Old news, but that chart appeared in a Korea Times article yesterday. I'll try not to be too negative here, but that's definitely something to keep in mind when you're scapegoated in the media, or when you're again faced with the myth of the Korean grammar expert. After all, Korean English teachers do most of the heavy lifting in the schools, and obviously aren't getting results. Native speakers' classes are suppressed in the schools in order to better prepare for the TOEFL exam, and foreign teachers are often chastized for not adapting to the "teach for tests" method . . . and after all that, South Korea places 107th out of 143 nations. We always hear about the difficulties in adapting methods of communicative language teaching to Korea, and about how hard it is to develop communicative competence in Asian students. But man, there's a lot more wrong here than just poor spoken English and shitty teachers.
It's fun to make fun, and nice to let off a little steam and redirect some hostility. One of the most ridiculous aspects of all this madness is that it's entirely self-contained. I mean, you have students taking TOEFL exams not to study abroad but to get into high school, to get into a domestic university, or to get an ordinary local job. Just seems absurd that nobody has been able to shut the machine down. Sounds kind of . . . sinister, and commie, but one of the best ways for your nation to avoid such embarassingly low test scores is to stop using the test. No reason to keep doing something you're not good at. That's why my 142-pound ass has never attended the NFL Scouting Combine, and to this day nobody has made fun of me for being a sucky defensive end.
At least reserve the TOEFL for people who will require a high degree of English. I really have no idea why it needs to be a nationwide indicator of intelligence, especially when the general population clearly isn't ready for it. That's just the thing, though . . . the test is used almost exclusively within Korea's own borders, whether to get a job at a top company or to get into a prominent Korean university that doesn't even register as mediocre on the world stage. Yeah, yeah, I know it's a matter of national pride, but amidst the new administration's rethinking of the English question, perhaps they should . . . rethink the English question. For as long as I've been following the messageboards and websites on Korea, I've seen foreigners urging Koreans to ask themselves the basic questions: "Why do we want to learn English?" and "What do we want to use English for?" That's a question I still don't see answered, and one that confounds me as I try to plan the best and most appropriate classes for my students. If you want to know what foreigners think and what we think about, Mr. Lim, how about starting right there.
Interesting bit of trivia because it's late and I'm bored. The text on the chalkboard behind the white guy in the KT article I quoted is the first paragraph of this letter to the editor that ran the same day.
5 comments:
Before you chuckle too loudly, notice that Korea ranks first in the number of test takers, and given its smaller population relative to other countries, the number of test takers per capita in South Korea is also very high. TOEFL test takers in other countries may be using test scores for entrance to graduate programs and the like while Koreans may be taking the TOEFL for a variety of reasons, which may account for the lower average proficiency as a national group. My university allowed freshmen to waive first year English courses if they submitted a minimum TOEFL test score. Moreover, there are other international English proficiency tests, like the IELTS, which is preferred in Europe and Oceania, and rivals the TOEFL in popularity in China and many other countries. It is not well-known in Korea, where English instruction relies heavily on North American language models and teaching materials.
Sorry to spoil your fun, but simply comparing TOEFL averages isn't very meaningful. A direct comparison of assessments given to high school seniors or university freshmen would be more informative of the effectiveness of K-12 English instruction.
Sorry, Sonagi, but you are seriously mistaken. The comparison is TOEFL to TOEFL. It can't get more meaningful than that. Further, the post wasn't about which test is more useful, or used here or there or anything else, so your comment is perhaps about the numbers themselves, but not the post. Smee was decrying the disconnect between the supposed emphasis on English education in Korea and the results.
How many take the test directly reflects the mania that grips Korea.
The irony is all the greater because so many students take TOEFL cram courses, which teach to the test, while general English study, i.e. raising general English skills is more effective.
You say the scores are not instructive. That can only be true if you don't know almost all Koreans study English from elementary school age to adulthood, yet they fail as a group on this standardized test.
You, sir, are making excuses for a very, very flawed system and philosophy.
Smee is right: the whole thing is a joke and we are the clowns brought in to put on the show.
Thanks for your comments, both of you.
Anonymous, you hit on my main points. First being that, in spite of the huge emphasis on teaching for tests---we see it all the time in schools---the results just aren't there. And you're right, sonagi, that there are huge numbers of Koreans taking the test, from all walks of life and all classes, so perhaps the results are skewed.
And that's my second point. There's no reason everybody needs to be taking it, at least not right now. Obviously the teachers/administrators/whomever aren't getting the results they want, so why is there such an intense push for something so unsuccessful and so criticized anyway? You'll find people talking about how English is important for the global market, and for a globalized nation, but the test's function is primarily internal: high schools, local colleges, larger universities, and jobs. I can't think of any reason why a test of English as a foreign language ought to be such an important determiner of intelligence, especially the manner in which English is taught is so scattershot and flawed.
Anyway, thanks again for your comments.
The data you gave isn't very meaningful on its own. Is there a correlation between the amount of students taking a test and the average grade? Why should more people taking a test improve the average score? Also out of the top 10 list of attendees only 1 (Germany, go figure) is listed in the top 10 in terms of results?
How about India, China, Japan etc.?
I understand trying to make a link between the amount(time, money etc.) invested in passing the TOEFL and results obtained but I think you need to draw on different data sets to support your point. E.g. the average amount of tuition paid by a Korean student versus a Chinese/Indian etc.
Also, you use quantitative data to explain observations that you haven't defined. What do you mean when you say scapegoated in the media? What is the myth of the Korean grammar expert?
No reason to keep doing something you're not good at.
Not being good at something that is worth doing in the first place just means you can try harder. It's a good thing you're not a teacher!
I'm not really sure what you're getting at.
"Is there a correlation between the amount of students taking a test and the average grade? Why should more people taking a test improve the average score?"
No, we said that fewer people taking it should improve the score. If everybody takes the test, regardless of ability, the lower scores would obviously drag down the average.
I think that's all we were trying to say here: there doesn't, right now, seem to be any need for everybody to take the exam, and for it to be such a domestic gatekeeper. To make comparisons between English abilities of, say, high school students across countries, you'd have to look at high school scores across countries. Obviously the data doesn't do that; if you see the article it just says that in spite of the number of people taking the test, the scores are comparatively low. And I think that's the point we've made here as well.
Post a Comment