Introduction
In the March issue of ELT News and Views, Michael Lewis asks why it should be that what two native speakers say to each other be the model for what a German and a Korean and an Argentinian should say to each other when they meet each other and use English as a lingua franca (6.1: 1999: 7). Medgyes in the same article (page 8) sees English as a 'universal commodity' and states that the non-native speaker will have more say in its development rather than it being the 'privilege of so-called native speakers.' So, who owns 'English?' And who is best at teaching it - native speaker (NS) or non-native speaker (NSS) teachers of English? Come to think of it, who are the native speaker teachers of English anyway - are they English teachers of English or can they be American, Australian, Irish, Scottish or Welsh?

All of these categories and more would lay claim to native speaker status and countries such as Russia have had their fair share of NS teachers of English working in-country over the years. While working as an NS teacher in countries such as Sweden, Tunisia and Turkey (and often on a higher salary scale than my non-native speaker - NNS - colleagues) I often wondered how effective, indeed how necessary, we all were and how indigenous, NNS teachers of English really regarded us. This paper describes an experience I had recently, when I was working with a non-native speaker teacher in Ethiopia. The aim of my visit was to help introduce a new, more learner-centred, communicative, methodology to Ethiopian high school teachers through through a new series of English Language text books. It is typical of the kind of work I have been doing over the years. I was to facilitate this by working with a group of NNS teachers of English. My paper begins by looking at NS assistance in ELT methodological innovation, then discusses the particular programme I was involved with, seen through the eyes of someone else - an Ethiopian colleague, M, and myself.

Background
Sridhar (1994: 801), Holliday (1994a, 94b) and Prabhu (1987), have suggested that many of the methodologies which have come from countries such as England and which have dominated English Language teaching have been ineffective in many parts of the world where teacher educators,' burdened by ethnocentrism and dogmatism,' still dominate and yet fail to meet indigenous needs with more appropriate theories and methodologies (Liu, 1998). Many of these innovations have relied on the expertise of NS teachers.

Despite pleas for a more ' client-centred ' alignment (Nunan, 1989), there are those who believe that approaches to teaching are still concerned with the transmission of 'western' methodologies (Tollefson, 1995:1). Bax (1997) calls for the need to evaluate such programmes with a view to improving all the stakeholders in ' context-sensitive ' teaching. My experience in Ethiopia involved me working as a 'western' outsider in an ELT innovation.

Flaws in the system
The use of expatriate teachers in any country has inherent disadvantages: yet another of those foreign 'experts' jetting in, then leaving just as quickly, with little or no time for follow-on. At the best of times, introducing new ideas in teaching can be seen as abrasive and domineering but if many of these were developed with NS contexts in mind, there might well be conflict. Doff reminds us of some of the assumntions underpinning innovations in FIT. One prime example of this is the notion that there is a consensus on what constitutes good teaching. He writes that

As soon as we move away from European teaching contexts, differences appear, and these assumptions ... can no longer be made. It ....becomes necessary to re-assess the content of teaching materials, the methods used in training, and the wider role of training programmes in teacher education.
(1987:67).

However, I feel that NS teachers can have a part to play. In the Ethiopian context, I was invited to help initiate a process of change and, being neutral, from outside the host government's education system, I was free from the day-to-day teaching and administration duties that, say, my colleague M had. By working closely with M, and trying to keep focus at all times on the needs and wishes of the local education environment, I hoped that our co-operative efforts might bring about success.

The Ethiopian case-study : some background
Ethiopia is a huge country. It is widely recognised that the standard of English and English Language teaching has declined in this country and, with the help of the Ethiopian and British governments, new English Language textbooks were produced for secondary schools to help innovate change and improvement. The new 'English for Ethiopia,' books were in contrast to the traditional, structured, grammar-based materials the country was used to and, aware of the difficulties teachers might experience when using them, the British Council in Ethiopia were asked by the Ethopian Government to help fund and organise a familiarisation workshop for 115 NNS senior high school teachers. It was originally thought that the workshop would be conducted by five NS, British, specialists. However, it was thought that this would be an ideal opportunity not only to give the teachers an orientation to the new text books, but also to include all the stakeholders by using a team of local teachers. I, the NS, was invited to lead a short-term course for this team by working closely with an NNS Ethiopian counterpart.

I was asked to lead a 3-and-a-half day programme for a team of eight specially selected teachers (of whom five would ultimately be chosen) and then to act as tutor/mentor on a 5-day teachers' workshop which would be run by this group.

The programme I led consisted mainly of team-building activities, with discussions on, e.g., the qualities of the ' ideal Ethiopian teacher, ' an examination of different approaches to teaching, ideas for warm-up activities, the establishment of course principles and objectives, text book analysis, lesson planning and the design of a programme for the 5-day workshop to be run by the group of five.

During the three-day course, it was agreed that the workshop for which we were preparing would be practical, task-based, participant-centred and would focus exclusively on the new text books and their use in local schools. It was also agreed that the programme would help deepen the participants' knowledge of current methods of teaching English as appropriate to the Ethiopian secondary school context, examine their own practices as teachers of English in the light of ideas and insights gained on the course and the new materials, as well as allow time for the sharing of ideas and to design and try out activities suitable for use in their classrooms. Responsibility for running the course would be divided equally between the five teachers who would be chosen from the original team of eight with each looking after a particular strand of the new materials, e.g. teaching listening or reading.

A cross-cultural perspective
I believe that successful and meaningful change can only be achieved through mediation between the two parties, i.e. the 'innovator' and the 'recipient.' Kelly (1980) draws the distinction between the deliberate intentions of the innovator to disseminate and the actual diffusion of the innovation which is shaped by the perceptions and reactions of the recipients. M and I agreed to keep a diary record of our 'cross-cultural' expectations, reflections and experiences over our days working together (see Appendix 1) to see that there was mediation. We both noted down our reflections and handed them over to each other at the end of each day.

Commentary on the cross-cultural exchange
It is interesting to look at our respective expectations and conceptions of the programme. We both seem to have started out by sharing the same initial optimism's and anticipations. However, by the end of the first day, M had doubts about the methodology I was using and he wondered whether the programme I was leading would actually meet the teachers' needs.

We read of M's concern at the end of Day 1 that the remaining time might not be enough to familiarise the teachers with the new course books nor for them to prepare their sessions for the course they will have to run. He -stated that, while he liked the way I got the group to brainstorm ideas, principles and recommendations which provided them with a sense of ownership and a stake in ' their ' course, M would have been more prescriptive to the point of informing the participants of the approach they would be adopting for the workshop. My reflections suggest a preference for a more participant-centred approach and my concern that the teachers needed to be reach a state of readiness before being introduced to the materials and the need to consider the content of rheir course.

M's concerns remained the same at the end of the second day. He was unsure about my warm-up activity which he considered culturally unfamiliar to the group: it was connected with fishing. He was also unsure about the teachers having opted to take responsibility for individual topic areas instead of his own preference of a more integrated approach where they would teach a bit of everything. M also worried that I had not yet told the teachers what they would be doing in the course they would soon be running; nor had they had done any lesson planning or practice/peer-teaching. On the other hand, it would appear that I felt all was going to plan: the teachers themselves had agreed on who was taking responsibility for what and had formulated a set of principles and objectives on which to base their course. My priorities and perceptions appeared to be different from M's.

M continued to worry on Day 3, seeing it as a ' desperate scramble for the finishing line. ' He was concerned that the lesson plans were not yet finished. He wrote that he thought that I had suddenly changed my approach because of the lack of time, that I had become ' prescriptive ' and that I was beginning to ' dictate ' actual tasks and activities for the teachers to use in their lessons. M concluded by reporting that it was ' as expected, a busy day ' and was relieved that the group had now (at last) looked at the materials.

From my notes, I clearly did not think I was being prescriptive (or am I being prescriptive now?). I felt that by listing, for example, the warm-up activities and by clarifying that each of the trainers has different activities, I was trying to prevent duplication; also I was trying to ensure that each lesson had a different output, ' with a mix of poster presentations, lesson planning, peer teaching, etc. ' I felt that I had spent time with each of the teachers, working with them on their individual skeleton plans. I was happy that the plans were developing nicely.

Even on the final day, M was concerned that the group only had their lesson plans in draft form and again wondered if the trainers were ready to run their course. I remained optimistic about the approach I was using.

The workshop began. Day 1 of the workshop showed a more positive M. Both M and I recorded independently that the day had gone well and that the five teachers were, on the whole, fine. We both noted that one of the team was weak, however. I expressed my disquiet over the trainers' timing and the fact that all the teachers were late for their first session and discussed this with the them at the end of the first day. Both M and I were generally happy with Day 2. M states that the team seemed to have settled down and were leading the sessions well except for the one team member. On Day 3 and 4 M writes that he was still' impressed ' with four of the teachers whose confidence had increased and was still increasing; they also were displaying a clear sense of direction and purpose as well as managing to avoid unnecessary technical jargon. There remained concern with the weak teacher and I had to take over much of his work. Overall, I stated that the programme appeared-to be working and that the participants seemed to be enjoying the sessions. However, it looked as if an extra plenary grammar session would be needed on Day 5, as the teacher with responsibility for this needed more time. M expressed the reservation that he would like to see the teachers move away from some of the tasks and activities they were employing and use their own materials, based on their own principles. He suggested that the convictions of one of the team might be bordering on the over-confident. However, he prefaced this by saying that perhaps it's ' natural to improve, then regress as long as, overall, the direction is forward. ' Both M and I agreed that the plenary ' Grammar ' session given at the end of Day 5 was poor.

In our summaries, I said that I was happy with the workshop: the aims had been achieved and the participants were going away with a clear idea about the new materials. M wrote the following comments, that, ' On the whole, it has been a very successful workshop. ' The workshop leaders had 'got off to a good start and have the potential for future growth and development. The teachers who attended the workshop have been familiarised with the new textbooks. Admittedly, I might have done things differently but it is very easy to criticise from the outside and retrospectively. If I had done things my way, they might not have turned out any differently or, in fact, the result might not have been as successful. I sincerely hope that we will be able to extend this type of training to the other regions of Ethiopia and that I can work with Pat again to run an even better workshop, based on the experiences we have leamt on this one.'

A questionnaire was given to the other the workshop leaders and the teachers at the end of the workshop. Comments made by both groups were positive.

Conclusion
From the comments made by my hosts, the indications were that the exercise in cross cultural teaching was largely successful. However, comments made by M during the three-and-a-half-day programme highlighted his initial worries: his concerns about me and the methodology I was using. The approach I used was less dependent on content than M would have liked (e.g. M's concern for me to get to the new materials, to lesson planning and peer-teaching more quickly); my main interests were in process and ownership -1 wanted the participants and not the leaders to own the course - and this all depended on careful and time-consuming negotiations between the course leaders and their participants about content. M witnessed a process-led methodology in action and this caused him worries.

The NNS and NS team felt that keeping a-record of our reflections and experiences over the ten days together had proved to be a useful, cross cultural learning experience: it provided something concrete for us both to discuss. We also agreed that it displayed a mutual, shared willingness for us both to understand the feelings and viewpoints of each other. Far too often the NS/NNS relationship can be a difficult one, especially when innovation is a factor. Effecting any kind of change requires a willingness to be frank. Everand and Morris (1985: 171) write that:

Truth and reality are multifaceted, and the reality of other pepple's worlds is different from yours. Most people act rationally and sensibly within the reality of the world as they see it. They make assumptions about the world, and about the causes of things, which differ from yours, because their experiences are different, and they even experience the same event in different ways. Hence innovators have to address themselves not just to the world they see, but also to the world other people see, however misguided, perverse and distorted they may think the outlook of others to be.

Communication between all parties in ELT innovation is essential, otherwise the process-driven methodologies led by ' ethnocentric ' practitioners, will continue to fail to meet indigenous needs. Moreover, there needs to be a common understanding that any changes being introduced are not regarded as ' the answer ' but, rather, as something which can be built upon and improved through shared experience, understanding and open discussion. Who owns the innovation anyway? And who owns 'English?'
 

The 5-day Workshop
 
 

M • I am concerned that the team might not be ready to run the workshop and therefore not be able to introduce the new materials to the teachers in the way I had hoped • Day 1 had its strengths and weaknesses. Overall, I felt the workshop went well and the trainers on the whole were fine, especially as this was the first time they had ever conducted such a session. One of the team, however, was very weak. I should have put my foot down as he should never have been chosen. I-wender if training and further experience can help him improve?             • Day 2. I only attended half of today's programme. The team seem to have settled down and were leading the sessions well.           • Day 3 was brilliant. However, Pat had to take over much of the weak team member's work as he was so poor. I was impressed with the others whose confidence had increased; they showed a clear sense of direction and purpose and were avoiding unnecessary technical jargon, preferring to elicit information from the participants. There's still need for them however to question and confront participants with what they are saying: there exists the tendency to accept what is being said. There was a useful end-of-day team discussion led by Pat. • Day 4. I visited the weak teacher: no improvement and Pat is having to do most of the work to ensure that the group is not losing out. The other teach ers were still gaining in confidence; their English is certainly competent enough to cope with the situation. However, I feel that some of the tasks and activities they are using are taken from others' sessions and they need now to begin to use their own materials, based on their own principles. A follow-up training session is needed. • Day 5. I noted that one of the group was very confident to the point of perhaps overconfidence; at times he appeared to have lapsed into an ' I'm a giver of knowledge ' role - he answered a question of mine dogmatically, quoting sources. However, maybe it's natural to improve, then regress as long as, overall, the direction is forward. The plenary 'Grammar' session was poor. One of the trainers and Pat team-taught: they appeared to have two completely different approaches and it didn't work.

Me • I hope that team is now ready and able to run the workshop and that they have a sense of ownership for the programme which we prepared together; • Day 1 went very well. Over 100 teachers turned up and were easily able to find their classes for the first session. Timing was a problem for all the team, however and the ice-breaker activity took far too much time. I was also concerned that all team members were late for their first session - they had to sign out the books needed for thesessions; I advised them of this and were in their classes on time for the rest of the day. One of the team looks weak and will need help -I will need to be work with him tomorrow. Trainers full of confidence; M seems happy as do Ministry representatives, A very good first day. We had an end-of-day team meeting: all going well. • Day 2 went to plan, except for the one of the team. He lacks confidence: out of his depth at times and I had to do some team-teaching. I think he was the wrong choice. We will re-work his (weak) plan and I will take a more active team-teaching role tomorrow: otherwise he is not going to improve and his participants will lose out. • Day 3. I spent most of the day with the weak team member. I will need to do further team-teaching with him tomorrow. I was able to monitor the other sessions and am happy with the progress being made. M was also able to see individual sessions and is also generally happy. The Ministry representatives appear happy, too, now that they can see that the teachers are being taken through the new materials in sufficient detail. The group met after class for a post-session discussion.   • Day 4. Still going to plan : the programme established during the 3-day workshop is generally working and the participants appear to be enjoying the sessions. However, it looks as if we will need to include a plenary grammar session on Day 5, as there is not enough time for the trainer in charge of Vocabulary to cover Grammar as well. I am still team-teaching and will need to continue on Day 5.     • Day 5. The team-teaching continued which meant little time to prepare the joint 'Grammar' session. The colleague chosen for the sessioon seemed to lack concentration and focus: it was wrong for me to have expected him to lead such an important session in front of a large group: he had not been prepared for-sueh a job. It was an unsuccessful session and a disappointing end. Despite this I am happy with the way the week has gone. Our aims were fulfilled : the teachers will have gone away with a clear idea about the new materials: the whole point of the collaborative exercise

References

Bax, Stephen, 1997. Roles for a teacher educator in context-sensitive teacher education, ELT Journal, 51 / 3
Doff, Adrian, 1987. Training Materials as an Instrument of  Methodological Change,  in Language Teacher Education : an Integrated Programme for ELT Teacher Training, ELT Document 125, Modern English Publications in association with the British Council
Everand, K.B. and Morris, G,  1985. Effective  School Management, London : Paul Chapman.
House, E., 1974. The  Politics  of  Educational Innovation,  McCutchen
Holliday, A, 1994a. Appropriate Methodology and Social Context, Cambridge University Press
Holliday, A.,1994. The House of TESEP and the communicative approach: The special needs of state English language education, ELT Journal, 48/1: 3 -11
Kelly, P., 1980. From Innovation to Adaptability: The Changing Perspective of Curriculum  Development, in Galto, M.( ed ) Curriculum Change: The Lessons of a Decade, Leicester University Press: 8
Lewis, Michael. As quoted in Past, present and future of English language teaching, ELT News and Views, 6.1 1999: 7
Liu, Dilin, 1998. Ethnocentrism in TESOL : Teacher education and the neglected needs of international TESOL students,  ELT Journal, 52 /1,  3-9
Lynch, J. and Plunket, H., 1973. Teacher Education and Cultural Change, Unwin Educational
Medgyes, Peter. As quoted in Past, present and future of English language teaching, ELT News and Views, 6.1 1999: 8
Ministry of Education, 1997. ' English for Ethiopia.  '
Nunan, D., 1989. A client-centred approach to teacher development, ELT Journal, 43 / 2 : 111 - 118
Prabhu. N.S., 1987, Second Language Pedagogy, Oxford University Press
Sridhar, S.N., 1994, A reality check for SLA theories, TESOL Quarterly, 28/4 : 800-5
Straker Cook, R.H., 1987. Introducing ELT Curriculum Change, in Language Teacher Education : an Integrated Programme for ELT Teacher Training, ELT Document 125, Modern English Publications in association with the British Council
Tollefson, J., 1995. Power and Inequality in Language Education,  Cambridge University Press.