The Language Teacher
04 - 2003
A Reflective Study of High School EFL Classes:
Utilizing Native and Non-Native Speakers Most Effectively
Odette Tuitama-Roberts and Junko Iwamoto
Okayama Gakugeikan Senior High School
In recent years Japan has made a significant move towards utilizing a more communicative pedagogy in the English as a Foreign Language classroom. This has amplified the need for more communicative materials and syllabuses and also for teachers capable of implementing them. At first thought, the inclusion of more native speakers of English may seem an obvious solution. However, depending on circumstances, it is not always possible or practical to employ native English speaking teachers (NESTs). In fact the question could be asked whether native speakers are even necessary. There are many qualified and willing non-native English speaking teachers (N-NESTs) who would appreciate the change and associated challenge of participating in more communication-orientated language programs.
Background
In 2000, the Okayama Gakugeikan Senior High School (OGHS), where we teach, added a communicative language class to its Tokubetsu Shingaku (Special Tertiary Entrance Preparatory Course, hereafter TSC) English language curriculum. Considering the present EFL boom in Japan, this is not surprising. However, although OGHS's initial intention was that only NESTs would teach the new, communicative classes, after reviewing the various influencing factors (student numbers, optimal class sizes, available teachers, and school budget), it was apparent that both the available NESTs and N-NESTs would be required to teach the new syllabus. (Refer to Appendix 1 for the demographics of teachers involved in the course from 2000 to 2002.)
After careful consideration of the various factors involved, the following three teaching options were presented as being the most feasible for implementation for the new communicative syllabus:
- Team teaching--NESTs and N-NESTs teach the same students, at the same time, in the same classroom, as a cooperative effort.
- A divided syllabus--the NESTs and N-NESTs divide the syllabus into different elements and teach alternately to the students in separate classrooms.
- A standardized syllabus--all teachers teach exactly the same syllabus in totality, and utilize the same assessment materials and procedures.
All of the above options included both the N-NESTs and the NESTs. However, in other areas they differed significantly, as shown in Table 1. Considering the resources and needs of the TSC at OGHS the standardized syllabus was elected to be the most practical for implementation.
Advantages of the Standardized Syllabus
Following is a brief outline of the rationale behind the standardized syllabus being selected as the preferred option.
First, by utilizing the maximum number of teachers available, class sizes could be minimized, increasing the communicative potential of each classroom. Also, all teachers involved would have the opportunity to teach at their maximum potential at all times in the classroom, thereby effectively utilizing the personnel available. The teachers also would have the maximum class time possible with the students, thereby assisting in positive teacher/student rapport and smooth execution of the full syllabus. Furthermore, by implementing this option all teachers would have equal status, therefore facilitating an even distribution of the workload.
All the N-NESTs involved were confident English speakers capable of conducting a communicative language class. The NESTs too were qualified teachers, with Japanese language capability and experience living in Japan. They were also capable of conducting classes on their own. The students could be exposed to competent second language (L2) speakers (of both English and Japanese), who could present themselves as successful L2 role models.
Table 1. Teaching options for OGHS's TSC classes
| Advantages | Disadvantages | |
| Team teaching | -Teachers more confident in delegated teaching area --Each teacher has maximum class time with students |
--Larger class groups --Less efficient use of personnel resource --Usually the N-NEST becomes main and NEST sub-teacher --Possible professional differences between NEST and N-NEST --Equal numbers of NESTs and N-NESTs required |
| Divided syllabus | --Smaller class groups --More efficient use of personnel resource --Teachers more confident in delegated teaching area --All teachers have equal status | --Difficulty coordinating syllabus --Teachers limited to certain content --Decreased class time with students --N-NEST classes similar to other English classes (grammar) --NESTs' limited Japanese ability levels --Equal number of NESTs and N-NESTs required |
| Standardized syllabus | --Largest number of teachers fully utilized--therefore smallest class size --Most efficient use of personnel resources --All teachers have equal status --Expose students to competent N-NESTs --Each teacher has maximum class time with students | --Concern about the different teaching styles of NESTs and N-NESTs --Difficulty with administering standard assessment tasks --NESTs' limited Japanese ability --N-NESTs' limited communicative English ability |
Projected Problem Areas
Although the benefits of choosing the standardized syllabus were evident, possible problem areas were also identified. For example, there was concern regarding the following:
Differences in teaching styles between NESTs and N-NESTs
For uniformity it was decided that all teachers would utilize the standardized syllabus, but there was concern that the NESTs and N-NESTs would approach the set material in significantly different ways (see Table 1). A number of contrastive studies have been conducted focusing on the specific differences between NEST and N-NEST language teachers and the relevance to the classroom. (See Medgyes 1992, 1994; Phillipson 1992). While there are some differences in opinion emerging from the above studies, each of them argues that, despite the differences between the two groups of language teachers, both can be equally effective in the classroom and bring valuable assets to the teaching/learning experience. As aptly put by Liu (1999), what really matters is the teacher's professionalism:
Rather than reducing the rich complexity involved in being a speaker of a language to an NS-NNS dichotomy...we as TESOL professionals should shift our focus to the importance of being a TESOL professional and consider whether an individual has received adequate professional training to teach ESOL. (p. 101)
To reduce possible complications, the following cooperative measures were instigated. The teachers met regularly to exchange ideas and talk about existing or potential problems. They also took turns preparing instructional resources and sharing their ideas with the other teachers. The individual teachers then adapted the materials to suit the needs of their particular groups.
Teachers also constantly addressed the need for all teachers to speak in English in the classroom and how this could be achieved. They reviewed ways to counteract misunderstandings due to minimum usage of the students L1 in the classroom, and they prepared appropriate resources as necessary. They also rotated through the student groups after each testing period so students would have a chance to be taught by both NESTs and N-NESTs. The N-NESTs were initially assigned to lower-level ability groups so the students could adjust to the productively more demanding style of the communicative language class in a less stressful environment.
Difficulty with the standardized assessment
To avoid disadvantaging the students by having multiple instructors administering standardized assessment tasks, the following measures were taken:
The assessment tasks were prepared well in advance of the corresponding instruction period and discussed with all participating teachers to ensure they taught the necessary materials and to determine the applicability for all students regarding linguistic level and content. That is, the goal was to challenge the upper level students, but not overwhelm the lower level students. (However, there was concern that teachers would feel compelled to focus primarily on the upcoming assessment tasks and not on the communicative aim of the activity.) The participating teachers also took turns throughout the year in preparing the different assessment tasks (the teachers worked together in NEST/N-NEST pairs), and the oral and aural assessment tasks were administered by both NESTs and N-NESTs.
The N-NESTs' English language proficiency levels
As we all know, expertise in speaking a language does not necessarily equal expertise in teaching it, and vice versa (for supportive studies see Rampton, 1990 and Phillipson, 1992). However, the N-NESTs at OGHS were proficient communicators in English, and furthermore, no complaints came at any time from students concerning the N-NESTs' English level or communicative abilities. A survey taken at the end of the 2001 academic year revealed that the students were aware of differences or errors in the N-NESTs speech, for example pronunciation differences and small grammatical errors or an inability to answer contextual language questions. However, the teachers felt that this heightened ability to differentiate between the speech of NESTs and N-NESTs was a positive rather than a negative effect of the program.
The NESTs' Japanese language proficiency levels
To counter-act confusion that may arise as a result of the NESTs' limited Japanese abilities, standard handouts and other teaching aides were utilized that included the L1 where necessary. The above-mentioned survey indicated that lower-ability students were more comfortable with teachers who could speak Japanese, and upper-ability students were appreciative of teachers who spoke predominantly in English. However, the students who took the survey did not differentiate between NESTs and N-NESTs in their responses, only to the volume of L1 usage expected of the teacher. Nevertheless, from the survey results it was also apparent that students perceived the NESTs to be using a greater volume of students' L1 in their teacher talk, even though scripts of videos taken from actual classes demonstrated this wasn't the case. The differences in reality and perception were as diverse as 10% actual usage of L1 (Japanese), compared to 70% perceived usage of L1. This is an interesting phenomenon that could be researched further. (For further reading on the use of the L1 in the classroom see Burden, 2000; Cullen & Morris, 2001; Duff, 1989.)
Changes Implemented from 2000-2002
Following is an outline of changes that have been made, syllabus changes that have been proposed, and also a list of what the teachers involved in the program at OGHS consider the basic requirements for implementing a standardized English language syllabus for NESTs and N-NESTs.
One major change implemented was to rearrange the students' ability groupings after each testing period. (Initially they were only changed once a year at the end of first semester.) This has been found to be beneficial as an external motivator for students. Also, the later groupings, based on multiple assessment activities, are more indicative of the students' actual communicative language levels. A disadvantage of this system however, is that low ability students who (regardless of personal effort and motivation) remain in the lower level groups tend to become discouraged. Another major change is that the second year of the course has become an elective from 2002. (However, 98% of the students chose EFL for 2002.)
Finally an "L2 area" in the school has been established, and specialized L2 classrooms are now being utilized for the communicative language course. These areas are used exclusively for EFL classes, and have no other purpose, so they can be arranged according to the needs of the EFL course. N-NESTs especially have noted a significant difference to the communicative tone of their classes and positive student attitude when studying in these areas.
Changes which Could Still be Made
With regards to the actual teaching materials and syllabus, it was felt that the following changes could be made. They could be better adapted to
- focus more precisely on the advantageous points of NESTs' and N-NESTs' teaching styles.
- compliment or supplement more effectively materials for the university entrance exams without compromising the communicative nature of the class.
- help bridge the gap between the basic EFL textbooks and the materials taught in other English classes. (The communicative language class is often considered too rudimentary in comparison.)
- extend the syllabus to include a 3rd year elective class. (From the results of the survey, students are interested in continuing the EFL class to the 3rd year and argue that the EFL class is beneficial for the university entrance exams.)
- include more alternative or extra materials for special needs students.
- develop teaching materials more suited to high school students in an academically challenging course.
- try to avoid focusing on activities primarily for upcoming assessment tasks.
Basic Requirements to Implement Program
Although a number of factors were considered beneficial for the implementation of a NEST/N-NEST standardized syllabus, only the following were regarded as being crucial to its success: a group of NEST and N-NEST teachers who are prepared and able to put in the time and effort to learn from and co-operate with each other, have confidence in their own communicative ability in English and are capable of teaching a class on their own.
Benefits of the Standardized Syllabus Approach, Using NESTs and N-NESTs
Reflecting on the past three years, the teachers involved in the implementation of this syllabus at OGHS saw several advantages to continuing this approach. First, the students had demonstrated more confidence in the N-NESTs communicative English ability, and saw the communicative classes as productive and useful, due to the positive influence of these role models. N-NESTs and NESTs were also able to learn from and influence each other with regards to teaching methods (instructional and disciplinary), cultural differences, aspects of language in general, and their own second language learning skills (both Japanese and English). Additionally, other English teachers in the TSC noted a significant improvement in the students' communicative ability and attitude since the inclusion of the communicative classes. The students had become more positive towards learning English and more confident when doing vocal reading or creative writing activities. Finally, students had shown more confidence in the NESTs as real teachers not just entertainers or assistants, while the NESTs themselves were able to develop a more professional rapport with the students.
Conclusion
As language is primarily a tool for communication, the primary aim of language courses should be to achieve a greater level of communicative ability. However, the term communicative has the potential for a much broader and more practical application than it is often afforded.
At OGHS the use of NESTs and N-NESTs to facilitate the oral and aural communicative elements of an English program for its academically aggressive TSC students has helped to bridge the gap between the two traditionally different, but not necessarily opposing, types of L2 classes in Japan. Using NESTs and N-NESTs as instructors has facilitated a mutual learning experience for the teachers as well as fostering a greater awareness of the benefits of achieving communicative English language proficiency--in addition to facilitating specific academic goals for the students.
Employing NESTs and N-NESTs to implement an EFL syllabus at OGHS was a situation we were initially compelled to pursue due to the constraints of extraneous factors rather than of our own insightful instigation. However, after three years of trial, error, and continuing reflection, it has proven a worthwhile approach to pursue from the perspective of the students, teachers, and school administration.
References
Burden, P. (2000). The use of students' mother tongue in monolingual English conversation classes at Japanese universities. The Language Teacher, 24(6), 5-10.
Cullen, B., & Morris, J. (2001). A case for the use of Japanese in college English classes. On Cue, 9(3), 4-9.
Duff, A. (1989). Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Liu, J. (1999). Nonnative-English-speaking professionals in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 85-102.
Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: Who's worth more? ELT Journal, 46(4), 340-349.
Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. London: MacMillan.
Phillipson, R. (1992). ELT: The native speaker's burden? ELT Journal, 46(1), 13-18.
Rampton, M. B. H. (1990). Displacing the native speaker: Expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. ELT Journal, 44(2), 97-101.
Biodata
Odette Tuitama-Roberts holds a Postgraduate Certificate in TESOL, as well as a M.Ed. in TLOTE. She is Head Teacher & Coordinator of EFL Education at Gakugeikan Senior High School. She also teaches JSL (Japanese as a Second Language) to foreign exchange students.
Junko Iwamoto holds a Master of Arts in TESOL. She is Assistant Director of International Education at Gakugeikan, as well as an EFL Instructor. She lived in the US for six years.
Appendix
The demographics of the teachers who have participated in the course in the academic years 2000, 2001, and 2002 are summarized in the table below.
| Teacher | Age | Sex | English Speaking (Native / Non Native) |
Nationality | L2 ability | |
| A | 40+ | M | O | Japanese | (E) Level: pre1 | |
| B | 50+ | F | O | Japanese | (E) Level: 1 | |
| C | 40+ | F | O | Japanese | (E) Level: pre1 | |
| D | 40+ | F | O | Japanese | (E) Level: pre1 | |
| E | 50+ | M | O | Japanese | (E) Level: 1 | |
| F | 50+ | F | O | Japanese | (E) Level: 1 | |
| F | 30+ | F | O | Chinese | (J) Level: 1* (E) Level: pre1* |
|
| G | 30+ | F | O | Australian | (J) Level: 1 | |
| H | 20+ | M | O | Australian | (J) Level: 4* | |
| I | 20+ | M | O | Australian | (J) Level: 4~3* | |
| J | 40+ | M | O | Australian | (J) Level: 3* | |
(J) Japanese language (Japanese Language Proficiency Test level)
(E) English language (EIKEN level)
(*)self-assessed, approximate level
All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website