So, where are all the native speaking English teachers in this whole debate, asks the KT’s Jason Lim:
Accordingly, everyone has something to say on the proposed English immersion plan. English could possibly be the only topic in Korean society that can trump the latest juicy celebrity gossip on the ubiquitous portal sites. Countless viewpoints, ideas, complaints, and arguments are merging together in dynamics waves and striking fiercely against the shores of cyberspace.
Except for the voices of the native English-speaking teachers actually teaching English in Korea today. Their silence is deafening.
As one of the principle stakeholders in this public debate, native English-speaking teachers seem to be a natural resource and partner in informing this policy direction. After all, they are the people on the frontlines interacting organically with the children and fellow Korean non-native English teachers on an everyday basis.
They are the ones living this argument today. And if the proposed outsourcing of 23,000 native English-speaking teachers were ever to be realized, experiences of today’s native English-speaking teachers in Korea would have significant value-added impact on today’s discussion. Yet, amazingly enough, their voices are silent.
Where are they? What do they think? Has anyone asked them?
Well, Yonhap did, but that’s besides the point. Mr. Lim wants to help provide you — the native speaking English teacher — with a venue to express your collective opinion.
Then I thought: Why not create a tool in which the native English-speaking teacher would come together to voice their collective opinion in a fair and representative fashion? Therefore, I designed a simple online polling tool to do just that, much like I did for the Leadership Crisis Survey a few months back:
The questions would explore what native English-speaking teachers think about the current proposal, including points for improvements. Further, it will not be limited to the merits of the proposal; it will also ask simple questions about their experience as teachers in Korea.
Admittedly, this survey won’t be comprehensive in that it won’t cover all the various aspects of teaching English in Korea as a native English-speaker. However, it will be flexible enough to allow individual responses and opinions.
It will only take a few minutes. It is anonymous and non-attributable. I will share the results in my next column. Although I obviously can’t guarantee that someone in a policymaking role will actually pay attention, I can promise that you collective voice will be faithfully collected, compiled, and reported.
Please participate by clicking on the link below and forwarding to colleagues and friends who may want to participate.
If you’d like to participate, his online survey can be found here.
Sphere: Related Content
26 Comments
“Yet, amazingly enough, their voices are silent.”
Obviously this editor didn’t bother to check out the comment sections of blogs like this one and internet web sites for English teachers in Korea. They have plenty of negative opinions.
I’ll listen to foreign English teachers’ opinions on second-language acquisition when a few of them start acquiring a second language themselves.
#1,
Since the Korean won’t let us voice our opinion, they take for granted that we don’t.
#2,
I speak 4 languages in varying degrees of fluency, 2 of them completely fluently, and I can read 3 more with relative ease. What about you?
I went and took the survey, and it really won’t contribute to this discussion. It’s poorly designed. One page of it appears to be copied from a student evaluation form used at a university. How is an item like, “The instructor is available via e-mail, phone or office hours,” relevant? In addition, there’s no real control of the sample taking the survey. Anyone can fill it out, in any way. If I were in a position of power, I wouldn’t take any results from Mr. Lim’s efforts seriously.
And really, in what way should the opinions of native speaker English teachers count on this policy matter? I don’t see temporary employees as stakeholders in these policy decisions in the same as I see the government, permanent teachers, students, parents, and Korean society as a whole. Their opinions about how they might best be utilized once hired may be of some value. But even there, the extent to which I would value their opinion would depend on the level of qualification informing it.
The research work that some colleagues of mine are doing on Korean mothers’ expectation in terms of native speaker teachers, which you can read about over at EFLGeek, is a stronger attempt to get to the actual views of one set of stakeholders in the discussion of English education in Korea.
#4,
I’ve been at my current position for most of my adult life. I am certainly not a temp.
#5
Not taking a shot at anybody, certainly not you, whom I don’t know.
The vast majority of native English speaking teachers here in Korea are here short term. That’s just a fact, and should impact how much their views on policy are valued.
It’s another question whether something should be done to encourage them to stay longer, and what that something should be. Here, obviously, their opinions would be very valuable. And it may be the case that questions of overall English education policy could make a difference regarding people staying longer. If it would, then their opinions should count some, but that connection has to be made.
#3
Since the Korean media won’t…
“The vast majority of native English speaking teachers here in Korea are here short term. That’s just a fact, and should impact how much their views on policy are valued.”
Well, that’s the wrong attitude to take. Ultimately, the decision to implement policies in the classroom rests on the shoulders of the teachers, regardless of how long they stay in Korea. Sure, there are certain institutional restraints, but it would be unwise to ignore the role that teachers play as policy makers.
…or rather, institutional constraints…
As I point out on my entry about this, Jason Lim is the guy who wrote a few months ago:
“I still remember being chewed out by the president of the language institute I worked for 10 years ago because I hired a Korean American UCLA graduate who was far more qualified than one of those ‘Let’s travel through Asia while earning money as English teachers and score some women at the same time, dude!” types of instructors that were so prevalent in those days.”
I certainly don’t trust my voice or opinion to a pretentious douche-bag like Jason Lim. And I don’t put my faith ina policy initiative with “surveymonkey” in the title.
Also worth mentioning that “high-ranking native English-speaking teachers” don’t exist, because there’s no way of really measuring status among foreign teachers. (Except for who has the better blog or the hottest girlfriend). There’s the public school pay scale—Level 1, 2, or 3—but that’s only based on years’ experience, and doesn’t take into account any meaningful factors. I’d love to see an evaluation system developed that would create these high-ranking teachers, but as it stands, provided we don’t kill or molest any students, or make them cry, we all get top marks.
Fact is, nobody really cares what we think. We’re not a major component of English education and there’s really no system in place for including us. There are so many other improvements that need to be made before we even get to that point that I suspect we’ll be phased out before anything happens. I guess the road is clear for Isaac Durst to become Korea’s President of White People. He’s already held that position unofficially for years.
Are you suggesting that if you wrote an op-ed to the Chosun Ilbo, Hankyoreh, etc, they wouldn’t consider publishing it? I know at least one Korean weekly magazine that will be not only publishing a round-table discussion between four foreigners (none of them English teachers, granted) on LMB’s English language policy, but also making it the cover story. Yonhap ran the story linked above. Heck, OhMyNews will just about run anything submitted to them.
In fact, the thing I kind of disliked about Mr. Lim’s piece is that it sounds a lot like “poor foreigners need my help in expressing their views to the public.”
Yes, I know. It was not really my opinion but rather an expression of the impression that the article creates (”poor foreigners need my help…” as you say). I should have clarified that.
I have tried repeatedly to get involved in the discussions involving English Education at my school. So far I have been denied access. Instead they simply decide what they believe is best, regardless of my opinion.
This would make sense if I had no idea of teaching, but I have graduated with a degree in education, have a tefl certificate and experience teaching in a classroom prior to coming to Korea.
Despite this, I am viewed as a walking tape recorder. Ready to speak whenever they want to push play.
I wrote about this here
http://walkingalongtherailways.....ntal-flaw/
#13,
I feel your pain. I’m one of only two teachers at my university that has studied TESOL in grad school, and yet they have us teaching conversational English while Korean professors who majored in literature are assigned the TESOL courses for the English Education majors.
It wouldn’t be so bad if I felt I was able to make a difference (which is the reason I got into teaching in the first place).
But with the large amount of students and short amount of times to teach them it feels like I’m pushing a boulder up a hill, only to watch it inevitably roll down again (Sisyphus for those who recognize the story).
Luckily, I was able to get my school to give me some extra classes in the afternoon. The classes will have fewer kids (like 20) that I get to see twice a week. I’m excited to see the outcome.
Getting instruction at anything only once a week will not make you proficient, especially learning a second language. As is the Public English Education is a big waste of time and money.
Konglick, Matthew - I’m sympathetic to people with a background in TESOL who aren’t asked to share their expertise. But you guys are the exception, not the rule.
I stand by what I said above. Given that most of the native speaker English teachers here are unqualified, their views on language teaching policy shouldn’t receive a lot of weight (notice I didn’t say, “no weight”).
The message you guys are receiving is really that Koreans know that professional qualification is not what English teachers are hired for here, and so its not expected that anyone would have them. No need to ask.
I’d disagree with you to an extent, although not completely. Schools that don’t have qualified teachers, I understand if they don’t allow them into the conversation. My school KNOWS that I have experience yet continue to push me to the side when it comes to decisions. I’m not saying I know everything, but at least give me a voice.
That’s a problem with the Korean English Educational system. The curriculum and expectations are so simple that all you need to be able to do is follow a few simple instructions…this is not teaching. We’re tokens at best.
Because of this, the few that do have expertise are marginalized to the extent that it drives them away, diluting an already thin talent pool.
If South Korea is serious about hiring more teachers, and more qualified teachers then it should allow them into the discussion of future English teaching.
Maddlew, I don’t know how long you’ve been in-country, but your newness still sparkles. That’s some great spirit you show.
I hope that works out well for you. With regard to:
This bit of juche thinking is not confined only to the ESL industry. In general, local organizations do not want foreign input when it comes to major strategic decisions, even from foreigners who might have thought they were hired for just that reason.
Well, we have a pretty limited role in the classroom. In my public school I see my students once or twice a month, and some classes I only met with 4 times all semester. There is still the belief that Korean teachers’ experience trumps our abilities as native speakers. To a large extent that’s justified, and I concede that. They did, after all, graduate with English education degrees, whereas a lot of us were just hired b/c we have the right passport. But you’ll notice that a lot of Korean teachers will concede conversation classes to us, and will be completely afraid or unwilling to teach that subject area. I think, if the goal is to improve communicative competence, our opinions and input ought to be valued. But in the grand scheme of things, we have to accept a secondary position. We are invited guests, and this isn’t our country, and the majority of us don’t have the paper qualifications to give our opinion any weight. I do think there ought to be a system in place, to complement the latest round of criminal checks and degree verifications, to allow us a greater stake in the subject we’re teaching. Why not allow us to attend workshops and camps that count for something? Why not have a grading system in place that evaluates teachers based on teaching experience, camps, workshops, activities, and language skills, and that rewards us—not just with money—but with greater authority and greater influence?
I wrote more about this on my (quick) take on the survey (which I don’t think highly of, btw): http://briandeutsch.blogspot.c.....chers.html
You got that right. The syndrome is more or less pronounced from organization to organization, but always in the equation.
To Linkd # 18
I recognize my voice is not as important as a native teacher. Furthermore, I don’t really have a problem with this, because yes, this is not our country.
But at the same time, you can chalk it up to “just the way it ism,” but it does not necessarily make it a smart course of action.
This goes beyond simple education to the culture in general. A system that relies more on age than experience is bound to have some difficulties. But then again, every culture and system presents it’s own unique problems…these are Korea’s.
In regards to the newness…I hope the sparkle never dims
Brian - what you’ve written here and on your blog is good. I agree with much of it.
I would add here that we have to be careful about what the goal of increasing communicative competence means. Given the reality of hours of instruction available, the conditions of instruction, including the talents of the teachers in question, this goal (and the concomitant hiring of native speaker teachers) may be as much a way for politicians to appear to be doing something about an issue the public has an eye on as anything else.
Henry Widdowson’s book, Issues in English Language Teaching, is really an extended argument about what the curriculum should be in EFL contexts. He makes the point repeatedly that English is a school subject, like other school subjects, in these contexts and is largely testes and taught in similar ways to other school subjects. Given this, and the time and resources available, a focus on building basic language knowledge (words and rules, as Pinker puts it) is understandable.
And this may be all that school can provide - a foundation of knowledge, with a bit of skill development based on that knowledge. What this can do is give everyone some exposure, help identify people who may have an aptitude for languages or allow others to discover an interest in it. The fuller development of skilled use would really have to wait for other contexts, where people may actually know better who needs to learn what.
What has happened in Korea is that the stated goals (everyone speaking English at a high level of proficiency when they finish school) has outstripped the possibilities given the resources. The demand for this goal has been driven by the misuse of English as a measure of other abilities and social status by people who are unwilling or unable to make decisions about standards. And the solutions to the problem posed by this goal are as much problems as the goal itself - the importing of random native speakers, as if just being exposed to them will make a difference; the splitting up of families to take children abroad for a year or two, again as if this will consistently have long term positive effects on language ability and other measures of knowledge.
Schools can and should be improved, but the idea of what schools can do, at least in terms of language learning, may have moved into the unrealistic in Korea. And there have been a lot of people aiding and abetting.
I agree with the point that Korea has outstripped it’s goal of EVERYONE speaking at a high level. However, this does not mean that MANY can speak at a high level of proficiency. Korea simply has to change it’s goals. It has to change the short term solution that hires Token teachers to crapilly teach every student English to the long term solution that allows qualified teachers to teach less students English correctly. Eventually resulting in a fluent English society in the longer term.
Short term solutions = politics
long term solutions = reality
Unfortunately, Matthew, politics is reality. Politicians are elected to terms of limited length, and their goals will mostly be short term, of necessity. This is especially in systems where re-election is possible. That’s not the case for Korean presidents, but even so, too much concentration on things that are going to pay off after you leave office is taking a chance on who will get credit. Best to have things that appear to do something done on your watch so that you can take credit for them, and be seen to be taking credit for them. And if they turn out not to pay off later, well, that’s someone else’s problem (and fault).
Sure, there’s some work towards long term change of the system going on, but the short term stuff never goes away.
The Chosun Ilbo ran an interview with an American English teacher named Reuben Wackerle in its Korean edition - if you can’t read Korean, you can check out the clip of part of the interview near the bottom of the page.
http://issue.chosun.com/site/d.....00389.html
Unfortunately, the reporter did a poor job of translating the remarks made by Mr. Wackerle into Korean. There are several glaring discrepancies, some of them probably made on purpose in order to adhere to the conventional wisdom on what is wrong with English education in Korea. A case in point would be the teacher’s remarks concerning vocabulary and grammar - he actually commented positively on the need to obtain basic grammar and vocabulary but the article cited him as denouncing the Korean emphasis on that area. Another would be his comment that some older teachers were proficient in English due to their continuing study and experience, which the article changed into a statement that older teachers were categorically worthless in English conversation. Or the part where he quoted the 49% statistic of Korean teachers who can teach in English - the scepticism he expresses with his grimace and silence just flies right over the reporter’s head.
Watching the clip, I kind of felt for the guy. He’s earnest and willing to help, but speaking in front of a camera was probably a nervous experience and he just has no idea what agenda this reporter has during the interview.
#24
Sadly, everything you say is the god’s honest truth
this is true everywhere, not just Korea
One Trackback
English TV in Korea - Anglalingva TV en Koreio…
English TV in Korea - Anglalingva TV en Koreio Quite recently I was shocked by [this film], in which a girl (Yogaile is her name) is playing with a toy duck, speaking herself in English. Yogaile is 6 years old and she speaks 3 other languages, and unde…