UPDATE: The first lecture went longer than expected (Don’t they all?) and I will not get to the assignment until next week. Instead, my first homework assignment will now be to write a summary of a brief article I will give them tomorrow. That will give me a basic idea of their reading and writing abilities.
In any case, after reading some of the comments, I am wondering if I want to touch the Dokdo issue with a 20-meter cattle prod.
ORIGINAL POST (Not really Korea-related, but this is pretty interesting (at least to me).)
I am teaching a introductory level (200 level for my fellow Americans) course on American government to a group of about 12 Korea students who will be transferring to a college in the States next year. As part of the introduction to the course, I am working on a two-part assignment that I hope will improve their critical thinking and dispassionate analytical skills.
The first part involves having the students answer five questions on issues that I hope will elicit a strong emotional response. The stronger the reaction the better. Here is the list I came up with:
- Roh Moo-hyun is a good president.
- Dokdo belongs to Korea.
- The military should be voluntary.
- Korea should unify as soon as possible, even if there are economic problems.
- China should replace America as the leading power in East Asia.
The students will be asked to strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with each statement. I will also ask them to rank how strongly they feel about their opinion for each statement.
Frankly, I am not happy with questions 3 and 5. I do not think most of my female students will have a strong opinion about military service since they do not face it. Also, I worry that the students might not want to share any negative feelings about America to their American professor. Now that I think about it, I might change “Korea” in question 2 to “Japan.”
In any case, it will be interesting to see which statement gets the biggest rise out of my students. I’ll share that later.
21 Comments
I’d have them say what two statements they most strongly agree and disagree with, then have them argue the opposite of their opinion.
Hopefully you’re teaching them to evaluate these things in a world context so they can see how things work in other nations….
A good exercise I think - and the questions are completely legit, in my opinion - but I wouldn’t change question #2 to Japan. Should anybody in your school - or elsewhere - see it, who knows what you could be accused of, regardless of your intent.
I had a university coworker who was asked by a student why a woman in some Hollywood flick was referred to as being “easy.” He tried explain it as delicately as possible, and for his sincere efforts at giving an inoffensive explanation, the main gossip item - among university faculty and on the student message board the following week - was how the bad American professor had been lecturing students on how “easy” Korean women were. (We could only presume that one student misunderstood him, or wanted to tell an interesting story after class.) Of course, nothing of the sort had been said about women, Korean or otherwise, but he wound up getting hauled in front of his Director and forced to apologize to the class in question. Fortunately, he wasn’t canned, but that option was under discussion for a while.
My point is that the uproar had nothing to do with the reality of the situation, and I suppose it could have happened even without a student asking the question. I don’t shy away from Dokdo in the classroom - I tread very carefully, but don’t avoid it - but just wouldn’t have anything on paper or on a website saying “Dokdo belongs to Japan” unless it was clearly accompanied by the option of “Dokdo belongs to Korea.”
what’s interesting is that asking for help with your lesson plan follows the post on moderating comments.
perhaps oranckay should get a handle on moderating posts before tackling comments…
Michael,
The cat is out of the bag. That is just what I plan to do in part two of the assignment. I will tell them that I am not trying to get them to change their minds, only to be able to see the logic of a counter-position. I am hoping this exercise will limber up their critical thinking skills some before getting to the main part of the course.
globalvillageidiot,
Good point. Perhaps I will change the question to “Dokdo belongs to Korea and not Japan.” Maybe just getting the words “Dokdo” and “Japan” in the same sentence will raise red flags in their minds.
J.J.,
This was more of a sharing (what is for me some interesting stuff) than asking for help. In any case, I am not too proud to accept good suggestions.
This class is part of a general education requirement for a college in the States, so I have to teach a certain set of content. But the guy in charge there has given me the freedom to pursue the study of that content in a way (in my judgment) the students can best learn it.
The students’ English level will most likely be uneven (I will find out tonight) but the small class size will allow me to work closely with them.
Surprising to hear critical thinking is taught in Korea
Michael, why is that so?
Other good question could be:
America should be responsible for the welfare of the world.
Sean Hayes
http://www.ahnse.blogspot.com
Be sure to let us know the results.
Personally, I’ve never had a problem after several semesters of teaching in the Korean classroom, in classes called “Social Issues in Korea,” “Rethinking Korean Culture,” “Introduction to American Culture,” and “Current Issues in US Society.”
In all of the classes, I was very careful to lay out a clear set of conceptual tools, which were all clearly and exactly defined, which we thereafter applied to all kinds of situations, such as:
custom vs. tradition (Hobsbawm)”invented tradition” (Hobsbawm)”imagined community” (Anderson)”ideology” (my own)”hegemony” (Gramsci)”structure” (Marx/structuralist historians)”history” (von Ranke and my own cocktail)primary, secondary, and tertiary sources”social problem” (Eitzen)Once these are explained, examples given, and heads generally nodding, when you ask the questions of “Do you think there is media bias in the US?” you can follow that up with “What about the Korean media?” Most will acknowledge that there is, but have trouble coming up with examples. So I use the example of “ideological tropes” – like a preset story that keeps coming up again and again.
So without getting into a debate about who owns what, I ask the students whether they have ever truly considered that their argument might not be true. On what basis are they weighing the evidence? Is it a comparison of the logical and persuasive power of the two arguments, or is there an ideological/emotional/social pressure to just believe what everyone else does?
To make it more real, I tell my high school students that they may be in a dorm room discussion about this issue, with some Japanese nationalist there, and that onlookers who don’t know much about the history will be judging the power of the arguments outside of these emotional contexts. So if, as a Korean, they can’t explain or present their point of view – or even worse, don’t even have a really good explanation for why they believe what they believe – they’re going to look pretty stupid, and they will have lost one for their “side.”
So I try not to get into the debate on the issue – although I mention, if they ask, to be safe (because I believe it) that I do come down on the Korean side of the argument, according to what I know.
But once we’ve leaned heavy into social problems in the US, and broken them down with the tools we’ve gotten used to using, I often turn to parallel Korean examples, and the students “get it” and I’ve actually never had a problem, no matter how deeply I lay into certain things.
This is the contextualization and backgrounding that lets people know that I 1) am applying these tools equally and not just “bashing” Korean, and 2) they are useful for peeling back the layers of sensitivity, over-emotionalism, and kneejerk nationalism that could get you in trouble if you say, run a blog that does the same thing, but without all that stuff. Ahem.
I liken it to performing deep, invasive, and painful surgery – you gotta have the proper tools, anesthesia, and time to prep the patient. If you tackle these problems on a blog without all of the above, it’s like coming at your patient with a knife and a vicious gleam in your eye.
Anyway – I hope that makes sense, and might offer another perspective on classroom work done with a critical eye to Korean society.
You should give these questions to second-generation gyopo Koreans and see how much they differ. I’ll give it a go since I have both korean and australian blood running through me.
1. Roh Moo-hyun is a good president.
- Strongly Disagree
2. Dokdo belongs to Korea.
- Strongly strongly agree
3. The military should be voluntary.
- Agree ? (actually “don’t know, don’t care” fits this one)
4. Korea should unify as soon as possible, even if there are economic problems.
- Agree (and get those North Koreans out of oppression and hunger)
5. China should replace America as the leading power in East Asia.
- Stongly disagree (although china is an economic power, most of their citizens are peasants. plus i just don’t think china should replace america as the leading power in asia as it would lead to chaos)
I say don’t do it. If you do, good luck. It’s tough to give a crash course on critical thinking after they’ve had 20 years of indoctrination on the Way of the Collective.
I think the outcome of any debate whatsoever regarding Tokto in particular will be that you are viewed with suspicion by anyone on campus who hears about it. Keep in mind that you’ll almost certainly have the only class on campus that questions the Tokto dogma. All departments/classes : History, Economics, Int’l relations, Government, Politics, any more I could think of… they’ll all be talking about how to convince the world that it’s Korea’s, won’t they? It will be taken as a given campus wide that Korean ownership is unquestionable.
I prefer that Koreans learn in the school of hard knocks when they travel, work/live abroad over the idea that you or anyone else here takes a professional risk to try to help. They don’t WANT your help. Those who run the school and will rehire or not rehire you do NOT want you to make them think in this way.
So why should we foreigners here try to butt in where we’re not wanted? If a man wants to stumble blind in the forest and will swing a baseball bat at anyone who tries to lend a guiding hand, who will volunteer to help? I would rather you found an online forum where you can help people from your own country learn to think critically, to strengthen their minds and futures. At least you’d have an eager audience.
Too nationalist? Maybe.. I’ve been here too long!
Andy,
How about:
#3 - Military service terms should be one year, but Women should serve.
#5 - Japan would be better than China in replacing America as the leading power in East Asia.
[DELETED. Reason: Off Topic]
Oranckay,not that you need my advice, but for the two cents it may be worth I did once start and moderate a pretty successfull science board a number of years ago for a total of maybe three years. I had similar difficulties keeping the UFO conspiracy theorists off and the rocket scientists on. Devising a number of rules sets (read mini-beaurocracy) to govern was one thing, actually applying them consistently was something else entirely.
1. No matter what: Be robotically consitent in enforcement
a) don’t hesitate to be an asshole
2. Don’t give much consideration to appeals. it breaks rule #1, and shows you too afraid to follow “a”
3. it helps to remember: Mandate? You don’t need no stinkin mandate (from the commenters…) this ain’t no democracy
of course theres always more than one way to skin a cat . . . and you’d be more than justified to delete my comment, as it is off topic, but you don’t need me to say that
Happy Hunting
Umm, I would not touch the Dokdo issue at all because of the apparent lack of willingness of anyone to discuss it in a rational manner. It is really proverbial troll bait since it brings out the troll every time it is mentioned.
Not sure what the issue is for question #2. You are asking a question not expressing an opinion. The students will express themselves accordingly (not hard to guess what they’ll say) however as an educator isn’t it your job to initiate discussion? It’s only if you express your opinion in a public venue, that you could be held to task for it (or at least that’s how it should be).
As for question 3, most Korean women I know have very strong views. And usually somewhat different from the men, so you should get some interesting debates. Many of the Korean women I’ve spoken to, feel that military service is a neccessary evil that all Korean men need to experience “to become a man”. Of course this sentiment changes if its a brother or boy friend. But then again most of the people I talk to have been out of Country for a long time so perhaps people there have different views. I certainly agree that Korean women should also have to do military service or something very similar.
I like to use the traditional method of teaching rhetoric - have a topic that the students prepare information for, then divide them up into A and -A positions on the issue and debate (or have them write a paper), then in the next stage, force them to flipflop and argue the opposite side - and grade them on what they produce at this final stage.
I avoid hot button issues - however - like the plague. No abortion, same-sex marriage, death penalty type stuff in my classroom. I felt strongly over the years I had wasted too many hours of my life in a classroom - where learning was supposed to take place - with teachers using hot button issues that closed minds immediately and were always a waste of effort. The teachers liked these classes because it “got students involved” and some of the material in the education program I am currently in for the MA stressing using the issues to “engage” the students, but I hated it so much as a student, I’m not going to do it as a teacher.
I understand the point of the assignment, and granted you’ll get stronger emotional response on Dokdo is Korea’s rather than Texas is Mexico’s, but isn’t the course on American government? Couldn’t you shift those topics to be a bit more US centric? That bamboo grove hoohaa may be an issue that strikes your students as interesting since it involves Korean history and they’ll research the role of government in education, interest groups, yada yada in the US. The visa issue is another topic, and especially relevant to the students since they’ll need one.
“The teachers liked these classes because it “got students involved” and some of the material in the education program I am currently in for the MA stressing using the issues to “engage” the students, but I hated it so much as a student, I’m not going to do it as a teacher.”
I agree absolutely, usinkorea. If a teacher likes doing this kind of thing, fine, but I hate the idea of bringing some topic that is largely irrelevant to the lives of my students (gay marriage) or that they have no knowledge or understanding of (clitorindectomy-I kid you not, this was taught in an MA program as a good subject to give to ESL students).
Some of these subjects seem little more than a way for a teacher to present their biases in class. I remember a teacher who ‘discussed’ gender equality in class and some students came away hurt and distressed that their non-politically correct choices in life were made to sound like bad or wrong choices.
I scheduled a debate in a debate class and set the resolution as “Dokdo Belongs to Japan.” When my supervisor found out, the shit hit the fan. I was strongly asked to change the resolution of debate. Reasons given included, “But how can you expect any of your students to debate the ‘pro’ side?” and “Your lack of understanding of Korea is surprising and disappointing.” The end result? I wrote a letter to my students apologizing for forcing them to think critically in a debate class. Then I asked them to choose whatever topic they wanted to debate. Some still chose to debate Dokdo since that was the topic most of them had prepared. The project was successful in the end but stressful as hell for me (and my supervisor).
Have to disagree with the “no controversial issues” tack.
Even as certain issues may seem “irrelevant” to the students’ lives (that the issue of gay marriage is because they don’t engage in it is irrelevant is just about as short-sighted as saying that interracial marriage was “irrelevant” as an issue just because most people didn’t engage in it before the 1960’s), that doesn’t mean they aren’t irrelevant to the concerns of a society – which is why the issues are “hot button.”
It depends on approach, as well as on tone, which again, speaks to academic training and experience in that field. Just as I don’t teach real ESL courses (I lack the training), I think that too many people step into hot water and make for bad discussions and uncomfortable students because they are 1) actually not too knowledgable about the content being discussed in a structured way, and 2) often fall prey to the temptations of unexamined personal opinion that they should be busy separating their students intellects from.
I am an opinionated dude. I rant and rave on my blog. One of the reasons I do that is because I don’t allow myself to demagogue in the classroom and sometimes feel like my head is going to explode from the pressure of holding my tongue back.
But I also won’t lie and say I don’t have a clear sense of what is right or wrong, and that my students don’t pick up on it. Yet, I always make it clear that the students are free to disagree – for reals, not just the lip service many profs give before leaping down their students throat – but there has to be a reasoned explanation for it.
That’s why I think teaching hot button topics are hard – they’re hard to do without a lot of experience, training, and a structured approach.
Many of my students remarked at Waedae how their foreign professors always say to feel free to express their opinion, but then often jump on their students for saying the “wrong” thing. It’s something that I think foreigners tend to do here (I include myself in this temptation), especially since we’re in a position of power vis a vis the academic environment of the classroom.
So I think it’s our duty to remember to allow students to really take new intellectual steps in the classroom, albeit with structured guidance; but it’s also our responsibility to challenge them, on every level.
That’s a hard thing to do when we’re talking about abortion, gay marriage, or the “clitorindectomy” (sic) – it’s “clitoridectomy.”
Yet the latter procedure absolutely has relevance if you’re talking about Charles Taylor’s discussion of “cultural relativism,” then this is the #1 issue brought up, espeically since it’s so extreme and so clearly demonstrates the slippery definition of “culture” and “human rights” after doing the appropriate reading and preparation. But I agree, if you’re just looking for grist for a simple discussion for conversation class, such topics are a bit much.
And other issues don’t work for other reasons.
Affirmative action discussions usually lack the extensive legal and historical background required to have an intelligent discussion on an academic level, as opposed to the popular “it’s not fair” or “it’s reparations” battle, so it just goes in circles, the blind fighting the blind. Messy.
Or abortion, which really just revolves around the question of when life begins, which leads to the question of whether you think abortion is “murder” or not. If you hone in on it, you might have a debate – “when does life begin?” – but if you just ask about “Is abortion wrong?” well…you’ve set yourself up either for gladitorial battle or complete, awkward silence.
It takes a subtle hand, is what I’m saying. But I also think it’s our duty as teachers to push them, not give them pap. Navigating all this makes our jobs hard.
And ain’t that where the fun is?
I don’t bring up issues that I have seen quickly break down into two opposing camps where the chance anyone will budge from their position is zero and 1 or 2 leaders among them will heatedly try to run over the thoughts of the 1 or 2 leaders in the other camp.
I bring in topics to get the students to practice and learn critical thinking skills - not define a world view. My focus, though they might not know it, is on the process of thinking and debating, not the topic at hand, and the hot button issues just are not that good at getting the students to open up to the critical thinking process.
I’ve been in too many classes too many times looking at my watch wondering if I would make it out before pulling my hair out, because the teacher got a “good discussion” going from his or her point of view, because so many students were “discussing” it “actively” —– but I know zero “discussion” was taking place.
Now, I think in college this is different. Sometimes it isn’t. I had a girl cuss me out in class once for saying that a (potential) father could feel the pain of losing a child if it is aborted (she was dominating the “discussion” in the whole class of 150 students and harping on the pain and suffering an unwanted child would bring)…
but that was a freshman course (first semester), and in general, I think by college, you can have some productive, analytical discussions on some of the issues I won’t bring into a high school class, but I still won’t get into them with teens.
One Trackback
[...] an example, have a look at comment by “captbbq.” There is nothing inherently wrong with that comment. It uses no [...]