 |
| credit: www.leadershipthoughts.com |
The first and second parts of this series showed the most common criticisms of native and non-native English teachers against each other.
Native teachers criticize non-native's English skills- accent, pronunciation, grammar and cultural knowledge. On the other hand, non-natives argue that a lot of native teachers give English teaching a bad name.
In this last part, let's see the pros and cons of native and non-native teachers. Yes, you read the previous sentence right. Even native English teachers have disadvantages in ESL teaching. And yes, non-native teachers have some advantage against native teachers.
In the early 1990's, Peter Medgyes did an interesting research regarding the perceived differences between native and non-native English teachers. More than 300 ESL teachers- natives and non-natives, from 11 countries were surveyed in this study.
Here's the summary of his study's results. He divided the results into 4 parts.
A. Own Use of English
Native teachers/ Non-native teachers:
- speak better English and speak more confidently / speak poorer English and less confidently
- use real language / use "bookish" language
B. General Attitude
- more innovative, more flexible and more casual / adapts a guided approach, more cautious and more strict
- less emphatic and less committed / more emphatic and more committed
- attend to perceived needs / attend to real needs
- have far-fetched expectations / have realistic expectations
C. Attitude on Teaching English
- less insightful/ more insightful
- use less to no L1/ use more L1
- translates less/ translates more
- give less homework and fewer tests/ gives more homework and more tests
- focused on fluency, meaning, colloquial / focused on accuracy, form, grammar,
registers and oral skills formal registers and printed word
D. Attitude on Teaching Culture
- supply more cultural information/ supply less cultural information
Aside from these results, his study also highlighted the following findings:
1. Native teachers are definitely more proficient in the language. However, proficiency does not mean efficiency in teaching.
2. Although non-native teachers are not as proficient as the native teachers, they use more effective language-learning strategies and they are more sensitive to their students. They also anticipate and prevent language difficulties better than native teachers.
3. Native teachers supply more cultural information while non-native supply more information about the English language.
4. Native teachers provide good language model while non-native teachers provide good learner model.
So Who Wins Now?
After all the arguments and presenting these findings, who ultimately is the better teacher?
As cliche as this will go, I would still have to conclude that it depends on the learner's purpose and level.
If a learner is a beginner or feels overwhelmed by studying English, a non-native teacher seemed to be a better choice. If a learner is already proficient and want to use English in more contextual way, a native teacher is a good choice.We also have to factor in the learner's learning style.
The argument between the natives and non-natives will continue as ESL teaching is constantly evolving. What's good to keep in mind is that: Just like other professions, to be an effective ESL teacher is not dependent on one's country of origin.
In the early 1990's, Peter Medgyes did an interesting research regarding the perceived differences between native and non-native English teachers. More than 300 ESL teachers- natives and non-natives, from 11 countries were surveyed in this study.
Here's the summary of his study's results. He divided the results into 4 parts.
A. Own Use of English
Native teachers/ Non-native teachers:
- speak better English and speak more confidently / speak poorer English and less confidently
- use real language / use "bookish" language
B. General Attitude
- more innovative, more flexible and more casual / adapts a guided approach, more cautious and more strict
- less emphatic and less committed / more emphatic and more committed
- attend to perceived needs / attend to real needs
- have far-fetched expectations / have realistic expectations
C. Attitude on Teaching English
- less insightful/ more insightful
- use less to no L1/ use more L1
- translates less/ translates more
- give less homework and fewer tests/ gives more homework and more tests
- focused on fluency, meaning, colloquial / focused on accuracy, form, grammar,
registers and oral skills formal registers and printed word
D. Attitude on Teaching Culture
- supply more cultural information/ supply less cultural information
Aside from these results, his study also highlighted the following findings:
1. Native teachers are definitely more proficient in the language. However, proficiency does not mean efficiency in teaching.
2. Although non-native teachers are not as proficient as the native teachers, they use more effective language-learning strategies and they are more sensitive to their students. They also anticipate and prevent language difficulties better than native teachers.
3. Native teachers supply more cultural information while non-native supply more information about the English language.
4. Native teachers provide good language model while non-native teachers provide good learner model.
So Who Wins Now?
After all the arguments and presenting these findings, who ultimately is the better teacher?
As cliche as this will go, I would still have to conclude that it depends on the learner's purpose and level.
If a learner is a beginner or feels overwhelmed by studying English, a non-native teacher seemed to be a better choice. If a learner is already proficient and want to use English in more contextual way, a native teacher is a good choice.We also have to factor in the learner's learning style.
The argument between the natives and non-natives will continue as ESL teaching is constantly evolving. What's good to keep in mind is that: Just like other professions, to be an effective ESL teacher is not dependent on one's country of origin.
