schemes to bring native speaker teachers to parts of East Asia, for example, the NET scheme (Hong Kong), the JET scheme ( Japan), and similar schemes being devised for Korea and Thailand. Such teachers may have little or no training other than a short preservice course, and few have experience of teacher education. As a result, their knowledge of the language and their teaching skills can compare badly with those gained in lengthy university degrees by nonnative teachers. But again, much of the discussion takes place at the meta level (see, e.g., Braine, 1999; Brutt-Griffler & Samimy, 2001; Cook, 2002a; Seidlhofer, 1999), while employers continue to argue that they are obliged to provide the (native speaker) teachers that learners (and in many cases, their parents) prefer. Some progress has nevertheless been made since 1991, such as the establishing of the Nonnative English Speakers in TESOL Caucus. At the
CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING WORLD ENGLISHES 173 same time, there has been more research into the concerns of nonnative teachers. See, for example, Kamhi-Stein’s (1999) discussion of ways in which nonnative teacher educators can become “agents of curriculum change” (p. 157), and Nemtchinova’s (2005) survey of the largely positive evaluation by learners and host teachers of the strengths of nonnative teachers. The extent to which such initiatives manage to alter attitudes of nonnative and native speakers alike toward nonnative teachers and their varieties of English nevertheless remains to be seen. Finally, the principal methodology of Western-led TESOL for the past 30 years, so-called communicative language teaching, with its heavy bias toward Western communicative styles and mores, has received its most serious challenge to date from Leung (2005; see also Luk, 2005). Again, it remains to be seen whether this challenge will translate into what Holliday (1994) describes as appropriate methodology for learners in different (and very often, non-Western) contexts of language learning and use. EMERGING CONSENSUS AND REMAINING ISSUES AND QUESTIONS Despite the somewhat pessimistic impression I may have given, the past 15 years has undoubtedly seen some progress in terms of an emerging consensus both among WEs and ELF researchers, and (to a more limited extent) in responses from teachers, applied linguists, SLA scholars, and others to their research. In particular, there is a growing consensus among researchers on the importance of language awareness for teachers and teacher trainers and educators in all three circles (see, e.g., Bolton, 2004; Canagarajah, 2005b; Seidlhofer, 2004). Teachers and their learners, it is widely agreed, need to learn not (a variety of) English, but about Englishes, their similarities and differences, issues involved in intelligibility, the strong link between language and identity, and so on.
- Spring '10