Native vs. Non-Native Mandarin Teachers!!

[Strawberries513]

I need to get peoples opinions on this if you dont mind (its for my final research paper for a class). If some people would give their opinions on the following questions please:

1. Would you, as a Mandarin learner, prefer a native or a non-native speaker as a teacher?

2.What do you think are the pro's and con's of Native teachers?

3. What do you think are the pro's and con's of Non-native teachers?

4. How would you say the number of native teachers compares to the number of non-native teachers?

-Thats all. Thanks so much to whoever helps me with this!!

[Shadowdh]

1. Would you, as a Mandarin learner, prefer a native or a non-native speaker as a teacher?

Depends... for listening and speaking a native speaker is essential, but for grammar explanations then a teacher who is fluent in Chinese but also fluent in the students language (or at least a language the student is fluent in) is as good more often than not as the subtleties of grammar and language can be explained with more detail...

2.What do you think are the pro's and con's of Native teachers?

Great for listening practice and correcting the use of the language being learned.

sometimes the nuances/subtleties of the target language are not clear therefore explanation can be unclear. Also you can have a teacher who does not speak the language clearly enough or well enough to be able to understand questions or explain language use very well...

3. What do you think are the pro's and con's of Non-native teachers?

Can be very good for learning the grammar and all that goes with that...

Pronunciation and nuances in the language being learned can be off.

4. How would you say the number of native speakers compares to the number of non-native speakers?

Not sure what you mean here... if its ratios then for listening and speaking you would need a native speaker, for grammar and reading then a non native is ok...

If you mean how many native as opposed to non native then I wouldnt have a clue... but here in the UK Native speakers are common...

[griz326]

#1 - Native speaker - I don't want to speak Chinese with a southern drawl.

#2 - Presuming teacher competence - native speakers understand the connotative and denotative meanings associated with words. If they ennunciate and pronounce correctly the learners have a good start. If there is a problem with the native speaker as a teacher, I would expect it to hinge on being able to clearly explain the nuances of a language. The native speaker may not speak the learner's language with great precision and the learners are unlikely to know enough of the language they are learning to get the subtlities.

#3 - I consider a non-native speakers to be an absolute last resort. While I have met a number of native Chinese speakers who speak English with proper pronunciation, precise meaning and without accent, they are way beyond 3 standard deviations. If the teacher cannot say the word correctly, the students never will. If the teacher does not understand the meaning of the word, the students never will. They may, however, know grammar better than a native speaker whose perfect grammar may be intuitive.

#4 - N/A

I am truly looking forward to teaching English in China next year. :-)

[Xiao Kui]

I've studied for quite awhile under native teachers, and never had one who was good at explaining grammatical and usage nuances or could supply the English equivalents of certain sentence structures, words, and expressions. I think a non-native teacher has the advantage of already having been through the process of learning Chinese as a foreign language and has a lot more insight into the learning process as a non-native speaker.

I also think anyone dedicated enough to have pursued teaching Chinese to foreigners as a degree has probably reached a certain level of accuracy as far as pronunciation is concerned.

I think it's still important to have plenty of exposure to native speakers to help one's pronunciation and tingli, but for learning things such as grammar, sentence structure, and especially usage, I think I would prefer a non-native speaker.

[atitarev]

I've studied for quite awhile under native teachers, and never had one who was good at explaining grammatical and usage nuances or the equivalents of certain sentence structures, words, and expressions. I think a non-native teacher has the advantage of already having been through the process of learning Chinese as a foreign language and has a lot more insight into the learning process as a non-native speaker.

I agree with this 100%. I actually find native speakers are good for practising Chinese with, but no offence, not often good for teaching

1) Chinese teachers are often afraid to lose face and it's difficult to discuss with them things, if it contradicts their opinion.

2) Chinese teachers are often not familiar with the English terminology used to describe their language or they confuse the terms. So if you want examples, yes native speakers can give more but when they explain why you say so, you want a professional linguist/teacher.

For the same reason we do prefer foreign language textbooks in our own language, don't we?

I know good Western schools offer grammar taught by non-native and conversation by native speakers.

I would vote for native speakers, if you already have good grounding and have good resources, know how to use them and your sole goal is conversation practice.

I knew excellent non-native language teachers (a different language), which I wouldn't change for natives, they can be not 100% fluent or even have some pronunciation flaws but be the best teachers, I hope it makes sense to someone. To explain my thought: being able to teach, not being able to speak, is the main criterion for a good teacher (to a certain extent, of course).

[eeraser]

I am in America, so I am not exposed to Chinese 24/7, but here is my take on your questions:

1. Would you, as a Mandarin learner, prefer a native or a non-native speaker as a teacher?

A: I prefer a native teacher.

2. What do you think are the pro's and con's of Native teachers?

A: I have found native teachers enunciate better. When it is a non-native speaker, I feel like they are just repeating sounds, it doesn’t come across naturally. Although there are times when my teacher cannot say the English word properly and the whole class gets confused.

3. What do you think are the pro's and con's of Non-native teachers?

A: They know where I am coming from since they had to learn the language after childhood as well.

4. How would you say the number of native teachers compares to the number of non-native teachers?

A: I have only seen non-native teachers in videos, all of mine have been native.

Hope this helps, good luck!

[leosmith]

1. Would you, as a Mandarin learner, prefer a native or a non-native speaker as a teacher?

Native speaker for conversation, self-learning for all other aspects.

2.What do you think are the pro's and con's of Native teachers?

pro's-conversation, con's-all other aspects

3. What do you think are the pro's and con's of Non-native teachers?

pro's-none; con's-all aspects (that is, for me they compare negatively against natives for conversation and against self study for all other aspects)

4. How would you say the number of native teachers compares to the number of non-native teachers?

There seem to be much more natives over all, mostly in China, trying to teach in China or increasingly trying to teach using internet. But that's just the feeling I get from google searches, etc. I don't know the facts.

[yonglin]

Native speaker all the way. Actually, I have never had a non-native Chinese teacher, but I have had plenty of non-native English teachers, under which I learnt a lot less than I did once I got a native English teacher.

When you're an absolute beginner (of any language, but Chinese in particular), you need to learn to recognise tones and how to produce sounds accurately, and it's extremely important that you're exposed only to standard (or "perfect") Chinese not to develop bad habits. I guess some non-native speakers might be able to do this, but they are kind of rare.

Once you get more advanced, you just don't have anything to benefit from obtaining explanations in a language other than that in which you're learning, since it would just distract you from thinking in the target language.

I think the main problem with this thread is that there seems to be an assumption that native Chinese teachers are less qualified than their non-native counterparts. Obviously, a trained non-native teacher might be better than a non-trained native teacher in some respects, but such a comparison is obviously quite pointless. In general, I am very impressed with the teaching skills of most Chinese teachers of a Chinese as a foreign language (which usually have a university degree in the subject - far more than we could say about native English teachers teaching English in China for example...).

Personally, I never had the experience with professional native teachers being unwilling to talk about particular things because they find it inappropriate. I've had things like 黄电影 listed on vocabulary sheets. I also particularly remember an occassion when a few of us crazy foreigners in my beginner's class discussed gay relationships during a break (in English). We then explained to the teacher what we were talking about, and although she seemed a bit uncomfortable and opposed to the whole thing, she seemed quite enthusiastic to tell us the Chinese words and the like. I once asked another of my teachers why she had chosen to do the whole teaching Chinese to foreigners-thing. Although the main reason seemed to be jumping on the bandwagon (it was the most popular career choice in her class of Chinese majors) it was also because of curiousity about other cultures and a willingness to learn more about people with different backgrounds and customs.

If you're unwilling to learn the names of a few grammatical terms in the language you are learning, that's your problem and you should not blame your teacher for it. Actually, I think it's quite constructed and artificial to insist on using the grammatical terminology of your own language to describe another, since there will obviously be a lot of concepts which simply don't compare. For instance, the grammatical term "complement" will probably be unfamiliar to native English speakers which have no experience in Chinese, and I don't see why calling it by this name rather than 补语 would be any better or more intuitive.

I was only able to develop decently fluent and idiomatic English having let go of non-native teachers. Personally, I think it's quite dangerous always to look for the equivalent way of expressing something in your mother tongue (or a better language) when acquiring a new language: the sooner you can abandon the "translation" stage, the sooner you'll get fluent.

[-葛亚辉-]

I think I've mentioned my views on this elsewhere, but I'll do so again. Also, I should note that I've only been taking Chinese for two years at this point

1. Would you, as a Mandarin learner, prefer a native or a non-native speaker as a teacher?

Native speaker.

2.What do you think are the pro's and con's of Native teachers?

Pros: Flawless pronunciation and fluency, understanding of culture and ability to incorporate that into lessons (for instance, knowing the backstories of 成语 really helps me remember them...not that non-native speakers can't learn that, but they're definitely less likely to know it as well)

Cons: Potentially, inability to explain things well in english (although really, after the first year that doesn't matter much...at least, my teachers this past year spoke basically no english in class)

3. What do you think are the pro's and con's of Non-native teachers?

Pros: Since they learned it too, they can help with study techniques and potentially draw connections between your native langauge and Chinese that a native teacher might not see.

Cons: Non-native pronunciation (assuming it isn't 大山), less complete understanding of culture and its connection to language, less complete understanding of idiomatic expressions, and differences in Chinese between what "sounds good" and what doesn't.

4. How would you say the number of native teachers compares to the number of non-native teachers?

Well, I'd say the vast majority are native. I've had 6 native teachers, plus a couple native TAs, etc, and this summer I'm studying in China so I can only assume all my teachers there will be native speakers as well...I've never had, or even seen, a non-native Chinese teacher. Certainly, my school doesn't have them.

[flameproof]

1. Would you, as a Mandarin learner, prefer a native or a non-native speaker as a teacher?

Non-native, preferably English native speaker. They are FAR better in explaining. Chinese are hopeless when it comes to explaining anything.

Saying that, just note that MOST chinese are not native Mandarin speakers. Most speak it as 2nd language.

2.What do you think are the pro's and con's of Native teachers?

Chinese have usually no background on their own language (normal for all native speakers). Their pronunciation can vary a lot. As a starter you have no way to judge their knowledge, and frankly, there are too many "teachers" out there which have no idea what they are doing.

3. What do you think are the pro's and con's of Non-native teachers?

No con as long as you are below their level. A CFL speaker knows the difficulties you have much better.

4. How would you say the number of native teachers compares to the number of non-native teachers?

What is a native speaker? Mandarin is natively only spoken somewhere northwest.

[Senzhi]

Personally, I believe to learn Mandarin, Simplified Chinese and Hanyun Pinyin properly, you need to have a qualifed Teacher of Chinese as a Foreign Language, native or near-native ... should not be of such an importance.

Good luck in finding one. If you do find one in Shantou, I'll buy you dinner.

I've had native speakers, who didn't have a clue about teaching ...

I've had qualified teachers who I had to teach Pinyin ...

As an example: I'm Belgian, university graduated Adult Educator, diploma qualified in TEFL ... and am happily teaching business English ... being Belgian (and with a vast amount of business experience, a skill many teachers here do miss as well).

The feedback I get is that my students prefer my English towards a native speaker, simply because I have no regional accent.

In addition, it appears indeed I can easily compete with my native counterparts with regards to the English grammar rules.

I guess a proper qualification together with experience can beat anything.

[gato]

I can easily compete with my native counterparts with regards to the English grammar rules.

How about Francais?

[-葛亚辉-]

I think some of you just go to crappy schools....of course not all native speakers are good at explaining things, but neither are all non-native speakers....teaching is a SKILL.

And the (native) Chinese teachers I have had have been among the finest teachers I've ever had, in any subject.

Of course there are unskilled ones. But I think if we're trying to evaluate the value of native v. non-native fairly, we have to assume that our hypotethical native and non-native teachers have the same amount of teaching skill. It is, after all, something that can be learned.

Yes, non-native speakers have gone through the process of learning Chinese too, but that does not mean they're more qualified to teach it well. For example, we all go through the process of learning history, or math, in school, but not all of us (in fact, not many of us) could teach those subjects well. Sharing the common expeirence of having started from ignorance does have some value, but it does not automatically make a good teacher.

ANY teacher needs teaching skill, and I feel for those of you who have had native Chinese speakers who lack this. But if your experience has been that natives can't teach Chinese, my experience has been the exact opposite. Making generalizations about the inherent value of native speakers would be rash.

As I said before, I believe they're basically equal (assuming their teaching skill is equal), except that with native speakers you get the assurance that their pronunciation is correct and so is their grammar. With non-native speakers, even the best of them, this isn't the case. For example--and please don't take this personally--Senzhi's post contains a grammatical mistake. Obviously, he or she speaks English very well, and is quite qualified to teach it--I don't mean to suggest anything to the contrary--but his mistake is one that a native English speaker wouldn't make.

If I've learned anything about teaching from my parents (both teachers) uncle and aunt (both teachers) or grandparents (literally all teachers), or from my own experiences teaching, it's that your students are always watching you. Teachers serve as models for imitation, especially in foreign languages. If you wish to speak Chinese, presumably you hope to do it with Chinese people sooner or later. Why, then, would anyone actively prefer a non-native speaker for their teacher if an equally skilled native speaker was also possible?

I'll admit that in some places perhaps, skilled native teachers are unavailable but I'd advise everyone to stay away from making generalizations about how native speakers are incapable of teaching their own language. Being a native speaker doesn't qualify you to teach, of course, but it doesn't disqualify you either, and anyone who believes that it does is a fool.

(And for those of you looking for places with incredible native-speaking teachers, come to Brown. I have nothing but the highest praise for all of the Chinese-teaching staff there, they are truly incredible.)

[flameproof]

I think some of you just go to crappy schools....

It's probably a big factor. The concept of "value for money" is not really known yet. You pay basically for sitting the time, and you get some outdated boring learning material.

Sure, the key is not language skill, the key is TEACHING skill. But I presume that many schools do a shortcut and think everybody that speaks the language can teach.

BTW, I am certainly not suitable as a teacher in my native language.

[Jive Turkey]

I have a question for the original poster: what is a native speaker of Mandarin/Putonghua/Guoyu or whatever you want to call it? This is an issue that is often brought up by anti-establishment minded applied linguists in the west who question the usefulness of the label "native speaker." A language testing guy named Alan Davies wrote a very influential book which I believe was called "The Native Speaker in Applied Linguistics." Though I don't remember him saying anything about Chinese in it, Putonghua and whether or not there is really such a thing as a native speaker of it is already something that a few mainland scholars have brought up.

So those of you who have already posted, I'm interested in hearing exactly what you meant when you said you preferred or didnt prefer native Mandarin speaking teachers. What do you think native is? A Beijinger? A northerner? An educated mainlander who speaks some variety of "Mandarin" as his first language and has gotten a 2A or 1A/B on the PSC? A educated dialect speaker who managed to do the same on the PSC? An educated waishengren in Taiwan? An educated Taiwanese who passed the Guoyin test at the end of his normal university degree? There are many different shades of "nativeness."

When I was learning in Taiwan, I seemed to prefer the waishengren teachers I had over the non-waishengren. I don't think it had much to do with the way they spoke. I just happened to like their personalities more than those of the locals teaching in the school where I studied. They were a lot less provincial. Somebody in another school in Taiwan could have had the opposite experience.

Based on the studying I've done in HK and the mainland, I'd have to say I preferred the dialect background teachers over the northerners or Beijingers. I've been tutored by some OK northerners, but they had a great deal of experience outside of the mainland. Most of the northerners I've had were way too concerned about features of pronunciation or vocabulary that make little or no difference to effective communication in pretty much all of China. I've seen northerners basically badger out of the classroom students who wouldn't erhua words that don't rely on it to distinguish meaning (and most don't); I've seen teachers interrupt roleplays just to correct somebody who used whatever kind of dialect vocabulary that pretty much everybody in China would understand. I think this kind of prescriptivism has been getting worse since the PSC was started. The test is such a powerful influence, and in my opinion a negative influence, on how Chinese people view Putonghua and language in general.

I've found that teachers from a dialect background or notherners who've spent time in dialect areas and have learned dialects are more likely to cut throuth the prescriptive BS and focus more on whether or not the learner is getting his or message across in a way that is acceptable to most people (rather than acceptable to the the State Language Commission). If they are decently educated, then they will still know what the prescriptive standard is and will be able to tell the learner what that standard is if the learner wants or needs to know.

As far as comparing "native" Chinese speakers to, say, a westerner who learned Chinese as an adult and has reached a high level of proficiency is concerned, I think the Chinese person potentially has a very big handicap. The handicap is a result of the relative youth and limited economies of scale of the TCSL profession. Most of the literature on second language acquisition is in English and is about people who are learning or teaching English; the remainder of this lit is almost all about the teaching and learning of Spanish, French, Italian or German. Very little of what's in the A-list journals, all of which are in English, is about the teaching and learning of Chinese, and what little there is differs markedly in research methodology and quality from the stuff you'll find in mainland journals on TCSL. Very little of this ever even gets summarized in Chinese publications, much less translated. Most of the concepts and theories from the A-list journals only make it into Chinese books on TCSL in the form of very vague if not superficial descriptions. Most CSL teachers I've known just don't have the English proficiency needed to go get a better idea what such concepts or theories are about by reading the research articles that originally proposed them.

In addition to lacking access to the research that good language teaching tends to be based on, most "native" CSL teachers also don't have access to practical training programs that come anything close to the quality of TESOL programs that are available in the west. This is mostly due to economies of scale. Practical programs like the Cambridge CELTA and DELTA were born from British Council and International House's need to have a sufficient supply of teachers to satisfy massive demand for English language instruction for people who genuinely need to learn English. Do any such programs exist for Chinese? I've not seen any, and I don't think there will be any for quite some time. Most teacher training for CSL teachers in China is not practical at all. Most of the teachers I've known who had MAs in TCSL said they never taught real students in any of the teacher training programs they did and that getting experience with real teaching was seen as something you did on your own as a part-time teacher while doing a degree in teaching.

If a beginner asked me what kinds of teachers would be best for his or her learning, I would likely say that at the elementary or intermediate levels, a mix of native and near-native teachers would be best. If the near-native received any reputable practical teacher training in an English speaking country, then he's likely to be much better at planning and delivering lessons than the native who was trained in China.

[-葛亚辉-]

I have to say I'm a little skeptical of the idea that lack of access to education research means Chinese are less likely to be good teachers. Lack of access to practical training is another story, but in my experience, Westerners who have had a lot of training in education tend to be terrible teachers. For instance, last summer I worked at a school with several Harvard education grad students and grads, and they were for the most part the worst teachers there, even though most of the rest of the faculty had basically no training or experience.

I don't know if that's the norm, but I think sometimes high-level education research gets in the way of actual, practical teaching methods. And it's easy to forget that the specific makeup and character of your class is a huge factor in teaching it, and that's something you can't possibly train for or solve through edu-babble theories.

That said, hands-on experience actually teaching is obviously a big factor, and a native speaker without that is likely to be a worse teacher than a non-native speaker who does have it.

[Jive Turkey]

I have to say I'm a little skeptical of the idea that lack of access to education research means Chinese are less likely to be good teachers. Lack of access to practical training is another story, but in my experience, Westerners who have had a lot of training in education tend to be terrible teachers. For instance, last summer I worked at a school with several Harvard education grad students and grads, and they were for the most part the worst teachers there, even though most of the rest of the faculty had basically no training or experience.

I don't know if that's the norm, but I think sometimes high-level education research gets in the way of actual, practical teaching methods. And it's easy to forget that the specific makeup and character of your class is a huge factor in teaching it, and that's something you can't possibly train for or solve through edu-babble theories.

That said, hands-on experience actually teaching is obviously a big factor, and a native speaker without that is likely to be a worse teacher than a non-native speaker who does have it.

Well I think your scepticism of "education research" and "training in education" is healthy. However, that't not the sort of research or training I'm talking about. IMO, most education degrees, especially in the US, serve better as barriers to entry to the teaching market than as good preparation for a teaching career. I wouldn't consider most Masters of Arts in Teaching in the US to be practical training, and I don't think that making people do at least one year of coursework before they're allowed to stand in front of real students makes good teachers.

The kind of training I'm talking about is not the sort of training that leads to a public/state school teaching qualification, but instead qualifies somebody to teach in more market oriented contexts like continuing education or better overseas language institutes like British Council or International House that prepare students to study in English speaking countries. Courses that will get you these sorts of jobs are usually shorter, more intense and more practical than what will get you a job in public/state schools.

Language teaching research, like most academic research, certainly has its share of BS. However, you can't really judge it as if it's part of what you call "education research." Compared to other fields of teaching like maths or science, second language teaching is unique in that in a lot of universities, there are two very different kinds of paths one could follow. Anybody who wants to go into maths or science teaching would just do a standard teacher training course (i.e., a master of arts in teaching in the US or a Cert/DipEd in other English speaking countries) in which they'd only spend about 20% of the course learning practical or theoretical things abou teaching those subjects. The rest is just PCmulticulturalfeministpostmoderndecontructivist fluff. You can go that way for language teaching, too, and you pretty much have to go that way if you want to get a license to teach in primary or secondary schools. The other way, though, and this is the way that most people who teach in adult/continuing education, overseas universities or decent language schools go is to first do a practical qualification like the CELTA or DELTA. If you then want to actually get into reading research and perhaps doing a bit of your own, you can do an MA in Applied Linguistics or TESOL that is 100% about language teaching and learning. Most of these degrees will not lead to a primary or secondary school teaching qualification, which to me is a good thing because it frees the program from all the influences and restrictions that come with that. My bet is that the majority of articles that appear in the A-list journals for applied linguistics and language teaching were written by people who took the second path. I'm not saying that it's all good research, but it is definitely different from the "education research" that one would read for a Master of Arts or Diploman in Education.

Putting it in a more practical way, what do you think the writers of the materials you've used to study or the designers of the courses you've done based their decisions on? Like it or not, years of classroom experience, whether theoretically informed or not, does not alone prepare somebody to write good textbooks or design good courses. It takes a much broader and deeper understanding than what one would get from classroom experience. It takes somebody who can make decisions about what theories they will allow to inform their design of materials or courses. I'm not saying that everybody who does an MA or PhD in Applied Linguistics can do it, but I will say that I dont' know of any decent TESOL or TCSL textbooks that were written by somebody who lacked the theoretical grounding that one gets from postgraduate study. Unfortunately for us CSL students, CSL teachers who have trained in China have only gotten a superficial summary of what a postgrad student in an English medium Applied Linguistics program would read, or I should say would have read since it takes years for research in the A journals to trickle into Chinese books on TCSL. I'd much prefer that my teacher, and especially the people who designed the course or materials I study to have 1.) gotten some practical classroom training before doing an MA; and 2.) read original research themselves, analyzed it, and then decided what is BS and what might be sound rather than just read a brief summary of what hit the A-list journals ten or fifteen years ago.

[-葛亚辉-]

I agree that it takes more than just years of classroom experience to write a textbook, but I have to disagree that you need anything more than that to design a good course. The CSL courses I've taken have been designed by their teachers, based around a textbook, but actually, the most useful materials I've used to this point have been those that were prepared by the teachers themselves. (Seriously.)

Also, I would add, why are we assuming that the native-speaking chinese teacher's we're discussing were trained in China? CSL teachers in China is one thing, but I think that native-speakers teaching CSL in the US were generally educated, at least in part, in the West, and often speak English well enough to have access to scholarly materials about teaching language if they want to read them. My teachers, with one exception, have all spoken English quite well, and the one who didn't is doing graduate work now at Seton Hall (in English) so I guess even she could have access to these research materials you're talking about. One of them has been trained in language teaching, in English. I agree that someone with teacher training is better than someone without, but it seems unfair to assume that native-speakers don't have that training...(at least in the US, I can't comment on the situation in China or Taiwan becuase I haven't studied there yet [but soon!])

I really don't agree that you need to understand any educational theory to design a good course anyway though. I'm sure that it helps, or can help, but it isn't a neccesary condition for a successful class, and nor does it guarantee one. I've taken plenty of great classes taught by people who haven't studied theory at all, and plenty of crappy ones from people who have. Educational theory, even linguistic theory that is more scientific than other edu-theory, is only a tool.

[gato]

I really don't agree that you need to understand any educational theory to design a good course anyway though. I'm sure that it helps, or can help, but it isn't a neccesary condition for a successful class, and nor does it guarantee one. I've taken plenty of great classes taught by people who haven't studied theory at all, and plenty of crappy ones from people who have.

Knowing some language learning theory I am sure helps, but studying it full time for the one or two years for a Master's degree I think is probably an overview. It'd be more efficient to just read a good survey book or a series of relevant articles, and combine that with practical teaching experience and perhaps the mock classroom teaching they do for CELTA/DELTA..

I think the important thing is that a teacher should have a thorough understanding of the subject being taught. A math teacher should know the math that's being taught inside out; a Chinese teacher likewise for the Chinese that's being taught. A native speaker obviously will have an advantage in terms of pronunciation and an intuitive grasp of correct usage. Those are important assets for a language teacher. But of course, this person should also learn enough grammar, linguistics, language history, and so forth so that this intuitive knowledge can be more effectively communicated to students.

[flameproof]

The way out of the dilemma is, as a learner, to have some ideas about teaching and instruct your "teacher" exactly what, and how you want to learn. You can simple not expect a teacher to find your learning style by himself, at least not in China.