May 23, 2015 |
A Narrative Inquiry Exploring KEFL Teacher Identity via Letter Exchange
May 23, 2015
In this narrative inquiry, I explore Korean English as a Foreign Language (KEFL) teacher identity and how identity awareness illuminates certain influences on a teacher's practice. After reflecting on numerous professional discussions with KEFL teachers, I composed a letter exploring my perceptions of their practice and the English Language Teaching (ELT) milieu of South Korea. My perceptions emanated from my experiences with KEFL teachers over the past 18 years. Once drafted, the letter was presented to two Korean English teachers and they wrote individual response letters. I embed the entire letter exchange within this inquiry as it forms the crux from which this narrative exploration unfolds. The exchange reveals perceptions and opinions about current ELT practices in Korea and it further discloses the teachers' concerns in terms of being effective practitioners.
Keywords: Korean English Teachers; English as a Foreign Language (EFL); Narrative Inquiry
Introduction to the Letter Exchange
As both an English Language teacher and teacher educator in South Korea, I have seen many changes in the dissemination of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) over the past eighteen years. When I first arrived as an English instructor in 1996, I worked with many Korean English as a Foreign Language (KEFL) teachers in a private school in Seoul. In 2006, I lectured at a private university in Daejeon working with Native and Non-Native English teachers. After 2 years, I moved to back to Seoul where I designed and taught online English classes. At the time of this study, I was involved in a KEFL teacher training program in Daegu. During all of those years working in English classrooms, I listened to KEFL teachers share personal and professional stories about their duties and their role in the Korean education system. What remains a common narrative thread throughout my discussions is how they strive to effectively and confidently teach their students.
From these discussions, I developed certain perceptions about their identity and felt the need to dialogue my understandings with them. I first explored KEFL teacher identity in 2008 when I co-wrote an article introducing the idea of letter writing to a graduate student (Yang & Author, 2008). From that exchange, I understood the KEFL language classroom as a social and cultural place wherein a language teacher brings his/her values, beliefs, norms, and experiences embedded in their language knowledge into this social world. In fact, negotiating teacher identity greatly affects situated tensions faced in English Language Teaching (ELT) and the way a teacher defines his/her identity determines certain attitudes towards the English language and the practice of English teaching (Cho, 2003). With this in mind, I decided to embark on a narrative journey. I needed to address these persistent attitudes and try to understand their impact on the professional lives of KEFL teachers.
I began by expressing my current perceptions of KEFL teacher identity in letter form and then exchanging my letter with two participants who, in turn, responded in their own letters. In this inquiry, I include my letter, my participants' response letters and my reflection on the process in the hopes of further dialoguing KEFL teacher identity in the South Korean ELT context.
Theoretical Framework
In a previous research study (Yang & Author, 2008), I acknowledged English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teacher identity as often existing solely in relation to language learners and learning (Ricento, 2005); other researchers (Varghese, Morgan & Johnson, 2005) also argue that language teacher identity is increasingly becoming a subject of interest in educational research. Norton (1997), too, mentions the expanding interest among second language educators in the negotiated, constructed and conflicted nature of teacher identity. With this in mind, I believe KEFL teacher identity to be an emerging area of inquiry within the EFL landscape.
KEFL teachers are described in research as skillful language practitioners or technicians of English skills (Cho, 2003). These same teachers tend to doubt their knowledge of the target language and how to effectively transmit that knowledge to their students (Yang & Author 2008). Further doubts ensue when having to share classrooms with native English speaking teachers since Korean teachers believe that they lack fluency in the target language (Cho, 2003). These mostly negative notions directly affect their practitioner self-confidence.
The Korean English teacher identity can be described as a necessary ëself' confrontation. Teachers confront their identity in varying forms in and outside the classroom. The conflicts might come from the gap between ëwho they were' and ëwho they are,' ëwhat they can do' and ëwhat they cannot do,' or ëwhat they want to be' and ëwhat they are expected to be'.ÖWith these multiplicities existent within the Korean English teacher identity EFL practitioners may have doubts as to the true essence of their ability and the ways in which they transmit knowledge (Yang & Author, 2008, p.294)
By using a letter exchange, I attempt to negotiate the KEFL teacher identity by exchanging my perceptions with my participants. The narrative exchange creates a space for the participants to negotiate ìwho they areî and ìwhat they are expected to beî in their particular EFL realm.
Methodology
I first learned about narrative inquiry orìthe study of how humans make meaning of experience by endlessly telling and retelling stories about themselves that both refigure the past and create purpose in the futureî (Clandinin & Connelly, 1988, p. 24) circa 1999 in a class with Dr. F.M. Connelly. I learned that through a narrative lens one examines ìpersonal and social history for narrative origins and embodied meaningî (p.109). For language instruction, Johnson and Golombek (2002) argue that narrative seeks ìto bring teachers' ways of knowing into our professional conversations so as to transform our understanding of language teachers and language teaching. By making teachers' ways of knowing public, open to review by others, and accessible to others in the profession, we hope to validate language teachers and the activity of language teaching in ways afforded to other forms of scholarly workî (p.10). Narrative inquiry then creates a space for negotiation which ìallows for individuals to look at themselves and their activities as socially and historically situatedî (p.5). Narrativists, however, face the challenge of negotiating which experiences to investigate and include in an inquiry.
At this point, I draw upon Dewey's (1938) notion of experience as neither isolated nor static moments in time but rather as reflections of one's past and hints of how they affect one's future. Deweyian notions of continuity and contextualization form the foundation from which I understand my role as researcher. My exploration of experiences are not linear as I "draw together disconnected experiences including actions or events and provide meanings to them" (Miyahara, 2010, p.6). If a teacher's experiences are shaped over time and occur in no particular order then likewise so does the construction of one's teacher identity. Teacher identity is fluid; it changes because classrooms, students and society continue to change and so, I must acknowledge that this inquiry focuses on a particular juncture within my participants' teacher timeline. I reflect on experiences within their teacher identity as they experience them and my research becomes a form of knowing in action (Schn, 1983).
There is also a sense of professional development that transpires in a narrative inquiry because it is ìa means through which teachers actualize their ways of knowing and growing that nourish and sustain their professional development in their careersî (Johnson & Golombek, 2002, p.6). By sharing experiences and recounting stories, teachers question certain practices employed in their contexts and in doing so, uncover more areas for further discussion.
Such inquiry is driven by teachers' inner desire to understand that experience, to reconcile what is known with that which is hidden, to confirm and affirm, and to construct and reconstruct understandings of themselves as teachers and of their own teaching. What teachers choose to inquire about emerges from their personalities, their emotions, their ethics, the contexts, and the overwhelming concern for their students. (p.6)
As I explore my participants' experiences, I, too, become part of the narrative inquiry. I am connected because my letter describing my perceptions initiated the discussion. Their response letters, too, help me gain a better understanding of how I may have understood or misconstrued aspects of their teacher identity.
And as we negotiate, discuss and try to understand these experiences, we ìengage in deep levels of introspection to come to terms with both conscious and unconscious phenomena and experiences. The reflective process can shed light on situations that can help teacher educators reconceptualize their workî (Milner, 2007, p.585). Hence, I also hope to achieve a deeper knowledge of KEFL teacher identity to inform my current and future classroom practice with teachers.
Letter Writing as Research Tool
For me, letters create a space of negotiation, an ongoing written dialogue that is both expressive and personal. Letter writing becomes a relevant tool for reflecting and negotiating KEFL teacher identity since Connelly and Clandinin (2000) suggest that "letters as field texts may be used among participants, among research collaborators or among researchers and participants" (p.106). Letter writing is furthermore a form of expression that has been employed in education as a means of collaboratively exploring issues within teacher practice (Olsen & Dhamborvorn, 1996).
The Research Participants
I invited two KEFL Teachers to partake in the inquiry. One participant with approximately fifteen years of experience is currently involved with undergraduate English programs for nursing students at a private university in Daejeon, South Korea. Her name is Yunhill Go. The second participant works in the Korean public school system as a high school teacher. She has been teaching English at many levels for almost eight years and the last four have been at her current placement also in Daejeon. Her name is Sung-kyung Cho. As the researcher involved in the collaborative design and exchange of these letters I, too, am an active participant in the study.
Both Yunhill and Sung-kyung took graduate courses with me during the 2006 -2007 academic year when I worked at the private university in Daejeon, South Korea. This inquiry originated in the spring of 2009 and I contacted a number of my former graduate students, native and non-native English teachers, to see if they would be interested in participating in a letter exchange looking at EFL in Korea. I felt that prior students would be familiar with notions of Deweyian experience, narrative inquiry and the narrative tool of letter writing and perhaps, more open to exchanging letters for qualitative research. At the time, Yunhill and Sung-kyung were quite keen on participating. After much deliberation, I made the decision to focus solely on the KEFL teacher identity.
By the summer of 2009, my Korean work situation changed and I returned back to Toronto, Canada having to shelve our research. As I recall these events, I will say that the letter exchange was always on my mind. We kept a personal correspondence via email but I felt the distance impeded the narrative flow of our discussions and the letter exchange. I wanted to share our letters and engage in reflective dialogues face-to-face throughout the process.
After some years of professional career change, I found a position as a teacher educator in Daegu, South Korea and returned in the summer of 2012. By late December, I finalized my letter detailing my perceptions of KEFL teachers. I was able to travel to Daejeon and meet Yunhill and Sung-kyung to exchange the letter with them in person. In the spring of 2013, they each responded. We have been corresponding online and face-to-face about this project up until the present moment. I believe we will continue to discuss these issues over time.
The following exchange begins first with my letter and then the response letters from Yunhill and Sung-kyung. I want readers to experience their chosen words and thoughts as much as possible so I only edited their letters, changing a few mechanical and grammatical errors, with their permission.
The Letter Exchange
A Letter to Yunhill and Sung-kyung
December 22, 2012
Dear Teacher:
Experienced teachers reflective practitioners, argue that they do not master teaching skills but continue to grow and develop skills as the result of continued reflection on and improvement of teaching practice (Stanulis in Gratch, 1998, p.226). I read this quote recently and thought of you. I am writing to learn about and from my perceptions of being a KEFL educator in Korea. I wholeheartedly appreciate your participation.
I am well aware that you are not the sole voice of all KEFL teachers. I also realize that for you to speak on this topic may overwhelm you or perhaps, make you feel as if you have nothing legitimate to say about the subject. But whatever your opinion, it is your voice that propels this exchange since ìthe very words you use, your references, your tone of voice, above all, your diction and your accent reveal your life storyî (Nunez, 2000, p.40).
From your studies with me, you know that I engage in narrative inquiry research and I often use narrative methods as a means of conceptualizing teacher identity. Connelly and Clandinin (2000) say that ìnarrative inquiry is a way of understanding experience. It is a collaboration between researcher and participants, over time, in a place or series of places, and in social interaction with milieusî (p.20).
One narrative tool I often use in my research is letter writing. Letters create a space of negotiation, a written dialogue that is both expressive and personal. In my past research, I responded to colleagues through letter writing and/or have exchanged letters with research collaborators. As Clandinin and Connelly (1988) assert, ìletter writing is similar to journal writing except here you are engaged in a written dialogue with another practitioner. You have control of the dialogue. ÖIt is an ongoing dialogue, a written conversationî (p.24). I am asking you now to engage in a written conversation about the KEFL teacher identity.
And so, let us begin with how I understand the term perception for this letter exchange. When I think of perception I revisit one particular definition:
It is a false assumption to assume that under all circumstances all people think about and perceive the world in basically the same way, and therefore, that whatever one says will mean the same to another. Perceptions play tricks on people. Even though they know intellectually that this is true, in their everyday lives they assume an objectivity and a reliability that is not borne out of events. Things are not always as they seem. They are selective in what they perceive. (Andres & Andres, 1994, p.67-8)
From this definition, truths about KEFL teachers are filtered through my own perceptions and so, can real truths ever be revealed? I am not sure but I am hoping that with your participation, I may have a more informed view of the KEFL teacher self.
When I use the term teacher identity, I am talking about the many identities we live, roles we play or parts we are that define us both in and out of the classroom experience. I often think of Giroux (1993) when he writes, ìit is becoming increasingly difficult either to defend notions of singular identity or to deny that different groups, communities and people are increasingly bound to each other in a myriad of complex relationshipsî (p.104-105). In a sense, all individuals are made up of many identity layers.
From my years as a teacher and now as a teacher educator, I have come to understand teacher identity as embedded in experience. As Dewey (1938) writes "the principle of continuity of experience means that every experience both takes up something from those which have gone before and modifies in some way the quality of those which come after" (p.35). Experiences are also interactions between individuals and their environment. If a teacher's lived experiences are shaped over time then I understand that, as I consciously tell one story, a future story may be simultaneously unfolding.
I think teacher stories and the stories of others have shaped my teacher identity, which in turn has shaped my classroom practices. As Clandinin and Connelly (1988) write, "storytelling is the process of reconstructing events in the past and is designed to be useful in understanding ourselves in the present" (p. 34). In addition, the significance in ìstories and re-telling stories can allow teachers to resist and revise confining stories which others too often draft for usî (Wilson & Ritchie, 1994, p.177). By (re)telling these stories, we uncover meaning, retrace dimensions of self and place these experiences within current understandings of our classroom.
And so, what are my perceptions of the KEFL teacher identity?
I offer them to you in the next section. After reading them, I ask you to decipher them without my intervention and then, respond in written form. We will have further face-to-face discussions to talk about the process but for the letter exchange, I would like for it to be as simple as my letter generating individual letters of response from you.
In your letter of any length, choose to respond to all, some or none of my perceptions. I am hoping that you will respond to at least one of them. I also ask for you to draw upon your experiences if they will give help with details.
As you read my perceptions, please keep in mind that they are not truths. Furthermore, they may also overlap in idea and content. These perceptions are my filtered versions of your teacher identity reality.
My Perceptions of KEFL Teacher Identity
In general, when I meet with KEFL teachers, I feel that there is a general lack of self-confidence among them. I sense a fear of being discovered as an English teacher who has no expertise. As Layton (1987) argues, ìfor a teacher to communicate the vision of the good life, he must first have that vision himself. If his own light does not burn steadily, he cannot hope to kindle it in anyone elseî (p.146). Why do you think some teachers feel discouraged? Why do some teachers feel afraid when teaching English? What, if anything, creates this lack of confidence?
I also sense that KEFL teachers feel powerless in the EFL realm. You are often teaching for test-based results and so, you do not have the freedom to explore creative approaches in your classrooms. Especially in the public school setting, you must adhere to strict curriculum guidelines. You must meet the demands of the students, their parents, school administration and government policy. What, if any, control do you have over the lessons you teach?
And as I look over my perceptions, I will conclude with this one. The English language in Korea feels oppressive. I feel that English is dividing Korea rather than globalizing its citizens. It is a cultural standard of success as in getting into a good university or getting a decent paying job that nowadays is quite dependent on one's English skill. I also think that learning English has become a consumerist ploy; for example, students from wealthy families can opt for paid private lessons in addition to learning English in public schools. As a result, many families are struggling financially to keep pace with these standards. And I feel that KEFL teachers contribute to or are caught up in this state of oppression. KEFL teachers may be knowledgeable practitioners but unless the stigmas of English as a cultural standard for success are lifted then even the best teachers are destined to oppress as well as feel oppressed. What do you think?
I share my perceptions for reflection, discussion and perhaps, future illumination within your practice. I believe it will greatly affect my own senses of education as I, too, am a part of the KEFL environment.
And this is just one letter exchange. I am convinced that your letters will offer ideas that may further generate research and discussion.
Let me share another quote to re-edify the purpose of our current letter exchange: ìI was intrigued by the idea that people would share stories of their experiences as research. After all, wasn't this what it was like for me as a teacher in the school? ÖI learned from this sharingî (Phillion, 2001, p.8).
I thank you deeply for your time and consideration.
With sincerity,
Author
Response Letter: From Yunhill
March 7, 2013
Dear Professor:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to represent my ideas and perspectives through letters. I think it would be great to join your research as a teacher who has been involved in the KEFL field for 15 years. I am going to share my personal perceptions and experiences regarding your interesting questions with sincerity and deep consideration.
Actually, I have a totally different perception from you. I have met a lot of KEFL teachers over the past 15 years at work. I sense that they are so passionate and competent. I know that English teachers are superior to other subject teachers in many ways. They do a lot of work in and out of schools. Interestingly enough, I see they are definitely confident when they speak in Korean but they become shy or weak when they speak in English especially in front of foreigners. In the Korean Education system, they were taught English to get a good test score. The school tests were made up of grammar, reading and listening only. There were neither speaking nor writing tests in the past. No wonder many teachers in their late 30s to early 60s are not able to speak English as fluently as they expect or others expect. That's why most teachers you have met in Korea lack self-confidence. As a Korean teacher, I am sure that they are confident enough to teach English to Korean students and I hope they are not underestimated only because of their speaking fluency.
In public schools, teachers are limited when creating their own lessons and content because of strict test systems and school policies. School teachers are supposed to follow the government curriculum guidelines. I often hear many friends complaining about the impractical curriculum and unnecessary paper work. They feel powerless and frustrated because they have no freedom to change old-fashioned and unhelpful systems for new generations of students. On the other hand, there are teachers who are involved in English academies and private tutoring in Korea. Private teachers have more freedom to create their own lessons and content based on their students' levels and interests. I worked in several English academies myself and currently work in a university. I have never felt powerless in my classes because I have seen my students learn a lot and improve English effectively through my own lessons and creative content.
I totally agree with you in the sense that many Koreans feel oppressed because of English. Ever since the former government created certain policies, English has become more important when one enters a prestigious university and gets a good job. Some universities have an English interview when choosing prospective students. Also, more and more companies want applicants to prove their Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) speaking score. That's why many families pay tons of money for English education from kindergarten to university. According to statistics, Korean people spend more than 10 to15 trillion won (approximately 10 to 15 million USD) on private English tutoring every year. Isn't it too much? I don't understand why Korean students are still poor at English even though parents pay so much money to help children get English ability. As a second language learner and teacher, it takes a long time and patient effort to acquire a language. Most Koreans pay money but don't pay enough time and effort. I feel so sad that many Koreans are suffering from acquiring English ever since they were kids.
I don't agree that KEFL teachers contribute to or are caught up in this state of oppression. The government policy, school policies, cultural, social and economical trends have contributed to the state of oppression toward English.
I tried my best to express my experiences, perceptions and opinions sincerely. I am so happy to discuss and share personal experiences and social facts with others. I hope that my voice will play a role of looking into the reality of Korean English Education Systems for a brighter future vision.
Again, I appreciate this opportunity to represent my voice through letters.
Yours faithfully,
Yunhill Go
Response Letter: From Sung-kyung
May 10, 2013
Dear Author:
I guess teaching English in Korea might be one of the toughest jobs to do. I don't know when people naturally started thinking that learning English equals the way to be successful and to reach one's dream. Most people want their children to learn English at an early age and even some mothers during their pregnancy try to read English books for prenatal education. In this atmosphere, parents, students and even other subject teachers expect English teachers to have top expertise in the English realm. Of course that's partially true and I believe most English teachers do have strong competence in teaching English as they keep developing their teaching ability every day. So there's no doubt that the teaching ability of Korean English teachers is excellent.
You mentioned a fear of being discovered as an English teacher who has no expertise. If you felt that way, that's probably from the pressure to be perfect as a teacher. In my case, honestly, I am sometimes worried when I lead speaking lessons without a native teacher. Why? In the case of the public school setting, I am used to teaching reading and writing and they became my top specialty. On the other hand, I am basically thinking that I, who was brought up in Korea, cannot be like native speakers of English, but I try to be like them as an English teacher. Accepting difference is one thing but actually teaching like them is another. I mean, I fully understand that there might be some differences regarding the pronunciation, accent and so on when speaking English. However, whenever I teach speaking lessons in English, I face the eyes of students with the expectation that their English teacher might be the one who has great speaking competence and who makes no mistakes. Sometimes that motivates me to try harder but gives me a bit of pressure at the same time. If the words discouraged or fear that you mentioned is this, that might be this kind of matter and this aspect has nothing to do with one's teaching ability.
Yes, we have strict curriculum guidelines and teach for test-based results plus each class level uses the same textbook. During the class, however, each English teacher can apply their own teaching method as they want. The problem is the stereotype that students have. As you know, teaching is the interaction between teacher and students during the class. Based on this assumption, teachers put the students first and try to help them participate in the learning procedure. Many students are quite resistant to new teaching methods and they are afraid of challenging ways of learning. It seems that they are not ready to accept learning that is quite different from the way they learnt in the past. They are very accustomed to cramming for a long time. It is natural for them to write down in their notebooks what a teacher wrote on the blackboard without questioning the material; a teacher is a person who leads the entire class. Many students are still quite passive.
In addition, for them, doing cooperative learning is a very familiar activity but they don't consider it as directly connected to the Korean Scholastic Ability Test (KSAT) which plays an important role for their future. In this situation, English teachers go through an inner conflict and try to attempt various approaches to make students enjoy learning, but it's true that we are struggling between creative versus traditional ways of teaching. I think it is not about powerful or powerless but about the matter and option of what teachers and students choose.
You asked how much input do teachers have in curriculum planning and do teachers have any say on curriculum content? Basically teachers ought to follow the big curriculum frame which is set by the government. However, teachers can adjust the curriculum content according to the school situation as in choosing which textbook to use although each level uses the same textbook. :)
From Sung-kyung Cho
Reflecting on the Letter Exchange
Given that the ultimate goal of English education is assumed to be its meaningful use, whatever the motivations and goals we have, language teaching cannot be confined to simply the transmission of language skills. Accordingly, teachers need to build their awareness of how their current practices work and why situations are as they areÖ. In doing so teachers can be subjective and critical by reshaping their identity and integrating their pedagogical beliefs into their English teaching (Yang & Author, 2008, p. 302)
I came to this current letter exchange having previously researched KEFL teacher identity approximately 7 years ago (Yang & Author, 2008). The continuing notion that Korean English teachers are held to certain standards of expertise and excellence in English prevails and yet, who is actually accountable for setting these standards? Are they externally constructed such as by government or curriculum policy-makers or are they internally manifested as in a teacher feeling the need to emulate native speakers? Or is it a cultural phenomenon formed from a dialectic of these endogenous and exogenous perspectives? Johnson and Golombek (2002) explain this quandary when they state that ìstories reflect the difficulty teachers have in implementing their beliefs about teaching because of their instructional context- issues of identity and loss of identity, use of English only in an EFL classroom, the polarization of theory and practice, and the elevated status of the native speaker teacher of Englishî (p.134). As I reflect on the letter exchange, I note these concerns emerging from Yunhill and Sung-kyung's letters and how the two often overlap.
Though Yunhill and Sung-kyung share similar notions of KEFL teachers as competent practitioners, both response letters address the issue of speaking confidently in English. As it stands, there is a push for Korean English teachers to speak English as much as possible (Kim, 2004) and teachers will be expected to give full English instruction in the near future (Yang & Author 2008). Research also indicates that feelings of frustration continue because teachers believe they lack the competence and fluency in speaking English as a non-native teacher (Cho, 2003). Yunhill uses words as ìshyî and ìweakî (Go, personal communication, February 2013) when teachers speak in English. She also expresses the idea of how mid-career to late-career in-service teachers struggle with speaking because of previous curriculum guidelines emphasizing other language skills at the time. Sung-kyung shares her concern when she says that she must ìface the eyes of students with the expectation that their English teacher might be the one who has great speaking competence and who makes no mistakesî (Cho, personal communication, February 2013). Though both state that KEFL teachers have confidence in their skills overall, there is a concern for speaking English in front of foreigners (Go, personal communication, February 2013) and speaking as a native speaker (Cho, personal communication, February 2013). In terms of being an effective KEFL teacher, I wonder if other teachers share this concern and if it influences their own understanding of teacher self.
Current curriculum guidelines and government policy are also areas of concern.Yunhill and Sung-kyung state that public school teachers are limited in terms of what they can and cannot attempt in their classroom lessons. There is further resistance from students when it comes to teachers implementing non-traditional teaching methods like activity-based learning. With the notion of test-based teaching and its influence on this current generation of students, Sung-kyung offers a sound recount when she writes ìwe are struggling between creative versus traditional ways of teachingî (Cho, personal communication, February 2013). She also says that she can adjust the curriculum content as in choosing textbooks yet she still operates within a ìcurriculum frameî (Cho, personal communication, February 2013). In a future research study, I would like to explore the implications behind her usage of the term ìcurriculum frameî. More specifically, I have questions regarding her metaphor choice,its definition an d if/how she feels trapped by its constructs.
When it comes to my perception of the English language in Korea feeling oppressive, Yunhill's response specifies and expands upon possible reasons for my thoughts. Again, she addresses the issue of government policy, university entry requirements and workplace hiring protocol as areas of oppression but she also speaks of the oppression caused by private learning institutions and the burden placed on families to keep pace with the competitive English language learning market. Her most profound statement occurs at the end of her correspondence, when she says, ìI don't agree that KEFL teachers contribute to or are caught up in this state of oppression. The government policy, school policies, cultural, social and economical trends have contributed to the state of oppression towards Englishî (Go, personal communication, February 2013). She makes a powerful assertion in that KEFL teachers are in no way connected to the oppressive state of English language teaching in Korea. I would like to know if other teachers see this state as an externalized entity. From our correspondence,I acknowledge areas for further research especially since Korean English language classrooms may move towards English as the sole language of instruction. Also, with the always pending implementation of a Korean national standardized test, English language teaching and learning may undergo a major paradigm shift. So I am deeply grateful for this exchange with Yunhill and Sung-kyung because there are more narrative puzzles and experiences that need to be dialogued. In the future, I may conduct a more extensive narrative study with a larger group of teachers from different levels. I wonder if their opinions about government policy in terms of English learning differ from Yunhill and Sung-kyung. Also, I will hold conversations with KEFL teacher trainers and question whether their classroom practices are effectively meeting the needs of in-service teachers.Furthermore, I am interested in exploring English Language teaching and learning as an externalized oppressive state detached from the KEFL teacher identity.
Possibilities from the Research
As a traveler, as a researcher, I see fragments of the lives of those I visit, or those I study. I appear in the landscape at a particular moment in the flow of time. Life has gone on before, and continues afterÖ. I change as a result of these encounters. I impact persons and places I encounter. (Phillion, 2001, p.6)
I cannot assume that the letters of Yunhill and Sung-kyung represent all KEFL teachers because to do so would,in fact,silence the voices of other teachers who may have much to say about my perceptions. Yet, Yunhill and Sung-kyung's input has dialogued my thoughts so I can further inform my practice as a teacher educator. I have an opportunity now to share this experience with my current and future students so, that, we, too can move beyond the stagnancy of perception as truth. I hold these letters as field notes to share with my pre/in-service teachers so as to collect further understandings of what it means to be a KEFL teacher. They may read and respond to my letter like Yunhill and Sung-kyung presenting their own concerns for their current or future practice. We have more experiences to dialogue, and negotiate when it comes to sharing stories of being a Korean English teacher because I continually acknowledge that ìmeanings are not in words but in peopleî (Andres & Andres, 1994, 67-8). Through this letter exchange as viewed through a narrative lens, I believe there is much need to effect change for and give voice to KEFL teachers.
References
Keywords: Korean English Teachers; English as a Foreign Language (EFL); Narrative Inquiry
Introduction to the Letter Exchange
As both an English Language teacher and teacher educator in South Korea, I have seen many changes in the dissemination of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) over the past eighteen years. When I first arrived as an English instructor in 1996, I worked with many Korean English as a Foreign Language (KEFL) teachers in a private school in Seoul. In 2006, I lectured at a private university in Daejeon working with Native and Non-Native English teachers. After 2 years, I moved to back to Seoul where I designed and taught online English classes. At the time of this study, I was involved in a KEFL teacher training program in Daegu. During all of those years working in English classrooms, I listened to KEFL teachers share personal and professional stories about their duties and their role in the Korean education system. What remains a common narrative thread throughout my discussions is how they strive to effectively and confidently teach their students.
From these discussions, I developed certain perceptions about their identity and felt the need to dialogue my understandings with them. I first explored KEFL teacher identity in 2008 when I co-wrote an article introducing the idea of letter writing to a graduate student (Yang & Author, 2008). From that exchange, I understood the KEFL language classroom as a social and cultural place wherein a language teacher brings his/her values, beliefs, norms, and experiences embedded in their language knowledge into this social world. In fact, negotiating teacher identity greatly affects situated tensions faced in English Language Teaching (ELT) and the way a teacher defines his/her identity determines certain attitudes towards the English language and the practice of English teaching (Cho, 2003). With this in mind, I decided to embark on a narrative journey. I needed to address these persistent attitudes and try to understand their impact on the professional lives of KEFL teachers.
I began by expressing my current perceptions of KEFL teacher identity in letter form and then exchanging my letter with two participants who, in turn, responded in their own letters. In this inquiry, I include my letter, my participants' response letters and my reflection on the process in the hopes of further dialoguing KEFL teacher identity in the South Korean ELT context.
Theoretical Framework
In a previous research study (Yang & Author, 2008), I acknowledged English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teacher identity as often existing solely in relation to language learners and learning (Ricento, 2005); other researchers (Varghese, Morgan & Johnson, 2005) also argue that language teacher identity is increasingly becoming a subject of interest in educational research. Norton (1997), too, mentions the expanding interest among second language educators in the negotiated, constructed and conflicted nature of teacher identity. With this in mind, I believe KEFL teacher identity to be an emerging area of inquiry within the EFL landscape.
KEFL teachers are described in research as skillful language practitioners or technicians of English skills (Cho, 2003). These same teachers tend to doubt their knowledge of the target language and how to effectively transmit that knowledge to their students (Yang & Author 2008). Further doubts ensue when having to share classrooms with native English speaking teachers since Korean teachers believe that they lack fluency in the target language (Cho, 2003). These mostly negative notions directly affect their practitioner self-confidence.
The Korean English teacher identity can be described as a necessary ëself' confrontation. Teachers confront their identity in varying forms in and outside the classroom. The conflicts might come from the gap between ëwho they were' and ëwho they are,' ëwhat they can do' and ëwhat they cannot do,' or ëwhat they want to be' and ëwhat they are expected to be'.ÖWith these multiplicities existent within the Korean English teacher identity EFL practitioners may have doubts as to the true essence of their ability and the ways in which they transmit knowledge (Yang & Author, 2008, p.294)
By using a letter exchange, I attempt to negotiate the KEFL teacher identity by exchanging my perceptions with my participants. The narrative exchange creates a space for the participants to negotiate ìwho they areî and ìwhat they are expected to beî in their particular EFL realm.
Methodology
I first learned about narrative inquiry orìthe study of how humans make meaning of experience by endlessly telling and retelling stories about themselves that both refigure the past and create purpose in the futureî (Clandinin & Connelly, 1988, p. 24) circa 1999 in a class with Dr. F.M. Connelly. I learned that through a narrative lens one examines ìpersonal and social history for narrative origins and embodied meaningî (p.109). For language instruction, Johnson and Golombek (2002) argue that narrative seeks ìto bring teachers' ways of knowing into our professional conversations so as to transform our understanding of language teachers and language teaching. By making teachers' ways of knowing public, open to review by others, and accessible to others in the profession, we hope to validate language teachers and the activity of language teaching in ways afforded to other forms of scholarly workî (p.10). Narrative inquiry then creates a space for negotiation which ìallows for individuals to look at themselves and their activities as socially and historically situatedî (p.5). Narrativists, however, face the challenge of negotiating which experiences to investigate and include in an inquiry.
At this point, I draw upon Dewey's (1938) notion of experience as neither isolated nor static moments in time but rather as reflections of one's past and hints of how they affect one's future. Deweyian notions of continuity and contextualization form the foundation from which I understand my role as researcher. My exploration of experiences are not linear as I "draw together disconnected experiences including actions or events and provide meanings to them" (Miyahara, 2010, p.6). If a teacher's experiences are shaped over time and occur in no particular order then likewise so does the construction of one's teacher identity. Teacher identity is fluid; it changes because classrooms, students and society continue to change and so, I must acknowledge that this inquiry focuses on a particular juncture within my participants' teacher timeline. I reflect on experiences within their teacher identity as they experience them and my research becomes a form of knowing in action (Schn, 1983).
There is also a sense of professional development that transpires in a narrative inquiry because it is ìa means through which teachers actualize their ways of knowing and growing that nourish and sustain their professional development in their careersî (Johnson & Golombek, 2002, p.6). By sharing experiences and recounting stories, teachers question certain practices employed in their contexts and in doing so, uncover more areas for further discussion.
Such inquiry is driven by teachers' inner desire to understand that experience, to reconcile what is known with that which is hidden, to confirm and affirm, and to construct and reconstruct understandings of themselves as teachers and of their own teaching. What teachers choose to inquire about emerges from their personalities, their emotions, their ethics, the contexts, and the overwhelming concern for their students. (p.6)
As I explore my participants' experiences, I, too, become part of the narrative inquiry. I am connected because my letter describing my perceptions initiated the discussion. Their response letters, too, help me gain a better understanding of how I may have understood or misconstrued aspects of their teacher identity.
And as we negotiate, discuss and try to understand these experiences, we ìengage in deep levels of introspection to come to terms with both conscious and unconscious phenomena and experiences. The reflective process can shed light on situations that can help teacher educators reconceptualize their workî (Milner, 2007, p.585). Hence, I also hope to achieve a deeper knowledge of KEFL teacher identity to inform my current and future classroom practice with teachers.
Letter Writing as Research Tool
For me, letters create a space of negotiation, an ongoing written dialogue that is both expressive and personal. Letter writing becomes a relevant tool for reflecting and negotiating KEFL teacher identity since Connelly and Clandinin (2000) suggest that "letters as field texts may be used among participants, among research collaborators or among researchers and participants" (p.106). Letter writing is furthermore a form of expression that has been employed in education as a means of collaboratively exploring issues within teacher practice (Olsen & Dhamborvorn, 1996).
The Research Participants
I invited two KEFL Teachers to partake in the inquiry. One participant with approximately fifteen years of experience is currently involved with undergraduate English programs for nursing students at a private university in Daejeon, South Korea. Her name is Yunhill Go. The second participant works in the Korean public school system as a high school teacher. She has been teaching English at many levels for almost eight years and the last four have been at her current placement also in Daejeon. Her name is Sung-kyung Cho. As the researcher involved in the collaborative design and exchange of these letters I, too, am an active participant in the study.
Both Yunhill and Sung-kyung took graduate courses with me during the 2006 -2007 academic year when I worked at the private university in Daejeon, South Korea. This inquiry originated in the spring of 2009 and I contacted a number of my former graduate students, native and non-native English teachers, to see if they would be interested in participating in a letter exchange looking at EFL in Korea. I felt that prior students would be familiar with notions of Deweyian experience, narrative inquiry and the narrative tool of letter writing and perhaps, more open to exchanging letters for qualitative research. At the time, Yunhill and Sung-kyung were quite keen on participating. After much deliberation, I made the decision to focus solely on the KEFL teacher identity.
By the summer of 2009, my Korean work situation changed and I returned back to Toronto, Canada having to shelve our research. As I recall these events, I will say that the letter exchange was always on my mind. We kept a personal correspondence via email but I felt the distance impeded the narrative flow of our discussions and the letter exchange. I wanted to share our letters and engage in reflective dialogues face-to-face throughout the process.
After some years of professional career change, I found a position as a teacher educator in Daegu, South Korea and returned in the summer of 2012. By late December, I finalized my letter detailing my perceptions of KEFL teachers. I was able to travel to Daejeon and meet Yunhill and Sung-kyung to exchange the letter with them in person. In the spring of 2013, they each responded. We have been corresponding online and face-to-face about this project up until the present moment. I believe we will continue to discuss these issues over time.
The following exchange begins first with my letter and then the response letters from Yunhill and Sung-kyung. I want readers to experience their chosen words and thoughts as much as possible so I only edited their letters, changing a few mechanical and grammatical errors, with their permission.
The Letter Exchange
A Letter to Yunhill and Sung-kyung
December 22, 2012
Dear Teacher:
Experienced teachers reflective practitioners, argue that they do not master teaching skills but continue to grow and develop skills as the result of continued reflection on and improvement of teaching practice (Stanulis in Gratch, 1998, p.226). I read this quote recently and thought of you. I am writing to learn about and from my perceptions of being a KEFL educator in Korea. I wholeheartedly appreciate your participation.
I am well aware that you are not the sole voice of all KEFL teachers. I also realize that for you to speak on this topic may overwhelm you or perhaps, make you feel as if you have nothing legitimate to say about the subject. But whatever your opinion, it is your voice that propels this exchange since ìthe very words you use, your references, your tone of voice, above all, your diction and your accent reveal your life storyî (Nunez, 2000, p.40).
From your studies with me, you know that I engage in narrative inquiry research and I often use narrative methods as a means of conceptualizing teacher identity. Connelly and Clandinin (2000) say that ìnarrative inquiry is a way of understanding experience. It is a collaboration between researcher and participants, over time, in a place or series of places, and in social interaction with milieusî (p.20).
One narrative tool I often use in my research is letter writing. Letters create a space of negotiation, a written dialogue that is both expressive and personal. In my past research, I responded to colleagues through letter writing and/or have exchanged letters with research collaborators. As Clandinin and Connelly (1988) assert, ìletter writing is similar to journal writing except here you are engaged in a written dialogue with another practitioner. You have control of the dialogue. ÖIt is an ongoing dialogue, a written conversationî (p.24). I am asking you now to engage in a written conversation about the KEFL teacher identity.
And so, let us begin with how I understand the term perception for this letter exchange. When I think of perception I revisit one particular definition:
It is a false assumption to assume that under all circumstances all people think about and perceive the world in basically the same way, and therefore, that whatever one says will mean the same to another. Perceptions play tricks on people. Even though they know intellectually that this is true, in their everyday lives they assume an objectivity and a reliability that is not borne out of events. Things are not always as they seem. They are selective in what they perceive. (Andres & Andres, 1994, p.67-8)
From this definition, truths about KEFL teachers are filtered through my own perceptions and so, can real truths ever be revealed? I am not sure but I am hoping that with your participation, I may have a more informed view of the KEFL teacher self.
When I use the term teacher identity, I am talking about the many identities we live, roles we play or parts we are that define us both in and out of the classroom experience. I often think of Giroux (1993) when he writes, ìit is becoming increasingly difficult either to defend notions of singular identity or to deny that different groups, communities and people are increasingly bound to each other in a myriad of complex relationshipsî (p.104-105). In a sense, all individuals are made up of many identity layers.
From my years as a teacher and now as a teacher educator, I have come to understand teacher identity as embedded in experience. As Dewey (1938) writes "the principle of continuity of experience means that every experience both takes up something from those which have gone before and modifies in some way the quality of those which come after" (p.35). Experiences are also interactions between individuals and their environment. If a teacher's lived experiences are shaped over time then I understand that, as I consciously tell one story, a future story may be simultaneously unfolding.
I think teacher stories and the stories of others have shaped my teacher identity, which in turn has shaped my classroom practices. As Clandinin and Connelly (1988) write, "storytelling is the process of reconstructing events in the past and is designed to be useful in understanding ourselves in the present" (p. 34). In addition, the significance in ìstories and re-telling stories can allow teachers to resist and revise confining stories which others too often draft for usî (Wilson & Ritchie, 1994, p.177). By (re)telling these stories, we uncover meaning, retrace dimensions of self and place these experiences within current understandings of our classroom.
And so, what are my perceptions of the KEFL teacher identity?
I offer them to you in the next section. After reading them, I ask you to decipher them without my intervention and then, respond in written form. We will have further face-to-face discussions to talk about the process but for the letter exchange, I would like for it to be as simple as my letter generating individual letters of response from you.
In your letter of any length, choose to respond to all, some or none of my perceptions. I am hoping that you will respond to at least one of them. I also ask for you to draw upon your experiences if they will give help with details.
As you read my perceptions, please keep in mind that they are not truths. Furthermore, they may also overlap in idea and content. These perceptions are my filtered versions of your teacher identity reality.
My Perceptions of KEFL Teacher Identity
In general, when I meet with KEFL teachers, I feel that there is a general lack of self-confidence among them. I sense a fear of being discovered as an English teacher who has no expertise. As Layton (1987) argues, ìfor a teacher to communicate the vision of the good life, he must first have that vision himself. If his own light does not burn steadily, he cannot hope to kindle it in anyone elseî (p.146). Why do you think some teachers feel discouraged? Why do some teachers feel afraid when teaching English? What, if anything, creates this lack of confidence?
I also sense that KEFL teachers feel powerless in the EFL realm. You are often teaching for test-based results and so, you do not have the freedom to explore creative approaches in your classrooms. Especially in the public school setting, you must adhere to strict curriculum guidelines. You must meet the demands of the students, their parents, school administration and government policy. What, if any, control do you have over the lessons you teach?
And as I look over my perceptions, I will conclude with this one. The English language in Korea feels oppressive. I feel that English is dividing Korea rather than globalizing its citizens. It is a cultural standard of success as in getting into a good university or getting a decent paying job that nowadays is quite dependent on one's English skill. I also think that learning English has become a consumerist ploy; for example, students from wealthy families can opt for paid private lessons in addition to learning English in public schools. As a result, many families are struggling financially to keep pace with these standards. And I feel that KEFL teachers contribute to or are caught up in this state of oppression. KEFL teachers may be knowledgeable practitioners but unless the stigmas of English as a cultural standard for success are lifted then even the best teachers are destined to oppress as well as feel oppressed. What do you think?
I share my perceptions for reflection, discussion and perhaps, future illumination within your practice. I believe it will greatly affect my own senses of education as I, too, am a part of the KEFL environment.
And this is just one letter exchange. I am convinced that your letters will offer ideas that may further generate research and discussion.
Let me share another quote to re-edify the purpose of our current letter exchange: ìI was intrigued by the idea that people would share stories of their experiences as research. After all, wasn't this what it was like for me as a teacher in the school? ÖI learned from this sharingî (Phillion, 2001, p.8).
I thank you deeply for your time and consideration.
With sincerity,
Author
Response Letter: From Yunhill
March 7, 2013
Dear Professor:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to represent my ideas and perspectives through letters. I think it would be great to join your research as a teacher who has been involved in the KEFL field for 15 years. I am going to share my personal perceptions and experiences regarding your interesting questions with sincerity and deep consideration.
Actually, I have a totally different perception from you. I have met a lot of KEFL teachers over the past 15 years at work. I sense that they are so passionate and competent. I know that English teachers are superior to other subject teachers in many ways. They do a lot of work in and out of schools. Interestingly enough, I see they are definitely confident when they speak in Korean but they become shy or weak when they speak in English especially in front of foreigners. In the Korean Education system, they were taught English to get a good test score. The school tests were made up of grammar, reading and listening only. There were neither speaking nor writing tests in the past. No wonder many teachers in their late 30s to early 60s are not able to speak English as fluently as they expect or others expect. That's why most teachers you have met in Korea lack self-confidence. As a Korean teacher, I am sure that they are confident enough to teach English to Korean students and I hope they are not underestimated only because of their speaking fluency.
In public schools, teachers are limited when creating their own lessons and content because of strict test systems and school policies. School teachers are supposed to follow the government curriculum guidelines. I often hear many friends complaining about the impractical curriculum and unnecessary paper work. They feel powerless and frustrated because they have no freedom to change old-fashioned and unhelpful systems for new generations of students. On the other hand, there are teachers who are involved in English academies and private tutoring in Korea. Private teachers have more freedom to create their own lessons and content based on their students' levels and interests. I worked in several English academies myself and currently work in a university. I have never felt powerless in my classes because I have seen my students learn a lot and improve English effectively through my own lessons and creative content.
I totally agree with you in the sense that many Koreans feel oppressed because of English. Ever since the former government created certain policies, English has become more important when one enters a prestigious university and gets a good job. Some universities have an English interview when choosing prospective students. Also, more and more companies want applicants to prove their Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) speaking score. That's why many families pay tons of money for English education from kindergarten to university. According to statistics, Korean people spend more than 10 to15 trillion won (approximately 10 to 15 million USD) on private English tutoring every year. Isn't it too much? I don't understand why Korean students are still poor at English even though parents pay so much money to help children get English ability. As a second language learner and teacher, it takes a long time and patient effort to acquire a language. Most Koreans pay money but don't pay enough time and effort. I feel so sad that many Koreans are suffering from acquiring English ever since they were kids.
I don't agree that KEFL teachers contribute to or are caught up in this state of oppression. The government policy, school policies, cultural, social and economical trends have contributed to the state of oppression toward English.
I tried my best to express my experiences, perceptions and opinions sincerely. I am so happy to discuss and share personal experiences and social facts with others. I hope that my voice will play a role of looking into the reality of Korean English Education Systems for a brighter future vision.
Again, I appreciate this opportunity to represent my voice through letters.
Yours faithfully,
Yunhill Go
Response Letter: From Sung-kyung
May 10, 2013
Dear Author:
I guess teaching English in Korea might be one of the toughest jobs to do. I don't know when people naturally started thinking that learning English equals the way to be successful and to reach one's dream. Most people want their children to learn English at an early age and even some mothers during their pregnancy try to read English books for prenatal education. In this atmosphere, parents, students and even other subject teachers expect English teachers to have top expertise in the English realm. Of course that's partially true and I believe most English teachers do have strong competence in teaching English as they keep developing their teaching ability every day. So there's no doubt that the teaching ability of Korean English teachers is excellent.
You mentioned a fear of being discovered as an English teacher who has no expertise. If you felt that way, that's probably from the pressure to be perfect as a teacher. In my case, honestly, I am sometimes worried when I lead speaking lessons without a native teacher. Why? In the case of the public school setting, I am used to teaching reading and writing and they became my top specialty. On the other hand, I am basically thinking that I, who was brought up in Korea, cannot be like native speakers of English, but I try to be like them as an English teacher. Accepting difference is one thing but actually teaching like them is another. I mean, I fully understand that there might be some differences regarding the pronunciation, accent and so on when speaking English. However, whenever I teach speaking lessons in English, I face the eyes of students with the expectation that their English teacher might be the one who has great speaking competence and who makes no mistakes. Sometimes that motivates me to try harder but gives me a bit of pressure at the same time. If the words discouraged or fear that you mentioned is this, that might be this kind of matter and this aspect has nothing to do with one's teaching ability.
Yes, we have strict curriculum guidelines and teach for test-based results plus each class level uses the same textbook. During the class, however, each English teacher can apply their own teaching method as they want. The problem is the stereotype that students have. As you know, teaching is the interaction between teacher and students during the class. Based on this assumption, teachers put the students first and try to help them participate in the learning procedure. Many students are quite resistant to new teaching methods and they are afraid of challenging ways of learning. It seems that they are not ready to accept learning that is quite different from the way they learnt in the past. They are very accustomed to cramming for a long time. It is natural for them to write down in their notebooks what a teacher wrote on the blackboard without questioning the material; a teacher is a person who leads the entire class. Many students are still quite passive.
In addition, for them, doing cooperative learning is a very familiar activity but they don't consider it as directly connected to the Korean Scholastic Ability Test (KSAT) which plays an important role for their future. In this situation, English teachers go through an inner conflict and try to attempt various approaches to make students enjoy learning, but it's true that we are struggling between creative versus traditional ways of teaching. I think it is not about powerful or powerless but about the matter and option of what teachers and students choose.
You asked how much input do teachers have in curriculum planning and do teachers have any say on curriculum content? Basically teachers ought to follow the big curriculum frame which is set by the government. However, teachers can adjust the curriculum content according to the school situation as in choosing which textbook to use although each level uses the same textbook. :)
From Sung-kyung Cho
Reflecting on the Letter Exchange
Given that the ultimate goal of English education is assumed to be its meaningful use, whatever the motivations and goals we have, language teaching cannot be confined to simply the transmission of language skills. Accordingly, teachers need to build their awareness of how their current practices work and why situations are as they areÖ. In doing so teachers can be subjective and critical by reshaping their identity and integrating their pedagogical beliefs into their English teaching (Yang & Author, 2008, p. 302)
I came to this current letter exchange having previously researched KEFL teacher identity approximately 7 years ago (Yang & Author, 2008). The continuing notion that Korean English teachers are held to certain standards of expertise and excellence in English prevails and yet, who is actually accountable for setting these standards? Are they externally constructed such as by government or curriculum policy-makers or are they internally manifested as in a teacher feeling the need to emulate native speakers? Or is it a cultural phenomenon formed from a dialectic of these endogenous and exogenous perspectives? Johnson and Golombek (2002) explain this quandary when they state that ìstories reflect the difficulty teachers have in implementing their beliefs about teaching because of their instructional context- issues of identity and loss of identity, use of English only in an EFL classroom, the polarization of theory and practice, and the elevated status of the native speaker teacher of Englishî (p.134). As I reflect on the letter exchange, I note these concerns emerging from Yunhill and Sung-kyung's letters and how the two often overlap.
Though Yunhill and Sung-kyung share similar notions of KEFL teachers as competent practitioners, both response letters address the issue of speaking confidently in English. As it stands, there is a push for Korean English teachers to speak English as much as possible (Kim, 2004) and teachers will be expected to give full English instruction in the near future (Yang & Author 2008). Research also indicates that feelings of frustration continue because teachers believe they lack the competence and fluency in speaking English as a non-native teacher (Cho, 2003). Yunhill uses words as ìshyî and ìweakî (Go, personal communication, February 2013) when teachers speak in English. She also expresses the idea of how mid-career to late-career in-service teachers struggle with speaking because of previous curriculum guidelines emphasizing other language skills at the time. Sung-kyung shares her concern when she says that she must ìface the eyes of students with the expectation that their English teacher might be the one who has great speaking competence and who makes no mistakesî (Cho, personal communication, February 2013). Though both state that KEFL teachers have confidence in their skills overall, there is a concern for speaking English in front of foreigners (Go, personal communication, February 2013) and speaking as a native speaker (Cho, personal communication, February 2013). In terms of being an effective KEFL teacher, I wonder if other teachers share this concern and if it influences their own understanding of teacher self.
Current curriculum guidelines and government policy are also areas of concern.Yunhill and Sung-kyung state that public school teachers are limited in terms of what they can and cannot attempt in their classroom lessons. There is further resistance from students when it comes to teachers implementing non-traditional teaching methods like activity-based learning. With the notion of test-based teaching and its influence on this current generation of students, Sung-kyung offers a sound recount when she writes ìwe are struggling between creative versus traditional ways of teachingî (Cho, personal communication, February 2013). She also says that she can adjust the curriculum content as in choosing textbooks yet she still operates within a ìcurriculum frameî (Cho, personal communication, February 2013). In a future research study, I would like to explore the implications behind her usage of the term ìcurriculum frameî. More specifically, I have questions regarding her metaphor choice,its definition an d if/how she feels trapped by its constructs.
When it comes to my perception of the English language in Korea feeling oppressive, Yunhill's response specifies and expands upon possible reasons for my thoughts. Again, she addresses the issue of government policy, university entry requirements and workplace hiring protocol as areas of oppression but she also speaks of the oppression caused by private learning institutions and the burden placed on families to keep pace with the competitive English language learning market. Her most profound statement occurs at the end of her correspondence, when she says, ìI don't agree that KEFL teachers contribute to or are caught up in this state of oppression. The government policy, school policies, cultural, social and economical trends have contributed to the state of oppression towards Englishî (Go, personal communication, February 2013). She makes a powerful assertion in that KEFL teachers are in no way connected to the oppressive state of English language teaching in Korea. I would like to know if other teachers see this state as an externalized entity. From our correspondence,I acknowledge areas for further research especially since Korean English language classrooms may move towards English as the sole language of instruction. Also, with the always pending implementation of a Korean national standardized test, English language teaching and learning may undergo a major paradigm shift. So I am deeply grateful for this exchange with Yunhill and Sung-kyung because there are more narrative puzzles and experiences that need to be dialogued. In the future, I may conduct a more extensive narrative study with a larger group of teachers from different levels. I wonder if their opinions about government policy in terms of English learning differ from Yunhill and Sung-kyung. Also, I will hold conversations with KEFL teacher trainers and question whether their classroom practices are effectively meeting the needs of in-service teachers.Furthermore, I am interested in exploring English Language teaching and learning as an externalized oppressive state detached from the KEFL teacher identity.
Possibilities from the Research
As a traveler, as a researcher, I see fragments of the lives of those I visit, or those I study. I appear in the landscape at a particular moment in the flow of time. Life has gone on before, and continues afterÖ. I change as a result of these encounters. I impact persons and places I encounter. (Phillion, 2001, p.6)
I cannot assume that the letters of Yunhill and Sung-kyung represent all KEFL teachers because to do so would,in fact,silence the voices of other teachers who may have much to say about my perceptions. Yet, Yunhill and Sung-kyung's input has dialogued my thoughts so I can further inform my practice as a teacher educator. I have an opportunity now to share this experience with my current and future students so, that, we, too can move beyond the stagnancy of perception as truth. I hold these letters as field notes to share with my pre/in-service teachers so as to collect further understandings of what it means to be a KEFL teacher. They may read and respond to my letter like Yunhill and Sung-kyung presenting their own concerns for their current or future practice. We have more experiences to dialogue, and negotiate when it comes to sharing stories of being a Korean English teacher because I continually acknowledge that ìmeanings are not in words but in peopleî (Andres & Andres, 1994, 67-8). Through this letter exchange as viewed through a narrative lens, I believe there is much need to effect change for and give voice to KEFL teachers.
References
Andres, T. & Andres, P. (1994). Understanding the Filipino. Quezon City: New Day Publishers.
Cho, J.S. (2003). Sociocultural identity of English teachers among the union members. Unpublished masters thesis, Woosong University, Daejeon, South Korea.
Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F.M. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. Toronto: OISE Press.
Connelly, F.M. & Clandinin, D. J. (2000). Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone Book, Simon and Schuster.
Giroux, H. A. (1993). Living Dangerously: Multiculturalism and the Politics of Difference. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Gratch, A. (1998). Beginning Teacher and Mentor Relationships. Journal of Teacher Education. May-June, v.49(3),220-27.
Johnson, K.E. & Golombek, P.R. (2002). Teachers' Narrative Inquiry as Professional Development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, S.J. (2004). Coping with cultural obstacles to speaking English in the Korean secondary school context. Asian EFL Journal, 6. Retrieved September 29, 2006, from: http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Sept_04_ksj.pdf.
Layton, I. (1987). The Role of the Teacher. In B.Kellow & J. Krisak, (Eds.) Essay Thought and Style. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall Canada. 145-6.
Milner IV, H.R. (2007). Race, Narrative Inquiry and Self-Study in Curriculum and Teacher Education. Education and Urban Society, August v.39(4), 584-609.
Miyahara, Masuko. (2010). Researching Identity and Language Learning: Taking a Narrative Approach. Language Research Bulletin, (25), 1-15.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 401-429.
Nunez, E. (2000). Writing For Effect, (Chapter 6, pp.40-5) In K. Ogulnick. (Ed.). Language Crossings Negotiating the Self in a Multicultural World. New York: Teachers College Press.
Olsen, M., & Dhamborvorn, N. (1996, April). Collaborative reflections: Letter writing as a form of collaborative self-study. Paper presented at the Annual General Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Phillion, J. (2001). Landscapes of Diversity: The Autobiographical Origins of a Narrative Inquiry. Journal of Critical Inquiry into Curriculum and Instruction 3(2), 5-12.
Ricento, T. (2005). Considerations of identity in L2 learning, in: E. Hinkel (Ed) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (Mahwah, HJ: Lawrence Erlbaum) 895-910.
Schn, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
Wilson, D.E. & Ritchie, J.S. (1994). Resistance, Revision, and Representation: Narrative in Teacher Education. English Education, 26(3), 177-88.
Varghese, M., Morgan, B., & Johnson, K. A. (2005). Theorizing language teacher identity: three perspectives and beyond. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 4(1),21-44.
Yang, S. & Author. (2008). Reflective Practices: an arts-based letter to other for dialoguing Korean English teacher self. Reflective Practice, 9(3), 293-305.
Members may post a comment.