ALWAYS LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE ! BEING A NONNATIVE Péter Medgyes.
-
Upload
philomena-cross -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of ALWAYS LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE ! BEING A NONNATIVE Péter Medgyes.
ALWAYS LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE !
BEING A NONNATIVE
Péter Medgyes
Native English-Speaking Teachers
↓NESTs
Nonnative English-Speaking Teachers
↓ 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 in terms of their language proficiency.
Hypotheses: Set 1
• NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their language proficiency.
• NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their teaching behaviour.
NESTs non-NESTs
Own use of English
speak better Englishuse real languageuse English nore confidently
speak poorer Englishuse `bookish' languageuse English less confidently
General attitude
adopt a more flexible approachare more innovativeare less empatheticattend to perceived needshave far-fetched expectationsare more casualare less committed
adopt a more guided approachare more cautiousare more empatheticattend to real needs .have realistic expectationsare more strictare more committed
Attitude to teaching the language
are less insightfulfucus on: fluency meaning languuage in use oral skills colloquial registersteach items in contextprefer free activitiesfavour groupwork/pairworkuse a variety of materialstolerate errorsset fewer testsuse no/less L1resort to no/less translationassign less homework
are more insightfulfocus on: accuracv form grammar rules printed word formal registersteach items in isolationprefer controlled activitiesfavour frontal workuse a single textbookcorrect/punish for errorsset more testsuse more L1resort to more translationassign more homework
Attitude to teaching culture
supply more cultural information supply less cultural information
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.
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.
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 more effectively.
Hypotheses: Set 2
Non-NESTs can:• provide a better learner model.• teach learning strategies more effectively.
• supply more information about English.
Enough• My car is big enough.• There are more than enough cars on the
roads of Budapest.• My volkswagen isn’t a big enough car for
our family.• There are more than enough big cars on
the roads of Budapest.• This should be explanation enough why
the mayor of Budapest considers introducing 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 language difficulties 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 more effectively.
• 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 more
effectively.• 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 your new non-NEST to do?
• Pretend to be a native speaker of English.
• 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 profession consists of non-NESTs.
Conclusion
Action plan
1. Teacher supply2. English as a lingua franca (ELF)3. Young learners4. Content & language integrated learning (CLIL)5. Information & communication technology
(ICT)6. In-school + out-of-school7. Language improvement for non-NESTs8. NEST job applicants9. Collaboration between NESTs & non-NESTs
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 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 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 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.