KOTESOL: Old Habits Die Hard

If you are in any way familiar with the Korean education system, you most likely have seen something that made you ask yourself, “Why do they still do it that way?” It would appear that the saying “Old habits die hard” would apply here. And the reason for it could be found in another saying: “We teach the way we were taught.” But should we just dismiss older methods as being less effective than more recently-devised ones? Do we not need more to base our opinions on? We will take a look at some of the long-entrenched methods and practices employed in Korea in teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) and see what works and what does not.

The Grammar-Translation Method

The Grammar-Translation Method (GT) of teaching languages has been with us for a long time and it can be found in use today in classrooms around the globe. Basically, it consists of teaching students the grammatical rules of the target language (L2) and then having the students apply these rules to practice in translating from one’s L1 to the language being learned. Hundreds of years ago, when this method was used mainly by the clergy to translate religious tracts from one language to another,  it worked satisfactorily, but it was being used to teach written language skills only.

Over the years, the goal of language teaching has moved from teaching written skills to being primarily for oral communication. However, for many, the GT method of teaching has not changed. A method originally employed for writing has become used for teaching oral skills, without relevant changes in the method. The GT method has no advocates today; indeed, it does not even have a theory as its foundation. As a language teaching method for today’s needs, GT is highly inefficient. This is because it relies on memorization of grammar rules, not internalization. It does not include interaction in exchange of information, and it does not include oral-aural practice. The GT method needs to be replaced with something more relevant to the students’ needs. However, doing occasional translation exercises as part of a larger course design can be beneficial.

Learning by Memorization

By “memorization,” we refer to rote learning, the memorization technique based on repetition without regard to understanding. This is a very common learning technique in Korea. Its origins and popularity probably stem from the need to learn thousands of Chinese characters in order to be considered a literate Korean in the Silla, Koryo and Chosun Dynasties. Rote memorization does have an advantage – it is possible to remember something quickly. But its main drawback cancels out its advantage – one can forget what they learned just as quickly as they learned it. For this reason, and because it is not concerned with understanding, rote learning, by itself, is also a very ineffective learning method.

Meanwhile, meaningful learning relates the new information to be acquired with previously-acquired knowledge. Active learning refers to several models of instruction that focus the responsibility of learning on the learners themselves, where learners interact with each other in numerous ways. These latter two learning methods are effective because knowledge gained through these methods tends to “stick.” In language learning, vocabulary, grammatical phenomena and pronunciation all tend to be retained, when used in numerous ways with numerous things and when there is interaction with others. After all, communication is an interactive process. Rote memorization does have a degree of effectiveness when practiced in association with other modes of learning, but by itself it is woefully ineffective.

Teacher as Provider of Knowledge

The stereotypical image of an in-session classroom that most of us have is one with all the students facing front-and-center where a teacher stands behind a lectern. And in the Korean classroom, whether or not a language class, this is not just stereotypical, but typical. English is thought of as a subject just like History, Science and Mathematics, where the teacher is the imparter of knowledge to the students who are supposed to absorb that knowledge and exhibit that they have mastered it by answering questions on a test. But English does not work that way.

While academic subjects like History can be, with some degree of success, taught by students being spoon-fed information from a teacher, such methodology falters terribly with English. This is because the teaching of English should not be viewed as an academic undertaking but as the acquisition of a skill. A skill is not acquired by a teacher spending most of their time giving lecture-style classes, providing facts about the skill. One does not learn to play tennis or ride a bicycle in a classroom, listening to a teacher talk all the time. The student must experience, experiment and execute playing tennis or riding a bike. The same is true of English. For students to learn to communicate in an L2, the teacher must be much more than just a provider of knowledge.

The Teacher-Centered Classroom

The metaphor of teacher as provider of knowledge portrays a one-way flow of knowledge from the teacher to the student. However, instruction can be made a two-way street by incorporating question-and-answer checkups and the like. Such classrooms are still teacher-centered. The teacher exhibits control over every aspect of the lesson and monopolizes the talking time, with knowledge flowing from teacher to student. Learning in this manner, deductive learning, has been shown to be much less effective than inductive learning. With inductive learning, it is the role of the teacher to provide the learner with information which they can analyze, discern patterns in, formulate rules for, test their hypotheses, fine-tune them and retest. In other words, one learns something better if they figure it out for themselves rather than be told. Therefore, rather that provide the student with a fish to eat, the teacher should teach the student how to fish.

In order to teach the students the skill of “fishing,” the teacher must relinquish much of their talking time and some of their control to make considerable portions of the lesson student-centered, where there is not just interaction with the teacher, but sustained periods of interaction between students in a pair or in groups. Through this student interaction, students get the much-needed practice that they need to learn English. We must never lose sight of the fact that the ability to use English is a skill, much like playing soccer or singing. Students need practice time, and methodologies such as Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Task-Based Teaching (TBT) that give practice and active interaction.

In summary, CLT and TBT are immensely more effective in teaching language skills than is the antiquated Grammar-Translation Method. And rote memorization is immensely ineffective as a learning strategy. It is much better for the teacher to facilitate inductive learning for the students to learn and to provide sufficient practice time with student interaction speaking in English.

_______________________________________

Monthly Chapter Meeting

Date & Time: August 10 (Saturday), 1:30 p.m.

Place: Chosun University, Main Building, Left Wing

Featured Workshops

• ·         Memorable Vocabulary Teaching and Learning (Jessica Magnusson; GNUE)
• ·         Guided Teacher Reflection for Busy Teachers (Roger Fusselman; Seoul Chapter)

Swap-Shop: Share your teaching ideas and activities.

Admission:  No Charge

Facebook: Gwangju-Jeonnam KOTESOL

Website:    http://koreatesol.org/gwangju

Email:        gwangju@koreatesol.org

Twitter:      @GwangjuKOTESOL

__________________________________________