Aspects of Language Teaching by Mixed Teaching Teams - Coursework Example

? Literature Review on Aspects of Language Teaching by Mixed (Native/Non-Native) Teaching Teams. Literature Review on Aspects of Language Teaching byMixed (Native/Non-Native) Teaching Teams. Introduction Co-teaching involves two or more professionals who deliver substantive Instruction to a diverse group of students in a single classroom. As such, collaboration and sharing of responsibilities between the professionals is a necessary prerequisite. There have been a number of studies that focussed on the role of both native-speaking English teachers and non-native English teachers in the teaching-learning process of language. Many researchers have tried to answer the question whether it is the NETs or the LETs who are best suited in EFL teaching. However, recent researches and experiments have clearly demonstrated that language teaching by mixed (Native/Non-Native) teaching teams has been highly effective. Team teaching by native and non-native teaching teams have successfully been implemented in such nations as Japan, Thailand, and China. It has also been identified that team teaching by mixed teams enhances the students’ cross-cultural understanding and listening, fosters a genuine need for students to communicate through the target language and that it enhances the professional development of teachers and promotes innovative teaching. The following literature review seeks to explore the various aspects of collaborative language teaching by mixed teams that comprise of native and non-native English teachers. Collaborative EFL teaching: Roles of NETs and LETs Carless (2007) has made some remarkable studies on collaborative EFL teaching in primary schools in Hong Kong undertaken by foreign native-speaking English teachers and their local counterparts. Studies have shown that native-speaking English teachers (NETs) and local English teachers (LETs) possess complementary attributes; while the NETs “create a genuine need for students to communicate through the target language” the LETs are well-equipped to communicate through the learners’ mother tongue (Carless, 2007, p. 328). The database for the study included “a short open-ended questionnaire survey of 47 LETs; email and face-to-face interviews carried out with 12 NET and 8 LET teachers; three interviews with key personnel involved in primary NET schemes; and classroom observations of six team-taught lessons in schools” (Carless, 2007, p. 329). The findings of the study showed that team teaching has great impact on pupils and that it enhances the professional development of teachers and fosters innovative teaching. The open-ended questionnaire survey with the 47 LETs clearly demonstrated that the presence of the NETs in team teaching has had great positive impact on the teaching-learning process. However, in terms of innovative teaching, the data obtained displayed mixed responses. While the NETs claimed that they were carrying out quite innovative teaching that is communicative and less traditional, majority of the LETs for many of them were sticking on to drilling and testing regimes. On the other hand, the LETs regarded the NETs as more of creative and innovative in their approaches and strategies. In terms of professional development, several LETs claimed that their team teaching with the NETs has given them a unique opportunity to enhance their own professional competencies in team teaching. However, many of the local teachers found it extremely time consuming to co-plan and team teach with the native teachers. The implications of the study point out that impact of team teaching by native and local teachers on pupils was quite positive even though the implementation of innovative teaching and the extent of professional development of LETs varied from one participant to another. Similarly, the study also emphasised that team-teaching participants are trained and experienced in ELT methods, collaborative forms of teaching and that they should have better interpersonal skills to work together. Mixed Team Teaching: The Chinese Model Carless & Walker (2006) also deal elaborately with effective team teaching between local and native-speaking English teachers in Hong Kong secondary schools. The researchers, analysing a number of case studies of selected practitioners, purport that successful collaboration between NETs and LETs necessitates ‘some inter-and intra-personal factors facilitating the team teaching’ without which such team teaching will not be fruitful. Another remarkable study conducted by the MLA Ad Hoc Committee stressed on the importance of translingual and transcultural competence in language teaching for the native-English teachers as it regards language as “a complex multifunctional phenomenon that links an individual to other individuals, to communities, and to national cultures” (MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages, 2007, p. 2). Liu (2008), in this respect, argues that co-teaching between native English teachers (NETs) and non-native English teachers (NNETs) benefits the NETs the most as it improves their teaching quality considerably. Similarly, Liu observes that the presence of the native English teachers has benefited the Chinese students in terms of the progresses they made in pronunciation, communicative competence, and cross-cultural awareness. However, studies have shown that NETs without professional training to teach English to students often proved to be failures as their quality of English teaching was quite unsatisfactory. The author propagates four co-teaching models which should be sequentially introduced in Chinese EFL classrooms. The four models are-“One Teaching-One Assisting”, “Alternative Teaching”, “Station Teaching” and “Team Teaching”. It is also significant to discuss strategies on how to create effective teaching with a view demonstrate to the NETs “how co-teachers with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds can create a dynamic teaching team and improve the quality of their teaching” (Liu, 2008, p. 103). Rationale for Team Teaching The greatest rationale for introducing team teaching in the Chinese primary school context is that “co-teaching implemented by NETs and NNETs together will greatly benefit students because NETs are expected to provide adequate feedback on correct use of grammar and acceptability of particular uses of English, while NNETs are deemed to understand the learners’ needs and difficulties more” (Liu, 2008, p. 106). Hosseini (2010), in this respect, holds that "Competitive Team-Based Learning" (CTBL) is a highly effective and rational educational approach as it bridges the gap between theory and practice in language teaching. Advantages and Disadvantages of Co-teaching The advantages and disadvantages of Team teaching have widely been discussed in literature ever since the approach was employed in language teaching and no doubt it has enhanced the interaction between teachers and earners to a great extent. In team teaching the “emphasis is on student and faculty growth, balancing initiative and shared responsibility, specialization and broadening horizons, the clear and interesting presentation of content and student development, democratic participation and common expectations, and cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes” (Team Teaching - Advantages, Disadvantages, 2011). The teachers can easily develop conflict-resolution skills through mutual sharing, planning, cooperation, collaboration, coordination, and interdependence. All these assist the non-native local English teachers to strengthen their positives and weaken their negatives with regard to language teaching approaches and strategies. Similarly, team teaching offers a unique opportunity for both the native and non-native English teachers to develop their professional competencies by sharing their insights, proposing new approaches and by challenging the existing assumptions regarding English language teaching or learning. It has also been observed that evaluation done by a group of teachers will bring about better outputs than individual self-evaluation by teachers. Studies have also proved that co-teaching is not only beneficial to students, but also to the participating teachers themselves because it promotes their career and personal development. Inexperienced teachers can also benefit from the positive aspects of mixed team teaching. As Liu observes: “ NETs are often unqualified as teachers, therefore co-teaching for them is initially a strategic approach to help them gain some teaching experience and a better understanding of teaching methodologies. As their teaching skills improve, NETs may adapt co-teaching into their teaching practice and address issues arising from the diverse or blended groups of students within the same classroom” (Liu, 2008, p. 108). However, team teaching does have its own limitations and disadvantages too. It has been identified that team teaching is too much time consuming and it demands so much energy from the part of the collaborating teachers. Similarly, it demands “mutually agreeable times for planning and evaluation” from the NETs and LETs; “discussions can be draining and group decisions take longer”; and, “rethinking the courses to accommodate the team-teaching method is often inconvenient” (Team Teaching - Advantages, Disadvantages, 2011). However, a critical evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of team teaching convinces one that its positives outweigh its negatives and as a result today more world nations especially the Asian nations are resorting to more of language teaching by mixed (Native/Non-Native) teaching teams. Factors Determining Effective Mixed Team Teaching Calderon (1999) makes it clear that “simply placing teachers in teams does not necessarily generate collegiality” with regard to team teaching; on the other hand, effective team teaching should take into account such factors as “the content of professional discourse, socio-cultural resources in the faculty, high-diversity learning communities, dual-language programs, and cooperation.” Medgyes (1992) observes that most of the studies on language teaching have been learner centred whereas teacher-related researches on the issue have been very much limited. Similarly, the author emphasises on the role played by native English teachers in the teaching-learning process of language. The researcher, thus, argues that “a non-native cannot aspire to acquire a native speaker's language competence” and that in English language teaching “native-and non-native-speaking teachers reveal considerable differences in their teaching behaviour and that most of the discrepancies are language-related”. Therefore, it is quite desirable that the most effective language teaching should be a joint venture of native as well as non-native English teachers. Team Teaching: The Korean Experience Butler (2007) deals elaborately with how the Korean elementary school children perceived American-accented English and Korean-accented English in their listening comprehension. The author made use of a matched-guised technique where the same American individual recorded an oral text both in American-accented English and Korean accented English. The results of the study showed that even though children could comprehend both the accents their preference was for the American-accented English guise as they perceived it to be more fluent and accurate. Indirectly, this study also highlights the concept of team teaching where students can very easily comprehend the differences in accent shown by their native and non-native language teachers. Team Teaching in Thailand Phothongsunan & Suwanarak (2008) conducted a remarkable study among 24 Thai English teachers (TETs) at tertiary level and their native English teacher (NET) counterparts. For this purpose the researchers employed an ‘ideology critique’ methodology. Responses were obtained from the participants through a questionnaire and a semi-structured interview. The results of the study pointed out that “that there are perceived differences between NETs and TETs in many principal aspects: earnings, required teaching qualifications, administrators’ viewpoints, as well as students’ perspectives” (Phothongsunan & Suwanarak (2008, p. 10). There was general agreement among the participants that native English teachers were ideal when it comes to pronunciation and accent. Similarly students also could benefit immensely from NETs in terms of developing their listening and speaking skills of the language. Thus, the researchers argue that language teaching by mixed (Native/Non-Native) teaching teams offers an ideal platform for Thai learners to grasp the language thoroughly. Similarly, most of the participants suggested an equal proportion of NETs and NNETs in the Workplace. Mixed Team Teaching Experience in Japan Koji Igawa has recorded EFL teachers’ views on team teaching among a group of Japanese English teachers during the summer of 2008. The researcher conducted a small-scale survey among 105 English teachers, including 74 Japanese Teachers of English (JTEs) and 31 Assistant Language Teachers (ALTs), the majority of whom were native speakers of English. The results of the study pointed out that both the JTEs and the ALTs who took part in the study admitted that team teaching contributes to “students’ cross-cultural understanding and listening and that motivation (of both teachers and students) and teachers’ professional expertise are two key factors that make TT work” (Igawa). Differences between the Native and Non-native Teachers: The “Native Speaker Fallacy” Medgyes, analysing the differences in teaching behaviour between native and non-native teachers of English, states that non-native teachers who usually lack fluency and are doubtful about appropriate language use tend to be “preoccupied with accuracy, the formal features of English, the nuts and bolts of grammar, the printed word, and formal registers” the native speakers speak better English and transacts the language in real life (Medgyes). As such a mixed teaching strategy involving both native and non-native speakers of English can address many of the language teaching related issues today. Braine (1999), on the other hand, repudiates the native speaker fallacy in language teaching. In fact, many of the international ELT enterprises are designed, defined and dominated by native teachers. However, it is a fact that the native speakers without the assistance of the local non-native teachers fail to grasp the cultural, social and linguistic needs of the learners. Therefore, it is high time one did away with the native speaker fallacy. For him, “the debunking of the native speaker fallacy can therefore liberate Periphery teachers to give more attention to the other serious concerns relating to their professional practice-such as the learning styles of their students, and the cultural traditions, social conditions, and economic needs of their communities” (Braine, 1999, p. 85). Llurda (2006) observes that language proficiency is a major component in language teaching whether it is non-native teachers or native teachers. However, studies have shown that the language proficiency of non-native speakers is often perceived as insufficient. For Llurda, this may lead “to the heightened anxiety level that non-native speaking teachers may experience due to their perceived insufficient language proficiency” (Llurda, 2006, p. 270). The author concludes by stating that one of the factors that determine the confidence level and the language proficiency in the target language is the native or non-native background of the language teachers. John Liang and Sydney Rice also argue that collaboration between native and non-native English-speaking educators is essential for effective second language teaching. The authors challenge the “native speaker fallacy” and argue that “native-speaker teachers’ inborn language proficiency should not automatically legitimize their teaching competence, nor should non-native speaker teachers’ non-native status automatically discredit both their language competence and language teaching competence” (Liang and Rice, 2006, p. 161). The author further argues that the independent socio-cultural identity of the team teaching members as native and non-native English speakers should give way to the formation of new identities that transcend their racial, linguistic and socio-cultural differences. Today, different uses of language are a necessary prerequisite in various social roles, occupations, and in many other different situations. In settings of mixed language teaching concepts such as the study of the language and the study of the society help the learners to comprehend the functional variations and choices within a particular language. Hans Heinrich Stern explores the possibilities of learning different language usages in language teaching. As the author points out, “Collectively the different varieties of language may be looked up on as different codes; in analogy to bilingualism. It is reasonable to describe native speakers who master more than one such code as ‘bicodal’ or ‘multicodal” (Stern, 1990, P. 125). Both native and non-native speakers in a mixed teaching team have their own language styles which provide variety of language uses, registers or domains. These differences bestow the learners to the opportunity to learn different language uses in accordance with various situations such as academic discussions, church uses, and advertising. Summary When it concludes, it is clear that both Native English speaking Teachers (NET) and Local English speaking Teachers (LET) endorse language teaching and one can easily comprehend their innovative teaching and learning strategies in language learning. Language teaching by Mixed (Native/Non-Native) teaching teams enhances the professional growth of both the parties and in co-teaching both native teachers and non-native teachers play complementary roles. Enhancing of professional competency and innovative teaching strategies act as positive factors in team teaching. Medgyes observes the implementation of a joint venture where both native and non-native English speaking teachers play equal roles in the process of language teaching. Variety of language usages helps the learner to prepare an effective platform for variety language uses based on various situations and social roles. The aspects of conflict-resolution skills permit both teachers and learners to practice mutual sharing, co-operation, coordination and collaboration. In a team teaching that involves both native and non-native speaking teachers, the learners can easily comprehend the exact accents and also identify the differences between their native accents and the target language. References Braine, George. (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Illustrated edn: Routledge. Butler, Y G. (Dec 2007). How Are Non-native-English-Speaking Teachers Perceived by Young Learners? TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect, 41(4), 731-755. Calderon, Margarita. (1999). Abstract: Teachers Learning Communities for Cooperation in Diverse Settings. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 94-99. Carless, David. (2007). Collaborative EFL teaching in primary schools. ELT Journal, 60(4), 328-335. Carless, D & Walker, E. (2006). Abstract: Effective Team Teaching between Local and Native-Speaking English Teachers. Language and Education, 20(6), 463-477. Hosseini, SMH. (2010). Abstract: Theoretical Foundations of "Competitive Team-Based Learning". English Language Teaching, 3(3). Retrieved 10 Feb. 11 from: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/7236 Igawa, Koji. EFL Teachers’ Views on Team-Teaching : In the Case of Japanese Secondary School Teachers. Retrieved Feb 11, 2011 from: http://www.shitennoji.ac.jp/ibu/images/toshokan/kiyo47-11.pdf Liang, J & Rice, S. (2006). Chapter 9: Forging New Identities: A Journey of Collaboration between Native and Non-native-English-Speaking Educators. Ed. Barron, N.G., Grimm, N.M and Sibylle Gruber. In Social change in diverse teaching contexts: touchy subjects and routine practices. Peter Lang: New York. Liu, Liwei. (2008). Co-teaching between native and non-native English teachers: An exploration of co-teaching models and strategies in the Chinese primary school context. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 7(2), 103–118. Llurda, Enric. (2006). Non-Native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the Profession. Illustrated edn: Springer. Medgyes, P. (1992). Abstract: Native or non-native: who's worth more? ELT Journal, 46(4), 340-349. Medgyes, P. When the Teacher is a Non-native Speaker. Retrieved 10 Feb 2011 from: http://teachesl.pbworks.com/f/When+the+teacher+is+a+non-native+speaker.PDF MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. (May 2007). Foreign Languages and Higher Education: New Structures for a Changed World. Retrieved 09 Feb. 11 from the Modern Language Association of America website: http://www.mla.org/pdf/forlang_news_pdf.pdf Phothongsunan, S & Suwanarak, K. (May-Aug 2008). Native and Non-native Dichotomy: Distinctive Stances of Thai teachers of English. ABAC Journal, 28(2), 10-30. Stern, H.H. (1990). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford University Press. Team Teaching - Advantages, Disadvantages. (2011). Net Industries and its Licensors. Retrieved 10 Feb. 11 from Education Encyclopaedia - StateUniversity.com website: http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2493/Team-Teaching.html Read More