In our presentation at the BALEAP PIM on Intercultural Communication in Nottingham, Kazuo Yamamoto and I argued that non-native English speaking tutors (NNESTs) can use their own background and experiences to help international students.
We believe that coming from a different culture, a different country, a different learning background (Hungary and Japan in our case) and having to learn the ways of UK HE is a significant common point shared between students and tutors who had come from other contexts. Rather than hiding this difference in embarrassment, we believe that it is something to be celebrated and be proud of, as it is a hugely valuable resource in understanding students, predicting their difficulties and communicating more effectively with them. Naturally, one must be careful not to overgeneralise, and always take into account students’ individual personal experiences. Nevertheless, in the majority of cases we have found certain similarities between those from similar learning backgrounds, such as writing style and classroom behaviour in Confucian cultures. Knowing about these can aid teachers in their work.
After the talk, several colleagues came up to thank us for our talk. Among them were EAP tutors who had learnt English later in life, who had often experienced discrimination and unequal treatment due to their NNEST status. Their eyes were shining and they felt validated by our ideas, grateful to hear that they can bring something truly valuable and unique to the classroom. In addition, British (NEST) tutors also thanked us for our talk, saying how useful they found it, and that they now realise what a fantastic resource they have in their NNEST colleagues.
There was, however, someone who disagreed. Professor Adrian Holliday, the keynote speaker, had stated in his talk that anybody using the terms “native” and “non-native speakers” is a neo-racist and this distinction should be abolished. I couldn’t agree more that it is discriminatory and racist to deny a large group of people certain jobs due to their NNES status. I also agree that the “native speakerism” still present in several countries’ EFL industry is deplorable. However, rather than trying to ignore this difference – which is clearly impossible, as any NNEST tutor will tell you, being asked every single day “where they are from” – it is much more useful to say that it is okay to be different, and focus on the respective advantages and added knowledge that NNESTs, and of course NESTs, bring to the classroom. At the same time, it is also important to bear in mind that the native – non native distinction is not binary but should be seen as a cline: many individuals acquire native-like proficiency of other languages, and many grow up bilingually. However, claiming that there is no difference suggests that if there were, it would only mean the weakness of NNESTs: something embarrassing to hide. As if to say “As native English speakers, let’s be generous and ignore the shortcomings of non-natives”. This is in fact much more offensive than saying that yes, NNEST tutors may be different in certain respects, and yes, this is a good thing.
Many teachers coming from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds have walked the same path as their students, particularly those EAP tutors who had to learn not only General English and Academic English, but also adapt to living in the UK and learn the rules and expectations of UK Higher Education. This gives them (us) a high level of empathy and a deep understanding of our students’ situation. As part of our research project last summer – to be published soon – we interviewed 15 NNES EAP tutors working in Bristol University and Sheffield University. We were careful not to “label” them and asked each to what extent / if at all they would describe themselves as a NNEST. There seemed to be no offence taken whatsoever and no resistance to this label – if anything, they seemed to be puzzled by our tiptoeing around the term. They all agreed that if English is not their L1, they can be referred to as non-native speakers of this language. They also shared a huge array of positive points that they believe they bring to the classroom as a result of having learnt the English language and British academic conventions. Why should this suddenly be taken away from them?
Professor Adrian Holliday has tweeted:
I no longer review research that compares ‘native’ and ‘non-native speaker’ teachers as though the groups are real and not imagined #nns
— Adrian Holliday (@adrianholliday) 6 May 2017
The term “non-native” has been used in a pejorative sense in the past, but banning the word is not the solution.
Holliday’s assumption that “non-native speakers” form an “imaginary” group is undermined by the fact that every NNEST can tell you what it feels like to read job adverts barring you from applying because of the nationality on your passport; or to face a classroom full of hostile faces in your first lesson asking “Where are you from?” and then complaining to your manager that they wanted a British / American teacher. Everyone living in the UK who doesn’t speak English as their L1 can tell you how it feels to be asked on a daily basis where they are from and getting “that look” (as described by a colleague I met at the conference). Several NNES EAP tutors have reported that native speaker coworkers have told them they should not be allowed to do this job, or that they should get paid less for it as English is not their L1. These experiences cannot be undone and it is pointless trying to suddenly pretend that there is no difference whatsoever. However, the negative label can be changed into a positive one.
If NNESTs can be proud of their identity and our whole industry can see this as an asset, rather than an embarrassment to hide, it can help to undo the damage of the negative labels they have all – to varying extents – had to endure. In the same way that we emphasise differentiation for students, this can also be applied to teachers. Each individual tutor has a rich variety of life and learning experiences that they can exploit in their work. How can we say that the experience of learning English, academic English, or even UK living, is irrelevant to all of this?
Further links:
https://www.baleap.org/event/intercultural-communication – see “List of speakers with abstracts” for details of our talk
Thanks for the article. I think the main issue I have is that constantly comparing the two groups leads to creating further stereotypes about them. This has been criticised by numerous researchers as the comparative fallacy. Of course, it is true to say that SOME ‘non-native speakers’ might understand students’ experiences and be able to empathise with them. However, this is not because they are ‘non-native speakers’. Rather, it’s because of their individual experiences. We could very easily imagine a situation where a ‘native speaker’ teacher, who now teaches at a university in for example Belgium, having studied there previously, will understand how to help non-Belgian students potentially better than a ‘non-native speaker’ teacher from Belgium. So while there might be differences between the two groups, to me they boil down and are caused by the individual experience of those teachers rather than their ‘nativeness’. To be honest, I wouldn’t find it very empowering if someone told me to teach grammar because I should know it really well as a ‘non-native speaker’.
I also think that Holliday makes a very valid point. The labels are highly subjective and ideological. Often, being a ‘native speaker’ means being white and Western-looking. So while I don’t think it’s possible to ban the labels, I do think we need to tread more carefully, especially as far as professional ELT and SLA discourses are concerned. I think researchers should acknowledge the ideological nature of the two terms, rather than use them as if they were neutral and properly defined. It seems to me that this is the main takeaway point from Holliday’s tweet.
I also see little point in research that continues to compare the two groups to see which advantages one has over the other. Likewise, it would be questionable to now start comparing English teachers based on their gender, saying that women are better able to empathise with their learners because they’re more sensitive.
Thanks for your response, Marek. I do agree with you that it is dangerous to consider “nativeness” as the MOST defining feature of teachers, as there are huge individual differences. Likewise, I never suggested that teachers whose L1 is not English are necessarily better at teaching grammar.
However, there are situations where it is useful and valuable to bring individual background and experience into teaching, and the languages we grew up with or learned later may be a part of this. My main point was that this does not need to be hidden or overlooked, in the same way that – to use your example –
teachers would normally not hide their gender, or say that the difference between men and women is imaginary. Women are not more empathetic as a rule, but certain female students may feel more comfortable sharing gender specific personal problems with them, according to my experience. The same might be true for male students and male teachers.
Gender and linguistic / cultural background are two of the factors that may sometimes impact on one’s teaching style and strengths, alongside personality, skills, interests, etc. None of these should not be an exclusive consideration, but I believe they should also not be ignored completely.
Another interesting blog post on the same topic here:
https://criticalelt.wordpress.com/2017/11/26/a-reply-to-a-hollidays-why-we-should-stop-using-native-non-native-speaker-labels/
good article Julia. Seems your talk at Baleap went very well. great