|
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 |
jajdude
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Daechidong Waygookin wrote: |
I meant that only 5 to 10 people on this board are not jealous of me. |
Ok sorry mate. Did not mean to diss you. Or maybe I did. But we are strangers, and you gotta admit the internet is a fun way to bash strangers that you wish you could do in real everyday life.
PS I am jealous of you. Who isn't? You're obviously super cool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
peppermint

Joined: 13 May 2003 Location: traversing the minefields of caddishness.
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
In an ideal world the OP might have a point, but from what I've seen at the elementary school level, the administration is often unable to judge wether a Korean teacher can speak English well enough to teach it.
Perhaps if Unis developed courses geared towards teaching English specifically, or school boards required that teachers at least have a minor in English language with their education degree- some way to ensure that the K-teachers had a baseline level of competency with the language. That's a long way off though.
I think native teachers do bring something to the table that Korean people simply can't. A lot of Korean people are very shy about speaking to non Koreans for whatever reason.
Kids today are getting used to seeing foreigners in their schools, hagwons and in their neighborhoods, and I think maybe, when these kids grow up- maybe that social awkwardness won't be so prevalent. I think international relations, business and tourism here will benefit from that.
Who knows, Korea might even become the hub of Northeast Asia then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bosintang

Joined: 01 Dec 2003 Location: In the pot with the rest of the mutts
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| peppermint wrote: |
In an ideal world the OP might have a point, but from what I've seen at the elementary school level, the administration is often unable to judge wether a Korean teacher can speak English well enough to teach it.
|
The hiring could be centralised by the Ministry of Education, could it not?
| Peppermint wrote: |
Perhaps if Unis developed courses geared towards teaching English specifically, or school boards required that teachers at least have a minor in English language with their education degree- some way to ensure that the K-teachers had a baseline level of competency with the language. That's a long way off though.
|
But if they hired teaching assistants rather than teachers, could they not focus on people who already have a higher-level of English and spend a couple of months improving their English and learning modern English-teaching methods?
| Peppermint wrote: |
I think native teachers do bring something to the table that Korean people simply can't. A lot of Korean people are very shy about speaking to non Koreans for whatever reason.
|
I do think native speakers are useful, but one of the points of my OP is that not everybody needs access to a foreign teacher. As well, again, foreign teachers can be used in a more limited role (1-2 times a year versus 20-30times).
| Peppermint wrote: |
Kids today are getting used to seeing foreigners in their schools, hagwons and in their neighborhoods, and I think maybe, when these kids grow up- maybe that social awkwardness won't be so prevalent. I think international relations, business and tourism here will benefit from that.
Who knows, Korea might even become the hub of Northeast Asia then. |
I agree, but I'm talking specifically of public schools here. The hagwons won't dissappear as long as parents want their children exposed to foreigners and more English lessons. As far as children who can't afford to have access to a native speaker, with the money saved from not employing foreigners in public schools perhaps they could add more burseries for underpriviledged children to places like the English Villages that are popping up around Korea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Yu_Bum_suk

Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't see how it could hurt to have more foreigners. If I stay in Korea next year it will only be if I'm in a uni or public school. The unprofessionalism of hogwans is just unbelievable in some cases. From the point of educating kids it's very hit and miss. There are some classes that are so great where we can learn so much that the parents should be paying a premium. Then there are parents who should be getting their money back. I would think that in a larger class the best way would be a KT and FT co-teaching together - expensive but the best way to ensure proper learning. Fund the ESL programmes in the public schools properly and millions of parents wouldn't be wasting millions of won for very marginal hogwan educations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Yu_Bum_suk

Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| To add a point about 'exposure' to foreigners - in some cases, all hogwans do is teach kids that it's fun to and they can get away with being totally disrespectful to foreigners. A lot of kids just hate being there and associated foreigners with their hatred of being forced to learn English. By no means is this universally the case, but with some kids I'm sure that we just contribute to the development of racist attitudes. In public schools where the pupils have to be there for so many hours anyways, and where there's a bit more semblance of discipline, I would only hope that exposure to foreigners would have a much better effect, especially exposing foreigners to the ones who aren't rich, spoiled brats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Grotto

Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bosintang wrote
| Quote: |
| A properly trained non-native EFL-teacher is just as efficient, if not more so, then a poorly trained native teacher |
Nope. You are way off base here. Even a Korean with a doctorate in English still does not have the mastery of the language that an average native speaker has. Not only is a native speaker immersed in the language their entire life they also study it in school for a minimum of 16 years. They use it on a daily basis.
You cannot distill 25+ years of learning into a 6 or 7 year doctotate program.
In the 8 months I have been at the public school I have seen a huge difference in the pronunciation, vocabulary and amount of English speaking being done. When I first arrived pretty much all the students could say was "hi hi hi hi hi hi hi". Now they can all say good morning teacher. How are you today?
Just having a native speaker available in the school gives them the opportunity to use some of the English they learn.
In the elementary school I am at there are approximately 1250 students and 38 staff. Of the entire staff there are two teachers who speak passable English. By passable I mean I can understand 80% of what they say. Their speach is full of pronunciation, vocabulary and word choice errors.
Allowing all students the opportunity to speak with a FT on a weekly basis is making a difference.
Now to rebut some of your uninformed comments:
| Quote: |
| The hiring could be centralised by the Ministry of Education, could it not? |
The people at the ministry of education have less knowledge of English than the Korean teachers at the schools. What makes you think a 60 year old Korean who doesnt speak any English is qualified to choose and place English teachers?
| Quote: |
| But if they hired teaching assistants rather than teachers, could they not focus on people who already have a higher-level of English and spend a couple of months improving their English and learning modern English-teaching methods? |
English cannot be mastered in a couple of months..regarless of how high a level of English the Korean has. Also the fact of the matter is that they just dont have near enough people with English skills approaching this level to even try it.
| Quote: |
| I do think native speakers are useful, but one of the points of my OP is that not everybody needs access to a foreign teacher. As well, again, foreign teachers can be used in a more limited role (1-2 times a year versus 20-30times). |
The best way to learn English is through repetition. Exposure to proper English once or twice a year would be a total waste of money.
| Quote: |
| As far as children who can't afford to have access to a native speaker, with the money saved from not employing foreigners in public schools perhaps they could add more burseries for underpriviledged children to places like the English Villages that are popping up around Korea. |
Again you are severely limiting the amount of exposure to high quality English to the vast majority of Korean children.
In the GEPIK program there are 100 teachers at 100 elementary schools in Gyeonggi-do now if you figure an average of 800 students per school that are exposed to an FT that comes out to 80,000 children. That is a hell of alot of kids. As I said before my school has 1250 students that have an opportunity to speak to an foreigner every single day of the work week. On an average day I interact with over 300 students just speaking to them in the hallways, whether it is a quick hello or a more involved conversation. Now if you add in the 5 classes a day I have with up to 40 students in each class that brings up the number to 500. Having FT's in a school gives most of these kids an opportunity they would otherwise never have.
Take a FT out of the equation and you remove almost any chance these students have to speak with a foreigner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Derrek
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fidel, don't you realize that students spend nearly all of their time memorizing vocabulary and drilling grammar points in Korean teacher classes... yet cannot speak a simple sentence?
Your theory makes sense, but given the Korean mindset of studying grammar for TOEIC, few, if any Korean teachers are ever trained to actually teach students to speak English in a useful manner. You want to change that? Great... but what about the social issues that cause ineffective teaching?
The problem is more than qualification and speaking ability -- it's a societal/cultural one. What really needs to be done is to fire all of the ajosshis/ajummas that speak NO english, yet teach grammar rule memorization. We have at least 3 of them at my school. Nice people -- but I can't even talk to them. And they are seniors in the department.
The young bucks you'd be training would instantly "give in" to the older (and that's about it) teachers who are superior to them on the Korean hierarchal ladder.
We've got teachers working here who absolutely suck at what they teach, and I'm not talking about just English (the students whine to me about this constantly) and only have their jobs because their father is a principal at another school, etc. Nepotism and the "old buddy" system is a big thing in Korea.
Things like grading systems where no grade is below XX%, entrance tests that rely on grammar rather than speaking, etc. must all be changed to bring about the results you (and all of us, really) are seeking.
And lastly, the students should be allowed more sleep and learn to spend 2 to 3 hours max per day on QUALITY study time -- not 6 hours where they're dinking around on handphones and chasing their friends down the hallways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fidel
Joined: 07 Feb 2003 Location: North Shore NZ
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Derrek wrote: |
Fidel, don't you realize that students spend nearly all of their time memorizing vocabulary and drilling grammar points in Korean teacher classes... yet cannot speak a simple sentence?
Your theory makes sense, but given the Korean mindset of studying grammar for TOEIC, few, if any Korean teachers are ever trained to actually teach students to speak English in a useful manner. You want to change that? Great... but what about the social issues that cause ineffective teaching?
The problem is more than qualification and speaking ability -- it's a societal/cultural one. What really needs to be done is to fire all of the ajosshis/ajummas that speak NO english, yet teach grammar rule memorization. We have at least 3 of them at my school. Nice people -- but I can't even talk to them. And they are seniors in the department.
The young bucks you'd be training would instantly "give in" to the older (and that's about it) teachers who are superior to them on the Korean hierarchal ladder.
We've got teachers working here who absolutely suck at what they teach, and I'm not talking about just English (the students whine to me about this constantly) and only have their jobs because their father is a principal at another school, etc. Nepotism and the "old buddy" system is a big thing in Korea.
Things like grading systems where no grade is below XX%, entrance tests that rely on grammar rather than speaking, etc. must all be changed to bring about the results you (and all of us, really) are seeking.
And lastly, the students should be allowed more sleep and learn to spend 2 to 3 hours max per day on QUALITY study time -- not 6 hours where they're dinking around on handphones and chasing their friends down the hallways. |
What theory Perhaps you addressed this post to the wrong person. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rok_the-boat

Joined: 24 Jan 2004
|
Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with the gist of the original post - I taught at a high school for one year and had zero effect in my 20 classes of 50 kids each (meeting 1000 per week). Now if they had given me one class twenty times a week, that would have been a different story ...
You have to match resources to needs to get results. The situation I was in was a complete waste of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
A properly trained non-native EFL-teacher is just as efficient, if not more so, then a poorly trained native teacher
|
I agree with this. A well-trained Korean teacher could teach speaking as well as the necessary grammar. I've said it before and I stand by my statement: the students who progress the fastest are the ones who study grammar and speaking at the same time.
Korea is wasting a huge amount of money paying for free flights and housing for untrained people on the basis that 'anyone can teach' and that it is somehow useful for students to 'talk to' a foreigner. Sure it's good for kids from a monocultural society with a history of xenophobia to meet and interact with someone from outside, but the gain is minimal when compared to the cost.
It would be much better to spend that money in training Korean teachers in modern language teaching strategies.
The Ministry of Education should also figure out why it is necessary for all students to study English. Korea is not going to give up its language. It isn't necessary for all adults to be functional in English at their jobs. A two-tier approach would be better. Start everyone out for a couple of years in elementary school. Those who demonstrate both an interest and a facility for learning should then have the opportunity to advance in their studies of English. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Grotto

Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
very elitist Ya Ta Boy
Why stop there? Why not test every child and put them in the areas that they show an aptitude for.
Ahhh you did not show an aptitude for English. We will not waste time or money trying to train you. No it does not matter how badly you want to learn English. You showed an aptitude for math so we will make you study more math. Oh whats that? You hate math and love English...well that is just too bad for you isnt it?
I have yet to meet a Korean teacher who speaks English anywhere near the fluency of a native speaker.
One major fact that people seem to be missing out on is that English is a global language. Anywhere you go in the world you can find someone that speaks some English.
English is the language of business, travel and communication. The vast majority of the world wide web is in English. All airline pilots and air traffic controllers must be fluent in English. When dealing internationally business contracts are written in English almost exclusively.
People also need to admit that no matter how extensively trained a Korean is their comprehension of English will not approach the level of a native speaker. A properly trained Korean might be able to disect the English language better but a native speaker inherently knows more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fidel
Joined: 07 Feb 2003 Location: North Shore NZ
|
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just to add my two cents
I teach 5 different classes a week three times a week each, with an average of 19 students per class. It's an elective subject, they can choose reading if they wish which the majority do because the SATs aren't conversation based. My students definitely improve over the year. The 15 minute oral test done 4 times a year makes them study or they fail. 40% of the class grade is on participation which is a definite motivation factor. I have to give an average grade of 75% which means I have leeway to fail those who don't study and reward those that do.
We have 16 Korean English teachers which the majority are near fluent. I've seen them teach though and they speak Korean 80% of the time during class.
In my case its definitely worth having a FT on board. They would have more but they are fighting with the government to become fully independent. Therefore they won't fund extra teacher's out of their own pocket as a kind of protest. They don't want any public funding, not a cent but the GOV won't allow them to break away. They feel it would lead to elitist schools. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
manlyboy

Joined: 01 Aug 2004 Location: Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
|
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jajdude wrote: |
| I believe the main thing is to expose them to foreigners, not just English. Let them get used to being in the same room as a foreigner, because they may never do so before uni or later. Hell, met a few adults who had never met a foreigner before. Could barely say hello, did not know how to act to a non-Confucian. That was an education I guess. |
I think this point is getting overlooked here. Koreans know that they NEED strong connections with the West in order to prosper (resent it as they may). The problem is that, as a people, they're socialized to be insular and wary of anything not indigenous to Planet Korea. Hence, they want to produce a generation of people who are effective at engaging and dealing with foreigners. You could think of it as a "know thy enemy" strategy if you wanted to be negative about it, but the main reason we are here in such vast numbers is not to help them learn English, (as the OP said, they could do this well enough without so many of us), but to help them UNLEARN to be dismissive and ignorant of the West whose alliance (note I didn't say allegiance) is critical to their future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Len8
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 Location: Kyungju
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are numerous complaints by Korean teachers about the poor teaching of the many expats who get into Korea via the Gepik or whatever it's called programe. There is always an artcle or two in the papers by irate Korean teachers. All I can say to that though is tough. if the Ministry of education wants to fork out the money the way they do then more power to anyone who wants to come here and get it. Take the frigging money. If by chance you happen to be somebody who really wants to help the poor s.o.bs then great. You stand to get and give a lot to the system. If on the other hand you aren't in the least interested in the culture or teaching then you got a free trip and a chance to see another part of the world.
That's the way it works. Maybe the few that do want to teach and who do pull their weight make up for the many who come to bludge.
Maybe the Ministry of Education has done a statistical analysis of the whole shemozzle and decided that the benefits more than outweigh the costs |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
very elitist Ya Ta Boy
|
Yes, I'm guilty of that charge if being elitist means giving the students what they need. I'm tired of the PC notion of inclusion when it means dumping everyone into the same classroom and forcing the teacher to teach to the middle, leaving the strongest and the weakest to sink or swim.
Public school teachers on this board have often complained about having 40 students in a class, with only a few wanting to learn. Is it really elitist to divide classes by ability and supply each group with the type of teaching that is best for that level?
One philosophy of education stresses maximizing the potential of each student. Another philosophy stresses self-esteem and group harmony. I'm not against self-esteem, but it can be encouraged in other ways. I'm not against teaching English to everyone. I just question the efficiency of it. In a situation where time and funding are limited, is the return on the investment being maximized? I don't think so. |
|
| 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
|
|