TOPIC: ARGUMENT221 - The following appeared in the editorial section of a student newspaper.
"In a recent survey, most students who were studying beginning Russian gave higher course-evaluation ratings to classes taught by non-native Russian speakers than to classes taught by native Russian speakers. The reason that the non-native speakers were better teachers of Russian is easy to see: the non-native speakers learned Russian later in life themselves, and so they have a better understanding of how the language can be taught effectively. Therefore, in order to improve instruction for all languages and also save money, our university should hire non-native speakers as language instructors instead of trying to find and recruit native speakers."
WORDS: 495 TIME: 0:29:00 DATE: 2007-8-10
In this argument the arguer comes to the conclusion that by hiring non-native speakers rather than native ones as language instructors, their university will improve instruction for all languages and save money. To justify the conclusion, the author cites a recent survey that most students in beginning Russian gave higher course-evaluation ratings to classes taught by non-native Russian speakers than to classes taught by native Russian speakers. The author also points out that non-native speakers have a better understanding of how to teach the language effectively. However, close scrutiny of this argument reveals that it is unconvincing in several aspects.
To begin with, the survey must be showed to be reliable before I can accept any conclusion the author arrives at based on it. However, the author shows no information about the number of students participated in the survey. Moreover, since the survey only covers students from beginning Russian classes, it is entirely possible that they are in fact not representative of all those students learning Russian, which renders the inference based upon it highly suspect.
In addition, the author fails to take into account other factors that may have an influence on the speakers' instruction. It might be sure that non-native speakers learned Russian later in life themselves and thus knew how to learn it more effectively, yet perhaps they could only teach how to start the learning of Russian. Common sense tells us that native speakers have a more in-depth comprehension of the culture of there language, which plays an important role in learning a language in high levels. Thus, students might not accept the nonnative speakers at all.
Finally, the author unfairly claims that the implementation of hiring more non-native speakers will improve instruction for all languages and save money for their university. First, even if that non-native Russian speakers can give better instruction than native Russian speakers, the author tend to assume that all languages are the same with Russian. Yet the arguer fails to prove this poor assumption. Second, the author gives no information about how much salaries of each non-native speakers and native speakers, and it is quite possible that they these speakers do have the same salaries or that some non-native speakers may charge more money than native speakers as a result of the author's recommendation. For that matter, hiring more non-native speakers will not save money at all.
In sum, the conclusion reached in the argument is invalid and misleading. To make it logically acceptable, the author should have to demonstrate that the survey in the argument is reliable and the learning of Russian is really the same with other foreign languages. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of this argument until the arguer can provide more information about whether all students from both beginning classes and high-level classes will find such a recommendation exciting and whether the implementation of hiring more non-native speakers rather than native speakers will save money for their university.
