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

  1. Have you worked with NS (native speaking) teachers before as a NNS (non-native speaking) teacher ?

 Teaching Strengths

  1. Have you had any difficulties dealing with students who shared your L1? (If you have never taught students who shared your L1, please write N/A). If you answered yes, please describe the situation.
  2. Have you had any difficulties dealing with students who did NOT share your L1? (If you have never taught students who shared your L1, please write N/A). If you answered yes, please describe the situation.
  3. What are your strengths as a NNS teacher? Please choose items from below.
    1. vocabulary
    2. fluency
    3. speaking
    4. pronunciation
    5. grammar
    6. listening comprehension
    7. idioms
    8. reading
    9. writing
    10. appropriateness
    11. intonation
    12. learning strategies
    13. speech acts (e.g. phone, invitation)
    14. knowledge of the target culture
    15. cross cultural knowledge
    16. knowledge of students’ L1
  1. What do you think would be the strengths for NS teachers, assuming they are as well trained as you are?
  2. What do you think would be the weaknesses for NS teachers, assuming they are as well trained as you are?

 Appendix 2. Questions for NS subjects

 Teaching Experience

  1. Have you worked with NNS (non-native speaking) teachers before as a NS (native speaking) teacher ?

 Teaching Strengths

  1. Have you had any difficulties dealing with students? If you answered yes, please describe the situation.
  2. What are your strengths as a NNS teacher? Please choose items from below.
    1. vocabulary
    2. fluency
    3. speaking
    4. pronunciation
    5. grammar
    6. listening comprehension
    7. idioms
    8. reading
    9. writing
    10. appropriateness
    11. intonation
    12. learning strategies
    13. speech acts (e.g. phone, invitation)
    14. knowledge of the target culture
    15. cross cultural knowledge
    16. knowledge of students’ L1
  1. What do you think would be the strengths for NNS teachers, assuming they are as well trained as you are?
  2. What do you think would be the weaknesses for NNS teachers, assuming they are as well trained as you are?