CAN ONLY NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKING TEACHERS TEACH …

CAN ONLY NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKING TEACHERS TEACH AURAL AND ORAL SKILLS?

Kasma Suwanarak*

บทคดยอ

งานวจยนศกษาภายใตกระบวนทศนเชงวจารณเกยวกบกลมคนในบรบทเฉพาะและความเทาเทยมกนในสงคม ผวจยศกษามมมองของครภาษาองกฤษชาวไทยทมตอประเดนวจารณในการสอนภาษาองกฤษใหกบผเรยนชาวไทยทไมไดใชภาษาองกฤษเปนภาษาแม โดยครภาษาองกฤษชาวไทยกลมนรบรถงความไมเสมอภาคของการใหเจาของภาษาเทานนสอนวชาการฟงและการพดภาษาองกฤษการศกษาวจยพบวาครภาษาองกฤษชาวไทยตระหนกถงการเลอกปฏบตทลดบทบาทและความสำคญของตนเอง อยางไรกตามการยอมรบวาตนเองไมใชเจาของภาษาไมไดหมายความวาครภาษาองกฤษชาวไทยจะเสยอตลกษณในวชาชพคร หากแตพวกเขาไดมองเหนความแตกตางมากมายระหวางครภาษาองกฤษทเปนเจาของภาษาและครภาษาองกฤษชาวไทย รวมทงขอไดเปรยบของครภาษาองกฤษชาวไทยในการสอนวชาการฟงและการพดภาษาองกฤษ ถงแมวาครกลมนจะแสดงความคดเหนในเชงขดแยงตอประเดนวจารณนในระดบหนง แตกไดเปดเผยมมมองทนาสนใจมากมายทมตอนโยบายทไมยตธรรม และเสนอแนวคดวาถาครชาวไทยไดรบการปฏบตเหมอนกบเปนเพอนรวมงานสอนวชาภาษาองกฤษทมความเทาเทยมกนกบครทเปนเจาของภาษา กจะเปนการสรางความมนใจในอาชพการสอนไดมากขน ผลการศกษาวจยเรองนจงนำมาซงมมมองใหมๆ มากมาย อาทการสอนแบบเปนทมโดยครภาษาองกฤษชาวไทยและครทเปนเจาของภาษา การพฒนาครทมความเชยวชาญดานการสอนภาษาองกฤษ และการเปดโอกาสใหมการอภปรายประเดนความไมเทาเทยมกนทเกดขนในบรบทนเพอเปนการสนบสนนการสรางอตลกษณในวชาชพครของครภาษาองกฤษชาวไทย

Abstract

This research sits within the critical paradigm, taking into account people intheir contexts and social equality. The study investigates the views of Thai Englishteachers (TETs) of one of the critical issues in Thai TESOL, perceived unfairness

________________________________

*The researcher holds a doctoral degree in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of OtherLanguages) from the University of Exeter, U.K. She obtained her Master’s in Applied Linguistics fromKasetsart University, where she also completed her first degree in English Literature from the Facultyof Humanities. Presently, she is an assistant professor in the Graduate School of Language and Com-munication, National Institute of Development and Administration (NIDA), Thailand.

ABAC Journal Vol. 30 No. 2 (May-August 2010, pp.43-63) 43

of allowing only native English speaking teachers (NESTs) to teach Listening andSpeaking courses. From a critical stance, the study finds that TETs are aware ofthe discrimination that marginalises them. However, the acceptance of the non-native speaker label does not mean that TETs have completely lost their profes-sional identity. They can see the differences between NESTs and TETs as well astheir strengths in teaching Listening and Speaking courses. To some extent, TETshave challenged this current issue. Various interesting aspects regarding the reac-tions to the perceived unfair policy are revealed. Were TETs treated as equal part-ners in English language teaching (ELT), they would become more self-confident intheir teaching career. Implications from the study contribute various new perspec-tives including collaborative team teaching by TETs and NESTs, the developmentof ELT professionals, and creating chances to discuss the issue of inequality in thisparticular context to better serve professional identity of TETs.

glish teachers (NETs) are not necessarilybetter than non-native English speakingteachers (NNESTs). Nevertheless, therealms of inequality or injustice betweenNETs and non-native English teachers(NNETs) have not been sufficiently investi-gated nor has the massive contribution thatNNETs make been accredited proportion-ally.

Contextual Background and CurrentPractice

With the aim of developing the Englishskills of Thai students and the increase ininternational competitiveness, the Ministryof Education (2009) of Thailand has beengradually implementing the English languageas the medium of instruction. In accordancewith the policy of the Ministry of Educationin Thailand, academic administrators of thecontext of this study have been concernedabout the importance of English proficiencyof the undergraduate students. Therefore, ithas been decided that only NESTs are al-lowed to teach Listening and Speaking

INTRODUCTION

According to Chomsky (1965), a na-tive speaker (NS) is defined as an ideal speaker-listener who perfectly knows the language. This has been further supported by Kramsch (1997) who remarks that the ideal of the native speaker is attributed to the importance of spoken, communicative competence in foreign language teaching. Hence, in such literature the idea of being a good model teacher, equipped with linguis-tic competence, is usually associated with being ‘native’.

An increasing number of voices have questioned this ideology. Phillipson (1992) calls this ideology a ‘native speaker fallacy’ to refer to unfair treatment of qualified non-native speakers (NNSs). He perceives that NNSs can acquire such attributes through teacher training. Having gone through the language learning process can make them more qualified to teach a language than NSs. In addition to Phillipson, a number of re-searchers (e.g., Davies, 1991; Medgyes, 1994; Quirk, 1995) claim that native En-

44

Kasma Suwanarak

courses as it is reasoned that the studentswill be given the best opportunity to learncommunicative skills from NSs. Moreover,simply because NESTs have been labeledas ‘native’ speakers of English, the academicadministrators seem to accept that NESTsare indeed in need and more qualified toteach these courses than Thai English teach-ers (TETs). For these reasons, some nativespeakers could easily take up positions ofEnglish teachers without a degree in EnglishLanguage Teaching (ELT) or in other re-lated areas. Such a belief has given rise tothe idea that the language belongs to its na-tive speakers and has empowered themover non-native speakers in English as aforeign language (EFL) and English as asecond language (ESL) contexts(Canagarajah, 1999).

From the informal discussion amongteacher colleagues about English languageteaching in this particular context, the re-searcher realised that most TETs apparentlylack critical views towards the teaching roleof English and rarely problematise the issueof unfairness occurring in their teaching con-text. Nevertheless, some of the TETs mightsilently struggle against this discrimination.Therefore, the researcher was interested infinding out whether there is a challenge tothe notion of “Being a native speaker of En-glish is a necessary condition to teach En-glish”. Also, the result of this study wouldmake the TETs become more aware of theundue prejudices and discriminations thathave marginalised them. Consequently, thefindings of this study should help increaseThai English teachers’ self-esteem in theirteaching career, give them a voice, andrecognise their position as equal partners inELT.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The theoretical framework in which this study is undertaken derives from critical approaches to applied linguistics which are fostered by those who believe that applied linguistics itself is absent of such a critical view in ELT (Phillipson, 1992; Pennycook, 1994, 2001). A fundamental principle within critical applied linguistics approach is that anything taken for granted has to be ques-tioned and problematised.

In a more specific framework, the re-search emphasis is on a critical issue in TESOL regarding inequality between native speakers and non-native speakers of En-glish for several reasons. Firstly, based on her past experience in teaching English, the researcher was able to detect sources of injustice within this context. Secondly, dur-ing a pilot interview, the researcher asked three of Thai English teachers about their perceptions of differences between TETs and NESTs in terms of qualification of teach-ing Listening and Speaking courses. Their responses indicated that NESTs are in de-mand in these courses since they are ‘na-tive English speakers’. However, TETs would like to take part in teaching these courses as well. In this regard, their answers were considered crucial and contributive to the professional identity of TETs and EFL teaching in the context. These factors, there-fore, are incentive to initiate this study.

The specific research questions are:1) What do TETs think of the non-na-

tive speaker label?; and2) How do TETs react to the policy

which states that Listening and Speakingcourses must be taught by NESTs only?

45

Can Only Native English Speaking Teachers Teach Aural and Oral Skills?

need to develop critical approaches toTESOL because these approaches can helpthem understand problems that exist in theircontext and offer the prospect of change.

The Controversy of Native Speaker andNon-native Speaker (NS-NNS)

From a sociolinguistic perspective, thedebate over the native and non-native di-chotomy has generated a number of con-troversial issues in the ELT profession(Medgyes, 1994). According to Davies(1991), the native speaker’s identity is con-sidered as a sociolinguistic construct whichcan be overcome within certain circum-stances. Therefore, the idea that a nativespeaker is uniquely and permanently differ-ent from a non-native speaker is rejected.L2 learners can acquire native linguistic com-petence of the language even if they areoutside of the L1 environment. However, anon-native speaker is negatively defined assomeone who is not regarded either by him/herself as a native speaker (ibid). In this re-gard, Braine (1999) comments that accep-tance of the title ‘non-native speaker’ orNNS implies the very distinction and thelack of identity which could lead to low self-esteem as a professional.

The question of ‘native’ versus ‘non-native’ speaker is recognised as more or lessmaintained regarding its application to theELT profession. Medgyes (1992) adoptedthe NS-NNS contrast as a clear distinc-tion. Any NS, with or without EFL qualifi-cations, has a better knowledge of Englishthan NNSs. However, the effectiveness oflanguage teaching is not based on the na-tiveness or non-nativeness. NNSs have anequal chance of success in their own prac-

Kasma Suwanarak

LITERATURE REVIEW

Critical approaches to TESOL

According to Pennycook (1999), a cru-cial challenge for critical approaches to TESOL always focuses on inequality, op-pression, and compassion in a particular situation. Thus, the approaches need to be grounded in some forms of critical theory, subject to a constant skepticism, and see theory and practice as mutually supportive.

Since people are trapped in unequal re-lations of power, they need to act and think differently in order to consider possibilities of change (Pennycook, ibid.). Transforma-tive pedagogy is an important aspect of criti-cal approaches in TESOL. Being transfor-mative has various levels, one of which is a level of awareness. By this, Fairclough (1992) considers that critical language awareness is a fundamental factor of social change. Another main aspect is proble-matising practice which always questions the role of language or discourse in social and cultural categories (e.g., race, gender, and ethnicity) and language learning. Emancipatory modernism, underlying Marx-ist thought, is in accordance with this as-pect; i.e., critical approaches should eman-cipate people through ways of thinking and questioning the givens of TESOL.

In trying to define critical applied lin-guistics work in language education, it is important to focus on the contextual con-cern and to relate aspects of language edu-cation to a broader critical analysis of so-cial relations. In this regard, English teach-ers are at the core of the most crucial edu-cational, cultural, and political issues (Gee, 1994). To take up a challenge, teachers

46

tices despite being claimed as deficient us-ers of English (ibid.).

Considering the inequality of NS-NNS,many concerns have been directed towardthe ideology that NSs are the ideal teachersof language (Nayar, 1994). For NNSs,Medgyes (1992) considers that they canonly serve as imitable models of the suc-cessful learners of English and can be la-beled as ‘pseudo-native speakers’ eventhough they can acquire native-like profi-ciency. Notably, a growing number of na-tive English speakers without teaching quali-fications have been more likely to be hiredas ESL teachers than qualified and experi-enced NNESTs (Maum, 2001).

This is in accordance with the issue ex-isting in this particular context. Accordingto the policy of Ministry of Education (2009)in Thailand, the academic administrators inthe context of this study have been con-cerned about the importance of the profi-ciency in English of Thai students. As a re-sult, it has been determined that Listeningand Speaking courses must be taught byNESTs only. According to Canagarajah(1999), the belief that NSs are the best forlanguage teaching would reinforce the labelof ‘native speaker’ and would lead to theassumption that a language belongs to itsnative speakers. Also, it has empoweredthem dramatically over NNSs in ESL andEFL contexts.

It is very likely that NESTs only have toestablish their professional identities as ESLteachers, while NNESTs often have theadded pressure of asserting themselves inthe profession as competent English speak-ers (Maum, 2001). The issue of accent, forexample, has been used to question teach-ers’ ability and credibility as a form of lin-

guistic discrimination (ibid.). Many re-searchers (e.g., Canagarajah, 1999, Lippi-Green; 1997, Thomas, 1999) reveal thatteachers with non-native accents have beenperceived as less qualified and less effec-tive and have been compared unfavourablywith their native-English-speaking col-leagues. However, in accordance with theideology of ‘native speaker fallacy’,Phillipson (1992) argues that qualified andtrained NNESTs can contribute in mean-ingful ways to the field of English languageeducation by virtue of their own experiencesas English language learners and their train-ing and experience as teachers.

According to Canagarajah (1999), notall NSs may make good teachers of theirfirst language. ESL professionals should gobeyond ‘respecting differences’. The pres-ence of NNESTs must be valued and ac-knowledged as equals of NESTs (Edge,1996). Numerous attempts (e.g., Davies,1991; Gill and Rebrova, 2001; Swales,1993) suggest that it does not make anysense to see the NS-NNS dichotomy asnegative and contradictory. Considering thepositive aspects of these two counterpartsin the areas of language teaching would bemuch more worthwhile. An ideal EFL envi-ronment should maintain a good balancebetween NESTs and NNESTs (Medgyes,1994). Various forms of collaboration be-tween the two, for instance, would bringabout real benefits (Gill and Rebrova, 2001;Maum, 2001; Medgyes, 1992; Swales,1993). In so doing, both can complementeach other in their strengths and weaknessesin various aspects such as linguistic, cultural,and educational backgrounds. For example,NESTs are better aware of the appropriatecontexts of language use (Widdowson,

47


1994) whereas NNESTs, especially oneswho share the same mother tongue with theirstudents, are often capable of explainingrules and language structure more explicitly(Harmer, 1991).

Research on NS-NNS issues

There is evidence of research on criti-cal issues related to nativeness and non-na-tiveness in various settings. Samimy andBrutt-Griffler (1999) investigated the effectsof the NS-NNS dichotomy on NNS stu-dents in a graduate TESOL course in theUnited States. It was found that the studentsdo not consider NSs superior, but only moreproficient in the use of authentic English. TheNNSs positively saw themselves differentfrom their NS counterparts in the area oflinguistic competence in English, teachingmethods, and general characteristics. Simi-larly, Liu (1999) studied how ESL teachersare qualified regardless of NS-NNS sta-tus. The study shows that ESL learners tendto appreciate their NNESTs’ competenceand achievement as learners of English.Therefore, from these two studies, it is notclear that successful teaching does not nec-essarily depend on nativeness. Rather, it isaffected by learner factors, teacher factors,and contextual factors.

However, the study of Golombek andJordan (2005) indicates that the nativespeaker label can affect the credibility ofNNESTs. Even though at first the two Tai-wanese English teachers did not agree withthe fallacy of native speaker superiority, theyfinally realise that accent and race can nega-tively affect their teaching professionals.Likewise, Amatashew (2000) has found that

positive attitudes towards NESTs can make students more successful in learning listen-ing and speaking. Additionally, the studies of Lee (2000) and Lippi-Green (1997) in-dicate that teachers with non-native accents have been perceived by students as less qualified and less effective. This bias be-comes stronger in an English conversation class where there is an expectation that the teacher should be fluent in the target lan-guage, and such fluency is always associ-ated with NESTs (Kramsch, 1997). Ac-cording to the studies of Braine (1999) and Thomas (1999), students initially perceived NESTs as perfect models in language learn-ing, but they become better familiar to quali-fied, competent NNESTs. This is because NNESTs can better understand their lan-guage problems and needs.

METHOD

Research Rationale

This research study was conducted within a critical framework which aims for social equality and emancipation. In order to liberate people, it is necessary to think first that people suffer from inequality and are not free even though challenging unfair-ness is not always possible. It is apparent that the participants are aware of their rights and situations to some extent. Raising awareness of such inequalities is an impor-tant step to overcoming them. Hence, the researcher intends to question unfairness critically, which is considered the first step to emancipation (Pennycook, 2001). This study is based on a critical paradigm which aims at making the teacher participants who

48

Kasma Suwanarak

are considered as unqualified to teach Lis-tening and Speaking courses realise that thisalleged discrimination and injustice is a realchallenge for them to make their voice heardand to be free from being treated unfairly.

Research Methodology

A methodology employed within thecritical framework is ideology critique. It isa reflective practice which enables partici-pants to reveal their conscious or uncon-scious interests to see whether a systemsuppresses a generalisable interest(Habermas, 1976). According to the pur-pose of critical theory, it aims to understandand change situations based on equality anddemocracy. This is also in relation to a criti-cal practice which is concerned with ques-tioning what is meant by in our reality andthe official accounts of how they came tobe the way they are (Dean, 1994). Thus,critical theory has an important role in theprocess of taking social inequality and thepossibility of change. In particular, it seeksto emancipate the disempowered and toenhance individual freedoms (Cohen et al.,2003; Habermas; 1972).

Regarding the research purpose, thereare three stages in this study. Firstly, the re-searcher described and interpreted whatwas going on in the context of this study inaddition to accounting for how the inequitycame into existence. Secondly, the partici-pants were asked about unfairness happen-ing to TETs in their contexts. Also, the re-searcher offered them a critical alternativefor changing the situation. Finally, the firstand second phases were combined andanalysed to see what changes to the situa-tion in practice could be made, including

how the participants were made aware ofthe issues of injustice.

Participants

The participants are 16 Thai Englishteachers who have been teaching English ina public university in Thailand for 2-17years. Their ages range from twenty-nineto forty-six. All of them hold at least aMaster’s degree in English Language Teach-ing (ELT) or in related areas.

Data Collection Method

It is evident in various studies on criticalissues regarding nativeness and non-native-ness that different methods have been em-ployed such as closed questionnaires, open-ended questionnaires, observation, and in-terviews. According to Holstein andGubrium (1995), interviews have been usedas the main source of data collection or as asource complimentary to other proceduresin many studies. Also, Mills (2001) remarksthat interviews can help researchers accessto personal reflections and thoughts of therespondents that could provide insight intothe particular situation.

Hence, in this study, only semi-struc-tured, in-depth interview was employed inorder to allow the participants to expresstheir feelings and thoughts and be guidedand focused at the same time. This methodenabled the researcher to prompt theinterviewees to explain and expand on theirinsightful ideas when they provided incom-plete answers or too little information aboutthe areas under investigation. In so doing,the researcher could follow issues that mightbe overlooked when the questions were ini-

49


tially drawn up. In order to meet the needsof the present study, the researcher con-structed her own instrument by formulatingspecific in-depth interview questions, giventhe nature of small scale research and con-textual and cultural uniqueness of the par-ticipants. The questions could help theinterviewees to reveal their conscious orunconscious interests. Prior to the mainstudy, the pilot interview was also carriedout with three of the TETs in the context.They commented that the questions askedwere comprehensible, straightforward, andrelevant to the purpose of the study.

Data Collection Procedures

Interview questions were formulatedbased on the research questions (see Ap-pendix). All questions were provided in Thaito minimise the risk of the participants’ mis-understanding. Different wordings in trans-lation were resolved through discussion withan expert in TESOL. Then, all the 16 TETswere asked for the interviews, with an ex-planation of research objectives and assur-ance about anonymity.

All interviews were undertaken person-ally at the interviewees’ office. Time arrange-ments were well prepared and each inter-view lasted approximately thirty to forty-fiveminutes. The interviews were conducted inThai and the respondents were free toemphasise any answers if they wished. Theinterview scripts were translated into En-glish and were then returned to theinterviewees via e-mail to allow them to re-view the scripts and add any additional in-formation. Finally, a native English lecturerhelped the researcher to ensure acceptabletranslation of interview scripts into English.

According to Holliday (2002), qualita-tive researchers need to examine situationsthrough the eyes of participants rather thanthemselves. At the same time, qualitativeresearchers have to be aware that their per-sonal experiences and insights are an im-portant part of the inquiry as they them-selves are considered the data collectinginstrument.

In this study, qualitative data from theinterviews were analysed by using an inter-pretive approach. First of all, the researchertranscribed all the 16 interviews into English.Then, all the transcripts were analysed toidentify categories according to the answersto the interview questions. Also, the re-searcher employed a coding process wherethe transcripts were read carefully to codecontent to the emerging categories. For thepurpose of participants’ anonymity, the in-terviews of all participants were named ‘A’to ‘P’ in the data analysis process. Finally,the groupings were discussed with the ex-pert in TESOL to provide validity with thedata. In addition, the researcher ensured thatthe phenomenon under study was accuratelyreflected as perceived by the participantsand could help find answers to the researchquestions.

Limitations

This study is based on a critical para-digm which aims at emancipating people andsocial equality. In reality, it is not always pos-sible. As a minimum, the researcher intendedto raise the participants’ awareness and toquestion the inequity issues which are con-sidered critical in the context of this study.In addition, the researcher could not sup-port the issue of unfairness occurring in this

50

Kasma Suwanarak

particular context with the documents aboutinternal policies, indicating that only NESTsare allowed to teach Listening and Speak-ing courses.

Findings and Discussion

Qualitative data collected from the in-terview were analysed by using an interpre-tive approach. Various issues correspond-ing to the two research questions will bereported and discussed. An overview of in-terview questions and findings can be foundin Table 1 and 2 (see Appendix).

Findings of Research Question 1 “Whatdo TETs think of the non-nativespeaker label?”

Being a non-native speaker?All of the participants (16) perceived

themselves as non-native English speakingteachers. They reasoned that they were na-tive Thai speakers who acquired Thai as thefirst language. English was not their mother-tongue. They considered Thai their nativelanguage as it represented their cultural iden-tity. The following quotations illustrate these:

“I don’t think I am a native En-glish speaker because I was born inThailand and have been using Thaias the first language”.

and:“English is not my mother-

tongue. I can’t use English as natu-ral as native English speakers. MyEnglish speaking still has Thai ac-cent, I think”.Even though some of the TETs could

speak English fluently, they perceived thatnative English speakers were better language

users. In addition, they merely learned En-glish as an additional language.

The notion of “The ideal teacher of En-glish is a native speaker of English”.

Ten participants had positive views to-wards this notion. As English was a nativespeaker’s mother-tongue, TETs consideredthat NESTs were the most expert at theirown language and cultures. Interacting andpracticing communicative skills with nativespeakers helps learners to obtain useful ex-pressions and correct pronunciation. Onesaid that:

“I think NESTs are more compe-tent in language uses because theyare native speakers. They would bemore accurate in accents and pronun-ciation as well as more insightful intheir own culture”.However, the English speaking world

is very diverse. Many English speakingcountries (e.g. the UK, the USA, Canada,Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand) tosome extent have different idiomatic expres-sions and accents. Hence, English languagelearners surely have a diversity of prefer-ence for NESTs.

Interestingly, another six participants ar-gued that there was no empirical evidenceindicating that NESTs were better thanNNESTs. Both NESTs and NNESTs havedifferent strengths and weaknesses. Beinga native speaker does not mean that he/shewas an ideal teacher. Many factors are in-tegrated in an ideal teacher of English; e.g.,educational background and teaching ex-perience. In this regard, some TETs whocan achieve native-like English proficiencycan be ideal English teachers. As quotedfrom the interview, one explained:

51


“An ideal teacher would be a fan-tastic teacher, regardless of nation-ality. In my view, many successful andqualified teachers are not necessaryto be native speakers of English”.

Effects of professional identities onteaching Listening and Speaking

All of the participants (16) believed thatprofessional identities of NESTs and TETscould affect students’ attitudes and TETs’self-confidence. Regarding students’ atti-tudes, ten respondents felt that studentsmight not perceive as credible the Englishproficiency of TETs. Consequently, thiscould lead TETs to the loss of self-confi-dence in their teaching profession. One ofthem stated:

“I thought that Thai students pre-fer to study Listening and Speakingwith NESTs who better know how tospeak properly and naturally. Withregard to this reason, it could makeme inferior to NESTs that my confi-dence declines”.However, one TET commented that

professional identity of TETs might not af-fect the basic level of Listening and Speak-ing courses. Additionally, teaching experi-ence and qualifications could form credibil-ity of professional identity.

Advantages of NESTsTen participants considered that learn-

ing Listening and Speaking courses withNESTs would be a definite advantage toThai students in terms of language compe-tence. The students would have an oppor-tunity to become more familiar with nativespeakers. The greater possibility is improv-ing proficiency in English. One interesting

comment was that learning Listening andSpeaking with NESTs required much effortand attention in trying to communicate withthe teachers in English. He reflected:

“I feel that learning listening andspeaking skills with NESTs is morechallenging. It is unavoidable tospeak Thai with TETs when there aresome difficulties in expressing theirideas”.In terms of cultural knowledge, six re-

spondents believed that students could learnthe culture of the target language in greaterdepth from the actual source, and that somediscussions about cultural differences couldbe an interesting topic in class. Additionally,with regard to the English speaking world,differences among NESTs based on theircultural background could provide languagelearners a diversity of cultural knowledge.

Advantages of TETsEven though some of them agreed with

the notion of “The ideal teacher of Englishis a native speaker of English”, all of the par-ticipants (16) considered themselvesfavourable to TETs teaching Listening andSpeaking courses to some extent. The TETsknow well how Thai students feel whenlearning Listening and Speaking becausethey have experienced this stage before.They can provide appropriate lessons andactivities which correspond to students'abilities and needs.

Six respondents suggested that learn-ing the basic level of Listening and Speak-ing courses with TETs would be more ef-fective. TETs can use Thai to describe ba-sic knowledge of communicative English.Regarding linguistic knowledge, TETs wouldbetter understand the differences of pho-

52

Kasma Suwanarak

netic systems between two languages. Bythis, they can explain clearly the differencesof Thai and English articulation. When learn-ers progress to advanced or intermediatelevel, they should study with NESTs so asto become more familiar to English.

Discussion of findings of ResearchQuestion 1

From the study, all of the participantscomfortably accepted the ‘non-native’speaker label, claiming that English is nottheir native language and they learn Englishas an additional foreign language. The TETssee themselves as Thai, no matter how muchEnglish they have studied and that their deepunderstanding of Thai and teaching qualifi-cation are superior to those of English.

According to Braine (1999), the accep-tance of the title ‘non-native’ speakers im-plies the very distinction and lack of iden-tity. To this point, even though the TETsaccept the difference, it does not mean thatthey completely lose their identity. From theresearch findings, all of the participants cansee the differences between NESTs andTETs as well as their strengths in teachingListening and Speaking courses. In addi-tion, most of them appear confident that theycan be in a better position when teachingthe basic level of Listening and Speakingcourses. Hence, this would not lead TETsto low self-esteem as a teaching professionalas Braine (ibid.) claims.

Nevertheless, all of the TETs believethat professional identities of NESTs andTETs can affect students’ attitudes andTETs’ self-confidence since students mightnot be credible to the English proficiency ofTETs. This can be implied that the TETs are

being discriminated by a ‘non-native’ label.They accept the added pressure of assert-ing themselves in the profession as compe-tent English speakers (Maum, 2001).Hence, it is a fact that ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ labels have been completely involvedin this particular context. From a criticalstance, it is apparent that ‘native and non-native speaker labels’ are so strong that aclear line between native speakers and non-native speakers is drawn regardless of teach-ers’ experience and teaching ability. As forTETs, lacking English proficiency comparedwith NESTs might lead to a loss of credibil-ity of their teaching professionals.

Taking Davies (1991) into account, thenative speaker identity is considered as asociolinguistic construct which can be over-come within certain circumstances. A ‘na-tive speaker label’ implies a false assump-tion that challenges the credibility of NNSs.With this regard, the TETs may need to beagainst to what they are labelled. Knowingmore than one language and being able toteach in a foreign language can empowerthem in their EFL context. Their ability touse two languages can benefit from sharingthe learners’ mother tongue and can facili-tate the teaching and learning process(Medgyes, 1992). In addition, the TETs canprove to their students that they, Thai En-glish teachers, have in fact acquired a for-eign language, and that therefore the stu-dents can as well. This is concurrent withPhillipson (1992), who has a view that quali-fied and trained NNEST can contribute inmeaningful ways to ELT by virtue of theirown experiences as English language learn-ers and their training and experience asteachers.

In addition, the results of this study ap-

53


pear parallel to the notions of many schol-ars who debate over the NS-NNS di-chotomy in ELT profession (e.g., Davies,1991; Medgyes, 1994; Nayar, 1994). Theideology that native speakers are the idealteachers of language leads to the practiceof treating TETs differently from NESTs inthe unfair ways; i.e., in this context onlyNESTs are allowed to teach Listening andSpeaking course. Therefore, this ideologyneeds to be rejected; otherwise, the TETswill be eventually negatively defined as in-capable language teachers either by them-selves or by the academic administrators.

Findings of Research Question 2 “Howdo TETs react to the policy which statesthat Listening and Speaking coursesmust be taught by NESTs only?”

Qualifications for Listening and Speak-ing teachers

From the interview responses, four as-pects of teachers’ qualifications for Listen-ing and Speaking courses emerged. Mostparticipants (14) considered having a de-gree in ELT or in other related areas as anecessity. Otherwise, having taken a pre-service training course in ELT was neces-sary. One of them explained:

“It would be very beneficial if theteachers’ degree corresponds to thesubject they teach. Knowing onlyhow to speak and use English is notenough. As well as without trainingin ELT, teachers might not knowhow to manage the classroom andfind it hard to make students under-stand”.Second, a number of respondents also

considered teaching experience as another

important qualification. One explained thatthe more teaching experience the teacherhad, the better teaching performance was.Third, in terms of language awareness, lin-guistic skills and knowledge would helpteachers understand the differences of En-glish and Thai phonetic systems and couldguide students to articulate words clearly.Additionally, teachers needed to have cul-tural awareness of the target language andof students’ language in order to better un-derstand the students’ attitudes towardsEFL learning.

NESTs with a degree in ELT: Is it nec-essary?

Ten participants indicated that NESTsneeded to have a degree in ELT or in otherrelated areas whereas four other respon-dents perceived that at least NESTs neededto have taken a pre-service training coursein ELT. In addition, having some teachingexperience would be an advantage. Fromthe interview responses, a degree or a trainingcourse in ELT could help guarantee thatNESTs know how to teach English andwere familiar with other aspects of languageteaching (e.g., lesson planning, testing, andteaching evaluation). One commented:

“Proficiency in listening andspeaking English is not enough. Inotice that a NEST without a degreein ELT couldn’t explain clearly whyhe uses grammatical structures thatway”.In this particular context, it is not a re-

quirement for NESTs to have a degree inELT, whereas TETs must hold at least aMaster’s degree in ELT. In this regard, oneof the participants ridiculed that NESTswere qualified by means of the academic

54

Kasma Suwanarak

policy as they were native English speak-ers.

Another interesting comment was raisedby some respondents. They claimed that itwas the values of Thai society which re-garded a degree as an official proof ofknowledge. Other aspects, such as teach-ing skills and practices, were more impor-tant than having the degree. Many teacherswithout a degree in this area could teachbetter than ones who hold a particular de-gree. The quotation below gives a typicalidea of this response:

“Degree qualification merely en-hances credibility to English teach-ers. It sometimes excludes many tal-ented teachers who don’t have a de-gree”.

What if TETs teach Listening andSpeaking courses?

With a degree qualification and teach-ing experience in ELT, the participants wereasked if they would like to teach Listeningand Speaking courses as well as if they couldteach more effectively. Three different opin-ions emerged from the interview.

. Certainly, I would love to have theopportunity.Nine respondents were interested in

having the opportunity. One of them wasconfident that she could teach as well asNESTs could do, or even better.The following quotation illustrates this:

“I can better understand and dealwith Thai students than NESTs. I notonly have a good command of com-municative skills but know what thedifferences between Thai and Englishphonetic systems are”.

Another three insisted that at the basiclevel they could teach more effectively thanNESTs. One interestingly noted that stu-dents at the basic level still need a lot ofassistance from TETs to give some expla-nations in Thai and to discuss what theirneeds and learning problems were.

. Certainly not.Two other participants asserted that

they were not keen on teaching thesecourses. Without having experience in for-eign countries and much exposure to inter-acting with foreigners, one participant per-ceived herself incompetent in teaching lis-tening and speaking skills. As English wasthe NESTs’ mother-tongue, NESTs coulddo this job better and more effectively. Simi-larly, another made a comparison with Thailanguage teaching and learning; no one couldteach Thai better than Thai native speak-ers. One respondent remarked:

“I couldn’t be as perfect as NESTsin terms of pronunciation and accent.I don’t think I am aware of culturalknowledge of the target language aswell as the language owners”.From this viewpoint, these two TETs

might forget that the purpose of teachingEnglish to Thai students is to help them tobe able to use English as a foreign languageand to apply their knowledge to their futurecareers. It is impossible that Thai people,as foreign language teachers and learners,can speak like native speakers. Addition-ally, it is the fact that most of the speakersof English in the world are not native speak-ers of English. The English speaking worldis very diverse when we compare countriesas different as Ireland, the UK, the USA,Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. All

55


have different cultures, idiomatic expres-sions, accents, and so on. Hence, the na-tiveness cannot guarantee the best qualityof teaching.

. Not sure.Another two respondents could not say

exactly whether they could do better ormore effectively until they had a chance totry these courses and saw what the teach-ing and learning outcomes were. One ofthem added that effectiveness of teachingdepended on various factors; e.g., learners’ability, teaching performance, course levels,learners’ motivation, teaching evaluation,and learning outcomes. With this, the teach-ers could not know how effective their teach-ing practice was by using only their personaljudgement.

Reactions to the policy: Taking up achallenge?

The last question was intended to offera critical viewpoint to the participants byquestioning the academic policy whichstated that “Listening and Speaking coursesmust be taught by NESTs only”. Two dif-ferent reactions emerged from the partici-pants: positive reactions and negative reac-tions. According to the positive reactions,four participants concurred with the aca-demic policy. NESTs were considered morequalified to teach these courses as they werecompetent in English proficiency and couldbring the most beneficial learning outcomesto students. One reasoned:

“It doesn’t matter as long as stu-dents are satisfied with their learn-ing outcomes and NESTs’ teachingpractice”.Regarding negative reactions, twelve

participants felt resistant inside and havenever expressed their feeling aloud. Theyconsidered it unfair. At least, TETs shouldbe given an opportunity to try these courses.One of them reflected:

“It’s not fair! I wish the policymakers took this issue into consider-ation. Some of us are better qualifiedto teach in terms of understandingof different aspects between Thai andEnglish, and learning problems ofThai students”.In respect of professional identity, eight

respondents remarked that both NESTsand TETs were English language teachers,but they were treated differently. Conflictsand potential problems could happen toTETs: the loss of credibility and self-esteemin teaching profession, for instance. In thisregard, eight of the participants would liketo see some changes. Yet, no one has op-posed the policy explicitly and has revealedwhat the actual reactions were. One inter-estingly noted:

“We should stand up for ourrights. We shouldn’t just comment onthe unfair policy. Instead, this issuemust be raised up and discussed for-mally at the faculty meeting in orderto have some change”.

Discussion of findings of ResearchQuestion 2

The results of the study showed that adegree qualification was considered themost important aspect for teaching Listen-ing and Speaking courses, and trainingcourses in ELT and teaching experiencewere also required. Considering the edu-cational background and teaching experi-

56

Kasma Suwanarak

ence of TETs in this context, their qualifica-tions meet all the requirements. Hence, TETswondered why it was not necessary forNESTs to have a degree in ELT or even inother related areas: one of them had onlysix months teaching experience of Englishat a private school in Thailand. Interestingly,one TET made a pointed remark about thedegree qualification of NESTs:

“At least NESTs’ qualificationmatches with the academic policy asthey were native English speakers”.It is in the light of this that in the EFL

context in Thailand, teachers who are na-tive speakers of English usually seem to beequipped with privileges in relation to teach-ing professionals merely because they are'native speakers’. In accordance with oneparticipant’s claim, the reaearcher’s as-sumption is that the academic administra-tors are not concerned about the value ofThai society which regards a degree as aknowledge evaluation and a fair credentialwhen recruiting NESTs. To add to this, ac-cording to Maum (2001), a growing num-ber of native English speakers without teach-ing qualifications have been hired than quali-fied and experienced NNESTs. This can beattributed to a ‘native speaker’ label whichundermines the required qualifications forEnglish language teaching.

In terms of language and cultural aware-ness, the participants believe that these twoaspects are also important for teaching Lis-tening and Speaking, whilst these might beconsidered more important than a degreequalification in other contexts. It can bedrawn up that most of the TETs perceivedthemselves to be inferior to NESTs in com-municative competence although they havesuperior degree qualifications. They ac-

cepted that NESTs were more qualified inlanguage proficiency and cultural knowledge.Similarly, Samimy and Brutt-Griffler’s(1999) study reveals that the NNS gradu-ate students in TESOL do not consider NSssuperior in every aspect, but only more pro-ficient in the use of authentic English. Theparticipants have a view which is consistentwith Medgyes (1992) that effectiveness oflanguage teaching is not based on native-ness or non-nativeness. Instead, effectiveteaching could possibly depend on otherfactors (Liu, 1999; Samimy and Brutt-Griffler, 1999); e.g., learner factors, teacherfactors, and contextual factors.

Even though 12 out of 16 participantshave negative reactions to the policy, theyhave never expressed their actual feelingsaloud. Coming from the same culture, theresearcher is in accord that their acceptanceof this unpleasant situation is because of theattitude that they cannot change. Therefore,it is culturally appropriate to accept it calmly.However, the participants gave opinions thatan objection to the perceived unfair policyshould be raised in a formal discussionamong the academic administrators or policymakers. Their feeling of resistance insideshould be expressed. From their responses,to some extent they are concerned aboutthe current issue which could lead them tothe potential problem of low self-esteem intheir teaching profession.

According to Pennycook (1994), a cru-cial challenge for critical approaches toTESOL always focuses on inequality andoppression in a particular situation. By andlarge, the inequality of teaching professionexists in this context and others. In this study,through their responses to the last questionregarding the reactions to the policy in par-

57


ticular, it is apparent that most TETs areaware of the unfairness and discriminationthat marginalise them in teaching Listeningand Speaking courses. Evidently, the TETsperceive themselves as being labelled asnon-native speakers of English and how theyreact to the perceived unfair policy.

Implications

The findings of this study suggest sev-eral implications. First, both TETs and aca-demic administrators need to understandwhat the realistic aim of English languageteaching in a Thai context is. The main pur-pose is not to teach Thai students to speaklike native speakers of English, but to useEnglish as a foreign language and to achievea number of English skills which will be ben-eficial for their future careers. Therefore, itis not necessarily to study English withNESTs. The majority of English teachersin the world, including in Thailand, are notnative speakers of English. They are peoplewho speak other languages; nevertheless,they can contribute their best knowledge andabilities in teaching profession as well as oreven better than native speakers of English.

The acceptance of being called ‘non-native’ speakers reflects that TETs are con-tributing their own discriminatory. Then, theassumption that NESTs represent the idealteachers of English needs to be rejectedbecause both TETs and NESTs can beequally good teachers in their own terms.The differences in the areas of culture, lan-guage, and teaching should not be seen asnegative and contradictory but should berecognised and valued as positive andcomplementary. The unique contribution ofTETs should be acknowledged as an im-

portant and very credible force in the TESOL profession. TETs should have more self-respect in their own abilities and worth. When TETs are not considered as inferior to NESTs in teaching abilities either by themselves or by others, at least in teaching Listening and Speaking courses, the dis-crimination against TETs and a sense of in-feriority will not happen.

The issue of inequality of native and non-native teachers has been recognised in lit-erature of critical issues in TESOL (e.g., Braine, 1999; Davies, 1991; Liu, 1999; Medgyes, 1992; Phillipson, 1992). Never-theless, oppression regarding unfair policies has not been considered a critical issue of teaching career in my particular context. Hence, as the final implication, there should be more formal discussions on specific is-sues and concerns related to the equality of NESTs and TETs. Also, the continuation of using ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ labels which is the source of discrimination and injustice may be argued. On a regular ba-sis, seminars and workshops should be organised in my work context to increase the opportunities for giving voice and to help define where the TETs are now in terms of ELT professionals. Consequently, these im-portant issues should be raised in the uni-versity annual conference which is recognised as a forum for academic discus-sions. In this way, various new perspectives, such as collaborative team teaching by TETs and NESTs, and the fairer policy would be given greater consideration.

CONCLUSION

This study investigated the perceptions

58

Kasma Suwanarak

of Thai English teachers towards the policyof “Listening and Speaking courses must betaught by NESTs only”. The participantshave offered various viewpoints regardingnative and non-native speaker issues andreactions to this perceived unfair policy.With the methodology employed in thestudy, ideology critique, the participants pro-vided their subjective critical perspectiveallowing them to see the inequality and dis-crimination existing in their workplace.

From the study, the participants ac-cepted the ‘on-native’ label and could seethe differences between NESTs and TETsas well as their strengths in teaching Listen-ing and Speaking courses. To some extentthey were concerned about the issue of in-equality which could lead them to the po-tential problem of self-esteem in their teach-ing profession. Various interesting aspectsregarding the reactions to the unfair policywere revealed. Even though the participantshave realised what their strengths and weak-nesses are compared with their native coun-terparts, it is not possible to clearly indi-cate who are better English teachers.Rather, the two counterparts would comple-ment each other in their strengths and weak-nesses by having collaborative team teach-ing in order to provide the most advantagesto students. Taking this into account, theacademic administrators must reconsider thepolicy in order to bring some changes forthe better.

Recommendations for Further Re-search

Further issues have arisen throughoutthe process of this study since the research

deals with people’s perceptions in the real world. The issues pertinent to this study may be the subject of more thorough research in the future. The study can be replicated in other contexts by using similar or different methods as appropriate in order to offer a more complete view of the issue of injustice between NESTs and NNESTs. Similar re-search studies could be carried out in vari-ous educational levels and settings in Thai-land. The results obtained from these stud-ies in different contexts could be analysed and compared in order to gain a deeper in-sight. Moreover, a comparative study of NESTs’ and TETs perceptions towards the unfairness of allowing only NESTs to teach Listening and Speaking courses would also be worthy of consideration. In this way, it would be possible to investigate whether there is a mismatch or resemblance between TETs’ perception and NESTs’ perception.

REFERENCES

Amatashew, L. (2000). A Study of Englishteaching by native speaker project inelementary schools under the juris-diction of the Bangkok metropolitanadministration. Unpublished Master ofEducation thesis, Chulalongkorn Uni-versity, Thailand.

Braine, G. (Ed.) (1999). Non-native edu-cators in English language teaching.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

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

59


Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of theTheory of Syntax.Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K.(2003). Research Methods in Educa-tion, (5th Ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Davies, A. (1991). An introduction to ap-plied linguistics: From theory to prac-tice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Universitypress.

Dean, M. (1994). Critical and EffectiveHistories: Foucault’s methods andhistorical sociology. London:Routledge.

Edge, J. (1998). Natives, Speakers, andModels. JALT Journal, 9(2), 123-157.

Fairclough, N. (Ed.). (1992). Critical lan-guage awareness. London: Longman.

Gee, J. (1994). “Orality and litracy: Fromthe savage mind to ways with words”.In J. Maybin (Ed.), Language and lit-eracy in social practice (pp.168-192).Clevedon, England: Multilingual Mat-ters.

Gill, S. and Rebrova, A. (2001). “Nativeand Non-Native: Together We’reWorth More”. The Weekly Column,52(3). Retrieved on September 20,2009 from http://www.eltnewsletter.com/back/March2001/art522001.htm

Golombek, P. and Jordan, S. R. (2005).“Becoming “Black Lambs” Not “Par-rots”: A Poststructuralist orientation toIntelligibility and Identity”. TESOLQuarterly, 39(3), 513-533.

Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Hu-man Interests. London: Heinemann.

Habermas, J. (1976). Legitimation Crisis(trans. T. McCarthy). London:

Heinemann.Harmer, J. (1991). The Practice of En-

glish Teaching. Harlow: Longman.Holliday, A. (2002). Doing and Writing

Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Kramsch, C. (1997). “The privilege of the

nonnative speaker”. PMLA, 112,359-369.

Lee, I. (2000). “Can a nonnative Englishspeaker be a good English teacher?”TESOL Matters, 10(1), 1-3.

Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with anaccent: Language, ideology, and dis-crimination in the United States. NewYork: Routledge.

Liu, J. (1999). “From Their Own Perspec-tives: The Impact of Non-Native ESLProfessionals on Their Students”. In G.Braine (Ed.), Non-Native Educatorsin English language Teaching(pp.159-176). Mahwah, New Jersey:LEA.

Maum, R. (2001). “Non-native EnglishSpeaking Teachers in the English Teach-ing Profession”. ERIC Digest. Re-trieved September 18, 2009 from http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-4/teach-ing-profession.htm

Medgyes, P. (1992). “Native or Non-Na-tive: Who’s worth more?”. ELT Jour-nal 46(4), 340-349.

Medgyes, P. (1994). The Non-NativeTeacher. London: Macmillan.

Nayar, P. B. (1994). “Whose English is it?”TESL-EJ, 1(1), F-1. Retrieved Sep-tember 12, 2009, from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej01/f.1.html.

Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural poli-tics of English as an international lan-guage. London: Longman.

60

Kasma Suwanarak

Pennycook, A. (1999). “Introduction: Criti-cal approaches to TESOL”. TESOLQuarterly, 33(3), 329-348.

Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical AppliedLinguistics: A Critical Introduction.London: LEA.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperial-ism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Quirk, R. (1995). Grammatical and lexi-cal variance in English. London:Longman.

Rampton, B. (1990). “Displacing the ‘na-tive speaker’: Expertise, affiliation, andinheritance”. ELT Journal, 44(2), 97-101.

Samimy, K. and Brutt-Griffler, J. (1999).“To be a native or non-native speaker:perceptions of non-native students in aGraduate TESOL Program”. In G.Braine (Ed.), Non-Native Educatorsin English Language Teaching(pp.127-144). London: LawrenceErlbaum.

61

Swales, J. (1993). “The English Languageand its Teachers: thoughts past, presentand future”. ELT Journal 47(4): 283-291.

The Ministry of Education (2009). Untitleddocument. Retrieved October 15, 2009from http://www.moe.go.th/main2/project/project.htm

Thomas, J. (1999). “Voices from the pe-riphery: Non-native teachers and issuesof credibility”. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native Educators in English Lan-guage Teaching (pp.5-13). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Widdowson, H. G. (1994). “The ownershipof English”. TESOL Quarterly, 28,377-392.


Appendix

Structure of interview questions and findings

Table 1: Overview of interview questions and findings of Research Question 1(question 1-5)

Interview questions Findings1. What do you think about being Being a non-native speaker?

called non-native speakers? Perceive him/herself as being called.2. What do you think of the notion The notion of “The ideal teacher of English

that the ideal teacher of English is a native speaker of English”.is a native speaker of English? . Agree. Disagree

3. Do the professional identities of Effects of professional identities on teachingNESTs and TETs have any Listening and Speakingeffect on teaching Listening and . Students’ attitudeSpeaking courses? Why/why not? . TETs’ self-confidence

4. What are the advantages of Advantages of NESTsstudying Listening and Speaking . Language competencecourses taught by NESTs? . Cultural knowledge

5. What are the advantages of Advantages of TETsstudying Listening and Speaking . Understanding Thai students’ abilities and needscourses taught by TETs? . Teaching the basic level of listening and speaking

62

Kasma Suwanarak

Table 2: Overview of interview questions and findings of Research Question 2(question 6-10)

Interview questions Findings6. What qualifications should Qualifications for Listening and Speaking

English teachers possess to be teachersable to teach Listening and . Degree or training in ELTSpeaking courses in your . Teaching experiencecontext? . Language awareness. Cultural awareness

7. In teaching Listening and Speaking NESTs with a degree in ELT: Is it necessary?courses, do you think it is . Certainlynecessary for NESTs to have a . Not necessarily.degree in English languageteaching or other relevant fieldsof study? Why / why not?

8. If you have a chance, would you What if Listening and Speaking courseslike to teach Listening and taught by TET?Speaking courses in your . Certainly. I would love to have the opportunity.context? Why / why not? (I could do or even better.)

9. Can you teach Listening and . Certainly not.Speaking courses more effectively (NESTs would do better.)than NESTs? If so, how? . Not sure.If not, why? (Till I could have a chance to try.)

10. What do you think about the Reactions to the policy: Taking up a challenge?academic policy that Listening . Positive reactionsand Speaking courses must be . Negative reactions insidetaught by NESTs only?

63


Documents

CAN ONLY NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKING TEACHERS TEACH …