|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
marlow
Joined: 06 Feb 2005
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:41 pm Post subject: Cliffhanger: Our battle with English [Korea Herald] |
 |
|
I didn't want to copy and paste this, but it's unlinkable somehow.
Very interesting article, especially the second last paragraph. I wonder if they'll pay the teachers that can teach the classes the same amount as the teachers who currently can't and who should be fired.
| Korea Herald wrote: |
[Kaleidoscope] Cliffhanger: Our battle with English
Since the presidential transition committee recently announced plans for a revolutionary reform of English education in secondary schools, the whole nation has been boiling over the issue. "The increasing number of the so-called `wild geese families` and the astronomical amounts spent on private English lessons have now become a serious social problem," proclaims the committee. "Our students are incapable of communicating in English, even after learning the language at school for more than 10 years." The only way to solve the problem, then, is to reform the public English education system plagued by grammar-oriented teaching and learning.
Despite pervading anti-American sentiment, Korean society has always had a passion for the English language. Of course, the relationship is not as romantic as it may sound. Some people talk of the "Korean war with English," while others claim that "English is a means of survival in Korea today." Indeed, Koreans struggle to master English because high English test scores are indispensable for entering college, getting a job, and securing promotions.
Yet our public education has largely failed to provide English communication skills to our students. At school, students learn mostly English grammar to pass the college entrance exam. Worse, few Korean teachers are ready to teach English conversation. In Korea you can easily become an English teacher even if you cannot speak English at all. All you need to demonstrate is some knowledge of English grammar, not fluency. How, then, could our students learn English communication skills from such deficient teachers? No wonder our students suddenly turn mute when they encounter a foreigner.
Perhaps this is why numerous English hagwon prosper in today`s Korea and why native speakers of English can easily find a teaching position there. Since public schools are by no means dependable when it comes to English education, Koreans turn to hagwon and spend as much as 15 trillion won ($16 billion) annually for private English lessons for their children. This obviously is a huge waste of money, which otherwise could be used for a much better purpose.
Meanwhile, approximately 35,000 Korean youngsters go abroad for early English education every year, creating numerous "wild geese families" in Korean society. These days, people have coined two more derivative terms: the "eagle families" and the "penguin families." The "eagle families" are those who can freely fly, like an eagle, to visit their families at any time, for they can afford the airfare. The "penguin families" are those, who like a penguin, cannot fly due to expensive airfare and thus must bid farewell to their departing family members at the airport. Either way, they reflect the dismal situation of many Korean families today.
According to the reform plans, which include "teaching English in English," English will be the language of instruction in many classes at secondary schools. Undoubtedly, the reform will benefit the poor who cannot afford to send their children to expensive hagwon. Strangely, however, the leftist politicians in the United New Democratic Party, the self-appointed advocate of the poor, vehemently denounce the reform plans as nothing but a "reckless, doomed-to-fail blunder that only flusters the nation." They seem to be determined to use this issue against the Grand National Party at the upcoming parliamentary elections. Perhaps the transition committee should have moved with circumspection before announcing such hasty, unfledged reform plans.
Some educational specialists also oppose the plan, alleging that inordinate emphasis on English will inevitably result in the loss of national identity and even more "wild geese families." One of them, probably a leftist, recently wrote on the internet: "The English fever will eventually eradicate our language, our nation and our soul." But this kind of jingoism is totally groundless, for English is no longer the language of a particular country, but has instead become a global communication tool. He went on to write, "It is difficult to learn spoken English without learning grammar first." Not quite so. Too much grammar hampers fluency. Korean students, for example, almost always hesitate before starting to talk, because they are trained to make sure that their grammar is correct. With so much emphasis on structure, it`s only natural that many Koreans stammer when they speak in English. We should put an end to the grammar-oriented English teaching that has undoubtedly failed us.
Rather than disputing whether or not to adopt the reform, a more compelling question we need to ask is, "Who will teach the revamped English classes?" Naively, the transition committee plans to recycle existing teachers through training. But you cannot possibly improve your English proficiency through short-term training. It`ll be nothing but a terrible waste of money and the reform program will surely fail. The only way to ensure success, then, is to hire enough native speakers of English, or those whose English proficiency is equivalent to that of a native speaker.
Someday, we wish to see our children command fluent English and to be outstanding in the international community. We also wish to see our political leaders freely communicate with their foreign counterparts in English, without the aid of interpreters. Until then, we need to boldly carry out the long-needed reform, despite complains and grievances.
By Kim Seong-kon
2008.02.13 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Too much grammar hampers fluency. Korean students, for example, almost always hesitate before starting to talk, because they are trained to make sure that their grammar is correct. With so much emphasis on structure, it`s only natural that many Koreans stammer when they speak in English. |
I have actually finally met a Korean student whose grammar was excellent but who couldn't speak. Once.
Last edited by Privateer on Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nomad-ish
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Location: On the bottom of the food chain
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:15 pm Post subject: Re: Cliffhanger: Our battle with English [Korea Herald] |
|
|
| Korea Herald wrote: |
| Since public schools are by no means dependable when it comes to English education, Koreans turn to hagwon and spend as much as 15 trillion won ($16 billion) annually for private English lessons for their children. This obviously is a huge waste of money, which otherwise could be used for a much better purpose. |
i don't think it's a huge waste of money. granted that many Korean parents spend a ton on English lessons, but i can still spot a hagwon kid miles away. they're the ones in my PS classes that actually understand most of what i say and can speak English |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cj1976
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Government's plans are basically too much, too soon. The article was a good read and had some interesting points. The jingoism in the country is definitely a massive obstacle in the path of progress. One of the teachers I talked to at my school had reservations about Korean children learning English at an early age. She felt that it could 'confuse' the child and make them neglect Korean - which is absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juregen
Joined: 30 May 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How many hours of language education do these kids get in school anyway?
At the age of 8 I was getting to learn 2 languages at a total of 8 hours a week.
At the age of 12 I was getting to learn 3 languages at a total of 11 hours a week.
At the age of 14 I was getting to learn 4 languages at a total of 13 hours a week.
Total hours of public schooling came down to 36 hours per week.
Koreans should really look at the scope of their high school curriculum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marlow
Joined: 06 Feb 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cj1976 wrote: |
| One of the teachers I talked to at my school had reservations about Korean children learning English at an early age. She felt that it could 'confuse' the child and make them neglect Korean - which is absurd. |
What's even more absurd is that these people ignore the fact that most parents with enough money are sending their kids to English kindergartens starting at age 5, and by the time they hit grade three they get to learn "My name is Minsu" along with the poorer kids, even though they can read short novels.
Then those same parents often send their kids overseas for a year or so during grade 5 or 6, so by the time the rich reach middle school they are fluent, and the poor are struggling. I guess culture is not important for the rich.
It's time to fix English education for all, and I'd start with putting native level speakers at all school levels and paying them well. The rich already have access to native speakers through hagwons and overseas experience. They rightfully don't think their kids' overpaid public school teachers are doing a good enough job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
An excellent article! Almost my thoughts exactly!
And as a liberal, I find Korean liberals on English education really do absolutely miss the point. Though, Chung, the last Liberal candidate for President did say that the English section of the College Enterance Exam had to be changed and he was absolutely right about that! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maingman
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Location: left Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:42 pm Post subject: .. |
|
|
marlow I agree totally with your comment - and allow full access for korean speakers to continue their skills in learning out of Korea - other countries
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roknroll
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cj1976 wrote: |
| The Government's plans are basically too much, too soon. The article was a good read and had some interesting points. The jingoism in the country is definitely a massive obstacle in the path of progress. One of the teachers I talked to at my school had reservations about Korean children learning English at an early age. She felt that it could 'confuse' the child and make them neglect Korean - which is absurd. |
1st highlight-->Agreed. As I'm sure most people would (foreigners & Koreans)
2nd-->Agreed. There may be an argument for this if it was actually Full Immersion, where they're taught all subjects solely in English, and Korean is only spoken at home. And this situation is nowhere near, hence absurd. I've heard of the immersion debate but not sure where it stands today, the prevailing theory that is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
