are all the teachers speakers

Fewer than one-in-ten teachers were either Black (7%), Hispanic (9%) or Asian American (2%). And fewer than 2% of teachers were either American Indian or Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, or of two or more races. By comparison, 47% of all public elementary and secondary school students in the U.S. were White in 2018-19, according to the most The NYSTCE CST English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) test is a required exam for prospective ESOL teachers in the state of New York. The ESOL (116) exam is considered one of New York's Content Specialty Tests, or CSTs. Content Specialty Tests are designed to assess a prospective teacher's knowledge of both content and pedagogy. Lysa Allman-Baldwin I am a Professional Speaker, Workshop Facilitator, and Author offering leadership strategies that promote authentic and purposeful living. We provide free quality educational content to all those who want to prepare for competitive exams like JKSSB,JKPSC, SSC etc.For more info contact on JKTeach Teachers can help students achieve this goal by: Having high expectations of all students regardless of their previous academic performance. Helping all students feel like a part of the school and educational community. Increasing a sense of school belonging (i.e., perceptions of being liked, accepted, included, respected, and encouraged to An illustration of two cells of a film strip. Video An illustration of an audio speaker. The Prophecies of Nostradamus, Centuries I-X, plus the Alamanacs from 1555 - 1567. Addeddate 2019-01-19 18:19:43 PDF download. download 1 file . SINGLE PAGE PROCESSED JP2 ZIP download. download 1 file. Vay Nhanh Fast Money. Native and Non-Native English Language Teachers Student Perceptions in Vietnam and JapanAbstractThe English language teaching industry in East and Southeast Asia subscribes to an assumption that native English-speaking teachers NESTs are the gold standard of spoken and written language, whereas non-native English-speaking teachers non-NESTs are inferior educators because they lack this innate linguistic skill. But does this premise correspond with the views of second language learners? This article reports on research carried out with university students in Vietnam and Japan exploring the advantages and disadvantages of learning English from NESTs and non-NESTs. Contrary to the above notion, our research illuminated a number of perceived advantages—and disadvantages—in both types of teachers. Students viewed NESTs as models of pronunciation and correct language use, as well as being repositories of cultural knowledge, but they also found NESTs poor at explaining grammar, and their different cultures created tension. Non-NESTs were perceived as good teachers of grammar, and had the ability to resort to the students’ first language when necessary. Students found classroom interaction with non-NESTs easier because of their shared culture. Non-NESTs’ pronunciation was often deemed inferior to that of NESTs, but also easier to comprehend. Some respondents advocated learning from both types of teachers, depending on learners’ proficiency and the skill being such as Braine 2010 and Kirkpatrick 2010 have identified a perception in the English language teaching profession in East and Southeast Asia that native English-speaking teachers NESTs are the ideal model for language production. Their speech is held up as the gold standard of grammatical correctness and perfect pronunciation cf. Wang, 2012, and they are valued as repositories of cultural information. Conversely, non-native English-speaking teachers non-NESTs tend to be positioned as deficient speakers of the language, with imperfect grammatical and pragmatic knowledge, poor pronunciation, and inferior knowledge about foreign cultures Mahboob, Uhrig, Newman, & Hartford, 2004. This notion persists in the face of a rapidly expanding body of evidence to the contrary. Research carried out in Europe Benke & Medgyes, 2005; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005, the United States Liang, 2002; Mahboob, 2003, Hong Kong Cheung & Braine, 2007, and the United Kingdom Pacek, 2005 indicates that second/foreign language learners tend to place greater value on certain pedagogical, linguistic, and personal qualities than on a teacher’s linguistic background. However, there has been relatively little rigorous inquiry into the East and Southeast Asia context, despite Braine 2010 and Kirkpatrick 2010 raising the issue. The current study contributes to this area by investigating the attitudes of English learners in Vietnam and Japan toward NESTs and non-NESTs, and explores two research questionsResearch Question 1 What advantages or disadvantages do learners identify about learning English from a native English-speaking teacher?Research Question 2 What advantages or disadvantages do learners identify about learning English from a non-native English-speaking teacher?Because perceptions about non-NESTs are known to vary across social, linguistic, and educational settings Moussu, 2002, 2010; Moussu & Braine, 2006, the study reported here explores two national contexts rather than just one, thereby enhancing the study’s reliability. However, the relatively small sample sizes used in the study restrict the robustness of the findings, which should be treated as article is divided into five sections. The first three sections outline the research rationale, review recent literature about the perceived advantages and disadvantages of NESTs and non-NESTs, and describe the methods used in the current study to probe the issue. The fourth section explores the value of NESTs as models of pronunciation for second language L2 learners and explains the effect of cultural divergence and convergence on teacher–student interactions. The issue of mutual student–teacher comprehension in the L2 is then examined, along with the benefit of being able to give complex linguistic explanations to students. Some perceived advantages of learning from both NESTs and non-NESTs are explicated. The fifth section recapitulates the study’s findings, explains their significance to the current debate, and suggests areas for future Review“Native” and “Non-Native” A Working DefinitionDavies 2004 lists the key tenets of “nativeness” as follows a childhood acquisition of the language, b comprehension and production of idiomatic forms of the language, c understanding regional and social variations within the language, and d competent production and comprehension of fluent, spontaneous discourse. Given that all these tenets but the first may be acquired or learned post-childhood, one could argue that the only immutable difference between a native speaker and a non-native speaker of a language is childhood acquisition. Yet the native/non-native distinction permeates English language teaching ELT ideology Arva & Medgyes, 2000; Moussu & Llurda, 2008, perpetuating inequality between the two groups Canagarajah, 1999, as we shall see below. The present study adopts the terms native and non-native because the distinction between them is the primary focus of this research. However, use of these terms is not intended to bestow legitimacy on the distinction, which we frame as an artificial and disempowering construct cf. Brutt-Griffler & Samimy, 2001.Native or Non-Native? Perceptions in the FieldAs native-like English proficiency has long been framed as virtually unachievable after childhood Birdsong, 1992; Felix, 1987, native speakers are viewed as the ultimate arbiters of what is correct or acceptable language Braine, 1999. Yet Kramsch 1997 points out that native speaker speech is inevitably influenced by geography, occupation, age and social status, and that “standard” forms of English are the exception rather than the norm. Paikeday 1985, as cited in Kramsch, 1997, p. 362 frames the idea of the native speaker as the ultimate authority on linguistic correctness as a “convenient fiction, or a shibboleth.”Also, English is now used more as a lingua franca between speakers of English as a second/foreign language—including roughly 800 million users in Asia Bolton, 2008—than for non-native speakers to communicate with native speakers. Kirkpatrick 2010 contends that the idealized native speaker is becoming less relevant as a model for L2 learners and that a capacity for communication with other L2 users is becoming far more valuable cf. Cook, 2005. Kirkpatrick maintains that the most appropriate linguistic benchmarks should be derived from bilingual or multilingual speakers using English as a lingua franca in region-specific the “convenient fiction” that native speakers are the ideal teachers of English language continues to dominate the English language teaching profession cf. Wang, 2012, and teachers who are not native speakers find themselves viewed as deficient educators. This perception limits non-NESTs’ job prospects Clark and Paran’s 2007 investigation of 90 higher education institutions in the United Kingdom found that of employers made hiring decisions based on native-speakerness. Canagarajah 2005 argues that the motivations for this marginalization are not linguistic or pedagogical but economic and political. They perpetuate a hegemony that favors educators, academics, language institutes, and publishing companies in the Center countries Kachru, 1986 where English is a national or official language. These people enjoy higher salaries, greater prestige, textbook sales, research funding, and management and academic positions. Conversely, non-NESTs in the periphery communities where English is taught and learned as a foreign language are relegated to what Rajagopalan 2005 calls “pariah status” p. 284, disempowered by their dependence on Center educators, institutions, teacher-trainers, and “inferior language teacher” paradigm can erode the professional confidence of non-NESTs. In a survey conducted by Seidlhofer 1996, 57% of 100 non-NESTs surveyed indicated that being a non-native English-speaking teacher made them feel insecure rather than confident in the classroom. Even non-NESTS who do not subscribe to the dominant perspective often struggle against it throughout their career Braine, 1999; Canagarajah, 2005.Research Into NESTs and Non-NESTs The Good, the Bad, and the UglyThis section examines existing research into native and non-native English-speaking teachers, beginning with research into NESTs. Mahboob’s 2003 study of 32 students in an intensive English program at a college revealed a range of opinions NESTs were perceived to have good oral skills, a wide vocabulary, and knowledge about their own culture, but they often had little facility with grammar and had difficulty explaining complex items cf. Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005. They were perceived as having little language learning experience and lacked knowledge about language teaching methodology. Benke and Medgyes’s 2005 study of 422 Hungarian learners of English at various institutions revealed that native-speaker teachers were viewed as friendly and lively, good models for imitation, and skilled at encouraging learners to speak. However, NESTs’ speech could be difficult for L2 learners to understand, and the differing linguistic and cultural background of most NESTs sometimes inhibited learning. Lasagabaster and Sierra’s 2005 study of 76 English learners at a university in the Basque Autonomous Community in Spain yielded a clear preference for NESTs in the areas of pronunciation, speaking, and listening, but not in more systematic aspects of the language such as lexis and grammar because “sometimes they haven’t got the knowledge to explain it” p. 230. In the Asian context, Wu and Ke 2009 explored the perceptions of 107 Taiwanese university students toward NESTs. The majority supported native-speaker teachers as friendly, informal, and a source of encouragement to students. Respondents favored NESTs as models of pronunciation rather than as formal educators. Han’s 2005 small-scale investigation of the Korean context pointed to a possible perception that NESTs lacked insight into the local educational context and sometimes failed to establish rapport with turn now to research into non-native English-speaking teachers. Non-NESTs in Mahboob’s 2003 study were valued for their own experience as language learners, their strict adherence to methodology, and their hard work, but they were perceived as having poorer oral skills and inadequate knowledge of “Western” cultures compared with NESTs. Pacek 2005 investigated the perspectives of 89 English learners from various countries studying at a university; these learners generally valued their non-NESTs’ pedagogical expertise, metalinguistic awareness, and interpersonal skills. What mattered, one respondent said, was “the teacher’s personality, not nationality” Pacek, 2005, p. 254. Similarly, 20 English as a second language ESL students in Liang’s 2002 study of students’ attitudes toward teachers’ native or non-native accents were more concerned that teachers should be engaging, prepared, qualified, and professional than they were about accent. According to Benke and Medgyes’s 2005 respondents in Hungary, non-NESTs set a lot of homework, planned their lessons thoroughly, prepared students well for exams, and consistently checked for errors—all things valued by students, parents, and administrators in the local educational context. Hungarian learners of English also favored non-NESTs for learning about complex grammar, partly because non-NESTs could explain grammatical items in the students’ first language L1 if required cf. Cook, 2005, and also because non-NESTs’ learned knowledge of the rules of grammar enabled them to give cogent, comprehensible explanations Seidlhofer, 1996. Other studies have found that non-NESTs were valued as models of successful second language learners Cook, 2005; Lee, 2000, and were sympathetic about the challenges faced by students struggling to master the L2 themselves Arva & Medgyes, 2000.Several studies have examined the attitudes of Asian learners of English toward non-NESTs. Cheung and Braine’s 2007 study of 420 students in Hong Kong revealed a generally favorable attitude toward non-NESTs, whose perceived effectiveness matched native-speaker teachers. They also conveyed insight into English language usage, exhibited positive personality traits, could code-switch for complex explanations, and shared the educational and cultural background of their charges. The 65 Chinese college students in Liu and Zhang’s 2007 study were enthusiastic about learning with Chinese teachers of English, whom they viewed as better organized and prepared than their NEST counterparts. Conversely, foreign teachers’ classes were viewed as friendlier and less stressful. Todd and Pojanapunya 2008 investigated and compared the explicit conscious and implicit below the subject’s awareness attitudes of 261 Thai English learners toward NESTs and non-NESTs. Subjects explicitly preferred NESTs as language educators, despite having more positive feelings toward non-NESTs. Yet testing of their implicit attitudes indicated no conclusive preference or positive feeling for either type of teacher. Todd and Pojanapunya 2008 conclude that despite a tendency to express prejudiced attitudes toward one type of teacher, students’ actual behavior as language learners would be identical with either type of the best of our knowledge, the only study in Vietnam was done by Walkinshaw and Duong 2012, who elicited Vietnamese university students’ evaluations of native-speakerness in contrast with other qualities or skills characterizing a competent language teacher. As for the Japanese context, most studies have concentrated on teachers’ perceptions of the issue rather than those of students. Shibata 2010 investigated the opinions of Japanese high school teachers of English about assistant English teachers who were not native English speakers. She found that junior high school teachers n = 24 were more accepting than senior high school teachers n = 51 of non-native teachers. Butler 2007 elicited the opinions of 112 Japanese elementary school teachers about native English-speaking teachers. A total of 60% said that at the elementary level, English was best taught by NESTs. Chiba, Matsuura, and Yamamoto 1995 studied 169 Japanese university-level learners of English, but limited their scope to learners’ perceptions of native and non-native accents. So the current study is noteworthy because it provides learner-focused insight into the Vietnam and Japan MethodThe current study draws on qualitative short-response questionnaire data quantified for analytical purposes because we wished to explore certain classroom attitudes and beliefs rather than to test specific variables Denzin & Lincoln, 2005. We also wanted to exploit the emergent nature of qualitative research, keeping the design relatively loose and open so that it was responsive to emerging information Dornyei, 2007. This section outlines the methodology used in this research the sample groups, the instrument and the procedure for data collection. It also points out the study’s methodological participant groups, totaling100 learners of English, participated in this study. All participants were under 24 years of age. The first group of participants comprised 38 female and 12 male Vietnamese learners of English VLEs at an upper-intermediate level at two universities in Vietnam. Those from the first institution were taught by five NESTs from Australia, New Zealand, and the United States and six Vietnamese non-NESTs, while those from the second studied with three NESTs from Australia and the United States and six Vietnamese non-NESTs. The second group comprised 50 female Japanese learners of English JLEs taking intermediate to advanced courses at a university in Japan. They were taught by six NESTs from Australia, New Zealand, and the United States and four Japanese non-NESTs. The participants were a convenience sample of volunteering students from English programs at these Collection InstrumentThe instrument for data collection was an anonymous self-report questionnaire in English eliciting learners’ attitudes toward studying English with each type of teacher. This instrument enabled a large amount of data to be collected in a readily processable form, and was methodologically similar to other questionnaire-based studies on this subject Benke & Medgyes, 2005; Butler, 2007; Chiba et al., 1995; Kelch & Santana-Williamson, 2002; Liang, 2002; Moussu, 2002; Pacek, 2005; Shibata, 2010; Walkinshaw & Duong, 2012. The data collected were attitudinal Dornyei, 2007, eliciting participants’ attitudes and beliefs about the issue being investigated. To solicit general perceptions about the issue, a guided open format was used. This format was a better fit for the study than a closed-item questionnaire because we could not anticipate the themes that might emerge and therefore could not provide pre-prepared response categories Dornyei, 2007. Respondents wrote a brief descriptive answer to each of the following questions limited to five to reduce participant fatigue your opinion, are there any advantages of learning English with a native-speaker teacher? If so, what are they? your opinion, are there any disadvantages of learning English with a native-speaker teacher? If so, what are they? your opinion, are there any advantages of learning English with a non-native–speaker teacher? If so, what are they? your opinion, are there any disadvantages of learning English with a non-native–speaker teacher? If so, what are they? there any further comments you would like to make?The questionnaires were written and responded to in English, thereby removing the need for translation from the L1. Although responding in an L2 may potentially affect participants’ responses, their relatively high English language proficiency and their familiarity with the subject matter mitigate this. Because the study does not test English language proficiency, textual errors are ignored in the analysis except where meaning is unclear, in which case the data are excluded. The instrument was piloted with eight Japanese and nine Vietnamese learners of English to eliminate ambiguity and bias, and modified according to their responses and feedback. Piloting data were excluded from the formal were recruited by means of information fliers distributed in classes. Students who volunteered to participate were inducted through a consent process and then invited to complete the questionnaire, which took 15 to 20 minutes to complete. Questionnaires were anonymous and no other identifying data were collected. Response identification was through a three-letter code denoting the sample group followed by a number JLE 21. After data had been collected, a coding framework was constructed by identifying emergent themes in the data. The framework’s design was broad and non-hierarchical because of its largely descriptive function, which was to categorize the data by themes. The collected data were coded by one of the researchers and quantified according to the themes in the coding framework, which are presented in the left-hand side column of Table 1. Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages of Studying English With Each Type of Teacher. VLEs n = 50JLEs n = 50Total n = 100NEST advantage Improve pronunciation30 60%27 54%57 57% Learn about teacher’s culture19 38%15 30%34 34% Learn to speak natural, native-like English16 32%12 24%28 28% Improve listening skills4 8%6 12%10 10% Improve speaking skills6 12%4 8%10 10%NEST disadvantage Cultural differences21 42%11 22%32 32% Difficult to understand when a NEST speaks20 40%9 18%29 29% Difficult to be understood by a NEST when speaking7 14%9 18%16 16% Lack of qualifications/experience6 12%3 6%9 9% Cannot speak students’ L18 16%1 2%9 9% Cannot teach grammar/lexis well1 2%5 10%6 6%Non-NEST advantage Can explain in L117 34%7 14%24 24% It is easy to communicate with teacher10 20%12 24%22 22% Good teacher7 14%10 20%17 17% Teacher can explain about grammar4 8%9 18%13 13%Non-NEST disadvantage Poor pronunciation30 60%27 54%57 57% Teachers make mistakes in L22 4%5 10%7 7%Note. VLE = Vietnamese learner of English; JLE = Japanese learner of English; NEST = native English-speaking teacher; non-NEST = non-native English-speaking teacher; L1 = first language; L2 = second primary limitation in this study is the gender imbalance in the two sample groups. Only 12 of the 50 Vietnamese respondents were male, and all 50 Japanese respondents were female because the data were collected from a women’s university. To redress this limitation in some measure, we refer to Walkinshaw and Duong 2012, who surveyed the same Vietnamese sample group as the current study does. There was no Japanese sample. This study elicited participants’ perceptions of the importance of native-speakerness compared with other skills or qualities that characterize competent teachers qualifications, experience, or enthusiasm, which participants rated on a Likert-type scale of 1 to 5. A mean rating was then calculated for the male VLE participants only and this was compared with the global average of both male and female VLE participants. The mean rating for VLE males was only lower than the mean for both sexes, allowing us to tentatively extrapolate that a male JLE group in the current study would produce similar responses to those generated by the existing female JLE respondents. However, further research is necessary to confirm this. Another limitation is that the sample is drawn from only tertiary institutions and is not generalizable to other language learning contexts. Further enquiry is needed to investigate the wider applicability of these results. Finally, the study uses only one instrument for data collection. Although this is common for studies into this topic, triangulation with other data collection methods would have increased the depth and granularity of the information gained. Our future investigations into this topic will incorporate a multi-faceted and DiscussionThe following sub-sections will examine and interpret the findings from this research, drawing on Table 1, which quantifies each sample group’s responses to the questions asked in the there is not space to describe each individual result, the most frequently occurring themes are discussed teachers as a model for pronunciation, student–teacher cultural similarities and differences, capacity of teachers to explain complex language items, and desirability of learning from both NESTs and as Pronunciation ModelsThe most common perceived advantage of learning English from a NEST was exposure to native pronunciation as a model for linguistic output VLE = 60%; JLE = 54%; see Table 1, enabling respondents to improve their pronunciation by imitating a native speaker’s talk “just like babies do” JLE 19. VLE 39 commented that “you can correct your pronunciation, intonation. And you can speak English more natur[ally]” cf. Wu & Ke, 2009. Conversely, both groups VLE = 60%; JLE = 54%; see Table 1 listed pronunciation as by far the most salient disadvantage of a non-NEST. One commonly voiced issue was accuracy, summed up in JLE 25’s assertion that “some non-native teachers can’t pronounce correctly.” Another perception was that non-NESTs’ pronunciation was inferior, as VLE 34 mentions, “The pronunciation of a non-native-speaker teacher is normally not as good exact as a native speaker teacher.”How well does this finding match with research into other geographic and educational contexts? Of 43 international students surveyed by Pacek 2005 at a British university, 24 agreed that clear pronunciation was paramount in language teachers, but only 7 argued specifically for native-speaker pronunciation. Benke and Medgyes’s 2005 study of Hungarian learners of English affirmed that pronunciation was a benefit of learning from NESTs, but on the other hand students often struggled to comprehend NESTs’ speech. Lasagabaster and Sierra’s 2005 respondents appreciated exposure to NESTs’ pronunciation, but pointed out that NESTs often failed to correct students’ own previous studies have foregrounded English learners’ negative perceptions of non-native pronunciation 1998; Moussu 2002, the accuracy of these perceptions has been questioned. For example, Chiba et al. 1995 investigated Japanese university students’ ability to identify varieties of spoken English by playing them a short English passage recited by nine English speakers from the United Kingdom, the United States, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, and Japan. Only one quarter to one third of the respondents could identify the various native-speaker accents accurately; in fact, almost half failed to correctly place the Japanese English speakers! In a similar study by Kelch and Santana-Williamson 2002, L2 learners listening to recordings of native and non-native speakers’ voices failed to identify the native speakers with any accuracy. These findings cast doubt on the convictions of participants in the current research, which may be guided by their pre-conceived notions about non-NESTs’ Cultural Similarities and DifferencesA frequently mentioned benefit of learning from a NEST was becoming familiar with the teacher’s culture VLE = 38%; JLE = 30%; see Table 1. This result is unsurprising, as fascination with other countries and cultures is a common motivation for learning a second language also reported by Mahboob, 2003. VLE 24 commented, “We can know much about culture and people in that native speaker teacher’s country.” JLE 10’s interest was comparative “[NESTs] can clearly inform difference between Japan and their countries.” This finding echoes Ryan 1998, who argues that awareness about social/cultural groups is a key part of the knowledge that teachers bring to language converse of this was that NESTs in Vietnam and Japan were often unfamiliar with local socio-cultural and socio-linguistic norms cf. Han, 2005. Respondents VLE = 42%; JLE = 22%; see Table 1 reported tension between NESTs’ and students’ culturally informed notions of classroom interactionThey have different values and communication styles. I sometimes feel that there are some misunderstandings and miscommunications between students and teachers. JLE 1Different cultures may sometimes cause misunderstandings between the teacher and students. For example, my American teacher surprised so much when she saw same sexual student in my class holding [hands] together. VLE 21Although the respondents do not explicitly mention pragmatic differences, these are probably in play. L2 learners and NESTs often have different protocols for negotiating teacher–student interaction Levy, Wubbels, Brekelmans, & Morganfield, 1997; Yates, 2005, particularly with potentially face-threatening classroom speech acts such as requests, disagreements, and reprimands. If a strategy is interpreted by either interlocutor as overly direct or impolite, the result may be a failed learner–NEST encounter with a knock-on effect for future relations Boxer, 2002; Walkinshaw, 2007. Interestingly, fewer Japanese than Vietnamese respondents mentioned this factor, suggesting that they found it less salient. The reason may be that NESTs at Japanese universities, often hired for their considerable teaching experience in Japan McCrostie, 2010, may have adapted their teaching and interpersonal style to align with Japanese classroom interactional dynamics. The Vietnam context has not been studied in depth, but hiring practices there tend to be less stringent, so NESTs may be less experienced and less acculturated to local educational practices, thereby raising the likelihood of classroom communicative contrast with their perception of NESTs, Table 1 shows that respondents from both groups found communication with a non-NEST easier VLE = 20%; JLE = 24%, partly due to their shared cultural schemas also noted by Cheung & Braine, 2007. JLE 34 commented that they “can ask the [non-native speaker] teacher a favour without hesitation,” whereas according to VLE 20, “sometimes, learning with native speaker teachers make me stress.” The issue is partly socio-pragmatic Learners who share their teacher’s cultural background can judge more easily how to frame requests or opinions, what topic restrictions exist, and when to take or relinquish the floor Cazden, 2001; cf. Walsh, 2002.Explaining Complex LanguageAnother advantage raised by both sample groups VLE = 8%; JLE = 18%; Table 1 is non-NESTs’ perceived ability to explain complex linguistic items in a comprehensible manner. VLE 23 said, “They can explain some difficult problem for us effectively.” On the Japanese side, JLE 26 commented that non-NESTs offered “more efficient teaching than [native] speaker in terms of grammar,” which JLE 42 noted was “good [preparation] for the entrance exam.” Their opinions echo previous research on this topic Mahboob, 2003; Medgyes, 1994. Arva and Medgyes 2000 found thatGrammar occupied pride of place on the non-NESTs’ list. Thanks to both their own learning experience and pre-service training, they claimed to have in-depth knowledge of the structure of English as well as a metacognitive awareness of how it worked. p. 362NESTs, on the other hand, were perceived by some respondents as being less adept at explaining complex grammar and lexis VLE = 2%; JLE = 10%. Respondents commented,Sometimes a native English speaker cannot explain a new difficult word easily to understand. VLE 9Sometimes they can’t answer my questions about grammar because these kinds of things are too natural for them, and they don’t know why. JLE 44This finding too evokes earlier research A NEST participating in Arva and Medgyes’s 2000 study observed drily that “most native teachers I know never really came across grammar until they started teaching it” p. 361.Let us turn from pedagogical aptitude to linguistic facilitation VLEs 34%, and to a lesser extent JLEs 14%; see Table 1, expressed satisfaction that their non-NESTs could resort to the L1 if required cf. Cheung & Braine, 2007. A shared L1 expedited comprehension, as VLE 41 noted, “Non-native [speaker teachers] can use mother tongue to explain for students that students may not understand in foreign language.” The use of the L1 in the classroom has traditionally been anathema because it contravenes the principles of communicative language teaching cf. Trent, 2013. However, Cook 2005 argues that the L1 is useful for giving instructions quickly and explaining complex grammar, which is the context in which respondents advocated its use. They also valued the L1 for negotiating comprehension “I believe that it’s better to ask in Japanese . . . than not to understand in only English” JLE 22.Learning From Both Types of TeacherFourteen respondents VLE = 10; JLE = 4 advocated learning from both NESTs and non-NESTs, depending on the learners’ proficiency and the skills being taught. VLE 3 commented that this combination is “the best way to study a language,” while JLE 33 stated that “native speaker teacher is necessary [. . .], but good non-native speaker teacher is also necessary.” Respondents pointed to NESTs’ and non-NESTs’ perceived complementary strengths in teaching different skills and different levels of abilityWhen teaching English grammar to Japanese people, it’s better to have both native speaker and Japanese teacher, but for speaking English it’s best to have native speakers. JLE 19[T]he learner in low level should learn with non-native speaker in order to understand well[.] [W]hen they are in advanced level, learning with native-speaker teacher is the best choice. VLE 46This finding is supported by Benke and Medgyes’s 2005 study of their subjects believed that non-native teachers can support elementary language learners better than native speakers. One reason is that L2 learners at lower levels may have difficulty understanding NESTs’ speech, while another is non-NESTs’ greater facility for explaining lexico-grammar Arva & Medgyes, 2000; Llurda & Huguet, 2003; Mahboob, 2003—both issues raised by respondents in the current study. Conversely, higher level students who are already familiar with the mechanical aspects of their L2 may prefer NESTs for increasing their spoken fluency and mastering different spoken registers. NESTs are perceived as reliable models of authentic language cf. Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Llurda & Huguet, 2003 and familiar with the various genres of English Arva & Medgyes, 2000; Davies, 2004, and therefore better equipped to teach more advanced learners. In sum, the current data affirm existing research findings in signaling a preference for both types of teacher, though not necessarily in issue of parity between native and non-native-speaker teachers needs to be foregrounded because even though the vast majority of English language teachers worldwide are non-NESTs, many non-NESTs in the ELT industry are sorely disenfranchised see Clark & Paran, 2007, for the context. The issue is particularly salient in Asia, where native speakers are often the industry’s ideal model and American English the preferred variety Young & Walsh, 2010. The current findings respond to questions about how these teachers are perceived by learners and what qualities they bring to the language the data show that NESTs were valued as models for authentic, natural pronunciation, despite comprehensibility issues. Grammatical explanations were not viewed as a NEST forte cf. Benke & Medgyes, 2005. Respondents appreciated learning about NESTs’ cultures, but also experienced a cultural and communicative gap in NEST-fronted classrooms. Also, NESTs often could not communicate in their students’ L1. Non-NESTs’ pronunciation was viewed as non-authentic and their speech less fluent than native speakers’, but respondents appreciated their ability to code-switch to the L1 when required. In addition, non-NESTs’ ability to explain complex grammar was valued. Although some respondents criticized non-NESTs’ limited knowledge of English-speaking cultures, others valued working with teachers who shared their own cultural norms and values. Finally, the sample highlighted the benefits of learning with both NESTs and non-NESTs cf. Benke & Medgyes, 2005.Let us briefly sketch the implications of these findings for teaching English as a lingua franca, which frames multilingualism rather than native-speakerness as a cornerstone of language teacher competence Kirkpatrick, 2007. Our data indicate that non-NESTs’ multilingual competence was a boon for the English learners in the two participant groups because it underpinned three primary perceived advantages of non-NESTs Their ability to code-switch when teaching complex items, their understanding of the complex nature of second language learning, and their pedagogical competence, borne of their own experience as second language learners Ellis, 2002. This finding should benefit the self-esteem and professional confidence of multilingual non-NESTs, and should boost their reputation in the ELT profession Braine, 2010. Another potential positive outcome is a move away from the idealized notion among teachers, parents, and administrators of NESTs as a default model for students to emulate Phillipson, 1992. Rather, monolingual NESTs may come to be viewed as potentially constrained by their lack of second language learning proposing future research trajectories, we echo Moussu and Llurda’s 2008 call for further research into this topic outside of the British, Australasian, and North American BANA context. This would help to address an imbalance in research focus Although the greater part of English language learning and teaching takes place elsewhere in the world Kirkpatrick, 2007, much of the existing research originates in the BANA countries or in Europe, which have the most resources and funding for research. We also advocate further research into the complementary skillsets of NESTs and non-NESTs and the practical application of these skills in language classrooms. Specific research foci could include the educational contexts, levels of learner proficiency, and linguistic sub-skills most closely corresponding to NESTs’ and non-NESTs’ respective sum, the current research findings advance the debate on this topic by highlighting the unique and often complementary skillsets of NESTs and non-NESTs at tertiary institutions in Vietnam and Japan. More broadly, these findings are one more nail in the coffin of the notion—still prevailing in Asia—that non-native English-speaking teachers are second-class educators and inherently inferior to native-speaker authors would like to thank Andy Kirkpatrick, Cristina Poyatos Matas, and the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this V., Medgyes P. 2000. Native and non-native teachers in the classroom. System, 28, E., Medgyes P. 2005. Differences in teaching behaviour between native and nonnative speaker teachers As seen by the learners. In Llurda E. Ed., Nonnative language teachers Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession pp. 195-215. New York, NY D. 1992. Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68, K. 2008. English in Asia, Asian Englishes, and the issue of proficiency. English Today, 242, D. 2002. Discourse issues in cross-cultural pragmatics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, G. Ed.. 1999. Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ G. 2010. Nonnative speaker English teachers Research, pedagogy and professional growth. New York, NY J., Samimy K. K. 2001. Transcending the nativeness paradigm. World Englishes, 20, 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, A. S. 1999. Interrogating the “native speaker fallacy” Non-linguistic roots, non-pedagogical results. In Braine G. Ed., Non-native educators in English language teaching pp. 77-92. Mahwah, NJ A. S. 2005. Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. Mahwah, NJ C. B. 2001. Classroom discourse The language of teaching and learning 2nd ed.. Portsmouth, NH Y. L., Braine G. 2007. The attitudes of university students towards non-native speaker English teachers in Hong Kong. RELC Journal, 38, R., Matsuura H., Yamamoto A. 1995. Japanese attitudes towards English accents. World Englishes, 14, E., Paran A. 2007. The employability of non-native speaker teachers of EFL A UK survey. System, 35, V. 2005. Basing teaching on the L2 user. In Llurda E. Ed., Nonnative language teachers Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession pp. 47-61. New York, NY A. 2004. The native speaker in applied linguistics. In Davies A., Elder C. Eds., The handbook of applied linguistics pp. 431-450. Oxford, UK N. K., Lincoln Y. S. 2005. Introduction The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Denzin N. K., Lincoln Y. S. Eds., The Sage handbook of qualitative research pp. 1-32. Thousand Oaks, CA Z. 2007. Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford, UK Oxford University E. 2002. Teaching from experience A new perspective on the non-native teacher in adult ESL. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, S. W. 1987. Cognition and language growth. Dordrecht, Netherlands 2005. Good teachers know where to scratch when learners feel itchy Korean learners’ views of native-speaking teachers of English. Australian Journal of Education, 49, B. B. 1986. The alchemy of English The spread, functions and models of non-native Englishes. Oxford, UK K., Santana-Williamson E. 2002. ESL students’ attitudes toward native- and non-native-speaking instructors’ accents. CATESOL Journal, 141, A. 2007. World Englishes Implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University A. 2010. English as a lingua franca in ASEAN A multilingual model. Hong Kong, China Hong Kong University C. 1997. The privilege of the non-native speaker. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 112, D., Sierra J. M. 2005. What do students think about the pros and cons of having a native-speaker teacher? In Llurda E. Ed., Nonnative language teachers Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession pp. 217-242. New York, NY I. 2000. Can a non-native English speaker be a good English teacher? TESOL Matters, 101, J., Wubbels T., Brekelmans M., Morganfield B. 1997. Language and cultural factors in students’ perceptions of teacher communication style. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21, K. 2002. English as a second language ESL students’ attitudes towards nonnative English speaking teachers’ accentedness Unpublished master’s thesis. California State University, Los M., Zhang L. 2007. Student perceptions of native and non-native English teachers’ attitudes, teaching skills assessment and performance. Asian EFL Journal, 94, E., Huguet A. 2003. Self-awareness in NNS EFL primary and secondary school teachers. Language Awareness, 12, J. 1998. Hong Kong students’ awareness of and reactions to accent differences. Multilingua, 17, A. 2003. Status of nonnative English-speaking teachers in the United States Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University, A., Uhrig K., Newman K., Hartford B. S. 2004. Children of a lesser English Status of nonnative English speakers as college-level English as a second language teachers in the United States. In Kamhi-Stein L. Ed., Learning and teaching from experience Perspectives on nonnative English-speaking professionals pp. 100-120. Ann Arbor University of Michigan J. 2010. The right stuff Hiring trends for tenured university positions in Japan. The Language Teacher, 345, P. 1994. The Non-native teacher. London, England L. 2002. English as a second language students’ reactions to non-native English speaking teachers Unpublished master’s thesis. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. Retrieved from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 468879.Moussu L. 2010. Influence of teacher-contact time and other variables on ESL students’ attitudes towards native- and nonnative-English-speaking teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 44, L., Braine G. 2006. The attitudes of ESL students towards nonnative English language teachers. TESL Reporter, 39, L., Llurda E. 2008. Non-native English-speaking English language teachers History and research. Language Teaching, 41, D. 2005. “Personality not nationality” Foreign students’ perceptions of a non-native speaker lecturer of English at a British university. In Llurda E. Ed., Nonnative language teachers Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession pp. 243-261. New York, NY T. M. 1985. May I kill the native speaker? TESOL Quarterly, 19, R. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, UK Oxford University K. 2005. Non-native speaker teachers of English and their anxieties Ingredients for an experiment in action research. In Llurda E. Ed., Nonnative language teachers Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession pp. 283-303. New York, NY P. M. 1998. Cultural knowledge and foreign language teachers A case study of a native speaker of English and a native speaker of Spanish. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 11, B. 1996. “It is an undulating feeling . . .” The importance of being a non-native teacher of English. Vienna English Working Papers, 51&2, M. 2010. How Japanese teachers of English perceive non-native assistant English teachers. System, 38, R. W., Pojanapunya P. 2008. Implicit attitudes towards native- and non-native speaker teachers. System, 37, J. 2013. Using the L1 in L2 teaching and learning What role does teacher identity play? Asian EFL Journal, 153, I. 2007. Power and disagreement Insights into Japanese learners of English. RELC Journal, 38, I., Duong O. T. H. 2012. Native- and non-native speaking English teachers in Vietnam Weighing up the benefits. TESL-EJ, 163, S. 2002. Construction or obstruction Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6, 2012. Moving towards the transition Non-native EFL teachers’ perception of native-speaker norms and responses to varieties of English in the era of global spread of English. Asian EFL Journal, 142, Ke C. 2009. Haunting native speakerism? Students’ perceptions toward native speaking English teachers in Taiwan. English Language Teaching, 23, L. 2005. Negotiating an institutional identity Individual differences in NS and NNS teacher directives. In Bardovi-Harlig K., Hartford B. S. Eds., Interlanguage pragmatics Exploring institutional talk pp. 67-97. Mahwah, NJ T. J., Walsh S. 2010. Which English? Whose English? An investigation of “non-native” teachers’ beliefs about target varieties. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 23, Walkinshaw is a Lecturer in English in the School of Languages and Linguistics, Griffith University, Queensland, Hoang Oanh is an Associate Professor in Education at the Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City, articleCite article If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice Information, rights and permissionsInformationPublished InArticle first published online May 8, 2014Issue published April-June 2014KeywordsEnglish language teachingnative-speakernessnon-native-speakernesssecond language learningSoutheast AsiaRights and permissions© The Authors published April-June 2014Published online May 8, 2014AuthorsAffiliationsIan WalkinshawGriffith University, Nathan, Queensland, AustraliaDuongthi Hoang OanhVietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City, VietnamNotesIan Walkinshaw, School of Languages and Linguistics, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, Queensland 4111, Australia. Email [email protected]Metrics and citationsMetrics Total views and downloads 46973*Article usage tracking started in December 2016 Web of Science 0Crossref 30Exploring the Effectiveness of Native and Non-Native English Teachers ...The native/non-native teacher debate insights into variables at playChinese pre-service English teachers’ beliefs about English as an inte...A pragmatic study of congratulation strategies of Pakistani ESL learne...“Analytical,” “Angry,” and “Too Honest”?! Learners' Stereotypes abou...IlLegitimating Filipino Teachers' English on Webpages for Japanese L...Relationship Between Japanese Language Anxiety, Beliefs About Learning...Stakeholders' Perceptions About Language Teachers in a Multilingual Sc...Voices on Language Teacher Stereotypes Critical Cultural Competence B...Motivational strategies in undergraduate EAP courses student percepti...Identity formation of non-native English-speaking teachers and prospec...Filipinos as EFL Teachers in Bangkok, Thailand Implications for Langu...Speak like a Native English Speaker or Be Judged A Scoping ReviewStudent Insights Related to the Use of Simultaneous Speech Translation...Are EFL pre-service teachers’ judgment of teaching competence swayed b...The Relationship between Presage and Process the Role of ID Variables...“I may sound like a native speaker…but I’m not” identities of Korean ...Enclosing native speakerism students’, parents’ and teachers’ percept...English as a medium of instruction at a Chilean engineering school Ex...Prep school students’ perceptions of native and non-native teachers an...Are learners ready for Englishes in the EFL classroom? A large-scale s...Why English accents and pronunciation still’ matter for teachers nowa...Stretching the boundariesThe non-native speaker teacher as proficient multilingual A critical ...Racial, linguistic and professional discrimination towards teachers of...Speakerhood as Segregation The Construction and Consequence of Divisi...Are They Really “Two Different Species”? Implicitly Elicited Student P...EMI Programs in a Vietnamese University Language, Pedagogy and Policy...The Significance of EMI for the Learning of EIL in Higher Education F...Research in the School of Languages and Linguistics at Griffith Univer... Figures and tablesFigures & MediaTablesView OptionsView optionsPDF/ePubView PDF/ePubGet accessIf you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options belowI am signed in asView my profileSign outI can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved institutional access optionsAlternatively, view purchase options below Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

are all the teachers speakers