Response to Ngugi

When discussing Ngugi's article, I felt like I was the problem rather than the solution in this push for English.  But after a helpful discussion with my group (thanks, guys!), I was able to come to a more comfortable understanding of the situation.
 
The questions raised by Ngugi's article reinforced how important teacher education and awareness is.

To use a personal example that I feel relates to this issue:

In my first job in Korea, I was at an English Village, a mandated 'English Only' environment.  Students were not allowed to speak Korean, and at that time I was unable to understand or speak Korean.  In the activities, the focus was often on minute grammar points that had to be produced completely accurately.  It was oppressive for students as very little true communication occurred.  It was oppressive for teachers as the culture of this environment isolated us from understanding the workings of a Korean workplace and their educational system.  It kept students and teachers divided.  Teachers possessed the knowledge and students were required to perform in a certain way in order to interact with us. 

Since this time, my experience and knowledge of Korean society has increased dramatically.  I have also come to value the importance of Konglish and Korean in the classroom to aid understanding.  While I am still unable to speak Korean to any great degree, I can understand quite a lot of regular classroom questions, vocabulary and body language.  I encourage students to communicate as best they can and that often involves using Konglish, dropped articles or grammatical errors.


I won't follow the English Village way.  I won't put up barriers by demanding that I be addressed only in English or only in grammatically accurate utterances.  I won't admonish students for communicating in the only way they know how.  There is no value in that, it's building walls between me and my students and does little to promote good feelings about English. 

I won't go so far as to compare it to the oppression of Japanese colonialism but it does illustrate a sense of arrogance that exists with English Only education.

Heaven and Hell

 

"It's not where it takes you.  It's what it gets you away from."

I found this print advertisement for a cable sports channel on a website for recognised work within the advertising industry.  It was held up as an exemplary example of a print campaign.

The main character in this campaign is a casually dressed, every-man type and the intended audience is clearly male sports viewers.  The male character is seen rising towards the light/the couch, presumably to watch his favourite sports game.  In doing so, he is also seen escaping the burning darkness/the wife and children.  The wife is depicted as a dishevelled looking woman, holding two screaming infants.  She can be seen looking up at the male figure, beckoning him to return.  The awkward way she is holding the two toddlers implies that they are more than she can handle and keep under control.

The juxtaposition of heaven and hell is obvious.  The male character's family is lurking in the depths of hell, suggesting that his everyday responsibilities are a burden and his only release and sense of enlightenment comes from engaging in the male-dominated activity of watching sports.  This is where peace can be found.  This is where the light is.  This is the closest he can get to godliness.  However, the caption reinforces the idea that it is not watching sports that is the end goal, rather getting away from the family is: time away from your family is equal to heaven.

No regard is given to the female character, forced to look after the children by herself.  The context of the visual imagery and the caption imply that the female character is little more than a nag, responsible for placing these burdens on the male, making it necessary for him to seek escape.  Her demands for attention are what is driving the male away.

The imagery in this advertisement is striking to me, on a couple of different levels.  First of all, the couch, in this top position, surrounded by holy light, seems to me to be saying that in our society, we place pop culture entertainment above all else.  The comfort gained from watching television, movies, and so on beats any comfort that could be gained from interacting with others, even loved ones.  It suggests that pop culture is what is pulling people away from each other, driving a wedge in relationships.  Has our society become so shallow that the pinnacle of all we can hope for is to escape with a couple of hours of mind-numbing television?

The religious connotations are even more bothersome.  The received reading would like to suggest that it is women who drive men away however, I wonder if it is in fact religion that is responsible?  In practice, religions of all kinds are patriarchal, whether directly from scripture or through interpretation and action, and the inherent positioning of men over women is what is driving them apart.  The male’s face is awash in glowing light; he has attained salvation, his existence has been validated by religion, while the female remains unsaved, in the dirty squalor of hell.  I find it ironic that religion advocates so strongly for heterosexual marriage and so strongly against abortion, yet the end result is that this female is trapped in hell, with two children she may not have wanted, in a marriage she had to enter into, with a partner who sees himself as her superior and as such denies her the help that she looks to him for.  The male’s preoccupation with attaining enlightenment keeps him disconnected from his family and the female’s acceptance of religion and its demands is what keeps her subjugated and unsatisfied.  To reappropriate the caption in reference to the female’s situation – religion is not taking her anywhere; it is keeping her away from true freedom in thought and action, in the darkness and away from the light.

Potential Critical Class

The classes I will collaborate with for my lesson are two first grade high school classes, one class of males and one class of females with 36 students in each.  These two classes have opted into a specialised English program and as such they submit weekly essays which I grade.
I chose these classes because their levels are fairly evenly matched, they have high overall comprehension and the weekly writing assignments add another dimension of engaging with the material, as their speaking skills vary, which gives all students a chance to reflect on the lesson and contribute their ideas in a considered manner.
I plan to create a lesson plan around body modification.  I have noticed quite a few students at my school with piercings, and tattoos are gaining popularity in Korea.  I would like the students to consider the history of body modification around the world and what it means to them and their generation in Korea.    With regards to what I hope to accomplish, I would like the students to think about what constitutes body modification - make-up, hair styles, lenses, piercings, tattoos, surgery, what is the difference between all these types of changes, why do people change themselves on the outside, and why are some forms of modification more socially acceptable than others?
Having read previous student essays, I know at least some of the students have thought about the school's rules on acceptable appearance (hair style and colour, no perms etc) and perhaps they can think about these rules in a wider sense.
I don't really know what to expect in terms of student responses and the ideas they will generate but one of my goals is for students to think about appearance and the ways in which people change their appearance and possible reasons for these changes.
For potential materials, I will get students to brainstorm what they consider to be body modification and will also show a range of photos from around the world and Korea of tattoos and piercings, plastic surgery, hair styles and make-up.  I will also give students links to a couple of youtube videos that they can watch after the lesson to prompt further thought for their weekly essay reflection.

Applying Critical Pedagogy in the Korean EFL Classroom

In theory, I am very open to the idea of applying critical pedagogy in my classes: students learn from each other by challenging and responding to student generated ideas; students learn to organise and develop their thoughts to better express themselves; materials are created collaboratively; teacher-student interactions are cooperative; and all participants can engage in critical reflection.  

Practically speaking, even though I have the benefit of curriculum autonomy, there are some glaring obstacles with this that make me hesitant to even try.

First of all, there are the institutional constraints.  I teach conversational English at a public high school with size range from 31-38 and only two of these classes are organised by English ability.  I teach independently, without a co-teacher to assist with translation.  My objective is to get students engaged in English by using their existing knowledge to communicate.  My students are all eager to speak and get involved, even the shy ones, as long as they have been given a chance to prepare beforehand.  But there is a large discrepancy in focus and ability which means I can spend a lot of time assisting lower level students who may otherwise get distracted. 






Wait a minute...



So, I had a few critiques of Shin's methods and details of how they would be difficult to apply to my own situation and I just realised that I am completely missing the point.  Any critique I had could be countered with an alternative option.  Also, with any approach or method, the same fundamental problems exist: class size, different levels, inability to articulate ideas accurately and so on.

Shin gives solid examples of how to apply critical pedagogy in two particular contexts with what appear to be quite high level students, and if I have difficulty with these methods, the onus is on me, as the teacher, to adapt and find the right fit for my own students and teaching context. 

I guess, if I am being honest with myself, the biggest barrier is my own apprehension.  There is a lot of unfamiliar work involved in changing the way a class operates, how participants interact with each other, the individual expectations for the class, and using critical discussion to develop language abilities.  If I attempt this, what should I expect as a result?  Would I be satisfied with that result, for myself and my students?  Would the cost outweigh the benefits of what I currently do?

Response to Korea's Proofreading Woes

To answer the 4 initial questions:
1. Who is the intended audience?
English teachers in Korea, I can't be sure if the audience is specifically non-Korean teachers.  Also, this editorial could be considered an open letter to publishers and proof-readers in Korea.
2. Who is speaking?
A native English speaker who teaches English in Korea.
3. Who is spoken about?
The Korean public in general, Korean publishers, Korean universities.
4. What is the basis of this person's knowledge?
 A native English speaker, living in Korea.  His opinions don't seem to be based on anything more than this.


It only takes a rudimentary understanding of World Englishes to see that the ideas of Patton are remarkably outdated.  He has given no consideration to the development of English in Korea as a unique variety.
In an informal setting, people often joke about the Konglish they see, it's one of the quirks of living in Korea, but to have such ideas published in a magazine intended for teachers in Korea legitimizes these opinions and belittles Korean English as a substandard form.
Patton suggests that native speakers working at universities would gladly take on the role of 'cleaning up' Korean English (for a fee).  He is positioning native English speakers (with very little training) as experts, and Korean speakers of English as inadequate and inept without the help of these experts.  Economically savvy, Patton is working hard to secure work for himself for many years to come yet I wonder how offended or annoyed the research scientists of that government department were to receive unsolicited corrections from a know-it-all? 
With regards to the signs and copy that Patton references, I wonder if he ever considered that he is simply not the intended audience of these messages?  As a privileged 'native speaker' of English, I'm sure it has never crossed his mind that these things just don't concern him; people are communicating around him, manipulating a language to serve their own purposes.
End rant.