There's more, keep reading...

During personal interviews, a range of mothers were first asked to define who is a native speaker. Mothers were asked about their preferences for both native English teachers and Korean English teachers in terms of their gender, age, years of teaching experience, professional qualification and what aspects they considered the most important. In the pilot stage of the study the mothers were presented a selection of photos (with no biographical information) from which they chose their preferred teacher and were asked why. Our findings from the initial research indicate that Korean mothers do hold explicit preferences not only for White native English speakers of a particular race and nationality, but also for gender, age and physical appearance. While professional qualification and experience may have played a role, the mothers’ interview data did not suggest that they were viewed as a prominent factor. Our initial data also indicates that there is a clear division on the mothers’ choice of who is more appropriate to teach particular skills. The mothers almost exclusively felt that native speakers were preferable for conversation and best during preschool and early elementary school years when the focus on test results is minimal. They preferred a Korean teacher for teaching grammar and writing and believed that once students are in middle school a combination of both native speaker and Korean speaking teacher is ideal.

The pilot study’s results generated a variety of new questions. The data collection and methodology of the study’s second, and current, stage, is essentially the same yet in addition to first seeing the photos with no biographical data, they then see the same photos with biographical data provided. In doing so the mothers are able to see information on the individual’s first language, race, country of origin, age etc as well as their educational background and professional experience during the second phase of the photo examination process. In doing so, we aim to learn whether professional qualifications can trump physical characteristics.  The second stage of the study has only just begun, but initial data indicates that Korean mothers do consider professional capability more important than they demonstrated in the first study. They do not appear to blindly consider a teacher’s nationality, gender, age and physical appearance in a vacuum. If teachers are able to manage their students appropriately and pass on content knowledge to their child skillfully, they are acknowledged as good teachers. This is encouraging news with respect to general assumptions about non-native English speaking teacher (NNEST) inequality in Korea.

However, the data does not divide so evenly, singling out a qualification as the most important determining factor. All things being equal, most mothers still held preferences for the White native speaker. What is their reasoning? The final data is still being collected but we are considering the role of socio-economic mobility and the role that a child’s exposure to Western English speakers means to mothers. Korean society takes a serious view of academic and professional attainment. Personal networks and cliques are extremely important when negotiating through school and adult life. Yet socio-cultural exposure is also a significant factor in broadening one’s personal knowledge and one’s ability to easily move and interact in a variety of contexts The opportunities available influence social position, income, and marriage. In other words, we are examining our data to learn if mothers of different socio-economic classes place different values on exposure to a White native speaker teacher. If a mother already knows that her child belongs to the upper classes and is ensured a range of opportunity and mobility, there may be less desire for their child to have a White native speaker English teacher. Yet if a mother understands that there will be limited opportunity to interact with Western native speakers or go abroad, exposure to a White native speaker in the classroom may be of higher value not necessarily to expose her child to ‘authentic’ English, but rather to an image of global power. In addition, having a White native speaker teacher is more expensive that a Korean English teacher. So, having a White native speaker shows you can afford it and associates you with a socio-economic position. Several of our interviewees have discussed these points. So, in fact, we may learn that the myth of the native speaker is fueled not so directly by racial bias, but what much of Korean society is fueled by, a means to obtain a better socio-economic position.

Stay tuned to ESL Geek to learn where our final research will be written up and published. Currently, you can learn more about our initial stage of the project from the presentation summary published in the KOTESOL International 2007 Convention handbook or by contacting us directly.

Authors
Kyung-Ae Oh, M.A. TESOL (Missouri State University), is a professor
in the Division of General Education at Soongsil University, Seoul, where she teaches English. She has been teaching TOEFL, TOEIC, and other subjects of English at language institutes and universities in Seoul for over 10 years. She also volunteers as a Korean as a foreign language teacher for migrant workers. Her research interests include language and identity and language and gender.

Kara Mac Donald, Doctorate of Arts & Master in Applied Linguistics (University of Sydney) is a professor at Hanyang University, Hanyang-Oregon TESOL Program (Seoul), where she is involved in teacher training. Her interests are in issues related to NNEST and the role of accent, race and gender in TESOL.

Jocelyn Graf, M.A. Applied Linguistics (University of Illinois, Chicago), is the assistant director of Hanyang University’s English Writing Lab (Seoul), where she supports biomedical scientists writing for publication. She also volunteers as a translator and interpreter for migrant worker advocacy organizations in Korea. Her research interests include linguistic ecology and multilingual environments. 

Revert back...

There's more, keep reading...

We were scheduled to be there from 9:30 to 5:00 with the first hour and a half discussing what was expected and looking at the rubric. The rater training consisted of the 4 raters listening to 6 samples and rating them based on the rubric. After we finished the rating we then compared scores to see how consistent we were with each other. For the most part everyone was consistent and where there were differences it was easy to come to an understanding. The researcher in charge also let us know that if there was inconsistencies across raters that was fine as long as each rater was internally consistent as he had software that would somehow account for the differences. Interesting, but it would seem to me to add another variable affecting the reliability of the study.

Then from 11-5 except for about 30 minutes for lunch we listened to blocks of 10 students at a time and rated their recorded speech samples. We had short breaks between sets and lots of coffee, but even so around 3:00 I could feel rater fatigue starting to set in.

The only real complaint that I have is the quality of the recordings. Several students were quite difficult to hear due to popping sounds, loud static and background noise. The background noise was not due to our facilities but rather on the recordings. During several recordings the voices were competing with traffic sounds. I’m not sure how much control over this the researcher had but it was a definite interference in ratings. He did bring in what appeared to be a set of good quality speakers to listen to the recordings, but your sound can only be as good as the source.

Overall for me it was an interesting experience that helps me better to understand research, assessment, and rater training.

Revert back...

There's more, keep reading...

The first half of the test was focusing on grammar points/vocabulary in a classic toeic/toefl style. fill in the blank with the correct word, choose the correct phrase for the blank, fix the mistakes in the sentence etc. The final part of the test is where I have issues. This section consisted of three pages and one question per page. We were given a situation directly from the text book and told to write a conversation. Essentially we were expected to memorize the dialogues from the book and spit them back on the test.

Additionally this Friday we have an oral test with the teacher consisting of two parts. The first part we will be given three situations and expected to orally produce the dialogues from the book with a partner. The second part will be a discussion with the teacher on a yet to be determined topic for five minutes - rather short in my opinion.

I don’t believe in memorization as an effective study method so I was completely unprepared for the written test and left the last three pages blank. I did however write a protest note stating that I felt that memorizing dialogues was not a particularly effective assessment method. However since I have a partner for the dialogues I will put in my best effort in order to not negatively affect her grade. Most students seem to accept this memorization as a valid method and I guess that means it has at the very minimum face validity. However I still find it rather distasteful.

The classes however are great. They are taught very communicatively with a wide variety of activities and approaches. The only fault I have with the program is the assessment.

unrelated news
I’ve updated my blogroll. I removed a number of blogs and added some that I’ve been following via RSS for the last while. ESL Pundit, ESL SuperBlog (a meta blog integrating feeds from several blogs including yours truly, and TEFL Logue. 

Revert back...

There's more, keep reading...

When consulting a grammar book to help with answers he found that many of the answers were not helpful, enigmatic or sometimes just wrong. Often this was due to the book being designed for native speakers and also being more of a style guide than anything. Ultimately Swan collected questions from students on index cards and prepared proper usage explanations. Over time his collection, with contributions from colleagues and employees at his school, grew rather large and he decided to turn them into a book. The first edition took 2 years of collating and writing and resulted in a 600 gram book.

10 years later, the language had changed. Swan had also recieved letters with corrections and suggestions. Additionally he had learned more about grammar in that time, so put out a second edition of the book weighing in at 1kg (I knew the book was heavy, but hadn’t realized how heavy). This also took about two years to put together. And finally a third edition has been put out with several more corrections and changes to the language. Additionally there are 2-3 pages of common mistakes made by learners at different levels with page numbers next to them - I really think that is a handy resource. Other additions include usage for emails and text messages. Swan didn’t tell us how much this edition weighs, but it feels about the same as the second edition - I took advantage of the 20% discount to buy an updated copy.

We are not here.
Swan also talked about several example sentences he has collected from textbooks around the world, including the title of this entry Has your Grandmother got any Grandchildren?, We are not here., My husband is a man., The oxen are stepping on my feet. When is anyone ever actually going to say these sentences? In the end Swan emphasized that we should be teaching actual English usage rather than contrived textbook grammar.

break time
I skipped the presentation on Person to Person because I had already seen it at the recent KOTESOL national conference. However I did get together with a couple of freinds for papa johns pizza which has got to be the best pizza in Korea - it definitely kicks butt over pizza hut. After that I came back browsed the books and purchased the third edition of Practical English Usage. I additionally spent some time talking to one of the Oxford reps about the possibility of writing book reviews and evaluating teaching materials. I sent off an email to him last night and am waiting to see the response. I do know that he is aware of this blog as I mentioned it and he said he had seen it before.

Widdowson
Widdowsons presentation tackled authentic langauge vs classroom language. He challenged the notion that all language students encounter should be authentic. His basic premise is that authentic language lacks context for many learners. By this he doesn’t mean textual context but rather a greater cultural and societal context.

He stated that what makes a text authentic is the shared cultural and pre-supposed language of both interlocuters. Widdowson also said that speakers are lazy and that they operate on the principle of the least effort necessary. That is the more shared knowledge all participants have the less speaking is necessary. Take for example an operating room where the surgeon says “Scalpel - clamp - swab.” Clearly there is no need to say more as both the nurse and the surgeon know what is expected to happen as a result. Without this shared knowledge the doctor may be required to say something like “excuse me, but if it isn’t too much trouble could you hand me the Scalpel?” long utterances such as this could increase the risk to the patient. I’m sure that I could say something about Grice here, but that is not one of my strongpoints.

Widdowson also talked about how classroom language could be made real by creating more interest. The example he gave was rather weak but with more work I could accept it. I don’t entirely agree with everything that Widdowson talked about, but it was an interesting talk nonetheless.

I would also recommend reading Nathans report which is very long at 1500+ words.

Revert back...