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…

Sadly, everything you say is the god’s honest truth

this is true everywhere, not just Korea

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.

Sure, there’s some work towards long term change of the system going on, but the short term stuff never goes away.

Short term solutions = politics
long term solutions = reality

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 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

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.

You got that right. The syndrome is more or less pronounced from organization to organization, but always in the equation.

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

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.

I hope that works out well for you. With regard to:

the few that do have expertise are marginalized…
If South Korea is serious about hiring more teachers, and more qualified teachers then it should allow them into the discussion…

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.