Job Discussion Forums

[Lobster]

Chinese English teachers in public schools should not be mistaken for English language teachers. Their primary role is to prepare students for examinations.

They rely mostly on recording, texts, rote learning and memorization. They are not there to develop communicative capacity in their students. Mind, I have seen a shift towards more development of speaking and listening skills of late.

I've been working with this group for over a decade, and I have to agree with what Choudofu says. Except for their ability to communicate in the students' first language (which leads them to teach most English classes in Chinese), they exhibit none of the positives listed my Medgyes.

I'm going to go out on a limb and ascribe the improved English language skills of the younger generation to their increased exposure to NESTs from a young age and the increased exposure to western media.

RED

[RPMcMurphy]

By "public schools", I'm guessing you mean pre-tertiary.
Contrary to your experience, I'd say that most of the university Chinese English teachers I worked with over 5 years did match Medgyes' qualities.
A good number of these had also undertaken post graduate training in Western universities, and were certainly up to speed in their pedagogy. I didn't ever witness any of them teaching per se in Chinese. A quick vocabulary translation or grammatical point is a different thing.

If we take the concept of non NESTs one step further, how about European ESL speakers working as EFL/ESL teachers? I know several in China, and here in Australia its very common for public and private schools to employ these people for exactly the qualities Medgyes listed, as well as their qualifications and experience.

[choudoufu]

[Lobster]

OK, there in Australia. That explains a lot. Here in China it's a different story.

RED

[RPMcMurphy]

[quote="choudoufu"]

[Fanyi]

Interesting post, and as a teacher who came to China right after (bachelor's) graduation, I've thought quite frequently about these issues,and agree that more training for foreign english teachers in China would be helpful. However, if you're serious about researching the advantages of untrained natives vs. trained non-natives, I think you also have to take a look at schools' ideas towards the use of native English teachers. Most public schools in China (and being at my third public school here, and also having worked full time as a recruiter for hundreds of teachers, I can say this with authority) expect their foreign teacher to spend one hour (some less) with each class, with class sizes usually above 30 students, sometimes as much as 60 students. By the time various vacations are figured in, the teacher probably only teaches 30-35 weeks a year, and of those 5 are spent testing. So what we're really saying is that native English teachers are with their students for 30 hours a year, and that if every student in class was able (impossible) to spend an equal amount of time in class speaking, for every minute of each class, they could each speak for a maximum of 60 minutes a year in class.
To put things simply, if measuring fluency, it is difficult for most public school foreign teachers to help their students comparably vs. the students' Chinese teacher who spends 4 times as much time with them.
Does this mean that foreign English teachers (untrained or trained) teaching in these kind of schools are useless? I say no. First of all, a good teacher will always help their students to increase their learning, even in limited time, and even if the measurable effect of such help is less due to the reduced time. Secondly, while foreign teachers may not always make a great dent in students grammatical abilities (and again, most schools leave this to the Chinese teacher), it is my belief that we do help our students in both having the confidence and comfort to speak with and have normal interactions with foreigners in English (not a small thing when you consider the number of Chinese who seem amazed to see a foreigner on the streets), as well as in learning to convey ideas in English (I will forever value the businessman with flawed grammar over the university student who is so afraid of making grammatical mistakes that they barely speak at all).
So I would suggest that research into foreign english teachers in China should take into account the use of the non-native foreign teacher by schools, former students confidence in approaching foreigners (whether in English or another language), and students comfort with the language (as opposed to grammatical correctness), etc. when assessing the impact of these teachers.

[Fanyi]

Interesting post, and as a teacher who came to China right after (bachelor's) graduation, I've thought quite frequently about these issues,and agree that more training for foreign english teachers in China would be helpful. However, if you're serious about researching the advantages of untrained natives vs. trained non-natives, I think you also have to take a look at schools' ideas towards the use of native English teachers. Most public schools in China (and being at my third public school here, and also having worked full time as a recruiter for hundreds of teachers, I can say this with authority) expect their foreign teacher to spend one hour (some less) with each class, with class sizes usually above 30 students, sometimes as much as 60 students. By the time various vacations are figured in, the teacher probably only teaches 30-35 weeks a year, and of those 5 are spent testing. So what we're really saying is that native English teachers are with their students for 30 hours a year, and that if every student in class was able (impossible) to spend an equal amount of time in class speaking, for every minute of each class, they could each speak for a maximum of 60 minutes a year in class.
To put things simply, if measuring fluency, it is difficult for most public school foreign teachers to help their students comparably vs. the students' Chinese teacher who spends 4 times as much time with them.
Does this mean that foreign English teachers (untrained or trained) teaching in these kind of schools are useless? I say no. First of all, a good teacher will always help their students to increase their learning, even in limited time, and even if the measurable effect of such help is less due to the reduced time. Secondly, while foreign teachers may not always make a great dent in students grammatical abilities (and again, most schools leave this to the Chinese teacher), it is my belief that we do help our students in both having the confidence and comfort to speak with and have normal interactions with foreigners in English (not a small thing when you consider the number of Chinese who seem amazed to see a foreigner on the streets), as well as in learning to convey ideas in English (I will forever value the businessman with flawed grammar over the university student who is so afraid of making grammatical mistakes that they barely speak at all).
So I would suggest that research into foreign english teachers in China should take into account the use of the non-native foreign teacher by schools, former students confidence in approaching foreigners (whether in English or another language), and students comfort with the language (as opposed to grammatical correctness), etc. when assessing the impact of these teachers.

[RPMcMurphy]

Thoughtful stuff. Thanks, pbdecker.
Its never been my intention to research this area. There are too many variables and no central resources, as ELT in China is really ad hoc and largely unregulated. I have my own experiences and opinions, as does everyone else. The main ideas behind the thread were that:
-the largely irrational love affair the non-English world, and China in particular, has had with the language might be fading. Certainly the Crazy English mania seems to have subsided.
-the real language needs of those who do require some English - and realistically, what %age is that? - primarily involve reading and writing, and that properly trained local teachers should be able to carry out this function.
-those who need to be able to communicate orally in English [and lets remember much of this interaction will be with other non-native speakers, using English as a common code] should still have access to properly trained native speakers.

Like I said, most of what we believe is based on anecdotal evidence. My experiences with EFL/ESL since 1997, mostly as a teacher, but more recently as a post grad student, lead me to believe that better speakers [with their attendant higher motivation] are better because they work on it in their own time, using effective learning strategies. Western media, movies especially, are what they credit with their comparative fluency and correct pronunciation.

[thatsforsure]

theres really no telling ... its one mans word against another and there is studies on the subject, but you cant tell if the methodologies is sound or not .. people make there careers from putting out one study after another whether its true or not .. esl might have journals and peer review and all that but its not a sound, solid field like physics and math, its just blowin in the wind

[Lobster]

As with any topic, choosing the correct starting points and preliminary assumptions is important, as incorrect ones may lead you down the wrong path, collecting irrelevant supporting data along the way.

In this case, I consider these points inaccurate or insufficiently examined:

-the characterization of learners' needs as an "irrational love affair"
-the popularity of fads such as Crazy English as indicative of an industry
-the assumption of learners' needs, required skills and levels of proficiency
-the assumptions regarding the interactions of EFL learners with other English speakers
-the abilities of NESTs and NNESTs

Basing any serious discussion on experiences that are well over a decade old in a dynamic field and/or relying on second-hand anecdotal evidence or evidence proffered by biased commentators is likely to lead to inaccurate conclusions.

It's not that I disagree with the questions, but more with the way that they are framed and supported and the conclusions drawn from them. Without the statistical evidence, it has no more value than a staff room conversation.

What would I like to see? Well, among other things:

Statistics showing the number of FTs employed in the PRC over the last several years, with a breakdown of FTs from different countries and their qualifications.

This would give us a general idea of trends that indicate demand for FTs in general here and the rough ratio of NESTs to NNESTs along with a general idea of corresponding qualifications.

Measurable outcome results of a broad spectrum of learners studying under the instruction of NESTs and NNESTs according to a recognized rubric for skills development.

This would give us a rough idea of the efficacy of different groups of teachers.

A broad survey result of Chinese learners of English regarding their needs and motivations.

This would supply us with information regarding desired skills and levels.

A broad survey result of EFL speakers in China regarding their use of English including tasks and communication partners.

Thsi would give us an idea of who they are comminicating with and in what way.

If one desires a more detailed and supportable response to the questions you've posed, this type of information is sorely needed. Otherwise, all we will get is either a biased opinion or a "maybe", neither of which move us ahead in our understanding of the situation or provide any credible basis for our views.

RED

[RPMcMurphy]

[basbas]

this thread is exactly why I don't post on dave's very often, everyone is a know it all, worse still every one debases everyone else in terms of their knowledge and over inflates their own...

however I will make one observations about this subject of native Vs. non native instructors.


1) whether or not natives or non natives make better language teachers in the PRC I don't know, but I will say one thing all native teachers that I have ever met who speak a second language (to native or near native proficiency) themselves have been better teachers. Uni lingual English teachers can be good at what they ( and often are) but many of them are just terrible. Even if the second language is completely unrelated to your students first language (for example you re an american who teaches in china and you speak spanish or you re from the UK and you speak french and you teach in japan). I have to stress that i'm talking about native or near native proficiency only, if you can speak a few words of another language (or even if you are at mid level proficiency) it doesn't count. Why is this the case? I suspect it's because those who speak a second language at native or near native proficiency has understood what it takes to learn a second language, specifically it's about the thought process. If you can't find a way to think in your second language you will never attain the level you seek. Teachers who can speak a second language are more likely to succeed in convincing their students that it is possible to think in another language. Why is this important? Languages aren't just ways of communicating they are literally points of view. Each language through it's grammatical structures cuts the world up in different ways (not better or worse just different), this is easily seen in the different interpretations for things like causality, responsibility, past, present and future events, and hypothetical/subjunctive situations across cultures. (if this interests anyone Jared Diamond has a fascinating take on this in his book 'the third chimpanzee')

anyway back to encyclopedia dramatica for me! more lulz!!!

[sharpe88]

The Chinese English teachers are certainly not great but resemble actual "teaching" far more than the average "NEST"

[thatsforsure]

[Javelin of Radiance]

Native language interference errors (often grammatical or lexical) happen all the time with second language learners, a fact that's been established through research. Language learners do "think" in one language while trying to speak another one.