EMPLOYING NATIVE ENGLISH -SPEAKING TEACHERS FOR …

An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 1 – 17

1

EMPLOYING NATIVE ENGLISH-SPEAKING TEACHERS FOR ENGLISH COURSES: STAKEHOLDERS’ PERCEPTIONS

Nguyen Vu Phuong1, Nguyen Thị Bich Ngoan1

1University of Economics and Law - Viet Nam National University, Ho Chi Minh City

Information: Received: 18/04/2018 Accepted: 07/07/2018 Published: 02/2019

Keywords: Native English-speaking teachers, communication in English, speaking skills

ABSTRACT

Native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) are needed to teach English at many universities in Vietnam because they are commonly regarded as models for communication in English. Yet, does this rationale correspond with the views of students who enrolled in high-quality programmes and administrators (departmental and functional leaders who are administering the programmes)? This article reports on research carried out with university students and leaders at University A (A pseudonym was used for the researched institution) in Vietnam, exploring stakeholders’ (specifically students and institutional leaders) perceptions of employing NESTs to teach English speaking skills. Data were collected through an open-ended questionnaire with 65 students and in-depth interviews with 40 students (those who participated in the interviews also responded to the questionnaire) and interviews with four leaders. Data were thematically analysed through an inductive approach. The major factors that could help NESTs meet students’ expectations were their teaching methods and the extent to which they could interact with students together with communicative competence and cultural knowledge. Students viewed NESTs as models for communicating in English but also had difficulty in understanding these teachers when there were differences in culture and language uses. It was indicated by leaders that NESTs are employed as a motivating and diversifying source of teaching staff and marketing communication figures for the institution. The findings suggest that to meet students’ expectations, it is necessary that NESTs improve their teaching methods, receive training and be under a screening procedure of recruitment and quality assurance. Employing NESTs is a trend in Vietnam, but quality procedures need to be established for assuring that these NESTs comply with the quality expectation at the institution.

1. INTRODUCTION

There has been a trend in many higher education institutions: employing native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) to teach English speaking skills. Native speakers are in need due to the lack of

qualified local teachers of English to meet the rising demand for English as an international language (Alptekin, 1991). Thus, NESTs are employed for their fluency and accuracy in English no matter how skillful they are in teaching (Şahin, 2005). The use of NESTs has


2

been a subject of debate. Some researchers claim that NESTs are more successful in teaching than non-native teachers. The premise for this argument is that a good oral English teacher should have a good command of English (Jie, 1999) or being ‘foreign’ (Ma, 2012) to bring new styles in teaching methodology. For example, many NESTs have been teaching successfully in China (Jie, 1999). Another reason is from leaders’ assumption that the employment of NESTs could help increase learners’ enrolments and to stay competitive (Ardó, 1997). On the contrary, other researchers believe that having teaching skills is more essential than being a native speaker of the language being taught. In fact, it is motivation and enthusiasm, not nativeness or accent, of teachers that make a difference in teaching to support learners (Lee, 2000).

The employment of NESTs at University A was based on the institutional leaders’ assumption that NESTs could make a perfect model for students to practice speaking English (a member of Board of Rectors, personal communication, 8 October 2018). These teachers from English-speaking countries could provide an English-speaking environment. However, there have been students’ complaints about the quality of NESTs (students in high-quality courses, personal communication, 17 October 2017 and 6 March 2018). The situation at this institution has led to the questions: Is the employment of NESTs helpful for students’ learning? What problems have students faced and what should be done to improve NESTs’ teaching?

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Definitions of NESTs

The term ‘nativeness’ has been viewed from different perspectives. From the standpoint of theoretical linguistics, the native speaker is viewed as one that is capable of judging the grammatical correctness of sentences (Chomsky, 1965). In addition, the acquisition of English during infancy and childhood is a major attribute

of a native speaker (Strevens, 1992). Besides childhood acquisition of the language, other attributes of ‘nativeness’ include the ability to comprehend and produce idiomatic expressions, understand regional and social variations within the language, and understand and produce fluent and spontaneous discourse (Davies, 2004). The term ‘NESTs’ used in this paper is based on the attributes proposed by Davies (2004).

Studies of the employment of NESTs in the Vietnamese context

NESTs have been commonly employed in Vietnamese higher education institutions, which has been critically examined through research. For example, Walkinshaw and Oanh (2012) examined the common belief that Vietnamese learners of Eglish prefer native-speaker teachers to non-NESTs in learning English. The study was conducted on 50 students from two public universities in Vietnam though a survey and an open-ended self-report questionnaire. The finding was that the participants valued the qualities of an English language teacher (namely teaching experience, qualifications, friendliness, enthusiasm, the ability to interesting informative classes, understanding of students’ local culture, and advanced English communicative competence), and they believed that NESTs presented as ideal models of pronunciation (Walkinshaw & Oanh, 2012). Walkinshaw and Oanh (2014) studied students’ perceptions of the employment of native and non-native English language teachers in Vietnam and Japan through a qualitative short-response questionnaire. The Vietnamese group of participants comprised 38 female and 12 male Vietnamese learners of English at an upperintermediate level at two universities in Vietnam. The student participants from the first university were taught by five NESTs (from Australia, New Zealand, and the United States), while those from the second were taught by three NESTs (from Australia and the United States) (Walkinshaw & Oanh, 2014). Their findings indicated both drawbacks (such as


3

difficulty in explaining grammar and tension due to cultural differences) and benefits (such as being as models of pronunciation and repositories of cultural knowledge) in the employment of NESTs in teaching English. These studies provide background for the understanding of the employment of NESTs in teaching English to Vietnamese learners.

Benefits of using NESTs

The use of NESTs has derived from the possible benefits they may offer students. They have been believed to have good oral skills, a large stock of vocabulary, and knowledge about their own culture (Mahboob, 2003; Walkinshaw & Oanh, 2014). NESTs were viewed by learners as models of pronunciation and correct language use with experience of their culture (Arva & Medgyes, 2000; Walkinshaw & Oanh, 2014). Therefore, they could be viewed as motivating models for learners to imitate and use English (Benke & Medgyes, 2005) and have been believed to provide an authentic example in learning pronunciation and speaking skill (SuriatiJusoh et al., 2013). This premise means that NESTs provide learners with a native-like environment of English communication.

A number of studies such as Benke and Medgyes (2005), Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005) and Wu and Ke (2009) on the employment of NESTs suggested that NESTs represent a motivating figure to encourage learning. For example, Benke and Medgyes’s (2005) study of 422 Hungarian learners of English at different universities revealed that NESTs were friendly lively good models for imitation that were skilled at encouraging learners to speak.

Another advantage of NESTs is that they tend to put more emphasis on fluency than accuracy, so they push learners to use more English because NESTs may not be capable of using learners’ native language (Şahin, 2005). The findings from this study indicated that learners who were

exposed to NESTs were more successful in English lessons than those who were not.

In addition, NESTs may help learners develop positive attitudes towards learning English. Reviewing several studies, Şahin (2005) suggested that attitude and motivation may help learners gain achievement in foreign language learning. NESTs can be a source of encouragement to students (Wu & Ke, 2009). When learners find themselves successful in communicating with NESTs, they may have joy in learning (Miyazato, 2002). Thus, if learners have positive attitudes towards the target language, they may be motivated to learn and achieve objectives in learning the target language.

Finally, learners can benefit from learning communication skills and cultural knowledge with NESTs. In addition to being a model of language, NESTs were viewed by learners as a model to provide immersion culture (Meadows & Muramatsu, 2007). Findings from a study by Ha Nam (2010) indicated that the students confirmed that regular exposure to NESTs’ teaching helped them gain insight into the Western culture. These NESTs were viewed as repositories of cultural knowledge (Walkinshaw & Oanh, 2014). In other words, native speaker teachers appear to be a model in learning the culture and speaking.

Drawbacks of employing NESTs

Being a native speaker of English does not necessarily mean that NESTs can explain the linguistic aspects of English. Although NESTs were good at spoken communication, they could not facilitate good grammar use and could have difficulty explaining complex concepts (Mahboob, 2003). Findings from a study by Wong (2009) indicated that inexperienced and untrained NETs were being incapable of explaining grammar and vocabulary, and their confidence could last for a short period of time with anxiety about the length of the course. Learners found NESTs poor at explaining grammar (Walkinshaw & Oanh, 2014). These


4

native teachers may find it troublesome to deal with lexis and grammar because “sometimes they haven’t got the knowledge to explain it” (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005, p.230). This matter means that being able to produce fluent English is not necessarily being capable of teaching English (e.g., explaining linguistic aspects of the language).

Although NESTs’ cultural background can be motivating to learners, it sometimes constrains communication. As Arntsen (2017) argued that, regards of communication, NESTs may be incapable of clearly communicating complex ideas and structures to learners in case they lacked understanding of the local language. Then, their different cultures created tension because learners experienced a cultural and communicative gap (Walkinshaw & Oanh, 2014). Thus, their knowledge about their own culture (e.g., language use and cultural values), which is different from that of second language learners, can be an obstacle to the learning process. (Benke & Medgyes, 2005; Millrood, 1999). For example, NESTs’ lack of sharing of linguistic and cultural background made learners fear NESTs, as found in a case study on 13 Japanese university students by (Miyazato, 2002). Furthermore, NESTs’ lack of insights into the local educational context made them fail to establish rapport with learners (Han, 2005).

Being able to pronounce English correctly does not always imply that NESTs can help learners with their pronunciation. Although learners of English affirmed that they could benefit NESTs’ pronunciation (Benke & Medgyes, 2005), they often struggled to comprehend NESTs’ speech. Lasagabaster and Sierra’s (2005) participants appreciated the exposure to NESTs’ pronunciation but pointed out that NESTs often fail to correct learners’ own pronunciation.

Examining the advantages NESTs may offer learners and the problems learners may face suggests that the employment of NESTs may be

useful for students’ learning English. The extent to which NESTs are helpful to learners depends on their quality, whether they possess a body of pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of English linguistics, learners’ local cultures, and teaching experience.

Possible solutions

Although NESTs may benefit learners as aforementioned, there exist problems that need to be solved. First of all, it is necessary to provide them with training on pedagogical methodology and learners’ culture and difficulties in learning. Findings from Ma’s (2012) study suggested that it is crucial to increase NESTs’ understanding of students’ learning difficulties. NESTs can teach effectively if they are qualified with experience and appropriate training (Wong, 2009).

Another solution to the weaknesses of NESTs may be engaging them in co-teaching with local teachers of English (i.e., non-NESTs). In Chun’s (2014) study in Korea, NESTs were attributed to linguistic competence while Korean teachers of English were viewed as psychologically helpful to students and sensitive to students’ needs for their shared mother tongue and experience as learners. In a review, SuriatiJusoh et al. (2013) also found that the learners value “the collaborative teaching of native and non-native speaker teachers of the language when learning the target language” (p. 30). These findings suggest that learners can benefit from being taught by both NESTs and non-NESTs. Liu (2008) suggested that for dynamic co-teaching, close attention should be paid to “effective collaboration between co-teachers, their desire to improve learning outcomes for their students, and support from school administrators and other colleagues” (p. 115).

Based on the problems with NESTs as aforementioned, it may be necessary to have a process for quality assurance of English courses taught by NESTs. This is an administrative procedure that leads to continuous improvement


5

of teaching. The process may include establishing standards for recruitment, monitoring their teaching practice through the use of students’ formative feedback, and support for improvement.

3. RESEARCH METHOD

NESTs have been employed to teach English for high-quality programmes at University A, which is a member university of Vietnam National University – Ho Chi Minh City (considered as the centre of high-quality tertiary education institutions in Ho Chi Minh City). It has about 360 academics and administrative staff. In 2018, the number of students was around 6,800, ranging from undergraduate to postgraduate levels. The study institution’s organisation includes the Board of Rectors as top management which administers faculties, departments, and centres. The Department of Foreign Languages is responsible for teaching Business English and Academic English to all students.

The institution’s high quality programs are of two types: the first programme (called C) includes 40% of basic and specialised courses delivered in English; the second one (called CA) most courses (except Marxism and Leninism) delivered in English. NESTs are employed to teach intensive English (generally speaking skills) to help learners in these programmes prepare for other courses in English. The speaking course lasts 45 hours. The courses of intensive English recruit learners (mostly freshmen) from various disciplines. These NESTs are from English speaking countries such as Australia, Britain, the United States of America, and Ireland. The research question the study aims to answer is: What are stakeholders’ (students and relevant administrators) perceptions of employing native English-speaking teachers to teach English in high quality programmes?

The study used a qualitative case study which provides insights into the meaning of social phenomena in natural settings (Merriam, 2001b). It examined what the stakeholders perceived of

employing native English-speaking teachers to teach English in high-quality programmes. Because it was exploratory in nature, the study was conducted within the constructivist paradigm, which depicts relativist reality, a subjectivist epistemological stance, and a naturalistic methodology (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). The study aimed to understand the meaning constructed by these stakeholders through their experience with NESTs in the process of teaching and learning academic English. In other words, the authors acknowledged that “knowledge is socially constructed” by the participants (Mertens, 2005, p. 12), which suggested diverse interpretations of the reality (Mertens, 2005; Stake, 2010). Therefore, the research context facilitates a case study within the constructivist paradigm (Yin, 2009).

The employment of NESTs has raised concerns on teaching quality. University A was chosen because it employs NESTs, which provides convenience in sampling. For recruiting the most productive sample to address the research question, purposive sampling was used (Marshall, 1996). The criteria to select the student participants included their attendance in the speaking course of academic English taught by NESTs and their registration for the high quality programme. Participants were 65 freshmen (15 males and 50 females aged 18) who enrolled in 2017 high quality programmes, namely the so-called CA programmes whereby most courses are delivered in English. Students from different disciplines registered for the intensive courses in Academic English. These students’ level of English proficiency varied, around 54 of the participants had scored from 5.0 to 5.5 on IELTS tests while 11 others were at pre-intermediate level (around 4.0 scores on IELTS tests). Leader participants included four leaders including a member of Board of Rectors (MBR), two administrative leaders in quality assurance (LQA) and academic affairs (LAA), and a departmental leader (DL). These leader participants’


6

responsibilities included administering the high quality programme and have assessed to student feedback on NESTs’ teaching. Therefore, their administrative viewpoints could be relevant for being triangulated with data from student participants.

Data were collected for the study through a self-report questionnaire in English (see Appendix A) which were delivered to 65 students. The questionnaire focused on the participants’ expectations from learning with NESTs, benefits, problems, and solutions. These guided open questions were relevant to elicit these stakeholders’ general perceptions of employing NESTs. The themes that might emerge could not be anticipated, so this open format better fit the research purpose (Dornyei, 2007). In-depth interviews were conducted with four focus groups (40 students among 65 students, from four classes) in Vietnamese for the accuracy and ease of communication. Each focus group consisted of from 9 to 11 participants. Focus group interviews are appropriate for collecting rich, high-quality data in a social context (Patton, 2002), exploring participants’ understanding and experiences about an issue in an interactive manners; are regarded as a quick and convenient way to collect data from some participants simultaneously (Kitzinger, 1995). Each focus group interviews lasted 30

minutes to clarify student participants’ responses given in the questionnaire. Individual semi-structured interviews with four administrators were also conducted in Vietnamese for the accuracy and ease of communication and lasted 20 minutes. The in-depth interviews were organised based on these areas for the comprehensive understanding of these stakeholders’ perceptions.

Data were inductively processed through thematic analysis whereby data were arranged into themes (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The data were broken into meaningful pieces of information with assigned codes (Maxwell, 2005). These codes were critically examined and grouped into common categories (Merriam, 2001a), which facilitated easy access to information for data analysis and interpretation (Merriam, 2009). Thorough critical reviews of the data facilitated finding connections between the themes from which findings were explored and discussed.

4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents the findings of the study and discussion associated with areas such as students’ expectations of NESTs, the benefits they received from learning with NESTs, the problems they faced and necessary measures to solve the problems. Table 1 describes student participants’ perceptions of studying with NESTs.

Table 1. Students’ perceptions of studying with NESTs

Areas of interest Responses (n = 65) Percentage

Expectations of learning English with NESTs

• Improve communication in English 49 75.38%

• Improve speaking and listening skills with pronunciation and intonation 41 63.08%

• Have real models for language practice 28 43.08%

• Gain understanding of other cultures for future communication and disciplinary knowledge 30 46.15%

• Be helpful to their learning: friendly, well-organised, enthusiastic, showing rapport, and supportive 19 29.23%


7

Areas of interest Responses (n = 65) Percentage

Benefits of learning with NESTs

• Improving speaking and listening skills 47 72.31%

• Being as models for their practice 60 92.30%

• Gaining communication skills in a real-like international environment 11 16.92%

• Improving their confidence in speaking 8 12.31%

Problems of learning with NESTs

• Being unable to offer support in learning 24 36.92%

• Using ineffective teaching methods 55 84.61%

• Being not well-qualified to teach English 10 15.38%

• Having difficult communication because of cultural difference 17 26.15%

Suggested solutions to the problems

• Change teaching methods 41 63.08%

• Have a standardised recruitment process, monitor teaching to assure teaching quality 17 26.15%

First of all, students’ expectations of learning English with NESTs included the needs to improve communication in English such as communication skills (75.38% of responses), speaking and listening skills with pronunciation and intonation (63.08% of responses), having real models for language practice (43.08% of responses) – a good language environment for communicative activities. Students expected NESTs would provide them with good language practice whereby they could have interaction with NESTs, imitate accents, learn intonation, and use correct pronunciation.

My expectations of learning with NESTs were improving my speaking and listening skills, using correct pronunciation and intonation, implementing natural communication, and gaining knowledge of culture and academic English. (Lan-Pseudonyms

were used for the participants-QUESTIONNAIRE (QUE))

This finding concurs with a multitude of studies from which NESTs’ linguistic competence made them a motivating model of language (Arva & Medgyes, 2000; Mahboob, 2003; Walkinshaw & Oanh, 2014). This attribute is helpful to learners as they can imitate and use English (Benke & Medgyes, 2005). This explains why the demand for NESTs is high in many English courses.

In addition, students also expected to gain understanding of other cultures for effective future communication as well as knowledge related to their major (46.15% of responses). They hoped that they would gain confidence in communicating with NESTs as real foreigners.

When enrolling in the course of academic English in the high quality programme, I expected to learn a lot from NESTs. This learning would include communication capacity


8

(reactions with appropriate responses), understanding of other cultures (e.g., religions) through communicative activities. (Khue-INTERVIEW(INT))

This result indicated that NESTs were perceived as a model to provide immersion culture (Meadows & Muramatsu, 2007). Engaging in teaching by NESTs may provide learners with Western culture (Ha Nam, 2010). The cultural knowledge gained (Walkinshaw & Oanh, 2014) may lead to effective global communication.

They also expected NESTs to have certain characteristics that the students perceived as helpful to their learning: friendly, well-organised, enthusiastic, showing rapport, and supportive (29.23% of responses).

I expected my NEST to be a friendly enthusiastic teacher who is willing to offer students support and rapport such as giving detail feedback to individual students. (Linh-INT)

Because English is used for the whole session, if NESTs are well-organised they can deliver clear instruction and make students interested. (Nhat-INT)

These students’ expectations of NESTs’ qualities align with findings from Benke and Medgyes’s (2005) study in that NESTs were regarded as friendly and lively, appropriate models for imitation, and skilled at encouraging learners to use English in speaking. This finding implies that native teachers need not only English proficiency but also communicative competence to be effective in teaching English.

However, there were also a few ideas that students expected their teachers to have teaching methods appropriate for their level no matter whether they were NESTs or Vietnamese teachers of English. Nga commented: “Whether my teacher is a Vietnamese teacher of English or a NEST is good for me so long as the teacher has appropriate teaching methods” (Nga-INT). This idea reflected in Chun’s (2014) findings that learners did not

uniformly favour NESTs over non-NESTs. Either type has their own strengths and weaknesses. Chun’s findings implicated that students may benefit from being taught by both types of teachers. It can be implied that the students in the high quality programmes need effective teachers that can support their learning regardless of their ‘nativeness’ status.

From the administrative perspectives, the leaders expected that NESTs could have insights into the Vietnamese culture, professional working style, and follow the assigned curriculum. The departmental leader said: “I expected NESTs to have an understanding of the Vietnamese culture so that they could communicate with students effectively, adopt the programme appropriately, and work professionally” (DL-INT). This means that NESTs could be useful, but they may need to gain insights into local culture (Jie, 1999; Şahin, 2005). They also expected that NESTs could follow the course content and have appropriate pedagogy.

We expect NESTs to show their professional style and follow the course syllabus. (DL-INT)

Our course was designed to orient students to their future career, so we expect NESTs to follow it in teaching. (MBR-INT)

These concerns seem to concur with findings from several studies that NEST appeared to be less prepared and empathetic towards students’ language difficulties and lacked knowledge of language (Mok, 1994; Reves & Medgyes, 1994).

Benefits of learning with NESTs

The first benefit students received from NESTs was improved speaking and listening skills (72.31% of responses) such as presentation, correct pronunciation, intonation and imitating the accent. For example, Na gave her comments: “Engaging in communicative activities, I feel confident in speaking English. I perceived that I could have appropriate communication for


9

specific contexts” (Na-QUE). The departmental and administrative leaders had the same view that NESTs were supportive in creating a language environment for students. For example, the departmental leader explained: “With NESTs, students could get used to English pronunciation, the use of communicative language, and native culture” (DL-INT). The member of Board of Rectors said: “NESTs are for students’ practice” (MBR-INT). This finding is common in other studies in that learners perceived NESTs as having confidence in using English cultural knowledge of English-speaking countries (Arva & Medgyes, 2000), good pronunciation, ability to motivate learners to use English, and being good models (Chun, 2014; Ma, 2012). These attributes may make NESTs desirable for English courses because learners need a model for practice speaking English.

One surprising finding was that students needed NESTs as models for their practice provided that they have appropriate teaching methods (92.30% of responses). One participant said: “Well, we need NESTs to practice using English” (Nam-INT). This finding is similar to that of Meadows and Muramtsu’s (2007) study. They found that students preferred to have NESTs as the model of the language, a source for learning the culture, accent and grammar of the language. One of the important reasons for the employment of NESTs though not apparent is the teacher’s ability to produce fluent English, and NESTs can easily acquire this facility (Bedford, 1970; Şahin, 2005). It implies that nativeness is a dominant attribute that makes native speaker teachers a good model for practice speaking English.

Besides, students also gained communication skills in a real-like international environment (16.92% of responses) and had fun time in classroom activities. For example, a student gave her comments: “Talking to NESTs is similar to communicating in an international environment; I had lots of fun with them” (Ngoc-INT). Besides, students perceived that their interaction with

NESTs could help improve their confidence in speaking (12.31% of responses). Dung said: “When I could communicate with NESTs, I perceived I could do it with other foreigners, gaining confidence” (Dung-INT). This finding aligns with other findings in that NESTs could stimulate the development of learners’ positive attitudes towards learning the target language and motivation to achieve it: more successful in English lessons (Şahin, 2005). When students realised that they could communicate successfully with their NESTs, they enjoyed learning (Miyazato, 2002). Thus, NESTs may have helped facilitate students’ communication and their development of communication skills, which may have built their joy of learning and confidence.

Another benefit of employing NESTs from managerial perspective is that NESTs pose a figure for the institution’s marketing communication. One of the leaders indicated: “The employment of NESTs brought about a difference between high quality courses and other standard courses” (DL-INT). The member of the Board of Rectors said: “Employing NESTs aims to bring about differentiation of our brand” (MBR-INT). This case is similar in non-English speaking countries where higher education institutions employed NESTs to increase learners’ enrolments and to stay competitive (Ardó, 1997).

Problems of learning with NESTs

However, when the students experienced learning with different NESTs, the students perceived that NESTs sometimes could not help them learn anything (36.92% of responses). The first problem students realised was NESTs’ ineffective teaching methods (84.61% of responses). The areas of teaching students gave negative feedback on were uninteresting teaching activities, teachers’ reliance on textbook content without expansion of knowledge, lack of rapport and feedback, illegitimate instruction (making it difficult to understand NESTs’ messages), difference in


10

language uses, lack of interaction, motivation, and pedagogical knowledge.

Comparing my present NEST with the previous one, I realised that he lacked appropriate teaching methods. Many of my classmates have not come to the class recently because classroom activities were just boring. The teacher did not give detail feedback to our presentation: he just gave a few words like ‘good’ or ‘OK’. Sometimes I did not understand what he was talking about. He used language differently. I was demotivated because I think the NEST lacked sound pedagogical knowledge – he did not have a clear organisation of lessons. (Khoa-INT)

The leaders also indicated similar problems with NEST such as their lack of pedagogical skills and knowledge and understanding local culture.

NESTs employed at our university are sometimes travellers that lack pedagogical skills and knowledge. Consequently, they could not teach effectively. (MBR-INT)

Students may not attend classes because they cannot use English and are afraid of communicating with NESTs. (DL-INT)

This finding is similar to those of other studies. For examples, Wong (2009) found that untrained NESTs were concerned about duration of the course and were unable to explain grammar and vocabulary and their confidence just lasted for a short period of time. Without training (e.g., in classroom management and lessons in English grammar) native speakers cannot be effective teachers of English because explaining the language is much more difficult than being able to speak it (Arntsen, 2017). For instance, NESTs failed to form a rapport with students because they did not understand the local educational setting, as shown in a study by Han (2005). It is

necessary to offer training to NESTs so that they could understand students’ learning difficulties (Ma, 2012). Our finding was useful for improving the quality of NESTs; it suggests that pre-service proper training for NESTs is necessary to assure their teaching effectiveness.

Because students perceived NESTs as lacking pedagogical knowledge, they believed that NESTs were not well-qualified to teach them English (15.38% of responses). As a result, they believed that NESTs did not meet their expectations. There was an idea that being a native was not equal to ‘having the ability to teach English’. Moreover, students expected to learn academic English, but not everyday English. For example, a student expressed that: “I do not think the NEST is well-qualified. ‘Nativeness’ does not mean ‘being able to teach English” (Dao-INT). Tuan also commented on the appropriateness of the lessons: “My teacher [NEST] just taught us everyday English, not academic English as I expected” (Tuan-INT). This finding concurs which that from Şahin (2005) in that “being adept in a language doesn’t necessarily make anyone successful language teacher” (p. 29). The employment of NESTs to teach English all over the world derived from the application of the aural-oral approach (Bedford, 1970). However, if NESTs were not equipped with pedagogical insights, they could not be effective language teachers. This finding suggests that NESTs need to be qualified with pedagogical competence to teach English.

In addition, students also found it difficult to communicate with NESTs because of the difference in cultures (26.15% responses). As one student commented: “Our NEST is sometimes difficult to understand because what he said was quite different from our cultures. Another sensitive aspect is that he dresses casually [untidily] and…” (Minh-INT). This result is similar to findings from a case in Russia whereby Millrood (1999) found that NESTs were not as effective as expected because of differences in cultures and expectations. The author also


11

commented that these NESTs were employed for their command of English and ‘being foreign’ in teaching. This finding is similar to Walkinshaw and Oanh’s (2014) result that perceived a cultural and communicative gap created tension. Different linguistic and cultural attributes make NESTs’ teaching style different from that of local teachers (Ma, 2012). This result suggests that for NESTs to be effective and successful in interaction with learners, it may be necessary for them to understand the local culture.

Finally, another problem from the view of the management is that NESTs did not have a strong tie with the institution that might lead to their lack of commitment to quality teaching. Besides, the recruitment procedure is simple and not monitored by a quality assurance body, so their quality of NESTs is questionable.

NEST came and taught here on seasonal contracts, they lacked commitment and could stop teaching any time. Their teaching is a quarter of the course length; thus, it is not enough for them to develop students’ skills. Another issue is that they did not collaborate with non-NESTs effectively. (DL-INT)

We do not have a standardised recruitment process for those NESTs , or we do not check if their qualifications are relevant for high quality programmes. (LQA-INT)

This result indicates a problem in managing NESTs for these high quality programmes with respect to their tenure status, the number of teaching hours, and collaboration with non-NESTs who teach the same course. This also shows that a process of recruiting NESTs should be monitored.

Suggested solutions to the problems

Students believed that the first solution to the problem was that NESTs need to change their teaching methods (63.08% of responses). These

changes included giving clear instruction and speech, delivering well-prepared or well-organised lessons, showing rapport and giving feedback, organising realistic, motivating and creative classroom activities such as games, and giving tasks appropriate for students’ level.

I think it is necessary for the teacher to change his teaching methods: be more active, realistic, and well-prepared. I expected care and detail feedback through interesting activities such as games. The tasks assigned to us appeared to be for kids not for undergraduates. (Thao-INT)

This finding suggests that NESTs may need training in teaching methods and local cultural and educational context. Ma (2012) suggested that it is crucial to increase NESTs’ understanding of students’ learning difficulties. This may be done by qualifying NESTs with knowledge of students’ English standards and learning as well as their familiarity with local education context.

Students also expected NESTs to change their attitudes by showing their responsibility or dressing smartly. Lam said:

Well, the present NEST did not care about us. He dressed casually (just looked untidy, and I do not like it). He did not stick to the schedule. He needs to give us care and detail feedback.” (Lam-INT)

The students sensed the difference in the teachers’ code of dressing is a sign of NESTs’ lacked understanding of local context, so he failed to establish rapport (Han, 2005). Again, this can be solved by offer NESTs training. As Wong (2009) suggested, NESTs may be very effective if equipped with enough experience and relevant training.

Furthermore, students suggested that NESTs should be carefully selected under a standardised recruitment process and their teaching being monitored to assure teaching quality (26.15% of


12

responses). For example, NESTs should demonstrate their teaching capacity before a selection panel and their profile should meet the requirements of high quality programmes.

Were NESTs carefully selected for high quality programmes? What are the criteria for recruitment of these teachers? I think future recruitment should include a screening process where NESTs satisfy the selection criteria and they have to demonstrate their teaching ability. (Van-INT)

Then, during their teaching, student feedback on teaching should be given to them so that they could know the aspects of their teaching that need improving.

Our present feedback should be given to the NESTs so that they know where to change, regarding their teaching. Otherwise, I want to have a different NEST for my next course. (Loc-INT)

This finding suggests a quality assurance process needs to be set up. One of the step is to establish a standardised procedure for recruiting NESTs for high quality programmes. This process poses minimum requirements for NESTs’ pedagogical knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The second step to assure quality and monitor teaching activities is the use of formative student feedback for teaching improvement.

To solve the problems associated with NESTs’ responsibility and commitment, it is necessary to consider having long-term contracts with them through recruitment policies. All the leader participants have the same view on the issue:

It is necessary to consider recruiting NESTs as tenured teaching staff so that they become responsible and committed to teaching for long-term interest. It is possible to assign them to teaching a complete course. Every semester, the staffing of NESTs keeps changing, so

new NESTs do not know about our organisational culture. (DL-INT)

Long-term contracts may make NESTs responsible for students’ learning. It is also crucial to assign them more teaching hours. (LAA-INT)

These leaders agreed that employing NESTs is a way to market the institution’s brand, especially the high quality programmes.

5. CONCLUSION

The employment of NESTs for high quality programmes at University A was grounded by students’ and leaders’ perceptions of their linguistic competence. In fact, native speaker teachers were necessary for students to improve English. This presents a high demand of NESTs for English courses at the university. NESTs represent motivating models of pronunciation, fluency, and communication that helped improve students’ speaking and listening skills. These teachers provided conditions for students’ practice provided that they have appropriate teaching methods together with experience. As a good example of using natural English, these teachers may encourage communication and the development of communicative competence. However, the concerns of using NESTs are associated with their teaching methodology. When NESTs lacked sound teaching methods, they may fail to engage students in learning. Their cultural background can be a source for students to learn how to communicate internationally, but it also restricts communication and inhibits students’ understanding of messages delivered due to the lack of shared values. Thus, several solutions to address the concerns may include offering NESTs proper training, engaging them in co-teaching with local English teachers, and establishing a standardised procedure for recruitment and teaching improvement. The findings from this study have posed some areas for further examination of the issue being addressed. These may include the relationship


13

between students’ learning and the quality of NESTs, the possible implementation of co-teaching for high quality programmes, and the effectiveness of NESTs’ teaching and student learning outcomes. Another issue to consider is investigating the problem from the NESTs’ perspectives.

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the students and the leaders that kindly agreed to participate in this study and share their experiences in the interviews.

REFERENCES

Alptekin, C. (1991). A look into the use of native speaker teachers in EFL programs. TEFL Turkey Reporter, 1, 5-8.

Ardó, Z. (1997). The very heart of English? On culture, language, and the native speaker’s head. TESL-EJ, 1(4), 2.

Arntsen, T. (2017). ESL Controversy: Native speakers and non-native speakers can both succeed as ESL teachers. http://busyteacher.org/4570-esl-controversy-native-speaker-vs-non-native.html

Arva, V., & Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the classroom. System, 28, 355-372.

Bedford, R. C. (1970). The role and function of the native teacher. English Teaching Forum, 8(5), 7-11.

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

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chun, S. Y. (2014). EFL learners' beliefs about native and non-native English-speaking

teachers: perceived strengths, weaknesses, and preferences. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(6), 563-579.

Davies, A. (2004). The native speaker in applied linguistics. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 431-450). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.

Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Ha Nam, H. (2010). The pedagogy and its effectiveness among native and non-native speaking teachers in the Korean EFL context. ( Unpublished doctoral thesis ), University of Buffalo, State University of New York.

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.

Jie, Z. (1999). How can a Chinese teacher of English succeed in oral English classes? The Internet TESL Journal, 5(7).

Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal, 311, 299.

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.), Nonnative language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession (pp. 217-242). New York, NY: Springer.

Lee, I. (2000). Can a non-native English speaker be a good English teacher? TESOL Matters, 10(1), 19.

Liu, L. (2008). Co-teaching between native and non-native English teachers: An exploration of

http://busyteacher.org/4570-esl-controversy-native-speaker-vs-non-native.html

http://busyteacher.org/4570-esl-controversy-native-speaker-vs-non-native.html


14

co-teaching models and strategies in the Chinese primary school context. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 7(2), 103–118.

Ma, L. P. F. (2012). Perceived teaching behaviour of native and non-native English speaking teachers in Hong Kong: Are there any differences? Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 89–108.

Mahboob, A. (2003). Status of nonnative English-speaking teachers in the United States. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Indiana University, Indiana University, Bloomington. .

Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522-525.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interative approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Meadows, B., & Muramatsu, Y. (2007). Native speaker or non-native speaker teacher?: A report of student preferences in four different foreign language classrooms. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 14, 95-109.

Merriam, S. B. (2001a). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (2001b). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Millrood, R. (1999). How native English speakers can be better English teachers in Russia. The Internet TESL Journal, 5(1).

Miyazato, K. (2002). Anxiety or admiration?: Japanese EFL learner's perceptions of native speaker teachers' classes. Paper presented at the JALT Conference 2002.

Mok, W. (1994). Reflecting on reflections: A case study of experienced and inexperienced ESL teachers. System, 22(1), 93-111.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reves, T., & Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native English speaking EFL/ESL teacher‟s self-image: An international survey. System, 22(3), 353-367.

Şahin, İ. (2005). The effect of native speaker teachers of English on the attitudes and achievement of learners. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 1(1), 29-42.

Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York: The Guilford Press.

Strevens, P. (1992). English as an international language: Direction in the 1990s. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed., pp. 27-47). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

SuriatiJusoh, F., Alias, N., Siraj, S., Witt, D. D., Hussin, Z., & Darusalam, G. (2013). Research and trends in the studies of native & non-native speaker teachers of languages: A review on selected researches and theses. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Science, 1(1), 30-42.

Walkinshaw, I., & Oanh, D. T. H. (2012). Native- and non-native speaking English teachers in Vietnam: Weighing the benefits. TESL-EJ, 16(3), 1-17.


15

Walkinshaw, I., & Oanh, D. T. H. (2014). Native and non-native English language teachers: Student perceptions in Vietnam and Japan. SAGE Open, 1-9.

Wong, C.-Y. (2009). Are native speakers “good” language instructors? A case study of untrained ESL tutors. ARECLS, 6, 122-140.

Wu, K. H., & Ke, C. (2009). Haunting native speakerism? Students’ perceptions toward native speaking English teachers in Taiwan. English Language Teaching, 2(3), 44-52.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.


16

APPENDIX A

Open-ended self-report questionnaire for student participants

Project title: Employing native English-speaking teachers for English courses: Stakeholders’ perceptions

Thank you for giving me your time today. The purpose of this questionnaire is to hear from your perceptions of employing native English-speaking teachers for English courses. I hope you feel free to be frank. I have a list of quesitions I would like you to discuss.

Please answer the following questions:

1. What are your expectations when studying English with NESTs?

.......................................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................

2. In your view, what are the advantages of learning English with NESTs?

.......................................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................

3. What are the problems you are having with NESTs?

.......................................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................

4. What could be done to solve the problems?

.......................................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................

Thank you very much for your help with my research.

Best wishes,


17

APPENDIX B

Guiding questions for interviews with leader participants

Project title: Employing native English-speaking teachers for English courses: Stakeholders’ perceptions

Thank you for giving me your time today. The purpose of this questionnaire is to hear from your perceptions of employing native English-speaking teachers for English courses. I hope you feel free to be frank. I have a list of quesitions I would like you to discuss.

Please answer the following questions:

1. What are your expectations when employing NESTs to teach the English courses? 2. In your view, what are the advantages students can have when they learn English with NESTs? 3. What are the problems students have with NESTs? 4. What could be done to solve the problems?

Thank you very much for your help with my research.

Best wishes,

Nguyen Vu Phuong

Documents

EMPLOYING NATIVE ENGLISH -SPEAKING TEACHERS FOR …