Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Yo!Chingo]

[Woland]

Actually, why not, if the teachers are qualified, who cares where they come from - Phillipines, South Korea, wherever. I think this is the key issue - qualification of teachers.

As English has become an international language, its standards are no longer necessarily those of any native speaker variety. As Henry Widdowson has written (and apologies for the long quote):

"How English develops in the world is no business whatever of native speakers in England, the United States, or anywhere else. They are irrelevant. he very fact that English is an interantional language means hat no nation can have custody over it. To grant such custody of the language is necessarily to arrest its development and so undermine its international status. It is a matter of considerable pride and satisfaction for native speakers of English that their language is an international means of communication. But the point is that it is only international to the extent that it is not their language. It is not a property for them to lease out to others while still retaining the freehold. Other people actually own it." (Defining Issues in English Lanuage Teaching. OUP, 2003, p. 43)

Widdowson admits that this is problematic for pedagogy and much of the rest of the book is spent delineating these problems and trying to work towards a definition of what we should be teaching. He concludes by arguing for the increased localization and bilingualization of teaching, which truly reflect the process of learning English as it is done by speakers of other languages. And doing this requires moving away from the monolingual standard promoted by the simplistic equation of the native speaker with the good teacher or even model of the language.

Another long quote (apologies again):

"The English we are concerned with is that which, on the one hand, serves as an international means of communication, and, on the other hand, has to be learned in classrooms. In other words, our concern is with English which is global in its use, and local in is learning. The established or official position, the orthodox view, is is diametrically the opposite to this, for it sees English as local in its use and global in its learning: the language to be taught is that which native speakers locally produce, and its monolingual teaching is assumed to be exportable as a global commodity, universally applicable, whatever the local circumstances of the learners. Of course, this makes sense form a commercial point of view. But commerce is in the business not only, indeed perhaps not mainly, of providing people with what they need but with what they will be persuaded to buy, whether they need it or not." (p. 159).

Some people will read the above as a defense of Konglish, but it is not. We need to see Konglish for what it is, a local variety which serves local purposes. I do not think that any Korean graduate student working on a degree now in the US or England, is writing their dissertation in Konglish. My impression is that as the demands for English become more global, the features of Konglish in their English disappear. But what replaces them is not necessarily a native speaker variety, but one which serves their purpose of communication. It is a process, and one that occurs at different speeds, with different results. But what is wrong with being bidialectal and having a local dialect which might serve as a marker of identity and a resource for local communication needs as long as one knows its limits and has other varieties available to serve other purposes?

It's interesting that this thread and a couple of other related ones have all come up at the same time, and generally producing the same themes - they can't do it on their own, non-native varieties are inferior, they need us, native speakers, specifically to show them the way. These threads are perfect illustrations of what Widdowson calls the orthodox view, and in them, I think we can hear the insecurity of native speakers whose status is being challenged on the ownership of English around the world.

The battle is joined, in a sense, and it is not clear what the outcome will be. I think the tide of numbers runs against the orthodox position (partly why I'm making this post), but as long as places such as Korea have laws that restrict E2 visas to citizens of particular countries, that position has a chance of holding out. This protectionist legislation effectively creates an overpriced market for native speakers, and, sadly, has only minimal provision for teaching qualification.

But I do not think that position is economically viable in the long run. Too much money is spent on this and often spent badly. I read somewhere in the last few days an article in which someone argued against the continued establishment of English language villages in Korea because of the amount of money needed to build and maintain them, especially as compared to their unproven efficacy in improving English. Unfortunately, the author suggested that the money would be better spent bringing in more native speakers. Unless those native speakers are also qualified teachers, I would argue that this will also be unproductive. As I've argued elsewhere, I think the money going to the Korean government's plan to put a native speaker in every school would be better spent on tape recorders and improving local teacher education, if higher standards of teaching qualification are not imposed on those native speakers.

Changing the law to open the market for English teachers from more countries combined with higher qualification demands (and appropriate standards could be set easily) would have the effect of saving money and probably result in a long term rise of the quality of English teaching and English language use in Korea. I have to say that many of the 100 or so Turkish English teachers that I worked with on an MA program there would do just as well, if not better, than many native speakers at teaching English here.

I realize that this post has probably riled a lot of people, either by hitting them in their pride or potentially, in their wallets (or by boring them with its length - really sorry!). I hope the responses will address the points raised within. As I mentioned above, I think we are in the middle of this situation now and not everything is visible to anyone in that condition. I don't claim anymore than a particular point of view and really would be interested in hearing others.

[diablo3]

I think the future will not involve replacing natives with non-natives. I think there will be more non-natives teaching, especially while many are good and suitable to teach.

Hell will freeze over before all natives are replaced.

[Woland]

[Hanson]

Excellent post, once again, Woland.

A few points.

First, I think you are assuming that the Ministry of Education and the teachers' unions in Korea are serious about teaching English to Korean society. I'm not convinced of this.

I was speaking to a group of adults I teach, a group in the "Continuing Education" centre of the university where us Freshmen English teachers here can choose to do extra hours (which I do). Many of them, in my highest level class, are English teachers in middle and high schools. They were talking to me about certain changes suggested last fall by the Ministry which asked teachers to conduct classes in English only, which the teachers' union balked at. The teachers/union, on the one hand, is not equipped with teachers able to do this at this point in time. The ministry, which is well-meaning, of course, doesn't see this as a problem, but hasn't put into place a system where teachers must have a certain spoken ability. The only thing they need is to pass their teacher's license, which is a glorified TOEIC exam.

Now, I've certainly simplified the situation for the purpose of this post, but in a nutshell, this is how the situation was explained to me by these teachers in my class. I used it as a springboard for further discussion, since the other students in the class seemed interested in the topic. These students in my class realise that creating second-language English speakers in Korea is an uphill battle. Nobody is willing to make the changes necessary to make that happen.

You suggested investing money into Korean English teachers. I agree, but the reality is the teachers' unions will balk at this and claim it unfair to teachers. Teachers are unwilling to put themselves at the risk of studying English and failing a spoken test (interview-style). They are much more willing to go through the motions, get a TOEIC score, or whatever this "teacher's license" consists of, and go on their merry way, teaching English to students by speaking 95% Korean in the classroom.

The problem doesn't stop there. I asked my students majoring in English Literature at my previous university job how much English texts and how much English was used by their professors in the classroom. I was shocked to find out that there was almost no English being used. The Literature they were studying were mostly translations in Korean of classics of English Literature. The professors, unwilling to look the fool, lose face in front of the possibility of speaking worse English than their students, happily continue teaching in Korean. The cycle continues.

You speak of qualifications. That's the crux of the matter. Until the Ministry of Education gets serious; until the teachers' unions are willing to change the status quo (highly unlikely); unless Korean universities stop the perpetual learning of 'textbook' English (explained solely in Korean); until the abhorrent overuse of audio-lingual methods are dropped in classrooms, Koreans will continue pretending to learn English. And I haven't even mentioned the sometimes (not always, granted) horrible teaching (read babysitting) going on in hagwons.

I'm all for dialects of English. I'm all for different brands of English. Hell, those Australians crack me up with their accent - as a side note, have you heard of the Korean woman who went into a hospital for treatment, and the doctor said "Well, I think you'll be ok to be released to die (today)". I love hearing different brands of English. But Koreans have a whole new slant on English pronunciation and misuse (Bravo your life, etc) that it cannot be understood by speakers of English from any other country.

I don't want to seem the pessimist (too late, perhaps), but the situation is not going in the right direction as far as I see it. The 'after-school institute' mentality is so ingrained, it'll be difficult to change. Especially when the change will come from the younger generation in the face of the older generation. I think Confusianistic pride will be a huge stumbling block in Korea for substantial change to occur.

So, on with the hagwons, on with the E-2 visas for 22 year-old Humanities graduates, on with the translated texts, on with the tv shows where the only English you see is written at the bottom of the screen, where the only English heard is by the whity standing next to the woman with the long explanations in Korean, on with the audio-lingual, repeat-after-me and learn-the-dialogue-by-heart type of teaching, and on and on and on...

The business of learning (or pretending to learn) English will continue for quite a while, I dare predict.

Sorry for the rant.

[poet13]

Yo!Chingo. I agree that the level of english of many filipinos is very low. However, the same could be argued for peoples of ANY non-english culture. Russians living in New York for forty years and still only speaking the mother tongue. Central and south americans living in virginia for fifteen years and still not able to put together a sentence. Interestingly, I know several filipinos here in Korea, both legal and illegal, and the one thing they have manged to do is learn (not master) korean to the extent that they are functional. Thats pretty cool.
What I was really chiding you for was using the word "never" in, "a Philippine born filipino will never replace a native born English speaker. Their English is not very good".
The Philippines has a lot of troubles, for sure, pero talaga, I love the country and the people.

[jacl]

Why do people say "...at this point in time"? "... in time" is redundant.

[Yo!Chingo]

When I said "never" I guess I was saying in our lifetimes. For Korea to be able to replace all or at least a majority of English teachers with non-native meagerly paid workers would probably take generations, but Hell by then America might be a 3rd world country too( the way our luck's been going), and we'll be begging for a job here at 5000 won per hour!

[guangho]

I think hakwons and public after-school programs would pay parrots 20,000 won a month if they could get visas for them.
In this business, as in all others, you either move up or out.

[JongnoGuru]

Polly wanna pension?

Or...

[TheUrbanMyth]

A slight correction. It's not a teaching visa they have per se...it's a "voucher". Apparently this voucher program is the first of its kind, but I can see it taking off in a big way, especially with your typical hakwon director. Most hakwons are not about speaking English but making money.


I know plenty of Filipinos who have very good English. And plenty more who have a better command of it than Korean English teachers. And if Korean English teachers are good enough for the children, then apparently so are Filipinos.

Anyway the parents love them and so do the children. It seems that not all Korean parents care about the 'blond hair" and "blue eyes" look. You can probably thank the illegal teachers and SBS for that.

[lastat06513]

When I was in China for a summer camp last year, a majority of the teachers I worked with were in fact from PI. That was because no person would go there and teach for $450 a month (I'm sorry to say but...who would?). But they were the most hard working teachers I met there. They not only taught classes during the day, but they provided tutoring (for free) at night for the students struggling. You will never see a foreigner doing this for that kind of money.

Now that I'm in Kuwait, the situation is the same, except they are Egyptian teachers (most education given here is done by the Egyptians). They tend to be alittle more lazy and impatient with the students. But I was working with a Palestinian guy who went 50 miles out of way (so to speak) for his students- making handouts, preparing far more than any native speaking or either Egyptian or Syrian English teacher I work with.

I know we will not lose our jobs and we are guaranteed a job almost anywhere, but to say that one group is speaking worse than any other group and to generalize a segment of society can't work in this day and time. It might have worked before the ESL craze went global, but as more people go out into the world and not only learn, but embrace English as a part of their lives, then the role of the native speaker will get ever small in the bigger picture being painted in this industry.

[Percy Nickets]

[Roch]

[Gideon]

It will be a long time before western english speakers will be replaced.. albiet not in my lifetime..

However i do believe the standards for getting qualified (not just BA) teachers will go up, but on the flipside i am doubtful salaries will increase in conjunction with the higher qualified (by that i mean MORE experienced) applicants.

then again i don't plan to live here for a long time either..