[. . .] Mr. Suh's reforms have sometimes raised eyebrows—and hackles. Kaist is now an all-English-language campus, thanks to a presidential decree four years ago that scrapped Korean as the language of instruction, a move that many students say alienated older faculty members.
"Most of the professors are not native English speakers, and they complain that they're not teaching to their full capacity," says Jaeho Shin, a second-year chemical-and-biomolecular-engineering student. Students have been quietly told that some professors will revert to their native Korean once Mr. Suh leaves.
. . .
Scrapping Korean, while "painful" for some faculty members, has given his university an edge in global scientific research and helped flatten academic hierarchies, he says. "The Korean language makes it very hard to have one-on-one equal relationships," he says, "because it is so deferential to age and position. That's not good for innovation."
Google and the local English-language publications will be your friends for information about Korean universities and their attempts at attracting foreign students and improving their global rankings (not necessarily related). You'll find plenty of material on English in Korea on this blog, but on the topic of English-only policies at Korean universities this 2007 Inside Higher Ed article is worth a read. Three excerpts:
Many South Korean universities are setting their sights on creating an Asian education hub like Singapore and Hong Kong in order to retain more Korean students and to attract more foreign students. They have already concluded agreements with American, British and Australian universities for joint degrees, study abroad programs and faculty exchanges. Prestige is another factor in inducing universities to opt for teaching courses in English. South Korean universities are almost obsessed with the number of refereed journal articles their faculty annually publish in English and with the international rankings established by The Times of London and other rating bodies.
Many universities have set aside space where they require English to be spoken. Gyeongsang National University, for example, has created an English-only zone on its campus. Participating students agree to live in the zone, which includes two dormitories and a new classroom building with a coffee shop. The university hired English-speaking foreign students to work in the zone as waiters, guards and even trash collectors to maintain the fiction of an English zone.
. . .
Professors at KAIST voted last July to oust its American president, Robert Laughlin, because they thought his policies were too radical. One of Laughlin’s proposals was to send the entire junior-year class to China to study English. He reasoned the students could learn English in a foreign environment without being too far from home and without the risk of becoming Americanized. The new president, a naturalized American of Korean descent, scrapped this idea.
. . .
Student reactions to classes being taught in English are mixed. Although students see the advantages of being able to communicate in English, the global language, they worry about the quality of the instruction they will receive.
In some ways the English debate at KAIST and others is similar to the attitude toward English in public schools and the proposals to make English the language of instruction for all classes. Commenter Robert points out beneath the Inside Higher Ed article that few of the Korean students receiving English-language instruction will be living and working in English-speaking communities, and that most will stay in Korea and would benefit from superior instruction in professors' native language, with which not only professors but also students are familiar, trained, and proficient. When looking at this enthusiasm, and also at the backlash, like
One anonymous critic [who] denounced the concept by comparing it to the colonial period (1910-1945) when the Japanese rulers required everyone to speak Japanese instead of Korean.
it's important for native speaker English teachers to remember that English is largely a domestic pursuit in South Korea.
11 comments:
Yeah I worked at Gyeongsang National University when they made the English Only Zone, I would hardly call it English only. If students were caught speaking Korean we were supposed to give them a ticket that would lower their over all grade. That never happened since we lived with the students in the same dormitory and they outnumbered us by a large degree.
Students are able to make friends with people from different countries, and they can talk with them, but it put the NETs in a difficult position. On one hand we were their teachers, on the other we were like friends, so when class time would come around it would be a little difficult to maintain discipline. Not to mention, even if you did give them the tickets, or if they showed up late to class, or even if you gave them a score as low as an 88% on an oral test, they would start whining, because your position as a teacher wasn't really respected.
Students could even go as far as getting teachers fired by locking them out of the classrooms because they didn't like said teacher (Well they probably would have gotten fired sooner or later, one guy got fired for sleeping during class).
On the other hand though, if you get in to Kaist, you have probably been studying English for a long time in addition to other stuff. I don't necessarily think that instruction should be in English, but if the students want to stay cutting edge they gotta read English publications.
"One anonymous critic [who] denounced the concept by comparing it to the colonial period (1910-1945) when the Japanese rulers required everyone to speak Japanese instead of Korean." [sic]
Jeeze... pish and non-sense!
... Except for the part about having expat English teachers give out punishments for locals speaking their own language. THAT is clearly unworkable, mostly because it does relate, even if 'only' emotionally, to the quote above. And of course there IS more to it than that, as 3gyupsal says.
Student motivation is crucially important to look at in these situations, as is who benefits from the policy, and where the boundaries are and the consequences for infringement. Precedent is a useful guide too.
3gyupsal made some useful comments about some of these; I certainly agree that 'English only' zones are pretty much a waste of time.
I've seen a few 'English only zones' at different universities, and they really only 'work' insofar as there are organized events or activities that draw the students together and give them a purpose (and context) for making the effort to concentrate and understand the communication.
We held a one-off singing competition at one place. Another had infrequent musical performances. Another had daily English language study group practise for the entire morning (ie. it was a glorified but task-specific study room). Even though other English language media were available at all times in those places, eg. magazines, newspapers, and bloody TV sets, I would suggest that those places were really only effectively 'English language zones' while English language activities were taking place. A number of chairs in bloody Starbucks can be a more effective 'English only zone' if that's what that number of people decide upon for a given time, and that's exactly what we often see.
My point to this is that I think the current president of KAIST is really completely correct, and that however much he'll be derided in the short term, I think he's the closest thing Korea has had to a home-grown Gus Hiddink magnitude revolution in education.
Furthermore, this is exactly what this country needs, however much locals do or don't want to acknowledge or accept it.
2/3
For precedents of positive and negative examples, we could look at central Europe, and Aotearoa - New Zealand.
To take the latter first: Aotearoa - New Zealand is a good example of the wrong policy in the wrong place at the wrong time, and for the wrong reasons, although of course, in the 18 and 1900s the benign rationale was that Maori needed to learn English. But, the way it was enforced was that the first schools in the country (which originally taught in Maori) were all banned, closed down and replaced by English language schools where Maori students were punished (ie. strapped or caned) by non-Maori for speaking their own language in their own land...
even outside of class time.
Just to clarify some of the obvious differences and possible similarities to the current situation:
all the many different 'Maori' iwi (or large family groups of people) were not one nation, as is (South) Korea currently. They were being overwhelmed by the rapid influx of settlers and their diseases and other laws, and were, naturally, divided in how to respond to any and all of these issues. Korea, for all its regionalism and long proud tradition of backstabbing (literally - witness the royal family), has acting in unity of great numbers as a fairly inspiring strength, as we tend to see during recent World Cup events.
Another key difference between the past colonisation of Aotearoa - New Zealand and (the perceived or actual colonisation and) ongoing English language acquisition within Korea is use of modern media. Granted that two hundred years ago the concept of reading and writing in daily life was a fairly revolutionary idea for those of European decent as much as the many different Maori who were learning it.
But these days, what with Korea being famously probably the most wired nation on Earth, access to English language media is not an issue. It's access to meaningful, high quality language exchange (or interactive/ two-way communication) that is so important.
3/3 (originally as 'mahythesis')
Or, to put it another way, much English language content that Koreans are exposed to on the internet and elsewhere is encouraging of passive consumption: we only have to listen or read or watch the Wondergirls singing a broken-English phrase or two, and, it is so often fairly nonsensical and simply incorrect to expat 'native' speakers, as Brian is so good at pointing out.
Personally, I think more important is the engendering of positive attitudes towards English language acquisition, for the sake of eventually finding enough students enthusiastic about seeking higher quality and meaningful language exchanges... -
such as is currently provided at KAIST.
Or in other words, aim to promote English in a positive light to the masses, but also provide quality English language experiences for those capable of it.
I would like to comment on how central European nations have developed such high levels of English ability while maintaining their own language traditions (as has long been the goal of the struggle for us with Maori language in Aotearoa - New Zealand), but actually someone else is probably better placed to comment on the European experience. All I know is that it has taken many generations, and it started with the upper classes (ie. aristocracy) developing their own culture of insisting on their children learning to read and write (ie. gaining skills transferable between languages), and speak in many different languages, and that this eventually developed into nation-wide movements covering most of the continent.
Final words: I believe that studies or research published by the two English language universities in Korea - KAIST and the Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology - are the most often cited from among Korean universities. Presumably this is to some extent at least a mark of the quality of their work, and a result of the culture of their English usage. If so: long live Suh Nam Pyo's policy of English language usage throughout KAIST.
j.w.
"...if the students want to stay cutting edge they gotta read English publications."
This is the reason I don't trust most of the Korean doctors I've met. Sure... they can diagnose bronchitis and prescribe some drugs for that, but what about my friend with a stomach parasite that no one here could diagnose?
In the States it was diagnosed on her first visit to a doctor...
Not saying all doctors here are bad, but when the vast majority of clinical research is reported in English and you can't read those reports...
Whoops! It seems that within my last comment with regard university rankings as to citations, I was more correct in relation to the Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology:
“The Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings placed Kaist at 198th when Mr. Suh took over. Last year it was ranked 69th. (It fares less well in Shanghai Jiao Tong University's rankings, which put more emphasis on scientific publications and place Kaist in the 201-302 range.)”
http://chronicle.com/article/No-Looking-Back-Kaists/65974/
“… Prime Minister Chung Un-chan visited GIST on January 26, 2010 and was given a briefing on its status during his official visit to Gwangju and Jeollanam-do.
He acknowledged GIST's achievements, especially that it ranked 14th place in the world and 1st in Asia in terms of "Citations/Faculty in the Times Higher World University Ranking".
http://ciss.gist.ac.kr/bbs/board.php?bo_table=board13&wr_id=14
If a university wants to have a truly international bent, with faculty and students publishing English articles than conducting classes in English will definitely help. It can be very difficult at first, sink or swim for professors and students both-- but is far more effective than voluntary 'English only zones.'
You guys do know there is also a JAIST? I read the wiki on KAIST, but I think its not 100% factual. Did Korea have science advances in 1970?
Anyway, imo, it always comes down to the people. The way Korean is spoken is in opposition to English alot of times. Hierarchial vs Egalitarian (Unfortunately, only who really speak Korean well enough can get the gist of this. Japanese is a little more relaxed, and I dont know about Chinese.) It doesnt matter what situations you give them to learn, in a Hierarchial society, alot of people are on the low end of the pole, and the age/deferential treatment/language thing is about all alot of people get. Its engrained, and its wanted. The
Egalitarian nature of English, among other langauges, doesnt really fit into the Korean mindset, as a Korean living in Korea. Development and getting richer is making it a little more lenient, but still. I always think thats why the locals dont advance in English as much, they cant relate to it. Starting kids younger with English is a good idea, but they still have to go through the same society, esp boys.
ok, ive said enough, hope you get what i mean.
I think it is natural..
it is so hard to study new technology in hangul.
so is in chinese writing system
English language competence is important in this globalized world, and no nationalistic or xenophobic wishing can wipe that away. Koreans need to learn English just like anyone else who wants to succeed in this world.
Any Korean who treats learning English, as only a "domestic pursuit" is kidding himself and setting himself up for low English language proficiency. Many Europeans have high English language proficiency because they see themselves as more than their nationality. They see themselves as European and English facilitates a pursuit to be more European or international. Koreans are not looking to be more Asian, but many in the Korean government and the elite do want Koreans to see themselves as citizen of a wider world. English allows this to happen.
So, learning English is not really a "domestic pursuit". To learn English just shelve it after getting a job or into a university may have been the thing to do in the past, but I think many Koreans really want to learn English to venture beyond the Peninsula.
Post a Comment