Students attitudes towards native english speaker teacher and non native english speaker teachers an investigation at thai nguyen university of technology

Given the fact that attitudes play an important role in mastering a foreign language Lightbown and Spada 1999 and Garder & Lamber 1972 this study aims to investigate the second-year stud

INTRODUCTION

B ACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Thai Nguyen University of Technology (TNUT), a member of Thai Nguyen University, was established in 1965 Presently, there are 12.000 students studying in different programs namely: Post-graduate studies, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Electronics, Industrial Management & Environmental Engineering, Engineering Education, Automotive Engineering and Fundamental Sciences

English is a compulsory subject at TNUT from the academic year of 1997 – 1998 At TNUT, all students have to take two courses of English with 225 class hours: the General English (GE) – 180 hours and the rest of time is for English for Specific Purposes (ESP) Most of students study English at high school Before starting the first year of study at TNUT, students are asked to take a placement test at the elementary level The students who pass will take the GE course in the first term of their study The others will continue to learn English at the elementary level and they will take the GE course in later term

Generally, GE is taught for students in the first three terms The textbook used is Headway Pre-intermediate by John and Liz Soars After this GE stage, the students are expected to be at the pre-intermediate level On the other hand, ESP is taught to the students of the fourth term in the second year of study

There are 19 Vietnamese lectures of English were the numbers of teaching staff of the English Language Section, Faculty of Fundamental Sciences They were young, aged from 25 to 37 All of them hold at least a B.A in English Five teachers had Master degree Seven teachers were doing a Master course in English All of the teachers had at least 5 years’ experience in teaching English These teachers were qualified language teachers

In 2001, according to the General Agreement between Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) and Lattitude Organization (formerly named GAP Organization), every academic year, four volunteer Lattitude teachers are sent to TNUT to teach English These volunteer teachers come from either Britain or Australia These native English speaker teachers are very young, aged from 18 to 20 In order to be accepted to come to our university to work as volunteer teachers, they must finish and have excellent results for their studying at secondary education grade 12 Also, they must have the TEFL certificates Before they can actually teach at our university they are gathered in Ho Chi Minh City to attend a short course about how to teach English for Vietnamese students and get familiar with Vietnamese culture These volunteer teachers’ aim to come to Vietnam is to explore Vietnamese culture and get experience

In the academic year of 2006-2007, the university got the permission from MOET to implement the Advanced program for students at Faculty of Mechanical Engineering The special thing about this course is that the curriculums are imported from the University of Buffalo in the United State All subjects are taught in English Therefore, the students have one year learning English intensively These students have lots of chance taught by NESTs

Attitude is fundamental to the success or failure that we experience in learning Depending on the learners’ attitudes, learning language can be a source of enrichment or a source of resentment (Lightbrown and Spada, 1999) Moreover, Brown (1994) emphasized that language learner’s benefit from positive attitudes while negative attitudes may lead to unsuccessful attainment of proficiency Agreeing with the role of attitudes, Gardner (1985: 41) claimed that favourable attitudes would be expected to result in better performance than negative attitudes If the students hold positive attitudes to learning, they will be willing to participate in it This attitude will be helpful for them in their learning Marzano et all (1994) mentioned the importance of positive attitude in learning that “without positive attitudes and perceptions or holding negative attitudes towards the learning, students have little chance of learning proficiently, if at all” In the case of this study, it is assumed that if students hold a positive attitude toward NESTs and NNESTs, they will do their best to take the chance to learn with their language teachers, make progress and enjoy their learning.

A IMS OF THE STUDY

The study aims at investigating the students attitudes’ towards NESTs and to see if they have positive or negative attitudes, whether they are motivated and encourage their friends to take classes taught by NESTs To see if there is any different between students’ attitudes in different classes or the difference between male and female students in different classes

In order to satisfy the aims above, the research aims at answering the following research questions: a What are students’ attitudes towards NESTs and NNESTs? b Are there any differences in attitudes towards NESTs by students in Normal class (N), Advanced Program class (AP), and High quality class (HQ)? c Are there any differences in attitudes towards NNESTs by students in Normal class (N), Advanced Program class (AP), and High quality class (HQ)?

S COPE OF THE STUDY

The study is limited to the investigation of second – year students’ attitudes towards NESTs and NNESTs at Thai Nguyen University of Technology As the number of female participants is very small gender differences were not selected to be the research focus.

S IGNIFICANT OF THE STUDY

The study was conducted with the expectation that its results would be useful for the administration about using and hiring NESTs, NESTs and NNESTs would know how they are perceived by students with the hope that this will help NESTs and NNESTs in their teaching And suggestions are given to students about the effective ways to learn from NESTs Hopefully, is could be a considerable contribution to the teaching and learning English at TNUT.

O VERVIEW OF THE STUDY

The study is organized as follows:

This chapter describes the background to the study It also states the aims of the study and the research questions, presents the scope and significance of the study

This chapter reviews the relevant literature related to the NESTs and NNESTs, attitudes, the role of attitudes in language learning, attitudes measurement, and attitudes towards language teachers

This chapter describes the methodology employed in the study including the description of the data collection instrument, the subjects of the study and the procedure of data analysis

Chapter 4 Data analysis and discussion

This chapter focuses on presenting, analyzing, and discussing the results obtained from the study

This chapter presents the summary of the findings, some recommendations on the use of NESTs at TNUT The conclusion and limitation of the study will be drawn in this chapter.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Q UALIFIED L ANGUAGE T EACHER

The question What makes a good teacher? was delivered to not only teachers of English, teachers trainers, methodologists but also international students studying in Britain (Harmer, 1998) The answers showed that the good teachers should love their jobs, make the lessons interesting, and have lots of knowledge, not only of their subjects Among most common responses are 1) A good teacher is … somebody who has an affinity with the students that they are teaching 2) A good teacher should try and draw out the quiet ones and control the more talkative ones 3) He should be able to correct people without offending them

As can be seen, the responses cover not only the teachers’ character and personality but also the relationship between the teacher and the students

Lee (2000) shared the view with Harmer, her studies showed that what makes a good teacher falls into two factor: (a) the quality of help students get from the teacher and (b) the students’ relationship with the teacher These factors boiled down to (a) the teachers’ expertise, which includes knowledge and training as well as teaching techniques, and (b) the teacher’s personality, which directly influences the teacher- student relationship

In a book of research called Making Sense of Teaching, Brown and McIntyre (1993) (cited in Harmer, 1998) selected a group of good teachers, chosen by their students and asked them about their teaching This is what they found out The most obvious common feature of the different teachers’ accounts was that in response to our question about their teaching they almost always talked about what their pupils were doing

A simple answer to the question ‘What makes a good teacher?’ therefore, is that good teachers care more about their students’ learning than they do about their own teaching

A question that comes to mind after the above discussion is: What is a “qualified” teacher? Is it someone who has all of the above-described qualities? Are some qualities important than others?

Astor (2000) explains that “a qualified teacher of English should be a professional in at least three fields of knowledge: pedagogy, methodology, and psycho- and applied linguistics” (p 18) He adds that being proficient in only one of three areas is not sufficient and that “not amount of fun or good relationship will make it up to the students” if the English teacher lacks competence in an area

However, Astor (2000) states that none of these three fields of knowledge comes intuitively to anyone Rather, all these different areas must be learned and practiced

In conclusion, a qualified teacher of English is a professional in at least three fields of knowledge: pedagogy, methodology, and psycho- and applied linguistics and he should care about his students’ learning rather than he do about his own teaching

The definitions show that both NESTs and NNESTs are equal in their teaching career and they may be all good and qualified language teachers However, studies shown that this may not be true in reality and in hiring practices in ESL and EFL environment The next part reviews issues concerning NESTs and NNESTs.

N ATIVE AND N ONNATIVE S PEAKER T EACHERS

The concept of the NS is the one that is understood and self-explanatory until the notion is explored or thought about (Ellis, 1993) There are those who would argue that it is a unitary concept, hence the question of what it means to be a NS is pointless as

“everyone is a NS of the particular language states that the person has “grown” in his/ her mind/brain In the real world, that is all there is to say” (Chomsky, 1965, quoted in Paikeday, 1985, p 58) However, the quest for a better understanding of the concept of the NS, and, perhaps, reevaluation, is not pointless and has been critically discussed by numerous scholars in recent times (eg., Davies, 1991; Medgyes, 1992; Phillipson, 1992) in the field of language teaching As the English language and the mobility of the human race become more and more accessible, the concept and perception of the NS is being challenged

In his Dictionary of Phonetics, Crystal (2003) gives a quite simple definition of the native speaker:

A term used in linguistics to refer to someone for whom a particular language is a first language or mother tongue The implication is that this native language, having been acquired naturally during childhood, is the one about which a speaker will have the most reliable intuitions, and whose judgments about the way the language is used can therefore be trusted.” (p 308)

Coppieters (1987) and Kramsch (1995), however, explain that “it is not enough to have intuitions about grammaticality and linguistic acceptability and to be able to communicate fluently and with full competence; one must also be recognized as a native speaker by the relevant speech community” (Kramsch, p 363)

Paikeday (1985) states that the native speaker is only an imaginary figment of linguists (p 12), but Crystal contradicts Paikeday by saying that “[in] an ideal native speaker, there is a chronologically based awareness, a continuum from birth to death where people there are no gaps” (p 18) Paikeday, however, rejects this concept since fewer and fewer people actually stay on such continuum He instead proposes the terms

“proficient” or “competent” to replace “native” (p 48) and concludes by saying that

“the ‘native speaker’ in the linguist’s sense of arbiter of grammaticality and acceptability of language … represents an ideal, a convenient fiction, or a shibboleth rather than reality like Dick or Jane” (p 85)

Looking at the language proficiency continuum proposed by Crystal, Medgyes (1992) remarks that even the best nonnative speakers of English will never reach “native competence: in spite of all their efforts They might be able to come quite close to it but will always be “halted by a glass wall” (p 342), a kind of invisible “plateau” where their language competence will stop improving

Nayar (1994) is much more detailed in his definition He explains that the defining features of a native speaker could be “any or all of the following in any combination, with different components assuming prominence according to exigencies and demands of the particular context” (p 1):

(a) Primacy in order of acquisition

(b) Manner and environment of acquisition

(c) Acculturation by growing up in the speech community

(d) Phonological, linguistic, and communicative competence

(e) Dominance, totals, and comfort of use

(h) Self-perception of linguistic identity

(i) Other-perception of linguistic membership and eligibility

Nayar (1994) adds that the last feature is the only one that guarantees perfect intelligibility, and that very often, some of these features, such as (a), (e), and (j) have primacy over others when deciding who is the “perfect” native speaker

Although Liu (1999) proposes a language proficiency continuum quite similar to Crystal’s, he touches on the idea of “cultural identity” like Kramsch (1995), and emphasizes the multidimensional complexity of the definition of the native speaker The features included in his list are Sequence (is English learned first before other language?), Competence (is English our most competent language as compared to other languages?), Culture (what cultures are we most affiliated with?) They also refer to Identity (who do we prefer to be recognized as under different circumstances?), Environment (did we grow bilingually or trilingually?) and Politics (why should we label NNSs and NSs in a dichotomy instead of viewing it on a continuum?) (pp 163-4)

Liu (1999) goes so far as to say that if native speakers want to be accepted as such, they must look like typical white Anglo-Americans This argument is corroborated by Amin

(1997), who commented about her difficulties in being accepted as “native teachers” because of the color of her skin or the variety of English she speaks

In his book The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality, Davies (2003) discusses the definition of the native speaker from psycholinguistic, linguistic, and sociolinguistic perspective He concludes that nonnative speakers of a language can become native speakers and master the intuition, grammar spontaneity, creativity, pragmatic control, and interpreting quality of “born” native speakers However, those “new” native speakers will never be able to acquirements for being a “real” native speaker In the end, he explains, “we cannot distinguish the non-native speaker from the native speaker except by autobiography” (p.213) His final definitions of the native speaker are:

1) Native speaker by birth (that is, by early childhood exposure),

2) Native-speaker (or native-speaker-like) by being and exceptional learner,

3) Native speaker through education using the target-language medium (the lingua franca case),

4) Native speaker by virtue of being a native user (the post-colonial case), and

5) Native speaker through long residence in the adopted country (p.214)

First of all, as mentioned above, Harmer (1998) shares the view with Coppieters (1987) and Kramsch (1995) that NS have intuitions about the grammaticality as well as the linguistic acceptability In his book How to teach English, Harmer (1998) says that the

NS have the knowledge of grammar, vocabulary, discourse, appropriacy and structuring discourse - they are competent language users Besides, he adds one competence that native speakers have – strategic competence This is the ability to access and process the language communicative competence as well as knowing how to use language rather than just knowing about language

Many studies were carried out and shown that ESL/EFL students seem to favors studying listening, pronunciation, and speaking from NESTs rather than NNESTs

(Kelch & Satana-Williamson, 2002; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2002; Mahboob, 2004) although, as shown by Kelch & Santana-Williamson, ESL students are not always capable of distinguishing a native from a nonnative speaker

Studies also shown that NESTs are perceived to be more knowledgeable than their NNESTs in the area of culture and intercultural communication and less knowledgeable than their NNESTs in the area of grammar (Cheung, 2002; Kelch & Satana-Williamson, 2002; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2002, Mahboob, 2004; Moussu, 2002)

In the hiring area, Native English Speakers even without teaching qualifications are more likely to be hired as ESL teachers than qualified and experienced NNESTs, especially outside the United Stated (cited in Maum, ERIC Digest)

A TTITUDES

Attitude represents an individual's like or dislike for an item (Hallorah, 1967) Attitudes are positive, negative or neutral views of an "attitude object": i.e a teaching style, person, event or situation People can also be "ambivalent" towards a target, meaning that they simultaneously possess a positive and a negative bias towards the attitude in question In order to understand clearly about the attitude, different definition of attitudes would be investigated Attitude is defined as a state of mind, which is influenced by feelings, belief and experiences of the world (Gibb, 1998)

In their book The Psychology of Attitudes, Eagly and Chaiken (1993) define an attitude as “a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor” (p 1) In other words, it is a “predisposition to like or dislike [an object], presumably with approach or avoidance consequences” (Krosnick, Judd, & Wittenbrick, 2005, p 22) More specifically, Wegener and Fabrigar (2003) define it as,

Relatively enduring and global evaluation [that] can be based on either two distinct type of information: affect and cognition The affective basic refers to emotions and mood states that a person associates with the attitude object […] The cognitive basic refers to beliefs about attributes of the attitude object (p

Another quite similar definition comes from Fazio (1986): attitude comprises of three components: “an affective component involving feelings about and evaluation of the object, a cognitive component involving belief about the object and a behavioral intentions component’

The above definitions indicate that people’s attitude towards certain referent object can be inferred from their feeling and belief about it and their behavioral intention or individual experiences

In language learning students’ attitudes can be seen in their feeling and belief about the teachers, course books, learning style and the way of acting toward the lessons

Fabrigar, MacDonald, & Wegener, (2005) also explain that creating and holding attitudes helps “individuals to achieve designed goals and avoid negative outcomes” (p

82) such as avoiding being taught by a NESTs if it is believed that it will not help achieve proficiency in English Finally, attitudes are also created by people to “facilitate the maintenance of relationships with others who are liked” (Fabrigar et al., p 83) and

“convey information about their values and self-concepts” (p 82) That is, holding attitudes towards objects helps people keep certain standards for themselves and for others about what is accepted and what is not, which in turn helps individual achieve their desired goals

In brief, attitudes have three main components: cognitive, affective and behavioral The cognitive aspects of attitude are generally measured by survey, interviews and other reporting methods, while the affective components are more easily assessed by monitoring physociological signs such as heart rate Behavior, on the other hand, may be assessed by direct observation

In the case of this research study, the students are believed to assign emotions to the concept of native and nonnative English-speaking EFL teacher (affect), have specific beliefs about the characteristics of native and nonnative English-speaking EFL teachers (cognition), and subsequently act in a certain way with native and nonnative English- speaking EFL teacher (behavior) In other words, this study focuses on cognitive and affective components It relates to students’ feelings and evaluation of NESTs

2.3.2 The role of attitudes in language learning

According to Lightbown and Spada attitudes is one of the factors affects the learning acquisition, (1999) And that knowing an individual’s attitudes towards an object/ situation can, to some extent, help understand and even predict the possible behaviours an individual will have toward the object/ situation, Jenkin (2005)

Learning and attitude go hand in hand, the view was shared between Lightbown and Spada (1999) and Garder & Lamber (1972) Social psychologists would expect “success in mastering a foreign language would depend not only on intellectual capacity and language aptitude, but on one’s attitudes towards representatives of that language as well.” In fact, attitudes play an important role in students’ learning If they maintain a positive attitude, they will carry out their learning to the best of their ability and vice versa Students’ attitudes have an effect on their classroom behaviour, learning results and learning style

Attitude is fundamental to the success or failure that we experience in learning

Depending on the learners’ attitudes, learning language can be a source of enrichment or a source of resentment (Lightbrown and Spada, 1999) Moreover, Brown (1994) emphasized that language learner’s benefit from positive attitudes while negative attitudes may lead to unsuccessful attainment of proficiency Agreeing with the role of attitudes, Gardner (1985, p 41) claimed that favourable attitudes would be expected to result in better performance than negative attitudes If the students hold positive attitudes to learning, they will be willing to participate in it This attitude will be helpful for them in their learning Marzano et all (1994) mentioned the importance of positive attitude in learning that “without positive attitudes and perceptions or holding negative attitudes towards the learning, students have little chance of learning proficiently, if at all”

In summary, from those opinions above, it is obviously that attitudes play an important role in learning Positive attitudes arouse students’ interests and attention in learning so they will willingly participate in it with the highest results whereas negative attitudes will drop their learning

One method of measuring attitudes is Thurstone’s method “method of equal-appearing intervals” (cited in Eiser & Van der Plight, 1988) Subjects are required to say whether they strongly disagree/ disagree/ undecided/ agree/ strongly agree to a number of statements Each statement has previously been given a ‘scale value’ according to how anti or pro the statement is to the issue in question This method is considered to be quite straightforward, although giving a ‘scale value’ to a statement can be problematic

The other methods obtain a unidimensional score The first one is introduced by Osgood and his associates in 1953 called ‘Semantic Differential Scale’, is used to measure reactions to words or concepts Subjects rate each item using a set of bipolar evaluative adjectives, such as exciting-boring, good-bad, interesting-uninteresting The other, in contrast, ‘Gutttman Scale’ essentially lists statements or items to which the respondent has to state whether they simply agree or disagree All statements are similar and follow the same opinion, thus if the respondent says that she/ he agrees with one statement, the she/ he should, in a perfect world, agree with the all statement on the list

The last method of measuring attitudes was introduced by Likert in 1932 This method has two sets of questions: one set is close to the anti extreme view and the other set is close to pro extreme view Subjects, like Thurstone’ method, have to rate each statement on a scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree The average of the score gives the individual’ overall attitude towards the view in question

A TTITUDES TOWARDS LANGUAGE TEACHERS

There have been a variety of studies on investigating students’ attitudes toward Language teachers These studies fell into two different contexts: in ESL environment and in EFL one

In 1995 Shimizu carried a survey in Yasuda Women’s University to investigate the impression of Foreign and Japanese English classes and the important qualities for Japanese and Foreign Teachers A questionnaire was used as the data collection tool The total subjects of the study were 1.088 Japanese college students in different majors The results shown that the biggest impression students had of English classes taught by Japanese was that the classes were formal and that students felt sleepy in class In contrast to this, students felt that English classes taught by foreigner were interesting, humorous and energetic In term of the important qualities for Japanese and foreign teachers were the same Students felt that being knowledgeable was the most important quality (63%), followed by being reliable (57%), and being respectable (52%) for both the two groups of teachers

An other survey was carried out by Liu and Zhang (2007) to identify the differences between the Native English Speaking Teachers (NESTs) and non-native English Speaking Teachers (NNESTs) in terms of attitude, means of instruction and teaching results as perceived by the students 65 third year college Chinese students majoring in English language and literature was the subjects of the study The questionnaires and interview were used as the data collection tools The results shown that in terms of teaching attitudes, foreign teachers and Chinese teachers of English differ in two: The students believed their Chinese teachers were more likely than foreign teachers to learn new skills and knowledge to meet the new challenges in education technology The other one is like the one found in Shimizu’s study in 1995 that students surveyed believed the foreign teachers’ class was friendlier and they had less stress in class compared with Chinese teachers’ class The biggest difference occurred in class instruction More than 60 percent of the students believed that their foreign teachers were more flexible in assessing students’ achievement However, the students believed that they learn more from the courses given by their Chinese teachers of English Students also held the belief that their foreign teachers more often encouraged them to think independently The more proficient the students were, the more enjoy they wanted to be taught by foreign teachers Besides, students demanded more face-to-face interaction between the teachers of both groups and the students after class

Cutrone (2001) carried out a survey of beginner level students about their attitudes towards EFL teachers in an English Conversation school His study aimed to see what his learners really expected of their teachers, and how their attitudes towards teachers, if at all, differed form students in the university/ college setting in Japan 45 beginner level students randomly were chosen to participate in the survey The questionnaire was used as data collection instrument The findings of the survey implied that beginner level EFL students studying in private language school in Japan might have the similar attitudes and expectations towards English teachers as college/ university students in Japan do That is the students in his survey also put a great emphasis on the personal attributes of the teacher This survey also revealed that teachers should create a comfortable and relaxed atmosphere in the classroom for their students

Another study was carried out by Lasagabaster and Sierra (2002) to investigate the university students’ perceptions of Native and Non-native teachers of English in

University of the Basque Country, Spain 76 undergraduates completed questionnaires seeking their views about NSTs and NNSTs on rating scales relating to language skills, grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, learning strategies, culture and civilizatation, attitudes and assessment The students were asked these views in relation to primary, secondary, and tertiary education The results of the study shown that in general there was a preference for NSTs at all level, but with a trend increased preference for NSTs as education levels rise This increased preference was more marked among the English Studies respondents than among the other philologies respondents The respondents as a whole showed a preference for NSTs in the area of pronunciation, speaking, vocabulary, listening, reading, culture and civilsation With learning strategies and grammar, on the other hand, the preference swung in the opposite direction, towards NNSTs

The other research was done by Thomas (1995) in Slovakia The aim of the survey was to investigate the students attitudes about native speaker teachers and non-native speaker teachers of English 98 students of which about three-quarters were university students and about one quarter were final year students from a High school were the research subjects The questionnaire was used as the data collection tool The results are shown that both NS and NNS seem to be highly regarded by students However, NS were seen to have a slight advantage in terms of pronunciation, over 50 percent of respondents gave positive rating Curiously, among High school students, only NNS measured up to the required standard for teaching culture For the teachers’ teaching methods and teaching styles, NS consistently achieved high ratings for interesting and lively classes with new ideas, whereas NNS teachers did not

In (2002) Cheung carried out other research with the objectives were to determine the attitudes and opinions of the university students in Hong Kong towards native and nonnative English-speaking EFL teachers, the strengths and weaknesses of teachers from the perspective of students, and the capability of these teachers to motivate students Cheung used questionnaires, interviews, classroom observations, and post- classroom interviews to collect her data The questionnaire was distributed to 420 undergraduates from a variety of major at seven universities and ten students and twenty-two university English teachers from different universities were interviewed The results showed that language proficiency and fluency, as well as cultural knowledge, were especially appreciated with native speaking teachers In the case of

NNESTs, their ability to empathize with students, a shared cultural background, and their stricter expectations were seen as strengths As with previous studies, participants agreed that professional skills (such as knowledge of their subject, preparation, being able to make lessons interesting and fun and to motivate students, etc.) were more essential than language skills

The students’ attitudes towards NESTs as well as NNESTs was also studied in the ESL environments One of the earliest studies on nonnative English-speaking ESL/EFL teachers and the opinion of their students was conducted by Moussu in 2002 at an Intensive English Program in Utah based on the assumption that ESL students would not like to be taught by NNESTs at first, but might change their mind with time and exposure to NNESTs The participants were 94 international students taught by four NNESTs who answered two questionnaires, one at the beginning of the semester and one at the end Results showed that the first language of both the NNESTs and the students made a significant difference in how teachers were judged, and that Korean and Chinese students were much more negative in their judgments than Spanish, Portuguese and even Japanese students were Students also judged NNESTs who sounded and looked “foreign” more harshly than they did NNESTs who had less of a native accent or looked “whiter.” The intent of the students to return to their countries of origin also made an interesting difference: students who intended to go back to their countries after their ESL studies held a more negative attitude towards NNESTs than students who wanted to stay in the US for a longer period of time This might indicate a more urgent need for those who would go back to their country to have a more “authentic” and faster exposure to US culture Finally, time proved to be a key variable as well While students did not really respond as negatively as expected at the beginning of the semester when asked if they respected and liked their nonnative teachers, they actually responded quite positively at the end of the semester For instance, to the question, “Would you encourage a friend to take a class with this nonnative English-speaking teacher?” 56% of the students answered “yes” at the beginning of the semester, and 76% answered,

“yes” to the same question at the end of the semester

Mahboob (2003) also conducted a study on student’s perceptions Using questionnaires with open-ended question, he asked 32 students enrolled in an intensive English program to write about their native and nonnative teachers The analysis of the responses showed that both NESTs and NNESTs received positive and negative comments Native speakers were praised for their oral skills, large vocabulary, and cultural knowledge, but criticized for their poor knowledge of grammar, their lack of experience as ESL learners, their difficulties in answering questions, and their teaching methodology Nonnative speakers were valued for their experiences as ESL learners, and the respondents also recognized their knowledge of grammar and their “stricter methodology,” hard work, ability to answer questions, and literacy skills Unsurprisingly, as in Moussu (2002) study, negative responses about NNESTs included poorer oral skills and lack of knowledge about the “English-speaking” cultures

Mahboob’s study like Moussu (2002), showed results that corroborate Arva and Medgyes’s (2000) results, but like Moussu (2002) was limited to one school Additionally, while Mahboob (2003) did study the differences between students’ attitudes towards NNESTs and NESTs, his research design did not allow him to analyze the reasons behind those attitudes

Kelch and Santana-Williamson (2002) conducted a much more focused research study They aimed to determine if ESL students could identify a native from a nonnative accent and if they held a more positive attitude towards teachers with “native” accents The researchers used audiotape recordings of three native speakers of different varieties of English and three nonnative speakers reading the same script Fifty-six students identified each reader as NEST or NNEST, and rated them with an attitude questionnaire on the issues of “teacher education and training, experience, teacher likeability, teaching expertise, desirability as a teacher empathy for students, and overall teaching ability” (p 61) The results show that students were able to correctly identify native and nonnative speaker of English only 45% of the time, and that they held perception of teachers’ nativeness strongly influenced the attitudes they held towards these teachers

Additionally, teachers who were perceived as native speakers were seen as more likeable educated, experienced, and overall better teachers, especially for speaking/listening skill However, students also mentioned the importance of NNESTs as role models, source of motivation, and language learners who understood students’ learning difficulties Kelch and Santana-Williamson (2002) add that “learner exposure to and familiarity with any variety of English [lead] to more favorable responses for that accent” (p 65) This means that the more familiar students were with an accent, the less nonnative they perceived it

Another study regarding teacher accent was conducted by Liang (2002) at California State University, Los Angeles Liang investigated the opinion of 20 ESL students toward six ESL teachers, five of whom were nonnative English speaker from different language backgrounds and one of whom was a native speaker Data was collected through questionnaires asking students for their opinions about their teachers’ accents The results showed that accent did not negatively affect students’ attitudes toward their NNESTs In fact, the students held generally positive attitudes toward the teachers and believed that accent was not as problematic as expected Additionally, personal and professional features, such as “being interesting,” “being prepared,” “being qualified,” and “being professional,” played a central role in students’ opinions of their teachers, and students seems to base their opinions more on their teachers’ level of professionalism than on the language background of their teachers

From these results, it appears that students do not have a strongly negative attitude towards their ESL/EFL nonnative English-speaking teachers in general and recognize that experience and professionalism are more important than native language background Most importantly, theses studies also show that different contexts and variables could influence students’ attitudes towards NESTs and NNESTs

In the meantime, while many studies on students attitudes towards language teachers not only NESTs but also NNESTs mentioned above little has been done to explore students attitudes towards NESTs in context of Vietnam This study is an attempt to fill the gap

METHODOLOGY

T HE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The study is aimed at answering the following questions: a What are students’ attitudes towards NESTs and NNESTs? b Are there any differences in attitudes towards NESTs by students in Normal class (N), Advanced Program class (AP), and High quality class (HQ)? c Are there any differences in attitudes towards NNESTs by students in Normal class (N), Advanced Program class (AP), and High quality class (HQ)?

D ATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT

Questionnaire was used as the key data collection instrument of the study as they have lots of advantages First, Richard and Lockhart (1994) and Gillham (2000) share the view that surveys are a useful tool to gather “information about affective dimensions of teaching and learning, such as beliefs, attitudes, motivations, and preferences” and a questionnaire is considered the most appropriate research instrument for gathering information concerning the attitudes of the respondents Second, survey with questionnaire is a cheap, easy and quick way to get information As Dornyei (2003, p

9) confirmed “the main attraction of questionnaire is their unprecedented efficiency in terms of researcher time, researcher effort and financial resources” Third, as the respondents can remain anonymous, information from a questionnaire can be confidential It is hoped that people will undoubtedly feel freer in an anonymous style of responding Besides, a questionnaire is easy to administer enabling the researcher to survey a large number of respondents Another benefit is that the respondents can complete the questionnaire when it suits them For this study, students were asked to complete the questionnaires at home when they could find time and comfort The last consideration is that questionnaires are relatively easy to quantify (Nunan, 1992)

Likert-scale questions, which “are effective for gathering respondents’ views, opinions and attitudes about various language-related issues” (Brown, 2001 p 41) was used as the key data collection instrument for this study Using Likert scales can lead to high reliability and validity of the measurement of attitudes if some attention is given to the theoretical assumptions used to create the items and the scale as well as the number of points available in the rating scale (Krosnick et al 2005) Specifically the respondents must be able to understand the meaning of the items and agree on the definitions of the labels on the scale The points should not overlap, and there should be a logical continuum from one point to the next Too many points may make the items become vague while not enough points may not help to produce precise data Given all these the questionnaire used in this study was designed using five-point rating scales This rating system is popular and has been shown to work quite well

The questionnaires were constructed as follows

According to Wegener and Fabrigar (2003), successful measurements of attitudes must be determined by “the domain the measure is intended to assess” (p.147), that is, the constructs that might influence students’ attitudes towards the teachers Successful measurements also must take into consideration the population whose attitudes will be measured, as well as the context that the measurement will be created

The questionnaire (APPENDIX 1) was adapted from Moussu (2006)’s study As this research took place in a different context and the constraints did not allow the researcher to take all Moussu’s research problems into consideration, not all of the questions in Moussu (2006)’s research were included in the questionnaire One point of adaptation was the background information such as place of birth and L1 In Moussu’s research the respondents were in international centers or colleges They came from different countries with different language background learning different subjects In this study, however, the respondents share the first language, nationality and in the same age range (from 19 to 23) Their specialization could also be easily identified All this led to exclusion of those background items in the questionnaire

The questionnaire initiates with one question to identify the students from the three groups i.e N, HQ and AP The 36 questions were divided into two sections The first section, from questions 1 to 18, is about the students’ attitudes towards NESTs It includes one multiple choice question and 17 items consisting of statements that are to be rated on the five-point Likert scale about the students’ attitudes towards NESTs All statements are placed in the thematic order inserted into a grid consisting of five columns i.e ‘strongly disagree’, ‘disagree’, ‘not sure’, ‘agree’, and ‘strongly agree’ Each column had been assigned a particular value, i.e 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 The respondents were asked to circle the appropriate number to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with the statements

Questions 2 to Question 6 elicit data about the subjects’ general expectations and appreciation of NESTs

Question 7 to question 10 are intended to evaluate the NESTs’ basic English teaching skills such as explaining concepts, simplifying difficult materials, motivating students

The last eight items (11 to 18) are about the teachers’ ability and knowledge of the language Specifically, they require the respondents to gauge the NESTs’ ability to speak English and knowledge of grammar

The second section consists of 18 items, which are also to be rated on the five-point Likert scale to explore students’ attitudes towards their NNESTs (in this case their Vietnamese teachers of English) All the items are similar to those presented in the previous section and are organized in the same thematic fashion

The high scores obtained from the questionnaire would mean that the respondents have positive attitudes, and the low scores mean that they have negative attitudes’ towards NESTs and NNESTs

In conclusion, the answer to the first research question “What are students’ attitudes towards NESTs and NNESTs?” was elicited by the survey items 1 to 18 and items 19 to

36 The other research questions would be solved by comparing and contrasting the data produced by the three research groups of students in N, AP, HQ.

S UBJECTS

The subjects of this research were students in the second year of study in the FME at TNUT The reason was that the FME is one of the two largest faculties in our University, which have experienced both NESTs and Vietnamese teachers of English

In order to find a sample that represents the population, the researcher selected respondents from the students of FME at random It was thought that a random selection would produce a sample that was representative of the total population (Gibb, 1998) In a random sample each individual in a given population has an equal chance of being selected This is done by assigning a number or code to each person to generate a sequence (Gilham, 2000)

In this study, in order to find a sample that represents the population, the questionnaires were randomly delivered to one out of every three classes of the second year students in the FME, so the sample was 128 students out of a population of 695 second year students Firstly, the researcher aims to investigate the different attitudes of students between two sexes: male and female However, there is no proportion between two sexes (123 males and 05 females) This led to exclusion of the research question ‘Are there any differences in attitudes towards NESTs and NNESTs between males and females?’ from the research questions

First, permission was sought to carry out the research with NESTs According to the agreement between the Ministry of Education and Training and Lattitude Organization (formerly named GAP Organization), four NESTs were sent to TNUT annually (two in spring semester and the others in autumn semester) from the school year of 2001 till now These teachers were asked to teach the students in the first and second year of their training program The permission to access GAP volunteer teachers’ profiles was obtained from GAP organization

An analysis of the NESTs background led to decision about what to include in the questionnaire The following stage is the pilot, and then followed by the questionnaires administration and data analysis procedure

A Vietnamese version of student questionnaire (APPENDIX 2) was used in the pilot conducted in December 2008 to verify that the questionnaire made sense to students Copies of the questionnaire were sent to 15 students from the three groups of FME on availability basis These students were told to scrutinize the layout, the format, the content of the questions and note points that they did not understand, questions that they thought did not serve the research purpose, or question that they believed should not be included

The pilot subjects only had some minor difficulties with understanding some items in the questionnaires, for example the countries NESTs come from Attention was then paid to the problem areas and the Vietnamese translation was improved accordingly

The Vietnamese version of the questionnaire was administered at TNUT in January

2009 during class time and the questionnaires were collected one week later The students were asked to complete the questionnaires at home to make them feel free to express their thoughts and opinions about the items in the questionnaires Also, they were instructed not to discuss the statements before completing their answers as it was thought that prior discussion might influence the respondents’ decisions Also, the respondents were instructed not to write their names on the questionnaires to make sure that all the respondents would remain anonymous They were told that their responses would not influence the grades in any classes, and that there was no right or wrong answers It was believed that these instructions might encourage confidence and freedom in expressing their feelings and attitudes

146 questionnaires were distributed and returned 18 questionnaires were not fully completed, so they were not included in the data package In total, the data from 128 fully completed questionnaires were analyzed

Before any analysis could be performed, the questionnaires were entered in an Excel spreadsheet by two different individuals to increase the reliability of the entries The discrepancies were checked against the original questionnaires and the correct answers

(Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences) to obtain statistical findings The data analysis was divided into two stages The scores from questions 2 to 18 and from question 20 to 36 were analyzed in stage 1 to have an overview of the students’ attitudes towards NESTs and NNESTs In stage 2 the scores were analyzed to see if there was any difference between students’ attitudes in three groups (if there is)

The scores were calculated and presented using descriptive statistic to know the students’ overall attitudes towards NESTs and NNESTs Descriptive statistic enables the researcher to summarize and analyze data in an effective and meaningful way

To analyze the students’ overall attitudes’ towards NESTs, NNESTs, the total scores for two sets of items (17 items for each of them) (statements 2 to 18 and statement 20 to 36) were calculated The researcher calculated a total score for each respondent by summing the value of all items checked Supposed that a respondent circled ‘strongly agree’ for item 1 (score 5), ‘agree’ for item 2 (score 4), ‘not sure’ for item 3 (score 3), disagree for item 4 (score 2), and strongly disagree for item 5 (score 1) This person’s total score is 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 15 (Nachmias, 1996) The maximum summed score for 17 items was

An illustration is the following table

Distribution of summed score – an example

Mean SD P From the table of frequency distribution, the researcher can know the distribution of total scores of students’ attitudes’ towards NESTs and NNESTs

The respondents are considered to have positive attitudes if the scores are higher than the neutral point (51) and to have negative attitudes if their scores are lower than the neutral point

Then, the mean and SD for two sets of 17 items were also calculated The higher the mean score are, the higher level of agreement with the item it shows and the lower the less

In this stage, a One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used ANOVA is defined as an extension of independent group t-test when there are more than two groups Moreover, it is used to compare two or more groups’ means The reason for choosing was that using ANOVA the researcher could compare the differences between the means of two or more groups

DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

S TUDENTS ’ OVERALL ATTITUDES TOWARDS NEST S AND NNEST S

As mentioned earlier, to analyze the students’ overall attitudes’ towards NESTs and NNESTs, the total scores for 17 items (statements 2 to 18 and 20 to 36) were calculated The researcher calculated a total score for each respondent by summing the value of all items checked The maximum summed score for 18 items was 85 (17 x 5 = 85) and the minimum was 17 (17 x 1 = 17)

Table 2: Attitudes towards NESTs and NNESTs

Mean Standard deviation (SD) Mean = 57.81

P = 014 The higher the mean, the more positive attitudes;

The lower the mean, the more negative attitudes

Overall, the students showed positive attitudes towards NESTs whereas 24 students (18.8%) who had the scores lower than 51 which was the midlle point of the continuum were considerred to have more negative attitudes Interestingly, no respondents showed strong disagreement with the 17 items as shown in Table 2

In term of students’ attitudes towards NNESTs, students also showed positive attitudes Most of the respondents (87.4%) scored over 51 were considered more positive attitudes Only 16 students (12.7%) compared to 24 students (18.8%) had the scores lower than 51 were considered to have negative attitudes

Moreover, Table 2 shows that students seemed to have more positive attitudes towards NNESTs than NESTs The mean score obtained from NNESTs (mean = 60.02) was much higher than that of NESTs (mean = 57.81) The differences between these two groups were significant, as showed by p value = 014 < 05.

AP, N, AND HQ STUDENTS ’ OVERALL ATTITUDES TOWARDS NEST S

Preceding the Likert-scale statements, one multiple-choice question was asked: Would you encourage a friend to take a class with these Native English Speaker teachers?

Students’ responses were generally positive: 68.2% to 95.8% are of “yes” compared to 1.7% to 6.8% of “no”) and there were little differences between reponses given by the student in N and HQ However, responses in AP are the more favourable: 95.8% would encourage a friend to take class with these Native English Speaker teachers (Figure 1)

Figure 1: Would you encourage a friend to take a class with these NESTs? (Q1)

To see if there were any differences in attitudes towards NESTs by students in the three groups, the same distribution of summed score for different classes as in Table 2 was worked out Students’ responses to questionnaires were also analyzed

Table 3 Attitudes towards NESTs by students in AP, N, and HQ

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Overall, the students in different classes showed positive attitudes towards NESTs 87.6% of students in AP were supportive to NESTs compared to 12.6% of students with negative attitudes The mean score was 58.33, higher than the neutral point of 51 88.3% of N respondents showed their positive attitudes and the mean score was 58.22 The students in HQ also supported the use of NESTs in teaching English However, the mean score obtained by these students was lower than those by the other two groups (mean = 56.98)

In sum, students in these three groups are favourable toward NESTs and there was no significant difference between these groups, which is showed by the p value = 682 > 05

To understand more about the students’ attitudes towards NESTs the mean, median, and

SD score were calculated As the statements on the questionnaires were organized by construct (see Chapter Three), the items discussed here are also organized by construct.

G ENERAL EXPECTATION AND APPRECIATION OF NEST S

Responding to the statement My NESTs are/ were good English teachers (Figure 2, Table 4) the subjects generally experessed very positive expectation and appreciation towards NESTs Across all the three groups the numbers of respondents selecting agree and strongly agree outnumber those who are of more negative attitudes A point of note is that the AP students appreciated the NESTs much more than the N counterparts (mean scores are 3.79 and 3.57 respectively) However the differences across the groups are believed to be insignificant as the p value = 280 > 05

80 strongly disagree disagree not sure agree strongly agree

Figure 2: My NESTs are/ were good English teachers (Q2)

Table 4: My NESTs are / were good English teachers (Q2)

Despite this positive note, the responses to the statement My NESTs are / were the kind in the three classes showed their insignificantly difference (p value = 179 > 05) The percent of agreement with the item ranging from 33.3% to 43.2% compared with 25% to 45% are of “not sure” AP had the highest mean score of 3.67 compared to N (mean score = 3.30) and HQ (mean score = 3.52), as can be seen in Figure 3, Table 5

Figure 3: My NESTs are / were the kind of teachers I expected to have here (Q3) Table 5: My NESTs are / were the kind of teachers I expected to have here (Q3)

To the statement My NESTs are/ were idea teachers for me (Figure 4, Table 6), the subjects showed their low positive attitudes with this statement 43.2% to 62.5% are of

“not sure” compared to 18.2% to 25 % of “agree” AP and HQ students seemed to share low positive attitudes, the mean of AP and HQ are 3.21 and 3.20 representatively The mean score of N students was the lowest (mean = 2.95) Moreover, the results found showed that the differences across the groups are insignificant as the p value = 282 > .05

Figure 4: My NESTs are/ were idea teachers for me (Q4)

Table 6: My NESTs are/ were idea teachers for me (Q4)

The responses to the statement I am/ was learning a lot of English with NESTs (Q5) are quite in the same line In fact, students in the three classes showed their significantly difference (p value = 008 < 05) The numbers of the subjects on the two ends are almost the same and up to 60% of the N group reported to be not sure of what they learn with NESTs Also in the data pool elicited by this item significant difference across the three groups are identified The most significant discrepancy is between the students in

AP (mean score = 3.63) and HQ (mean score = 2.93), as can be seen in Table 7, Figure

5 The fact that the two more advanced groups did not share opinion on whether they could learn a lot of English with NESTs may be due to the fact that AP students have more chances to learn from NESTs They have good learning environment, and strong motivation to learn English They have one year of learning English intensively from NESTs AP students have to be good at not only at mechanical engineering but also English to get the degree, while HQ students are high quality only in their specialization, not in English

Figure 5: I am/ was learning a lot of English with NESTs (Q5)

Table 7: I am/ was learning a lot of English with NESTs (Q5)

NEST S ’ BASIC TEACHING SKILLS

The next set of statements (7 to 10) asked students about their teachers’ basic teaching skills such how to explain things and to simplify difficult materials Students’ responses to the statement 7 My NESTs explain / explained difficult concepts well were not quite favourable Only more than 30% agreed with the item presented compared to 25% to

40.9% of “not sure” with AP mean = 3.33, N mean = 3.32 and HQ mean = 3.32 as can be seen in Table 8 and Figure 6 Besides, respondents given by these three classes were not significantly different (p value = 997 > 05) These findings supported other research done by Barratt and Contra (2000) that NESTs are rarely able to make useful reference with the learners’ first language and they have difficult in identifying learners’ difficulties.

Figure 6: My NESTs explain / explained difficult concepts well (Q7)

Table 8: My NESTs explain/ explained difficult concepts well (Q7)

To the statement My NESTs are/ were able to simplify difficult materials so I can/ could understand it (Q8), students showed their low positive attitudes Among the three groups, the AP students showed their most favorable (mean = 3.58) Mean scores of HQ and N were lower as 3.30 and 3.15 25% to 58.3% are of “agree” compared to 41.7 to

52.3% of “not sure” However, there was no significant difference between the three groups, as seen by the p value = 086 > 05, see Figure 7, Table 9

Figure 7: My NESTs are/ were able to simplify difficult materials so I can/ could understand it (Q8)

Table 9: My NESTs are/ were able to simplify difficult materials so I can/ could understand it (Q8)

The results for the statement My NESTs teach/ taught in a manner that helps me learn (Q9) were quite the same as the results found from Q8 33.3% to 50% of the students were not sure about their understanding NESTs’ lessons The mean scores obtained from these classes are as AP mean = 3.63, N mean = 3.15, HQ mean = 3.30 There was no significant differences between these classes, as seen by p value = 071 > 05., Figure

In sum, these findings found from Q8, Q9 supported to Q7 results that NESTs were not successful in understanding learners’ difficulties

Figure 8: My NESTs teach/ taught in a manner that helps me learn (Q9)

Table 10: My NESTs teach/ taught in a manner that helps me learn (Q9)

To the statement My NESTs motivate/ motivated me to do my best to learn English (Q10), responses given by three groups of students showed their strong support 54.2% and 20.8% of N students agreed and strongly agreed with the statement compared to 51.7% and 8.3% while the respective figures for HQ are 50% and 6.8% AP students were most positive among the three groups with AP mean of 3.88 while the means of N and HQ were 3.48 and 3.52 respectively However, the results from the three groups were not significantly different (p value: 170 > 05), (see Figure 9 and Table 11)

Figure 9: My NESTs motivate/ motivated me to do my best to learn English (Q10)

Table 11: My NESTs motivate/ motivated me to do my best to learn English (Q10)

NEST S ’ SPEAKING ABILITY AND KNOWLEDGE OF GRAMMAR

To the statement My NESTs are/were good example of the ideal English speaker teachers (Q11) (Figure 10 and Table 12), the students were enthusiastically supportive

In fact, 41.7% to 50% of students agreed and 29.5% to 35% students strong agreed with this observation The means (AP mean = 4.00, N mean = 4.18, HQ mean = 4.02) were very high compared to median = 4.00 However, significant differences across the three groups were not registered as seen by p value: 500 > 05

The findings were what had been expected as the native speakers generally have very strong command of spoken English Immense contrast could be felt when the students compare the mastery of spoken English between a NESTs and NNESTs, especially Vietnamese teachers of English

Figure 10: My NESTs are/ were good example of the ideal English speakers (Q11) Table 12: My NESTs are/ were good example of the ideal English speakers (Q11)

The next construct asked students about the pronunciation and accent of their NESTs (Q12 – Q14) Again, the numbers of students agree and strongly agree with this item were quite high 50% to 58.3% are of “agree” compared to 11.4% to 18.3% of “strongly agree” The responses are unanimous and no significant discrepancy across groups could be found with p value: 113 > 05 as can be seen in Figure 11 and Table 13

Figure 11: The English pronunciations of my NESTs are/ were good (Q13)

Table 13: The English pronunciations of my NESTs are/ were good (Q13)

Another construct is about the grammar use and knowledge of the teachers (Q15 to Q18) Overall, students showed their positive attitudes in all the responses To the statement My NESTs rarely make/ made grammar mistakes when he/ she writes (Q16), 36.4% to 61.7% are of “agree” compared to 25% to 38.6% are of “not sure” Interestingly, for the first time AP had the lowest mean score 3.33 compared to N (mean

= 3.68), and HQ (mean = 4.09) There was no significant difference between the three groups, as seen by p value = 529 > 05, see Figure 12, Table 14

Figure 12: My NESTs rarely make/ made grammar mistakes when he/ she writes (Q16) Table 14: My NESTs rarely make/ made grammar mistakes when he/ she writes (Q16)

To the statement My NESTs rarely make/ made mistakes when he/ she speaks, 36.4% to 60% are of agree and 4.2% to 15% are of strongly agree with the item However significant differences are registered in this item with p value = 002 < 05 Specifically the highest mean score was N (mean = 3.87) compared to AP (mean = 3.58) and HQ (mean = 3.30), as can be seen in Figure 13 and Table 15 Perhaps the N students with very limited English and scarce English exposure opportunities find it harder to identify any grammar mistakes made by those NESTs

Figure 13: My NESTs rarely make/ made grammar mistakes when he/ she speaks (Q17) Table 15: My NESTs rarely make/ made grammar mistakes when he/ she speaks (Q17)

Despite very good appreciation of the NESTs’ grammar control, students’ responses were quite negative to the statement My NESTs explain/ explained grammar rules very clearly (Q18) 35% to 52.3 are of “not sure” compared to 12.5% to 53.3% agree with the given point For the first time AP students showed their most negative attitudes: 4.2% answers are of “strongly disagree”, 37.5% of “disagree”, only 12,5%, 4,2% of agree and strongly agree respectively Their mean score was quite low (mean = 2.75) as in contrast to N mean of 3.52 The better mean by the N group may come from the fact that the N group’s grammar inventory is very limited and simple causing little difficulty to teachers

The differences across the three groups are believed to be significant with the p value 000 < 05 as can be seem from Figure 1, Table 16 This finding confirms other studies’ results that NESTs are perceived to be less knowledgeable than NNESTs in the area of grammar (Cheung, 2002, Kelch & Satana-Williamson, 2002, Lasagabaster & Sierra,

Figure 14: My NESTs explain/ explained grammar rules very clearly (Q18)

Table 16: My NESTs explain/ explained grammar rules very clearly (Q18)

AP, N AND HQ STUDENTS ’ OVERALL ATTITUDES TOWARDS NNEST S

As mentioned earlier, the items to elicit students’ attitudes towards NNESTs (in this case was Vietnamese teachers of English) were organized in the same way as those to probe students’ attitudes towards NESTs

First, one multiple-choice question was asked: Would you encourage a friend to take a class with these Non-Native English Speaker teachers (Q19)? Students’ responses were rather positive: 65.2% to 94.5% are of “yes” compared to 3% to 28% of “no” and there were little differences between responses given by the students in N and HQ However, responses in AP are more favourable: 94.5% would encourage a friend to take class with these NNESTs (Figure 15)

Figure 15: Would you encourage a friend to take a class with these NNESTs (Q19)?

To see if there were any differences in attitudes towards NNESTs by students in the three groups, the same distribution of summed score for different classes as in Table 2 was worked out Then students’ responses to questionnaires were analyzed

Table 17: Attitudes towards NNESTs by students in AP, N, and HQ

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

P = 004 Overally, students in these three classes showed positive attitudes towards NNESTs 100% of students in AP were supportive to NNESTs The mean score was the highest 63.54 91.6% of N respondents showed their positive attitudes and the mean score was 61.28 The students in HQ also supported the use of NNESTs in teaching English However, the mean score obtained by these students was lowest (mean = 56.36)

Students in these groups have positive attitudes towards NNESTs and there was significantly difference (p value = 004 < 05)

To understand more about the students’ attitudes towards NNESTs the mean, median, and SD score were calculated As the statements on the questionnaires were organized by construct (see Chapter Three), the items discussed here are also organized in a similar manner.

G ENERAL EXPECTATION AND APPRECIATION OF NNEST S

To the statement My NNESTs are/were good English teacher (Q20), generally, students showed their positive expectation and appreciation towards NNESTs Students in AP showed their most positive attitudes: 75% and 12.5% are of agree and strongly agree with the mean score at the highest point of 4.00 N and HQ students were not very different: the mean scores were 3.83 and 3.57 respectively and p value = 078 > 05 (Figure 16 and Table 18)

Figure 16: My NNESTs are/ were good English teachers (Q20)

Table 18: My NNESTs are / were good English teachers (Q20)

Despite this positive note, the respondenses to the statement My NNESTs are/ were the kind of teachers I expected to have here (Q21) are not quite in the same line (Figure 17, Table 19) The support given to the item ranges from 29.2% to 46.7% compared to 33.3% to 4.7% AP had the highest mean score of 3.71 compared to N (mean score 3.57) and HQ (mean score = 3.34) However, the number of responses had the answer

“not sure” was the largest There is no significant difference across the three groups of participants (p value = 227 > 05) as in Figure 17 and Table 19

Figure 17: My NNESTs are/ were the kind of teachers I expected to have here (Q21)

Table 19: My NNESTs are/ were the kind of teachers I expected to have here (Q21)

To the statement 22, My NNESTs are/ were idea teachers for me (Q22), Students in three groups showed their low positive attitudes towards this statement It is showed by the mean scores obtained from these class were quite low, AP mean = 3.38, N mean 3.17, HQ mean = 3.07 and students in these three classes did not show significantly difference (p value = 383 > 05), as can be seen in Table 20 Again, the number of responses to the statement were quite big, from 43.2% to 62.5% are of “not sure” compared to 25% to 28.3% are of “agree”, as can be seen in Figure 18

Figure 18: My NNESTs are/ were idea teachers for me (Q22)

Table 20: My NNESTs are/ were idea teachers for me (Q22)

Despite above low positive, responses to the statement I am/ was learning a lot of English with NNESTs (Q23) are positive to the statement 54.5% to 66.7% and 11.4%

20 are of “agree” and “strongly agree” compared to 3.3% to 9.1% of “disagree” Students in N had the highest mean score (3.82) The mean score of HQ was (3.68), AP mean score = 3.63 was the lowest However, the results showed that the three groups did not significantly difference (p value = 570 > 05), see Figure 19, Table 21

Figure 19: I am/ was learning a lot of English with NNESTs (Q23)

Table 21: I am/ was learning a lot of English with NNESTs (Q23)

NNEST S ’ BASIC TEACHING SKILLS

The next set of statements asked students about their teachers’ ability to explain things and to simplify difficult materials (Q25 to Q27) Respondents given by these three classes were rather positive attitudes to the statement My NNESTs explain / explained difficult concept well (Q25) 47.7% to 62.5% are of “agree” and 4.5% to 16.7% are of

“strongly agree” Respondents given by these three groups were significantly difference (p value = 031 < 05) The AP has the highest mean core of 3.92 N mean score was 3.53 HQ has the lowest mean score of 3.39, as can be seen in Figure 20, Table 22

Figure 20: My NNESTs explain / explained difficult concept well (Q25)

Table 22: My NNESTs explain/ explained difficult concept well (Q25)

To the item My NNESTs are/ were able to simplify difficult materials so I can/ could understand it (Q26), the responses were more positive than those of to NEST 50% to 68.3% are of “agree” compared with 10% 29.5% of “not sure” The AP had the highest mean score (mean = 4.00), then the N (mean score = 3.90) The HQ had the lowest mean of 3.57 Moreover, these differences are believed significant as showed by p value

Figure 21: My NNESTs are/ were able to simplify material so I/ could understand it (Q26)

Table 23: My NNESTs are/ were able to simplify material so I/ could understand it (Q26)

The results for the item My NNESTs teach/ taught in a manner that helps me learn (Q27) was very positive The numbers of responses agree with it quite high, from 62.5% to 71.7% are of “agree” and 4.5% to 20.8% of “strongly agree”, see Figure 22 The mean scores obtained from this statement were high, AP (mean score = 4.04), N (mean

= 3.93), HQ had the lowest mean score of 3.64, as can be seen from Table 24 The differences between the three groups nearly significant, p value = 053 > 05 This findings supported the students’ overall attitudes towards NNESTs that they appreciated their NNESTs and wanted to learn from them and AP students showed their most favourable

Figure 22: My NNESTs teach/ taught in a manner that helps me learn (Q27)

Table 24: My NNESTs teach/ taught in a manner that helps me learn (Q27)

To the statement My NNESTs motivate/ motivated me to do my best to learn English (Q28), responses given by three groups of students were as positive attitudes as the above mentioned item 58.3% to 61.7% are of “agree” with the statement However, they were not significant difference (p value: 792 > 05) The mean scores AP was 3.67, N (mean = 3.73), HQ (mean = 3.64) and median = 4.00, as can be seen in Figure

Figure 23: My NNESTs motivate/ motivated me to do my best to learn English (Q28) Table 25: My NNESTs motivate/ motivated me to do my best to learn English (Q28)

NNEST S ’ SPEAKING ABILITY AND KNOWLEDGE OF GRAMMAR

The next statement concerns an evaluation of the NNESTs as ideal English speaker teachers (Q29), Students in three group showed their low agreement with this statement

AP (mean = 3.21), N (mean = 3.30), HQ (mean = 3.09) and median = 3.00 and responses given by three groups of students were not significantly different (p value 473 > 05), as seen in Figure 24, Table 26 The results for this statement were not as positive as those obtained to NESTs It means that students appreciated NESTs’ speaking more

Figure 24: My NESTs are/ were good example of the ideal English speakers teachers (Q29)

Table 26: My NESTs are/ were good example of the ideal English speakers teachers (Q29)

Students’ responses to the statement I understand what my NNESTs are/ were saying without a problem (Q30) were positive 27.3% to 53.3% are of “agree” and 6.7% to 8.3% of “strongly agree” Besides, students in these three classes showed their significant difference, p value: 002 < 05, (see Figure 25, Table 27) This findings may be due to the fact that the NNESTs and the students shared the first language and NNESTs more understanding their learners and learners’ difficulties

Figure 25: I understand what my NNESTs are/ were saying without a problem (Q30) Table 27: I understand what my NNESTs are/ were saying without a problem (Q30)

To the statement My NNESTs rarely make/ made grammar mistakes when he/ she writes (Q34), students showed their positive attitudes 27.3% to 62.5% are of “agree” and 1.7% to 20.8% of “strongly agree” The three groups’ mean scores are AP (4.04), N (3.45),

HQ (3.07) For this item, there was significant difference, p value = 000 < 05, as can be seen from Figure 26, Table 28

Figure 26: My NNESTs rarely make/ made grammar mistakes when he/ she writes (Q34)

Table 28: My NNESTs rarely make/ made grammar mistakes when he/ she writes (Q34)

Students showed their positive attitudes to the statement My NNESTs rarely make/ made mistakes when he/ she speaks, students in the three classes responded significantly difference (p value = 007 < 05), as can be seen in Figure 27, Table 29

Figure 27: My NNESTs rarely make/ made mistakes when he/ she speaks (Q35) Table 29: My NNESTs rarely make/ made mistakes when he/ she speaks (Q35)

Students’ responses to the last statement My NNESTs explain/ explained grammar rules very clearly (Q36) were quite positive 45.5% to 73.3% are of “agree” and 1.7% to 16.7% of “strongly agree” The three groups showed their significant difference, as can be seen from p value = 001 < 05 and the mean scores were as followings: AP (3.92), N (3.73), HQ (2.93) Among the three groups, HQ was rather negative, as can be seen from Figure 28, Table 30

Figure 28: My NNESTs explain/ explained grammar rules very clearly (Q36)

Table 30: My NNESTs explain/ explained grammar rules very clearly (Q36)

M AJOR FINDINGS

Table 31: Attitudes towards NESTs and NNESTs across groups in means

No My NESTs/NNESTs … Value NESTs NNESTs

1 … are/were good English teachers Mean 3.79 3.57 3.77 4.00 3.83 3.57

2 … are/were the kind of teacher I expected to have

3 … are/were ideal teachers for me Mean 3.21 2.95 3.20 3.38 3.14 3.07

4 I am/was learning a lot of English with

5 I would enjoy taking another class with these

6 explain/explained difficult concepts well

7 are/were able to simplify difficult materials so I can/could understand it

8 teach/taught in a manner that helps me learn

9 My NESTs motivate/motivated me to do my best to learn English

10 My NESTs are/were good example of the ideal English speaker teachers

11 I understand what my NESTs are/ were saying without a problem

12 The English pronunciation of my

14 know/knew the English grammar very well

15 rarely make/made grammar mistakes when he/she writes

16 rarely make/made grammar mistakes when he/she speaks

17 explain/explained grammar rules very clearly

N.B Bold items are those which bear significant differences

An overview of the data (Table 31) on the students’ opinions towards NESTs and NNESTs reveals many interesting findings The data, first of all, confirms the positive attitudes toward both groups of teachers as evident in very high means across all items except the two NESTs-related items: number 11 (I understand what my NESTs are/were saying without a problem) and 17 (My NESTs explain/explained grammar rules very clearly) Differences are found here and there in the data pool as discussed in the following section although it must be acknowledged that the differences expressed toward the two groups of teachers may not be significant as no statictical analysis was used to gauge the validity as this is not the focus of the study

In responses to the statements concerning general expectations and appreciation of the teachers, some show better judgement of the latter, e.g items 1 and 4 These may be explained by the fact that the NNESTs are qualified and very enthusiastic teachers with the advantage of understanding more about the students’ feeling and background The NESTs are less experiences and the fact that they are non-Vietnamese may develop the sense of out-siders in both teachers and students

With respect to basic teaching skills while the students were content with both groups of teachers, they showed more satisfaction with the performance of the NNESTs Specifically such skills as explaining difficult concepts, simplifying difficult materials by NNESTs were evaluated with much warmer comments The fact the NESTs did not experience English learning as the subjects may prevent them from predicting and finding sensible ways to tackle the learners’ problems effectively (Barratt and Contra,

Concerning the speaking ability conficting ideas are found While the students more highly appreciate the NESTs as ideal speakers of English with good pronunciation, a well-known fact from Kelch & Satana-Williamson’s (2002); Lasabaster & Sierra’s

(2002) and Mahboob’s (2004) studies, they reported that they understood NNESTs better as shown in items 10 to 13 This may due to the fact that the subjects and NNESTs are all Vietnamese They all speak the type of English with generally strong accent affected by L1 and may make similar developmental and inter-language mistakes This makes them understand each other more easily

As far as grammar knowledge is concerned conflicting but well-expected comments are found The NESTs were more appreciated for their control of grammar in speaking and writing but their knowledge and ability to explain grammar rules were less enthusiacally hailed As NNESTs come from a learning environment which are traditionally in favour of grammar-translation teaching methods they do grasp a fairly good grammar resource and are familiar to grammar instruction

Regarding the answers to research questions 2 and 3 there are only a few differences across N, AP and HQ Responding to comments on NESTs the three groups did not agree on whether they could learn a lot from these teachers (item 4, Table 31), whether the instructors possess a good knowledge of English grammar, make grammar mistakes and could explain grammar clearly Grammar is also the area where conflicting comments on NNESTs come Some other discrepancy is found in opinions about NNESTs' pronunciation (items 11 and 13, Table 31) and skills to explain concepts as well as teach in a manner that help the students learn (items 6 and 8, Table 31)

The results found above share the view with Moussu (2006) study that students had positive attitudes towards both NESTs and NNESTs However, reponses in this study were not as strong positive attitudes as Moussu’ respondents It may be due to the fact that NESTs were low qualified teachers in this study

It is very thought-provoking to note that the AP group, which are the best students academically, were more critical of NESTs while showing more appreciation towards NNESTs This is very encouraging news towards not only NNESTs at TNUT but also NNESTs worldwide This also sends a message to the authority that more experienced and better qualified NESTs are needed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Định dạng
Số trang	86
Dung lượng	560,59 KB