Originally submitted: October 2020
At the start of my undergraduate degree I was considering becoming either a Spanish or ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) teacher, two options which offer unique challenges. Having been taught by various native and non-native language teachers, I already knew that each type had their strengths and weaknesses and that these could, of course, vary further between individual teachers. When presented with the chance to write a research essay on the education topic of my choosing, I decided to look into the literature on native versus non-native language teachers in the hopes that it would inform my future teaching path.
Having a culture in common with their teacher can facilitate students’ learning, according to Nuthall (2001). I am curious about how well this suggestion fits into the language learning context. I have often thought foreign languages are best left to native speakers to teach, assuming students would prefer authenticity over someone who shares their culture.
This essay aims to answer the question “What are the differences in teaching and learning between native and non-native foreign language teachers?” I expect to find that each have their advantages and disadvantages, yet holistically are of the same quality. After all, Nuthall (2001: 2) has said that “Like language, teaching has its own underlying grammatical rules… these patterns or routines occurred in essentially the same form across different countries and languages.”
I will now address the advantages and disadvantages of native teachers and non-native teachers respectively, then discuss their implications.
The most common advantage to native teachers (NTs) as found in Walkinshaw and Duong’s study was their ability to act as “a model for linguistic output” (2014: 2). As Wang (2012, cited in Walkinshaw and Duong 2014: 2) put it, “Their speech is held up as the gold standard of grammatical correctness and perfect pronunciation.”
Another key advantage is the knowledge of their home countries which NTs bring to the classroom. In their observations, Árva and Medgyes found NTs “were rich sources of cultural information, highbrow as well as lowbrow, about any topic around which the lessons were structured” (2000: 365).
NTs are also perceived as more friendly and informal (Benke and Medgyes 2005, Wu and Ke 2009, Liu and Zhang 2007; cited in Walkinshaw and Duong 2014). This helps them to cultivate an environment where students feel comfortable practising the foreign language (FL). This is especially true if the teacher has limited knowledge of the students’ language, forcing the students to use the FL and thus acting “as true facilitators of the communication process” (Árva and Medgyes 2000, cited in Madrid and Pérez Cañado 2004: 129).
The main downfall of NTs is their general lack of grammatical and linguistic knowledge, having been “born into” the FL. A lack of familiarity with the students’ language is seen as another constraint, particularly if the teacher is monolingual (Walkinshaw and Duong 2014). This affects their ability to support, advise and relate to their students.
Another disadvantage, and key to Nuthall’s (2001) argument, is cultural clash. Han (2005, cited in Walkinshaw and Duong 2014: 3) found a belief that NTs “lacked insight into the local educational context and sometimes failed to establish rapport with students.” Walkinshaw and Duong (2014: 6) talk of cultural “tension” generated through classroom interactions. While this tension can be harmful to the students and their learning, it also negatively impacts the teachers themselves - Árva and Medgyes (2000: 364) found some teachers “felt culturally alienated in the local environment.”
A final disadvantage to NTs is their pronunciation. While this can serve as a beneficial model, the speed and accent (coupled with a lack of awareness or control) can be difficult for students to understand (Walkinshaw and Duong 2014).
The major drawcard for non-native teachers (non-NTs) is that they tend to have a better grammatical understanding and are familiar with the language-learning journey. This means they are more prepared to give meaningful explanations and feedback to students (Seidlhofer 1996, cited in Walkinshaw and Duong 2014: 3). Aside from being more sympathetic towards students, they can also serve as motivational proof that the FL can be mastered (Cook 2005, Lee 2000, Arva and Medgyes 2000; cited in Walkinshaw and Duong 2014: 3).
Unlike many NTs (particularly overseas), non-NTs can communicate in the students’ language if needed. While some teachers argue this ought to be avoided as it “contravenes the principles of communicative language teaching” (Trent 2013, cited in Walkinshaw and Duong 2014: 7), it is a source of relief for students and helps to quickly and clearly communicate concepts (Walkinshaw and Duong 2014).
In line with Nuthall’s (2001) claim, students find it easier to communicate with non-NTs because of their shared culture (Walkinshaw and Duong 2014). Having familiar cues and customs puts students at ease and could increase participation.
The main disadvantage to non-NTs found by Walkinshaw and Duong (2014) is their pronunciation of the FL. It is seen as inferior to the “ideal” pronunciation of native speakers; however studies by Chiba et al. (1995) and Kelch and Santana-Williamson (2002) found students struggle to distinguish between the voices of native and non-native speakers, suggesting this is no more than a bias (cited in Walkinshaw and Duong 2014).
Poor knowledge of the FL’s relevant cultures was found to be another disadvantage (Walkinshaw and Duong 2014). Contrastingly, when observing classes of both teacher types, Árva and Medgyes (2000) found NTs not only drew upon knowledge of their own culture, but also linked it to the local culture in order to provide more relevance; meanwhile non-NTs did not make any such links.
Non-NTs are often disadvantaged by a limited or outdated knowledge of the FL. Árva and Medgyes (2000, cited in Madrid and Pérez Cañado 2004: 128) claim this causes “problems with pronunciation, colloquial expressions (particularly slang), and certain types of vocabulary”. A reliance on study materials (instead of immersion) when learning the FL can constrain their knowledge to a certain dialect and era, and can affect their ability to spontaneously use the language (Barrios 2002, cited in Madrid and Pérez Cañado 2004).
Some non-NTs are anxious about their language abilities, which can affect their teaching. Seidlhofer (1996, cited in Walkinshaw and Duong 2014) found 57% of non-NTs felt insecure in the classroom. This increased anxiety can lead teachers to favour assigning tasks with a “more restricted use” of the FL (Horwitz 1992 and 1993, Barrios 2002; cited in Madrid and Pérez Cañado 2004: 126-127).
As I had predicted, both types of teacher have their own advantages and disadvantages arising from their different cultural, linguistic and educational backgrounds. However, as Medgyes (1994: 76; cited in Árva and Medgyes 2000: 358) cautions, “different does not imply better or worse”. Instead of being compared against each other, NTs and non-NTs could further increase their effectiveness by combining their strengths (Walkinshaw and Duong 2014).
Returning to Nuthall’s (2001) perceived benefit of a shared culture, we have seen that both sharing a common culture with students and representing a new one can be advantages in FL teaching. Todd and Pojanapunya (2008; cited in Walkinshaw and Duong 2014: 3) concluded 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 teacher”, so perhaps the authenticity and interest that NTs can provide is enough to balance out cultural tension.
Finally, it would seem that FL teaching does subscribe to Nuthall’s (2001: 2) vision of a global teaching “language”, if Árva and Medgyes (2000: 367) are to believe when they claim:
The liveliness and conviviality of the lessons held by both [NTs] and [non-NTs] seem to confirm the assumption that there is indeed a universal [FL] culture which transgresses national borders and educational traditions.
This points towards a positive and inclusive future for foreign language teaching, both for native and non-native teachers.
Árva, V. and Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the classroom. System 28: 355-372
Benke, E. and Medgyes, P. (2005). Differences in teaching behaviour between native and non-native speaker teachers: As seen by the learners. In Non-native language teachers. Boston, MA: Springer, 195-215
Chiba, R., Matsuura, H. and Yamamoto, A. (1995). Japanese attitudes towards English accents. World Englishes 14: 77-86
Cook, V. (2005). Basing teaching on the L2 user. In E. Llurda (ed.) Nonnative language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession. New York, NY: Springer, 47-61
Espinosa, E. B. (2002). El pensamiento y la actuación de futuros maestros de inglés durante su intervención didáctica en las Prácticas de Enseñanza (Doctoral dissertation, Universidad de Granada)
Han, S. A. (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: 197-213
Horwitz, E. K. (1992). Not for Learner’s Only: The Language Anxiety of Nonnative Teacher Trainees (Conference paper presented in the annual meeting of the International Association of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages)
Horwitz, E. K. (1993). Foreign Language Anxiety and Preservice Language Teachers (Conference paper presented in the annual meeting of the American Council of Teachers of Foreign Languages)
Kelch, K. and Santana-Williamson, E. (2002). ESL students’ attitudes toward native- and non-native-speaking instructors’ accents. CATESOL Journal 14(1): 57-72
Lee, I. (2000). Can a non-native English speaker be a good English teacher? TESOL Matters 10(1): 19
Liu, M. and Zhang, L. (2007). Student perceptions of native and non- native English teachers’ attitudes, teaching skills assessment and performance. Asian EFL Journal 9(4): 157-166
Madrid, D. and Pérez Cañado, L. (2004). Teacher and student preferences of native and nonnative foreign language teachers. Porta Linguarum 2: 125-138
Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan
Nuthall, G. (2001). The cultural myths and the realities of teaching and learning (Unpublished Jean Herbison lecture)
Seidlhofer, B. (1996). “It is an undulating feeling . . .”: The importance of being a non-native teacher of English. Vienna English Working Papers 5(1, 2): 74-91
Todd, R. W. and Pojanapunya, P. (2008). Implicit attitudes towards native- and non-native speaker teachers. System 37: 23-33
Trent, J. (2013). Using the L1 in L2 teaching and learning: What role does teacher identity play? Asian EFL Journal 15(3): 217-247
Walkinshaw, I. and Duong, H. O. (2014). Native and Non-Native English Language Teachers: Student Perceptions in Vietnam and Japan. SAGE Open 4(2): 1-9
Wang, L. Y. (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 14(2): 46-78
Wu, K. H. and Ke, C. (2009). Haunting Native Speakerism? Students' Perceptions toward Native Speaking English Teachers in Taiwan. English Language Teaching 2(3): 44-52