Koreans Still Taught Mute English
The history of 50 years of English education in Korea can be characterized as "mute English education," meaning that people end up unable to speak the language. English is now used in every sector of the world, yet English education in Korea has always lagged behind. Koreans learn English for 15 years, starting from elementary school to college, yet they still end up unable to carry out a simple conversation in English. For this reason, many argue that the English education policy in Korea is wrongly headed.
As the Internet is changing the world and English is rising as the worldly language, the Ministry of Education came up with measures such as changing the content of English textbook to make it conversation oriented or to launch English classes that are run only in English. But considering today's educational environment, it is hard to expect success. For this reason, those urging for dramatic change in English education policy are gaining ground.
English education using English textbooks at school was first started in the 1950's (First Phase of Education). During its early days, it focused on understanding the differences between English and Korean, thus focusing on defining it rather than emphasizing its functional aspects. In the second phase of education (1963-1973), English education was divided into three parts; listening and talking, reading, and writing. In the third phase of education (1973-1981) English grammar was emphasized; the sentence structure, the form of the components and the types of sentences.
Lee Byong-ho, a school inspector of the Ministry of Education, says that this is the critical time when English education changed its direction from conversation to grammar. The fourth phase of education(1981-1987) is when the importance of spoken English was raised and the curriculum was divided into listening, speaking, reading, and writing. In 1982, the ministry allowed the teaching of English during the extra-curricular activities period. The fifth (1987-1992) and the sixth (1992-1999) phases of education strengthened the importance of communication in English. But even so, English conversation remained neglected, mainly because of the college entrance exam which dealt with grammar.
If one looks at the "English Education Curriculum Interpretation" the Ministry of Education (MOE) published for the seventh phase of education that will begin this year, an answer is given to the question; what's the problem with English education in Korea. The booklet states; "Korea's English education does not teach English words first but has wasted too much time teaching knowledge of the English language through letters from the elementary level. Teachers cannot teach English classes in English because they lack the ability to speak the language."
After heated debate, a program to teach English to third-year elementary school students was adapted from 1997 and now the curriculum has been extended to all levels. However, their teachers' ability to teach English in words and not letters lags drastically behind this bold move. MOE researcher Choi Byong-gap said the ministry was attempting to send teachers abroad to study English but added that there were bound to be limits
Voices are constantly raised that the MOE lacks principle and consistency in its English education policy, and pointed out as an example the fact that the ministry had employed English native speakers as elementary-school teachers in order to teach a conversation-based English, but when the financial crisis broke out the first thing the
education authority did was to get rid of the foreign teachers. Now, from this year they are busy trying to recruit foreign native English teachers again.
Once the students are older and attend middle and high school, they cannot afford to idle their time away "just speaking in English" because they have to prepare for the high-school and university entrance exams. Therefore, the 12 to 18-year-old students learn how to do well in multiple-choice English tests at school and take separate private
lessons outside of school to learn English conversation through TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) tested by the Educational Testing Service in the States.
The Japanese Federation of Industries lobbied the Diet for a reform bill on the education system that made it compulsory to teach children English from kindergarten, in order to raise manpower needed in an era of international competition. The bill consisted of epoch-making suggestions such as employing teachers whose mother-tongue was English, and to conduct classes concentrating on teaching the students how to speak in
English.
Since there are limits in manpower and circumstances for Korea to follow Japan's model, some argue Korea should make active use of Korean emigrants living abroad. Seoul National University professor Lee Sang-eok says that if the 1.8 million Korean-Americans in North America and 50,000 in Oceania came to Korea and participated in Korea's English teaching program, they would be of huge help. Lee's idea is to first recruit English education majors among applicants, have them finish basic language education courses, and then inject them to the Korean schools.
Some people are claiming that English language training camps offering short-term intensive courses taught by native English teachers should be made available so that there will be less waste of foreign currency as tens of thousands of Korean students go abroad for a year or longer to learn English abroad every vacation.
There are also suggestions that universities should go beyond its current admission policy of granting extra credit for student candidates with good marks in internationally recognized English tests such as TOEFL and TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication). They argue that there should be a certificate that proves the capability and standard of one's English conversation skills, just like certificates for qualified information researchers, and attract distinguished human resources to the academic institutes and put their skills into practical use.
