Language Instructors: Native-Speakers versus Non-Native-Speakers?

[Cainntear]

Yup NSTs and NNSTs -- standard terminology. In the English-teaching world: NESTs and non-NESTs. (Guess what the E stands for!)

Personally, I think the value of natives versus non-natives depends a lot on teaching philosophy and level. A lot of teaching around the world is modellied on English teaching, and English teaching is modelled on the typical teacher being a native speaker with very little training, probably on a gap year. This means that the role of explanation is downplayed, and the idea of "exposure to a good model" is emphasised.

Well, a trained non-native is going to be good at explanation, but not necessarily a good model to be followed.

So immersive, monolingual classes with a NNST make little sense to me.

But however you start off, the more advanced you get, the more you're needing to learn about the subtleties of native use, so NSTs become more valuable later in study.

But if you're a beginner or intermediate learner in a bilingual classroom (whether the mother tongue is used to explain the target language) then yes, a NNST can be really good.

The biggest caveat has to be about pronunciation. I have met far too many teachers who simply cannot pronounce the languages they're teaching -- and I don't mean "they have a bad accent". You can have a very strong accent and still be pronouncing the language acceptably -- the problem is when you pronounce two distinct target-language phonemes identically. For example, English teachers who pronounce an /I/ sound as /i/, (ih->ee) teach their students to do the same thing, and it is extremely difficult to break apart later two phonemes that were originally learned as one. If you teach them to pronounce /I/ with a bad accent, but still distinct from /i/, that's much better, because accent can be changed later, as long as you only have to work on tweaking the way you pronounce phonemes that are already distinct.

This has always been one of my defenses of Michel Thomas -- his accent was miles off, but you always knew which phoneme he was saying.

[Speakeasy]

Yup NSTs and NNSTs -- standard terminology...

How interesting, I made up NST and NNST on the spur of the moment! Still, I would have to admit that my experiences in the RCN and the NATO forces "primed" me for this somewhat. You simply would not believe their use of acronyms! I take that back, as a linguist, you probably would and you'd offer an interesting explanation for the phenomenon.

As a second matter, unrelated to the above quote, I do not think that many people would have been surprised, initially at least, by the summary findings of the study that had been conducted by the British Council, to the effect that students tend to value traits such as “being respectful, a good communicator, helpful, well prepared, organised, clear-voiced, and hard-working” over matters such as native-speaker versus non-native-speaker linguistic competence (thank you, Reineke, for providing the link!). This purpose of this forum is, after all, to provide “people from all over the world to talk about language learning” and a good number of its members are seasoned, knowledgeable, adult language-learners. Still, from a reading of the comments to date, many of which are lengthy, thoughtful, well-reasoned expressions of a member’s individual preferences, perceptions and real-life experiences, it would appear that the picture is more nuanced than one might have originally thought.

EDITED:
Typographical errors continue to haunt me despite the fact that I took two years of "touch typing" in High School. Now then, I suppose that I could make the argument that this particular part of my education took place some fifty-five years ago and that, during the intervening years, my experiences in using the QWERTY keyboard have been nothing more than a repetition and reinforcement of the uncorrected errors that I made as an adolescent, thereby allowing me to place the responsibility where in clearly lies; that is, with the educational system.

[Cainntear]

I do not think that many people would have been surprised, initially at least, by the summary findings of the study that had been conducted by the British Council, to the effect that students tend to value traits such as “being respectful, a good communicator, helpful, well prepared, organised, clear-voiced, and hard-working” over matters such as native-speaker versus non-native-speaker linguistic competence (thank you, Reineke, for providing the link!).

And yet it's still something that needs said, because NNSTs have huge difficulties in finding work, and schools constantly trot out the "students want native speakers" myth as justification.

[Speakeasy]

... NNSTs have huge difficulties in finding work, and schools constantly trot out the "students want native speakers" myth as justification.

I think that it would be very difficult, within the confines of this discussion thread, to identify and analyze all of the factors bearing on the employment rate of any particular group. Even though I would not be surprised if some school administrators were predisposed to hiring NST’s over NNST’s, I seriously doubt that a vast conspiracy exists to deny members of the latter group employment. I assume that you were not suggesting this and that you would agree with me that attempts at such a discussion could easily descend into disagreeable accusations of favoritism, paternalism, biases, prejudices, racism, unfair treatment, social injustice, et cetera.

As to the "myths" that some school administrators might ascribe to, I suspect that most forum members would readily recognize that myths can be very powerful vehicles of shared values, that they are remarkably tenacious and that and we, as a species, display an astounding capacity to give them credence whereas provable facts point in another direction.

In both cases, I suggest that we avoid discussing these issues as they are fraught with strongly-held values and political beliefs. Let’s not go there!

[tarvos]

Actually, Speakeasy, in places like Japan and Korea, that is actually the norm, and your passport really does matter.

[lavengro]

... How interesting, I made up NST and NNST on the spur of the moment! Still, I would have to admit that my experiences in the RCN and the NATO forces "primed" me for this somewhat. You simply would not believe their use of acronyms! ...

I would believe it. I am employed with a Canadian federal department, and there is AHOALOA* in use here every day.

*AHOALOA - a hell of a lot of acronyms

[Speakeasy]

Actually, Speakeasy, in places like Japan and Korea, that is actually the norm, and your passport really does matter.

I have no reason to dispute what you say. Nevertheless, a discussion of an organisation's (or a entire nation's) hiring policies based on nationality, race, ethnicity or any other basis that is clearly a case of prejudice, will descend rapidly into the political arena. While I do not "own" this discussion thread, there was absolutely nothing in either my original question or in the subsequent clarification that serves as an invitation to a political discussion. So then, even putting the Forum Rules aside, I reiterate: Let's not go there!

[tarvos]

I agree. But it is a given for the rest of the discussion.

[reineke]

Serious teachers. Serious arguments.

https://www.seriousteachers.com/serious ... -teach-eng

[Speakeasy]

I agree. But it is a given for the rest of the discussion.

If you read carefully all of the comments up to and including your own on page 2, date-time-stamped Sun Jul 26, 2015 7:13 am, you will notice that they all respond directly to the original question and conform to what I subsequently qualified as “from a reading of the comments to date, many of which are lengthy, thoughtful, well-reasoned expressions of a member’s individual preferences, perceptions and real-life experiences, it would appear that the picture is more nuanced than one might have originally thought.” The discussions, including the participation of other members who have not yet commented, could very easily continue in the same sense. There is absolutely no requirement for this discussion to take on a political hue; viz., “it is a given for the rest of the discussion.” I will not debate the matter any further.