ALWAYS LOOK ON THE
BRIGHT SIDE !
BEING A NONNATIVE
Péter Medgyes
Native English-Speaking
Teachers
↓
NESTs
Nonnative English-Speaking
Teachers
↓
Non-NESTs
Aims
•
•
•
•
•
compare NESTs and non-NESTs
pinpoint differences
focus on non-NESTs
touch upon our disadvantages
dwell longer on our advantages
Hypotheses: Set 1
• NESTs & non-NESTs differ in
terms of their language
proficiency.
Hypotheses: Set 1
• NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their
language proficiency.
• NESTs & non-NESTs differ in
terms of their teaching
behaviour.
NESTs
non-NESTs
Own use of English
speak better English
use real language
use English nore confidently
speak poorer English
use `bookish' language
use English less confidently
General attitude
adopt a more flexible approach
are more innovative
are less empathetic
attend to perceived needs
have far-fetched expectations
are more casual
are less committed
adopt a more guided approach
are more cautious
are more empathetic
attend to real needs .
have realistic expectations
are more strict
are more committed
Attitude to teaching the language
are less insightful
fucus on:
fluency
meaning
languuage in use
oral skills
colloquial registers
teach items in context
prefer free activities
favour groupwork/pairwork
use a variety of materials
tolerate errors
set fewer tests
use no/less L1
resort to no/less translation
assign less homework
are more insightful
focus on:
accuracv
form
grammar rules
printed word
formal registers
teach items in isolation
prefer controlled activities
favour frontal work
use a single textbook
correct/punish for errors
set more tests
use more L1
resort to more translation
assign more homework
Attitude to teaching culture
supply more cultural information
supply less cultural information
Hypotheses: Set 1
• NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their
language proficiency.
• NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their
teaching behaviour.
• The discrepancy in language
proficiency accounts for most of
the differences found in their
teaching behaviour.
Hypotheses: Set 1
• NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their
language proficiency.
• NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their
teaching behaviour.
• The discrepancy in language proficiency
accounts for most of the differences found in
their teaching behaviour.
• NESTs & non-NESTs can be
equally good teachers – on
their own terms.
Who would you employ?
•
•
•
•
Only a NEST.
Preferably a NEST.
Makes no difference.
Can’t tell.
Hypotheses: Set 2
Non-NESTs can:
• provide a better learner model.
Hypotheses: Set 2
Non-NESTs can:
• provide a better learner model.
• teach learning strategies more
effectively.
Hypotheses: Set 2
Non-NESTs can:
• provide a better learner model.
• teach learning strategies more effectively.
• supply more information about
English.
Enough
• My car is big enough.
• There are more than enough cars on the
roads of Budapest.
• My volkswagen isn’t a big enough car for
our family.
• There are more than enough big cars on
the roads of Budapest.
• This should be explanation enough why
the mayor of Budapest considers
introducing a toll in the city centre.
Hypotheses: Set 2
Non-NESTs can:
• provide a better learner model.
• teach learning strategies more effectively.
• supply more information about English.
• anticipate & prevent language
difficulties more effectively.
Hypotheses: Set 2
Non-NESTs can:
•
•
•
•
provide a better learner model.
teach learning strategies more effectively.
supply more information about English.
anticipate & prevent language difficulties more
effectively.
• show more empathy to students’
needs & problems.
Hypotheses: Set 2
Non-NESTs can:
•
•
•
•
provide a better learner model.
teach learning strategies more effectively.
supply more information about English.
anticipate & prevent language difficulties more
effectively.
• show more empathy to students’ needs &
problems.
• benefit from the students’
mother tongue.
Critique
• Linguists
Critique
• Linguists
• P. C. activists
Critique
• Linguists
• P. C. activists
• Teacher educators
Critique
• Linguists
• P. C. activists
• Teacher educators
• Advocacy groups
On the credit side
• Publications
• Non-NEST researchers
• Confidence boost
What would you tell your
new non-NEST to do?
• Pretend to be a native speaker of
English.
• Reveal your nonnative identity.
• Do as you please.
When NESTs reigned supreme
• Inferiority complex
When NESTs reigned supreme
• Inferiority complex
• The Centre ↔ The Periphery
When NESTs reigned supreme
•
•
Inferiority complex
The Centre ↔ The Periphery
• BANA ↔ TESEP
Hurray!
97 percent of the ELT profession
consists of non-NESTs.
Conclusion
Action plan
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Teacher supply
English as a lingua franca (ELF)
Young learners
Content & language integrated learning (CLIL)
Information & communication technology
(ICT)
In-school + out-of-school
Language improvement for non-NESTs
NEST job applicants
Collaboration between NESTs & non-NESTs
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Braine, G. (Ed.) (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, New Jersey/London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Braine, G. (2010). Nonnative speaker English teachers: research, pedagogy, and professional growth. New York/London: Routledge.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: The British Council.
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mahboob, A., Uhrig, K., Newman, K. L. & Hartford, B. S. (2004). Children of a lesser English: status of nonnative English as a second
language teachers in the United States. In L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.) Learning and teaching from experience: perspectives on nonnative
English-speaking professionals (pp. 100-120). The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.
Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: who’s worth more? English Language Teaching Journal, 46, 340-349.
Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. Houndsmills: Macmillan; (1999) 2nd edition. Ismaning: Max Hueber Verlag.
Paikeday, T. M. (1985). The native speaker is dead! Toronto: Paikeday Publishing Inc.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Popper, K. (1968). Conjectures and refutations. New York: Harper & Row.
Povey, J. (1977). The role of English in Africa. English Teaching Forum, 15(3), 27-29.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sowden, C. (2012). ELF on a mushroom: the overnight growth in English as a lingua franca. English Language Teaching Journal, 66, 8996.
Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 29, 377-389.