CHAPTER 6

ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING IN KOREA:

Toward Globalization or Glocalizationl

HYUNJUNG SHIN

The University of Toronto, Canada

ABSTRACT

This chapter presents a critical examination of current issues and controversies in English Language Teaching (ELT) in Korea, focusing on the recent Korean "English-only" educational policy, which requires that English be taught without LI support in certain school grades. Drawing &om a study I conducted with Korean English teachers and students, I investigate how the policy goes beyond the mere discussion of language of instruction and perpetuates the notion of the Native Speaker (NS) as an ideal language teacher. The conflict between the government's goal for English education (influenced by the discourse of globalization) and English teachers' goals for English education (constructed through daily interactions with the students in the local classrooms) suggests that Koreans should reconceptualize ELT in Korea. Drawing on Wallace's (2002) notion of global literate English and Robertson's (1995) notion of glocalzation, I argue that when the global English is g/oca//zerf through critical pedagogy, English can work as a language of opportunity for Koreans. A critical understanding of the complex relationship between ELT and colonialism and a reconceptualization of the ownership of English in Korea will have implications for ELT practices in other countries.

INTRODUCTION

The status of English as a global language is undisputed, and the impact of globalization on EngUsh education is pervasive in ELT practices in different parts of the world. Gray (2002) argued that the increasing number of transantional corporations, the rise of world organizations with global networks, and the influence of the Internet are mainly responsible for the conjimction of globalization and English. As represented in Jimg & Norton's (2002) discussion of Korea's new national elementary Enghsh program, recent language pohcies in Korea have been created within the discourse of globalization, as an effort of the Korean government to globalize the economy for fiirther growth. Consequently, languages are often considered as economic commodities (cf. Heller, 2002) and education is treated as a tool to keep up with the rapid globalization of the world economy. The following article from a Korean newspaper is indicative of this:

76 Shin

Universities ... will face mergers and acquisitions just like private businesses, and those failing to meet government criteria vsdll be forced to close their doors ... They are a part of education policies to be pursued in the next five years, as reported by Education and Human Resources Development Minister Yoon Deok-hong to President Roh Moo-hyun yesterday ... In another initiative, a legjd base will be established to force 'incompetent' universities to shut down voluntarily. (Na, 2003, p. 1, original in English)

In this chapter, I provide a critical examination of current issues and controversies in ELT in Korea, focusing on the debate around recent Korean "EngUsh-only" educational policy, which requires that English be taught without LI support in certain school grades. I investigate how the policy, endorsed by the supporters of economic globalization, goes beyond the mere discussion of language of instruction and perpetuates the notion of the native speaker (NS) as an ideal language teacher. In doing so, I draw from a larger study I conducted with Korean English teachers and students in a large city in Korea, to be reported more fully elsewhere (cf Shm, 2004).

I first provide some background context with an overview of the impact of the global spread of English on Korea and move to a discussion of the ideological orientation of the English-only policy. I then explore how teachers and students in Korean English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms have responded to this policy. Finally, I discuss the implications of my study for the future of ELT in Korea and around the world, drawing on Robertson's (1995) notion oiglocalization, which he introduces as a counterargument to common, monolithic understanding of the relationship between the global and the local in the discussion of globalization:

I have tried to transcend the tendency to cast the idea of globalization as inevitably in tension with the idea of localization. I have instead maintained that globalization ... has involved and increasingly involves the creation and the incorporation of locality, processes which themselves largely shape, in turn, the compression of the world as a whole. Even though we are, for various reasons, likely to continue to use the concept of globalization, it might well be preferable to replace it for certain purposes with the concept of glocalization. (p. 40)

THE GLOBAL SPREAD OF ENGLISH AND ELT IN KOREA

Learning English as a global language means learning how to understand and speak a variety of Englishes with speakers who are not necessarily native speakers of the language ... while the ofEicial rhetoric claims that EngUsh has become the lingua franca of the world and is not "ovmed" by any one nation in particular (Widdowson: 1994), everybody knows that not all English accents are equally prestigious, nor are all English ways of speaking. (Kramsch, 1999, p. 134, emphasis in original)

The global spread of English bound up with the spread of capitalism and its dominance in higher education in many parts of the world has made it the language of power and prestige in many countries. Indeed, the global use of English inherently serves the interests of some over those of others and often results in exacerbating the unequal relationship between the Center and Periphery in ELT, and between different groups within the Periphery coxmtries (Canagarajah, 1999a, 2002; Pennycook, 1994, 1998, 2001). Accordingly, although the subtlety of tiie political nature of education often makes it invisible in everyday local contexts, ELT and colonialism are inherently intertwined (see Pennycook, this volume; Phillipson, 1992). It is clear then that ELT is not a neutral business and "those who wish to deny

English Language Teaching in Korea 77

the political nature of schooling are clearly articulating an ideological position in favor of the status quo" (Pennycook, 1989, p. 591).

South Korea definitely belongs to a group of countries where the intimate relationship between language, language teaching, and power is clearly evident. English was brought into Korea initially with Christianity, which was a symbol of egalitarianism and democratism to imdermine the corrupt feudal ruling class of the late Choson dynasty (1392-1910) (Lee, 1999; Sung, 2002). After the period of Japanese colonization (1910-1945), English reentered Korea with the U.S. army and the U.S. Military Government (1945-1948) in the South. Since the Korean War (1950-1953), there has been a great deal of military tension between communist North and capitaHst South (and sometimes between the U.S. and North Korea) as evidenced in the recent nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula. Consequently, the ideological tension from the cold-war period is often still visible in the country, and the hegemonic role of the U.S. in politic, economic, and cultural domains in Korea has created an unequal relationship between the U.S. and Korea. This, in turn, legitimizes the status of English, American EngUsh in particular, as cultural capital in Korean society, and English has long maintained its status as the most popular and important foreign language, at least in the South.

According to Kwon (2000), the official English teaching in Korea began in 1883, although it was limited to diplomats and official interpreters. Sung (2002) maintained that during the Japanese colonial period, foreign languages were taught only scarcely and mainly by rote learning, and teaching of foreign languages other than Japanese was suppressed or sometimes prohibited. Hence, Grammar-Translation was the dominant method in Enghsh teaching in Korea even after the Japanese colonial period. A dramatic turn of ELT in Korea came with the development of the sixth National Curricula, implemented in middle schools and high schools in 1995 and 1996 respectively. A shift in focus in Enghsh teaching had occurred and fluency and communicative competence, instead of accuracy, were emphasized, which continues in the current, seventh Curricula. Accordingly, the English section of the College Scholastic Ability Test, the official, national college entrance examination since 1993, mainly consists of a reading comprehension test and a listening comprehension test, which is a different emphasis from measuring students' phonological, lexical and grammatical knowledges, as in the old college entrance exam. Furthermore, in 1996, the Ministry of Education initiated innovation in the curricula of pre-service teacher education program to foster Enghsh teachers' linguistic and pedagogical competence, moving away from traditional emphasis on knowledge of theoretical linguistics and literature in the curricula (Kwon, 2000).

Since English was first taught as a regular subject in secondary schools in 1945 (Jung & Norton, 2002, p. 246), one of the characteristics of ELT practices in Korea has been that they are often government-initiated, national operations. In the early 1990s, Kim Young-Sam, former President of Korea, promoted the policy of segyehwa (the Korean term for globalization^), urging the Korean ministry of education to shift from fraditional grammar instruction to a communicative Enghsh curriculum. In 1996, the Ministry of Education launched EPIK (English Program in Korea) to recruit NSs of English to teach in Korean secondary schools (Kwon, 2000). NS teachers entered to invigorate the ineffective traditional English teaching system in Korea, whose weakness has often been attributed to the inadequate speaking abilities of Korean Enghsh teachers. After going through the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and the intervention by the International Monetary Fimd,

78 Shin

Koreans again realized the importance of English for Korea to survive the severe competition in the international markets. As a result, South Korea is currently witnessing an unprecedented obsession among the population to attain a better command of English.

For example, expensive English kindergartens are ubiquitous. The desire to begin English education at an early age led to the introduction of English as a regular subject in elementary schools in 1997 (cf Jung & Norton, 2002; Kwon, 2000). An increasing number of young Koreans leave the country to study abroad in the hope of gaining at least a good command of EngUsh, which they believe will guarantee them a prestigious job in the future. As of 2002, Koreans comprised the second largest group of international students studying in intensive EngUsh programs in the U.S. (Seo, 2003). There is a much contested idea of turning the southern resort island of Cheju into an international duty-free city that would have English as an official language; the government's ambition to promote Korea as "the business center of Northeast Asia" leads to another reckless plan to create three "special economic zones" in the west of Seoul with EngUsh as an ofBcial language (Choi, 2002; Park, 2002). The stunning, extreme obsession with English education among a few Korean parents have even led them to pay for "tongue surgery" for their children, in the hope that they would pronounce r and / sounds more distinctly, often considered a symbol of authentic American English pronunciation in Korea (Demick, 2002). The huge amount of money, time, and effort spent in studying English and the nationwide desire to be fluent in EngUsh are closely related to the social and economic prestige afforded by English (see Kanno, this volume, for a discussion of similar issues in ELT in Japan).

In an EEL context, where EngUsh is taught as a subject in classrooms, the relatively limited access to the target language and culture in natural settings remains a challenge, despite increasing opportunities for exposure to foreign countries and cultures now possible. In addition, EngUsh teaching in Korean schools usually involves large classes with students of multiple interests, a curriculum mandated from above, and the need to prepare students for the college entrance exam. The kind of flexibility fostered in natural language learning settings is rarely expected due to such institutional constraints. This often results in demands for "correct" English as a pedagogical norm. Kubota (2002b) reported ihsX foreign language was frequently equated with EngUsh in Japan, standard North American and British varieties in particular. Similarly, the respect for a certain kind of English (i.e. so-called Standard American English) is prevalent in Korea. This, combined with the political dominance of the U.S.,^ leads to the notion that the ideal EngUsh teacher is a NS of American English (so-called Standard American English), and non-native speaker (NNS) teachers of EngUsh are often marginalized in the ELT business in Korea. It is to the ideological context of this myth of the NS as an ideal teacher that I now turn, along with the discussion of the ideological nature of the new EngUsh-only policy.

"ENGLISH-ONLY" IN KOREA AND NNS TEACHERS OF ENGLISH IN EFL CLASSROOMS

The pervasiveness of the communicative language teaching (CLT) approach to ELT is evident around the world (WaUace, 2002). However, according to Norton Peirce's (1989) criticism of the hegemony of communicative competence as a goal for ELT

English Language Teaching in Korea 79

practices internationally, CLT lacks the ability to help students challenge and transform the status quo. Accordingly, the attempt to "enable communication with native speakers in natural, everyday environments" (Wallace, 2002, p. 110) in CLT often results in "the empty babble of the communicative language class" (Peimycook, 1994, p. 311; also see Spada, this volvune, for a usefiil discussion of common myths and misconceptions aroimd CLT).

Nevertheless, in line with the govenmient's globalization policy, the major purpose of English teaching in Korea has been to improve students' oral commxmicative abilities, since the sixth curriculum was promoted (Kwon, 2000; Jung & Norton, 2002). As a result, the craving for "authentic" English language and culture is immense in Korea. Without considering what kind of ELT could best serve the needs of the students in Korean EFL secondary school contexts, many Koreans now disregard "the value of sustained engagement with written text" (Wallace, 2002, p. 105). Many wealthy Korean parents send their children to expensive private language schools to study English with NS teachers, who they believe possess "authentic" English language and culture. The increased expectations of students and parents for English instruction in Korea have brought enormous social and institutional pressure on Korean English teachers to turn out highly proficient speakers of English. Under the sociopolitical circumstances, a new Korean language policy was aimounced in 2001: Beginning in that year, English classes should be taught in English only for the third, fourth, and seventh graders:

Mr. Song Youngsup in the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development said,'.... every school should^ra* assign those teachers who can do so [who can teach English using English only] to the third, fourth, and seventh grade.'. ... The Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development is planning to gradually expand 'EngUsh-only classes' into the higher grades. (SeoulA^onhap News, 2001, my translation, emphasis added)

Given relatively little chance for students to use English outside the classrooms in EFL contexts, facilitating wider use of a target language in classroom contexts seems justifiable at first glance. However, the rhetoric of the policy favors linguistic proficiency over other qualifications of a good English teacher through hierarchical categorization of Korean English teachers into two groups: those who can teach English using English only, and therefore will be first assigned to the English-only classrooms, and those who cannot. The expertise of NNS teachers as bilinguals is not adequately acknowledged, given that many NS teachers are often monolinguals (Cook, 1999). With various challenging institutional constraints in the background, the question of effective English instruction is reduced to the issue of the teacher's oral proficiency in English. This in turn leads to the often contested and yet still prevalent myth of the NS as an ideal teacher. In addition, by institutionalizing the requirement that English be taught only in English, the policy implies that English can best be taught in English only, depriving NNS teachers of one of their advantages of using a shared mother tongue with their students (cf. Auerbach, 1993; Cook, 1999; Tang, 1997).

Permycook (1998) maintains that the myth of the NS as an ideal teacher (both linguistically and culturally) is extended from the colonial discourse of orientalism (cf Said, 1979). The rhetoric of the NS as an ideal teacher legitimizes the substitution of language politics for racial politics in ELT, creating a practically unattainable standard imposed by national origin and accent (cf. Amin, 1997;

80 Shin

Pennycook, 1994). This is analogous to the linkage between the English-only movement in the United States and anti-immigration sentiment (cf. Auerbach, 1993; Crawford, 1989). As Halliday (1968) argues:

A speaker who is made ashamed of his own language habits suiifers a basic injury as a human being: to make anyone, especially a child, feel so ashamed is as indefensible as to make him feel ashamed of the colour of his skin. (p. 165, cited in Cook, 2002, p. 331)

Nevertheless, L2 users "have continually been made ashamed by their inability to meet the native-based aims of language teaching" (Cook, 2002, p. 331).

However, the rhetoric of the link between race and language ability works in covert ways in the contemporary world in most cases (e.g. "cultural racism," cf. Hall, 1992), and is often imrecognized by the privileged, just as white privilege and male privilege are normally invisible to those who benefit fi-om them (Kubota, 2002a). The struggle to resolve the dilemma between "language as a mark of authenticity and belonging or identity, and language as an acquirable technical skill and marketable commodity" (Heller, 2002, p. 47) is often left to the NNS teachers themselves. Yet, failing to imderstand the wider ideological context of the NS and NNS issue will perpetuate inequalities, as reflected in the ironic discrimination against NNS teachers in their home countries while discrimination against NNS teachers in Center Countries still remains (Canagarajah, 1999b). A report on my own investigation of how the Korean EFL teachers and the students responded to this complicated issue implied in the new Korean EngHsh-only policy is the focus of the next section.

RESISTANCE IN KOREAN EFL CLASSROOMS

The study was conducted in a large city in Korea during May through August 2001. The participants in the study included 39 Korean English teachers, 98 students, and 30 teachers who taught subjects other than EngHsh in the city. Data collection for the study included survey questionnaires, interviews, and classroom observations. The questionnaires and the interviews were written and conducted in Korean and were translated by me (cf Shin, 2004). All the names of the participants in this chapter are pseudonyms.

The results from both the questionnaires and the interviews suggested that the Korean English teachers resisted the notion that oral proficiency was the most important qualification for a good Enghsh teacher. They conceived of the qualifications for a good English teacher as consisting of pedagogical expertise suiting local needs and professional consciousness combined with adequate professional training. A representative written response was: "There are many Native Speakers [of English] in Korean schools these days but not many Native Speaker teachers [of English]."

The responses from the students in the questionnaires also supported this: most of the students (85%) were against hiring external experts such as Korean-Americans as English teachers, saying that being good at speaking English was different from being a good teacher. A representative remark about Kim Kunmo, a famous Korean popular singer, was: "Isn't it the same as saying Kim Kuimio is not necessarily a good music teacher?"

English Language Teaching in Korea 81

Although ahnost half of the teachers (49%) acknowledged the need for increased use of English in classrooms, they did not think EngUsh could be best taught using English-only in Korean classrooms (81%) nor did they support the policy (79%). hi response to the emphasis on oral English proficiency implied in the poHcy, the Korean English teachers valued localized pedagogical expertise over EngUsh speaking ability, hi their responses in the questioimaires, the Korean English teachers chose "solid teaching philosophy and commitment to the profession" as the most important qualification for a good English teacher (32%), which was followed by "pedagogical expertise" (27%). Student surveys indicated that the students valued "pedagogical expertise" as the most important qualification for a good English teacher (33%), not oral English proficiency. To fiuiher illustrate this, consider the extract from the interview with Junki, a male high school teacher who had been teaching English for 3 years at the time of the study:

I don't think I am less qualified compared to a NS teacher [although my English ability may not be as good as theirs]. I know the Korean educational system, how to prepare students for the entrance exam, and how to make things meaningful for the students.... It's often more than teaching EngUsh and they [NS teachers] don't understand this. (Interview, July 3,2001)

The conflict between the government's conception of effective EngHsh teaching (influenced by the discourse of globalization) and Enghsh teachers' conception of effective English teaching (constructed through daily interactions with the students in the local classrooms) was also evident in comments made by Yujung, a female junior high school teacher with 5 years of teaching experience:

I don't think that my major job is teaching English itself The students learn more than enough knowledge of English at private institutes. I pay more attention to providing them with learning context where they can learn English with other students so that they learn how to get along well with others in the society. (Interview, June 20,2001)

Several possible explanations for this conceptual conflict include the traditional emphasis on teacher's moral and parental role in Korean society, and the consequent importance of the role of the homeroom teacher in Korean secondary schools (often considered more important than the role of the teacher of the subject area). In addition, professional classroom management and pedagogical expertise are often valued over knowledge of the discipline in their workplaces (i.e. secondary schools where they were teaching beginning to low-intermediate level learners in large classrooms).

In relation to this, different expectations of a good teacher in different cultures warrant better recognition (Shin & Crookes, 2005). Cortazzi & Jin (1996) reported that Chinese students in their study hsted being a role model as a fiiend, a parent, or sometimes as a strict teacher as qualifications for a good teacher. Accordingly, the students expected teachers to listen to their personal issues even outside the classroom and to share knowledge of society with them. Reagan (2000) suggested Confucian educational thought covdd work as a possible common value in educational philosophy in East Asian countries. In Confucianism, education is the very tool to lead people to reach the ideal of Chun-tzu, the ideal person in Confucian thought. Consequently, teachers have been highly respected in these countries^ and have been expected to show moral behavior like Chun-tzu (Kim, 1996).

82 Shin

Nonetheless, rapid social change and economic development in Korea provide the students with a significantly different English learning environment fi-om that of their teachers. The disparity between the material resources available to students in and out of school in contemporary Korean EFL classrooms, exacerbated by lack of administrative support for teacher education, has induced a sense of identity crisis even in some of the more conscientious Korean English teachers. Miju, a female teacher with 7 years of teaching experience at the time of the study, presented an illustrative case:

The students' expectations [about the quality of the English education] are too high these days. When the expectation was low, it was OK, but the teaching methods I am familiar with don't work anymore. I feel that I'm losing confidence drastically for last couple of years as a teacher. Particularly in this year, I often feel that there is no reason I have to stay here . . . . My identity as a teacher is in crisis. (Interview, June 4,2001)

The junior high school she was working for was located in a middle-class residential area. The parents there were very enthusiastic and even competitive about their children's English education. About 20 students in each class study English in English speaking countries every vacation. In Miju's school, the students' and parents' craving for "authentic" EngUsh was obvious, which led to her sense of inadequacy and incompetence.

Jimg & Norton (2002) illustrated that enthusiastic teachers supported by a local teacher's group were successful with the implementation of their new curriculum. Similarly, interview data irom Jongsu, a yoimg male teacher with 3 years of teaching experience at the time of the interview, suggests the importance of the role of networking in empowering teachers as agents of change. Jongsu was teaching at a junior high school that had relatively high academic standards. He was also working as an active member of an innovative teacher development group in the city. The interview indicated that he was very articulate in his critique of the English-only poUcy and perceived himself as a very progressive, enthusiastic professional in Korean English classrooms:

We are not just 'teachers of a language' but are more responsible for education in general. I think Korean English teachers suit Korean English classrooms better [than NS teachers] as we know what the students want and what they need. And I don't care about the policy—they [the policy makers] don't know how things are in the real classrooms. (Interview data, June 20,2001)

I really enjoy what I do at the teachers' group ... the students really want to have flm in English class these days. They are tired of attending too many English classes here and there. We focus on developing activities and materials for the junior high school students and share them and evaluate them together so that we can make a different EngUsh class ... When they enjoy the activity I developed and have flm in class, I am so happy. (Interview, July 14,2001)

Through intimate interaction with his students and through networking with other like-minded teachers, Jongsu rejected the dominant ideology embedded in the English-only poUcy, which legitimized the myth of the NS as an ideal teacher. Through his understanding of the local context and student needs and his dedication to educational iimovation, he could recreate himself as a competent educator with localized expertise.

English Language Teaching in Korea 83

As the data indicated, the goal for English education implied in the government's poUcy (i.e. improving students' oral conversational abilities to foster national competitiveness in a global market) was not congruent with the English teachers' immediate goals for English education (i.e. understanding and supporting students and facilitating a broader scope of learning experiences for them). In addition, a lack of proper preparation to implement the new policy into actual classroom settings (e.g. through curriculum development and adequate teacher development programs) caused confusion and conflicts in the classrooms. The unsuccessful implementation of the policy and resistance from the EngUsh teachers suggest that Koreans should reconceptualize ELT in Korea: what kind of English do Koreans need to learn and what kind of EngUsh education should Korea strive for? I conclude the chapter with a discussion about the issue of the ownership of English and the future of ELT in Korea.

CRITICAL PEDAGOGY AND GLOCALIZATION OF GLOBAL ENGLISH

In this chapter, I investigated the complex relationship between ELT and coloniaUsm by examining how the new Korean EngUsh-only policy went beyond the mere discussion of language of instruction and perpetuated the notion of the native speaker as the ideal language teacher. The Korean EngUsh teachers in my study resisted the dominant ideology embedded in the policy and recreated themselves as ELT professionals who know how to teach English to Korean students more effectively (Brutt-Grififler & Samimy, 1999). The conflict between the government's goal for EngUsh education and EngUsh teachers' goals for EngUsh education resulted in the failure of policy implementation at the school level. This leads Koreans to question what kind of English should be taught in Korea and to what purposein this global era.

Wallace (2002) presents a possible answer to this question; she argues for teaching a particular kind of EngUsh that she calls "global literate EngUsh" (p. 106), to promote "a global critical literacy through the medium of English" (p. 111):

My defence is not of English but of a particular kind of literate English. This more widely contextualized form of English ... coexists with vernacular literacies, with each occupying distinct domains. For its users, literate English offers a form of secondary socialization into the world of global English. ... learners of EngUsh as a foreign and second language can participate in its critique and recreation. Models of resistance to EngUsh are available through English, but a critically nuanced literate English. We resist global tyranny with global means, (p. 114)

Wallace goes on to argue that this global EngUsh needs to be taught through critical pedagogy (cf. Freire, 1993) to deal with "issues which may resonate locally but which have global implications" (p. 111). In response to Canagarajah's (1999a) argument for "pedagogies of resistance ... rooted in the everyday life of our students" (p. 194), she claims that EngUsh teachers should pursue a pedagogy for challenging social inequity in a broader way (Wallace, p. 111). She maintains that critical and creative use of this new form of literate English wiU "challenge the hegemony of English in its conventional forms and uses" (p. 112). This resonates with Norton Peirce's (1989) discussion of People's EngUsh in South Africa as a language of possibility for South Africans. Through a pedagogy of possibility. South Africans successfully appropriated EngUsh for freedom and possibility for all South

84 Shin

Africans "in terms of the way they perceive themselves, their role in society, and the potential for change in their society" (pp. 402-403).

Wallace's (2002) comments suggest how we can conceptualize ELT in order to transform EngUsh to a tool for resistance:

English language teaching, like globalization itself, does not need to be seen to bring only negative consequences ... our resistance as language teachers need not be to the teaching of the language itself so much as to the grosser kinds of cultural and linguistic imperialism which continues to characterize some ELT discourse and practices, (p. 108)

In relation to the future direction of ELT in Korea, we can draw an analogy to Gray's (2002) critique of so-called global textbooks: Although the attempt to include the global necessarily led such textbooks to exclude the local, they could be an emancipatory site when successfiilly glocalized. Similarly, when global EngUsh is glocalized through critical pedagogy, English can work as a "language of opportunity" (cf. Pennycook, 1994, 2001) for Koreans. Although I acknowledge that "there are many different modes of practical glocalization" (Robertson, 1995, p. 40), reconceptualization of the ownership of English in Korea will have impUcations for ELT practices in other countries.

NOTES

'This Korean term has often been translated into both globalization and internationalization in English. I translated the term into globalization in this chapter.

^However, because of the very dominant political role of the U.S. on the peninsula, there has been an interesting co-existence of anti-American sentiment and the idealization of the U.S. among Koreans. Recent nationwide candlelight vigils and protest to mourn the tragic death of two teenage schoolgirls run over by a U.S. military vehicle in June 2002 represents this. The acquittals of the two American soldiers who controlled the vehicle by a U.S. military court and the insincere attitude of the U.S. toward the case created the proliferation of anti-American sentiment among Koreans. The protest has extended to a campaign to revise unequal Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) governing the legal status of U.S. soldiers in Korea (Today's Editorial, 2002).

'Teachers in Korea, female teachers in particular, still have prestigious status and accordingly have high self-esteem in general. Although many participants indicated they endured less favorable social attitude toward the profession (72%), they still believed students had respect for their competence (56%) and felt fiilfillment and commitment as professionals (62%).

REFERENCES

Amin, N. (1997). Race and the identity of the nonnative ESL teacher. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 580-583. Auerbach, E. (1993). Reexamining EngUsh only in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 9-32. Brutt-Griftler, J., & Samimy, K. (1999). Revisiting the colonial in the postcolonial: Critical praxis for

nonnative-English-Speaking Teachers in a TESOL Program. TESOL Quarterly, 33,413-431. Canagarajah, S. (1999a). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University

Press. Canagarajah, S. (1999b). Interrogating the 'Native Speaker Fallacy': Non-linguistic roots, non-

pedagogical results. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp. 77-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Canagarajah, S. (2002). Globalization, methods, and practice in periphery classrooms. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 134—150). London: Routledge.

Choi, I. (2002, April 7). Yeong-eo gongyonghwa munje itta [Problems with English as an official language]. Internet Hankyoreh. Retrieved November 9, 2002, from http://www.hani.co.kr/section-005100025/2002/04/005100025200204072132001.html.

Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching, TESOL Quarterly, 33,185-209. Cook, V. (2002). Language teaching methodology and the L2 user perspective. In V. Cook (Ed.),

Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 325-343). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.

English Language Teaching in Korea 85

Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 169-206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crawford, J. (1989). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory and practice. Trenton, NJ: Crane Publishing.

Demick, B. (2002, March 31). The world; Some in S. Korea opt for a trim when English trips the tongue; Asia: Parents are turning to specialty preschool and even surgery to give their children a linguistic advantage. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 7,2003, from http://www.latmies.com.

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum (M.B. Ramos, Trans.). Gray, J. (2002). The global coursebook in EngUsh Language Teaching. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.),

Globalization and language teaching (pp. 151-167). London: Routledge. Hall, S. (1992). The question of cultural identity. In S. Hall, D. Held, & T. McGrew (Eds.), Modernity

and its futures (pp. 273-325). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Halliday, M.A.K. (1968). The users and uses of language. In J. Fishman (Ed.), Readings in the sociology

of language. The Hague: Mouton. Heller, M. (2002). Commodification of bilingualism in Canada. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.),

Globalization and language teaching (pp. 47-63). London: Routledge. Jung, S., & Norton, B. (2002). Language planning in Korea: The new elementary English program. In

J. ToUefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 245-265). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kim, K. (1996). The reproduction of Confucian culture in contemporary Korea. In W. Tu (Ed.), Confucian traditions in East Asian modernity: Moral education and economic culture in Japan and the four mini-dragons (pp. 202-227). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kramsch, C. (1999). Global and local identities in the contact zone. In C. Gnutzmann (Ed.), Teaching and learning English as a global language: Native and Non-Native perspectives (pp. 131-143). Tubingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.

Kubota, R. (2002a). The Author Responds: (Un)Raveling racism in a nice field like TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 84-92.

Kubota, R. (2002b). The impact of globalization on language teaching in Japan. In D. Block, & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching ip^. 13-28). London: Routledge.

Kwon, O. (2000). Korea's EngUsh education policy changes in the 1990s: Innovations to gear the nation for the 21" century. English Teaching [Korea], 55(1), 47-91.

Lee, J. (1999). Historic factors affecting educational administration in Korean higher education. Harvard Educational Review, 32, 7—23.

Na, J. (2003, April 10). Uncompetitive colleges may face shutdown. The Korea Times, p. 1. Norton Peirce, B. (1989). Toward a pedagogy of possibility in the teaching of EngUsh internationally:

People's EngUsh in South Africa. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 401^20. Paris, Y. (2002, April 5). 3 special Economic Zones to be designated next yr. The Korea Times, Retrieved

May 7,2003, from http://wvw.hankooki.com/times/200204/120020405002204401 lO.htm. Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge and the politics of language

teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 589-618. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman. Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge. Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reagan, T. (2000). Non-Western educational traditions: Alternative approaches to educational thought

and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogenity. In M. Featherstone,

S. Lash, & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global Modernities (pp. 25-44). London: Sage. Said, E. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books. Seo, J. (2003, April 28). 62,000 Koreans studying in US. The Korea Times, p. 9. Seoul/Yonhap News. (2001, February 18). Gyoyuk; Jung 1, Chodeung 3, 4, Yeong-eo sueop Yeong-

eoroman jinheng [Education; English should be taught only in English for the third, fourth, and seventh graders]. Internet Hanhyoreh. Retrieved February 21, 2003, from http://www.hani.co.kr/ section-005000000/2001/005000000200102181230191.html.

Shin, H. (2004). "English-only" in Korea and Korean English teachers: Hegemony of English and local resistance. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Shin, H., & Crookes, G. (2005). Indigenous critical traditions for TEFL? A historical and comparative perspective in the case of Korea. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 2(2), 95-112.

Sung, K-W. (2002). Critical theory and pedagogy: Remapping English teaching in Korea. English Teaching [Korea], 57(2), 65-89.

86 Shin

Tang, C. (1997). The identity of the nonnative ESL teacher: On the power and status of nonnative ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 577-580.

Today's Editorial. (2002, December 4). Sprejid of anti-American movement. The Korea Times. Retrieved May 5,2003, &om http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opinion/200212/kt2002120416470011300.htm.

Wallace, C. (2002). Local literacies and global literjicy. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 101-114). London: Routledge.

Widdowson, H. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28,377-388.