Perceptions of Co-Teaching as Shaped by Differing Educational Discourses

Jesse Balanyk 33

Perceptions of Co-Teaching as Shaped

by Differing Educational Discourses

Jesse Balanyk

Zayed University (United Arab Emirates)

Abstract

In Korean public schools, native speaker English teachers (NSETs) and Korean English teachers (KETs) are jointly responsible for teaching English, a situation called co-teaching. Because of their different back-grounds, NSETs and KETs possess different educational discourses. The research presented here aims to reveal the educational discourses of NSETs and KETs and how these two discourses differ. Furthermore, this article aims to examine how the differing discourses of NSETs and KETs shape perceptions of co-teaching. This research used a qual-itative discourse analysis approach to examine the educational discourses of five NSETs and five KETs. By examining the differing understandings of five objects of educational discourse, clear differences in educational discourse between NSETs and KETs are illuminated. This research shows that KETs and NSETs understand the educational environment they share in very different ways due to significant differences in how objects are defined within their educational discourses. Furthermore, differences in perceptions of co-teaching are rooted in discursive differences. More research based on these findings may suggest ways to increase mutual understanding between NSETs and KETs. Keywords: discourse, cultural differences, co-teaching, native speaker

English teachers, Korean English teachers

I. Introduction

This article describes the results of a qualitative study into the differing discourses of native speaker English teachers (NSETs) and Korean English teachers (KETs) who were teaching in public schools in Seoul,

34 Perceptions of Co-Teaching as Shaped

South Korea. In South Korea NSET programs have received a large degree of institutional support. Since the mid-1990s a national pro-gramme, English Program in Korea (EPIK) sponsored by the Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, as well as smaller local programs such as Gyeonggi English Program in Korea (GEPIK) managed by the Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education and English Teachers in Seoul (ETIS) managed by the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education have placed thousands of NSETs in South Korean Public schools. The stated purpose of these programs is to raise the communica-tive competence of South Korean public school students. These programs represent a significant government investment in English education in South Korean public schools.

The working situation of NSETs working in the Korean public school system differs from KETs. Importantly, NSETs are classified as assistant teachers. The Korean government requires all public school teachers to possess a degree in education and pass a standardized pro-fessional examination before becoming certified teachers. NSETs do not meet these requirements and therefore are classified as assistant teachers who are not permitted to teach students alone. Therefore an NSET must teach all of his or her classes in the presence of a KET, a situation defined as co-teaching. Co-teaching of a similar type exists in various other educational settings in Asia including China, Hong Kong, Japan, and Taiwan. Several studies identify cultural differences as a source of conflict between foreign native English speaking teacher and local English teachers as well as between foreign teachers and local students in these contexts (Basturkmen, 2012; Butler, 2005; Carless, 2006; Carless & Walker, 2006; Chen & Cheng, 2010; Ma, 2012; Herbert & Wu, 2009; Jeon, 2009; Kim, 2010; Wang, 2012). Cultural differences between NSETs and KETs have also been mentioned in several studies of these programs in South Korea specifically (Ahn et al., 1998 as cited in Carless, 2006; Choi, 2001 as cited in Carless & Walker, 2006; Chung et al.,1999 as cited in Kim, 2010; Kwan, 2000 as cited in Carless, 2006). However, no previous research has attempted to specifically outline the precise nature of these differences.

The goal of the research presented here was to examine the educational discourses of NSETs and KETs that inform the educational under-

Jesse Balanyk 35

standings of each group. The study also aimed to examine how differences in educational discourses affect teacher perceptions of English education in Korea in general.

Through the application of poststructuralist discourse theory to an analysis of actual responses of KETs and NSETs, it is possible to illustrate how so-called cultural differences are actually a manifestation of differences in educational discourses. By situating differences between NSETs and KETs in the discursive domain, this research provides a framework that teachers can use to learn how the other group understands the situations and environments they share without resorting to essential-ized descriptions of the other.

II. Previous Research

Atkinson (1999) describes two uses of the term culture that are relevant to ELT: the received view of culture that sees culture(s) as “geographically distinct entities, as relatively unchanging and homoge-nous, and as all-encompassing systems of rules or norms that substantially determine personal behaviour” and nonstandard views of culture which have been influenced by postmodernist thought and have been used to describe and call into question more traditional views of culture (p. 626–627). Kubota (1999, 2003, 2009) is critical of the received view of culture and its essentialized conception of cultural groups in second language teaching research. Alternatively, Kubota (2003) suggests that teachers should treat culture as something constructed and defined by discourse. As such, Kubota (2009) argues that culture should not be treated as a neutral and objective fact but rather that cultural differences should be treated as socially, politically and historically produced.

Gee (1999) describes discourse as “a socially accepted association among ways of using language, of thinking, feeling, believing, valuing and of acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group” (p. 144). Similarly, Scollo (2011) defines discourse as “the system of ideas, beliefs and values expressed, reflected and constituted in and through linguistic and nonlinguistic activity” (p. 20). Therefore by examining discourse one can illuminate the frame-


work individuals use to speak, think, feel, believe and value. By examining the discourse of members of a particular cultural group one can make some generalizations about other members of that group and identify systematic ways in which their discourse differs from the discourse of another group. However, when examining culture as constructed by discourse it is also important to keep in mind that even though some generalization is possible, diversity always exists within a discourse and all discourses are dynamic (Kubota, 2003).

Problems caused by cultural differences between NSETs and local English teachers have been reported in various contexts throughout Asia. Butler (2005) reports that in Japan differences in perceptions of what constitutes good classroom harmonization may lead to disagree-ments between local and foreign English teachers in team-teaching context. In Taiwan, Chen and Cheng (2010) give examples of cultural differences manifesting in differing expectations of student conduct and of classroom management responsibilities of the teacher as well as the role of the school administration in managing student behaviour. Ma (2012) reports that in Hong Kong foreign teachers’ lack of under-standing of their students culture may lead to an inability to build relationships with their students which can ultimately manifest in class-room management problems. In China, Cortazzi and Jin (1999) point out that western teachers complain that Chinese students are overly passive and unwilling to ask questions (as cited in Herbert & Wu, 2009). Cortazzi and Jin (1999) also point out that western teachers are unaware that Chinese students may feel that asking questions is a waste of their classmates’ and may result in them losing face (as cited in Herbert and Wu, 2009). Furthermore, Anderson (1993) argues that Chinese students have a negative view of western teachers because they emphasize communication rather than linguistic knowledge (as cited in Herbert &Wu, 2009). Liu and Zhang (2007) support this con-tention by showing that Chinese students feel they learn more in classes taught by Chinese English teachers (as cited in Herbert & Wu, 2009).

In South Korean Public schools specifically, Ahn et al. (1998) and Kwon (2000) both reported cultural differences causing conflict between NSETs and KETs in Korean Public Schools (as cited in Carless, 2006). Choi (2001) blamed cultural differences for a lack of cooperation between

Jesse Balanyk 37

KETs and NSETs (as cited in Carless &Walker, 2006). Furthermore, Chung et al. (1999) suggest that NSETs understandings of education was incompatible with the Korean education system (as cited in Kim, 2010). However, despite the many instances of cultural differences being blamed for problems in co-teaching programmes across Asia, the actual nature of these cultural differences has not been systematically described. Where limited descriptions of cultural differences are reported, the de-scriptions are often based on anecdotal evidence or rely on essentialized notions of culture. The research presented below aims to rectify this by presenting an outline of the actual cultural differences manifested by NSETs and KETs.

III. Methods

This research included ten participants, five NSETs and five KETs. For the purposes of this study a NSET was someone hired as a native speaker English teacher by the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education (SMOE). To be eligible for employment as an NSET by the SMOE, one must hold a passport from one of seven countries that are defined by the South Korean immigration office as countries where English is the primary language. These countries include: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. One must also possess at minimum of a Bachelor’s degree in any subject. The researcher met potential participants through various work-related events and presented many NESTs and KETs with a recruitment letter. The voluntary self-selection of the actual participants suggests that they were particularly interested in English education in Korea in general and co-teaching in particular and were keen to share their own experiences with co-teaching. As such the actual participants may represent a particularly interested and engaged portion of the general NSET and KET population. Additionally, self-selection of KET partic-ipants suggests that the actual participants in this research were comfort-able enough conversing in English to participate in a research project conducted primarily in English.

The NSET participants in this research had citizenship from four


countries: Australia, Canada, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. NSET participants’ age ranged from 25 to 39, but four out of five were under 30 years old. All NSET participants had more than two years teaching experience in total with a minimum of 10 months teaching experience in Korea. Excluding the one participant with less than one year of teaching experience in Korea, the other four NSETs had an average of three years teaching experience in Korea. Of the five participants, three were currently teaching at the middle school level and two were teaching at the elementary level. None of the participants’ first undergraduate degrees were in education and only one was in a field directly related to English. Additionally, one participant reported having an English teaching qualification (a TEFL certificate), one participant had attended teacher’s college following undergraduate studies and was also currently working on a master’s degree in elementary education and another participant was currently working toward an education degree. Three of the five NSET participants had experience teaching English outside Korea and one of those participants had a year of experience as a regular subject teacher in their home country.

A KET, for the purposes of this study, is a Korean citizen who is qualified to teach in public schools in Korea and who was currently employed by the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education. In order to become a qualified teacher in Korea individuals must graduate from approved teaching training universities and acquire a teaching certificate from the Korean government (Jo, 2008). For the purposes of this study a KET must also have been currently co-teaching with an NSET at the time of their participation in this research. Therefore for the purposes of this research it is possible that an individual may be classified as a KET even if one is not a subject-specific English teacher, provided that person teaches English as part of his or her regular duties as a teacher and also was currently working with an NSET at the time of participation.

The Korean English teacher participants were generally older, more experienced and more educated than the Native speaker English teacher participants. The age of the KET participants ranged from 28 to 49. In contrast to the NSET participants all but one KET were older than 30 years of age. The KET participants’ teaching experience ranged

Jesse Balanyk 39

from 4 to 20 years, with an average of 11.4 years of teaching experience across all five participants. All participants were currently living and working in the Seoul area at the time of research. Two KET participants were teaching at the elementary level, two at the middle school level and one at the high school level. All interviews were conducted in English even though the option of an interpreter was offered to KET participants. This suggests that all KETs who were reasonably proficient and comfortable conversing orally in English. Therefore, the overall level of English proficiency among the KET participants in this research may me higher than among the wider KET population.

Methodology

Each participant independently was met with for between one and two hours. After briefly explaining the nature of the research and obtaining informed consent, each participant was asked to complete a personal information sheet with some details about their educational experiences. Each participant also completed a 20-statement Likert questionnaire. A Korean translation of the questionnaire was provided for KET participants. The questionnaire’s statements were designed to gauge the participants’ understandings of five objects of educational discourse selected by the researcher: ‘teaching’, ‘learning’, ‘teachers’, ‘students’, and ‘education’. These objects were selected because of they are funda-mental aspects of any teacher’s educational discourse and despite being uncontroversial on the linguistic level (both KETs and NSETs can agree who a student is) are also likely to manifest culturally embedded differ-ences at the discursive level. In addition, the questionnaire was designed to measure their understandings regarding the teaching of English in Korean public schools and the respective roles of each group in English teaching in general and co-teaching specifically. Because no study of cultural differences based on discursive objects had been previously undertaken the researcher designed an original questionnaire (Appendix A). Multiple statements designed to evaluate understandings of each object of educational discourse were included to ensure reliability.

Following the questionnaire each participant completed an interview that lasted from about 45 minutes to about 1 hour and 30 minutes.


The interviews were semi-structured and followed a common interview guide (Appendix B). All interviews were conducted in English; all KET participants chose to participate in the interview in English even though the option of an interpreter was offered. The interview was divided into two parts of roughly equal length: the first part dealt directly with the five objects of educational discourse and the second dealt specifically with teaching English in Korea and the roles of the KETs and NSETs teaching in Korean public schools, including respective roles while co-teaching. I allowed the participants a fair degree of flexibility to lead the conversation. Nevertheless, I ensured that each participant clearly articulated their understanding of the five elements of educational discourse and their views of KETs and NSETs in English teaching in Korean public schools.

IV. Results and Analysis

I analyzed the questionnaire data to form statements that present the overall trend indicated by the responses from each group. To analyze the interviews I selectively transcribed the interview data by selecting the significant elements of the interviews from the audio recording or from my interview notes and organized it into categories corresponding to the five objects of educational discourse and roles of NSETs and KETs in English education in Korean public schools. I then qualitatively analyzed the data to map out the general understanding of the objects of educational discourse exhibited by each group overall. In order to do that I define two participants responding either “agree” or “strongly agree” to a statement as partial agreement; three participants responding either “agree” or “strongly agree” as overall agreement; four participants responding either “agree” or “strongly agree” as general agreement; and all five participants from one group responding either “agree” or “strongly agree” as full agreement. I used the same structure for responses of “disagree” or “strongly disagree”. Where three or more participants within one group exhibited similar discursive formations, I attributed those formations to the discourse of the group as a whole. Where there was a situation where there was partial, overall or general agreement

Jesse Balanyk 41

but with a single participant responding in the opposite way than the others I called that agreement (or disagreement) with dissent.

My goal was to map out the general and shared educational discourse exhibited by each group. Nevertheless I remained aware that each in-dividual possesses a unique individual discourse that might differ from the discourse exhibited by the group to which they belong as a whole. With this in mind, I note discontinuities within groups when significant. In the following analysis, direct quotes from individual participants are presented when they represent the discursive model exhibited by the group to which they belong. In cases where there is significant discursive dissonance within a group I present quotes that represent all significant understandings. Therefore the quotes presented should be understood as representative of the discursive model of the group as a whole with significant intra-group discursive dissonance highlighted when appropriate.

Teaching and Learning

There was full agreement across both groups with the statement “Learning is most effective when it occurs through student action”, Q15 on the questionnaire. Table 1 below shows the KETs’ questionnaire responses and Table 2 shows the NSETs’ responses.

In contrast to the unanimity displayed in KET and NSET responses to Q15 of the questionnaire, during the interview, members of each group exhibited distinctly different understandings of ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’ as well as distinctly different concepts of how those objects relate. When asked the open-ended question “What’s the best way to learn something new?” all five KET participants described a situation involving a teacher and a student. When asked the same question, only one NSET talked about teachers, the other four described a process of independent learning. This indicates that in the KET educational discourse ‘learning’ is always connected to ‘teaching’ whereas for NSET ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’ are separable and independent objects.

There was also a significant difference in how the participants de-scribed what was being learned in their hypothetical descriptions. For NSETs, when describing the process of learning something new, four


out of five participants described a process of learning a new skill, learning to do something. Only one NSET participant discussed learning as “building a bank of knowledge”. In contrast, no KET described learning as the learning of a skill. Even when they spoke specifically about learning English it was characterized as the learning of knowledge of English rather than learning the skill of using English.

TABLE 1Questionnaire Responses: KETs

Strongly Agree Agree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

Q1 2 3 0 0 0

Q2 0 0 2 3 0

Q3 0 4 1 0 0

Q4 0 1 2 2 0

Q5 0 4 0 1 0

Q6 0 1 2 2 0

Q7 0 0 2 3 0

Q8 0 0 2 2 1

Q9 0 1 2 2 0

Q10 3 2 0 0 0

Q11 0 1 0 2 2

Q12 0 3 1 0 1

Q13 3 1 0 1 0

Q14 2 3 0 0 0

Q15 2 3 0 0 0

Q16 3 1 1 0 0

Q17 2 0 2 1 0

Q18 0 1 2 2 0

Q19 0 1 0 4 0

Q20 1 2 1 1 0

Jesse Balanyk 43


Neither Agree nor Disagree


Q1 1 4 0 0 0

Q2 2 0 2 1 0

Q3 0 1 2 2 0

Q4 1 3 1 0 0

Q5 0 2 1 2 0

Q6 0 2 2 1 0

Q7 0 0 0 2 3Q8 0 0 1 3 1

When describing the most effective learning activities, the NSET described activities involving group work and active student participation. When asked to describe the most effective learning activities, only two KETs described an activity that involved active student production, games and a role-play. Two other KETs who responded described activ-ities that required more passive participation on the part of their students such as watching presentations, memorization, translation or reading together as a class. Only one of the activities mentioned by a KET required students to produce novel statements in English. In all the other examples the language in the lesson was presented to the student to be learned; the student was not expected to produce language. One KET said overtly, “I don’t like activities. I just like [student] concen-tration” a method the participant thought was “very effective”. A KET participant noted discord between NSETs and KETs regarding preferred teaching activities:

As you know in the Korean education system we have curriculum, we have a textbook. Sometimes, even if we don’t like the textbook we should teach it.… And I think foreign teachers want to give more freedom to students. They prefer to get the students involved in class. Sometimes Korean teacher might think it’s too noisy. But native teachers think it’s better than just memorize this, and repeat this.

TABLE 2NSET Questionnaire Responses


Q9 0 0 1 1 3

Q10 1 4 0 0 0

Q11 0 0 1 3 1

Q12 1 3 1 0 0

Q13 1 2 2 0 0

Q14 1 2 1 1 0

Q15 0 4 1 0 0

Q16 0 0 2 3 0

Q17 0 2 1 2 0

Q18 1 0 1 2 1

Q19 1 2 1 1 0

Q20 3 2 0 0 0

The analysis showed that in NSET discourse ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’ are related yet separable objects. ‘Learning’ is more often described as the learning of a skill rather than the learning of knowledge. In NSET discourse active student participation is more effective in learning than passive student participation. This is related to the concept that learning can be an individual process and that the teacher’s role is that of a learning facilitator as well as the belief that learning is about learning a skill, learning to do something. Within NSET discourse learning to do something requires active participation on the part of the learner. One NSET participant explained her perception of the differences in teaching and learning activates in western and Korean contexts:

I think the Western system I grew up in was a lot more project-focused whereas the Korean system seems to be a system where the teachers stand and lecture and ask the questions and the students respond with the answers that the teachers have already given them. Western system seems to be, do some research, find something out and then you, or you and your group, explain it to the rest of class and explain it in such a way that other people can understand it and ask questions about it and you’ve learned not only about something but you’ve learned how to tell others about it as well.

Jesse Balanyk 45

In contrast, in KET discourse ‘learning’ is understood as the learning of knowledge. Within KET discourse the teacher is the provider of information and therefore ‘learning’ is virtually inseparable from ‘teaching’. One KET described teaching literally as “output”. Because learning is understood as the learning of knowledge and the teacher is the primary source of knowledge, active student participation in lessons is not highly valued. Within the learning-as-knowledge-transmission discursive model, teacher centered lessons with passive student partic-ipation are favoured because they are understood as the best and most efficient way to transmit the knowledge that is necessary for the students to learn. As another KET participant stated:

Usually my co-teachers want to try something which is not related to the textbook or test. NSETs try to find more about interest sometimes not academic things. They try to get more students attention so they usually provide more fun stuff but sometimes learning is not always fun. Because I think western country, I’m not sure but they are less concerned about tests or specific goals. They kind of want to guide them. But in Korea they want to show the specific results, what students learn, things like that.

However, as this NSET articulated, he was indeed concerned about specific goals but unsure if tests are the best measure of those goals:

The western theory of education that I have been exposed to recently says that you have to give students multiple tasks, multiple times, so that they can demonstrate what they know and what they can do over a long period of time and through multiple avenues. Whereas the Korean system is very much: here’s a single test, how well can you do? And from a speaking test point of view, when I first arrived and I was doing one-off speaking tests it was so sad to see highly skilled students bottle a single exam and you have to grade them lowly. And it’s like the student worked so hard for a whole semester, has given everything, has demonstrated fantastic improvement, great language skills, and they’re just nervous in an exam setting [and] get a low score.

The same participant went on to further articulate his view of the ultimate goal of English education, “I really like the idea of getting our students out into the world. Letting them use their language skills


for real purposes in real situations. ...We’ve done some really cool stuff that allows students to use their English not just practice their English.”

Teachers

The statement “it’s the teacher’s job to give students the information they need” elicited general agreement among KETs. This further suggests that KETs see the role of a teacher as an information provider. In contrast, among NSETs there was partial disagreement with dissent to the same statement and general disagreement with the statement “good teachers always tell their students the right answers”. This demon-strates that KETs understand the role of a teacher as an information provider whereas NSETs do not. The questionnaire responses suggest that KETs and NSETs understand the object ‘teacher’ differently and the interview data provides some clues as to specifically how the object ‘teacher’ is defined differently.

When asked what qualities make a good teacher four of the five KET participants mentioned knowledge of their subject. These responses further illustrates that KETs believe that one of the significant defining factors of good teachers is their knowledge of the subject to be taught. In contrast none of the NSET participants mentioned subject knowledge as being an important quality of a good teacher, one NSETs participant even said as a good teacher “you don’t have to have all the answers”. In another example of the contrast, one NSET participant even described a bad teacher as someone who “thinks they know everything”.

When asked to describe good teachers, NSET highlighted passion for teaching as well as teaching skill or ability as the defining trait of good teachers. Two NSET participants suggested that a good teacher has to love or enjoy teaching and a third suggested that there is an “inherent gift that comes down to personality” in good teachers. Passion was an adjective that was used by two participants when describing a good teacher. The ability to motivate students, as well as the imagination and creativity required to reach every student and to help individual students overcome their individual weaknesses was also mentioned by NSET participants as qualities possessed by good teachers. Therefore,

Jesse Balanyk 47

for NSETs being a good teacher is not dependent on knowledge of the subject to be taught. Therefore, in NSET discourse a good teacher can be a successful when teaching any subject, whereas for KETs a teacher can only be a good teacher in a specific subject area where he or she possesses expert knowledge.

Students

One NSET participant described an ideal student as one who “demonstrates a willingness to learn”. This attitude is representative of the general feeling among NSETs. Others described an ideal student as having “a passion for learning” or as “not always doing everything right but [someone who] is interested and eager”. When asked to describe an ideal student, all NSETs limited their discussion to attributes relating directly to the process of learning.

In contrast, the KET participants tended to describe an ideal student in more holistic terms taking into account the student’s personality and other traits. When asked to describe an ideal student, one KET participant paraphrased a Korean saying about the perfect student: an ideal student is “intelligent, virtuous and physically healthy”. After mentioning an enjoyment of learning and studying in her description of an ideal student, one KET went on to expand her definition by including statements like “good manners to old people and her friends” and having “good character and personality” and that an ideal student “gets along with her friends”. Only one KET participant mentioned intrinsic motivation as being an attribute of an ideal student. Another KET participant described an ideal student as one who tries “to learn eagerly with interest” but then went on to explain, “it is my job to make them learn eagerly”.

This more holistic view of students is further indicated in their discussion of bad students. Three of the KET participants mentioned lack of interest or lack of attention as traits a bad student possesses. However in each case the KET went on to describe the bad student’s personality beyond that of classroom behaviour related to learning. One particular KET participant described bad students as having “bad habits”, students who “don’t get along with their friends”. The same


participant went on to state “as an elementary school teacher, I should be with students all day long, even at lunch time. Sometimes I feel like teaching culture, their manners or their attitude is much more im-portant than teaching the specific subject”. So, beyond seeing students holistically when defining good and bad students this participant saw her role as a teacher to teach the students manners and attitudes, and even felt that doing so was more important than teaching specific subjects.

None of the NSET participants described a student’s personality when discussing the traits of a bad student. NSETs described bad students who “sit there and do nothing” or who “don’t care” about the lesson. One NSET described apathy as the biggest problem to have with students and another described a bad student as someone who is “not engaged, [and] doesn’t take an active interest.” Other NSETs mentioned not being prepared for class or being late for class as significant traits of bad students. Being disruptive and inhibiting the ability for other students to learn were also mentioned as traits of a bad student.

There was some difference in the understanding of the root cause of students being good or bad among KETs. One KET attributed their traits to their family or social background and believed that it was possible for bad students, with their teacher’s help, to overcome their background but that it was very difficult. Another KET suggested their youth was the deciding factor in students being bad and said, “I think when they grow up they will be a good person, a good student”.

No NSET discussed the root cause of good or bad students beyond the classroom. Some attributed bad behaviour with a clash between individual students and individual teachers, suggesting that the same students can manifest bad traits with one teacher and good traits with another. Another NSET suggested peer pressure as a cause of bad behaviour but also mentioned that the teacher’s influence was significant in controlling the bad behaviour of some in order to prevent its spread from a few bad students to the class as a whole.

When discussing the root of bad students within KET discourse, student badness tended to be attributed to factors intrinsic to the students such as social background or youth whereas within NSET discourse student badness tended to be attributed to situational factors such as influential teachers or peer pressure. This suggests that KETs believe

Jesse Balanyk 49

that students are defined primarily by their intrinsic traits whereas NSETs believe that actual behaviour as influenced by situational factors is the most significant factor in defining students.

Education

Corresponding to KET discourse that defines ‘teaching and learning’ as the transmission of knowledge from teacher to student there was general agreement with dissent to the statement “The purpose of education is to give students information they need to know.” In contrast NSET response to the same statement was split. However, corresponding to the NSET belief that ‘teaching and learning’ is directed toward the development of skills in the student, there was general agreement among NSETs with the statement, “The purpose of education is to teach students the skills they need to have”. KET responses to the same statement elicited overall agreement suggesting a multifaceted understanding of ‘education’ in KET discourse.

In order to examine in greater detail how the object of ‘education’ is defined in the discourses of KET and NSET I asked two questions, “What should be the purpose of education?” and, “What is the purpose of education?” There was a clear divergence between the responses of KETs and NSETs especially when the participants were discussing what the purpose of education should be.

When asked about the purpose of education a KET participant pointed to the back of the classroom where a banner read, “We’re learning to live together” in English. In that participant’s opinion those five words accurately summed up the purpose of education. Other KETs expressed similar understandings of the purpose of education. One KET said,

I don’t think teachers teach only knowledge, not only information. I think we can teach good values or good thoughts through the knowledge, through the information. Otherwise students don’t need to come to school. They can read books and find information and find information in books. They can get information through the Internet so they don’t need to come to school. But when they come to school they can learn from their teacher and from their classmates.


Other KETs responded by saying “the purpose of education is to make them know how to live right life. ...If they don’t have right thinking they can’t be happy”. Significantly, only one KET talked about learning skills as part of what the purpose of education should be.

NSETs had a different view of what the purpose of education should be. NSETs thought the purpose of education should be “teaching students how to learn”, to “teach students how to think for themselves”, to “open their minds to what they want to be in the future”, and to “step outside the basic questions and find information for themselves”. Only one teacher mentioned a social purpose for education stating that the purpose of education should be “to arm students with the skills and knowledge to be effective members of society and the leaders of to-morrow” and that education should be “both academic and social”. So, NSET participants saw the purpose of education as to teach students to be able to think and learn on their own. In general NSETs did not include a moral, ethical or social purpose in their explanation of what the purpose of education should be.

Again the holistic-specific divide was manifest in the differing re-sponses of the NSET and KET participants. Within KET discourse the purpose of education is holistic and should be aimed at developing moral and ethical people, people who can get along together. In contrast, within NSET discourse education should be geared toward developing individual students’ ability to think for themselves, to learn independently and to think critically. Within NSET discourse, education should be aimed at providing students with the skills and knowledge to be successful in life. In this way, within NSET discourse, education should provide a pragmatic service to individual students rather than a moral or ethical education with a collective social purpose.

When asked what they felt the purpose of education is, four of five KETs agreed that in Korea a second purpose of education is to get good scores on tests, especially the university entrance exam at the end of high school. Of those four, two explicitly stated that the actual purpose of education interferes with their personal teaching philosophy.

When asked the same question there wasn’t any unanimity in the understanding of what the purpose of education actually is among NSETs,

Jesse Balanyk 51

but the diverse responses do suggest a somewhat composite understanding. Generally NSETs, speaking specifically about education in Korea, agreed with the KET participants arguing, “education is about passing levels or passing tests” and “preparing students to get good test scores”. A NSET went so far as to suggest that, “in Korea, I think [students] are given the questions. They’re given the answers. They are not taught how to think and that’s their biggest problem”. Such a statement is indicative of a general belief that the actual purpose of education in Korea is at odds with what education should be, as defined by the NSET educational discourse. Defining the Korean educa-tion system’s “biggest problem” as a failure to teach students to think illustrates the dissonance between the NSET discursive model that sees learning, and education by association, as a skills-building endeavour and the perceived reality of the Korean public education system which is understood to be based on memorization of knowledge with the purpose of preparing students to pass tests. This sentiment is echoed by another NSET participant who suggested that the Korean education system has an “over reliance on the exam system” which this participant found “highly disturbing”.

Differing Discourses

The most striking and significant overall divergence of discourse between native speaker English teachers and Korean English teachers is the contrast between the specific, local and individual way the objects and concepts of educational discourse are conceptualized in NSET educa-tional discourse compared to the more holistic way the same objects are conceptualized in KET discourse.

When discussing ‘learning’ and its relationship to ‘teaching’, NSETs highlighted a learners’ capacity for independent learning of skills whereas KETs highlighted the learning of knowledge with active participation of a teacher. Because NSETs define learning as something that can be accomplished independently, the role of the teacher is understood as being a learning facilitator. Furthermore, NSETs primarily define learning as the learning of skills; ‘learning’ in the NSETs’ discursive model, requires active participation on the part of the student with


passive or even no participation from a teacher. On the other hand, KETs define learning as something that ideally occurs between a teacher and a student. Therefore in KET educational discourse the teacher inhabits a central position in the process of learning; because learning is defined as the learning of knowledge and knowledge is possessed by the teacher, who ideally is expert in the subject at hand, the student’s role is to be a passive vessel for accepting the knowledge which is actively provided by the teacher.

These significant differences in educational discourse affect how both KETs and NSETs understand their own role and the role of the members of the other group in co-teaching. The differing educational discourses of NSETs and KETs also create differing understandings of the system of English education in Korean public schools.

English Education in Korea

All five KETs participants expressed a belief that developing commu-nicative competence should be the primary goal of English teaching in Korea. This seems to run counter to KETs’ discursive concept of teaching and learning which is built around teaching and learning as related to knowledge impartation, not skill development. One KET partic-ipant linked the goal of communicative competency to the hiring of native speaker English teachers to work in Korean public schools. This can be seen as an attempt to rectify the participant’s discursive under-standing of ‘learning’ as knowledge impartation with the participant’s belief in the goal of teaching English as building communicative competency. By passing the responsibility of building communicative competency to native speaker English teachers, this KET participant is able to accommodate both beliefs that communicative competency, a skill, is the goal of English education in Korean public schools and that learning is knowledge impartation, a role which is filled by the KET.

An interesting attempt to accommodate the discursive concept of ‘learning’ as knowledge impartation with the belief that increasing com-municative competency is the goal of English class was expressed by one KET participant. When describing the best method to teach English

Jesse Balanyk 53

as a foreign language in Korea the participant explained a personal goal for the classes when the KET is teaching students alone: to enable students to talk freely in English with their NSET. In the participant’s opinion, “memorizing is a kind of way to speak freely with native [speaker English teachers].” The participant wants to “give them more vocabulary, more sentences they can use when they talk with [their native speaker English teacher].” In other words, the participant expressed a belief that through memorization in KET classes, a direct manifestation of the concept of learning as knowledge impartation, students will gain the capacity for interaction with the native speaker English teacher. The same participant further believes, through interaction with the NSET during co-taught periods, students’ communicative competency will improve. In this way, the participant elegantly rectified any discursive dissonance she may have felt between the somewhat competing concepts of learning as knowledge impartation and the perceived goal of English education, which is the building of communicative competency.

The other KET responses to the question about the best method of teaching English generally focused on providing exposure to English such as having the students “listen and read a lot.” Among KET partic-ipants there was overall agreement that exposure to English is an effective method of teaching English. Only one KET participant expressed a belief in some form of student language production as the best method of teaching English; the participant expressed a belief that the government should change the English curriculum to focus more on writing. Interestingly, even though communication was universally expressed as the ultimate goal of English teaching in Korea, no KET participants suggested that productive communication activities should be part of their lessons. Their responses suggest that they believe it is not necessary to practice communicative skills specifically. This corresponds to KETs understanding of ‘learning’ as knowledge absorption. Apparently, KETs believe that communication requires a base of knowledge and with the appropriate base of knowledge, communication ability will come naturally.

In contrast with the KETs’ responses, NSETs’ responses foregrounded an “interactive classroom” or “interactive learning” as the best method for learning English. This indicates that for NSETs interaction was


the most significant aspect of effective language teaching. This corre-sponds with the NSET discursive concept of learning as occurring through student action. A belief in learning occurring through student action is also evidenced in NSETs’ descriptions of their typical lessons which they ideally described as involving active student participation. Active student participation is considered more important than transferring or developing knowledge of English and, in direct contrast to the KET participants, NSETs seem to believe that knowledge of the language will develop naturally through its use.

Furthermore, the NSET participants believe that building of con-fidence or knocking down of inhibition as well as the creation of excite-ment among students is also part of the process of building communicative competence and is also understood as a separate and distinct goal of English classes. Significantly, the NSET participants who mentioned building excitement, motivation or confidence as goals of English class mentioned those goals before or gave more weight to them than they did to the building of communicative competency. One NSET participant even suggested that the students’ inhibition “is what is holding them back”. This is evidence of dissonance between NSET teachers under-standing of ‘learning’ as skill building and the perceived inability of Korean students to learn actively, which was also mentioned in other sections of the interview by several NSET participants. Korean students’ perceived preference for passive learning is considered an obstacle which students must overcome by the NSET participants in this study. Such a characterization is easily understood in light of the discursive model of NSETs, which defines learning as ideally coming though student action.

Even though KETs did not express a belief in student interaction or actual communication as the best method of teaching English as a foreign language in Korea, they nevertheless do understand communica-tion as an essential aspect of developing communicative competency. This is evidenced by their responses to my question about the purpose of having native speaker English teachers in Korean public schools. Four KET participants said that the purpose of NSETs was to give students the opportunity to communicate in English. For KETs, NSETs are a way to accommodate their belief in the importance of developing

Jesse Balanyk 55

communicative competency within their understanding of learning as knowledge impartation. This also suggests that KETs don’t see themselves as capable of playing the role of communicative partner for their students. Thus, for KETs the role of NSETs in Korean public schools is to communicate with the students and in so doing to compensate for a specific perceived shortcoming of KETs.

The role of KETs as understood by KETs is largely determined by their discursive formation of the objects ‘teachers’, ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’ and the concepts that link them. In KET educational discourse an ideal teacher has perfect knowledge of the subject to be taught. In KET educational discourse learning is understood as a process of knowledge accumulation facilitated by a teacher who already possesses the knowledge the students must accumulate. Thus, KETs see their role as an information provider and see NSETs as a communicative partner for the students.

NSETs also saw their own purpose as providing a model of the natural use of the language, including exposing the students to various accents. Another important purpose of NSETs as understood by NSETs is bringing Western teaching methods to the Korean public school classroom. It is important to note that generally when discussing teaching methods NSETs expressed a belief in the superiority of Western pedagogy. Two participants even expressed their hope that through their influence Korean educational practices could be reformed and made more similar to Western teaching techniques. Such a change would be nothing but beneficial in the view of these two NSET participants.

V. Conclusion

Due to discursive differences KETs and NSETs inhabit different educational worlds even when they share the same classroom at the same time. The differences between the understandings of the objects of educational discourse described above are typically not consciously recognized as being different by NSETs and KETs who teach together. When there is no awareness of differences in understandings people will naturally assume the other party’s understandings are identical


to one’s own (Chomsky, 2000). In situations where individuals’ under-standings are different but those individuals are unaware of these differ-ences they are not able to comprehend how others think differently than oneself. In such cases misunderstanding between members of differ-ent groups will inevitably result. The resulting misunderstandings be-tween NSET and KET are often attributed to “cultural-differences”, an ill-defined term which rests on essentialized conceptions of cultures. Such a characterization of misunderstandings as based on cultural differ-ences is not heuristic.

This research avoids essentialized views of culture by analyzing cultural differences as a result of differences in educational discourse. This research is descriptive rather than prescriptive; conclusions are drawn from ideas expressed in the participants own words. This research is able to make generalizations about how members of each group understand education differently without any reference to an external, prescriptive, essentialized culture. By highlighting the differences in educational discourse between KETs and NSETs, this research suggests that by building awareness of the discursive differences it is possible to increase inter-group understanding.

References

Atkinson, D. (1999). TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly, 33(4). 625-654.

Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System, 40(1), 1-14.

Butler, Y. G. (2005). Comparative perspectives towards communicative activities among elementary school teachers in South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. Language Teaching Research, 9(4), 423-446.

Carless, D. R. (2006). Good practices in team teaching in Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong. System, 34(3), 341-351.

Carless, D. R., & Walker, E. (2006). Effective team teaching between local and native-speaking English teachers. Language and Education, 20(6), 463-477.

Jesse Balanyk 57

Chen, W. C., & Cheng, Y. (2010). A case study on foreign English teachers’ challenges. System 38(1), 41-49.

Chomsky, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gee, J. P. (1999). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses, critical perspectives on literacy and education. New York: Routledge.

Herbert, P. & Wu, C. H. (2009). Cultural diversity in the classroom: Shortcomings and successes of English co-teaching programs in East Asia. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 14(1), 55-64. Retrieved fromhttp://zif.spz.tu-darmstadt.de/jg-14-1/docs/Herbert_Wu.pdf/

Jeon, M. (2009). Globalization and native English speakers in English programme in Korea (EPIK). Language, Culture and Curriculum, 22(3), 231-243.

Jo, S. (2008). English education and teacher education in South Korea. Journal of Education for Teaching: International research and pedagogy, 34(4), 371-381.

Kim, M. (2010). A narrative inquiry of a Korean English teacher's first journey through co-teaching. English Teaching, 65(4), 179-207.

Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implication for applied linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 9-35.

Kubota, R. (2003). Critical teaching of Japanese culture. Japanese Language and Literature, 32(1), 67-87.

Kubota, R. (2009). The politics of cultural difference in second language education. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 1(1), 21-39.

Ma, L. P. F. (2012). Strengths and weaknesses of NSETs and NNESTs: Perceptions of NNESTs in Hong Kong. Linguistics and Education, 23(1), 1-15.

Scollo, M. (2011). Cultural approaches to discourse analysis: A theoretical and methodological conversation with special focus on Donal Carbaugh’s Cultural Discourse Theory. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 6(1), 1-32.

Wang, Y. I. (2012). Preparing NESTs and NNESTs for Team Teaching at the Pre-Service Level. Studies in Literature and Language, 4(1), 32-37.


Jesse Zane Samuel Balanyk Zayed [email protected]

Received: 2012-07-18Peer reviewed: 2012-10-01Accepted: 2012-11-15

Jesse Balanyk 59

Appendix A

Questionnaire

Please read the following statements and place a mark in a box to identify whether you strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree or strongly disagree with each statement.


Neither Agree

nor Disagree


1. Students learn best when they can find answers on their own.

2. Generally speaking, knowl-edge is not something you can learn from reading a book.

3. It’s the teacher’s job to give students the information they need.

4. Speaking and writing is the best way to learn a language.

5. The purpose of education is to give students in-formation they need to know.

6. A native speaker is the best language teacher, even if he or she doesn’t speak the students’ first language.

7. The most important thing about school is getting good grades on tests.

8. Good teachers always tell their students the right answers.

9. It’s possible to learn a lan-guage by only reading and listening.



Neither Agree

nor Disagree


10. It’s the teacher’s job to help the students develop their own understanding.

11. When teaching a language, it’s more important for the teacher to speak the stu-dent’s first language than to speak the target language.

12. The purpose of education is to teach students the skills they need to have.

13. Good teachers help their students find the right answers.

14. A teacher must be able to speak a language fluently in order to teach it.

15. Learning is most effective when it occurs through stu-dent action.

16. Students learn best when they are directly given the information they must learn.

17. A teacher must understand a language’s grammar in or-der to teach it.

18. The most important thing about school is learning to do things well.

19. Students are like an empty glass; they need to be filled with knowledge.

20. Students are like a seed in the ground; they need to develop their own knowledge.

Jesse Balanyk 61

Appendix B

Interview Guide

1. Part 1: Educational Discourse

1.1. Teachers: 1.1.1. Tell me about your favourite teacher from when you were in school. 1.1.2. What makes that teacher stand out in your memory? 1.1.3. In your opinion what qualities made that person a good teacher? 1.1.4. Generally speaking, what qualities make a good teacher? 1.1.5. Tell me about the worst teacher you remember having when you were

in school. 1.1.6. What makes that teacher stand out in your memory? 1.1.7. In your opinion what qualities made that person a bad teacher? 1.1.8. Generally speaking, what qualities make a bad teacher? 1.2. Students: 1.2.1. How would you describe an ideal student? 1.2.2. What makes a ‘good’ student good? 1.2.3. When you teach how do you tell which are the ‘good’ students? 1.2.4. How do the ‘good’ students behave differently from ‘bad’ students? 1.2.5. How you describe a ‘bad’ student? 1.2.6. What makes a ‘bad’ student bad? 1.2.7. Do you think it’s possible for a bad student to become a good student,

or vice versa? 1.3. Learning: 1.3.1. What’s the best way for a person to learn something new? 1.3.2. Tell me about how you like to learn. 1.3.3. Do you have an overall teaching philosophy? 1.3.4. Tell me about how you teach a typical class. 1.3.5. What kind of things do you do as a teacher? (lecture, assign group activities,

worksheets, etc.) 1.3.6. What kind of classroom activates help students learn best? (learning by

doing/active learning; learning by listening/passive learning) 1.4. Education: 1.4.1. In your opinion, what should be is the overall purpose of education? 1.4.2. What is the overall purpose if public education in general? How does

it differ from what it should be? 1.4.3. What do you feel are some good points and bad points of the Korean

public school system?


1.4.4. Have you had any experience with education outside Korea (as a teacher or a student)? If so, where, when and in what capacity?

1.4.5. If so, in what ways does that education system differ from the Korean public education system?

2. Part 2: Native Speaker Teachers and Co-teaching in Korea

2.1. EFL in Korea: 2.1.1. What should be the goal of teaching English in Korea? 2.1.2. What is the most important thing for students to learn in English class? 2.1.3. In your opinion what is the best method to teach English as a foreign

language? 2.2. Native Speaker and Native Korean English Teachers in Korea: 2.2.1. What do you think is the purpose ‘native speakers’ in Korean public

schools? 2.2.2. Generally speaking, what are the strengths and weaknesses of native

speaker English teachers? What are their weaknesses? 2.2.2.1. What is the root/cause of those strengths and weaknesses? 2.2.3. Generally speaking, what are the strengths and weaknesses of native

Korean English teachers? 2.2.3.1. What is the root/cause of those strengths and weaknesses? 2.2.4 What should be the role of native speaker teachers in the classroom? 2.2.5. What should be the role for the native Korean teacher in the classroom? 2.3. Co-teaching: 2.3.1. What is co-teaching? 2.3.2. What do you think is the potential strengths and weaknesses of co-teaching? 2.3.3. Can you describe the way you and the native Korean teacher / native

speaker teacher work together in the classroom when co-teaching? 2.3.3.1. Do you think it’s effective? 2.3.4. Ideally, how should the native Korean teacher and the native speaker

teacher work together in a co-teaching situation? 2.4. Cultural Differences: 2.4.1. In your opinion what are some cultural differences between you and

native Korean teachers / native speaker teachers in general? 2.4.2. Has there ever been any conflict or misunderstanding between you and

a native Korean teacher / native speaker teacher? 2.4.2.1. If so, can you tell me about it? 2.4.3. How do you think that native Korean teachers and native speaker teachers

think differently about education?

Jesse Balanyk 63

3. Wrap-up:

3.1. Is there anything else you feel is important to share? Feel free to discuss opinions, feelings, impressions or anything else you feel is relevant to our discussion today.

Perceptions of Co-Teaching as Shaped by Differing Educational Discourses

Documents