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

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

1


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.

2


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 Englishspeaking 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.

3


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,

4


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.

5


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

6


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

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

7

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

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

8

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

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.

9

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

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

10

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

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).

11

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

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.

12

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

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 abovementioned 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

13

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

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 coworkers (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 1 st 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

14

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

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.

15

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

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

16

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

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

17

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

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

18

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

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.

19

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

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:

20

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

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

21

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

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):

22

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

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

NTEs

NNTEs
Use of English

speak better English

speak poorer English

use real language

use “bookish” language

use English more confidently

use English less confidently
General Attitude

adopt a more flexible approach

adopt a more guided approach

are more innovative

are more cautious

are less empathetic

are more empathetic

attend to perceived needs

attend to real needs

have far-fetched expectations

have realistic expectations

are more casual

are stricter

are less committed

are more committed
Attitude to Teaching Language

are less insightful

are more insightful

focus on :

focus on :

fluency

accuracy

meaning

form

language in use

grammar rules

oral skills

printed words

colloquial registers

formal registers

teach items in context

teach items in isolation

prefer free activities

preferred controlled activities

favor group work/pair work

favor frontal work

use variety of materials

use a single textbook

tolerate errors

correct punish errors

set fewer tests

set more tests

use no / less L1

use more L1

23

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

resort to no / less translation

resort to more translation

assign less homework

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

24

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn


C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4..22.Tai lieu. Luan 66.55.77.99. van. Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an.Tai lieu. Luan van. Luan an. Do an

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-reported teaching 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 and thirty of thirty-four (88 %) Israeli dental faculty teaching

25

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn

@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn