By Leonie Overbeek
The current debate about the proposed policy of providing English immersion classes in schools for Korean children (in other words, they are taught only in English and all the subjects are taught in English), brings back memories of the ongoing debate in my home country, South Africa, regarding which language a child should be educated in.
The two camps are those who believe a child should be exposed to ideas in their mother tongue to facilitate conceptualization, and those who advocate education in the lingua franca of globalization, English. The majority of proponents of mother tongue education are generally speakers of Afrikaans.
The political history of South Africa ensured that two languages, Afrikaans and English, were the official languages of the country for more than 40 years. Afrikaans was the political language, the language of the rulers, while English was the business and global language.
After 1994 and the democratic elections, 11 languages were made ``official,'' which meant that public notices, bank statements, newspapers and most especially education could be conducted in any of these languages.
In practice English, Zulu, Xhosa and Afrikaans remained the most used, with English far outstripping the others, and thus encroaching on tertiary educational institutions that historically were using only Afrikaans.
It may not be well known here, but the uprising that led to the dismantling of apartheid and the establishment of a democracy which is still very young, was about which language pupils would be educated in. Specifically, black students rioted in protest against being forced to learn their subjects in Afrikaans.
So, as you see, I know from experience how emotive this issue is, and how many fears it stirs up, and just how heated feelings can get when faced with language (and the implication of culture that it carries) and education.
What I find ironic in the Korean situation is that the proposed immersion in English is something parents want ― at least it seems they want it. Why else would they spend so much money on taking their children to America, Australia, New Zealand or Singapore to attend an English-language school?
Surely if schools here in Korea offered the immersion experience without the need for leaving the country, it would be beneficial. And, by their statements, this is exactly the issue that President-elect Lee Myung-bak and his incoming government are trying to address.
Yet, I must agree that they are not, perhaps, addressing the issue in the best manner. Contrary to South Africa, where teachers from all eleven language groups are educated in colleges and universities, and could thus provide mother tongue education in any of the official languages, Korean teachers are educated in Korean.
Even the teachers of English are educated using the grammar translation method, and so their knowledge of English as a subject is good, but their skill at presenting this subject in English lacks the ability to fluently speak it, precisely because they were not immersed in English.
This brings me to my own take on the main problem facing English language education in Korea ― outside the classroom there is no incentive or opportunity to engage in English conversation or use.
In South Africa a child who is taught English as a second language finds himself or herself surrounded by the language. It is in the movies, on television, on the radio, in the streets and he or she will know at least one, probably more, children who speak it as a mother tongue.
It is the language of commerce and advertising, of interaction across race and tribe, and so it takes a child less than a year to become a speaker of the language, even if not wholly fluent. There is no similar situation in Korea.
Unless English is made an official language, where there is a real need to use the language and understand it, all the educational strategies will struggle with the fact that without practice, no fluency will develop.
Even if English is adopted as a second official language, the fact that Korea is homogenous as far as language is concerned will still hamper conversational opportunities ― it is after all, much easier to speak the language you know you share with your neighbor than to speak to others in a second language.
I think before further debate is undertaken, the question about who needs to learn English and why should be answered. Once that is known, solutions such as the English village for those who wish to attend an immersion environment may be better suited than an across-the-board English immersion policy.
And, if education does need to be reformed, the place to start would be the training centers for future teachers, to prepare them as bilingual individuals who can then go and teach the future generation.
Finally, and most importantly, make better use of the skills of English speaker teachers in schools by allowing them to conduct classes solely in English, even teaching grammar in English, and remove the translation to a discretionary authority.
At least this, while not ideal, will provide children with the challenge of having to understand the language for at least one hour a week!
The writer teaches English in Seoshin Middle School in Hwaseong, Gyeonggi Province. Born in South Africa, she has qualified and worked in fields as diverse as chemical engineering, analytical chemistry, business planning, administration and teaching ― physics, metallurgy and language. Before coming to Korea she trained TEFL students in Cape Town for nearly two years. She can be reached at lionafrica@gmail.com