Today’s EFL teaching and learning has been dominated by “learner centeredness”. With regard to methodology, “learner centeredness” is very much in favor of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach. CLT preserves the principle of excluding students’ first language (L1). L1 is excluded in favor of the use of “authentic” communication which draws upon realistic target language (L2) text when possible, and which aims at developing students’ listening and speaking skills through extensive pair and group interaction (……………..). Earlier than this, Direct Method also saw L1 as an impediment to learning L2: learners were to be ‘stretched’ into communicating in L2 by drawing upon whatever resources they could muster (Howatt, 1984).
Other arguments that support the disregard of using L1 in L2 learning has been identified by Cook (2001). First, there is an attempt to reproduce the perceived condition of L1 learning towards L2 learning. Second, Cook refers to as “language compartmentalism” in which languages must be kept separate in order to develop ease and competence in the L2. Third, there is a need to minimize the use of L1 in order to achieve maximum exposure to L2.
The strong claim of the avoidance of using L1 in L2 learning has been earlier proposed by Krashen (1982) in his SLA theory that the L2 input needs to be roughly comprehensible to the learner, and it needs to appear in different forms, from authentic to simplified to constructed, all of these provide different means of access to the target language. In ESL context, where students are in the English-speaking environment, the richest source of input is usually the teacher besides other sources, and in EFL context, the teacher is predetermined as the only live source (Turnbull, 2001).
Krashen’s theory of SLA has been very influential to the teaching of English around the world, either as ESL or EFL. The employability of native speaker of English teacher (NEST) has become trend in many non-English speaking countries, particularly those that capable to import NEST. There is no doubt that the employability of NEST lies in their superior English-language competence. Their superiority, as noted by Arva and Medgyes (2000) in their study on the issue of native versus non native English teacher in Hungary, was said to be particularly spectacular in their capability in using the language spontaneously and in the most diverse communicative situations.
However, Arva and Medgyes also noted that in terms of grammar, the Non NEST (NNEST) is claimed to have more in-depth knowledge of the structure of English as well as a metacognitive awareness of how it worked. In their study, Arva and Medgyes quoted an acknowledgement of a NEST saying: “The non native teacher has learnt grammar and is able to convey that to people very clearly with no wastage, whereas I would have to look up to find out what it was I was being asked about.”
Another defect of NESTs is their inability of to speak the students’ mother-tongue which may account for the fact that they NESTs were reported to be reluctant to offer error correction. In addition, this defect may also have been conducive to a low level of empathy, that is to say it is difficult for the NESTs to appreciate what the students are going through when they are learning English. In contrast, having moved along the same road as their students the non NESTs “may remember those difficulties from their own learning”. Their level of sensitivity, as Arva and Medgyes noted, was supposed to be enhanced by familiarity with general educational goals, including curricular and exam requirements (Arva & Medgyes 2000: 362).
Other scholars, such as Swain and Lapkin (2000) see L1 as mediating L2 learning, and therefore as an educational tool. This view echoes what Weschler claimed as the ‘scaffolding’ value of L1 (Weschler 1997:89). Cummins’ (1996, 2001) language interdependency model also support judicious use of first language and foreign language learning and teaching. Skinner (1985, cited in Turnbull & Dailey-O’cain, 2009) argues that some first language use can facilitate connections between the target language and prior knowledge and ideas already developed in the first language.
To my experience as an EFL teacher since the last fifteen years, I particularly agree to what Macaro (2000), in his review of studies of teacher beliefs across educational context and age of learners, notes that although codeswitching is often necessary, the target language should be ‘the predominant language of interaction in the classroom (Macaro, 2000: 68). In particular, as Macaro notes, we need to be clear about when L1 serves as a valuable pedagogic tool, and when it might simply ‘an easy choice’ (2001: 545). The exaggerated use of L1 in L2 learning will reduce the students’ exposure to the L2, which has been the “only” exposure they may have during their study of L2. In sum, there should be a balance way of the alternation between L1 and L2 use in the context of L2 learning.
This is not to argue, however, that non NESTs are automatically more capable than NESTs. Braine (1999, cited in Clark & Paran (2007) points out that students’ resistance to non NESTs in ESL settings may be a result of their ‘frustration with incompetent, barely proficient English teachers in their own countries’. This supports the argument that English teaching is a professional skill, to be acquired through training and experience, and not the preserve of any particular group. In line with this statement, I argue that it is “wise” to replace the binary distinction of “native” or “ non-native” with the term “more or less accomplished” (Edge, 1988), or “proficient users of English” (Paikeday, 1985), or the range from “non-user” to “expert user” (IELTS).
