Advantages and Disadvantages of Native-and Nonnative-English-speaking Teachers: Student Perceptions...

Advantages and Disadvantages ofNative- and Nonnative-English-speakingTeachers: Student Perceptions inHong Kong

LAI PING FLORENCE MAMacquarie UniversitySydney, Australia

The Native English Teachers (NETs) Scheme has been in place forover 20 years in secondary schools in Hong Kong and yet how studentsperceive these teachers is under-researched. This article reports astudy which analyses student perceptions of the advantage and disad-vantages of learning English from NETs and their non-native counter-parts, local English teachers (LETs). Data were collected throughsemi-structured group interviews with 30 secondary students studyingin three different schools in Hong Kong. Content data analysis wasconducted, and main themes that emerged from interview transcriptswere categorised. Results show that the perceived advantages of LETsinclude their proficiency in students’ L1, their knowledge of students’learning difficulties, the ease students experience in understandingtheir teaching, and in communication. The perceived advantages ofNETs are their good English proficiency and ability to facilitate stu-dent learning. The disadvantages of one category of teachers appearto be the reverse of the advantages of another. Data also show thatsome students experience anxiety when encountering NETs and tendto prefer certain teaching styles. This study has significant implicationsfor classroom teaching practice and teacher professional development.

doi: 10.1002/tesq.21

Although there is a lack of substantial evidence to support the posi-tion that native-English-speaking teachers (NESTs) are better

teachers, they enjoy a privileged and dominant position in English lan-guage teaching (ELT; Canagarajah, 1999; Holliday, 2005; Jenkins,2000; Pennycook, 1994, 1998; Phillipson, 1992). The native speakerfallacy (Phillipson, 1992)—the belief that native speakers are idealteachers—has resulted in nonnative-English-speaking teachers(NNESTs) being considered second-class citizens in the field ofTESOL (Ellis, 2002; Rajagopalan, 2005). Incidents of students havingconcerns about being taught by a nonnative speaker are also evident

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 46, No. 2, June 2012

© 2012 TESOL International Association

280

(Braine, 1999a; Liu, 1999; Maum, 2003; Thomas, 1999). Some Englishas a second language (ESL) students have challenged the credibility ofNNESTs as English teachers (Amin, 2001; I. Lee, 2000), and someNNESTs have experienced disrespect from students (Amin, 1997).More important, some NNESTs have been discriminated against in hir-ing practices (Holliday, 2005; Jenkins, 2000; Kirkpatrick, 2006; Shin,2008). One common reason provided for not employing NNESTs isthat ESL students prefer to be taught by NESTs (Braine, 1999b; Clark& Paran, 2007), a preference that is also evident in some English as aforeign language (EFL) contexts such as Hong Kong, China, Thailand,and Japan (e.g., Boyle, 1997; Jin, 2005; Takada, 2000; Watson-Todd &Pojanapunya, 2009). However, empirical studies have shown that somestudents in fact appreciated the value of NNESTs and preferred themfor certain classroom tasks in ESL settings (e.g., Benke & Medgyes,2005; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Moussu, 2006; Pacek, 2005) as wellas in EFL settings (e.g., Benke & Medgyes, 2005; Lasagabaster &Sierra, 2005).

This article aims to examine the inconsistent findings of studentpreferences for learning English from NESTs or NNESTs in previousstudies by exploring student perceptions of both groups of teachers inthe context of Hong Kong. This study can help acknowledge thepotential of NNESTs that has not been widely recognised by prospec-tive employers. Examining students’ viewpoints is important becausetheir “consumer” views of what does and does not work for them areuseful for improving teaching effectiveness. Moreover, Hong Kong isan appropriate research site for conducting studies regarding NESTsand NNESTs. This is because although the dichotomised vision ofnative speaker–nonnative speaker is not linguistically based (Moussu &Llurda, 2008), it is socially present (Luk & Lin, 2007). The distinctionbetween who is native and who is not is often linked with speakers’appearance and accent. If speakers do not look like Caucasians or donot speak with an “established” accent, they are often classified in thenonnative category. In Hong Kong, English teachers are categorised asNESTs or NNESTs. Under the Native English Teachers (NETs)Scheme, NESTs are recruited from overseas to teach secondary schoolstudents side by side with local English teachers (LETs) who considerthemselves NNESTs (Boyle, 1997). Because students have opportuni-ties to observe both categories of teachers “on the job” in classrooms,their comments on teachers’ performance are valuable.

Widdowson (1992) distinguishes between the role of instructor andthe role of informant in ELT and argues that although NESTs can bereliable informants, NNESTs have advantages over NESTs in the roleof instructor. He further suggests that NESTs and NNESTs each havetheir own strengths because of their different linguistic backgrounds:

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF NESTs AND NNESTs 281

“For although native speakers obviously have the more extensive expe-rience as English language users, the non-native speakers have hadexperience as English language learners” (p. 338, emphasis in original).Widdowson concludes that linguistic knowledge of teachers should notbe more highly regarded than pedagogical expertise.

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF NNESTsAND NESTs

Whether NNESTs or NESTs are better English teachers has beenwidely discussed in the TESOL literature. Phillipson (1992) questionswhether the native speaker is “intrinsically better qualified” (p. 194)than the nonnative speaker, and his view has been supported by Kra-msch (1997) and Canagarajah (1999). Having linguistic competencein a language does not automatically make one a good teacher.

In contrast, NNESTs’ experience of learning English as an addi-tional language enables them to be good learner models (Cook, 2005;Medgyes, 1992, 1994) and they can teach language learning strategiesmore effectively (Medgyes, 1994). Their formal learning of knowledgeabout English helps them develop language awareness (Murphy-O’Dwyer, 1996) and enables them to provide adequate linguistic infor-mation about the language to learners (Medgyes, 1994). They can bemore sensitive to students’ learning problems (Boyle, 1997; E. Lee &Lew, 2001) and can anticipate their learning difficulties, especiallywhen sharing the same first language (L1) with learners (Medgyes,1994; Phillipson, 1996). Moreover, they can be more empathetic tolearners’ needs (Lipovsky & Mahboob, 2010; Medgyes, 1994) and canset realistic learning goals. Boyle (1997) adds that cultural affinity withstudents also favours nonnative speaker teachers in an EFL context.Despite having all these strengths, NNESTs are sometimes regarded asless proficient users of English than NESTs and are seen as unable toachieve native speaker competence (Medgyes, 1994), although in real-ity some NNESTs have very high English proficiency levels (expertusers) and their English may be more appropriate linguistically forlearners because of their shared linguistic background.

NESTs gain a special status of being a linguistic model (Cook, 1999;Luk & Lin, 2007), and their English knowledge, proficiency, or compe-tence is regarded as a point of reference (Stern, 1983). However, thevalidity of the native speaker as a linguistic model for foreign languagelearning has been questioned (Andrews, 2007; Cook, 1999; Kirkpa-trick, 2006). Additionally, NESTs may not have the necessary insightsinto lesson preparation and delivery (Shaw, 1979). When teachinggrammar, they may have native intuition of what is grammatically

TESOL QUARTERLY282

acceptable and what is not, but may not have the metalanguage forexplaining grammatical rules.

RESEARCHING STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF NNESTsAND NESTs AT THE SECONDARY LEVEL

While most previous studies investigated the self-perceptions ofNNESTs (e.g., Llurda & Huguet, 2003; Samimy & Brutt-Griffler, 1999);empirical research that examines student perceptions of NNESTs has ayounger history in the literature of NNEST studies (Braine, 1999b,2010). Most existing studies were conducted with tertiary students (e.g.,Cheung, 2002; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Mahboob, 2004), but it isalso important to include the voices of secondary students. Benke andMedgyes (2005) conducted one of the few studies that examined the per-ceptions of English learners at both secondary and university levels inHungary. NNESTs were perceived to adopt a more structured approachto teaching grammar, to help students with grammatical difficulties, toprepare students thoroughly for examinations, to promote learningmore effectively, and to supply L1 equivalents. Their disadvantages weretheir incorrect pronunciation, excessive use of L1, and outdated lan-guage use. NESTs were perceived to be good at teaching conversationclasses, providing perfect models, getting learners to speak, and beingfriendly. However, some lower level learners found that they were diffi-cult to understand and provided few grammatical explanations.

At the secondary level, Lipovsky and Mahboob (2010) conducted adiscourse analysis of written responses provided by Japanese studentsenrolled in a study abroad program in the United States. The linguis-tic competences, literacy skills, and teaching methodologies of NESTsand NNESTs were analysed. Students did not show any preference foreither NESTs or NNESTs but valued a combination of their qualities.The present study is different from this study in that it adopted a the-matic rather than a linguistic data analysis.

RESEARCHING STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF LETs ANDNETs IN HONG KONG

G. Tang and Johnson (1993) found that students appreciated thefriendly and hard-working attitudes of their NETs1 and enjoyed their

1 In Hong Kong, NESTs who are employed under the Native English Teachers Schemeare also known as Native English Teachers (NETs). Because the term NETs is widelyused by local educators and researchers, it is used in this article to refer to NESTs inHong Kong.


relaxed and lively classroom atmosphere (see also Poon & Higginbot-tom, 2000). Students felt that NETs were more useful for their learn-ing of oral and listening skills. However, some were skeptical of theiremphasis on communicative language activities rather than examina-tion preparation. Law (1999) found that students appreciated NETs’accurate pronunciation, greater varieties in teaching materials, focuson teaching pronunciation, relaxed classroom atmosphere, and theirown opportunities to listen to and use English. However, NETs werecriticised for not being examination-oriented in their teaching goal(G. Tang & Johnson, 1993).

Luk (2001) found that some students had positive feelings towardsbeing taught by NETs (43.7%), whereas others had negative feelings(21.7%). Students believed that their English proficiency would beimproved through the increased opportunities to use English withNETs who speak “more standard” English (p. 32). However, somerevealed their anxiety over communication difficulties with the NETs,who lacked sufficient proficiency in the students’ L1 (see also Luk &Lin, 2007).

Whereas previous studies focused on investigating student percep-tions of NETs, it is hoped that this article can add knowledge by exam-ining how students perceive LETs. The current study aims toinvestigate how secondary school students perceived NETs as well asLETs. In an earlier study, Ma (2009) investigated student perceptionsof LETs and NETs through a questionnaire administered to 196 sec-ondary students. Both the positive and negative aspects of learningfrom these two categories of teachers were acknowledged. Using inter-views as a research method, the present study is able to collect moreextended responses from participants. The current study addressedtwo research questions:

1. What advantages and disadvantages do Hong Kong secondary stu-dents perceive in being taught by LETs?

2. What advantages and disadvantages do Hong Kong secondary stu-dents perceive in being taught by NETs?

THE STUDY

Participants

Participants were 30 students (15 males and 15 females), between13 and 17 years old, from three government-aided secondaryschools in Hong Kong. Six students were from a Year 9 (Secondary 3

TESOL QUARTERLY284

in Hong Kong) class in a Band 2 (middle level) Chinese-mediumschool.2 Twelve students were from two Year 8 classes, and the otherswere from a Year 11 class. These 24 Years 8 and 11 students were fromBand 1 (top level) English-medium schools. The profiles of intervie-wees can be found in Appendix A. These students were selectedbecause their classes were cotaught by a pair consisting of a NET anda LET in oral lessons during which their classes were separated intotwo smaller groups of approximately 20 students. All the intervieweeshad opportunities to learn English from both categories of teachers inthe academic year during the time of data collection. The majority(66.6%) had encountered three or four NETs, and almost all had hadNETs since primary school.

Research Method and Procedures

Semistructured focus group interviews were conducted, and studentparticipants’ views were sought with regard to their English learningexperience with NETs and the advantages and disadvantages of learn-ing English from LETs and NETs. A list of interview questions can befound in Appendix B. Using semistructured interviews allows the flexi-bility to explore unanticipated issues arising in the discussion(Marshall & Rossman, 2006), and group interviews can create a morenatural and relaxed atmosphere for participants. Students from allfour classes were invited to sign up as volunteers. Thirty students wereselected from volunteers to keep a balanced representation of genderand English proficiency levels. Because students were under 18 yearsold, written parental consent was required. Interviews were arrangedthrough students’ main English teachers, audio-recorded, and con-ducted in either English or Cantonese, depending on participant pref-erences.

Data Analysis

All the interviews were fully transcribed, and interviews that wereconducted in Cantonese were translated into English by theresearcher. To ensure accuracy, 30% of the translated transcripts were

2 Secondary schools in Hong Kong are divided into three bands according to students’academic ability, with Band 1 as the highest level. With the enforcement of the mothertongue education policy by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Governmentin 1997, all secondary schools have to teach in Cantonese, except for 114 schools thatobtained special approval to continue to use English as their medium of instruction(Luk & Lin, 2007).


checked by an accredited professional translator. The interview tran-scripts were analysed using NVivo. No a priori categories were used,and themes emerged from the data. To ensure reliability, a researchassistant was hired to code a sample of 10% of the transcripts indepen-dently. The coded items were compared and discrepancies were dis-cussed by the researcher and the assistant. The intercoder agreementpercentage was 72.9%.

FINDINGS

Advantages and Disadvantages of LETs

The perceived advantages and disadvantages of having LETs asteachers are set out in Table 1.

Advantages of LETs. As shown in Table 1, several advantages ofLETs were acknowledged by interviewees.

Use of students’ L1. The most prominent merit cited by students wasLETs’ ability to use their L1. It was mentioned by all the groups exceptGroup 1. Participants suggested two main functions of L1 use. First, itcould enhance students’ understanding in lessons. The close association

TABLE 1

Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages of LETs

Advantages Reported by groupsa DisadvantagesReported by

groups

Use of students’first language

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10 Inaccuratepronunciationand grammar

1, 6, 9, 10

Understanding of studentdifficulties/needs

6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Teaching styles–textbook bound 5–traditional teaching 5

Easy understandingof teachers

1, 2, 3,10 Less opportunity topractise English

1, 8

Easy communication 7, 8Teaching styles–more exercises 7–interesting games 9

Closer relationship withteachers

5

aGroups 1 and 2 were Year 9 students from a Band 2 Chinese-medium school. Groups 3–6were Year 8 students from a Band 1 English-medium school. Groups 7–10 were Year 11 stu-dents from a Band 1 English-medium school.

TESOL QUARTERLY286

between L1 use and students’ level of understanding was mentioned inalmost all the interviews. Sample extracts are shown below:3

Extract 1

Student 14 (S14): It’s because if you don’t understand, local teacherscan explain things to you in Cantonese. If you ask native speaker teach-ers, they may try to explain … but with difficult words, you still can’tunderstand. (Student Interview 5 [S. Int. 5])

Extract 2

S29: But if you sometimes you don’t understand, local teacher mayspeak Chinese to make you know what you are doing and what somewords’ meaning. (S. Int. 10)

These students appeared to depend on their L1 to follow their les-sons and understand the meaning of difficult vocabulary. Some stu-dents elaborated further how their understanding was enhancedthrough LETs’ explanations and translation in Chinese:

Extract 3

S4: (. . .) if there’s an English word we don’t understand, the local tea-cher can use Chinese to explain it to us. For some difficult words, it’shard to explain the meaning. (S. Int. 2)

Extract 4

S21: They [LETs] can translate the words to Chinese. (S. Int. 7)

Second, L1 use could facilitate communication between students andteachers (see Extracts 5 and 6). For example, L1 use provided studentswith a linguistic and pedagogical tool other than English for communi-cation when raising questions about learning (see Extracts 5 and 7):

Extract 5

S5: If you learn English from a local teacher, you can ask questions inChinese when you don’t understand. You can communicate in Chinesebecause you know that he or she can speak Chinese. (S. Int. 2)

Extract 6

S28: Yes, because when we cannot explain something in English, wecan speak in Chinese. (S. Int. 10)

Extract 7

S10: Something not understand, you can ask her [a LET] in Chinese,he or she can explain more to you. (S. Int. 4)

3 Some parts of the quotations cited in this study have been edited to avoid repetitions orfalse starts. The edited part is marked with (. . .). To maintain authenticity, students’grammatical errors have not been corrected in the transcripts.


Understanding of students’ difficulties or needs. This was the sec-ond most cited merit of LETs, acknowledged by five interview groups.For example, S17 found that LETs could understand their learningneeds and focus on teaching “the kind of English” they need to usemore in Hong Kong (S. Int. 6). He seemed to suggest that students’learning needs were context specific. His view was echoed by S25.Another student found that LETs were able to understand students’weaknesses and difficulties in learning and provide more exercises forpractising their basic language skills (S20, S. Int. 7). In the followingextract, S28 attributed LETs’ knowledge of students to their sharedethnicity:

Extract 8

S28: Maybe the local teacher will know more about what we need, whatwe need ‘coz we are in the same nationality, they will know more whata Chinese needs in studying English. (S. Int. 10)

Easy understanding of teachers. Four interview groups suggestedthat it was easy to understand what LETs teach in lessons. As mentionedbefore, this might be attributed to LETs’ language ability in students’L1. Students noted that using their L1 to explain grammar rules and dif-ficult English vocabulary resulted in their increased understanding oflessons. Extract 9 illustrates a view shared by many students:

Extract 9

S28: For me, teaching by local teachers, we can more easily to knowthe English grammar because sometimes, the NET teachers willuse (…) more difficult word to explain the English grammar. I think itis (…) more difficult for a student who are not very good at English.(S. Int. 10)

Easy communication. Another advantage of learning English fromLETs was easy communication between students and teachers,although this was reported by only two groups. Some students foundthat it was easier for LETs to understand the meaning of what theyexpressed (S21, S. Int. 7; S22, S. Int. 8), but there was a communica-tion gap between them and NETs. Their limited English might not beunderstood by NETs, and they might not be able to comprehendNETs’ English. As S22 pointed out, NETs “use English to express thatbut we can’t understand” (S. Int. 8).

Other advantages. Teaching styles and closer relationship with teach-ers were two other advantages noted. LETs were found to “give moreexercise and practice” (S. Int. 7) and “use some interesting games” in

TESOL QUARTERLY288

teaching (S. Int. 9). One student suggested that it was “easier to developa closer relationship” with LETs because “we are both Chinese” and “we[students] can treat them [LETs] as friends” (S. Int. 5).

Disadvantages of LETs. As shown in Table 1, only three disadvan-tages of LETs were suggested by students.

Inaccuracy in pronunciation and grammar. Inaccuracy in LETs’ pro-nunciation and grammar was the main negative aspect of learningEnglish from LETs:

Extract 10

S30: Maybe some … some pronunciation, they [LETs] will say … say alittle bit wrong. We can know … we can learn the wrong pronuncia-tion. This may be a little disadvantage. (S. Int.10)

S30 showed concern about the adverse effects of LETs’ incorrectpronunciation on students’ learning. In the following extract, S1expresses the idea that LETs’ English was not “orthodox” because oftheir inaccuracy in pronunciation and grammar:

Extract 11

Researcher (R): What do you mean by “orthodox English,” “ortho-dox”?

S1: In terms of grammar, they [NETs] are better. When LETs teachEnglish, their English may not be all correct, that is, their English isnot really that “English”…

R: Did you mean pronunciation or sentence structures?

S1: Both pronunciation and sentence structures. (S. Int. 1)

However, it should be noted that no examples of LETs’ inaccuratepronunciation and grammar were provided by participants.

Traditional and textbook-bound teaching styles. Another disadvan-tage of LETs was their traditional and textbook-bound teachingstyles, which some students considered “very old-fashioned and inflex-ible” and resulted in less student participation in class (S14, S. Int.5). However, S27 had a different view on LETs’ teaching styles andfound that “they try to use some interesting games” and their teach-ing is “quite funny” and made her “pay more attention in the class”(S. Int. 9).

Less opportunity to practise English. The last perceived disadvan-tage of LETs was the limited opportunity for students to practise


English when learning from these teachers. Because students couldraise questions in Cantonese with LETs but not with NETs, they hadfewer chances to speak and practise English:

Extract 12

S23: Erm … I think local teachers sometimes very kind … erm forexample if Ms Cheung has a lesson, we may use the Chinese to ask theteacher, what the word mean, then we may lose some use the Englishchance. (S. Int. 8)

Advantages and Disadvantages of NETs.

The advantages of being taught by NETs as perceived by partici-pants are classified into various categories as shown in Table 2.

Advantages of NETs. As shown in Table 2, three main categoriesof advantages of NETs were acknowledged by participants.

Facilitating learning. NETs’ ability to facilitate learning English wasmentioned as an important advantage:

Extract 13

S19: I think for the NET teacher (…) the benefit is we can learnsome … we can speak English more fluently because they are alsospeak English as their … mother … tongue. (S. Int. 7)

TABLE 2

Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages of NETs

Advantages Reported by groups DisadvantagesReportedby groups

Facilitating learning–in general 1, 2, 7 Difficulty in understanding 3, 4, 5, 7, 8–pronunciation 9, 10 Difficulty in communication 5, 9, 10–speaking skills 7, 9 Anxiety with NETs 5, 7, 8, 10–listening skills 1, 2, 6 Difficulty in developing

relationship5, 7

–culture 5 Teaching stylesGood Englishproficiency

1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 –not grammar focused 3

Teaching styles –not exam oriented 7–relaxed classroom

atmosphere3, 5, 7, 8, 10

–activity approach 3, 5, 6–not textbook bound 3, 6

TESOL QUARTERLY290

Extract 14

S2: (…) I think if you want to learn better English, you must learndirectly from NETs because their English is “orthodox.” Also, they kindof … force you to use English to answer and you’ll not use Cantonesebecause he or she won’t understand. You can learn more quickly … .Yes, you can learn more easily. (S. Int.1)

Extract 15

S5: But if you learn from a native speaker teacher, he or she speaks inEnglish and I must communicate with him or her in English. Morecommunication means more learning. (S. Int. 2)

In Extract 13, S19 attributed NETs’ ability to help students improveEnglish fluency to English being their L1. It appears that satisfying thesole criterion of being a native speaker can achieve this pedagogicalcompetence. For S2 and S5, NETs could enable effective English learn-ing because of their lack of proficiency in students’ L1. As a result, anauthentic English-speaking environment was created in and outsideclassrooms, and students had no alternatives but were “forced” to com-municate in English. Students felt that the more English was used, themore effective and efficient learning was achieved.

Although these students were less specific in explaining how NETscould facilitate learning effectively, others suggested that NETs couldimprove, in particular, their pronunciation and speaking skillsbecause NETs are “native English” speakers and they “lived and bornin a foreign country” (S. Int. 9). A few other students acknowledgedthat NETs could improve their listening skills (S. Int. 1) because stu-dents have to “listen to English all the time,” so “it forces you to lis-ten” and as a result “the listening skills will be improved” (S. Int. 2).Apart from listening skills, the opportunity to listen to and becomefamiliar with different accents of English was also regarded as a meritof NETs:

Extract 16

S17: The advantage is that when you’re overseas4 … you’ve already gotthe opportunities to listen to different accents in the lessons. Whenyou go overseas, you don’t have to learn again and get used to it [theaccent]. (S. Int. 6)

Good English proficiency. Having good proficiency in English,mainly accurate pronunciation and accurate grammar (see also Extract

4 S17 did not define the term “overseas.” However, it probably refers to countries such asthe United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia, where many Hong Kong studentsgo to further their studies at the tertiary level.


11), was acknowledged by seven interview groups as another NETadvantage, as demonstrated in this extract:

Extract 17

S27: Erm I think both of the teachers I like. Because for the NET tea-cher, I think he knows our difficulty about the oral. He may teach usor tell us the real pronunciation of the words because some of theteachers even they don’t know how to pronounce this or they don’tknow the real meaning but erm the NET teacher can tell us or teachus to have better English. (S. Int. 9)

In this extract, NETs’ pronunciation was described as “real,” andthey were regarded as having the knowledge of “real meaning” of Eng-lish. A few other students also described NETs’ English as “more pure”(S. Int. 2) and “orthodox.” When asked what “orthodox English”meant, S1 explained that it referred to both accurate grammar andpronunciation (see also Extracts 11 and 14).

Teaching styles. The teaching styles of NETs were characterised bya relaxed classroom atmosphere, the use of an activity approach, andnot being textbook bound. The following extracts show students’ viewson classroom atmosphere:

Extract 18

S22: NET teachers, the classroom atmosphere is more relaxing. Theysometimes tell some jokes. (S. Int. 8)

Extract 19

S9: The native teachers always … because they are from other coun-tries, the other country more fun … so they teach like their teachers.(S. Int. 3)

Some students found that the relaxed and “fun” learning environ-ment was created through storytelling, sharing of life experiences, ormaking jokes in lessons (S. Int. 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10) although someadmitted that they had difficulty fully understanding the humourinvolved in some jokes. NETs’ adoption of an activity approach inteaching through using language games and activities was also appreci-ated as one of their advantages. Their less textbook-bound teachingstyle and their emphasis on learning through playing was contrastedwith LETs’ rote-learning approach:

Extract 20

S8: Firstly, they came from different countries, they erm sometimes[they] can talk [to] me about their country or his own interestingexperience. Secondly, erm they … erm in the overseas, the style of

TESOL QUARTERLY292

teaching is erm more active. They won’t use the textbook all the timebut in Hong Kong, most students would like to remember all thethings in the book. But in the other country, they would like tolearn … in their own style. They … they prefer to play when they werestudying. But [in] Hong Kong just say and you remember and youlearn. The next time you come back you have dictation. (S. Int. 3)

The view of S8 was echoed by many other students who found thata heavily textbook-bound teaching style was “boring” and “inflexible”(S. Int. 5, 6, and 8). The following extract best summarises the maincharacteristics of NETs’ teaching styles:

Extract 21

S17: Usually native English teachers organise more activities, tell moreEnglish jokes and don’t just follow the textbook. (S. Int. 6)

Disadvantages of NETs. As shown in Table 2, five disadvantages oflearning English from NETs were noted by participants. It is noteworthythat Groups 1, 2 (from a Band 2 Chinese-medium school), and 6 (froma Band 1 English-medium school) did not list any disadvantages ofNETs.

Difficulty in understanding. Students’ difficulty in understandingthe teaching of NETs was mentioned by five groups. The followingextract illustrates this:

Extract 22

S8: I want to share my bad experience when I was [in] P.6. There wasa native teacher I said before. Erm she taught us a passage and wedidn’t understand some words and we asked them [her]. Because shedidn’t know about Chinese er Cantonese, she used more and more dif-ficult words to explain easier words, we become er more erm don’tunderstand. (S. Int. 3)

Although the experience of S8 occurred in primary rather than sec-ondary school, a similar experience was reported by four other groups.Some students found that NETs “speak too fast” (S. Int. 2, 3, 4, 5, and8) and used more difficult vocabulary, compared with LETs. Surpris-ingly, contrary to the general views, Group 2 students did not findmuch difference in understanding their LET or NET. They reportedthat “they actually say the same thing” and their NET drew pictures,used actions, and elicited Chinese equivalents from advanced-level stu-dents to help them better understand his lessons (S. Int. 2). Group 1,from the same class as Group 2, also found that it was not difficult tounderstand their NET, who they thought could adjust to their English


level and used simpler English than their LET. The reason providedwas “he is a NET, he knows more vocabulary; therefore he can use sim-pler English to teach us” (S. Int. 1).

Difficulty in communication. Two students found that it was com-paratively more difficult to communicate with NETs than LETsbecause “my English is not so good” (S26, S. Int. 9) and “they [NETs]may not understand what I say” (S29, S. Int. 10). Their views were con-sistent with the opinions expressed by S21 and S22 that it was compar-atively easier to communicate with LETs.

Anxiety with NETs. Four students reported that they experi-enced anxiety when encountering NETs. One of them, a low-levelstudent, reported that she was frightened to ask her NET anyquestions even when she could not understand (S30, S. Int. 10).Similarly, another student, a high level one, expressed her anxi-ety at making errors when speaking English with NETs (S20, S.Int. 7):

Extract 23

S20: I think the students is more concentrate in the local teachers’ les-sons because they [students] are confident to speak … to speak Eng-lish because the … the teacher, maybe Ms Cheung [S20’s LET] willcorrect your mistakes but for the NET teachers, we are afraid to speakEnglish before [in front of] him because we are afraid we may betotally wrong in our speech. (S. Int. 7)

Two other students expressed similar feelings. One of them felt“scared or shy to communicate with native English teachers” (S14, S.Int. 5), and the other reported that “NETs make me feel nervous tospeak English” (S24, S. Int. 8), but no explanations for the reasons ofhaving such feelings were provided.

In contrast, S7 reported that she felt “less embarrassed” when shecould not understand what her native teachers said because they didnot “just like to listen to your grammar,” unlike what LETs did (S.Int. 3). Whereas S20 felt worried about speaking English with NETs,S22 felt that NETs “will not discriminate you just because your Englishis poor and they will not laugh at you because your English is poor,”although both S20 and S22 were from the same class. The view of S22was shared by two other students (S. Int. 8).

Difficulty in developing relationship. Some students expressed diffi-culties in establishing a close relationship with NETs and suggested

TESOL QUARTERLY294

that it might be attributed to the teaching duties assigned to NETs,who taught only once per week in the oral lessons.

Extract 24

S20: Erm, because we only have one NET in this school, maybe we onlycan see him once a week and … and I think that teachers and studentsneed to have a relationship, a close relationship and we can learnmuch more successfully. I think that the NET teacher and us can’tbuild this relationship, maybe we cannot learn so … so well as … ascompare with a … [LET]. (S. Int. 7)

S20 suggested that not being able to establish a close relationshipwith teachers might hinder their learning. One student reported herreluctance to seek assistance from her NET even when failing tounderstand because of her unfamiliarity with the teacher. Althoughsome students reported difficulty in relationship building, Group 1suggested that they maintained a harmonious relationship with theirNET:

Extract 25

S2: He quickly mingles with us. This makes our lessons smoother. Hereally explains things clearly and his lessons are interesting. Perhaps heis a foreign teacher, we all care for him. Sometimes, he asks us thingsabout Chinese. This increases our harmony. (S. Int. 1)

Teaching styles. The final disadvantage of NETs cited was theirnon-examination-oriented teaching styles. This was cited by one Year11 student because “we have to face the exam,” which was the SchoolCertificate Examinations for all secondary school leavers (S. Int. 7).Another student suggested that NETs “don’t care the grammar” andresulted in “you’ll get all wrong” (S. Int. 3). However, negative com-ments on NETs’ teaching styles were not common in the data.

DISCUSSION

This study investigated secondary student perceptions of the advanta-ges and disadvantages of learning English from NESTs (NETs) andNNESTs (LETs) who worked in Hong Kong. The four main advantagesof LETs perceived by students were their ability to use students’ L1, theirunderstanding of student learning difficulties, the ease for students inunderstanding their teaching, and effective communication betweenstudents and teachers. The use of the L1 as a perceived advantage con-firms one of the six hypotheses suggested by Medgyes (1994) regarding


the positive aspects of being an NNEST: making use of the learners’mother tongue. This finding was also in agreement with previous empir-ical studies conducted in EFL contexts (Cheung & Braine, 2007; Lasaga-baster & Sierra, 2005; Ma, 2009) but not those conducted in ESLcontexts (Mahboob, 2004; Pacek, 2005). This is probably becauseNNESTs and their learners in EFL contexts are usually from the samelinguistic background, but this may not be the case in ESL contexts.

In this study, it was reported that LETs made use of the L1 toexplain difficult vocabulary items and grammar rules. Both tacit useand overt use of the L15 (Ellis, 2002) may be involved becauseteachers may draw on their L1 knowledge to identify grammar itemsthat are difficult for students (tacit use), or they may codeswitch toCantonese to provide L1 equivalents or grammar explanations (overtuse). However, it is a surprising finding that L1 use was acknowledgedas an advantage of LETs by students because it has long been the pol-icy of the Hong Kong Education Bureau that English should be taughtthrough English only. Codeswitching in classroom instruction is notpreferred, although it is a common and natural form of expression inmultilingual speech communities such as Hong Kong (Li, 2008).Because 80% of the participants in this study were from EMI (Englishas the medium of instruction) schools, their English lessons were sup-posed to be taught all in English. Yet some Chinese was used inEnglish lessons even in Band 1 EMI schools. It was reported that onaverage the L1 was used for less than 10% of a lesson (S. Int. Group5, from an EMI school). However, very little L1 was used by the LETwho taught Group 5 in the three lessons observed by the researcher inthis study. It is unclear whether the less frequent use of the L1 in les-son observation than in students’ report was due to observers’ effect(Labov, 1972).

LETs’ ability to anticipate learners’ learning problems or needs sup-ports two other positive aspects of NNESTs hypothesised by Medgyes(1994): “anticipate and prevent language difficulties better” and “bemore empathetic to the needs and problems of learners” (p. 51). Thisresult also strongly corroborates the findings in previous empiricalstudies (Cheung, 2002; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Lipovsky &Mahboob, 2010; Ma, 2009; Mahboob, 2004; Medgyes, 1992; Pacek,2005). Such ability may be due to LETs’ tacit use of the L1 as well as

5 Ellis (2002) distinguishes two types of L1 use: “tacit use” and “overt use” (p. 82). Tacituse of the L1 involves a teacher drawing on his or her knowledge of the L1 without theactual verbalising or writing of the language. It refers to a teacher’s ability to predict lan-guage learner difficulties such as the negative transfer of rules and patterns from the L1or speech sounds that exist in the target language but not in the L1 system. Overt use ofthe L1 involves a direct use: actual speaking, writing, or listening either in or out ofclass.

TESOL QUARTERLY296

their previous English learning experiences (Cook, 2005; I. Lee,2000). LETs have experienced similar language learning processes andeducation system as their students, whereas most NETs acquiredEnglish as their L1 and were educated outside Hong Kong.

Two other advantages of LETs reported in this study were that stu-dents found it easier to understand and communicate with them.These two strengths were closely associated with L1 use and might beits by-products for two reasons. First, the positive effect of the L1 inenhancing understanding in lessons delivered by LETs was a recurrenttheme in this study. Second, using the L1 was reported to facilitatecommunication between students and LETs because students couldcodeswitch to Cantonese if communication in English failed. However,these two strengths have not been widely reported in the literature,and there may be two reasons for this. First, L1 use was not itself acommonly cited advantage of NNESTs in previous studies conductedin ESL contexts. Second, previous studies were mainly conducted atthe tertiary level, where participants were at a relatively more advancedEnglish proficiency level than the participants in this study, who weremainly preintermediate- or intermediate-level secondary students. Witha relatively lower English proficiency level, the latter may find it morechallenging to understand lessons delivered completely in English orto communicate effectively with their limited English.

An interesting finding was that the strength of NNESTs in teachinggrammar suggested in some previous studies (Cheung & Braine, 2007;Lipovsky & Mahboob, 2010; Mahboob, 2004; Pacek, 2005) was notnoted in this study. There may be two possible reasons. First, the gram-mar teaching of LETs and NETs is not comparable because NETs areusually assigned to teach oral skills rather than grammar. Second,some participants did not regard teaching grammar as an advantage ofLETs because they may not particularly enjoy learning it, especiallythrough mechanical drills and exercises. To some, learning grammaris a necessary evil. For example, one student preferred LETs as hisEnglish teachers because they prepared more grammar exercises,which he considered “important” but not enjoyable (S. Int. 7).

The main disadvantages of LETs were their inaccurate pronuncia-tion and grammar, their traditional and textbook-bound teachingstyles, and the fewer opportunities they created for practising Eng-lish. “Nonstandard” and nonnative pronunciation has always beenstudents’ main criticism of NNESTs in the literature (Lasagabaster &Sierra, 2005; Mahboob, 2004; Pacek, 2005). In this study, it was againpinpointed as a major disadvantage of LETs. Some students showedconcern about the negative impact of teachers’ pronunciation prob-lems on their learning, as was found by Lasagabaster and Sierra(2005). Therefore, more research is needed to identify specific pro-


nunciation problems facing LETs in Hong Kong and the type oftraining that can be offered to help them improve pronunciationaccuracy. Similar to LETs in this study, NNESTs have previously beencriticised for their lack of proficiency in English (I. Lee, 2003; Ma,2009; Medgyes, 1994; Pacek, 2005; Seidlhofer, 1999; C. Tang, 1997).In this study, the usual criticisms were their lack of fluency and accu-racy. It is therefore recommended that more emphasis be placed onassisting NNEST trainees to become highly proficient users of Eng-lish. This can help them gain students’ confidence in their linguisticability and in teaching.

Another disadvantage of LETs suggested in this study was the rela-tively limited opportunity for students to practise English because stu-dents were not “forced” to communicate in English. Students’ lack ofmotivation in speaking English with LETs and an overreliance on theL1 were the main culprits. This is an interesting finding that hasmostly been unreported in the literature, except in Lasagabaster andSierra’s (2005) study, which, like the present study, was also contextua-lised in an EFL context. The opportunity to practise English is particu-larly important and valuable for students in EFL contexts such asHong Kong, where English is not a language for daily communicationin society. Students tend to need ample opportunities to practise inthe classroom, which is probably the main domain of English use.Because English is not a language for daily communication, it is quiteunnatural for students or even LETs to speak English outside class-rooms where Cantonese is the norm. A surprising finding was that theteaching styles of LETs were perceived as both an advantage and a dis-advantage. It appears that certain characteristics of LETs’ teachingstyles were preferred by some students but not others. The data fromthis study show that students preferred “interesting games” and “activi-ties” over “textbook-bound” and “traditional” teaching approaches.Because it is possible that LETs and NETs have different teachingstyles, future research might focus on examining whether these twocategories of teachers exhibit different characteristics in teaching.

The advantages of learning English from NETs identified by studentsin the current study include NETs’ ability to facilitate student learning,good English proficiency, and preferred teaching styles. The findingsfrom this study are consistent with previous studies reporting that NESTswere perceived as helping learners improve pronunciation skills (Barratt& Kontra, 2000; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Mahboob, 2004) and listen-ing skills (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005), although little has been reportedon the general upgrading of learners’ English standards, except for Lukand Lin’s (2007) study, which was also conducted in Hong Kong. NETs’perceived good English language proficiency, especially their accuratepronunciation, concurs with the results reported in a number of other

TESOL QUARTERLY298

studies (Arva & Medgyes, 2000; Cheung, 2002; Lasagabaster & Sierra,2005; Law, 1999; Ma, 2009). The use of “real,” “more pure,” and “ortho-dox” in describing NETs’ English by some students in this study suggeststraces of their beliefs in the native speaker as a linguistic model,6 the“native speaker fallacy” (Phillipson, 1992), and “native speakerism”(Holliday, 2005). To some students, LETs’ pronunciation was perceivedas “fake,” “unreal,” and “untrustworthy.” Similar results were found inMahboob’s (2004) study, in which students used the term “truth pronun-ciation” to describe their preferred pronunciation (p. 141), and in Lukand Lin’s study (2007), in which students described NETs’ English as“more standard” (p. 32). It is clear that students hope to imitate thenative speaker model, which they perceive as the standard, whereas othervarieties are “substandard.” However, if the learning goal of these learn-ers is to use English as a lingua franca, that is, to function internationallythrough this means of communication with other multilingual secondor third language speakers of English, then the native models exhibitedby NETs become irrelevant (Andrews, 2007; Graddol, 2006; Kirkpatrick,2006). This is because effective communication depends not on con-forming to the native norm but on speakers’ intelligibility.

One of the perceived disadvantages of NETs was the anxiety studentsexperienced in encountering NETs. It was evident that some students inthis study felt anxious when encountering NETs, as was found by Lukand Lin (2007). Little opportunity to interact with foreigners might bea possible contributing factor. Relatively fewer contact hours could alsobe another important factor because students who showed signs of anxi-ety were all from schools where NETs were not the main teachers buttaught oral lessons only. More research that investigates the reasons forstudents’ anxiety and how NETs can establish a close relationship withstudents is needed. It is interesting to note that some of the disadvan-tages of NETs are a reverse of the advantages of LETs. For example, stu-dents’ difficulties in understanding NETs’ teaching was regarded as adisadvantage of NETs, but their ease in understanding LETs was consid-ered an advantage of LETs. Similarly, students’ problem in communicat-ing with NETs was perceived as a disadvantage of NETs, but their easein communicating with LETs was regarded as an advantage of LETs.

A new finding of this study was that having difficulty understandingNETs was perceived as their disadvantage. This finding does not agreewith previous findings, and this again may be attributed to the lessadvanced English level of the participants in this study. The main rea-sons for difficulties in understanding suggested by participants were

6 Speaking English clearly and fluently with native speaker–like pronunciation was themost frequently mentioned quality of a good English teacher by students from two uni-versities in Thailand (Mullock, 2010).


NETs’ rapid speech and their use of difficult vocabulary. If these sec-ondary students had difficulty, it is logical to speculate that primarypupils in Hong Kong, who also learn English from NETs under thePrimary NET Scheme introduced in 2002, may face a more seriousproblem. This finding has significant implications for classroom prac-tice, and more research into how to help students improve under-standing is an area worthy of further investigation. Based on thisfinding, it is recommended that NETs should make adjustments oftheir speech rate and choice of vocabulary in teaching to accommo-date students’ levels. They may also consider improving students’understanding through eliciting L1 equivalents from more advancedstudents when explaining difficult concepts.

A limitation of this study is its sampling of schools. Only Bands 1and 2 schools were represented, and no representative samples werecollected from any Band 3 schools, which make up about one third ofthe total student population in Hong Kong. The difficulty in gettingpermission for conducting research in schools was the main reason forthis omission. Future research that includes a wider representation willyield results that can be generalised to the total population of all sec-ondary students, teachers, and schools in Hong Kong. The presentstudy shows that students were able to provide a balanced evaluationof their LETs and NETs. Although they appreciated the value of LETsand NETs as English teachers, they also pointed out their limitations.Having opportunities to learn English from both categories of teachersappears to be beneficial to student learning. It is hoped that this studycan provide some insight into how to better prepare these two catego-ries of teachers for their future professional life.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by the Macquarie University Research ExcellenceScholarship and the Macquarie University Linguistics Department ResearchEnhancement Fund. I wish to thank Stephen Moore and Denise Murray for theirinvaluable feedback on an earlier version of this article. I would also like to thankthe two anonymous TESOL Quarterly reviewers for their insightful comments andDiane Belcher for her editorial suggestions. All errors are, of course, my own.

THE AUTHOR

Lai Ping Florence Ma is a PhD candidate in the Department of Linguistics atMacquarie University, Sydney. She has more than 20 years of English teachingexperience in Hong Kong and Australia. Her research interests include the issuesof nonnative-English-speaking teachers, adult migrant English learning, bilingual-ism, and teacher education.

TESOL QUARTERLY300

REFERENCES

Amin, N. (1997). Race and the identity of the nonnative ESL teacher. TESOLQuarterly, 31, 580–583. doi:10.2307/3587841

Amin, N. (2001). Nativism, the native speaker construct, and minority immigrantwomen teachers of English as a second language. CATESOL Journal, 13(1), 89–107.

Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher language awareness. Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Arva, V., & Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the classroom.System, 28, 355–372. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00017-8

Barratt, L., & Kontra, E. H. (2000). Native-English-speaking teachers in culturesother than their own. TESOL Journal, 9(3), 19–23.

Benke, E., & Medgyes, P. (2005). Differences in teaching behaviour betweennative and non-native speaker teachers: As seen by the learners. In E. Llurda(Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to theprofession (pp. 195–215). New York, NY: Springer.

Boyle, J. (1997). Native-speaker teachers of English in Hong Kong. Language andEducation, 11, 163–181. doi:10.1080/09500789708666726

Braine, G. (1999a). From the periphery to the center: One teacher’s journey. InG. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp. 15–27).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Braine, G. (Ed.). (1999b). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Braine, G. (2010). Nonnative speaker English teachers: Research, pedagogy and profes-sional growth. New York, NY: Routledge.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Interrogating the “native speaker fallacy”: Non-linguisticroots, non-pedagogical results. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in Englishlanguage teaching (pp. 77–92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cheung, Y. L. (2002). The attitude of university students in Hong Kong towards nativeand non-native teachers of English (Unpublished master’s thesis). Chinese Univer-sity of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Cheung, Y. L., & Braine, G. (2007). The attitudes of university students towardsnon-native speakers English teachers in Hong Kong. RELC Journal, 38, 257–277.

Clark, E., & Paran, A. (2007). The employability of non-native-speaker teachers ofEFL: A UK survey. System, 35, 407–430. doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.05.002

Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOLQuarterly, 33, 185–209. doi:10.2307/3587717

Cook, V. (2005). Basing teaching on the L2 user. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-nativelanguage teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession (pp.47–61). New York, NY: Springer.

Ellis, L. (2002). Teaching from experience: A new perspective on the non-nativeteacher in adult ESL. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 71–107.

Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London, England: British Council. Retrievedfrom http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-research-englishnext.htm

Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford,England: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language: New models,new norms, new goals. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Jin, J. (2005). Which is better in China, a local or a native English-speaking tea-cher? English Today, 21(3), 39–46. doi:10.1017/S0266078405003081


Kirkpatrick, A. (2006, September). Teaching English across cultures. What doEnglish language teachers need to know to know how to teach English?Paper presented at the English Australia Conference, Perth, Western Australia,Australia.

Kramsch, C. (1997). The privilege of the non-native speaker. PMLA, 112, 359–369.Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.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 lan-guage teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession (pp. 217–241). New York, NY: Springer.

Law, W. K. (1999). Students’ perception of the NET (native English speaking teacher) inmotivating students to learn English: A case study in a band 5 school (Unpublishedmaster’s thesis). University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Lee, E., & Lew, L. (2001). Diary studies: The voices of nonnative English speakersin a master of arts program in teaching English to speakers of other languages.CATESOL Journal, 13(1), 135–149.

Lee, I. (2000). Can a nonnative English speaker be a good English teacher?TESOL Matters, 10(1). Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org/s_TESOL/sec_doc-ument.asp?CID = 195&DID = 842

Lee, I. (2003). Is our English good enough to teach? NNEST Newsletter, 5(1), 5–6.Li, D. C. S. (2008). Understanding mixed code and classroom code-switching:

Myths and realities. New Horizons in Education, 56(3), 75–87.Lipovsky, C., & Mahboob, A. (2010). Appraisal of native and non-native English

speaking teachers. In A. Mahboob (Ed.), The NNEST lens: Non native Englishspeakers in TESOL (pp. 154–179). Newcastle upon Tyne, England: CambridgeScholars.

Liu, J. (1999). From their own perspectives: The impact of non-native ESL profes-sionals on their students. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English lan-guage teaching (pp. 159–176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Llurda, E., & Huguet, A. (2003). Self-awareness in NNS EFL primary and second-ary school teachers. Language Awareness, 12, 220–233. doi:10.1080/09658410308667078

Luk, J. C. M. (2001). Exploring the sociocultural implications of the Native Eng-lish-speaker Teacher Scheme in Hong Kong through the eyes of the students.Asia Pacific Journal of Language in Education, 4(2), 19–50.

Luk, J. C. M., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2007). Classroom interactions as cross-cultural encoun-ters: Native speakers in EFL lessons. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ma, L. P. F. (2009). Student perceptions of native English teachers and localEnglish teachers. In A. Mahboob & C. Lipovsky (Eds.), Studies in applied linguis-tics and language learning (pp. 325–348). Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cam-bridge Scholars.

Mahboob, A. (2004). Native or nonnative: What do students enrolled in an inten-sive English program think? In L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teachingfrom experience: Perspectives on nonnative English-speaking professionals (pp. 121–147). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Maum, R. (2003). Nonnative-English-speaking teachers in the English teachingprofession. Eric Digest. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-4/teaching-profession.html

Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: Who’s worth more? ELT Journal, 46,340–349. doi:10.1093/elt/46.4.340

TESOL QUARTERLY302

Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. London, England: Macmillan.Moussu, L. (2006). Native and nonnative English-speaking English as a second language

teachers: Students’ attitudes, teacher self-perceptions, and intensive English administratorbeliefs and practices (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, WestLafayette, IN.

Moussu, L., & Llurda, E. (2008). Non-native English-speaking English languageteachers: History and research. Language Teaching, 41, 315–348. doi:10.1017/S0261444808005028

Mullock, B. (2010). Does a good language teacher have to be a native speaker?In A. Mahboob (Ed.), The NNEST lens: Non native English speakers in TESOL (pp.87–113). Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars.

Murphy-O’Dwyer, L. M. (1996). Putting the T in TESOL. TESOL Matters, 6(2),21.

Pacek, D. (2005). “Personality not nationality”: Foreign students’ perceptions of anon-native speaker lecturer of English at a British university. In E. Llurda(Ed.), Non-native language teacher: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the pro-fession (pp. 243–262). New York, NY: Springer.

Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language.New York, NY: Longman.

Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London, England:Routledge.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford UniversityPress.

Phillipson, R. (1996). ELT: The native speakers’ burden? In T. Hedge & N. Whit-ney (Eds.), Power, pedagogy and practice (pp. 23–30). Oxford, England: OxfordUniversity Press.

Poon, A., & Higginbottom, T. (2000). Net-working: Examples of goodprofessional practice within the NET scheme. Hong Kong: Hong Kong EducationDepartment.

Rajagopalan, K. (2005). Non-native speaker teachers of English and their anxi-eties: Ingredients for an experiment in action research. In E. Llurda (Ed.),Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession(pp. 283–303). New York, NY: Springer.

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.

Seidlhofer, B. (1999). Double standards: Teacher education in the expanding cir-cle. World Englishes, 18, 223–245. doi:10.1111/1467-971X.00136

Shaw, P. A. (1979). Handling a language component in a teacher-training course.Modern English Teacher, 3, 12–15.

Shin, S. J. (2008). Preparing non-native English-speaking ESL teachers. TeacherDevelopment, 12, 57–65. doi:10.1080/13664530701827749.

Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.

Takada, T. (2000). The social status of L1 Japanese EFL teachers. TESOL Matters,10(3), 23.

Tang, C. (1997). The identity of the nonnative ESL teacher: On the power andstatus of nonnative ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 577–580.

Tang, G., & Johnson, R. K. (1993). Implementing language change in Hong Kongschools: An ecological approach to evaluation. Journal of Asian Pacific Communi-cation, 4, 31–47.


Thomas, J. (1999). Voices from the periphery: Non-native teachers and issues ofcredibility. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching(pp. 5–13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Watson-Todd, R., & Pojanapunya, P. (2009). Implicit attitudes towards native andnon-native speaker teachers. System, 37, 23–33. doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.08.002

Widdowson, H. G. (1992). ELT and EL teachers: Matters arising. ELT Journal, 46,333–339. doi:10.1093/elt/46.4.333

APPENDIX A

PROFILES OF STUDENT GROUP INTERVIEWEES

Schoolsa

(Band, MOI,Year) Group

Student(S) Sex

Englishlevel

No. of NETsencountered

Durationof

interview

Languageused ininterview

A (Band 2,CMI, Year 9)

Group1

S1 M Notprovided

2 10min20s

CantoneseS2 M 3S3 M 2

Group2

S4 F 2 9min00s

CantoneseS5 F 2S6 F 2

B (Band1, EMI,Year 8)

Group3

S7 F Low 4 18min45s

EnglishS8 F Average 4S9 M Low 4

Group4

S10 F High 5 11min37s

EnglishS11 M High 3S12 M Average 6

Group5

S13 F High 5 11min00s

CantoneseS14 F Average 14S15 M Low 4

Group6

S16 M High 4 14min17s

CantoneseS17 M Average 4S18 F Low 3

C (Band 1,EMI, Year 11)

Group7


EnglishS20 F High 3S21 M Average 3

Group8

S22 F Average 2 16min10s

EnglishS23 M Low 3S24 F Low 4

Group9


EnglishS26 F High 3S27 F Average 3

Group10

S28 M Average 3 14min12s

EnglishS29 M Low 4S30 F Low 3

Note. MOI = Medium of instruction; CMI = Chinese medium of instruction; EMI = Eng-lish medium of instruction.

TESOL QUARTERLY304

APPENDIX B

SEMISTRUCTURED STUDENT GROUP INTERVIEWQUESTIONS 學生訪問問題

A. Learning experience with NETs 跟英語是母語的外藉老師學習經驗

1. How many native speaker English teachers have you ever had?你一共跟多少位英語是母語的外藉老師學習過英語?

2. How long have you been learning English with NETs?你跟英語是母語的外藉老師學習英語有多長時間了?

B. Perceptions of LETs and NETs 本地英語老師及英語是母語

的外藉英語老師

1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of being taught bylocal-speaking English teachers? 跟本地老師學習英語有什麼好處及壞處?

2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of being taught bynative-speaking English teachers? 跟英語是母語的外藉老師學習英語有什麼好處及壞處?


Advantages and Disadvantages of Native-and Nonnative-English-speaking Teachers: Student Perceptions...

Documents

Transcript of Advantages and Disadvantages of Native-and Nonnative-English-speaking Teachers: Student Perceptions...