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 Englishuse real languageuse English nore confidently

speak poorer Englishuse `bookish' languageuse English less confidently

General attitude

adopt a more flexible approachare more innovativeare less empatheticattend to perceived needshave far-fetched expectationsare more casualare less committed

adopt a more guided approachare more cautiousare more empatheticattend to real needs .have realistic expectationsare more strictare more committed

Attitude to teaching the language

are less insightfulfucus on: fluency meaning languuage in use oral skills colloquial registersteach items in contextprefer free activitiesfavour groupwork/pairworkuse a variety of materialstolerate errorsset fewer testsuse no/less L1resort to no/less translationassign less homework

are more insightfulfocus on: accuracv form grammar rules printed word formal registersteach items in isolationprefer controlled activitiesfavour frontal workuse a single textbookcorrect/punish for errorsset more testsuse more L1resort to more translationassign 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. Teacher supply2. English as a lingua franca (ELF)3. Young learners4. Content & language integrated learning (CLIL)5. Information & communication technology

(ICT)6. In-school + out-of-school7. Language improvement for non-NESTs8. NEST job applicants9. 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, 89-

96.• Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 29, 377-389.