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?
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)