Options
Native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) and non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) in China : perceptions and practices
Author
Huang, Zheng
Supervisor
Chew, Phyllis Ghim Lian
Abstract
English is today a truly global language. As Rubdy and Saraceni (2006a) have highlighted, one consequence of the global dominance that English has gained over the last few decades is that today NNSs of English have far outnumbered its NSs. Situated in globalization, this research project aims to investigate, in the context of China, the CETs’ self-perceptions and Chinese college non-English major students’ perceptions towards the NEST/NNEST issue, and how the classroom practices of the two groups of teachers match or reflect the perceptions of the students and the CETs. Employing the diary study, interviews (both focus group and one-to-one interview), questionnaires and classroom observation, this study aims to shed new light on the research of NESTs and NNESTs in the EFL contexts.
The features of and differences between the two groups of teachers were identified first. The students’ views were generally in agreement with CETs’. Both students and CETs agreed that NESTs usually conducted the class in a communicative way with many group activities though their classes were considered to be relatively simple due to their unfamiliarity with the local context and students. CETs, on the contrary, were reported to teach in a traditional way with an emphasis on the basic knowledge of the English language. Meanwhile, CETs were considered to play a significant role in ELT due to their systematic way of teaching and their ability to prepare the students for examinations. In general, classroom observation supported the students’ and the CETs’ views except for one aspect: the transmission of culture-related knowledge. Both students and CETs depicted NESTs as culture transmitter, supplying more cultural information. However, classroom observation showed that CETs actually provided more explicit culture-related instruction than NESTs. NESTs were reported to transmit culture-related knowledge in a different way: NESTs did it implicitly in the process of teaching.
Besides the features of and differences between the two groups of teachers, findings also include:
1. Some strengths of one group of teachers were not necessarily the weaknesses of another group. For example, language proficiency, which is considered to be one of the most obvious strengths of NESTs, was not reported as CETs’ weakness by the students in this study.
2. The Chinese learners began to see English less as an object of foreign study but more as an additional language of their own to facilitate their life.
3. Many of the features of NESTs valued by the students were connected to CLT.
4. Unlike Medgyes’ (1994) hypothesis that the discrepancy in language proficiency accounts for most of the differences in the practices of the two groups of teachers, findings in this study suggested that, besides language proficiency, external constraints also played a significant role in the differences in teachers’ practices.
5. The ideologies of “Standard Language” and native-speakerism seemed to be rooted in CETs’ mind.
Weedon’s (1987, 1997) theorization of discursively-constructed subjectivity, Norton/Norton Peirce’s (1995, 1997) understanding of identity as multiple, a site of struggle and changing over time and Omoniyi’s (2006) Hierarchy of Identity theory serve as the theoretical underpinnings for my conceptualization of CETs’ professional identity. The findings suggested that CETs perceived and (re)constructed their professional identity under the NS ideology. They applied three identity options, namely, college teacher, teacher in the Chinese traditional ideology, and English teacher, to create their own meaning of being CETs, which supports Omoniyi’s (2006) HoI theory. With more NESTs coming to China with their imaginary monolingual linguistic ability greatly valued by the ELT market, the native-speakerism ideology inevitably became more powerful in CETs’ professional identity (re)construction. However, with their subjectivity and agency (Norton/Norton Peirce, 1995, 1997; Weedon, 1987, 1997), CETs managed to reach a relatively balanced power relationship with their NS counterparts through three ways: othering the NSs, exploring their unique strengths and roles, and establishing their credibility through hard work.
The findings point to a number of implications. It is important to empower the CETs by cultivating a critical view among CETs about the dominant ideologies in ELT, and by arousing CETs’ awareness about WE and ELF/EIL. CETs can be advised to take a liminal view on China English and Chinese English speakers’ NNS identity and to function positively in the glocalization of CLT. A closer cooperation between NESTs and CETs should also be promoted.
The features of and differences between the two groups of teachers were identified first. The students’ views were generally in agreement with CETs’. Both students and CETs agreed that NESTs usually conducted the class in a communicative way with many group activities though their classes were considered to be relatively simple due to their unfamiliarity with the local context and students. CETs, on the contrary, were reported to teach in a traditional way with an emphasis on the basic knowledge of the English language. Meanwhile, CETs were considered to play a significant role in ELT due to their systematic way of teaching and their ability to prepare the students for examinations. In general, classroom observation supported the students’ and the CETs’ views except for one aspect: the transmission of culture-related knowledge. Both students and CETs depicted NESTs as culture transmitter, supplying more cultural information. However, classroom observation showed that CETs actually provided more explicit culture-related instruction than NESTs. NESTs were reported to transmit culture-related knowledge in a different way: NESTs did it implicitly in the process of teaching.
Besides the features of and differences between the two groups of teachers, findings also include:
1. Some strengths of one group of teachers were not necessarily the weaknesses of another group. For example, language proficiency, which is considered to be one of the most obvious strengths of NESTs, was not reported as CETs’ weakness by the students in this study.
2. The Chinese learners began to see English less as an object of foreign study but more as an additional language of their own to facilitate their life.
3. Many of the features of NESTs valued by the students were connected to CLT.
4. Unlike Medgyes’ (1994) hypothesis that the discrepancy in language proficiency accounts for most of the differences in the practices of the two groups of teachers, findings in this study suggested that, besides language proficiency, external constraints also played a significant role in the differences in teachers’ practices.
5. The ideologies of “Standard Language” and native-speakerism seemed to be rooted in CETs’ mind.
Weedon’s (1987, 1997) theorization of discursively-constructed subjectivity, Norton/Norton Peirce’s (1995, 1997) understanding of identity as multiple, a site of struggle and changing over time and Omoniyi’s (2006) Hierarchy of Identity theory serve as the theoretical underpinnings for my conceptualization of CETs’ professional identity. The findings suggested that CETs perceived and (re)constructed their professional identity under the NS ideology. They applied three identity options, namely, college teacher, teacher in the Chinese traditional ideology, and English teacher, to create their own meaning of being CETs, which supports Omoniyi’s (2006) HoI theory. With more NESTs coming to China with their imaginary monolingual linguistic ability greatly valued by the ELT market, the native-speakerism ideology inevitably became more powerful in CETs’ professional identity (re)construction. However, with their subjectivity and agency (Norton/Norton Peirce, 1995, 1997; Weedon, 1987, 1997), CETs managed to reach a relatively balanced power relationship with their NS counterparts through three ways: othering the NSs, exploring their unique strengths and roles, and establishing their credibility through hard work.
The findings point to a number of implications. It is important to empower the CETs by cultivating a critical view among CETs about the dominant ideologies in ELT, and by arousing CETs’ awareness about WE and ELF/EIL. CETs can be advised to take a liminal view on China English and Chinese English speakers’ NNS identity and to function positively in the glocalization of CLT. A closer cooperation between NESTs and CETs should also be promoted.
Date Issued
2014
Call Number
PE1068.C6 Hua
Date Submitted
2014