VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES ĐỖ THỊ MINH NGỌC NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE APPROACHES TO TEACHING ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LINGUA FRANCA AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS AND STUDENTS AT THE FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION, ULIS, VNU QUAN ĐIỂM CỦA GIÁO VIÊN VÀ SINH VIÊN KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH, ĐHNN-ĐHQGHN VỀ ĐỊNH HƯỚNG BẢN NGỮ VÀ PHI BẢN NGỮ TRONG GIẢNG DẠY TIẾNG ANH NHƯ MỘT NGÔN NGỮ TRUNG GIAN TOÀN CẦU M. Combined Program Thesis Field: English Language Teaching Methodology Code: 60.10 HANOI – 2012 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES ĐỖ THỊ MINH NGỌC NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE APPROACHES TO TEACHING ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LINGUA FRANCA AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS AND STUDENTS AT THE FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION, ULIS, VNU QUAN ĐIỂM CỦA GIÁO VIÊN VÀ SINH VIÊN KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH, ĐHNN-ĐHQGHN VỀ ĐỊNH HƯỚNG BẢN NGỮ VÀ PHI BẢN NGỮ TRONG GIẢNG DẠY TIẾNG ANH NHƯ MỘT NGÔN NGỮ TRUNG GIAN TOÀN CẦU M. Combined Program Thesis Field: English Language Teaching Methodology Code: 60. Ngo Huu Hoang HANOI – 2012 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Figures Figure Content Page Figure 1 Kachru‟s categorization of countries in which English is used 11 Figure 2 Selinker‟s interlanguage continuum 29 Figure 3 Medgyes‟s version of interlanguage continuum 29 Tables Table Content Page Perceived differences in Teaching Behavior between NESTs Table 1 33 and NNESTs (Medgyes, 1994) Table 2 Students‟ preference of language teachers 46 Table 3 Teachers‟ preference of language teachers 49 Students‟ perception of the strengths and weaknesses of Table 4 53 NESTs and Vietnamese teachers Teachers‟ perception of the strengths and weaknesses of Table 5 55 NESTs and Vietnamese teachers Table 6 Use of English outside the classroom 60 Table 7 Students‟ goal of learning English 61 Table 8 Students‟ perceptions of Native and Non-native English 64 Table 9 Students‟ preference of Native and Non-native Pronunciation 65 Table 10 Students‟ preference of Grammar 65 Table 11 Students‟ perceptions of NS spoken grammar 67 Table 12 Students‟ preference of Culture 68 Table 13 Teachers‟ preference of Native and Non-native Pronunciation 69 Table 14 Teachers‟ preference of Grammar 70 Table 15 Teachers‟ preferred grammar model 71 Table 16 Teachers‟ perceptions of spoken grammar 72 Table 17 Teachers‟ perceptions of Students‟ Cultural Preference 73 Table 18 Teachers‟ preference of Culture 74 Table 19 Teachers‟ views on the current situation 76 Table 20 Teachers‟ views about the future 77 v LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION.
iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. iv LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES. Rationale of the study. Scope of the study.
Research objectives and research questions. Significance of the Study. Design of the study. 9 PART II – DEVELOPMENT.
10 Chapter 1: Theoretical background. Key concepts in English as a Lingua Franca. The worldwide spread of English in the era of globalization. Kachru‟s Three Circles Model and English varieties.
World Englishes, Word Standard English and New Englishes. International English and English as a Lingua Franca. Native Model versus Non-Native Model. Native Speaker – an ambiguous concept.
Native Speaker Model or Non-Native Speaker Mode: a controversy. Native English Speaking Teachers (NESTs) versus Non-native English Speaking Teachers (NNESTs). A discussion of language teaching competence of NESTs and NNESTs. Attitudes towards NESTs and NNESTs.
36 vi LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com Chapter 2: Research Methodology. Data collection method. Open-ended questionnaire. Data analysis method.
45 Chapter 3: Findings Analysis and Discussion. Perceptions of Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers. Preference over Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers. Discussion of the student results.
Discussion of teacher results. Comparing the student results and the teacher results. Perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of NESTs and NNESTs. Discussion of student results.
Discussion of teacher results. Comparing the student results and the teacher results. Perceptions of Native Speaker Model in language teaching/ learning. Teaching/ learning goal.
Discussion of student results. Discussion of teacher results. Comparing the student results and the teacher results. Preferred varieties of English.
Discussion of student results. Discussion of teacher results. Comparing the student results and the teacher results. Teacher‟s view on the inclusion of different varieties of English in language teaching.
76 vii LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com PART III – CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Limitations of the study. Suggestions for further studies .I APPENDIX 2 ………………………………………………………………………V APPENDIX 3 ………………………………………………………………………X viii LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com PART I – INTRODUCTION 1. Rationale of the study The world, over the last five decades, has experienced a phenomenal, explosive growth of English on a global scale.
The unprecedented worldwide spread of English beyond the boundary of what Kachru (1985) termed “Inner Circle” countries has substantially consolidated the position of English as a Lingua Franca (henceforth ELF), making it the „prestigious‟ language in most international encounters (Crystal, 1997; Graddol, 1997; McKay, 2003). In other words, English has gained the elite global status, becoming the language used “by the world” and “for the world” (Ngo, 2012). The globalization of English is not all merits in itself, though. One foreseeable effect is that English is being dragged drastically away from the hands of its originators, being modified and hybridized in various aspects.
The puzzling questions of the ownership of English are thus emerging as a bothersome issue to researchers: Who actually owns English? Whose English should be adopted as the model for international communication? Do language learners need to rigidly adhere to the native speaker norms to guarantee their communicative competence? Although recommendations have been made for teachers, learners, and all users of English to move beyond the native-speaker model as the sole target in English language instruction (Jenkins, 2000, 2006; McKay, 2002: Brutt-Griffler, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2001), there exists a fact that the native-speaker model is still mythically “worshipped” in many countries, including Vietnam. Obsessed with the native-speaker language competence, learners rush en masse to English language centers which advertise opportunities to work with “native English teachers” and promise the capability of “using English as a native speaker” in the shortest time. These catchy phrases are also repeatedly found in a wide range of recruitment advertisements, “Native English Instructors wanted”, “Native speakers, over 22, with university degree only”, to name just a few (cited in Fukumura, 1993). Another 1 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com example on this issue is the recent recruitment of 100 Philippine 1 teachers of English by the Department of Education and Training (DOET) in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
This decision provoked two different waves of responses: one is from parents who questioned the recruitment of such teachers whose language competence was thought not to be any better than Vietnamese teachers of English; and the other is from Vietnamese teachers who felt being discriminated against by their foreign counterparts 2. In quoting these examples, the researcher has no intention of giving any “right-or-wrong” judgments apart from the desire to shift the focus to the following existing situations in Vietnam: (1) the dominant native-orientation manifested in both recruiting strategies, and (2) the common discrimination against NNESTs. Moreover, there is a contradiction that while we tend to be quite tolerant with foreigners learning Vietnamese, we do not have such an attitude towards Vietnamese learners learning English. We always assert that communicative success is the priority, but we keep on ignoring, either unintentionally or intentionally, the fact that in the context when far more interactions are between non-native speakers, any attempt to identify with Inner Circle speakers or to produce the variety of English grounded there is hardly necessary.
In Vietnamese context, the teaching and learning of English has been immensely influenced by Inner Circle countries. This influence, under the form of funding and training programs, makes English nearly impossible to be “a neutral medium unlinked with Western cultural and ideological values,” (Pham, 2011). As a result, almost all pedagogical activities in Vietnam are quite native speaker-oriented (e. learning materials are stubbornly Anglo-centrically designed; other varieties of English are marginally reflected in ELT curricula and teaching materials; assessment tends to focus on how closely learners conform to the native norms, mostly 1 It is worth mentioning that the DOET in Ho Chi Minh city seemingly take little notice of the fact that the Philippine are not “native speakers of English”, but just bilinguals.
2 The information was retrieved from http://kienthuc.vn/xa-hoi/doi-song/201211/TPHCM- Tuyen-100-giao-vien-Philippines-day-tieng-anh-1859936/ 2 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com American and British, and so on). Fortunately, due to the country‟s endeavor to further its integration into international and regional communities, a part of Vietnamese people are becoming more aware of the necessity of a linguistic repertoire which can cater to the communicative needs with not only Americans or Britons or Australians, but also with people from neighboring countries such as Singapore and the Philippines. In this way, the pluralistic standard approach, albeit still dim and weak, has started to make inroads into the ELT stream. All the aforementioned features reflect the intersection between two main approaches to Vietnamese language education, that can be termed shortly Native Approach and Non-native Approach.
While the former clings to the traditional loyalty to Inner Circle countries‟ norms, the latter presents an effort to curtail the native- speaker dominance and to encourage the incorporation of more varieties, or New Englishes, into practice. The issue of accepting and adapting New Englishes has been raised in Vietnam, but whether this proposal can offer a plausible alternative to the traditional version still generates a heated debate. What we need now is serious research on both theoretical and practical feasibility of each approach within the Vietnamese current context. Nevertheless, seemingly up to date not much has been done except for quite few related studies like Do‟s research (2010), Pham‟s review (2001), and Ton & Pham‟s investigation (2010).
This research gap sparks the researcher‟s special interest and serves as the first and foremost impetus for the implementation of this research on “Native and Non-native approaches to teaching English as a global lingua franca as perceived by teachers and students at FELTE, ULIS, VNU.” Hopefully, this attempt can narrow the gap and bring new perspectives to the field. Previous Studies There is a growing body of publications and research concerning the global status of English. Back in the late 19th century and the early 20th century, World Englishes (WEs) and English as an International Language (EIL) were topics notable for their absence in most of linguistic forums and conferences. Up to present, many 3 LUAN VAN CHAT LUONG download : add luanvanchat@agmail.com linguistic journals have been published to exclusively focus on WEs and EI (e.
World Englishes, English Today, and Asian Englishes). World English, International English, World Englishes, New Englishes, English as an International Language, English as a Global Lingua Franca, etc., these terms are all recurring in growing availability of corpora that include Outer Circle and Expanding Englishes. One typical instance is Seidlhofer‟s corpus projects (2001) Vienna Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) that draws exclusively on the Expanding Circle. The acceptance of EIL/ ELF is also manifested in the increase in dictionaries and grammars of different Englishes, such as The Macquarie Dictionary (1997), which incorporates words from a range of Southeast Asian Englishes.
More and more scholarly books in the field, additionally, are published, giving book-length treatments of WEs and EIL. Some earlier volumes to be named include Kachru (e. 1982, 1986), and Platt, Weber, and Ho (1984). Other important publications in this vein have followed, including Phillipson‟s Linguistic Imperialism (1992) and Pennycook (1994) (these two authors are commented by Bolton ( 2002, p.