English-medium Instruction: What do Korean
University Professors Know?
27th SLED Symposium
Jaehan Park
Indiana University
Introduction
• Gaining Increasing global popularity of English-medium
instruction (EMI) (Björkman, 2011)
• 2400 EMI programs in higher ed. in Europe (2007) (Wächter &
Maiworm, 2008)
• Rapid, extensive EMI adoption in East Asia (Kirkpatrick, 2014)
• In Korea, elite universities offer up to 50% English-medium
courses
•
Students take 4 – 5 EMI courses to graduate
Introduction
• Resulted from changes in the university ranking system
• Top-down internationalization policy to implement EMI while
language learning remains as a secondary agenda (Smit &
Dafouz, 2012).
• Students not linguistically ready for EMI
• Instructors not trained in language education
• Enforcement of its adoption without adequate support for
faculty and students (Lee, 2010).
• Suicides of students and professors
Previous Research
• Understanding perceptions (Choi & Shin, 2012; Nam & Cho, 2011;
Oh & Lee, 2010; Han, Heo, & Yoon, 2010; Eun, 2009; Park, 2006)
• Measuring student achievement in language development
and content comprehension (Hwang & Ahn, 2011; Kim & Rha, 2010;
Lee, 2010; Park, 2006)
Gap in Research
• Mixed results in EMI outcomes depending on varying
contexts
• Most research conducted outside the lecture rooms
Classroom-based research on knowledge base and needs for
EMI practitioners in Korean context is necessary.
Research Questions
1. What are the teaching approaches and methods
used by the Korean professors who teach their courses
in English?
2. What are their needs for support and professional
development for their EMI?
Theoretical Framework
Reconceptualized knowledge base of language
teacher education (Freeman & Johnson, 1998)
• Teacher learning comes from participating in the social
practice of particular classroom and school settings (Johnson,
2009)
Three domains of knowledge
base
1. Teacher as learner of teaching
• Teachers’ prior knowledge and background experiences
are central in shaping their knowledge base.
2. School & Schooling
• School as a physical and sociocultural setting
• Schooling refers to implicit elements such as underlying
values and hidden curricula.
3. Pedagogical process
• Knowledge of instructional activities, assessment and
learners
Research Method
Case study
• Participants
• 6 university professors in 4 universities in Korea
• Duration
• 7 weeks in 2012
• Data source
• Interviews, classroom observations, stimulated recall
interviews, document analysis, researcher journal-keeping,
and member checking and feedback
• Analysis
• Reconceptualized knowledge base
• Thematic analysis
Participants Profile
Areas of
Expertise
Gender
University
Age
Degree location
Yrs of
Teaching
Yrs of EMI
Experience
Linguistics
Male
Global U
Mid 40
BA, MA, Ph.D. in the
US
15
15
Design 1
Male
Global U
Mid 40
Doctoral coursework
in Korea
8
4
Design 2
Female
Global U
Early 40
MFA in the US
7
4
Industrial
Engineering
Male
Tech U
Mid 50
MS, Ph.D. in the US
23
10
Biology
Male
Metro U
Early 50
MS, Ph.D. in the US
12
4
Music Theory
Female
Regional U
Early 30
M.M. in the US
2
1
Universities
4 Universities in Korea
• Global University
• Comprehensive university known for global education
• Academically advanced – SAT score within 7%
• Tech University
• Technological/engineering university
• Academically excellent – within 1%
• Metro University
• Comprehensive university in Seoul – 20%
• Regional University – branch campus
• Comprehensive university – 50%
Prof. Linguistics:
Scaffolded English Immersion at
Global University (GU)
RQ 1: Teaching Approaches
Prof. Linguistics – Teacher as learner of teaching
Professor Linguistics
• Born in Korea & family moved to the US during high
school
• Native-like proficiency in English
• Prof. of linguistics for 15 years at GU
• Previous director of IEP
Students
• 40 students
• English major – mostly fluent in English
• A few native-speakers of English
RQ 1: Teaching Approaches
Prof. Linguistics – Teacher as learner of teaching
Beliefs about
• Role of teacher
•
“I want to be a guide to students in their problem-solving
efforts.”
RQ 1: Teaching Approaches
Prof. Linguistics – School & Schooling
School
• GU has a great English language instruction program
that focuses on production of English.
• “All students have to take placement test and, based on their
tested proficiency level, they are assigned into three different
levels. Some start from level 1 and some from level 3. It is
very hard to pass those courses and meet the graduation
requirements for English proficiency. Students who passed
our university English courses can take English-medium
courses without much problem.”
RQ 1: Teaching Approaches
Prof. Linguistics – Pedagogical Process
Not very different from American college class
• Advanced proficiency of both instructor and students
• All instruction was done in English (except jokes).
• Interaction between the instructor and students were in
English. Interaction among students were in Korean.
• Textbook, exams and handouts were in English.
• Collaborative & Constructive Learning
• Presentation of language data  co-construction of linguistic
theory (phonology)  more language data  enhancement of
understanding  collaborative problem-solving (homework &
group work)  presentation of understanding  final review
using handouts
RQ 1: Teaching Approaches
Prof. Linguistics – Pedagogical Process
Weekend Tutorial Sessions
• 1.5-hour tutorial session on Saturday
• “EMI inevitably limits students’ understanding. Therefore, I
started weekend tutorial sessions for students. GU currently
does not have an established policy for it, but I personally
have used my own TAs to lead weekend tutorial sessions.”
Prof. Design 1:
Dealing with ill-defined problem
in a foreign language at Global
University (GU)
RQ 1: Teaching Approaches
Prof. Design 1 – Teacher as learner of teaching
Professor Design 1
•
•
•
•
Born in Korea
Doctoral coursework in Korea
Self-conscious about his own English
Professor at GU for 8 years
Students
• 20 Design major students
• Less proficient in English than those in linguistics course.
• No native English-speaking students
RQ 1: Teaching Approaches
Prof. Design 1 – Teacher as learner of teaching
Belief on the nature of subject and ideal instructor
• “Design is a difficult subject to teach in a language that is not
your mother tongue. We call design ‘ill-defined problem’.
Critiquing students’ work is very important in design
education. We need to be able to say and understand specific
vocabulary and phrases that allow us to express subtle
meanings as we try to define those design problems.
Therefore, the instructor for design EMI course has to be a
design expert with very good English.”
RQ 1: Teaching Approaches
Prof. Design 1 – Teacher as learner of teaching
“My limited English hinders my teaching.”
• “Effective pedagogy is of foremost importance in my teaching,
and the way I deliver lessons and explain problems and
solutions greatly influence my students’ learning. In my case,
the problem is language. My limited English severely hinders
the way I facilitate students’ learning.”
• Dialogic co-construction of learning is limited when social
interaction happens in a second language.
• Humility and professionalism displayed through preparation
RQ 1: Teaching Approaches
Prof. Design 1 – Teacher as learner of teaching
New Identity – “I am also an English trainer.”
• “The design department now runs Summer English Institute
for our students. The university provides funding for it. Our
students have good knowledge of grammar but they don’t
know how communicate their design in English. Therefore,
our professors are training students to keep repeating
important expressions until they master them.”
RQ 1: Teaching Approaches
Prof. Design 1 – Pedagogical Process
Lecture in English & Communicate in students’
language
• He lectured in English but allowed students to use any
language they were comfortable with.
• Used Korean for summarizing, emphasizing, and clarifying
Prof. Design 2:
Secret Language Agreement at
Global University (GU)
RQ 1: Teaching Approaches
Prof. Design 2 – Teacher as learner of teaching
Professor Design 1
•
•
•
•
Born in Korea
MFA in the US
Work in the US for 5 years
Professor in GU for 7 years
Students
• 15 Design senior students
• Taking this course to fulfill graduation requirements for
EMI (over 50% of them)
RQ 1: Teaching Approaches
Prof. Design 2 – Teacher as learner of teaching
“I allow no dropouts.”
• “My class should not have any dropouts. So, I teach for the
average students. I begin with very easy tasks and gradually
raise the level of challenge to be experienced by students.
The most important point is that I should go with everyone
without a single dropout.”
RQ 1: Teaching Approaches
Prof. Design 2 – Pedagogical Process
Secret Language Agreement
• Prof. Design 2’s class had its own secrete language policy.
Based on student survey results, Prof. D made a secret
agreement about classroom language use with her students.
The agreement allowed her students to use Korean in the
classroom, but they still needed to give presentations in
English.
RQ 1: Teaching Approaches
Prof. Design 2 – Pedagogical Process
Design Communication – A new integrated course
• “We created a new course called Design Communication.
We focus on communicating design in English. We actually
have Design Communication II, which prepares students to
work as a designer in an English-speaking environment. But
the problem is because it is an elective course, not many
students are taking this course. Moreover, professors don’t
want to teach this course because they were not trained for
teaching languages.”
Prof. Music:
I am learning to teach at Regional
University (RU)
RQ 1: Teaching Approaches
Prof. Music – Teacher as learner of teaching
Prof Music
•
•
•
•
Born in Korea
Master’s Degree in the US
Young, inexperienced college instructor
Instructor of music theory for 3 semesters
Students
•
•
•
Voice majors
Most students have low English proficiency.
Not very interested in English.
RQ 1: Teaching Approaches
Prof. Music – Teacher as learner of teaching
“I am learning to Teach.”
• “My first semester of university teaching was challenging and
I received unsatisfactory teaching evaluation from students. I
used too much English and students didn’t understand me.”
RQ 1: Teaching Approaches
Prof. Music – Pedagogical Process
Am I in the right classroom?
• No use of English as MoI
• PowerPoint slides in both Korean and English
RQ 1: Teaching Approaches
Prof. Music – Pedagogical Process
Decision to teach English, instead of EMI
• “When I started teaching EMI last year, I taught only in English
and I faced great resistance. From then on, instead of using
English as a medium of instruction, I decided to teach my
students practical spoken English for musicians such as
introducing their music and themselves.”
RQ 1: Teaching Approaches
Prof. Music – Pedagogical Process
English Presentation Template
Discussion
Discussion
RQ 1 – EMI Teaching Approaches
EMI Instructional Approaches
• Classroom language
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Learning and teaching fully in English
Bilingual lecture
Allowing students to speak Korean in the classroom
Summary and important points in Korean
Post-exam review in Korean
Split class time to allow individual student attention given in
Korea
Teaching English (instead of using English as a MoI)
Discussion
RQ 1 – EMI Teaching Approaches
EMI Instructional Approaches
• Facilitate students’ learning IN the classroom
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Collaboration & Interaction
Handouts
Materials from publishers
Student survey to understand their needs
Incentives
Visual image/Multimedia
Teaching American culture
Teaching American English expressions
Using presentation template
Discussion
RQ 1 – EMI Teaching Approaches
EMI Instructional Approaches
• Facilitate students’ learning OUTSIDE the
classroom
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tutorial sessions in Korean
Office hours
Pre-presentation meeting
English expression book
Design communication
Preparing notes before presentation/critique
Summer English Camp
Collaboration with English education experts
Discussion
RQ 1 – EMI Teaching Approaches
Knowledge construction
• The professors’ constructed knowledge of EMI pedagogical
approaches were from their complex knowledge of themselves
as learners of teaching, their own contexts and students, and
pedagogy.
• They actively utilized multiple resources to maximize student’s
content (and language) learning (Butler, 2005).
Discussion
RQ 1 – EMI Teaching Approaches
Knowledge construction
•
•
•
Prof Linguistics – His belief about teacher as a guide and his
training in inductive reasoning were highly influential to his EMI.
Both his own and his students’ high proficiency in English enabled
them sole use of English as a language of learning and teaching.
Prof Design 2 – Her philosophy of education (no dropouts) led her
to negotiate classroom language use with her students. Her belief
about language acquisition and her work experience in the United
States influenced creation of Design Communication course.
Prof Music – Her previous teaching experiences and students’
proficiency and motivation inform how she adapts her instructional
strategy.
Discussion
RQ 1 – EMI Teaching Approaches
Language use in the classroom
•
“The choice of language and code-switching .... it seems that
in the classroom the teacher chooses the language of main
discourse, and the language of parallel discourses and personal
interaction is negotiated between the teacher and the
learners” Fortanet-Gomez (2013).
Discussion
RQ 1 – EMI Teaching Approaches
Negotiation of university language policy
•
•
“Educators are at the epicenter of this dynamic process,
acting on their agency to change the various language
education policies they must translate into practice” (Menken
& Garcia, 2010, p. 1).
Implementation of language policy by definition involves
policymaking, with educators acting as policymakers.
An example
•
•
University of Stellenbosch ‘code of conduct for language in
the classroom' (2008)
Classroom language use is negotiable particularly at the start
of the course.
Discussion
RQ 1 – EMI Teaching Approaches
Translanguaging as pedagogy of EMI (Hornberger & Link, 2012; Creese
& Blackedge, 2010)
•
•
“The ability of multilingual speakers to shuttle between
languages, treating the diverse languages that form their
repertoire as an integrated system” (Canagarajah, 2011, p.
401)
“A ‘trans’ approach to language and education liberates our
traditional understandings… fluid practices that go between
and beyond socially constructed language and educational
systems … to engage diverse students’ multiple meaningmaking systems and subjectivities”(Garcia & Wei, 2014, p. 3).
Thank you!
Jaehan Park
jp31@indiana.edu