5.1 Policy Interpretations and Implementations
All the teachers in this study acknowledged the Korean-only norm as a policy, but interpreted and implemented it in ways to legitimate their own pedagogical approaches in the classroom. Their responses to the Korean-only policy ranged from, “ridiculous” to “absolutely necessary,” which meant there were very different approaches to teaching among the teachers. Seven teachers held negative attitudes towards the policy and believed that allowing learners to use their first languages, such as English, Chinese, or Japanese, is a better pedagogical approach for enhancing student learning. Five teachers held a favorable attitude towards the policy, insisting that immersion would be the best way for students to improve proficiency faster. They justified their views of the Korean-only policy on the basis of a teacher responsibility/good teaching. For example, implementing a multilingual approach is “doing what is best for students” (Jeaong-Ah), and teaching Korean exclusively in Korean is the best way for “carrying out a fundamental duty of language teachers” (Su-Jin).
Teachers’ differing justification was relevant to their linguistic background and identity.
Teachers who have other language skills tended to view the Korean-only policy as a guideline rather than as a strict rule to follow. Yeon-Woo (T4) suggested that since the Korean-only policy is not very explicit, teachers may choose to implement it in different ways. She said:
I don’t think there is any explicit policy, so teachers can implement their own policy. Teachers who can speak English utilize English, believing in its effectiveness. I also think that using languages students can understand would be an effective way to teach low-level classes. (T4 Yeon-Woo)
Her belief that there is no specific policy for the KSL classrooms suggests no systemic approach to language usage in the classroom, but some teachers, including Yeon-Woo, have been told when and where not to use it as a pedagogy. For instance, Jeong-Ah (T3) reported being told to use English while teaching a three-week intensive Korean language course for international exchange students, but that she was required to use Korean-only when teaching in the Korean education center. This seems to demonstrate that school administrators flexibly interpret the Korean-only policy, strengthening Yeon-Woo’s view that no explicit and consistent policy exists.
Jeong-Ah (T3), who had a background in English education, commented that she utilized English instruction in the classroom when needed, especially for lower-level learners having difficulty understanding lessons in Korean only. She suggested that teachers who insist on Korean-only teaching lack experience in L2 learning themselves, and thus lack empathy for learners who are struggling to learn a new language. In contrast, Jeong-Ah said that her own L2 learning experiences enhance her classroom pedagogy.
When you teach Korean as a second language, teachers who have a command of other languages are different from those who can only speak Korean in their understanding of learners. The differences include the degree of their understanding of psychological, affective, and contextual issues as well as their awareness of common errors and difficulties of a group of learners with certain linguistic and cultural background. (T3 Jeong-Ah)
In Jeong-Ah’s view, teachers who embrace their identity as bilingual speakers with L2 language learning experiences have a greater awareness of the language learning process and more empathy for their students, and therefore tend to utilize a multilingual repertoire in teaching (Motha, Jain, & Tecle, 2012). Jeong-Ah’s remarks point to the pedagogical split among KSL teachers: those who majored in foreign languages, such as English, Chinese, and Japanese, were likely to support and implement multilingual approaches in teaching Korean language, while teachers who majored in “jeongtong” (pure, traditional) Korean are more likely to embrace the legitimacy of a Korean-only approach in their teaching. Jeong-Ah noted a contradiction of enforcing different policies for Korean language classrooms on campus, such as the credit-bearing Korean language courses offered for international students in undergraduate and graduate programs, and the non-credit courses in the language education center. She was encouraged by her director to use English in order to “speed up” Korean acquisition in for-credit classes, but was instructed by the same director to use Korean only in non-credit classes. Jeong-Ah said it was “ridiculous” to require Korean-only instruction for one class, but not for another, since all students should be entitled to teaching methods helpful to their speedy language development.
Several other teachers who studied other foreign languages exhibited similar experiences. For example, Ji-Min (T8) and Kim (T12) hold a B.A. degree in Chinese, and their views on the Korean-only policy echoed Jeong-Ah’s. For example, Ji-Min (T8) disagreed with her academic coordinator who believed that using Korean exclusively in the KSL classrooms would encourage students to practice and learn Korean more quickly. Instead, Ji-Min found that incorporating explanations in Chinese when teaching native Chinese speakers saved her students from minor but time-consuming difficulties as they learned the new language.
I could expect Chinese learners’ common mistakes and difficulties in learning Korean, and I could help them by using Chinese examples. Also, I could give them some further assistance in Chinese outside the class. In this regard, my Chinese skills give me an advantage in teaching KSL leaners. (T8 Ji-Min)
Ji-Min confirmed that she was able to utilize same technique for non-Chinese students, saying “English-speaking students often asked in English about the meaning of a Korean word that does not exist in English. I quickly confirmed the meaning of a similar English word.” Discussing her experience of teaching Korean in China over six months, Ji-Min addressed the benefit of using learners’ first language (L1) in the classroom:
Because I witnessed the success of Korean learning among students in China who were taught in Chinese, I don’t think that students need to learn an L2 in the target language only. I found that students there made much fewer errors on the features that many KSL learners are struggling with. Therefore, I disagree with the idea that Korean should be taught in Korean only. (T8 Ji-Min)
Ji-Su (T7), who has a command of Japanese, also had an unfavorable view of the Korean-only policy, suggesting that Korean-only would only be effective for much younger learners who have more time to learn, as opposed to adult learners who need to learn Korean fast in order to attend university courses. In Ji-Su’s view:
Using Korean only seems like pouring Korean language-input into children. Pouring one hundred words of the target language over time makes the children speak the language as if it were their mother tongue. For adult learners, however, we need to use time more efficiently. Using other languages is good if that makes them understood and use the language quickly. (T7 Ji-Su)
In her multilingual approach, Ji-Su used Japanese explanations for Japanese-speaking KSL learners, and prepared a list of frequently asked questions and examples in English for non-Japanese speaking students.
In contrast, the five teachers in the study who supported the Korean-only policy and implemented it in their classrooms considered the policy to be both institutionally sanctioned and non-arbitrary. Jin-Joo (T5), the coordinator of the Korean program, stated that teachers who adopt a multilingual approach in teaching Korean interfere with learners’ development in Korean fluency.
Jin-Joo: We don’t use other languages in the classroom. We don’t use them at all.
Interviewer: What do you do when students could not understand?
Jin-Joo: We use lots of pictures. I think that we should not use other languages in the classroom. I occasionally allowed English use in a course for graduate students because the course is only for three hours per week. I noticed that students who used English, or their L1, were slower in developing Korean fluency.
Interviewer: Do you use the same technique for teaching grammar?
Jin-Joo: For teaching grammar, I used the same method. For example, I showed lots of examples for the usage of different particles, ‘-un’ and ‘-nun,’ instead of giving them a verbal explanation on their usage in Korean.
Interviewer: Do the students ask questions in English?
Jin-Joo: We prevent them from doing that.
Interviewer: So, you don’t answer them if they ask questions in English?
Jin-Joo: They don’t ask questions in English. They understand that it is not allowed in the classroom.
The interview excerpt here clearly demonstrates Jin-Joo’s belief in the effectiveness of Korean immersion and her expectation that “we”— teachers in the program—use the Korean-only approach. When asked, Jin-Joo confirmed that Krashen’s (1985) i + 1 (comprehensive input) is the best model for teaching Korean, and stated that providing appropriate and sufficient input in Korean for each learner would be the necessary condition for Korean acquisition. However, she also mentioned her own frequent use of English in a graduate Korean-language course, indicating, perhaps, that her view is also context-specific. This apparently conflicting position on how best to teach Korean—on the one hand, viewing a multilingual approach as an interference in learning Korean and, on the other, acknowledging the pedagogical usefulness of using English—indicates the struggle Jin-Joo must have in maintaining her education beliefs while dealing with classroom realities.
Other teachers who had a Korean education background favored the Korean-only classroom policy, at least “officially” (some teachers expressed conflicts about it, which is discussed in the next section). They echoed Jin-Joo, suggesting using Korean-only in the classroom helps learners the best. Su-Jin (T2) argued that learning Korean in a Korean-speaking setting is important as provides an advantage of learning in a natural way. Dae-Gu (T10) also believed that Korean-only “pushes students to think in Korean,” which is the essential for language learning.
The KSL teachers interviewed suggested various interpretations of the Korean-only policy, which seem to reflect their own different backgrounds and linguistic identities, which, in turn become resources for implementing pedagogical approaches in linguistically diverse classrooms (Morgan, 2004). Teachers who do not have significant proficiency in other languages seem to support the Korean-only policy, regardless as to whether they acknowledge the effectiveness of multilingual approaches in teaching. Advocacy for the Korean-only policy perhaps justifies monolingual identity, even to the point of valorizing KSL teachers with native abilities and professional education in Korean language. Teachers with advanced foreign language skills, on the other hand, used their own multilingual identities as a resource to resist the monolingual approach.
5.2. Global Enlgish and KSL Teacher Vulnerability
While KSL teacher narratives about the medium of instruction policy revealed individual differences in their interpretations of the policy, they also collectively pointed out a vulnerability they felt regarding their competency in English. That is, teachers experienced vulnerability concerning the increasing demand for English competence even in the Korean language classrooms, regardless of their position toward the Korean-only policy.
Several of the KSL teachers reported growing discomfort over how their students were not engaging in classroom activities, and blamed themselves for not having adequate English language skills. These teachers felt their inability to speak English was to a sign of their low authority, especially when facing Western students with very different cultural orientations and classroom behaviors—and a more obvious display of their emotional struggles and discomfort. KSL teachers blamed themselves for not being able to accommodate English-speakers, but their educational background in teaching KSL gave them no indication that knowing English would be a teaching prerequisite. In fact, being a native speaker is often a sufficient qualification for English teachers in ELT (Ruecker & Ives, 2015), and so it might be argued by KSL teachers should have that same advantage in teaching Korean. But this did not erase the sense of vulnerability KSL teachers experienced, although perhaps justifies their attitudes toward the language policy.
Kyeong (T6) admitted that her support of the Korean-only language policy was mainly due to her lack of proficiency in any other language, and expressed a desire to speak the languages of her students. She said that to explain meanings of simple words in Korean became only more complicated because she had to use more new words in Korean to do so.
I don’t speak any foreign language. If I were able to speak a foreign language, I would use it when needed, at least in the lower level classrooms. I think that it would be possible to use Korean only in the intermediate and upper levels, and adopting an approach that taps on other languages would help learners to speed up their language development initially. But I cannot speak any foreign languages. (T6 Kyeong)
Kyeong acknowledged her language limitation, and suggested that KSL teachers’ interpretation of the Korean-only policy is related to their Korean-only language competency. She feared that miscommunication with students might negatively affect their motivation to study Korean language. Kyeong said that having English as a “common language” (in her words) might be a great resource for teachers and helpful to students, and wished that she herself could speak better English. She added:
I majored in Korean Language in college and also earned an M.A and Ph.D. in Korean Education. Thus, I don’t have much English skills. Now I am 29 years old, and I considered going abroad to study English before [it is] too late. I think that I should study English. (T6 Kyeong)
That Kyeong so openly expressed her desire to go abroad and study or improve her language skills in English reveals her understanding of a classroom reality in Korea today: English language skills, even for KSL teaching, are in high demand. Kyeong’s awareness of her own position as a non-English speaker brings with it a sense of vulnerability in her current position as a KSL teacher in a changed culture. She is aware of the struggle to maintain her own sense of legitimacy as a KSL teacher within this shifting context of language education towards English proficiency.
Two other teachers, Daegu (T10) and Ye-Soo (T11), shared their conflicts concerning the Korean-only policy and their English competency. They still believed that Korean immersion is the best way for KSL education, but their use of English in the classroom would be helpful in communicating with the learners by providing additional information about the lesson. However, they admitted that their English is not strong enough to use the language confidently. Ye-Soo said that her use of “imperfect” English might hurt the learners’ attitudes toward her lesson and possibly her image as a teacher.
The bi/multilingual KSL teachers in the study also recognized the importance of English skills in their teaching, reporting their emotional experiences concerning their English competence. Jeong-Ah (T3), who had studied English education in the UK, acknowledged “the power of English” over any other language in teaching KSL. She noted that Korean language courses were never taught using a mixture of Korean and Chinese, despite the fact that Chinese is the dominant L1 among KSL students. From the perspective of students, no matter their country of origin or first language, English proficiency is considered to be one of the most important qualifications for KSL teachers. Jeong-Ah commented:
I am not sure how students assess teacher qualification. They may consider several traits. Obviously, teaching well would be the most important. They love teachers who are funny. But I think that these are just a plus. The most important ability for KSL teachers, that students consider, would be their ability to speak other languages, particularly English. (T3 Jeong-Ah)
Jeong-Ah was able to utilize her English proficiency to great advantage in her classroom. Her reputation as a good English speaker made her a popular teacher, and students in her classroom bonded in their use of a common language, English. Jeong-Ah understood that her privileged professional status was earned and guaranteed by what she had accrued through the power of linguistic capital of English (Bourdieu, 1986). Her language skills match the current academic culture, which demands for KSL teachers’ English competence as a significant teacher qualification.
Three KSL teachers have a good command of Chinese or Japanese, but lack sufficient English language competence. These teachers sought greater English proficiency because they wanted to be better prepared to answer questions from English-speaking students and to maintain classroom control. They described Western students who express negative attitudes, resist participation in classroom activities, and sometimes even walk out of class during a lesson. These incidents challenge teachers’ self-confidence and result in increased anxiousness about facing students from certain cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Yeon-Woo (T4), who is a fluent Japanese speaker, spoke about students’ expectation of KSL teachers:
I don’t think that [English competence] is required for KSL teachers. But students think otherwise. They consider English proficiency one of the most important qualifications for teachers, as they speak ill of teachers who cannot speak English. Such a teacher would be seen as, “someone whom they cannot communicate with.” (T4 Yeon-Woo)
Yeon-Woo expressed great discomfort with perceived expectations regarding her English skills, which drove her to prepare answers to frequently asked questions in English. She admitted that her own “poor English” compromised management of moment-to-moment situations in the classroom, deepening her anxiety when facing Western students.
Similarly, Ji-Min (T8), a fluent Chinese speaker, struggled with students’ lack of comprehension.
I feel bad that I can’t make my students understand fully. I feel powerless when I realize that I don’t have any card [ability] to deal with English-speaking students, I mean Western students, when they complain about difficulties understanding me in my face with explicit emotional expressions. It makes me very anxious and uncomfortable when I am unable to manage the students due to my lack of communication skills in the language they can understand. (T8 Ji-Min)
Ji-Min’s reaction to her students’ very visible frustration made her question her competency as a KSL teacher, even as she felt the unfairness of being expected to know English while teaching KSL in a Korean-only program. But she blamed her inability to manage her classroom on her lack of English skills, and felt guilty about not having them. Ji-Min’s conflicting feelings conveyed a real sense of vulnerability, the feeling of “losing control of the processes and tasks they[she] felt responsible for” (Kelchtermans, 2005, p. 997).
Vulnerability very much described Ji-Min’s situation as a KSL teacher in this situation where her emotional responses and teacher identity are mediated by the changing sociocultural and sociopolitical contexts of higher education today (Kelchtermans, 2005; Lasky, 2005; Zembylas, 2005). Ji-Min’s professional training in KSL education and her Korean-Japanese bilingual identity were undermined by the language ideology of English which privileges English as a powerful communication tool and as a valuable pedagogical resource. Ji-Min believed that lacking fluency in English meant that she might not be seen as professional or deserving of respect as a good teacher, and this filled her with self-doubt and conflict about her professional identity as a teacher. On the other hand, Ji-Min also felt resentful since English proficiency was never a requirement of study or employment for KSL teachers. But she did not blame her students for what she saw as their negative attitudes and non-participation in her KSL classes. Because she did not speak English, she blamed herself, expressing feelings of guilt over failing to reach her students, which meant failing to fulfill her teaching obligations (Park, 2015). Ji-Min’s emotional vulnerability concerning her English skills raises questions about what makes a good language teacher, since being a native speaker of Korean with professional knowledge does not seem to hold the same prestige as a native speaker of English in ELT.
The sense of vulnerability experienced by KSL teachers without English language fluency does not only come from student expectation, since the actual number of English-speaking students is proportionally small in a typical KSL classroom (usually fewer than three students in a class), while the number of Chinese speaking students usually constitutes the majority. But none of the KSL teachers expressed anxiety over not knowing Chinese or expressed any sense of obligation to learn Chinese, even if Chinese is the most widely spoken L1 among KSL learners). English fluency seems to represent something else, and KSL teachers’ self-blame could be related to personal regret at not having studied abroad or otherwise gained a good command of English. In turn, KSL teachers’ personal regret intensifies their sense of professional vulnerability; they fear loss of teacher authority in classrooms where internationalization of student population means that English language fluency plays an increasingly important role. Jin-Joo (T5) commented that offering many EMI courses on campus has reduced the need for international students to learn KSL and increased expectation of English usage in the KSL classroom. This shift in student expectation has created pressure for university teachers, including KSL teachers, to speak English (Byun et al., 2011; Choi, 2016; Kim, Tatar, & Choi, 2014). KSL teachers’ feeling of increasing vulnerability is due to the shifts in social expectation and cultural contexts in higher education in Korea today, and these changes extend far beyond KSL education. Thus, recognition of the hegemony of English in language education is crucial for understanding L2 teachers’ experiences in non-English L2 contexts. The language struggles facing KSL teachers are particularly relevant to the language ideology of English, particularly native speakerism, that recognizes L2 teachers of other languages as learners and non-native speakers of English (Pennycook, 1994; Phillipson, 1992).