Korean Job Discussion Forums

[lastat06513]

I did a search and read some threads on the board regarding some frustrations "uni teachers" have teaching post-secondary students in Korea.

Alot of them see Korean university students as lazy, unmotivated and unwilling to learn anything that they feel is "academically stimulating.

I had this argument with one of the teachers in the English department of the college I worked at while doing the summer session.

Background; During the summer session, I collaborated with the English Department (I was in the International Business Department) to teach students an intensive 4-week course in English.

There were 2 groups; one group of students from the English department and another group from the International Business department. The English majors stuck with their students while the business majors were taught by me and another teacher from the English department (who seemd excited to be working with a foreigner outside her department).

The class was further divided into 2 subgroups that rotated between me and her for 2 hours a day.

I taught them practical skills, such as how to answer the telephone and how to make memos and to set schedules in English (skills they need in the REAL world) while she would try to have a discussion with them about the topic, which frustrated her because of their lack of proper communication skills.

In the end, the class was a flop because of the lack of achievement by the students (from both majors) according to the director of the English Department. Surprisingly, my director said the president was pleased by my direction in the class and the surprisingly high achievement by my students.

Later in the semester, me and the teacher I worked with during the summer had a conversation about the "failures" during the summer session.
She asked me what did I teach in class and I said I taught pronunciation, grammar, basic writing and verbal communication skills. Then she asked me how is all that "academically challenging"?



Well...I feel it is not academically challenging, but it is skills needed to work in a REAL world workplace.
Korean English teachers don't teach spoken communication and if the students were supposedly taught it, they never paid attention (only learning what they need to learn for the CSAT), and English is a one-credit course in some unis, making it hard for students to take the class seriously because it has almost no academic weight.

When I was contracted to work at my last school, I was hired with the assumption I would teach contractual English and business terminology. but how could I teach that when most of the students couldn't even understand how to ask for a cup of coffee or ask to use a pen? So, I had to start with the basics and worked my way up as far as the semester allowed me, and beleieve me I got pretty far in my lesson plan.

I don't know how most of you feel, but I think Korean students want to learn practical skills first before tackling anything challenging because I think it is better to learn how to crawl before trying to walk.

[Sina qua non]

[Ody]

[Sina qua non]

From all of the quoting from the above post, I am disappointed that not a single reference was made to the fact that I feel rough and hairy.

[lastat06513]

Ody....I guess you know more than I did about it.
The problem is that my students seemed to be alittle baffled by the other teacher and they seemed to be more at a loss than when they were in my class.

And I guess it was "politics" since the Kyo-chang-nim decided not to hold anymore summer sessions (or did they do it this past summer as well). I had a sit-down with my director AND the director of the English department (over lunch) where he discussed my performance in class compared to what was done in other classrooms.

And BTW, they DID finish all of the telephone chapter, and we DID have time to do a practical exercise to demonstrate how to use the skill practically.

I know my case-study doesn't apply to all situations, but I have heard about people who work at unis and complain because they have no clue as to what they are doing and they contend that they just want to stand in front of the class and just hope the students understand them, and if they don't, blame it on the hogwon teachers who are suppose to teach them to understand what their foreign professors are teaching.

But if students are suppose to go to hogwons to learn English, whats the purpose of having "university teachers" (I am using quotations because just because a person works at a university, it doesn't make them a professor, to be a professor in Korea a person must have tenure, which doesn't happen often [it does, but not in all schools, so they are just "university teachers"])

From my understanding, students attend a university to learn "practical skills" necessary to find a job and to be a functioning member of a company, not just to sit in front of a foreigner who thinks of it as a place to hang around in until their next vacation (I saw MANY teachers who thought that way, including one guy who wanted to find a uni job because he was a "freetime junkie").

I think like this; "If you teach them something useful....they will listen"
(using and modifying the quote from "Field of Dreams")

[Ody]

[Ody]

[lastat06513]

Ody sighingly wrote

[Ody]

[lastat06513]

....that is all I can say.....

[Sina qua non]

I got suckered into thinking this was going to be a worthwhile thread about teaching philosophy.

It would have been much better if the two combatants would have just dealt with their issues through PMs.

[lastat06513]

Now that the combative person has left my thread, now we can have an honest debate about teaching philosophy without hints of criticizing anyone.


Let's continue in good spirit now

[mountain goat]

Originally when Universities were set up, they fostered a learning for learning sake environment. It was just for the elite and wealthy members of society who didn�t need to concern themselves with earning money at the end of it all. The lecturer was right in that at University, training your students� brains in how to think and analyze is an important and valid form of teaching. Thinking about topics in depth, being able intelligently criticize things and problem solving are skills that you should acquire at university that prove to future employers that you are capable of that level of thought.

Though in many respects, I agree with the OP . The students aren�t going into a theoretical world so practical skills are more important. Essentially the students are paying customers, they're there to enhance their employability and gain the skills they need for jobs. Of course we are here to teach a language, a practical skill, what is the point of learning a language and not being able to use it to communicate? I see that us as native speakers and a university lecturers have completely different functions. She was wrong to criticize you, if you taught them how to communicate something then you have successfully done your job. If she hasn't taught them to think on a deeper level then she has failed.

My friends who have a degree in something practical (IT, languages, engineering etc) are earning far more money than the people who did like English or history. Though, at University I had no idea what I wanted to do at the end of it all (still don't ) or what I should be learning-at the time I knew nothing about the real world and didn�t really care. For me as long as I got a 2:1 degree then I was happy, I regret that attitude now of course.