Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Heaven Snyder
C&T 598
Dr. Cho
20 June 2017
Byean
Quote:
To English teachers, linguistic skills and teaching techniques are undoubtedly important,
and the use of English in classrooms might be a good way to enhance students English
proficiency. However, the underlying assumption behind the TEE scheme is that, despite having
10 years schooling in English, students still cannot speak the language well because teachers are
not competent enough to deliver lessons using English only. The fundamental flaw here is that
by placing the blame on English teachers about students poor communicative competence, the
government appears to scratch only the surface manifestation of deeper contradictions within the
Korean educational system. It is important to note that a washback effect (I. Choi, 2008), or
teaching to the English test through first language (L1), is a consequence of competitive high-
stakes college entrance exams; in fact, it is the students who resist the TEE policy and CLT
approach by asking for teacher-oriented lessons in Korean on the ground that the two policies
may hinder them from obtaining higher test scores because the TEE makes lessons harder to
understand and activities based on CLT require more class time (J. Lee & Macaro, 2013; K. S.
Lee, 2014; Shin, 2007). More importantly, the TEE policy itself is problematic, for it does not
Snyder 2
acknowledge the importance of L1 in English learning (Auerbach, 1993; Cummins, 1992), nor
does it appreciate the expertise of multicompetent second language (L2) user professionals
Reflection:
Weve noticed in teaching the students that often theyre familiar with lower-frequency
or more complicated English words, (for instance in class I asked what rarely meant and a
student answered seldom) but they struggle to speak conversationally with us. Taking this
quote in with what I know of the college entrance exam this disparity starts to make more sense.
They are taught a great deal of English and know a lot about English to appease the standards of
this all important test but when it comes to communicative competence they havent been well
country, theyve created a test that yes, is important enough to make the populace care about it
but fails to accomplish what they actually wanted. And this, as the quote explains, really isnt the
Question:
What are the things we can do to make our students more comfortable in speaking with
us?
Snyder 3
Choi
Quote:
The majority of Korean test-takers complain about the negative backwash effects of
multiple-choice EFL tests on their learning. In other words, most of them have to improve their
test-taking strategies rather than genuine English proficiency in order to obtain the high scores
required for employment. Under the circumstances, it is no wonder that the majority of Korean
people are not equipped with adequate productive (speaking and writing) English skills in spite
of all the time, money, and energy they invest in learning the language. Pg 4 & 5
Reflection:
This quote echoes Byeans concerns and mine about the nature of testing for English in
Korea. What are teachers to do if what is important -as decided by these tests- is that students
become good test takers? Im critical of testings place in the American school system as well, I
something just by giving them a paper assessment over it. Personally I am not a great test taker, I
tend to take longer than others, I panic easily if Im unsure about what Im being tested over. So
my heart goes out to our students here that are facing a few important tests that do a lot to
Question:
Knowing testings position in Korean society and history is it fair for me (as a non-