Research and discussion
Braine (1999) states that non-native English speaking teachers are credited with more
conscious knowledge of grammar, language learning experience that they can share
with learners, serving as good models and, the ability to empathize with language
learners. Some scholars contend that the native/non-native speaker distinction does
not exist (Rampton, 1990) or that it is impossible to determine (Davies 1991), while
others (Kachru and Nelson, 1996; Amin, 2004) insist upon actively dismantling this
distinction. Cook (ibid) suggests that language teaching would benefit by paying
attention to the second language user rather than concentrating primarily on the
native speaker. He argues that skilled, second language users should be viewed as
'successful multi-competent speakers, not failed native speakers'. The TESOL
Position Statement on Teacher Quality in the Field of Teaching English to Speakers
of Other Languages (TESOL 2003) states, ‘English language learners, whether in an
English as a second language (ESL) or English as a foreign language (EFL) setting,
have the right to be taught by qualified and trained teachers. Native speaker
388
proficiency in the target language alone is not a sufficient qualification for such
teaching positions … Qualified ESL and EFL educators not only should demonstrate
a high level of written and oral proficiency in the English language (regardless of
native language), but also should demonstrate teaching competency’. Regardless of
this debate, it is widely acknowledged that much teaching of English worldwide has
been and continues to be done by non-native English– speaking teachers.
Canagarajah (1999) estimates that 'more than 80% of the ELT professionals
internationally are NNS'. Bolton (2004) (cited in Hayes, 2008) has calculated that in
China alone the number of secondary school teachers of English reaches 500,000. In
the much smaller country Thailand, there are 63,450 teachers of English. In spite of
that, the second language acquisition literature traditionally 'elevates an idealized
''native'' speaker above a stereotypicalized'' non-native'', while viewing the latter as a
defective communicator, limited by an under developed communicative competence'
( Firth and Wagner, 1997 cited in Selvi, 2011). It is widely accepted that the presence
of ‘native speakerism’ (Holliday, 2005) of this kind in the English language teaching
profession leads to 'unprofessional favouritism in institutions, publishing houses, and
government agencies' (Medgyes, 2001), frequently also resulting in unfair
employment discrimination (Selvi 2010 cited in Selvi, 2011). Braine (2005) remarks
that ‘…little is known about these non-native English teachers outside their own
countries’. There are a number of reasons for this. The field of English language
teaching—in terms of textbook publishers, journals, teacher-training programs, and
teacher organizations—is dominated by British and American interests. The two
389
dominant teacher organizations in the world are the International Association of
Teachers of English as a Foreign Language (IATEFL), based in Britain, and Teachers
of English to Speakers of Other languages (TESOL), based in the United States.
Although both IATEFL and TESOL boast of members worldwide, the overall
membership is dominated by local (British and American) members. For instance, the
breakdown for TESOL shows this imbalance clearly: over 11,000 of its members are
from the United States, whereas China, India, and Indonesia—three of the most
populous countries in the world, and countries that have hundreds of thousands of
indigenous English teachers—have less than 130 members combined'. Consequently,
the global ELT enterprise has been criticized for positioning the NS as the ideal
English teacher and thereby creating a false dichotomy between NESTs and NNESTs
(Moussu and Llurda, 2008). This hegemony is also reflected in the shortage of the
research on non-native speaking teachers. Moussu and Llurda (2008) state that
'although the majority of English language teachers worldwide are non-native English
speakers, no research was conducted on these teachers until recently. After the
pioneering work of Robert Phillipson in 1992 and Peter Medgyes in 1994, nearly a
decade had to elapse for more research to emerge on the issues relating to non-native
English teachers'. They also assert that 'the publication of George Braine’s book
Nonnative educators in English language teaching appears to have encouraged a
number of graduate students and scholars to research this issue, with topics ranging
from teachers’ perceptions of their own identity to students views and aspects of
teacher education'. Moussu &Llurda (2008) provide a state-of-the-art review of this
390
research. A number of publications (Amin, 1997; Morita, 2004; Rajagopalan, 2005;
Tang, 1997) address the native/nonnative speaker dichotomy as it relates to the
disempowerment of NNESTs in both ESL and in EFL contexts. Other works reflect
on ways to modify teacher education programmes to better serve the needs of
NNESTs (Holliday, 2005; Kamhi-Stein, 1999; Medgyes, 1994). There are also
several studies on students’ perceptions of their NNESTs (Llurda, 2005; Mahboob,
2004) or the experiences of host teachers in whose classrooms NNES student
teachers had their practicum (Nemtchinova, 2005) (Ilieva, 2010). However, it seems
valid to echo Medgyes’ (2000 cited in Hayes, 2008) conclusion that ''on the whole,
the study of the non-native teacher remains a largely unexplored area in language
education”. Among the issues involved in teaching spoken English by non-native
teachers, in countries where English is taught as a second/foreign language, the
attitude towards teaching communicative skills, teachers’ perceptions of their own
identity, learners' attitudes and beliefs about NS and NNS teachers are worth
discussing. Paying a little attention to teaching spoken English seemed to be a salient
feature in most, if not all, of the countries teaching English as a second/foreign
language. In India, it is reported that teaching speaking is limited and confronted with
several challenges. Jayashree Mohanraj (2003) asserted that the B.Ed. syllabuses for
Methods of Teaching English in use in different universities make no significant
effort for the overall development of Spoken English in the trainees. B. A. Babu
(2003) stated that teaching spoken skills in India poses the greatest difficulty relating
that linguistic, pedagogical, and other factors. Pandu Yerusu (2003) pointed out that
391
the materials for communication taught in colleges are neither relevant nor updated to
suit the oral communicative needs of the new global society. In a different context
(China), a team of four specialists, sponsored by the U.S. International
Communication Agency, visited 21 educational institutions in 5 cities in Chinaillu
stated that speaking skill in a two-year course is limited. The team stated that ''The
curriculum for English majors at the tertiary level is still heavily weighted in favor of
reading activities… One element which was consistently missing was any
opportunity for students to practice communicative use of English. Students were
rarely given the opportunity to use language to state their own opinions, express their
own feelings, or communicate new information to their classmates'' (Cowan et al,
1997). In case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan Butler (2004) concluded that
''although government officials have asked teachers to begin focusing on oral
communication skills in English instruction, it is not clear whether the majority of
such teachers have sufficient English proficiency to teach English effectively or
whether they even have confidence in their ability to instruct their students to speak
English''. In Uzbekistan, the analysis of BA syllabuses revealed several inadequacies
as explained in the research article
Developing Uzbek Student-Teachers’ Proficiency
in Speaking English at the University Level
(Z. Abdullaev & V. Isanova, 2021).
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |