This article was downloaded by: [Gazi University]On: 04 October 2014, At: 04:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

EFL learners' beliefs about native andnon-native English-speaking teachers:perceived strengths, weaknesses, andpreferencesSun Young Chuna

a Department of English Education, Kyungpook National University,Daegu, Republic of KoreaPublished online: 28 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Sun Young Chun (2014) EFL learners' beliefs about native and non-nativeEnglish-speaking teachers: perceived strengths, weaknesses, and preferences, Journal ofMultilingual and Multicultural Development, 35:6, 563-579, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2014.889141

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2014.889141

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:23

04

Oct

ober

201

4

EFL learners’ beliefs about native and non-native English-speakingteachers: perceived strengths, weaknesses, and preferences

Sun Young Chun*

Department of English Education, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea

(Received 25 July 2013; accepted 25 January 2014)

Although the number of native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) in English as aForeign Language (EFL) contexts has increased in recent years with the emergence ofEnglish as an international language, only a few studies on NESTs and non-NESTshave extensively and directly examined students’ beliefs about these two groups ofteachers. To fill this gap, a questionnaire was administered to 125 Korean EFLuniversity students. Findings indicated that Korean students perceived NESTs andKorean English teachers (KETs) as having both strengths and weaknesses and did notuniformly favour one teacher type over the other. Students held differentiated beliefsabout the characteristics, specific areas of instructional competence, teachingeffectiveness at different learning stages and classroom performance of NESTs andnon-NESTs. NESTs were judged more effective in their linguistic competence andstatus as native speakers. KETs were judged more effective in helping students withpsychological aspects of language learning and in having sensitivity to students’ needscoming from their shared L1 and experience as language learners. The issue ofNESTs’ possessing basic knowledge of students’ L1 and the possible recent growth inKETs’ linguistic abilities and professional development complicate the situation.These findings suggest that students can benefit from being taught by both types ofteachers.

Keywords: native English-speaking teachers; non-native English-speaking teachers;learners’ beliefs; EFL

Introduction

With globalisation, English has become an international language. Thus, unlike languagelearners in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) settings in the past, language learnerstoday have increased opportunities to study with native English-speaking teachers(NESTs). However, only a few studies on NESTs and non-NESTs have extensively anddirectly examined students’ beliefs about these two groups of teachers (Moussu 2010).Most previous research has focused on non-NESTs’ perceptions of what students mightthink of them and of their NEST counterparts (e.g. Reves and Medgyes 1994; Samimyand Brutt-Griffler 1999). Although a few empirical studies on this topic have attempted toinclude students’ voices (e.g. Lasagabaster and Sierra 2002; Moussu 2010), there is still apaucity of such research in the literature, particularly in EFL contexts. Thus, many crucialquestions regarding EFL students’ beliefs about NESTs and non-NESTs still remainunanswered and are in need of research.

*Email: sych917@gmail.com

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2014Vol. 35, No. 6, 563–579, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2014.889141

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:23

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The Korean context

The emergence of English as a global language has had an enormous impact on policiesregarding English education in the Asia-Pacific region (Nunan 2003). In Korea, Englishhas been taught as a class subject, not as a means of communication. English instructionin Korea has always placed a great deal of emphasis on the grammar-translationapproach. Thus, in spite of the time and effort invested in learning English, many peoplein Korea still have difficulty speaking with native English speakers. As a result, theKorean Ministry of Education began to recruit a large number of native speakers with thegoal of improving students’ English proficiency (Kwon 2000). The number of NESTs inKorea from many English-speaking countries, including the USA, the UK and Canada,has thus increased. Ironically, however, as the number of NESTs has increased, there hasalso been a growing concern about some of their qualifications to teach English in Korea.Braine (1999) noted that in countries such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan, being a nativespeaker is the main qualification for getting a teaching job, and native speakers with noteaching experience and teacher training often take advantage of their native speakerstatus. As Braine noted, the primary qualification when selecting NESTs in Korea iswhether the person holds a bachelor’s degree. So the teachers hired in Korea do notnecessarily have ESL/EFL teaching experience or teaching training (Kwon 2000). AsKorean students are the ones who are affected by this dramatic change in Englisheducation, their thoughts and opinions about the issue deserve careful attention,particularly in Korea where education has been more teacher-centred rather than relyingon student autonomy.

Teaching qualifications of NESTs and non-NESTs

In the language teaching field, many researchers, such as Braine (1999) and Canagarajah(1999), have recently questioned the prevalent notion that a native speaker will make abetter teacher than a non-native speaker simply because of the former’s ability to useEnglish as a native language. The notion that the ideal teacher of English is a nativespeaker is called the ‘native speaker fallacy’ by Phillipson (1992, 185). In arguing againstthe fallacy, Phillipson posited that ‘the tenet has no scientific validity’ (195) and thatteachers can be effective regardless of their native language. According to Phillipson,non-native speakers who have gone through the process of learning English as a secondlanguage and have attained insight into the learners’ needs in terms of language andculture may be better qualified to teach English than native speakers would be. In thesame sense, native speakers of the language may not be qualified without undergoingappropriate training in language instruction.

Walelign (1986) also discussed whether birthright superiority makes native speakersautomatically better qualified teachers than non-native speakers excluding all otherqualifications such as teacher training, teaching skill and enthusiasm for teaching. Hepointed out that this preconceived notion maintains the superiority of native speakers ofEnglish as more qualified teachers over non-native speakers.

One of the arguments in favour of NESTs is that they have more experience with‘authentic language’. However, Widdowson (1994) argued that current English languageteaching places too much emphasis on ‘authentic language use’ in the classroom, statingthat ‘the language is only authentic in the original conditions of its use, it cannot be in theclassroom’ (386). Widdowson offered a definition of authentic language use as languageused outside the classroom context, when engaging with people who speak the language.He argued that native speakers have been given advantages through this notion of

564 S.Y. Chun

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:23

04

Oct

ober

201

4

authenticity in the field of English language teaching. According to Widdowson, at somepoint language learners will want to be exposed to native speaking environments and beauthentically involved with native speakers. This will enable them to acquire culturalknowledge and idiomatic expressions. Therefore, language taught in the classroom shouldbe ‘specially designed for pedagogic purposes so that it can be made real in the context ofthe students’ own world’ (Widdowson 1994, 386). Widdowson asserted that when thecontext of learning receives more attention in the language learning process than thecontext of use, non-native speakers will gain pedagogical advantages over nativespeakers.

Recently, with English recognised as a lingua franca, the argument in favour ofNESTs has also been challenged. That is, an ‘authentic’ context nowadays frequentlyinvolves interactions among non-native speakers, with few or no native speakers present(Graddol 2006), thereby granting legitimacy for non-NESTs as teachers of English:

An inexorable trend in the use of global English is that fewer interactions now involve anative-speaker…the way English is taught and assessed should reflect the needs andaspirations of the ever-growing number of non-native speakers who use English tocommunicate with other non-natives. (87)

Although questions continue to arise about who makes for better-qualified Englishteachers, some researchers have acknowledged differences between NESTs and non-NESTs. They suggested that NESTs and non-NESTs both can be equally successful ‘intheir own terms’ (Medgyes 1992, 349) and can complement each other’s strengths andweaknesses (Medgyes 1992, 1994; Samimy and Brutt-Griffler 1999; Tarnopolsky 2000).

Previous research on NESTs and non-NESTs

Most of the earlier research in this field has focused on investigating non-NESTs’perceptions about themselves or their NEST counterparts. For example, in Reves andMedgyes’s (1994) questionnaire-based study with ESL/EFL teachers from 10 countries,over two-thirds of the participants responded that differences in teaching behaviour existbetween NESTs and non-NESTs, and the differences resulted mostly from the divergencein language competence between NESTs and non-NESTs. The vast majority of non-NESTs reported that they experience various language difficulties when teaching English.Vocabulary, idioms and appropriateness were the most frequently mentioned difficultiesamong the non-NESTs, followed by speaking skills, fluency and pronunciation. Grammarwas an area that non-NESTs liked to teach the most. Furthermore, non-NESTs’ awarenessof their own divergent levels of English proficiency affected their self-image and attitudestowards teaching. Non-NESTs with higher English proficiency were more self-confidentand less insecure than their colleagues with lower English proficiency. Samimy and Brutt-Griffler (1999) investigated the perceptions of non-native English-speaking TESOLgraduate students regarding NESTs and non-NESTs in terms of behavioural differencesand teaching methods. Similar to the study of Reves and Medgyes (1994), anoverwhelming majority of the participants saw differences in teaching behaviours withNESTs.

Several studies have investigated students’ perspectives on these two types of teachers.For example, Lasagabaster and Sierra (2002) investigated the beliefs of undergraduatestudents in Spain regarding NESTs and non-NESTs. In general, students in this studypreferred to be taught either by NESTs or both NESTs and non-NESTs. In specific areas

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 565

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:23

04

Oct

ober

201

4

of language learning, students favoured NESTs for teaching pronunciation, speaking,listening, vocabulary, culture and civilization and non-NESTs for teaching learningstrategies and grammar. Hungarian English learners in Benke and Medgyes’s (2005)study reported that NESTs easily extemporise, place great emphasis on speaking skillsand provide abundant cultural information. Non-NESTs were found to give morehomework, prepare lessons well and correct errors frequently. Although Butler’s (2007)research did not directly investigate students’ perceptions about NESTs and non-NESTs,she attempted to understand Korean elementary students’ perceptions about these twotypes of teachers by examining students’ attitudes towards American- and Korean-accented English. The students thought that the American-accented English speaker hadbetter pronunciation and more confidence in the use of English. They also believed theAmerican-accented English speaker would use less Korean in class while focusing moreon fluency. The students reported a preference for American-accented English speakers astheir English teachers. However, the findings of the study indicated that the qualificationsthat students perceive to be more important may vary, depending on the category ofteacher. In a recent study conducted with ESL students, Moussu (2010) found thatvariables such as teacher-contact time, students’ L1, class subject and teachers’ countriesof origin significantly influenced ESL students’ attitudes towards NESTs and non-NESTs.For example, students who had been taught by non-NESTs previously showed morepositive attitudes towards non-NESTs than those who had not been taught by non-NESTs.Additionally, Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Thai students had less positive attitudestowards both NESTs and non-NESTs than did Portuguese, French and Spanish students.Finally, students’ attitudes towards both NESTs and non-NESTs indicated that studentstaught by non-NESTs showed more positive attitudes than students taught by NESTs bysemester’s end.

Methodology

Research question

The objective of the current study was to understand Korean EFL university students’beliefs about NESTs and Korean English teachers (KETs), and the following researchquestion guided the present study: what are the beliefs that Korean university studentshave regarding NESTs and KETs?

Participants

Participants were 156 college students majoring in various disciplines in a four-yearcourse, at a university located in a metropolitan city in Korea. Of 156 returnedquestionnaires, 31 were not included for data analysis because respondents had notstudied with NESTs, thus leaving 125 participants. The 125 participants included 44 men(35.2%) and 81 women (64.8%), ranged in age from 20 to 30 years, and consisted of11.2% freshmen, 28% sophomores, 39.2% juniors and 21.6% seniors. They came fromvarious academic majors, including business (32.8%), human ecology (19.8%), education(12.7%), liberal arts (9.6%), engineering (8.8%) and several others. In order to gatherdiverse opinions from students from varied backgrounds, data were collected from anelective course whose students were from various disciplines. The participants hadreceived at least six or more years of required English education, mostly by non-NESTs,in middle and high school. The average time the participants reported studying Englishwith NESTs was 14 months.

566 S.Y. Chun

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:23

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Research instrument

A questionnaire to assess students’ beliefs on a variety of issues regarding NESTs andKETs was created based on an initial open-ended questionnaire, informal interviews and areview of the related research (e.g. Arva and Medgyes 2000; Ferguson 2005;Lasagabaster and Sierra 2002; Medgyes 1994; Reves and Medgyes 1994; Tajino andWalker 1998). In order to obtain a wide range of beliefs regarding NESTs and KETs,different groups were asked to identify beliefs held by themselves or others on these twogroups of teachers. First, 30 Korean university students were asked to free-write anybeliefs and thoughts regarding NESTs and KETs. Next, a group of Korean graduatestudents studying in the USA, along with Korean professionals with diverse backgroundsresiding in Korea, were asked to talk freely about anything related to the issue. Next,items for the questionnaire were developed that represented a variety of beliefs expressedby interview participants and open-ended responses as well as statements reported in theliterature. Although the final questionnaire appearing in the Appendix is in English,students responded to a Korean version.

The final questionnaire was composed of two components, a background question-naire and a four-section questionnaire. Students were first asked to provide informationabout age, gender, years of studying English and experiences of studying with NESTs.Next, a four-section questionnaire about NESTs and KETs was administered. The firstsection asked participants to choose attributes, from 31 listed words, that describe NESTsand KETs. Students were allowed to choose as many attributes as they wished. Second,students were asked to choose which type of teacher they believed to be more competentat teaching with respect to 10 areas of English teaching such as the four language skills,pronunciation, grammar and cultural knowledge. Four options were given: Nativespeakers, Koreans, They are equally good and Depends on the teacher. The third sectionutilised a Likert-type scale with five possible responses (strongly agree to stronglydisagree). Students were given 27 statements regarding NESTs and KETs and asked torate how much they agreed with each statement for each group of teachers. The finalsection of the questionnaire included an open-ended question to gather any additionalthoughts about the two types of teachers.

Data analysis

First, descriptive statistics were used to summarise the participants’ responses to thequestionnaire. Next, a non-parametric test of equal distribution (Wilcoxon test) was usedin order to determine if there were significant differences in the students’ responses topairs of questions regarding NESTs and KETs. Since responses to each question were notindependent, the Wilcoxon test was used to analyse the ordinal responses. The criticalvalue for the significance tests was set at p < 0.05 (two-tailed). Students’ responses to theopen-ended question were grouped by themes and used to corroborate the quantitativefindings.

Results

Students’ beliefs were presented in three sections: students’ impressions of NESTs andKETs, students’ beliefs about their teachers’ instructional competence with specific areasof English and students’ various beliefs about NESTs and KETs, including effectivenessat different stages of learning, classroom performance and collaboration between NESTsand KETs.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 567

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:23

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Students’ impressions of NESTs and KETs

Some differences were found in students’ perceptions of NESTs versus KETs. Asdisplayed in Table 1, although the participants viewed NESTs as fluent, open-minded,lively, interesting and accurate, they perceived KETs as organised, approachable,motivating, inspiring and understanding. As expected, the vast majority of theparticipants (78.4%) thought the characteristic fluent best describes NESTs. With regardto KETs, the most frequent response among the participants was organised (54.4%). ForNESTs, characteristics related to their superior English language ability, such as fluentand accurate, and that describe their personality traits, such as open-minded andinteresting, were most frequently chosen. For KETs, characteristics that describe theway they perform and manage the class, such as organised, and characteristics that showpsychological support for studying English, such as motivating and inspiring, were mostfrequently chosen.

Other results were also obtained that indicated extremely different perceptions ofNESTs and KETs. Of the students, 43% viewed NESTs as casual, whereas only 3%viewed KETs as casual. On the other hand, although more students perceived KETs as

Table 1. Comparison of students’ impressions of NESTs and KETs.

NESTs KETs

Characteristics No. Percent (%) Characteristics No. Percent (%)

Fluent 98 78.4 Organised 68 54.4Open-minded 77 61.6 Approachable 50 40.0Lively 70 56.0 Motivating 47 37.6Interesting 67 53.6 Inspiring 44 35.2Accurate 63 50.4 Understanding 39 31.2Casual 54 43.2 Accurate 39 31.2Humorous 51 40.8 Empathetic 35 28.0Self-confident 48 38.4 Friendly 34 27.2Friendly 42 33.6 Flexible 34 27.2Motivating 29 23.2 Compassionate 33 26.4Impartial 29 23.2 Enthusiastic 33 26.4Passionate 26 20.8 Helpful 30 24.0Inspiring 24 19.2 Formal 29 23.2Enthusiastic 23 18.4 Strict 29 23.2Empathetic 21 16.8 Humorous 28 22.4Flexible 21 16.8 Passionate 28 22.4Understanding 18 14.4 Self-confident 26 20.8Helpful 17 13.6 Lively 19 15.2Patient 14 11.2 Interesting 19 15.2Organised 12 9.6 Kind 19 15.2Compassionate 10 8.0 Open-minded 19 15.2Approachable 10 8.0 Fluent 18 14.4Reliable 8 6.4 Closed-minded 17 13.6Impatient 8 6.4 Reliable 17 13.6Kind 8 6.4 Patient 15 12.0Closed-minded 5 4.0 Dedicated 14 11.2Unfriendly 4 3.2 Partial 10 8.0Dedicated 4 3.2 Impartial 9 7.2Formal 3 2.4 Impatient 9 7.2Partial 2 1.6 Unfriendly 4 3.2Strict 2 1.6 Casual 4 3.2

568 S.Y. Chun

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:23

04

Oct

ober

201

4

formal (23.2%) and strict (23.2%), only about 2% of the students perceived NESTs asformal (2.4%) and strict (1.6%). Notably, with respect to NESTs, attributes, such asapproachable, helpful, understanding and empathetic received less than 20% of positiveresponses from the students, indicating that the students did not seem to consider NESTsas supporters they could approach for advice or help in the language learning process.Additionally, students seemed to think that NESTs (53.6% and 40.8% respectively) aremore interesting and humorous than KETs (15.2% and 22.4%). Lastly, students did notconsider either group of teachers to be dedicated, kind or patient. All of these attributesreceived less than 20% of students’ responses. It should also be noted that, as shown inTable 1, KETs produced lower percentages from students overall than NESTs.

Specific instructional competencies of NESTs and KETs

Students in this study were likely to distinguish some areas of language study as morecompetently taught by NESTs and other areas as better taught by non-NESTs. This wastrue even though the students had the option of choosing They are equally good andDepends on the teacher. As Table 2 indicates, respondents believed that NESTs are morecompetent at teaching reading, speaking and pronunciation. Students also believed thatNESTs are more competent at providing cultural knowledge about the target culture andpreparing students to interact effectively with native speakers. By contrast, studentsbelieved that KETs are better at teaching writing and grammar and preparing them forEnglish tests. In addition, KETs were perceived as being more sensitive to the difficultiesand problems students face in language learning. Interestingly, concerning teachinglistening skills, 40% of the participants selected Depends on the teacher, and somewhatsurprisingly, almost another 40% selected KETs as more competent teachers of listeningskills. This finding can be explained in several ways. First, like teaching grammar, thefact that KETs have been English language learners themselves may help them to be seenas superior teachers of listening skills. KETs might be able to instruct students on how tolisten better because they may know what would be more difficult for typical Koreanstudents to understand. Secondly, as addressed by students in the survey’s open-ended

Table 2. Students’ responses about the areas in which NESTs and KETs are more competent.

Nativespeakers(%)

Koreans(%)

They areequallygood (%)

Depends onthe

teacher (%)

Listening 19 (15.2) 47 (37.6) 9 (7.2) 50 (40.0)Speaking 85 (68.0) 15 (12.0) 5 (4.0) 20 (16.0)Reading 66 (52.8) 31 (24.8) 12 (9.6) 16 (12.8)Writing 20 (16.0) 68 (54.4) 12 (9.6) 25 (20.0)Pronunciation 96 (76.8) 6 (4.8) 7 (5.6) 16 (12.8)Grammar 5 (4.0) 101 (80.8) 4 (3.2) 15 (12.0)Providing cultural knowledge about thetarget culture

78 (62.4) 19 (15.2) 10 (8.0) 18 (14.4)

Preparing students to interact effectivelywith native speakers outside theclassroom

82 (65.6) 18 (14.4) 11 (8.8) 14 (11.2)

Preparing students for tests, such asTOEFL and TOEIC

2 (1.6) 95 (76.0) 3 (2.4) 25 (20.0)

Sensitive to the difficulties and problemsstudents face in learning English

5 (4.0) 87 (69.6) 10 (8.0) 23 (18.4)

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 569

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:23

04

Oct

ober

201

4

question, exposure to NESTs with varied accents and pronunciation, such as those fromthe USA, the UK and Australia, may make these teachers difficult to understand. It is alsonoteworthy that, despite an inherent language barrier in a classroom of Korean studentsbeing taught by a NEST, half of the students (52.8%) believed that NESTs are morecompetent at teaching reading skills, whereas 25% thought that KETs are better. Anexplanation for this finding may have something to do with the cultural knowledge thatNESTs bring to the classroom. The participants in this study may be aware of theimportance of nuances and background knowledge that reading skills require.

NESTs and KETs: general beliefs, effectiveness at different stages of learning,classroom performance and collaboration between NESTs and KETs

Among the paired questions regarding NESTs and KETs, responses to several items werefound to be significantly different (items 2&3, 4&5, 9&10, 13&14, 15&16, 19&20,26&27). By comparison, no statistically significant differences were found among otherpaired questions for the two groups of teachers (items 7&8, 11&12, 17&18, 21&22),indicating that students’ perceptions of NESTs and KETs were similar in these areas.Table 3 shows the results from questions that deal with statements regarding NESTs andKETs. Items are divided into four groupings: general beliefs, effectiveness at differentstages of learning, classroom performance and collaboration between NESTs and KETs.

General beliefs

Items 1, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26 and 27 assessed students’ general beliefsregarding NESTs and KETs. All items, except for 1, 6 and 23, were paired questions thatask students for identical information about both groups of teachers. As shown in Table 3,students in this study did not support the idea of studying English only with NESTs. Asubstantial number of students (64.8%) did not agree with item 1 (English should only betaught by NESTs). Similarly, only about one-fifth of the students (22.4%) agreed that theycould only learn ‘standard’ or ‘real’ English from NESTs (item 17). Most students in thisstudy did not agree that NESTs are the only source for learning ‘standard’ or ‘real’English. Likewise, only 21.6% of the students agreed with the same item about KETs.Perhaps students had other easily accessible resources in mind, such as the Internet, TVand English newspapers when they were considering the questions. Half of the studentsbelieved that they would not get sufficient knowledge of English if they only took aKET’s class (item 23). This response confirms the findings in the second part of thequestionnaire in which students demonstrated their beliefs that NESTs and KETs possessdifferent strengths.

Although a large number of students favoured NESTs for teaching pronunciation,only one-fifth of the respondents (21.6%) held negative beliefs regarding KETs’pronunciation. Almost half of the participants disagreed with item 6 (I am afraid thatmy KET’s accent will ruin my pronunciation). This result is interesting, considering howmuch early exposure to what might be considered ‘authentic English’ these collegestudents have had through the Internet, movies and contact with native speakers, whencompared to previous generations. Not surprisingly, participants thought that having aNEST rather than a KET helps reduce their fear of talking to native speakers outside theclassroom. More than half of the students (55.2%) agreed with item 19 (Having a nativespeaker as a teacher helps reduce my fear of talking to native speakers outside theclassroom). By conducting the Wilcoxon analysis, a statistically significant difference

570 S.Y. Chun

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:23

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 3. NESTs and KETs: general beliefs, effectiveness at different stages of learning, classroomperformance, and collaboration between NESTs and KETs.

NESTs KETs

Items

Disagree/stronglydisagree(%)

Neutral(%)

Agree/stronglyagree(%)

Disagree/stronglydisagree(%)

Neutral(%)

Agree/stronglyagree(%)

General beliefs1. English should only betaught by NESTs.

81 (64.8) 35 (28.0) 9 (7.2)

6. I am afraid that myKET’s accent will ruinmy pronunciation.

57 (45.6) 41 (32.8) 27 (21.6)

17/18. I think I can onlylearn ‘standard’ or ‘real’English from aNEST (KET).

60 (48.0) 37 (29.6) 28 (22.4) 46 (36.8) 52 (41.6) 27 (21.6)

19/20. Having a nativespeaker (Korean) as ateacher helps reducemy fear of talking tonative speakers outsidethe classroom.

16 (12.8) 40 (32.0) 69 (55.2) 52 (41.6) 59 (47.2) 14 (11.2)

21/22. I want my NEST(KET) to interact withme in the classroom aswell as outside theclassroom.

18 (14.4) 28 (22.4) 79 (63.2) 8 (6.4) 48 (38.4) 69 (55.2)

23. I think I would get alimited understanding ofEnglish if I only took aKET’s class.

30 (24.0) 33 (26.4) 62 (49.6)

26/27. I am moremotivated in a NEST’s(KET’s) class.

18 (14.4) 58 (46.4) 49 (39.2) 28 (22.4) 74 (59.2) 23 (18.4)

Effectiveness at different stages of learning2/3. It is beneficial foradvanced-level studentsto study with aNEST (KET).

12 (9.6) 40 (32.0) 73 (58.4) 53 (42.4) 65 (52.0) 7 (5.6)

4/5. It is beneficial forbeginning-levelstudents to study with aNEST (KET).

46 (36.8) 47 (37.6) 32 (25.6) 14 (11.2) 56 (44.8) 55 (44.0)

Classroom performance7/8. I do not get to practicemuch English in aNEST’s (KET’s) class.

51 (40.8) 44 (35.2) 30 (24.0) 44 (35.2) 58 (46.4) 23 (18.4)

9/10. A NEST (KET)usually uses a variety ofteaching methods.

20 (16.0) 45 (36.0) 60 (48.0) 29 (23.2) 63 (50.4) 33 (26.4)

11/12. I often feelfrustrated because my

54 (43.2) 31 (24.8) 40 (32.0) 59 (47.2) 42 (33.6) 24 (19.2)

Continues

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 571

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:23

04

Oct

ober

201

4

was found in the way the participants responded to questions 19 and 20 between NESTsand KETs (z = −6.954, p < .05).

Responses to questions 21 and 22 (I want my NEST/KET to interact with me in theclassroom as well as outside the classroom) warrant attention in EFL contexts in whichstudents do not have many opportunities to use English outside the classroom. Themajority of the participants (63.2%) wanted to interact with NESTs outside the classroom.One student supported this finding by stating, ‘I always take NESTs’ classes hoping that Ican be friends with them outside the classroom and even after all the courses are over’.Interestingly, the majority of students (55.2%) also wanted to interact with their KETsoutside the classroom.

As far as student motivation is concerned (items 26 and 27), 39% of the studentsagreed that they are more motivated in NESTs’ classes, while only 18% agreed that theyare more motivated in KETs’ classes. There was also a significant difference in observedcategorisation between NESTs and KETs (z = −3.086, p < .05). Thus, it can be said thatstudents are more likely to be motivated in NESTs’ classes than KETs’ classes.

Effectiveness at different stages of learning

Items 2, 3, 4 and 5 were designed to assess students’ beliefs about NESTs’ and KETs’effectiveness at different stages of learning. As shown in Table 3, the participantssurveyed were more likely to believe that NESTs are more suitable for advanced-levelstudents than beginning-level students. Regarding items 2 and 4, 58.4% of the

NESTs KETs

Items

Disagree/stronglydisagree(%)

Neutral(%)

Agree/stronglyagree(%)

Disagree/stronglydisagree(%)

Neutral(%)

Agree/stronglyagree(%)

NEST (KET) does notspeak any Korean (muchEnglish) in class.

13/14. I do not feel that Ineed to prepare forclass because NESTs(KETs) are not verydemanding.

70 (56.5) 23 (18.5) 31 (25) 80 (64.5) 29 (23.4) 15 (12.1)

15/16. NESTs (KETs) arethoroughly preparedfor class.

18 (14.4) 74 (59.2) 33 (26.4) 11 (8.8) 43 (34.4) 71 (56.8)

Collaboration24. I have differentexpectations aboutlearning English fromNESTs and KETs.

27 (21.6) 32 (25.6) 66 (52.8)

25. I think team-taughtclasses pairing a NESTand a KET can be moreeffective in improvingmy English skills thanclasses taught only by aNEST or a KET.

18 (14.4) 25 (20.0) 82 (65.6)

Note: Bold faced items showed significant differences in responses to NESTs and KETs.

572 S.Y. Chun

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:23

04

Oct

ober

201

4

participants agreed that it is beneficial for advanced-level students to study with a NEST,whereas only a small number of participants (25.6%) agreed with the effectiveness ofhaving NESTs at beginning levels. In the same vein, the students seemed to support thecommon belief that non-NESTs are more suitable for teaching beginning-level students(items 3 and 5). The Wilcoxon test confirmed these common beliefs showing statisticallysignificant differences for both questions. Regarding items 2 and 3, a significantdifference was found in observed categorisation between NESTs and KETs (z =−7.345, p < .05). A significant difference was also found in response type betweenNESTs and KETs for items 4 and 5 (z = −4.007, p < .05). Thus, the participants weremore likely to see NESTs as more suitable for advanced-level students and KETs as moresuitable for beginning-level students. Overall, the participants seemed to think that untilthey accomplish certain levels of English proficiency, studying with NESTs would not beas effective.

Classroom performance

Regarding the classroom performance of the two groups of teachers, students had mixedreactions. As shown in items 7 and 8, less than half of the students seemed to be satisfiedwith the opportunities they have to practise English in both groups of teachers’ classrooms.Although 40.8% of the respondents were satisfied with opportunities that they had withNESTs, 24% were not. In past decades, Korean English education has been focused on agrammar-translation approach. It has been commonly noted that KETs’ lengthy explana-tions in class do not give enough opportunities for the students to practise their English.Despite the common critique of typical KETs’ teacher-centred teaching styles, there weremore students (35.2%) who were satisfied with the opportunities to practise English inKETs’ classes than those (18.4%) who were not. This may indicate that English educationin Korea is gradually moving towards a learner-centred and communicative approach.Students’ comments, such as ‘Many KETs nowadays have studied abroad. In many cases,NESTs and KETs use similar teaching methods’, support this finding. Despite the positiveaspects of this result, the fact that the number of students who were satisfied with theopportunities to practise English in both groups of teachers’ classrooms is still less than50% deserves more attention.

Regarding the two groups of teachers’ use of teaching methods and preparedness forclass (items 9, 10, 15, and 16), students had contradictory attitudes. Students were morelikely to agree that NESTs use a greater variety of teaching methods than KETs. On theother hand, students believed that KETs are more prepared for lessons than NESTs. TheWilcoxon analysis found a significant difference in response types between items 9 and10 concerning the use of teaching methods (z = −2.756, p < .05), and items 15 and 16concerning class preparation (z = −4.793, p < .05).

Items 11 and 12 assessed how frustrated the students felt because their NESTs did notuse any Korean and their KETs did not use much English in class. Students showedsomewhat mixed reactions towards NESTs not being able to use Korean (item 11). Of thestudents, 32% agreed that they often feel frustrated because of their NESTs’ lack ofKorean, whereas 43% did not seem to feel frustrated by this condition. Interestingly,nearly half of the students (47.2%) did not feel frustrated because KETs did not use muchEnglish in class, whereas only 19% seemed to feel negatively about this (item 12). Thereare two possible interpretations that can be drawn as to why nearly half of the studentsdisagreed with item 12. First, in order to improve students’ communicative competence,English has been encouraged as a medium of instruction in Korean classrooms. As a

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 573

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:23

04

Oct

ober

201

4

result, more and more KETs may in fact be using more English in the classroom.Secondly, students may want to listen to more explanations in Korean that correspondwith what they are learning. Thus, the fact that KETs are not using much English mightnot bother students as much as it bothers educators and administrators.

Finally, items 13 and 14 assessed how the levels of demand from the teachers affectstudents’ preparation for the class. Students were more likely to agree that they felt less aneed to prepare for NESTs’ classes because NESTs are not as demanding as KETs. TheWilcoxon test found a significant difference in the way students responded to NESTs andKETs (z = −2.860, p < .05). However, the majority of students generally seemed to feelthat there is a necessity to prepare for classes regardless of the type of teacher, showingdisagreement with items 13 (56.5% with NESTs) and 14 (64.5% with KETs).

Collaboration between NESTs and KETs

As shown in Table 3, more than half of the students (52.8%) had different expectationsabout learning English from the two groups of teachers (item 24). Furthermore, studentsshowed positive attitudes towards item 25, which assessed students’ perceptions towardsjoint instruction by a NEST and a KET. A large number of students (65.6%) seemed toperceive team teaching as an effective approach to teaching English, whereas only a smallminority (14.4%) disagreed.

Discussion

Over the years, the question of who makes better teachers of English – native or non-native speakers – has been a heated topic among administrators and individuals involvedin the profession. The findings of this study provide additional evidence that questions‘the conventional notions and definitions of the native speaker and the good teacher’(Moussu 2010, 763). Within the questionnaire, students seemed to believe that NESTsand KETs are different in many ways and possess different strengths and weaknesses.Therefore, students did not overwhelmingly favour one type of teacher over the other.Students held differentiated beliefs about the characteristics, specific areas of English-teaching competence, teaching effectiveness at different stages of learning English andclassroom performance of both groups of teachers. These findings correspond with whatprevious studies have found about NESTs and non-NESTs (e.g. Arva and Medgyes 2000;Benke and Medgyes 2005; Samimy and Brutt-Griffler 1999): NESTs and non-NESTsdiffer in their teaching styles, but this does not mean that one of the groups is better. Bothgroups of teachers ‘can be equally good teachers in their own terms’ (Medgyes 1994, 27).Similar to previous studies that have investigated non-NESTs’ perceptions about NESTs(Medgyes 1994; Arva and Medgyes 2000; Samimy and Brutt-Griffler 1999), NESTs werejudged to be more effective in the classroom in terms of their superior linguisticcompetence and their status as native speakers of the target language. KETs were judgedto be more effective in helping students with the psychological aspects of languagelearning and in having sensitivity to students’ needs, because of the shared L1 andexperience as language learners.

Students in this study seemed well aware of the benefits of having NESTs to get readyfor real-world English use. A substantial number of the participants surveyed believedthat NESTs are more competent at preparing students to interact effectively with nativespeakers outside the classroom. Furthermore, according to the Wilcoxon analysis of thisstudy, having a native English speaker rather than having a Korean as an English teacherwas seen as more helpful in lessening students’ fears of interacting with native speakers

574 S.Y. Chun

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:23

04

Oct

ober

201

4

outside the classroom. This finding supports Rubin and Thompson’s (1994) assertion thatthere is a close relationship between attitudes and success when language learners havemore chances of meeting individuals who speak the target language. This finding alsoappears to be related to responses to Questions 26 and 27, which examined students’motivation when taking NESTs’ classes and KETs’ classes.

With regard to teacher preparation and teaching methods, the respondents were morelikely to agree that NESTs apply a wider variety of teaching methods in class than KETs.On the other hand, students were more likely to agree that KETs are more thoroughlyprepared for the lessons than their NEST counterparts. These findings were in line withseveral previous studies (Arva and Medgyes 2000; Benke and Medgyes 2005; Samimyand Brutt-Griffler 1999) and also supported by the responses from the survey’s open-ended question. A possible interpretation of these findings could come from NESTs’casual attitudes in class. Nearly half of the students considered NESTs as casual in thisstudy while only 3% of the participants considered KETs as casual. NESTs were alsocriticised for their casual attitudes by their non-native colleagues (Arva and Medgyes2000). From the students’ viewpoints, NESTs’ ‘too casual’ attitudes might make themseem unprepared, despite their use of varied teaching methods in class.

Along with NESTs’ superior English ability, students also seemed to acknowledge therich cultural information that NESTs bring to the classroom. Students believed thatNESTs are more competent not only at providing cultural knowledge, but also at teachingreading skills despite linguistic constraints. This result could be attributed to the fact thatthese participants were university students. Most English texts that are used to teachstudents in universities are imported from English-speaking countries. Those texts usuallycontain rich cultural, historical, and social components that require backgroundknowledge in order to be fully comprehended. Students in EFL situations appreciatebeing taught by NESTs who can explain cultural nuances and provide the necessarybackground knowledge of those texts.

Students were more likely to agree that KETs are more suitable for beginning-levelstudents and that NESTs are better for advanced-level students. The way that the studentsresponded to these questions is probably related to their inability to express themselves inEnglish, as well as NESTs’ inability to express themselves in Korean. It is highly possiblethat the students might have experienced misunderstandings and frustration because ofnot being able to communicate with NESTs in English. Related to this finding, nearlyone-third of the respondents agreed that they feel frustrated because their NESTs do notspeak any Korean. In addition, a number of students expressed complaints in the open-ended question about their NESTs not understanding the Korean language and culture. Asspeculated by Arva and Medgyes (2000), NESTs’ inability to speak the students’ L1could be one of the reasons why the participants in this study did not view NESTs asempathetic, approachable and understanding. Chinese students in Rao’s (2010) studyindicated NESTs’ insensitivity to students’ linguistic problems, partly due to ignorance ofstudents’ L1, as one of the major weaknesses of having native speakers as Englishteachers. These results suggest that NESTs’ possession of even basic proficiency in theirstudents’ L1 will be tremendously helpful in promoting their teaching effectiveness.Thus, just as non-NESTs must put effort into improving their skills in terms of thelanguage they teach, NESTs need to put effort into learning their students’ language andculture (Medgyes 1994). Students will appreciate these efforts and may see them as amanifestation of the teachers’ enthusiasm and passion for teaching.

Although these items were not found to be statistically significant, one noteworthyfinding that emerged from the current study is the gradual growth in KETs’ linguistic

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 575

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:23

04

Oct

ober

201

4

abilities and professional development in recent years. Although KETs were criticised bysome students in the survey’s open-ended question in terms of their language use andtheir over-emphasis on grammar, the students in this study seemed to hold a relativelypositive view of KETs’ linguistic competence. Only about 22% of the students thoughtthat their KETs’ pronunciation would affect their linguistic abilities negatively.Furthermore, contrary to previous studies (Lasagabaster and Sierra 2002; Tajino andWalker 1998) in which the students preferred NESTs for writing and listening skills, thestudents in this study believed that KETs are more competent than NESTs at teachingthose skills. According to Kwon (2000), a growing number of Korean students have goneabroad to places such as the USA, Canada and the UK to get their degrees and then comeback to teach students. Furthermore, because Korean education has placed more emphasison KETs’ English competence in the classroom, it is possible that teachers are making aneffort to improve their command of the target language and teaching techniques in orderto become better-qualified English teachers.

Recently in EFL settings, team teaching has been suggested as one way ofcomplementing NESTs’ and non-NESTs’ weaknesses and strengths (Carless 2006;Medgyes 1992). More than half of the students in this study had different expectationsabout learning English from both groups of teachers. Although some students wereconcerned about the possibility of confusion due to the two different types of teachers’teaching styles, the students perceived team teaching as an effective approach to teachingEnglish. As Medgyes (1992) suggested, ‘Given a favorable mix, various forms ofcollaboration are possible both in and outside the classroom – using each other aslanguage consultants, for example, or teaching in tandem’ (349). NESTs, in particular,should be offered on-going training instead of only a short orientation upon their arrival,because as English teachers, they will likely encounter many challenges throughout theirteaching. Native speakers who have decided to teach abroad need to search for as muchinformation as possible about the country’s teaching environment and students’ objectivesfor studying English (Snow 1996). Additionally, as the number of NESTs increases andtheir roles as English teachers become more important in Korea, the choices thatadministrators make can affect students’ language learning success enormously. Thus, itis time for administrators to consider ‘conscious hiring’. For some visitors, teachingEnglish is seen as a fairly easy way to gain temporary employment while travelingoverseas, simply due to being a native speaker of English. Such potential new hiresshould not be employed unless they possess some training or experience in teaching. Inexpressing concerns about NESTs’ qualifications in the survey’s open-ended question,one student wrote, ‘NESTs shouldn’t be employed only because they are from English-speaking countries. The same rigorous procedures and criteria as used when selectingKETs should be applied to NESTs as well’. The responses from the students clearlyindicated that native English speakers with no teaching qualifications are likely not tomeet their needs and expectations.

Limitations of the study and conclusion

Like any study, this one had the limitation of relying on self-report data. Also, it isimportant to remember that there may be as much variation among NESTs as betweenNESTs and non-NESTs. The NESTs working in Korea vary tremendously in terms oftheir teaching skills, teacher training and teaching experience, and these differences mayhelp explain the variations reported by the students in this study as they responded to thequestionnaire. Additionally, because the length of instruction given by each group of

576 S.Y. Chun

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:23

04

Oct

ober

201

4

teachers is not equal, that is, the participants had likely received much more instructionfrom KETs (non-NESTs) than from NESTs, students’ perceptions may be skewed bynovelty effects.

This study aimed to contribute to the language teaching profession by providingsuggestions to help both NESTs and non-NESTs meet the needs and expectations of theirstudents, thereby developing more effective instruction. Administrators can also make thebest use of each teacher’s skills and talents by taking students’ voices into account whendesigning curriculum.

AcknowledgmentsI thank Elaine Horwitz and Diane Schallert for their support and help with this study.

ReferencesArva, V., and P. Medgyes. 2000. “Native and Non-native Teachers in the Classroom.” System 28:

355–372. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00017-8.Benke, E., and P. Medgyes. 2005. “Differences in Teaching Behavior between Native and Non-

native Teachers: As Seen by the Learners.” In Non-Native Language Teachers: Perceptions,Challenges and Contributions to the Profession, edited by E. Liurda, 195–215. New York:Springer.

Braine, G. 1999. “Introduction.” In Non-Native Educators in English Language Teaching, edited byG. Braine, xiii–xx. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Butler, Y. G. 2007. “How are Nonnative-English-Speaking Teachers Perceived by YoungLearners?” TESOL Quarterly 41: 731–755.

Canagarajah, S. 1999. “Interrogating the ‘Native Speaker Fallacy’: Non-linguistic Roots, Non-pedagogical Results.” In Non-Native Educators in English Language Teaching, edited byG. Braine, 77–92. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Carless, D. R. 2006. “Good Practice in Team Teaching in Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong.”System 34: 341–351. doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.02.001.

Ferguson, A. 2005. “Student Beliefs about their Foreign Language Instructors: A Look at theNative-Speaker/Non-native Speaker Issue.” PhD diss., University of Arizona.

Graddol, D. 2006. English Next: Global English May Mean the End of “English as a ForeignLanguage.” London: British Council.

Kwon, O. 2000. “Korea’s English Education Policy Changes in the 1990s: Innovations to Gear theNation for the 21st Century.” English Teaching 55: 47–91.

Lasagabaster, D., and J. M. Sierra. 2002. “University Students’ Perceptions of Native and Non-Native Speaker Teachers of English.” Language Awareness 11 (2): 132–142. doi:10.1080/09658410208667051.

Medgyes, P. 1992. “Native or Non-native: Who’s Worth More?” ELT Journal 46: 340–349.doi:10.1093/elt/46.4.340.

Medgyes, P. 1994. The Non-native Speaker. Hong Kong: Macmillan.Moussu, L. 2010. “Influence of Teacher-Contact Time and Other Variables on ESL Students’

Attitudes towards Native- and Nonnative-Speaking Teachers.” TESOL Quarterly 44: 746–768.doi:10.5054/tq.2010.235997.

Nunan, D. 2003. “The Impact of English as a Global Language on Educational Policies andPractices in the Asian-Pacific Region.” TESOL Quarterly 37: 589–613. doi:10.2307/3588214.

Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. New York: Oxford University Press.Rao, Z. 2010. “Chinese Students’ Perceptions of Native English-Speaking Teachers in EFL

Teaching.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 31: 55–68. doi:10.1080/01434630903301941.

Reves, T., and P. Medgyes. 1994. “The Non-Native English Speaking EFL/ESL Teacher’s Self-image: An International Survey.” System 22: 353–367. doi:10.1016/0346-251X(94)90021-3.

Rubin, J., and I. Thompson. 1994. How to Be a More Successful Language Learner. 2nd ed.Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Samimy, K. K., and J. Brutt-Griffler. 1999. “To Be a Native or Non-Native Speaker: Perceptions of‘Non-native’ Students in a Graduate TESOL Program.” In Non-Native Educators in English

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 577

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:23

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Language Teaching, edited by G. Braine, 127–144. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Snow, D. 1996. More than a Native Speaker. Alexandria, VA: Tesol.Tajino, A., and L. Walker. 1998. “Perspectives on Team Teaching by Students and Teachers:

Exploring Foundations for Team Teaching.” Language, Culture and Curriculum 11: 113–131.doi:10.1080/07908319808666544.

Tarnopolsky, O. 2000. “EFL Teaching and EFL Teachers in the Global Expansion of English.”Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 16 (2): 25–42.

Walelign, A. 1986. “Non-native Speakers Need Not Apply.” English Teaching Forum 24: 40–41.Widdowson, H. G. 1994. “The Ownership of English.” TESOL Quarterly 28: 377–389.

doi:10.2307/3587438.

Appendix

QuestionnaireBackground Information(7 questions; e.g. age, gender, major, academic year, years studying English, length of time studyingEnglish with NESTs)

Section 1The following list of adjectives was offered for each of the following questions.flexible, self-confident, fluent, accurate, inspiring, motivating, passionate, compassionate,understanding, friendly, unfriendly, patient, impatient, helpful, kind, humorous, enthusiastic,approachable, impartial, partial, open-minded, closed-minded, reliable, empathetic, causal, strict,formal, dedicated, lively, interesting, organised

1. Please circle adjectives that describe a native English-speaking teacher. Choose as many asyou wish.

2. Please circle adjectives that describe a Korean English teacher. Choose as many asyou wish.

Section 2Please compare English teachers in the following areas. Choose one option. (Four options wereprovided for each question: Native speakers, Koreans, They are equally good, Depends on theteacher).

1. Which type of teacher is better at teaching listening skills?2. Which type of teacher is better at teaching speaking skills?3. Which type of teacher is better at teaching reading skills?4. Which type of teacher is better at teaching writing skills?5. Which type of teacher is better at teaching pronunciation?6. Which type of teacher is better at teaching grammar?7. Which type of teacher is better at providing cultural knowledge about the target culture?8. Which type of teacher is better at preparing students to interact effectively with native

speakers outside the classroom?9. Which type of teacher is better at preparing students for tests, such as TOEFL and

TOEIC?10. Which type of teacher is more sensitive to the difficulties and problems students face in

learning English?

Section 3Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements. (The five options weregiven with each question: Strongly Disagree; Disagree; Neutral; Agree; Strongly Agree).

578 S.Y. Chun

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:23

04

Oct

ober

201

4

1. English should only be taught by native English-speaking teachers.2. It is beneficial for advanced-level students to study with a native English-speaking

teacher.3. It is beneficial for advanced-level students to study with a Korean English teacher.4. It is beneficial for beginning-level students to study with a native English-speaking

teacher.5. It is beneficial for beginning-level students to study with a Korean English teacher.6. I am afraid that my Korean English teacher’s accent will ruin my pronunciation.7. I do not get to practice much English in a native English-speaking teacher’s class.8. I do not get to practice much English in a Korean English teacher’s class.9. A native English-speaking teacher usually uses a variety of teaching methods.10. A Korean English teacher usually uses a variety of teaching methods.11. I often feel frustrated because my native English-speaking teacher does not speak any

Korean.12. I often feel frustrated because my Korean English teacher does not speak much English in

class.13. I do not feel that I need to prepare for class because native English-speaking teachers are

not very demanding.14. I do not feel that I need to prepare for class because Korean English teachers are not very

demanding.15. Native English-speaking teachers are thoroughly prepared for class.16. Korean English teachers are thoroughly prepared for class.17. I think I can only learn ‘standard’ or ‘real’ English from a native English-speaking

teacher.18. I think I can learn ‘standard’ or ‘real’ English from a Korean English teacher.19. Having a native speaker as a teacher helps reduce my fear of talking to native speakers

outside the classroom.20. Having a Korean English teacher helps reduce my fear of talking to native speakers

outside the classroom.21. I want my native English-speaking teacher to interact with me in the classroom as well as

outside the classroom.22. I want my Korean English teacher to interact with me in the classroom as well as outside

the classroom.23. I think I would get a limited understanding of English if I only took a Korean English

teacher’s class.24. I have different expectations about learning English from native English-speaking

teachers and non-native English-speaking teachers.25. I think team-taught classes pairing a native English-speaking teacher and a Korean teacher

can be more effective in improving my English skills than classes taught only by a nativeEnglish-speaking teacher or a Korean English teacher.

26. I am more motivated in a native English-speaking teacher’s class.27. I am more motivated in a Korean English teacher’s class.

Section 41. Is there anything else you would like to add concerning your thoughts about native

English-speaking teachers and Korean English teachers? Please write them here.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 579

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:23

04

Oct

ober

201

4