Reform of English Education

By Robert Allen

The recent increase in discussion about English education in Korea is certainly a good thing, and it is long overdue. The goals most often mentioned, increasing the number of Koreans teaching English, reducing dependence on foreign teachers, and implementing English-only classes, are worthy and plausible.

I would caution the new ``powers that be,'' however, to be careful when considering changes. This is not the time for knee-jerk, band-aid directives that could do more harm than good.

It is a time for research and consultation, followed by setting realistic short- and long-term goals, and creating benchmarks and timelines to ensure accountability. One possible first step is to ask a few questions in order to examine a few issues ― some of which have been considered, others have not.

For example, what would it accomplish to expect Korean teachers to use only English when they themselves are not confident of their speaking abilities or pronunciation? In addition, how effective would English-only classes be with current curricula?

Furthermore, can an English teacher be truly effective when her classroom contains 30 to 40 students, most of whom have already studied the identical subject matter at hagwon (cram schools) and are too tired and unmotivated to participate?

Similarly, how can an English teacher establish meaningful connections with his students when he sees anywhere from 100 to 150 students per day? Finally, how productive will it be if English teachers aren't taught effective L2 (second language) teaching methodology in college?

Regarding the first and second questions, forcing English-only classes on current teachers using current curricula would be a waste of time and resources.

Although English teachers have displayed intelligence and basic teaching ability by passing the National Teachers' Exam, their rudimentary skills make them self-conscious about using too much English, and they resort to Korean for most of the class.

In addition, current curricula provide few opportunities for the teacher to use English in an engaging manner. Students are already conditioned to passively listen to lectures, parrot the speaking exercises and perform the required ``seat work'' as a means of killing time until they run to their hogwan to cram for the next important test.

Requiring the teacher to use only English in that atmosphere would only alienate the students even more, making them care even less about the language or the teacher.

Of my former students who are now English teachers, the vast majority tells me the same thing: Their classes contain anywhere from 28 to 37 students per class (or more). Some of them teach five or six classes per day, meaning they will encounter at least 150 students on any given day.

That is not teaching people; it's warehousing. First, even the most skillful teacher would find it impossible to teach any kind of effective, participatory L2 curriculum to such large classes.

Even group or partner exercises in such classes are ineffective because the teacher cannot productively monitor the progress of so many students (not to mention maintaining some semblance of order, which takes up a sizable portion of the teachers' time and energy.)

In addition, how can teachers establish relationships, serve as role models and mentors, or share passion for the subject matter when it is a challenge to simply remember all of their students' names?

Every school that currently requires a teacher to maintain oversized English classes and face hundreds of students per day is wasting the taxpayers' money, the students' time and the teachers' skills (and sanity).

Kim Loutonen, Finnish ambassador to Korea, recently mentioned that his country's English classes are exclusively L2 (except when explaining grammar ― which makes perfect sense).

He also mentioned, however, that the teachers are well qualified and the curriculum emphasizes communication and reasoning as opposed to grammar and repetition.

That begs the next two questions: Do present university English education programs ensure that future teachers possess the necessary language skills to teach English-only classes, and do they teach university students how to replace the ``I talk, you listen,'' lecture-laden teaching environment with interactive, engaging L2 classroom technique?

To address these issues, the first steps would be to revise the English education system in this country's colleges to help future teachers learn the most current, effective second language teaching methodology, and to set much higher graduation standards regarding conversational and classroom English.

And, in a perfect world, universities could reduce the time spent preparing their students for the national teachers exam and increase the time students experience effective L2 teaching techniques, classroom management and teaching practice.

Most of my students share a valid desire to become good teachers and role models for their future students. They work hard to achieve their goals, and I'm proud of them.

I hope, not only for their sake, but for the sake of all Korean students, that the government begins conducting objective research and consulting with experts around the world in order to design the most effective English curriculum possible.

If such a plan is carefully considered, implemented well and managed accountably, it would help make the Korean system of English education an effective, rewarding and memorable process for Korean students and their teachers.

Robert Allen teaches at Hannam University's English education department in Daejeon and has a master's degree in teaching from George Fox University with an endorsement for secondary English education. He can be reached at allen@hannam.ac.kr.