Comparing NESTs and Non-NESTs in English Teaching: Advantages and Disadvantages

1. ALWAYS LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE ! BEING A NONNATIVE Péter Medgyes

3. NativeEnglish-SpeakingTeachers ↓NESTsNonnativeEnglish-SpeakingTeachers↓Non-NESTs

4. Aims • compare NESTs and non-NESTs • pinpoint differences • focus on non-NESTs • touch upon our disadvantages • dwell longer on our advantages

5. Hypotheses: Set 1 • NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their language proficiency.

10. Hypotheses: Set 1 • NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their language proficiency. • NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their teaching behaviour.

13. Hypotheses: Set 1 • NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their language proficiency. • NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their teaching behaviour. • The discrepancy in language proficiency accounts for most of the differences found in their teaching behaviour.

14. Hypotheses: Set 1 • NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their language proficiency. • NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their teaching behaviour. • The discrepancy in language proficiency accounts for most of the differences found in their teaching behaviour. • NESTs & non-NESTs can be equally good teachers – on their own terms.

15. Who would you employ? • Only a NEST. • Preferably a NEST. • Makes no difference. • Can’ttell.

17. Hypotheses: Set 2 Non-NESTs can: • provide a better learner model.

18. Hypotheses: Set 2 Non-NESTs can: • provide a better learner model. • teach learning strategies more effectively.

19. Hypotheses: Set 2 Non-NESTs can: • provide a better learner model. • teach learning strategies more effectively. • supply more information about English.

20. Enough • Mycar is bigenough. • Thereare more thanenoughcarsontheroads of Budapest. • Myvolkswagenisn’t a bigenoughcarforourfamily. • Thereare more thanenoughbigcarsontheroads of Budapest. • Thisshould be explanationenoughwhythemayor of Budapest considersintroducing a toll inthe city centre.

21. Hypotheses: Set 2 Non-NESTs can: • provide a better learner model. • teach learning strategies more effectively. • supply more information about English. • anticipate & prevent language difficulties more effectively.

22. Hypotheses: Set 2 Non-NESTs can: • provide a better learner model. • teach learning strategies more effectively. • supply more information about English. • anticipate & prevent language difficulties more effectively. • show more empathy to students’ needs & problems.

24. Hypotheses: Set 2 Non-NESTs can: • provide a better learner model. • teach learning strategies more effectively. • supply more information about English. • anticipate & prevent language difficulties more effectively. • show more empathy to students’ needs & problems. • benefit from the students’ mother tongue.

26. Critique • Linguists

28. Critique • Linguists • P. C. activists

30. Critique • Linguists • P. C. activists • Teacher educators

31. Critique • Linguists • P. C. activists • Teacher educators • Advocacy groups

33. On the credit side • Publications • Non-NEST researchers • Confidence boost

35. Whatwouldyoutellyournewnon-NESTtodo? • Pretendto be a nativespeaker of English. • Revealyournonnativeidentity. • Doasyouplease.

36. WhenNESTsreignedsupreme • Inferiority complex

38. WhenNESTsreignedsupreme • Inferioritycomplex • The Centre ↔ The Periphery

39. WhenNESTsreignedsupreme • Inferioritycomplex • The Centre ↔ The Periphery • BANA ↔ TESEP

43. Hurray! 97 percent of the ELT profession consists of non-NESTs.

44. Conclusion

45. Action plan • Teacher supply • English as a lingua franca (ELF) • Younglearners • Content & languageintegratedlearning (CLIL) • Information & communicationtechnology (ICT) • In-school + out-of-school • Languageimprovementfornon-NESTs • NEST jobapplicants • CollaborationbetweenNESTs & non-NESTs

46. References • Braine, G. (Ed.) (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, New Jersey/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. • Braine, G. (2010). Nonnative speaker English teachers: research, pedagogy, and professional growth. New York/London: Routledge. • Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: The British Council. • Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: implications for international communication and English languageteaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Mahboob, A., Uhrig, K., Newman, K. L. & Hartford, B. S. (2004). Children of a lesser English: status of nonnative English as a second language teachers in the United States. In L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.) Learning and teaching from experience: perspectives on nonnative English-speaking professionals (pp. 100-120). The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor. • Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: who’s worth more? English Language Teaching Journal, 46,340-349. • Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. Houndsmills: Macmillan; (1999) 2nd edition. Ismaning: Max HueberVerlag. • 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.