The application of ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ labels to EFL professionals has been influenced by the argument over their discriminatory nature. L1 proponents claim that natives are innate with linguistic competence while non-natives are referred to as second-best. A review of studies investigating the coherence of these terms supported the validity of this phenomenon. However, competing theories emphasise the importance and impact of discriminatory terminology not addressed by natives This paper looks at this debate in some detail and aims to balance the need for accurate descriptive labelling against the damaging effects of pejorative categories. It also discusses teaching and linguistic competence in light of both “native” and “non-native” categories. The discourse focuses on the advantages and disadvantages attributed to the native versus non-native EFL teacher and employment discrimination issues faced by non-native EFL teachers in institutions, job advertisements, and in the administration of institutions themselves today. It was concluded that a more refined approach to describing different types of EFL professionals is required, which does not negatively disadvantage either L1 or L2 teachers of English.

Since the COVID‐19 pandemic prompted numerous global changes, educational institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina were forced to adapt their educational approaches, with schools and universities implementing alternative teaching and learning practices. Thus, this study aimed to investigate students' perspectives on the digital transformation of higher education in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including their preferences for hybrid, online, or face‐to‐face teaching models, their internet habits and readiness for e‐learning, their attitudes and satisfaction with online learning, and their computer anxiety. The research sample consisted of 330 students studying in a variety of fields and academic years at both public and private universities. The data was gathered via an online questionnaire. A multinomial logistic regression analysis revealed a significant effect of students' field of study, year of study, and university status on their preferences for hybrid, online, and face‐to‐face classes. However, the MANOVA test revealed that the aforementioned factors have an insignificant effect on students' internet habits and readiness for e‐learning, attitudes and satisfaction with online learning, and computer anxiety, all of which have an insignificant impact on student's academic achievement as determined by standard multiple regression analyses. Additionally, multivariate analysis revealed that students' preferences for hybrid, online, and face‐to‐face classes have a significant influence on their internet habits and readiness for e‐learning, attitudes, and satisfaction with online learning, and computer anxiety. The findings of this study may aid in a better understanding of tertiary education's digital transformation and the improvement of educational policy, curricula, and instructional and learning strategies.

The development of Krashen`s theory of second language acquisition has been disadvantaged due to the dispute over its untestable hypotheses. In his Monitor Model Krashen (1981; 1982; 1985) claims that linguistic competence can only be acquired subconsciously, while conscious learning mainly depends on learners’ mood and emotions at the time of learning a second language. A review of the studies investigating the coherence of Krashen’s hypotheses derived from the Monitor Model supported the validity of this approach. However, competing theories emphasize the importance of conscious learning not addressed by the Monitor Model. This paper critically reviews the five key aspects of Krashen’s Monitor Model and closely looks at the relevance of the theory and its characteristics to SLA nowadays. It was concluded that while effective in some classroom applications, the Monitor Model is too restrictive to justify the conscious learning as a source of spontaneous language production, so cannot alone provide a comprehensive account of language competence.

No abstract