Essay

Student:

Kissa Cern Salas

Subject:

Applied Linguistics
Teacher:

Maria Toledo Espino

Group 101

The question Are Native English speakers better teachers than Non-native
speakers? is such an important topic, especially because English is the most spoken
language in the world an there lies the importance of having well prepare and proficiency
teachers in charge of teaching the language. This essay explains the definition of Native
and Non-native English teachers and the differences among them; in addition to this, it
shows some contrasting opinions of different authors about the implications involved in
being Native and Non-native English teachers. Thus, some examples of how being a
Native or Non-Native English teacher can affect the teachers performance in the
classroom and how students feel about this. Finally, it shows the conclusions about this
issue.
As it is well known, English continuous being the number one spoken language in
the world and the interesting thing about this fact is that the majority of English Speakers
dont live in an English spoken country. The demand for English teachers, as it was
expected form the most spoken language, grow considerably and of course teachers from
English spoken countries were not enough to cover the necessities of the world, this is the
reason why people worldwide decided to become an English teacher even when that is not
their mother tongue. Canagarajah (1999) states that 80% of the worlds English language
teachers are non-natives, this is a very shocking fact especially because it would be
expected that the majority of the English teachers around the world would be native
speakers. But this cipher only gives more emphasis to the fact that more people around
the world are interested in learn and then teach the language even when they are not
native speakers, but, what really is a Native Speaker (NS)?
Cook (1999) describes a native speaker as the one who acquires his/her first
language in their childhood. This is a simple but yet concrete definition that also set the
limits of who can and who cannot be a Native Speaker. Someone is defined as a Native
Speaker when the language of the place they born is the first one they acquire and also
grow using that same language. This is a process of acquisition because they acquire the
language instead of learning it, and by the time that they study the language in a more
formal way at school they are already able to use it in the different contexts of their daily
lives and routines.
Lee (2005) suggests six defining features of a native speaker that some authors
such as Kubota (2004); Maum (2002) and Medgyes (1992) support and agree with, these
features are: "the individual acquired the language in early childhood and maintains the
use of the language, the individual has intuitive knowledge of the language, the individual
is able to produce fluent, spontaneous discourse, the individual is communicatively
competent and able to communicate within different social settings, the individual identifies
with or is identified by a language community, and the individual does not have a foreign
accent." Even when several authors support this view, some of those features are not
completely exclusive from NS, Non-Native Speakers (NNS) can also develop this features
with perseverance, practice and throughout the time, (except for the fact that they dont
acquire the language since childhood and they might have a foreign accent) this is why it
might not be possible that NS have more teaching qualities than NNS, everything will

depend on the personal commitment to teach and to improve their language level and
dominance even when is not their mother tongue and also do the same for students.
Even some authors like Davies (1996) dare to claim that The native speaker is a
fine myth: we need it as a model, a goal, almost an inspiration. But it is useless as a
measure; it will not help us define our goals. According to Davies, the NS only represents
a model of how language should be use, but this does not mean that is the most correct or
only way to produce the language, NS only would represent a clue of how language
should be used like, but what is not correct is to use it as a source to determine who has a
good level of English and who doesnt: all the qualities and attributes that a NS has can be
also develop and reach at a high level by NNS, and the fact that they do not proceed from
a country how has English as a first language, doesnt mean that their English level is not
good enough. But, how exactly a NNS can be defined?
A NNS is someone who has another native tongue than the language being used,
in this case, it means that English would be the second language they acquire and as a
result of this late acquisition, the level or performance is not the same as a NS, it can
reach certain Native Speaker-like pronunciation but still is not the same. This assumption
has been topic of discussion for years but the reality is that even when teachers are NNS,
they are essential and necessary to cover the necessity for English Teachers worldwide
(since is the most spoken language) and without them it would be impossible that the
language has the current impact and importance that it has nowadays. And even when
they are not NS, they have gone through the process of learning the language and also
they have has some preparation in order to be able to teach, so it means that they are
completely qualify to teach in the same way that a NS would.
A Non-Native English speaking Teacher (non-NEST) is a person whom English is a
second or foreign language, who works in an EFL environment, whose students are
monolingual groups of learners and who speaks the same native language as his or her
students (Medgyes, 2001). Non-NESTs dominate the language and are completely
capable and qualify to transmit this knowledge to students, they master the language and
have perfectly develop abilities, methodologies and techniques to teach it; the only
difference with Native English speaking Teachers (NEST) is that they dont have English
as first language, but, can this represent a disadvantage talking about students perception
of the teachers?
Some scholars maintain that NESTs might be more effective in some situations and
are more aware of learners needs, they speak in English more confidently, and they are
potentially more accomplished users of English, also, they use authentic oral language
and provide students with more cultural information (Samimy and Brutt-Griffler, 1999). Just
as it was mentioned before, NESTs can represent a perfect ideal to how language should
be use and sound like, in EFL contexts they represent a powerful tool because they are
the perfect example of a good and fluent pronunciation which is very useful to students in
order to develop a similar one, moreover, practicing with a NEST give the chance to
students to face what would be a real conversation with a native speaker and get closer to
the language users and its culture, and since students are not in an English speaking

country having a NEST embodies being in contact with the language in a way that they
might not experience in any other situation in their country. Modiano (1999) states that
especially young learners have positive attitudes towards their NESTs as they display a
good model of the target language. Students can feel comfortable with the skills they are
developing because since they are having a native speaker as teacher, they might feel that
what they are learning is meaningful, useful and closer to what the language is in its
original country, this can also boost students motivation towards the language since they
are listening to a good model of language then they can feel motivated to sound the same.
But, what about the non-NESTS? How is the interaction with students? Medgyes
(1994) stated six features of the non-NESTs towards their students: they can predict and
prevent students possible problems with the language, they can talk to students in their
first language, they can teach language learning strategies more successfully since they
can be a better and more realistic learning model of English and they can be more
sensitive to students. Non-NESTs teachers can represent a support system for students
because they are not NS either, they can understand what students are going through
during the process of learning a second language and from their experiences when
learning the language they can adapt or create a better environment in order to improve
students attitude and learning towards the language. Another good thing is that since the
teacher is bilingual they can communicate better with students and in some cases the use
of the mother tongue can be necessary for the explanation of some topics, words or
activity, this is something that a NEST would not be able to do since they are not
familiarized with students mother tongue, consequently, pupils can develop a closer
relationship with the non-NEST since they can communicate better using both languages,
this can also make students feel more motivated because they are learning in a trusting
environment with the teacher understanding the process completely.
Phillipson (1996) argues that non-NESTs are to be potentially the ideal ESL
teachers because they have gone through the process of acquiring English as an
additional language: They have first-hand experience in learning and using a second
language, and their personal experience has sensitized them to the linguistic and cultural
needs of their students. Just as it was mentioned before: teachers are aware and
understand what students are going through. Furthermore, non-NESTs study and learn the
language completely different from NESTs, because in order to master the language they
had to learn literally every word they know (instead of NESTs that just acquire the
language through exposition to it) and the strategies they used can be the same ones that
they can teach to their students and this can represent also an advantage for the learners
because some aspects of the language that might be difficult for them during the process
of learning it, can be identify and make it suitable for students to learn it in an easier way.
However, being a non-NESTs can have disadvantages as well. Medgyes (1992)
states that non-NESTs generally feel unsafe while speaking the language which they are
teaching. As a consequence of this feeling, they become more pessimistic and more
aggressive and spend much less time in vocabulary and pronunciation than they do in
grammar. This is a very common and dangerous practice among the non-NESTs teachers,
that they dont pay enough attention to speaking because they are not comfortable with

their own pronunciation and instead focus in the other skills to develop. Non-Native
teachers must be very careful with teaching pronunciation because since they are not NS
they might have a different accent and/or the incorrect pronunciation of some word, this
can lead as a consequence that students produce the same mistake and finally fossilize
the errors and make them part of their speech without being aware of it because that is the
pronunciation they learnt.
Additionally, Kim, (2002) argues that some non-NESTs are likely to suffer from lack
of confidence in their language proficiency, regardless of their level. It is very difficult to
develop the language proficiency that a NS has, and as a result of this, teachers can feel
that they will never fit the standards of what a good pronunciation is, due to this, nonNESTs lost their confidence towards their speaking competences even when they have
good level in the other skills. On the other hand, Kim (2002) also suggests that non-NESTs
can gain confidence as teachers by recognizing that language fluency is not the only factor
affecting their qualification as teachers. It is completely normal not have a NS accent,
because non-NESTs are not NS at the end of the day, but this does not determine the type
of teachers they are and they must learn to accept and live with this fact, and dont let it
control the whole course that they class will follow without paying attention to speaking just
for the lack of self-confidence in this skill. Widdowson (1994), supports this view by saying
that: "real proficiency is when you are able to take possession of the language, turn it to
your advantage, and make it real for you", so, even when teachers dont have a perfect
pronunciation it doesnt mean that they are not good in the language: language proficiency
means to be able to use the language as part of the live just the way they use their mother
tongue, with the same ease and competence, in a way that producing English becomes
almost an unconscious process for them the same in the four skills (listening, speaking,
reading and writing), thats when proficiency in the language is shown, and even if they
dont have a perfect accent they can improve and study ways to develop a better
pronunciation to promote that in their students.
However, if both NESTs and non-NESTs have their own qualities, then whats the
differences between them? Medgyes (1994) claimed that NS and NNS teachers differ in
terms of language proficiency and teaching practice (behavior), that most of the
differences in teaching practice can be attributed to the discrepancy of language
proficiency and that both types of teachers can be equally good teachers in their own
terms. As it was expected from a non-NEST, the language proficiency is not the same as a
NEST, although this doesnt mean that they dont have enough level to teach, the thing is
that the circumstances in which the language was learnt are not the same as in a NEST,
especially because the only contact with language that non-NESTs had during their
preparation were the classes and maybe some foreign influences like music or movies and
thats it, that was the only opportunity to practice the language; on the contrary, NESTs of
course live in a country were the mother tongue is English and they produce the language
every day in their daily bases and it results logic that there is a big difference among the
language proficiency of both types of English teachers. About the differences of the
teaching practice, the author mentioned that those differences has to do in the way both
teachers work in the classroom: NESTs use more colloquial and real language, focus in

meaning, are more innovative and casual, prefer free activities and use a variety of
materials, among others; on the other hand, non-NESTs use more bookish language,
focus on form, are more cautious and stricter, prefer control activities and are more likely
to use just the textbook, just to mention some; Those differences between the teaching
styles just give a clue of how important the confidence is and that maybe the fact that nonNESTs dont feel comfortable with their language is the reason why their teaching style is
not as flexible as the NESTs. Those differences are exactly what give a variety and
provide the individual characteristics to both types of teachers and maybe the strengths of
ones can be the weaknesses for the others, but thats what makes teaching a foreign
language such an interesting and diverse profession.
Alternatively, the idea of having both NESTs and non-NESTs working together,
could actually result in a considerable improvement in students learning and progress, just
as it was mentioned before: the strengths of one group of teachers can be the weaknesses
of the other, and if they combine to work along, then all the aspects involve and the
differences identify could be solve in a positive way; In addition, what is missing from one
group of teachers then can be complemented by the other. Both groups of teachers serve
equally useful purposes in their own ways, in an ideal school there should be a good
balance of NESTs and non-NESTs, who complement each other in their strengths and
weaknesses (Medgyes, 2001).
There is no a better type of English teacher than other, what is different are the
teaching styles, the linguistic competences and the approaches to teach. Both types of
teachers have their good and no so good qualities and this is what it gives a diversity to
the classroom because the purpose in both kinds of teachers are the same: to educate
students with the English language. Luksha and Solovova (2006) point out that both native
and non-native English speaking teachers have certain intrinsic advantages and
disadvantages but it depends on the personality and their abilities in teaching, the results
they will obtain from students.
To conclude, Dornyei (2001) suggests that whoever the teacher is, native or nonnative, he or she should promote integrative values by encouraging a positive and openminded disposition towards the target language and its speakers. At the end of the day, no
matter who the teacher is NEST or non-NEST, the only thing to bear in mind is that the aim
is the same: improve students abilities and knowledge about the English language. As a
result of this, students will be prepare fully to deal with all the challenges that a globalize
world (where English is the Lingua Franca) can have for them, and be able to confront
them with opportunities to have a better life, a better job or career. This is what English
teachers are providing to their students and depending on this will be the future quality of
the world.
In my opinion, both NES and non-NES have their qualities and faults, weaknesses
and strengths, and that is what makes a diversity in the Teaching English as a Second
Language world, what could be a good solution to this endless discussion could be the
implementations of schools with at least one NEST that can help to improve the
weaknesses of the non-NESTs and at the same time both parts can result benefit from this

practice, especially students because they will have the opportunity to learn with two types
of teachers that will contribute with different things each and therefore they will be more
prepare for use English as the two types of teachers taught them.
I consider that another good thing to have in mind is that instead of looking for who
is worst and who is better, what should be important is to think about the students, who will
be the direct benefited or affected with this, and look for ways to increase their learning
with any type of teacher. The issue is to always think about them and make them be not
only better students of English but human beings as well.

Sources
Cook, V.J. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 33(2), 185-209.
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the classroom. Cambridge: UK. Cambridge
University Press.
Gurkan, S. and Yukel, D. (2012). Evaluating the contributions of native and non-native
teachers to an English Language Teaching program. Kocaeli University, Faculty of
Education, Department of Foreign Languages Education, Turkey.
Kim. S. (2002). Second language anxiety and coping strategies. In S. Kim (Ed.), Teaching
in the U.S.: Handbook for international faculty and TAs, Faculty and TA development. Ohio
State University.
Kubota, M. (2004). Native speaker: A unitary fantasy of a diverse reality. The Language
Teacher, 28(1), 3-30.
Lee, J. (2005). The native speaker: An achievable model? Asian EFL Journal, 7(2).
Luksha, I., & Solovova, E. (2006). Pros and cons for using non-native English speaking
teachers. Tomsk State Pedagogical University, Moscow State University. Retrieved 1st
June, 2010
Maum, R. (2002). Nonnative- English-Speaking teachers in the English teaching
profession.
ERIC
Digest.
Retrieved
April
2,
2011,
from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED470982.pdf.

Medgyes, P. (1983). The schizophrenic teacher. English Language Teaching Journal.

Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: Who's worth more? ESL Journal, 46(4), 340349.
Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan. Miles
Medgyes, P. (2001). When the teacher is a Non-Native Speaker. Teaching English as a
Second or Foreign Language. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle
Modiano, M. (1999). International English in the global village. English Today, 15(2), 2227.
Mohammad, A. (2002). University Students Perceptions of the Influence of Native and
Non-native Teachers. English Language and Translation Dept., Qassim University. Saudi
Arabia.
Phillipson, R. (1996). ELT: The native speaker's burden. In T. Hedge, & N. Whitney (Eds.),
Power, pedagogy & practice (pp. 23-30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Samimy, R., & Brutt-Griffler, J. (1999). To be a native or nonnative speaker: Perceptions of
"nonnative" students in a graduate TESOL program. In G. Braine (Ed.), Nonnative
educators in English language teaching (pp. 127-144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 377-389.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3587438