TURKISH TERTIARY LEVEL EFL STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF NATIVE ENGLISH-SPEAKING TEACHERS AND NON-NATIVE ENGLISH-SPEAKING TEACHERS

Gülten Koşar

Abstract


Native English-speaking teacher (NEST) and non-native English-speaking teacher (NNEST) dichotomy has been around over a number of decades, and the prevailing view regarding the dichotomy has been that native speakers have been brought forth and prioritized in the field of English language teaching merely due to being a native speaker of English. The objective of this study is to explore Turkish tertiary level EFL students’ perceptions of NESTs and NNESTs. So as to discover the perceptions of the participants, a close and open questionnaire was conducted. The findings yield that the participants preferred to be taught English by both NESTs and NNESTs according to the areas they were considered to be competent at teaching. NESTs were contemplated to be good at teaching speaking, pronunciation, and target culture, whereas NNESTs were perceived to be good at teaching grammar, reading, and writing. The results also indicate that students placed importance on teachers’ teaching experience and qualifications while evaluating their performance as English language teachers.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

DOI

Keywords


NESTs, NNESTs, tertiary level students’ perceptions, English language learning, English language teaching

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alghofaili, N. M., & Elyas, T. (2017). Decoding the myths of native and non-native English speakers teachers (NESTS & NNESTS) on Saudi EFL Tertiary Students. English Language Teaching, 10(6).

Alseweed, M. A. (2012). University students’ perceptions of the influence of native and non-native teachers. English Language Teaching, 5(12), 42-53.

Aslan, E., & Thompson, A. S. (2016) Native and nonnative speaker teachers: contextualizing perceived differences in the Turkish EFL setting. LIF – Language in Focus Journal, 2(1).pp. 87-102.

Barratt, L., & Kontra, E. (2000). Native English-speaking teachers in cultures other than their own. TESOL Journal, 9(3), 19-23.

Barry, C. (2011). English language teaching in Brunei: A view through a critical lens. RELC Journal, 42(2), 203-220.

Benke, E. & Medgyes, P. (2005). Differences in teaching behaviour between native and non-native speaker teachers: As seen by the learners. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non- Native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the Profession (pp.195-215). New York, NY: Springer

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Braine, G. (1999). Non-Native Educators in English Language Teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Canado, M. L. P., & Madrid, D. (2004). Teacher and student preferences of native and non-native foreign language teachers. Porta Linguarum, 2, 125-138.

Cheung, Y. L., & Braine, G. (2007). The attitudes of university students towards non- native speakers English teachers in Hong Kong. RELC Journal, 38, 258–277.

Cook, V. J. (1999). Going beyond the Native Speaker in Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 2, 185-209.

Coulmas, F. (1981). Spies and native speakers. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), A Festschrift for Native Speaker (pp. 355-367). The Hague: Mouton.

Davies, A. (2003). The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Diaz, N. R. (2015). Students’ preferences regarding native and non-native teachers of English at a university in the French Brittany. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 93 – 97.

Edge, J. (1988). Natives, speakers, and models. JALT Journal, 9(2), 153-157.

Graddol, D. (2001). English Next. UK: British Council

Guerra, L. (2009). Teaching and Learning English as an International Language in Portugal. Policy, Practice and Perceptions. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.

Guerra, L. (2017). Native and Non-Native Teachers in English Language Classrooms by Agudo, J. D. D. M. (Ed.). Students’ Perceptions and Expectations of Native and Non-Native Speaking Teachers. 183-205. Berlin, De Gruyter Inc.

Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385-387.

Kachru, B. B. (1985) Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk and H.G. Widdowson (eds) English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and the British Council.

Karakaş, A., Uysal, H., Bilgin, S., & Bulut, B. (2016). Turkish EFL learners’ perceptions of native Englishspeaking teachers and non-native English-speaking teachers in higher education. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 10(2), 180-206.

Karakaş, A. (2016). Turkish lecturers’ and students’ perceptions of English in English medium universities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Southampton University, Southampton, England.

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2002). University students’ perceptions of native and nonnative speaker teachers of English. Language Awareness, 11, 132-142.

Levis, J. M., Sonsaat, S., Link, S., & Barriuso, T. A. (2016). Native and nonnative teachers of L2 pronunciation: Effects on learner performance. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 894-931.

Li, Y., Zhang, G. (2016). Native- or Non-native speaking teaching for L2 pronounciation teaching?-An investigation on their teaching effect and students’ preferences. English Language Teaching, 9(12), 89-97.

Liang, J. (2003). Models of NNESTs’ teacher development: Rethinking the NS/NSS dichotomy. NNEST Newsletter, 5(2), 1-5.

Ma, L. P. F. (2012). Advantages and disadvantages of native- and non-native- English-speaking teachers: Student perceptions in Hong Kong. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 280–300.

Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or nonnative: who’s worth more? ELT Journal, 46(4), 340- 349.

Medgyes, P. (1994). The Non-Native Teachers. London: MacMillan.

Medgyes, P. (1999). The Non-Native Teacher (2nd Ed.). Germany: Hueber.

Pacek, D. (2005). “Personality not nationality”: Foreign students’ perceptions of a nonnative speaker lecturer of English at a British university. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Nonnative Language Teacher: Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the Profession (pp. 243–262). New York, NY: Springer.

Paikeday, T. M. (1985). The Native Speaker is Dead! Toronto: Paikeday Publishing Inc.

Phillipson, R. (1992). ELT: The native speaker’s burden? ELT Journal, 46(4), 340-349.

Rajagopalan, K. (2004). The Concept of World English and its implications for ELT. ELT Journal 58(2).

Rampton, M. B. (1990). Displacing the 'native speaker’: expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. ELT, 45, 97-101

Rao, Z. (2010). Chinese students’ perceptions of native English-speaking teachers in EFL teaching. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 31(1), 55- 68.

Samimy, K., & Brutt-Griffler, J. (1999). To be a native or non-native speaker : perceptions of "non-native" students in a graduate TESOL program. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-Native Educators in English Language Teaching (pp. 127-144). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Seidlhofer, B. (1999). Double standards: Teacher education in the expanding circle. World Englishes, 18(2), 233-245.

Watson Todd, R., & Pojanapunya, P. (2008). Implicit attitudes towards native and non-native speaker teachers. System 37, 23-33.

Walkinshaw, I., & Duong, O. T. H.(2012). Native- and non-native speaking English teachers in Vietnam: Weighing the benefits. TESL-EJ. 16(3).

Yun Tsou, S. (2013). Taiwanese university students’ perceptions toward native and non-native English-Speaking teachers in EFL contexts. Texas A & M University – Kingsville.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejel.v0i0.1950

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright © 2015 - 2023. European Journal of English Language Teaching (ISSN 2501-7136) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms.

All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).