Native and Non-Native EFL Teachers Dichotomy: Terminological, Competitiveness and Employment Discrimination

Abstract

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.

The pan-Slav brotherhood: relations between Russia and the Southern Orthodox Slavs

“…Oftentimes, it is them who posit themselves as the leaders of the masses with appeals to various myths, symbols, and other concepts which arouse emotions in those whom they lead, but frequently for the sake of their selfish needs. Language, as the greatest set of symbols (Dervić & Bećirović, 2019;Yaman & Bećirović, 2016), was utilized as increasing the level of groupness of Southern Slavs. Even though they had distinct self-understanding, Brubaker and Cooper (2000) would argue that, due to the external identification as part of a pan-Slav movement and, later on, a community, the people began to internalize these symbols to a point where their self-understandings of began to change.…”

The Interconnectedness of Mindset and Learning Strategies: How Teaching the Lexical Approach could Support Deep Learning

“…Mindsets have been linked to performance and achievement in various areas of language learning such as grades, willingness to take part in extra tuition or task performance (e.g. Dervić & Bećirović, 2019;Hong et al, 1999;Robins & Pals, 2002). A study by Aronson et al (2002) found that teaching college students about the scientifically proven way in which academic challenges allow the brain to form new connections and, thus, make an individual smarter, produced a significantly higher grade point average over time compared to students who were not taught this growth mindset.…”

Exploring the Relationship Between Language Learning Strategies, Academic Achievement, Grade Level, and Gender

“…Language learners are often not completely aware of the practicality of language learning strategies, and they cannot exploit their full potential unless they receive proper instruction and utilize them appropriately and more widely (Dervić & Bećirović, 2019;Nyikos & Oxford, 1993;Oxford, 1990). Hence, strategies-based instruction has also captured research attention (Gunning & Oxford, 2014;Rubin et al, 2007) and some new instructional models have been proposed (Chamot & O'Malley, 1996;Cohen, 1998).However, although teachers play a prominent role in the process of strategy instruction, the learning process starts with the learners themselves, and varies according to learners' individual differences, such as age, gender, education, and other factors that have been proven to affect strategy usage and the learning process (Oxford et al, 2018).…”