Native and Non- Native English Speaking Teachers in China

Zheng Huang

Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers in ChinaPerceptions and Practices

Native and Non-Native English SpeakingTeachers in China

Zheng Huang

Native and Non-NativeEnglish SpeakingTeachers in ChinaPerceptions and Practices

123

Zheng HuangShanghai Normal UniversityShanghaiChina

ISBN 978-981-10-5283-5 ISBN 978-981-10-5284-2 (eBook)DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-5284-2

Jointly published with Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017945246

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. and Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press 2018This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publishers, whether the whole or partof the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmissionor information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilarmethodology now known or hereafter developed.The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in thispublication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt fromthe relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.The publishers, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in thisbook are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publishers nor theauthors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein orfor any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publishers remains neutral with regard tojurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer NatureThe registered company is Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Personal Interest in This Topic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Contextualizing the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.2.1 Globalization and ELT in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.2.2 Culture of Learning and CETs’ Classroom Practices. . . . . . 81.2.3 College English in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.2.4 Unique Features of College ELT in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.3 Research Focus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2 Conceptualizing (Non-)Native Speaker Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192.1 Theorizing Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192.2 NS Versus NNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.2.1 (Non-)Native Speakerhood in the ENL/ESL/EFLFramework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.2.2 (Non-)Native Speakerhood in the WE and EIL/ELFFramework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.3 Language, Ideology and Power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262.4 Features of and Differences Between NESTs and NNESTs . . . . . . 28

2.4.1 Research Based on NNESTs’ Self-perceptions . . . . . . . . . . 282.4.2 Research Based on Students’ Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322.4.3 Summary of the Features of and Differences Between

NESTs and NNESTs in the Existing Literature. . . . . . . . . . 352.5 NNESTs’ Professional Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2.5.1 Existing Literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362.5.2 A Poststructuralist View on NNESTs’ Professional

Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

v

3 Presenting the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473.1 Research Design and Settings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473.2 Interview-Survey-Interview Procedure to Elicit Students’

Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493.2.1 Questionnaire Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493.2.2 Follow-up One-to-One Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

3.3 Methods Used to Elicit CETs’ Self-perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533.3.1 Settings and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543.3.2 Diary Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553.3.3 Focus Group Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563.3.4 One-to-One Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

3.4 Classroom Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573.5 The Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593.6 Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

3.6.1 Analysis of the Data Collected from Students. . . . . . . . . . . 613.6.2 Analysis of the Data Collected from CETs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623.6.3 Analysis of the Data Collected from Classroom

Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

4 Voices of Chinese College Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674.1 Features of NESTs and CETs According

to Students’ Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684.1.1 Features of NESTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684.1.2 Features of CETs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

4.2 Differences Between NESTs and CETs Accordingto Students’ Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

4.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

5 Voices of Chinese English Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955.1 Features of NESTs and CETs According to CETs’

Self-perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 965.1.1 Features of NESTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 965.1.2 Features of CETs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

5.2 Differences Between NESTs and CETs According to CETs’Self-perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110


6 Chinese English Teachers’ Professional Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1176.1 NS/NNS Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1186.2 CETs’ Perceptions of Their Professional Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

vi Contents

6.3 CETs’ (Re)Construction of Their Professional IdentityWithin the Dominant Ideology and DisempoweringDiscourses of Native-Speakerism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130


7 Possible Impacts of Globalization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1457.1 A New Generation of Students Who Have Acquired Fairly

High Proficiency in English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1457.2 A Call for a High Proficiency in English at Both Micro

and Macro Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1477.3 Ideological Changes at Both Micro and Macro Level. . . . . . . . . . . 148References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

8 Recommendations and Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1538.1 Cultivating a Critical View of the Dominant Ideology

and Disempowering Discourses of Native-speakerismAmong CETs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

8.2 Arousing Awareness of WE and EIL/ELF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1548.3 Taking a Liminal View on China English and Chinese

English Speakers’ NNS Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1568.4 Functioning Positively in Glocalizing CLT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1588.5 Promoting More Collaboration Between NESTs and CETs . . . . . . 1608.6 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Appendix A: Benke and Medgyes’s Questionnaire (2005, p. 211) . . . . . . 165

Appendix B: Features of and Differences Between NESTsand CETs Identified from Students’ Focus GroupInterviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Appendix C: Pilot Student Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Appendix D: Student Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Appendix E: Sample Transcript and Key for ClassroomObservation Transcripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Appendix F: Mean, Median, Mode and SD Scores for AllStatements in NESTs’ Questionnaire Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Appendix G: Mean, Median, Mode and SD Scores for AllStatements in CETs’ Questionnaire Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Contents vii

Summary

English is today a truly global language. As Rubdy and Saraceni (2006a) havehighlighted, one consequence of the global dominance that English has gained overthe last few decades is that today NNSs of English have far outnumbered its NSs.Situated in globalization, this project aims to investigate, in the context of China,the CETs’ self-perceptions and Chinese college non-English major students’ per-ceptions toward the NEST/NNEST issue, how CETs (re)construct their professionalidentity in the globalizing China, and how the classroom practices of the two groupsof teachers match or reflect the perceptions of the students and the CETs.Employing the diary study, interviews (both focus group and one-to-one interview),questionnaires and classroom observation, this study aims to shed new light on theresearch of NESTs and NNESTs in the EFL contexts.

The features of and differences between the two groups of teachers were iden-tified first. The students’ views were generally in agreement with CETs’. Bothstudents and CETs agreed that NESTs usually conducted the class in a commu-nicative way with many group activities though their classes were considered to berelatively simple due to their unfamiliarity with the local context and students.CETs, on the contrary, were reported to teach in a traditional way with an emphasison the basic knowledge of the English language. Meanwhile, CETs were consid-ered to play a significant role in ELT due to their systematic way of teaching andtheir ability to prepare the students for examinations. In general, classroomobservation supported the students’ and the CETs’ views except for one aspect: thetransmission of culture-related knowledge. Both students and CETs depictedNESTs as culture transmitter, supplying more cultural information. However,classroom observation showed that CETs actually provided more explicitculture-related instruction than NESTs. NESTs were reported to transmitculture-related knowledge in a different way: NESTs did it implicitly in the processof teaching.

Besides the features of and differences between the two groups of teachers,findings also include the following:

ix

1. Some strengths of one group of teachers were not necessarily the weaknesses ofanother group. For example, language proficiency, which is considered to beone of the most obvious strengths of NESTs, was not reported as CETs’weakness by the students in this study.

2. The Chinese learners began to see English less as an object of foreign study butmore as an additional language of their own to facilitate their life.

3. Many of the features of NESTs valued by the students were connected to CLT.4. Unlike Medgyes’ (1994) hypothesis that the discrepancy in language profi-

ciency accounts for most of the differences in the practices of the two groups ofteachers, findings in this study suggested that, besides language proficiency,external constraints also played a significant role in the differences in teachers’practices.

5. The ideologies of “Standard Language” and native-speakerism seemed to berooted in CETs’ mind.

Weedon’s (1987, 1997) theorization of discursively constructed subjectivity,Norton/Norton Peirce’s (1995, 1997) understanding of identity as multiple, a site ofstruggle and changing over time, and Omoniyi’s (2006) Hierarchy of Identitytheory serve as the theoretical underpinnings for my conceptualization of CETs’professional identity. The findings suggested that CETs perceived and (re)con-structed their professional identity under the NS ideology. They applied threeidentity options, namely, college teacher, teacher in the Chinese traditional ideol-ogy, and English teacher, to create their own meaning of being CETs, whichsupports Omoniyi’s (2006) HoI theory. With more NESTs coming to China withtheir imaginary monolingual linguistic ability greatly valued by the ELT market, thenative-speakerism ideology inevitably became more powerful in CETs’ profes-sional identity (re)construction. However, with their subjectivity and agency(Norton/Norton Peirce 1995, 1997; Weedon 1987, 1997), CETs managed to reach arelatively balanced power relationship with their NS counterparts through threeways: othering the NSs, exploring their unique strengths and roles, and establishingtheir credibility through hard work.

The findings point to a number of implications. It is important to empower theCETs by cultivating a critical view among CETs about the dominant ideologies inELT, and by arousing CETs’ awareness about WE and ELF/EIL. CETs can beadvised to take a liminal view on China English and Chinese English speakers’NNS identity and to function positively in the glocalization of CLT. A closercooperation between NESTs and CETs should also be promoted.

References

Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. London: MacMillan.Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31,

409–429.Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly,

29, 9–31.

x Summary

Omoniyi, T. (2006). Hierarchy of identities. In T. Omoniyi & G. White (Eds.), Sociolinguistics ofidentity (pp. 11–33). London: Contiuum.

Rubdy, R., & Saraceni, M. (2006a). Introduction. In R. Rubdy, & M. Saracani (Eds.), English inthe world: Global rules, global roles (pp. 5–16). London: Continuum.

Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. New York: Basil Blackwell.Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed.). New York: Basil

Blackwell.

Summary xi

List of Figure

Fig. 6.1 How do CETs Perceive and (Re)construct their ProfessionalIdentity within the NS Ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

xiii

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Differences in teaching behavior between NESTsand NNESTs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Table 3.1 A summary of the research design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Table 3.2 The number of respondents from each university . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Table 3.3 Personal profile of the NESTs participating in classroom

observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Table 3.4 Personal profile of the CETs participating in classroom

observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Table 3.5 A summary of the pilot study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Table 4.1 Mean, Median, Mode, and SD scores of the statements

with the top ten highest mean scores in NESTs’questionnaire set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Table 4.2 Mean, Median, Mode, and SD of statements 24, 4, 11,16, 13, and 26 in NESTs’ questionnaire set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Table 4.3 Mean, Median, Mode, and SD scores of the statementswith top ten highest mean scores in CETs’ questionnaireset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Table 4.4 Statements in which students responded most differently . . . . . . 88Table 4.5 Mean scores for statements 18 and 28 in both NESTs’

and CETs’ questionnaire sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90Table 5.1 Features of NESTs according to CETs’ self-perceptions. . . . . . . 96Table 5.2 Features of CETs in CETs’ self-perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Table 5.3 Differences between NESTs and CETs according

to CETs’ self-perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

xv

Chapter 1Introduction

1.1 Personal Interest in This Topic

English is a truly global language today. According to Jenkins (2009), in the period“between the end of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I in 1603 and the later years of thereign of Queen Elizabeth II at the beginning of 21st century,” the number ofspeakers of English increased from “a mere five to seven million to possibly asmany as two billion” (p. 2). English has now acquired, as Phillipson (1992)describes

a dominant position in science, technology, medicine, and computers; in research, books,periodicals, and software; in transnational business, trade, shipping, and aviation; indiplomacy and international organization; in mass media entertainment, news agencies, andjournalism; in youth culture and sport; in education system … (p. 6).

Indeed, it has been recurrent in the last few years for scholars to point out theever-growing number of non-native speakers (NNSs) and learners of English in theworld. English has become the global de facto language for communication amongpeople from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

To analyze the spread of English, Kachru (1982, 1985, 1988, 1992) presents hisThree Circles Model: the Inner Circle where English is used as a native language;the Outer Circle where English is used as a second language; and the ExpandingCircle where English is used as a foreign language. The three circles represent “thetypes of spread, the patterns of acquisition, and the functional allocation of Englishin diverse culture contexts” (Jenkins 2009, p. 18). The Inner Circle (e.g., the USA,the UK, etc.) is the traditional cultural and linguistic base of English and thusnorm-providing. The Outer Circle, mainly including countries that were typicallyBritish or American colonies and where English continues to be a dominant lan-guage after their independence for the majority of its people, is norm-developing.The Expanding Circle, where English is not acquired since early childhood butrather learned in schools by its people, is norm-dependent.

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. and Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press 2018Z. Huang, Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers in China,DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-5284-2_1

1

Considering the vast number of English as a second language (ESL) and Englishas a foreign language (EFL) English language speakers, there is little doubt that themajority of English teachers are non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs)because the ESL and EFL speakers would have been taught mainly by indigenousNNESTs. Actually, Braine (1999), and Graddol (2006) both state that the majorityof trained ESL/EFL teachers in the world are NNSs of English. Even in the US,although the majority of ESL professionals are native speakers (NSs) of English,there is a growing body of ESL professionals whose first language is not English(Liu 1999).

In spite of the fact that the majority of English teachers in the world areNNESTs, issues concerning NNESTs were not raised until Medgyes (1983, 1992,1994) opened the floor for research in this field. Combining research with his ownexperience as a NNEST and teacher educator, and his observations of otherNNESTs, he discusses the differences between NESTs and NNESTs. Almost at thesame time, Phillipson (1992), in his very famous book Linguistic Imperialism,problematizes the hegemony of native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) as the“native speaker fallacy.” Hereafter, we witness a surge in academic research andpublications on NESTs and NNESTs and their status in the language teachingprofession. Several anthologies have been published, such as Non-native Educatorsin English Language Teaching (Braine 1999), and Non-native Language Teachers:Perceptions, Challenges, and Contributions to the Profession (Llurda 2005). InMoussu and Llurda’s (2008) state-of-the-art article “Non-native English-speakingEnglish Language Teachers: History and Research,” there are 165 items in the listof references. The focus of these publications includes the self-perceptions ofNNESTs, (e.g., Amin 1997; Medgyes 1983, 1992, 1994; Reves and Medgyes 1994;Samimy and Brutt-Griffler 1999), the perceptions of the ESL/EFL students (e.g.,Benke and Medgyes 2005; Cheung 2002; Lasagabaster and Sierra 2005; Mahboob2003), and TESOL education for both NESTs and NNESTs (e.g., Liu 1998).However, research on this topic has been conducted mainly in ESL conditions witha few exceptions (e.g., Butler 2007a, b; Llurda and Huguet 2003; Medgyes 1992,1994). Will the findings of these studies also be applied in the EFL contexts, that it,the Expanding Circle, considering it brings to English an entirely differentdimension?

As a country belonging to the Expanding Circle, China has made English acompulsory subject from Grade Three onwards (Nunan 2003). According to recentstatistics, about 230 million students are enrolled in primary, secondary, andtertiary-level education in China (Wen and Hu 2007). Undoubtedly, the majority ofthese students are taught by Chinese English teachers (CETs). Considering the factthat the number of Chinese English learners probably outnumbers the total popu-lation of the United States and Britain combined (Kirkpatrick 2007), that thenumber of CETs has increased from an estimated 850 in 1957 to well over half amillion today (Bolton 2003) and that so far only a few studies have investigated theNEST/NNEST issue in China (e.g., Barratt and Kontra 2000; Lou 2008; Wang2006), it is reasonable to say that the voices of English learners and teachers inChina have not been adequately reported.

2 1 Introduction

I am eager to know the Chinese English teachers’ and learners’ responses to theNEST/NNEST issue. What does the native speaker (NS) construct mean to them?What are the characteristics of and differences between these two groups of teachersin their eyes? How do CETs (re)construct their professional identity in the glob-alizing China? Are their views similar to or different from their counterparts in ESLcontexts? How do the actual classroom practices of the two groups of teachersmatch or reflect students’ perceptions and CETs’ self-perceptions? Therefore, byexamining the self-perceptions of CETs, the perceptions of Chinese learners, andthe actual practices of the two groups of teachers in the classroom, this book aims totackle the above-mentioned questions. The aims and research questions of thecurrent research project will be detailed in Sect. 1.3 after I delineate the context ofthis research.

1.2 Contextualizing the Study

1.2.1 Globalization and ELT in China

1.2.1.1 A Brief History of ELT in China

ELT in China has been through some dramatic ups and downs because of theoverall sociopolitical changes in the country. China’s politics and relations withwestern powers have by and large determined the role and status of ELT in China(Adamson 2004).

According to He (2005), the English language came into China together withwestern technology in the late nineteenth century and foreign subjects, known as“Yang Wu,” were introduced to the university examination system. Meanwhile,British and American missionaries began to come to China to spread Christianity,helping to spread English in the country especially to the poor. The interest inwestern technology and the more frequent contact with English speakers in the dailylife paved the way for ELT in China. In 1902, English language first entered thesecondary school curriculum together with German and Japanese, the aim of whichwas to “cultivate learners’ interest in the learning of another language and culture,and to enable learners to use English as a tool for other subjects” (Ibid., p. 12).

ELT experienced huge changes after the formation of the People’s Republic ofChina in 1949. The relationship between China and the western world at that timewas bitter and the main ally of China was the former Union of Soviet SocialistRepublics (USSR). Since education was viewed to serve the proletarian purpose, allcapitalist thinking, especially educational ideas from the United States and Britain,was condemned as unpatriotic. Therefore, the place of English in the school syl-labus was taken by Russian (Boyle 2000). Hu (2001) reports that in 1953, seven outof eight English language departments in normal universities were closed down andin the following year, the teaching of foreign languages in junior secondary school

1.1 Personal Interest in This Topic 3

was abolished and the Russian language became the only foreign language to betaught in senior secondary schools. However, this period did not last long. A fewyears later, with ideological differences arising between the Chinese governmentand the USSR government and the deterioration of the relationship between the twogovernments, English came back gradually to the school curriculum. Due toChina’s long isolation from the outside world, the emphasis of ELT then was notfunctional use but literature appreciation and basic language skills (He 2005).

ELT was banned again during the Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976.Schools were virtually shut down from 1966 to 1968 and universities remainedclosed until 1971. Popular slogans concerning ELT that were circulated at that timewere “I am Chinese. Why do I need foreign languages?” and “Don’t learn ABC.Make revolution!” (Qun and Li 1991). Teachers were very reluctant to teachEnglish language classes and students, too, were unwilling to learn English. Insome schools, students were still taking English lessons only for political purpose—English was regarded as a “weapon” for political struggle (He 2005).

More recently, the open-door policy implemented in the late 1970s has broughtabout important changes in ELT in China. The fact that modernization of thesociety needs consistent updating of information, which is mainly done throughEnglish, has made English language dominant among other foreign languages in thesyllabus. The development of ELT in China since this period has been closelyrelated to globalization. Next I will discuss globalization first and then its influenceon ELT in China.

1.2.1.2 Globalization

Globalization is a word that appears in many different contexts. While general-izations may be difficult, many acknowledge that globalization refers to our worldshrunken by advanced communication, transportation, and mobility (Watkins2006). More people are connecting with other people more often, more broadly, andfaster than ever before.

Globalization implies increased local diversity influenced by human contactacross geographical boundaries as well as speedy exchange of commodities andinformation (Kubota 2002). While globalization projects the image of diversity, italso implies homogenization influenced by global standardization of economicactivities and a flow of cultural goods from the center to the periphery.Globalization reconstitutes the world as a single space where advanced commu-nications allow local events and culture to be shaped by influences in other parts ofthe world (Beck 2012). There appears to be a world order forging social control,creating standards of normative behavior and whipping the world into conformity(Giddens 1991).

Appadurai (1990) proposes a theory that moves beyond traditional notions ofglobalization as a process of homogenization, an engulfing of the peripheries by thecenter. Appadurai shifts the focus from an analysis of capital to the culturaldimension of globalization, in particular, the movement of people migration and

4 1 Introduction

information. His theory challenges the binary center–periphery model of worldsystem theory, in which forces of western modernity penetrate and absorbperipheral cultures. He dismisses homogenization and simplistic explanations forcultural flows, positing a process of indigenization which adapts and changes aglobal idea, activity, or object when assimilated into a local community (Beck2012).

Rather than being a homogenizing force to essentialize the local, the nature ofglobalization is uneven and has various impacts. Accordingly, when we try tounderstand globalization, a concrete understanding of the local becomes critical(Wang 2007). Being local is one of the most important and meaningful of allconcepts related to globalization. As Pennycook (2010) points out, everythinghappens locally. The idea of global–local dialectics does not refer to a wholedivided into opposing halves, but rather refers to “the true basis and possiblecontext that appears as globalization actually happens” (Wang 2007, p. 24). This iswhat Robertson (1995) calls “glocality”—what results when the process of glob-alization is observed from a local context. This complex interaction and synthesis ofglobalizing and localizing tendencies means that the boundaries of local and globalas separate entities have become blurred. One cannot exist without the other andeach must be understood as part of the other (Edwards and Usher 2000).

Globalization is not all about economy but it will naturally lead to a new eco-nomic order, which is termed as informationalism by Castell (1996). In this neworder, people’s lives are increasingly affected by “international networks, operatingvia financial markets, transnational corporations, and the Internet, that impinge ontraditional seats of authority and meaning, such as family, patriarchy, and nation”(Warschauer 2000, p. 512).

The literature strongly supports the argument that globalization is making itsmark on education (e.g., Bartell 2003; Cambridge 2002; Carnoy 2000; Edwards andUsher 2000; Unterhalter and Carpentier 2010). Carnoy (2000) categorizes theimpact of globalization along three main dimensions: (1) pressures to reduce publicspending on education; (2) pressures to expand higher education and correspond-ingly to increase the number of secondary school graduates; and (3) pressures toparticipate in international comparisons of educational systems, which has “in-creased emphasis on math and science curricula, standards, testing, and on meetingstandards by changing the way education is delivered” (p. 44). According to Tarc(2012, pp. 9–10), each of these impacts can be related back to the increasing tiesbetween education and economic principles. The first kind of impact relates directlyto the pressure for countries to reduce all forms of public spending relative to theprivate sector. The reduction of spending in public education and privatization ofschooling fit well within “neoliberal ideologies calling for the reduced role of thenation-state under market rationalization of schooling.” The second pressure relatesto “the understanding of the payoffs for higher level of education within theemerging knowledge economy” in the information age. To attract foreign capitalinvestments in a knowledge-intensive economy, governments need “a ready supplyof highly skilled labor and the conditions for the on-going production of such

1.2 Contextualizing the Study 5

highly skilled labor power.” The third pressure is significant in the domain ofeducational curriculum and outcomes. In general, particular subject areas “mostconnected to the market or production are more highly valued and marketed” andthe international comparisons “add to the hype around global competitiveness in aknowledge-based economy.”

In the era of globalization, we are surrounded by “images, messages, news bytes,and constant reminders that we are part of ‘one world’” (Beck 2012, p. 134). Thesemobilities and flows are exerting an enormous influence on many aspects of ourlife, education included. Next I will discuss the impact of globalization on ELT inChina.

1.2.1.3 Globalization and ELT in China

Globalization is the given fact of the world and schools are committed to preparingchildren for this future-to-come. Modern ELT in China is closely related to glob-alization. First, the current attitude towards English is the most positive in Chinesehistory and ELT in China today is thus characterized by enthusiasm and scale.Globalization and the spread of English are actually closely connected. In the era ofglobalization we see the rapid spread of English as an international language. AsCrystal (1997) points out, no language has ever had so many speakers and playedsuch a broad range of roles, locally as well as internationally. Accordingly, therecent growth of ELT in China has been phenomenal. Chinese people haveembraced the study of English in recent decades with fervor. Following theopen-door policy in the late 1970s, the entry into the WTO in 2001, BeijingOlympics in 2008, and Shanghai Expo in 2010, ELT has been enjoying unprece-dented popularity in China. The current attitude towards English has never been sopositive in Chinese history and the desire to learn English among the educated andurban Chinese is astounding: the number of Chinese learning English probablyoutnumbers the total population of the United States and Britain combined(Kirkpatrick 2007) and the number of English teachers in China has exponentiallyincreased from less than 1000 in 1957 to over half a million today (Bolton 2003).Especially with China’s entry into the WTO, English has become not only a subjectin the school, but an instrument for work and daily communication (He 2005).Today English is viewed as most important for the modernization of the countryand for international understanding and influence (Kirkpatrick 2007). As Hu(2005a) summarizes, on the national level, ELT has been viewed by the Chineseleadership as having a vital role to play in national modernization and development;on the individual level, proficiency in English can lead to a host of economic,social, and educational opportunities. Because of the prominence accorded toEnglish and the escalating demand for English proficiency, huge national andindividual efforts and resources have been invested in ELT. Today, English isfirmly established as a core subject in secondary schools nationwide and in theprimary curriculum in developed regions.

6 1 Introduction

Second, with globalization and the apparent widespread perception that Englishhas become a global language, ELT policies and practices in China have changedaccordingly. Nunan (2003) carried out a study about educational policies andpractices in seven Asian countries and regions. All five EFL countries and regions:China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam showed some similarities in their ELTreforms. For example, the age at which English is a compulsory subject has shifteddown in all five EFL areas and all the educational systems have officially subscribedto some form of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in their top-downefforts to enhance the effectiveness of ELT.

In China, specifically, the Ministry of Education (MOE) issued a decreerequiring primary schools to offer an English course from Primary Three graduallyextending from cities to counties from the autumn of 2001; and from the autumn of2002, primary schools in small towns and villages would also be required to offeran English course from Primary Three (MOE 2001a). Meanwhile, the organizedpromotion of English medium instruction at higher level of education has startedsince the turn of this century. For example, the document Requirements forImproving the Quality of the Bachelor’s Program, issued by the MOE in 2001,promotes the use of English as a medium of instruction for biological and infor-mation technology, and courses such as finance and law which are closely linkedwith China’s entry into the WTO (Wen and Hu 2007). The use of English as amedium of instruction in China’s educational institution has gathered “greatmomentum in the last few years and is now sweeping across the educationallandscape” (Hu 2009, p. 47).

Another major component of the ELT reform in China is the top-down pro-motion of an imported methodology—CLT, which is actually a response to in-formationalism. The increased global contact in the new-networked society—through international tourism, business, scientific exchange, and media—places apremium on the ability to communicate in a lingua franca. The emphasis in thecommunicative approach on functional interaction corresponds to the imperativesof the new society, in which English is shared among many groups of speakers,native as well as non-native. Globally, the communicative approach has become thedominant one within the field of ELT, at least in theory, if not in practice(Warschauer 2000). In China, an examination of the nationally and locally devel-oped syllabuses reveals that the syllabuses have increasingly gravitated towardsCLT (Adamson and Morris 1997; Hu 2002a). This trend is most apparent in theEnglish Curriculum Standards issued in 2001 (MOE 2001b), which stronglyadvocates task-based teaching, the latest methodological realization of commu-nicative pedagogy (Hu 2005a).

In this era of globalization, English has become, as Dougill (2008) concludes inconnection with Japan, “the language of success, profit and international accept-ability” (p. 18) in China. Accordingly, ELT in China enjoys unprecedented pop-ularity, which is a reflection of the country’s internationalization/globalization andfascination with western cultures (Li and Moreira 2009). Meanwhile, the mostsubstantial reforms have taken place in ELT to make it meet the requirements ofglobalization both for the country and for the individual.


1.2.2 Culture of Learning and CETs’ Classroom Practices

1.2.2.1 Culture of Learning

Jin and Cortazzi (2006) define culture of learning as “taken-for granted frameworksof expectations, attitudes, values, and beliefs about how to teach or learn suc-cessfully and about how to use talk in interaction” (p. 9). A culture of learningframes what teachers and students expect to happen in the classroom and howclassroom interactions should be accomplished as part of the social conventions.Similarly, Hu (2002b) describes culture of learning as “philosophical assumptionsabout the nature of teaching and learning, perceptions of the respective roles of andresponsibilities of teachers and students, learning strategies encouraged, and qual-ities valued in teachers and students” (p. 93). Culture of learning thus establishesparadigms of what are thought to be normal in classrooms and these differ fromcontext to context.

Many researchers support the view that Confucian values significantly influencesociocultural attitudes that affect learning practices in China (e.g., Bond 1991; Jinand Cortazzi 2006; Watkins and Biggs 1996; Yao 2000). In Confucian ideology,education is seen in terms of “cultural transmission, service to society, and moraltransformation” (Jin and Cortazzi 2006, p. 12). According to Jin and Cortazzi(Ibid.), the teacher is often regarded as an authoritative parent to whom respect andobedience are due and learning takes a transmission model in which heavy mem-orizing and disciplined reciting of texts are common. A predominant role forlearners is to listen and watch carefully and to make a strong effort to learn andremember. Therefore, Chinese learners have often been stereotyped as quiet,reserved, and passive learners and the English classroom has been defined asdominantly teacher-centered and grammar-focused (Hu 2002b; Yu 2001). Inaccordance with the Confucian dictum: “to learn and never think—that’s delusion;but to think and never learn—that is perilous indeed” (Hinton 1998, as cited in Jinand Cortazzi 2006, p. 14), the Chinese learners believe in skill development firstand then there is something to be creative with, which might be able to explainChinese learners’ reluctance to express their critique until they feel they havemastered the material under consideration (Biggs 1996). In other words, Chinesestudents see themselves “primarily as learners, whose critical analysis should waituntil they are in possession of all the facts” (Stanley 2013, p. 16).

Stereotyping Chinese learners may be misleading and many scholars have cri-tiqued these views. For example, Shi’s (2006) survey findings indicated that sec-ondary school students in Shanghai showed little difference from their Westerncounterparts: they were active learners, preferring a more interactive relationshipwith their teachers, and they were willing to participate in classroom activities.

8 1 Introduction

1.2.2.2 CETs’ Classroom Practices

As far as teaching is concerned, since the traditional Chinese ideology of learningconceives education more as a process of knowledge accumulation than a processof using knowledge for immediate purpose, the preferred model of teaching is amimetic or epistemic one that emphasizes knowledge transmission (Hu 2002b).This ideology favors teacher-centered practices such as Grammar-TranslationMethod (GT) and Audiolingual Method (ALM). In the more developed areas, CLTpractices also have some presence in the English classrooms (Hu 2005b).

GT is a way of studying a language that approaches the language “first throughdetailed analysis of its grammar rules, followed by application of this knowledge tothe task of translating sentences and texts into and out of the target language”(Richards and Rodgers 2001, p. 5). As Howatt (1984) points out, GT is not nec-essarily the horror that its critics depicted it as being. Contemporary textbooks forthe teaching of foreign languages at the college level often reflect GT principles.However, though it may be true to say that GT is still widely practised, it has noadvocates (Richards and Rodgers 2001).

ALM resulted from the increased attention given to foreign language teaching inthe United States toward the end of the 1950s. The theory of learning that underliesALM is behaviorism, which views a human being as an organism capable of a widerepertoire of behaviors. Reinforcement is regarded as a vital element in the learningprocess, because it increases the likelihood that the behavior will occur again andeventually become a habit. According to Richards and Rodgers (2001), dialoguesand drills form the basis of ALM classroom practices.

Rather than viewing language as a formal, rule-governed system in ALMpractices, CLT views language as communication. CLT originated from two centralconcepts, functions of language and communicative competence. Halliday (1975)proposes that language learning should not be limited to mere structures or forms.The function achieved by a certain grammatical structure can be understood only bylooking at situations in which the language is used and what the social roles of thespeakers are in terms of their interpersonal relations. A communicatively competentspeaker knows whether and to what degree something is formally possible andcontextually appropriate. The goal of language learning is to develop what Hymes(1972) refers to as “communicative competence”—the appropriate language use aspeaker needs to know.

Research has shown that, in spite of the eager top-down promotion of CLT, GTand ALM are still dominant in the actual practices in Chinese English classrooms(e.g., Hu 2002b, 2005b; Li and Baldauf 2011; Rui and Chew 2013; Zhao 2005).The findings of a recent study carried out by Li and Baldauf (2011) have shown thatthe factors that constrain the implementation of CLT, such as large class sizes,limited teacher proficiency, insufficient resources and instructional time, examina-tion pressure, and cultural resistance, largely remain the same. Analyses of ChineseEnglish classrooms have shown some characteristic interaction patterns, includingclear teacher explanations and presentation of models; high-paced, varied and


Native and Non- Native English Speaking Teachers in China

Documents

Transcript of Native and Non- Native English Speaking Teachers in China