Friday, June 5, 2009

Seoul wants English classes to be taught in English, will give TEE certs out.

The Korea Times has an article that says Seoul wants English classes to be taught in English by 2012.
The Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education said it plans to establish a system to ensure that all Korean English teachers can conduct English-only classes by 2012 from the current 58 percent.

Under the plan, the education office governing all elementary and secondary schools in the city will introduce a Teaching English in English (TEE) Certificate for English teachers beginning in the fall semester. The city currently has 4,678 English teachers at secondary schools and 3,800 at elementary schools.

``We will issue the certificate to teachers who are able to conduct classes in English and continue to encourage more and more teachers to acquire the certificate,’’ said Yoon Ho-sang, senior supervisor at the education office. ``Those who hold the certificate can get incentives in personnel placement.’’

These TEE plans are generally unpopular. Here's an excerpt from an article last year, though this one talks about the plan to recruit new teachers rather than use the ones already here:
Meanwhile, more than half of English teachers are opposing the introduction of "Teaching English in English (TEE)" teachers, planned by the government for next year. The government plans to recruit 23,000 TEE teachers, who will conduct classes only in English, over the next five years.

Korea’s largest teachers group, the Korean Federation of Teachers’ Association said Sunday that 56.7 percent of English teachers negatively responded to the TEE teacher plans in a recent survey, while 24.9 percent said they need TEE teachers.

Among those respondents against ``English-only'' teachers, 46 percent said it would bring unqualified teachers to schools and 21 percent said current teacher levels are already enough for English education. The teachers' group questioned 425 English teachers at elementary and secondary schools nationwide between April and May.

TEE is unpopular because so few teachers can do it, because it requires such a departure from the normal teaching style, and because it takes some confidence to speak English in front of students. You'll notice how unwilling, if not unable, many teachers are to use English in class, not only because their English is poor, but also because the students will laugh at them.

I watched a TEE demonstration class last year and it was awful, just plain awful, because the Korean teacher led the class, barked the orders, and spoke most of the time while the native speaker modeled some dialogues and gave out stickers. However, this was a failed attempt at team teaching, though if TEE catches on it could ultimately mean more face-time with native speakers in schools. For instance, in public schools now Korean English teachers meet classes about three times a week, and do roughly one or two pages in the textbook a day. The textbooks aren't very meaty, and stretching the material out requires a lot of bluster and ultimately wastes a lot of time. There are only so many times you need to explain "can" and "can't," or other tedious points, and really these can be explained in very simple English or in a few examples of Korean. Reducing time used for, say, grammar or listening practice by half or two-thirds would open more time for meaningful English in class, either with a native speaker or a competent, and dare I say "qualified" Korean teacher.

Because I'm afraid of losing my title as "angriest blogger" this year, I'll just copy and paste a rant I wrote last fall on the topic, because I know you won't click through to the link:
And I know that one of the chief objections to TEE is that teachers students just aren't good enough to manage a class conducted entirely in English. But, you know, rather than plugging away at grammar and readings that neither the students nor the teachers can understand, why not aim for more functional English?

But come on, would you tolerate social studies teachers who couldn't use a map? Math teachers who couldn't do long division? Then why the easy-going attitude toward English teachers who clearly aren't proficient in the subject they teach? I'm not simply talking about being able to speak fluently---but is that really too much to ask?---or even being able to produce the sounds of English---of course a necessity, but one which most can't do on a regular basis---I'm also talking about being able to comprehend texts and use the basics of English grammar. Grammar is supposed to be their specialty, after all, but the idea of the Asian grammar expert so embraced by out-of-touch academic journals is clearly a myth. Why, then, is every utterance filled with errors? Maybe they just suck at speaking, you say, but then why is every newspaper, every magazine, every textbook, every advertisement, every commercial, every piece of stationary, every t-shirt, and every other scrap of English so heavy in errors and in awkward English? Perhaps Koreans just aren't good at writing, then. Sorry, but if you can't use grammar and can't recognize when it's used improperly, you don't know grammar. Time to hit the books again. I wish I could say bad English were simply a holdover from the older generation, but having dealt with younger teachers over the years I can say that's not the case.

What I like to bring up, though, each time people talk about TEE is that, as native speaker English teachers, are essentially required to do it each and every class. The challenges Korean teachers imagine are the ones we face each time.

15 comments:

Unknown said...

Is the grammar mistake in the last sentence of the quoted passage meant to be ironic?

Brian said...

The thing I quoted from myself? No, I don't think so. I sometimes get confused with the subjunctive.

nb said...

Micromegas, Fuck you. You read the whole post and all you can comment on is a small grammer mistake? Asshat.
when i was an English teacher(and I am so glad that is the past tense), I went to a new school. The first week, two Korean teachers complained to the head teacher (who I was sleeping with) about my class....the first fucking class. The guy said that the introduction class was useless and the woman complained about the same thing. The problem was, the woman couldnt put a verb in a sentence. Literally every time she spoke English, there was no verb. I wrote a letter in English, had my lover/head teacher translate it into Korean, and gave it to the female principal. I lite the fuck into the bitch. She never ever said shit about me again. She would play songs from the government text at least 6 times in a row to waste time. It was a farce.

Brian said...

Play nice, that's a warning nb. Micromegas wasn't trying to start trouble.

I don't like making it an us vs. them (NSET vs. Korean) thing, because we both have strengths and weaknesses. However, those strengths and weaknesses need to be talked about.

baekgom84 said...

I don't know if it's fair to compare a Korean English teacher who can't speak fluently (or even extremely competently) with, for instance, social studies teachers who can't use a map. As far as I'm concerned, the Korean English teacher only needs to know enough to sufficiently teach the curriculum. The problem, as you pointed out, is that the curriculum is generally a pile of shit, teaching ridiculously out-dated and irrelevant vocabulary and grammar.

Look, this point has been made before but I think it will always be valid: how do you expect a class of 40+ students to engage in a meaningful way with a class for a subject in which individual participation is important and requires constant encouragement?

This is where hakwons can actually play a useful role, and it's such a shame that the only thing they give a shit about is sucking the parents dry of cash. But to have an environment where a small class can spend an extended amount of time learning and practicing English has to be useful, at least as a starting point.

Working in a hakwon was an experience for me that can only aptly be described as 'hellish' (and my hakwon was better than many) but in fairness, the kids did noticeably improve over time (despite the shitty curriculum.)

As for students not being able to manage a TEE class, I tend to agree. To be honest, I don't see the benefits of completely disallowing the use of Korean in a class, especially when you have students at very different levels. I know many Korean and also native teachers tend to feel that English-only classes are important, but from my perspective, I feel much more comfortable learning Korean when I know I can have something confirmed in English. I also think that my students (middle school) feel more comfortable to speak English when they know that they won't be admonished if they ask their friends or the Korean teacher what something means in Korean.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely right, Brian, there are clear needs for both, and both have the strengths and weaknesses, and if everyone understood each other better, no doubt the system would work better.

What I do think causes problems for the Koreans is actually their obsession with learning English. I'm aware this may prove to be a contentious point, but I'll see how it pans out.

The way I see it, the more people they try and push to learn English, the less they can fulfill their potential. Not everyone can be suited to learning languages, some will be better at some languages than others. I've heard Koreans say that they need good English to be more successful economically. A few examples why that isn't strictly true: The Phillipines - generally high level of English, considerably lower economic level. Brazil, India, Russia, China - generally quite low standard of English among the general populations, but now very successful economically.

So I don't think that argument holds all that sway. Secondly, it's simply quantity over quality in Korea. Now, I come from Britain, which is notoriously bad at learning languages, but that means that the few who do are passionate about it, and it's a personal talent for them, and they get very good.

If Korea understood this, they could put less emphasis on high-level English for everyone. I'm not saying don't teach people English, but don't make it the be-all-and-end-all, because it's not going to be for everyone, and for those who just aren't good enough, or who don't want to learn it, it's detrimental to them, because it's time spent that could be spent on other things. If only the people who were really passionate about languages, and only those who were more naturally talented at languages CHOSE to take English to such a high level, they would be able to reach a much higher proficiency than they can now.

Making everyone spend so much time on English, and under so much pressure, means that not only is the quality of student on average lower, but so is the average quality of the Korean teachers.

The basic jist is, I don't think TEEs are a good idea, and I don't think always having classes entirely in English is a good idea either.

Sorry for the long post, and I know people will disagree with me, but I'm not trying to cause trouble!

Unknown said...

I work at the foreign language high school in Naju and my observations are that the Korean English teachers who ARE competent enough to teach English in English don't because THEY are afraid. Too many of the students have lived abroad, are better than they are, and so long as the Korean English teachers stay in Korean, their secret (that they may not be perfect) is safe.

The other problem is: The test drives the teaching method. So long as the main motivation for learning English is to pass a multiple choice test, there is no need to teach English in English. In fact, doing so would be detrimental for the students. Before anything else, the test needs to change.

Change the test, change the teaching method. To do it the other way around is just foolhardy.

HappyCamper said...

At my middle school, I am pushing for complete use of the communicative approach (with little or no Korean spoken) in class. I am facing some (not much) resistance not because they cannot do it, but because old habits die hard. Changing teachers from fountains of information to facilitators of learning isn't easy. Fortunately, I have Korean colleagues and a principal (a former English teacher) behind me and we are moving forward.

We are seeing improvements in speaking. Students are taking an active role in their learning.

I am for the government initiative to encourage (force?) Korean English teachers to use more English in class. It is good for them and for the students.

There is a role for native English teachers. They can bring new methods of English language teaching to the Korean teachers. But for this to happen the native English teacher has to be trained herself.

We need to move English learning from a mere academic subject in school to a skill students can use for the rest of their lives. Yes, it is harder when there is too much emphasis on test taking, but I am optimist.

es_trick said...

I taught English in Korea from 1982 - 1997.

It's amazing how little has changed. The same old obstacles that prevent English being learned as a tool for communication are still firmly in place.

. . . teaching to the college entrance exam, the over-emphasis on teaching grammar and memorizing vocabulary lists, English phonetic sounds such as f, v, z, etc. taught incorrectly by transliterating them into Hangul, Korean teachers who can't or won't speak English in their English classes, native speaker teachers in schools who are used as ornaments rather than valuable resources, hakwon owners who exploit their employees and their customers, lots and lots of abused and disgruntled expat teachers, government policy that doesn't know what direction it's headed in from one year to the next . . .

sigh

ZenKimchi said...

Was it just me, or was every foreign language class I sat in except Latin taught completely in the foreign language?

Who here has taken French, German or Spanish where the teacher spoke English most of the time?

Stafford said...

A few brief observations.

The rationale between TEE is to further reduce the amount of spending on private education (i.e. Hakwon).

In order to do so the state needs to be seen as providing the same level of education as the privateers.

I don't think it unreasonable then that English lessons should be taught mainly in English.

As a young student of French I certainly remember all my lessons being conducted only in French, but by either a fluent, or more often than not, native French Speaker.

As Brian has rightly pointed out before any of the classes NESTs teach are pretty much only in English because, lets face it, they're usually left alone bereft of a Korean teacher.

Anyway I can see the rationale behind TEE but in practise it is going to be a nightmare. Certainly in my school there are some older, dedicated teachers who teach English part time who are reasonably good at getting the students through the woefully inadequate English Curriculum

They're never going to have the language proficiency to do whole classes in English, but then I put to you, even after a Korean teacher is certified TEE I very much doubt that in practise Lessons will be only in English.

Not even mentioning the fact that most students will be more proficient than their teacher, it's not really that practical and represents a paradigm of Language teaching the efficacy of which is being more closely examined than say 10 years ago when it was first promulgated.

es_trick said...

Nowhere is the maxim

"Those who can do, those who can't teach"

more true than the sitution of English speakers in Korea. The lion's share of proficient English speakers in Korea have better paying jobs in the private sector, and I don't mean hakwons.

The vast majority of English teachers in public HS and MS cannot speak English above Level 2 on the ILR scale, or Level B2 on the CEF scale. (Level 4 ILR, Level C2 CEF is considered "mastery").


I doubt whether "most students [are] more proficient than their teacher" in MS or HS. But it only takes one student who is better than the teacher to make them lose all confidence, and cause feelings of shame and 'loss of face' resulting in the refusal to speak English in class.

Anyway, the way the curriculum is structured, there is little need for the teacher to speak English. The grammar-translation method lives on!

And unless you have a very charismatic teacher who is brimming with confidence in their English language ability, many students aren't going to be open to the idea of the teacher teaching in English, anyway. That's not what they're used to or expect.

Even at the university level, I remember a professor of English Lit, who after returning from a sabbattical year in the US, felt confident enough in his English that he decided to teach his English Lit classes in English (of all things!) His students hated this. After a couple of years, the professor's English level had deteriorated to some extent, and he gave up teaching English in English.

Darth Babaganoosh said...

"Who here has taken French, German or Spanish where the teacher spoke English most of the time?"

Not only was my first exposure (grade 3) to French in French only, but for that entire year we were not given a single grammar lesson. Lots of learning vocab through sentences, pointing, miming, photos, and substitution.

baekgom84 said...

In high school (and what would be middle school over here) I learned Japanese. The classes were mainly conducted in English, probably because the teacher wasn't proficient enough to speak only Japanese for the entire class.

I studied Korean at Yonsei Language School for a semester, where classes were conducted only in Korean, but honestly sometimes I really just wanted to ask or confirm something in English. Usually when I study Korean, I prefer to use English to have certain grammatical concepts or vocabulary explained to me. Generally, I'll be using English most of the time while I study. I know this philosophy of language learning is different from what most of you here seem to believe, but I can only say that it does work. As always, it depends on the motivation of the student.

I think that TEE can only occur if you divide the students into same-ability groups, which logistically would be very difficult to do here. As I mentioned earlier, the 40+ class sizes are a significant factor.

es_trick said...

Baek,

I agree that classes of 40+ that aren't level specific are very challenging. It's almost impossible to meet the needs of the students when they're at all different levels.

I also took Korean classes at Yonsei KLI. But I was a bit fanatical about trying to do everything in Korean, so that I would learn to think in the language. So, I found it upsetting when my classmates would ask a question in English, or explain something to someone else in English (not saying that you did that).

It's possible that your method works better for you and for those with similar learning styles. I'm even willing to concede that it may work better for most people in the short run.

There were probably lots of times that I missed important points, or remained in a state of confusion that could have been instantly resolved, if I had allowed someone to translate for me, or used a biligual dictionary. But I was willing to accept a certain amount of frustration, or what's called 'tolerance for ambiguity' in the applied linguistics lit.

Best,
Eric