Read the text by Brown to answer question.

The question of whether or not to distinguish between native and nonnative speakers in the teaching profession has grown into a common and productive topic of research in the last decade. For many decades the English language teaching profession assumed that native English-speaking teachers, by virtue of their superior model of oral production, comprised the ideal English language teacher. Then, Medgyes (1994), among others, showed in his research that nonnative English speaking teachers offered as many if not more inherent advantages. Other authors concur by noting not only that multiple varieties of English are now considered legitimate and acceptable, but also that teachers who have actually gone through the process of learning English possess distinct advantages over native speakers.

As we move into a new paradigm in which the concepts of native and nonnative “speaker” become less relevant, it is perhaps more appropriate to think in terms of the proficiency level of a user of a language. Speaking is one of four skills and may not deserve in all contexts to be elevated to the sole criterion for proficiency. So, the profession is better served by considering a person’s communicative proficiency across the four skills. Teachers of any language, regardless of their own variety of English, can then be judged accordingly, and in turn, their pedagogical training and experience can occupy focal attention.

(Brown, 2006. Adaptado)

Read the text by Brown to answer question.

The question of whether or not to distinguish between native and nonnative speakers in the teaching profession has grown into a common and productive topic of research in the last decade. For many decades the English language teaching profession assumed that native English-speaking teachers, by virtue of their superior model of oral production, comprised the ideal English language teacher. Then, Medgyes (1994), among others, showed in his research that nonnative English speaking teachers offered as many if not more inherent advantages. Other authors concur by noting not only that multiple varieties of English are now considered legitimate and acceptable, but also that teachers who have actually gone through the process of learning English possess distinct advantages over native speakers.

As we move into a new paradigm in which the concepts of native and nonnative “speaker” become less relevant, it is perhaps more appropriate to think in terms of the proficiency level of a user of a language. Speaking is one of four skills and may not deserve in all contexts to be elevated to the sole criterion for proficiency. So, the profession is better served by considering a person’s communicative proficiency across the four skills. Teachers of any language, regardless of their own variety of English, can then be judged accordingly, and in turn, their pedagogical training and experience can occupy focal attention.

(Brown, 2006. Adaptado)

Read the text by Brown to answer question.

The question of whether or not to distinguish between native and nonnative speakers in the teaching profession has grown into a common and productive topic of research in the last decade. For many decades the English language teaching profession assumed that native English-speaking teachers, by virtue of their superior model of oral production, comprised the ideal English language teacher. Then, Medgyes (1994), among others, showed in his research that nonnative English speaking teachers offered as many if not more inherent advantages. Other authors concur by noting not only that multiple varieties of English are now considered legitimate and acceptable, but also that teachers who have actually gone through the process of learning English possess distinct advantages over native speakers.

As we move into a new paradigm in which the concepts of native and nonnative “speaker” become less relevant, it is perhaps more appropriate to think in terms of the proficiency level of a user of a language. Speaking is one of four skills and may not deserve in all contexts to be elevated to the sole criterion for proficiency. So, the profession is better served by considering a person’s communicative proficiency across the four skills. Teachers of any language, regardless of their own variety of English, can then be judged accordingly, and in turn, their pedagogical training and experience can occupy focal attention.

(Brown, 2006. Adaptado)

Read the text by Brown to answer question.

The question of whether or not to distinguish between native and nonnative speakers in the teaching profession has grown into a common and productive topic of research in the last decade. For many decades the English language teaching profession assumed that native English-speaking teachers, by virtue of their superior model of oral production, comprised the ideal English language teacher. Then, Medgyes (1994), among others, showed in his research that nonnative English speaking teachers offered as many if not more inherent advantages. Other authors concur by noting not only that multiple varieties of English are now considered legitimate and acceptable, but also that teachers who have actually gone through the process of learning English possess distinct advantages over native speakers.

As we move into a new paradigm in which the concepts of native and nonnative “speaker” become less relevant, it is perhaps more appropriate to think in terms of the proficiency level of a user of a language. Speaking is one of four skills and may not deserve in all contexts to be elevated to the sole criterion for proficiency. So, the profession is better served by considering a person’s communicative proficiency across the four skills. Teachers of any language, regardless of their own variety of English, can then be judged accordingly, and in turn, their pedagogical training and experience can occupy focal attention.

(Brown, 2006. Adaptado)

Read the text by Brown to answer question.

The question of whether or not to distinguish between native and nonnative speakers in the teaching profession has grown into a common and productive topic of research in the last decade. For many decades the English language teaching profession assumed that native English-speaking teachers, by virtue of their superior model of oral production, comprised the ideal English language teacher. Then, Medgyes (1994), among others, showed in his research that nonnative English speaking teachers offered as many if not more inherent advantages. Other authors concur by noting not only that multiple varieties of English are now considered legitimate and acceptable, but also that teachers who have actually gone through the process of learning English possess distinct advantages over native speakers.

As we move into a new paradigm in which the concepts of native and nonnative “speaker” become less relevant, it is perhaps more appropriate to think in terms of the proficiency level of a user of a language. Speaking is one of four skills and may not deserve in all contexts to be elevated to the sole criterion for proficiency. So, the profession is better served by considering a person’s communicative proficiency across the four skills. Teachers of any language, regardless of their own variety of English, can then be judged accordingly, and in turn, their pedagogical training and experience can occupy focal attention.

(Brown, 2006. Adaptado)