Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Privateer]

Conversation classes suck.

Conversational English textbooks suck.

The whole 'communicative' teaching philosophy sucks.

They all suck because none of them work unless the class has already done a good old-fashioned traditional English course that covers basic to intermediate grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation, complete with exercises illustrating each sentence pattern and word type. Unless, in other words, the class has already *done its homework* - and some other, non-conversational teacher has done the donkey-work.

Conversation classes suck because there are too many interlocking elements you need to be familiar with to have even the simplest conversation. Are you going to go through the proper positioning of adverbs, half a dozen different ways to make requests, the correct order in which to state your address, and umpteen other language points just so your class can order a friggin' pizza? The answer is no: it takes too long. Which is why we skip over the majority of language points - the actual language teaching part of our supposed language classes - or fall back on simple handouts with lists of questions to keep 'em busy.

Conversation textbooks suck because the majority are simply grammar exercises in the guise of supposedly stimulating conversations. They fail as exercises because even the best-designed assume familiarity in the students with a whole lot of other grammar points besides those that are the focus of the lesson. And they fail as stimulating conversations because there's nothing particularly interesting about *giving directions* or *describing what someone else looks like* to mention just a couple of the same tired old topics that appear time and again.

The communicative teaching philosophy sucks because it was invented by a generation of people in revolt against the languages classes they themselves experienced in school. Why do language classes have to be so boring, they asked themselves? Why can't we make them more realistic and more fun? They failed to take into consideration that the reason they are able to have more realistic and 'funner' classes in a foreign language is because they did all those boring exercises in the first place. You can't run before you can walk; and you can't have a conversational English class unless you've had the proper grounding first.

This brings me to my next point:

English classes at Korean schools suck.

What do they teach in these schools? I have not taught in the Korean school system nor seen the textbooks they use. I only go on the evidence of the majority - the majority mind you - of Korean students I see. They lack a firm grasp of a whole range of what should be basic sentence patterns and basic phrases or collocations. Not that it's all bad: they know a lot of academic words, and are ok with a limited range of structures like 'I will' or 'I want to' in limited situations. But why do none of them seem to have memorised simple expressions of time such as 'in the morning' or 'at 7 am'? Why is a basic pattern like 'I would like' such a mystery to them?

Most of these students (and there's yet another little area that needs work) need someone to teach them the basics. As a teacher I feel it's incumbent on me to do so. But what is one individual to do? A real teacher in a real school back home has a properly designed curriculum with materials and textbooks, so their job is mainly to present and explain these clearly and help students get through them. Here, I feel as if I need to write a book or chapter of a book complete with exercises and spend a week on that before we can actually get on to the conversation textbook I'm supposed to be using. So conversation classes, conversation textbooks, and the communicative teaching philosophy all suck unless and until we can get these students through a well-designed, comprehensive good old-fashioned English course.

Too bad there doesn't seem to be one.

[Who's Your Daddy?]

You are correct. Nevertheless:

Take the money, drink a beer, and forget about it.

[hondaicivic]

[CentralCali]

OP: You will die early of stress-related illnesses if you labor under the mistaken impression that the purpose of an English class at a Korean school is to teach English (conversational or otherwise) to Korean students. The actual purpose of having an English class at a Korean school is just that: to have an English class at a Korean school.

And the purpose of having a "guest English teacher" (GET) whose native language is English at that class? Again, merely to have a GET in the English class at the Korean school.

Don't freak out about it and be happy that you will (if you're lucky) have some students who really do want to learn English and will learn the language during your tenure.

I, too, would love it if the Korean government actually considered its English language policies; however, I don't expect it to happen. It's good political mojo, apparently, to tell the constituents, "Every student will be in an English class with a GET!" Of course, that's just stupid policy. The current system has all the English teachers, Koreans as well as GETs, trying to teach a large group, most of whom have little or no interest in the language.

What would be better is to have English an elective course, with a GET assisting the Korean teacher with the current co-teacher system for the less advanced students. For the advanced students, the GET should be the only teacher.

In any other country, this will work. In Korea, though, it's an impossibility. The reasons for this are many. One is the pathetic excuse for student discipline at the public schools. Another is the out and out pandering to the unrealistic expectations of students' parents when it comes to English.

OP: Do what you can within the system and don't stress yourself into an early grave.

[hogwonguy1979]

dont feed the troll

[legrande]

[Fishead soup]

Most of what is being said here is true and I have many days when I really believe this. Remember in math class it became so much easier when you memorized your multiplication tables. You could then do long division and all that really fancy complicated stuff. This is why the communicative approach commonly tanks in a Korean classroom. You have so many kinds who haven't learned basic conversation skills the kind of scaffolding you get from doing choral repetition from the substitution activities from Side By Side. Lots of time when you do this in Korean there's some dippy co-teacher who tells you, you can't do this . It's too boring. Then you end up killing the rest of the period with some stupid jeopardy game that gives students unconnected words and questions that have no bearing on reality.

Teaching using the communicative approach in a lot of Korean public schools is like teaching long division to kids who have never memorized their multiplication tables. You have to kill and drill before you can fly.
Audio Lingualism is the foreplay and the communicative approach is actual intercourse . You can't stick it in if it ain't hard.

[winterfall]

Why do you think people leave in droves?

[Zackback]

added to that ...why do you think people don't give a rip anymore about teaching here.

[Fishead soup]

Conversation classes should really be taught the same way new immigrants are taught in ESL. They start with Side by Side and the Oxford picture dictionary and they work their way up to Interchange and Strange stories in the News. If someone either stops comming their case worker is called and their welfare is cut off. There's no humorous Youtube video's no Mr. Bean no flash Power point game and most of all no interfering stupid co-teachers Principals and Vice Principals. Just small groups of students working Autonomously on the text. They behave like humans not zoo animals. Best of all they can't go to someone and complain your class is too boring if you actually choose to teach them. You get them to practice a substitution activity and they work on it. You can go out and have a coffee come back and they are still on task. In fact the Actual ESL teacher is encouraged to leave the room regulary is makes the class more student centered.

[Ramen]

i love my conversation classes. i just let them talk. no books needed.

[MoneyMike]

I definitely agree that there's huge problems with the Korean educational system, but I think there is another problem which is contributing to the low outcomes in language classes:

Desire.

Immigrants in the west want to work hard so they can use English in their day to day lives. It's important to them, and they work hard at it.

Korean students don't have any need at all to be able to speak English, for the most part. All of their tests come in multiple choice form, which I think is the biggest flaw in the system. If students only have to study to answer grammatical multiple choice questions, that's all they're ever going to do, because what use do they have for speaking English?

Change testing so that students have to write answers to questions, starting with simple sentences in upper elementary, then moving on to short paragraphs in middle school, then full on short essays in high school. Sure, it's much more difficult and time consuming to mark, but students are only going to really work to learn to construct language if they are forced to by the testing.

This of course doesn't help with speaking, but if students are at least comfortable putting sentences together on paper, they'll be more comfortable putting them together in their head.

My 2 cents.

[Fishead soup]

[Ramen]

koreans never practice speaking english outside of their class is why they don't learn as well. i've never seen koreans casually speaking english to each other other than gyopo's.

my 2 wons.

[legrande]