ALWAYS LOOK ON THEBRIGHT SIDE !
BEING A NONNATIVE
Péter Medgyes
Native English-SpeakingTeachers ↓NESTsNonnative English-SpeakingTeachers↓Non-NESTs
Aims
•compare NESTs and non-NESTs
•pinpoint differences
•focus on non-NESTs
•touch upon our disadvantages
•dwell longer on our advantages
Hypotheses: Set 1
•NESTs & non-NESTs differ interms of their languageproficiency.
Hypotheses: Set 1
•NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of theirlanguage proficiency.
•NESTs & non-NESTs differ interms of their teachingbehaviour.
Hypotheses: Set 1
•NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of theirlanguage proficiency.
•NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of theirteaching behaviour.
•The discrepancy in languageproficiency accounts for most ofthe differences found in theirteaching behaviour.
Hypotheses: Set 1
•NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of theirlanguage proficiency.
•NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of theirteaching behaviour.
•The discrepancy in language proficiencyaccounts for most of the differences found intheir teaching behaviour.
•NESTs & non-NESTs can beequally good teachers – ontheir own terms.
Who would you employ?
•Only a NEST.
•Preferably a NEST.
•Makes no difference.
•Can’t tell.
Hypotheses: Set 2
Non-NESTs can:
•provide a better learner model.
Hypotheses: Set 2
Non-NESTs can:
•provide a better learner model.
•teach learning strategies moreeffectively.
Hypotheses: Set 2
Non-NESTs can:
•provide a better learner model.
•teach learning strategies more effectively.
•supply more information aboutEnglish.
Enough
•My car is big enough.
•There are more than enough cars on theroads of Budapest.
•My volkswagen isn’t a big enough car forour family.
•There are more than enough big cars onthe roads of Budapest.
•This should be explanation enough whythe mayor of Budapest considersintroducing a toll in the city centre.
Hypotheses: Set 2
Non-NESTs can:
•provide a better learner model.
•teach learning strategies more effectively.
•supply more information about English.
•anticipate & prevent languagedifficulties more effectively.
Hypotheses: Set 2
Non-NESTs can:
•provide a better learner model.
•teach learning strategies more effectively.
•supply more information about English.
•anticipate & prevent language difficulties moreeffectively.
•show more empathy to students’needs & problems.
Hypotheses: Set 2
Non-NESTs can:
•provide a better learner model.
•teach learning strategies more effectively.
•supply more information about English.
•anticipate & prevent language difficulties moreeffectively.
•show more empathy to students’ needs &problems.
•benefit from the students’mother tongue.
Critique
•Linguists
Critique
•Linguists
•P. C. activists
Critique
•Linguists
•P. C. activists
•Teacher educators
Critique
•Linguists
•P. C. activists
•Teacher educators
•Advocacy groups
On the credit side
•Publications
•Non-NEST researchers
•Confidence boost
What would you tell yournew non-NEST to do?
•Pretend to be a native speaker ofEnglish.
•Reveal your nonnative identity.
•Do as you please.
When NESTs reigned supreme
•Inferiority complex
When NESTs reigned supreme
•Inferiority complex
•The Centre ↔ The Periphery
When NESTs reigned supreme
•Inferiority complex
•The Centre ↔ The Periphery
•BANA ↔ TESEP
Hurray!
97 percent of the ELT professionconsists of non-NESTs.
Conclusion
Action plan
1.Teacher supply
2.English as a lingua franca (ELF)
3.Young learners
4.Content & language integrated learning (CLIL)
5.Information & communication technology(ICT)
6.In-school + out-of-school
7.Language improvement for non-NESTs
8.NEST job applicants
9.Collaboration between NESTs & non-NESTs
References
•Braine, G. (Ed.) (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, New Jersey/London: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
•Braine, G. (2010). Nonnative speaker English teachers: research, pedagogy, and professional growth. New York/London: Routledge.
•Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: The British Council.
•Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
•Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
•Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
•Mahboob, A., Uhrig, K., Newman, K. L. & Hartford, B. S. (2004). Children of a lesser English: status of nonnative English as a secondlanguage teachers in the United States. In L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.) Learning and teaching from experience: perspectives on nonnativeEnglish-speaking professionals (pp. 100-120). The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.
•Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: who’s worth more? English Language Teaching Journal, 46, 340-349.
•Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. Houndsmills: Macmillan; (1999) 2nd edition. Ismaning: Max Hueber Verlag.
•Paikeday, T. M. (1985). The native speaker is dead! Toronto: Paikeday Publishing Inc.
•Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
•Popper, K. (1968). Conjectures and refutations. New York: Harper & Row.
•Povey, J. (1977). The role of English in Africa. English Teaching Forum, 15(3), 27-29.
•Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
•Sowden, C. (2012). ELF on a mushroom: the overnight growth in English as a lingua franca. English Language Teaching Journal, 66, 89-96.
•Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 29, 377-389.