By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: Should non-native speakers teaching English in China have first hand western culture exposure?
Most Chinese people learning English have a dream to work or study in an English speaking country, or in a western company in China.
Therefore, it stands to reason that they want to learn about the English speaking countries that they want to go to or work with, and the western culture they want to be part of.
For the most part, learning about life in Africa, Latin America or other Asian countries is not part of their goal in learning English. There are a few exceptions, but by the large, most want to learn about life in the west, as well as learn standard English.
Most non-native speakers do not speak standard English. They speak one of the many World Englishes, associated with the culture of their home country.
Do you think non-native speakers, that haven't lived in a western country, can provide what the students expect?
Not really when 88 countries have english as the official language and only three of them are considered western Canada, New Zealand and South Africa.
Shining_brow:
England and the rest of the UK doesn't have English as its official language???
And then there's the US... IIRC, officially unofficial....
brisguy:
Technically Australia, USA, and the UK dont have English as its official language but as de-facto.
i am a non-native, and i can say i am super exposed to the western culture. check the history. now if you mean real exposure to your country, book them for flight. if you or they can afford.
I guess they should if they're going to teach students who expect a westerner, the usual westerner, whatever that means.
I love these woulda-coulda-shoulda questions.
Do I think they can provide what students expect? Me? No, obviously not, if the students expect some kind of authentic westerner.
What do you think?
What is your point?
Bap:
Bill8899 ironically hit it right. This is real not only in China but in Japan as well. What is the difference between "mother tongue" and "native language"?
During my TEFL training, my pairs who were born and grew up in the UK were sweating about grammar. I believe this applies to many so called native-speakers. To be a native speaker and speak at native level aren't the same? Should someone be refused the teaching position for not being a born-grown-in-white-speaking country?
There are people out there who can teach hip hop English as well as academic English yet, they are not white-native-speakers.
Sorry guys if I pinpoint the "white" speaker, I mean no offense at all, but it is what the facts speak of when you get Skype interview, or send your photo and they see that you are not W..., no follow-up ahahaha. I love this misjudgment sometimes :)
Schools can barely find native speakers, how common do you think Chinese teachers who can afford to vacation to the west, are? I'm sure it's a nice thing to have on a resume, but I doubt it's worth it for a job that pays 3,000RMB/month.
Western Culture is not a monopoly of the English speaking Countries at all.
Here is a Wikipedia definition. After that you tell me who and what is entitled to teach and not:
"
The Parthenon (Athens)
The Roman Forum (Rome)
The Supreme Court of the United States(Washington, D.C.)
The Western world, also known as the West and the Occident (from Latin: occidens "sunset, West"; as contrasted with the Orient), is a term referring to different nations depending on the context. There is no agreed upon definition about what all these nations have in common[1] apart from having a significant population of European descent and having cultures and societies heavily influenced by and connected to Europe.
The concept of the Western part of the earth has its roots in Greco-Roman civilization in Europe, with the advent of Christianity. In the modern era, the Western culture has been heavily influenced by the traditions of Renaissance, Protestant Reformation, Age of Enlightenment, and shaped by the expansive colonialism of the 15th-20th centuries. Its political usage was temporarily changed by an internal antagonism during the Cold War in the mid-to-late 20th Century (1947–1991).
The term originally had a literal geographic meaning, contrasting Europe with the linked cultures and civilizations of the Middle East, North Africa, Near East, South Asia, South East Asia and remote Far East, which used to be seen as the East by early-modern Europeans, but today this has little geographic relevance, since the USA and Canada are in the Americas, Russia expands to Northern Asia and Australia and New Zealand are part of Oceania.
In the contemporary cultural meaning, the Western world includes Europe, as well as many countries of European colonial origin with majority European populations in the Americas and Oceania, such as the United States of America, Canada,Argentina, Brazil, Australia and New Zealand.[2][3][4]"
Amonk:
Greek and Italian teachers would be disqualified from teaching English, since they aren't 'native speakers' in the Chinese definition. Perhaps people from those countries would be good at teaching about ancient history, but to be honest I'm not sure that's the type of culture that administrators and students are looking for lessons on. As far as I can tell, my mandate has been to teach about "the real America", expanding upon the Hollywood that students have been exposed to and showing which parts are accurate and inaccurate depictions of average daily life.
What you seem to be talking about could more aptly be described as western civilization. Teaching about things from two or three thousands years ago is about as useful as Chinese teaching us about the early dynasties. It might be interesting to some, but it isn't as interesting or nearly as relevant as the modern stuff, and it isn't what we are paid for. The dream of some English students is to visit America or Europe in the coming years, not in an H.G. Wells novel.
I know a few NNS English teachers - from Poland, Ukraine, Russia, ITALY, Portugal, Brazil,, GREECE etc etc etc.
I think they've got enough culture to teach it... (and, their English isn't too bad, either... mostly 
)
Given the choice between exposure to 'western culture'', vs knowing English... go the language!
Amonk:
This. Culture is used as a means to keep English students interested in learning English. I came to China after spending half my university courses learning about Chinese culture, history, politics, and religion. Was it useful in keeping my interest? Yes. Would I give up that knowledge in exchange for knowing the language? Bet your ass.
No, but I do think that Chinese schools that train students who wish to live abroad should try to keep either a Chinese person that has studied or worked in the US, Uk, Canada, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, or NZ for a few years or even a native speaker of south, south east, or east Asian decent on staff. Often, these students will ask me whether or not they will be the victim of racism as they'll be a part of a cultural and ethnic minority. Not knowing what it's like to be an Asian living in the US, I can't really tell them.
Personally so long as the person has sufficient language TEACHING skills then yes no problem.
I would say if a non native speaker has an authentic teaching qualification at college level (PGCE / Cert Ed or equivalent) an English teaching qualification (CELTA / DELTA or equivalent) and IELTS level 8 or higher then they have sufficient skills to teach the language. If the school / LTC requires them to teach 'culture' then the employer needs to ensure the teacher has sufficient skills in that area too, but I don't think it should be a requirement to teach the language, I would consider it a benefit but not a prerequisite for employment.
what a pity excuse to learn english...non native speakers are still better at english than native speakers...grammar name it.....common think wide people
Hulk:
I have no idea what you just said, tonieman. Can you translate it for me, please? My English isn't up to par.
