Korea and South Africa: English immersion environment

[Harold Schiffman]

English Immersion Environment


By Leonie Overbeek
The current debate about the proposed policy of providing Englishimmersion classes in schools for Korean children (in other words, theyare taught only in English and all the subjects are taught inEnglish), brings back memories of the ongoing debate in my homecountry, South Africa, regarding which language a child should beeducated in.  The two camps are those who believe a child should beexposed to ideas in their mother tongue to facilitateconceptualization, and those who advocate education in the linguafranca of globalization, English. The majority of proponents of mothertongue education are generally speakers of Afrikaans.
The political history of South Africa ensured that two languages,Afrikaans and English, were the official languages of the country formore than 40 years. Afrikaans was the political language, the languageof the rulers, while English was the business and global language.After 1994 and the democratic elections, 11 languages were made``official,'' which meant that public notices, bank statements,newspapers and most especially education could be conducted in any ofthese languages.
In practice English, Zulu, Xhosa and Afrikaans remained the most used,with English far outstripping the others, and thus encroaching ontertiary educational institutions that historically were using onlyAfrikaans. It may not be well known here, but the uprising that led tothe dismantling of apartheid and the establishment of a democracywhich is still very young, was about which language pupils would beeducated in. Specifically, black students rioted in protest againstbeing forced to learn their subjects in Afrikaans.
So, as you see, I know from experience how emotive this issue is, andhow many fears it stirs up, and just how heated feelings can get whenfaced with language (and the implication of culture that it carries)and education. What I find ironic in the Korean situation is that theproposed immersion in English is something parents want ― at least itseems they want it. Why else would they spend so much money on takingtheir children to America, Australia, New Zealand or Singapore toattend an English-language school?
Surely if schools here in Korea offered the immersion experiencewithout the need for leaving the country, it would be beneficial. And,by their statements, this is exactly the issue that President-electLee Myung-bak and his incoming government are trying to address.Yet, I must agree that they are not, perhaps, addressing the issue inthe best manner. Contrary to South Africa, where teachers from alleleven language groups are educated in colleges and universities, andcould thus provide mother tongue education in any of the officiallanguages, Korean teachers are educated in Korean.
Even the teachers of English are educated using the grammartranslation method, and so their knowledge of English as a subject isgood, but their skill at presenting this subject in English lacks theability to fluently speak it, precisely because they were not immersedin English. This brings me to my own take on the main problem facingEnglish language education in Korea ― outside the classroom there isno incentive or opportunity to engage in English conversation or use.In South Africa a child who is taught English as a second languagefinds himself or herself surrounded by the language. It is in themovies, on television, on the radio, in the streets and he or she willknow at least one, probably more, children who speak it as a mothertongue.
It is the language of commerce and advertising, of interaction acrossrace and tribe, and so it takes a child less than a year to become aspeaker of the language, even if not wholly fluent. There is nosimilar situation in Korea. Unless English is made an officiallanguage, where there is a real need to use the language andunderstand it, all the educational strategies will struggle with thefact that without practice, no fluency will develop. Even if Englishis adopted as a second official language, the fact that Korea ishomogenous as far as language is concerned will still hamperconversational opportunities ― it is after all, much easier to speakthe language you know you share with your neighbor than to speak toothers in a second language.
I think before further debate is undertaken, the question about whoneeds to learn English and why should be answered. Once that is known,solutions such as the English village for those who wish to attend animmersion environment may be better suited than an across-the-boardEnglish immersion policy. And, if education does need to be reformed,the place to start would be the training centers for future teachers,to prepare them as bilingual individuals who can then go and teach thefuture generation. Finally, and most importantly, make better use ofthe skills of English speaker teachers in schools by allowing them toconduct classes solely in English, even teaching grammar in English,and remove the translation to a discretionary authority.
At least this, while not ideal, will provide children with thechallenge of having to understand the language for at least one hour aweek!The writer teaches English in Seoshin Middle School in Hwaseong,Gyeonggi Province. Born in South Africa, she has qualified and workedin fields as diverse as chemical engineering, analytical chemistry,business planning, administration and teaching ― physics, metallurgyand language. Before coming to Korea she trained TEFL students in CapeTown for nearly two years. She can be reached at lionafrica at gmail.com
 http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2008/02/137_18757.html

-- **************************************N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service toits membersand implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owneror sponsor ofthe list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members whodisagree with amessage are encouraged to post a rebuttal. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)*******************************************