik-online.de/26_06/anchimbe.html
Arva, V. & Medyges, P. (2000) Native and non-native teachers in the
classroom. System, 28(3), 335−372.
 Empowering Nonnative-English Speaking Teachers in the Classroom 127

Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom.

TESOL Quarterly, 27, 9−32.
Benke, E. & Medgyes, P. (2005). Differences in teaching behavior
between native and non-native speaker teachers: As seen by the
learners. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers:
Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession (pp.
195−215). Springer: USA.
Braine, G. & Moussu, L. (2006). The attitudes of ESL students towards
nonnative English language teachers, TESL Reporter, 39(1), 33−47.
Brinton, D. (2004). Nonnative English-speaking student teachers: Insights
from dialogue journals. In L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and
teaching from experience: Perspectives on nonnative English-speaking
professionals (pp. 190-206). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 33, 185−209.
—. (2005). Basing teaching on the L2 user. In E.Llurda (Ed.), Non-native
language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the
profession (pp. 48−61). Springer: USA.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2004). (Ed.) Learning and teaching from experience:
Perspectives on nonnative English-speaking professionals. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press.
Liu, J. (1999). From their own perspectives: The impact of non-native
ESL professionals on their students. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native
educators in English language teaching (pp. 159−176). Mahwah: NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Llurda, E. (2004). Non-native speaker teachers and English as an
international language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,
14(3), 314−323.
—. (2005). Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and
contributions to the profession. Springer: USA.
Macaro, E. (2005). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication
and learning strategy. In E.Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers:
Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession (pp.
64−84). Springer: USA.
Mahboob, A., Uhrig, K., Newman, K.L., & Harford, B. S. (2002, April).
Perceptions of non-native speaking teachers. Paper presented at the
36th annual meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages, Salt Lake City, UT.
128 Chapter Six

Mahboob, A. (2004). Native or nonnative: What do students enrolled in an

intensive English program think? In L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning
and teaching from experience: Perspectives on nonnative English-
speaking professionals (pp. 121−147). The University of Michigan
Press: Ann Arbor.
McNeill, A. (2005). Non-native speaker teachers and awareness of lexical
difficulty in pedagogical texts. In E.Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language
teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession.
Springer: USA. 107−128.
Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. Hong Kong: MacMillan.
Moussu, L. (2006). Native and non-native English-speaking English as
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.)
Pasternak, M. & Bailey, K. M. (2004). Preparing nonnative and native
English-speaking teachers: Issues of professionalism and proficiency.
In L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience:
Perspectives on nonnative English-speaking professionals (pp.
155−175). The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.
Reves, T. & Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native English speaking
EFL/ESL teacher’s self image: An international survey, System, 22(3),
353−367.
 CHAPTER SEVEN

THE “WHO’S WORTH MORE?”

QUESTION REVISITED:
MA TESOL PRACTICUM HOST TEACHERS’
PERCEPTIONS OF NES AND NNES
TEACHER TRAINEES

EKATERINA NEMTCHINOVA

Introduction
Ever since the inception of the Caucus of Nonnative English Speakers
(NNES) at TESOL in 1998 the issues related to ethnically and
linguistically diverse professionals in the field of TESOL continue to raise
interest in the profession. A number of studies discuss linguistic,
pedagogical, and political implications of the native-nonnative distinction
(Canagarajah, 1999; Cook, 1999; Norton, 1997), survey NNES teachers’
own perceptions of the assets and challenges they bring to the ESL/EFL
classroom (Braine, 2004; Kamhi-Stein et al., 2004; Medgyes, 1992, 1994;
Reves & Medgyes, 1994; Samimy & Brutt-Griffler, 1999), and describe
stories of diffidence and triumph, struggle and success (Braine, 1998;
Connor, 1999). Another direction of research has recently become a topic
of NNES English language proficiency (Brinton, 2004; Eslami-Rasekh et
al., 2005; Kamhi-Stein & Mahboob, 2005; Pasternak & Baily, 2004;).
Generally, researchers and teacher educators investigating NNES issues
have come to the following conclusions. First, the identification of world
Englishes rather than a single authoritative standard of English makes
NNES language a legitimate variety, and not a substandard dialect (c.f.
Kachru, 1992). Second, one of the definite advantages that NNES teachers
have is a conscious knowledge of the target language as well as effective
language learning strategies, which they impart on their ESL/EFL students
(Arva & Medgyes, 2000; Medgyes, 1994; Milambiling, 2000). Third,
130 Chapter Seven

NNES teachers present a positive role model; they identify with the needs
and understand the challenges of their ESL/EFL students, which provides
for a better teacher-student rapport in the classroom (Auerbach, 1993;
Braine, 2004; Ellis, 2002; Maum, 2003). Fourth, NNESs’ multilingual
and multicultural experience benefits an ESL/EFL classroom allowing for
cross-linguistic and cross-cultural comparisons and contrasts (Ding, 2000;
Hansen, 2004; Liu, 2001).
So far research on nonnative teachers of English has focused
primarily on NNES teachers and teacher trainees. What has received little
attention until recently is how other stakeholders perceive NNESs. Braine
(2004) provides an overview of several MA theses that explored ESL/EFL
students’ opinions on nonnative speaking teachers. Students from different
language backgrounds are reported to have generally positive attitudes
toward their NNES teachers. Many of them believe that they could learn
English just as well from a nonnative speaker as from a native speaker,
express respect for their nonnative teachers, and appreciate their personal
and professional qualities. Similarly, Mahboob (2004) found that while
ESL students in the U.S. feel that both NES and NNES teachers have
distinctive strengths and weaknesses, they do not have an explicit
preference for a particular type of teacher.
At the same time, voices of reluctant students and administrators are
also heard in the field. Thus, two studies that examined Hong Kong
learners’ perceptions of NES and NNES teachers’ accents found that
students preferred English teachers speaking Received Pronunciation
(Forde, 1996; Luk, 1998, as cited in Braine, 2004). Concerns about NNES
teachers’ accuracy and fluency are echoed by program administrators
whose hiring preferences favor native speaking teachers (Mahboob, Uhrig,
Newman & Hartford, 2004). Job advertisements inviting exclusively
native speakers continue to appear on professional e-mail lists, despite the
fact that TESOL officially opposes hiring practices that discriminate
NNES professionals solely on the basis of language (TESOL Statement,
1992).
A similar attitude towards nonnative English speakers is observed in
MA TESOL practicum classrooms. It is common knowledge that
practicum coordinators often have difficulties placing NNES MA TESOL
students in classrooms (Amin, 1997; Brady & Gulikers, 2004; Tang,
1997). Two reasons frequently mentioned by host teachers are NNES
students’ inadequate level of English proficiency and fluency in U.S
culture, as well as ESL students’ preference for native speaking teachers.
One study to dispel the myth about NNES inefficiency was conducted by
Nemtchinova (2005). A survey of practicum host teachers’ perceptions of
 The “Who’s Worth More?” Question Revisited 131

their NNES MA TESOL students revealed that only 7% of teachers

expressed discontent with their trainees’ performance because of linguistic
issues. Most of the host teachers, however, felt that NNES teacher trainees
could provide quality instruction and enrich the ESL practicum classroom.
The purpose of this article is to compare NES and NNES teacher
trainees’ performance through the eyes of practicum host teachers, and to
offer a look through the NNES lens, a multi-faceted view that allows
capturing the complexity of teaching beyond the native or nonnative
speaker status. As George Braine (2004, p. 15) notes, a nonnative speaker
of the language is invariably defined against a native speaker of that
language, which accords inferior status and brings unfair treatment to
those whose native language is not English. Such a definition almost
always invites the comparison of two groups to put their merits and
shortfalls side by side. Examining host teachers’ perceptions provides an
access to teacher trainees’ actual (as opposed to stated) behavior in
Medgyes’ (2001) terms. By examining the question “Who’s worth more,
the native or the non-native?” (Medgyes, 1992) through the NNES lens I
hope to counteract stereotypes and bias associated with non-native English
speaking status and deepen the understanding of unique attributes NES
and NNES MA TESOL practicum students bring to the art of teaching.

The Study
In response to the need for more education on NNES-related issues for
teachers, students, and administrators (Braine, 2004; Canagarajah, 2005),
this study was designed to investigate the perceptions of practicum host
teachers of NES and NNES teacher trainees (NESTT and NNESTT,
respectively). Specifically, the study sought to answer the following
questions:

6. Are practicum host teachers’ perceptions of teacher

trainees affected by their NES/NNES status as seen from the
numerical ratings and verbal comments in their evaluations of
NESTT and NNESTT performances?

7. If there is a difference in teacher trainees’ performance,

in what areas?
132 Chapter Seven

Research design
This research is a mixed design cross-sectional study focusing on
practicum host teachers’ opinions of NES and NNES teacher trainees’
classroom performance. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected
by means of a self-report questionnaire, a measure commonly used to
assess attitudes, preferences and values in educational research. The
opinions of teachers were assessed using a Likert-type 5-point response
scale ranging from poor to excellent; teachers were asked to indicate their
attitudes by checking the value on the scale that best reflects their feelings
about a certain aspect of the teacher trainee’s performance.
Statistic analysis of quantitative data was conducted using Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences 1.4, data analysis software. Qualitative
data in the form of host teachers’ comments and responses to open-ended
questions were used to corroborate the questionnaire-based quantitative
data on each aspect of teacher trainees’ performance.

Participants

Participants of this study are ESL teachers with whom MA TESOL

students are paired to observe and teach their practicum classes. They are
referred to as host teachers in this study; two other commonly used terms
for this position are mentor teachers and master teachers. To identify the
population of the study, I performed an online search for MA TESOL
programs with a prominent teaching practicum component, i.e. programs
that included at least ten weeks of actual classroom teaching. After
identifying these programs, I contacted their program directors and
practicum coordinators to help locate ESL instructors who would be
willing to participate in the survey. 72 host teachers expressed interest in
the study. They received a package containing a cover letter with
instructions for completing the questionnaire, an informed consent form, a
five-page questionnaire, and a self-addressed stamped envelope for each
practicum student they evaluated. 103 questionnaires were completed and
returned. These included 51 NES and 52 NNES teacher trainees. Of these,
37 came from universities, 48 from community colleges, and 18 from
middle and high schools settings. The designation NES/NNES U,
NES/NNES CC, NES/NNES S is used accordingly to ascribe host
teachers’ verbal comments to individual participants of the study.
Teacher trainees in this study come from a variety of backgrounds.
Their countries of origin include USA, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Russia,
Poland, Slovakia, Pakistan, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, and
Argentina. 50% of the teacher trainees entered the MA TESOL practicum
 The “Who’s Worth More?” Question Revisited 133

with no teaching experience, whereas 36% were reported to have had “a

little” experience and 14% had had considerable teaching experience. The
time period for which host teachers have known teacher trainees ranges
from 2 months to 1 ½ academic year with one semester being the most
common period (79 %). The majority of trainees in this study are 20 to 28
years old (74%) while some of them are between the ages of 29 and 35
(15%), 36 and 42 (6 %), and between 43 and 50 (5 %); two trainees were
reported to be older than 50 years of age. NES and NNES teacher trainees
find themselves in various teaching situations: “Intermediate integrated
skills class”, “Intermediate oral skills”, “Intermediate grammar adults”,
“Intermediate college students”, “Beginning oral/aural class in a
community college”, “Adult ESL- beginning and intermediate” were some
of the examples of teaching assignments. The average size of the class is
10 – 15 students.

Instrument

The survey designed for this study was aimed at eliciting host teachers’
personal reactions rather that any kind of objective assessment. Similar to
the study done by Nemtchinova (2005), the questionnaire was divided into
seven sections, each of which further detailed a particular aspect of a
teacher trainee’s classroom performance, such as personal qualities,
command of the language, lesson organization, lesson implementation,
cultural awareness, feedback to students, and self-evaluation (see
Appendix A for the survey). The survey opened with an optional section
aimed at obtaining some information about the trainee’s origin, age,
teaching experience, and teaching situation. In addition to assessing
trainees on a 1-5 rating scale, host teachers were encouraged to provide
verbal comments on every aspect of their trainee’s performance. To elicit
more open-ended reactions and observations host teachers were asked to
provide summarizing comments at the end of the survey. Participating host
teachers were not informed that the purpose of the study was to compare
the performance of NES and NNES teacher trainees; rather the cover letter
they received described the purpose of the study in general terms of
surveying host teachers’ opinions of practicum students. The NES-NNES
distinction was deliberately not included in the cover letter to prevent any
bias, maximize reliability, and control the social desirability of responses,
i.e. a tendency to respond to the items in a way that is socially acceptable
or desirable, regardless of the true or real attitudes or beliefs of the
individual (McMillan, 2004).
134 Chapter Seven

Analysis

To investigate host teachers’ opinions on NES and NNES teacher trainees

a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on ratings with
native or nonnative status of the trainees as the independent variable. The
dependent variables were scores on personal qualities, command of the
language, teaching organization, lesson implementation, cultural
awareness, feedback to students, and self-evaluation assigned by host
teachers. Because of a large number of variables used in the study it was
decided to compute a correlation matrix to determine whether the
attributes of each variable provided reliable data for assessing teacher
trainee’s performance. After the reliability of the measures was
established, ANOVAs were performed on rating scores in the seven
categories of classroom performance. The results of this analysis are
presented in Table 1, where M represents the mean ratings, SD is the
standard deviation indicating a measure of variability of the scores for
NES and NNES groups, p is the p-value and F is the F-ratio used to
determine the statistical significance of the differences among the mean
ratings of the two groups. Based on general research experience the
statistically significant level of the p- value was set at <.05.

Findings

The findings of the study revealed the absence of statistically significant

differences in host teachers’ evaluation of native and nonnative English
speaking trainees’ performance in the practicum classroom in all but one
category, namely, “cultural awareness”. Host teachers’ responses within
the categories of “Personal qualities”, “Command of the language”,
“Teaching organization”, “Lesson implementation”, “Cultural awareness”,
“Feedback to students”, and “Self-evaluation” are discussed below.
 The “Who’s Worth More?” Question Revisited 135

NES NNES

Categories M SD M SD p F

Personal 4.1451 .068009 4.2577 .68524 .405 .700

qualities

Command of 4.3431 .45020 4.1571 .65297 .096 2.825

language

Lesson 4.0686 .73837 4.3269 .66888 .066 3.465

organization

Lesson 4.2213 .50331 4.2486 .57466 .798 .066

implementation

Cultural 4.0588 .57235 4.3490 .67912 .017 5.872

awareness

Feedback to 4.3754 .52912 4.5137 .60229 .219 1.532

students

Self-evaluation 4.1176 .67519 4.1346 .72162 .902 0.15

Note: Scale: 1 = unacceptable, 2 = poor, 3 = adequate, 4 = good, 5 = excellent.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for host teachers’ perceptions of NES

and NNES teacher trainees’ performance.

Personal Qualities

The category of personal qualities dealt with audibility of voice, eye

contact, vitality and posture, and rapport with the class. As can be seen in
Table 1, both NES and NNES teacher trainees received similar evaluations
of good and excellent, with NNES performing slightly better (M = 4.23,
SD = .68) than NES in this category (M = 4.14, SD = .68), although the
difference did not reach statistical significance at p = .405. Host teachers
explain NNESTT success in establishing a good rapport with the class by
their “good sense of humor” as well as the fact that they “can speak the
same language as many students.” On the other hand, some NNES teacher
trainees “swallow words at times” and keep their eyes “on the task and not
on the students.” Similarly, host teachers’ comments on NESTT
136 Chapter Seven

performance in this particular category include: “Not loud, but successful

in engaging class”, “could be bolder and louder”, “Possibly could have
made more attempt at building the rapport“, “Needs more active time with
students”. In general, both native and nonnative speaking trainees
generally “establish a good relationship with the students.”

Command of the Language

Practicum host teachers’ ratings of NES and NNES teacher trainees’

command of the language did not differ significantly for both groups
(Table 1). Although NESTT received a mean rating 4.34 as compared to
NNESTT 4.16, no significant difference was found at p=.096; the ratings
for both groups were between good and excellent. In host teachers’
opinion, NNES teacher trainees’ English is accurate, fluent, and authentic;
they easily adjust to their students’ level of the language, use linguistic
terms appropriately, and generally present a good model of English, which
is supported by the following comments:

Very few distortions of vowel sounds which don’t impede intelligibility.

(NNES CC-12)
It isn’t perfect, but I feel that it is good enough for all practical purposes.
(NNES CC-6)
She is good at tailoring questions, answers and comments to particular
students’ language ability. (NNES U-8)
Although it is sometimes apparent that English is not her native language,
the students appreciate having her as a model of a successful language
learner. (NNES U-5)

However, the comments of those host teachers who felt less enthusiastic
about their NNESTT language, although few, cannot be disregarded. Thus,
one teacher was “embarrassed when the trainee made grammatical
mistakes while teaching”; others listed “better command of the fine points
of grammar” and “the accuracy of target language use” among the things
that need improvement.
Contrary to expectations, NES teacher trainees’ command of the
language is not faultless either, although host teachers’ observations in this
category are few and refer to a different facet of the use of English with
ESL students:

Sometimes highlights that she is not a good speller. Don’t do this! (NES
CC-3)
Linguistic terms are not always well explained. (NES U-8)
Sometimes does not step down to her beginning students’ level. (NES S-6)
 The “Who’s Worth More?” Question Revisited 137

This is an interesting observation given the fact that the native proficiency
in a language has long been believed to be a necessary and sufficient
condition for effective teaching. Host teachers’ comments on NES teacher
trainees’ command of the language show that it is the use of English at the
level appropriate to the learner rather than error-free native fluency that is
important in a classroom setting. NES command of the language does not
automatically make one a competent teacher who uses the language that
the learner understands (Kamhi-Stein & Mahboob, 2005). On the contrary,
“native fluency can lead to a false sense of security about the requirements
for mediating the subject matter in the classroom.” (Chalupa & Lair, 2001,
p. 124).

Lesson Organization

Host teachers’ assessment of teacher trainees’ organization of class time is

summarized in Table 1. No significant difference was found between host
teachers’ opinions on NESTT and NNESTT (p = .066), and the ratings are
within the good and excellent range, although the latter scored slightly
higher in this category (M = 4.32, SD = .66 for NNES vs. M = 4.06, SD =
.50 for NES). Nevertheless, host teachers’ verbal remarks on organization
of class time, balance and variety of activities, thoroughness of preparation
for each class, and effective organization and class management were
highly positive for both NNES:

She uses time very well. (NNES S-7)

Her lesson plans are appropriate, and she is willing to be flexible in
implementing them. (NNES CC-10)
She is always prepared and has thought through potential student
questions. (NNES U-7)

and NES:

Did very well overall in a difficult-to-manage class. (NES CC-5)

She prepares thoroughly. She is very proactive in trying to anticipate
students’ questions and misunderstanding. As a result, she comes to class
with additional examples and alternate means of explaining content. (NES
U-13)

Lesson Implementation

This category comprised such attributes as establishing clear objectives

and procedures for lessons; giving specific instructions; and using various
138 Chapter Seven

formats (e.g. individual, whole class, pair, group). In addition, it elicited

host teachers’ evaluation of teacher trainees’ command of the subject
matter; appropriateness of teaching materials; clarity in presenting the
material, and involvement and encouragement of students. Host teachers’
perceptions of teacher/student interaction, smoothness of flow/transitions
as well as introduction, presentation, and questioning techniques were also
included here.
As can be seen in Table 1, both NES and NNES teacher trainees
received equally good and excellent ratings for their actual classroom
teaching. No significant difference was observed in this category (p =
.798); in fact the difference in the means is the lowest for both groups (M
= 4.22, SD = .50 for NESTT vs. M = 4.24, SD = .57 for NNESTT), which
is supported by highly positive verbal comments for NES as well as
NNES. At the same time, there are certain aspects of teaching that both
groups need to improve, and host teachers’ comments reflect that as well.
It is interesting to see how comments for NES and NNES are almost
identical in both the areas of strengths and weaknesses. It further
underscores the importance of treating NES and NNES teacher trainees on
the basis of their professional skills, not the language status.

She had a nice variety of activities, utilizing multiple learning styles. (NES
CC-11)
Good mix of formats in all lessons (NES U-10)
A nice combination of new information and review (NES U-7)
Clear explanation and clear purpose (NES S-9)
The student needs to clarify and repeat more frequently (NES S-2)
Has to learn to write important information on board while presenting
(NES CC-9)

The student used various formats to keep students involved and interested
(NNES CC-8)
She was good at drawing out even the quietest students (NNES CC-17)
Excellent introduction and presentation techniques (NNES S-3)
Chose excellent materials to reinforce class content. Also was very helpful
for work on vocabulary, comprehension. (NNES U-24)
Needs to give students more time to answer (NNES S-1)
The intern needs to practice writing in white board (NNES CC-19)

Cultural Awareness

This part of the questionnaire was concerned with teacher trainees’

cultural awareness: their understanding of American and ESL students’
cultures as well as the involvement of target culture into materials, topics,
 The “Who’s Worth More?” Question Revisited 139

activities, and patterns of interaction. Host teachers’ ratings in this

category were significantly different for NES and NNES at p = .017 (M =
4.05, SD = .057 for NES and M = 4.35, SD = .67 for NNES), mainly due
to a marked disparity in opinions on teacher trainees’ handling of the
multicultural aspect of their classrooms. This quantitative finding is
supported by host teachers’ verbal comments, which clearly fall into two
distinct categories. Thus, host teachers working with NNES teacher
trainees comment on the beneficial effect their cultural background has on
ESL students:

Being from Taiwan enables my intern to relate to the students as an equal

who was able to learn English well. (NNES CC-17)
She is able to interact with the Asian students especially, in a way I cannot.
(NNES U-7)
I think students from backgrounds similar to hers may have appreciated her
explanations- a style they were used to. (NNES U-15)

At the same time, those host teachers who work with NES teacher trainees
observe a period of initial “cultural shock”:

The class is composed of students from at least 10 countries. The intern is

learning to be realistic. (NES CC-9)
[The student] has a developing sense of how and what to identify/clarify
for the students in dealing with values and mores of the target culture.
(NES CC-13)
Initially, she was not familiar with students’ cultures. But she adapted
quickly. (NES U-6)

While NNES teacher trainees come from a variety of cultural backgrounds

and educational experiences, they often share these with their ESL
students. This common experience draws instructors and students together;
it arouses the mood of empathy and understanding and creates a positive
teaching and learning environment in the classroom, which translates into
high rankings NNESs received in the category of cultural awareness. NES
teacher trainees, on the other hand, do not share any common ground with
their students. Host teachers’ remarks suggest that it is the culturally-
bound disparity in teacher trainees and ESL students’ values, goals, and
expectations that initially confuses NESs. Later, it seems, teacher trainees
succeed in adapting to an ethnically and culturally diverse classroom.
Another question in this category asked host teachers to evaluate NES
and NNES teacher trainees’ involvement of target culture as seen from the
choice of materials, topics, activities, and patterns of classroom interaction.
Understanding the target language culture is an important dimension of
140 Chapter Seven

second language learning, and the NES and NNES teacher trainees in the
study succeed in providing a variety of learning opportunities for students
to enhance their understanding of culture. Their explanation of cultural
content and responding to questions pertaining to the American culture
received good and excellent rankings; positive verbal comments show that
host teachers are content with this particular aspect of the trainees’
teaching. However, despite the equally effective cultural instruction on the
part of NES and NNES trainees, the fact they differ in their conduct of the
multicultural classroom accounts for the statistically significant difference
in host teachers’ ratings of their cultural awareness.

Feedback to Students

In this section of the survey host teachers were asked to rate teacher
trainees’ ability to provide genuine positive feedback; evaluate students’
performance fairly; convey enthusiasm; show concern for and openness to
students; correct errors when appropriate; use non-verbal feedback, and to
attend to all students in the class. Host teachers assigned mostly good and
excellent rankings to this category confirming that both NES and NNES
teacher trainees are effective in providing feedback to their ESL students;
they also noted certain faults in both groups. Although NNESTT earned a
few more points from host teachers in this category (M = 4.51, SD = .60
vs. M = 4.37, SD = .52 for NESTT), the difference was not statistically
significant at p= .219 (Table 1).

Her feedback was very warm and enthusiastic. (NES S-5)

He made frequent positive comments to class and individuals. (NES CC-17)
The intern tended to favor certain students during oral practice. (NES CC-23)
Evaluated students’ performance a little low (NES U-4)

Her comments were very perceptive and fair (NNES U-16)

Good at correcting errors in a way that doesn’t convey, “You’re wrong”
(NNES CC-4)
The use of non-verbal feedback was very expressive and positive (NNES S-
5)
Uncomfortable with correction of high level ESL students (NNES U-2)

Self-Evaluation

This part of the questionnaire asked host teachers to evaluate teacher

trainees’ ability to evaluate their own performance as well as to respond
constructively to evaluation from others. As can be seen from Table 1, the
 The “Who’s Worth More?” Question Revisited 141

ratings for NESTT (M = 4.11, SD = .67) and NNESTT (M = 4.13, SD =

.72) do not display significant difference (p = .902) and are within the
good and excellent range. Both groups of teacher trainees are eager to
receive constructive feedback and modify their teaching accordingly, as
illustrated by host teachers’ notes for NESs:

Good self-analysis (NES S-4)

Eager to hear and incorporate feedback (NES S-7)
Seemed to accept my ideas and usually acted on them (NES U-16)

and NNESs:

She has a realistic awareness of her own performance. (NNES CC-18)

It’s obvious she wants feedback and wants to be the best teacher she can
be. (NNES U-9)
Asks for feedback after lessons and notes own areas of concern (NNES U-
6)
Realistic, conscientious, and willing to work on issues momentarily
(NNES CC-9)

Discussion
The results of the study showed that the answer to the first research
question is negative: practicum host teachers’ perceptions of NES and
NNES teacher trainees’ performance are generally not affected by the
native or nonnative status of the trainees. No statistically significant
difference in host teachers’ ratings of NESTT and NNESTT was found in
the categories of personal qualities, command of the language, lesson
organization, lesson implementation, feedback to students, and self-
evaluation. Both groups of teacher trainees received largely positive
ratings in all seven categories of the survey. Similarly, host teachers’
verbal comments indicated that NESTT and NNESTT were evenly
efficient in managing the class, conveying the subject matter, planning and
teaching the lessons, providing feedback to their students, and evaluating
their own teaching. Depending on the category, host teachers’ ratings
differed slightly in favor of NES or NNES, but the difference between the
mean ratings for the two groups was not large enough to be statistically
significant. Even the language proficiency and the familiarity with
American culture, two traditional issues of concern for administrators and
many of the nonnative English speakers, did not generate statistically
significant differences in host teachers’ rankings. Based on the
quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data, it can be assumed that
142 Chapter Seven

subjects of this study, regardless of their backgrounds and teaching

situations, do not differ in a number of essential teaching characteristics in
the eyes of practicum host teachers. This is an important finding that
further diminishes claims about superiority of one group over the other
and supports the viewpoint of those researchers who perceive NES and
NNES as equally successful professionals (Kamhi-Stein et al., 2004;
Mahboob, 2004; Moussu, 2002). This study also complements the findings
of the studies that examine the attitude of ESL/EFL students toward native
and nonnative English speaking practitioners. While students clearly
express their appreciation of each party’s unique strengths, they do not
generally perceive either NES or NNES as more efficient teachers
(Mahboob, 2004; Moussu & Braine, 2006; Benke & Medgyes, 2005;
Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005). The opinion of host teachers, who play a
critical role in the initiation of NNES teachers to ESL classrooms through
the practicum, should be regarded as yet another argument in favor of a
non-differential treatment of NES and NNES in the profession.
Another common ground between NESTs and NNESTs that emerged
from the data is their status of novice teachers. Host teachers recognize the
fact that NES and NNES are still at the beginning phase of professional
development and suggest ways in which to gain in practical knowledge
and skill. Not only the themes of “development”, “practice”, and
“experience” are recurring in host teachers’ comments for both groups of
teacher trainees; the areas for improvement seem to be almost identical for
native and nonnative speaking teacher trainees, and include classroom
presence, confidence, class management issues, and flexibility. Thus, host
teachers’ comments concerning the areas of classroom behavior in need of
improvement for NES teacher trainees:

As with any trainee, she is developing her skills in the classroom. She
needs more practice in classroom management, organizing students,
creating an environment where she commands and maintains their interest.
(NES S-12)
Her “dynamic teacher presence” is developing and class control is
improving. (NES CC-18)
Adjust lesson if needed when students aren’t engaged, especially during an
activity. (NES U-11)
Time management (NES S-8)
Level appropriate material (in fairness, all of this comes with practice)
(NES U-4)

are echoed by observations made by host teachers working with NNES

teacher trainees:
 The “Who’s Worth More?” Question Revisited 143

Relaxing a bit more in the classroom. Perhaps this will increase with
experience. (NNES CC-11)
General things that all beginning teachers need to work on: voice
projection, creating a classroom presence to help with control of the class.
(NNES U-29)
More self-confidence (NNES S-6)
Higher energy (NNES S-4)
Just needs experience; needs to learn to negotiate safely through a change
in plans (NNES U-17)

In general, practicum host teachers do not seem to favor NES or NNES

teacher trainees as more capable teachers. Rather, they understand that
while some areas of teacher trainees’ classroom instructional behavior
have been established, in others NES and NNES alike are in the process of
refining their teaching skills. Given opportunities to practice both groups
will develop their potential to become knowledgeable and well-trained
professionals.
As to the second research question, a statistically significant difference
in host teachers’ estimations of NESTT and NNESTT was found in the
category of cultural awareness, namely in teacher trainees’ interaction with
ESL students’ native cultures. NNESTT’ host teachers note the favorable
effect teacher trainees’ nonnativeness has on their ESL students; a
combined benefit of shared ethnic background and learning experience, an
ability to serve as a role model, and empathy for students’ struggles is
described as a valuable contribution to the process of learning. As one host
teacher wrote, “I feel that my students are delighted to have such a good
and highly competent student teacher who is also one of their own.” Host
teachers’ point of view supports the idea that NNES professionals’
experiences are conducive to establishing a unique and important
connection between teachers and students, which was advanced by several
studies (Braine, 2004; Kamhi-Stein et al., 2004; Kamhi-Stein, 2005;
Maum, 2003; Medgyes, 1992, 1994, 2001; Reves & Medgyes, 1994;
Samimy & Brutt-Griffler, 1999).
At the same time those hosting NES teacher trainees remarked that
they needed some time to adapt to a multicultural classroom. Host teachers
indicated that a certain cultural misapprehension on the part of NESTTs
was initially seen in instructional behavior and classroom management
issues; there also was a discrepancy between teacher trainees’ and ESL
students’ values, goals, and expectations because of the difference in
cultural backgrounds. The importance of understanding ESL/EFL
students’ native culture has been affirmed in the literature (Diaz-Rico,
2008). It has also been affirmed that native speaking teachers often have
144 Chapter Seven

an insufficient knowledge of their students’ cultural background (Luk &

Lin, 2007). Increasing NES teacher trainees’ understanding of their
students’ cultures before they enter practicum could enhance their
performance in an ethnically diverse classroom. While it is unrealistic to
expect native English speakers to be fluent in all cultures of their
classroom, measures similar to those suggested by Fleet (2006) and Hinkel
(2001) could better prepare teacher trainees for the challenges of a
multicultural ESL classroom.

Conclusion
The survey of MA TESOL practicum host teachers provided a snapshot of
their perceptions of NES and NNES teacher trainees’ performance in the
practicum ESL classroom. It is concluded that overall there is no
significant difference in host teachers’ assessments of NESTT and
NNESTT. Numeric ratings and verbal comments suggest that native and
nonnative speakers perform equally well on a number of variables that
constitute effective teaching. Independent of their teaching situation and
linguistic and ethnic background, teacher trainees in this study plan ESL
lessons thoughtfully, manage their classes effectively, have clear
objectives for the lesson, possess a good command of the subject matter,
choose appropriate teaching materials, and skillfully employ a variety of
activities and formats of work. Also, both groups are comfortable with the
target language cultural patterns and adeptly integrate them into their
teaching; they provide effective feedback to ESL students at different
levels as well as have the ability to self-evaluate and to respond to
constructive criticism. Finally, both NES and NNES teacher trainees
showed similar weaknesses in the area of classroom management,
confidence, and flexibility, which could be expected to improve with
experience. Rather than differentiating between teacher trainees on the
basis of their native or nonnative speaking status, host teachers view both
groups as novice teachers who have a potential to develop into successful
professionals with training, experience, and time. The same non-
differential point of view should be adopted by those practicum host
teachers who are still reluctant to have NNESTTs in their classrooms as
well as by employers who reject NNES applicants on the basis of their
nonnative status.
The findings of the study also show that NESTT and NNESTT differ
importantly in at least one dimension, namely, their adaptability to the
multicultural climate of the ESL classroom. Because of their background
and language learning experience NNES teacher trainees are more
 The “Who’s Worth More?” Question Revisited 145

disposed to deal with cultural complexities of an ESL classroom than their

native speaking peers. As to NES teacher trainees, who are arguably
disadvantaged by the virtue of their NES status, there is an indication that
they gain in the multicultural knowledge and flexibility after the initial
cultural shock. With explicit training in and more exposure to ethnic
diversity NES teacher trainees will be better equipped to meet the
expectations of a multicultural classroom.
In conclusion, the answer to Peter Medgyes’ (1992) question in the
context of this study is as follows: neither NES nor NNES teacher trainees
are worth more in the eyes of practicum host teachers. Rather than viewing
teacher trainees through the lens of NES/NNES dichotomy, host teachers
treat them as a coalescent body of novice teachers at the very beginning of
their professional career. The differences in their ethnic and linguistic
background notwithstanding, NESTTs and NNESTTs share certain
strengths as well as drawbacks that all beginning teachers need to
improve. At the same time each group has a unique combination of
competencies, but these differences do not impact their students’ learning.
Both native and nonnative English speaking teacher trainees are capable of
delivering efficient instruction, and their distinctive qualities contribute to
a diversity of a multicultural classroom. I hope that the results of the
survey would reduce NNES marginalization and potentially strengthen the
professional community.

References
Amin, N. (1997). Race and the identity of the nonnative ESL teacher.
TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 580-583.
Arva, V., & Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the
classroom. System, 28(3), 355-372.
Auerbach, E. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom.
TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9-32.
Benke, E., & Medgyes, P. (2005). Differences in teaching behaviour
between native and non-native speaker teachers: As seen by the
learners. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers (pp. 195-
217). New York: Springer.
Brady, B., & Gulikers, G. (2004). Enhancing the MA in TESOL practicum
course for nonnative English-speaking student teachers. In L. Kamhi-
Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience (pp. 206-230).
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Braine, G. (1998, February/March). Nonnative speakers and invisible
barriers in ELT. TESOL Matters, 2 (2), 14.
146 Chapter Seven

—. (2004). The nonnative English speaking professionals’ movement and

its research foundation. In L. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and
teaching from experience (pp. 9-25). Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan.
Canagarajah, S. (1999). Interrogating the “native speaker fallacy”: Non-
linguistic roots, non-pedagogical results. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-
native educators in English language teaching (pp. 145-158).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
—. (2005). In this issue. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 157-159.
Chalupa, C., & Lair, A. (2001). Meeting the needs of international TAs in
the foreign language classroom: A model for extended training. In
Rifkin, B. (Ed.). Mentoring foreign language teaching assistants,
lecturers, and adjunct faculty (pp.119-143). Boston, MA: Heinle and
Heinle.
Connor, U. (1999). Learning to write academic prose in a second
language: A literacy autobiography. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native
educators in English language teaching (pp. 29-43). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Diaz-Rico, L. (2008). A course for teaching English learners. Boston,
MA: Pearson Education.
Ding, D. (2000). Another multicultural classroom: Non-native teachers of
native students. In T. L. Good & L. B. Warschauer (Eds.), In our own
voice: Graduate students teach writing (pp. 146-152). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Ellis, L. (2002). Teaching from experience: A new perspective on the non-
native teacher in adult ESL. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics,
25(1), 71-107.
Eslami-Rasekh, Z., Dogancay-Aktuna, S., Mahboob, A., & Nemtchinova,
K. (2005, March). Language development of NNESTs in TESOL
programs. Colloquium presented at the 39th annual meeting of
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, San Antonio,
TX.
Fleet, M. (2006). The role of culture in second or foreign language
teaching: Moving beyond the classroom experience. Retrieved April
22, 2007, from ERIC database (ED491716).
Forde, K. (1996). A study of learner attitudes toward accents of English.
Hong Kong Polytechnic University Working Papers in ELT and
Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 59-76.
Hansen, J. (2004). Invisible minorities and the nonnative English-
Speaking professional. In L. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching
from experience (pp. 40-57). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
 The “Who’s Worth More?” Question Revisited 147

Hinkel, E. (2001). Building awareness and practical skills to facilitate

cross-cultural communication. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.). Teaching
English as a second or foreign language (pp. 443-459). Boston, MA:
Heinle and Heinle.
Kachru, B. K. (Ed.). (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures
(2nd ed.). Chicago: University Press.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2005). Research perspectives on non-native English-
speaking educators. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. Eggington, W.
Grabe, & V. Ramanathan, (Eds.), Applied linguistics in focus:
Language education, academic discourse analysis, and language
policy: Studies in honor of Robert B. Kaplan on the occasion of his
75th birthday (pp. 72-87). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Kamhi-Stein, L.D., Aagard, A., Ching, A., Paik, M-S.A, & Sasser, L.
(2004). Teaching in kindergarten through grade 12 programs:
Perceptions of native and Nonnative English-speaking practitioners. In
L. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience (pp. 81-
99). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Kamhi-Stein, L. & Mahboob, A. (2005). Language Proficiency and NNES
Professionals: Findings from TIRF-Funded Research Initiatives. Paper
presented at the 39th Annual TESOL Convention, March 30-April 2,
San Antonio, TX.
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J.M. (2005). What do students think about the
pros and cons of having a native speaker teacher? In E. Llurda (Ed.),
Non-native language teachers (pp. 217-243). New York: Springer.
Liu, J. (2001). Confessions of a nonnative English-speaking professional.
CATESOL Journal 13, 53-67.
Luk, J.C.M. and Lin, A.M.Y. (2007). Classroom interactions as cross-
cultural encounters: Native speakers in EFL lessons. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mahboob, A. (2004). Native or nonnative: What do students enrolled in an
intensive English program think? In L. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning
and teaching from experience (pp. 121-149). Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan.
Mahboob, A., Uhrig, K., Newman, K.L., & Hartford, B.S. (2004).
Children of a lesser English: Status of non-native English speakers as
college-level English as a second language teachers in the United
States. In L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.) Learning and teaching from
experience (pp. 100-120). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
148 Chapter Seven

Maum, R. (2003). A comparison of native and nonnative English-speaking

teachers’ beliefs about English as a second language to adult English
language learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Luoisville.
McMillan, J. H. Educational research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or nonnative: Who’s worth more? ELT
Journal, 46, 340-349.
—. (1994). The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan.
—. (2001). When the teacher is a non-native speaker. In M. Celce-Murcia
(Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 429-
443). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Milambiling, J. (2000). How nonnative speaker teachers fit into the
equation. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 324-328.
Moussu, L. (2002). Nonnative English speaking teachers: The opinion of
their students. Unpublished master's thesis. Brigham Young University
at Provo, UT.
Moussu, L., & Braine, G. (2006). The attitudes of ESL students toward
nonnative English language teachers. TESL Reporter, 39, 33-47.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English.
TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409-429.
Pasternak, M., & Bailey, K. (2004). Preparing nonnative and native
English-speaking Teachers: Issues of professionalism and proficiency.
In L. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience (pp.
155-176). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Reves, T., & Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native English speaking
EFL/ESL teacher’s self-image: An international survey. System, 22(3),
353-367.
Samimy, K. & Brutt-Griffler, J. (1999). To be a native or nonnative
speaker: Perceptions of nonnative speaking students in a graduate
TESOL program. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English
language teaching (pp. 127-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tang, C. (1997). On the power and status of nonnative ESL teachers.
TESOL Quarterly, 31, 577-579.
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Lnaguages, Inc. (1992,
August/September). A TESOL statement on nonnative speakers of
English and hiring practices, TESOL Matters, 2(4), 23.
 The “Who’s Worth More?” Question Revisited 149

Appendix A
Questionnaire

Using the rating scale 1 to 5 evaluate practicum student teachers with

whom you are working now on the basis of the dimensions identified
below. Circle the appropriate rating and write your comments in the
“Comments” column.

5- excellent 4-good 3- adequate

2-poor 1-unacceptable N/A- non-applicable

Student teacher’s name (optional)

Nationality/country of origin

Previous teaching experience Yes No

How long have you known the

student teacher

Average age of the trainee 20 - 28 29 - 35 36 - 42 43 -

50

Number of years of study of

English (optional)

Place of observation

Level of class Beginning Intermediate Advanced

Number of students in class Male Female

Any other relevant information

(e.g. type, size, length of the
class)
150 Chapter Seven

Personal Qualities Rating Comments

Audibility of voice 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Eye Contact 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Vitality-Posture 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Rapport with the class 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Command of Language Rating Comments

Correctness of structure and 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

vocabulary

General intelligibility including 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

adequacy of pronunciation and
intonation patterns

Fluency 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Authenticity of the language 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Adjustment to students’ level of 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

language

Appropriateness of the use of 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

linguistic terms

Presents a good model of English 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

in all communicative situations
 
 The “Who’s Worth More?” Question Revisited 151

Organization: Rating Comments

Organization of class time 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Lesson plan, balance and variety 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

of activities

Thoroughness of preparation for 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

each class

Effective organization and class 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

management

Implementation Rating Comments

Clear objectives and procedures 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Clear and specific instructions 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Command of the subject matter: 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Vocabulary

Structure 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Phonology 5 4 3 2 1 N/A
Appropriateness of teaching 5 4 3 2 1 N/A
materials

Clarity in presenting the material 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Various formats (individual, 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

whole class, pair, group)
employed appropriately

Introduction and presentation 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

techniques
152 Chapter Seven

Questioning techniques 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Smoothness of flow/transitions 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Involvement and encouragement 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

of students

Effective teacher/student 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

interaction

Ability to adapt/extemporize 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Culture Rating Comments

Familiarity with the target culture 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Realistic attitude toward target 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

culture

Involvement of target culture as 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

seen from the choice of materials,
topics, activities, patterns of
interaction

Feedback Rating Comments

Provides genuine positive 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

feedback

Evaluates students performance 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

fairly

Conveys enthusiasm 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

 The “Who’s Worth More?” Question Revisited 153

Shows concern for and openness 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

to students

Awareness and correction of 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

errors when appropriate

The use of non-verbal feedback 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Attends equally to all the students 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

in the class and involves
everybody

Evaluation:

Ability to evaluate own 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

performance

Ability to respond constructively 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

to evaluation from others

Summarizing comments:

 
 CHAPTER EIGHT

APPRAISAL OF NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE

ENGLISH SPEAKING TEACHERS

CAROLINE LIPOVSKY AND AHMAR MAHBOOB

Introduction
In recent years, a number of studies have explored student attitudes toward
and perceptions of native vs. non-native English speaking teachers
(NESTs and NNESTs). However, most of these studies, not unlike other
work on language attitudes, have used surveys (Benke & Medgyes, 2005;
Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Moussu, 2006) and/or qualitative data that
focus on emerging themes/content (Mahboob, 2004; Mahboob & Griffin,
2006). While survey data provide a statistical analysis of participants’
attitudes (based on a predetermined set of comments and/or criteria) and
the qualitative data document participants’ attitudes in terms of the
categories of comments that emerge from the data, the actual language
used by students to project their perceptions is left unanalyzed. The results
of the existing studies that do look at qualitative data are presented in
terms of categories of comments that were recorded in favor of or against
teachers’ native-speaker status. The actual discourse of evaluation is not
analyzed. Thus, missing from the current literature is an analysis of the
actual language used to comment on NESTs and NNESTs in interview and
other qualitative data. It is our contention that an analysis of students’
language of appraisal will add to the richness of our understanding of
perceptions. The goal of the present study is therefore to examine
students’ perceptions of NESTs and NNESTs by conducting a linguistic
analysis of students’ discourse.

Background and methodology

Data for this project come from essays written by 19 Japanese high school
students attending a four-month ESL orientation program at the beginning
 Appraisal of Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers 155

of a year-long study abroad program in the United States. The program

was taught by two TESOL professionals: one an NEST and the other an
NNEST. Program participants were asked to write a diagnostic essay at
the beginning (T1) and end (T2) of the program on the following topic:

Some students think that only native speakers can be good language
teachers. Others think that non-natives can also be efficient teachers. What
is your opinion about this issue? Please feel free to provide details and
examples.

These essays were collected with two goals in mind: (1) to evaluate
students’ writing and grammar, and (2) to explore any shift in students’
perceptions toward native and non-native English speaking TESOL
professionals. The essay task was based on Mahboob (2003), in which the
essays written by ESL students in an intensive English language program
in the United States were studied for their attitudes toward NNESTs.
Mahboob (2003) used the grounded approach to study these data and
observed that ESL students did not prefer native or non-native speakers
but rather found them to bring unique attributes to their classes. Following
Mahboob (2003), Mahboob and Griffin (2006) also applied the grounded
approach to their study (see Appendix A for examples form Mahboob and
Griffin 2006). Corroborating earlier findings, they found that students’
comments could be placed into three broad categories: linguistic factors,
teachings styles, and personal factors. The first group, linguistic factors,
includes “oral skills”, “literacy skills”, “grammar”, “vocabulary”, and
“culture”; the second group, teaching styles, includes “ability to answer
questions” and “teaching methodology”; and the third group, personal
factors, includes “experience as an ESL learner”, “hard work”, and “affect”.
Within each of these categories, students reported both positive and
negative comments (examples of these categories are provided in the
appendix). The results of the study showed that the trends in student
responses did not change over time—e.g., NESTs were still considered
strong in teaching oral skills and NNESTs were considered strong teachers
of literacy skills. The results also indicated that ESL students in this study
found the distinction between NESTs and NNESTs less relevant after
being exposed to both in an ESL setting. However, as in previous work in
this area, students’ language of appraisal was not studied. It is here that the
present study adds a fresh perspective to this body of work.
156 Chapter Eight

Theoretical framework
The Appraisal Framework is an extension of M.A.K. Halliday’s Systemic
Functional Linguistics (SFL) theory (Halliday, 1994). The model emerged
from work by functional linguists on the role of evaluation in narrative in
the context of secondary school and workplace literacy. Their concern was
to build a comprehensive framework of evaluative meanings that could be
used systematically in discourse analysis (Martin 2000, 2003). As Martin
(2000) contends, “What ha[d] tended to be elided in SFL approaches [until
then]…is the semantics of evaluation⎯how the interlocutors are feeling,
the judgements they make, and the value they place on the various
phenomena of their experience” (p. 144). Since its inception, the Appraisal
Framework has been applied to the analysis of spoken and written texts
across a wide range of areas, including conversation (Eggins and Slade,
1997; Precht, 2003), institutional talk (Lipovsky, 2008), spoken academic
discourse (Hood & Forey, 2005), academic writing (Hood, 2004a, 2004b,
2005, 2006), literacy (Rothery & Stenglin, 2000), media discourse (e.g.
White, 1997, 1998, 2006; Martin, 2004), medical discourse (Jordens,
2002), and so on.
The Appraisal Framework describes the linguistic means by which
individuals encode their feelings and beliefs (or attitudes), how they grade
the strength of these feelings and sharpen or blur their utterances, and how
they position themselves with regards to these values and possible
respondents, hence the three sub-systems of Attitude, Graduation, and
Engagement (see Figure 1). The system of Attitude especially is concerned
with all types of evaluative assessments, both positive and negative (see
Martin, 2000; White, 2002; Martin & Rose, 2003; Martin & White, 2005;
or White, 2005, for further description). More specifically, it might entail
how individuals share their feelings (e.g. how happy or unhappy, or
satisfied or dissatisfied they are), assess people’s behavior (their capacity,
tenacity, and so on) and appraise the value of things and performances
(e.g. how significant something is), hence the three categories of Affect for
presenting emotional responses, Judgement for evaluating human
behavior, and Appreciation for evaluating products and performances.
These three categories are illustrated in the examples below (Attitudes are
in bold):

• Affect: He likes teaching English.

• Judgement: He is a brilliant teacher.
• Appreciation: His classes are exciting.
 
 Appraisal of Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers 157

Each category of Attitude in turn includes a variety of subcategories. They

are summarized in Figure 2. These categories will be drawn upon hereafter
as required in the course of our analysis.
The system further distinguishes feelings that involve reactions to a
“realis” stimulus (e.g. “she liked English”) from intentions toward an
“irrealis” stimulus (e.g. “she wanted to learn English”). It also differentiates
“inscribed” Attitudes that are made explicitly, using attitudinal lexis (e.g.
“a knowledgeable teacher”), from “invoked” Attitudes or “tokens” that
are evoked through less explicit descriptions of one’s experience (e.g. “a
teacher who could answer all the questions that I asked”).
Some evaluations are appraising two things simultaneously. For
example, performance and the capacity of the performer are strongly
connected. So a positive or negative Appreciation of a performance may
imply a positive or negative Judgement of the performer, as in the
following example:

Her pronunciation is good [+APPRECIATION: Valuation] [t,

+JUDGEMENT: Capacity].

In this statement, “good” realizes the student’s Valuation of her NNEST’s

pronunciation. In so doing, though, the student also provides a positive
Judgement of her teacher’s oral skills.
Lastly, Attitudes are gradable, so they can be amplified (as in “a very
good teacher”) or downgraded (as in “a teacher a bit boring”). Utterances
can also be sharpened (e.g. “a real teacher”) or blurred (e.g. “some kind of
teacher”). In the Appraisal system, this is referred to as Graduation (see
Figure 3). Hood (2004a), Martin and White (2005), and Hood and Martin
(2006) provide detailed descriptions of Graduation.
158 Chapter Eight

 
AFFECT

for presenting emotional responses

ATTITUDE

Values expressed JUDGEMENT

by the
speaker/writer for assessing human behavior

APPRECIATION

for evaluating products or performances

FORCE

intensifies/downgrades the
speaker’s/writer’s attitudes
GRADUATION

FOCUS

sharpens/blurs the speaker’/writer’s

attitudes

MONOGLOSS

ENGAGEMENT shows dialogic disengagement

Speaker’s/writer’s
negotiation of
their own position HETEROGLOSS

recognises alternative viewpoints

Figure 1: System of Appraisal (adapted from Martin & Rose, 2003)

 Appraisal of Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers 159

Misery / Antipathy
(Un)happiness
Is this person happy? Cheer / Affection
AFFECT
Disquiet / Surprise
(expressing (In)security
feelings) Is the person secure?
Confidence / Trust
Ennui / Displeasure
(Dis)satisfaction
Is the person satisfied?
Interest / Admiration

Normality
Is the person special?

Social esteem Capacity
Is the person capable?
JUDGEMENT 
(evaluating Tenacity
behavior)  Is the person committed? 

Veracity
Social sanction Is the person honest?

Proprietry
Is the person beyond reproach?

Impact
Reaction Did it grab me?
Quality
APPRECIATION  Did I like it?
(evaluating texts, Balance
processes, and Composition Did it hang together?
natural phenomena) 
Complexity
Was it hard to follow? 
Valuation
was it worthwhile

Figure 2: Subcategories of Attitude (adapted from Martin, 2000)

160 Chapter Eight

raise
a very good teacher
FORCE
lower
a teacher a bit boring
GRADUATION
sharpen
a real teacher
FOCUS
soften
some sort of teacher

Figure 3: System of Graduation (adapted from Martin & Rose, 2003)

The system thus provides an effective tool for analyzing attitudinal

meanings. In the context of the present study, it is effectively used to
investigate students’ attitudes toward their NESTs and NNESTs.
The T1 and T2 essays were coded, counting every instance of Attitude
(Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation) and Graduation (Force and Focus).
Some students included in their essays narratives on non-native speakers
who were not teachers or related their own experience of teaching
Japanese to foreigners. These examples were not included in the analysis,
and only evaluations pertaining to teachers and ALTs (Assistant Language
Teachers, that is, native speakers of English who teach conversation
classes in Japanese schools) were accounted for. Then, to give a better
representation of the students’ evaluations of their teachers, we found it
necessary to differentiate instances of Judgement (Capacity). Thus, we
distinguish in our discussion teachers’ linguistic competence (in both
Japanese and English) from their teaching ability.

Results
The Appraisal analysis gave a detailed representation of the students’
attitudes toward their NESTs and NNESTs. In the students’ essays,
emotional responses were infrequent, and most evaluations were applied
to either the N/NESTs themselves (i.e. Judgements) or their performance
(i.e. Appreciations). In the next section, we discuss their linguistic
competences and teaching ability, as well as some personal factors,
presenting various examples taken from the students’ essays.
 Appraisal of Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers 161

Linguistic competences
In their Judgements and Appreciations of NESTs’ and NNESTs’ linguistic
competences, the students commented on their teachers’ oral skills
(listening and speaking/pronunciation), literacy skills (reading and
writing), grammar, vocabulary, and knowledge of culture. Some students
also commented on their N/NESTs’ competence (or lack of competence)
in the native language of their students.

Oral skills

We included in this category the teaching of listening and

speaking/pronunciation, as well as conversational skills. All the
evaluations of the NESTs were positive, e.g.:

(1) Native speaker has good [+APP Composition] sound of language [t,
+JUD Capacity]. Student #9 / T11

(2) Of course her [NEST’s] pronusation was much [GRA: Force: intensity]
better [GRA: Force: intensity / +APP Composition] than Japanese teachers
[t, +JUD Capacity]. Student #18 / T2

(3) Their conversations [NNESTs’] are so [GRA: Force: intensity] cool

[+APP Reaction]! [GRA: Force: intensity] Student #19 / T1

NESTs’ oral skills were viewed as “good”, “natural”, “real”—even

“cool”! This view is supported by comment (2), which seems to imply that
native speakers possess ideal skills (c.f. “of course”). Note, however, that
NESTs are evaluated through a comparative (“her pronusation was much
better”), which does not preclude NNESTs’ good pronunciation (see
Mahboob & Lipovsky, 2007, for further discussion).
NNESTs, in contrast, received both positive and negative evaluations,
e.g.:

(4) Her pronouncitation is really [GRA: Force: intensity] good [+APP

Composition] [t, +JUD Capacity]. Student #15 / T1

This student valued her NNEST’s pronunciation highly, as shown by the

intensifier “really”. A number of students, however, viewed their
NNESTs’ oral skills negatively, e.g.:

(5) They [NNESTs] sometimes speak like Japanese pronanciation [t, -JUD
Capacity]. Student #6 / T2
162 Chapter Eight

(6) In Japanese school, we are tought English by non-natives

teachers. Their pronanciation is so [GRA: Force: intensity] bad [-APP
Reaction / t, -JUD Incapacity]. And we can’t learn [t, -JUD Incapacity]
listening, we are not used to listen from natives teachers [t, -JUD
Incapacity]. so it is hard [-APP Reaction / t, -AFF Unhappiness] for
us. When I came to U.S, I couldn’t listen a lot of [GRA: Force: quantity:
amount] words [t, -JUD Incapacity]. Student #4 / T2

Example (6) highlights the connection between performance and ability,

as the student’s negative Appreciation of NNESTs’ pronunciation of
English (“their pronanciation is so bad”) entails a negative Judgement of
their speaking skills. This in turn results in a series of negative Judgements
of the student’s listening skills (“we can’t learn listening”; “we are not
used to listen from natives teachers”; and “when I came to U.S, I couldn’t
listen a lot of words”). This also occasions negative feelings on the part of
the student (“it is hard for us”). This exemplifies how an Appraisal
analysis provides more fine-tuned information than a Thematic analysis by
bringing to light the impact of N/NESTs’ competences on their students’
competences, even highlighting students’ feelings over the process.

Competence in the learners’ native language

A number of comments dealt with N/NESTs’ competence (or lack of

competence) in their students’ native tongue. Some students viewed this as
an incentive for practicing their conversation skills in English, e.g.:

(7) This teacher [NEST] doesn’t speak our language and understand what I
say [t, -JUD Incapacity] so I must speak teacher’s language and I’ll
become a good [+APP Valuation] speaker! [GRA: Force: intensity]
Student #6 / T1

This aspect did not emerge in Mahboob’s (2003) study, since this study
did not examine learners’ experience in their own country. What is of
particular interest to us within the scope of the present study, though, is
that what would have been picked up as a deficiency in the Thematic
analysis (NESTs do not speak Japanese and therefore cannot communicate
in this language with their students) turns out to be an advantage, since it
obliges learners to communicate exclusively in English, thus contributing
to their progress. Note that the negative Judgement on the NEST (“this
teacher doesn’t speak our language and understand what I say”) is
explicitly linked to a positive Appreciation of the learner’s skills (“so I
must speak teacher’s language and I’ll become a good speaker!”).
 Appraisal of Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers 163

Conversely, some students viewed NESTs’ lack of knowledge in their

students’ native language as an obstacle to learners’ comprehension, e.g.:

(8) It is a problem [-APP Valuation] that we sometimes cannot figure it

out only with explaining from native speakers [t, -JUD Incapacity]…So we
need our mother tongue, Japanese to understand the meaning of words
more clearly. Also, if we asked some questions to native speakers, they
didn’t answer them clearly [t, -JUD Incapacity]. Student #5 / T2

This student appreciated negatively the fact that NESTs cannot provide
explanations in the learners’ native language, especially as far as the
learning of vocabulary is concerned. NESTs’ answers to their students’
questions were also considered unclear, possibly because of the language
difference. In effect, NESTs’ inability to speak their students’ tongue and
answer their questions in that language puts the onus on the students.
Mahboob (2003) does not discuss this aspect, since the participants in his
study are intermediate and advanced students. Examples (7) and (8) also
show the advantage of an Appraisal analysis over a Thematic analysis, as
these examples highlight how some students can view a factor as an
advantage, while others view the very same factor as a disadvantage.
Likewise, NNESTs’ ability in their students’ tongue was viewed as
either impeding students’ speaking skills, or, on the contrary, as
facilitating their learning and understanding of English, as the two
examples below illustrate:

(9) The best [GRA: Force: intensity] of good [+APP Valuation] things
[about NNESTs] is to be able to speak same language with students [t,
+JUD Capacity]. If we have a question, we can ask English or first
language [t, +JUD Capacity]. If we cannot speak [t, -JUD Incapacity], first
language is better [+APP Valuation / GRA: Force: intensity] than English.
Student #6 / T2

(10) When I talked to non-natives in no our language, and I found the

language, I speaked our language and teacher may help [+JUD Capacity]
us. but this help is far [GRA: Force: intensity] from good [-APP Valuation]
speakers, I think. Student #6 / T1

In example (9), NNESTs’ ability in the students’ native language is

viewed as an advantage for language learning. However in example (10),
this ability is viewed as a disadvantage, since it might hinder learners’
progress. Examples (9) and (10) highlight another instance when the
Appraisal analysis proves more fine-tuned than the Thematic analysis, as it
164 Chapter Eight

shows how the same factor can generate either a positive or a negative
Appreciation.

Literacy skills
Students evaluated NNESTs’ literacy skills (reading and writing)
positively, e.g.;

(11) He [NNEST] has mastered [JUD Cap / GRA: Force: Intensity]

speaking, writing, and listening [t, +JUD Capacity]. Student #12 / T1

(12) My high school’s English teacher can’t speak English well [t, -JUD
Capacity]. But, I can learn good [+APP Composition] writing at his class
[t, +JUD Capacity]. Student #7 / T1

This latter comment suggests that NNESTs can have good literacy
teaching skills, independently of their ability in other skills. Another
student wrote:

(13) Some Americans cannot write in English in formal style or are

confused between expressions for speaking and for writing [t, -JUD
Incapacity]. Student #5 / T2

These comments illustrate students’ awareness that literacy skills are

learned, and thus independent of other skills.

Grammar

Students valued NNESTs’ knowledge and teaching of grammar positively,

e.g.:

(14) His [NNEST’s] grammer is better [GRA: Force: intensity / +APP

Composition] than native speaker in his university [t, +JUD Capacity].
Student #12 / T1

(15) I think it [NNEST’s class]’s good [+APP Valuation] for us to teach

grammer. Student #6 / T2

Example (14) highlights the fact that NNESTs’ linguistic competences can
even surpass the NESTs’. Grammar is also the category in which NNESTs
received the strongest comments in Mahboob’s (2003) study.
In the following extract, a student reflects on her NEST’s teaching
skills for grammar:
 Appraisal of Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers 165

(16) Someday I asked her [ALT] to teach grammar. But she said ‘I don’t
know what should I teach you [t, -JUD Incapacity]’. I was very [GRA:
Force: intensity] surprised [-AFF Insecurity] because I was thinking that
people from English spoken country, they all can teach us perfectly [t,
+JUD Capacity]. Student #18 / T2

This comment illustrates that native speakers actually may not know about
grammar until they learn how to teach it.

Vocabulary

Students stated that NESTs were good for learning vocabulary, e.g.:

(17) If native speakers teacher teaches English to students, they can learn
English slang [t, +APP Valuation]. Student #17 / T2

Example (8) above, however, highlighted the fact that students may find it
difficult to learn vocabulary from their NESTs because of NESTs’
inability to explain the words in the students’ native language. This of
course is specific to an EFL context.
In contrast, evaluations of NNESTs were mixed, e.g.;

(18) She [NNEST] knows many [GRA: Force: quantity: amount] words
which are very [GRA: Force: intensity] difficult [-APP Composition] [t,
+JUD Capacity] therefore even natives don’t know. Student #15 / T2

(19) Certainly, if we want [AFF Desire] to be a good [+JUD Capacity]

English speaker, it is effective [+APP Valuation] that we learn speaking
English with native speakers. That is because there are a lot of [GRA:
Force: quantity: amount] idioms or expressions that non-natives don’t
know in their English [t, -JUD Incapacity]. Student #5 / T2

These comments highlight that the knowledge of slang and idioms

distinguished NESTs from NNESTs.

Culture

A few comments dealt with the teaching of culture. Both NESTs and
NNESTs received positive evaluations in this category, e.g.:

(20) They [NESTs] know any them histry and country very [GRA: Force:
intensity] good [+APP Valuation] [t, +JUD Capacity]. so [GRA: Force:
intensity] good [+APP Valuation]. Student #13 / T1
166 Chapter Eight

(21) They [NNESTs] know about other country’s cultures or their

country’s culture [t, +JUD Capacity]. Student #7 / T2

Interestingly, two students viewed NNESTs’ classes as an opportunity to

learn about a third culture.

Teaching methodology
Some students also commented on their teachers’ teaching methodology.
Only NNESTs were appraised in this category, always positively, e.g.:

(22) They [NNESTs] know which word we learned fast [t, +JUD
Capacity]. Student #2 / T2

(23) Non-natives teachers teach me how to learn second language, how to

make friend in the country I don’t know anything, and many other things
[GRA: Force: quantity: amount] [t, +JUD Capacity]. Student #4 / T2

(24) Non-natives have some great [GRA: Force: Intensity / +APP

Valuation] necks [knacks] they prooted because they became the language
teachers by doing their own necks, not learned when they were babies like
native speakers do [t, +JUD Capacity]. And then, they can tell their
students about that [t, +JUD Capacity]! [GRA: Force: intensity]. Student
#19 / T2

These comments show that NNESTs were attributed specific skills that
stem from their own experience as language learners and that students
perceived that they can benefit from these skills.

Personal factors
Students also commented on personal factors related to their teachers.
Interestingly, all these comments are in support of NNESTs. Factors
include NNESTs’ empathy with their students and their tenacity in
learning English.

Empathy with the students

Students perceived their NNESTs as having empathy with them, since

they had experienced the same difficulties as them in learning English.
The following comments illustrate this point:
 Appraisal of Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers 167

(25) I think that non-natives teachers is better [+JUD: Capacity / GRA:

Force: intensity] than natives teachers. Because non-natives teachers are
knowing that we can not understand language which we are learning easy
[t, +JUD Capacity]. Student #4 / T1

(26) Non-native speakers […] know which word we learned fast [+JUD
Capacity]. They know what kind of words we can use [t, +JUD
Capacity]. They understand [+JUD Capacity] us. Student #2 / T2

(27) I also think someone who study language very [GRA: Force:
intensity] hard [+JUD Tenacity], they can teach [t, +JUD Capacity] it very
[GRA: Force: intensity] well [+APP Valuation]. Because, they know how
to learn it is the best [+JUD Capacity / GRA: Force: intensity]. And they
also know students feeling [t, +JUD Capacity]. #20T1

These comments highlight students’ perception that NNESTs’ empathy

vis-à-vis their students impacts their teaching. However, students also
seemed to value the feeling of empathy itself (c.f. “they also know
students feeling”; “they understand us”).

Tenacity

A number of students commented on their teachers’ hard work. Some

recognized that proficiency in the language is not sufficient to make a
good teacher. In the following example, the student states that tenacity is a
characteristic of both NESTs and NNESTs who are good teachers:

(28) The most [GRA: Force: intensity] important [+APP Valuation] thing
is not native or non-native. If you want [AFF Desire] to be a good [+JUD
Capacity] language teacher, you have to spent a lot of time [GRA: Force:
Extent: Scope: Time] on studying [t, +JUD Tenacity] language. What you
need is efforts [+JUD Tenacity]. Student #15 / T1

Students recognized though that greater effort and tenacity were necessary
on the part of NNESTs, as shown in the following comment:

(29) I think that if we [NNESTs] effort [+JUD Tenacity] to learn English,

we can teach [t, +JUD Capacity]. It may be so [GRA: Force: intensity]
hard [-APP Reaction] [t, -AFF Unhappiness] but I think it is important
[+APP Valuation] for non-natives speaker to try [GRA: Focus: Fulfilment]
their best [+JUD Tenacity / GRA: Force: intensity]. Student #12 /T1

This evaluation not only underlines the need for tenacity, but also
highlights the emotional impact on NNESTs through a token of Affect,
168 Chapter Eight

stressed by an intensifier (“It may be so hard”). Again, this is additional

information gained from an Appraisal analysis over a Thematic analysis.
A number of students wrote narratives in their essays highlighting their
NNESTs’ tenacity to exemplify how they had become proficient in
English, hence good teachers. The extract below presents an example of
text where Tenacity is strongly represented. In this extract, the student
provides a particular example of a NNEST whom she is familiar with to
illustrate how non-natives can achieve proficiency in their non-native
language (exemplified by the NNEST receiving a scholarship to study
abroad, being first in her English class in Great Britain, and eventually
becoming a teacher of English in Japan):

(30) I have a good [+JUD Capacity] English teacher ho is non-native

speaker in my high school. She speaks very [GRA: Force: intensity] well
[+APP Valuation] even though she is non-native speaker [t, +JUD
Capacity]. One day, she talked me about her exchange student’s life in
British. She has been to British for only three months as an exchenge
student. when she was twenty years old. She has wanted [AFF Desire] to
go abroad since she was in junior high school. But sadly [-AFF
Unhappiness], she was so [GRA: Force: intensity] poor [-JUD Normality]
that she couldn’t go abroad. When she was in university, she study English
very [GRA: Force: intensity] hard [+JUD Tenacity] she found an
information which said that if she pass the examination, she could be an
exchange student for free. She was very [GRA: Force: intensity] good
[+APP Valuation] at writing in English [t, +JUD Capacity] at that
time. But she had one big [GRA: Force: quantity] problem [-APP
Valuation], “speaking English” [t, -JUD Incapacity]. She has never talked
native English speakers. “I tried to speak to foreign people when I found
them at the station, park and even at the hospital [GRA: Force: Extent:
Scope: Space] [t, +JUD Tenacity].” She said. She passed the examination
[t, +JUD Capacity] with these great [GRA: Force: quantity: amount]
efforts [+JUD Tenacity]. But she had only three months. She kept studying
very [GRA: Force: intensity] hard [+JUD Tenacity]. In British university,
she got first prise in English class [t, +JUD Capacity]. After she went
abroad, she took an examination to be an English teacher. But she didn’t
stop [GRA: Force: Extent: Scope: Time] studying [t, +JUD Tenacity]. She
studied English harder and harder [GRA: Force: intensity] [+JUD
Tenacity]. She knows many [GRA: Force: quantity: amount] words which
are very [GRA: Force: intensity] difficult [-APP Composition] therefore
even natives don’t know [t, +JUD Capacity]. She showed me that
everybody can be a good [+JUD Capacity] teacher with great [GRA:
Force: Quantity: Amount] efforts [+JUD Tenacity]. Student #15 / T2
 Appraisal of Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers 169

The coding of the inscribed Attitude in this text, that is, using explicit
attitudinal lexis, is outlined in Table 1. Evaluations focus on the NNEST’s
linguistic skills and her determination to improve her English.

Appraising Affect Judgement Appreciation Appraised

items
good +capacity English teacher
very well +valuation NNEST's
speaking skills
wanted +desire go abroad
sadly -happiness being too poor
to afford going
abroad
so poor -normality being too poor
to afford going
abroad
very hard +tenacity NNEST’s
studying
very good +valuation NNEST’s
writing skills
big problem -valuation NNEST’s
speaking skills
great efforts +tenacity passing the
examination
very hard +tenacity NNEST’s
studying
harder and +tenacity NNEST’s
harder studying
very -composition words
difficult
good +capacity teacher
great efforts +tenacity NNEST's
studying

Table 1: Inscribed Attitude in Extract 30

Instances of invoked Attitude are outlined in Table 2 (with ‘t’ marking

ideational tokens/evoked evaluations).
170 Chapter Eight

Appraising items Affect Judgement Appreciation Appraised

speaks very well t, +capacity NNEST
very good at writing in t, +capacity NNEST
English
she had one big t, -capacity NNEST
problem “speaking
English”
I tried to speak to t, +tenacity NNEST
foreign people […] at
the hospital
she passed the t, +capacity NNEST
examination
she got first prise t, +capacity NNEST
she didn’t stop studying t, +tenacity NNEST
she knows many words t, +capacity NNEST
which are very difficult
 
Table 2: Invoked attitude in Extract 30

These ideational tokens extend the positive prosody of Tenacity and

Capacity inscribed through the explicit attitudinal lexis. They culminate in
the evaluation that “everybody can be a good teacher with great efforts”.
Note also that the student uses Graduation to either intensify the
Judgements of Tenacity (e.g. “study English very hard”; “great efforts”;
“kept studying very hard”; “studied English harder and harder”), or to
evoke Attitude through the grading of non-attitudinal terms (“I tried to
speak to foreign people when I found them at the station, park and even at
the hospital”; “she didn’t stop studying”) (see Lipovsky & Mahboob,
2008, for further discussion of the students’ use of Graduation). Thus, the
NNEST is construed as determined to improve her English and rewarded
in her efforts as she becomes quite competent in the language, knowing
“many words which are very difficult therefore even natives don’t know”.
The student assumes her reader to align with the idea that native speakers
are more proficient in their own tongue than non-native speakers. The
word “even” challenges this view, and thereby sets out to demonstrate that
tenacity is rewarded: “everybody can be a good teacher with great efforts”.
 Appraisal of Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers 171

NNESTs as role models

An effect of NNESTs’ success in their language learning is that it inspires

their students. The following comment illustrates this point:

(31) They [NNESTs] became great [GRA: Force: intensity / +JUD

Capacity] speakers of the specific [GRA: focus] language even they are not
native speakers. To learn the language which is not first language for
students by the teachers who are not native, students can be encouraged
[+AFF Happiness]. Student #19 / T2

Likewise, NNESTs’ tenacity is a model that their students are keen to

follow:

(32) I learned her if we think we want [AFF Desire] to be something and

study hard [+JUD Tenacity], our dream [AFF: Desire] come true [+APP
Valuation]. Student #1 / T1

Enjoyment

A last category of comments concerns the pleasure or enjoyment that can

derive from learning a language. The following evaluation exemplifies this
point:

(33) I think that non-natives are also good [+JUD Capacity]

teachers. Because they can teach us the pleasure [+APP Reaction] of
learning new language! [GRA: Force: intensity] If there hadnotbeen
Japanese English teacher, I would never know the pleasure [+APP
Reaction] of learning English. Student #19 / T1

The absence of similar comments about NESTs does not mean that no
pleasure can be derived from attending their classes:

(34) We [NEST and student] had really [GRA: Force: intensity] good
[APP Val] time together. Student #18 / T2

Discussion
This study highlighted that students perceive NESTs and NNESTs as
having complementary strengths. NESTs were usually praised for their
oral skills (in particular their pronunciation and conversation) and
knowledge of vocabulary (including slang and idioms). However, this did
not preclude a number of NNESTs from being praised for these skills as
172 Chapter Eight

well. Conversely, NNESTs attracted positive evaluations for their teaching

of literacy skills and knowledge and teaching of grammar, highlighting the
fact that these skills are independent of linguistic skills, as they can be
learned. NNESTs were also appraised positively for their teaching
methodology, stemming from their own experience and skills acquired as
language learners, from which their students could benefit. Likewise,
students felt that their NNESTs had empathy for them, since they had
experienced the difficulties of learning English, and their tenacity to
master the language became a model some students were keen to emulate.
N/NESTs’ competence (or lack of competence) in their students’ native
tongue (L1) was viewed as either an advantage or a liability. Some
students viewed their teacher’s lack of knowledge in their L1 as an
incentive for honing their own speaking skills in English, while other
students viewed it as impeding comprehension, as the teacher’s
explanations were at all times provided in English. The availability of L1
use could either deter students from asking questions in English and
prevent them from progressing in their L2 or facilitate their
comprehension of their teacher’s explanations. Significantly, the Appraisal
analysis highlighted the strong link in students’ perceptions of their
teachers’ linguistic skills (pronunciation and knowledge of students’ L1)
and their own performance.
Regarding the language of evaluation specifically, in their essays the
students generally shunned negative evaluations in favor of positive
evaluations of their N/NESTs. The data contain few explicit negative
Attitudes. When they did use them, negative Judgements and
Appreciations often derive from negations; that is, the student negates a
positive performance, rather than stating directly that it is bad, e.g.:

(35) My high school’s English teacher can’t speak English well [t, -JUD
Capacity].

(36) My English teacher does not good [-APP Valuation] accent [t, -JUD
Capacity].

In (35), the student states that her teacher “can’t speak English well”,
rather than writing that s/he speaks English badly. Likewise in (36), the
student states that her teacher “does not good accent”, rather than stating
that her accent is bad. This mitigation denotes some reticence on the part
of the students to be critical of their teachers, although there are a few
exceptions (as in example (6) above). Another way students mitigated
their evaluations was to use invoked Appraisal, as in the following
example:
 Appraisal of Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers 173

(37) They [NNESTs] sometimes speak like Japanese pronanciation [t, -

JUD Incapacity].

In this example, rather than criticizing NNESTs directly through explicit

negative lexis, the student chose to invoke her criticism through a
comparison. Note also that this token of Judgement actually only states
that NNESTs’ pronunciation is non-native. Students’ use of invoked
Attitudes through the expression of ideational meanings also demonstrates
an attempt to be objective rather than subjective.
Example (37) highlights another particularity of students’ Appraisal
of their N/NESTs in that it was commonly comparative. Here is another
example:

(38) Of course her [NEST’s] pronusation was much [GRA: Force:

intensity] better [GRA: Force: intensity / +APP Valuation] than Japanese
teachers [t, +JUD Capacity].

In (38), the NEST’s pronunciation is qualified as “much better than

Japanese teachers”, rather than “good”. The Valuation “much better”
points at a criticism a contrario of NNESTs’ pronunciation, although the
fact that criticism is merely implied makes it impossible to determine
whether the NNESTs’ pronunciation is bad or just not as good as NESTs’.
Of course, this tendency to compare NESTs’ with NNESTs’ skills could
be attributed to the nature of the task that the students were given.
Students’ evaluations of their N/NESTs were not only mostly positive
but also highly graduated, e.g.:

(39) Her pronounceation is very [GRA: Force: intensity] good [+APP

Valuation]

(40) They became great [GRA: Force: intensity / +JUD Capacity] speakers
of the specific language even they are not native speakers.

(41) Their conversations [NNESTs’] are so [GRA: Force: intensity] cool

[+APP Valuation]! [GRA: Force: intensity] Student #19 / T1

In (39), the pre-modifying intensifier “very” amplifies the positive

Valuation of the teacher’s pronunciation; alternatively, the teacher’s
pronunciation could have been described as “good” or “kind of good”. In
(40), the intensifier is fused within a lexical item that also serves a
semantic function, as “great” can be unpacked as “very” + “good”. In (41),
the intensification is realized through the pre-modifying intensifier “so” as
well as the exclamation point. Thus, the students not only positively
174 Chapter Eight

appraised their teachers but often also amplified their positive evaluations
of them (see Lipovsky & Mahboob, 2008, for further discussion of
students’ use of Graduation).
This analysis also revealed the advantage of an Appraisal analysis
over a Thematic analysis, as the former appeared more fine-tuned than the
latter. For instance, the Appraisal analysis highlighted aspects of
N/NESTs’ (lack of) knowledge that are doubled-sided, such as when it
showed that NESTs’ lack of knowledge in their students’ L1 and
NNESTs’ knowledge in their L1 could each be viewed either as an
advantage or a drawback.
The Appraisal analysis also highlighted affective issues that had been
downplayed by the Thematic analysis. Students in examples (6) and (29)
above reported that learning a foreign language can be “hard”. This
explicit negative Valuation actually brings to light more private affective
issues, as shown by the double-coding as a token of Unhappiness,
highlighting how daunting mastering a foreign language can at times
appear. Examples (31) and (32), in contrast, highlighted that students can
be encouraged by their NNEST’s success in learning another language.
Another advantage of the Appraisal analysis comes from the fact that
it takes into account the co-text of the evaluations. Students’ evaluations
about their N/NESTs did not occur in a void. They were often embedded
within narratives (as in example (31)). The analysis highlighted that
students’ Appraisals of their NESTs and NNESTs often recurred
throughout their essays, with long strings of text devoted to a given
evaluation, with the result of an ongoing cumulative effect. Furthermore,
the students often amplified their evaluations through intensifications or
repetitions. In other words, “the volume is turned up so that the prosody
makes a bigger splash which reverberates through the surrounding
discourse” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 20). This highlights the advantage of
Appraisal over Thematic analysis, as Appraisal “unfolds dynamically to
engage us, to get us on side, not with one appeal, but through a spectrum
of manoeuvres that work themselves out phase by phase” (Martin & Rose,
2003, p. 56). As such, the analysis of extended units of meanings
underlined the semantic prosody of the students’ essays and provided
more finetuned information.

Conclusion
The present study supports other studies that found that students do not
necessarily prefer being taught by NESTs or NNESTs but rather value the
combination of their qualities, as shown in this comment:
 Appraisal of Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers 175

(42) It is not that natives teachers know better [JUD: Capacity / GRA:
Force: intensity] than non-natives teachers. So I think that theaching to
each teachers is important [APP Valuation] things for us. Student #4 /T1

At a time when communication in English more often concerns L2

speakers than L1 speakers and the status of the native speaker of English
becomes less significant, this analysis challenges the view that solely a
native speaker model should be the goal of language learning and
teaching. Importantly, the analysis of students’ language of Appraisal in
their evaluations of their N/NESTs also brought a new perspective to the
existing body of literature, as it highlighted not only what the students said
and thought about their N/NESTs, but also how they said it, providing
added fine-tuned perspective on the topic.

References
Benke, E., & Medgyes, P. (2005). Differences in teaching behaviour
between native and non-native speaker teachers: As seen by the
learners. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers:
Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession (pp. 195-
216). New York: Springer.
Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London:
Cassell.
Halliday, M.A.K (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd
edition). London: Edward Arnold
Hood, S. (2004a). Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic
writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Technology,
Sydney.
—. (2004b). Managing attitude in undergraduate academic writing: A
focus on the introductions to research reports. In L. Ravelli & R. Ellis
(Dds). Analysing academic writing: Contextualised frameworks (pp.
24-44). London: Continuum.
—. (2005). What is evaluated and how in academic research writing?: The
co-patterning of attitude and field. Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics Series, 19, 23-40.
—. (2006). The persuasive power of prosodies: Radiating values in
academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 37-
49.
Hood, S., & Forey, G. (2005). Introducing a conference paper: Getting
interpersonal with your audience. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 4, 291-306.
176 Chapter Eight

Hood, S., & Martin, J. R. (2006). Invoking attitude: The play of graduation
in appraising discourse. In R. Hasan, C. Matthiessen & J. Webster
(Eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective
(pp. 737-762). London: Equinox.
Jordens, C. F. C. (2002). Reading spoken stories for values: A discursive
study of cancer survivors and their professional carers. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney, Sydney.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2005). What do students think about the
pros and cons of having a native speaker teacher? In E. Llurda (ed.)
Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and
contributions to the profession (pp. 217-242). New York: Springer.
Lipovsky, C. (2008). Constructing affiliation and solidarity in job
interviews. Discourse and Communication, 2(4), 411-432.
Lipovsky, C., & Mahboob, A. (2008). The semantics of graduation:
Examining ESL learners’ use of graduation over time. In A. Mahboob
& N. Knight (Eds.), Questioning linguistics (pp. 224-240). Newcastle,
UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Mahboob, A. (2003). Status of nonnative English speaking teachers in the
United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University,
Bloomington.
—. (2004). Native or nonnative: What do the students think? In L. Kamhi-
Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience: Perspectives on
nonnative English-speaking professionals (pp. 121-147). Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Mahboob, A., & Griffin, R. B. (March, 2006). Learner perspectives of
native and non-native teachers. Presentation given at the Annual
TESOL Convention, Tampa, FL.
Mahboob, A. & Lipovsky, C. (2007). Examining attitudes towards
NNESTs: A comparison of a thematic vs. an appraisal analysis. In C.
Gitsaki (Ed.), Language and languages: Global and local tensions (pp.
292-306). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English.
In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial
stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 142-175). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
—. (2003). Introduction. In M. Macken-Horarik and J. R. Martin (Eds.).
Text, special issue—Negotiating heteroglossia: Social perspectives on
evaluation (pp. 171-182). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
—. (2004). Mourning: How we get aligned. Discourse & Society, 15(2-3),
321-344.
 Appraisal of Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers 177

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning

beyond the clause. London & New York: Continuum.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation:
Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.
Precht, K. (2003). Stance moods in spoken English: Evidentiality and
affect in British and American conversation. Text, 23, 239-257.
Rothery, J., & Stenglin, M. (2000). Interpreting literature: The role of
APPRAISAL. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in schools
and functional linguistic perspectives. London: Cassell.
White, P. R. R. (1997). Death, disruption and the moral order: The
narrative impulse in massmedia ‘hard news’ reporting. In F. Christie &
J. Martin (Eds.), Genres and institutions: Social processes in the
workplace and school (pp. 101-133). London: Cassell.
—. (1998). Telling media tales: The news story as rhetoric. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney, Sydney.
—. (2002). Appraisal—The language of evaluation and stance. In J.
Verschueren, J.-O. Oestman, J. Blommaert & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), The
handbook of pragmatics (pp. 1-26). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
—. (2005). Appraisal website. Retrieved on March 20, 2009 from
http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/
—. (2006). Evaluative semantics and ideological positioning in
journalistic discourse: A new framework for analysis. In I. Lassen J.
Strunck, & T. Vestergaard (Eds.), Mediating ideology in text and
image: Ten critical studies (pp. 37-67). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Notes
1
The extracts from the essays are shown as written by the students. Numbers refer
to students. T1 refers to the first set of essays, T2 to the second set. The coding for
Attitudes is indicated in the brackets. AFF stands for Affect, JUD for Judgement,
APP for Appreciation, and GRA for Graduation. ‘+’ indicates a positive Attitude
whereas ‘-’ indicates a negative Attitude. The letter t for token indicates an evoked
or non-explicit Attitude. Attitudes are marked in bold; Graduations are underlined.
178 Chapter Eight

Appendix A
Examples of categories from Mahboob and Griffin (2006):

Linguistic Factors
Oral Skills
Positive Comment NEST
I wanna learn English by native speakers because I wanna be like a native
speakers. Their conversations are so cool! Non-native’s conversations are
not real…(TS: T1)

Negative Comment NNEST

And non-native speakers is dificult. I think non-native speakers no
beautiful. I think native speakers is natural. non-native speakers is no
natural…(MT: T1)

Grammar
Positive Comment NNEST
…It we want to learn grammatical English, non-natives are better… (ES:
T1)

Writing
Positive Comment NNEST
My high school’s English teacher can’t speak English well but, I can learn
good writing at his class…(ME:T1)

Negative Comment NEST

…And, my English school’s teachers are all American and
Canadian. They teach me writing not so much…(ME: T1)

Culture
Positive Comment NEST
…natives teachers teach me many slangs, American culture, and about
American…(AKA: T2)

Teaching Styles
Ability to Answer Questions
Negative Comment NEST
 Appraisal of Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers 179

…if we asked some questions to native speakers, they didn’t answer them
clearly… (ES:T2)

Teaching Methodology
Positive Comment NNEST
I think that non-natives are also good teachers because they can teach us
the pleasure of learning new language! If there hadnotbeen Japanese
English teacher, I would never know the pleasure of learning
English…(TS:T1)

Personal Factors
Experience as an L2 Learner
Positive Comment NNEST
I think that non-natives can also be efficient teachers. Because this four
month, we learned with non-native and native. Sometimes our accent were
not correct, but non-native understood what we want to say more than
native. When we talked, they understood more than hostfamily. Non-
native speakers know how to learn English from teacher. They know
which word we learned fast. They know what kind of words we can
use. They understand us.(AM:T2)

Hard Work
Positive Comment NNEST
I think that non-native speaker can be also be efficient teachers. Because. I
think that if we effort to learn English, we can teach. It may be so hard but
I think it is important for non-natives speaker to try their best. My high
school English teacher is non-native speaker, but he have tried his best for
twenty years. So he is as good as native speaker…(MHO:T1)

Negative Comment NEST

For example, if you native teachers, you haven’t to study English very
hard. Because they were born in America. That’s they have spoken
English…(SK:T1)

Affect

Positive Comment NNEST

…how to make friend in the country I don’t know anything, and many
other things. And non-natives teachers support us, when we have
homesich or something…(AKA: T2)
 CHAPTER NINE

STRATEGIES TO PREPARE TEACHERS

EQUALLY FOR EQUITY

LESLIE BARRATT

Introduction
As pointed out in the Introduction to this book, the NNEST lens is
multicultural and avoids the monolingual bias that still pervades much of
the research and practice in applied linguistics and TESOL. Publishing
scholarly works that point out the advantages of having an NNEST lens is
only the first step, of course; we must also suggest ways to foster this
multicultural lens among researchers and practitioners, and the obvious
place to start is in teacher preparation programs because that is where
people begin to develop their perspectives on teaching and learning as well
as their identities as teachers, whether as NNESTs or NESTs.
Unfortunately, the monolingual bias is embedded in many teacher
preparation programs themselves-in their policies and practices for
granting admission, selecting teaching assistants, negotiating internships,
as well as grading and giving career advice. This chapter provides a
strategy bank that can aid teacher preparation programs in recognizing and
eliminating their own monolingual bias.
Equally important, this chapter suggests activities for future teachers to
develop a critical eye concerning NNEST/NEST issues as they develop
their own identities as teachers and their perspectives of who make good
teachers. With these tools, our teacher preparation programs can help
develop the ability of these emerging teachers to teach and mentor
students; to advocate for their students, their colleagues, and themselves;
to promote policy changes; and to spread the NNEST lens to their students
and, ultimately, to the societies around them.
The strategies outlined in this chapter are designed for programs
having both NNESTs and NESTs, but many can be used in more
 Strategies to Prepare Teachers Equally for Equity 181

homogeneous programs (i.e. those with just NESTs or just NNESTs).

Actually, while these issues arise naturally in programs with student
diversity, instructors in “homogeneous” programs should introduce them
because students who come from the same backgrounds may not consider
the issues on their own. All of these issues can and should be included in
training future teachers whether these are strategies of awareness raising,
discourse inclusion, equity management, or professional development.
They will be presented in this chapter in that order. Clearly, these are not
exclusive categories, and strategies in one section can apply to another as
well. Similarly, multiple strategies can be used together.

Awareness Raising Strategies

A critical element in effecting change is demonstrating that change is
desirable, and it often helps to make people aware of the need for change
by letting them see the situation from a different perspective in order to
raise their awareness of how the current situation operates. With regard to
NNEST equity then, awareness-raising activities should allow participants
to see how inequitable situations privilege the NEST over the NNEST.
Teacher preparation programs are ideally suited for awareness raising
activities because future teachers are usually not yet constrained by their
own teaching situations, and, as students, they are often asked to be critical
in their examination of approaches to both theory and practice. In fact, one
might argue that all learning starts with awareness raising. Within a
teacher preparation program, awareness raising about NEST/NNEST
issues is particularly important in those areas in which it may seem that all
students are being treated equally, that is in group discussions, and group
projects.
There are many aspects of classroom culture that are different from
country to country, but one aspect non-native English speakers often
mention as challenging in programs in English-speaking countries is that
of group discussions. Indeed, many people are not comfortable actively
participating in large group discussions even in their native language.
Some people just jump in while others wait for a turn that doesn’t seem to
come.
In addition to personal differences that cause challenges to individuals,
Barratt, del Valle, and Kim (2006) point out that, in class discussions
among both native and non-native speakers, non-native speakers often find
that the conversation moves around so quickly that by the time they phrase
what they want to say, the discussion has moved on. They add that non-
native speakers also might hesitate to speak because they are not certain of
182 Chapter Nine

their understanding of the previous comments. Online chats can be even

more challenging because they require rapid typing and rapid reading
skills of colloquial language, acronyms, etc. as well as all of the skills of a
rapid conversation. Even in the most advanced graduate seminars, in
which all of the students know one another and have become comfortable
with making presentations in front of their classmates, non-native speakers
may defer to native speakers in class discussions.
Obviously, cultural factors about who should speak and who should
not influence why some students do not participate as actively as others,
but the presence of native speakers can override both age and gender in the
face-to-face classroom. Similarly, even among homogeneous groups of
non-native speakers, those who are near native or most fluent may
dominate discussions.

Strategy 1 – Raising Awareness About Participation

in Class Discussions
One strategy to equalize NNEST and NEST class participation is to
examine who is dominating the class and who is being silent. Awareness
raising activities do not need to precede other strategies, however. We may
want to try other strategies first and then call participants’ attention to the
issue of equity. In other groups, awareness raising is an effective initial
step toward change.
Thomas (2006) describes a creative series of strategies used in an EFL
class during an entire term to raise awareness of individuals’ participation
in discussions, but teachers and students can get a glimpse of what their
class discussions are like even in a single lesson: one student can be asked
to be a scribe and simply record how many times each of the other
students takes a turn. Even without tallying the minutes of speaking, it will
be clear to everyone which students are dominating the discussion.
Alternatively, all of the native-speaking students (or even all native
speakers, which might include the instructor) can be told not to participate
in a particular discussion. The resulting discussion and how it deviates
from what the class is used to will likely shed light on who usually
dominates.
In one graduate seminar that tried this experiment, only four (all
Taiwanese) of the 13 NNEST students spoke at all when the four NESTs
(including the instructor) didn’t participate. The conversation also was
very different from a typical discussion in this class; it consisted much
more of single statements or assertions (often starting with “I think…”)
 Strategies to Prepare Teachers Equally for Equity 183

from the four individuals rather than an interactive interchange in which

students reply or react to what the others say.
Equally interesting was the discussion about why students had not
participated, and several responded that they didn’t feel a need to
participate since they already knew about the subject! Clearly, cultures
may perceive different purposes for class discussions, so a lesson on class
discussions would be helpful to future teachers whether they are NESTs,
NNESTs, or both.
This experiment was done with the open knowledge of the entire class,
but it could also be conducted with the knowledge of only those making
the tally or staying silent. Either way, the purpose of such activities should
be to raise the awareness of everyone about who participates in class
discussions, and who is left out.

Strategy 2 – Raising Awareness Through Segregation

While it may seem radical, an excellent awareness raising activity is to put
NESTs temporarily together in their own groups and NNESTs together in
their own. Not every class allows for this kind of grouping, but if it is
viable, it can be used to point out that NNESTs are often more talkative
when no NEST is present because they feel less intimidation. The follow-
up discussion might touch on the common practice of recruiting NESTs to
teach conversation in some EFL situations and whether we should use the
most intimidating teachers when we want students to speak freely. Time
permitting, the discussion can lead naturally to a general one about the
comparative values of NEST and NNEST teachers.

Strategy 3 – Raising awareness through NEST monitoring

One of the most effective ways to show NESTs what it is like to be an
NNEST is to put students into mixed groups, giving each person 5 pieces
of candy or some other treat, but then setting the following rules:

• NNESTs may speak freely and cannot lose candy.

• NESTs may not use any articles (definite or indefinite).
• Each time an NNEST hears an article, he/she may take one piece of
candy from the NEST.

This activity produces immediate results. Participants will all realize how
difficult it is to speak while monitoring. They may also realize how
difficult it is to follow a speaker who is constantly rephrasing his/her
184 Chapter Nine

thoughts. NNESTs will likely feel empowered and less intimidated by the
native speaker, who is struggling to speak fluently at all. Used near the
beginning of a course, this activity can lessen the intimidation that the
NNESTs feel about participating and can increase their willingness to lead
as well as follow in group activities.
Within each group, many considerations affect who leads and who
follows, but in mixed groups of native and non-native speakers, leadership
roles are often granted to the native speakers regardless of their other
strengths or weaknesses. Therefore, teachers may want to raise awareness
about leadership in pairs and groups in which they are not involved.

Strategy 4 – Raising Awareness About Group Leadership

Through Reporting
Although teachers cannot supervise all group/pair work, we can raise
students’ awareness by having them do their work as they normally would
and then asking them to report on the group dynamics. Sometimes
teachers have the students in a group or pair assign a score to the work of
the others and then explain why they gave that score. Alternatively, the
class can discuss what happened in each group. After such a discussion,
students can be asked to stay in the same groups/pairs but to rotate the
roles.
An interesting experiment is to ask that all groups or pairs work
silently together on a cooperative task, such as using straws or paper to
build a bridge. Somehow, each student must convey his/her opinions
without speaking. Even in these non-verbal tasks, the leadership role is
ceded to someone, and often it is to the NEST. A follow-up discussion can
bring out the cultural factors that caused the NNESTs to defer to the
NESTs. Likewise, if an NNEST is chosen as leader, the discussion can
center on the advantages of that person as leader, and show that those
same leadership qualities can make that NNEST a valuable teacher.
The first four strategies presented above dealt with raising awareness
about NNEST participation in group or class settings, where it might have
previously appeared to participants that NNESTs were being treated
equally. We likewise need to raise awareness in those areas in which it
may seem that equality is impossible, such as the English proficiency of
teachers.
 Strategies to Prepare Teachers Equally for Equity 185

Strategy 5 – Raising Awareness About NEST/NNEST

Proficiency
When students and teachers in Hungary and China were asked what they
valued in native-speaking English teachers (Barratt and Kontra, 2000), the
universal answer involved language proficiency. Although this may seem
to be an obvious answer, when we think about it, what exactly does
language proficiency mean?
We might argue proficiency means the ability to speak language
fluently and with perfect accuracy (i.e. making no language mistakes in
order to be the best role model for students), yet native speakers frequently
violate both prescriptive and descriptive rules.
Furthermore, not all native speakers can be called perfectly fluent.
Most adults can probably remember listening to some speaker who
frequently hesitated, used fillers, stumbled, didn’t finish sentences, or had
other aspects of speaking which made him or her disfluent (or, “affluent”).
The speech classes that most U.S. high schools or colleges offer for native
speakers are intended to help people overcome these disfluencies. So, are
all native speakers fluent? Certainly not.
Then what about accuracy? Excluding slips of the tongue, many native
speakers of English have trouble spelling or pronouncing certain words.
After all, spell checkers were invented to help native speakers with
spelling. Likewise, native speakers may have idiosyncratic pronunciations1
or grammatical constructions that would be corrected if they were non-
native speakers. Obviously, not all native speakers are perfectly accurate.
If using the rules perfectly isn’t what we mean by proficiency, perhaps
we mean knowledge of the rules. In that case, we have to ask ourselves
which rules we mean. Native speakers have, of course, an unconscious
knowledge of the descriptive rules, but NNESTs have a conscious
knowledge of those same rules. Which is more valuable? Since
unconscious knowledge does not help a teacher explain the rules, isn’t
conscious knowledge more valuable? By this criterion, NNESTs are more
proficient than NESTs.
In order to change people’s perceptions about proficiency, we need
strategies of awareness raising on two points: first, we need to demonstrate
that NESTs aren’t fluent and accurate. Secondly, we need to show the
effect that monitoring has on how proficient NNESTs appear to be.
Awareness raising on the first point should be easy, but we are often so
concerned about what people are saying that we don’t listen to how they
are speaking. We can illustrate NESTs not following the rules by simply
taping an interview with anyone or copying a transcript of an interview
186 Chapter Nine

from the Internet and letting the students listen for forms they have not
learned as correct. NEST instructors can tape themselves and show
students all of the sentences they don’t finish, all of the times they use
fillers and sound disfluent, all of the times they use between for among,
more friendly for friendlier, less for fewer, or other constructions which
are different from what they are teaching their students. NNEST
instructors can tape any native speaker, or pull off examples from films or
the Internet. Even BBC News contains examples of rule violations (more
full for fuller, for example).
As we saw in our NEST monitoring activity (Strategy 3), it only takes
a few moments for the participants to see how trying to monitor for
language impedes our ability to convey our thoughts and feelings.
Students should consider how much of the difference in our perceptions of
language proficiency of NESTs and NNESTs is due to the NNESTs’
constant monitoring.

Strategy 6 – Creating Awareness of Different Englishes

Awareness raising activities concerning language proficiency should also
allow participants to see that different types of English speakers have
different types of proficiency. Just as there is not one English language, so
there are different views about what the rules of English are. Somewhere
in the curriculum of teacher preparation programs, the topic of World
Englishes should be addressed, and students should be guided to look at
some aspect of variation with the English language. An excellent resource
on this topic is Kachru, Kachru, and Nelson (2006). NNESTs can compare
their variety(ies) with those of NESTs, or students can search online for
different rules about punctuation, use of the perfect, countability and
meanings of words such as “alphabet”, etc. An interesting activity would
be to have participants take several different local tests from different
varieties of English. These could be either teacher-made tests or locally
made tests (by the local officials who oversee English instruction), even
some of the standard international tests have some relevant items. NESTs
are often surprised when they don’t know the answers on a test written for
a different variety of English, and NNESTs will see that different varieties
expect different answers.
 Strategies to Prepare Teachers Equally for Equity 187

Strategy 7 – Creating Awareness of Different

Cultural Values as They Relate to Academic Work
(Plagiarism, etc.)
In addition to language variation, teacher preparation programs have an
obligation to address cultural variation. Anyone who has taught ESL and
many who have taught EFL have struggled with how to approach issues of
academic integrity when their students have different values. Plagiarism is
probably the most well known of such issues, but all of these issues should
be carefully examined in teacher preparation programs so that NESTs and
NNESTs alike recognize that cultures place different values on ethical
choices, such as helping friends & relatives versus obeying the system or
on getting the right information versus giving the original author credit.
Class or group discussions of how to deal with hypothetical or real
situations can bring out the different opinions about what values are most
important. Collaborating with students in writing a research paper using
Wikitechnology may bring out different ideas about plagiarism as well.

Discourse Inclusion Strategies

Obviously, seeing inequity doesn’t eliminate it. Structural changes are
needed to equalize participation among NNESTs and NESTs. In teacher
preparation programs, these structures can model what teachers will do in
their future classes and programs. Discourse inclusion obviously involves
class and group discussions, and, as we will see later in this chapter, it also
includes other types of inclusion in leadership and content as well.

Strategy 8 – Inclusion with Online Discussion Boards

One of the easiest changes instructors can make in their teacher
preparation classes to include NNEST participation is to use electronic
Discussion Boards instead of or along with in-class discussions.
Discussion boards allow students and faculty to read other people’s
statements, taking time and using resources such as dictionaries to
understand them and then to formulate their own responses, again taking
time and using resources to say what they mean. This equalizes
participation and allows everyone to hear every voice. Barratt, del Valle
and Kim (2006) point out that NNESTs needn’t worry about turn-taking
rules or “catching the right time to express or share their ideas.” In fact,
the first person to answer has no particular privilege, and no person can
dominate the speaker’s position (i.e. hold the floor). Likewise, everyone is
188 Chapter Nine

equally entitled to direct the conversation (or at least a thread of the

conversation) into a new area.

Strategy 9 – Inclusion by Writing before Discussing

A strategy that can be used with or without computers is pre-discussion
writing, which follows a similar idea to pre-writing or pre-reading. In this
case, before the discussion, students are asked to write down their ideas, in
words (adjectives, for example), sentences, or paragraphs. Once all
students have written their thoughts, they can express them verbally.
Faculty can ask all students to read their ideas, or they can ask for
volunteers. Alternatively, students can compare their ideas with partners or
in small groups, and then spokespeople can report to the class. Clearly, the
follow-up activity to the pre-discussion writing is critical; if the writing is
simply followed by a traditional class discussion, it does not eliminate all
inequities of a class discussion, so it is important that all students get to
read or report on their answers. Pre-discussion writing does not result in a
natural conversation, but at least it does allow the discussion to include
everyone.
Discourse inclusion does not mean, of course, only discourse by
NNESTs. Inclusivity should also involve discourse that values NNEST
language, that acknowledges World Englishes cultures, and recognizes
classroom cultures. Wherever our teacher preparation program is, many
TESL/TEFL texts assume knowledge of an inner-circle English-speaking
culture, and naturally, many authentic materials do as well. Not all areas of
cultural background can be addressed perhaps, but those concerning
linguistic culture must be.

Strategy 9 – Inclusion in Using Terminology

The metalanguage used in English-speaking countries to teach native
speakers about their language is not the same as the metalanguage
linguists and EFL professionals use. For example, long vowels, helping
verbs, blends (for digraphs such as “sh”), phonetics to mean phonics, and
many other terms are ubiquitous in U.S. K-12 (K-12, which means
kindergarten to grade 12, is itself a culture-specific term) literature both in
professional literature and in learner texts. Likewise, vocabularies and
alphabets are accepted in Asian Englishes but not the U.S.
Some programs may choose to teach inner circle terms even in EFL
contexts so that NNESTs can read mainstream K-12 literature outside of
the TEFL field (e.g. beginning reading texts for native speakers). Others
 Strategies to Prepare Teachers Equally for Equity 189

may choose to use only those texts that use more widely accepted
terminology (such as those that adhere to the International Phonetic
Alphabet).
The same issue arises, of course, when we discuss variety in the terms
used to describe educational systems – Kindergarten, grade school,
elementary school, primary school, graduate, post graduate, etc. Teacher
preparation programs need to make decisions about which terminology
their students need to know and which students lack the appropriate
background knowledge.

Strategy 10 – Inclusion About What Constitutes Good Teaching

More important than terminology, U.S. and British materials also make
assumptions about what good teaching is, what good students are like, etc.,
yet what constitutes good teaching (and good learning) varies greatly from
culture to culture. In many countries, the teacher imparts knowledge, and
the students should stay quiet so that they can pay attention. Class
discussion in such a context is not valuable because student talk disrupts
the teacher and impedes learning. Likewise, games and activities may be
seen as rewards for learning but not a way of learning. Memorization of
vocabulary is important. In contrast, others believe learning comes from
students interacting in an active way, so a teacher-centered class impedes
learning, and students should not simply memorize because they will not
know how and when to use vocabulary they have memorized. Gu (2003)
points out that there are important differences among students in how they
learn vocabulary in a so-called “rote” learning culture, and these
differences affect the effectiveness of rote learning. Issues concerning
good teaching should be discussed; they can be argued, but ultimately,
teachers will need to adjust to the values and expectations of their teaching
context. Thus, preparation programs should prepare them to be flexible
and should teach them to adapt to other classroom cultures.
A final type of inclusion involves discourse about NNESTs rather than
discourse by NNESTs. In fact, teacher preparation programs should
prepare all teachers in their knowledge of NNEST issues whether or not
the programs have NNESTs among their faculty or students.

Strategy 11 – Inclusion of NNEST Discourse with Stories

Heath and Heath (2007) discuss the power of storytelling as a way of
making ideas “stick” and creating change, so a great strategy is to have
NNEST students who have taught tell their stories of unqualified NESTs
190 Chapter Nine

who were hired for being native speakers, of pay inequities, of the
employment situation in their country or context with respect to NEST and
NNEST differences. In Barratt & Kontra (2000), subjects in Hungary and
China told of “being taught by an architect, a police officer, an
archeologist, an economist, and a stage director.” Topics to discuss are
who teaches which classes, who are favored in hiring, what the salary
differences are, etc. We can also save stories we hear at conferences about
jobs that are advertised for native speakers only.
In teacher preparation programs in which all students are from the
same country, research project can be done on the Internet (using job sites
such as Dave’s ESL Café at http://eslcafe.com/), or students can ask these
same kinds of questions in an interview with any local NEST or any
administrator in charge of hiring.
Once teachers themselves are knowledgeable about NNEST issues,
they can advocate for NNEST equity by expanding discourse about
NNEST issues into their own classrooms and communities.

Strategy 12 – Inclusion of NNEST Discourse in EFL/ESL

Classrooms
Although many ESL/EFL students (especially as children) don’t make
decisions about who teaches them or what the educational policy is, some
of them as adults will have a voice about NNEST and NEST issues. It
therefore makes sense for teachers to raise their students’ awareness so
that their students become NNEST advocates. When appropriate, teachers
can point out the advantages of NNESTs. Appropriate situations for this
might be when the teacher is giving an explanation based on the students’
L1 or a mnemonic devise that worked for them. Furthermore, the issues of
NEST versus NNEST or English versus World Englishes are worthy
topics for essays, conversation class, student debates, etc. Finally, as
NNESTs use stories of their own learning (and challenges in learning) to
motivate their students, they can show that they (rather than NESTs) are
models their students can follow.

Strategy 13 – Inclusion of NNEST Discourse in the Government

Since full-time teachers are generally not also full-time politicians, they
may not think of themselves as advocates for change in administration or
government policies. However, teachers sometimes need to speak out
about policies that affect language education. Thus, we can equip future
 Strategies to Prepare Teachers Equally for Equity 191

teachers to advocate by making them familiar with resources such as the

research on World Englishes and on the NNEST/NEST issue.

Equity Management Strategies

We have seen elsewhere in this volume that awareness raising and
discourse inclusion are not by themselves solutions to NNEST inequity.
Equitable systems must be established and maintained within and outside
of our profession. In order to begin at the beginning, teacher preparation
educators must take the lead in establishing NNEST equity throughout
their programs.

Strategy 14 – Managing Our Modeling

The first rule of teaching, parenting, or mentoring is to teach by example.
We cannot advocate for equity with our students and not model equity
ourselves. Who serves in special positions among the faculty? Who is
hired to teach (and what subject)? Who is paid the highest salary? Who
speaks in public and writes policy, brochures, and other documents?
Strategies we can use depend on what we have control over, but we must
show students that we are striving for equity.

Strategy 15 – Mentoring Individual Students

We can show individual students that we are striving for equity for them
whenever we can in our one-on-one contact. When we receive
employment opportunities, which students do we send the announcement
to? Which students are offered teaching assistantships? It is important that
our own decisions reflect equity. It is equally important that we teach
NNESTs as well as NESTs job-seeking skills (such as resume writing and
interviewing) that are culturally appropriate for where they will teach.

Strategy 16 – Equalizing Student Mentors

An excellent way to begin mentoring is to have continuing teacher
preparation students mentor incoming students by asking current students
to email new students before they begin the program and to address
questions they might be able to answer from a student perspective. In this
way, the current student becomes an early mentor of the new student. In
some programs, all students are from the same country, but where they are
not, we can choose to place NNESTs and NESTs into mentoring
192 Chapter Nine

relationships. While it is sometimes possible to pair students up who are

from the same country, there is an advantage in not attempting to pair
them in this way. For one, it rarely works out perfectly. Secondly, we do
not want students to attach themselves only to people from their own
country, so we should not facilitate such attachment by making their first
mentors their compatriots. In fact, we can facilitate their making other
friends by using whatever information we have and pairing up those who
have young children or those who are leaving their families behind or
those who are older and have already taught EFL. We can have NNESTs
mentor NESTs and vice versa.

Strategy 17 – Forming Mentoring Groups

In large teacher preparation programs, students naturally form social
groups outside of class. In addition to these natural groups, we can foster
congeniality and equity through “mentoring groups.” Like groups in a
classroom, mentoring groups function well when they include 4-6
students. They should be made up of students from diverse backgrounds
(such as different cohorts, countries, and native languages). Specific group
tasks give them a purpose. For example, in the beginning, they can be
given an easy task of planning and preparing a group dish to bring to some
social event and to make sure all members of their group have
transportation to the event. A second task could be to make sure that all
those wishing to attend some academic event (such as an affiliate TESOL
conference) have transportation. Making the initial tasks social ones helps
the group to become a supportive unit.
Usually, the Mentoring Groups need continued guidance and a series
of tasks if they are to be successful. Longer tasks force them to take their
relationship seriously, but the task has to be one they see as professionally
relevant. In addition, the tasks should be ones in which different students
(the organized student, the creative one, the one with a car, etc.) might
take leadership roles so that the NESTs are not always the leaders.
Examples of Mentoring Group tasks are given in Appendix A.
Not all teacher educators are in positions to work with students outside
the classroom to mentor or encourage mentoring as just discussed.
However, teachers can model and promote equity within the classroom in
their treatment of student leadership.
 Strategies to Prepare Teachers Equally for Equity 193

Strategy 18 – Equalizing Student Leadership

An obvious strategy many teachers use to vary leadership among NESTs
and NNESTs is to assign group leaders themselves. In this way, the
instructor can assign the leadership role to the student who will make the
best leader for the work involved: the student whose English is best,
whose work is most careful, creative or artistic, or whose personality is
most charismatic/motivating to others. Alternatively, the leader can be
determined by some random mechanism like drawing a short straw or
pulling names/numbers from a hat. As the groups rotate from task to task,
so might the leadership role, enabling all students to experience leadership
during the course.

Strategy 19 – Equalizing Group Leadership

A similar strategy that works well in highly structured tasks is to assign a
specific role to each group member (scribe, discussion facilitator, reporter
to the class, etc.). This strategy works best for small groups, especially if
there are not many tasks. A variation is to require all students to
participate in all tasks (i.e. everyone takes notes, gives two ideas, and
makes part of the class presentation/report). The obvious advantage of this
strategy is that it can require equal responsibility for all group members.
The disadvantage is that it can be artificial for all students to do
everything.
Obviously, creating equity for NNESTs and NESTs in the classroom is
important, and it is the one area in which TEFL/TESL faculty can
personally influence the equality of their future NNESTs and NESTs.
Nevertheless, significant systematic change that can only occur if
classroom equality is also supported outside of the classroom is the way
the program handles the assessment of its future teachers. Teacher
preparation programs need strategies for equalizing what is passing/failing
in both language proficiency and teaching ability.

Strategy 20 – Equalizing Authentic Language Assessments

If preparation programs assess language proficiency, they should use
authentic assessments. Since teachers need to speak in front of groups of
students, NESTs as well as NNESTs should be assessed for their ability to
speak in front of a large group. This assessment can be made during the
teaching assessment, but it cannot be ignored or be given only to NNESTs.
Likewise, writing proficiency is important for teachers since they will
194 Chapter Nine

write out lessons, tests, and reports, and any writing assessment should be
one which they might write in the future. Again, if NNESTs are assessed,
NESTs must be too.

Strategy 21 – Equalizing Authentic Teaching Assessments

If we want qualified teachers, we need to find out whether the people who
are graduating from our preparation programs have the tools to be good
teachers. Ideally, an authentic assessment involves evaluating our future
teachers working with real learners in a real teaching situation. However,
many graduating students do not yet have their own classes, so our
assessment can only be semi-authentic, but even so, an experiential
evaluation is better than a written exam about teaching. Once we place
teaching assessments at the heart of our assessment of future teachers, we
will make progress in valuing their teaching ability rather than their native
language, and we will reduce the inequities that NNESTs often face as
they prepare to be teachers.

Professional Development
Even when teacher preparation programs have accomplished all they can
to raise awareness of inequity issues, to foster inclusion of NNEST
discourse and to model equity in their programs, they still must take the
lead in the professional development of teachers. The above claim may
seem radical, but we somehow have to accomplish two goals with our
strategies to develop teacher proficiency: to improve unconscious
knowledge (both intuition and automaticity) among NNESTs and to
increase conscious knowledge among NESTs. More importantly, we have
to educate all future teachers (and current teachers and administrators for
that matter) on the advantages of the NNEST’s conscious knowledge of
the rules of English and on the differences among the rules in different
varieties of English (World Englishes). These tasks can and should be
accomplished in teacher preparation programs in both ESL and EFL
environments.

Strategy 22 – Developing NNESTs’ Intuition and Automaticity

through Reading
Qualified NNESTs have spent years learning English, so how can we help
them to continue to improve in their ability to use the language accurately
and fluently? Since language learning is a lifelong process (for both first
 Strategies to Prepare Teachers Equally for Equity 195

and subsequent languages), teachers should continue the same activities of

reading, writing, speaking, and listening that led to their current
proficiency. Nevertheless, specific strategies can assist their automaticity
in production and in their intuitions about the language.
Since extensive reading can be pivotal (Krashen, 2004), NNESTs
should engage in reading activities whenever they can regardless of the
subject matter of the materials. They can switch their Internet browsers to
English so that they are reading English on a regular basis. They can make
a practice of reading any English-language newspaper that is distributed in
their city.

Strategy 23–Developing NNESTs’ Automaticity

through Shadowing
For improved listening and speaking, NNESTs can listen to books on tape
and read along. They can locate websites (http://www.wiredforbooks.org/
and others) in which authors read their own work. By reading along
(Stevick, 1989; Tannen, 1989; Lightbown & Spada, 1993; and Murphey,
1995, and others call this “shadowing”), they can try to match the
intonation, rhythm, and other suprasegmental characteristics of the author
and thus get a better feel for the way the language sounds coming from
their own voices.

Strategy 24 – Developing NNESTs’ Automaticity

through Role Plays
We can promote automaticity if we reduce monitoring, which we can do
by turning the student’s attention away from pronunciation and grammar.
One technique that works well is to have students use different voices.
They can pretend they are a real person (either a famous one, such as
Arnold Schwarzenegger or one they know well), that they are eighty years
old or four years old, that they are a boxer a lawyer, etc. The idea is to
focus the participants on their impersonation skills and not on the grammar
or target-language pronunciation. A similar activity would have the
participants whispering, shouting, or singing their lines.

Strategy 25 – Improving Knowledge of Usage Rules

Among NNESTs & NESTs through Surveys
One area of language use that confounds NNESTs and some NESTs is that
of competence in appropriateness of language use. Even advanced NNESTs
196 Chapter Nine

may use request forms (such as please read my paper) that seem rude to
their native-speaking teachers. Surveys can help NNESTs improve their
intuitions about appropriateness. Such surveys can arise from their errors,
their questions, or their teachers’ conflicting instructions; they can be
given in person or emailed. Furthermore, surveys are also useful to
NESTs, who can be over confident in their intuition and assume that the
rules they use are accepted everywhere.

Strategy 26 – Developing NESTs’ Metalinguistic Knowledge

through TESL/TEFL Grammar Classes
As NNESTs strive to increase their proficiency in language use, NESTs
should strive to increase their proficiency in metalanguage. Obviously, one
strategy for improving conscious knowledge of the rules is a course in
grammar designed for people who will teach ESL/EFL. As well as all of
the grammar issues that non-native speakers need (articles, prepositions,
tenses and aspects, etc., the course should include those aspects of English
that differ among different varieties of English, including at least the more
common native varieties (or, inner-circle varieties in the World Englishes’
model) but including at least a discussion of other varieties (i.e. the World
Englishes’ model) and their most common characteristics.

Strategy 27 – Improving NESTs’ Metalinguistic Knowledge

through Teaching and Tutoring
In addition to providing a strong grammar course, we can help NESTs
learn the rules through supervised teaching experiences on grammatical
points as soon we can. For example, we can structure the grammar class so
that each student is responsible for presenting material to the group in mini
lessons. These lessons should engage everyone to further their
understanding of the way English works. In such a structure, one student
can be responsible for teaching about the importance of the material in
count and non-count nouns (and why we say “chalk” but “a pencil”) and
another for how articles are assigned or not assigned to proper nouns (i.e.
why we say “the Chrysler Building” and “the Sears Towers” but
“Carnegie Hall”). In these mini lessons, the NNESTs will probably have
the advantage of having previously learned more of the rules.
Even more than teaching, tutoring provides the tutor with a chance to
focus on the details of grammatical rules. Future teachers can practice
correcting errors and explaining rules, supervised by their submitting
tutoring reports, by videotaping themselves, by tutoring in pairs, by mock
 Strategies to Prepare Teachers Equally for Equity 197

tutoring sessions with classmates, or by some other means. Likewise,

having future teachers discuss actual writing provides a useful lesson.
Frequently, TESL/TEFL classes are asked which errors they would
correct, why they would correct these errors, and how they would correct
them. From seeing how their classmates would correct the same paper,
students can learn which grammatical structures are important to their
classmates. Wikispaces and other online collaboration software are
excellent tools for teachers to use in creating shared texts for students to
use in such activities because everyone can make changes on the shared
text, see everyone else’s’ changes as they are made, and discuss which
changes are preferable. Moreover, essay revision and correction should not
be limited to non-native writing; a great deal about usage can be taught by
having NNESTs correct native speakers’ writing. In fact, when possible, a
great strategy is to have NNESTs paired with NESTs with each student
learning to correct the other’s work. The non-native speakers may feel
intimidated at first, but once they start to see that the native speakers are
not “perfect”, they can begin to overcome their hesitancy to question the
native speaker’s choices.

Strategy 28 – Developing NNEST and NEST Professional

Knowledge Together
In some mixed NNEST/NEST classrooms, activities can be designed to
teach both NESTs and NNESTs the knowledge of the rules they need.
NESTs are often ignorant of the grammar of English, although they use
the rules appropriately, but NNESTs are usually aware of many rules but
may fail to use them appropriately. Since NESTs frequently are called
upon to correct NNEST writing, this activity can be extended so that the
NESTs identify the errors and perhaps suggest corrections, but then the
NNESTs explain the errors and corrections based on the rules they
learned. If necessary, the students can cooperatively search for answers.
Creative teachers may also want to devise games, such as those based
on Jeopardy, in which all different kinds of rules are given as categories.
While NESTs may have the advantage on questions about the best/right
way to say something or which form has highest status, and on some
prescriptive rules, NNESTs will have an advantage on categories about
descriptive rules and other prescriptive rules.
When our students go out into the world, they will be the practitioners
who benefit or suffer from the equities or inequities around them.
However, they can also be the agents of change if they learn how to
advocate for themselves and their colleagues.
198 Chapter Nine

Strategy 29 – Including Equity in Our Curriculum

From their first semester, future teachers need familiarity with the fast-
growing literature on NNEST issues. Resources such as TESOL’s
Advocacy Action Center at http://capwiz.com/tesol/home/ and TESOL’s
Position Statement against Discrimination of Nonnative Speakers of
English in the Field of TESOL (March 2006) at
http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/seccss.asp?CID=32&DID=37 should be
introduced in the appropriate classes of the preparation program.

Strategy 30 – Helping NNESTs and NESTs become Involved

in Professional Organizations
Finally, an important goal of this volume is to change the profession of
English language teaching around the world both inside and outside of the
profession so that NNESTs are universally viewed without prejudice and
discrimination. Professional organizations are critical in this endeavor
because of their public stands, their lobbying efforts, and their general
esteem in their countries. Teacher preparation programs can help achieve
NEST/NNEST equity by aiding all future teachers to become active in the
appropriate professional organizations and to understand the path toward
leadership and have access to it.

Conclusion
This chapter has only touched on some of the strategies for creating equity
in teacher preparation programs. Creative instructors and administrators
will undoubtedly develop other strategies in course syllabi, advisement
and curriculum so that teacher preparation programs can take the lead in
promoting NEST/NNEST equity.
The importance of integrating these and other strategies in a teacher
education program cannot be over-emphasized. If programs fail to include
awareness raising, discourse inclusion, equity management, and
professional development for their students, their future teachers will be
condemned to the status quo or to a changing world they are not prepared
for. On the other hand, if programs develop their students with a strong
knowledge of the NEST/NNEST equity issues and strategies for change,
their future teachers can shape the future toward NEST/NNEST equity.
 Strategies to Prepare Teachers Equally for Equity 199

References
Barratt, L., & Kontra, E. H. (2000). Native-English-speaking teachers in
cultures other than their own. TESOL Journal. 9(3), 19-23.
Barratt, L., Del Valle, J., & Kim, H. (March, 2006). Daring NESTs to lead
in teacher preparation programs. Presentation at TESOL 2006, Tampa,
Florida.
Dave’s ESL Café. Retrieved January 14, 2008 from http://eslcafe.com
Gu, P. (2003). Fine brush and free hand : The vocabulary learning art of
two successful Chinese EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly 37(1), 73-104
Heath, C., & Heath (2007). Made to stick: Why some ideas survive and
others die. New York: Random House.
Kachru, B., Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. (2006) The handbook of World
Englishes. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
Krashen, S. (2004) The power of reading. Portsmouth, New
Hampshire: Heinemann.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1993). How languages are learned. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Murphey, T. (1995). Conversational Shadowing for Rapport and
Interactional Language Acquisition. In Proceedings of The 6th
Conference on Second Language Research in Japan (pp. 42-65).
International University of Japan,.
Stevick, E. (1989). Success with foreign languages: Seven who achieved it
and what worked for them. New York: Prentice Hall.
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in
conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TESOL’s Advocacy Action Center at http://capwiz.com/tesol/home/.
TESOL’s Position Statement against Discrimination of Nonnative
Speakers of English in the Field of TESOL (March 2006). Retrieved
January 14, 2008 from
http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/seccss.asp?CID=32&DID=37
Thomas, J. (2006). Do I talk too much? Exploring dominant and passive
participation dynamics. In T. S.C. Farrell, (Ed.), Language teacher
research in Europe (pp. 139-155). Alexandria, Virginia: Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages.
WikiSpaces. Retrieved January 14, 2008, from http://ww.wikispaces.com
Wired for Books. Retrieved January 14, 2008, from
http://www.wiredforbooks.org  
   
200 Chapter Nine

Appendix A: Sample Mentoring Group Assignments

Sample 1

Mentoring Group Assignments:

We have such a rare opportunity in our program to meet people from

many other countries and to become friends, colleagues, teachers, and
students of each of them. The purpose of Mentoring Groups is to create an
additional support system for you in your graduate program.

Your Mentoring Group will work together on a professional task each

semester. Your task for this semester is to conduct a service project for an
actual second language or foreign language class. That is, your group
should think about all of the teachers and classes you know about
everywhere (i.e. in your countries, other countries, or even here in our
city) and design some project to help that class. If your project requires
funds (to purchase supplies and/or send the class materials, for example),
your group will need to do the fundraising. Here are some ideas for this
project (but please think creatively about others):

Collecting realia to send to an EFL class that has little access to these
items. These could be wrappers from products, common items that are
small such as safety pins, straight pins, rubber bands, paper clips, etc., or
menus from local restaurants.

Arranging for an elementary school class to penpal with an EFL class.

Tutoring students in a foreign/second language class.

Helping a teacher create activities/games for his/her class.

Making presentations about your countries in a class. This would not have
to be an ESL/EFL class, but it might be a mainstream class or a local
foreign language class.

Designing and constructing a bulletin board for one of the our department
bulletin boards

Sorting through the boxes of donated English language materials in our

storeroom to see if there is material useful to teachers/learners and giving
the Department a summary of what is there.
 Strategies to Prepare Teachers Equally for Equity 201

Regardless of whether you choose one of these projects or something else,

the process of working together is the important aspect of the Mentoring
Group experience. Your group should spend time together, discussing in a
democratic fashion which project to do, advantages and disadvantages of
various projects, etc. Perhaps the most valuable approach would be for
each of you to contact teachers you know and ask what they need and then
bring those needs to the group to see which teacher’s need you want to
meet as a group.
Once you have chosen a project, you will need to raise funds as a
group also. You can hold a bake sale or book sale, or you can choose some
other fundraising approach. Please check about whether your fundraising
approach is permitted.

Keep in mind: The main purpose is to work with members of your own
Mentoring Group. Individuals may not switch groups or work with another
group on any project.
 CHAPTER TEN

COPING STRATEGIES FOR NNES TEACHERS’

DEVELOPMENT

ANA WU, JOHN LIANG, AND TÜNDE CSEPELYI

Introduction
The growing body of research on non-native English-speaking teachers
(NNESTs) over the past decade has yielded rich scholarly insights into
various issues concerning NNESTs, such as the notion of the “native
speaker fallacy”, the credibility of NNESTs, NNESTs’ self-perceptions of
their language skills in relation to pedagogical ability, students’ perception
of NNESTs’ pedagogical skills, and the uniqueness of nonnative speaker
teachers in the classroom (Amin, 1997; Braine, 1999; Brutt-Griffler &
Samimy, 1999; Kelch & Santana-Williamson, 2002; Lasagabaster &
Sierra, 2002; Mahboob, 2004; Pasternak & Bailey, 2004; Phillipson, 1992;
Tang, 1997; Thomas, 1999). Among the findings, what warrants
particular attention, however, is perhaps the wide range of challenges and
difficulties that are uncovered facing NNESTs (Kamhi-Stein, 2000;
Brinton, 2004; Kim, 2004; Seloni & Cetinkaya, 2005). These challenges,
as suggested in the various personal narratives and empirical studies in this
body of research, can be overwhelmingly disempowering. Mounting in
every aspect of NNESTs’ teaching lives, they can be simultaneously racial
and political, linguistic and instructional, interpersonal and intrapersonal.
An important question, therefore, awaits a practical investigation. If
challenges can be disempowering, how can nonnative speaker teachers be
empowered to take on the potentially disempowering challenges? This
chapter makes an attempt to offer some practical suggestions by
presenting a taxonomy of strategies that we have developed while
navigating through our graduate training and teaching career. While these
strategies are developed based on our experience in the ESL teaching
context, they can be easily adapted in EFL settings and other local
 Coping Strategies for NNES Teachers’ Development 203

contexts. It is our hope that the strategies proposed in this chapter will
demystify some of the challenges faced by NNESTs and inspire beginning
non-native teachers, especially those who are in training, to become active,
purposeful, strategically minded, self-regulated, and eventually self-
directed in their pursuit of continuous growth as professional language
educators.

Challenges For NNEST’s Teacher Development:

A Brief Overview
Prior to a detailed discussion of what coping strategies a beginning
NNEST can implement, it is perhaps necessary to briefly review the
findings in current literature about the various kinds of challenges facing
many NNESTs. In so doing, we may be able to establish a clearer
understanding of how we can deliberately develop strategies to confront
these challenges and plan for our development. As mentioned previously,
the myriads of challenges facing NNESTs can mount in almost every
aspect of their teaching lives. A close survey of these findings, however,
points to the following areas of concerns: self-confidence, language
competence, interpersonal communication skills, intercultural awareness,
pedagogical expertise, professional development, and political/social
commitment.
Nonnative speaker teachers’ confidence, their self-worth, and self-
concept often stand out for immediate attention. Research that used
dialogue journals, personal narratives, and interviews often reported that
NNESTs frequently experience anxiety, apprehension, fear, isolation, and
a sense of inferiority while in training and in teaching. Although
beginning native speaker teachers also experience similar negative
feelings, such as anxiety, fear, and isolation, the fear of challenges in the
NNS teacher has a much deeper linguistic and sociolinguistic root. The
lack of a positive self-image and self-confidence, in fact, can be traced
back to the unwritten definition of language competence in light of native
speaker competence, which is almost never attainable (Cook, 1999).
Furthermore, as native-speaker linguistic competence is often seen as a
precondition to pedagogical competence, the pressure of having to master
a language in order to be a competent professional is simply hopelessly
overwhelming. In light of this challenge, a theoretical argument has been
that language competence should not be defined in line with one’s native
speaker status but rather in light of the effectiveness of language use for
communication (Cook, 1999). This new perspective carries significant
implications for language learning in that it renders previous unattainable
204 Chapter Ten

language goals practically attainable, that is, within the reach of any non-
native speaker learner. Likewise, it also renders previously unattainable
pedagogical goals attainable (see Davis, 1991; Johnson & Johnson, 1998;
Stern, 1983 for a list of the goals). That is, one’s pedagogical competence
is not necessarily hinged upon one’s racial, social, cultural, and linguistic
status.
A second area of challenge that has been identified in current
literature has been the need for the NNEST to develop intercultural
competence. For instance, many EFL/ESL teachers have admitted that due
to a lack of cultural knowledge, they feel handicapped in teaching
culturally-embedded instructional material to their students (Liu, 1999).
For another instance, while NNESTs may find it easy to teach English to
students from a similar cultural and linguistic background as they can
easily empathetically relate themselves to the students, they may find it a
challenge to teach students from a cultural and racial background that is in
dire difference to theirs. Bridging the cultural gap (Velsaco-Martin, 2004),
therefore, becomes essential to a NNEST’s success in the language
classroom.
Still another challenge is concerned with the need for continuous
professional development, especially the development of pedagogical
expertise. Liu (1999), for example, indicated that as many nonnative
speaker teachers will return to their home countries, they may find the
North-American-British-Australian (NABA)-based methodological
training they have received conflicts with the methodological traditions in
their home countries. This, no doubt, entails a transformational, rather than
a passive-receptive, approach to the professional preparation of the
NNEST. Tsui’s (2003) case studies on several nonnative EFL teachers’
development of teaching expertise portray another picture. Her work
shows that developing one’s pedagogical expertise is more than acquiring
theoretical knowledge; it entails continuous development, for instance, in
classroom management, resource management, curriculum development,
and instructional innovations.
Finally, feeling that they are inferior to their native speaker
counterparts, many NNESTs often tend to be afraid to actively engage in
the professional community, failing to see that their identities as non-
native speaker teachers can be a source of empowerment that can benefit
the professional community as well (de Oliveira et al, 2006; Kamhi-Stein,
2000; Lee & Lew, 2001; Seloni & Cetinkaya, 2005). NNESTs, therefore,
need to attain a refreshed perspective on their strengths, as we are trying to
argue in the following, in order to bravely engage in the TESOL profession.
 Coping Strategies for NNES Teachers’ Development 205

Toward a Taxonomy of Coping Strategies

In light of the challenges briefly discussed above, we would like to
propose a set of strategies from our experience as language teachers and
language teacher educators that can be adapted by NNESTs for their
professional development. These strategies are proposed in a three-step
sequence that reflects the path of our personal growth from being a
graduate student to an ESL instructor to a teacher trainer.
The first set of strategies in Step One aim at helping NNESTs combat
negative emotions, such as fear, anxiety, lack of self-worth, and any sense
of isolation, through restructuring their self-efficacy beliefs and redefining
their self-identity as professional language educators. Examples are also
provided to encourage NNS teacher trainees to develop interpersonal
communication skills and intercultural competence for classroom
teaching, so that they can become the intercultural mediator in the
classroom (Velsaco-Martin, 2004).
Strategies in Step Two focus on how NNEST trainees should seek to
prepare themselves in all skill domains, including cognitive, social,
cultural, interpersonal, and professional. In specifics, these proposed
strategies are intended to help NNSs establish their professional identities
by finding a non-threatening niche where they can openly discuss their
teaching beliefs, share teaching strategies, gain professional visibility, and
express professional voice. Novice NNESTs can experiment with some of
the recommended strategies to improve their metacognitive and self-
monitoring skills, increase their confidence, and fully grasp the concept
that teaching English effectively is a skill to be learned (Amin, 2001).
Step Three describes how novice non-native speaker teachers should
continue to seek self-directed and self-sustained development both in
classroom teaching and in the professional community. They are
encouraged to view their identities as a source of empowerment rather
than a source of impediment. They are also encouraged to find engaging
opportunities to grow individually and in collaboration with others,
advocate for their interests, learn to educate their immediate professional
communities, and fulfill their teaching office as equally worthy
professional teachers.
206 Chapter Ten

Step One: Getting Started

Strategy 1: Develop a positive self-image

The biggest challenge for the NNEST is not what others perceive you to
be, but what you perceive yourself to be. If you have any doubt about your
self-identity, self-worth, and professional credentials, such as “Would a
person like me who has a heavy accent ever find a job?” or “Would
Americans hire an Asian girl like me?”, examine your thoughts critically.
Ask yourself the foundations of those thoughts, whether they are based on
religious, social or cultural assumptions. Are the beliefs and concerns you
are carrying legitimately yours? Would you be influenced by somebody
else's frustrations and disappointments? Are they based on a culture very
different from the western culture? Did you hear them from someone who
had never lived abroad or taught before? While there may be
discrimination in a hiring process, it is “brutally” true that no employer
will extend an offer to anyone who has low self-esteem and who thinks
that he or she has nothing to offer. It is also important that if you get any
negative feedback from an interview or peer evaluation, take it as a
constructive criticism and weave it into your professional development.
Therefore, instead of thinking negatively, think positively. Suggestions in
Figure 1 below can perhaps help you learn to be proactive instead of
reactive.

Instead of thinking… Think positively that…

They are not going to hire They are going to hire me because of my
me because I am a non- extensive educational and professional
native speaker. background.
They are going to hire me because I am a non-
native speaker. Since I understand the difficulties
that students have, I can prepare more effective
activities and address the students’ needs. Also, I
can be a role model (Flynn & Gulikers, 2001).
Why would they hire I am going to use my cultural (Han, 2007) or
someone with an exotic religious background as an asset.
face? There is no Muslim,
Mongolian, Brazilian, etc.
like me in this school.
Why would they hire me if I will take a few classes, read books, join clubs,
I don’t have enough and talk to my friends to educate myself. I will
knowledge of their culture, remember that not all natives know all the
customs and history? aspects of their own culture.
 Coping Strategies for NNES Teachers’ Development 207

I have a heavy accent and I am going to take language classes and improve
make mistakes. self-monitoring skills. Also, I will ask people
who I trust, such as professors and peers, to give
me honest feedback to improve my language and
teaching skills (Flynn & Gulikers, 2001).
People don’t hire me During an interview, I am going to look neat and
because they are biased. presentable. I will clearly explain my education,
professional experience and how my
multilingualism and multiculturalism are assets.
I will analyze the situation realistically and set
clear goals. If I realize that I am indeed facing an
unfavorable situation, I will consider moving,
applying at other institutions, or talk to more
experienced NNESTs.

Figure 1: Development of Positive Self-Image

In addition, you may also want to assess your own teaching and identify
the extent to which your non-native speaker status is in reality relevant to
your professional status as a language teacher. The self-assessment
instrument in Appendix A is one that is developed based on research
findings on the typical pedagogical traits of native and non-native speaker
teachers (compiled together from Barratt & Kontra, 2000; Mahboob, 2004;
Medgyes, 1994; Nemtchinova, 2005; Reeves & Medgyes, 1994; Samimy
& Brutt-Griffler, 1999; and Tang, 1997) as well as from our personal
experience. As you conduct the self-assessment, you may discover that
either the named native speaker traits are actually attainable or that your
teaching is already characterized by some of the so-called native speaker
performance attributes. In fact, in your prior observation of native speaker
teachers in the classroom, you may have noticed that many of them may
not have developed the expertise that you are currently seeking, either.
This clearly suggests that one’s professional identity has nothing to do
with his or her native speaker status.

Strategy 2: Extend Intercultural Friendships

Some researchers believe that successful language acquisition depends on
the learner’s willingness and sincere interests in interacting with
individuals of the target language group (Gardner & MacIntyre, cited in
Coetzee-Van Rooy, 2006). In our experience, many international students
tend to bond together. While this bonding offers a much-needed socio-
psychological support, it limits their opportunities of reaching out to the
target English culture and other ethnic cultures. Therefore, break the self-
208 Chapter Ten

erected defensive cultural walls and actively build intercultural friendships

with people from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds. The intuitive
intercultural knowledge gained through authentic interactions will only
add to your professional strengths as you interact with both your native
speaker colleagues and non-native speaker students who come from a
variety of linguistic, racial, and cultural backgrounds.

Strategy 3: Plan Strategically and Stay Committed

It is vital to assess your current professional strengths and weaknesses and
then plan your professional development accordingly. Therefore, aside
from challenging your attitude and expectations, as mentioned in Strategy
1, be open-minded and come to grips with the fact that your future
depends on you, your attitude, and your actions (Brown, 2002). You will
have to be assertive and disciplined, develop a winning plan, and
understand that you are responsible for your own career development.
Appendix B, a goal chart inspired by Tsui’s (2003) work on teaching
expertise, provides an example of how you can assess your own teaching
strengths and strategically plan for your professional development. In
completing the chart, you may again find that your non-native speaker
status is completely irrelevant to your professional credibility, but
development is essential to your professional identity.

Step Two: Getting Prepared

Strategy 4: Seek Out Mentors, Including Peer Mentors

NNES trainees are often too shy to ask someone to mentor them. What
you do not realize is that if you are enthusiastic and passionate, and if you
let people know that you are looking for a mentor, those with experience
will notice you, and they may want to take you as an apprentice or give
you useful advice. However, you do not need to have a formal mentor in
order to develop a successful career. Any colleague around you who is
willing to share their knowledge and experience with you can become a
resource for you. Bonding with instructors who are positive, creative and
experienced, and who are willing to share their knowledge and exchange
ideas can be inspiring (see Li, 1999).
 Coping Strategies for NNES Teachers’ Development 209

Strategy 5: Start Informal Networking

Networking is essential to your future career success as a language
teacher. With a network, you will be able to easily locate resources for
your personal and professional development. While you are in the teacher
training program, your social networking does not have to be formal.
Networking with your classmates and conference attendees while in
training may lead to a formal professional collaboration in the future
(Kamhi-Stein, 2000). Informal networking with like-minded classmates
and other teacher trainees will not only enhance your vision of a language
teaching career and boost your motivation for sustained professional
development, but will also help increase your social profile, visibility or a
sense of belonging in the classroom (Seloni & Cetinkaya, 2005).

Strategy 6: Confidently Share Your Learner Insights

Do not be ashamed of your nonnative speaker background. As Medgyes
(1999) suggests, "admit" (p. 40) that you are a non-native speaker. Do not
think your accent makes you pedagogically secondary to your NS
classmates or colleagues. Instead, bravely share your insights into
language learning and teaching from your own perspective as a past
language learner as well as from your achievements and success stories. If
you come from a culture where open sharing may be seen as lacking
humility, it may be very difficult at first. However, do see expressing your
personal insights as a means to contribute to the class. In a culture that
emphasizes contributions, being shy about communicating your thoughts
and ideas will only jeopardize your endeavor to pursue your career.

Strategy 7: Develop Professional Awareness of Institutional

Requirements
Teaching involves more than just interacting with your students. It also
involves professional interaction with the institution, i.e. the school, the
program or your workplace. Understanding how an ESL program is set up,
how it is administrated and operates, how the teaching staff are recruited,
how people conduct professional negotiations and exchanges in the
workplace, etc. is vital to your career success. Having an understanding of
how things work from the inside will enable you to be better prepared
when looking for a teaching opportunity because you will know the
interviewers’ or administrators’ expectations. Therefore, make attempts to
seek student employment or a volunteer opportunity with an ESL program
210 Chapter Ten

or school. Also, as you work in other positions in an educational

institution, you will have a bigger picture of your role as an instructor and
thus develop a more professional attitude toward your teaching career.

Strategy 8: Engage in Service Learning

You may want to pursue volunteer opportunities with a local organization,
such as Parent and Teacher Associations (PTAs), community centers, etc.
You can take up a mentor or tutor position, organize events, and even find
something for which you feel compelled to advocate. These kinds of
activities will help you develop leadership skills, expand your range of
experiences, and give you more exposure to the culture. Also, the product
of your work will yield a sense of self-worth and accomplishment. More
importantly, you will feel that your talents, gifts, and professional
preparations are worth something to the community and society.

Strategy 9: Start Writing

Writing is more than just a language skill for practice. Writing about
something that you are passionate about actually prompts critical thinking
not merely about academic issues but also general social and life issues,
which are an integral part of any educational curriculum, including the
second language curriculum. This type of writing does not have to be
formal or academic. A movie review, a short opinion article on an issue on
campus or in your neighborhood, and even writing blogs can help you
discover yourself as a writer. As writing becomes an integral part of your
teaching life, you will find that your identity has undergone a significant
transformation and that you are using language to communicate to a larger
community: you are more than a non-native speaker teacher; you are a
public persona (Kramsch & Lam, 1999).

Step Three: Step into the Real World

Strategy 10: Start Mentoring
Do not think that you have to be an expert to be a mentor to a student
teacher or a beginning teacher. Your mentoring a trainee or a colleague in
fact enables you to see your own growth from a different perspective. It
will help you examine your experiences and beliefs, reflect on your
successes and failures, and articulate your own personalized teaching and
 Coping Strategies for NNES Teachers’ Development 211

learning theories and pedagogies (Kamhi-Stein, 2000; Herman and

Mandell, 2004).

Strategy 11: Network and Collaborate

Teaching should not be a solitary practice. Collaborating with like-minded
colleagues can extend your strengths while assist in overcoming your
weaknesses (de Oliveira & Richardson, 2001; Liang & Rice, 2006). It will
afford new and fresh insights into the teaching process, inspire you with
new teaching techniques, and sustain your passion for teaching. Also,
collaboration may lead to further development of an area of expertise (See
Strategy 12). Therefore, it is advisable that you actively seek memberships
with an interest group within an ELT association or a listserv because
these are places where people can easily network with one another, leading
to an academic partnership.

Strategy 12: Broaden and Deepen Your Expertise

As the ELT field consists of many specialized areas, you should not limit
yourself to only one area of strength. Instead, you should attempt to extend
your professional expertise. Your specialization in more than one area will
not only strengthen your professional credibility (Matsuda et al, 2005), but
also increase your confidence and boost your self-worth as an equally
valid contributor and an equally valuable asset to the community.
Collaboration, for this purpose, can be a useful strategy. While you may
strengthen your academic partners' skills, they may extend your expertise
as well. As your expertise may compensate for their weaknesses, their
expertise can add to your existing strengths.

Strategy 13: Get Involved with the Professional Community

As a teacher, your professional activities are not confined within the
classroom boundaries. Instead, they should extend to the professional
community, which includes not merely your immediate ESL community
but also other formal settings, such as school committees, local
community centers, local education events, etc. Involvement within the
professional community can begin with volunteer work, such as
conference planning, sharing your experience in a local or regional
conference, or in local community sponsored academic events. Your
involvement within the professional community will only help you
strengthen your professional identity (Seloni & Cetinkaya, 2005), connect
212 Chapter Ten

you with like-minded colleagues (see strategy 11), and foster your
leadership skills which you will need for career advancement (Csepelyi,
2005).

Strategy 14: Advocate for NNESTs’ Interests

Teaching involves more than methodologies and pedagogies. It also
involves politics, unfortunately. Therefore, you may need to come to grips
with the fact that as a NNEST, your credibility may from time to time be
challenged and questioned either by your students, or by your colleagues,
or by a prospective employer. For this reason, it is important that you
contribute in many meaningful ways to increase the visibility and
authority of the NNEST in the teaching field (Kamhi-Stein, 2000). For
instance, you may take on a mentor responsibility helping a novice
NNEST, or you can share your ideas at conferences, or conduct research.
You may also want to engage your immediate academic community, by
voicing the various issues concerning the NNEST. Some examples may
involve posting on your department bulletin board TESOL's policy
statement on discrimination against the NNEST, or bringing articles on
NNEST issues to a book discussion meeting in your department.

Strategy 15: Continue Improving Communication Skills

As a NNEST, you may need to continue to improve your communication
skills. This may be oral and written as well as general and academic.
Further development of communication skills will not only strengthen
your classroom instructional effectiveness but also your ability to share
your insights with the professional community.

Strategy 16: Continue to Improve Intercultural Competence

Remember that your students may not all come from a cultural
background to which you can easily and readily relate. There may be
students from a cultural background very different to yours. This means
that you will need to extend your intercultural competence to unfamiliar
cultural groups. Teaching, we believe, is more than imparting knowledge
and skill; it is also about building a relationship with your students. It is
without a doubt that extended intercultural competence will afford you
insights into other cultural learning styles or culture-specific learning
difficulties, enabling you to adjust your instruction in a way that caters to
their needs.
 Coping Strategies for NNES Teachers’ Development 213

Strategy 17: Build a Teaching Portfolio

During your professional career, you may receive negative criticism in
many forms, such as comments from surveys, evaluations, or observations.
Also, you might have colleagues or students who do not accept you,
whether it is because of your accent, your "foreignness," your teaching
style, or your grading criteria. To make matters worse, you may find
yourself burned out, losing passion for teaching, exhibiting no interest at
all in continuous development, or simply seeing everything in a negative
light. In this situation, we recommend building a teaching portfolio. You
can save effective lessons plans, innovative exercises, photographs,
greeting cards, and thank-you notes from your students. Also, do not
leave out your past student research papers, thesis, and small articles
(including popular articles) that you have published. This portfolio not
only serves to remind you of your accomplishments and document your
growth, but it also prompts you to be more intentionally reflective on your
own teaching.

Conclusion
Being a NNES graduate student or language teacher can represent many
challenges. NNES teachers need to be proactive in setting goals, positive
in assessing any possible challenges, sagacious in choosing effective
strategies, and committed in carrying out their action plan. The variety of
the strategies suggested in this chapter, which range from affective
management, intercultural competence and metalinguistic awareness to
interpersonal communication skills, linguistic competence, integrativeness
and professional development and recognition, can perhaps serve as a
reference point for practicing growth. Also, while it is true that one’s birth
as nonnative speakers of English cannot be reversed, this does not
necessarily preclude the development of a new identity. Yet, to achieve
this, one must bravely step out of self-consciousness, self-defencism, and
negative self-perception, and be convicted, perseverant, resilient, and
eager to reach out for others and to serve the community.
214 Chapter Ten

References
Amin, N. (1997). Race and the identity of the nonnative ESL teacher.
TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 580-583.
—. (2001). Nativism, the native speaker construct, and minority immigrant
women teachers of English as a second language. CATESOL Journal,
13(1), 89-108.
Barratt, L., & Kontra, E. H. (2000). Native-English-speaking teachers in
cultures other than their own. TESOL Journal, 9(3), 19-23.
Braine, G. (Ed.). (1999). Non-native educators in Engish language
teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brinton, D. M. (2004). Nonnative English-speaking student teachers:
Insights from dialogue journals. In L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning
and teaching from experience: Perspectives on Nonnative English-
speaking professionals (pp. 190-205). Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Brown, H. D. (2002). Strategies for success: A practical guide to learning
English. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Brutt-Griffler, J., & Samimy K. K. (1999). Revisiting the colonial in the
postcolonial: Critical praxis for nonnative English-speaking teachers in
a TESOL program. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 413-432.
Coetzee-Van Rooy, S. (2006). Integrativeness: Untenable for world of
Englishes learners? World Englishes, 25(3), 437-450.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185-209.
Csepelyi, T. (2005, November). Stand up and step up: Non-native English
speakers wanted! CATESOL News, 37(3), 15.
Davis, A. (1991). The native speaker in applied linguistics. Edinburgh,
England: Edinburgh University Press.
de Oliveira, L. C., & Richardson, S. L. (2001). Collaboration between
native and nonnative English-speaking educators. CATESOL Journal,
13(1), 123-134.
de Oliveira, L., Kamhi-Stein, L, Maum, R., Moussu, L., Breitbach, A., Lu,
W., & Wang, S. (March, 2006). New Leaders' Forum. Forum
presented at the 40th annual meeting of the Teachers of English to
Speakers of Other Languages conference, Tampa, Florida.
Flynn, K., & Gulikers, G. (2001). Issues in hiring nonnative English-
speaking professionals to teach English as a second language.
CATESOL Journal, 13(1), 151-160.
Han, E. (2007). Fair opportunity for NNES in TESOL. Essential Teacher,
4(1), 18-21.
 Coping Strategies for NNES Teachers’ Development 215

Herman, L., & Mandell, A. (2004). From teaching to mentoring: Principle

and practice, dialogue and life in adult education. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Kamhi-Stein, L. (2000). Adapting US-based TESOL education to meet the
needs of nonnative English speakers. TESOL Journal, 9(3), 10-13.
Kelch, K., & Santana-Williamson, E. (2002). ESL students' attitudes
toward native- and nonnative-speaking instructors' accents. CATESOL
Journal, 14(1), 57-72.
Kim, S. (2004). When and how to resolve language issues of non-native
English Speaking teachers-in-preparation in TESOL programs. NNEST
Caucus Newsletter, 6(2).
Kramsch, C., & Lam, W. S. E. (1999). Textual identities: The importance
of being non-native. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in
English language teaching (pp. 57-71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2002). University students' perceptions
of native and non-native speaker teachers of English. Language
Awareness, 11(2), 132-142.
Lee, E., & Lew, L. (2001). Nonnative English speakers in an MA TESOL
program: What do their diaries have to say? CATESOL Journal, 13(1),
135-150.
Liang, J., & Rice, S. (2006). Forging new identities: A journey of
collaboration between native- and nonnative-English-speaking
educators. In N. G. Barron, N. M. Grimm, & S. Gruber (Eds.), Social
change in diverse teaching contexts: Touch subjects and routine
practices (pp. 161-181). New York: Peter Lang.
Li, X. (1999). Writing from the vantage point. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-
native educators in English language teaching (pp. 43-56). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Liu, D. (1999). Training non-native TESOL students: Challenges for
TESOL teacher education in the West. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native
educators in English language teaching (pp. 197-210). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Matsuda, A., Dogancay-Aktuna, S., & Nemtchinova, K. (2005).
Demystifying the tenure-track job search: Stories of four NNES
professionals. CATESOL Journal, 17(1), 171-181.
Mahboob, A. (2004). Native or nonnative: What do students enrolled in an
intensive English program think? In L. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning
and teaching from experience: Perspectives on nonnative English-
speaking professionals (pp. 121-147). Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
216 Chapter Ten

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

—. (1999). The non-native teacher (2nd ed). Ismaning, Germany: Hueber
Verlag.
Nemtchinova, K. (2005). Host teachers' evaluations of non-native English
speaking teacher trainees. TESOL Quarterly, 39(2), 235-261.
Pasternak, M., & Bailey, K. M. (2004). Preparing nonnative and native
English-speaking teachers: Issues of professionalism and proficiency.
In L. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience:
Perspectives on nonnative English-speaking professionals (pp. 155-
175). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Reeves, T., & Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native English speaking
ESL/EFL teacher's self-image: An international survey. System, 22(3),
353-367.
Samimy, K. K., & Brutt-Griffler, J. (1999). To be a native or non-native
speaker: Perceptions of “non-native” students in a graduate TESOL
program. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language
teaching (pp. 127-144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Seloni, L., & Cetinkaya, Y. (2005). On NNES teacher trainees’ narratives
in the classroom discourse of a TESOL program. NNEST Newsletter,
7(2).
Tang, C. (1997). On the power and status of nonnative ESL teachers.
TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 577-580.
Thomas, J. (1999). Voices from the Periphery: Non-native teachers and
issues of credibility. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in
English language teaching (pp. 15-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Tsui, A. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of ESL
teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Velsaco-Martin, C. (2004). The nonnative English-speaking teacher as an
intercultural speaker. In L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and
teaching from experience: Perspectives on nonnative English-speaking
professionals (pp. 277-293). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
 Coping Strategies for NNES Teachers’ Development 217

Appendix A: Self-Assessment of Performance Attributes

Instruction: Use the following chart to examine your performance
attributes. Please know that although these attributes do not necessarily
pertain to either native speakers or non-native speakers, they represent
some good descriptors for effective teaching. Please select the attributes
that apply to you regardless of the categories they are placed in and reflect
on how your teacher identity relates to these traits and, further, the use of
the NS and NNS labels in ELT.

Check Typical NEST Check Typical NNEST

Here Performance Attributes Here Performance Attributes
… I am aware of the … I am well aware of my
subtleties of the students’ needs.
English language.
… I provide feedback and … I approach lesson
it has positive impacts planning and classroom
on my students’ instruction with careful
learning. consideration of my
students’ background and
needs.
… I supply adequate … I am aware of my
cultural information in students’ negative cross-
class. linguistic transfer.
… I am well aware of the … I am flexible and
various subtleties of innovative in approaching
the English culture. the language lesson.
… I am capable of … I share my learning
teaching experiences, especially
pronunciation skills. my struggles as a prior
language learner, with my
students.
… I am capable of … I am capable of teaching
teaching listening skills and
pronunciation skills. strategies to ask for
clarification and avoid
misunderstandings.
… I am capable of … I am capable of teaching
teaching speaking reading skills.
skills.
218 Chapter Ten

… I am capable of teaching … I empathize with my

writing skills. students, and am eager to
share learning strategies
with my students.
… I have an intuitive … I can clearly explain
understanding of how grammatical rules to my
grammar structures are students.
used in everyday setting.
… I use different … I use techniques, methods,
techniques, methods, and and approaches that are
approaches in my class. comfortable to the students.
… I emphasize the … I emphasize the need to
development of achieve a high level of
communication skills in accuracy in students’ oral
class. and written communication.
… I expose my students to … I direct students’ attention
authentic use of English to form, especially
in class. patterned language use for
alternative expressions for
oral and written
communication.
… I engage my students in … I emphasize controlled and
authentic practices of guided practice on
English structures in structures in class.
class.
 Coping Strategies for NNES Teachers’ Development 219

Appendix B: Self-Assessment for Strategic Planning

Instruction: The purpose of the following goal chart is to encourage you to
be positive in assessing your teaching strengths and proactive in planning
for your on-going self-development. If you are a teacher trainee, you may
do one version at the beginning of your training program, and do another
toward the end. If you are already teaching, you may do one version now,
and do another a couple of years later.
The first column, which lists various types of teaching expertise,
represents a set of “goals” you are to achieve. The second column offers
you a chance to identify your current areas of strengths. Feel free to check
with a simple √ mark in a relevant box with perhaps brief comments (i.e.
able to clearly explain grammar rules) and leave blank the squares for
areas you are currently not able to do. The third column provides you with
an opportunity to assess the areas of skills that you need to improve,
whereas the fourth column prompts you to seriously consider an action
plan to develop your teaching expertise. Feel free to commit your ideas to
paper for a draft of the action plan, and keep a regular journal reflecting on
your progress toward the goals.

Types of Teaching Expertise Greatest Areas for Plan for

Strengths Improvement Improvement
DISCIPLINE EXPERTISE
English grammar
Discourse comprehension
Discourse production
Methodology
Curriculum development
Language assessment
Language learning theories
Intercultural communication
General and Applied
Linguistics
LANGUAGE EXPERTISE
Accuracy of language use
Appropriateness of language
use
Authenticity of language use
Fluency of speech
Intelligibility of speech
Good language role model
220 Chapter Ten

PEDAGOGICAL EXPERTISE
Material Preparation and Evaluation
Command of the material
Appropriateness of the material
Material adequate for the
learner to achieve objectives
Wide variety of material for
meaningful learning
Development of material
reflecting sound pedagogy
Ability to adapt material
Ability to evaluate material
PEDAGOGICAL EXPERTISE
Intercultural Mediator
Familiarity with target culture
Realistic attitude toward target
culture
Sensitivity to learners’ culture
Involvement of target culture in
material choice & activities
Promoting intercultural
understanding and awareness
Classroom Management
Well-prepared for class
Efficient use of time
Appropriate pacing
Flexible in unexpected
situations
Ability to handle disruptive
behaviors
Effective grouping of students
 Coping Strategies for NNES Teachers’ Development 221

 
Instructional Effectiveness
Clear objectives & procedures
Clear & specific instructions
Clarity in presenting material
Various appropriate groupings
Variety of tasks and activities
Smoothness of flow/transitions
Scaffold student learning
Minimize teacher talk
Creative use of visual aids
Balance of accuracy & fluency
Feedback and Evaluation
Fair evaluation of performance
Awareness of learners’
strengths and weaknesses
Genuine positive feedback
Appropriate error correction
 CHAPTER ELEVEN

TRAINING NON-NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKING

TESOL PROFESSIONALS

EKATERINA NEMTCHINOVA,
AHMAR MAHBOOB, ZOHREH ESLAMI
AND SERAN DOGANCAY-AKTUNA

Introduction
Although non-native English speaking (NNES) graduate students receive a
TOEFL score that guarantees admittance into Applied Linguistics and
TESOL programs, their actual academic language proficiencies range
from very high to very limited. Disregarding students’ variable language
proficiencies, most MA programs in Applied Linguistics and TESOL in
native English-speaking countries only focus on teacher education. These
programs see their goal as helping their students understand how language
works, how it is acquired, and how it can best be taught; what they don’t
realize is that many of these students themselves have limited academic
language proficiency which may limit their ability to understand the
concepts and theories that are being taught. Our informal interviews with a
number of instructors in these programs indicate that they do not consider
working with graduate students to help them improve their English
language proficiency as one of their goals. When they do explicitly think
about this, they assume that the students will improve their language
proficiency indirectly by engaging with the course material (including
lectures, readings, and classroom interaction) and living in an English-
speaking society. However, there is little evidence to support such
assumptions. On the contrary, NNES graduate students continue to have
problems with their English language proficiency. Brinton (2004) provides
an example of one such student who states:
 Training Non-Native English Speaking TESOL Professionals 223

After six-week field practicum, I find my biggest obstacle as a good

teacher comes from my language ability. Since my own English ability is
lousy, thus, when I explain something to students, I think I unconsciously
make lots of errors or express ineptly. As tonight, I said “in this moment”
instead of “at this moment,” “after their marry” instead of “after their
marriage.” A language teacher, should set good example for students to
model rather than confuse them as I did…. I can sense that a qualified
language teacher should at least possess enough knowledge of the targeted
language…. I really wonder about my teaching quality? Sometimes, I can’t
help to think maybe I am “brain-retarded” in learning language. (I don’t
improve much ever I have almost stayed here for one year. It’s really
frustrated!). (Brinton, 2004, p. 197)

In this quote we can identify six main issues that are echoed in interviews
with other NNES graduate students. First, these students feel that they lack
in adequate English language proficiency. Second, they feel that there is a
relationship between being a “good teacher” and having “good English
language skills”. Third, they are aware of “unconscious” errors and relate
them to their conscious knowledge of the language-highlighting the
distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge of a language
(Pasternak & Bailey 2004). Fourth, NNES graduate students believe that
they should set a “good example for students to model”. Fifth, they seem
to set a threshold of language proficiency which they define as “enough
knowledge” of the target language for teaching that language. And, sixth,
many of them feel that even though they spend time in an English-
speaking country, they have not noticed much improvement in their
English language skills.
In this chapter, we expand Mahboob’s description of the NNEST lens
as “a lens of multilingualism, multiethnicism, and multiculturalism” to
cover multiple levels of proficiency in English. We believe that along with
linguistic, cultural and ethnic diversity, NNES bring varied levels of
grammatical and pragmatic proficiency in English to teacher education
programs. Such variation needs to be recognized as an integral part of the
NNES spectrum and addressed appropriately. We further argue that
working with our NNES students on their language proficiency should be
recognized as a responsibility of Applied Linguistics and TESOL
programs, which do not appear to make this a priority. We begin our
discussion by examining the notion of language proficiency and its
relationship to language teaching, and proceed by sharing a number of
activities that we use with graduate students in our programs to improve
their English language proficiency.
224 Chapter Eleven

Language Proficiency
Teachers’ target language proficiency and their beliefs about language
learning are two major factors that determine their classroom teaching
practices and their use or non-use of the target language in their classes
(Kamhi-Stein & Mahboob 2005, 2006). However, research in this area is
very limited. Although language proficiency is often listed as an area of
interest in NNES studies (Brady & Gulikers 2004, Brinton 2004, Lee
2004, Mahboob 2004, Medgyes 1994, Pasternak & Bailey 2004, Reves &
Medgyes 1994, Samimy & Brutt-Griffler 1999) few scholars appear to
have explored the question of teacher proficiency in detail. One exception
is Butler (2004) who studied teachers in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan,
and looked at the gap between teachers’ self-perceived language
proficiency and their perceived minimum level of proficiency needed to be
effective teachers at the elementary school level. Butler’s study “showed
consistent gaps in all three countries between the teachers’ self-assessed
language proficiency (self- assessed current proficiency) and the
proficiency they believed would enable them to teach elementary school
English most effectively (desired proficiency)” (p. 245). Kamhi-Stein and
Mahboob (2005), on the other hand, showed that a gap also existed in
teachers’ self-ratings of their English language abilities and their test
scores (as measured by a standardized test). In general, they found that
teachers’ self-evaluation of their language abilities was higher than their
language scores reflected. However, regardless of the extent of the gap
between a teacher’s perceived and attained language proficiency, research
shows that their perceived language proficiency is an important issue for
NNES teachers that impact on their professional self-esteem and
confidence (Brinton 2004, Kamhi-Stein & Mahboob 2005, Medgyes 1994,
Reves & Medgyes 1994, Samimy & Brutt-Griffler 1999).
In a different, but related, thread of work, Pasternak and Bailey
(2004) argue that teachers’ language proficiency “is only one element of
professionalism” (p. 161). For Pasternak and Bailey professional preparation
is as important as language proficiency. They state that teachers,
regardless of whether they are native or nonnative speakers must be
trained and have both declarative and procedural knowledge. They define
declarative knowledge as “knowledge about something”, and procedural
knowledge as “ability to do things.” They further argue that this declarative
and procedural knowledge should encompass at least three key areas: “(1)
knowing about and how to use the target language, (2) knowing about and
how to teach in culturally appropriate ways, and (3) knowing about and
how to behave appropriately in the target culture” (p. 158). In presenting
 Training Non-Native English Speaking TESOL Professionals 225

these ideas, Pasternak and Bailey (2004) present a framework that looks at
issues of language proficiency and professional preparation. One of the
key aspects of their framework is that Pasternak and Bailey see language
proficiency and professional development as continua. Figure 1 below
presents the framework.
 

Proficient in
the target language

1 3 Not
Professionall
professionally
y
prepared in
prepared in
the
the
target
target 2 4
language
language

Not proficient in
the target language

Figure 1. Continua of target language proficiency and professional

preparation (From Pasternak & Bailey 2004)

Pasternak and Bailey (2004) explain their framework by stating that

Quadrant 1 reflects those teachers who are both proficient in the target
language (TL) and professionally prepared. Quadrant 2 reflects teachers
who are professionally prepared but are not proficient in the TL and
Quadrant 3 reflects teachers who are proficient in the TL but are not
professionally prepared. Quadrant 4 reflects those teachers who are neither
proficient nor professionally prepared. Based on this framework,
Pasternak and Bailey argue that professionals teaching English as an
additional language need to aim to be both proficient in the target
language and be professionally trained and prepared in the teaching of the
language.
Another important idea to consider in relation to the notion of language
proficiency is that this is not a one-dimensional construct, but a combination
of sociocultural, strategic, discourse and grammatical/linguistic competences
(cf. Canale & Swain 1980, Savignon 1991). In Bachman’s model (1990:
226 Chapter Eleven

87), language competence is divided into “organizational competence” and

“pragmatic competence”. Organizational competence comprises knowledge
of linguistic units and the rules of joining them together at the levels of
sentence (“grammatical competence”) and discourse (“textual competence”).
Pragmatic competence consists of illocutionary competence, that is,
knowledge of speech acts and speech functions, and sociolinguistic
competence. “Sociolinguistic competence” comprises the ability to use
language appropriately according to context, which includes the ability to
select communicative acts and appropriate strategies to implement them
depending on the contextual features. In Bachman’s model, pragmatic
competence is not subordinated to knowledge of grammar and text
organization but coordinated to formal linguistic and textual knowledge
and interacts with “organizational competence” in complex ways. In order
to communicate appropriately in a target language, pragmatic competence
in L2 must be reasonably well developed.
It is our contention that all aspects of communicative competence need
to be considered in discussions on enhancing the language proficiency of
NNES graduate students in our programs. In this chapter we will be
focusing on aspects of both organizational and pragmatic competence.
As discussed earlier, our reading of the current literature and our
interviews with various stakeholders suggests that Applied Linguistics and
TESOL programs tend to focus on the professional training of teachers
and not on their language proficiency. If these programs do offer units on
English grammar etc., as in grammar pedagogy/structure of English type
courses, the purpose of these units is to increase students’ declarative
knowledge about the language and not their procedural abilities. We
therefore argue that these programs need to integrate approaches to help
NNES graduate students with limited English proficiency to develop their
language skills.

Improving NNES Graduate Students' Linguistic

Proficiency
In cases where the issue of the target language proficiency could not be
addressed by offering the option of a language course specifically
designed for NNESs (Cullen 1994, Medgyes 1999, Murdoch 1994),
NNESs can be familiarized with activities and strategies that can expand
their second language repertoire and give them additional practice in using
the target language towards gaining greater comprehensibility and skills in
negotiating in English.
 Training Non-Native English Speaking TESOL Professionals 227

One strategy involves taking notes of idioms and colloquial

expressions and making a conscientious effort to use them in oral or
written discourse so that they become a part of one’s productive
vocabulary. Indeed, studies with NNESs have shown that many feel
insecure about their knowledge and ability to use colloqualisms that
abound in the speech of proficient users of English (Dogancay-Aktuna
2006, Medgyes 1994). Many NNESs are also concerned that their speech
is inexpressive because of their lack of facility with idiomatic expressions
that are often culturally charged. Hence, focus and subsequent practice of
idiomatic everyday expressions as these are used in natural
communication can boost NNESs’ linguistic confidence. University
lectures and seminars present an excellent opportunity to enrich one’s
vocabulary by hearing the target expressions in context. By writing down
an interesting turn of phrase and actively seeking an opportunity to use it
for their own communicative purposes NNESs can increase their
vocabulary range as well as eloquency of expression thus improving their
general language proficiency.
Another practical technique involves observing, analyzing, and
practicing the meta-language of teaching. Meta-language, or classroom
language resources (Liu 1999) refers to teacher talk which is not related to
the language being presented; it is the language of organizing the
classroom that a teacher uses to allow the various classroom processes to
happen, e.g. explanations, instructions, response to questions, giving of
praise, correction, collection of homework etc. Novice teachers, particularly
NNESs, can benefit from collecting instances of the teacher’s classroom
meta-language for subsequent analysis and perhaps memorization while
observing their more experienced colleagues. To give just one example, to
practice such essential aspect of meta-language as providing oral response
to students, trainees can collect a sample of twenty feedback utterances,
define the teacher’s purpose in giving each particular comment, and think
of a different way of expressing the same idea. Analysis of teacher’s meta-
language can increase trainees’ awareness related to classroom teacher talk
as well as contribute to fluency of expression.
Another skill that NNESs can practice towards greater communication
abilities involves conversational strategies. To do this, teacher trainees are
asked to act as language learners and perform typical ESL/EFL speaking
exercises. Incorporating language-learning activities into a teacher
preparation course allows NNESs to expand their repertoire of classroom
techniques while providing yet another opportunity to work on their
fluency. For example, an exercise called Getting a word in demonstrates
how to practice an important communicative skill of steering a conversation.
228 Chapter Eleven

Students are divided into pairs. Each member of the pair is given a
different sentence on a slip of paper, which they are to memorize and not
to show to their partner. The students are told that they have met in some
public place. They are to approach their partner and start a conversation.
Each person tries to manipulate the conversation so as to be able to use
his/her sentence in it naturally. The activity can be repeated 2-3 times with
different partners.
One more helpful routine involves writing down one’s precise words
that will be said in class and rehearsing “the teacher’s part” as a way of
preparing oneself for the lesson. Many NNESs are known to experience
anxiety and fairly low self-esteem associated with their non-native status
(Kamhi-Stein 1999, Samimy & Brutt-Griffler 1999). Concentrating on the
language of the introduction, transitions between the parts of the lesson,
instructions to activities, and conclusion can lessen the anxiety associated
with teaching while careful planning and rehearsal of one’s classroom talk
can help to overcome inhibitions and lead to a smoother delivery of the
lesson.
Next, NNESs can hone their English proficiency out of class by
practicing listening skills as well as troublesome grammar and
pronunciation structures using the Internet. Online materials allow trainees
to address their individual language needs at their own time focusing on a
particular area that requires more practice, and repeat the activity as many
times as necessary. Working alone at the computer enables them to
proceed at their own pace without the stress or time constraints associated
with person-to-person interaction. Despite the availability of various ESL
textbooks on listening, grammar and pronunciation, the Internet presents a
better choice because of the audio and video capacity at no or little cost to
the user; also, the ease of access, a vast variety of Web sites, the
interactive nature of the media, and the glitz factor associated with Internet
technology increase the appeal of online activities. At any time during the
course of study the instructor can present a list of suitable ESL Web sites
to the class and remind all students about the advantages of the Internet for
language learning. Those trainees who feel that such additional practice
can benefit them will find an opportunity to incorporate it into their busy
schedule.
An interactive and enjoyable way to practice professional language use
is role-playing. Suitable for both native and non-native English speaking
students, this form of imitation modeling of future professional activity
can be integrated into any TESOL methods class and become a regular
part of professional preparation. It can be used for a variety of purposes,
e.g. to familiarize trainees with a problematic point in the methodology of
 Training Non-Native English Speaking TESOL Professionals 229

foreign language teaching, to develop practical teaching skills, and to raise

trainees’ awareness of various aspects of classroom management.
Interpersonal relations, conventional classroom practices, and beliefs and
values about teaching and learning are just some possible scenarios that
can be acted out.
The benefits of role-playing activities in the course of teacher
preparation are manifold. They increase trainees’ independence, improve
their analytical abilities, help to apply academic knowledge to real life
situations, and provide an opportunity for reflective practice (Malderez &
Bodóczky 1999). Trainees learn to foresee and overcome certain problems
they might face in the future, and to use the appropriate language in doing
so. Role-plays may also assist in subduing trainees' anxiety as imaginary
teaching situations are acted out in a familiar and fairly secure setting. An
additional benefit for NNESTs involves development and practice of the
target language skills. Pretending to teach an ESL/EFL class, participants
of the game can master classroom discourse conventions as well as learn
to adjust their input to the level of language proficiency of their
“students”.
Several types of role-playing activities can be implemented depending
on the purpose of instruction. Games developing single skills are less
demanding activities that model simple situations and develop a particular
professional ability such as how to begin a lesson, or how to provide
instructions for an activity. For example, several groups of students are
given a task to choose a game from a language games book (e.g.
Rinvolucri 1985) and develop an explanation or a set of instructions for a
beginner’s class. They practice explaining it to their group, playing one or
two rounds together, followed by introducing games in another group
acting as “beginners”. The level of students, the roles of participants, and
complexity of games may vary.
More complex games can be devised to practice skills in analyzing,
designing and carrying out pedagogical interaction in real-life situations.
Thus, games modeling out-of-classroom professional activity are intended
to familiarize trainees with some controversial issues in the methodology
of foreign language teaching. In these games, trainees act as “colleagues”
discussing a certain methodological problem at a meeting or a conference.
The discussions of this kind could motivate the trainees to further
investigate the problem and to use the results of the discussion in their
teaching activity while practicing professional discourse conventions.
The task of the participants is to familiarize their “colleagues” with
possible points of view on a particular problem. Detailed role instructions
are particularly important for this type of game, especially the instructions
230 Chapter Eleven

for the “chairperson”, who has to carefully follow all the statements and be
able to begin, encourage and sum up the discussion. In the group with
lower language proficiency or insufficient role-playing experience this role
can be assumed by the instructor. An example of such a game is “The
teacher’s attitude to error correction”.
Role-playing games modeling fragments of a lesson are aimed at
developing professional teaching skills. Trainees usually prepare their
“lessons” in advance; the purpose of the lesson, “students’” background,
previous knowledge and the proficiency level can be either selected by a
trainee or specified by the instructor. The roles of “ESL/EFL students”
become especially important in this kind of game, since the variety of their
personal characteristics provides an opportunity to test trainees’ adjustment
to unexpected circumstances which in its turn increases the degree of
improvisation and brings the given situation closer to real conditions of
teaching. Several examples of ESL/EFL students’ roles are given below.

• You are a somewhat below average student but you try very hard. You
need continual encouragement from the teacher.
• You are a good student, cooperative and impatient with any student who
disturbs the class.
• You are an average student, but lacking in self-confidence. You are not
always sure that you have understood the teacher’s questions correctly.
• You are a very good student but you like to show off and tend to answer
the questions before the others can get a word in.
• You are a good student but you always keep quiet and never volunteer an
answer.

Games modeling classroom relations are based on a real or imaginary

conflict situation that can potentially arise in a language classroom.
Possible scenarios may include “A student is insolent to the teacher”, “A
student refuses to participate in class work” or “Teacher-student cultural
misunderstanding”. The participants are expected to act out solutions to
the problem. The opportunity to consider a problematic situation from
another person’s point of view may help trainees to gain a better
understanding of the causes and consequences of a conflict, as well as
examine the ways in which it can be solved. Games of this type also allow
the instructor to covertly state and discuss the potential conflict situation in
a constructive way without embarrassing any of its participants.
The above-described activities can provide additional language
practice thus enhancing accuracy and fluency of NNESs’ language
performance, all as part of classroom instruction and interaction in
graduate programs. Some measures, e.g. observing teachers’ meta-
 Training Non-Native English Speaking TESOL Professionals 231

language, performing actual ESL/EFL activities, and participating in role-

plays can be incorporated into any teacher-training course benefiting
native and nonnative speakers alike. Other procedures, such as taking
notes of colloquial expressions and practicing grammar and vocabulary
should be done on one’s own time. Used separately or in combination,
they can help to expand professional discourse repertoire thus enhancing
language proficiency and improving nonnative speakers’ professional
performance.

Improving NNESTS' Pragmatic Competence

An important component of NNESs’ language proficiency is their
awareness and control of the pragmatic norms of the target language.
Awareness of the pragmatic norms of the target language can be improved
by integrating a variety of activities in the class. Some of these are shared
below. These activities may be incorporated into weekly sessions during a
semester such that 30-40 minutes of each class can be devoted to activities
and discussions of cross-cultural pragmatics.
As part of a TESOL methodology course, students can be involved in
two main activity types. The first group of activities aims at raising the
students’ pragmatic awareness, and the second group of activities involves
the students in communicative practice. Awareness raising activities aim
to show NNESs how language forms are used appropriately in context.
They expose students to the pragmatic aspects of language and provide
them with analytic tools to further their pragmatic development as the
need arises. Through awareness-raising activities, students acquire
sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic information, for instance, what
strategies are used for apologizing in their L1 and L2, what is considered
an offense in their culture compared to the target culture, different degrees
of offense for different situations that exist in the two languages, and the
nature of the relationship between the participants. This explicit focus on
pragmatic routines will contribute to the enhancement of sociopragmatic
competence of the students. Emphasis can be placed on both the linguistic
manifestations of the speech acts (pragmalinguistics) and the
sociopragmatic aspects (i.e., the situation, the participants, the status of
those involved, etc.). For example, students can observe and analyze
particular pragmatic features in various sources of oral or written “data”,
ranging from feature films to videos of authentic interaction, and other
fictional and non-fictional written and audiovisual sources.
Another technique that can be used for raising the pragmatic awareness
of students is reading, presenting, and discussing research findings on
232 Chapter Eleven

different aspects of pragmatics. Students are asked to read papers on

related speech acts and report the findings to class. This presentation can
be done inductively (from data to rules) or deductively (from rules to
data). To show the importance of contextual variables in the use of
different language forms, presenters are to provide detailed information on
the participants, their status, the situations, and the speech events that are
occurring. The awareness raising activities will help students develop
knowledge of pragmatic features in their L1 and L2.
A discourse completion task (Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper 1989)
that requires students to respond to a number of given situations can be
used as a starter at the beginning phase of instruction. A discourse
completion task (Figure 2) with several situations can be given to the
native and nonnative English-speaking students to respond to and then to
compare their strategies in small groups.

Please write in the provided spaces whatever you would say in

the following conversational situations.

You forget a meeting with a friend; this is the second time that the
same thing has happened with the same person. At the end of the day
your friend phones you and says: "I waited for you for more than
twenty minutes! What happened?"

You:  

Figure 2. Discourse completion task

Students then are asked to role-play the intended speech acts for the whole
class. Frequent sociopragmatic or pragmalinguistic deviations observed in
students’ examples can become teaching points as pertinent metapragmatic
information or comments on the intended speech act set are provided to
the whole class. These activities help students develop the relevant
metapragmatic knowledge for any pattern and strategies of the intended
speech act.
A student-discovery procedure based on students’ obtaining
information through observations, questionnaires, and/or interviews is
 Training Non-Native English Speaking TESOL Professionals 233

another technique that can be used. Students act as researchers (Tarone &
Yule 1989) and ethnographers themselves. Having students act as
researchers is more likely to cultivate autonomous learners skilled at
formulating and testing hypotheses about the new language in the
classroom and beyond. The goal is to make students sensitive to
multifunctionality of utterances in language use and the importance of
context in interpreting speaker intent. For the speech act of apology, for
example, students can observe the strategies and linguistic means by
which apologizing is accomplished-what formulae are used, and what
additional means of expressing apologies are employed, such as
explaining, offer of repair, promise of forbearance, and so forth (i.e.,
pragmalinguistic strategies). Also, students can be asked to examine in
which contexts the various ways of expressing apologies are used. By
focusing students' attention on relevant features of the input, they make
connections between linguistic forms, pragmatic functions, their
occurrence in different social contexts, and their cultural meanings.
Students are thus guided to notice the information they need in order to
develop their pragmatic competence in L2 (Schmidt 1993).

After observing a certain number of cases, students analyze their data,

summarize their findings and present it to their groups or to the class with
the goal of determining a “formula” for each speech act and the factors that
may influence such a formula. Other in-class activities are role-plays of
situations that elicit the speech act under discussion and on-the-spot
analyses of these performances.

Another engaging activity is to present and share examples from cross-

cultural (mis)communications and use examples of potentially problematic
interactions that provide evidence of some sort of pragmatic peculiarity
and use these examples for in-class discussion (Rose 1999). The use of
potentially problematic interactions (e.g., use of very direct request
strategy type to a person of a higher status) and the types of incidents that
show cross-cultural misunderstandings based on differences in language
use are fruitful in introducing pragmatics to students and in raising their
cross-cultural awareness and sensitivity (Eslami-Rasekh 2005). The
examples illustrate the type of sociopragmatic issues teachers and learners
of English may encounter. Various examples could be presented to
students with the aim of determining whether the interaction seems
acceptable to them. Following that, students can offer tentative
explanations for the pragmatic peculiarities in the exchanges.
In order to enhance students’ pragmatic competence as well as their
skills in teaching pragmatics students could also be required to develop a
234 Chapter Eleven

lesson plan on teaching one of the speech acts in English. Other activities
are keeping reflection journals and participating in online discussion on
pragmatics issues and speech acts.
The above-suggested activities can enhance the pragmatic competence
of NNESs. Research has shown an imbalance in pragmatic and
grammatical competence in learner language (Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, &
Thurrell 1995) such that pragmatic competence often lags behind
grammatical competence (Olshtain & Blum-Kulka 1985). Research
findings (Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei 1997) strongly suggest that without a
pragmatic focus, language teaching raises students’ metalinguistic
awareness but it does not contribute much to developing their
metapragmatic consciousness. While many NNESs come from backgrounds
where grammatical aspects of English are emphasized, often in a
declarative manner, their sociopragmatic awareness of English lags
behind. Indeed, much of research with NNES teachers show that NNESs
are aware of their lack of knowledge of the sociocultural norms governing
native uses of English and this triggers a lack of self-confidence in their
language proficiency (e.g. Medgyes 1994, Seidlhofer 1996) In addition,
research shows that many NNES teacher trainees believe that TESOL
teacher education programs do not train them in teaching the pragmatic
dimensions of language (Biesenback-Lucas 2003: 3). The above-described
activities don’t only enhance students’ pragmatic ability but they can also
help them to identify the pragmatic problems their ESL/EFL students
might have. Kasper (1997) emphasizes the necessity of inclusion of
pragmatics in a teacher education programs by asserting that “raising
teachers’ awareness of cross-culturally diverse patterns of linguistic
action, including those performed under the institutional constraints of
language classroom, must play an essential role in the education in and
development of language teaching professionals” (p. 113).

Conclusion
In this chapter we sought to discuss pedagogical strategies which
experienced teacher educators have incorporated into their teacher
education classes to improve the pragmatic and linguistic proficiency of
trainees as part of our recognition of NNES’ multiple levels of language
proficiency in English. The activities suggested above were designed with
the goal of attending to NNESs linguistic needs during their graduate
studies; another objective was to integrate them into existing curricula
instead of establishing yet another course for NNES graduate students to
complete.
 Training Non-Native English Speaking TESOL Professionals 235

Cullen (1994) suggests that in order to improve the language

proficiency of teacher trainees, there are a number of general approaches
the course planner might adopt. They include: a) tackle the problem
indirectly, b) include a language component, c) link methodology and
language improvement, and d) make language improvement central. Due
to time and budget constraints and the priority given to other curriculum
areas, it is not always possible to give language development a central
place in TESOL/Applied Linguistics curricula. Yet, it is also clear that
NNESs’ language needs need to be addressed as part of their professional
development. In this chapter we focused on strategies that could easily be
integrated into existing courses NNES graduate students take. We feel that
linking NNESs’ language development with their professional development
is the most viable approach to enhancing their English language
proficiency.
Although we think that such attempts can help NNESs greatly in
improving their own English language skills (which will also aid them in
developing their professional self-esteem), there is much more we can and
should do to address the issue of teachers’ language proficiency.
Regarding the nature of language proficiency itself, we need to elaborate
on drawing the boundaries of this construct and also define the threshold
to be reached. In other words, what is sufficient or adequate language
proficiency? How do we determine it? How does this “sufficient” relate to
the local contexts of the teachers? In what variety of the English language
should NNES teachers have language proficiency? These are challenging
questions that need to be considered in light of local contexts as well as
global linguistic demands. Nonetheless, we need to address them with care
in order to come up with a satisfying definition of NNESs language
proficiency that can guide teacher educators, NNES teacher trainees and
their students alike.

References
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1997, March). Pragmatic awareness
and instructed L2 learning: An empirical investigation. Paper presented
at the AAAL 1997 Conference, Orlando, FL.
Biesenback-Lucas, S. (2003). Preparing students for the pragmatics of e-
mail interaction in academia: A new/forgotten dimension in teacher
education. Teacher Education Interest Section Newsletter, 18(2), 3-4.
236 Chapter Eleven

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper. G. (1989). Investigating cross-

cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview. In S. Blum-Kulka, J.
House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and
apologies (pp.1-34). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brady, B., & Gulikers, G. (2004). Enhancing the MA in TESOL practicum
course for nonnative English-speaking student teachers. In L. Kamhi-
Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience (pp. 206-230).
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Brinton, D. (2004). Nonnative English-speaking student teachers: Insights
from dialogue journals. In L. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and
teaching from experience (pp. 190-206). Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Butler, G. Y. (2004). What level of English proficiency do elementary
school teachers need to attain to teach EFL? Case studies from Korea,
Taiwan, and Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 38 (2), 245-278.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative
approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied
Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative
competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content
specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 5-35.
Cullen, R. (1994). Incorporating a language improvement component in
teacher training programmes. ELT Journal, 48(2), 162-172.
Dogancay-Aktuna, S. (2006, March). Professional self-confidence of
Turkish TESOL teacher educators. Paper presented at 40th Annual
TESOL Convention, Tampa, FL.
Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language
learners. ELT Journal, 59(2), 199-208.
Kamhi-Stein, L. (1999). Preparing non-native professionals in TESOL:
Implications for teacher education programs. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-
native educators in English language teaching (pp. 145-159).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kamhi-Stein, L., & Mahboob, A. (2005, March). Language Proficiency
and NNES Professionals: Findings from TIRF-Funded Research
Initiatives. Paper presented at the 39th Annual TESOL Convention,
San Antonio, TX.
Kamhi-Stein, L., & Mahboob. A. (2006). TESOL Virtual Seminar:
Teachers' Language Proficiency in English Language Teaching.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL Inc.
Kasper, G. (1997). The role of pragmatics in language teaching education.
In K.
 Training Non-Native English Speaking TESOL Professionals 237

Bardovi-Harlig & B. Hartford (Eds.), Beyond methods: Components of

second language teacher education. (pp.113-136). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Lee, I. (2004). Preparing nonnative English speakers for EFL teaching in
Hong Kong. In L. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from
experience (pp. 230-251). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
Liu, D. (1999). Training non-native TESOL students: Challenges for
TESOL teacher education in the West. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native
educators in English language teaching (pp. 197-211). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Mahboob, A. (2004). Native or nonnative: What do students enrolled in an
Intensive English program think? In L. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning
and teaching from experience (pp. 121-149). Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Malderez, A. & Bodóczky, C. (1999). Mentor Courses. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan.
—. (1999). Language training: A neglected area in teacher education. In
G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching
(pp.177-195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Murdoch, G. (1994). Language development in teacher training curricula.
ELT Journal, 48, 253-259.
Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Degree of approximation:
Nonnative reactions to native speech act behavior. In S.M. Gass & C.
Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 303-325).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Pasternak, M., & Bailey, K. (2004). Preparing nonnative and native
English-speaking Teachers: Issues of professionalism and proficiency.
In L. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience (pp.
155-176). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Reves, T., & Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native English speaking
EFL/ESL teacher’s self-image: An international survey. System, 22(3),
353-367.
Rinvolucri, M. (1985). Grammar games: Cognitive, affective and drama
activities for EFL students. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Rose, K. (1999). Teachers and students learning about requests in Hong
Kong. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and
learning (pp. 167-180). New York: Cambridge University Press.
238 Chapter Eleven

Samimy, K. & Brutt-Griffler, J. (1999). To be a native or nonnative

speaker: Perceptions of nonnative speaking students in a graduate
TESOL program. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English
language teaching (pp. 127-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Savignon, S. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art.
TESOL Quarterly, 25, 261-277.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Conscious learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In
G. Kasper &
S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Seidlhofer, B. (1996). ‘It is an undulating feeling…’ The importance of
being a non-native teacher of English. Vienna English Working
Papers, 5 (1&2), 74-91.
Tarone, E., & Yule, G. (1989). Focus on the language learner. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
 CHAPTER TWELVE

STUDENTS’ EVOLVING PERSPECTIVES

ON WORLD ENGLISHES, NON-NATIVE
ENGLISH SPEAKERS, AND NON-NATIVE
ENGLISH-SPEAKING TEACHERS BASED
ON A GRADUATE COURSE

REBECCA L. OXFORD AND RASHI JAIN

It takes a lot of courage to release the familiar and seemingly secure, to

embrace the new. But there is no real security in what is no longer
meaningful. There is more security in the adventurous and exciting, for in
movement there is life, and in change there is power.
– Alan Cohen

I am comforted by life's stability, by earth's unchangeableness. What has

seemed new and frightening assumes its place in the unfolding of
knowledge. It is good to know our universe. What is new is only new to us.
– Pearl S. Buck

Introduction
During the past millennium, English has dramatically spread to many parts
of the world (Kachru, Kachru, & Nelson, 2009; Ostler, 2006). It is rapidly
becoming the favored language—some might say reinforcing its dominant
and imperialistic stance—in many countries and is a clearly influential
second or third language in many others. In many places, English has
become so completely enmeshed with the local culture that many
“Englishes” have emerged, each with its own identity and flavor. A result
of this historic spread beyond the Center (U.K., U.S., Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand1) is that most English speakers today employ English as
a language of international and intercultural communication (Sharifan,
240 Chapter Twelve

2009) in many non-native English contexts. Speakers in these settings who

speak English as an additional language are thus often identified as non-
native English speakers, or NNESs (Bolton, 2009), as compared to native
English speakers, or NESs. Globally most English teachers, up to 80%
(Canagarajah, 1999), are non-native English-speaking teachers, or NNESTs
(Matsuda & Matsuda, 2001; Bolton, 2006), in contrast with native
English-speaking teachers, or NESTs.
One might assume that such facts would be generally known,
especially among educated professionals. However, people’s perceptions
often do not match reality. This disjuncture has resulted in a number of
myths and fallacies, counterproductive to the English language teaching
(ELT) profession (Kachru, 1994, 1995; Phillipson, 1992, 1996). When we
taught a graduate course on World Englishes (entitled “Teaching
English(es) around the World: Historical and Critical Perspectives”) in
summer, 2007, at the University of Maryland, some participants—
intelligent, talented professionals in TESOL, international education, and
English education—initially exhibited a few of the myths and fallacies in
the literature, as well as their own special misconceptions. These initial
misunderstandings were based on lack of familiarity with different global
English contexts and lack of prior opportunity to think critically about
their beliefs regarding World Englishes, NNESTs, NESTs, and so on.
This chapter’s purpose is dual: (a) to depict the approaches of the
course participants as they revised their initially erroneous assumptions,
and (b) to provide a potential course model by which misunderstandings
can be alleviated and deeper comprehension can grow. The chapter is
organized as follows: (a) review of related literature, (b) methodology, (c)
results, and (d) discussion and conclusion.

Review of Related Literature about Fallacies and Myths

Many references about fallacies and myths cited here were required course
readings, so this section provides some insight about one aspect of the
course. Phillipson (1996) identified the “native speaker fallacy,” which
suggests that the ideal teacher of English is a native speaker. This concept
is problematic conceptually (Kramsch, 1997; Rampton, 1990), politically
(Maum, 2002), and professionally (Canagarajah, 1999).
Why is it a fallacy to state that NESTs are inherently better teachers
of English than NNESTs? First, “People do not become qualified to teach
English merely because it is their mother tongue” (Maum, 2002, p. 1).
Second, NNESTs can learn what native speakers know: how to use idioms
appropriately, how to appreciate cultural connotations, and how to
 Students’ Evolving Perspectives on World Englishes 241

determine correctness of language forms (Phillipson, 1996). As a

corollary, NNESTs who have acquired English as part of regular,
multicultural contexts in their native countries sometimes come to ELT
already equipped with much native-speaker-type knowledge. Third, many
NNESTs have specific advantages over native speaking teachers: greater
personal sensitivity to and experience of the English learning process;
knowledge of language differences; understanding of students’ linguistic
and cultural needs; ability to anticipate problems; knowledge of learning
strategies that worked for them; and ability to serve as models of
successful English learners (Curtain & Dahlberg, 2000; Medgyes, 1992,
1996, 2001; Phillipson, 1992, 1996; Widdowson, 1992). In addition, some
have the special experience of a newcomer and can empathize with
newcomer students’ struggles (Auerbach, 1993). Mahboob (2004) found
that students recognize the unique competencies of NNESTs. “. . .
[S]tudents . . . do not necessarily buy into the ‘native speaker fallacy’. . .”
(Mahboob, 2005, p. 66). They often do not have a preference for either
NESTs or NNESTs (Mahboob, 2005).
However, program administrators often accept the native speaker
fallacy, believing NNESTs to be less instructionally qualified and less
linguistically competent than NESTs (Lippi-Green, 1997; Maum, 2002).
Non-Center NESs, such as those from India or Singapore, are often
viewed as less credible or competent than NESs from the Center
(Canagarajah, 1999). “The native speaker fallacy appears to legitimize this
dominance of Center professionals/scholars . . .” (Canagarajah, 1999, p.
85). Biases against NNESTs frequently result in hiring discrimination
(Mahboob, Uhrig, Hartford, & Newman, 2004). Mahboob et al. (2004)
statistically showed, through a survey study, that administrators of college-
level English language programs in the U.S. tended to want NESTs to
teach in their programs. “The single most important criterion in making
hiring decisions was ‘nativeness’” (Mahboob et al., 2004, in Mahboob,
2005, p. 64). Imported NESTs, often untrained in English teaching, are
typically paid more than well-trained, local NNESTs in some countries,
such as Taiwan (Rae Lan, personal communication, May 12, 2004).
Kachru (1994, 1995) noted other problematic myths besides the native
speaker fallacy: (a) the “interlocutor myth,” i.e., that people learn English
mainly to interact with native English speakers from Center countries; (b)
the “monoculture myth,” i.e., that English-learning occurs primarily for
the purpose of learning British or American culture; (c) the “model-
dependency myth,” i.e., that American or British models are the ones that
are taught and learned globally (in reality, local models provide the main
input); and (d) the “Cassandra myth,” i.e., that diversification of English is
242 Chapter Twelve

a sign of linguistic decay. These myths support the ideal of the NES from
Center countries and implicitly stigmatize many groups, such as NNESs,
NNESTs, and non-Center NESs.

Methodology
As the course instructors, we carried out “practitioner inquiry” in our own
instructional setting (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). We used a qualitative
approach intended to identifying changes in perceptions of participants
concerning World Englishes, NESTs, NNESTs, and non-Center NESs.
Additional themes emerged during the analysis.

Description of the Course

The graduate course, which had never before been taught at our university,
represented Freirean co-learning and mutual empowerment (Freire, 1970).
We, as the course teachers, were responsible for organizing the course;
identifying the required readings, films, and other basic resources; and
guiding the class. However, participants also taught us and each other.
We employed traditional course materials, assigning a number of
mandatory and recommended readings. Major course books included:
Braine (1999, 2005); Kachru, Kachru, and Nelson (2006); and Kamhi-
Stein (2004). We also used an array of additional selections, such as
chapters from Phillipson’s (1992) Linguistic Imperialism and many
journal articles.
Our classes were held in a multimedia Technology Teaching Theater,
where every student had constant access to a computer and the Internet.
There we showed whole videos as well as video segments. Course
instructors and participants made multimedia presentations that connected
readings, class discussions, and personal experiences. The Internet was a
hands-on class resource for participants and teachers; it gave us maps,
research papers, specific facts, and biographies of relevant experts during
class discussions or other activities. We also employed a course website
on BlackBoard, a university course management system on the Internet.
We uploaded many required readings and ad hoc selections to
BlackBoard. We did not ask participants to write online journal entries
about every reading but instead required a minimum of four entries (more
only if desired) per participant, thus encouraging higher quality journal
entries stimulated by interest. Participants were also required to upload
their three major assignments, described later, to BlackBoard.
 Students’ Evolving Perspectives on World Englishes 243

The primary objectives of the first half of the course were to reveal the
sheer complexity and diversity of English language contexts around the
globe, to plug the expected gaps in participants’ knowledge of World
Englishes, and to start developing critical perspectives. In the first half, we
focused on the historical spread of English, presented according to
geographical regions. We studied the emergence of World Englishes and
discussed the pros and cons of different classification systems, such as
Kachru’s Circle Theory (1992) and Kandiah’s New Englishes (1998). We
also analyzed the history of ELT and teacher perspectives from multiple
geographic regions.
We showed segments from the video series The Story of English
(1986) to highlight the spread of English historically and contemporary
versions. The exceptionally high production quality, linguistic factuality,
cultural features, and historical sweep caught participants’ interest, despite
the occasional “triumphalist” tone, which itself served as a springboard to
critical discussion. The film series Do You Speak American? (2005) was
enlightening because of its examples of the Englishes spoken across the
U.S. Especially valuable were two sequences on (a) rap and African-
American Vernacular English (AAVE) and (b) a public school classroom
in which the teacher valued students’ own varieties of English while also
giving them practice (through a Jeopardy game and other means) in
distinguishing between street dialects and “standard” English.
The class watched the film Mississippi Masala (1992) to explore
cultural, linguistic, and educational issues linking an Indian family’s life in
Uganda, the U.K., India, and the U.S. The class watched clips from the
films My Fair Lady (1964) and Akeelah and the Bee (2006) in the hope
that they would lead to discussions about imperialist and classist discourse
(and they did). The class used online audio clips from the International
Dialects of English Archive (IDEA, 2007) to provide a range of audio-
taped varieties of World Englishes. We created our own Jeopardy game
using IDEA and asked participants to listen to clips of different Englishes
and identify the continent and country where they were spoken.
Participants had two major assignments in the first half to expand and
consolidate knowledge.2 The first assignment had two options: (a) define
and expand upon the term “World Englishes” and provide a historical
overview of the spread of English and the emergence of World Englishes;
or (b) describe two ways of classifying varieties of English globally and
discuss merits and drawbacks of each. The second assignment likewise
had two options: (a) focus on one geographical area (continent/country)
and analyze the phenomenon of World Englishes there; or (b) provide a
comparison of two geographical areas/countries in terms of World
244 Chapter Twelve

Englishes. Participants were expected to use course readings, outside

readings, media sources, and personal experiences. They were asked to
include maps, charts, and other visuals to clarify their narrative material.
The objective of the second half of the course was to expand greatly
the critical perspective, the seeds of which had already been sown in the
first half. A framework we used for critically examining English varieties
was identification of a dozen “roles” played by English in various local,
regional, and global settings: auxiliary, supplementary (vehicular/touristic),
link-language (complementary), equative, heart-of-education, classist (elitist),
literary/artistic (innovative/imaginative), scientific/technical/academic,
regulative, entertainment/news-providing, interpersonal, and instrumental
(Kachru, 1996; Kamwangamalu, 2009; Oxford, 2007; Srivastava, 1994).
Some of these roles overlap. Several roles led to critical discussions of the
related concepts of linguicism, hegemony, and linguistic, cultural, and
educational imperialism (Phillipson, 1992). A fully critical approach
infused the participants’ examination of their own initial assumptions, as
well as their discussion of the myths and fallacies presented by Phillipson
(1992, 1996) and Kachru (1994, 1995); see the literature review.
Participants pointed out errors in their own pre-course thinking. The class
discussed collaboration between NNESTs and NESTs as a means of
eradicating misconceptions and transforming ELT for the better.
The final major assignment was to help participants consolidate their
own critical approaches. There were two options: (a) reflect on learning
experiences during the course, select any one or more themes that engaged
their critical thinking, expand upon the theme(s), and explain how the
information would be useful to teachers in universities and/or schools; or
(b) provide a rationale for educating students about World Englishes and
describe, in significant detail, several World Englishes activities for their
own classroom.

Participants in the Study3

The group, including teachers and participants, was diverse, ranging in age
from the early twenties to the early sixties. Of the ten student participants,
eight were pursuing TESOL masters’ degrees and two were doctoral
students (international education and English education). All either had
prior teaching experience or were currently teaching. Marshall, a Haitian-
American doctoral student in English education, had much experience
teaching high school English and leading English programs. As a mature
adult student with a booming voice and gravitas, he often expressed the
moral conscience of the class. Charles, an African-American doctoral
 Students’ Evolving Perspectives on World Englishes 245

student in international education, had recently returned from two years as

a Peace Corps volunteer in Tanzania, had studied neurobiology, and had a
passion for global hip-hop. Two TESOL students were from Taiwan:
Lily/Yu-Hui was an English interpreter and book translator who had
studied in the U.K. and the U.S., and Peggy/Pei-Hsien was a social studies
teacher completing her first overseas year in the U.S. Both of them had
much knowledge of World Englishes from an Asian perspective.
Shannon, a European-American TESOL student, half Irish, had tutored
ESL to adults while an undergraduate, completed a CELTA teaching
course in Spain, and taught EFL in Spain and Korea. Two European-
American master’s students, Darcy and Carrie, taught elementary school
ESOL. They had developed an officially sanctioned co-teaching
partnership in their school and were very close friends. Diane, a European-
American TESOL student, had been a primary school teacher in Australia,
where her students included large numbers of immigrants or children of
immigrants. At the time of our course, she was a reading and math
intervention teacher in primary grades. Married to an Iranian, she
personally understood cross-cultural and cross-linguistic issues. So did
Abigail, a European-American TESOL student and elementary teacher,
who was fluent in Spanish, formerly married to a Bolivian, and quietly
witty. Ananda, TESOL student, elementary school teacher, and Spanish
speaker, grew up in a diverse neighborhood where all the other children
her age were African-American; while most of her childhood friends were
African-Americans, she often felt like an “outsider” in their culture and
could therefore empathize with many of her minority students. Course
participants’ comments are shown in italics throughout this chapter.
Rebecca, a European-American professor of Second Language
Education and Culture, grew up speaking English. She specialized in
Russian for two university degrees and educational psychology for two
more. She studied French, German, and Spanish. She lived primarily in the
U.S., though with eight months in France. During a four-decade academic
career, she had traveled to 38 countries to present keynotes, symposia, and
workshops. Rashi, a doctoral student in Second Language Education and
Culture, grew up in multilingual India, where English and Hindi, along
with a smattering of other languages, formed a part of her everyday life.
Rashi studied Hindi, English, and Sanskrit as academic subjects at school,
and later completed simultaneous undergraduate studies in English and
German language and literature.
Participants often remarked upon the group’s diversity and how much
they learned from each other. We stressed the Vygotskyian concept of
“funds of knowledge,” popularized by Luis Moll (see, e.g., Gonzalez,
246 Chapter Twelve

Moll, & Amanti, 2005). This concept refers to historically developed and
accumulated cultural artifacts (e.g., strategies, skills, abilities, ideas,
bodies of knowledge, and practices) essential to effective functioning and
inherent in all individuals and households. Although these funds of
knowledge are often ignored in educational settings, we used them
extensively. We often acted intentionally as facilitators, helping
participants share their existing funds of knowledge about World
Englishes and cultures. As Carrie stated in an early journal entry, I am
excited to learn from everyone in our class about how they feel about
World Englishes. So many people have such wonderful “funds of
knowledge”. . However, despite the extensive knowledge participants
brought, they also had many gaps in their understanding of World
Englishes when they entered the course and had not had the chance to
question their assumptions critically.

Data Gathering, Analysis, and Interpretation

The study data, completely qualitative, came from students’ journal entries
and course assignments. Participants’ work is included here with
permission. Though we offered the option of anonymity for this chapter,
participants allowed and encouraged the use of their own names here and
seemed elated that their ideas and learning processes might help others.
We employed an adapted grounded-theory approach (Corbin &
Strauss, 1990), in which the main categories of analysis are not specified
in advance. In this approach, data sampling, data analysis, and theory
development (interpretation) are not distinct but are instead steps to be
repeated until the phenomena can be explained. The analysis ends only
after further cycles of looking at the data do not change the emerging
theory. Following standard procedures, we conducted (a) “open coding,”
which is concerned with identifying, naming, categorizing and describing
phenomena; and (b) “axial coding,” in which we related the identified
categories to each other through a combination of inductive and deductive
thinking involving reflection on phenomena, context, conditions, actions,
and consequences.
We constantly checked each others’ interpretations and continually
compared participants’ comments through several iterations of data
interpretation. To verify our interpretations, we did a post-course “member
check,” sending this chapter to participants and asking them to ensure
accuracy of interpretation. No participant suggested any changes in the
data interpretation.
 Students’ Evolving Perspectives on World Englishes 247

Results
All results centered on the main theme of new insights. This section
addresses results in three interpretive clusters. First, we wanted to discern
how initial assumptions were transformed by new insights. Second,
because the graduate course was so strongly supported by multiple media,
it was important to find out how the use of these media aided in the
gaining of new insights. Third, as applied linguists, we were interested in
how students talked about their learning in figurative and emotional
language; sometimes learning could not be captured in purely objective
terms.

Initial Assumptions Transformed by New Insights

The growth of new insights is reflected in Diane’s late-course journal
entry: This class made me aware of topics that I had never considered
before [and] it made visible to me things that had been brewing in my
[head] that I hadn't put words to before. Ananda wrote the following in her
first journal entry:

I have never really given any thought to English as it is spoken in other

countries until this class. In the past, I have had classes that focused on
differing dialects within the United States, and divergent word choice [ . .
.], and I was partly expecting [this] to be the same type of class, but on a
global scale. [ . . . ] [T]his is a whole new way of thinking. [ . . .] I actually
left class today feeling that I have spent most of my life being self-
absorbed, on a global scale. But, that just means there is more room for
growth!

We present here six initial, erroneous assumptions and the new insights
students gained during the class. The first two fallacies were related to the
native speaker fallacy: (a) bias against NNESs is justified and (b) bias
against NNESTs is justified. The other assumptions were: (c) location
fallacy, i.e., English proficiency is gained (only) where the language is
spoken natively; (d) standard English sufficiency fallacy, i.e., learning
“standard” English is enough; (e) legitimization fallacy, i.e., legitimization
is only done by native English speakers; and (f) simplicity fallacy, i.e.,
hegemony of English can be simply described.
248 Chapter Twelve

Initial Assumption 1.

Native Speaker Fallacy, Part A. Bias against NNESs is justified

Non-native speakers of English use “wrong”, “deficient”, “fossilized”, and
“incompetent” forms of English.

Students’ New Insight: Bias against NNESs is not justified

Non-native English speakers speak valid English, and non-native varieties
of English are valid forms of English.
Monolingual speakers of English are often unable to visualize a
scenario where speakers who speak English “differently” (as in speak a
non-native variety) use the language proficiently and competently.
However, many participants acquired a deeper understanding of the
contexts in which Englishes are adapted and used, and they applied this
understanding to analyze their life experiences. As Ananda wrote in her
journal entry,

In my school any student who is new to the U.S. is automatically referred

to as being an “ESOL” [English for speakers of other languages] student.
[. . .] It is assumed that if you are from another country you are
automatically deficient in speaking the “proper” English as taught in
American schools.

One of my students immigrated from Jamaica after her father died, and she
spoke English natively. However, upon arrival she was immediately placed
in the ESOL pull-out group. How is that fair? She speaks the same
language as “mainstream” America–English–yet she is placed in the group
for English language learners. [. . .] In her case, she was reading far below
grade level so the extra support was of great benefit to her, and her mother
appreciated the help. But, what if the next “newcomer” (as the ESOL
department calls them) is from India, Singapore, Philippines, or any other
Outer Circle country? It could be quite conceivable that this child may
have reading and writing skills that surpass the current expectations for
his/her age in [the local school system]. Yet, I can easily see the ESOL
department snatching this child up to teach them “proper” (otherwise
known as American) English.

Ananda later wrote a candid self-critique:

I have caught myself listening to someone speak another world English

and thinking “ha, ha, they put the emphásis on the wrong sylláble.”
Americans are very rigid in the types of pronunciation they will allow. [. . .
Using different pronunciation labels one] as wrong–outsiders–ignorant [. .
.]. It is seen as a failing on the part of the speaker [. . .]. In reality, it is
 Students’ Evolving Perspectives on World Englishes 249

more a failing on the listener to accept the validity of the speaker’s

variation of the original language.

Abigail analyzed a personal episode as follows:

Linguistic imperialism is unfortunately more widespread than one might

think. [. . .] I was embarrassed by an experience I had at a local traffic
court. I was there, waiting my turn to hopefully reduce my speeding fine as
I listened to other defendants give their explanations for various traffic
violations. First, anytime a defendant with a Latino surname was called,
they were asked if they needed an interpreter. If they indicated yes, then
they were asked to wait until all the other cases had been heard at which
time, the interpreter would hopefully be available. This inconvenience for
them did bother me slightly but what really caused me duress was the
judge's attitude. He basically heard them speaking English with a Latino
accent and automatically shut down his listening skills. Worse, when a
Nigerian woman was called to give her explanation, the judge stopped her
from speaking only after a few words and said: "I can't understand a word
you are saying, is there a translator available?" When she indicated no and
tried to go on the judge was then adamant about needing a translator to
understand her. To my ears, she was speaking "the Queen's English" with a
Yuroba accent. She WAS speaking English, it was just an English variety
that the judge was not familiar with. This was an educated representative
of our county government, and I was embarrassed that day by his
harassment of her. His imperialistic idea [was] that English spoken his way
was the only correct and understandable way [. . .].

Initial Assumption 2

Native Speaker Fallacy, Part B: Bias against NNESTs is justified

Those who speak English natively also teach it best, and others should not
teach it.

Students’ New Insight: Bias against NNESTs is not justified

One’s teaching abilities are not contingent upon the fact that one is a
native speaker of the language being taught.
Class discussions of the “native speaker fallacy” led to a shift in
perceptions. Ananda’s journal reflected a subtle change.

I am sorry to admit it, but I was one of the people who believed that
English is best taught by native speakers. But I will amend that thought [. .
.] I think that there are certain circumstances in which it may be better to
have a NEST, and others in which it may be better to have a NNEST,
250 Chapter Twelve

though the majority of the time if you’re just looking for a teacher, either
should be equally good.

Discussions helped some participants fully acknowledge the contribution

of NNESTs. Carrie wrote the following journal entry,

[. . .] I was mentored by a NNEST my first three years at the school and

continued to work closely with other NNESTs the past two years. Out of 7
teachers, 5 of them are NNEST! [ . . . ] I believe that I have been siding
with Phillipson's opposition to the Native-Speaker-Only argument that
seems to creep into English language teaching. I remember watching
Shuchi4 teach. She knew how to reach these children SO easily. She knew
what to say and how to say it to get them to understand . . . to get me to
understand why we say the things we say and write the way we write in
English. When we would reflect or plan our team teaching lessons
together, she could explain why they would struggle with certain concepts
and what was so difficult about being a second language learner. WOW.
Who is more perfect to teach English than someone who already had to
learn it and master it (I would argue) themselves! [. . .]

I was an English honors student all through high school and excelled in
college [. . .]. I'm no idiot. . . and that's the point. . . . I take/took English
for granted, making it harder for me to teach and explain to other people.
In fact, guess who it was that has taught me so much about English the past
five years? Yes, all of the NNESTs at my school. [ . . .]

Highly charged political-economic issues in education came to the fore in

Pei-Hsien’s discussion of NESTs and NNESTs in Asia.

[. . .] [I]t is not a bad thing to have NESTs in Taiwan, but NESTs need to
have their own profession in teaching instead of just coming to earn
money. [. . . ] [I]n Taiwan, NESTs get higher pay than NNESTs when both
do the same job. I think it is kind of discrimination regardless of the
profession in teaching. I know I cannot change anything, [. . .] but I still
hope to give NNESTs a voice in their profession and recognize their
position as equal partners in the field of English language teaching.

Pei-Hsien later continued this exploration of the theme of NESTs and

NNESTs in English language teaching in Taiwan in her third assignment.

Initial Assumption 3

Location Fallacy: English proficiency is gained only where the language

is spoken natively
 Students’ Evolving Perspectives on World Englishes 251

It is impossible to gain English proficiency in a country where English is

not spoken natively.

Students’ New Insight: English proficiency can be developed in

surprisingly many places, not just where the language is spoken natively
Resourceful, creative learners can develop English proficiency even in
locations that would seem nonconductive to this.
Carrie, an ESOL teacher, who initially subscribed to the mistaken
assumption, shared a classroom experience via a journal entry.

[Shobhana, a student from Nepal5] came to me at the beginning of the last

school year “labeled” an ESOL 2 [second level of English learning, out of
3 levels]. Upon an informal evaluation I placed her in my “high” ESOL 2/3
group. I concentrated on scaffolding the reading content [. . .]. Shobhana
did great! Every time she spoke to me she never stumbled for the correct
English word and her writing and spelling were impeccable! I, with
innocent ignorance, was astonished as I pulled her file a month into school
only to discover that she had just come to the county two months prior and,
according to her parents, Nepali was the home language. Wow, what a
great job speaking English for only being here such a short time! SO a few
weeks later I was delighted to report to her parents that Shobhana was a
child language prodigy!

The irony, of course, was that Shobhana had learned English very well in
Nepal. A mistaken assumption (immigrants always speak poor or no
English) led her to be placed in U.S. ESOL classes.
Rashi explained that during her first few months in the U.S. people
often said to her, “Your English is so good. How long have you been in
the States?”, and then expressed surprise that she had been in the country
for only short period. In a journal entry, Darcy referred to this particular
misunderstanding.

There is something very freeing about letting go of imperialistic beliefs. [ .

. ] [T]he more I learn the more I realize that due to ignorance I have been
unintentionally imperialistic. [. . .] I would have also been one of the
people that complimented Rashi on her English and asked how long she’d
been here. I regret this now that I know and I am feeling very hungry to
understand more about what I don’t know. [ . . . ]

Initial Assumption 4.

Standard English Sufficiency Fallacy: Learning “standard” English is

enough
252 Chapter Twelve

This assumption is that it is unnecessary to be familiar with other varieties

of English.

Students’ New Insight: Multiple versions of English must be recognized

and understood
To adapt to real life circumstances, it is important to be familiar with more
than just a so-called “standard” version.
NNESs, like many native English speakers, must recognize and be
familiar with more than just one so-called “standard” version of English.
Lily/Yu-Hui from Taiwan argued that Taiwanese learners of English need
to go beyond just one variety.

According to Crystal (1997), [ . . .] non-native speakers using English for

international communication now outnumber its native speakers. “[. . .]
[I]n the future it will be a language used mainly in multilingual contexts as
a second language and for communication between non-native speakers”
(Graddol, 1999) [. . .] [T]his shift leads to the need for a revised
classroom model, other than most commonly used General American
English model in Taiwan’s schooling system, to develop learners’
accommodation skills in relation to a wider range of English varieties.

Yu-Hui noted that Taiwanese English curriculum and materials do not

deal with different World Englishes. As a result, English language
learners in Taiwan may not know how to adapt [. . .].

Initial Assumption 5.

Legitimization Fallacy: Legitimization is only done by native English

speakers
Native English speakers are the judges of what constitutes legitimate
forms of English and can expand the zone of what is “legitimate.”
Students’ New Insight: Legitimization itself deserves critical scrutiny
Legitimization in itself can be problematized. Who does the legitimizing,
and why?

Darcy’s first assignment was critical of some common views of

English:

For me the term World Englishes (WE) means taking the arrogance out of
English, or rather expanding our mainstream myopic view of English to be
more inclusive. [. . .] By increasing what we consider “acceptable” English
to encompass other types of English that is spoken throughout the world,
we take away some of the potential for language imperialism and give
 Students’ Evolving Perspectives on World Englishes 253

value to other countries/regions where new forms of English have

emerged. REFLECTION: After rereading this paper, and discussing it with
some friends, I realized that my imperialistic undertones are evident in my
definition of WE. For example, my understanding of WE is the
legitimizing of Englishes spoken worldwide. . . but that in itself assumes
that I (as a speaker of Standard American English) has some amount of
power to judge what is legitimate and what is not. Now, of course, I am on
the side of giving value to WE, but it is somewhat arrogant in itself to
presume that any WE speakers need “my” approval to validate a language
they own themselves.

Initial Assumption 6

Simplicity Fallacy: Hegemony of English can be simply described

It is simple to describe the hegemony of English and especially the Center
varieties.

Students’ New Insight: Hegemony might seem simple, but it is actually

very complex
Hegemony includes complex processes and repercussions.
Carrie analyzed the highly complicated situation of Singlish
(Colloquial Singapore English) and the extremely different viewpoints
within the country. She mentioned the popular support of Singlish, the
government’s desire (see Yew, 2006) to crack down on Singlish and
promote more “standard” English through the Speak Good English
Movement (SGEM), and the clash between government language planners
and “invisible language planners,” i.e., parents, students, and teachers
(Man-Fat, 2005). As Carrie stated, Many citizens prefer conversing in
Singlish, because of its congenial undertones. Communicating in the
standard variety [promoted by the government] is viewed as distant and
cold and therefore avoided. Carrie explained the complex influences of the
governmental bilingual policy and SGEM on Singaporean-Chinese
citizens, on teachers of English, and on the country.
Phillipson (1992, pp. 74, 113) captured the complexity of hegemony:
the capacity of the dominant group to provide intellectual, moral, and
philosophical leadership and pursue policies which can be presented
plausibly as in the interests of the whole people, while at the same time
stigmatizing or ignoring local traditions and practices. Complexity was
underscored by Pennycook’s (2000, p. 177) comments on postcolonial
performativity:

Any concept of the global hegemony of English must [. . .] be understood

in terms of the complex sum of contextualized understandings of social
254 Chapter Twelve

hegemonies, [. . .] but such hegemonies are also filled with complex local
contradictions, with the resistance and appropriations that are a crucial part
of the postcolonial context.

Multimedia as a Means of Gaining New Insights

From the start it was clear that multimedia instruction was as vital as the
assigned readings for gaining new insights. Some felt that readings, while
crucially important, were more traditional, while discussions and
multimedia created understandings that were more immediate and “real.”
In her first journal entry, Shannon remarked,

What a lot we have to think about just from the introduction of World
Englishes! The readings for today's class were very interesting but
discussed the World Englishes through what seemed to be a more objective
lens, just giving the information and presenting different ways people
classify World Englishes. Our discussion in class and the video [. . .] both
gave more interesting and real interpretations of the terms of World
English, Standard English, dialects, and so on. Hearing different
perspectives on the idea of Englishes helps me (re)consider my own
perspective on the topic.

Many of the students wrote about expanding their understandings through

the films we watched. Here is an example from Ananda’s journal:

It seems to me that our class on World Englishes is irrevocably tied to the

imaginary course “Identities of World English Speakers.” After watching
Mississippi Masala, I could not answer the question of what English
Meena [a main film character] speaks. It was Marshall’s comment about
how Meena identifies herself that helped me realize that one person cannot
necessarily be pigeon-holed (or pidgin-holed ☺) into one category. Like
our identity, our language comes from different places – family, ethnicity,
culture, peers, even stereotypes that have been internalized. [ . . .] Meena’s
English has had influences from each place where she has lived and each
language she has heard or spoken.

Figurative and Emotional Language to Express New Insights

Students used not just factual language but also figurative and emotional
language to express new insights. The following is how Carrie described
Singapore in her second assignment:

A mixture, in chemistry, is a physical combination of two or more pure

substances. The components of a mixture retain their own chemical
 Students’ Evolving Perspectives on World Englishes 255

properties and may be present in any proportion. A specific type of mixture

is called a suspension, in which parts of a mixture are explicit enough to be
distinguished by visual observation, yet they are still part of the mixture as
a whole. Without one type of particle within the mixture, the mixture
ceases to exist. Singapore, as a nation, is a multicultural mixture, a
suspension, consisting of four explicit particles referred to CMIO (Chinese,
Malays, Indians, and Others) (Yap, 2000).

She employed a variety of other interesting metaphors, such as (a) Singlish

truly represents an ethnic cocktail and (b) with reference to the question of
who considers themselves Singaporean, the created concoction, peppered
and seasoned with numerous ethnicities . . .
The term “masala” from the film Mississippi Masala is a related
metaphor discussed in several participants’ journal entries. It means a
thick, rich, flavorful mixture of Indian spices. Participants found this
metaphor to be very helpful with regard to World Englishes. Similarly,
Charles fondly and accurately described English as a linguistic mutt due to
its mixed ancestry.
Ananda commented in her journal about English as a monopolistic
enterprise with a paragraph-long simile that began with English seems like
it has become the Microsoft of the language world.
In a journal entry, Marshall used a metaphor, Schooling, the Great
Sorter and Selector that separates the haves from the have nots of society,
and connected this with English as a factor in social mobility and access.
He then discussed the Jeopardy game sequence from Do You Speak
American?, in which the teacher was caring and creative in helping
students focus on both street English and school English. Marshall stated
metaphorically, Students will go to the moon for a caring teacher. He
connected the film sequence of the caring teacher with postmodernist
critical theory and constructivist pedagogy. Many in the class were moved
by this film segment.
Figurative language was sometimes mixed with personalized,
emotional language. A range of emotions emerged: sadness, anger, love,
elation, and excitement. Participants mentioned their sadness in
circumstances of perceived helplessness and negative realities: dealing
with linguistic imperialism; yearning to gain acceptance as an American in
Korean society, an “imagined community” (Kanno & Norton, 2003)
several years earlier for one of the participants; seeing hip-hop trends in
which American culture dominates as being the only cool and correct one;
observing native languages vanish as English takes hold; and finally
realizing that this course was coming to an end. Here is an example of
sadness as reflected in Carrie’s journal: I recall from the Story of English
256 Chapter Twelve

Part 2 we watched this afternoon, the two sheep herders who were Welsh .
. . there was a comment made how many people no longer speak their
dialect. My heart immediately sank. It is like the loss of the Native
American culture in America . . . such a loss [. . .].
Anger arose about a scene in the film Akeelah and the Bee. In this
scene, the scholarly African-American professor told Akeelah, a young
African-American girl, not to use “ghetto talk.” Ananda wrote in her
journal, When he accused Akeelah of “ghetto talk,” it hit me like a slap.
Who is he to judge and demean her! She obviously had the same reaction
when she insisted [to the professor] that she did not talk ghetto.
Love, elation, and excitement were also mentioned. For instance,
Carrie fell in “love” with Singapore early in her research on the subject. I
don’t know why I picked it. I didn’t know anything about it and had no
idea where it was. [ . . . ] I was AMAZED to learn about this little
diamond [ . . .] After an hour of research I was in love. Abigail wrote, I
too was elated to hear that the Early Language Learning belief was a
myth! I love languages and would like to learn as many as possible but
have always had the fear that I am starting too late in life. Charles
expressed excitement about possibilities of international hip-hop
collaborations using English, despite his concern about American
domination of the genre.

Conclusion and Implications

Course participants acquired a deeper understanding of the nature of
World Englishes and also came to the realization that different Englishes
are equally valid or acceptable, but that their validity or acceptability is
judged in relation to the highly contextualized, culturally situated roles
that English plays. The English varieties that are acceptable on an
international news broadcast on CNN, in a journal like TESOL Quarterly,
or in this book might differ from the varieties that are accepted in a
Singaporean classroom or business office, at a tourist restaurant in Greece,
or in English-language hip-hop lyrics from Taiwan.
Course participants were able to question stereotypes and correct their
own erroneous perceptions. They saw that imperialistic attitudes can result
in discrimination against NNESs, NNESTs, and non-Center NESs. They
problematized some roles that English plays, such as the “classist” role
and identified many negative effects of linguistic, cultural, and educational
imperialism, while recognizing certain benefits of globalization. They
rightly saw many English-use situations as complex and contradictory and
understood “language identities” as frequent sites of struggle.
 Students’ Evolving Perspectives on World Englishes 257

Through fearless discussion, critical problematizing, multimedia, and

readings, this course educated ten outstanding students of TESOL,
international education, and English education. Their transformation
process concerning World Englishes, NNESTs, and NESTs began and will
continue. Yet how many more professionals, without such an experience,
remain trapped in their misconceptions about these topics? How much
more discrimination must occur? Courses like ours should become more
frequent in order to help alter misperceptions and change discriminatory
practices. We hope this chapter will inspire readers to conduct such
graduate courses and help other professionals understand the arbitrariness
of the “standard English” concept and the dangers of the “native speaker”
fallacy and other fallacies. We also hope that readers will help
nonprofessionals, such as English language students, to identify and
resolve any confusions they carry about these topics.
Rather than closing the door to the English classroom, keeping the
teacher isolated, NNESTs and NESTs can open the door and work
together, either as co-teachers or co-planners. Friend and Cook (2007) and
Lacina, Levine, and Sowa (2006) presented a variety of models for teacher
collaboration. What better illustration of collaboration than that which
occurred between this chapter’s co-authors, a NEST and a NNEST, in
teaching the course and writing this chapter.
Carrie’s journal implied that repercussions from the course might
continue to move in ever-widening circles. For instance, she described a
friend who believed in the “native speaker fallacy,” with which Carrie
disagreed.

[NNESTs] are even better teachers than me (as a native) because though I
have no accent I also have never learned English as a second language,
plus since it is my L1 I just know when things sound right, but often I
don’t know why they are right. [ . . .] I know that this woman [my friend]
is very compassionate, and does not mean to hurt other teachers’ feelings,
she just hasn’t seen the other side of the issue yet. I am going to tell her
next semester when I see her about this class and how the majority of the
world does not speak English as a first language, so what’s the point of
making all teachers follow this myopic view of the only “proper” way of
speaking. I think that when I talk to her more in depth about this myth, she
may change her mind.

In a later entry, Carrie mentioned wanting to have a full immersion

experience in another culture and language. As she stated, This could only
enhance my English teaching ability and help squash any hidden remnants
of linguistic and cultural imperialism that may linger in the depths of my
heart! We and the student participants recognized that biases are difficult
258 Chapter Twelve

to exorcise from our hearts and minds. This course was, for all of us, a
significant step in our long-term professional growth and transformation.

References
Atchison, D. (Director). (2006). Akeelah and the Bee (Widescreen
Edition). Lionsgate.
Auerbach, E.R. (1993). Reexamining English Only in the ESL classroom.
TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9-32.
Bolton, K. (2009). World Englishes today. In B. B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, &
C. L. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of World Englishes (pp. 240-269).
Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
Braine, G. (Ed.). (1999). Non-native educators in English language
teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
—. (Ed.). (2005). Teaching English to the world: History, curriculum, and
practice. Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
Canagarajah, S. (1999). Interrogating the “native speaker fallacy”: Non-
linguistic roots, non-pedagogical results. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-
native educators in English language teaching (pp. 77-92). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English
language teaching. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (Eds.). (2009). Inquiry as Stance:
Practitioner Research for the Next Generation. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures,
canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3-21.
Cran, W. (Director). (2005). Do You Speak American? New York: PBS
productions.
Cran, W. (Director). (1986). The Story of English. Homevision.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cukor, G. (Director). (1964), My Fair Lady. Warner Home Video.
Curtain, H., & Dahlberg, C. (2000). Planning for success: Common
pitfalls in the planning of early foreign language programs. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics. Washington, D. C.:
Center for Applied Linguistics.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2007). Interactions: Collaboration skills for
school professionals (5th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
 Students’ Evolving Perspectives on World Englishes 259

Gonzalez, N., Moll, L.C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of

knowledge: Theorizing practices in households and classrooms.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graddol, D. (1999). The decline of the native speaker. AILA Review, 13,
57-68.
International Dialects of English Archive (IDEA) since 1997 (2007).
Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://web.ku.edu/idea/.
Kachru, B. B. (1965). The Indianness in Indian English. Word, 21, 391–
410.
—. (1992). World Englishes in the classroom: Rationale and resources. In
B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue (pp. 355-365). Chicago, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
—. (1994). The Speaking Tree: A medium of plural canons. In J.E. Alatis
(Ed.), Educational linguistics, crosscultural linguistics, and global
interdependence (pp. 6-22). Washington, D. C.: Georgetown
University Press.
—. (1995). Teaching world Englishes without myths. In S. K. Gill (Ed.),
Proceedings of the International English Language Education
Conference, National and international challenges and responses (pp.
1-19). Bangi: Pusat Bahasa Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
—. (1996). Models for non-native Englishes. In B.B. Kachru (Ed.), The
other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 48-74). Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Kachru, B. B., Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C.L. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook
of world Englishes. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (Ed.). (2004). Learning and teaching from experience:
Perspectives on nonnative English-speaking professionals. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press.
Kamwangamalu, N.M. (2009). South African Englishes. In B.B. Kachru,
Y. Kachru, & C.L. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of World Englishes
(pp. 158-171). Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
Kandiah, T. (1998). Why New Englishes? In J. Foley, T. Kandiah, Z. Bao,
A.F. Gupta, L. Alsagoff, C.L. Ho, L. Wee, I.S. Talib, & W. Bokhorst-
Heng (eds.), English in new cultural contexts: Reflections from
Singapore (pp. 1-40). Singapore: Singapore Institute of Management
and Oxford University Press.
Kanno, Y. & Norton, B. (2003). Imagined communities and educational
possibilities: An introduction. Journal of Language, Identity, and
Education, 2(4), 241-249.
Kramsch, C. (1997). The privilege of the non-native speaker. PMAL,
112(3), 359-369.
260 Chapter Twelve

Lacina, J., Levine, L., & Sowa, P. (2006). Helping English language
learners succeed in Pre-K–elementary schools. Alexandria, VA:
TESOL.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent. Language, ideology, and
discrimination in the United States. New York: Routledge.
Mahboob, A. (2004). Native or non-native: What do the students think? In
L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience:
Perspectives on nonnative English-speaking professionals (pp. 121-
147). East Lansing, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Mahboob, A. (2005). Beyond the native speaker in TESOL. In S. Zafar
(Ed.), Culture, Context, and Communication (pp. 60-93). Abu Dhabi:
Center of Excellence for Applied Research and Training & The
Military Language Institute.
Mahboob, A., Uhrig, I., Hartford, B., & Newman, K. (2004). Children of a
lesser English: Nonnative English speakers as ESL teachers in English
language programs in the United Stated. In L.D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.),
The state of the non-native teachers in the United States (pp. 100 -
120). East Lansing, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Man-Fat, M.W. (2005). A critical evaluation of Singapore's language
policy and its implications for English teaching. Karen’s Linguistics
Issues. Retrieved July 10, 2007, from
http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/singapore.html
Maum, R. (2002). Nonnative-English-speaking teachers in the English
teaching profession. CAL Digest. Washington, D.C.: Center for
Applied Linguistics.
Matsuda, A., & Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Autonomy and collaboration in
teacher education: Journal sharing among native and nonnative
English-speaking teachers. CATESOL Journal, 13(1), 109-121.
Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: Who's worth more? ELT
Journal, 46, 340-349.
—. (1996). Native or non-native: Who’s worth more? In T. Hedge & N.
Whitney (Eds.), Power, pedagogy, and practice (pp. 31-42). Oxford,
U.K.: Oxford University Press.
—. (2001). When the teacher is a non-native speaker. In M. Celce-Murcia
(Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston,
MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Nair, M. (Director). (1992). Mississippi Masala. Sony Pictures.
Ostler, N. (2006). Empires of the word: A language history of the world.
New York: Harper Perennial.
 Students’ Evolving Perspectives on World Englishes 261

Oxford, R. (2007). The “heart of education” role and other roles of

English. Unpublished presentation, University of Maryland, College
Park, MD.
Pennycook, A. (2000). English, politics, ideology: From colonial
celebration to postcolonial performativity. In T. Ricento (Ed.)
Ideology, politics and language policies: Focus on English (pp. 107–
20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford
University Press.
—. (1996). ELT: The native speaker’s burden. In T. Hedge & N. Whitney
(Eds.), Power, pedagogy & practice (pp. 23-30). Oxford, U.K. Oxford
University Press.
Rampton, M. B. H. (1990). Displacing the “native speaker”: Expertise,
affiliation, and inheritance. ELT Journal, 44(2), 97-101.
Sharifian, F. (ed.) (2009). English as an International Language:
Perspectives and pedagogical issues. Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Srivastava, R. N. (1994). Applied linguistics. (Studies in language and
linguistics no. 4). Delhi: Kalinga Publications.
Widdowson, H. (1992). ELT and EL teachers: Matters arising. ELT
Journal, 46(4), 333-339.
Yap, M. (2000). Who is a Singaporean? SAIS Review, 20(1), 125-131.
Yew, L. T. (2006). Speech for the launching of the Speak Good English
Movement in Singapore. Retrieved July 10, 2007, from
http://www.goodenglish.org.sg/site/official-speeches/radm-ns-lui-tuck-
yew-minister-of-state-for-education-at-the-launch.html

Notes
1
It is interesting to note that English had already been introduced to India before
Australia & New Zealand were settled. However, Australia & New Zealand are
considered Center, but the other colonies are not. Mary Romney’s chapter in the
volume raises these issues.
2
Here we present skeletal information on these writing assignments. Full details of
these assignments are available from the authors.
3
In describing the race and nationality of participants, we struggled with the
difficulty, the discomfort, and, from one perspective, the vacuousness of the
concepts of race and nationality. Yet we needed some reasonable identifiers to
depict the group’s diversity. It was easy enough to identify Haitian-American,
African-American, and Taiwanese class members, but it was difficult to decide
what to call others: Whites, European-Americans, Caucasian-Americans, or
something else? We did not wish to view them as the “unmarked case”. “White”
was inappropriate, as we did not call anyone else Black, Red, or Yellow.
262 Chapter Twelve

“Caucasian-American” was useless, as it is not in favor in anthropology and is

often misused. We settled on European-American (to parallel African-American
and Haitian-American) while recognizing the wide range of diversity among
European-Americans. The strain of the formal “diversity naming” process to
describe the group for this chapter contrasted with the class situation, in which we
openly, joyfully shared our diverse backgrounds and experiences without much
labeling.
4
Name changed.
5
Name changed.
 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

COLLABORATIVE TEACHING OF EFL

BY NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE ENGLISH-
SPEAKING TEACHERS IN TAIWAN

WEN-HSING LUO

Introduction
In 2001, Hsin-Chu City, an industrial city in the northern part of Taiwan,
launched the first ever native English-speaking teacher (NEST) program in
the country, i.e., including NESTs in elementary schools. Actually,
inviting native English-speakers to teach English as a foreign language
(EFL) in the school system is not an unusual practice in the Asia Pacific
region. For instance, the Primary Native-Speaking English Teacher
Scheme (PNET) in Hong Kong, the Japan Exchange and Teaching
Program (JET), and the English Program in Korea (EPIK) have been
around for some time now. In Hong Kong, the importation of trained and
experienced NESTs to schools started in 1987 and since then various
NEST schemes had developed. In 2002, the PNET scheme was introduced
to provide primary students with an authentic environment to learn
English, to develop innovative teaching and learning methods and to
promote the professional development of local English teachers in Hong
Kong (Carless, 2006). In Japan, since 1987 the Japanese government has
recruited native speakers of English as teaching assistants through the JET
program in order to improve English teaching and learning at the junior
and senior high school levels (Crooks, 2001). Similarly, EPIK, sponsored
by the Korean government, was introduced in 1995 to improve the English
speaking abilities of Korean students, to develop cultural exchanges, and
to reform teaching methodologies in English (EPIK website, 2009).
Contrasted with the JET program and EPIK, which are sponsored by
their respective central governments and recruit foreign university
graduates from English-speaking countries, the management of Hsin-Chu
264 Chapter Thirteen

City’s NEST program is awarded to a non-state education agency by the

city government. NESTs have been hired by city or prefectural
governments in Taiwan through a similar fashion since 2001, and starting
2003, all NESTs hired through this scheme were required to be qualified
and licensed teachers. The central government followed suit in 2004 when
NESTs were recruited by the Ministry of Education (MOE), as opposed to
those by local governments, to fulfill a shortage of qualified elementary
school English teachers in remote areas. As NEST programs are not part
of a centralized language teacher policy and decisions on the
implementation of programs are left to individual cities or prefectures, it is
difficult to track down the total number of NESTs teaching in elementary
schools in Taiwan. As of 2009, twenty-two out of twenty-five
cities/prefectures in Taiwan have implemented NEST programs. As NEST
programs have become prevalent in Taiwan, alongside other Asian
countries, e.g., China and Korea, the significance of implementing NEST
programs cannot be overlooked. It is worthwhile to look into issues
pertaining to NEST programs, and to search for a model for collaborative
teaching by NESTs and local teachers in the school system.
In this chapter, the author, based on her study, wishes to present
categories of collaborative teaching by NESTs and local teachers as well
as components of optimal collaborative teaching by these two groups of
teachers in Taiwan. Additionally, training for teaching collaboration and a
possible model of collaborative EFL teaching would be suggested
accordingly.

Literature Review
To cast light on issues of collaborative teaching of EFL by NESTs and
non-NESTs (NNESTs), in the following section the author wishes to
review previous studies of NEST programs, in particular those in Taiwan.

NESTs Programs
A NEST program refers to a language teacher policy made by
governments which results in the inclusion of NESTs as a major source of
English instruction in the school system (Sommers, 2004). According to
the guidelines for NEST programs in Taiwan posted on the MOE website
(2003), to be eligible for a NEST program, teachers must be native
speakers of English-speaking countries, four-year college graduates, and
have a teaching license in their home country for elementary schools or
language arts. Currently, English-speaking countries recognized by the
 Collaborative Teaching of EFL by Native and Non-native 265
English-speaking Teachers in Taiwan

MOE are Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK and the USA.
However, in the city where the present study was conducted, South
African teachers have been recruited as NESTs since the city’s NEST
program was introduced. The requirements for NESTs might vary in
individual cities/prefectures. Nevertheless, holding a teaching license and
being a native speaker of English are the must for a prospective NEST.
NEST programs in Taiwan aim to (a) promote team work of English
teaching and learning and improve English learning environment for
students in remote areas, (b) innovate local English teachers’ concepts
about English language education through exchanging ideas about
teaching methods and materials between local teachers and NESTs, (c)
improve students’ learning and communication ability in English, and (d)
facilitate cultural exchanges between Taiwan and other countries and
advance other countries’ understanding of Taiwanese culture (MOE
website, 2003).
The function of the NEST programs in Taiwan is two-fold:
educational and cultural. It is clearly stated in the guidelines by the MOE
that teachers in NEST programs are to work with Taiwanese teachers of
English (TTEs) as an English teaching team at the school and to support
the research and development of English teaching methods and materials.
Job descriptions for NESTs are as follows: (a) to support collaborative
teaching of English and develop effective learning activities, (b) to support
compensatory instruction for students and promote conversational English,
(c) to support the research and development of supplementary materials,
(d) to introduce new ideas of English learning through teaching
demonstrations and school visits, and (e) to assume other duties related to
English learning and cultural exchanges. While NEST program policy
decisions are made by local governments in Taiwan, these guidelines serve
as a framework for programs in individual cities or prefectures where they
are implemented.
In spite of the prevalence of NEST programs in North-East Asia (i.e.,
Japan, Korea, and Taiwan), there are many who argue against the
effectiveness of NEST programs as educational policy. For instance, the
JET program has been existent in Japanese high schools for years, but
academic research has revealed some of the program’s shortfalls such as
lack of training, conflicts in institutions (Crooks, 2001), and uncertainty of
team teachers’ roles (Kachi & Lee, 2001). Similarly, a study by Peng
(2003) on the issues of NESTs in Hsin-Chu City in Taiwan also shows that
challenges have accompanied the inclusion of NESTs such as management
of NESTs and conflicts between NESTs and local English teachers.
Furthermore, Sommers (2004) argues that NEST programs are not
266 Chapter Thirteen

efficacious because most NESTs working in NEST programs are not

involved in teaching in a professional manner and the teaching activities
most NESTs carry out resemble the instruction given in clubs or non-
school organizations. He states that NESTs most often work as an assistant
teacher in team teaching situations, where instructional skills and ability is
irrelevant and the responsibility of student conduct inside the classroom
does not fall on NESTs’ shoulders.
Notwithstanding Sommers’ arguments, a few studies related to NEST
programs in Taiwan have suggested a favorable stance. For instance, a
study by Cheng (2003) finds that elementary school English teachers and
parents in a prefecture, where a NEST program was not yet available, had
a positive attitude towards the inclusion of NESTs in elementary schools
in their prefecture. As well, in Lin’s (2001) study, a questionnaire survey
of 2210 students from grade 2 to grade 6 in Hsin-Chu City, where a NEST
program had just been implemented, shows that most of the students
became interested in English learning under the teaching by NESTs for
nearly one school term. In addition, a study by Carless (2006) on the
PNET scheme in Hong Kong indicates that the scheme had a positive
impact on students and teachers.
Previous studies have suggested the strengths and challenges of
NEST programs. As the implementation of NEST programs has been
animatedly discussed both at home and abroad, more studies based on
empirical data are called for in order to shed light on programs of this kind
(e.g., Chou, 2005; Luo, 2006, 2007a, 2007b).
Next, the author wishes to review research on various models of
collaborative teaching and collaboration between NESTs and local
teachers.

Models of Collaborative/Team Teaching

The terms, “collaborative teaching” and “team teaching”, seem to have
been used interchangeably in literature; however, definitions of these two
terms can be distinguished. Quinn & Kanter (1984) refer to team teaching
as true team work between two qualified instructors who jointly make
presentations to an audience. According to Maroney (1995), there are five
different models of team teaching: (1) traditional team teaching, where
two teachers actively share the responsibility for the instruction of content
and skills to all students; (2) complimentary/supportive instruction, in
which one teacher assumes the responsibility for teaching the content to
the students and the other teacher provides follow-up activities on related
topics or study skills; (3) parallel instruction, in which a class is divided
 Collaborative Teaching of EFL by Native and Non-native 267
English-speaking Teachers in Taiwan

into two groups and each teacher provides instruction to a smaller group of
students on the same content or skills; (4) differentiated split class team
teaching occurs when a class is divided into two groups according to a
specific learning need (e.g., a higher-lower split) and each group is
provided with instruction that meets the learning need by one teacher; and
(5) monitoring teacher, that is as one teacher assumes the responsibility for
class instruction, the other teacher circulates the room and monitors
student performance and behavior.
In comparison, Robinson and Schaible (1995) define collaborative
teaching as two teachers working together in designing and teaching a
course that uses group learning techniques. In other words, in a model of
collaborative teaching, team teachers do not teach the material by
monologue, but by exchanging and discussing ideas in front of the learners
and using group learning techniques such as pair/small-group work and
student-led discussion to promote students’ learning (Goetz, 2000). In the
field of education, collaborative teaching has been used as a tool in the
classroom to promote students’ learning. For instance, Johnston et al.
(2000) describe a collaborative model for teaching content vocabulary to
students with disabilities. This model consists of three steps: identifying
the vocabulary sub-skills needed to be taught; developing language
activities that incorporate opportunities for acquisition and practice of
these sub-skills; and collaboratively teaching using effective teaching
strategies.
Whereas the model of collaborative teaching has long been used in
special education, the practice of collaborative teaching is not without its
challenges. Welch and Sheridan (1995) have found that teachers need to
tackle four challenges when attempting to work together: conceptual,
pragmatic, attitudinal and professional barriers. To meet the challenges of
collaborative teaching, Robinson and Schaible (1995) provide a rather
comprehensive list of guidelines for modeling collaborative teaching at the
college level such as looking for a team teacher with a healthy psyche,
choosing materials that speak to one another, discussing teaching
philosophies and methods and reviewing criteria for grading, to name but
a few. Furthermore, Maroney (1995) identifies the prerequisites for
successful collaborative teaching which emphasize team teachers’
attitudes and personal qualities as well as planning and debriefing time.
She believes that successful team teachers are those who can maintain
focus on the students and agree upon the purposes of team teaching and
expectations for students and their teaching partners. Similarly, Goetz
(2000) describes certain key elements necessary for successful
collaborative teaching including compatibility of team members, shared
268 Chapter Thirteen

commitment to collaborative teaching and ongoing communication. Team

teachers’ interest in connecting the curriculum to real life and desire to
encourage students’ motivation for learning are also essential for
collaborative teaching.

Collaborative Teaching by NESTs and NNESTs

Several studies have focused on collaboration between NESTs and
NNESTs (de Oliveira & Richardson, 2001; Matsuda & Matsuda, 2001),
but very few have looked at collaborative teaching by NESTs and
NNESTs in EFL contexts. In one of the few studies that investigates
collaborative teaching by NESTs and NNESTs in the school system,
Sturman (1992) conducted a case study of a cooperative project between
the British Council Cambridge English School (CES) and a local Board of
Education in Japan. In this project, qualified and experienced teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) from CES worked with
Japanese teachers of English (JTEs) to jointly teach junior high school
students. Sturman’s study indicates that the teacher participants developed
a successful approach to working together throughout the project and
students’ reaction was positive. In another study, Tajino and Tajino (2000)
reviewed team teaching practices in Japanese secondary EFL classrooms
and suggested that “team-teaching should be reinterpreted as team-
learning” (p.9). They have proposed various team patterns which provide
both NEST and NNEST with opportunities to develop as language
teachers. In comparison, Kachi and Lee (2001) investigated the
collaborative teaching experiences of JTEs and native English-speaking
assistant language teachers (ALTs) in the JET program. They found that
JTEs and ALTs were uncertain about their roles as team teachers and the
biggest problem for JTEs and ALTs in collaborative teaching was the lack
of channels to access the upper educational administration.
In a comparative study of collaborative teaching by NESTs and
NNESTs in South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong, Carless (2002) found
challenges facing team teachers such as lack of planning time and
understanding of the rationales of collaborative teaching. In addition, a
study by Luo (2006) indicates that NESTs and NNESTs in elementary
school classrooms in Taiwan had contrasting perceptions in terms of the
collaborative teaching they performed and the role each team teacher
played. Notwithstanding the challenges discussed above, collaborative
teaching by NESTs and NNESTs is considered to have a positive impact
on students (Carless, 2006; Luo, 2006), and cross-cultural collaboration is
beneficial for teachers’ professional development (Liao & Sims, 2006).
 Collaborative Teaching of EFL by Native and Non-native 269
English-speaking Teachers in Taiwan

While teaching tips for NESTs and NNESTs have been proposed to tackle
potential challenges arising in a collaborative teaching situation (e.g.,
Benoit and Haugh, 2001; City University of Hong Kong, 1998; Johnston
& Madejski, 1990), essential mechanisms and plans that enable ongoing
improvement still need to be described (Carless, 2006). It is therefore
worthwhile to search for a viable model that might provide both NESTs
and NNESTs alike with directions for optimizing collaborative teaching of
EFL. The current study attempts to develop a model as such and to
suggest a training course for teachers’ professional development. In next
sections, details of the study would be explained, followed by a discussion
of the findings.

The Study
The present study aims to characterize the collaboration between NESTs
and local teachers in elementary classrooms in Taiwan and the make-up of
optimal collaborative teaching by them. With the understanding of the
characteristics of the collaboration between NESTs and local teachers and
the qualities of successful collaborative teaching, the author wishes to
make suggestions on improving teaching practice of this kind. The
research setting of this study is in a city located in the northern part of
Taiwan, where the author has served as a teaching advisor for the
Elementary School English Education Program implemented by the city
government. To collect empirical data, this study employs extensive
classroom observations, supplemented by individual interviews with six
teachers (i.e., two NESTs, two TTEs and two Taiwanese homeroom
teachers who are not English teachers but team taught with the NESTs).
Each teacher participated in two individual interviews, which were
conducted in English or Chinese according to the participant’s choice and
focused on the teachers’ perception with respect to the make-up of optimal
collaborative teaching by NESTs and local teachers (i.e., TTEs and
homeroom teachers). All the interviews were tape recorded and later
transcribed and, if required, translated into English. Classroom
observations were conducted for eight months and in total covered 60
classes, each of which was taught by a team of one NEST with either one
TTE or one Taiwanese homeroom teacher. Field notes were taken during
the observations. Interview data and observation notes were combined and
analyzed thoroughly, and then were categorized according to themes that
emerged.
About 40 NESTs were observed in the course of this study and all of
them are native English speakers with four-year college degrees and
270 Chapter Thirteen

teaching licenses. Among the NESTs being observed, two of them agreed
to participate in interviews along with two TTEs and two homeroom
teachers who team taught with them. These six teachers, two NESTs
(Becky and Nancy), two TTEs (Chen and Kao) and two homeroom
teachers (Huang and Wang) (all these names are pseudonyms) were
invited to participate in the interviews through personal contact. The
author first contacted the TTEs, through whom the NESTs and homeroom
teachers were invited. All the teacher participants are female. Becky taught
with Chen and Huang in one elementary school, and Nancy with Kao and
Wang in another. Both NESTs, Becky and Nancy, are from South Africa.
Becky was an experienced teacher and taught English in South Africa and
America for years, and Nancy just became a certified elementary school
teacher before moving to Taiwan. Becky and Nancy were in their first year
of teaching EFL in elementary schools in Taiwan at the time of this study.
TTE, Chen, had taught EFL with NESTs for two years, and Kao for four
years. As to the homeroom teachers, both Huang and Wang had been
elementary school teachers for more than three years, but it was the second
year for Huang to be involved in collaborative teaching of EFL and the
first year for Wang. Although the length of collaborative teaching
experience of the TTEs and homeroom teachers varied, all of them were in
the first year of working with the NESTs, Becky and Nancy.
In terms of teacher training, it was noted that TTEs and homeroom
teachers in the study had received no or very little training on collaborative
teaching. Compared to their co-teachers, the NESTs attended 60 hours
pre-service training in addition to an in-service workshop once every other
Wednesday afternoon during the school semester. These workshops and
training focused on teaching techniques, activity design, and classroom
management.

Findings
In the following section, the author wishes to discuss the research findings
derived from data analysis. The discussion is divided into two parts: (1)
categories of collaborative teaching by NESTs and local teachers, and (2)
components of optimal collaborative teaching by NESTs and local
teachers.
 Collaborative Teaching of EFL by Native and Non-native 271
English-speaking Teachers in Taiwan

Categories of Collaborative Teaching By NESTs

And Local Teachers In Taiwan
According to the Taiwan’s MOE guidelines, NESTs are to work with
TTEs at the school and support the development of teaching materials.
Yet, observation notes show that in reality NESTs took sole responsibility
for lesson planning and had to co-teach either with a TTE or a homeroom
teacher in whose classroom they had been assigned to teach. Depending
on the size of the school, the number of co-teachers a NEST worked with
could be up to 18 if homeroom teachers were included. Field notes taken
in classroom observations manifest that collaborative teaching of EFL by
the NESTs and local teachers (i.e., TTE and Taiwanese homeroom
teachers) falls into three categories: traditional team teaching, monitoring
teacher (in Maroney’s (1995) classification), and a combination of these
two. In the following section, teaching episodes commonly seen in
collaborative teaching classes by the NESTs and local teachers in the
study are categorized and illustrated.

Traditional Team Teaching

The study finds that this type of collaborative teaching was uncommon
and could only be seen in classes taught by a NEST and a TTE, mostly an
experienced TTE. In a traditional team teaching class, both NEST and
TTE were jointly responsible for the instruction of the students.

Classroom observation
The local teacher, Kao, greets the students, while the NEST, Nancy, sets
up teaching aids. Nancy and Kao collaboratively help the students review
the material taught in the last lesson. For instance, Nancy says the word on
a flash card and Kao repeats it with the students as a way to encourage
them to participate and direct their attention to what they are reviewing.
Nancy and Kao demonstrate the text using role play. When doing an
activity with the students, Nancy explains the instruction first and then
Kao rephrases it in simple English or translates it into Chinese to make
sure that the students understand what is expected of them. Either Nancy
or Kao monitors the students’ performance when appropriate. Nancy and
Kao actively and equally share the responsibility for English instruction to
the students.
272 Chapter Thirteen

Monitoring Teacher

According to field notes, this type of collaborative teaching commonly

occurred in classes taught by a NEST and a homeroom teacher whose
English proficiency was limited. In a class of this kind, the NEST alone
was in charge of all the instruction to the students, and the local teacher
mainly monitored students’ behavior.

Classroom observation
The instruction is given only by the NEST, Nancy. Nancy alone
demonstrates the lesson, leads the students in playing games, and prepares
and sets up teaching aids. The local teacher, Wang, is not involved in
teaching but stands aside or walks around the class to monitor students’
performance and behavior. Wang can be heard at times when asking the
students to behave themselves or to participate in activities.

Combination of Traditional Team Teaching and Monitoring Teacher

Observation notes show that this type of collaborative teaching was most
commonly seen and could be found in classes taught by a team of a NEST
and a TTE or a NEST and a homeroom teacher. In a class employing the
conflation of traditional team teaching and monitoring teacher approach,
the NEST leads the instruction and the local teacher assists her.

Classroom observation
The NEST, Becky, gives a lesson, and the local teacher, Chen, walks
around the class to maintain classroom discipline and ensure that the
students participate. When Becky introduces a new activity, Chen
translates what Becky said into Chinese or rephrases it in simple English
so as to make sure that the students understand the instruction. When
Becky leads the students in playing a game, Chen helps recording points
for teams.

Contrary to Sommers’ (2004) argument that NESTs work as an assistant

and their instructional skills and ability are irrelevant, this study finds that
there can be three types of collaborative teaching between NESTs and
local teachers in a Taiwanese setting. Except for very few cases of
traditional team teaching, where the NESTs and local teachers shared the
responsibility for the instruction of the students, in the other two types of
collaborative teaching the NESTs were actually in charge of teaching in
 Collaborative Teaching of EFL by Native and Non-native 273
English-speaking Teachers in Taiwan

the classroom. The NESTs and local teachers were not on an equal footing
in terms of teaching responsibility.

Components of Optimal Collaborative Teaching by NESTs

And Local Teachers in Taiwan
This study based on observation of classes and interviews with the
participants finds that the make-up of optimal collaborative teaching
perceived by the teacher informants consists of eight components:
Respect, Equality, Flexibility, Language (for communication and
discussion), Empathy, Collaborative Culture, Time and Knowledge (i.e.,
R.E.F.L.E.C.T. Knowledge). These constituents collectively improve the
delivery and quality of collaborative teaching of EFL by the NESTs and
local teachers. In the following, the eight components, R.E.F.L.E.C.T.
Knowledge, are described and exemplified by sharing excerpts from the
interviews with the teachers.

Respect

Interview data from the teacher participants indicates that team teachers
need to pay respect for each other’s expertise and opinions, especially
when disagreement on instruction or student discipline occurs.

TTE Kao: Let other teachers feel respected. Mutual respect between team
teachers is necessary to sustaining a good relation.

NEST Becky: They (local teachers) told me that it’s better to repeat in
English and children can get it over and over again. I said it’s too much.
They said it is just okay. They know the children better. They are quite
confident in English and in the field, so I don’t have a problem.

Becky remarked that even if she disagreed with her co-teachers on

instruction at times, she respected her co-teachers’ opinions and would
adjust her instruction accordingly. Previous research shows that
conflict between NESTs and local English teachers is a challenge that
accompanies the inclusion of NESTs in English classrooms at
elementary schools. Therefore, mutual respect is particularly important
for NESTs and local teachers who team up for the first time.
274 Chapter Thirteen

Equality

Although the notes taken in the extensive observations show that most of
the NESTs were in charge of the classroom instruction, the teacher
participants believed that team teachers should be on equal footing with
each other. As Kao and Huang commented, respectively:

TTE Kao: Presently, the marking work falls on local teachers, but I think
in a favorable situation of collaborative teaching, work needs to be divided
fairly and equally between NESTs and local teachers.

Homeroom Teacher Huang: Don’t think that English class is a class taught
only by NESTs. It is also your class, so you are there to facilitate students’
learning.

Neither NEST nor local teacher is superior in the classroom. Rather, both
teachers are jointly responsible for the instruction to the students.

Flexibility

Compared to the previous studies that emphasize team teachers’ attitudes

and personal qualities (e.g., Maroney, 1995) or compatibility of team
teachers (Goetz, 2000), this study acknowledges the importance of team
teachers’ willingness to adapt to different cultures and diverse situations.
For instance, homeroom teacher, Wang, said:

Homeroom Teacher Wang: In terms of personality, I think both NESTs

and local teachers need to be open-minded and flexible to different ideas.

NEST Nancy: NESTs need to learn to adapt to different cultures and

diverse situations… You are not only coming to teach but also coming to
live here. I know although I don’t eat all Chinese food, but I would eat if
you give me something. Just be flexible. Don’t be rude.

As Nancy remarked, it is essential for NESTs, who are in a culture

different from their own, to be flexible in order to maintain a favorable
rapport with their co-teachers.

Language (for communication and discussion)

As distinct from teachers’ English language proficiency, the component of

language derived from the interview data refers to team teachers’ abilities
and skills to communicate and discuss issues with each other.
 Collaborative Teaching of EFL by Native and Non-native 275
English-speaking Teachers in Taiwan

TTE Kao: Teachers need to know what (English) language is appropriate

for discussion and communication. They need to know the polite forms of
using (English) language.

This type of comment indicates a need for the Taiwanese teachers to

improve their English language ability to ensure effective communication
for collaboration, as Wang commented:

Homeroom Teacher Wang: In addition to teaching expertise and skills,

NESTs and local teachers need to acquire ability and skills for successful
communication and dialogue with each other. If team teachers are not
equipped with good communication skills, collaborative teaching might be
undermined.

The remarks by Wang suggest the importance of proper communication

skills in maintaining ongoing communication and discussion of teaching
philosophies and methods, which are considered necessary for successful
collaborative teaching (Maroney, 1995; Goetz, 2000). The following
comments by Chen also indicate Taiwanese teachers’ language need for
proper communication.

TTE Chen: Taiwanese teachers are hesitant to openly speak their mind
when communicating with NESTs. When they do speak out, very often,
they are not able to present themselves in a language that is appropriate
when communicating with NESTs.

This complication refers back to the previous element of “Flexibility”,

whereby the NESTs may need to accommodate their language to create a
safe communication space.

Empathy

In addition to flexibility, the teacher participants considered empathy, i.e.,

willingness to share each other’s feelings and experiences as well as those
of the students, as a valuable quality of team teachers in collaborative
teaching situations.

NEST Becky: I’ve taught in different countries and settings for years, I
know how important it is to be able to feel other people’s feelings,
especially after I’ve worked with many different teachers. It will definitely
help you to prevent unhappy situations if you can be considerate with the
people you work with.
276 Chapter Thirteen

TTE Kao: It is important for both NESTs and local teachers to be able to
empathize with their co-teachers. It is a plus in collaborative teaching if
both NEST and local teacher are considerate and understanding.

At times, NESTs and local teachers might seem at odds due to the
differences of cultural background. It is crucial for the teachers to be
willing to share each other’s feelings and put themselves in other’s shoes.

Collaborative Culture

Generally, teachers are trained to teach on their own, and teaching modes
do not tend to facilitate mutual support or encouragement (Mathews,
1994). Yet, a collaborative culture is essential for enhancing teacher
development (Tsui et al., 1996). With the collaborative culture developed
in the school setting, the NESTs and local teachers could overcome the
sense of isolation and reinforce their teaching styles (cf. Robinson &
Schaible, 1995). The teachers could offer each other a sounding board for
problem solving. NEST Nancy remarked:

NEST Nancy: I learn from discussing my teaching with other people… If I

have a problem and need a suggestion, I would ask them because I know
they have to keep on the top… So if you know the teachers are happy at
their school or are successful in teaching, ask them for advice.

Additionally, they can offer themselves as fellow navigators in explorations

of their own strengths and weaknesses in teaching, as TTE Chen notes:

TTE Chen: In my opinion, team support to each other’s strengths and

weaknesses is important. For instance, at times the students have difficulty
understanding the NEST because she speaks with an accent. In this
situation, we decide to divide our teaching responsibilities according to our
strengths so as to optimize our instruction.

Time

In accordance with previous research (e.g., Carless, 2002; Welch &

Sheridan, 1995), this study finds that lack of planning time is a challenge
facing team teachers.

TTE Kao: In order to team up well in the classroom, time for planning and
discussion before class is indispensable.
 Collaborative Teaching of EFL by Native and Non-native 277
English-speaking Teachers in Taiwan

Lack of planning time seems a concern endemic among all teachers, and
the teacher participants emphasized that team teachers especially need
regular collaboration time for lesson preparation and discussion of issues,
as seen in Chen's comment below:

TTE Chen: To make collaborative teaching possible, I think the most

important thing is preparation time for both NEST and TTE. We both need
to teach 20 periods of classes each week. We have very little time left for
preparation, not to mention for socializing after class.

Time is indispensible in effective collaboration and may include

allowances before and after teaching sessions, as well as additional time
for team-building experiences.

Knowledge

Data analysis reveals that teacher knowledge necessary for collaborative

teaching of EFL includes language competence, collaborative teaching
skills, knowledge about curriculum, teaching styles, teaching materials and
assessment formats as well as understanding of students’ abilities and
learning styles.

NEST Becky: If they know about the curriculum, about what the students
want, about the students’ levels, about the ability groups in the classroom,
it will make it much better. If they know students’ attitude and social,
emotional maturity, it is quite helpful.

NEST Nancy: It would be better if you have knowledge of all teaching

styles and not only the one you are using. When you work with many co-
teachers, you will have people with different teaching styles, so having the
knowledge of different teaching styles will help you to be flexible and to
accommodate to all these styles and to be able to work with them.

In addition, understanding of host and guest cultures needs to be taken into

account.

TTE Kao: I think teacher knowledge for collaborative teaching includes

knowledge of English teaching methods, lesson planning, assessment,
classroom management and culture and customs of English-speaking
countries.

NEST Becky: Having taught in different countries… and teaching children

in diverse culture and background, I know getting to meet people from
other culture or different background helps a lot.
278 Chapter Thirteen

Teacher knowledge for collaborative teaching of EFL, as indicated by the

teacher participants’ comments above, encompasses knowledge of
educational systems and teaching methodologies as well as the diversity of
cultures they are situated in.
The study finds that the make-up of optimal collaborative teaching
perceived by the NESTs and local teachers can be characterized as
Respect, Equality, Flexibility, Language, Empathy, Collaborative Culture,
Time and Knowledge (i.e., R.E.F.L.E.C.T. Knowledge). Although it might
not be an exhaustive list for successful collaborative teaching, it could
serve as a reminder for NESTs and local teachers alike when they team up
with each other and try to attain a favorable rapport.
In addition, it was found that collaborative teaching by the NESTs and
local teachers in the study falls into three types: traditional team teaching,
monitoring teacher, and a combination of these two. Based on the findings
discussed above, in the following sections, the author wishes to offer
suggestions for incorporating the components of R.E.F.L.E.C.T.
Knowledge into appropriate training for these collaborative EFL teaching
scenarios represented in Taiwan. As well, a possible teaching model
would be proposed.

Training for Optimal Teaching Collaboration

The following training activities aim to improve collaboration between
team teachers (i.e., to address components of Respect, Equality,
Flexibility, Language, Empathy, and Collaborative Culture) and to
enhance teachers’ instructional competencies (i.e., the component of
Knowledge). Modules included in the proposed training scheme are
described as follows (cf. Sakash & Rodriguez-Brown, 1995):

1. Introduction to collaborative teaching of EFL: this training module

covers topics such as getting to know your co-teacher(s) and
understanding the essence of collaborative teaching and different
teaching models.
2. Formats for developing collaborative teaching plans: this module
includes training activities about how to plan lessons collaboratively,
for instance, developing a format of lesson planning that both
teachers agree upon.
3. Cultural understanding: it informs NESTs and local teachers of the
differences regarding cultures and educational/school administrative
systems between guest and host countries.
4. Strategies for integrating students and instruction: this session
includes topics on collaborative discipline, meaningful instruction
and understanding of students.
 Collaborative Teaching of EFL by Native and Non-native 279
English-speaking Teachers in Taiwan

5. Peer negotiation: it is to inform teachers of appropriate language

usage, manners and skills in communication and discussion.
6. English language enhancement: this training session is intended for
local teachers to continue English proficiency development.
7. Problem solving and conflict resolution: this module is to help team
teachers develop a collaborative culture as well as strategies of
problem solving through collaborative reflection, for instance, using
video recordings of teachers’ teaching.

As stated earlier, the training modules are designed according to the

components of the make-up of optimal collaborative teaching. All these
proposed training sessions are intended for NESTs and local teachers to
attend together so as to help team teachers attain collaborative teaching
skills and to promote goodwill among them.

A Model of Collaborative EFL Teaching

Obviously, an alternative model to the traditional, monitor and
combination collaborative models is necessary for elements like equality
to be incorporated into teaching roles. The author suggests that the role of
local teachers should be defined clearly as opposed to simply being a
complement to that of the NEST. With light shed from previous studies on
approaches to collaborative teaching (e.g., Johnston & Madejski, 1990;
Johnston, et al., 2000; Robinson & Schaible, 1995), the author wishes to
propose a collaborative teaching model which aims to help NESTs and
local teachers clarify their roles and responsibilities in the co-teaching
relationship rather than simply splitting teaching duties in the classroom.
In this model, four elements are included: lesson planning, collaborative
teaching, monitoring, and collaborative reflection, which are cyclically
interconnected, as explained in the following section.

Lesson planning
Ideally, NESTs are to work with TTEs as a team and to support the
development of teaching methods and materials as stated in the MOE
guidelines. Yet, the study reveals that the NESTs tend to take primary
responsibility for lesson planning, even if some of the local teachers might
provide suggestions on the lessons. To engage local teachers in planning
lessons with NESTs, the author suggests that before collaboratively giving
a lesson in the classroom, both NEST and local teacher:
280 Chapter Thirteen

1. Determine the content of the lesson to be taught.

2. Identify difficult material for students’ level and new material
according to the school curriculum.
3. Talk through the preparation of the lesson, in a bilingual manner if it
is necessary for homeroom teachers, and listen to each other and be
prepared to compromise.
4. Agree in advance about how to handle differences in interpretation
and evaluation of the content and activities.
5. Decide who will present material and carry out activities, what
instructional strategies will be implemented, and how.
6. Prepare lesson material and teaching aids.

Collaborative teaching
The study finds that the NESTs and local teachers were not on an equal
footing with regard to teaching responsibility. Namely, the NESTs were in
charge of teaching while the local teachers worked mainly as an assistant.
To perform collaborative teaching, NESTs and local teachers need to share
the teaching responsibility in the classroom. Accordingly, the author
suggests the teachers:

1. Use collaborative approaches to provide all students (i.e., the high-

and low-level students alike) with opportunities to learn from both
NEST and local teacher.
2. Use the fact that a NEST and a local teacher are present in the
classroom to the fullest, i.e., to deploy each teacher’s expertise
through role play, joint demonstrations and discipline rather than just
having the teachers take turns at teaching.
3. If it would benefit the students when only one NEST or local teacher
is present, let the teacher lead part of the lesson, e.g., a phonics
activity.
4. At the end of the class, summarize the material that is newly taught in
the current lesson, in students’ first language if appropriate.

Monitoring
As Edmunsdson and Fitzpatrick (1997) state, the nature of collaboration in
teaching could take other forms. In addition to lesson planning and
classroom teaching, the component of monitoring, which was least
practiced by the teachers in the study, needs to be part of collaborative
teaching in order to keep students’ learning on track. To bring
collaborative teaching to fruition, both NEST and local teacher need to:
 Collaborative Teaching of EFL by Native and Non-native 281
English-speaking Teachers in Taiwan

1. Discuss testing, assessment and criteria for grading that they think is
appropriate for the lesson and for the students.
2. Develop a system for monitoring student learning that reflects the
school curriculum and involves assessment of speaking, listening,
reading and writing.

Collaborative reflection
Collaborative reflection is included in the proposed teaching model so as
to maintain critical interaction between NESTs and local teachers after the
class time (which was rare for the teachers in the study). Additionally, by
reflecting together, the team does not only improve their teaching
performance but also continues professional development in a
collaborative manner. To achieve this, the author suggests both NEST and
local teacher:

1. Discuss the lesson afterwards, even if in an informal conversation.

2. Participate in a formal collaborative reflection (in a bilingual manner
if necessary), e.g., video reflection session, on a regular basis so that
both NEST and local teacher can learn from the joint experience.
3. Discuss how to modify instructional strategies and activities to meet
individual students’ needs.

Granted that individual school settings vary, it is hoped that the proposed
collaborative model can be a guide for NESTs and local teachers when
they engage in collaborative teaching and provide them with insights into
the workings of collaborative teaching in EFL classes.

Conclusion
In conclusion, this chapter attempted to illuminate the characteristics of
the NEST and local teacher collaborative context of Taiwan, as well as the
components of the framework of optimal collaborative teaching of EFL.
The compilation of the components of optimal collaborative teaching is
not meant to be final and may vary depending on the teaming up of
NESTs and local teachers. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the author has
managed to help shed light on the make-up of favorable collaborative
teaching by NESTs and local teachers. The author also hopes that the
collaborative teaching model and training scheme proposed herein,
although not comprehensive, could serve as a guide for NESTs, local
teachers and teacher educators about how to facilitate collaborative
teaching. Finally, the author was fully aware of the limitations of the study
282 Chapter Thirteen

as the findings were mainly drawn from information collected through

observations and interviews. Therefore, extensive inquiries into
collaborative teaching by NESTs and local teachers are called for. Issues
pertaining to the collaboration between NESTs and NNESTs, for instance,
the effects of such collaboration on the development of NNESTs, need to
be addressed.

References
Benoit, R., & Haugh, B. (2001). Team teaching tips for foreign language
teachers. The Internet TESL Journal 7(10). Retrieved March 3, 2009,
from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Benoit-TeamTeaching.html
Carless, D. (2002). Conflict or collaboration: Native and non-native
speakers team teaching in schools in South Korea, Japan and Hong
Kong. Paper presented at the 7th ESEA conference, Baptist University,
Hong Kong, 6th December, 2002.
—. (2006). Collaborative EFL teaching in primary schools. ELT Journal,
60(4), 328-335.
Cheng, H-F. (2003). Wai Ji Jiao Shi Dzai Miao Li Hsien Dan Zan Ying
Yu Jiao Hsue Chi Yien Jiou [A study of the employment of foreign
English teachers as English teachers in Miao-Li Prefecture].
Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taipei Teachers College,
Taiwan.
Chou, M-Y. (2005). Hsin Chu Shi Guo Ming Hsiao Hsue Ying Yu Hsie
Tung Jiao Hsue Chi Yien Jiou [A study of English collaborative
teaching at elementary schools in Hsin-Chu City]. Unpublished
master’s thesis, National Taipei Teachers College, Taiwan.
City University of Hong Kong, Centre for the Enhancement of Learning
and Teaching (1998). Team teaching. Retrieved March 3, 2009, from
http://teaching.polyu.edu.hk/datafiles/R27/html
Crooks, A. (2001). Professional development and the JET program:
Insights and solutions based on the Sendai City program. JALT
Journal, 23(1), 31-46.
de Oliveira, L. C., & Richardson, S. (2001). Collaboration between native
and nonnative English-speaking educators. The CATESOL Journal,
13(1), 123-134.
Edmunsdson, E., & Fitzpatrick, S. (1997). Collaborative language
teaching: A catalyst for teacher development. The Teacher Trainer,
11(3), 16-18.
EPIK home page (2009). Retrieved March 3, 2009, from
http://www.epik.go.kr/
 Collaborative Teaching of EFL by Native and Non-native 283
English-speaking Teachers in Taiwan

Goetz, K. (2000). Perspectives on team teaching. Retrieved March 3,

2009, from http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~egallery/goetz.html
Johnston, B. & Madejski, B. (1990). A fresh look at team teaching. The
Teacher Trainer 4(1). Retrieved March 3, 2009, from
http://www.tttjournal.co.uk/uploads/File/back_articles/A_fresh_look_a
t_team_teaching.pdf
Johnston, S., Tulbert, B., Sebastian, J., Devries, K., & Gompert, A. (2000).
Vocabulary development: A collaborative effort for teaching content
vocabulary, Intervention in School and Clinic, 35(5), 311-315.
Kachi, R. & Lee, C. (2001). A tandem of native and non-native teachers:
Voices from Japanese and American teachers in the EFL classroom in
Japan. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on
Language Teacher Education, Minneapolis, MN. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 478 746)
Liao, M-H. & Sims, J. (2006). Professional development through team-
teaching: A case study of collaboration between native English
speaking teacher and non-native English speaking teacher. Report
prepared for National Science Council, R.O.C. (NSC 93-2411-H-029-
016).
Lin, Y-C. (2001). Wai Ji Jiao Shi Dan Zan Hsin Chu Shi Guo Hsiao Ying
Yu Jiao Hsue Chi Yien Jiou [A study of the employment of foreign
English teachers by Hsin Chu City as English teachers at elementary
schools]. Unpublished masters’ thesis, National Hsinchu Teachers
College, Taiwan.
Luo, W-H. (2007a). A collaborative model for teaching EFL by native and
non-native English-speaking teachers. Curriculum and Instruction
Quarterly, 10(3), 187-202.
—. (2007b). A study of native English-speaking teacher programs in
elementary schools in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8 (2),
311-320.
—. (2006). Collaboration between native and non-native English-speaking
teachers: How does it work? The Journal of Asia TEFL, 3(3), 41-58.
Maroney, S. (1995). Some notes on team teaching. Retrieved March 3,
2009, from http://www.wiu.edu/users/mfsam1/TeamTchg.html
Mathews, R. (1994). Enriching teaching and learning through learning
communities. In T. O’Banion and associates (Eds.), Teaching and
Learning in the Community College (pp. 179-200). Washington, D.C.:
American Association of Community College.
Matsuda, A. & Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Autonomy and collaboration in
teacher education: journal sharing among native and nonnative
English-speaking teachers. The CATESOL Journal, 13(1), 109-121.
284 Chapter Thirteen

Ministry of Education, Taiwan. (2003, April 21). Yin Jin Ying Yu Wai Ji
Shi Tzy Cheng Tse Mu Biao Yu Chi Hsing Ji Hua Chung An Bao Kao
[Report on the project of recruiting native English-speaking teachers:
policy goals and implementation]. Retrieved March 3, 2009, from
http://www.edu.tw/content.aspx?site_content_sn=1367
Peng, S-T. (2003). Wai Lai De Ho Shang Bi Jiao Huei Nian Jing: Tsung
Hsin Chu Shi Chung Wai Ji Jiao Shi Hsie Tung Jiao Hsue De Kun Nan
Yu Chan Yi Tan Chii [Monks from abroad are better preachers?:
Difficulties and issues of foreign teachers’ collaborative teaching in
Hsin-Chu City]. Unpublished masters’ thesis, National Taiwan
University, Taiwan.
Quinn, S. & Kanter, S. (1984). Team teaching: An alternative to lecture
fatigue. Innovation Abstract. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services
No. ED 251 159)
Robinson, B., & Schaible, R. (1995). Collaborative teaching. College
Teaching, 43(2), 57-59.
Sakash, K. & Rodrigues-Brown, F. (1995). Teamworks: Mainstream and
bilingual/ESL teacher collaboration. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Services No. ED 389 205)
Sommers, S. (2004, October 6). Why native speaker teacher programs
don’t work? Retrieved March 3, 2009, from
http://scottsommers.blogs.com/taiwanweblog/2004/10/why_native_spe
a.html
Sturman, P. (1992). Team teaching: A case study from Japan. In D. Nunan
(Ed.), Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 141-161).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tajino, A. & Tajino, Y. (2000). Native and non-native: What can they
offer? ELT Journal, 54(1), 3-11.
Tsui, A.B.M., Wu, K.Y., & Sengupta, S. (1996). Enhancing teacher
development through teleNex: A computer network for English
language teachers. System. 24(4), 461-476.
Welch, M. & Sheridan, S. (1995). Educational partnerships serving
students at risk. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
 CHAPTER FOURTEEN

STRENGTH THROUGH DIFFERENCE:

OPTIMIZING NEST/NNEST RELATIONSHIPS
ON A SCHOOL STAFF

JAN EDWARDS DORMER

Introduction
The following vignettes1 were compiled from real teaching situations in
Brazil and Indonesia. They highlight some of the possible contexts in
which native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) and nonnative English-
speaking teachers (NNESTs) work together on school staffs in English as
a Foreign Language (EFL) settings. Emerging research assures us that
such contexts are not limited to Brazil and Indonesia, but are fairly
widespread, as NESTs and NNESTs work together more and more across
the globe (e.g. see Braine, 1999; Machado de Almeida Mattos, 1997;
Tajino & Tajino, 2000).

Siti2 is a fourth grade science teacher at a bilingual school in Indonesia.

Her background is in science, and she was told she must teach science in
English. She has training neither in education nor in teaching English.
People say she speaks English well, but she feels she makes a lot of
mistakes. And she’s feeling frustrated in her teaching. Her students often
don’t understand what she says to them in English, and so she usually ends
up giving most of the class in Indonesian. She constantly fears that she will
get in trouble for this, but doesn’t know what else to do. Siti knows that
there are some Americans on staff who teach the English classes, and she
wonders if they could help her. But she has never even been introduced to
them, let alone engaged in conversation with them. So she carries on alone
and worried.

Agus teaches at a private English school in Indonesia. He needed a job and

speaks English fairly well, so he thought English teaching would be an
286 Chapter Fourteen

easy thing to do. The school where he works also has several foreign
teachers. They’re always laughing and joking about how they don’t really
know what they’re doing. At first he didn’t understand this, because he
assumed that since English was their first language, surely they would be
expert English teachers. But he has come to realize that maybe one needs
to know more than English to be an English teacher. He has a lot of
interaction with the foreigners at his school, and more and more they talk
about the problems they’re all encountering in teaching English. He’s
beginning to think that maybe they all need to learn more about how to do
this.

Laura teaches at a private English school in Brazil. She has a degree in

“Letters” from a Brazilian university, with a specialization in teaching
English. She feels that she and the other Brazilian teachers on staff know
how to teach English well. Unfortunately, however, the students still
clamored for a “native speaker,” and to prevent the school from losing
students to other programs with native speakers, they finally hired Bob.
He was in Brazil as a tourist, liked the country, and wanted to find an
English teaching job so he could stay longer. Bob began teaching
conversation classes, and Laura felt somewhat jealous and frustrated as his
classes became more and more popular with the students. She felt that
students didn’t value her solid grammar teaching as they ought to. She and
the other Brazilian teachers don’t include Bob much in their formal or
informal conversations about teaching, as they don’t really view him as
part of the teaching staff.

Silvia also teaches at a private English school in Brazil. Like Laura, she
has a degree in “Letters”, and is even working on graduate level courses in
teaching English. At her school, half of the teachers are Brazilian, and half
are native English speakers from Canada and the U.S. Most of the foreign
teachers don’t arrive with training in teaching English, but they begin
attending seminars right away–and Silvia is able to give some of these
seminars. In addition, she and the other Brazilian teachers provide
Portuguese classes for the foreign teachers, something she really enjoys. In
this school, both groups of teachers work together a lot. They prepare
special events, work on curriculum, and deal with student problems
together. The foreigners seem to appreciate the tips that the Brazilian
teachers give them about teaching methods, and Silvia appreciates having
them there to answer her questions about things such as English idioms.
Sometimes there are cultural differences, but most of the time Silvia
wouldn’t want to work anywhere else.

Though these teachers represent diverse contexts and backgrounds, they

all have one thing in common: they are nonnative English speaking
teachers who teach on a school staff alongside native speakers. How
teachers interact with one another in school settings has long been seen as
 Strength Through Difference 287

a factor in teacher satisfaction and school effectiveness (Clandinin &

Connelly, 1995; Lambert, 1996; Sergiovanni, 1994). This research
investigates NNEST/NEST interactions and relationships on school staffs,
and highlights issues contributing to positive interactional environments.

Background
Research

The qualitative research providing the basis for this chapter on

NEST/NNEST working relationships was undertaken in Brazil and
Indonesia. In each country a school site was chosen for primary research,
with additional school sites providing background information. The two
principal school sites were comparable in student numbers, and both were
located in medium-sized cities known for their educational emphasis.
However, they differed in type, the school in Brazil being an English
language school for all ages, and the school in Indonesia being a bilingual
K-12 school3. Though the school in Indonesia had more NNESTs on staff,
the schools had similar numbers of NESTs on staff. In Brazil, five
NNESTs and seven NESTs participated in this research, and in Indonesia
ten NNESTs and four NESTs. In each setting, interviews, questionnaires
and focus group sessions provided the means for gathering data
concerning the teachers’ backgrounds, their roles in the school, and their
experiences and feelings with regard to the other group of teachers (NEST
or NNEST), in the school setting.
Brazil and Indonesia are both countries where English is a foreign
language, but where English proficiency is often considered important for
advancement in the workplace or in education. Parents of means in both
countries eagerly pay private school fees so that their children can learn
English. And in both countries we find university students and adults in
the workplace taking English classes in the evenings and on weekends, to
gain better employment or to further their studies.
However, the two countries differ significantly in their predominant
views on training for English language teaching. In Brazil, the Bachelor’s
degree in “Letters” is valued, and considered in many places to be the
appropriate training for Brazilians wanting to teach English. In contrast,
schools in Indonesia which emphasize English acquisition, whether
English schools or bilingual K-12 schools, usually seek teachers who are
considered proficient in English – regardless of their educational
background. Education in general does not have the prestige of business or
science, and so those with a high level of English often enter more
288 Chapter Fourteen

technological fields (Dursin, 2000). Some of these later enter the English-
teaching profession – often getting jobs on the basis of their English
proficiency alone.
In both countries, “native speakers” tend to be highly valued by the
general population. In Brazil, this may lead to an undervaluing of
appropriately educated Brazilian English teachers, whereas in Indonesia it
perhaps fosters the already predominant view that only English
proficiency is required in order to teach English (Dormer, 2006).

Key Issues
This view of training in relationship to English teaching is one of two key
issues that will be addressed in this chapter as impacting NEST/NNEST
relationships on school staffs. In the opening teacher stories, we saw a
variety of contexts relating to teacher education. Neither Siti nor Agus, the
Indonesian teachers, have any educational background in teaching English,
while the foreign teachers in one Indonesian school have minimal
certificate-level training, and in the other have none. Laura and Silvia, the
Brazilian teachers, each have four-year university degrees in teaching
English. Their foreign counterparts are untrained in one instance, but
acquiring on-the-job training in the other.
The second significant issue that will be explored in this chapter
regarding NEST/NNEST relationships is that of interaction. In the first
Indonesian case and the first Brazilian case given above, local teachers
have very little interaction with foreign teachers. However, in the second
case in both countries, interaction levels are high.
 Strength Through Difference 289

Figure 1: NEST/NNEST relational environments produced by levels

of interaction and teacher development

In Figure 1 we can see that teaching environments can be characterized as

having either a high or low emphasis on teacher development. The school
and staff may value various types of teacher education and preparation, or
they may not. Likewise, English teaching contexts can be placed on a
continuum according to how much and what type of interaction the NESTs
and NNESTs on staff have with one another. A school setting may treat
both groups equally and promote integration and cooperation, or may keep
each group separate either intentionally or unintentionally.
As these two factors intersect, four types of relational environments
emerge: a) shared competence; b) isolated competence; c) shared
frustration; and d) isolated frustration.
We begin by looking at the least desirable relational context, in which
teachers experience isolated frustration. In this context, neither teacher
development nor NEST/NNEST interaction are highly valued, leaving the
teacher alone and unprepared. Siti, the first of our teacher vignettes, is an
example of an isolated and frustrated teacher. Placed in an English-
teaching job with no teacher education, she is frustrated. She sees the
NEST English teachers on staff, who could probably help her, but she has
290 Chapter Fourteen

no interaction with them. She is isolated, and must struggle alone as she
tries to learn how to teach English.
Laura’s context is one of isolated competence. Her school values
appropriate teacher qualification, and has hired all trained Brazilian staff.
When a NEST is hired, he is given a class in conversation, for which he is
deemed qualified as a native speaker, instead of one of the core classes.
However, there is virtually no NEST/NNEST interaction in this school.
Though the NNESTs and NEST in this school could no doubt help one
another in various ways, they do not interact, remaining isolated from one
another.
Agus, representing the environment of shared frustration, has a very
different problem. There are several NESTs and several NNESTs on staff,
and they enjoy considerable camaraderie. They also talk about school
issues together, and Agus feels his perspective as an Indonesian teacher is
valued by the NESTs. But none of them have TEFL qualifications, and no
one really has any answers to share when they discuss problems of
language teaching and learning. They are sharing, but they all have
significant frustrations due to their combined lack of knowledge.
The optimal relational environment is one of shared competence.
Silvia is working in just such an environment. She is one of several
Brazilian teachers on staff who have appropriate TEFL qualifications.
Though the NESTs who come to the school sometimes come without
qualifications, the school provides seminars and mentorship which aim to
help them develop competence as teachers. Additionally, all teachers are
expected to be growing in their own foreign language skills. NESTs and
NNESTs work together at the school, sharing in teacher development
tasks, planning, and curriculum development.
The remainder of this chapter will look at these two factors, teacher
development and interaction, providing tangible ways in which teachers
and schools can move towards the “high” end of each continuum to
promote healthy NEST/NNEST relationships on a school staff. We will
see that schools are strongest when they value what each teacher group can
bring to the teaching and learning environment, and actively promote the
interaction that is essential for NESTs and NNESTs to turn their
differences into strengths.
 Strength Through Difference 291

The Two Key Issues

Teacher Development

This research found that three types of teacher development contributed

positively to quality NEST/NNEST relationships: 1) Acquisition of
language teaching skills, 2) Improvement in language proficiency (English
for NNESTs and the local language for NESTs), and 3) Development of
intercultural awareness.

Acquisition of Language Teaching Skills

Previous research by Machado de Almeida Mattos (1997), Medgyes

(1994) and others has suggested that in EFL settings NNESTs are often
educated as English teachers whereas NESTs are not. The present research
confirmed that this may often be true in Brazil, but is perhaps not as
representative of Indonesia.4 The NESTs contributing to this research in
Indonesia had all taken short certificate courses in TEFL, though none
identified themselves as TEFL professionals. In contrast, none of the
NNESTs contributing to this study in Indonesia had any teacher
preparation for teaching English as a foreign language.
This research suggests that a lack of education in foreign language
teaching may have a higher negative impact on NNESTs than on NESTs.
The former may already struggle with actual or perceived difficulties in
terms of English proficiency, due to the fact that most have learned
English as a foreign language (Braine, 1999; Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002;
Kamhi-Stein, 2000, and Shi, 2001). And the potential advantages that
NNESTs may have over NESTs in teaching certain subjects such as
grammar, or certain student groups, such as beginners (McNeill, 1993;
Medgyes, 1994) may not be realized without at least a minimal
understanding of language teaching methodology.
NESTs, however, also suffer when they are put into English-teaching
classrooms without prior training. While considered by many to have a
natural advantage in fluency, accuracy, breadth of vocabulary, and
idiomatic language use (Arva & Medgyes, 2000; Chomsky, 1986; Davies,
2003), these native English speakers may secretly wonder what one is
supposed to actually do in an English class. Even those with minimal
training (often a certificate course of several weeks) frequently describe
themselves as “not an English teacher” and “really bad at grammar” –
indications that they lack language teaching skill.
292 Chapter Fourteen

Does all this mean that only optimally educated NESTs and NNESTs
should be in English classrooms around the globe? Ideally, of course! But
that is not likely to happen any time soon. In many countries the demand
for English has snowballed beyond the supply of appropriately trained
teachers. In some countries, such as Indonesia, effective teacher
preparation programs may be difficult to find. As a result, schools must
indeed often use teachers who lack sufficient preparation.
The answer to this dilemma is for schools to provide ongoing teacher
development opportunities for all staff members, to the degree and of the
type that is needed. Seminars, mentorship, peer observation and team
teaching are just a few of the ways that a school can develop teaching skill
in its teachers. The starting point for some schools, such as the ones
researched in Indonesia, is simple recognition of the importance of
educational preparation for teaching English. In others, such as in the
Brazilian cases illustrated here, NNESTs on staff may be qualified to
provide some of the training that NESTs need, increasing NNEST status in
cultures prone to over-value “nativeness.” Even where NNESTs lack
teacher training, they can often provide for NESTs an understanding of
local English teaching and learning culture, due to their past experiences
as English learners.
Resources for helping teachers develop both understanding and skill in
language teaching are abundant. School leaders can learn how to support
developing teachers through Randall and Thornton’s (2001) Advising and
Supporting Teachers. Roberts’ (1998) Language Teacher Education is a
helpful resource for selecting content for teacher education. Pursuing
Professional Development by Baily et. al. (2001), provides suggestions for
teachers in developing their own teaching skills, often in collaboration
with other teachers – ideal for fostering NEST/NNEST relationships on a
school staff.

Improvement in Language Proficiency

It has long been understood that language proficiency in the target

language is crucial in language teaching. NNESTs who are teaching
English in their home countries, and who have not had significant
opportunities to develop their English skills in communication with other
speakers of English, often value the opportunity to interact with NESTs,
and thus increase their English proficiency. This can happen quite
naturally on a school staff which promotes interaction among NESTs and
NNESTs.
 Strength Through Difference 293

In some contexts NNEST language proficiency may be notably lacking

in a certain area. In Indonesia, for example, verb tenses are difficult for
Indonesians to master, since their own language does not use verb tenses.
In such cases it may be very appropriate for NESTs with education in
TEFL to provide the NNESTs on staff with regular English classes to
work on problematic areas of language.
However, it is not only the NNESTs who benefit from a school focus
on raising language proficiency. NESTs teaching in EFL environments
need to learn the local language – and not only for survival in a foreign
country. Bailey et. al. (2001) have shown the importance of foreign
language learning in language teacher development. Such study
simultaneously helps the teacher learner acquire language teaching
methodology and develop an understanding of the students’ L1.
Indeed, when the local language is taught by skilled NNESTs on staff
to the NESTs on staff, this can have more positive benefits than any other
single action that a school can take to promote positive NEST/NNEST
relationships (Dormer, 2006). When such instruction is a regular part of
the school, NNESTs have an opportunity to be the “native speakers” for a
change and NESTs gain the perspective of the language learner. When the
local NNESTs are educated in language teaching, NESTs who are not
trained as teachers can learn many teaching techniques from their skilled
NNEST counterparts, by experiencing these techniques as students.
In situations where the NEST has training in language teaching and the
NNEST does not, language teaching methodology can be learned in
reverse as the NEST learning the local language coaches the teacher,
providing suggestions for activities and materials. This can work well
when the school designates NNEST learning as one of the goals of the
language teaching arrangement. If such goals are not made clear at the
beginning, NEST attempts to manipulate the language lesson may backfire
if the NNEST feels threatened in her position as teacher.
When a school promotes continued language development of the
foreign language for all on staff, and provides situations and classes as
needed in order to achieve this goal, everyone wins. NESTs and NNESTs
experience more equality in their workdays, as they take turns being
language learner and language teacher, and being “native speaker” and
“nonnative speaker.” Most of all, students benefit from the increased
language proficiency and teaching skills developed in their teachers.
294 Chapter Fourteen

Development of intercultural awareness

While many English teachers worldwide have studied language teaching,

and most have engaged in some kind of language learning, comparatively
few have studied culture. Yes, they may have traveled abroad and
identified surface differences in meal times, food preferences, dress, and
other visible areas. But few have actively studied the impact of culture on
relationships.
The literature addressing cross-cultural relationships is abundant.
Fennes and Hapgood (1997) help us understand the “iceberg” nature of
culture: that those issues which greatly impact relationships lie below the
surface and are harder to identify. Lo Bianco (2003) addresses
distinguishing features of cultural groups, and the effect of culture on
every area of life. Kaining (2003) emphasizes the need to understand
“historical and cultural traditions which resulted in [cultural] differences”
(pp. 97-98).
When cultural understanding so clearly impacts our ability to get along
with people of different cultures, one wonders why it is not a core subject
in all school curricula in today’s multicultural societies. Nevertheless, that
time has not come, and most NESTs and NNESTs serving together on
school staffs have had little or no formal study which could lead to
understanding how to handle cultural differences.
What is the nature of the cross-cultural understanding that these
teachers need? What is most obvious at first glance is that the NESTs need
to understand the local culture, including those “below the surface” issues
that impact how people make decisions and organize their lives. But there
is more: NESTs also need to understand the political aspect of English
teaching, as voiced by Phillipson (1992), Johnston (2003) and others. They
need to understand, as much as it is possible to do so, how their NNESTs
colleagues feel as nonnative English speakers. They need to develop an
understanding of and appreciation for the role of English in their host
country, taking their cues from local NNESTs in order to understand the
needs and realities of EFL. As Bahloul (1994) has expressed, they do not
need to come in with their own agendas, but rather with a collaborative
spirit that seeks to learn. Snow, et. al. (2004) affirm that local teachers
usually understand better what is needed in the local school situation, and
NESTs need the cultural awareness to value this.
So is all the culture-learning on the shoulders of the NESTs? By no
means! NNESTs need to be willing to learn about the realities of culture
shock and the many daily struggles that are faced by new NESTs living in
a foreign country. NEST/NNEST interaction is greatly enhanced if
 Strength Through Difference 295

NNESTs can see themselves as cultural interpreters, and reach out to new
NESTs rather than waiting for NESTs to make the first move.
Unfortunately, NNESTs seem to sometimes have difficulty relating to
NESTs as peers, making it difficult for them to reach out and make the
first move.
When a school actively promotes intercultural awareness for all on
staff, many of these problems are easily overcome. Both NESTs and
NNESTs overwhelmingly state that they enjoy close friendships with
people in the other group when given the opportunity to interact in
appropriately designed professional environments (Dormer, 2006). True,
there will always be some misunderstandings and gaps in communication.
But teachers who have experienced strong NEST/NNEST relationships
say the personal and professional rewards in are worth the occasional
cross-cultural frustrations.

Teacher Interaction
Though developing teachers’ skills and knowledge in teaching, language
and culture is crucial to a school’s academic success, it may not be enough
to foster positive NEST/NNEST relationships on staff. Even in schools
where quality teaching and learning takes place, teachers may not
experience teacher collegiality – an essential ingredient for teacher
satisfaction and growth (Clandinin & Connelly, 1995; Lambert, 1996; and
Sergiovanni, 1994).
A significant key to teacher collegiality in this research was interaction
time. That is, how many opportunities did teachers have to work together?
What was the nature of their collaboration? Where did they interact
socially and professionally? These questions will be addressed here, as we
look at how schools can provide resources and opportunities for NEST-
NNEST interaction.

Language Classes

We have already seen how the practice of having NNESTs teach the local
language to NESTs can provide significant language and teaching
development. Now we will consider this practice from an interactional
point of view: how can language classes foster interaction between
NNESTs and NESTs?
Such language classes often provide the ideal setting for communication
at a deeper level, on both personal and professional issues. In teaching
and learning language, virtually all topics, from the surface to the deep,
296 Chapter Fourteen

may be discussed. When both teacher and students are language teachers,
topics of discussion may begin with typical units on family and hobbies,
but then may extend, as language skill permits, to discussions of a
professional nature. A language class in which NESTs are learning the
local language from NNESTs on staff could, for example, have “student
motivation” as a thematic unit. What better way could there be for NESTs
to learn about local issues concerning student motivation and improve
their skills in the local language at the same time?
Relationships are also built when NESTs serve as English language
models for NNESTs. This may take place only occasionally and
informally, when NNEST English proficiency is high, or more regularly
and formally when NNESTs still need to increase their English
proficiency. Either way, sharing through language learning opportunities
for teachers leads to friendship, and friendship is a hallmark of positive
NEST/NNEST relationships on a school staff.

Scheduling

Unfortunately it is all too common that teachers’ schedules provide them

no time to interact with their colleagues at school. This is why teaching
has been called the “egg carton profession,” where each teacher stays in
her own classroom, having little contact with the others (Lortie, 1975, p.
223). In contrast to the egg carton model, Clandinin and Connelly (1995)
state that what is needed in schools are “knowledge communities” where
educators’ voices are heard, and where “professional relationships are
authentic and secure” (p. 140). Schools with “knowledge communities”
are fertile for teacher growth. Theory becomes practice through dialogue
and reflection.
Sergiovanni (1994) puts forward much the same idea, favoring the
development of a school as a “community of learners” (p. 155). For
Sergiovanni, teacher relationships should extend beyond “liking each
other.” A community of learners develops as teachers (and students) are
open to new ideas, strive for personal development, and participate in
leadership so that shared goals can be reached.
However, none of this happens unless teachers have opportunities to
interact. Knowledge is not shared, and communities of learners do not
emerge, without communication.
For schools, the barrier to providing interactional time is often a
financial one: “we pay teachers to teach, not to sit around and talk” may be
the argument. For teachers, the barrier is more often one of time: “I
 Strength Through Difference 297

would love to chat during my break, but I have to prepare for my next
class.” These barriers are not likely to change, so what can be done?
First, schools and teachers alike must value dialogue and communication
among the staff. When such valorization is realized, it’s easier to take the
next step: arrange breaks and free periods to coincide, wherever possible.
Sergiovanni (1992) says that in order for a school staff to experience
effective collegiality, “The school schedule must be arranged to encourage
rather than impede opportunities for teachers to interact” (p. 87). If
teachers are prone to simply come to school, teach their class, and
promptly leave again, provide incentives for them to stay on. A warm and
inviting teacher work area may provide such incentive, as we will see
below.
When a school has done its part, teachers must take advantage of the
time provided to get to know one another and learn from one another,
rather than sitting alone in a classroom preparing for the next class. Maybe
teachers can prepare together. Maybe they can exchange skills,
capitalizing on such unique teaching strengths as drawing illustrations or
creating example sentences for a grammar class.

A Teachers’ Room

When teachers have time to meet together, they also need an appropriate
place to meet together. Ideally this should be a place that is comfortable,
inviting, and supplied with all that is needed for learning and growing as
teachers.
A teachers’ room becomes a comfortable room not only by having
adequate space and a relaxing atmosphere. It must also be psychologically
comfortable. It should not be seen as the domain of either the NEST group
or the NNEST group: it must be neutral territory. Preferably it should also
be well away from supervisory ears, so that communication and bonding
are not hindered by fear of reprisal from leadership.
Above all, the teachers’ room needs to create a positive environment
for doing the work of the school through NEST/NNEST collaboration and
communication. Ideally it is large enough to house a considerable library
of resources for English teachers. In addition, there should be at least one
large table for making posters and other teaching aids – as well as the
supplies needed for these activities. A large bulletin board to showcase
successful lesson plan ideas or professional accomplishments can add
motivation, support, and camaraderie.
298 Chapter Fourteen

Teacher Collaboration

A final way in which teacher interaction can be promoted among NEST

and NNEST staff is through teacher collaboration. When teachers have
both time to work together and a place to work together, the school
benefits tremendously if they actually do work together on school projects.
Recent literature highlights the value of NEST/NNEST collaboration (De
Oliveira & Richardson, 2004; Snow, Omar & Katz, 2004; Matsuda &
Matsuda, 2004). De Oliveira and Richardson (2004) claim “unique
benefits when native English-speaking and nonnative English-speaking
educators form a collaborative relationship” (p. 295). Among the benefits
they list are increased linguistic and sociolinguistic skill for NNESTs,
increased understanding of the process involved in learning EFL for
NESTs, and increased professional development for both. So, what are
some forms that collaboration might take? Here we will look at
collaboration in educational development, collaboration in teaching, and
collaboration in school planning.
Snow, et.al. (2004) have shown the value of NEST/NNEST
collaboration in developing curricula and teacher preparation programs in
an EFL setting. In the Brazilian school in this research, six of the teachers,
three NESTs and three NNESTs, had just completed a workbook series for
grades 1-4. A NEST had created a project design. A NNEST had
developed the “activities” section based on her own successful teaching of
young Brazilian learners. Another NNEST had done all the artwork. The
resulting series was impressive, and was already being used by several
local schools. Teachers could also create teaching aids together, select
books to purchase for the teachers’ library together, or attend conferences
and seminars together, later giving joint reports to the whole school.
Teachers may even develop an educational interest together and
collaborate on a presentation at a local conference.
Team-teaching is another type of NEST/NNEST collaboration. This
can take many forms on a school staff. NNESTs may invite NESTs to
their classes to give a lesson on idioms or to model pronunciation. NESTs
may ask NNESTs to come and explain a difficult grammatical concept in
the native language. The presence of both NESTs and NNESTs on a
school staff opens up a whole range of possibilities for trying out new
methodologies such as the “concurrent approach” (Lessow-Hurley, 2000).
In the concurrent approach, a lesson is divided into three segments:
introduction, main lesson, and conclusion. The introduction and
conclusion are given by one teacher in that teacher’s language of
instruction, and the main lesson is given in the other language, by a
 Strength Through Difference 299

different teacher. During the research from which this chapter is drawn,
the school in Indonesia was piloting this format. Though teachers
discovered that more collaboration was needed in terms of defining
content and language goals, all teachers were in favor of its development
as a school model for language and content learning, and in my
observation, students responded very favorably to this approach.
Finally, teachers can work together on school planning. In schools such
as the English school observed in Brazil, extra-curricular events often
figure prominently as ways to attract and keep students, and as English-
learning opportunities. When planning such events together, NNESTs can
ensure that the event is culturally appropriate and feasible in the local
context, whereas NESTs can bring in additional elements that may teach
or promote increased understanding of “English-speaking cultures.” A big
community attraction in the English school in Brazil was its annual “4th of
July Party”. The American NESTs on staff brought in the cultural aspects
including historical skits, famous songs, and roasted marshmallows, but it
was the NNESTs who understood how to use the event both to gain new
students and to foster language acquisition for current students.
Effective collaboration is “built on the abilities of the collaborators to
appreciate their respective differences without feeling less competent
themselves” (De Oliveira & Richardson, 2004, p. 297). Such
NEST/NNEST collaboration is the ultimate equalizer. As all teachers
contribute their individual skills and abilities in collaboration with their
colleagues, NEST/NNEST labels and cultural differences fade into the
background. Personal identities remain strong as each person is seen as
having valuable strengths which can help the others. But no one is “better”
or “more important” than the others on staff.
This emphasis on individuality and egalitarianism is, admittedly, not
universally valued. Many cultures promote hierarchical relationships,
especially in educational settings. However, my experience in such
contexts leads me to believe that NNESTs from these cultures often
appreciate the opportunity to participate in a more egalitarian environment,
and one in which they can develop and use their individual strengths.
NESTs and NNESTs can often work together as equals within a school
department even if the school leadership remains authoritarian in nature.
Such collaboration need not threaten the overall hierarchy of the school.
Rather, it can be perceived as a unique and appropriate quality of the
English-teaching staff.
300 Chapter Fourteen

Conclusion
As we saw in Fig. 1, four different school environments are possible
depending on the value that a school places on teacher interaction and
teacher development. Schools which do not place a high value on either
are characterized by isolated frustration. One NNEST in this type of
school describes her struggle to find value in having NESTs on staff: “The
children may have a chance to listen to somebody saying something in
English. But besides that I don’t see any other benefits of having them
here… So this – it’s hard for me. Honestly, this is hard.” Another teacher
speaks of his lack of contact with the NESTs on staff in the following
way: “It makes boundaries. And how to break the boundaries… they have
to be with us and do the same thing with us.” These teachers have not had
opportunities to get to know, let alone learn with or teach with, the NESTs
on staff. They remain both isolated and frustrated.
In contrast, teachers who have experienced shared competence in their
school context have seen both teacher development and collegial
interaction valued and promoted through the types of activities and
situations discussed in this chapter (see Appendix A for a school checklist
for promoting shared competence). These teachers have a dramatically
different perspective. One NNEST shares that her whole future has been
affected because of the unique NEST/NNEST nature of her working
environment:

I think what I do today is just because of this kind of group

[NEST/NNEST], you know. If I didn’t have that contact before, I would
not be here, I’m sure. So I can’t see anything negative about it.
Everything’s positive: my English, my job, what I chose to be, my friends,
and everything. It’s all positive. It’s something that I think has just changed
my future, you know.

Another teacher in the same school who had previously worked in an all-
NNEST environments states, “First, as a person, I’m happier here than
everywhere else because I like the people here, I like what I do better than
the other places. So I’m happier as a person. So this wonderful to me!”
I do not suggest that schools must have either native speakers or
nonnative speakers on staff in order to be effective. However, if
communicative purposes for learning English continue to expand globally,
public demand for “native speakers” in EFL settings will likely continue to
influence teacher selection in many schools. When schools do choose to
have both NESTs and NNESTs on staff, this reality should be viewed as
an incredible potential strength for the school. By optimizing teacher
 Strength Through Difference 301

development and interaction for all on staff, schools can turn the
NEST/NNEST differences into strengths, creating an environment of
shared competence, which will benefit students, teachers, and the school
as a whole.

References
Arva, V. and Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the
classroom. System, 28, 355 – 372.
Bahloul, M. (1994). The need for a cross-cultural approach to teaching
EFL. TESOL Journal, 3, 4 – 6.
Bailey, K. M., Curtis, A., & Nunan, D. (2001). Pursuing professional
development: The self as source. Scarborough, Ontario, Canada:
Heinle & Heinle
Braine, G. (Ed.) (1999). Non-native educators in English language
teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use.
New York:
Praeger.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, M. (1995). Teachers’ professional knowledge
landscapes. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Davies, A., (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality (2nd ed.).
Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
de Oliveira, L., & Richardson, S. (2004). Collaboration between native
and nonnative English-speaking educators. In L. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.),
Learning and teaching from experience: Perspectives on nonnative
English-speaking professionals.Ann Arbor, MI: The University of
Michigan Press.
Diaz-Rico, L. T., & Weed, K. Z. (2002). The cross-cultural, language,
and academic
development handbook. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Dormer, J. E. (2006). A perfect blend?: A study of coworker
relationships between native English speaking and nonnative English
speaking teachers in two school sites in Brazil and Indonesia.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, ON.
—. (2007, April 28). When teachers don’t speak English. The Jakarta
Post, p. A6.
Dursin, R. (2000, January 6). Indonesian education fails in face of crisis.
Asia Times Online. Retrieved on June 21, 2005 from
http://www.atimes.com/se-asia/BA06Ae04.html
302 Chapter Fourteen

Fennes, H. & Hapgood, K. (1997). Intercultural learning in the

classroom: Crossing
borders. London: Council of Europe.
Hallett, E. H. (2005, January 31). It’s time to standardize bilingual
education. The Jakarta Post, p.7.
Johnston, B. (2003). Values in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kaining, L. (2003). Chinese. In J. Lo Bianco & C. Crozet (Eds.),
Teaching invisible culture: Classroom practice and theory (pp. 53 –
100). Melbourne: Language Australia Ltd.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2000). Adapting US-based TESOL education to meet
the needs of non-native English teachers. TESOL Journal, 10 – 14.
Lambert, L. (1996). Who will save our schools?: Teachers as
constructivist leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lessow-Hurley, J. (2000). The Foundations of Dual Language
Instruction. New York: Longman.
Lo Bianco, J. (2003). Culture: Visible, invisible and multiple. In J. Lo
Bianco & C.
Crozet (Eds.), Teaching invisible culture: Classroom practice and theory
(pp. 11 – 38). Melbourne, Australia: Language Australia Ltd.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Machado de Almeida Mattos, A. (1997). Native and non-native teacher:
A matter to think over. Forum, 35(1), 38. Retrieved from
http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol35/no1/p38.htm
Matsuda, A. & Matsuda, P.K. (2004). Autonomy and collaboration in
teacher education: Journal sharing among native and nonnative. In L.
Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience:
Perspectives on nonnative English-speaking professionals. Ann
Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
McNeill, A. (1993). Some characteristics of native and non-native speaker
teachers of English. In N. Bird (Ed.), Language and learning. Papers
presented at the annual international language in education conference.
Hong Kong, 1993.
Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. Hong Kong: Macmillan.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Randall, M. & Thornton, B. (2001). Advising and supporting teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Strength Through Difference 303

Roberts, J. (1998). Language teacher education. London: Edward

Arnold.
Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Moral leadership. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
—. (1994). Building community in schools. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shi, L. (2001). Native- and nonnative-speaking EFL teachers’ evaluation
of Chinese students’ English writing. Language Testing, 18, 303 –
325.
Snow, M.A., Omar, M., & Katz, A.M. (2004). The development of EFL
standards in Egypt: Collaboration among native and nonnative
English-speaking professionals. In L. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning
and teaching from experience: Perspectives on nonnative English-
speaking professionals. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan
Press.
Tajino, A. & Tajino, Y. (2000). Native and non-native: What can they
offer? ELT Journal, 54, 3 – 11.

Notes
1
These teacher stories have been selected to show the perspectives of nonnative
English-speaking teachers, because that is the focus of this book. The original
research on which this article is based (Dormer, 2006) draws from both native and
nonnative teacher perspectives. Though the native English-speaker point of view
is not provided through a vignette, the research shows that their perspectives on the
issues of teacher development and interaction that are addressed in this chapter
were very similar to those of the nonnative speakers.
2
Names do not identify actual people, but rather are composite sketches
representing teachers and situations which were prominent in this research.
3
Bilingual education is a growing trend in Indonesia, and is fast becoming the
primary choice of parents who want their children to learn English (Hallett, 2005).
A bilingual school was therefore considered to be an appropriate and useful
research site for this study.
4
This research was conducted in private bilingual and English schools. In formal
secondary and post-secondary settings, teachers are more likely to have had
teacher education courses, but the quality of this preparation has been much
debated (Dursin, 2006; Dormer, 2007).
304 Chapter Fourteen

Appendix A
A School Checklist for Promoting Shared Competence
Education for the development of language teaching skill is valued; all
staff members are acquiring teaching skills as needed.

Both target and local language proficiency is valued; all staff members
are acquiring foreign language proficiency as needed; NESTs and
NNESTs teach one another their native languages.

Intercultural understanding is valued; all staff members receive training

to foster cultural understanding and appreciation.

Opportunities for NESTs and NNESTs to interact are valued; the school
consciously seeks to schedule classes so that break times and planning
times coincide.

A place for NESTs and NNESTs to interact is valued; the school

provides a comfortable, inviting, and secure place for teachers to talk and
work together.

NESTs and NNESTs working together is valued; the school consciously places
NESTs and NNESTs in positions of collaborating in planning, teaching, and
developing school resources and curricula.
 CHAPTER FIFTEEN

USING CORPORA FOR LANGUAGE

ENHANCEMENT, TEACHING AND RESEARCH

DILIN LIU

Introduction
A lack of strong confidence in our language skills and a lack of language
resources for teaching and research are two well-known challenges for us
NNESTs (Liu, 1998; Llurda, 2005). Thus how to enhance English skills
and how to expand teaching and research recourses are two very important
issues facing us. Recent research and my own personal experience in
teaching and research suggest that corpora can be a very useful tool to
address these two challenging issues. This is because corpora can provide
us with extremely valuable support that we need as English teaching
professionals. This chapter discusses, with specific examples, how
NNESTs can use corpora as an effective tool and useful resource for
language enhancement, teaching, and research. To accommodate those
who are not familiar with corpora, the chapter is written with a minimal
use of technical terms.

Why Corpora? Rationale for Corpus Use by NNESTs

To understand why corpora are a useful support for NNESTs, a brief
introduction of what a corpus is and what it can do is in order. A corpus is
a large collection of language texts usually electronically stored and
processed using a search engine. Historically, corpora have been
developed for linguistic research to find out or test, among other things,
grammatical rules, usage patterns, and the frequency of certain linguistic
items. In the past decade, corpora have become an increasingly popular
language teaching tool thanks to the pioneering work of many educators
(e.g. Francis, 1993; Johns, 1994; Sinclair, 1993, 2004) and also to the
advancement in technology that has made corpora much more accessible
306 Chapter Fifteen

and user-friendly. Currently, very large corpora with powerful search

engines are available and some are freely accessible online, such as the
British National Corpus (BNC), Corpus of Contemporary American
English (COCA), and Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English
(MICASE).1 Corpus search engines, such as concordance programs, can
generate various types of useful language information for teaching and
research, such as word meanings, collocations, register distribution, and
language rules.
So equipped, corpora can provide NNESTs with enormous amounts of
readily accessible language data. Such support is extremely valuable for
NNESTs because most of NNESTs teach in an EFL context where access
to the English language and teaching materials is often very limited.
Furthermore, in some cases, the few English materials that these teachers
possess are outdated with inaccurate information about English usages,
especially current usages. Contemporary corpora like the COCA and the
BNC are thus especially helpful for NNESts. Based on the results of a
survey I conducted with two groups of NNESTs after they had learned to
use corpora for teaching and/or research (one group being NNES students
in a MATESOL program and the other being a small group of college EFL
teachers), all of them expressed a strong appreciation of the language data
that corpora were able to offer them even though some of them
experienced serious difficulties in learning how to use corpora (Liu,
2007a; Liu & Jiang, 2009). Many of them mentioned specifically how
corpora had provided them with ample examples of lexicogrammatical
usages they badly needed in their understanding and teaching of English.
In fact, many studies have shown that corpora are an effective useful
source for English teaching and research (Conrad, 1999, 2004; Coxhead,
2000; Helt & Reppen, 2007; Liu, 2003, 2007a, 2008; Liu & Jiang, 2009;
Tsui, 2004). For example, corpus use can make language teaching,
especially the teaching of leixicogrammar, more engaging and successful
because it promotes inductive or discovery learning by students (Aston,
2001; Bernard & McEnery, 2000, Johns, 1994; Kettemann & Marko,
2002; Liu & Jiang, 2009; Sinclair, 2004). In corpus-based teaching, we
engage students in examining language data and figuring out English
usage rules or patterns and in turn we help them better understand and
retain what we teach. The use of corpora also enables teachers to use
authentic English examples in their teaching instead of relying on created
examples that are often contrived. This is very important because, as
already mentioned, in EFL contexts, authentic examples are often lacking.
For research purposes, corpora can help us come up with more accurate
language descriptions for our students. Before large corpora became
 Using Corpora for Language Enhancement, Teaching and Research 307

available, language description in reference books and student textbooks

was based mostly on intuition and, as such, it is sometimes inaccurate.
Corpus-based research has begun to correct some of the inaccuracies
(Conrad, 2004; Liu 2003, 2008).
Below, I will discuss in detail how to use corpora for language
enhancement, teaching, and research. Given that most corpus-base teaching
activities can simultaneous serve to help NNESTs enhance English skills,
my discussion will focus on how to use corpora for teaching. In the process,
I will introduce some basic useful corpus search and analysis skills. The
corpus used for all the search examples is the BNC via the free online
interface developed by Mark Davies: http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc.

Using Corpora for Language Teaching

This section is organized according to the following three subtopics: 1)
using corpora for teaching lexicogrammar, 2) using corpora for teaching
English usage variations across registers, and 3) principles and effective
practices for using corpora for language teaching. Before we proceed, it is
important to note, however, that corpora are not appropriate for low level
students due to their very limited language proficiency. Therefore, all the
examples of activities introduced below are meant for teaching at lower-
intermediate and above levels.

Lexicogrammar Teaching
While corpora can be used to teach many aspects of language,
lexicogrammar has been found to be most conducive to corpus-based
teaching (Johns, 1994; Hunston & Francis 2000; Liu & Jiang, 2009). What
is lexicogrammar? Traditionally, lexis and grammar have been treated as
two separate domains but lexicogrammar views them as two closely
connected parts of one entity. In this view, “a grammatical structure may
be lexically restricted” (Francis, 1993, p.142) and, conversely, lexical
items are often grammatical in nature, since the use of a lexical item
usually has grammatical implications (Hunston & Francis, 2000).
Lexicogrammar thus deals with rules governing lexical and grammatical
choices in language use. For our students, lexiogrammar is arguably the
most challenging aspect of the target language. It is not uncommon to hear
them complain about the complexity and difficulty involved in making the
right lexicogrammatical decisions, such as choosing the correct verb with
the right complement structure. Examining corpus data can often provide
answers to such challenging questions.
308 Chapter Fifteen

For example, suppose your students do not know how to use “avoid”
and “evade” appropriately as they are not sure to what extent the two verbs
are synonymous and/or whether they are typically followed by a noun,
gerund, infinitive, or “that” clause. Instead of simply explaining the two
verbs’ usage patterns, you can have your students discover such patterns
by conducting a corpus search. Depending on the students’ familiarity
with corpus searches, we can do it together with your class so as to
demonstrate how to conduct basic corpus searches or you can have them
work on it as a group or individual project. Your students’ searches will
generate many tokens (examples of the words) used in sentences like the
concordance lines provided in Appendix B. By going through these
examples, the students should be able to figure out by themselves that the
two verbs are typically followed by a noun or gerund, not an infinitive or
that clause. Also they will also learn that while what is “avoided” is
typically something negative (as shown in concordance examples 1-4 and
8 in Appendix B), what is “evaded” is usually something positive like
authority or responsibility (e.g. 9-13, and 15-16). In other words,
semantically “evade” is a rather negative word but “avoid” is not. In terms
of syntactic features, both words are typically followed by a noun phrase,
including the gerund form (e.g. 4-7, 10, and 13), but not by an infinitive or
a “that” clause. A point that deserves special attention here is that if your
students are beginner users of corpora, it will be better to start with
deductive learning activities rather than inductive or discovery learning
ones like the one just described. In a deductive learning activity, you ask
your students simply to find examples to verify a rule or usage they have
already learned. For instance, instead of having students find out the
meaning and syntactic features of “avoid” and “evade,” you can, after
explaining the two verbs’ usage patterns, ask students to find in the BNC
examples that confirm the patterns.
It is also important to note that often a search may generate not only
relevant but also irrelevant examples. In such a case, your students will
have to go through the concordance lines closely to eliminate the
irrelevant examples and then discover the language pattern or rule based
on the relevant examples. For instance, let us assume that, due to
conflicting language input, you and your students are not sure whether a
“none of + a plural noun” subject should be followed by a singular or
plural verb (e.g. “None of the students knows or know the answer”) and
you ask your students to conduct a corpus search to find out the answer
because corpus data are especially useful in dealing with this type of
question. If your students simply type in “none of” for the search, such a
search will surely generate some irrelevant examples as shown in
 Using Corpora for Language Enhancement, Teaching and Research 309

Appendix C where examples 2-3, 6, 11, and 16 are all irrelevant because
either the verb does not show singularity or plurality or the noun after
“none of” is singular itself. Your students thus have to exclude these
examples and focus on the remaining examples. A scrutiny of the
remaining examples will indicate that native speakers of English are rather
evenly divided on this issue with half of them (examples 1, 7-8. 13, and
15) using the singular form and the other half (4-5, 9-10, and 12 the plural)
using the plural1. This particular corpus-driven learning activity also
demonstrates that corpus research is very useful in raising nonnative
speakers’ critical understanding of language. According to prescriptive
grammar, a “none of plural noun” subject must take a singular verb yet the
corpus data show that the rule is followed only by about half of the native
speakers.
Given the amount of work involved in the searches and the data
analysis, it may be a good idea to have students do their corpus work in
groups because this way we make students collaborate and share the work
involved. The following is an example. In this project, we ask a group of
students work together to find out all the different meanings of the phrasal
verb bring up. Because the particle up in this phrasal verb can appear
either before or after its object (e.g. bring up an issue or bring an issue up)
and because the verb is irregular (bring and brought), it requires the
students to use the wildcard search (usually the use of *) such as “bring* *
up,” “bring* up” and “brought * up” etc. The wildcard search of “bring* *
up” will find all the instances of the phrasal verb where the verb appears in
the form of “bring,” “brings,” and “bringing.” Obviously, this corpus
activity is laborious because the concordancing data generated will be
complex and large (for this reason and for lack of space, no display of
concordancing line is provided here). More importantly, our students have
to go over the generated examples very closely to identify the various
meanings the phrasal verb was used to express. Their close analysis of the
data should enable them to figure out the following major meanings of the
phrasal verb: “literally bring something/somebody to a place including a
physically higher location,” “rear a person,” and “mention something or
raise an issue.” Their results should also show that “mentioning
something” and “rearing someone” are the two most frequently used
meanings.
Corpora are also an especially useful tool for error correction.
Research has shown that the practice of teachers directly correcting
students’ errors is ineffective. Teacher-guided corrections by students
themselves are more effective. Yet often students do not know how to
correct many of their own errors. Now we can teach students to use
310 Chapter Fifteen

corpora in correcting their own errors, especially their lexicogrammatical

errors, such as incorrect collocations, prepositions, and words with the
wrong connotation (errors EFL/ESL students are prone to make). This is
because, as already indicated, corpora contain very useful information
about collocations, prepositions, and connotation meanings. When our
students make lexicogrammatical errors, we can simply mark them,
indicate their type, and have students correct them by consulting corpus
data. For example, one of my students wrote in her paper “make a step.” I
just marked “make” as an incorrect choice of word for the phrase (i.e. a
collocation problem). Then the student did a quick corpus search by typing
“[vv*] a step” where [vv*] means all verbs before “a step.” The search
quickly generated the following table of results, which show clearly that
“take,” instead of “make,” is the verb for this collocation as the first four
most frequently used verb forms before “a step” (except for the irrelevant
“be” verb that has been removed) are the inflected forms of “take.”

DISTRIB. WORD/PHRASE TOKENS

1 TOOK A STEP 178
2 TAKE A STEP 44
3 TAKEN A STEP 33
4 TAKING A STEP 24
5 MOVED A STEP 17

Table 1: Partial BNC Search Results for Verbs Used Before “A Step”...

As another example, if a student wrote “Our hard work caused great

success”, the sentence would sound very strange because the verb “cause”
violated what Louw (1993) calls the “semantic prosody” that the word
usually carries. Semantic prosody refers to the positive or negative
associations a word or a phrase may carry due to its frequent occurrence
with particular collocations. We can have the student do a BNC search to
find out what types of words (positive or negative) typically follow the
verb “cause” by typing in “cause [n*]] where [n*] stands for any nouns. It
should produce the following table of results that list the most frequently
used words occurring after “cause” (only the top ten are included). The
student then should be able to determine that all the nouns are negative.
(To find the right verb before success, we could then have the student do a
“[vv*] success” search; for lack of space no corpus search results are
provided).
 Using Corpora for Language Enhancement, Teaching and Research 311

DISTRIB. WORD/PHRASE TOKEN

S
1 CAUSE PROBLEMS 204
2 CAUSE TROUBLE 83
3 CAUSE DAMAGE 57
4 CAUSE DIFFICULTIES 44
5 CAUSE CANCER 43
6 CAUSE INJURY 40
7 CAUSE DEATH 33
8 CAUSE CONFUSION 31
9 CAUSE HARM 24
10 CAUSE CONCERN 23

Table 2: ...Partial BNC Search Results for Nouns Used After the Verb
“Cause”

Using corpus data to help correct preposition errors is even easier. If a

student writes “I was disillusioned in the new government”, we can ask the
student to conduct a BNC search by typing in “disillusioned [prp]” ([prp]
stands for preposition). The search will generate the following results,
which indicate clearly that the most frequently used preposition after
“disillusioned” is “with.” “In” is not a choice.

DISTRIB. WORD/PHRASE TOKENS

1 DISILLUSIONED WITH 81
2 DISILLUSIONED BY 28
3 DISILLUSIONED AT 4
4 DISILLUSIONED ABOUT 4

Table 3: ...Partial BNC Search Results for Prepositions Used After

“Disillusioned”

Understanding Register Differences

Language use varies from register to register. What is considered a right
expression in one register may often be inappropriate in another. For
example, it is perfectly fine to say in everyday conversation that “The fire
was put out in one hour” but in a legal document, one will most likely
need to change it to “The fire was extinguished within one hour.” As
NNESs, our students are often unsure whether a lexical item is appropriate
in a particular register. Corpora can provide excellent information on this
312 Chapter Fifteen

issue. Many of the large corpora today are made up of register-specific

sub-corpora (e.g. fiction, news, and academic) and are equipped with
searching capabilities that allow us to compare usage information across
registers. For example, the BNC consists of one “spoken” and five written
corpora (“fiction,” “news,” “academic,” “non-fiction miscellany,” and
“other miscellany.”) as well as around 70 sub-corpora under them such as
“law” and “letter” writings. We can easily compare an English language
item’s usage pattern across the different sub-corpora.
For example, both “in comparison” and “in contrast” are linking
adverbials that are somewhat synonymous in meaning but our students
might need to know whether their usage patterns are the same across the
“spoken” and “academic” register” so they can use them register-
appropriately. We can have our students do a search of these two phrases
in the two registers and they will obtain the following results. Then they
can deduce from the results that although both phrases occur more
frequently in academic writing than in spoken English, their register
distributions actually differ very significantly. First, while the use
frequency ratio between spoken English and academic writing for “in
comparison” is 38%, this ratio for “in contrast” is 1%, clearly suggesting
that “in contrast” is very seldom used in speaking, far less frequently than
“in comparison.” Furthermore, “in contrast” is a far more frequently used
in academic writing than “in comparison,” for the former is used 66.43 per
million words but the latter only 4.34 per million. As another example, a
cross-register analysis of the phrasal verb “bring up” mentioned earlier
will help our students learn that it occurs much more frequently in speech
than in writing and, within writing, it has a much higher frequency in news
and fiction than in academic writing.
Besides register differences, there is also the issue of multiple English
varieties. Which variety of English to teach will depend on our locale and
our students’ main purpose in studying English. In order to make informed
decisions on this issue, NNESTs should to be informed of the differences
among some of the varieties. Again corpora are a good source for such
information. For example, to see whether an expression or syntactic
feature is frequently used in both American and British English, we can
search both the BNC and the American corpus such as the American
National Corpus (ANC, also accessible via the corpus/byu.edu interface).
Research has shown some significant differences in this area. For
example, Biber, Johnsson, Leech, Conrad, and Finegan (1999, p. 1106)
find that the omission of a subject occurs almost three times more often in
British English than in American English.
 Using Corpora for Language Enhancement, Teaching and Research 313

D
TOKENS PER MIL IN
I
REG
S
WORD/ REG1 REG2 1-2
T
PHRASE REG REG [10,334,9 [15,429,5 RATI
R 1* 2* 47 82 O
I WORDS] WORDS]
B
1 IN 17 67 1.64 4.34 0.38
COMPARISO
N
1 IN 5 1025 0.48 66.43 0.01
CONTRAST
*
Register 1 is Spoken English and Register 2 Academic Writing

Table 4: BNC Search Results of the Usage Distributions

of “In Comparison” and “In Contrast” in Spoken English
and Academic Writing

The above information regarding how to use corpora in language

teaching is not exhaustive. For lack of space, it is impossible to introduce
them all.

Principles and Effective Practices

Although corpus-based language teaching is interesting and engaging, it is
also very challenging because it requires us teachers not only to possess
sound corpus search and analysis skills but also to help our students
develop such skills in order for our teaching to be successful. If we do not
provide adequate and effective training, students may feel frustrated and
overwhelmed by the large amount of data (concordance lines) and by the
many words that they do not know. Furthermore, sometimes, the
concordance results may include some examples that are irrelevant to their
research question. Therefore, we should take great care to help students
develop good search and analysis skills so they can be successful in
conducting corpus-based learning and maintain interest. The following are
some general principles and practices that research has found for making
our corpus-based language teaching effective (Liu & Jiang, 2009).

• Show students how to conduct various searches by modeling them

and doing them together with your students in class.
• Begin with guided and controlled learning activities. For example, we
can first select some easy concordance examples and print them out
314 Chapter Fifteen

on a piece of paper for students to work on. By screening out the

difficult and irrelevant examples, we make the data analysis much
simpler for the students.
• Have students conduct deductive learning activities before doing
inductive ones because deductive learning is easier than inductive
learning. In a typical deductive learning activity, you give students a
rule or pattern and have students test it by finding examples in a
corpus. For example, after teaching your students that bring up
something can mean to raise or mention something, ask your students
to find example of such uses in a corpus. Such activities are more
simple than those inductive ones where they have to examine many
examples to identify the meaning or a rule by themselves.
• Have students work in groups. Research shows that group work is an
effective corpus learning practice (Liu & Jiang, 2009). Corpus data
analysis is time consuming and labor-intensive. When students work
together, the work can be divided. More importantly, it is much easier
for several people to figure out a language rule or pattern than for one
individual. Of course, it is paramount that your students groups are
made up individuals who can work well together.
• Make the corpus-learning assignment as specific and as clear as
possible. For example, if you want your students to understand that
phrasal verbs are generally used in spoken and informal written
language while one-word verbs are preferred in formal writing, you
can have your students do a comparative corpus study of the use of,
say, “get rid of” vs. “eliminate” in the BNC’s “spoken” and
“academic” corpora. You may even want to give them instructions
about the useful search techniques they can use. Also allow students
to use dictionaries (either online or hardcopy) in their data analysis
because the latter can help them tremendously in the process.
• Select the most appropriate learning and teaching activities. Deciding
which activities to use and when and how to use them in a given class
is a complex and challenging issue. This is because the effectiveness
of corpus-driven language teaching depends on many factors
including students’ language proficiency, learning purpose, and
learning styles. For example, for students who are new to corpus
study, deductive learning activities will be more appropriate than
inductive ones because the former simply ask the students to find
examples to verify a rule they have already learned, i.e. they do not
need to figure out the rule by themselves. For students who enjoy
working with others, group projects will be more appropriate but for
students who prefer working individually and who have developed
good corpus analysis skills, individual projects may work better.
 Using Corpora for Language Enhancement, Teaching and Research 315

Using corpora for material/curriculum development and lesson

preparation

In material/curriculum development and lesson preparation, it is very

important to identify the language elements and skills that are important
for your students to learn and hence should be included in your curriculum
or a specific lesson. Research has shown corpora are very useful in this
regard. For example, using frequency data, we can develop a list or lists of
the most useful lexical items for our students based on their purpose of
study or on the goal of a particular curriculum or program (e.g. Coxhead,
2000; Liu, 2003, 2008). We can also readily find, from corpora, authentic
language examples for illustrating the language points we want our
students to learn. We can also develop exercises based on examples drawn
from corpora to help students reinforce their learning or we can use corpus
examples to develop language test items. For example, to help students
understand or to test whether they know the subtle differences between
two synonymous lexicagrammatical items like anticipate vs. expect, we
can do a quick corpus search and then select examples that can highlight
and illustrate the two words’ differences in meaning and structural pattern.
It is my personal experience and the experience of those teachers who
participated in Liu and Jiang’s (2009) study that corpora are an extremely
helpful resource in this regard.
For example, let us assume it is a teaching point in our lesson to
explain the difference between “a majority of” and “the majority of.” Yet
we ourselves are not quite sure about the issue and you do not have any
authentic examples of the two phrases in use except those in your
textbook. A quick search of the two phrases in a large corpus will generate
hundreds of concordancing lines and a perusal of them will show you the
answers: while “a majority” means simply more than half of the
population, “the majority” suggests most of those involved. Furthermore,
as shown in the BNC’s frequency tabulation copied below (such frequency
information is always provided in concordancing searches), “the majority
of” is used far more frequently than “a majority of” as the former boasts
3195 tokens (31.95 per 100 million words') but the latter claims only 625
tokens (a mere 6.25 per 100 million words). Additionally, the concordance
lines provide many authentic examples of the two phrases for us to use in
teaching.
316 Chapter Fifteen

TOKEN PER MIL IN

DISTRIB WORD/PHRASE S REG1
REG1 [100,000,000 WORDS]
1 A MAJORITY OF 625 6.25
1 THE MAJORITY OF 3195 31.95

Table 5: Frequency Results of “A Majority” and “The Majority”

in the BNC

As another example, we often need to teach idioms or idiomatic

expressions in English as they constitute a very important part of the
language and they are also very difficult for nonnative speakers due to
their unique meaning and often fixed structure (Liu, 2007b). Corpus data
can help us in many ways in preparing materials for teaching these
expressions. We can find good examples to help us illustrate the meanings
and usage patterns of an idiom. Sometimes, even when we are not sure
about the exact wording of an idiom, we can determine it quickly by
searching a corpus. For instance, suppose we have heard the idiom tie up
the loose ends but do not remember its exact wording, i.e. we do not know
if “loose ends” is preceded by the definite article or whether it is “tie up”
or “tighten” “the loose ends.” A quick search of the BNC by typing in part
of the idiom we know, e.g. loose ends, will lead us to the full correct
version of the idiom. Of course, as Liu (2007b) indicates, searching for
idiomatic expressions in a corpus is sometimes a laborious and complex
task that requires some skills. This is because some searches will result in
many irrelevant hits (e.g. the search for the idiom come by meaning
“acquire” will produce many instances of “come by + a place” meaning
“visit” a place). Another reason for the complexity is that many idiomatic
expressions are not frozen, i.e. they sometimes vary in form. Some
idiomatic expressions have established noun or verb variations (e.g. set or
start the ball rolling; bite the cannonball instead of the bullet). Then the
tense or aspect of a verb in an idiom may change. Just conducting a
straightforward search will miss out many examples of an idiom. For
example, by entering turn* * down, one will be able to find all the turn
something down examples, including those with the verb in the form of
turn, turns, turned, or turning. To avoid such problems, one needs to
make sure to search for all possible variations of an idiom by conducting a
“lemma” search rather than a “word” search. A lemma of a lexical item
includes all the different forms (tenses in the case of a verb). Doing a
lemma search on the online COCA and BNC is easy: simply clicking the
lemma search function.
 Using Corpora for Language Enhancement, Teaching and Research 317

Using corpora for research

There are two lines of research involving the use of corpora we can
conduct. The first, as mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, is to
conduct corpus research regarding difficult or confusing language usage
issues or concerning language issues which we know very little about (e.g.
Coxhead, 2000; Conrad, 2004; Liu, 2003, 2008). The second is empirical
research on the use of corpus in language teaching, including its
applicability and effectiveness (Johns, 1994; Liu & Jiang, 2009). As the
second line is not really different from other empirical research on the
effectiveness of teaching practice, the discussion here will deal mostly
with the first line of research. Furthermore, because all the examples of
corpus search activities introduced above can also be used for research
purposes, the focus here will be on some principles and likely topics for
research using corpora.
One of the important issues in corpus research is finding or designing
an appropriate corpus for your research topic so that the result of your
corpus study is valid and reliable. In general, a corpus should be large
enough to allow the research findings based on it to be reliable. Of course,
size is not the only factor to consider in deciding whether a corpus is valid
and reliable for your research. For example, a large variety of the types of
texts, topics, and writers/speakers are also important for a general corpus
(exceptions can be made for some corpora for specific narrow purposes).
The reason is that, without a sufficient number of texts or authors, a
lengthy article or speech by a single author, or even many texts on one
topic, could skew the findings. Thus in selecting a corpus or creating your
own corpus for a research project, you need bear all these factors in mind.
It is important to note that creating your own corpus is not too difficult
now with so much information downloadable from the internet. For
example, if you are interested in doing research related to journalism
English, you can select and download, among other things, various news
report articles from various news agencies’ websites and save them in a
text-file (because text-file is the type of file most corpus search engines
can access). When you have enough texts, your corpus is ready. Of course,
if it is necessary, you may need to tag your corpus (i.e. mark the
grammatical and other features of the words in the corpus).
There are many topics for corpus-based studies regarding the English
language, including lexicogrammatical questions, stylistic issues, and
genre and register variations. Good research topics usually come from
questions or problems you and your students find in studying the English
language. Another interesting and productive type of query for corpus-
318 Chapter Fifteen

based research is similarities and differences between native speaker

English and that produced by ESOL learners. Research in this area can
give us a lot of insights about the process and challenges in English
language learning. Of course, to conduct this type of research will involve
the use of learner corpora. Usually learner corpora are not freely
accessible. Thus you may need to create your own. Your students’
language production such as their writing can be used for this purpose. If it
is their writing, the process is very simple: just ask them to email you their
work and you can save it as a text-file. Of course, you will need to obtain
their permission to include their language in your corpus.

Conclusion
In this chapter, I have discussed how NNESTs can use corpora for
language enhancement, teaching, and research, and also provided some
useful resource information on corpora and corpus use in general. The
many examples given throughout the chapter should have shown that
corpora are a very useful support for NNESTs in classroom teaching,
material/curriculum development, and research, especially in the teaching
and research of lexicogrammar and register variation. Of course, as
already pointed out, there are challenges in using corpora for teaching and
research. These challenges are, however, worth the effort. I have no doubt
that, like many of the TESOL professionals who have conducted corpus-
based teaching and research, those NNESTs who try this new teaching and
research tool/resource will find it an incredibly rewarding experience and
will surely enjoy the valuable support that corpora are able to offer!

References
Aston, G. (Ed.). (2001). Learning with corpora. Houston: Athelstan.
Bernard, L., & McEnery, T. (Eds.). (2000). Rethinking language pedagogy
from a corpus perspective. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Biber, D., Johnsson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999).
Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Conrad, S. (1999). The importance of corpus-based research for language
teachers. System,27(1),1-18.
—. (2004). Corpus linguistics, language variation, and language teaching.
In J.Sinclair (Ed.), How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching (pp.
67-85).
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34,
213-238.
 Using Corpora for Language Enhancement, Teaching and Research 319

Francis, G. (1993). A corpus-driven approach to grammar: Principles,

methods, and examples. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-
Bonelli. (Eds.), Text and technology (pp. 137-156). Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Helt, M., & Reppen, R. (2007, March). Training teachers to use corpus
resources. Paper presented at 41st Annual TESOL Convention, Seattle.
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven
approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Johns, T. (1994). From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary
teaching in the context of data-driven learning. In T. Odlin (Ed.),
Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 293-313). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kettemann, B., & Marko, G. (Eds.). (2002). Teaching and learning by
doing corpus analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Liu, D. (1998). Ethnocentrism in TESOL: Teacher education and the
neglected needs of international TESOL students. ELT Journal, 52, 3-
10.
—. (2003). The most frequently used spoken American English idioms: A
corpus analysis and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 671-700.
—. (2007a, April). Corpora and lexico-grammar in Grammar Teaching in
Teacher Education. Paper presented at the Annual AAAL Conference,
Costa Mesa, CA, April 20-23.
—. (2007b). Idioms: Description, comprehension, acquisition, and
pedagogy. New York: Routledge.
—. (2008). Linking adverbials: An across-register corpus study and its
implications. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13, 491-518.
Liu, D., & Jiang, P. (2009). Using a corpus-based lexicogrammatical
approach to grammar instruction in EFL and ESL contexts. Modern
Language Journal, 93, 61-78.
Llurda, E. (Ed.). (2005). Non-native Language Teachers: Perceptions,
challenges and contributions to the profession. New York: Springer.
Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the Text or Insincerity in the Writer? The
Diagnostic Potential of Semantic Prosodies. In Baker, M., Francis, G.
& Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds) Text and Technology. In Honour of John
Sinclair. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, and collocation. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. (Ed.). (2004). How to use corpora in language teaching.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). What teachers have always wanted to know–and
how corpora can help. In J. Sinclair (Ed.), How to Use Corpora in
320 Chapter Fifteen

Language Teaching (pp. 39-61). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Notes
1. For more detailed information about corpora and their use, please consult the
websites listed in Appendix A.
2. This conclusion is based on the overall result of the research, not just on the
examples provided. The concordance lines provided were, however, selected from
among many results to represent the emerging usage patterns. Of course, one can
limit the search by entering for query "none of * [be]". With the verb "be"
specified, the search will generate only tokens of sentences with the be verb. It can
clearly show singularity or plurality. A tradeoff of such a query is that it takes
away some part of the discovering learning involved. 
 Using Corpora for Language Enhancement, Teaching and Research 321

Appendix A
Free online resources for corpora use:

http://www.ict4lt.org/en/en_mod2-4.htm: this page contains all the basic

information about corpora and the use of corpora for language learning
and teaching.
http://www.corpora4learning.net/resources/bibliography.html: this page
has a very comprehensive bibliography on corpus linguistics and corpus-
based language teaching.

The following are free online corpora and free corpus search engines:

British National Corpus: http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc

Corpus of Contemporary American English:
http://www.americancorpus.org/
Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/micase/
Time Corpus: http://corpus.byu.edu/time/x.asp
Free search engine called Simple Concordance program:
http://www.textworld.com/scp
WebCorp for searching the entire web for language usage issues and
patterns: http://www.webcorp.org.uk/

Appendix B
tage for the reader, who can by this means avoid unnecessary
1 A04
disappointments. Description, inte

tist should be in tune with his times, careful to avoid hackneyed

2 A04
subjects. Typically, a laudatory

in the carving, forms were decided partly to avoid the hazards of

3 A04
the sapwood shrinking and split

rather than by his assertions show us how to avoid admiring that

4 A04
which is unworthy. ZOOMING

about artists called Born under Saturn cannot avoid thinking that
5 A04
artists are unpredictable which
322 Chapter Fifteen

Indeed, an article at this length will frequently avoid mentioning

6 A04
any work of art by name, being

art. While they may describe the work, they avoid describing their
7 A04
own responses to it. Two hon

though I will not practise to deceive, Yet, to avoid deceit, I mean

8 A06
to learn; For it shall strew the

deploring their context is to fudge the issue, and evade the

9 A1B
challenge of the poem as a whole. T

the murder and had made sustained efforts to evade being caught,
10 CEN
showing that her "residual

a recent visit to meet friends who helped him to evade capture for
11 A67
a time. Four of the graves are

Kingdom." Such was Britain's brave attempt to evade the dreaded

12 A69
axiom. The fatal, fateful thing

Fourth, until 1981, trade unions could evade having to make any
13 FR4
payments to their members on

very happy. For two weeks they managed to evade the press. It
14 A7H
was the first and last time they h

report says, adding: "He has never sought to evade his

15 A7W
responsibility for the appalling conseque

on 33 counts of tax evasion and conspiracy to evade taxes. He said

16 A9W
the terms should run concurr
 Using Corpora for Language Enhancement, Teaching and Research 323

Appendix C

many people have already carried out. None of them is new and
1 A00
they are all straightforward. 1.

Amnesty worked at that time. Of course, none of the work carried

2 A03
out by Amnesty could contin

been released; about 50 remain in prison. None of these people

3 A03
should ever have been prisone

really nothing else for them to do but act. None of them were
4 A06
particularly concerned with "glam

has asked questions all over the village, but none of the answers
5 A0D
have solved this dreadful crim.

It? She's only been here two weekends, and none of us had
6 A0D
worked for her in the past … No,

I think, like to help. It's just that none of us actually knows how to
7 A0F
go about it." I

isd to find they had a new colleague but none of them was unduly
8 A0F
perturbed by the intrusion

s. Cinemas, cinemas everywhere. "I bet none of them are showing

9 A0F
anything as daft as this," I

got eased out by me, to put it bluntly. None of us have ever

10 A0F
forgotten about that, you know."

to take on an inspector, who often had none of the usual

11 A0K
qualifications. Two weeks after my

said Roy. "I am most impressed. None of the competitors have the
12 A0R
same level of professional

arguments for all possible positions, but none of them convinces

13 A0T
us for long (see chapters 1
324 Chapter Fifteen

was what it claimed to be. There was none of the so-called

14 A0U
obscenity --; real sex shops and

when it rains. But Benskins said that none of these things was
15 A14
important." Benskins increased
 CHAPTER SIXTEEN

“WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM THE CORPUS”:

CORPUS LINGUISTICS AND EFL TEACHING

MONIKA BEDNAREK

Introduction
Even though corpora can be a great help in language teaching they have
not yet “fully ‘arrived’ on the pedagogical landscape”, as Römer (2006, p.
121) puts it. At the same time, corpus methodology is becoming
increasingly important in applied linguistics and EFL teaching, particularly
for non-native speakers in TESOL (see also Liu, this volume), who make
up a large number of teachers in EFL contexts. This chapter introduces
corpora and corpus linguistics, surveys suggestions for applying corpus
linguistics in language teaching and provides an overview of resources for
NNESTs. In so doing, I draw on my experiences in teaching corpus
linguistics to future non-native teachers of English in Germany.

What is a Corpus?
Definition

Although there are many alternative definitions of what the term corpus
signifies (compare the various introductions to corpus linguistics), the
common consensus seems to be that a corpus is a collection of discourse
(spoken and/or written) that has been compiled according to certain
criteria with the aim of linguistic analysis, and that is available in
electronic form.
The material that is contained in the corpus is usually said to be more
or less representative of the variety of language that it was designed for
(compare the comments below on types of corpora). In these aspects,
corpora differ both from language material previously used in linguistic
326 Chapter Sixteen

description (e.g. citation slips in lexicography), and less strictly designed

text collections that are sometimes called text archives.
Since corpora are available in electronic form (stored either on a
personal computer or stored as part of a bigger network and accessible via
the network or the internet), they are usually subjected to analysis using
computer software. Depending on the software and the corpus, this allows
the user to find different things in the corpus, for instance: 1) the
frequency with which each and every word in the corpus occurs; 2) words
that are unusually frequent or infrequent when compared with a different
corpus; 3) all occurrences of a given word; 4) recurring patterns of a given
word; 5) recurring larger structures (n-grams); 6) grammatical frames; 7)
occurrences of parts of speech and their combinations, and so on.

Types of corpora
There are many different types of corpora and detailed descriptions are
given in most introductions to corpus linguistics, which are useful to
consult to complement the information given below in my brief overview.
A general distinction is that between a plain text corpus and an annotated
corpus. A plain text corpus contains only text – the linguistic material that
the researcher is interested in. An annotated corpus contains additional
information, for example information about the various parts of speech
(this is called a tagged corpus) or about grammatical analysis of the text,
for instance grammatical functions (this is called a parsed corpus).
A more specific distinction contains the aims that researchers have in
mind when designing a corpus. Firstly, there are monolingual corpora,
containing just text in one language (e.g. English, German, French,
Arabic, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese) but there are also multilingual
corpora that allow you to compare text produced in different languages or
language varieties (e.g. parallel corpora, comparable corpora, translation
corpora). These might be particularly interesting for NNESTs who want to
explore differences between their first language and English. There is also
an important distinction between corpora that contain “complete” texts
(e.g. whole books, news stories, articles) – full text corpora – and corpora
that contain only discourse fragments or samples (e.g. a chapter from a
book, the Introduction part of a research article) – sample corpora.
Corpora can be more or less static, providing a synchronic snapshot of
language at a certain time or more dynamic, providing insights into the
diachronic development of language. Static corpora were designed
according to certain criteria at some time in the past and are now used for
research as they are; their composition does not change over time.
 “With a Little Help from the Corpus” 327

Dynamic corpora (e.g. monitor corpora) on the other hand have material
subtracted and added to them as time progresses to allow researchers to
observe language development. Related to this difference is the difference
between corpora containing more or less contemporary language (e.g.
modern English) and ‘historic’ corpora containing earlier versions of the
language (E.g. Old English, Middle English, Early Modern English).
Finally, a distinction can be made between a general (reference) corpus,
which is supposed to be representative of the language as a whole and
specialized corpora that represent sub-varieties of the language (e.g.
specific registers, text types, genres). A special kind of a specialized
corpus that is particularly relevant in the context of this book would be the
learner corpus, representing discourse produced by language learners
rather than native speakers. For NNESTs who teach a specific genre or
register of English (e.g. academic English, business English) such
specialized corpora are a good way of familiarizing themselves with the
linguistic characteristics of a genre that they may be unfamiliar with.
Some examples for these different types of corpora are (for longer
and more extensive lists see links and publications at the end of this
chapter):1

tagged corpora: British National Corpus, American National Corpus

parsed corpora: Penn treebank, Susanne corpus
monolingual corpora: Bank of English, International Corpus of English,
BROWN corpus, LOB corpus, British National Corpus, American
National Corpus
multilingual corpora: European Parliament Proceedings Parallel Corpus;
The INTERSECT (International Sample of English Contrastive
Texts) Project; English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus Project;
Translation Corpus of English and German
full text corpus: Bank of English
sample corpora: British National Corpus, BROWN, LOB
monitor corpus: Bank of English
general (reference) corpora: Bank of English, British National Corpus,
American National Corpus
historic corpora: Penn Helsinki Middle English corpus, Lampeter corpus
of Early Modern English
specialized corpora: Michigan corpus of academic spoken English
(MICASE), Michigan corpus of upper-level student papers
(MICUSP), corpus of spoken American professional English,
Scottish corpus of texts and speech, corpus of London teenage
language
learner corpora: International Corpus of Learner English, Cambridge
Learner’s Corpus, Longman Learner’s Corpus, Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology Learner Corpus
328 Chapter Sixteen

What is Corpus Linguistics?

Unlike well-established disciplines of linguistics like psycholinguistics or
socio-linguistics, it has been suggested that corpus linguistics is not a
discipline of linguistics as such, but rather a methodology. This means that
we can find psycholinguistic/sociolinguistic (etc) studies that use corpus
linguistic methods in their research. At the same time, it must be noted that
corpus linguistic research has given rise to a number of theoretical
assumptions about the structure of language, principles described in
publications by John Sinclair (e.g. 2004), Susan Hunston and Gill Francis
(2000), Michael Stubbs (2001) or Michael Hoey (2005), to name but a
few. Since corpus linguistics, however, “is still in its infancy” (Scott &
Tribble, 2006, p. 3) those assumptions are slightly “theory-light”
(Thompson & Hunston, 2006, p. 2) at the present, when compared with
more “traditional” research.
Importantly, there is a distinction between what Tognini-Bonelli has
called corpus-driven vs. corpus-based research (see Gries, 2009 for
criticism). Corpus-based research refers to “a methodology that avails
itself of the corpus mainly to expound, test or exemplify theories and
descriptions that were formulated before large corpora became available to
inform language study” (Tognini-Bonelli, 2001, p. 65), whereas corpus-
driven research is characterized by “the commitment of the linguist […] to
the integrity of the data as a whole, and descriptions aim to be
comprehensive with respect to corpus evidence” (Tognini-Bonelli, 2001,
p. 84). In analogy, Bednarek (2006) uses the term text-driven for research
“that is based on the manual analysis of small-scale text corpora”
(Bednarek, 2006, p. 639).

Using Corpora
Corpora are used increasingly in all areas of linguistic research as well as
in NLP analysis. For instance, modern learner dictionaries such as OALD
or CCED are now all based on corpus research, and many other learner
resources also take into account results from corpus studies. Examples are
the Grammar Pattern series by Francis et al (1996, 1998) or Biber et al’s
(1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. In this respect,
a difference can be made between the language teacher accessing corpora
directly, and their “‘second level’ use of corpora” (Neale, 2006, p. 148),
namely the use of resources that are themselves based on corpora such as
the aforementioned dictionaries and grammars. Other examples of such
resources are Sinclair’s (2003) Reading Concordances (offering
 “With a Little Help from the Corpus” 329

concordance exercises and examples taken from corpora), and Leech et

al’s (2001) Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English, which
provides frequency lists from the British National Corpus. For an
overview of corpus-based resources for teachers and learners see Römer
(2006, Appendix B; 2008, Section 2.1.2).
The use of corpora, whether ‘first or second level’,2 has several
advantages, such as the availability and authenticity of linguistic data, its
quantification, and the move beyond speaker intuition. Corpora are useful
tools for NNESTs who need access to explicit lexicogrammatical
structures in relation to use. This kind of information is often beyond
intuition, and not only tells us what it is possible to use, but also what is
actually used, and what is typically used. For non-native teachers of
English, a corpus can be regarded as “an always available native-speaker
consultant” (Römer, 2006, p. 129, following Barnbrook, 1996, p. 140).
However, it must be emphasized that making use of corpora always
involves an “interpreter”, namely the analyst, the teacher or the
pupil/student who must make sense of the material that is presented to
them in the corpus.

Corpus Methodology in Teaching

Moving on now to the relevance and applicability of corpus methodology
in teaching, the following sections give an overview of how corpora can
be used by the NNEST and what resources are available.

Learner Language
Firstly, corpora are useful for finding out about re-curring patterns in the
language of learners of English, such as over- or under-use of certain
features. For this, learner corpora can be consulted (Granger 1998).
Examples of this type of linguistic research are Lorenz (1999) who
investigates German learners’ and native speakers’ adjective intensification
and Nesselhauf (2005) who studies collocations using the German sub-part
of the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE). Nesselhauf (2005,
p. 40-43) compares advantages of learner corpus studies with other
techniques that are widely used in the field of language teaching (e.g.
traditional error analysis, elicitation tests). Lorenz (1999) notes that “with
the recent upsurge in corpus linguistics, and in extending its methods to
the analysis of non-native varieties of English, it is indeed plausible that
we should return to analyzing learner language as a separate linguistic
variety, only this time with the help of computers, and with the aim of
330 Chapter Sixteen

discovering learners’ deviations that would otherwise go unnoticed”

(Lorenz, 1999, p.8).
More recently, Anna Mauranen and other researchers are concerned
with characteristics of ELF (English as a Lingua Franca) (compare
Seidlhofer, 2004), which is studied in corpora such as the spoken
academic discourse corpus ELFA (English as a Lingua Franca in
Academic Settings). However, even the NNEST who is not a linguist can
easily investigate typicalities in learner language by looking up particular
words, expressions or patterns in corpora that contain learner discourse.
The findings can then inform the teaching of English by allowing the
NNEST to focus on particularly problematic areas from his/her point of
view. Since learners with different linguistic backgrounds may make
different kinds of mistakes, it is natural that learner corpora should be
consulted that are appropriate for the teaching of the respective learners
(e.g. a German learner corpus when teaching English to German speakers,
and so on). The International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) allows
access to more than 2 million words of written discourse by English
learners from 14 different linguistic backgrounds.

Examples
Since corpora contain authentic discourse from manifold varieties of
language, they are ideal as a source or database for the NNEST concerning
the use of linguistic examples. Both corpora and text archives such as the
Oxford Text Archive and Project Gutenberg (see links below) are
extremely useful in providing examples for the use of English in different
text types, registers and genres, from spoken English to academic writing,
newspaper language, radio broadcasts, religious discourse, fiction, poetry
or business writing. The availability and accessibility of such data has
many advantages, in particular for the non-native teacher of English. For
instance, Biber et al (1998) point out that ESL textbooks “often do not
provide reliable information about language use” (Biber et al, 1998, p.80),
and corpus data may be more authentic. Further, many NNESTs working
in EFL contexts may not have direct access to English speakers or material
published in English, whereas many corpus resources are available online.
The NNEST can use corpus data to develop their own teaching materials
for the students, or students can access the corpus data themselves. Corpus
examples can be used both in the teaching of vocabulary and in the
teaching of grammar. Full text corpora also provide easy access to
specimens of a specific genre, text type or register that the NNEST may be
unfamiliar with because of their own cultural and linguistic background.
 “With a Little Help from the Corpus” 331

This type of research is related to Tim Johns’s idea of “data-driven

learning” (DDL), which Römer (2006) summarizes as follows:

To follow a direct approach to pedagogical corpora use means that teachers

and learners get their hands on corpus data themselves, instead of having to
rely on the researcher as mediator or provider of corpus-based materials.
Tim Johns, the ‘father’ of this direct, so-called ‘data-driven learning’
(DDL), approach, suggests to “confront the learner as directly as possible
with the data, and to make the learner a linguistic researcher” (Johns, 2002,
p. 108). Johns’s motto for this inductive learning approach in which
learners work with concordances and consult corpora in an exploratory was
is “‘Every student a Sherlock Holmes’” (ibid.). (Römer, 2006, p. 124)

Data-driven grammar learning could, for instance, involve concordance

lines for myself, yourself, himself, herself, ourselves, yourselves, and
themselves as a teaching/learning aid in considering reflexive pronouns;
compare also Kettemann (2000) on concordancing and if-clauses (also
Partington, 1998), reported speech, past and present perfect, and for/since.
Lexical analysis is possible with individual words (e.g. patterning of
already) or with words that are similar in meaning (see Partington, 1998,
on sheer/pure/complete/absolute). Compare the concordance lines for
mate and friend in Appendix A, which have been created with the
Compleat Lexical Tutor (see link below), using the spoken component of
the British National Corpus. Some of the characteristics that can be seen in
these concordances include the use of mate in vocatives, and the
association of friend with possessive structures.
It can also be useful to compare word meanings in the mother tongue
and in the second language,3 for example English translations for German
groß (e.g. great, substantial, strong, much, large, enormously, major, big,
huge, vast, such, wide). Appendix B lists some examples from the
Chemnitz German-English translation corpus. Since most resources like
this seem to be centred on European languages at present, language
learners from different backgrounds might need to wait until similar kinds
of resources become available for their own native languages. A good
example for a non-European corpus of this kind is the English-Chinese
Parallel Health Corpus described in McEnery et al (2006, p323). A recent
development in this field is a web-based concordancer for a Japanese-
English corpus, which has a user-friendly interface for both teachers and
learners and is currently being used at Nihon University, College of
Industrial Technology, in a communication course (Anthony et al, 2009).
It is to be hoped that multilingual corpora and corpus resources become
available for a large number of different languages in the future.
332 Chapter Sixteen

This type of exercise can be complemented with a look at the

patterning of the translated suggestions in a mono-lingual English corpus,
for instance by providing concordance lines for big, large, vast and other
translation equivalents of groß. Appendix C gives 10 random occurrences
each, sorted alphabetically according to following word, from the British
National Corpus. This allows students to recognize typical lexico-
grammatical patterns and structures such as vast majority (of); big
changes, or large number (of). Hunston (2002b) outlines some teaching
methods that are appropriate to pattern teaching, which improves both
students’ fluency and accuracy. Generally speaking, concordance lines
provide non-native speakers with important information on position,
collocation, and colligation. More specifically, concordances show a
number of factors that are relevant to knowledge about a word:

• collocation: words typically occur in the company of certain other

words (collocates)
• semantic associations: words occur in the company of words from
semantic subsets
• pragmatic associations: words have particular pragmatic functions
• colligations: words have particular grammatical functions, and occur
in particular grammatical positions
• textual associations (collocations, semantic associations, colligations):
words participate in/avoid certain cohesive relations, semantic
relations and discourse positions
(Hoey, 2005, p. 13)

The advantage of using monolingual English language corpora rather than

multilingual corpora lies in the fact that they can be used by non-native
speakers in general, rather than only those whose native languages are
represented in multilingual corpora. However, such usage presumes a
certain level of English language proficiency/competence, whereas
accessing multilingual corpora may be useful even for lower level students.

Exercises
Corpus-based exercises are partially already available in a ready-made
form on the web. The Compleat Lexical Tutor website (University of
Quebec, Montreal) offers Cloze passage builders that create different cloze
texts from diverse input, with some creating links to other resources such
as dictionary and audio/video files. The website also offers other
corpus-based tools, for example a Multiple Concordancer which allows
the user to directly compare different words. Examples for exercises can
 “With a Little Help from the Corpus” 333

also be downloaded from Tim Johns’s data-driven library

(http://www.eisu2.bham.ac.uk/johnstf/ddl_lib.htm), offering sequences of
material on areas such as definite vs. zero article, number agreement,
hyponymy, antonymy, newspaper headlines, as well as bilingual English-
French material.
However, with access to corpora and software it is possible for any
NNEST to create ad-hoc exercises themselves, depending on the
vocabulary/grammar that is taught. An easy example is the gapping of
words or structures (here the semantically related vast, big, large):4

(i) “The economic recovery has restored old fortunes far more
significantly,” she admitted in this year’s State of the Nation address, “than
it has touched the lives of the ______ majority of our people.”

(ii) This growth in what the tourism business winsomely calls the “silver
generation” would not have been possible without ______ changes in boots
and bindings.

(iii) Gas also produces less pollutants than oil or coal -- which generate
______ amounts of sulphur and nitrogen dioxide that end up as acid rain.

The relevant DDL research gives information on further activities (for an

overview see Römer, 2008).

Resources
There are regular international conferences on teaching and language
corpora (TaLC), of which 2008 was already the 8th in the series, and of
which proceedings are published and available for consultation. In general,
there are many publications that give good overviews of applying corpora
in language teaching and applied linguistics, and the most important ones
are listed in the reference section of this chapter. See in particular Römer
(2006, p.122-124) on the availability of corpora and software and how
they can be used by teachers and researchers. There are also manifold
resources online, both on corpus resources in general and on corpus
linguistic methodology and language learning. There are also resources for
data-driven language learning, lexical tools and other useful applications.
Below is a very short list of some links (for more extensive lists see e.g.
Hunston, 2002a, Römer, 2006 and the links below). However, on account
of the constantly changing nature of the web, it is advisable to do a web
search for “corpora”/”corpus linguistics” + “applied linguistics” or
334 Chapter Sixteen

“corpora”/”corpus linguistics” + “language teaching” to get an updated

and working list of relevant links.

Text Archives
http://ota.ahds.ac.uk/ (Oxford Text Archive)
http://www.gutenberg.org/ (Project Gutenberg)

Corpus-based Tools/Suggestions for Researchers and Teachers

http://www.lextutor.ca/
http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/student_grammarsafari.html
http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/r21270/freq_lists/
http://www.ecml.at/projects/voll/our_resources/graz_2002/ddrivenlrning/
whatisddl/resources/tim_ddl_learning_page.htm (DDL)

Software
http://www.liv.ac.uk/~ms2928/index.html (Mike Scott’s website,
Wordsmith)
http://www.edict.com.hk/pub/concapp/concapp.HTM (ConcApp software)
http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/antconc_index.html
(Laurence Anthony’s website, AntConc software)

Lists of Available Corpora and Corpus Resources

http://tiny.cc/corpora (David Lee’s website)
http://www.corpus-linguistics.de/ (Yvonne Breyer’s website)
http://www.camsoftpartners.co.uk/websites.htm (Graham Davies’s favourite
websites)

Concluding Remarks
While this chapter has offered an overview for the NNEST of some of the
most important applications of corpora in applied linguistics and language
teaching, not all areas could be covered, and those areas that were covered
could not be discussed in much detail.5 Other applications are, for
example, corpus-based vocabulary lists for learners (e.g. Coxhead’s, 2002
Academic Word List), the use of key words analysis (Scott & Tribble,
2006), and the use of corpora in stylistic analysis with advanced learners
(Bednarek, 2008). In the context of teacher education I have found it
useful to let future non-native teachers of English work on corpus-based
projects themselves, for instance:
 “With a Little Help from the Corpus” 335

• Analyzing words from the same semantic field

Students can access English language corpora to investigate the
discursive use of words from a common semantic field (e.g. lady,
wife, girl, sister, daughter). This can give them insights into
lexicalized cultural construals (e.g. common collocates of lady include
little, old, young), and gender-specific discursive construals,
demonstrating the importance of typical and actual language use. It
also shows them principles of paradigmatic semantics – the
interdependence of word meanings.
• Analyzing (near-)synonyms
Looking at common collocates for (near-) synonyms permits students
to find out how such synonyms are distinguished and what they have
in common. In this context, Partington’s (1998) analyses are a very
good starting point. For example, intensifiers can be distinguished by
their preference for negative collocates (this is called semantic
prosody in corpus linguistics) or collocates from different semantic
subsets (this is called semantic association or preference).
• Analyzing semantic associations of words and comparing information
provided in English text books for language learners
By analyzing the semantic associations of words in corpora, and
checking whether that information is given in text books, future
English teachers learn to critically engage with language learning
material. On the basis of the corpus evidence they can come up with
vocabulary exercises of their own to complement the text books.
• Analyzing lexico-grammatical patterns of words
Through an analysis of the left-hand and right-hand environment of
different parts-of-speech as represented in concordances (for instance
verbs such as mean), students get a first idea of concepts such as
valency and dependency. They learn for themselves how important
the patterning of words is and that it is useful to introduce words to
learners in their contexts and their typical lexicogrammatical
patternings.
• Analyzing neologisms in the English language
Another interesting project is the analysis of semantic change through
an examination of neologisms such as alpha-geek or flexitarian in
English. A potential problem for such projects lies in accessing a
corpus that offers enough occurrences for neologisms (unless the
students have access to a monitor corpus; compare above), but the
internet can be used for additional data. This sort of project introduces
students to word formation, coinage, borrowing, and the dynamic
nature of language systems as well as the kinds of considerations that
lexicographers need to take into account when producing dictionaries.
336 Chapter Sixteen

• Designing a corpus-based dictionary entry

In this project, students are asked to investigate a particular lexical
item in an appropriate corpus, and to design their own dictionary entry
on the basis of the found corpus evidence. This demonstrates the
usefulness of corpus data for the production of language learning
materials, and gives them an idea of important issues in lexicography.

What these various projects have in common is that one or more lexical
items are investigated by the students as they occur in corpora. This
familiarizes them with corpora, software and potential difficulties that
their future students may encounter. At the same time, they are
‘inductively’ introduced to important linguistic concepts, and are
empowered through doing their own research.

References
Anthony, L. Chujo, K. & Oghigian, K. (2009). A novel, web-based,
parallel concordancer for use in the ESL/EFL classroom. Paper
presented at AACL 2009- American Association for Corpus
Linguistics. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, Oct 8-11, 2009.
Bednarek, M. (2006). Epistemological positioning and evidentiality in
English news discourse–a text-driven approach. Text and talk, 26(6),
635-660.
—. (2008). Teaching English literature and linguistics using corpus
stylistic methods. In C. Cloran, & M. Zappavigna (Eds.), Bridging
siscourses. ASFLA 2007 online proceedings,
http://www.asfla.org.au/category/asfla2007.
Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics.
Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: CUP.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999).
Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Collins Cobuild (2004). Collins COBUILD advanced learner’s English
dictionary (4th ed.).
Coxhead, A. (2002). The Academic Word List: A corpus-based word list
for academic purposes. In Kettemann, B. & G. Marko (Eds.), Teaching
and learning by doing corpus analysis. Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora, Graz
19-24 July 2000 (pp. 73-89). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (Eds.). (1996). Collins cobuild
grammar patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.
Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (Eds.). (1998). Collins cobuild
grammar patterns 2: Nouns and adjectives. London: HarperCollins.
 “With a Little Help from the Corpus” 337

Granger, S. (1998). Learner English on computer. London: Longman.

Gries, S. (2009). Corpus linguistics and theoretical linguistics: A love-hate
relationship? Paper presented at AACL 2009 - American Association
for Corpus Linguistics. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, Oct
8-11, 2009.
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language.
London/New York: Routledge.
Hunston, S. (2002a). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
—. (2002b). Pattern grammar, language teaching, and linguistic variation.
In R. Reppen, R., S. Fitzmaurice & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to
explore linguistic variation (pp. 167-183). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern grammar. A corpus-driven
approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
Benjamins.
Johns, T. (2002). Data/driven learning: The perpetual challenge. In B.
Ketteman & G. Marko (Eds.), Teaching and learning by doing corpus
analysis. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Teaching and Language Corpora, Graz 19-24 July 2000 (pp. 107-
117). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Kettemann, B. (2000). Concordancing in English language teaching.
Retrieved June 24, 2008, from
http://www-gewi.kfunigraz.ac.at/ed/project/concord1.html.
Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A. (2001). Word frequencies in written
and spoken English. London: Longman.
Lorenz, G. (1999). Adjective intensification — Learners versus native
speakers. A corpus study of argumentative writing. Amsterdam &
Atlanta: Rodopi.
McEnery, T., Xiao, R. & Yuko, T. (2006). Corpus-based language
studies. An advanced resource book. London/New York: Routledge.
Neale, A. (2006). ‘Matching’ corpus data and system networks: Using
corpora to modify and extend the system networks for TRANSITIVITY in
English. In G. Thompson, & S. Hunston (Eds.), System and corpus.
Exploring connections (pp. 143-163). London: Equinox.
Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Oxford University Press (2007). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary
(7th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
338 Chapter Sixteen

Partington, A. (1998). Patterns and meanings. Using corpora for English

language research and teaching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Römer, U. (2006). Pedagogical applications of corpora: Some reflections
on the current scope and a wish list for future developments. Zeitschrift
für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 54(2), 121-134.
—. (2008). Corpora and language teaching. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö
(Eds.), Corpuslinguistics. An international handbook Vol. 1 (pp. 112-
130). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Scott, M. & Tribble, C (2006). Textual patterns. Key words and corpus
analysis in language education. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a
lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209-239.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford
University Press..
—. (2003). Reading concordances: An introduction. London: Longman.
—. (2004). Trust the text. Language, corpus and discourse. London/New
York: Routledge.
Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and phrases: Corpus studies in lexical
semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Thompson, G. & Hunston, S. (2006). System and corpus: Two traditions
with a common ground. In G. Thompson & S. Hunston (Eds.), System
and corpus. exploring connections (pp. 1-14). London: Equinox.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. ( 2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.

Additional references
Aston, G., Bernardini, S., & D. Steward (Eds.). (2004). Corpora and
language learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Barnbrook, G. (1996). Language and computers: A practical introduction
to the computer analysis of language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Botley, S., McEnery, T. & Wilson, A. (Eds.). (2000). Multilingual corpora
in teaching and research. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Burnard, L. & McEnery T. (Eds.). (2000). Rethinking language pedagogy
from a corpus perspective. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Granger, S., Hung, J. & Petch-Tyson, S. (Eds) (2002). Computer learner
corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 “With a Little Help from the Corpus” 339

Kennedy, G. (1996). An introduction to corpus linguistics. London:

Longman.
Kettemann, B. & Marko, G. (Eds). 2002. Teaching and learning by doing
corpus analysis. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Teaching and Language Corpora, Graz 19-24 July 2000. Amsterdam:
Rodopi.
Meyer, C. F. (2002). English corpus linguistics: An introduction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reppen, R., Fitzmaurice, S. & Biber, D. (Eds.). (2002). Using corpora to
explore linguistic variation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sinclair, J. (Ed.). (2004). How to use corpora in language teaching.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tribble, C. & Jones, G. (1990). Concordances in the classroom. London:
Longman.
Wichmann, A., Fligelstone, S., McEnery, T. & Knowles, G. (Eds.).
(1997). Teaching and language corpora. London: Longman.

Notes
1. Multimodal corpora (corpora involving more than text, e.g. text and images) are
becoming increasingly important in semiotic research but will not be taken into
account in this chapter.
2. This distinction is closely related to the difference between the direct and
indirect application of corpora (Leech, 1997, summarized in Römer, 2008). This
relates to the fact that “corpora can help with decisions about what to teach and
when to teach it” (Römer, 2008, p,113) or “they can also be accessed ‘directly’ by
learners and teachers in the LT classroom” (Römer, 2008, p.113):
Indirect application
• influencing the teaching syllabus
• corpora as basis for reference works/teaching materials
Direct application
• by teacher
• by learner
(summarized from Römer, 2008: Section 2)
3. E.g. false friends (Partington, 1998, p.48-64).
4. (i) = vast; (ii) = big; (iii) = large.
5. Many of the points made in this chapter are relevant to all ELT professionals,
not just NNESTs. See McEnery et al (2006, p.103) for a good overview of corpus
linguistics and language learning/teaching. However, as Liu (this volume) notes,
corpora are a particularly useful tool for some nonnative TESOL professionals in
helping them to face the challenges of lack of confidence and resources.
340 Chapter Sixteen

Appendix A
[001] rranged you see I met an old work MATE of mine he said they were at
Grantham
[002] well you mean are you? No problem MATE I'll walk now, are you sure he
say? I s
[003] I don't think you want that do you MATE? Is his bottle ready? Yeah.
Yeah,
[004] t you? Oh yeah! I I . Alright MATE! Hold on! Er er er! it. Go on the
[005] Move your bag over there. Hello MATE! Right, come on then look!
Ooh!
[006] soap! Ooh! Ooh! Bloody hell MATE! Who's got wind ? And what's
that? Bo
[007] ve you? Mm. Oh you have! Hello MATE! Are you cheeky! Had a
sore throat f
[008] You been in the bedroom haven't you MATE? And you the heater's not on.
I ain't p
[009] it? Have you? It is very Hello MATE! nice. You need a bath! A
bath!
[010] ing now? You just laugh don't you MATE, eh? Come back here.
Sorry! So

[001] that's the older one, the one who's FRIEND of Mat's? That's right yeah,
for a
[002] aped him that? Erm oh I dun no, a FRIEND of his. Erm Martin What
sort of mu
[003] 'm not sure if it was him, he had a FRIEND called Rob and he was a blond
beautifu
[004] ing Frank he hasn't been a very good FRIEND and things. Really? Erm
Tt b
[005] l end up a bop? Yeah. And also my FRIEND is gonna come. I invited her
last oh i
[006] I don't do I? It's not that I t I my FRIEND come cos I do have her little boy
now
[007] then didn't she? No cos we was my FRIEND Pat said to me oh she said,
cos everyo
[008] Ooh! Whose house was it? His FRIEND's, but I mean she couldn't even
rememb
[009] got me this when It is cos a FRIEND of mine had a baby and we
thought it w
[010] no, and you didn't write to your pen FRIEND either I've, this is more
important
 “With a Little Help from the Corpus” 341

Appendix B
doc/doc1 - 4
Alexander Pushkin once described St Petersburg as the 'GREAT window
through which Russia looks into Europe'.
Alexander Puschkin bezeichnete St. Petersburg einmal als das GROßE
Fenster, durch das Rußland nach Europa schaut.

doc/doc1 - 40
This is a SUBSTANTIAL task for NATO, and a SUBSTANTIAL task
for partners.
Dies ist eine GROßE Aufgabe für die NATO und eine GROßE Aufgabe
für die Partner.

doc/doc10 - 69
I warmly welcome the European Union's STRONG support.
Ich freue mich sehr über die GROßE Unterstützung der Europäischen
Union.

doc/doc10 - 95
One figure will demonstrate why we attach so MUCH importance to this
and why you should feel also as potential investors that the climate here is
already investor-friendly.
Anhand einer Zahl möchte ich demonstrieren, weshalb wir solchen
Investitionen so GROßE Bedeutung beimessen und weshalb auch Sie als
potentielle Investoren den Eindruck gewinnen sollten, daß das hiesige
Klima bereits anlegerfreundlich ist.

doc/doc10 - 130
A number of large companies - five LARGE companies - did not wait for
this Forum before taking new investment decisions.
Eine Reihe GROßER Unternehmen - genau genommen fünf - haben mit
ihren neuen Investitionsentscheidungen nicht bis zu diesem Forum
abgewartet.

doc/doc10 - 139
Finally, Fujitsu - a global giant which already has ENORMOUSLY
successful operations in Antrim - will be putting over 3.5 million pounds
into a new factory.
Und schließlich plant Fujitsu, ein weltweit tätiger Konzern, der bereits mit
342 Chapter Sixteen

GROßEM Erfolg in Antrim operiert, mehr als £3,5 Mio. in den Bau einer
neuen Fabrik zu investieren.

doc/doc11 - 30
We are both MAJOR overseas investors and exporters, and are ready to
act vigorously outside the borders of Europe if our instincts or interests
require it.
Wir sind beide GROßE Investoren im Ausland und Exportnationen, und
wir sind bereit, uns außerhalb der Grenzen Europas zu engagieren, wenn
moralische Selbstverständlichkeit oder unsere Interessen es erfordern.

doc/doc11 - 92
The European Union needs to see itself as an overweight boxer preparing
for a BIG fight.
Die Europäische Union muß sich selbst als einen übergewichtigen Boxer
sehen, der sich auf einen GROßEN Kampf vorbereitet.

doc/doc14 - 98
Successful reform in Russia would be a HUGE prize.
Erfolgreiche Reformen in Rußland wären wie das GROßE Los.

doc/doc2 - 25
We do not just want a futuristic GRAND design which never leaves the
drawing board.
Uns genügt kein futuristischer GROßER Plan, der nie über das
Reißbrettstadium hinauskommt.

doc/doc21 - 80
It is right to remember today and always all those whose commitment to
peace and democracy has been unwavering over the last 25 years - the
VAST majority of ordinary citizens, the politicians who have abided by
the ballot box alone, the churches.
Man sollte heute und immer an all diejenigen denken, deren Engagement
für Frieden und Demokratie in den letzten 25 Jahren unerschütterlich war -
die GROßE Mehrheit der Bevölkerung, die Politiker, die allein den
Wählerauftrag befolgt haben, die Kirchen.

doc/doc21 - 168
Having come so far, against so many odds, in the face of SUCH difficult
obstacles, there will be no change of heart.
Nachdem wir trotz zahlreicher Unwägbarkeiten und GROßER
 “With a Little Help from the Corpus” 343

Schwierigkeiten so weit gekommen sind, wird es jetzt keinen

Sinneswandel geben.

doc/doc21 - 280
It has been possible to discuss a WIDE range of issues across a broad
agenda.
Wir konnten eine GROßE Zahl von Fragen aus den verschiedensten
Bereichen diskutieren.

Appendix C
large  
1. HH3 11024 pollutants than oil or coal -- which generate
LARGE amounts of sulphur and nitrogen dioxide that end up
as
2. CAC 1979 a cocked hat, breeches, and shoes with LARGE
buckles. William Allingham described one thus:
3. G3B 316 to put things right and we would miss a LARGE
chunk of lessons. In winter it was hell.
4. ALT 98 to some, but not all, members of his LARGE family.
Two of his daughters lived "in sin
5. EC3 125 ultimately responsible for policy decisions. The
LARGE number of members involved means that a full
meeting of
6. CR7 1288 Annan's predecessor, had the vision of a LARGE
permanent staff manned by officers on long-term contracts.
7. FSC 1422 gravel in front of the pale yellow walls of a LARGE
square villa as he pulled a long, iron bell
8. GUK 1640 in the centre of which was a tall heap of LARGE
stones. Behind it was a small white cliff,
9. HRM 1604 State theory is, of course, an exceptionally LARGE
topic and there have been a number of wide-ranging
10. G30 798 the range 3,5,6 - 8,9 - 11 and 12 plus extra
LARGE .Colour choice is that of grey, brown

big  
1. ABJ 708 generation" would not have been possible without BIG
changes in boots and bindings.
2. FPM 71 ."He rolled a little closer on the BIG feather mattress
in the big brass bedstead, and put
344 Chapter Sixteen

3. K20 3131 Welcome back.It's a BIG football night in Europe

tonight that's why we've
4. CRB 1719 now are cosmetic, such as coloured shafts and BIG
heads for drivers.Most manufacturers have played
5. HHX 13447 There has been a BIG increase in the use of knives
in crimes of violence
6. CK6 234 BY STUART MACONIE" BIG MOUTH"
7. KD6 1223 bits, if I get the whole ones and the BIG pieces they
can go on the top and that
8. KD0 12186 No. <unclear> he had this BIG red bag, you had to
tackle it.
9. EVN 954 She was caught up in the drama of a BIG story." I'm
ready, Mr Jones.
10. C9J 280 on getting the best possible tone from those BIG
strings.When I did a lot of my chord

vast  
1. A96 691 was running and had cost Mr Murdoch " VAST
amounts of money".
2. EDU 1156 USA, which in the 1980s still seemed sufficiently
VAST and dominant to deal with its economic problems
without
3. A1P 95 Industry newspaper last week." The VAST bulk of
enterprises are not ready for change.
4. A6L 76 seems unhappy with the idea of drawing up a VAST
catalogue of top management attributes and is more inclined
5. K59 4583 the recession lasts, the bigger the already VAST
Japanese trade surpluses will grow, and the more
6. A8X 919 "than it has touched the lives of the VAST majority
of our people." The lowest 30
7. CE8 217 or more ... ?I do not believe the VAST majority of
people want to see British industry sold
8. K1M 3170 The VAST majority are normal people, fed up with
what's going
9. K57 656 vociferous quacky-ducks, some tiny rabbits and a
VAST somnambulant white buck or roe. Words are largely
10. FT7 434 diggings, scaffolding and shoring incurred by this
VAST undertaking are a pictorial eyesore. The work is
 
 CONTRIBUTORS

Leslie Barratt is a Professor of Linguistics and Director of the MA

TESL/Linguistics Program at Indiana State University in Terre Haute,
Indiana, U.S.A., where she teaches TESL/TEFL and linguistics. She has
lived in five other countries, including one year each in Hungary and
China on Fulbright Scholarships. Email: [email protected]

Monika Bednarek is a Lecturer at the Department of Linguistics,

University of Sydney. She is the author of Evaluation in Media Discourse
(2006, Continuum) and Emotion Talk across Corpora (2008, Palgrave
Macmillan) and has recently co-edited a volume New Discourse on
Language: Functional Perspectives on Multimodality, Identity, and
Affiliation with J. R. Martin (2010, Continuum). Email:
[email protected]

Tünde Csepelyi was born and grew up in Hungary. Tünde is an NNES

ESL teacher who used to be an ABE-ESL student in the college where she
teaches community and academic ESL and English. She is currently
working on a Ph.D. in Language, Literacy, and Culture. Email:
[email protected]

Seran Dogancay-Aktuna is Associate Professor of Linguistics/TESL at

Southern Illinois University Edwardsville in the U.S., where she teaches
methodology and sociolinguistics courses in the MA TESL program. She
has a Ph.D. in Educational Linguistics from the University of
Pennsylvania. Her publications focus on micro and macro sociolinguistics
and their applications to language teaching and teacher education. Her co-
edited book Global English Teaching and Teacher Education: Praxis and
Possibility was published by TESOL in 2008. Before joining Southern
Illinois University she was a teacher educator at Bogazici University in
Istanbul, Turkey. Email: [email protected]

Jan Edwards Dormer has taught English and trained language teachers
for the past 25 years. She began her career in Canada, then lived and
worked in Brazil and Indonesia for 15 years, and now divides her time
between the United States and Kenya, where she is also developing
346 Contributors

teacher education programs. She has a B.A. in elementary education, an

MA in TESOL, and a Doctorate in Education from the Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto, specializing in
teacher development. Dr. Dormer is active in TESOL, being a member of
the Professional Development Committee and a course developer and
instructor in TESOL’s Core Certificate Program. She teaches in the School
of Education at Anderson University, in Anderson, Indiana. Email:
[email protected]

Zohreh R. Eslami is an Associate Professor in ESL education in the

Department of Teaching, Learning, and Culture at Texas A&M University
where she teachers ESL education courses at both graduate and
undergraduate level. Dr. Eslami has been involved in ESL/EFL/and EAP
teaching and ESL/EFL teacher education from both national and
international perspectives for more than 15 years. She is interested in
applications of sociolinguistics to ESL/EFL teaching and learning;
communication and variation in language use; interlanguage and
instructional pragmatics. Her publications appear in journals such as,
Bilingual Research Journal, ESP Across Cultures, Asian EFL Journal,
Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, Intercultural Pragmatics Journal,
English Language Teaching (ELT) Journal and TESL EJ. Email:
[email protected]

Ross Forman is a Senior Lecturer in the Language Studies Group at the

University of Technology, Sydney (UTS). He has been involved with
TESOL/Applied Linguistics for the past 25 years, and has worked as a
teacher and trainer in Australia, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand. In 2005,
Ross’s Ph D thesis received an award of excellence from the New South
Wales Institute for Educational Research. His teaching was recognised by
a UTS Teaching and Learning Award in 2008, and an Australian Teaching
and Learning Council citation for excellence in 2009. Email:
[email protected]

Noriko Ishihara received her Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction from

the University of Minnesota and is currently associate professor of EFL at
Hosei University, Japan. She also leads language teachers’ professional
development courses in Japan and the U.S. Her research interests include
pragmatics and identity, critical pragmatics, and language teacher
development. Her latest work appears in TESOL Quarterly, Teaching and
Learning Pragmatics (2010, with Cohen, Pearson/Longman), and
 The NNEST Lens: Non Native English Speakers in TESOL 347

Communication in Context (2010, with Maeda, Routledge). Email:

[email protected]

Rashi Jain is a doctoral candidate in the Program of Second Language

and Education at University of Maryland, College Park. She is from
multicultural and multilingual India where she pursued simultaneous
undergraduate studies in English and German language and literature.
Rashi has participated actively in WATESOL NNEST Caucus activities,
and is currently serving as editor for the TESOL NNEST IS newsletter.
Rashi is also adjunct faculty in a community college and is exploring the
complex and rich field of practitioner research as her doctoral dissertation.
Email: [email protected]

John Liang is an associate professor in the Department of Applied

Linguistics and TESOL at Biola University, La Mirada, California. Before
that, he directed an ESL program in the Learning Center at the University
of California, Riverside. John is very active in research and is a frequent
presenter at the TESOL and CATESOL conferences. His current research
interests are in pedagogical grammar, materials development, second
language writing, and technology-enhanced language learning. Email:
[email protected]

Caroline Lipovsky is a Lecturer in the School of Languages & Cultures at

the University of Sydney. Her major research interest is in self-
presentation and impression management in job interviews, analysing the
linguistic resources whereby candidates demonstrate their expertise,
construct their professional identity, and build co-membership with their
interviewers. Caroline is also the co-editor of Studies in Applied
Linguistics and Language Learning (2009) with Ahmar Mahboob. Email:
[email protected]

Dilin Liu teaches/coordinates the Applied Linguistics/TESOL program at

the University of Alabama. His main research interests are lexicogrammar
learning/teaching and corpus-based language description/learning. He has
published extensively including articles in International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, Modern Language Journal, Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, and TESOL Quarterly, among others. His most recent book is
Idioms: Description, comprehension, acquisition, and pedagogy (Routledge,
2008). Email: [email protected]
348 Contributors

Wen-Hsing Luo received her Ph.D. from Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education of the University of Toronto. Currently, she is Associate
Professor in the Department of English Instruction at National Hsinchu
University of Education, Taiwan. Her research interests include TEFL,
NEST and NNEST studies, and English teacher professional development.
Email: [email protected]

Ahmar Mahboob is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Linguistics at

the University of Sydney. Ahmar has published on a range of topics
including: language teaching, teacher education, language policy,
educational linguistics, and World Englishes. Ahmar is the co-editor of
Questioning Linguistics with Naomi Knight (2008), Studies in Applied
Linguistics and Language Learning with Caroline Lipovsky (2009), and
Directions in Appliable Linguistics with Naomi Knight (2010). Ahmar is
the Associate Editor of the journal Linguistics and the Human Sciences.
Email: [email protected]

Barbara Mullock is a lecturer in the MA program in Applied

Linguistics/TESOL at the University of New South Wales, Sydney. She
has a PhD from the University of Sydney, and an MA in Applied
Linguistics from the University of Reading. She has worked as a TESOL
teacher in Australia, Laos, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the UK, and as a
teacher trainer in Vietnam. Email: [email protected]

Ekaterina Nemtchinova is Associate Professor of TESOL and Russian at

the Seattle Pacific University. Katya received her PhD from the State
University of New York, Stony Brooks, in 1997. Her research interests
include online language teaching and learning and teacher education,
particulalry the issues of non-native English speakers. She is currently
working on a Russian listening textbook. Email: [email protected]

Rebecca L. Oxford is a Professor of the Second Language Education at

the University of Maryland, College Park. She has written and edited
many books on language learning strategies, motivation, cultural identity,
and teaching methods. She has written over 60 published chapters and
articles. Several of her instruments, including the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning and the Style Analysis Survey, are used in up to 20
different languages. Currently her main research interests are language
learning styles and strategies and how these factors relate to language
teaching methods in different cultures. Email: [email protected]
 The NNEST Lens: Non Native English Speakers in TESOL 349

Mary Romney is Assistant Professor at the University of Connecticut,

where she teaches in the International Teaching Assistants Program. She
has taught ESOL in the US and Spain for over 25 years. She has a an
M.Ed. in Instructional Technology and Media, and an M.A. in TESOL,
both from Columbia University, and an M.A. in Spanish from Middlebury
College. She is the co-editor of Color, Race, and English Language
Teaching: Shades of Meaning (2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), a
professional development text. Her research interests range from
classroom practices to the worldwide uses and users of English. Email:
[email protected]

Sibel Tatar is Assistant Professor of Foreign Language Education at

Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey. She received her Ph.D. in language
education from Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana. Her research
interests include intercultural communication, foreign language teaching
methodology and language teacher education. She has published in the
Teacher Development, Journal of Studies in International Education and
Language and Intercultural Communication. Email:
[email protected]

Ana Wu was born and raised in Brazil. Currently, she teaches ESL at City
College of San Francisco. As an active member at TESOL Inc., she has
served at different positions and maintained a blog, “NNEST of the
Month,” interviewing graduate students and educators about
multilingualism, World Englishes, and NNEST issues. She has a MA in
TESOL and a Teaching Composition Certificate from San Francisco State
University. Email: [email protected]

Senem Yıldız joined the Department of Foreign Language Education at

Boğaziçi University in 2003. She received her PhD. in language education
from Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana. Her research interests
include computer assisted language learning and teaching, and teacher
education. Email: [email protected]