Preparing Nonnative and Native English-Speaking Teachers: Issues of Professionalism and Proficiency ‘ontorey Insite of Inernotional Studies ‘This chapter addresses the sues of language teacher professionalism and proficiency from the teacher educator's perspective, We begin by discussing the concepts of procedural knowledge and declarative ‘Knowledge, raising issues about the eelatve strengths of (and cha: Jeniges faced by) native and nonnative English-speaking teachers, We Use the rote oie diferent teacher to show thatthe dete about native versus nonnative teachers in our field is overly simplistic and tunhelpfl. Then we address the interplay of proeieney and proes sional development, viewing these constructs as continua rather than as categorical absolutes. Next we review some ofthe literal ire comparing the perceived strengths of native and nonnative speaking teachers, before examining the speaking skin some deta, We con ‘ude with a brief discussion of some implications ofthe loregoing lor preservice and inservice teacher training, “The way many laypersons, students, and employers view nonnative speaking teachers has often been a huge soureeofjstifed frustration for welprepared highly proficient nodnativeEnglsh-speakingteach- crs (NNESTS) over the years Bale Curtis, & Nunan, 2001), In many ‘countries the blond, blue-eyed backpacker who rns out ol moneyand looks for work may have better lck getting a position teaching English than a local teacher with a master's degree or an advanced ‘iploma in TESOL. There is no justication or thls practice other than the folk elit dht native Enis peaking teachers (NESTS) are somehow inherently superior—an unuestioned assumption that has ‘een called the “native speaker fallacy" (Braine, 1999; Canagaraa, 1999; Philipson, 1982), "The debate over the qualifications of NSTs versus NNESTS is highly controversial. To bein, accepted definitions of naive and nonaaive ‘Sonothold up under scrutiny, and researchers, linguist, and teachers generally grec tha the term naive speae spot particularly precise Medgyes (2001) summarizes the widely held notin that "a native speaker of English is traditionally defined as someone who speaks English a¢ his or her native language, also called mother tongue, rst langvage, oF Lp. #30), Anonnative speaker of English, presumably, is everyone else who spanks English Dut does not ft this defition However as Kaplan (1909) points out heres "ao saisactory defn ton olthe term native seater, and inthe abseneeof sucha definition, the negative term is quite impossible to deine” (p. 5). spite ol the problems in agreeing upon a precise definition ofthese term, English asa second language (ESL) and English asa foreign language (EFL) teachers who are perceived as speaking a language ‘other than English as their mother tongue—regardless of thelr actual Drofciency with Englah—are typically labeled ax “nonnative” English Speakers. This label can sometimes contribute tothe perception that they are not as proficient at English language teaching as theu “na tive” English-speaking counterparts (KamhSten, 1998). Asa result, [NNESTa in both FSL and EFL settings often find it dificult to compete ‘with NESTs for teaching positions (Braine, 1999: Medayes, 2001). ‘Adlitionally, the demand for English language classes in both ESL. and EFL setings far outweighs the supply of so-called native teachers ‘Actual numbers of inaividuals who use Enish asa second or foreigh language arehardto determine, though Crystal (1997) suggestsacon- Servatve estimate of around 450 raillon nonnative users of English Crystal points ou, however, that more radical estimates—those that include speakers with slower level of Engl language fvency and swareneas—are closer to onebilion. Compared tos estimate of 400 million native speakers of Enis, the numberof nonnative speakers ‘of Engishis enormous tis simpy not logical to assume that there are ‘enough NESTs (qualifed or otherwise) to meet the global demand for English teachers; nor st logical to assume that fring a naive over ‘nonnative teacher is always the best administrative dedision. As we ‘illo research suggest hat NNESTs have many strengths that are ‘ometimes not recognaed by potential employers rein Net Nae rt Sina Teste 17 Furthermore, in many areas ofthe word the ast majority of English language teachers are nonsative speakers of English, Dueto cultural historical, economic, and geographical factors, these NNESTo them. selves may never have had instruction from NESTs, They also may not hhave had much exposure to target language speech, fr elther input or Interaction. As a result of these and other factors, some NNESTe! ‘lueney (gi steningand speaking) may bela less developed than their accuracy (eg, ingrammar and wltlog), ad often NNESTs doubt ‘heir own aiites as qualifed language teachers. Yet many people (ourselves included) belleve that NNESTs have great dealt oer {her students and may be as elfective as or even more elective than some NESTS (See eg Llu. 1999; Medgyes, 199), In order to view the Felative strengths ofative and nonnativeEngishspeaking teachers, \wewil propose some simple rameworks that will allow us toexamine individual teachers" attributes. Asa starting point ve will contrast procedural knowledge and declarative knowledge. Pe ‘There's a useful distinction between declarative knowledge and pro cedural knowledge, which ean shape our discussion of the relative strengths and weaknesses o native and nonnative English teacher’. Declarative knowledge "includes a ofthe things we know and an a. culate" (Nunan, 1989, p.3)-In other words declarative knowledge s ‘ur knowiedge abou something When we hive declarativeknowiege ‘onatopic, wecan discuss tha topic condently In our profession. i Portant kinds of declarative knowledge minimally inlude knowledge (about the target language (eg. ts rules and thelr exceptions). (2) About the target culture (ea, is norms and taboos), and (3) about teaching (es mowing about content and formal schemata in teach Ing eeading and listening). In 9 eld as broad as English language ‘aching, declarative knowledge coversallthetopis we have studied and learned that we can dscuss-—with students, parents, colleagues, administrators, legislators, and s0 on. “Tobe elective language teachers, however, wemust have superior procedural knowledge as well. Procedural knowledge s the ably to {do things, our sills (Nunan, 1995 see also Anderson, 1980, 1983). The “ference between procedural knowledge and declarative knowledge «an be summarized as knowing how versus knowing about, So, for EFL. and ESL teachers, in terms ofthe target language, procedural know! frlge would inclade being able to carry on eonversations in English. Other important kinds of procedural knowledge relate to teaching—lor instance, knowing how to plan lesson, how to treat student oral ‘errors, or how to conduct pair work,158 Leann AND TEACHING FROM EXPERIENCE or EFL and ESL teachers and teacher trainers, declarative and several knowledge ental at lsat three key areas: knowin bout ang how ouaethe target language, @)knowingabout and how aera ray appropiate wap, and) knawing about and Testo behave appropiate in the arget clue. These sues ae tem ddan Figure where ew ihstralns have been provige. Bateson ana Nests wi face challenges wih retard to hic anSatatve and power! knoe thou these cles wil Sespuay er Ofcourse, ativespenng teachers of ary tnguge area anturalavaniagein ters or proceduralknowedge ae teow vary fe tare antag an how 0 PORMLe DT ona Segment a the eae utore However, without the ae tena preparation va the expertenes of aring ew se semecivn RESTe mn ack oth procedural and dels ae age about how toteachand dcaratve knowledge about Peete isl Unortanaty it no tsa to eae uti Hare nsf grammer questions by saying," dot ow wiyrtat jst the way oe : ‘pated ote ntiespensig counterparts nonativespeak ing tether nay have much rong delarativeowedge about he cease egage’ genet yars foray ondoralintuctin. For sar ern of Eg th good sendei bckarounds, he [aa euyan et goth decarave sn procera, sry wth euatothe orgenizatonl atures of English Ge Mee grate and texan competence: Bachman, 180). Te amples of sample Decraiveknowndge Produ! Keowee 4 "Teeabiytoenpain | The ably use grammar iin | EERE | "Emir ~The ity to expan he ‘Skill im seting up a eo oc, | SEES, | Suma | “pues Tenens] Seams roc, anaes | a iam cae dumgineacton | ‘pyaelspcng wet 1G. 1 Key areas of decaraive and procedural owed in gh ngse pragmatic competence (Le, their ilextionary and sociolinguistic competence) may be weaker, especially i they have halite terac- tion with native and other English speakers in context overtime. they have had appropriate professional preparation opportuities, NNESTS may also have excellent declarative and procedural knowledge about language teaching, What NNESTS may lacs the experience base for using the target language confidently and behaving appropriately in ‘he target culture, two examples of procedural nowledge. “Toillustrate some possible combination, let us consider the pro- les of five teachers. These accounts are fictionalized, but they ae all based on teachers we have known, Kimisa young but somewhat experienced teacher. He taught English sn secondary school in is home country for to years but waned 10 Improve both his English and his sils and confidence as a teacher Kim enrolled in an intensive English program n the US. andl then en- tered a master’ degree program in TESOL. although he experienced ‘some dificulty with the graduate course work and project due to his English proficiency, Kim sticcessully completed the program. His English Muency, vocabulary. and grammatical accuracy improved dur- ing this ime, a Gi his ue of communication strateges, Although hls English s stil heavily accented an is sometimes halting when he talks with new people oF elscusses unfamlar topes, his confidence Sid skis as an EFL teacher have increased marked Lua is a novice EFL teacher She wanted to be an engineer, but her English scores on the national secondary school exit exams were 100 low so she could not study engineering at the university Instead, she ‘was slotted nto threeyear teacher raining curriculum Her prepars tion for teaching EFL included courses on Shakespeare, Chaucer and ‘modern British poetry She has never hed the opportunity to travel ‘utside her own country. She teaches in a secondary school near her home, where she conducts her English classes in the studeots frst language, following the prescribed curriculum and preparing her students for ther exams. ‘Toms an inexperienced teacher of EFL. He grew upin Avstalia and traveled in Asia. as part ofa study-abroad program in college. There he developed a fascination for martial arts and Asian culture. Ater finishing his degree, Tom returned to Asia and fond a job teaching English while he studied marual ats. fomholds conversation classes for beginners and lower-ntermediate students at a commercial an ‘guage school that advertises that its teachers are all native speakers of English. There sno pre-service ortn-service traning for theteachers All Tom's lessons are bated on the schools texthooks. At each class, the students read passages from the book aloud and then answer the comprehension questions inthe text He corrects the students10 LeARNG AND TEACHING FROM EXPERIENCE _srammar and pronunciation errors by having them repeat the oral Models he provides Elena ie an experienced EFL teacher who completed an advanced - ploma inthe UK some years ago. She has taught English for Academic Purposes (EAP) for nay years ata university in her home count. ‘Shes spending a semester as a visiting scholar at a university in a Englishapeaking country in order to update her sls and conduct original research. While her English Dueney, vocabulary, grammar, land pronunciation are quite advanced, she has a great deal ofc Sully writing academic papers. Furthermore, she regulary fends her professors and classmates with her very aggressive, even rude, ‘verbal behavior lena ls consistent surprised by her lntrlocutors Teactlons to er aftempts to communicate her ideas and needs io English ‘Monika isan experienced ES. teacher who was raised in western Canada, She hes tn advanced degree im language teaching ard has Gecided to try teaching EFL to Brosden her experience. However, ‘ow that she fs working in aew county she ids the students to ‘betuncooperative. They often speak ntheir firs language, which she ‘doesn't know, go she wonders what they are saying aout her. Als, they are hesitant to speak English in class and regularly whisper and shareanswers during test, Monika fee thestadents are unmotivated to learn and disrespect toher asa teacher She plans to leave this school as oon as her contracts done. ‘Clearly these five teachers have different attributes. Some are stron- ern their declarative knowledge about English, while others have {real procedural knowledge, They also vary in thelr knowledge of feaching and their knowledge of eulture—-boththe target cultures of thecounties where English i spoken andthe learners" home culture. ‘These ave people have entered the English language teaching profes: son by very dillerent pathways. Some have had appropriate teacher education experiences, and some have not ‘We turn now to dscussion of proficiency and professional deve- ‘opment. We wil use our five Retional English teachers vo Mystrate the complexity ol these isu as they relate tothe debate on NESTs ‘versus NESTS. refciency ond Potsiona Developmen! “The widely believed “native speaker fallacy” andthe simplistic debate About the ments of native versus nonnative teachers tay lead us to ‘overlook sme very mnportant issues, Teachers may be fully proficient Inthe target language whether or not they are native speakers inthe Chronological sense of which language() they learned in Infancy But a teacher's tanget language proficiency is only one element of professionalism. Another concern ie whether the person has the appropriate education to be a language teacher. We see these to issues—proficiency and professional preparation—as contin, 8 shown in igure 2 (Bailey forthcoming). Certainly. professional preparation fe not the same thing as na liveness, and it should not be equated with language proficiency ‘Whether a native o a nonnative speaker a teacher without any for mal training cannot be said to be profesionaly prepared, But ike proficiency, professional preparation ls a continuum, an there ae ‘Various types of professional education avalable depending onthe position a preservice teacher is seeking or the kind of updating a Inservice tescher needs. We believe that, a8 teachers, we can and ‘should continu to pursue professional development throughout our lives. We would even argue that Its possible for us as teachers 0 become relatively fas prepared than we once were it we dot keep up with new developments and research and are unable to meet our ‘students’ changing needs ‘Quadrant 1 in Figure 2 apparently represents the most desirable set of atrbutes for any language teacher to possess—being both smetageiangage Profesnaty Not protest peparedars ‘epared ara ‘cer satguge teacher Net profien ‘nce caret lnpeae1a LEARN ax TEACHING FROM EXPERIENCE proficient in the target language andl professionally well prepared. Yet {ven being a professionally prepared native speaker is no guarantee Sf success as a feacher: As we savy, Monika, a alive English-speaking teacher with an advanced degree in our Red, struggling in her ew ‘context asa EFL teacher Likewise, Elena, who also it in Quadrant {is having lfelty as a visiting scholar in am ESL context. In spite Oi her yeats of experience and training and her advanced lingulstic ‘Competence, her lack of eociolinguistic competence Is a serious ‘rawback, “Quadrant 4, which represents teachers who are not profclent and ‘who lack professlonal preparation, is clearly the least desirable. This {is Lia's situation. shes a product of the edvcation system in which ‘Shenow teaches. Without further raining and without the opportunity {to interact in English with native and proficient nonnative speakers, iti difficult to see how Lua will be able to improve ether her profes: onalism or her English proficiency. ‘But what about Quadrants 2 and 3? The comparison rests on ‘many variables, including local needs and constrains. There may be Instances when a professionally prepared nonnative English-speaking tcocher such as Kim, whofas good English abiity (Quadrant 2) anda tative speaker of English ke Tom, who as litle or no taining (Quae- Tan 3), are the candidates fora teaching position llthechotee then, fs between an untrained native Enlisty=peaking teacher (ike Tom, from Quadrant 3) anda trained nonnative English-speaking teacher (Guch as Kim trom Quadrant 2, we fee the nonative Engishspeak- Ingteacher should be given grester consideration fora teaching pose tion, One could argue that Tom might purse traiing asa language teaches, which could move him Into Quadrant 1 eventually, but for themoment his only asset appears tobe his procedural knowledge of thetarget language and of Avrrallan culture Kim, on the other hand, possesses both declarative and procedural knowledge about language teaching, has declarative liowleage and some communicative sil in ‘he target language. and has hada lengthy immersion experience in ‘he target culture Although his English isnot perfec, he has much to bffer his students, whose needs, Art langage. educational context, nd cultural values he understands wel Proficiency represented by the vetial axis in Figure 2, defined as| “ieowledge, competence, or ability i the use of language, respec tive of how, where, or under what conditions it has been acquired” (Gachman, 1990 p16). Experience has shown that individuals can have diferent proficiency levels in the four traditional skis. Some ‘ne who Isat adept reader ofa forelgn langunge. for example, may have limited speaking proficieny, Likewise, many language earners (Ghough typically notlanguage teachers) develop spoke Nuency wit ‘out ever learning to read or write inthe target language—particularly iWitsseriptdifers from that of their Rrst language. spoken fuency ‘may also mean thatthe learner has a facility Tor understanaing ane confidently utilizing the more colloquial features ofa language, such fas slangand idioms, Being uent does not necessarily mean, however, {hat the leamer has developed accurate use of gramtoatca Ions, clear pronunciation, and 0.09 Proficiency not necessarily equated with nativeness, and certainy | sot al native speakers are equally skilled users of Enis. There fare varying degrees of proficiency being proficient is continusr, ‘aher than an etheror proposition Apparently peoplecan connie to develop their second language proficiency throughout the span of thelr ives, although some features of language (eq, pronunciation) seem to be more difficult to change, while others (such as voabi lary) continue to develop regularly, a5 we read, study, and Interact with others Whether or not a teacher is proficient depends on how we define this mullaceted construct. In terms of a narrow view of inguistic competence, Elena canbe sald tobe proficient. we consider scio- linguistic an pragmatic competence, there are huge gaps n her pro- fcieney, which cause many problems in her roleasa visiting scholar a an Enshsmetim university Furthermore individual learers ave thelr own goals for study- Ing the target language, goals that may be posttvey or negatively alfected by the language proficiency and professional preparation thelr teachers. At one ime a malor purpose fr studying a foreign language was to beable to read the iterature written in that language. Another important goal was often to passa test inorder to gain ac ‘ess to educational or employment opportunites, where one might fF might not have to se the target language. But with 20™centiry ‘tdvancesin global transportation and rapid, interactive communion tion, the development of speaking and stening skills hasalso become ‘central goal for many language learners. And often those learners lise English to communicate with other nodnative speakers, rather than exclusively with native English speakers. Over 20 years ago, Smith notes, English sheng used by no-ative speakers to communicate wth other ronaative spesters, Te cours of ASEAN (hseocton of Soh Eat sin Nations ae Elin ter oti mectingsto represent hemes tnd thet cultres. Japanese businessmen se Engh KL Mayo represent her company’ poly Singaporeans use Els io tel others rout ther "way of le” New teratures i Engl have appeared fo Inte Phippies, the South Facicaswellas Aiea~Irerature wien166 LEARWIN@ AND TEROAING FROM EXPERIENCE In Engish by nonnative speaker intended fora world audlence—ot ust ‘Tate speaking aden (161, p. 19) Asa result of these trends, speaking and listening have recently been ‘mphasized more, since English has come to be widely used in era- ture, sclenee, technology, and commerce. ‘Sebsequently, NNESTe have experienced pressureto Increase their own target language speaking and listening sks as wel in order forse tothe challenges posed by their students’ changing needs However, experts such as Liu (1998), Medgyes (1994, 1999, 2001, land Morley (1901 fel that many TESOL preparation programs lack the necessary language training component and that nonnative teacher trainees and inservice NNESTs would benefit greatly from fore focused instruction in areas of speech and fueney listening, land pronunciation, "We bave asserted that both NESTS and NEST have strengths as English teachers. Likewise, we have claimed that both groups may have gap in thelr professionalism. We turn now to what some ofthe fvallable erature has to say about these claims eltive Stents of Naive nd Nenativ Speaking English Teo Many researchers see, 4, Fynn, 199; Lee, 2000; Tang, 1997) suggest that NNESTS can be extremely effective a English language teachers ‘What NNESTS may sometimes lacgin terms of English language prof ‘lency i ollaet by aiferent—but equally valuable—set of skis. For ‘ramp, Shaw (1979) points out that “a nelive teacher may partially breven completely lack the kinds of ish necessary for an English Ianguage teacher to prepare and execute is classes” (p. 12). Shaw liso observes that otvnative speaker teachers ate typialy beter able. to control the complenty oftheir speech in an elementary class" bid), Murphy-O‘Dwyer (1996) claims that, teachers, “native speakers have fut as much to lear (and in many eases much more) than non- native speakers” (p21) For example se suggests that NNESTs who fave studied the target language formally often have beter Insights fino the structure and use ofthe language than do untrained native Speakers who may have litle or no expit declarative knowledge of {heir firstlangunge, Furthermore Murphy-O’Dwyer notes that NNESTS hnave a dlstinct advantage over monolingual native speakers in that “Nhey already havea successful language learning experience behind them, which they can draw onto Inform thelr teaching” (lid) ‘in Medgyes (1299) opinion, when compared tothe strengths and weaknesses of NESTs, NESTS have the advantage in that they can us + provide a good learner model for imitation, teach language learning strategies more eifectively, supply leamers with more information about the English lan sunge, + fntielpate and prevent language dificulies beter, {+ Bemore empathetic tothe needs and problems of learners, and 1 make use ofthe learner's mother tongue. (9.178) tis important to point out, however, that this penditum swing—from {he native speaker fallacy tothe viewpoints just expressed~seemis to dlsragard the fact that not all NNESTs are guaranteed to possess all of these strengths, nor does i acknowledge that not all NESTS ‘wll lack them, A nonnative teacher for whom a high level of English Drofiiency comes rather cai, for example, might not always be Eympathetle toward the problems of learners lor whom learning Englist sa challenge. Further unlike Monika in the previous scenaro, many NESTs particulary in El etings-do speak thelr students ‘other tongue and are able to use that knowledge inthe classroom. ‘Theteore the wie program administrator or teacher educator would take a step back from an “all-ornothing” stance with regard tothe felatve strengths or weaknesses of native-versus nonnativespeaking teachers and would consider instead the strengths and weaknesses ‘ofeach individual tescher or teacher candidat ts also important to consider the language goals ofthe students wth whom each teacher trainee is working or Wl work. A teacher ‘whose students need for Enishi primarily to read scent texts, {or example, must have highly developed procedural ané declare- tive knowledge with regard to reading aswell asthe dlscourse and lexlcon of science and technology. Ite students are preparing to be English-speaking tour gues orto work with iors in thehospitlty Industry, the teacher wil need a high level of English speaking and listening sil, adlition to decaraive and procedural movwledge of English pragmatics and politeness routines. As we wil see, however, research has indicated that many NNESTs lack confidence in their bly to speak English well We tare now toa discussion of speaking (Gnd to some extent listening) as these sks elate tothe declarative {and procedural knowledge of NEST. Listenin ss ‘Speaking a second or foreign language well can be challenging for “anyone, but nonnative teachers face an aditional challange: the ox- Dectation that language teachers will have excellent speaking sl ‘This expectation # not unreasonable. Aller all, we Want languagery Lenn AN0 TEACHING FROM EXPERIENCE rearners to have both good linguistic models and good rele models. However unrealistically high expectations—perhaps especially those held by NEST themselves-—can be overwhelming “apparently, many NNESTe feet inferior when compared to thei native English-speaking teacher counterparts, especialy in areas of Tanguage fluency and communication. For example, Tang (997) re ports ona survey of 47 NNESTs, examining thelr perceptions of the Eproicency and competency” of NESTs and NNESTS, Her subjects elt that NESTS were superior toNNESTsin areas ofuency such as speak: iny (100%), pronunciation (92%), and listening (87%), She found that NNESTs “were felt tobe associated with accuracy rather than uency” (378) Ina survey conducted by Medgyes (199; see also Reves & Meduyes, 199), 295 teachers from 11 countries, 86% of whom were NESTS, completed sllseport questionnaires about their percelved Dehavior as English language teachers" Results showed that the NESTS “viewed themselves as poorer stoners, speakers, readers, [and writers" (p38) than their native English-speaking teacher counter parts These NNESTS identified speaking and Nueney, pronunciation, {haiisteningas most problematie after vocabulary and idiomatic and Sppropriate usc of English, Areas of accuracy, such as grammar and “tng lls, were mentioned far less frequently, and “realing skills lind cultural knowledge were not even mentioned” (Medgyes, 2001, 494) by the NNESTS surveyed. Speaking and listening are ften not formally taught in undengradu- ateand graduate TESOL programs, as these programs tend to assume {hat tel teacher trainees already know how to speak English, nother ‘words, such programs apparently assume that the majority of these ‘acher waineesfalliato Quadrant 3of Figure 2: they are highly pro- Fetent in the target language but are not yet professionally Prepared fs teachers (he reason thatthe teacher trainees would be applying for such programs), However, Medyes (1999) says that language trainings ignored in many TESOL programs. (He specially points tohis own Centre for English Teacher Trang tthe Ebtvos Lorénd University inBudspest) Medgyes also suggests that because language Improvertent is not considered to be a key issue, “trainees wil not Defi over backward to make linguistic progress” (p. 191). Therefore, teacher trainees are not itely to become near-native speakers of English, something he says Is necessary in order for NESTS to be “Gectiv, self-confident, and satisfied professionals” (p. 179). Inorder {to help NNESTs achieve this goal, he emphasizes the importance of inching language training in pre-service education, ‘Medes isnot the only one to stress the need for focused language training, According to Li (1998), an excellent command! of English “Cxtremely important for uaty 80 teaching,” where excellent com- Prine Nn a Nae Stns Thre wr ‘mand s defined as “Auent and idiomatic use ofthe English anguage™ (208), However Ltalso says that nonnative TESOL students needs Rave been overlooked in terms of helping them improve ther English proficiency a it relates to thelr future success a teachers (but ee Johnson, 1980). The teacher trainees fel the lack, oo. Ina survey of 59 nonnative TESOL students, (1998) found that only 1 elt they had the English language proficiency needed tobe a "rly qualified teacher” (205), Almost hall (49%) werent sure, and 37% replied with ‘definite "no." Therelore, he says, nonnative TESOL students “need help o training to prove thelr English” (p 205) Listening comprehension and pronunciation accuracy rate highly among NESTS as areas n which they fel their English proficiency s lacking. Mecgyes and Liv suggest that forused taining in these areas ‘willbe benefil for nonnative TESOL students and current NNESTS (Goth in terms of improving their English proficiency and in improv Ingtheir own seliconfidenee ax qualified English language teachers). Morley (1991) agrees saying that nonnative teacher trainees who plan to teach ESL or EPL “need special atention paid to communietive ‘als general and to pronunciation intelli in particular” (. 482), CelcedMurcia, Brinton, and Goodwin (1996) say that NNESTS "who expect to serve as the major model and souree of input in English for ther students" require "special assistance with pronunciation.” ‘though they point out that the goal not to expect NNESTS to sound ke native speakers but merely to hep them "o surpass the threshold level s that thetr pronunciation will ot detract rom thet abit t0 communicate" (p. 8). These authors donot define “threshold level.” Presumably the point at which an individuals pronunciation aflects his orher ability to communicate will vary depending on the iterioew {ors and the situation In which communication occurs "The link between prominclation ability and listening comprehen- sion fe also widely diecussod. Gilbert (193) claims that "bow you hnear English Is closely connected with how you speak English” (9-9) Morley (1991) suggests that in terms of programming pineples for teacher education, there should be “a focus on the link between lIstening and pronouncing/speaking anda eed to expand the nature land range of pronunclston-orlented activites” (p. 498), "There is some evidence that pronunciation instruction does lead to improved listening and speaking. For example, a study by Cenoz and Lecumberr (1995) found that Basque and Spanish students who Feceived specific English phonetics tring, including aural discrimi nation exerelses, improved in the discrimination of Eagsh simple ‘vowels and diphthongs. Tn Canada, Derwing, Munro, and Wiebe (1998) studied the elects of three types of instruction on ESL learners’ speech, Three groups ofsubjects were given (I) traningon segmental accuracy, 2) instruction wrth global focus (e.,suprasegmental emphasis). oF @) no specific pronunciation struction, There authors found that "tree aspects of bral production--comprehensiblty, accent, and Nuency—showed i provement as aresultof instruction” (p, 405). The segmental accuracy {group whose instruction included identification ané discrimination Tasks, showed a greater improvement in accentedness over the other {wo groups, while the global focus group showed clear improvement Incompretensbilty and uency Wile researchers havestudied the effects of pronunciation nstruc- tion on nonnative speaker comprehensiily, accuracy, and uency, there appears to be relatively ile research measuring the effect of focused training for NNESTs by NESTS oa the pronunciation itel- Tilt and listening comprehension of pronunciation contrasts of [NNESTs. Pasternak (2002) investigated the eflet of instruction by [ESTs on the pronunciation intelligibility and the receptive aural ‘iserimination of American English sounds by NNESTS in China. She tested 38 Chinese middle schoo! teachers of English before and alter biourweekintensive English language workshop that focused on con ‘ersation listening and pronunciation sli. The analyses revealed Statistically sigiieant Improvement between the Chinese teachers pre-and posttest scores for the aural discrimination assessment ‘Their pronunciation intelligibility reults were somewhat less clear, though one of the two raters did perceive statstcally significant improvement following the instruction. The results suggest that Tanguage learners’ aural discrimination of phones contrasts does Indeed improve with focused instruction and tat such instruction Inay also eontribute to the learners’ own pronuncation intelli ity Given that all of the partitpants had been trained as English teachers but had limited proficiency (Le. they were in Quadrant 2 of Figure 2) it seems that even a short intensive raining program that texposes NNESTs tonative speech may be beneficial to thet listening ne speaking skis "hve oral fluency of 15 inservice EFL teachers in Hong Kong was Investigated by Lan (1995), These teachers were randomly sampled from those enrolled In a 20-woek course intended “to extend the f= ‘ney ad enhance the confidence of parieipants in spoken English” (>. 130), Lam adds, however, that how the teachers" honey Is expected to changeit at alis not spelled out Lam found no statistically ‘signieantdiferences in the teachers’ pre-course and postcourse fiuency either with subjective ratings or with three objective mea- ‘Sues (apeech rate, numberof filed passes per Tunit? and percent ‘of Tuts followed by e pause; see Lam 1985), She discusses the pos ‘Siity thatthe teachers may have made gains tn uency that were not captured in these measurements or that a “ceiling eect” may hhave come into play; thats, these EFL teachers “were adults who hadalready mastered quite af advanced level of spoken English,” and they “might have reached a celling as regards thelr development of speech ate” (p. 138) Athird posslblty which Lam does not sugges, Js that these teachers’ English Nuency did not diseeribly prove uring the course, “Another study in Hong Kong id not directly measure speaking sil but ts findings are useful here. Crew (1095) investigated changes the English proicency of 198 fulltime teacher trainees, Some were enroled ina three-year Chinesemedium curicuum (= 69), while the Fest (= 128) were enrolled ina two-year Englshmedium curricul Both groups were tested three times with three parallel forms othe Oxdor Placement Test (OPT) (Allan, 1984). The OPT consists of to 100-point subtests, The frst covers reading and listening, while the second assesses thetest takers knowledge of grammar (bath function nd structure), The OPT was gven to thetwo groups a the beginning, ‘migpoin, ang end of telr respective curieula ‘Crew (1985) documented a curious wend In both the Chinese-and ngsh.mecum tenes” OPT results, Fs, there was a general pattern of slight gain between OPTI and OPT2), lowed by amarked decline ‘and overall loss of English profiency (between OPT2 and OPTS" (> 128) Second the Chinesemedium trainees made much greater gains between OPTI and OPT2 than dd hel English-medium counterparts. ‘The three forms ofthe OPT used the multiple-choice format to assess the test takers receptive skill and English grammar knowledge There ‘was no direct speaking assessment inched inthis battery. “The in-service EFL teachers in Lam's (1995) research and the 198 ‘trainees in Crew's research wer all studying in Hong Kong, though Tf the Engishsmedium trainees in Crew's study went to the UR. fora steweek program. That Immersion group showed nearly the “same average gans asthe Chinesemedtum trainees (+42 and 647, respectively at the second OPT administration), Their thitd set of OPT scores also showed a marked decline, however ‘One further study must be noted. Kelch and Santans-Wiliamson (200%) found that ESL students attitudes toward teachers’ accents ‘were nor elated tothe teachers’ natveness. Rather the students at ‘iudes correlated with ther perceptions ofthe teachers’ nativeness kKeleh and Santana‘Willamson conclude that “non-native speakers not only can and do possess the tame professional altibutes and ‘Qualifications as native speakers, but they ean further contribute to ‘abealthy leaming environment by displaying great sensitivity to the needs of 2 learners and serve as more realistic role models than tive speakers” (p58 see also Sammy & Bratt-Crile, 1999),‘This bret review of some iterature on NNESTS' speaking and lis- tening sills shows that in some circumstances, nonnative teachers make signifeantimproverent in thet English language sll, given appropriate programs of instruction. This review aso suggests tha how NEST speaking and listening skills are measured ls an impor tant factor to consider ‘We began this chapter by arguing that the debate of the past several, decades over thenativeEnglshspeaking teacher versus the noanaive "Englishspeaking teacher is overly simplistic. Instead. the key isues| to be considered in language teachers’ preservice and Inservice ‘education and in employment decisions are the individual teachers" profic.ency and professional preparation. We described five diferent ESL/EFL teachers as examples and considered some of te diferent challenge faced by native-and nonnativespeaking teachers in terms oftheir declarative and procedural knowledge. Finally, we have re- ‘lewed some ofthe research literature on NNESTs, specifically with ‘egard to speaking and listening sls, including thelr own attitudes bout thelr strengths and weaknesses. We will close by returning briefly tothe proficiency and preparation of our ve teachers. ‘We believe that preservice and Inservice teacher education pro- grams can help teachers lmprove thelr English proficiency as well 4s ther professionalism. Furthermore, the distinction between de- Slarative and procedural inowledge provides us with a framework tor assessing those areas where improvement is needed. Regardless fof whether a teacher ls a native or a nonnative speaker of the la {guage we can assume thatthe greater the procedural and declarative ‘knowledge n any given area of English language teachings, the more confident the teacher wil be. in that regard, the framework alscussed here for considering target language proficlency and professional reparation can also be Used by teacher educators and trainees in {ssessingandtrackingthe trainees’ evelopment with regardto thelr proficiency in English In Figure 3 we use the continua from Figure 2 [ad the constructs fom Figure Ito providea means by which trainees tr tencher educators can estimate the trsinees’ level of proficiency fndjor conidence at various points in time. We have labeled the con- Uinua as declarative Rnowledge and procedural Rnowiedge, with thelr tendpolnts representing elther a developed or an undeveloped state. "The chart in Figure 3 can be used asa simple dlagnoste tol for evaluating English teachers’ proficiency or professional preparation tr both. For example, prior to taking Courses on English syntactic thd discourse strictures or on English phonology both NESTs and rear Hosa an hae Eli Stn Tacs m Developed Aectarative Halege Undevoped | decaratve need | seastompr rma sce nowt nde Sener ante aor Shas rental orice cowtoce | epee rte tego oe egies ah Seip east Si Tend enemies re ‘trie etn arn ocr ove | emma The me ene te ie ete ae | pied merase “Language teacher preparation programs can do a great deal to eu sure that ther students have the opportunities they aeed in order to fel more confidentand prepared when they graduate For example, ¢ ‘comprehensive and ongolngneeds assessment et atudent surveys. Interviews, locus groups) can help faculty ensure that the eurrieu. | __ lum supports the curent students needs. Program orientations can | Include a learnertraining component for both NESTS and NNESTS, Incorporating elements such as elas partiipatlon, aad raining ‘and relationship building. Such train may help avoid the comme Ilcation problems that naturally oceur when students fom dillerentma. LEARNING AND TEACHING FROM EXPERIENCE cultures mix in a single academe setting. Furthermore, «thorough ‘academic advising system, wherein every student has an advisor, will enable students to complete program requirements successfully ‘Where possible, NNESTs can be encouraged to enrollin EAP eourses that are designed to help nonnative students develop their academic Elis, including their speaking sli What has become of our five ESL/EFL teachers? Kim's work asa EFL teacher in his home country has Improved and his confidence has greatly increased a «result of his sojourn in ‘nn Englis-speaking country and his elforts to complete his master's ‘degre. We hope he will continue to improve his English and sustain his professional development by getting involved in professional leaching associations, attending English cultural events, using the “Toms stil teaching conversation courses Ihe continues teaching English, we hope hisafnity for Asia willead him te abtai the appro- priate training asa language teacher He may be a “natural” teacher, buteven talented, natural teachers can improve thei declarative and procedural knowledge about the target language, the taget culture, And language teaching lena so0m realized thatthe gaps inher sociolinguistic competence were causing problems, and sheet otto stay this toplc and improve her own productive sks, While she still seems somewhat aggressive ther nativespeahing colleagues, she ha learned to siow her speech, to smooth the intonation contours a bit and to use tigating strate- sis in making requests in Engish. In short, she has developed her ociolinguiste sks ‘Monika, our professionally prepared native speaker, may learn ‘more about the culture and language of her host country and decide tostay, she tres to learn the students’ frst language she may be ‘more sympathetic to their needs and better prepared to cape with thelr behavior. Otherwise, she may simply leave the country and try {ofind work that ie within her comfort zone, ‘Weare hopefl that La willsomeday have opportunites to upgrade her professional skills and her English proficiency The systemic com ‘rains of her current context make It dificult to see how she could Improve er English without significantly increased opportualties for interaction andjor instruction. Nevertheless, tis possible that she will make an important contribution to her own students’ educa tion, “We want to close with the words of Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000), ‘who'note that inorder to deconstruct the concept of native speaker, ‘we must “separate two Important Issues: belng born in a certain jeographic place versus having a participant status in a discursive “community” (p. 168) Many nonnative speaking teachers "may forever ‘lam allegiance tothe place of thelr birt [but] they also undenlabiy belong in ther second selfchosen world, not as observers but as fulltedged parilpants” (bid). Inthe content ofthis chapter. that ‘econdelchosen worlds the dacursive community of profesional language teaching. teacher’ level ofpartlelpation inthis community doesnot and should not depend on issues o nativeness” but rather ‘on each individual's unique blend of professional preparation and Drofcieney. There le room in this community and agreat need for ‘wellualied teachers, regardless of thelr place of bith. Note 1 Ofcourse, ther important professional areas, such assessment and cu tleulum desig, could slo be added tothe Sue 2 Medes (2) does uguest hatte results be interpreted autowsy asthe ‘questionaeforal eed teachers stated” Denavir rather ian het “etal behaviors (p44). ‘3. Aunts "Yemisale unt” orindependent clause say anda dependent Clases attached tt See Cas, 180, Larsen Freeman, 178 Rotrenes ‘Alan, . (1880, Oufor placment ests, Oxon: Oxoré Univers Press. “Anderson 8 (1980 Capnta psjcology ands inplcaons San Francisco "Wit Freeman, Anderson, JR. (183). The architecture of cogution. Cambridge: Harvard Un ‘vest Press. Bachman (190), Fundamental conseraons i language esting. Oxford ‘Onoré UniverayPrse. Bale, KM, (orthcumng. Language wacerspersion A casebook approach Boston Helle & Hele, Bale KM, Curtis, A & una, D201. suing profesional development "he se ai sour Boston Heinle & Haale ‘Braue. (190), nvodveton. In G.Brane Ea), Nonaative educators in English languoge teaching (pp xe), aba I: Elba ‘canagaah AS. 185), Interrogatingte “ate spear allay" Nenangustic Tools dur pedagogialresults iG Bane (Ea), Nowra educators ngs language acing (pp 77-92). Mahwah, NE riba (ccebdues M Brnton.D.AL & Goodwin. M199), Teaching pronunciation Cambeige Cambie University Pres. (coe 1, A Lecumber, LG. (108. The allet of waning onthe dscrimins ‘on of Englsh vel, rational Ree of pied ings in anguge Teaching (314, 251-25.ma LEARNING AND TEACHING FROM EXPERIENCE ‘ew (1885), When does carat become sti? Changing atts s English Tanguage protency of HongKong studs teachers oD, Nona, Ber, 8 ‘berry (Eds, Langage soreness ia langage edcaton: Proceedings o he Ineratoal Langage Fswcton Conference 184 (pp. 117-18) University cf Hong Kong People's Republi of Cina ryt. (199, Pe Cambie encyelpeiaoflagunge 2nd), Cambridge Camb Unies res Derwing, TM, Mano, Be, & Wsbe, (589) Exience vor o broad "eameworor prominin instruction. Language Learning, #9), 28-410 ‘yon K (199, Mare). Hig nonnative Engshspeaers to teach ESL: An ‘ninetrator’s perspective. AEST Neste, 1). alee S, J. 188) Tet analysis i second langage research: Appleations, poblems, nd Into, TESOL Quarry, 1), 5-8, Caer, (989 Clear speech: Ponuncaion and lseing comprehension in "Non mericon Engh (2nd) Cambridge: Cambrige Univers Press ofan, K. (190), Developing teachers language resouress. In Richards "4D. Nina Es), Second ange teacher eduatan (9p 26-281) Cambridge Cambridge Unies Press ‘aunt. (19), Preparing on atv profesional in TESOL: ples toe or teacher edveationprograns In rane (8), Howat decors in Bags angiage waching (pp. 145-158, Maa, Ni Eb opus. B,(199 Moreh. TheELT Ho(NEST or not hogNESTY? ANEST Mele fer 10). 1.56, ele, K & Sanana:Nillamson,E. (2002) ESL students atitudes toward ative nd nonnative pening ister accents CATESOL Jura, (0, 5 La, W.¥.K. 195 lavestiating the oral ueney of 15 EL teachers: A quant Tai approach revised. Nanaa, RBar, &V. Berry (Eas), Langenge qureness wn angage eatin: te Iteratinal Language ‘avcaton Cnfernc, 199 (pp 188-1. University of Hong Kong Popes Republic of Chica arn reman, (197), ANESL indexot development. TESOL Quarry, 126, cern ‘4t K.2000, March. A hundred mies. NNEST Newser, 2) 1. it. (199) Tralning non ate TESOL students Challenges for TESOL teacher ‘ducaon nthe Westin Brae (Ed), Narato edocs in Engh language teaching (pp 187-210) Mara, NE Eibaun. eave, 1590, The ronnlve eacer Londo: Maca ‘Medes, . (128), Langage ining io teaeer education. mG. Braine (EA), Nona educators in Eglihlngooge tach (pp. 77-185). Mahwah Ni Eahaun, Madge, (210), When the teacheris non ative speaker In, Clee Mula (Ei), Teaching Ege so second or org language Bd pp. 29-42) Boston: Hen & Heil reine sate a Nae Eh etn Hees us More. (191), The pronunciation component teaching aglih to speakers ‘ol ther languages. TESOL Quarry 250) 81-32, ‘Muh, ODwye M195 Aap tigen TESOL TESOL Mer 2, "Nan, D199, AugustSepembe) So you thnk tat guage tac Is & resin part TESOL Mater 90, Pasernal (200), Hag Bg? Does MEST inst hep Chinese NEST in Prove heir pronacaon ligand lieningcmprhensin’Vapbised| ‘manesrit Monterey ist ol neratinal Stas a Moe C3, Palen, A Lanol (20). Second language learning ss prtcation ‘andthe (construction of selves. In Lanta (8). Seiocaltra ery and Scand language fearing (p. 15-179), Oxon Ontord Unversity Press. Prilpon (182). Lins inperiti, OxorOntordUniversty Press, Revs, 1, Medes, (994) Thenon ative Engh spelig EEL teachers ‘ellinage: An ternational survey. Sytem, 23) 35-957 Saminy, KK, rte | (198), To be a alive ora atoatve speaker Pereeptions of “aotative students ina graduate TESOL program In Bran (4), Nonnane ects m Ent lmguage acing pp 121-16) Maia, Xi Etaum, Shaw A 0873). Handing a lnguage component n& teacher training course Madera Esk Teacher $1215. Sith LE (181. TESOL and tring nonnative Bgl speakers Are MAL Teacher education prosams geting te ob done? Prt lin) Fisher MA. ‘Clarke, Schacter (Es), On TESOL 80d dee Research and an eachog Eh sean rege (1-18) Washo. OC ‘Tang, . (897). On the power sod status of aonnaive ESL teachers. TESOL ‘are, 319, 57-580