A Qualitative Study Examining Macao’s Parents’ Attitude towards Native and Non-native English-speaking Teachers for Private Online Synchronous One-on-one English Lessons

Authors

  • Cheng Tak Chan Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences of City University of Macau, Macau, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/ret.v4i4.3712

Abstract

In terms of English learning, whether native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) surpass non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) or vice versa has been a heated topic. These two types of teachers have their own respective benefits and drawbacks with respect to English teaching. Most of the current related studies are on the traditional educational classroom setting in both secondary school and higher education. However, the study of the virtual learning platform as a method of teaching English is rare. This research displays valuable significance in identifying whether parents in Macao have a preference towards NESTs and NNESTs before they purchase the online synchronous one-on-one English lessons for their children. This qualitative study, after two participants were interviewed, concludes that they both prefer NESTs due to their authentic accent and pronunciation and believe it is more suitable in such a speaking-andlistening oriented online lesson. Price is not the prioritized factor to consider. They are generally satisfied with the teaching style of the online NESTs but it is also important to take note of the teaching approach conducted in the online lessons towards children, to ensure that it holds their interest appropriately.

Keywords:

Online English teachers; Native English-speaking teachers; Non-native English-speaking teacher

References

[1] Oblinger, D.G. and Hawkins, B.L. (2005) The Myth about E-Learning. Educause Review.

[2] Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Performance and perceptions of distance learners in cyberspace. American Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 15- 35.

[3] Hsboula, H. (2009). E-learning adoption: The role of relative advantages, trialability and academic specialization. Campus-Wide Information Systems. 26(1):54-70 https://doi. org10.1108/10650740910921564.

[4] Evans, C. and Fan, J.P., (2002) Lifelong Learning through the Virtual University. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 19, 127-134. http://dx.doi. org/10.1108/10650740210438810.

[5] Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ s15430421tip4102_2.

[6] Traxler, J. (2018). Distance Learning—Predictions and Possibilities. Education Sciences, 8, 35. http:// www.Mdpi.com/journal/education. https://doi. org/10.3390/educsci8010035.

[7] Dillenbourg, P. (2000). Workshop on Virtual Learning Environments. EUN Conference 2000: Learning in the new Millennium: Building new education strategies for schools. Retrieved 5 November 2012 from http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/ Dil.7.5.18.pdf.

[8] Bijeesh, N. A. (2017). Advantages and disadvantages of distance learning. Retrieved from http://www.indiaeducation.net/online-education/articles/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-distancelearning.html.

[9] Ruecker, T., & Ives, L. (2015). White native English speakers needed: The rhetorical construction of privilege in online teacher recruitment spaces. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 733- 756. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tesq.195.

[10] Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

[11] Moussu, L. & Llurda E. (2008). Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching. 41.

[12] Reves, T. & P. Medgyes (1994). The non-native English speaking EFL/ESL teacher’s self image: Aninternational survey. System 22.3, 353-357.

[13] Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the classroom. Cambridge: UK. Cambridge University Press.

[14] Lippi-Green, R. (1997): English With an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States. London; New York: Routledge, 1997.

[15] Chang, F.R. (2016). Taiwanese University Students’ Attitudes’ to Non-native Speakers English Teachers, TEFLIN Journal, Volume 27, Number 1.

[16] Jeon, M., & Lee, J. (2006). Hiring native-speaking English teachers in East Asian countries.

[17] 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.

[18] Wahyudi, R. (2012), Native Speaker versus Non-Native Speaker Teachers in TESOL.

[19] Walkinshaw, I., & Oanh, D. H. (2014). Native and non-native English language teachers: Student perceptions in Vietnam and Japan. Sage Open, 4(2), 2158244014534451.

[20] Mahboob, A., Uhrig, K., Newman, K. L., & Hartford, B. S. (2004). Children of a Lesser English: Status of Nonnative English Speakers as College-Level English as a Second Language Teachers in the United States. In L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and Teaching from Experience: Perspectives on Nonnative English-Speaking Professionals (pp. 100-120). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

[21] 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.), Non-native English teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession (pp. 217-241). New York: Springer.

[22] Qian, Y., & Jingxia, L. (2016). Chinese College Students’ Views on Native English and Non-Native English in EFL Classrooms. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7(4), 84-94.

[23] Krashen, S.D. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Pergamon Press Inc., Oxford.

[24] Jieyin, L., & Gajaseni, C. (2018). A Study of Students’ Preferences towards Native and Non-Native English Teachers at Guangxi University of Finance and Economics, China. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 11(2), 134-147.

[25] Wang, L. & Fang, F. (2020). Native-speakerism policy in English language teaching revisited: Chinese university teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards native and non-native English-speaking teachers, Cogent Education, 7:1, 1778374.

Downloads

Issue

Vol. 4 , Iss. 4 (November 2021)

Article Type

Articles

License

Copyright and Licensing

The authors shall retain the copyright of their work but allow the Publisher to publish, copy, distribute, and convey the work.

Review of Educational Theory publishes accepted manuscripts under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). Authors who submit their papers for publication by Review of Educational Theory agree to have the CC BY-NC 4.0 license applied to their work, and that anyone is allowed to reuse the article or part of it free of charge for non-commercial use. As long as you follow the license terms and original source is properly cited, anyone may copy, redistribute the material in any medium or format, remix, transform, and build upon the material.

License Policy for Reuse of Third-Party Materials

If a manuscript submitted to the journal contains the materials which are held in copyright by a third-party, authors are responsible for obtaining permissions from the copyright holder to reuse or republish any previously published figures, illustrations, charts, tables, photographs, and text excerpts, etc. When submitting a manuscript, official written proof of permission must be provided and clearly stated in the cover letter.
The editorial office of the journal has the right to reject/retract articles that reuse third-party materials without permission.

Journal Policies on Data Sharing

We encourage authors to share articles published in our journal to other data platforms, but only if it is noted that it has been published in this journal.