One of my responsibilities where I work is the recruitment of oral examiners. In fact, in our case they are not exactly “oral examiners,” as they simply act as Interlocutors, i.e., they are not expected to assess the students they are examining, but simply to use the “interlocutor framework” that the examination body provides in order to manage the interaction and elicit as good a sample of spoken English from the candidates as they can. The spoken interviews are recorded and the recordings are then sent to a different group of people, the markers, whose job is to decide whether the language sample elicited by the interlocutors fulfills certain pre-defined criteria.
What was not clearly pre-defined when we started offering these exams in Greece was the Interlocutor selection criteria. The examination body suggested that the Interlocutors should be teachers with some experience teaching the level that the students were being examined at. That made sense, of course, but I felt that it would not be enough in a country where (1) English language teachers do not always have a good command of the language; (2) English language teachers do not necessarily have much methodology training; (3) most of the stakeholders expect, or even demand, that the people who “examine” candidates in a spoken test should be BANA* natives. So my colleagues and I came up with some minimum professional requirements (which include a very high level of spoken English, a minimum of five years of classroom experience, and some basic methodology training) as well as a structured selection, training and assessment procedure, which we have so far used quite successfully to recruit and train more than 200 Interlocutors in the space of two years.
There have, of course, been problems: unavoidably, perhaps, some of the Interlocutors prove not to be as good in practice as we thought they would be when we trained and assessed them, there have been occasional complaints about Interlocutors not being helpful enough or courteous enough to the candidates and we have also had Interlocutors who realise they do not want to continue doing this either because of the working conditions or because of the nature of the work itself. Having worked as an Oral Examiner for other examination bodies myself for a number of years, and having worked with other Oral Examiners for a number of years, I can’t say I wasn’t expecting these problems: I have been in examination rooms with oral examiners who may have been perfectly normal people otherwise but would openly smirk at the candidates, or be outright rude to them, or be offensively unhelpful; and I know from first-hand experience how taxing it can be to have to travel to far-away provinces to examine candidates for 6 to 8 hours and then travel back home only to face another long examining day the following morning!
What I wasn’t expecting is the kind of fierce reactions we have been getting from some of the teachers who apply to become Test Interlocutors and whose applications are turned down. I would like to look at one such reaction today, because I find it symptomatic of a number of attitudes which, surprisingly, are still with us, which is why I feel they should be exposed and discussed. One prospective Test Interlocutor, who clearly did not fulfill our minimum requirements as she had not trained to be a teacher and had only taught English for two years, but happened to be a BANA native, decided that she would not bother to call or write to us at all, but sent an email to our “parent” organization in the UK, obviously believing that they would put some sense into our depraved nonnative brains. I quote, changing only some of the details that might give away personal information about the complainant:
I recently had a student of mine sit the B2 level exam in English. While attending the oral exam, in the city of [large provincial city], Greece, I realised that there were no native speakers present at all! When requiring [SIC] about this, an examiner told me, Greek speakers of English were better as the students feel more ‘comfortable’ with a Greek examiner when participating in the oral exam! Subsequently, I have in fact sent my C.V. to the Greek office in Athens, and have never received recognition in any form, or indeed an answer in any form. I do know the importance of native speakers in the oral examinations, if the said students plan to study in Britain. However, I have to say that I will seriously consider not sending my future students for [SIC] your examinations in the near future. As I will be teaching this summer in England, at the [name of a university], during the months of July and August, please feel free to contact me. I am open to solutions and a better experience of your examinations in Greece.
Let’s have a look at exactly what this person is saying and doing before we look at why she might think she is justified in saying and doing the things she is saying and doing:
- She is suggesting, at first indirectly by means of the exclamation mark at the end of the second sentence, and then very directly and emphatically (“I do know the importance of native speakers in the oral examinations”), that it is necessary for an oral examiner to be a BANA native.
- She is suggesting, by virtue of applying despite the minimum professional requirements being clearly stated in the ad she was replying to and on our website, that BANA natives need no other qualifications nor experience: they are, by definition, the right people for the job. She even explains that the reason why she decided to apply was precisely because she noticed there were no other BANA native “examiners”!
- To make her case strong (which makes me suspect that at some level she must know it is difficult to justify her stance), she falsely claims that she was told non-BANA speakers are preferred for some ridiculous reason; she also claims her applications (both of which were sent to us two days before the complaint was sent to our UK partners) were not acknowledged or processed.
- To make her case even stronger, she threatens to stop “sending students for” our exams; in other words, she is saying that, if it were up to her, the commercial success of the exam is dependent upon the examination body’s compliance with her demands and acceptance of her views.
- To make herself sound more credible, without risking mentioning her qualifications and experience, she mentions a UK university where she will be teaching summer courses, confident that the mere fact that a BANA institution has offered her summer work proves her professional worth as a language teacher.
- In a final patronising move, she offers her services to the examination body so that a better examination service can be offered in Greece, since, evidently, these non-BANA speakers cannot do the job properly! This must also be the reason why she did not bother calling or emailing us, the incompetent Greeks, but went straight to her compatriots to seek a solution to what she believes is a grave problem.
To say that I am angry at this person’s reaction, her ideas and her attitude would be an understatement. However, let me clarify, it is not that I have personally or professionally suffered because of it in the narrow sense. It is because I find it sad and dangerous that, even in this day and age, more than ten years after the ideas about nativespeakerism, the ownership of English and linguistic imperialism were first articulated and widely discussed in academic circles, in practice, the ELT community in Greece and many other non-BANA countries is still structured in such a way that voices like the one I have been writing about are still heard and listened to.
What angers me is not what this person says in her email, but rather, the fact that she feels she can say these things, and, worse, that the majority of teachers in Greece would even agree with her! In my experience, most teachers would expect Oral Examiners to be BANA natives, if possible recently imported for the purpose of conducting oral exams; most language schools will employ BANA natives without even enquiring about their teaching qualifications and experience; most parents will demand that their children are taught, at least once a week, by a BANA native; and both the parents and the children themselves have learnt that in a Spoken English examination the examiner must have a perfect BANA accent, so that, even if they are not a BANA native, they can pass for one; and then, of course, teachers like myself are made to feel that they have to make an effort to pass for BANA natives in the same manner that many male to female transsexual people are made to feel, for very similar ideological reasons, that they have to make an effort to pass for biological women! Sad, sad, sad!
*BANA = Britain, Australia, North America … or “the inner circle” countries where the majority of monolingual speakers of English live
May 16th, 2010 at 1:29 am
Hi George,
again, a nice, interesting post (I can see now how my comment on your previous post gave you the idea).
Firstly, it’s been my experience that those on the administrative side of examinations are all too familiar with emails of outrage over something or another, though how to respond to these emails is always a bit of a dilemma.
I agree completely with your points, though, in particular the ridiculousness of her email, but I have noticed the ‘coincidence’, everywhere I’ve examined, that at least one of the examiners present is a BANA native. This is partly due to the expectations of the examinees, and the desire, on the part of the administration, to keep the punters happy.
And also, I wonder to what extent the entitlement felt by this native speaker is at least in part due to the tefl industry itself, in particular the ‘if you speak it, you can teach it’ claims of TEFL training programs eager to fill their courses.
Again, nice post, look forward to the next one.
John
May 16th, 2010 at 1:50 am
Hi John
Your previous comment did start me thinking about examiners, but it was the actual email that I quote from (yes, it is genuine) that inspired me to write this post. Don’t worry, though, there are more “oral examiner” posts coming up.
In fact, what I wanted to focus on here is the “sense of entitlement,” as you very aptly put it, of the BANA native, which, oddly, is still going strong. It is not dissimilar to the sense of entitlement thanks to which the language school owner in my previous post felt she could demand that we change her students’ results! And you’re right, of course: to a very large extent this is all due to the TEFL industry and how it is developed. And it is interesting (and indicative of the irrelevance of most academic debate) that the industry has remained largely unaffected by discussions on ELT ideology, linguistic and cultural imperialism, etc.
As for replying to these emails, this has never been a dilemma for me, perhaps because I am not directly responsible for “keeping the punters happy” at any cost. I simply thank the sender and explain how I regret that they do not have the qualifications needed!
May 16th, 2010 at 8:54 am
Hi, George!
Thank you for one more interesting post.
Reading it made me “travel” back to my early years of teaching in a big English language school in the centre of Athens – perhaps the largest one in those years. In the staff room there were two big tables which I soon discovered (the hard way, unfortunately, by being told off for using the…”wrong” one!) were used by either the native or the non-native speakers! Rare were the cases when the same table was used by both and this happened only when there were more teachers present than the room could accommodate, ie during exam periods. So the distinction between “us” and “them” was as clear as it could be and, of course, nobody would talk about qualifications those years since being a native speaker of English was enough to entitle you to respect, admiration and better pay!
The fact that some thirty years later there are still people who take it for granted that being a BANA native is the basic (if not the only…) qualification needed to teach the language, well, it can simply make me smile! This is a clear indication that they lack the necessary qualifications and I wouldn’t bother to get into a conversation with them over the issue. What I find worrying though is that such people still find jobs! Not surprising – as your previous post so clearly proves – but worrying and pathetic.
Thank you once again for this very interesting post. I look forward to more!
Ansa
May 16th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Hahaha!
And YOU’ve just reminded me, Ansa mou, of my early examining days:
“I had no idea nonnative speakers can now examine,” says my co-examiner haughtily. “Are you Greek Greek?” she asks in disbelief.
“Yes, 100%,” I reply.
“You mean, both your parents are Greek? And you were born and raised in Greece?” she goes on horrified.
“Yes, that’s exactly what I mean!” says I.
“Tsk tsk tsk!”
And she never spoke to me again!
May 16th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Over the years I’ve interviewed hundreds of prospective English language teachers and interlocutors.
It’s so true that many native language speakers consider it inevitable that they will get the job simply because of that. It makes no difference if one thinks that the ‘CEF’ is the title of a coursebook for young learners or if one explains in detail that she prefers to teach A4 level classes because she enjoys the challenge! I particularly remember a young lady I interviewed some years ago who when asked about her methodology training and teaching experience, stated ‘But I’m an American citizen’ and took her passport out of her purse. I remember standing there speechless for a few seconds. Another lady had refused to take a methodology test because she ‘was born and raised in London’. Well, the list is endless…
It’s so true, Ansa, that native English teachers and non native English teachers have never shared the same ‘table’ and unfortunately most of them still don’t. I’ve experienced that myself over the years working as a teacher, an oral examiner or working from an admin post.
It’s so true that employers, parents, students are still sceptical about non native teachers and their ability to teach, examine, train…
Thanks for that one, George! I’m really enjoying this!
May 16th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Hi George,
I was very interested to read this and would like to comment. I personally feel that it is totally irrelvant whether oral examiners are native English speakers or not. (BTW I am a native speaker from Britain.) Surely it is a person’s command of English – and this is just as important for native speakers, too – that should be the deciding factor, in addition to their professional qualifications and experience. How dare anyone assume that they have the right to be an oral examiner just because they are a native speaker of English. While of course it is true that a teacher with no qualifications may turn out to be a wonderful examiner, there have to be some standards and it is ridiculous to even question this.
As for making the candidates feel comfortable during the exam, it is purely a question of personality and experience and nothing to do with which language you speak. Uptight, stressed, snobby, superior and unfriendly people exist everywhere. It can be a bit nerve-racking in the beginning but I believe that if examiners continue to feel stressed or unable to smile and be human, then they should probably think again about continuing in this role.
The absence of native speakers for a particular board is due to the consequences of them being in high demand during exam periods – they will go where they have the best ‘package’. Even if the role of examiner for one particular organisation is that of ‘just’ interlocutor and not assessor, the criteria the examiners are selected on are the same as those the other boards use. It is highly likely that someone will chose to work for an administration offering the highest renumeration and most efficent and efficient admin procedure. To be offered less than half the going rate, to have travelling time, preparation time, compulsory breaks between candidates and lunch breaks that are not paid for, in addition to impersonal admin procedures is not a package that entices examiners. The fact that non-native examiners do put up with these conditions is a reflection of their expectations and perceived ‘worth’ in the market place. If they continue to accept sub-standard working conditions, the situation will never change. If an examining body offers a better all-round deal, they will have a wider pool of people to choose from and they will be able to select the best examiners with the most suitable qualifications, personality and language skills, regardless of whether they are native speakers.
May 16th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Dear George,
The NEST vs NON-NEST issue is one which has been quite heavily discussed on many forums as well as in the blogosphere – from who is the best teacher to who should be given prominence at conferences and why non-native speaker presenters are always assigned to second fiddle roles…
Looking at it from the point of view of testing – and more specifically oral assessments – adds another dimension, a very interesting one, I must say.
I find all the stories and your own comments very interesting and very personal but, although a NON-NEST myself (yet one who no one might dare to challenge in our own particular locale, I think…) I would like to distance myself for a minute from my own position and make the following points:
1/ I agree fully that being a native speaker does not qualify anyone for assessing OR teaching and this ‘Your Native-Speaker-Holiness’ is totally laughable. There are just as many uneducated and uncouth NESTS as NON-NESTS out there who should not be allowed near students.
2/ On the other hand, it must be pointed out that your examining body itself does not seem to be favouring non-nests as MAIN assessors and only assigns them the role of interlocutor. The recordings are then sent back to the centre of NEST ‘real’ assessors and they perform the microsurgery.
3/ Other examining bodies (attested by your own experience) do entrust non-native speakers to be oral assessors but I am afraid that gone are the days when you had to have at least a DELTA to even be considered! My question is, are standards being lowered all around simply because so many exams are now competing for the same slice of the market?
My dissertation work was on perceptions of fluency by teachers and non-teachers and I shall not bore you with the results of this research; I think you may even have read it although it rests on the dustiest and most unused corner of our library, but yes, there are different perceptions on both sides and different criteria used by each group (reminding you also of the famous Hughes & Lascaratou ELTJ article on “Competing Criteria for Error Gravity” ELT Journal 1982 36(3):175-182)
In an ideal world of native users now having daily conversations with non-native users, I think the NON-NEST interlocutor’s role should be upgaded to one of “Local” or “Localization” – or some other permutation of this – assessor and the recordings should be then listened to and graded by NEST assessors as well.
Then, some sort of calibration or correlation coefficient, or evanescence inefficient (my statistics course showed me I can always entrust the numbers to a computer and I don’t need to know what it’s doing!) between the two might be useful, as an overall indication of whether a candidate is up to standard for communicating in today’s world.
But here I am, another non-nest, telling your “body” how to run their exam, when I am sure, there are so many other administrative and other issues I am unable to even imagine.
Apologies for this, but oral testing is an area of great interest for me, as well as an area of great controversy in itself, so I have ventured these comments hoping to develop this discussion beyond its current point.
Thank you for sparking off this discussion
Marisa
May 16th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Interesting post and interesting and thought-provoking responses.
Having once been accredited and qualified to act as an ‘Oral Examiner’ for the IELTS and IGCSE English exam years ago in Cyprus, I know what both the processes of qualifying and doing the job are like. Being a native speaker, while perhaps helpful to some extent, is by no means a higher form of qualification. I know many such native speakers that are not very qualified users of the English language and should never be allowed near a classroom nevermind an examiner’s table.
Katerina makes some interesting points in her post, but something therein disturbs me. I know we all have to earn a living and do things we don’t always want to do to make ends meet, especially here in Greece and especially since the recent ‘austerity measures’ have been announced, but…
No teacher should be sitting at an examiner’s table if they are only doing it for the money! These examinations and the results can have some very serious and long range results for the candidates. An unhappy, unsupportive interlocutor can lead to some very serious implications for the results of those candidates coming into contact with such. There are other ways to make money, to make ends meet than at the expense of others (exam candidates) whose futures should not be at the whim of such examiners. But her point about local examiners needing to demand better conditions may be the beginning of another topic that could use some serious contemplation both here in the world of blogs and in teacher organizations.
As for the original post: George, I feel your indignation is rightful and that the person you are referring to is trying an ‘end around move’ perhaps because they know they are not qualified so will use other measures to get the results they want. Beyond questioning how wrong their intentions are, I question whether they have any sense of professional responsiblity toward the many students and exam candidates they may come in contact with?
May 16th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Hiu George,
I’m finding this an issue that is quite hard to get worked up about; stupid people say and do stupid things
Interlocuting [yuk] is a task that can be performed by virtually anyone – a parrot could do it with the right training, though candidates might find it a little off-putting. I don’t see any need for (a) teaching qualifications (b) teaching experience or (c) fluency in the language. There are examinations where the role of interlocutor is performed by technology – the computer asks questions and then records candidate responses. The only real criteria I can see is that the interlocutor can ask the questions in a way that is reasonably natural and comprehensible.
The issue for me is whether scripted language tests have any value – do they elicit a meaningful sample of language that can be assessed?
May 16th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Dear George,
Truly, a brilliant post! I really enjoyed your second comment as well!!!
That lady’s email to the “parent” organization in the UK makes flesh of how snooty, condescending people prove to be rather naive most of the times when it comes to getting their point across simply because they have no point – and they are fully aware of that.
What I would like to comment on, though, is her reaction being “symptomatic of a number of attitudes” which still linger to the present day. The fact that NESTs are more proficient in English is not completely true and, in fact, it can be very easily disproved.
Then, what is it that has nourished this belief?
Marketing?
NNESTs’ linguistic incompetence?
I would really love to read more about that, George. Looking forward to your next post!
May 16th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
a question to begin with: what is the definition of a native speaker? (born and raised in..? born in..? born, raised and educated in…? biologically certified as a…?)
from my experience as an oral examiner, there are people who meet the minimum (or even maximum) requirements to be one but still should never hane been there… sad but true. i understand of course the need for a standardized process of selection AND (above all) a need for training the selected ones. it has nothing to do with (any definition of) native or non native speakers. it has to do with knowledge of what oral production/ communication means. it has to do with understanding basic sla principles on (oral/ aural) language development. it has to do with (at least) some familiarity with cefr descriptors.
and it has to do with constant training and evaluation of oral examiners themselves (regardless of their god-given or self-assigned suitability for the role)…
May 16th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Dearest Chryssa, we have seen a lot, haven’t we! Of course, all this doesn’t mean that BANA natives are necessarily untrained or unprofessional, but as you suggest, the market forces at play still seem to be giving them the right to think of themselves as by definition (or, perhaps, birth right) more suitable for any teaching or examining position; and this is not their problem, it is a problem of the whole of the ELT community … and beyond!
Katerina, welcome! I agree with everything you say! Perhaps I need to clarify here that the teacher whose email I quoted from was, in reality, lying about the “native speakers” that were not present: out of curiosity, more than anything else, I checked who works for us in her area and found out there are 11 of our Interlocutors there, 5 of whom are BANA natives!
In actual fact, it is not just non-BANA natives that unfortunately put up with the conditions you describe, but quite a few BANA natives as well! And there are some very good, very professional examiners who will uncomplainingly tolerate poor working conditions, low pay, etc, in spite of their perceived worth in the marketplace. Is this a reflection of the current economic situation? Is it a reluctance to appear to be closing any doors? Is it the idea that “examining” for a variety of examination bodies will add to their market value? I honestly don’t know, but the sad fact remains that many professional colleagues do not do themselves or their perceived value any favours!
Marisa mou, of course, the issue has been discussed at length at least since the early nineties, but the ruling ELT ideology is still going strong outside the circles of “progressive” academia! Regarding your very interesting points:
1/ I fully agree!
2/ Ermm, no, that is not correct. We favour neither NESTs nor non-NESTs as either assessors or interlocutors. We keep the two roles completely separate (which, I think, is a good thing, incidentally) but it is not true that the recordings are sent to the NESTs’ nest: we, and our UK colleagues, have an equal opportunities policy which includes a mother tongue and ethnicity clause, and our assessors, both in Greece and the UK, are selected, trained and evaluated on the basis of qualifications, experience and performance. And they include quite a few non-NESTs, by the way.
3/ I am not sure standards are being lowered, actually. When I started examining for Cambridge ESOL in the early nineties, most of the older examiners were simply UK expats with no teaching qualifications. In the late nineties, if I remember correctly, Cambridge ESOL introduced MPRs (minimum professional requirements) for oral examiners, which, in my opinion, raised the standard. Whether now, with 15 examination bodies being recognized by the Greek state, some are being forced to lower their standards, I do not know.
I have, indeed, read your dissertation and still remember how accent affects the NESTs’ perception of fluency. Hopefully, though, if one selects examiners on the basis of qualifications and trains them properly and continuously, they will be able to assess based on the criteria given rather than their own perceptions and ideas. The way we assess spoken production and spoken interaction is not very different from what you describe; we do not (yet!) compare BANA and non-BANA natives’ assessments, but we do carry out a set of complex statistical analyses to determine results and we do closely monitor the performance of both interlocutors and assessors! Interesting research, idea, though!
Hi Jeffrey and welcome to this blog! Interesting point that BANA natives are not necessarily competent users of “their” language – and very true! Now, I didn’t think Katerina implied examiners are only doing it for the money, but clearly we cannot pretend that an underpaid examiner that is being treated badly will be capable of doing justice to the candidates, even if they were willing to do so, even if their motives were purely idealistic! As for the person that inspired me to write this post, I do not know whether she is in contact with students, but our exam candidates she will obviously not come in contact with!
Hello, Pete. Good to see you here! This should really be the topic of a different discussion, and a very interesting one. Personally, I am not sure that using a script to conduct an oral exam is such a mindless job, and that’s because I’ve seen and heard people do it extremely badly as well as extremely well! In our case, the exam would be more accurately described as semi-scripted, so perhaps having “interlocutors” that are worth their salt is even more important!
Dearest Alexander, welcome back! And thanks! What I am not sure about is how aware these people are of the fact that they have no point – and how aware they can be of this fact given the ruling ideology and concomitant market demands…
Maria, I couldn’t agree more. You’re right that meeting the MPRs may be a necessary but it is evidently not a sufficient condition. And you’re also right that continuous assessment of examiners and constant retraining is essential!
May 16th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Hi to all who I know! After reading this, just felt the need to confirm to myself at least that I am a person and not a spam script! Good luck with the sifting!
May 17th, 2010 at 7:05 am
Hi George,
Got to see your post through a link sent around the TESOL NNEST mailing. Thank you for sharing this, which sparked a memory of something I had to deal with recently.
I was the administrator for China’s aviation English test for pilots, and was in charge of hiring examiners, or as you put it more accurately, interlocutors (I’ll use these interchangeably here). While the majority of my staff were BANA nationals, highly experienced in either language assessment and/or aviation, one interlocutor was a Chinese native. While this person was not a teacher and did not have prior linguistic training, I felt her background in aviation and her fair command of the English language, as well as her demeanor, qualified her as a prospective interlocutor. We put her through intensive training, which she completed successfully, and thus was put to work. While some felt she was a good addition to our examiner corps, the majority was against a non-native speaker delivering the exam. I reasoned that from an ELT perspective she was in some ways more qualified than native speakers because of her experience as an ESOL learner, thereby carrying with her a dose of empathy in even closer proximity than learners of other languages (e.g., native English speakers learning Chinese). The complaints continued, but I wouldn’t budge. I not only kept her working, but because of her more flexible schedule, gave her an even heavier workload than other interlocutors. As the months went by, my NNES examiner was gaining more familiarity with the exam scripts, learning new and better ways to follow up on weak or incomplete answers, and was being met with less reluctance. The complaints subsided (somewhat), and I went on to hire a second NNES examiner. The irony is that since that time China has developed its own test and the current exam’s pool of interlocutors is comprised of 99% non-native speakers of English.
I share with you a sense of sadness knowing that there are still people like your complainants spewing off unlearned rationale. Being an optimist, I attribute it more to her inexperience in the field of linguistics than her superiority complex, though I submit that the latter does continue to poison the field of English language teaching and assessment.
Happy to have found this blog and will come back again.
Cheers,
Bobby
May 17th, 2010 at 11:18 am
George/Giorgos,
Another great post. For me there are several issues arising that I have always found interesting.
1. I think Greece is in fact in a transitional moment. Attitudes like these are now clearly identified as outdated and ridiculous (as well as grossly unfair and prejudiced) – our discussion proves this. I am not how many Greek English teachers would agree with the bigoted and short sighted views in the email, and of those who might, I wonder if this would change if they were able to hear the views expressed in your post Giorgos – and realise their confidence to express what they are undoutedly already thinking. So although I accept totally that ideologically ELT is still saturated with the “native speaker is best” trope, this is changing on the ground. There is slippage. A good litmus test would be at what point any of us critically started discussing these issues beyond our instinct? For me that happened around 8-9 years ago and I think the discussion on the level playing field has moved along since then (though you are right, there is still a gap between the theoretical assertion of linguistic/cultural inequality and what goes on in the classroom). Ground has been covered and this will continue to shift, particularly with the very important contribution of people like yourself within the country who are trying to demonstrate a different way of thinking. And the fact remains, the majority of Greek learners are taught by Greek teachers – a statistic that reflect the trend the world over. NESTs or BANA teachers are in the minority everywhere and they need to accept this fact should also be reflected in the influence of ideas and history.
2. With regard to how this functions in relation to language exams – its tricky. The market plays a role here again which confused it for me. I think Marisa’s point regarding the separation between interlocuters and assessors is a valid one. Isn’t that a kind of hierarchy? I think Pete’s point regarding the nature of ‘frameworked’ oral exams and the samples they elicit is also fair (the research is very mixed on this as the interlocuter framework in itself can be interpreted as a lack of trust of the examiner to communicate naturally with the candidate). I would also like to question the poster above who said that people should not be doing oral examining for the money. I personally was never able to exercise this privilege as I have to work to survive and support myself and my family – I am also trained and qualified (all of which has been done at my personal expense) so I expect a fair payment for my effort and expertise, but am willing to work hard in return. I stopped examining for one particular board (not yours George) when the expectation of my efforts no longer matched with the amount of money they were willing to pay and they cut back massively in ceasing to offer pay for compulsory training for example and asked examiners to come in for free. I think it is short sighted to paint this as greed on the part of oral examiners. It is an unacceptable expectation on the part of the exam board, and some people will naturally withdraw. Others will accept conditions they are not happy with, and yes in some cases the expectation of the employee (in terms of qualifications/experience) will lower to compensate as needs must be met. This should not be confused with equal access. Surely equal access should not be based on nationality but on ability and skill to do the job in hand and those should be unshakeable criteria. But the goal posts shift when it suits the commercial entities in question.
3. I am in no doubt that there are still snooty and superior BANA/NEST teachers around in Greece. I have met quite a few of them on my travels and have always tried hard to separate myself from them by being positive and willing to initiate and work in mixed teams (they are always much better anyway in IMHO as you get such a variety of experience and input and are therefore more effective). To improve this situation we all need to develop a partnership approach, but with the emphasis on positive discrimination i.e. making sure Greek teachers and experts get the first choice wherever possible. I hope that this will also lead to more Greek experts letting their voices be heard beyond the country as this is a very important part of making sure that the playing field is REALLY levelled and provides inspiration for younger Greek teachers coming up who are not so affected by these fossilised ways of thinking. Marisa Constantinides and Giorgos Vassilakis are great role model in this respect. Bravo sas! Kali synexia : )
Working together and seeing each other’s strengths (NEST/non-NEST) goes beyond nationality. It is part of a way of thinking. A closed mind, whether BANA or not, will switch off from the possibility of mixed teams of educators and find them threatening. That is the attitude we need to confront wherever it is encountered. An effective educator should cherish diversity and confront prejudice wherever it is found, and always put people in a context to explain their actions. It is time for this prejudice to come to an end and for the history of ELT to move on and thrive!
Thanks for the great post (again)
May 17th, 2010 at 11:46 am
Totally agree with Poster No. 15. No name, suspect it’s Sara?! Keywords for Greece, Transition, Equal Opportunites and Diversity. British Council hosting a conference in Athens (26-29 May) & Thessaloniki (12 June 2010). Here’s to mixed teams of educators with positive thinking!
May 17th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Julie it is Sara. My name is at the top!! I never blog anonymously : ) Its next to my “cat” ID!
May 17th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
I just want to say that I think the emphasise here should be the personality of the interlocutor, not the NNS or NS of English ‘status’.The students sit infront of you, knees shaking, hands clenching – they do not care where you were born but just the fact you can make them smile, relax and speak!The examination boards should be looking at the role of the interlocutor more closely than the birth certificate! As for your complaining lady George, she should also be thinking of the student rather than herself and her biased self obsessed opinions!I have worked with NS and NNS examiners, and it’s the warmth of that person that matters in those few precious minutes to the candidate, not their command of the English language. It is time for Global English/Jenkins’ Lingua Franca – let’s get real and communicate in the language and not worry about the mother tongue of the tester!
May 18th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Hi Julie, welcome back! A spam script there is no way you could be! And you’re right, equal opportunities and diversity is indeed what this should all be about!
Bobby, thanks for visiting. Good for you that you didn’t budge! And that China has developed its ow test and local teachers are now examiners is excellent news indeed. I find your point about our Chinese colleague’s demeanor and empathy very interesting and I think it has something to do with what Sharon says later in her comment about personality – this is something that definitely needs to be explored.
Sara, thank you very much for keeping on reading this blog and for your insightful comments. Thank you also, very much, for the compliments! I agree, there is slippage, I am just worried that the deconstruction may take a long time to travel from the academic and semi-academic top down to the saturated bottom.
In relation to language exams, things are indeed trickier insofar as the market’s expectation that the “examiner” will be a BANA native are stronger than in the case of the teacher in a language school, so it is more difficult for an examination board to implement an equal opportunity policy which does not favour BANA natives than it is for a language school. Now, Marisa’s point re. interlocutors vs. assessors would be valid if it were true, this would definitely be a hierarchy, but in our case, as I explained in my previous comment, it is simply not true and I know of no other examination body that separates the two roles. On the other hand, from a purely commercial point of view it might make more sense for an examination body to employ BANA native interlocutors (after all, they are the ones the “customers” see) rather than assessors, given precisely the market expectations. But the market can and needs to be educated, even if it’s a top-down process!
I, of course, agree completely that even if (!) one is an educator, one still deserves to be paid fairly!
Finally, Sara mou, I can only admire the way you express the feelings of many of us in your last paragraph: “An effective educator should cherish diversity and confront prejudice wherever it is found, and always put people in a context to explain their actions.” This could easily become my motto!
Sharon, thanks for reading and commenting! That’s a very interesting (and very controversial, I think) point you’re making. I, too, have often felt that the personality of the interlocutor (or examiner or teacher) often counts more than “technical” skills or even linguistic performance. I think that’s an issue I’d like to come back to, maybe in another post!
May 19th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
I think it should be our motto, those of us who want a different kind of learning, teaching and testing experience in Greece : )
Looking forward to the next post.
Sara
May 24th, 2010 at 1:01 am
Am THRILLED to find this site. Bravo Giorgo!
I’m not sure if this comment is entirely relevant but I thought I’d add it anyway.
As an oral examiner who speaks English with an Irish accent, I have, on the admittedly rare occasion, have had to answer other British examiners’ queries as to my suitability as an examiner; that because I speak with an Irish accent, the candidates may not be able to understand me when I interlocute, so to speak.
Who am I to say that those people are not right? I do modify my speech as an interlocutor, as would any professional, be they BANA, Inner Circle or NON-NEST.
To my mind, such attitudes have little to do with ELT practices and more to do with prejudice. It comes as no surprise that someone would write such a letter, but it would surprise me if more than a handful of people would give her views any credence.
Padraig O’Suilleabhain
December 23rd, 2010 at 11:05 am
I would like to question above who said that people don’t have to do oral examining for the money. I personally was never able to exercise this privilege as I have to work to survive and support myself and my family – I am also trained and qualified (all of which has been done at my personal expense) so I expect a fair payment for my effort and expertise, but am willing to work hard in return.In relation to language exams, things are indeed trickier insofar as the market’s expectation that the “examiner” will be a BANA native are stronger than in the case of the teacher in a language school, so it is more difficult for an examination board to implement an equal opportunity policy which does not favour BANA natives than it is for a language school.,I think the oral examiner is just like a wood pellets,you seperate the language into pieces of principles,while, the language is just a habit.don’t know if I’m right.