Is It Time to Stand Up for the 'Non-Natives'?

I just read a blog post about how 'native' speakers are better teachers than 'non-native' teachers. It seems to be a hot topic at the moment, and understandably divisive. Jobs and opportunities depend on the distinction. But, as a supposed 'native' myself, I'd like to do away with these ridiculous terms.



Firstly, and plainly, these terms are useless when applied to English language teaching:


  • A native English speaker, by definition, could have been born in any country on Earth. It is dependent simply of the speaker's first language, which in itself is dependent (usually) on the speaker's parents.
  • According to Wikipedia in 2015 there were 54 official states in which English is the official language. 'Native speaker' is often used as shorthand for 'person from an Anglosphere country' (Australia, UK, US, Ireland, New Zealand, and Canada). In reality, millions of 'native' speakers from countries outside these regions are excluded from many teaching positions.
  • Only hiring someone and by extension not hiring someone else on the basis of their country of origin is discriminatory, plain and simple. If we applied this to any other attribute we would not accept it, and so we shouldn't abide these lazy and prejudiced terms.  


Aside from these issues, we need to be clear about a few other points:


  • Language teachers facilitate correct language use, they are not the source of language in the class.
  • A teacher is not a good teacher simply because s/he speaks the language s/he has been employed to teach.
  • Approximately two-thirds of English speakers in the World are 'non-native', theirs is the dominant form of English. There is a strong argument that we should be aiming towards a world English,  rather than a 'native-like' one in any case. 
The blog post I read gave anecdotal accounts of a non-native teacher making errors with English. I make errors in English. I pronounce things in a strange way compared to my colleagues from London. I say 'I am sat' when I should say 'I am sitting', 'less apples' instead of 'fewer apples',  'It is broke' instead of 'It is broken'. My colleagues from the USA (as well as many multi-million book selling authors) confuse the verbs 'lay' and 'lie'. None of this has an influence on how good a teacher my colleagues or I are, or in fact how good those writers are. The only thing that matters is the ability, skills, attitude, and dedication to the students that a teacher shows, day in and day out. 

So, in my opinion, the terms native and non-native need to go, and we need to find new ways and new words to qualify how good a teacher is. 

Comments

  1. Kia DeCou7 May 2017 at 14:23

    I agree, the quality of a teacher does not depend on the language his/her parents speak at home. As someone who teaches both English (native) and Spanish (non-native), I can attest that the quality of my teaching does not go down in Spanish. The quality of my teaching depends on how much effort I put into the planning, teaching and evaluation of my courses as well as what I do to continually educate myself on the practice of teaching.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown8 May 2017 at 02:41

      Hi Kia, that's a thoughtful comment, thank you.

      I keep reading posts about whether a 'native' or 'non-native' speaker is 'better' at teaching, when it seems to me to be as ridiculous as arguing whether tall or short people are better teachers.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Future of English Language Teaching and Learning?

Image
We are now used to a web experience in which we can integrate images, user-generated and personalised content, as well as the freedom to browse and search for precisely what we want. It is easy to see that this pattern of activity has not yet become part of our approach to language learning, especially if we think about the traditional school setting. Although many schools  are  now moving towards incorporating contemporary learning styles into their architecture, it is often not so evident in the syllabus which can remain prescriptive.  There is a challenge to create an environment in which learners can determine what, how, and when they learn.  From our involvement with the world-wide web we have developed critical thinking skills and we are now more used to the ideas of lifelong and independent learning. The near future should allow learners to create their own learning paths, as well as interacting easily across existing boundaries of space and time. Learning will theref
Read more

'Language ability cannot be taught; it can only be learned'

Image
There are lots of blog posts, academic articles, and ongoing heated discussions in the actual and virtual ELT staff rooms all over the world about whether we should teach grammar at all. Those who argue for the teaching of grammar say that we need to know the rules of a language to be able to use it properly. They say grammar gives us the skeleton from which to hang the flesh.  Those against it argue that English in particular is not a grammar-based language and in fact, all a language-learner needs is access to level-appropriate, authentic 'input' and a thirst for learning. Having listened to both sides of this argument, and having applied both of them to my own teaching, I can make a couple of tentative observations: 1. Sometimes students want grammar like children want candy. But just because they want it, should we give it to them? Well, if the child is paying your wages, then yes, maybe you should. But is it good for them? It is not a meal in itself but will do no
Read more