An Analysis of the Impact of Native and Nonnative English Language Teachers on Secondary Level Students’ Communicative Competence.
Introduction of Research Scholar Introduction of Supervisor
Name:- Seemab Gul Name: – Sir Irfan Abbas
Roll No: -26 Designation: – Assistant Professor
Class: – M.Phil English Linguistics Department: – English
Department: – English Linguistics Institution: – MUL, Lahore
Session: – 2017-2019
Department of English
Faculty of languages
MINHAJ UNIVERSITY LAHORE
Hamdard chowk Township Lahore
Program: M. Phil Session: 2015-2017 Spring
Subject: Applied Linguistics
Name of Student: Seemab Gul Roll No: 26
Father’s name: Noor Ali Jan
Topic of Research
An Analysis of the Impact of Native and Nonnative English Language Teachers on Secondary Level Students’ Communicative Competence.
Introduction
From last seven decades several pattern has been added to facilitate the getting to know English as a far off language. Currently a days the goal of English language is obtainment communication ability. Consequently, now great emphasis has been placed In spoken English students has to face many issues. For effective speaking student should be ready to made the predicted styles of spoken language. For delivering correct messages, it’s necessary to decide on correct vocabulary or emphasize to clarify the outline. If want, use accurate facial expressions for showing pride and discontent.
Some researcher argue that the character of speaking construct the only and perfect instructors to reveal language in EFL( English as a far off language) or ESL( English as second language) contexts. The local speaker has exact command on idiomatic utterance and features capability to accept and un accept versions of the language. The nonnative, English teachers display poorer capability in speaking skills. They usually having downside with pronunciation, conversational expressions and features certain sure issues of vocabulary.
Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the study are as follows:
1 To find out native English –speaking teachers are higher or not than non-native English speaking teachers in speaking skills.
2 To know the impact of nonnative English language trainer on students’ pronunciation and vocabulary.
3 To find out however language historical past Portage the speech intelligibility of nonnative speakers.
4 To find out the exposure of pronunciation to all or any variety of accents on students speaking skills.
Significance
1. The present study will help to highlight these factors and know how these factors
influence spoken learning process.
2. Findings of study will also help intermediate learners’ to minimize those factors which
are hurdles in speaking second language.
3. This study aims to bring on surface the attitudes and motivations which effect students’ speaking skills both in positive and negative way.
Hypothesis of the Study
1. Students’ speaking skills are affected by non-native English language teacher in pronunciation, vocabulary and fluency.
2. Awareness of these factors might produce better and successful students speaking capability.
Literature review
1. Tang (1997)considers native ESL (English as second language) teachers superior to nonnative teachers in pronunciation, listening and in vocabulary. He compared the advantages and disadvantages of NEST’s and NNEST’s on students spoken skills.
2. Clayton (2000) is of the view that students spend their a lot time in figuring out meaning of difficult words and NEST’s spend much time in clearing the meanings of conveyed messages.
3. Nunan (1991) wrote ‘success is measured in terms of ability to perform a verbal exchange inside the target language’
4. Gass and Selinker consider teacher as a material and other as a primary sources for foreigner language learners.
5. Luck (2001) find NEST’s valuable integer to the students on the basis of linguistics model. Native speaker teachers were welcomed. The subject being taught by NEST’s increased their linguistics skills.
6. Jenkins (2000) is of the view that English is international language; more commonly used by non-native speakers.
7. Mydeges (1992) claimed that while teaching non-native English speaking teacher mainly has difficulties in speaking and pronunciation.
8. Kelch and Santana Williamson (2002)consider NNEST as role model and claimed that native speakers proved more skillful, educated and experienced in speaking and listening skills.
9. Lee (2004) investigated the influence of native language background on speech capability of non-native speakers.
10. Butler (2007) find the effect of accent of teachers on their students speaking skills.
Research Gap
It is observed that a huge work has been done in this area. Researchers have explained their own results. This study is important as the researcher will deeply analyze the students’ skills and motivation in Pakistani context. There is a lot of work done on this topic in other countries but in our country this aspect has been neglected and needs more research.
Research Questions
Following are the questions of study:
1. What is the impact of Non-native and native teachers on students’ communicative competence?
2. What is the impact of teachers’ accent on their students’ spoken skills?
3. What is the impact of assessment among Native speaking teachers and non native speaking teachers on students’ communicative competence?
4. What is the impact of assessment amongst NNEST’s and NEST’s on students’ pronunciation , accuracy and fluency?
1. My study is quantitative in nature.
2. The target population of the study will be all public and private secondary schools in Lahore city.
3. A representative sample will be taken randomly. Ten schools will be selected and five female teachers will be selected from each school. Five students of 9th and 10th classes from each school will be selected.
4. An interview will be conducted from teachers and students. An observation will also be conducted.
5. The statistical tools t-test will be used for data analysis.
Limitations
Due to lack of time and financial constraints, the study will be delimited to college in district Lahore. There are many factors affecting students speaking skills This take a look at illustrates that the non-native teachers do not have a tremendous impact on students’ performance in speaking.
Proposed Chapters for Thesis
Chapter 1
Introduction
Chapter 2
Literature review
Chapter
Research Methodology / Data Collection
Chapter4
Data Analysis/Results/Discussion/Conclusion
Chapter5
Bibliography
Bibliography
Ahmed, J., &Jamshaid, F. (2014). Intrinsic motivation an analysis for elite Pakistani athletes of various major sports and games. Journal of Management Info, 3(1), 47-57.
Chambers, G. N. (1999). Motivating language learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Clement, G.,Dornyei, Z., &Noels A.K. (1994), Motivation, self-confidence and group cohesion in second language classroom. Language Learning, 44, 417-448.
Crookes, G., &Schmidt, R.W. (1991), Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. LanguageLearning, 41(4), 469-512.
Dörnyei, Z. (1990), Conceptualizing motivation in foreign-language learning.Language Learning, 40(1), 45-78.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994), Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. ModernLanguage Journal, 78(3), 273-284.
Dornyei, Z. (2003), Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in languagelearning: Advances in theory, research and applications. Language Learning, 53(1), 3-32.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation.London: Edward Arnold.
Haitema, T. B. (2002). Student Attitude Vis a Vis Foreign Language in the Elementary School (FLES): A Longitudinal Study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Iftikhar, M., & Qureshi, M.I. (2014). Modeling the workplace bullying the mediator of “workplace climate-employee health” relationship. Journal of Management Info, 4(1), 96-124.
Krashen, S.D. (1981).Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. London: English Language Teaching Series.
Liu, M. (2007). Chinese students’ motivation to learn English at the tertiary level. Asian EFL Journal, 9,126-146.
Malallah, S. (2000). English in an Arabic environment: Current attitudes to English among Kuwait Universitystudents. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1, 19-43.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050008667698
Mantle-Bromley, C. (1995). Positive attitudes and realistic beliefs: Links to proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 372-386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb01114.x
Oxford, R. &Shearin, J. (1994) Language learning motivation: Expanding the theory framework, The Modern Language Journal, 78, 12-28.
Petrides, J. R. (2006). Attitudes and motivation and their impact on the performance of young English as aforeign language learners. Journal of Language and Learning, 5, 1-20.
Willams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jenkins, J. (1998). Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an international language? ELT Journal, 52(2), 119-126. Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jesry, M.M (2005). Theoretically-based practical recommendations for improving EFL/ESL students’ pronunciation. Language & Translation Journal, 18, 1-33, Kachru, B. (ed.) (1992). The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures (2nd ed). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kamhi-Stein, L. (1999). Preparing nonnative professionals in TESOL: Implications for teacher education programs. In Braine (ed) Nonnative Educators in English Language Teaching, (pp 145–158.) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Kelch, K. & Santana-Williamson, E. (2002). ESL students’ attitudes towards native and nonnativespeaking instructors’ accents. CATESOL Journal, 14(1), 57–72. Lado, R. (1964). Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill Lee, I. (2004). Preparing nonnative English speakers for EFL teaching in Hong Kong. In Kamhi-Stein (ed.), Learning and Teaching from Experience, (pp. 230- 250). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Luk, J. (2001). Exploring the socio cultural implications of the Native English- speaker Teacher Scheme in Hong Kong through the eyes of the students. Asian Pacific Journal of Language in Education, 4(2), 19-50. Madrid, D. & Canado, M. (2004). Teacher and student preferences of native and Nontaive foreign language teacher. Porta Linguarum 2, 125-138. Retrieved June9t 14, 2012 from http://www.ugr.es/~portalin/articulos/PL_numero2/ 7%20Preferences%20for%20native%20and%20no nnative%20FL%20teachersD%20Madrid%20&%2 0M%20L%20P%20Cagnado.pdf Mahboob, A. (2003). Status of nonnative Englishspeaking States.teachers in the United Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. McLaren, P.B (2008). Native speaker and English medium evaluation: Fallacy or practical necessary? The Proceedings of the 13th International TESOL Arabia Conference. (317-331), Dubai, UAE
Medgyes, P. (1992).Native or Non-native: Who's Worth More? ELT Journal, 46(4), 340-49. Morley, J. (1991). The Pronunciation Component in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. TESOL Quarterly 25(3), 481-520. Nayar, P. B. (1994). Whose English is it? The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 1(1). Retrieved May 10, 2012) http://www.teslej.org/wordpress/issues/volume1/ej 01/ej01f1/ Nunan, D. (1991).Language Teaching Methodology Series: A Textbook for Teachers. New York: Prentice Hall Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. (1996). ELT: The native speaker's burden. In T. Hedge & N. Whitney (Eds.), Power, Pedagogy & Practice, (pp. 23-30). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rababah, G. (2001). An Investigation into the strategic competence of Arab learners of English at Jordanian University.
Name and signature of candidate
Seemab Gul_____
Name and Signatures of the Supervisor
Sir Irfan Abbas ________________
Report of the proposed Supervisor
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Semester 3-(16 Weeks)
Work Plan
04 weeks Literature Review Comments by Supervisor
02 weeks Methodology Do
08 weeks Data Collection Do
02weeks Data Analysis Do