Bridging Authenticity and Empathy: Learner Perceptions and Perceived Impacts of NEST vs. NNEST YouTube Instruction
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v14i2.11317Keywords:
Affective Filter; Comment Analysis; NNEST/NEST; Autonomous Learning; YouTubeAbstract
This qualitative study addresses the limited attention given to learner-generated digital discourse in research on Native English-Speaking Teachers (NESTs) and Non-Native English-Speaking Teachers (NNESTs), particularly in autonomous English learning on YouTube. It investigates how learners perceive NEST and NNEST English-speaking instruction and the instructional impacts they attribute to each teacher type. Rather than focusing on on-screen teaching strategies, the study examines viewer comments as evidence of learner reception and triangulates these perceptions with semi-structured interviews with the content creators. The data comprised comments from six English-speaking instructional videos, three produced by NESTs and three by NNESTs. Thematic content analysis revealed distinct yet complementary patterns of learner perception. NEST-related comments were dominated by linguistic authority and admiration, with viewers valuing native-speaker models for phonetic accuracy, linguistic authenticity, and sociolinguistic exposure. In contrast, NNEST-related comments emphasized relatability and comprehensibility, with viewers valuing teachers who provided accessible models, emotional connection, and reassurance that contributed to reduced speaking anxiety. Interpreted through Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis and Medgyes’ framework on NESTs and NNESTs, the findings suggest that perceived authenticity and affective accessibility represent complementary dimensions of instructional value in digital EFL learning. Interview data further indicated that creators’ discourse adjustments were broadly consistent with learners’ perceived pedagogical and affective needs. The study contributes to digital language pedagogy by demonstrating that effective YouTube-based English instruction need not be defined by native-speaker status alone, but can emerge through complementary forms of linguistic authenticity, relatability, and empathy. These findings also have implications for teacher education, highlighting the need to prepare both NESTs and NNESTs to address learners’ linguistic, affective, and communicative needs in autonomous digital learning environments.
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Derivry-Plard, M. (2022). Rethinking the non-native English-speaking teachers in ELF contexts. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 11(2), pp. 205–225. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2022-2072
Franklin, H., & Harrington, I. (2019). A review into effective classroom management and strategies for student engagement: Teacher and student roles in today’s classrooms. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 7(12), pp. 1–15. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v7i12.4492
Greeves, S., Finnigan, K., Le, N., & Thomas, R. (2024). YouTube in higher education: Comparing student and instructor priorities. Frontiers in Education, 9, pp. 1404–1412. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1404787
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford University Press.
Kaldina, V., & Darmawan, I. N. P. (2023). “That’s why I never learned English from Indonesian teachers”: Investigating native-speakerism in YouTube video comments. Berumpun: Journal of Social, Political, and Humanities Studies, 6(2), pp. 73–87. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.33019/berumpun.v6i2.112
Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a lingua franca in ASEAN. Hong Kong University Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2019). Student beliefs about native and non-native teachers: Myth or reality? Language Awareness, 28(4), pp. 331–346. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2019.1672322
Mahmud, M. (2018). Technology and language learning: The use of social media in English language teaching. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(3), 563–570. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0903.14
Mahmud, M., Ammade, S., Halim, A., & Amin, F. H. (2022). Students’ voices of the use of Facebook and Instagram in teaching English in the university context. International Journal of Language Education, 6(2), 113–127.https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v6i2.24757
Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: Who’s worth more? ELT Journal, 46(4), pp. 340–349. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/46.4.340
Medgyes, P. (2017). The non-native teacher (3rd ed.). Swan Communication.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2001). Modeling perceptions of the accentedness and comprehensibility of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(4), pp. 451–468. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310100402X
Nonthamand, N. (2024). Designing video-based learning environments using workflow and scaffolding. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(3), pp. 501–510. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14612
Pirmani, P., Sumardi, M. S., & Putri, R. (2023). Native English teachers (NETs) strategies in teaching English to non-native learners. Journal of Research on English and Language Learning, 4(2), pp. 146–158. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.33474/jrell.v4i2.19832
Walkinshaw, I., & Duong, O. T. H. (2020). Native and non-native English-speaking teachers: Student perceptions in Vietnamese universities. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 19(5), pp. 320–334. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2019.1684347
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nurilmia, Murni Mahmud, Muh. Hasbi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under an Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See the Effect of Open Access)
