Korean Language Teachers’ Emotional Struggles and Language Policy Interpretations

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1865779/v1

Abstract

The recent trend of the internationalization of higher education has increased the significance of English as a medium of instruction and communication on campus in non-English speaking countries. Within this context, this study explores Korean language teachers’ vulnerability over their foreign language competency, particularly English, revealed in their narratives about the Korean-only policy in the classroom. Analysis of interviews of twelve teachers of Korean as a second language (KSL) demonstrates their divergent ways of interpreting and implementing the policy according to their foreign language competency and relevant emotional vulnerability. KSL teachers with other language skills tended to challenge the monolingual policy by utilizing their bilingual skills and experiences as resources for their teaching. Monolingual KSL teachers interpreted the Korean-only policy narrowly to support a monolingual immersion approach as a way to secure their teacher authority. Regardless of their policy interpretation, however, most teachers experienced various levels of anxiety concerning their perceived lack of adequate English proficiency even in the Korean-only classrooms. The results suggest how second language teachers struggle to maintain legitimacy and authority against the hegemony of English in non-English second language contexts, providing implications for the language teacher education.

1. Introduction

Recent research on language teacher identity explores various aspects of teacher identity negotiation (e.g., Barkhuizen, 2017; De Costa & Norton, 2017; Lindahl & Yazan, 2019; Cheung et al., 2016; Varghese et al., 2005; Varghese et al., 2016), with nearly exclusive focus on second language (L2) teachers of English. While language teachers in similar contexts may have certain practices and experiences in common, the sociolinguistic uniqueness of each language such as the perceived status of the L2 leads to distinct teaching experiences. For example, research discussed the impact of recent valorization of English as a global language on learning of other languages, suggesting that there is a difference in learners’ motivation towards learning English, as opposed to learning other L2s (e.g., Bernaus et al., 2004; Csizér & Lukács, 2010; Dörnyei & Csizér, 2002; Henry & Apelgren, 2008; Kobayashi, 2013). Learner motivation and attitudes have a significant effect on how teachers design their lessons and adopt pedagogical approaches as well as how they view themselves as a teacher and interact with their students. In this regard, L2 teacher identity in non-English L2 contexts may not be adequately understood simply with the general notion of L2 teacher identity. L2 teachers in those contexts are often viewed as learners of other powerful languages that their students speak, notably English. It is important to discuss the unique sociolinguistic context of the L2 teaching to understand non-English L2 teachers’ identity negotiation and struggles.

This study explores emotional challenges experienced by twelve teachers of Korean as a second language (KSL) in South Korea (hereafter Korea), by analyzing their interview responses concerning teacher identities, teaching approaches, and language policy. It particularly focuses on those teachers’ vulnerability as it arises against the broader sociopolitical context of language education, a context increasingly dominated by global market forces and English language. Due to the recent trend towards internationalization of Korean universities and English-medium-instruction (EMI) courses, ‘English Fever’ runs through Korean university campuses, making English as a value capital for assessing both students and teachers (Auhtor, 2020). Within this context, teachers increasingly face a higher demand for English competency, feeling the strain of expectation and inadequacy. This study discusses how these feelings of inadequacy over teachers’ own English skills permeates into KSL classrooms with Korean-only policy. By analyzing teacher interviews on how they utilize the Korean-only policy to secure and support their teacher identity and practice, this study aims to answer the following questions: (1) How do KSL teachers forge an identity through different interpretations and implementations of the Korean-only language policy in the classroom?; and (2) What way does KSL teachers’ vulnerability offer an understanding of L2 teacher identity beyond English?

In what follows, I first introduce the notion of teacher vulnerability and describe the current context of KSL education in related to the internationalization of higher education in Korea. In the following analysis of KSL teachers’ narratives, I focus on how their interpretations and implementations of the Korean-only policy reflect their feelings of vulnerability towards growing emphasis on English. In the final section, I discuss affective dimensions of KSL teacher identity and argue that their KSL teacher identity is not independent from their status as English users and learners. This is to say, their identity is inevitably appraised according to English language competency, which increases their vulnerability on both personal and professional levels.

2. Teacher Vulnerability

Research has shown that teachers’ emotions are a critical element in the dynamic process of negotiating and constructing teacher identity, just as linguistic and sociocultural backgrounds also inform or comprise aspects of that identity (Author, 2021; Benesch, 2012, 2017; Golombek & Doran, 2014; Golombek & Johnson, 2004; Loh & Liew, 2016; Wolff & De Costa, 2017; Zembylas, 2005). Studies in this area suggest that emotional expression and management of emotions are linked to individual dispositions and life experiences, and also to institutional and work contexts. How teachers perceive the emotions they feel, and whether or not they express these feelings, usually fall along lines compatible with institutional or cultural norms and expectations (Hargreaves, 2000; Zembylas, 2005). Benesch (2017) and Author (2016) examined the emotional challenges facing language teachers from a sociopolitical perspective, and observed the effects of social structure and hierarchies of power on teachers’ emotional experiences. From this perspective, emotions language teachers experience are not reducible to just independent psychological makeup, but are socially constructed interacting with the very context in which they manifest.

Focus on teacher vulnerability presents a way to explore how school policies put significant pressure on teachers. Teacher vulnerability is related to how individual teachers respond to individual and group interactions, how they manage classroom experiences, and how they process every-day challenges. Kelchtermans (1996, p. 996) defined vulnerability as “the feeling that one's professional identity and moral integrity are questioned,” which is a feeling that teachers may have, in translation, like failure, overriding any sense of legitimacy as a teacher. Describing vulnerability as “a complex, multi-dimensional, multi-faceted emotional experience” (p. 901), Lasky (2005) emphasized its role in understanding teachers’ lived experiences for their identity transformation. While vulnerability may lead to burn-out and self-isolation when teachers avoid circumstances that threaten personal comfort, facing and acknowledging the uncomfortable feelings can give teachers opportunities for pedagogical and self-transformation (Lasky, 2005; Zembylas, 2005). Individuals’ identities, beliefs, and self-perceived competencies affect how teachers react to their vulnerability, but the institutional and sociocultural contexts also play a significant role in teachers’ differing experiences with vulnerability (Kelchtermans, 1996; Lasky, 2005; Zembylas, 2005). It is therefore critical to examine teacher vulnerability within a specific sociocultural context.

Providing a contextually specific example of teacher vulnerability, Gao (2008) observed the ways in which Chinese teachers’ growing sense of vulnerability within a context of rapid educational commercialization. Facing intensive scrutiny of teacher qualification, teachers in the study experienced difficulty assuming authority in the classroom. Traditionally, teachers in China hold an authoritative position, but they are also expected to project moral qualities and professional abilities showing they can handle tasks and take necessary control under any circumstance. Paradoxically, these expectations lead teachers to feel more vulnerable due to their fear of failure or loss of control, or the perceived likelihood of public shaming. Gao argued that shifting educational contexts which diminish traditional Chinese teacher-reverence and professional authority exacerbated teachers’ experiences of vulnerability.

Author (2016) also examined Korean English teachers’ struggles to maintain a weakening belief in their own teacher authority in the midst of globalization and an increasing demand for native-like English competency. Similar to their Chinese counterparts in Gao, 2008, Author found out that Korean teachers’ feelings of vulnerability were linked to growing concern over what it means to be a good teacher amidst a cultural climate of waning teacher authority via shifting educational demands. While some teachers expressed their feelings of vulnerability and understood that they needed to re-consider their ideas about ‘a good teacher,’ other teachers attempted to conceal their emotions by telling covert stories. Clearly, these teachers had differing emotional reactions to the sources of their vulnerability, and this highlights the need to understand interrelationships between the educational context and teacher identity (Lasky, 2006; Zembylas, 2005).

As vulnerability is inextricably bound to the sociocultural and sociopolitical contexts in which it is experienced (Author, 2016; Gao, 2008; Kelchtermans, 1996; Lasky, 2005; Zembylas, 2005), it is important to explore the specific educational context for KSL teacher vulnerability. The recent internationalization of higher education has generated a unique educational context, shifting teaching and learning practices on campus significantly. Specifically, the increasing push for English use on campus challenges L2 teachers in motivating their students to invest in a non-English second language, maintaining teacher authority, and keeping up and implementing what constitutes effective pedagogy (Gayson, 2016).

3. Internationalization Of Korean Universities And Korean Language Education

Due to a diminishing enrollment of domestic students and the perceived need to internationalize higher education (Byun & Kim, 2011), universities in Korea host increasing numbers of international students and scholars. As recently as 2018, there were 142,205 foreign students studying in Korea, more than ten times the number of the international students in 2003 (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2018). The increase in number of international students enrolled in Korean universities has brought two new changes: (1) an increasing presence of English use on campuses and (2) an increasing number of KSL learners. Many Korean universities competitively offer more English-medium-instruction (EMI) courses to increase university’s international index that is often used to measure the university’s overall quality and competitiveness (Byun & Kim, 2011). All domestic Korean students are also required to take a certain number of EMI courses as part of their degree requirements, which emphasizes the significance of English as an academic language among Korean students as well as international students (Author, 2020).

While more international students are learning KSL than ever before, the increase in international students pushes more English-Medium-Instruction (EMI) courses, emphasizing the role of English at Korean universities. The minimum-level proficiency in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) for college admission is Level 3 or 4 (out of 6), but international students, once admitted, end up taking both Korean-medium-instruction and EMI courses to complete their degree requirements. Many non-EMI courses tend to include partial English instruction in order to accommodate the increasing number of international students without strong proficiency in Korean (Author, 2020). The increasing role of English on Korean university campuses means that there is little motivation for international students to learn KSL and that Korean students and faculty including KSL teachers experience higher pressure to use English and deeper anxiety about their English competence (Park, 2015).

In correlation with the rise in number of international students, KSL education has also expanded. Nevertheless, rapid creation or expansion of new Korean language programs has generated novel challenges for KSL teachers. For example, no clear medium of instruction policy for the KSL classroom and specific pedagogical approaches concerning multilingual learners (Kwon & Jeong, 2009; Ryu, 2015) generate more confusion for KSL teachers, making the implicit norm of the Korean-only immersion approach guide the classroom interactions. Research on L2 education in general (e.g., Brooks, 2009; DiCamilla & Anton, 1999, 2012) and on KSL education in particular (e.g., Kwon & Jeong, 2009; Ryu, 2015) suggests that learners’ first languages play a significant role for learning an L2. In the Korean language education, the use of other languages including learners’ first languages are prohibited altogether or recognized as the ‘necessary evil’ in most KSL classrooms (Choi, 2009; Ryu, 2015). Under this Korean-only policy, each teacher plays a critical role in interpreting, negotiating, and implementing language policy in classroom practice (Menken & García, 2010; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996). Examining how teachers interpret and enact language policy in their classrooms provides a window into teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about language use and learning as well as how they negotiate power and agency, foregrounding their teacher identity in the process (Johnson, 2013; Menken & García, 2010; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996).

This study explores KSL teachers’ vulnerability reflected in their interpretations and implementations of the implicit norm of Korean-only policy in the KSL classroom. It focuses on how KSL teachers’ vulnerability about foreign language competence, particularly in English, affects the way they negotiate and enact the policy. Given that little research has discussed L2 teachers’ vulnerability about English competence in their non-English L2 classroom, it is timely to explore KSL teachers’ experiences of vulnerability in relation to their identity struggles as teachers and professionals in the face of internationalization and the escalating demand for English. Two research questions guided the current study: (1) What are KSL teachers’ policy interpretations of Korean-only in the classroom?; (2) How are KSL teachers’ policy interpretations related to teacher vulnerability and teacher identity?

4. Methodology

This study is part of an ethnographic study on the internationalization of Korean higher education and EMI courses at Korean universities over one year. The analysis here is drawn from interviews with KSL teachers about language policies, classroom language usage, and challenges they face.

4.1. Participants

Twelve KSL teachers in the study are Korean native speakers, either holding a graduate degree or currently working on one at the time of the study. Their KSL teaching experience ranged from one to eight years, and several teachers also taught other foreign languages. Table 1 describes participants’ backgrounds.

Table 1.

Participants

No

Name

Years of Teaching

KSL

Educational Background

Foreign Languages Spoken

Note

T1

Sung-Mi

3 months

BA in English

MA in English

Ph.D. student in

KSL Education

English

Taught English at Korean universities over 4 years

T2

Su-Jin

3 years

BA in Korean;

MA in Korean Education; Ph.D. student in KSL Education

   

T3

Jeong-Ah

5 years;

8 months in Uzbekistan

BA in English;

MA in TESOL in UK;

Ph.D. student in KSL Education

English

Occasionally teaching English to Korean students

T4

Yeon-Woo

2 years 6 months

BA in Japanese

MA in Japanese; Ph.D. students in KSL Education

English, Japanese

 

T5

Jin-Joo

8 years

BA in Korean;

MA in Korean Education; Ph.D. in KSL

 

Coordinator of a Korean Education Center

T6

Kyeong

6 years

BA in Korean;

MA in Korean; Ph.D. student in KSL

 

Planning study abroad to learn English

T7

Ji-Su

5 years

BA in Japanese;

MA in Korean Education; Ph.D. student in KSL

Japanese

Studying English and Chinese to help students with quick explanations in those languages

T8

Ji-Min

8 years;

6 months in China

BA in Chinese;

MA in Korean; Ph.D. in KSL

Chinese

Being enrolled in Japanese Program at an open university

T9

An-San

4 years

BA in English; MA in English; Ph.D. in KSL

English

 

T10

Dae-Gu

3 years

BA in Korean; MA in Korean; Ph.D. student in KSL

   

T11

Ye-Soo

3 years

BA in Korean; MA in Korean Education; Ph.D. student in KSL

   

T12

Kim

1 year

BA in Chinese; MA in Applied Linguistics; Ph.D. student in KSL

Chinese

English

 

4.2. Data Collection

Each of the twelve teachers was interviewed for sixty to ninety minutes. Eight teachers participated in in-person interviews and the other four teachers in online interviews. In-depth semi-structured interviews with twelve pre-interview questions were conducted to understand nuanced and detailed meanings of KSL teachers’ emotional experiences and practices (Patton, 2015). All interviews were conducted in Korean, recorded and transcribed for data analysis, and then translated into English (underlined words indicate words spoken in English during the interviews). I also produced a detailed fieldnote for each interview, documenting significant points of each participant’s interview responses and my own reflection on what and how the participant said.

The concept of “active interviewing” (Holstein & Gubrium, 2003) was utilized as a framework for collecting and analyzing interview responses as co-constructed between interviewer and interviewee. From this active interviewing perspective, participants are “active subjects” (Holstein & Gubrium, 2003) who mediate perceived realities and knowledge bases that are shared and not shared with the interviewer during the interview process. As interviewer, my role was to actively draw attention to the problems and concerns the participants might raise and then move towards critical reflection through an evaluation of their responses. As a former Korean language teacher in the U.S., I utilized my own experiences in language education to commiserate with the teachers regarding their frustrations, which I also had experienced in the classroom. This helped all of us to find common ground, and allowed me to bring attention to ‘contextual’ and critical readings of their experiences, opposed to some sort of ‘text-book’ assessment on their experiences in the KSL classroom. My role as an interviewer was not to remain ‘objective, but rather actively involved in the interview process by co-constructing interview responses together with the participants (Holstein & Gubrium, 2003).

4.3. Data Analysis

The data analysis process was inductive and recursive (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). I utilized thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) to identify recurring themes in teacher narratives. I used a manual coding procedure by reading the transcribed interview data and fieldnotes repeatedly, focusing on participants’ views of the Korean-only norm and their language use in the classroom.

During an initial coding, I identified participants’ divergent attitudes toward the Korean-only norm, views of language teachers’ responsibilities, student-teacher relationships, descriptions on competence in other languages, and emotional expressions about their positions and teaching. In the next rounds of coding, I compared and integrated those initial codes and categories to analyze how participants’ views of the classroom language policy and their backgrounds were related.

After each participant’s within-case analysis on the theme, I conducted cross-case analysis to compare participants’ cases. The cross-case analysis demonstrated that teachers’ differing views on the language policy were mediated by self-assessment factors, such as perceived foreign language competence or professional competence—that is, did they meet perceived standards in meeting the teaching responsibilities within the cultural and institutional context of KSL education.

The analysis also identified significant sources of their vulnerability: feelings of anxiety about English, concerns about losing authority, and feelings of guilt about not meeting expectations of proper teachers. The teachers felt pressured by student expectations and felt some degree of guilt over their own sense of lack of adequate skills in English, which, in turn, gave way to feelings of inadequacy and vulnerability. Due to their own sense of lack of adequate skills in English, those teachers felt themselves unable to meet Korean cultural expectations of being all-knowing teachers, and therefore unable to achieve teacher authority. The critical analysis on the teacher emotions demonstrated that their interpretations of language policy often conflicted with their views about what students need in the classroom context, and these conflicts aligned with teachers’ own emotional and professional needs.

5. Results

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).

6. Conclusion

This study explored KSL teachers’ views of Korean-only policy in relation to their emotional struggles in facing the increasing demand for English competence in shifting educational context. KSL teachers’ narratives about the language policy demonstrated how individual teachers’ policy interpretations and implementations are relevant to their own foreign language competence, highlighting teachers’ linguistic background as a resource for their pedagogical decisions (Morgan, 2004). Teachers with other language skills were able to work around the policy by adopting multilingual approaches in their classrooms (Motha et al., 2012; Zheng, 2017) whereas monolingual KSL teachers tended to support the Korean immersion approach to secure their teacher authority in the classroom.

Teachers’ policy narratives also revealed their emotional vulnerability over English language competency regardless their attitudes towards the language policy. That is, even under the Korean-only norm, KSL teachers experienced high pressure for English use. Unlike native English-speaking teachers who enjoy privileges in ELT (e.g., Ruecker & Ives. 2015), the KSL teachers, native speakers of Korean, did not enjoy the same level of prestige and authority in their KSL classrooms. Instead, they were constantly reminded by their students and the educational climate that they were English learners, and their perceived lack of English proficiency questioned about their L2 teacher identity. Most KSL teachers who lack English proficiency see themselves through that lack, rather than as KSL professionals with native speaker status and professional expertise.

KSL teachers’ vulnerability in the study pointed out the relationship between L2 teachers’ emotional struggles and the shifting teaching conditions that generate new standards for what it means to be a ‘good teacher’ (Kelchtermans, 1996; Lasky, 2006; Zembylas, 2005). The notion of a good teacher in the context of international universities suggests that English competence is a criterion for meeting it, but realization of and resistance to this expectation makes L2 teachers more vulnerable. The vulnerability KSL teachers experience indicated how expectations or even assumptions of English language fluency for L2 teachers reaches into L2 contexts beyond English-speaking countries, marginalizing L2 teachers as non-native English speakers in the local classrooms.

The results also raise a question about the institutional norm of Korean-only in the classrooms. This monolingual norm itself delimits KSL teacher identity by disallowing utilizing bilingual experiences and relevant identities for language teaching. Without institutional discussion on language policies, the lack of clear guidelines for teachers perpetuates the myth of a monolingual immersion education detached from classroom realities. The conflicts between institutional expectations and demands from students experienced by the teachers in the classroom places KSL teachers in a vulnerable situation. To enhance teachers’ emotional experiences and well-being and help teachers advance pedagogies, institutions should provide clear and realistic guidelines through more critical discussion and research on their approaches to L2 education. Institutional policy makers and teacher educators together can implement policies and practices specific for the local classrooms that would take L2 teaching beyond a monolingual approach found in the framework of the native speaker model. Such collaboration would help L2 teachers prepare for the classroom realities, advocating for their dynamic negotiation of identities and practices.

Declarations

Ethical Approval 

This project was reviewed and approved by the Murray State University Institutional Review Board (IRB# 19‐153) for the Protection of Human Subjects and was conducted in compliance with Murray State University guidelines for the protection of human participants. 

Competing Interest 

The author has no competing interests as defined by Springer, or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper. 

Authors’ Contributions 

Not applicable 

Funding 

The author received a funding from Academy of Korean Studies (AKA-2020 R70) to conduct the project. 

Availability of data and materials 

No datasets are available to access for the protection of human participants.

References

  1. Author (2016)
  2. Author (2018)
  3. Author (2021)
  4. Ahn, S.-Y. (2019). Decoding "good language teacher" (GLT) identity of native-English speakers in South Korea. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 18 (5), 297-310. doi:10.1080/15348458.2019.1635022
  5. Barkhuizen, G. (2017). (Ed.). Reflections on Language Teacher Identity Research. N.Y.: Routledge.
  6. Benesch, S. (2012). Considering emotions in critical English language teaching: Theories and praxis. New York, NY: Routledge.
  7. Benesch, S. (2017). Emotions in English language teaching: Exploring teachers’ emotion labor. New York, NY: Routledge.
  8. Bernaus, M., Masgoret, A., Gardner, R. C., & Reyes, E. (2004). Motivation and attitudes towards learning languages in multicultural classrooms. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(2), 75–89. doi:10.1080/14790710408668180
  9. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY: Greenwood.
  10. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77– 101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  11. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  12. Byun, K., & Kim, M. J. (2011). Shifting patterns of the government’s policies for the internationalization of Korean higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(5), 467–486. doi:10.1177/1028315310375307
  13. Byun, K., Chu, H. J, Kim, M. J., Park, I. W., Kim, S. H., & Jung, J. Y. (2011). English-medium teaching in Korean higher education: Policy debates and reality. Higher Education, 62, 431–449. doi: 10.1007/s10734-010-9397-4
  14. Cheung, Y. L., Said, S. B., & Park, K. (2016). (Eds.). Advances and Current Trends in Language Teacher Identity Research. N.Y: Routledge.
  15. Choi, J. (2016). ‘Speaking English naturally’: The language ideologies of English as an official language at a Korean university. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37 (8), 783-793. doi:10.1080/01434632.2016.1142550
  16. Csizér, K., & Lukács, G. (2010). The comparative analysis of motivation, attitudes and selves: The case of English and German in Hungary. System, 38(1), 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.12.001
  17. De Costa, P., & Norton, B. (2017). Introduction: Identity, transdisciplinarity, and the good language teacher. Modern Language Journal, 101(S1), 3–14. doi:10.1111/modl.12368
  18. Dörnyei, Z., & Csizer, K. (2002). Some dynamics of language attitudes and motivation: Results of a longitudinal nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics, 23(4), 421–462. doi:10.1093/applin/23.4.421
  19. Gao, X. (2008). Teachers’ professional vulnerability and cultural tradition: A Chinese paradox. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (1), 154-165. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.011
  20. Gayton, A. M. (2016). Perceptions about the dominance of English as a global language: Impact on foreign-language teachers’ professional identity. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 15 (4), 230–244. doi:10.1080/15348458.2016.1194209
  21. Gkonous, C., & Miller, E. (2019). Caring and emotional labour: Language teachers’ engagement with anxious learners in private language school classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 23 (3), 372-387. doi: 10.1177/1362168817728739
  22. Golombek, P.R., & Doran, M. (2014). Unifying cognition, emotion, and activity in language teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education 39, 102-111. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2014.01.002
  23. Golombek, P.R., & Johnson, K.E. (2004). Narrative inquiry as a mediational space: Examining cognitive and emotional dissonance in second language teachers' development. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10(3), 307-327. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.01.002
  24. Hargreaves, A. (2000). Mixed emotions: Teachers’ perceptions of their interactions with students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(8), 811–826. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00028-7
  25. Henry, A., & Apelgren, B. M. (2008). Young learners and multilingualism: A study of learner attitudes before and after the introduction of a second foreign language to the curriculum. System, 36(4), 607–623. doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.03.004
  26. Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2003). Active interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. & A. Holstein (Eds.), Postmodern interviewing (pp. 67–80). London, England: Sage.
  27. Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language policy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
  28. Kelchtermans, G. (1996). Teacher vulnerability: Understanding its moral and political roots. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(3), 307–323. doi:10.1080/0305764960260302
  29. Kim, J., Tatar, B., & Choi, J. (2014). Emerging culture of English-medium instruction in Korea: Experiences of Korean and international students. Language and Intercultural Communication, 14(4), 441-459. doi:10.1080/14708477.2014.946038
  30. Kirkpatrick, A. (2011). English as a medium of instruction in Asian education (from primary to tertiary): Implications for local languages and local scholarship. Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 99–120. doi: 10.1515/9783110239331.99
  31. Kobayashi, Y. (2013). Europe versus Asia: Foreign language education other than English in Japan’s higher education. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 66(3), 269–281. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9603-7
  32. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman.
  33. Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 899–916. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.003
  34. Lee, S-W. (2016). Investigating Korean language teacher education programs. Seoul: National Institute of Korean Language.
  35. Lindahl, K., & Yazan, B. (2019). An identity‐oriented lens to TESOL teachers’ lives: Introducing the special issue. TESOL Journal, 10(4), 506-511. doi:10.1002/tesj.506
  36. Liu, Y. (2016). The emotional geographies of language teaching. Teacher Development, 20(4), 482-497. doi:10.1080/13664530.2016.1161660
  37. Menken, K., & García, O. (Eds.). (2010). Negotiating language education policies: Educators as
  38. policymakers. New York, NY: Routledge.
  39. Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2018). The 2018 statistics on international students at Korean higher education. Downloaded on August 18, 2018 from https://www.moe.go.kr
  40. Morgan, B. (2004). Teacher identity as pedagogy: Towards a field-internal conceptualization in bilingual and second language education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(2–3), 172–188. doi:10.1080/13670050408667807
  41. Motha, S., Jain, R., & Tecle, T. (2012). Translinguistic identity-as-pedagogy: Implications for language teacher education. International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching and Research,1,13–28.
  42. Park, J. S.-Y. (2015). Structures of feeling in unequal Englishes. In R. Tupas (Ed.) Unequal Englishes: The Politics of Englishes Today (pp. 59-73). London, UK: Palgrave Macmilian.
  43. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  44. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. Harlow: Longman.
  45. Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  46. Piller, I., & Cho, J. (2013). Neoliberalism as language policy. Language in Society, 42 (1), 23-44. doi:10.1017/S0047404512000887
  47. Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy
  48. and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–427.
  49. Ruecker, T., & Ives, L. (2015). White Native English Speakers needed: The Rhetorical Construction of Privilege in Online Teacher Recruitment Spaces. TESOL Quarterly, 49 (4). 733–756. doi:10.1002/tesq.195
  50. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
  51. Varghese, M. M., Motha, S., Trent, J., Park, G., & Reeves, J. (2016). Language teacher identity in multilingual settings. TESOL Quarterly, 50(3), 545–571. doi:10.1002/tesq.333
  52. Varghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B., & Johnson, K. A. (2005). Theorizing language teacher identity: Three perspectives and beyond. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 4, 21–44. doi:10.1207/s15327701jlie0401_2
  53. Wolff, D., & De Costa, P. (2017). Expanding the language teacher identity landscape: An investigation of the emotions and strategies of a NNEST. The Modern Language Journal, 101(S1), 76–90. doi:10.1111/modl.12370
  54. Zembylas, M. (2005). Emotions and teacher identity: A poststructural perspective. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9, 214–238. doi:10.1080/13540600309378
  55. Zheng, X. (2017). Translingual identity as pedagogy: International teaching assistants of English in college composition classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 101 (1), 29-44. doi: 10.1111/modl.123730026-7902/1