I did a similar survey with one of my intermediate classes (9 students in total) for an MA assignment and I have taken the liberty to publish the results here in case you're interested...

7 students in my class agreed the reason why they had chosen the British Council was because the teachers are native speakers. This clearly shows that native speakerness is still a powerful marketing tool for a school or individual, and that although it ‘is used as a yardstick for employability, there appears to be no operative consensus as to what it entails’ (Kershaw 1994:90). Does it mean being born in an Inner Circle country or speaking the language proficiently, or both? I was born in Peru and both my parents are Peruvian. Although I received a British education at school, went to university in Britain and lived there for many years, I have always spoken Spanish at home. Being bilingual and having a British accent when I speak English, many of my colleagues insist I’m a native speaker. In fact, the British Council employs only native speakers.

All students agreed they prefer native teachers to non-native teachers. Students gave reasons such as ‘they can correct your English much better’, ‘I have had non-native teachers and I didn’t like it’ and ‘I can learn “real” English’ (NB student’s inverted commas). But the belief which permeated most students’ views was that native speakers have ‘a good pronunciation’. It is interesting to notice how non-native speakers usually think of their own pronunciation as unsatisfactory, and ascribe ‘good’ to native speaker speech only. This was reasserted in question 8, where all agreed native speakers are better at teaching pronunciation. According to this “tenet”, non-native speakers never attain L2 native-like pronunciation. This can have serious consequences on learning and motivation. As Rampton (1990:99) puts it, ‘if native-speaker competence is used to set targets and define proficiency, the learner is left playing a game in which the goal-posts are being perpetually moved by people they cannot often challenge’. Instead, he puts forward the term expertise which shifts the emphasis from ‘who you are’ to ‘what you know’. Moreover, the teacher must ensure a line is drawn in class between ‘good pronunciation’ and ‘native accent’.

7 students agreed the ideal teacher of English is a native speaker. As well as pronunciation, the native speaker teacher was rated high in knowledge of the language and frequency of use. One student professed ‘you learn more things with a native speaker’. This may have to do with previous disappointing learning where outdated and ineffective methodologies and non-native school teachers are lamentably equated. This ideal is ‘a cornerstone of a monolingual pedagogy’ (Phillipson 1992:13) upon which native teachers and private language schools abroad thrive.

However, most people in the class (5) were not sure whether native speakers are better teachers than non-native speakers (3 agreed), which somewhat contradicts the previous statement. During feedback, students told me a non-native speaker could be a good teacher too, his lessons should be enjoyable and that ‘the person’ is very important. Most also agreed a good teacher should be culturally imbued and disagreed that only native speakers can teach about British culture. This goes to show students perceive culture as acquirable, not innate. By the same token, there was some disparity of opinion whether native speakers are better suited to teaching idiomatic language. This underpins Phillipson’s belief that ‘cultural connotations’ and ‘idiomatically appropriate language’ are not ‘impervious to teacher training’ or ‘something that well-trained non-natives cannot acquire’ (1992:14)

Despite this, most students agreed they would give the job to the native speaker, rather than to the non-native teacher, if experience and qualifications were the same. Their expectations of a native-speaker teacher include that he teaches about his country (i.e. Britain), language and, yet again, good pronunciation. The view that only native speakers can do this can be countered by going back to the question of training, or better still, language loyalty in terms of affiliation, as opposed to inheritance (Rampton 1990:99-100). Non-native teachers can feel closer to the “foster” culture and language because they have learned and earned it. Rampton proposes these terms are more useful than native speaker and mother tongue, and warns that it is dangerous and unfair to ‘assume that nationality and ethnicity are the same as language ability and language allegiance.'

Hi there Sarah

I'm doing the same survey for my MA in TESOL.  I'd be grateful if I could share (obviously not plagiarise!) some of your results indeed read your research.  Could you send it to my gmail on: marymonosita@gmail.com

Thanks so much

Best wishes

Mary