Differences in the teaching styles beteen native and non native teachers of english a case study at an giang university

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION To guide this study, the following research question will be investigated: Are there any differences in the English teaching styles between NTEs and VTEs regarding

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Having committed “renovation process” in 1986, Vietnam has been making a lot of advances in every field of social life Together with the development of society and the practical need for international communication in the process of global integration, foreign language learning, particularly English, has become more important It is not uncommon; therefore, that English has been a compulsory subject at almost every university Besides, the tendency of recruiting more and more native teachers of English (NTEs) has been displayed at dozens of universities, colleges and foreign language centers throughout the country NTEs are believed to play a crucial role in English teaching in Vietnam As a result, Vietnamese students have been being taught by both NTEs and Vietnamese teachers of English (VTEs) Furthermore, teachers are believed to

be different from one another in terms of teaching style (Cano, Garton & Raven, 1992) There has not been any research related to the difference in teaching style between NTEs and VTEs, however Accordingly, the focus of this study is to find out if there are any differences in teaching style between NTEs and VTEs

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM

The recent literature on language learning and teaching has provided a considerable amount of information on the teacher’s teaching style Cano et al (1992) suggested that agricultural education pre-service teacher differ in learning styles, personality styles and their preferred way of teaching Starbuck (2003) also provided some support for the argument that there is a difference between male and female teachers Specifically, discussion and other student-focused approaches are more likely to be utilized by woman teacher, while their male counterparts prefer lecture and computer-assisted methods Grasha (2002) identified five teaching styles such as Expert (transmitter of information), Formal Authority (sets standard and defines acceptable ways of doing things); Personal Model (teaches by illustration and direct example); Facilitator (guides

and directs by asking questions, exploring options, suggesting alternatives); Delegator (develops students’ ability to function autonomously) Utilizing the instrument called Teaching Style Inventory; the author found that participants holding the rank of professor tended to employ the Facilitator and Delegator more often than other teachers Besides, those two teaching styles were also found in more advanced courses Moreover, female teachers were reported somewhat lower scores on the Expert and Formal Authority and somewhat higher scores on the Facilitator and Delegator Furthermore, Expert style was used more frequently by teachers in the mathematics/computer sciences and art/music/theater It was utilized less often by those in humanities and education, however The Formal Authority was found to appear in foreign language education and business administration Meanwhile, education, humanities and theater disciplines were reported using the Personal Model more often than other areas Finally, “the Facilitator and Delegator occurred to a lesser extent in the classroom of mathematics/computer science than in other academic areas” (Grasha, 2002, p.167)

The above-mentioned researches have centered on the different teaching styles employed by a variety of teachers Thus, while this study is not aimed to break new ground, it is hoped that it will provide additional data in this area, extending any understanding which is already achieved

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study will identify whether there are any differences in teaching style between NTEs and VTEs If the answer is yes, what would they be? As far as the research is concerned, this study is expected to come up with clear ideas about the teaching styles between NTEs and VTEs at An Giang University (AGU) Additionally, it is also intended to be able to offer some recommendations upon improving English teaching at AGU as well as to help managers at the university in providing the best English teaching for the students

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION

To guide this study, the following research question will be investigated:

Are there any differences in the English teaching styles between NTEs and VTEs regarding classroom management, error correction, teaching methods, communicative activities, and teaching aids use?

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

As it is mentioned above, the study focuses on exploring whether there are any differences in teaching style between NTEs and VTEs This research, therefore, is very important for it is likely to help avoid groundless value judgments Furthermore, it is hoped that the study will be probably providing additional data which can lend some support to the issue And having clear ideas of the diversity in the teaching styles between NTEs and VTEs can assist managers in working out appropriate policies to enhance the quality of teaching English to Vietnamese students, more specifically students at AGU

1.5 METHODOLOGY

The participants of the research consists of 06 NTEs, about 6 VTEs, and some 130 students from senior, junior, sophomore and freshmen English major classes The teachers are teaching English major classes at AGU and the students are all English majors As a minimum, students had all learnt English for 7 years, 4 years in secondary schools and 3 years in high schools, before entering the university Sharing the common experience of these 7 years of English learning, they, therefore, already had a relative good command of basic structures of English and were gaining more knowledge of English, leading to the degree in 4 years None of them had ever been to an English-speaking country Thus, English is dealt with totally EFL They were all Vietnamese learners of English, so Vietnamese-their mother tongue was predominantly used in daily life Last but not least, they are following the same curriculum and being taught by the same groups of teachers

The data were collected from two questionnaires (one for teacher and another for students), classroom observation sessions and group interviews The questionnaires were utilized to collect data which will be reserved for examining the difference in teaching styles employed by NTEs and VTEs Classroom observations and group interviews provided evidence validating the respondents’ answers

1.6 LIMITATION

A limitation of this study is the sample size, which includes a small amount of language teachers from one institution only Therefore, it is not representative of the language teachers at large, and the findings at this stage should not be generalized to larger population Besides, the researcher lives in Kien Giang province, so it is hard for the researcher to approach the university to ask for conducting the research In addition, teachers are always occupied with teaching, so it seems difficult for the researcher to ask for permission to interview all of them Moreover, different classes have different schedules, so it is not easy for the researcher to approach students to collect data

1.7 DELIMITATION

It needs to be acknowledged, at this point, this is a case study, so the findings can be applied to AGU only Teachers are believed to vary in terms of many factors such as teaching styles, personality style and learning style Accordingly, the study is particularly dealing with NTEs and VTEs, who are teaching English majors at AGU As mentioned above, the study is narrowed down in the scope of AGU, so it aims at seeking the variety in teaching styles used by NTEs and VTEs at the university regarding classroom management, error correction, teaching methods, communicative activities, teaching aids use Besides, they are teaching English in the same conditions such as dealing with the same curriculum, working with the same learners and to name just a few Thus, the generalizability centers on this specific group of teachers

1.8 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS

This thesis consists of five chapters Chapter 1 provides the setting of the study It briefly presents the introduction of the research, the background of the problem, the research question, the scope of the study, the significance of the study, the methodology,

the limits of the study and the thesis organization Chapter 2 reviews the literature relevant to the topic of research and summarizes what has been done and what has not yet been done about the topic so far, indicating the gap that the present thesis hopes to bridge Chapter 3 presents the research methodology in terms of sampling, instrumentation, data collection and data analysis Chapter 4 is the most important part

of this research In this chapter, the research findings will be described, and the discussion about the finding will also be presented A conclusion will be drawn in chapter 5 together with some recommendations for improvement Also, some limitations during this research will be brought into concern and specified Moreover, the further researches that need to be implemented will be recommended

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews the theories and literature relevant to the topic under investigation

in the present study The finding from those previous studies which seem most relevant and useful to the present study will be discussed in creating background of the possible outcomes, based on the research question The first section addresses the definition of some terms and theory of teaching style The second section will deal with previous studies on teaching style

2.1 DEFINITION OF TERMS

2.1.1 Classroom management

Gebhard (1996, p.69) defines classroom management as “the way teachers organize what goes on in their classroom It includes such factors as how much the teacher talks and what the teacher says; the teacher’s questioning behaviors; and how the teacher gives instructions; keeps students on task and make language comprehensible to the students.”

2.1.2 Error

Error is defined as “a piece of speech or writing that is recognizably different in some way from native speaker usage” (Nunan 1991, p.307) According to the author, errors can be found at such levels as discourse, grammar, vocabulary, or pronunciation

2.1.3 Teaching style

Teaching style is viewed “as a pattern of needs, beliefs, and behaviors that teachers displayed in their classroom” (Grasha 2002, p.153) In this sense, the author argues that teaching style refers to a pattern describing the stylistic qualities of college teachers Grasha (2002, p.3) argued that teaching style is a multidimensional construct, so defining the concept of teaching style is like “the problem in the story of three blind individuals who were examining an elephant” Since each person held different parts in his or her hands, they describe the elephant differently A similar process happens when

we attempt to understand our style as teachers, according to the author Grasha (2002) observed that there is no single satisfactory way to define teaching style One way to deal with the issue is to define it in terms of the elements of style It is not uncommon that several approaches to understanding teachers’ styles have appeared in the literature The first approach is an exploration of the distinctive general modes of classroom behavior According to this, “such things as the teachers’ ability to generate intellectual excitement and to develop interpersonal rapport with students appear to be pervasive qualities of style” (Grasha, 2002 p.38)

The second approach addressed the characteristics associated with respected and popular teachers This kind of approach dealt with the fact that some teachers were able to combine their personal characteristics and instructional practices which worked exceedingly well in the classroom and that earned them reputation as outstanding teachers (Grasha, 2002)

The third approach found in the literature is termed “behaviors common to all college faculty” (Grasha 2002, p.9) Grasha (2002) reviewed that quantitative research on style had identified categories of classroom behaviors occurring in the behaviors of all teachers These include such behaviors as teachers’ ability to organize information, display enthusiasm, and to provide structure students need to learn The instrument used

in this approach was student rating scales of teachers

The fourth approach mentioned is teaching methods employed by teachers were used to define teaching style This approach utilized such labels as dynamic lecturer, effective discussion leader, case study teacher, and so on to name teachers Grasha (2002) argued that in each case, the definition reflects a particular instructional process Nevertheless, such techniques seem to refer to people better than what methods they use, according to Grasha

Another approach reviewed by Grasha is to use teacher’s roles played in teaching to define teaching style This approach enumerated such teachers’ roles in the classroom as the expert, evaluator, materials designer, and nondirective facilitator Grasha argued that

the style used alone or in combination with one another “is responsive to the needs of the classroom environment” (Grasha, 2002, p.17)

The next approach reviewed in the literature is employing various personality characteristics “to catalogue the styles of college teachers” (Grasha, 2002 p 39) In this model, teacher’s preferred teaching methods “vary as a function of their personality type” (Grasha, 2002, p 39)

Last but not least, “metaphors for how faculty see the teaching-learning process also provides insights into our styles as teachers” (Grasha, 2002 p 39) In this regard, a variety of analogies, similes, visual modes, and other figurative devices have been utilized to describe the teaching styles of college teachers, according to Grasha (2002) This approach described teachers as container, guide, master and so forth Such metaphors for style, therefore, serve as a personal model that ultimately guides and directs teachers’ behaviors in the classroom (Grasha, 2002)

The above-mentioned approaches bring about “two problems with the current formulations of style” (Grasha, 2002, p.39) The first problem, according to Grasha, is that they largely focus on “what qualities teachers possess” and/or “what they do in the classroom” They do not address the specific actions which college teachers “might take

to adopt, improve, or modify the styles they already possess” The second one is that those models “largely assume that people already possess certain qualities and the model builder is simply identifying what is already there” (Grasha, 2002 p.39) Grasha, therefore, observed that to modify, change and to enhance the teaching style involves attending several things

The first thing to be considered is that it is necessary to develop a better sense of “Who I

am as a teacher and what do I want to become” (Grasha, 2002, p.149) The second suggestion is that teaching process should reflect teaching philosophy and teachers need

to examine their teaching philosophy (Grasha, 2002) Another thing suggested by Grasha is that a prescriptive model for identifying, modifying, and enhancing teachers’ teaching style should be examined by anyone who considers the possibility of changing (Grasha, 2002) The author, therefore, has proposed an alternative definition of teaching

style According to him, teaching style can be seen as “a pattern of needs, beliefs, and behaviors that faculty displayed in their classroom” (Grasha, 2002 p 152) Besides, Grasha (2002) also noted that teachers’ teaching styles were multidimensional and affected how they presented information, interacted with students, managed classroom tasks, supervised coursework, socialized students to the field and mentored students

2.2 CLASSIFICATION OF TEACHING STYLES

Benzie (1998) noted that individual teaching styles help determine how much information is retained and understood by the students Some general categories of teaching styles can help teachers identify their own strength and weakness and allow them to expand the variety of teaching styles used (Benzie, 1998) This section is to discuss a wide range of teaching styles identified in the literature

Teaching styles have been classified into three different categories: discipline-centered, teachers centered and student-centered (Dressel and Marcus, 1982, as cited in Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, 1997) In discipline-centered teaching, the courses are thought to have a fixed structure This means that the needs, concerns, and requirements of teachers and students are not given any consideration because the course depends mainly on disciplinary content that must be presented (Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, 1997) The teachers only do the job of an information transmitter and the content of the course is “dictated by the separate authority such as a department syllabus committee or textbook author” (Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, 1997, p 3) In teachers-centered teaching, the teachers are considered the “authoritative experts” and the “main source of knowledge” The students just receive information from the teachers passively The information to be taught and learned is decided by the teachers On the contrary, students and the cognitive development of students are the main focus in student-centered teaching The teachers are expected to assist students in grasping the development of knowledge as a process Content, teaching style and methods are adapted to ease the students’ intellectual development

Benzie (1998) reported such kinds of teaching styles as assertive, suggestive, collaborative and facilitative According to the author, in the classroom taught by assertive style the objectives may be content specific The students are usually given information Meanwhile, the suggestive style is concerned with relating your own personal experiences with certain problems Alternative solutions or opinions are encouraged to be sent out Collaborative involves asking students for their ideas or experiences in solving problems This style is a great help in teaching problem-solving skills, according to Benzie (1998) The last style reported by Benzie is Facilitative The author argued that “this style allows for more student self-understanding” (Benzie, 1998,

p 2) Besides, Benzie also noted that this style is crucial in teaching about emotions and attitudes

Cook (2001, as reviewed by Johnson, 2001) provided an overview of the most popular teaching methods, which are called teaching styles They include the academic style, audio-lingual style, the communicative and task-based learning style and the main mainstream EFL style According to Johnson’ review, Cook pointed out that the diversity of teaching styles should be viewed as a reflection of “the complexity of language learning process”

Grasha (2002) identified five teaching styles which are described as prevalent aspects of faculty presence in the classroom The first one is termed Expert In this style, the teacher is considered the “transmitter of information” Teachers, therefore, are said to possess knowledge and expertise that students need They attempt “to maintain their status as an expert among students by displaying detailed knowledge and by challenging

to enhance their competence” (Grasha, 2002 p 154) This style has both advantage and disadvantage, according to Grasha The teachers belonging to this style are thought to possess profound knowledge, skills and information If overused, however, less experienced students can be intimidated with the knowledge displaying Furthermore, the underlying thought processes that produced answers may not be shown (Grasha, 2002) The second style is Formal Authority The teachers possess this status among students “because of their knowledge and role as a teacher” (Grasha, 2002 p 154) The

teachers are believed to provide positive and negative feedback, establish learning goals, expectations and rules of conduct for students Additionally, this style is also concerned with providing the structure students need to study and with correct, acceptable, and standard ways to do things (Grasha, 2002) The strong point of this style is the focus on clear expectations and acceptable ways of doing things, according to Grasha But “a strong investment in this style can lead to less flexible ways of managing students and their concerns” (Grasha, 2002, p 154) The third style mentioned is called Personal Model In this style, teachers are guided by the belief “teaching by personal example” The teachers are often seen to show students how to do things and students are encouraged to observe and then emulate the teacher’s approach (Grasha, 2002) In this style, direct observation and following a role model are placed considerable emphasis Students may feel inadequate if they cannot live up to high expectations and standards for some teachers may think that their approach is second to none (Grasha, 2002), however Another style identified is named Facilitator This style places value on the personal nature of teacher-student interactions The teachers tend to guides learners by asking question, exploring options, proposing alternatives and encouraging learners to develop criteria to choose The main objective is to ask for students’ independent action, initiative and responsibility (Grasha, 2002) It is obvious that students’ needs and goals are the main focus of this view Time consuming, however, is a problem of this style (Grasha, 2002) Last but not least, Delegator is another status that teachers possess in the classroom It has something to do with developing students’ autonomy Students are said to work independently on projects or parts of autonomous groups The teachers just play the role of a resource person when students are in need (Grasha, 2002) This teaching style helps students to “perceive themselves as independent learners”, according to the author (Grasha, 2002, p 154) Nevertheless, some may feel nervous when given autonomy (Grasha, 2002)

2.3 TEACHING STYLE IN EDUCATION: A REVIEW OF RESEARCH

Smith (1997) reported that since the 1890, researchers have been studying the impact of teachers’ characteristics and styles on their students’ progresses “Many attempts to quantify basis of quality teaching have been made” (Smith, 1997, p.1) A series of studies into the various methodologies of teaching reviewed by Smith (1997) will be presented as below

Corey (1940, as cited in Smith, 1997) investigated the supposition that “The questions the teachers and pupils ask and answer orally give insight into the progress of learning and into the types of learning that the teacher deems most important” (Corey, p.745 as cited in Smith, 1997, p.13) To investigate the supposition, Corey hired an expert stenographer to make verbatim records of all the conversations in the classroom over the course of six classes The author finally found that the instructional method was based

on recital and the data showed that the teachers controlled the classroom by utilizing verbal commands for answers to questions and lecture Smith (1997) reported that this type of instructional methodology could be identified as a direct teaching style dominating the classroom The author also argued that the primary defect in Corey’s research was that “the students’ achievement scores were not acquired nor considered” (Smith, 1997, p 14) Also, the correlation between the amount of teacher talk and student achievement was not calculated (Smith, 1997)

Wispe (1951, as cited in Smith, 1997) studied the directive and permissive teaching styles in the classroom The directive teacher was described as “material-centered and highly structured” (Smith, 1997, p 14) Meanwhile, the permissive teacher was identified as “student-centered and activity-centered” In Wispe’s study, introductory college courses on social relations were employed Wispe analyzed two variables, the first administration of pre-test and the SAT scores were compared to the variables of the second administration of the pre-test, now the post-test, and the objective part of the final examination (Smith, 1997) The author finally found that there was not an overall difference in the students’ achievement in the directive and permissive teaching styles in the classroom

Flanders (1960, as cited in Smith, 1997) developed the instrument called the Flanders Interaction Analysis Category (FIAC) in an attempt to quantify the definition of the terms direct and indirect teaching styles Flanders asserted that teachers’ teaching styles could be arranged on a continuum with indirect on one end and direct on the other end Furthermore, he contended that teaching styles could be defined by a set of characteristics verbal behaviors, which could be manipulated into ratio design (Smith, 1997) He then identified the indirect teaching style as the indirect value divided by direct value He argued that if the answer was greater then one, the teacher was identified as indirect Conversely, was the answer under one, the teachers was described

as direct He used the FIAC in New Zealand and found that indirect teaching style was associated with higher student scores in two kinds of classes in the study: 7th grade social studies and 8th grade science classes Smith (1997) noted that Flanders’ finding in New Zealand lent support to “the conclusion that the indirect teaching style is more effective than direct teaching style” and there is a linear rapport between teaching styles and students’ outcomes (Smith, 1997, p.16)

Soar (1968, as cited in Smith, 1997) employed FIAC to define indirect and direct teaching styles (the location where Soar conducted teaching styles research was not reported by Smith, 1997) The author observed that when the objective is the learning of concrete material such as spelling, foreign language vocabulary, the teacher should be quite direct and highly structured in his presentation; but when the aim is an abstract one like the concept of creative writing on older pupils the teacher should be highly indirect (Smith, 1997) “The effective teacher must be able to shift style as he shifts objectives” (Smith, 1997, p.17)

Tuckman (1970, as cited in Smith, 1997) produced an instrument called the Students Perception of Teacher Style (SPOTS) to identify indirect and direct teaching styles According to Smith (1997), this instrument was a radical departure from the above-mentioned approaches to assessing the teachers’ styles, in that the observers were the teacher’s students The population in Tuckman’s study was twenty two eleventh and twelfth grade teachers from a vocational high school Eleven teachers taught vocational

participants and the rest of teachers taught traditional academic courses All of them had

at least five years teaching experience Smith (1997) reported that the major deficiency

of the SPOTS scale is that it is a linear model of one teacher trait: direct and indirect teaching styles Although an instrument was produced, the teacher’s teaching style was not related to students’ academic outcomes (Smith, 1997) Smith (1997) suggested the relation between teachers’ teaching styles and students’ academic results be accomplished to ascertain whether “teachers’ teaching styles, described by the SPOTS instrument, are predictive of the students’ cognitive outcomes”

Bennett (1976) conducted a research into two types of teaching styles termed “formal” and “informal” Despite Bennett’s identification of the two types of teaching styles,

“their operational definition was synonymous with direct and indirect teaching” (Smith,

1997, p.20) In this study, the students were pre and post tested in the areas of mathematics, reading and English, according to Smith (1997) Bennett finally found that the formal teaching style was more effective at the lower cognitive levels, for the students taught under formal style teacher outperformed their informally taught co-workers (Smith, 1997)

Brophy (1973, as cited in Smith, 1997) was interested in the stability of the teacher’s behavior Brophy’s study was guided by the question: “Are there any stable teacher behaviors?” and the sample was ordinary teachers in their classrooms without an experimental intervention (Smith, 1997, p 21) Smith (1997) noted that Brophy employed the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT) to identify the 1st grade students’ achievements as the baseline and 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grades’ scores were utilized for comparison The students’ achievement scores were used to indicate the teacher’s effectiveness (Smith, 1997) The author found that the stability of teachers’ behavior was preserved during three years this study was being carried out (Smith, 1997)

Veldman and Brophy (1974, as cited in Smith, 1997) investigated the predictive value of gender, pre-test, teachers’ behaviors and Social Economic Status (SES) on students’ achievement The researchers found that the students’ genders appeared to be an extremely weak predictor; the pre-test was considered the most powerful indicator of

student’ success and teachers behaviors were the second most powerful predictor of students’ achievement Meanwhile, students’ SES was classified as a moderating indicator (Smith, 1997) According to Smith’s review, the lower the student’s SES, the more powerful the teacher’s behavior is as an indicator of students’ success

In 1981, Burkman, Tate, Snyder and Beditz conducted a research into ascertaining how academic ability, time allowed to study and teacher directness affected students’ achievement in a high school science course (Smith, 1997) This study was said to employ the Individualized Science Instructional System (ISIS) to research Smith (1997) reported that Burkman et al (1981) utilized six differing treatments to develop their data for their research Indirect and direct teaching styles were observed The students were divided into three groups: low, medium and high The three groups were taught by two teaching styles: indirect and direct According to Smith’s review (1997), in the indirect method, the overall time limitations of the course and the presentation order of the learning modules under study were set Meanwhile, in the direct teaching, daily work schedule was predetermined and full class lectures and discussion sessions were held (Smith, 1997) A 58-mutiple-choice achievement test, then, was administered to the three groups of students Those taught by indirect teachers were allowed to retest if their scores were “unsatisfactory” (Smith, 1997, p 29) Their counterparts taught by direct method were not offered that privilege, however The result of their study was that “the high ability group gained the most with the direct teacher and did rather poorly with indirect teachers” (Smith, 1997, p 30) The similar finding was found in the low ability group Nevertheless, those who were allowed the least of study time did not do well on the achievement test (Smith, 1997)

2.4 DISTRIBUTION OF TEACHING STYLES IN THE CLASSROOM

Cano, Garton and Raven (1992) argued that each teacher is unique in many ways Teachers are said to differ from one another in such characteristic as teaching styles (Cano et al.) Recently, there have been a lot of studies which centered on teaching styles, particularly on distribution of teaching styles in the classroom

Grasha (2002) conducted a study to understand how such five teaching styles as Formal Authority, Facilitator, Delegator, Personal Model and Expert were distributed cross such areas as grade level, rank and gender of teachers, and various academic disciplines in the college classroom In order to realize that goal, he developed a survey instrument called Teaching Style Inventory Grasha’s instrument contains 40 items which are utilized to assess attitudes and behaviors associated with each of the five teaching styles The Teaching Style Inventory was administered to 381 faculties from 125 public and private colleges and universities in the United States The population in his study was 218 teachers, in which 175 were participants in national and regional workshops he conducted The remaining 106 teachers were randomly selected from two universities The author also collected information a 762 classrooms across 10 groups of participants

of instruction such as mathematics, arts, theater, music, foreign language learning, and business administration and so on The participants were asked to select two different courses they taught Finally, the author found that teachers who held the rank of professor tended to employed Expert and Formal Authority styles more often than other teachers Meanwhile, Personal Model was found to change very little with the level of the course The author reported that the Expert and Formal styles were less likely to be assumed with advanced undergraduate and graduate courses In contrast, the Facilitator and Delegator styles were reportedly likely used in more advanced courses Grasha (2002) argued that teachers adjusted their styles to match students’ ability for better prepared students were present in upper-level courses In addition, differences in teaching styles between male and female teachers were also noted in Grasha’s investigation Female teachers appeared to prefer Facilitator and Delegator styles to Expert and Formal Authority, according to Grasha’s outcome Lastly, variations in teaching styles among the ten disciplines were reported, too Grasha’s study showed that Expert style was used frequently by teachers of mathematics, computer science, arts, music and theater, but it was employed less often by faculty teaching in the areas of humanities and education Likewise, teachers in foreign language and business administration classrooms favored the Formal Authority, but Personal Model was found

to be favorite teaching style of education, humanities and theater teachers Finally, Grasha (2002) found that the Facilitator and Delegator teaching styles were observed more often among teachers teaching in education and in the arts, music and theater areas

Starbuck’s research (2003) was concerned with investigating the relationship between genders and teaching styles A survey comprising twenty-two questions about teaching techniques was conducted in Mesa State College in 2002 Each question was asked of those teaching in lower division, upper division and graduate level class, but the number

of faculty teaching graduate courses were small, so their responses were omitted from the study, according to Starbuck In the end, Starbuck’s data lent some support to the hypothesis that female college teachers are more likely to use discussion and other student-focused approaches, while male counterparts are more likely to employ lecture and computer-assisted methods, but “when controlling for academic school, differences were no longer significant” (Starbuck, 2003, p 1)

Laird, Graver, Niskodé (2007) conducted a study to compare teaching styles of men and women and determine whether gender differences differ by context (e.g disciplinary area and other course characteristics) This study specifically centers on the way in which teachers allocate their time in the classroom regarding lecturing and active classroom practices as a reflection of teaching style, according to Laird et al (2007) Their study is guided by such research questions as “do women teachers allocate a greater or smaller proportion of their class time lecturing?”, “how is the gap between men and women dependent on characteristics of the course like discipline or size? The data of for this study come from the 2006 administration of the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), annual survey of faculty teaching undergraduates baccalaureate degree-granting colleges and universities across the United States (Laird

et al, 2002) The sample for their study consists of 9,647 cases, in which 46% are female, 84% are White (4% African American, 5% Asian, 4% Hispanic, <1% Native American, 1% other racial/ethnic background, and 1% multiracial or ethnic) According

to Laird et al (2007), of the 131 institutions participating in FSSE 2006, only responses

from 107 U.S institutions where faculty had valid responses are used in the analysis Results from their study show that women spend less class time lecturing, and more time

on active classroom practices Additionally, both lecturing time and time on active classroom practices are also affected by course characteristics Specifically, they find that the average female teachers spends about 10 percent less class time lecturing than her male counterpart after controlling for other faculty, course and institutional characteristics They also find that Asian and pacific Islanders teachers are likely to lecture more often in comparison with White teachers, while multiracial teachers tend to spend little class time lecturing Furthermore, on average, teachers teaching hard disciplines spend 16 percent more class time lecturing than those in soft disciplines Teachers of pure disciplines lecture less than their applied co-workers, and teachers teaching life fields lecture more than those in non-life fields Interestingly, their data suggest that the more times a teacher had taught their course, the more time he or she spent on lecturing In addition, teachers of color are likely to reserve more time for active classroom practices Specifically, African American are found to spend over 20 percent more time, Hispanic/Latinos about 12 more time, and Asian/Pacific Islanders over 5 percent more time on active classroom practices than their White colleagues

2.5 NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE TEACHERS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

Graddol (1997, as cited in Smith, Butler, Hughes, Herrington, Kritsonis, 2007, p 2) noted the number of L2 (the second language) English speakers is more than the number

of L1 (the first language) English speakers, implying that “English is no longer the privilege of native speakers” Smith et al (2007) observed that above-mentioned statements from the 1980s to 1990s foreshadow a current controversy between native teachers of English (NTEs) and non-native teachers of English (NNTEs) Moussu (2000) reported that in the field of language teaching, there is an argument as to who is going to

be the most competent to teach all such the needed language skills as writing, listening, reading, and speaking to students “The polemic of NTEs versus NNTEs is becoming

increasingly significant as more and more people realize the importance of learning language in general and English in particular” (Moussu, 2000, p 2-3)

2.5.1 The strengths and weaknesses of NTEs and NNTEs

2.5.1.1 The strengths and weaknesses of NTEs

Moussu (2000) argued that when only language proficiency is considered, it is unquestionable that language proficiency is an advantage of NTEs Medgyes (1992, as cited in Moussu, 2000) remarked that even the best NNTEs will never reach “native competence” despite all their efforts It seems that NNTEs might be able to approach

“native competence” but they appear to be “halted by a glass wall”, where their language competence will stay blocked (Medgyes, 1992, p 342 as cited in Moussu, 2000, p 4) Nevertheless, Kramsch (2005) stated that “although NTEs have been socialized in the daily culture of those who speak the language on a daily basis, and also have idiomatic ways of speaking, there are many reasons why they are not necessarily better language teachers than NNTEs” (Kramsch, 2005, as cited in Upra, 2005, p 15) The first reason, according to her, is that NTEs only have a limited understanding of their own culture because their experience is limited to the context in which they live and work Second, they often have an unreflected, unconceptualized understanding of their culture Third, they understand their culture from inside, but not necessarily from outside, like the way their students do Finally, they have not experienced what it means to learn their mother tongue as a foreign language, so they cannot understand what their students go through (Kramsch (2005, as cited in Upra, 2005)

2.5.1.2 The strengths and weaknesses of NNTEs

McNeill (1994, as cited in Upra, 2005) found that NNTEs seem to have greater ability in predicting students’ difficulties in language learning, particularly in the area of vocabulary This is probably because NNTEs have already experienced the same difficulties while learning the language themselves (Upra, 2005, Myint, 2002) In accordance with his idea, Medgyes (1992, as cited in Moussu, 2000, p 5) listed the following important advantages of NNTEs:

1 Only NNTEs can serve as imitable models of the successful learners of English

2 NNTEs can teach learning strategies more effectively

3 NNTEs provide learners with more information about the English language

4 NNTEs are more able to anticipate language difficulties

5 NNTEs can be more empathetic to the needs and problems of their learners

6 Only NNTEs can benefit from sharing the learners’ mother tongue

(Medgyes, 1992, as cited in Moussu, 2000, p 15) Phillipson (1996, as cited in Upra, 2005) argued that NNTEs were believed to be ideal ESL/EFL teachers because they have gone through the process of studying English They have first hand experience in learning and using the second language, and their personal experience has made them aware of the linguistic and cultural needs of the students and of the difference between English and their mother tongue This awareness gives them the ability to anticipate students’ linguistic problems

Myint (2002) observed that a NNTE is far more likely to be patient and understanding when students make mistakes because they had probably made similar mistakes at one time or another in the past (Myint, 2002, Flynn, 1999) Furthermore, the author went on reasoning that one of strengths of NNTEs actually from what appears to be a weakness According to the author, NNTEs have been facing much criticism for ‘occasional lapses” in both grammar and pronunciation However, students can never be expected to function like native English speakers, according to Myint Accordingly, students feel more encouraged because “they see a model who is not perfect but whose language of the language is entirely within their grasp” (Myint, 2002, p 9) Another advantage of NNTEs presented by Myint (2002) is that the NNTEs create an easy rapport with students and lead to a better understanding and stronger motivation to learn English This is because, according to Myint, that the students seem to think that the teacher is not someone different from them, it can “make a big difference in the way the students they view the lessons and it helps them overcome anxiety and distress” (Myint, 2002, p 9)

Upra (2005) stated the following advantages of NNTEs in the EFL context where they and the students share the same mother tongue:

1 They can use their students’ mother tongue whenever and wherever it can facilitate and accelerate the process of learning English

2 They are much better equipped to help their students cope with learning problems that depend on the first language (L1) and the second language (L2) differences and that can be solved effectively only when the teacher has a clear idea about the essence of differences

3 They are much better equipped for developing their students’ interlingual awareness They have acquired transfer strategies that are an important prerequisite for target language learning

4 They are better equipped for developing students’ intercultural awareness that is the only way of learning the target culture (especially target non-verbal and lifestyles communicative behavior patterns) under conditions where students have no or very little direct contact with the target cultural communities

5 They present a more achievable model to their student, not overwhelming them with the native speakers’ perfection

Nevertheless, Maum (2002) noted that the “native speaker fallacy” has posed a lot of challenges such as accent and credibility with which NNTEs are to struggle to overcome

in the workplace Lippi-Green (1997, as cited in Maum, 2002) found that teachers with non-native accents were thought to be less qualified and less effective in comparison with their NTEs Moreover, other researchers such as Canagarajah, (1999) and Thomas (1999) (as cited in Maum, 2002) were reported to find that speakers of various international varieties of English like Indian or Singapore English were less credible, and less competent teachers than those who come from the United States, Great Britain and so on Further, many NNTEs have faced the issues of teacher credibility in the classroom (Maum, 2002) According to Maum (2002), several NNTEs have reported that many their students did not want to be taught by NNTEs unless the latter prove that they can be as qualified as NTEs Boyle (1997) argued that there would be corresponding disadvantages in terms of English language ability in relation to the following criteria The first criterion is that “a language learned later in life can be easily

forgotten, unless it is constantly practiced” (Boyle, 1997, p 168) Second, NNTEs confront a challenge that English is said to have a difficult grammar, a huge vocabulary and a wealth of idiomatic usage Third, it is difficult to keep English as the dominant language for those who live in an environment where English is a foreign language and the dominant language is in fact the learners’ mother tongue Last but not least, according to the author, it is hard for NNTEs to feel confident in his or her English language ability, “particularly when the native speakers are constantly critical of the standard of English in the country” (Boyle, 1997, p 168) Although many difficulties have been posed for NNTEs, they are “beginning to see themselves and to be viewed by other as equal partners in the ELT profession” (Maum, 2002, p 4)

2.5.2 Difference between NNTEs and NTEs

Newfields (2000) argued that one of the most heated controversies in ELT profession is the debate about how native and nonnative speakers differ In this section, a review of studies into the difference between NTEs and NNTEs will be presented

Kaplan (1999) observed that there are a very large number of variables between NTEs and NNTEs According to the author, the evidence suggests that NTEs are more effective with advanced learners, while NNTEs are more effective with beginning learners Besides, NTEs may be more effective with small groups and NNTEs with larger ones (Kaplan, 1999) Furthermore, as for proficiency, NTEs, according to Kaplan, have greater command of the target language, particularly of the pragmatics of the language But NNTEs may possess greater proficiency in some registers (Kaplan, 1999)

Medgyes (1994, as cited in Smith et al 2007) found that the central issue separating NTEs and NNTEs is simply difference NNTEs and NTEs bring different talents and needs to the ELT profession, according to the author Medgyes conducted a survey of

325 teachers from 11 countries; 86% of them were NNTEs and 14% were NTEs The finding of Medgyes’ survey was presented as follow (as cited in Smith et al 2007):

Figure 1: Medgyes’s (1994) Survey of NTEs ans NNTEs

Use of English

speak better English

use real language

use English more confidently

speak poorer English use “bookish” language use English less confidently

General Attitude

adopt a more flexible approach

are more innovative

are less empathetic

attend to perceived needs

have far-fetched expectations

are more casual

are less committed

adopt a more guided approach are more cautious

are more empathetic attend to real needs have realistic expectations are stricter

are more committed

Attitude to Teaching Language

are less insightful

teach items in context

prefer free activities

favor group work/pair work

use variety of materials

use a single textbook correct punish errors set more tests

use more L1

resort to no / less translation

assign less homework

resort to more translation assign more homework

Attitude to Teaching Culture

supply more cultural information supply less cultural information

Keiko Samimy and Janina Brutt-Griffler (as cited in Braine, 1999) reviewed by Wlazlinski (1999) reported the finding of a study examining the NTEs and NNTEs’ dichotomy by asking whether or not teachers recognize or acknowledge the difference and to what they contribute to the difference The results showed that difference in teaching styles was acknowledged but NNTEs were impossibly inferior to the NTEs regarding knowledge and skills at any account

Jin (2005) conducted a study to investigate Chinese students from 8 universities in the People’s Republic of China on such matters as “Which is better in China, a local or a NST?” and whether or not “China English” should be considered as an actual or a potential standard variety which could stand alongside the standard varieties of British, American and so on The data collected through questionnaires, group discussion, and interview showed that Chinese students held positive attitudes towards both English as

an international language and “China English” Furthermore, students were also reported

to prefer Chinese teachers of English to NTEs

Smith et al (2007) argued that NTEs should be employed in Poland because NTEs are said to teach their own language, use current idioms in speaking and writing Further, NTEs are needed in Poland for they are able to provide information about English countries Thus, NTEs are sought after in Poland since the credibility of English programs in Polish education institutions would be enhanced with the presence of NTEs

in the teaching staff (Smith et al, 2007)

Chen from Cheng Shiu University (Kaohsiung, Taiwan) (n.d.) conducted a research into college students’ appraisal of NTEs and NNTEs in the classroom The author’s study was guided by the following research questions: (1) what are the views of college students toward the idea that NTEs or NNTEs are preferred in the EFL classroom? (2) Are there any significant differences between the appraisals of students their preference

for an ideal English teacher? (3) Should cross-cultural instruction be a component in EFL setting such as Taiwan? In order to carry out the investigation, one questionnaire consisting of an evaluation of effectiveness and difficulties regarding students’ learning

in both NTEs and NNTEs was worked out The questionnaire consisting of 10 statements is used to observe whether or not there is any combining effect between effectiveness and difficulties in learning in NTEs and NNTEs The author finally found two implications: pronunciation and speaking activities are practiced and tested by both NTEs and NNTEs; students were afraid of communication breakdown or misunderstanding, which obviously indicates that L1 possibly eases students’ comprehension in the classroom, according to Chen

Upra (2005) investigated the views of Thai parents and students on NTEs and NNTEs This study was guided by such the following regards as who Thai students and their parents think is a native speaker of English, what preferences for English teacher Thai students have and Thai parents have for their children, characteristics students and Thai parents feel NTEs have and NNTEs lack The population of this study was 110 students and 60 parents living in Bangkok, Chang Mai and Chang Rai Of which 47 students were from high school, 58 undergraduates and 3 graduates Out of 110 students, 39 were said to have lived or studied in an English speaking country, 71 have never lived or studied in an English speaking country The data was collected through a questionnaire and interview She finally found that there was no difference in the view of Thai parents and students towards NTEs and NNTEs According to her outcomes, NTEs were not thought to be superior to their NNTEs Besides, Thai parents and students reckoned that such traits as good teaching ability, proficiency in language teaching, good personality, use of technology in the class and awareness of culture where English is spoken as the mother tongue belonged to both NTEs and NNTEs (Upra, 2005)

Behar-Horenstein, Mitchell, Notzer, Penfield, Eli (2006) conducted a study into determining if self-reportedteaching style beliefs were different among faculty at a U.S.and an Israeli dental school Twenty-seven of fifty-eight (47.37%) faculty at a dental school in the United States andthirty of thirty-four (88 %) Israeli dental faculty teaching

in basic science courses completed the Teaching Behavior PreferencesSurvey (TBPS) The TBPS is a thirty-item instrument that measures two domains of teaching styles—teacher-centered andstudent-centered —and four sub-domains: methods ofinstruction, classroom milieu, use of questions,and use of assessment, according to the researchers Findings revealed that there were no significant differences in student-centered and teacher-centered teaching practices and methods of instruction, classroom milieu, and use of questions There was a significant difference betweenthe U.S and Israeli groups

in their reported use of assessment The U.S faculty reported a greater preference for student-centeredassessment practices than did the Israeli faculty

2.6 ERROR, ERROR TREATMENT AND ERROR CORRECTION

2.6.1 What is an error?

Lengo (1995) argued that errors have played an important role in the study of language acquisition in general and in examining second and foreign language learning in particular Researchers are said to be concerned with errors for they believed that errors contain valuable information on strategies that people use to learn a language (Lengo, 1995) But what does the term mean? The answer has been given by a lot of researchers Corder (1973, as cited in Flatley, 1996) distinguished between errors and lapses Errors

in this sense refer to something which is not recognizable to the learner; as a result, they cannot be self-corrected On the contrary, lapses like the slips of tongue are recognizable, and they are sometimes called “performance error” Meanwhile, mistakes are termed “inappropriate utterances”, which refers to the fact that language use is not matched to the context

Dulay, Burt & Krashen (1992, as cited in Flatley, 1996) criticized the above-mentioned distinction because they thought that identifying a category is complicated, and only the most thorough analysis, based on detailed knowledge of the situation and the learner, will help us to clarify one category from another with certainty The researchers, therefore, proposed another view of errors as:

any deviation from a selected norm of language performance, no matter what the characteristics or causes of the deviation might be

Nevertheless, literature noted that after teaching English for several years, teachers are able to detect students’ errors easily in the students’ pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, spelling, use and appropriacy, and their ability to make sense of the message conveyed I, therefore, will take the view of Nunan (1999) for it seems to be in line with this argument Nunan (1999) defined errors as:

A piece of speech or writing that is recognizably different in some way from the native usage Errors can occur at the level of discourse, grammar, vocabulary, or pronunciation

(Nunan, 1999 p 307)

2.6.2 Teachers’ attitude to error

Hubbard, Jones, Thornton, Wheeler (1991) observed that the teachers’ attitude to error is

of crucial importance The teachers’ attitude to error in sensitive correction during oral work can be particularly damaging because it encourages a withdrawal attitude in the learners; harsh written comments have an unpleasant permanence in exercise books and discourage revision (Hubbard et al, 1991) According to those authors, teachers are to have a positive attitude to error and be prepared to do something about it

Hubbard et al (1991) noted that teachers’ attitude to error can be categorized as the behaviorists attitude, the mentalist attitude The behaviorists, according to Hubbard et al (1991), view error as “symptom of ineffective teaching or as an evidence of failure” Error is also viewed as being due very largely to mother-tongue interference, which the teachers have been unable to predict or allow for The mentalists view as evidence that the student is working his way towards the correct rules Teachers who have this attitude may adjust the level of difficulty according to students’ progress, motivation and so on (Hubbard et al, 1991) Accordingly, the language teacher must be concerned about what

is going on in the learner’s mind and must be prepared to discuss long problems and must be prepared to help his students to sort thing out for themselves

2.6.3 Error correction

Gower and Walters (1983) argued that correcting error that students make when they speak or write can be one of the most difficult tasks in language teaching The authors put forward that when dealing with error, general questions that need asking are:

1 Has the students made a simple slip or does he in fact not know what the correct form should be?

2 At what stages of a lesson, error should be corrected?

3 How much correction should teachers give?

4 How can teachers get to the root of the students’ problem?

5 How can teachers correct in such a way as not to discourage the student?

6 What should the other students be doing while teachers are correcting?

7 How can teachers follow up teachers’ correction so that the student will get the form right next time?

2.6.3.1 Oral correction

“In one way, oral correction is more difficult than written correction, for teachers are to decide quickly about what to correct, when to correct, how to correct and how much to correct” (Gower and Walters, 1983 p 147) Concerning what to correct, Gower and Walters (1983) suggested that one way teachers can use to cope with errors coming up in the classroom is to try to anticipate any errors that might come up by: (1) teachers should familiarize themselves with all aspects of an item of the language they are presenting or practicing, (2) Teachers ought to familiarize themselves with the typical grammatical and pronunciation problems associated with the nationality of the students

As for when to correct, generally speaking, the principle is that if the language is controlled by teachers and the students are practicing forms teachers have presented, then errors should be rectified, according to Gower and Walters (1983) “The tighter the control, the tighter the correction” (Gower and Walters, 1983 p 147) Nevertheless, if the lesson is aimed at getting students to produce a lot of language quickly and fluently, rather than a small amount accurately, then correction will be less (Gower and Walters,

1983 p 148) Therefore, during the presentation stage, when students are offered an example of new item of the language and they are expected to repeat so as to practice the pronunciation and memorize the form, rectification can be absolutely crucial (Gower and Walters, 1983 p 148) In the mean time, in a drill, if the students have choices about which language to use, and they are not merely repeating a given form, then other types

of errors can occur such as tense endings (he go) or word order (he speaks very well English) On the contrary, in the activities where the language is semi-controlled by teachers like asking students to reconstruct a story “the amount of correction will depend

on the aim of the activity, the time teachers have, its relevance to other students and so on” (Gower and Walters, 1983 p 148) Gower and Walters also observed that guidance and correction cannot be given during the communicative activities, only afterwards The teachers might give individual students notes of errors they have made with instructions on how to correct them or provide the class with remedial session on errors common to the majority (particularly fruitful for monolingual class) As regards how much to correct, Gower and Walters described that “errors are usually made only be individual students, so correction usually has to be on individual basis, too.” However, teachers might confront a problem “how to spend enough time on any one error with any one student without alienating the rest of the class (Gower and Walters, 1983 p 148) Accordingly, correction, according to Gower and Walters, should involve the whole class as much as possible in the correction process and more time should be spent on rectifying common problems to the whole class than to what is only a problem for one student Relating how to correct, the main stages in the correction process are, according

to Gower and Walters, as follows: (1) students must know something is not accurate, (2) the students must know where the language is, (3) the students must find what kind of error is In order to tackle the problem, Gower and Walters (1983) suggested the following basic steps: (1) indicate that an error has been made, (2) show the student where the error is, (3) indicate what sort of error it is, (4) get student to try again and if

he can get it right, (5) if the student still cannot get it right, with a hand gesture, hold his attention and get another student to help out, (6) if the preceding step fails, teacher may teach it from scratch (i.e present and practice it) if it is an important point and the others don not know it either; otherwise, the meaning of the item is clear, it should be enough for teachers to simply say it and get the students to say it, (7) if the students make the same error later in the session, a quick reminder like making an appropriate facial expression should be sufficient

2.6.3.2 Written correction

According to Gower and Walters, the principles behind rectifying written work are basically the same as those behind correcting oral production As a matter of fact, it is advisable to correct it tightly if it is controlled-writing and if it is cued-writing correction should be less Meanwhile, either react to it as communication or evaluate it as communication should be used in free-writing In addition, in terms of how much to correct students’ writing, Gower and Walters argued that free-writing should be set for communicative purposes and not be marked and corrected on the basis of correct form; when correcting cued-writing, it is often worth focusing on a particular area like punctuation or spelling and ignoring the rest Additionally, in respect of how to correct written errors, Gower and Walters suggested the following ways to cope with students’ writing Depending on the aim of the exercise, teachers may underline errors they wish

to focus on so that students know where they occur Besides, teachers may show students what types of errors they are by putting symbols in the appropriate place in the margin (e.g P for punctuation, S for spelling, WO for word order, ect) and symbols should be taught beforehand so as to make students understand them Furthermore, written work sometimes may be exchanged with other students or discussed in groups so that they all correct each other’s What is more, teachers may mark or comment, according to the aim of the written work In fact, if communication is centered on, do not mark according to spelling Also, teachers may set up follow-up exercise for bad errors

or note down errors that are common to the class and prepare a remedial lesson for them

2.6.4 NTEs and NNTEs’ reactions to learners’ errors: a review of research

Flatley (1996) observed that this area is complicated because there are a handful of such factors level, needs, purposes of the learners, the aims of the course, the cultural customs

of the society and so on, which can exert the influence on the extent to which a learner error is reacted The following studies into the issue in the literature are reviewed by Flatley (1996)

James (1977, as cited in Flatley, 1996) studied investigated the difference between NNTEs and NTEs in terms of judging fifty sentences containing a handful of syntactic

and lexical errors The author drew a conclusion that NNTEs tended to mark more severely In James’ study (1977), according to Flatley’ review, each error had to be given a gravity rating up to five points, and the most errors would be offered more points James observed that NNTEs were likely to be divided into two groups: one, somewhat tolerant of error, the other, and intolerant Besides, James found that both NTEs and NNTEs rated lexical errors significantly low James, however, also urged that his finding should be cautiously interpreted due to small size of the sample and the limitations of his sentences, according to Flatley (1996)

Hughes and Lascaratou (1982, as cited in Flatley, 1996) studied reactions of ten NNTEs whose mother tongue was Greek, ten NTEs and ten non-teacher native speakers who had university degree to thirty-six sentences taken form compositions about car accidents, written by Cypriot high-school students of English in their penultimate year Each sentence contained one error and provided four examples for each of eight error categories such as verb forms, concord, plural, pronouns, vocabulary, word order, prepositions, spelling The participants in the study themselves were asked to identify errors, correct them and assessed the seriousness by deducting up to five points on a gravity scale, and explain the rationale for their assessment The researchers’ data showed that NTEs, especially non-teachers, marked much more leniently than NNTEs Interestingly, there was no significant variation between the two native speaker groups but the authors found that there was a consistent difference between NTEs and NNTEs regarding all error categories mentioned, except spelling The reason accounting for this variation may have been intelligibility, according to the authors Intelligibility was considered the main criterion for deciding gravity by NTEs but NNTEs paid more attention to the extent to which an error was in breach of a basic rule they thought students should have already mastered Moreover, Hughes and Lascaratou speculated that the leniency of NTEs might probably come from better knowledge of the language and “awareness of the wide and flexible scopes of its norms” (Hughes and Lascaratou,

1982, as cited in Flatley, 1996, p 18) The author, then, suggested that intelligibility instead of accuracy alone should be paid due attention

Sheorey (1986, as cited in Flatley, 1996) made twenty sentences, each containing an error representing a great deal of typical errors in the written English of ESL students of various nationalities attending university courses in the USA His errors comprised question formation, agreement, tense, lexis, indirect question, article, preposition and spelling The participants in his study were sixty-two NTEs from the USA and thirty-four NNTEs from the India, who had little exposure to native speakers They were asked

to judge the errors on a scale 0-5 The outcome of his study was that NTEs was much more tolerant to errors compared with their NNTEs Further, the author found that lexical errors were ranked fourth in seriousness by NTEs and last by NNTEs Sheorey argued that this was probably because NTEs have a better understanding of lexical difference of the language In contrast to Hughes and Lascaratou’s finding, spelling was given little importance by both groups of teachers, and the NTEs considered it the least important category In the same manner, the author advised NNTEs should adopt a more lenient approach to deal with learners’ errors

Flatley (1996) himself conducted a research to investigate the difference between NNTEs and NTEs in terms judging acceptability, attitudes to errors and treatment of errors The population in his dissertation was ten NTEs and NNTEs NTEs all spoke British English as their mother tongue NNTEs all were largely schooled in British English; nine of them used Spanish as their mother tongue and one was an Italian All NNTEs had studied English at school through formal instruction The NNTEs who were graduates of the Argentine state teacher-training system Three NTEs had the diploma in TEFL; seven were university graduates All were employed at private language institutes

in Buenos Aires at the time this study was carried out Averagely, they had at least six year experience teaching English

Flatley’s research involved three components such as an exercise in judging the acceptability of twenty sentences, a questionnaire on attitudes and approaches to error treatment and a correction exercise on an authentic sample of student writing In the first component, participants were asked to make acceptability judgments based on four criteria such as grammatical well-formedness, lexical choice, intelligibility, and the

appropriacy of the language to the context using a three-point scale: unacceptable, moderately acceptable and acceptable The second component was a twenty-item questionnaire, which was involved with expressing more tolerant attitudes to errors, prioritizing fluency and communicative effectiveness over formal accuracy, favoring less teacher-centered methods of correction and intensive error treatment, stressing accuracy and supporting teacher correction rather than self or peer correction A five-point Likert scale was utilized in this component The last component involved a correction task Teachers were asked to identify significant errors which were crucial to draw students’ attention to and to assess the seriousness of errors, based on a five-point scale (A-E) where E referred to the most serious ones

The author finally found that in terms of judging acceptability, given any majority of NTEs’ judgments as the norm, NNTEs’ “variation from the norm is greater that that of NTEs” (Flatley, 1996 p 54) Besides, the author also found that there was inconsistency

of judgment within both groups of teachers, and NNTEs expressed objections more than NTEs Taking attitudes to errors into consideration, his data showed that both NTEs and NNTEs were in favor of tolerance of errors The author also observed that both groups

of teachers preferred peer correction to teacher correction, global to local errors, respectively Additionally, NNTEs felt that risk-taking in the learner should be encouraged and noted that interrupting and correcting students during fluency activities was unwise Last but not least, Flatley‘s outcome included the fact that there was no significant variation between both groups in their attention to errors of syntax, morphology and spelling The data in this study also brought about an outcome that the relationship between attitudes expressed and actual error treatment practice was either non-existent or extremely subtle

says; the teachers’ questioning behaviors; and how the teacher gives instructions, keeps students on task, and make language comprehensible to the students (Gebhard, 1996)

2.7.1 Setting up classroom activities

Gebhard (1996) put forward that teachers are required to know how to arrange a variety

of classroom techniques so as to mange and promote interactive classrooms Teachers are likely to have students work in various kinds of seating arrangements such as traditional arrangement, in circle or semicircle, face-to-face, back-to-back, in small groups, walking around alone, working alone, and so on Traditional seating and semicircle are usually set up during teacher-class discussion or lectures; sitting face-to-face is suitable for interview; back-to-back for telephone conversation; circle for solving

a problem or discussing an issue; pairs side-by-side for studying a reading selection, planning a party or collaborating on a piece of writing, according to Gebhard (1996) Gebhard also pointed out that in order to realize the goal of providing opportunities for students to use English to communicate meaning; teachers need to feel free to create a combination of seating arrangement

Another aspect of setting up classroom activities is the way the teacher groups students, according to Gebhard One way is to group students beforehand by their personality characteristics, or abilities and experiences Gebhard gave an example that shy students could be matched with other shy ones, or with talkative learners; fluent students with fluent students or with those who are not fluent Besides, students can be groups according to different physical characteristics such as hair length, age, height and so forth In addition, students are likely to be grouped by lottery For instance, they can be given pieces of paper with colored dots Those who get the red dots will form one group, blue another, yellow another and to name just a few Additionally, students themselves can also make their own decision about what group to participate in To sum up, there are lots of choices for teacher to make in grouping students

2.7.2 Giving instructions

Gebhard (1996) observed that the way teachers instruct their students is also considered

an aspect of managing classroom The author also enumerated several ways of giving instructions:

Writing down the instructions and giving them verbally

Giving instruction verbally and role-playing them; showing the students what they are to do

Having a student read the instructions, then having one or two students paraphrase those instructions to the class

Writing down the instructions letting students read them silently, and then having students tell what they are expected to do

Giving instructions as a dictation, then having the students check each others’ dictations

Miming the instructions as students guess and tell the teacher what they are supposed to do

Whispering the instructions as students lean forward in their seats, having them repeat the instructions to the person next to them in a whisper

(Gebhard, 1996, p 78-79)

2.7.3 Keeping students on task

Gebhard (1996) reported that some teachers believe that keeping students on task is an important part of providing students with opportunities to interact meaningfully However, it is not an easy task because students sometimes do other things like having their own discussions on issues which are not related to the task at all rather than focus

on the task Likewise, they tend to use Vietnamese while the teacher is on another side

of the room and as the teacher approaches English is suddenly heard A handful of suggestions to deal with the problem proposed by Gebhard will be presented as follow:

• Give clear instructions Make sure the students know that the goal of the task

is

• Let students know that they are expected to stay on task

• Have students work on task that they are interested in

• Have students work on task that they can finish in a set amount of time Let students know how much time they have left to complete the task as they work on it

• Give tasks that produce a product Let students know they are expected to report their findings or conclusions back to the class

• Appoint students to take on roles

• Let students themselves work on the task Do not interrupt without taking the purpose into consideration Students are required to ask for teacher’s input

(Gebhard, 1996, p 80)

2.7.4 Making language comprehensible to students

Another aspect of managing classroom is making language comprehensible to students Gebhard (1996) noted that students can lose their interests, become anxious or frustrated, and sometimes turn to passive mood and non-attentive mood if language spoken by teacher or in materials is not comprehensible This automatically brings into the consideration that how the issue can be done There are three ways of tacking the problem, according to Gebhard

The first solution is that teachers should simplify their speech As a matter of fact, something like “foreign talk” and simplified language use or style of speech should be taken into consideration Foreign talk, according to Gebhard, includes exaggerated pronunciation and facial expression; decreased speech rate; frequent use of pauses, gestures, and sentence expansion; completing students’ sentences for them

Second, teachers can add mediums to easy students’ comprehension In fact, medium includes speech, print, pictures, objects, gestures, eye contact, and touch and so on Gebhard gave an example that if students are to read an authentic restaurant menu and the text is too difficult for them, the teachers can draw pictures or bring to the class real photos of the food on the menu Further, the teacher can act out how to eat a certain kind

of food

Third, the language can be made comprehensible to students by meaning negotiation In order to do this, teachers can make use of clarification and confirmation questions for Gebhard argued that “these types of questions are useful to negotiate meaning for both teacher and students, and when the students work at clarifying and confirming meaning, language can become more and more comprehensible to them” (Gebhard, 1996, p.81)

2.8 Communicative activities

2.8.1 What are communicative activities?

Communicative activities refer to any activities that engage and require learners to speak with and listen to other learners as well as with people in the program and community Even when a lesson is centered on developing reading and writing skills, communicative should be integrated into the lesson (Activities to Promote Interaction and Communication n d.)

2.8.2 Purposes of communicative activities

Littlewood (1981) summarized some of the contribution that communicative activities can make to language learning The first contribution of communicative activities is that they can provide “whole-task practice” By “whole-task practice” the author means practice in the total skill The author gave an example that learning to swim usually involves not only separate practice of individual movements (part skills), but also attempts to swim short distances (whole-task practice) According the author, in foreign language learning, learners can be provided with whole-task practice in the classroom through various kinds of communicative activity in order to suit learners’ level of ability The second contribution that communicative activities can make to language learning is that they can help improve motivation Littlewood (1981) put forward that

“the learners’ ultimate goal is to take part in communication with others Their motivation to learn is likely to be sustained if they can see how their classroom learning

is related to their goal and helps them to realize it with increasing success” (Littlewood,

1981, p 17) Furthermore, Littlewood (1981) also pointed out that the learners’ learning

is more likely to make sense to them if it can build on the conception that language is as

a means of communication Another contribution of communicative activities is they can

allow natural learning Littlewood (1981) argued that language learning takes place inside the learners and many aspects of language learning can take place only through natural processes, which operate when the learners are involved in utilizing language for communication The fourth contribution of communicative activities is that they can create a context which supports learning Communicative activities provide opportunities for positive relationships to develop amongst learners and between learners and teacher, according to Littlewood (1981) The author also suggested that the positive relationships to develop amongst learners and between learners and teacher can help to create an environment which supports the learners in their efforts to learn

2.9 Stages of a lesson

Doff (1995) observed that any lesson we teach naturally divides into different stages of activity Spratt (1991) noted that an oral lesson which aims to teach new structures or functions is often divided into three stages, commonly known as the presentation stage, the practice stage or accuracy stage and the production stage or fluency stage According

to Spratt (1991), one of the purposes of the presentation stage is to give students opportunity to realize the usefulness and relevance of the new language and their need to learn it Meanwhile, the rationale behind the practice, according to Spratt, is to offer students the opportunity to use newly presented language in a controlled framework in order to allow them to memorize its form and assimilate its meaning more fully In addition, Spratt (1991) also put forward that one of the aims of the production stage is to grant the learners the opportunity to experiment and to allow them to see how much they have really understood and learnt of the language that has been practiced under controlled conditions

2.10 Summary

In this section, the teaching styles and the difference between NTEs and NNTEs are discussed It is shown that there are a lot of teaching styles employed by teachers and they are differently distributed across many areas such as grade level, rank and gender of teachers, and various academic disciplines and teaching styles of teachers can exert impact on students’ achievement Besides, it is argued that both NNTEs and NTEs each

have their own strengths and weakness Also, it is observed that both NTEs and NNTEs rated lexical errors significantly low; NTEs, especially non-teachers, marked much more leniently than NNTEs Besides, both NTEs and NNTEs were in favor of tolerance of errors and prefer peer correction to teacher correction, global to local errors, respectively In addition, such factors as how the teacher gives instructions, keeps students on task, and make language comprehensible to the students are indicators of how the teachers organize things that go on their classroom Moreover, according to the literature, communicative activities can make such contributions to the language learning as providing “whole-task practice”, enhancing motivation, , allowing natural learning, and creating a context which supports learning Furthermore, it is also argued that such stages as presentation, practice, production are usually found in an oral lesson

However, although a lot of researches on the difference in teaching style between NTEs and NNTEs have been reported in the literature, it seems that a similar research between VTEs and NTEs has not been conducted or reported in the country yet That is the reason this thesis is conducted to provide additional data to the issue

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter is concerned with the methodology employed to carry out the study A detailed account of the participants and setting is provided, and the designs of the instruments, procedures of data collection including the methods of data analysis are also discussed The chapter ends with a discussion on the reliability and validity of the research instrument

3.1 DATA COLLECTION

3.1.1 Participants and sampling method

To serve the purpose of the present study, three groups of participants were recruited: Vietnamese teachers of English, native speaker teachers of English and English majors including freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors at An Giang University All the participants were randomly selected However, before they were included in the selection round, they were required to satisfy a number of criteria First, only teachers who were teaching English majors at the university were invited to take part in the present study Second, only English majors were included, for only English majors at the university were taught by both NTEs and VTEs

3.1.2 Students’ background

All the students in the study were on a BA degree course in the English Department at

An Giang University This means that only English majors participated in the study The reason was that only English majors at the university were taught by both NTEs and VTEs The students all shared similar background experience in relation to the following factors:

They were all four-year degree course students; almost all students are in the ages of 18 and 23, (the average age was 20.5)

The number of years they spent learning English, ranging from 4 to more than 12, was more than 8, on average As a minimum, they had all learnt English for 7 years, 4 years