Finding a Place for Nonnative TESOL Professionals – Examining the Identities and Beliefs of Nonnative and Native Speaking Teachers
Maiko Hata, M.A.TESOL
maiko@japanlanguagesolutions.com
www.japanlanguagesolutions.com
Abstract
An often-held assumption is that qualified ESL/EFL teachers are native speakers of English (NS). Given the fact that nonnative speakers of English (NNS) account for about 42% of MA-TESOL students in the US, we cannot ignore their place in the overall TESOL profession. With both NS teachers and NNS teachers in TESOL, the inevitable question of interest to ask is of the respective roles NSs and NNSs play in ESL/EFL instructional settings. As a first step to further investigate the merits and fallout of being NSs or NNSs in English teaching programs, this study examines the perceptions that NS and NNS TESOL professionals have of themselves and each other in terms of what they feel they can offer students. This study, through questionnaires and interviews, reveals different perceptions of NS TESOL professionals and identifies skill areas where NNS may have an advantage over NS. Findings from this study indicate that (1) there are differences in subjects' perceived strengths and weaknesses as teachers depending on the subjects’ status as NS/NNS, and (2) difficulties with students caused by cultural differences were observed more often among NSs than in the NNS group. The implications of these findings are that in order to create better classroom for both students and teachers, we have to consider the different qualifications that both NS and NNS teachers have.
INTRODUCTION & STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
The number of non-native speakers in MA TESOL programs in the US is
substantial. According to a survey by England & Roberts (1989), 42.5% of the
total 2401 programs in the 63 TESOL programs in the US were NNS. At the same
time, many ESL programs in the US and EFL programs overseas require job
applicants to be NS of English. This requirement may be based on the
assumption that the NSs make better language teachers “... because of
greater facility in demonstrating fluent, idiomatically appropriate
language” (Phillipson, 1992, p.14).
The purpose
of this study is to investigate this assumption. In this study, I will not
only look at the differences in the self-perceptions of their strengths and
weaknesses of both NS and NNS TESOL professionals, but will also look at how
they perceive each other.
Opinions and
perceptions of NS and NNS TESOL professionals are worthy of consideration in
exploring the previously stated assumption because these teachers have not
only had experience working with each other but they also have the
professional knowledge and expertise that allows them to reflect
meaningfully on this experience.
In addition,
the results of this study can also serve as an indicator of the areas of
teaching in which NNS teachers may have strengths over NS teachers.
There have been some attempts to help us better understand how NS/NNS are
different as teachers. Medgyes (1992) suggests that that NS/NNS distinction
lies in that “NETs (native English speaking teachers) and non-NETs use
English differently and, therefore, teach English differently” (p.346).
Palfreyman (1993) mentions the different types of approaches that NS and NNS
language teachers take when they talk about language. In doing so, he looks
at the approaches the NS teachers take when planning a lesson together with
NS teachers, and compares it with the approaches of NNS when planning a
lesson with NNS teachers. He states that it seems NNS subjects put more
emphasis on the ability to “mean”, rather than semantic concepts like the
native subjects in that study. However, he stays away from concluding this
NNS subjects is entirely a result of NNS subjects’ leaning experience. Also,
McNeil (1993) showed NNS subjects were better able to predict words in a
text that would be unfamiliar to students in Hong Kong. The results showed
that the NNS subjects had a clear advantage for such tasks.
Another interesting and related study is that of Medgyes and Reves (1994),
which shows the self-image that NS and NNS teachers around the world have of
themselves. In this study, the authors conclude that NS and NNS teachers
teach differently, which largely derives from their differences in
proficiency. This difference in proficiency, according to the researchers,
might also affect the self-image or self-confidence of the NNS teachers,
which could then also affect their performance as language teachers. Khami-Stein,
Lee, and Lee (1999) reported that NNS teachers in training perceived
themselves as having better empathy, better understanding of students'
needs, the ability to be a role-model, and a deep knowledge of grammar. They
also believe the lack of role-models in the field, "...a lack of
self-confidence..., ...perceived language needs..., ...perceived prejudice"
to be their disadvantages.
As Medgyes
and Reves (1994) suggest, it is important to look at the perception that NNS
teachers have for themselves, since self-images might affect their
performance as teachers. Another important issue which can be taken into
consideration in order to show the advantages of NNS language teachers is,
as stated earlier, the perception of NNS language teachers by fellow NS
teachers.
This is
important in the sense that if we can show that NS teachers indeed respect
NNSs as qualified teachers, then NNS teachers need not feel insecure about
their place in the language classroom. However, this has not been
investigated in the studies mentioned above. Therefore, in addition to
looking at the self perception of NSs and NNSs on their own different
strengths and weaknesses, we should also consider their perceptions about
each other.
The specific question posed in this study is as follows:
What do NS and NNS perceive to be their own and each others' strengths and weaknesses as language teachers?
METHOD
Subjects
Both NS and NNS TESOL candidates at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California were contacted and asked to participate in this study. There are several studies (Medgyes, 1992; Rampton, 1990) which suggest the concepts and terms for distinguishing NS and NNS. In this study, the subjects were simply asked if they consider themselves NS of English, and those who considered themselves NS were defined as such. Both the NS and NNS groups of subjects varied in age and gender. Since the only variable which was examined in this study is that of NS and NNS, the differences in age and gender were not considered. A total number of 28 subjects participated in this research by answering different questionnaires: One for NSs, the other for NNSs. 19 subjects are NSs of English, and 9 are NNSs of English.
Materials
In order to obtain a deeper understanding of the subjects' perceptions,
questionnaire and interview sessions were used. Questionnaires were first
created based on open-ended answers collected from Japanese college students
which had the aim of gaining some general perceptions on NS and NNS teachers
from the students’ perspective. This survey was conducted by Chang and Endo
(1997) for the purpose of their study.
Most of
questions on the NS and NNS questionnaires were the same. However, depending
on the status as NS or NNS, some questions appeared differently. For
example, questions such as “[h]ave you had any difficulties dealing with
students who were NNS who shared your first language?” did not appear on the
questionnaire for NSs, since NSs would not share their first language with
their NNS students. The first question on the questionnaire asked about
their teaching experiences. The following questions asked their perceptions
of themselves and teachers with the opposite NS/NNS status (see Appendix 1 &
2).
The first
questionnaire was piloted with two NS and two NNS TESOL students. Based on
this pilot study, revisions were made. The questionnaires were given to
thirty-five TESOL NS and NNS students at the Monterey Institute. The
subjects returned the questionnaires to the researcher within three weeks.
The
researcher then narrowed down this subject pool for the interviews by the
following procedure. Since the subjects who were chosen had to answer
questions reflecting their experience of teaching together with either NSs
or NNSs depending on the subjects’ status as NS/NNS, the criteria for this
procedure were:
(a) Whether or not NS subjects had had experience teaching with NNS teachers
(b) Whether or not NNS subjects had had experience teaching with NS teachers
5 NSs and 6 NNSs were then asked to participate in the structured interview sessions where they were asked basically the same questions as in the questionnaire, only in more detail.
RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS
Results
Responses for the questionnaire were obtained from a total of 28 MA TESOL
candidates at the Monterey Institute (19 NSs & 9 NNSs of English). The NNS
subjects had various backgrounds: 4 NSs of Japanese, 2 NSs of German, 1 NS
of Korean, 1 NS of French, and 1 NS of Portuguese.
The subjects’
teaching experiences varied. Out of 6 NNS subjects who had experience
working with NSs and teachers, 5 worked in an ESL setting and 1 worked in an
EFL setting. Out of 17 NS subjects who had experience working with NNSs, 3
worked in an ESL setting and 14 worked in an EFL setting. Because each
subject could choose more than one option, the number of the options chosen
sometimes exceeded the number of the subjects.
A majority of
NNSs with experience working with NSs (6) taught reading, writing, and
grammar, while a majority of NSs with experience working with NNSs (8)
taught speaking, listening, writing, reading, and grammar. 6 of these NSs
taught speaking and listening but not all of the skills listed on the
questionnaire. Other experience includes classes such as content (1 NNS),
TOEFL preparation (1 NNS), 5th grade (1 NS), and vocabulary (1
NS).
Lengths of
experience teaching with opposite NS/NNS status teachers also showed
wide variations. 3 of NNSs have experience for less than three months, while
13 NSs have experience from 6 months to more than 3 years.
Levels of their students showed variation. 5 of NNS subjects taught either
beginner, low- intermediate or intermediate. On the other hand, 14 NSs
taught beginner or intermediate, and 4 NSs taught all levels.
The type of
the students varied too. 3 NNSs taught at junior or high school and 2 NNSs
at college, 2 at ESL programs at the Monterey Institute. 11 NSs taught at
junior or high school, and 5 at college. 5 NSs taught at elementary and
preschool level, and 3 NSs taught adults.
Data Analysis
Two methods were used to collect the data discussed here. This was done to
obtain a deeper understanding of the perceptions that the subjects had. The
first method used was the questionnaire (see Appendix 1 and 2). For each
question which appears on the questionnaire, the subjects were given an
optional opportunity to write their own responses to the question.
The second
method used to collect the data was the interview. Responses obtained from
the interviews are displayed here along with the open-ended responses
obtained from the questionnaire.
The responses
from the questionnaire which provided countable data from questionnaires and
notes taken from the interviews were all compiled on a computer word
processor and then subjected to a review. These data were categorized
according to the key words which appeared repeatedly, as suggested by Nunan
(1992). As a result of this process, patterns emerged concerning following
categories: (1) Types of Difficulties the Subjects Had with NNS Students,
and (2) Strengths & Weaknesses as Language Teachers.
In the
following sections, I will discuss my findings in each of the categories
listed above. I will refer to the data taken from the responses, quotes and
statement taken from both the questionnaire and the interviews.
FINDINGS: Strengths & Weaknesses as Language Teachers
Self-Perceived Strengths
Figure 1. NS/NNS Strengths (Self-perceptions)
| NS Group | NNS Group | |
| Fluency |
89% |
56% |
| Speaking |
79% |
56% |
| Pronunciation |
68% |
44% |
| Intonation |
68% |
33% |
| Idioms |
79% |
56% |
| Vocabulary |
84% |
44% |
| Appropriacy |
68% |
44% |
| Knowledge of Target Culture |
89% |
78% |
| Listening Comprehension |
53% |
56% |
| Grammar |
37% |
78% |
| Reading |
37% |
56% |
| Writing |
42% |
67% |
| Knowledge in Students' L1 |
53% |
89% |
| Language Learning Strategies |
21% |
89% |
| Speech Acts |
58% |
67% |
| Cross-cultural Understanding |
53% |
89% |
Here, I would like to show
the responses from both NNS and NS subjects who were asked to choose as many
options as they thought would express their strengths.
There are some skills that NSs believe as their strengths while not as many
NNSs believe as their strengths. They are: fluency (89% of NS; 56% of NNS),
speaking (79% of NS; 56% of NNS), pronunciation (68% of NS; 44% of NNS),
intonation (68% of NS; 33% of NNS), idiom (79% of NS; 56% of NNS),
vocabulary (84% of NS; 44% of NNS), appropriacy (68% of NS; 44% of NNS), and
knowledge in the target culture (89% of NS; 78% of NNS).
We can see that many of these skills deal with aural/oral production.
Another tendency observed here is that many of the skills mentioned here
seem to be obtained from actually using the language through orally
communicating with people. This results leads to the argument by Phillipson
(1992) that I mentioned earlier in this paper stating that the reason why
NSs are sometimes believed to be better qualified than NNSs is because NSs
can show articulate aural production with more idioms and vocabulary. If
this is the case, NSs do seem to have an advantage over NNSs by having
better aural production and better understanding of idioms.
The skill areas which more NNSs than NS think as their strengths are:
grammar (37% of NS; 78% of NNS), reading (37% of NNS; 56% of NNS), writing
(42% of NS; 67% of NNS), knowledge in students’ L1 (53% of NS; 89% of NNS),
learning strategies (21% of NS; 89% of NNS), speech acts (58% of NS; 67% of
NNS), and cross cultural knowledge (53% of NS; 89% of NNS).
It has been suggested (Medgyes, 1992) that NNSs can teach learning
strategies more effectively than NSs because NNSs “... have adopted language
learning strategies during their own learning process” (pp.346-347). This
seems to be consistent with the results shown here.
Speech acts and cross-cultural knowledge are considered to be strengths more
often by NNS teachers than NS. This might be a result of the situation that
the NNS subjects were in. The NNS subjects for this study were living in the
US which could have led them to have a better cross cultural understanding
and understanding of speech acts. By learning the English language and
living in US culture, the NNS subjects had to adapt to a new culture which
might promote their deeper understanding of cross-cultural issues
Perceived Strengths of Each Other
On the questionnaire, the subjects were also asked to express their
perceptions of what strengths and weaknesses teachers with the opposite
NS/NNS status would have. This was an open-ended question.
First, let us look at the perception that NS subjects have about NNS
teachers’ strengths and weaknesses. The strengths mentioned most frequently
by NS subjects (10) was that of experience learning English as a
foreign/second language. The other frequently expressed strengths were:
better empathy for students (9), better knowledge in grammar and structure
(8), and knowledge of the target culture (6).
Here, we can see that NSs consider NNSs’ strengths derive from their
language learning experience, such as better empathy for students and better
knowledge of grammar and structure. What also can be seen is that NS
subjects consider knowledge in the target culture as NNSs’ strengths. Again,
the reason for this might be the perceptions that NS subjects had that NNSs
had to adapt to a new culture by learning the English language and possibly
by living in the US.
The weaknesses mentioned by the NS subjects most frequently is that of poor
pronunciation (9). Other weaknesses mentioned are: lack of knowledge of
appropriacy and pragmatics (7), lack of respect from students and schools
(5), and lack of knowledge of the target culture (4).
Most of the qualifications mentioned here are already chosen by NNS subjects
as their own weaknesses, and as NSs’ strengths. However, what is interesting
here is that knowledge in the target culture is chosen here while it was
chosen as NS’ own strengths as well. This shows that within the NS subjects,
there are perception differences. The data presented here might be
suggesting that there are NSs who think NNSs do not have a good knowledge in
the target culture, possibly because they do not have as much experience
living in the target culture as the NSs do.
The perceptions of the strengths of NS teachers that NNS subjects mentioned
are: Being able to serve as authentic input (4), knowledge of the target
culture (3), more trust from students (3), knowledge of idioms and
vocabulary (3), and better pronunciation and intonation (3).
It could be suggested that NNS subjects put importance on being able to
present authentic information in an authentic manner. This might be a
reflection of the NNSs’ perceptions that authentic language should be
taught, which these NNS subjects consider that they are not as capable as
NSs are.
The weaknesses of NS teachers mentioned by NNS subjects are: lack of cross
cultural understanding (5), lack of language learning experience (3), lack
of understanding of the language learning process (2), and lack of
understanding in students’ L1 (2).
Other interesting answers include such qualities as confidence (1) mentioned
by a NS subject as something that she had but which the NNS teachers she had
worked with before did not. Also, one NNS subject mentioned accuracy as her
strength and another thinks her knowledge of both the target language and
students’ L1 helps her as a teacher.
In these findings, we can observe that a lack of cross-cultural
understanding was considered a weakness of NSs. The qualifications seen as
missing in NSs are were those which come from language learning experience.
This was seen in a response by a NNS subject who said that she believes her
experience learning the language that she will be teaching is a very strong
advantage over NS teachers.
From the
findings discussed in this section, it can be clearly seen that NSs perceive
themselves as having strengths in the areas of aural production. This area
of language skills is considered a weakness for NNS teachers by NS subjects,
and by NNSs themselves. This might be an indicator of one area in which NSs
are more qualified than NNS teachers if the goal of the students’ in
classroom is to have fluency in aural production.
Also, in the
area of knowledge of the language which can be gained from actually using
the language for a long time, such as idioms, vocabulary, and knowledge of
the target culture, NS teachers to be considered more qualified than NNS
teachers.
As for the
advantages of NNS teachers, it was perceived that they might have better
grasp of the structure of English from their own learning experience. Also,
NNS teachers might have more empathy for the students for the same reason.
In addition, even with students from different cultural backgrounds, NNS
teachers might be better qualified in a way because of their shared
experience of learning the target language. The results suggest that they
are perceived to have a good understanding of cross-cultural issues,
possibly because they have learnt the English language and English-speaking
countries’ culture, sometimes by living in English-speaking countries. These
findings were observed in self-perceptions as well as in the perceptions of
the NS subjects. If these strengths are what is needed for the classroom,
NNS teachers could be considered better qualified.
Findings: Difficulties Subjects Had with Students
Figure 2. Problems with Students
|
NS |
NNS | ||
|
|
students with different L1 | students with the same L1 | |
| Yes |
42% |
33% |
|
| No |
47% |
33% |
33% |
| Depends |
5% |
33% |
33% |
| N/A |
5% |
0% |
22% |
For the questionnaire, there were two questions for NNS subjects in this
category: Problems with students who shared their first language with the
subjects, and with the ones who did not.
With students
from different L1 backgrounds, all the NNS subjects explained that their
frustration was caused because they could not speak the students’ L1. The
difficulties mentioned here are: Could not communicate effectively (1),
could not understand students’ heavy accent (1), and could not explain
vocabulary well in English (1).
The
difficulty of not being able to communicate well with students who did not
share their L1 was also observed in the NS group. 2 NS subjects expressed
such frustration. This was obviously caused by their limited knowledge in
the students’ L1. One NS explained that “students were often more
comfortable talking about classroom dynamics/difficulties with the Japanese
NSs.”
Another type
of difficulty that the NS subjects had was of cultural differences. 4
subjects pointed this out. One expressed his frustration in his beginning
days in Japan, saying “[s]ometimes when Japanese junior high school students
were asked a question, they did not answer at all. They stared blankly or
looked down at their desks, etc. This behavior is culturally based and was
tolerated by the NNS teacher, but it was extremely frustrating for me at
first.”
There were
some interesting findings from the interviews as well. With the students
from the same L1 background, the NNS subjects described that they had a hard
time motivating students to speak English with them. It was also observed,
on the other hand, that one subject believes that “[k]nowing Korean culture
was a great asset because I knew how and what the students thought and I was
thus able to fulfill their expectations...” This follows what was suggested
by Medgyes (1992) who argues that NNS teachers can be more empathetic to the
students’ problems because “... they never cease to be learners of English,
they encounter difficulties similar to those of their students...” (p.347).
An interesting finding here is that another NNS subject said that she tended
to “baby” her students because she knew how challenging it was for them to
learn English, which she experienced herself. Depending on their viewpoint,
knowing the English language learning process could work as NNSs’ advantage
or disadvantage.
There was
only one answer which refers to difficulties the NNS subject had which was
caused by their limited knowledge of the target language. One NNS subject
told me that it was difficult for her to teach some students at a very
advanced level who shared a similar English educational background. She
explained to me that since they had had a similar English education with
emphasis on the same grammatical items, there were not too many differences
in their knowledge of the target language. This subject told me that she
would feel more comfortable teaching students with different backgrounds,
since the difficulties that these students generally have would be different
from those of German students including the subject herself.
In this
section, one similarity is observed between the NS and NNS subjects: They
both had difficulties when they lacked knowledge of students' L1.
In addition,
it was observed that NS subjects expressed frustration caused by cultural
differences. This type of difficulty was not observed among the NNS
subjects. This is consistent with the findings discussed in the previous
section where subjects were asked to describe respective strengths and
weaknesses, since cross-cultural understanding was considered to be a
strength of NNS teachers.
LIMITATIONS
One obvious limitation to this study is that it was conducted in an
English-speaking environment. This study was carried out in such an
environment where the researcher could elicit data from current/future
teachers who were trained in the same TESOL program so that the training of
the subjects received would be somewhat homogenous. However, at the same
time, a study conducted in an EFL setting would be informative for a
different population.
Another
limitation could be that of the status of the researcher as a NNS. It might
have affected the answers from the interviews when the subjects were asked
questions such as what they considered weaknesses of a NNS teacher.
In addition,
there were not as many NNS TESOL candidates at the Monterey Institute as
that of NS TESOL candidates. This might have affected the outcome of the
study. Another possible limitation is that of the lack of information about
NNS teachers that NSs have worked with before. It seems extremely difficult
to obtain the background information on the NNS teachers they worked with
before. This means that these teachers could have a range of qualifications.
If there was indeed a range in their qualifications as teachers, that might
have affected the subjects’ perceptions of the teachers with the opposite
NS/NNS status, since the subjects might have built their perceptions based
on these teachers with whom they had worked before.
The responses
obtained regarding the strengths and weaknesses of teachers with opposite
NS/NNS status do not necessarily correspond to what are suggested by the
subjects to be their own strengths. This might be a result of the method of
data collection. The subjects were given a set of options they could choose
as their own strengths, but they were not given the same set of options when
asked what they considered to be the strengths of teachers with the opposite
NS/NNS status. This occurred because open-ended questions were provided for
more free responses regarding the strengths and weaknesses of teachers with
the opposite NS/NNS status.
Because of a
nature of the perception study, it cannot be concluded that the strengths
and weaknesses that the subjects listed for themselves and for each other
are an actual indication of strengths and weaknesses. Also, because of the
small size of the subject number, the results obtained from this study
cannot be applied to a general population. However, as the first step in
identifying the types of teaching situations in which NS and NNS teachers
can fully utilize their strengths as teachers, this study provides rich
implications.
Future
research looking at the differences between NS and NNS teachers could
include perceptions obtained from the students’ viewpoint. This was
something that was not done in this study, but should be considered because
of the fact that teaching should provide what students want. By providing
such information, teachers, including both NS and NNS, would be able to
obtain a deeper understanding of what they can offer to students.
CONCULUSION
This study has presented data obtained from NS and NNS teachers to show what
the differences are in their perceptions of their strengths. Also presented
are the types of difficulties that the subjects have had with students.
It was
observed that there are clear differences in the perceived strengths and
weaknesses of NS/NNS in certain areas of language teaching depending on
their NS/NNS status. NSs seem more confident in the areas of aural
production, trust from students, idioms, and appropriacy.
For
NNSs, the areas of perceived strengths were a better grasp of the structure
of the English language, knowledge of learning processes, and the knowledge
of the difficulties students encounter. Another strength of NNSs was
considered to be their cross-cultural understanding.
It can be summarized that the disadvantages of NS teachers come from their
lack of English learning experience, or even from their lack of any
type of language learning experience. The disadvantages of NNS teachers seem
to come from having less exposure to authentic English which resulted in
narrower knowledge of idioms, appropriacy, and aural production.
It was also observed that with students whose L1 they did not know, both NS
and NNS subjects had difficulties. They both had a hard time communicating
with the students. However, an interesting difference was observed. The NNS
subjects did not express frustration caused by cultural differences between
themselves and their students, even though many of these NNS subjects have
taught in an ESL setting where classroom culture would be different from the
subjects’ own. On the other hand, some NS subjects expressed their
difficulties dealing with students from different cultural backgrounds. This
might be indicating that NNS teachers consider themselves better qualified
when it comes to cross-cultural understanding, which is consistent with what
many of the NS subjects listed as NNSs’ strength.
As mentioned by one NS subject, confidence in themselves as language
teachers could be another quality that some NNSs seem to lack. If this is
the case, NNS teachers must be “...made more aware of their own advantageous
potential as language teachers in comparison with NETs (native English
speaking teachers)” (Reves and Medgyes, 1994, p.364), because our peer NS
teachers acknowledge NNS teachers’ strengths in many different areas.
In order to achieve the ideal school described in Medgyes (1992, p.349)
where “...there should be a good balance of NSs and non-NSs, who complement
each other in their strengths and weaknesses,” it is extremely important
that we recognize our differences and the assets that we all have as
teachers. If the perceptions of the subjects of this study turn out to be
accurate, then the initial assumption, that qualified teachers are by
definition NSs, should be discarded in favor of a balanced reckoning of the
respective strengths of both NS/NNS teachers.
REFERENCES
Chang, M. & Endo, S. (1997). Are two heads better than one?: A look into the effectiveness of team teaching. Unpublished manuscript.
England, L. & Roberts, C. (1989). A Survey of Foreign Students in MA-TESOL Programs. Paper presented at the TESOL Convention, Antonio, Texas. In Phinney, M. (Ed.) The Standard Bearer. TESOL Newsletter, 23 (6), 5.
Kamhi-Stein, L., Lee, E., & Lee, C. (1999). How TESOL Programs Can Enhance the Preparation of Nonnative English Speakers. TESOL Matters, 9, 4.
McNeil, A. (1993). Some Characteristics of Native and Non-Native Speaker Teachers of English. In Bird, N., and Others. (Eds.) Language and Learning. Paper presented at the Annual International Language in Education Conference, Hong Kong.
Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: who’s worth more? ELT Journal, 46 (4), 340-349. Medgyes, P. & Reves, T. (1994). The non-native English speaking EFL/ESL teacher’s self-image: an international survey. System, 22 (3), 353-367.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge University Press. New York; NY.
Palfreyman, D. (1993). ‘How I got it in my head’: Conceptual models of language and learning in native and non-native trainee EFL teachers. Language Awareness, 2 (4), 209-223.
Phillipson, R. (1992). ELT: the native speaker's burden? ELT Journal, 46 (1), 12-18.
Rampton, M. B. (1990). Displacing the ‘native-speaker’: expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. ELT Journal, 44 (2), 97-101.
Appendix 1. Questions for NNS subjects
Teaching Experience
Teaching Strengths
Appendix 2. Questions for NS subjects
Teaching Experience
Teaching Strengths