Employing native English speaking teachers for English courses: Stakeholders’ perceptions

An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 1 – 17

EMPLOYING NATIVE ENGLISH-SPEAKING TEACHERS FOR ENGLISH COURSES:
STAKEHOLDERS’ PERCEPTIONS
Nguyen Vu Phuong1, Nguyen Thị Bich Ngoan1
University of Economics and Law - Viet Nam National University, Ho Chi Minh City

1

Information:
Received: 18/04/2018
Accepted: 07/07/2018
Published: 02/2019
Keywords:
Native English-speaking
teachers, communication in
English, speaking skills

ABSTRACT
Native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) are needed to teach English at
many universities in Vietnam because they are commonly regarded as
models for communication in English. Yet, does this rationale correspond
with the views of students who enrolled in high-quality programmes and
administrators (departmental and functional leaders who are administering
the programmes)? This article reports on research carried out with
university students and leaders at University A (A pseudonym was used for
the researched institution) in Vietnam, exploring stakeholders’ (specifically
students and institutional leaders) perceptions of employing NESTs to teach
English speaking skills. Data were collected through an open-ended
questionnaire with 65 students and in-depth interviews with 40 students
(those who participated in the interviews also responded to the

questionnaire) and interviews with four leaders. Data were thematically
analysed through an inductive approach. The major factors that could help
NESTs meet students’ expectations were their teaching methods and the
extent to which they could interact with students together with
communicative competence and cultural knowledge. Students viewed NESTs
as models for communicating in English but also had difficulty in
understanding these teachers when there were differences in culture and
language uses. It was indicated by leaders that NESTs are employed as a
motivating and diversifying source of teaching staff and marketing
communication figures for the institution. The findings suggest that to meet
students’ expectations, it is necessary that NESTs improve their teaching
methods, receive training and be under a screening procedure of recruitment
and quality assurance. Employing NESTs is a trend in Vietnam, but quality
procedures need to be established for assuring that these NESTs comply with
the quality expectation at the institution.

1. INTRODUCTION

qualified local teachers of English to meet the
rising demand for English as an international
language (Alptekin, 1991). Thus, NESTs are
employed for their fluency and accuracy in
English no matter how skillful they are in
teaching (Şahin, 2005). The use of NESTs has

There has been a trend in many higher education
institutions: employing native English-speaking
teachers (NESTs) to teach English speaking skills.
Native speakers are in need due to the lack of

1


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 1 – 17

been a subject of debate. Some researchers claim
that NESTs are more successful in teaching than
non-native teachers. The premise for this
argument is that a good oral English teacher
should have a good command of English (Jie,
1999) or being ‘foreign’ (Ma, 2012) to bring new
styles in teaching methodology. For example,
many NESTs have been teaching successfully in
China (Jie, 1999). Another reason is from leaders’
assumption that the employment of NESTs could
help increase learners’ enrolments and to stay
competitive (Ardó, 1997). On the contrary, other
researchers believe that having teaching skills is
more essential than being a native speaker of the
language being taught. In fact, it is motivation and
enthusiasm, not nativeness or accent, of teachers
that make a difference in teaching to support
learners (Lee, 2000).

of a native speaker (Strevens, 1992). Besides
childhood acquisition of the language, other
attributes of ‘nativeness’ include the ability to
comprehend and produce idiomatic expressions,
understand regional and social variations within
the language, and understand and produce fluent

and spontaneous discourse (Davies, 2004). The
term ‘NESTs’ used in this paper is based on the
attributes proposed by Davies (2004).
Studies of the employment of NESTs in the
Vietnamese context
NESTs have been commonly employed in
Vietnamese higher education institutions, which
has been critically examined through research. For
example, Walkinshaw and Oanh (2012) examined
the common belief that Vietnamese learners of
Eglish prefer native-speaker teachers to nonNESTs in learning English. The study was
conducted on 50 students from two public
universities in Vietnam though a survey and an
open-ended self-report questionnaire. The finding
was that the participants valued the qualities of an
English language teacher (namely teaching
experience,
qualifications,
friendliness,
enthusiasm, the ability to interesting informative
classes, understanding of students’ local culture,
and
advanced
English
communicative
competence), and they believed that NESTs
presented as ideal models of pronunciation
(Walkinshaw & Oanh, 2012). Walkinshaw and
Oanh (2014) studied students’ perceptions of the
employment of native and non-native English

language teachers in Vietnam and Japan through a
qualitative short-response questionnaire. The
Vietnamese group of participants comprised 38
female and 12 male Vietnamese learners of
English at an upperintermediate level at two
universities in Vietnam. The student participants
from the first university were taught by five
NESTs (from Australia, New Zealand, and the
United States), while those from the second were
taught by three NESTs (from Australia and the
United States) (Walkinshaw & Oanh, 2014). Their
findings indicated both drawbacks (such as

The employment of NESTs at University A was
based on the institutional leaders’ assumption that
NESTs could make a perfect model for students to
practice speaking English (a member of Board of
Rectors, personal communication, 8 October
2018). These teachers from English-speaking
countries could provide an English-speaking
environment. However, there have been students’
complaints about the quality of NESTs (students
in high-quality courses, personal communication,
17 October 2017 and 6 March 2018). The
situation at this institution has led to the
questions: Is the employment of NESTs helpful
for students’ learning? What problems have
students faced and what should be done to
improve NESTs’ teaching?
2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Definitions of NESTs
The term ‘nativeness’ has been viewed from
different perspectives. From the standpoint of
theoretical linguistics, the native speaker is
viewed as one that is capable of judging the
grammatical correctness of sentences (Chomsky,
1965). In addition, the acquisition of English
during infancy and childhood is a major attribute
2


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 1 – 17

difficulty in explaining grammar and tension due
to cultural differences) and benefits (such as being
as models of pronunciation and repositories of
cultural knowledge) in the employment of NESTs
in teaching English. These studies provide
background for the understanding of the
employment of NESTs in teaching English to
Vietnamese learners.

exposed to NESTs were more successful in
English lessons than those who were not.
In addition, NESTs may help learners develop
positive attitudes towards learning English.
Reviewing several studies, Şahin (2005)
suggested that attitude and motivation may help
learners gain achievement in foreign language
learning. NESTs can be a source of

encouragement to students (Wu & Ke, 2009).
When learners find themselves successful in
communicating with NESTs, they may have joy
in learning (Miyazato, 2002). Thus, if learners
have positive attitudes towards the target
language, they may be motivated to learn and
achieve objectives in learning the target language.

Benefits of using NESTs
The use of NESTs has derived from the possible
benefits they may offer students. They have been
believed to have good oral skills, a large stock of
vocabulary, and knowledge about their own
culture (Mahboob, 2003; Walkinshaw & Oanh,
2014). NESTs were viewed by learners as models
of pronunciation and correct language use with
experience of their culture (Arva & Medgyes,
2000; Walkinshaw & Oanh, 2014). Therefore,
they could be viewed as motivating models for
learners to imitate and use English (Benke &
Medgyes, 2005) and have been believed to
provide an authentic example in learning
pronunciation and speaking skill (SuriatiJusoh et
al., 2013). This premise means that NESTs
provide learners with a native-like environment of
English communication.

Finally, learners can benefit from learning
communication skills and cultural knowledge with
NESTs. In addition to being a model of language,

NESTs were viewed by learners as a model to
provide immersion culture (Meadows &
Muramatsu, 2007). Findings from a study by Ha
Nam (2010) indicated that the students confirmed
that regular exposure to NESTs’ teaching helped
them gain insight into the Western culture. These
NESTs were viewed as repositories of cultural
knowledge (Walkinshaw & Oanh, 2014). In other
words, native speaker teachers appear to be a
model in learning the culture and speaking.

A number of studies such as Benke and Medgyes
(2005), Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005) and Wu
and Ke (2009) on the employment of NESTs
suggested that NESTs represent a motivating
figure to encourage learning. For example, Benke
and Medgyes’s (2005) study of 422 Hungarian
learners of English at different universities
revealed that NESTs were friendly lively good
models for imitation that were skilled at
encouraging learners to speak.

Drawbacks of employing NESTs
Being a native speaker of English does not
necessarily mean that NESTs can explain the
linguistic aspects of English. Although NESTs
were good at spoken communication, they could
not facilitate good grammar use and could have
difficulty
explaining

complex
concepts
(Mahboob, 2003). Findings from a study by
Wong (2009) indicated that inexperienced and
untrained NETs were being incapable of
explaining grammar and vocabulary, and their
confidence could last for a short period of time
with anxiety about the length of the course.
Learners found NESTs poor at explaining
grammar (Walkinshaw & Oanh, 2014). These

Another advantage of NESTs is that they tend to
put more emphasis on fluency than accuracy, so
they push learners to use more English because
NESTs may not be capable of using learners’
native language (Şahin, 2005). The findings from
this study indicated that learners who were

3


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 1 – 17

native teachers may find it troublesome to deal
with lexis and grammar because “sometimes they
haven’t got the knowledge to explain it”
(Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005, p.230). This matter
means that being able to produce fluent English is
not necessarily being capable of teaching English
(e.g., explaining linguistic aspects of the

language).

useful for students’ learning English. The extent
to which NESTs are helpful to learners depends
on their quality, whether they possess a body of
pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of English
linguistics, learners’ local cultures, and teaching
experience.
Possible solutions
Although NESTs may benefit learners as
aforementioned, there exist problems that need to
be solved. First of all, it is necessary to provide
them with training on pedagogical methodology
and learners’ culture and difficulties in learning.
Findings from Ma’s (2012) study suggested that it
is crucial to increase NESTs’ understanding of
students’ learning difficulties. NESTs can teach
effectively if they are qualified with experience
and appropriate training (Wong, 2009).

Although NESTs’ cultural background can be
motivating to learners, it sometimes constrains
communication. As Arntsen (2017) argued that,
regards of communication, NESTs may be
incapable of clearly communicating complex
ideas and structures to learners in case they lacked
understanding of the local language. Then, their
different cultures created tension because learners
experienced a cultural and communicative gap
(Walkinshaw & Oanh, 2014). Thus, their

knowledge about their own culture (e.g., language
use and cultural values), which is different from
that of second language learners, can be an
obstacle to the learning process. (Benke &
Medgyes, 2005; Millrood, 1999). For example,
NESTs’ lack of sharing of linguistic and cultural
background made learners fear NESTs, as found
in a case study on 13 Japanese university students
by (Miyazato, 2002). Furthermore, NESTs’ lack
of insights into the local educational context made
them fail to establish rapport with learners (Han,
2005).

Another solution to the weaknesses of NESTs
may be engaging them in co-teaching with local
teachers of English (i.e., non-NESTs). In Chun’s
(2014) study in Korea, NESTs were attributed to
linguistic competence while Korean teachers of
English were viewed as psychologically helpful to
students and sensitive to students’ needs for their
shared mother tongue and experience as learners.
In a review, SuriatiJusoh et al. (2013) also found
that the learners value “the collaborative teaching
of native and non-native speaker teachers of the
language when learning the target language” (p.
30). These findings suggest that learners can
benefit from being taught by both NESTs and
non-NESTs. Liu (2008) suggested that for
dynamic co-teaching, close attention should be
paid to “effective collaboration between coteachers, their desire to improve learning

outcomes for their students, and support from
school administrators and other colleagues” (p.
115).

Being able to pronounce English correctly does
not always imply that NESTs can help learners
with their pronunciation. Although learners of
English affirmed that they could benefit NESTs’
pronunciation (Benke & Medgyes, 2005), they
often struggled to comprehend NESTs’ speech.
Lasagabaster and Sierra’s (2005) participants
appreciated the exposure to NESTs’ pronunciation
but pointed out that NESTs often fail to correct
learners’ own pronunciation.

Based on the problems with NESTs as
aforementioned, it may be necessary to have a
process for quality assurance of English courses
taught by NESTs. This is an administrative
procedure that leads to continuous improvement

Examining the advantages NESTs may offer
learners and the problems learners may face
suggests that the employment of NESTs may be
4


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 1 – 17

of teaching. The process may include establishing

standards for recruitment, monitoring their
teaching practice through the use of students’
formative feedback, and support for improvement.

employing native English-speaking teachers to
teach English in high-quality programmes.
Because it was exploratory in nature, the study
was conducted within the constructivist paradigm,
which depicts relativist reality, a subjectivist
epistemological stance, and a naturalistic
methodology (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). The
study aimed to understand the meaning
constructed by these stakeholders through their
experience with NESTs in the process of teaching
and learning academic English. In other words,
the authors acknowledged that “knowledge is
socially constructed” by the participants (Mertens,
2005, p. 12), which suggested diverse
interpretations of the reality (Mertens, 2005;
Stake, 2010). Therefore, the research context
facilitates a case study within the constructivist
paradigm (Yin, 2009).

3. RESEARCH METHOD
NESTs have been employed to teach English for
high-quality programmes at University A, which
is a member university of Vietnam National
University – Ho Chi Minh City (considered as the
centre of high-quality tertiary education
institutions in Ho Chi Minh City). It has about

360 academics and administrative staff. In 2018,
the number of students was around 6,800, ranging
from undergraduate to postgraduate levels. The
study institution’s organisation includes the Board
of Rectors as top management which administers
faculties, departments, and centres. The
Department of Foreign Languages is responsible
for teaching Business English and Academic
English to all students.

The employment of NESTs has raised concerns
on teaching quality. University A was chosen
because it employs NESTs, which provides
convenience in sampling. For recruiting the most
productive sample to address the research
question, purposive sampling was used (Marshall,
1996). The criteria to select the student
participants included their attendance in the
speaking course of academic English taught by
NESTs and their registration for the high quality
programme. Participants were 65 freshmen (15
males and 50 females aged 18) who enrolled in
2017 high quality programmes, namely the socalled CA programmes whereby most courses are
delivered in English. Students from different
disciplines registered for the intensive courses in
Academic English. These students’ level of
English proficiency varied, around 54 of the
participants had scored from 5.0 to 5.5 on IELTS
tests while 11 others were at pre-intermediate
level (around 4.0 scores on IELTS tests). Leader

participants included four leaders including a
member of Board of Rectors (MBR), two
administrative leaders in quality assurance (LQA)
and academic affairs (LAA), and a departmental
leader (DL). These leader participants’

The institution’s high quality programs are of two
types: the first programme (called C) includes
40% of basic and specialised courses delivered in
English; the second one (called CA) most courses
(except Marxism and Leninism) delivered in
English. NESTs are employed to teach intensive
English (generally speaking skills) to help
learners in these programmes prepare for other
courses in English. The speaking course lasts 45
hours. The courses of intensive English recruit
learners (mostly freshmen) from various
disciplines. These NESTs are from English
speaking countries such as Australia, Britain, the
United States of America, and Ireland. The
research question the study aims to answer is:
What are stakeholders’ (students and relevant
administrators) perceptions of employing native
English-speaking teachers to teach English in
high quality programmes?
The study used a qualitative case study which
provides insights into the meaning of social
phenomena in natural settings (Merriam, 2001b).
It examined what the stakeholders perceived of
5

An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 1 – 17

responsibilities included administering the high
quality programme and have assessed to student
feedback on NESTs’ teaching. Therefore, their
administrative viewpoints could be relevant for
being triangulated with data from student
participants.

minutes to clarify student participants’ responses
given in the questionnaire. Individual semistructured interviews with four administrators
were also conducted in Vietnamese for the
accuracy and ease of communication and lasted
20 minutes. The in-depth interviews were
organised based on these areas for the
comprehensive
understanding
of
these
stakeholders’ perceptions.

Data were collected for the study through a selfreport questionnaire in English (see Appendix A)
which were delivered to 65 students. The
questionnaire focused on the participants’
expectations from learning with NESTs, benefits,
problems, and solutions. These guided open
questions were relevant to elicit these
stakeholders’ general perceptions of employing

NESTs. The themes that might emerge could not
be anticipated, so this open format better fit the
research purpose (Dornyei, 2007). In-depth
interviews were conducted with four focus groups
(40 students among 65 students, from four
classes) in Vietnamese for the accuracy and ease
of communication. Each focus group consisted of
from 9 to 11 participants. Focus group interviews
are appropriate for collecting rich, high-quality
data in a social context (Patton, 2002), exploring
participants’ understanding and experiences about
an issue in an interactive manners; are regarded as
a quick and convenient way to collect data from
some participants simultaneously (Kitzinger,
1995). Each focus group interviews lasted 30

Data were inductively processed through thematic
analysis whereby data were arranged into themes
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). The data were broken
into meaningful pieces of information with
assigned codes (Maxwell, 2005). These codes
were critically examined and grouped into
common categories (Merriam, 2001a), which
facilitated easy access to information for data
analysis and interpretation (Merriam, 2009).
Thorough critical reviews of the data facilitated
finding connections between the themes from
which findings were explored and discussed.
4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This section presents the findings of the study and

discussion associated with areas such as students’
expectations of NESTs, the benefits they received
from learning with NESTs, the problems they
faced and necessary measures to solve the
problems. Table 1 describes student participants’
perceptions of studying with NESTs.

Table 1. Students’ perceptions of studying with NESTs

Responses
(n = 65)

Percentage

• Improve communication in English

49

75.38%

• Improve speaking and listening skills with pronunciation and intonation

41

63.08%

• Have real models for language practice

28

43.08%

• Gain understanding of other cultures for future communication and
disciplinary knowledge

30

46.15%

• Be helpful to their learning: friendly, well-organised, enthusiastic,
showing rapport, and supportive

19

29.23%

Areas of interest
Expectations of learning English with NESTs

6


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 1 – 17

Responses
(n = 65)

Percentage

• Improving speaking and listening skills

47

72.31%

• Being as models for their practice

60

92.30%

• Gaining communication skills in a real-like international environment

11

16.92%

8

12.31%

• Being unable to offer support in learning

24

36.92%

• Using ineffective teaching methods

55

84.61%

• Being not well-qualified to teach English

10

15.38%

• Having difficult communication because of cultural difference

17

26.15%

• Change teaching methods

41

63.08%

• Have a standardised recruitment process, monitor teaching to assure
teaching quality

17

26.15%

Areas of interest
Benefits of learning with NESTs

• Improving their confidence in speaking
Problems of learning with NESTs

Suggested solutions to the problems

First of all, students’ expectations of learning
English with NESTs included the needs to
improve communication in English such as
communication skills (75.38% of responses),
speaking and listening skills with pronunciation
and intonation (63.08% of responses), having real
models for language practice (43.08% of
responses) – a good language environment for
communicative activities. Students expected
NESTs would provide them with good language
practice whereby they could have interaction with
NESTs, imitate accents, learn intonation, and use
correct pronunciation.

were used for the participantsQUESTIONNAIRE (QUE))
This finding concurs with a multitude of studies
from which NESTs’ linguistic competence made
them a motivating model of language (Arva &
Medgyes, 2000; Mahboob, 2003; Walkinshaw &
Oanh, 2014). This attribute is helpful to learners
as they can imitate and use English (Benke &
Medgyes, 2005). This explains why the demand
for NESTs is high in many English courses.
In addition, students also expected to gain

understanding of other cultures for effective
future communication as well as knowledge
related to their major (46.15% of responses). They
hoped that they would gain confidence in
communicating with NESTs as real foreigners.

My expectations of learning with
NESTs were improving my speaking
and listening skills, using correct
pronunciation
and
intonation,
implementing natural communication,
and gaining knowledge of culture and
academic English. (Lan-Pseudonyms

When enrolling in the course of
academic English in the high quality
programme, I expected to learn a lot
from NESTs. This learning would
include
communication
capacity
7


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 1 – 17

(reactions with appropriate responses),
understanding of other cultures (e.g.,

religions)
through
communicative
activities. (Khue-INTERVIEW(INT))

uniformly favour NESTs over non-NESTs. Either
type has their own strengths and weaknesses.
Chun’s findings implicated that students may
benefit from being taught by both types of
teachers. It can be implied that the students in the
high quality programmes need effective teachers
that can support their learning regardless of their
‘nativeness’ status.

This result indicated that NESTs were perceived
as a model to provide immersion culture
(Meadows & Muramatsu, 2007). Engaging in
teaching by NESTs may provide learners with
Western culture (Ha Nam, 2010). The cultural
knowledge gained (Walkinshaw & Oanh, 2014)
may lead to effective global communication.

From the administrative perspectives, the leaders
expected that NESTs could have insights into the
Vietnamese culture, professional working style,
and follow the assigned curriculum. The
departmental leader said: “I expected NESTs to
have an understanding of the Vietnamese culture
so that they could communicate with students
effectively, adopt the programme appropriately,

and work professionally” (DL-INT). This means
that NESTs could be useful, but they may need to
gain insights into local culture (Jie, 1999; Şahin,
2005). They also expected that NESTs could
follow the course content and have appropriate
pedagogy.

They also expected NESTs to have certain
characteristics that the students perceived as
helpful to their learning: friendly, well-organised,
enthusiastic, showing rapport, and supportive
(29.23% of responses).
I expected my NEST to be a friendly
enthusiastic teacher who is willing to
offer students support and rapport such
as giving detail feedback to individual
students. (Linh-INT)
Because English is used for the whole
session, if NESTs are well-organised
they can deliver clear instruction and
make students interested. (Nhat-INT)

We expect NESTs to show their
professional style and follow the course
syllabus. (DL-INT)
Our course was designed to orient
students to their future career, so we
expect NESTs to follow it in teaching.
(MBR-INT)

These students’ expectations of NESTs’ qualities
align with findings from Benke and Medgyes’s
(2005) study in that NESTs were regarded as
friendly and lively, appropriate models for
imitation, and skilled at encouraging learners to
use English in speaking. This finding implies that
native teachers need not only English proficiency
but also communicative competence to be
effective in teaching English.

These concerns seem to concur with findings from
several studies that NEST appeared to be less
prepared and empathetic towards students’
language difficulties and lacked knowledge of
language (Mok, 1994; Reves & Medgyes, 1994).
Benefits of learning with NESTs

However, there were also a few ideas that students
expected their teachers to have teaching methods
appropriate for their level no matter whether they
were NESTs or Vietnamese teachers of English.
Nga commented: “Whether my teacher is a
Vietnamese teacher of English or a NEST is good
for me so long as the teacher has appropriate
teaching methods” (Nga-INT). This idea reflected
in Chun’s (2014) findings that learners did not

The first benefit students received from NESTs
was improved speaking and listening skills
(72.31% of responses) such as presentation,

correct pronunciation, intonation and imitating the
accent. For example, Na gave her comments:
“Engaging in communicative activities, I feel
confident in speaking English. I perceived that I
could have appropriate communication for
8


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 1 – 17

specific contexts” (Na-QUE). The departmental
and administrative leaders had the same view that
NESTs were supportive in creating a language
environment for students. For example, the
departmental leader explained: “With NESTs,
students could get used to English pronunciation,
the use of communicative language, and native
culture” (DL-INT). The member of Board of
Rectors said: “NESTs are for students’ practice”
(MBR-INT). This finding is common in other
studies in that learners perceived NESTs as
having confidence in using English cultural
knowledge of English-speaking countries (Arva &
Medgyes, 2000), good pronunciation, ability to
motivate learners to use English, and being good
models (Chun, 2014; Ma, 2012). These attributes
may make NESTs desirable for English courses
because learners need a model for practice
speaking English.

NESTs could help improve their confidence in
speaking (12.31% of responses). Dung said:
“When I could communicate with NESTs, I
perceived I could do it with other foreigners,
gaining confidence” (Dung-INT). This finding
aligns with other findings in that NESTs could
stimulate the development of learners’ positive
attitudes towards learning the target language and
motivation to achieve it: more successful in
English lessons (Şahin, 2005). When students
realised that they could communicate successfully
with their NESTs, they enjoyed learning
(Miyazato, 2002). Thus, NESTs may have helped
facilitate students’ communication and their
development of communication skills, which may
have built their joy of learning and confidence.
Another benefit of employing NESTs from
managerial perspective is that NESTs pose a
figure
for
the
institution’s
marketing
communication. One of the leaders indicated:
“The employment of NESTs brought about a
difference between high quality courses and other
standard courses” (DL-INT). The member of the
Board of Rectors said: “Employing NESTs aims
to bring about differentiation of our brand”
(MBR-INT). This case is similar in non-English

speaking countries where higher education
institutions employed NESTs to increase learners’
enrolments and to stay competitive (Ardó, 1997).

One surprising finding was that students needed
NESTs as models for their practice provided that
they have appropriate teaching methods (92.30%
of responses). One participant said: “Well, we
need NESTs to practice using English” (NamINT). This finding is similar to that of Meadows
and Muramtsu’s (2007) study. They found that
students preferred to have NESTs as the model of
the language, a source for learning the culture,
accent and grammar of the language. One of the
important reasons for the employment of NESTs
though not apparent is the teacher’s ability to
produce fluent English, and NESTs can easily
acquire this facility (Bedford, 1970; Şahin, 2005).
It implies that nativeness is a dominant attribute
that makes native speaker teachers a good model
for practice speaking English.

Problems of learning with NESTs
However, when the students experienced learning
with different NESTs, the students perceived that
NESTs sometimes could not help them learn
anything (36.92% of responses). The first problem
students realised was NESTs’ ineffective teaching
methods (84.61% of responses). The areas of
teaching students gave negative feedback on were
uninteresting teaching activities, teachers’ reliance

on textbook content without expansion of
knowledge, lack of rapport and feedback,
illegitimate instruction (making it difficult to
understand NESTs’ messages), difference in

Besides, students also gained communication
skills in a real-like international environment
(16.92% of responses) and had fun time in
classroom activities. For example, a student gave
her comments: “Talking to NESTs is similar to
communicating in an international environment; I
had lots of fun with them” (Ngoc-INT). Besides,
students perceived that their interaction with
9


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 1 – 17

language uses, lack of interaction, motivation, and
pedagogical knowledge.

necessary to offer training to NESTs so that they
could understand students’ learning difficulties
(Ma, 2012). Our finding was useful for improving
the quality of NESTs; it suggests that pre-service
proper training for NESTs is necessary to assure
their teaching effectiveness.

Comparing my present NEST with the
previous one, I realised that he lacked

appropriate teaching methods. Many of
my classmates have not come to the
class recently because classroom
activities were just boring. The teacher
did not give detail feedback to our
presentation: he just gave a few words
like ‘good’ or ‘OK’. Sometimes I did
not understand what he was talking
about. He used language differently. I
was demotivated because I think the
NEST lacked sound pedagogical
knowledge – he did not have a clear
organisation of lessons. (Khoa-INT)

Because students perceived NESTs as lacking
pedagogical knowledge, they believed that NESTs
were not well-qualified to teach them English
(15.38% of responses). As a result, they believed
that NESTs did not meet their expectations. There
was an idea that being a native was not equal to
‘having the ability to teach English’. Moreover,
students expected to learn academic English, but
not everyday English. For example, a student
expressed that: “I do not think the NEST is wellqualified. ‘Nativeness’ does not mean ‘being able
to teach English” (Dao-INT). Tuan also
commented on the appropriateness of the lessons:
“My teacher [NEST] just taught us everyday
English, not academic English as I expected”
(Tuan-INT). This finding concurs which that from
Şahin (2005) in that “being adept in a language

doesn’t necessarily make anyone successful
language teacher” (p. 29). The employment of
NESTs to teach English all over the world derived
from the application of the aural-oral approach
(Bedford, 1970). However, if NESTs were not
equipped with pedagogical insights, they could
not be effective language teachers. This finding
suggests that NESTs need to be qualified with
pedagogical competence to teach English.

The leaders also indicated similar problems with
NEST such as their lack of pedagogical skills and
knowledge and understanding local culture.
NESTs employed at our university are
sometimes
travellers
that
lack
pedagogical skills and knowledge.
Consequently, they could not teach
effectively. (MBR-INT)
Students may not attend classes because
they cannot use English and are afraid
of communicating with NESTs. (DLINT)
This finding is similar to those of other studies.
For examples, Wong (2009) found that untrained
NESTs were concerned about duration of the
course and were unable to explain grammar and
vocabulary and their confidence just lasted for a
short period of time. Without training (e.g., in

classroom management and lessons in English
grammar) native speakers cannot be effective
teachers of English because explaining the
language is much more difficult than being able to
speak it (Arntsen, 2017). For instance, NESTs
failed to form a rapport with students because
they did not understand the local educational
setting, as shown in a study by Han (2005). It is

In addition, students also found it difficult to
communicate with NESTs because of the
difference in cultures (26.15% responses). As one
student commented: “Our NEST is sometimes
difficult to understand because what he said was
quite different from our cultures. Another
sensitive aspect is that he dresses casually
[untidily] and…” (Minh-INT). This result is
similar to findings from a case in Russia whereby
Millrood (1999) found that NESTs were not as
effective as expected because of differences in
cultures and expectations. The author also
10


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 1 – 17

commented that these NESTs were employed for
their command of English and ‘being foreign’ in
teaching. This finding is similar to Walkinshaw
and Oanh’s (2014) result that perceived a cultural

and communicative gap created tension. Different
linguistic and cultural attributes make NESTs’
teaching style different from that of local teachers
(Ma, 2012). This result suggests that for NESTs to
be effective and successful in interaction with
learners, it may be necessary for them to
understand the local culture.

changes included giving clear instruction and
speech, delivering well-prepared or wellorganised lessons, showing rapport and giving
feedback, organising realistic, motivating and
creative classroom activities such as games, and
giving tasks appropriate for students’ level.
I think it is necessary for the teacher to
change his teaching methods: be more
active, realistic, and well-prepared. I
expected care and detail feedback
through interesting activities such as
games. The tasks assigned to us
appeared to be for kids not for
undergraduates. (Thao-INT)

Finally, another problem from the view of the
management is that NESTs did not have a strong
tie with the institution that might lead to their lack
of commitment to quality teaching. Besides, the
recruitment procedure is simple and not
monitored by a quality assurance body, so their
quality of NESTs is questionable.

This finding suggests that NESTs may need
training in teaching methods and local cultural
and educational context. Ma (2012) suggested that
it is crucial to increase NESTs’ understanding of
students’ learning difficulties. This may be done
by qualifying NESTs with knowledge of students’
English standards and learning as well as their
familiarity with local education context.

NEST came and taught here on
seasonal
contracts,
they
lacked
commitment and could stop teaching
any time. Their teaching is a quarter of
the course length; thus, it is not enough
for them to develop students’ skills.
Another issue is that they did not
collaborate
with
non-NESTs
effectively. (DL-INT)

Students also expected NESTs to change their
attitudes by showing their responsibility or
dressing smartly. Lam said:
Well, the present NEST did not care
about us. He dressed casually (just
looked untidy, and I do not like it). He

did not stick to the schedule. He needs
to give us care and detail feedback.”
(Lam-INT)

We do not have a standardised
recruitment process for those NESTs ,
or we do not check if their
qualifications are relevant for high
quality programmes. (LQA-INT)

The students sensed the difference in the teachers’
code of dressing is a sign of NESTs’ lacked
understanding of local context, so he failed to
establish rapport (Han, 2005). Again, this can be
solved by offer NESTs training. As Wong (2009)
suggested, NESTs may be very effective if
equipped with enough experience and relevant
training.

This result indicates a problem in managing
NESTs for these high quality programmes with
respect to their tenure status, the number of
teaching hours, and collaboration with nonNESTs who teach the same course. This also
shows that a process of recruiting NESTs should
be monitored.
Suggested solutions to the problems

Furthermore, students suggested that NESTs
should be carefully selected under a standardised
recruitment process and their teaching being

monitored to assure teaching quality (26.15% of

Students believed that the first solution to the
problem was that NESTs need to change their
teaching methods (63.08% of responses). These
11


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 1 – 17

responses). For example, NESTs should
demonstrate their teaching capacity before a
selection panel and their profile should meet the
requirements of high quality programmes.

new NESTs do not know about our
organisational culture. (DL-INT)
Long-term contracts may make NESTs
responsible for students’ learning. It is
also crucial to assign them more
teaching hours. (LAA-INT)

Were NESTs carefully selected for high
quality programmes? What are the
criteria for recruitment of these
teachers? I think future recruitment
should include a screening process
where NESTs satisfy the selection
criteria and they have to demonstrate
their teaching ability. (Van-INT)

These leaders agreed that employing NESTs is a
way to market the institution’s brand, especially
the high quality programmes.
5. CONCLUSION
The employment of NESTs for high quality
programmes at University A was grounded by
students’ and leaders’ perceptions of their
linguistic competence. In fact, native speaker
teachers were necessary for students to improve
English. This presents a high demand of NESTs
for English courses at the university. NESTs
represent motivating models of pronunciation,
fluency, and communication that helped improve
students’ speaking and listening skills. These
teachers provided conditions for students’ practice
provided that they have appropriate teaching
methods together with experience. As a good
example of using natural English, these teachers
may encourage communication and the
development of communicative competence.
However, the concerns of using NESTs are
associated with their teaching methodology.
When NESTs lacked sound teaching methods,
they may fail to engage students in learning. Their
cultural background can be a source for students
to learn how to communicate internationally, but
it also restricts communication and inhibits
students’ understanding of messages delivered
due to the lack of shared values. Thus, several

solutions to address the concerns may include
offering NESTs proper training, engaging them in
co-teaching with local English teachers, and
establishing a standardised procedure for
recruitment and teaching improvement. The
findings from this study have posed some areas
for further examination of the issue being
addressed. These may include the relationship

Then, during their teaching, student feedback on
teaching should be given to them so that they
could know the aspects of their teaching that need
improving.
Our present feedback should be given
to the NESTs so that they know where
to change, regarding their teaching.
Otherwise, I want to have a different
NEST for my next course. (Loc-INT)
This finding suggests a quality assurance process
needs to be set up. One of the step is to establish a
standardised procedure for recruiting NESTs for
high quality programmes. This process poses
minimum requirements for NESTs’ pedagogical
knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The second step
to assure quality and monitor teaching activities is
the use of formative student feedback for teaching
improvement.
To solve the problems associated with NESTs’
responsibility and commitment, it is necessary to
consider having long-term contracts with them

through recruitment policies. All the leader
participants have the same view on the issue:
It is necessary to consider recruiting
NESTs as tenured teaching staff so that
they become responsible and committed
to teaching for long-term interest. It is
possible to assign them to teaching a
complete course. Every semester, the
staffing of NESTs keeps changing, so
12


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 1 – 17

between students’ learning and the quality of
NESTs, the possible implementation of coteaching for high quality programmes, and the
effectiveness of NESTs’ teaching and student
learning outcomes. Another issue to consider is
investigating the problem from the NESTs’
perspectives.

teachers: perceived strengths, weaknesses, and
preferences. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 35(6), 563-579.
Davies, A. (2004). The native speaker in applied
linguistics. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.),
The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 431450). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Acknowledgement

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The
SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th
ed.). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.

The authors acknowledge the students and the
leaders that kindly agreed to participate in this
study and share their experiences in the
interviews.

Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied
linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.

REFERENCES

Ha Nam, H. (2010). The pedagogy and its
effectiveness among native and non-native
speaking teachers in the Korean EFL context.
( Unpublished doctoral thesis ), University of
Buffalo, State University of New York.

Alptekin, C. (1991). A look into the use of native
speaker teachers in EFL programs. TEFL
Turkey Reporter, 1, 5-8.
Ardó, Z. (1997). The very heart of English? On
culture, language, and the native speaker’s
head. TESL-EJ, 1(4), 2.

Han, S. A. (2005). Good teachers know where to
scratch when learn- ers feel itchy: Korean

learners’ views of native-speaking teachers of
English. Australian Journal of Education, 49,
197-213.

Arntsen, T. (2017). ESL Controversy: Native
speakers and non-native speakers can both
succeed
as
ESL
teachers.
/>
Jie, Z. (1999). How can a Chinese teacher of
English succeed in oral English classes? The
Internet TESL Journal, 5(7).

Arva, V., & Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and nonnative teachers in the classroom. System, 28,
355-372.

Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative Research:
Introducing focus groups. British Medical
Journal, 311, 299.

Bedford, R. C. (1970). The role and function of
the native teacher. English Teaching Forum,
8(5), 7-11.

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2005). What do
students think about the pros and cons of
having a native-speaker teacher? In E. Llurda
(Ed.),

Nonnative
language
teachers:
Perceptions, challenges and contributions to
the profession (pp. 217-242). New York, NY:
Springer.

Benke, E., & Medgyes, P. (2005). Differences in
teaching behaviour between native and
nonnative speaker teachers: As seen by the
learners. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Nonnative
language teachers: Perceptions, challenges
and contributions to the profession (pp. 195215). New York, NY: Springer.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of
syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Lee, I. (2000). Can a non-native English speaker
be a good English teacher? TESOL Matters,
10(1), 19.

Chun, S. Y. (2014). EFL learners' beliefs about
native and non-native English-speaking

Liu, L. (2008). Co-teaching between native and
non-native English teachers: An exploration of
13


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 1 – 17

co-teaching models and strategies in the
Chinese primary school context. Reflections on
English Language Teaching, 7(2), 103–118.

Millrood, R. (1999). How native English speakers
can be better English teachers in Russia. The
Internet TESL Journal, 5(1).

Ma, L. P. F. (2012). Perceived teaching behaviour
of native and non-native English speaking
teachers in Hong Kong: Are there any
differences? Hong Kong Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 14(1), 89–108.

Miyazato, K. (2002). Anxiety or admiration?:
Japanese EFL learner's perceptions of native
speaker teachers' classes. Paper presented at
the JALT Conference 2002.
Mok, W. (1994). Reflecting on reflections: A case
study of experienced and inexperienced ESL
teachers. System, 22(1), 93-111.

Mahboob, A. (2003). Status of nonnative Englishspeaking teach- ers in the United States.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Indiana
University, Indiana University, Bloomington. .

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and
research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative
research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522-525.

Reves, T., & Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native
English speaking EFL/ESL teacher‟s selfimage: An international survey. System, 22(3),
353-367.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research
design: An interative approach (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Meadows, B., & Muramatsu, Y. (2007). Native
speaker or non-native speaker teacher?: A
report of student preferences in four different
foreign language classrooms. Arizona Working
Papers in SLA & Teaching, 14, 95-109.

Şahin, İ. (2005). The effect of native speaker
teachers of English on the attitudes and
achievement of learners. Journal of Language
and Linguistic Studies, 1(1), 29-42.
Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research:
Studying how things work. New York: The
Guilford Press.

Merriam, S. B. (2001a). Qualitative research and
case study applications in education (2nd ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Strevens, P. (1992). English as an international
language: Direction in the 1990s. In B. B.

Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English
across cultures (2nd ed., pp. 27-47). Urbana,
IL: University of Illinois Press.

Merriam, S. B. (2001b). Qualitative research and
case study applications in education: Revised
and expanded from case study research in
education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A
guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation
in education and psychology: Integrating
diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

SuriatiJusoh, F., Alias, N., Siraj, S., Witt, D. D.,
Hussin, Z., & Darusalam, G. (2013). Research
and trends in the studies of native & nonnative speaker teachers of languages: A review
on selected researches and theses. The
Malaysian Online Journal of Educational
Science, 1(1), 30-42.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994).
Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.

Walkinshaw, I., & Oanh, D. T. H. (2012). Nativeand non-native speaking English teachers in
Vietnam: Weighing the benefits. TESL-EJ,

16(3), 1-17.

14


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 1 – 17

Walkinshaw, I., & Oanh, D. T. H. (2014). Native
and non-native English language teachers:
Student perceptions in Vietnam and Japan.
SAGE Open, 1-9.

Wu, K. H., & Ke, C. (2009). Haunting native
speakerism? Students’ perceptions toward
native speaking English teachers in Taiwan.
English Language Teaching, 2(3), 44-52.

Wong, C.-Y. (2009). Are native speakers “good”
language instructors? A case study of
untrained ESL tutors. ARECLS, 6, 122-140.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design
and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.

15


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 1 – 17

APPENDIX A
Open-ended self-report questionnaire for student participants
Project title: Employing native English-speaking teachers for English courses: Stakeholders’ perceptions
Thank you for giving me your time today. The purpose of this questionnaire is to hear from your
perceptions of employing native English-speaking teachers for English courses. I hope you feel free to be
frank. I have a list of quesitions I would like you to discuss.
Please answer the following questions:
1. What are your expectations when studying English with NESTs?
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
2. In your view, what are the advantages of learning English with NESTs?
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
3. What are the problems you are having with NESTs?
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
4. What could be done to solve the problems?
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................
Thank you very much for your help with my research.
Best wishes,

16


An Giang University Journal of Science – 2019, Vol. 6, 1 – 17

APPENDIX B
Guiding questions for interviews with leader participants
Project title: Employing native English-speaking teachers for English courses: Stakeholders’ perceptions
Thank you for giving me your time today. The purpose of this questionnaire is to hear from your
perceptions of employing native English-speaking teachers for English courses. I hope you feel free to be
frank. I have a list of quesitions I would like you to discuss.
Please answer the following questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.

What are your expectations when employing NESTs to teach the English courses?
In your view, what are the advantages students can have when they learn English with NESTs?
What are the problems students have with NESTs?
What could be done to solve the problems?

Thank you very much for your help with my research.
Best wishes,
Nguyen Vu Phuong

17