I would like to welcome David Toft to our English language teaching blog today. David recently finished his MA thesis with Birmingham University and moved to Chungbok National University in Cheongju where he enjoys teaching mixed level classes. He is someone who excited about learning (a defining quality of all great teachers) and open to exploring ways to connect his faith to his teaching.
How and why did you come to teach in Korea?
I’d heard about teaching in Korea from a number of people while I was studying in the UK. Their enthusiastic stories of teaching in public and private schools really caught my attention and the promise of an international adventure (and being paid for it!) led me to apply to the EPIK program at the end of 2012. I’d finished my undergraduate degree in English Literature and post-graduate teaching qualification but I wasn’t ready to go straight back into the school system without experiencing the wider world.
Despite being an Englishman, I have no favorite football team and I don’t drink much tea – I think that made it easier to head out to Korea in February, 2013. I was placed in the small, rural town of Eumseong in Chungbuk province. My first job was as a classroom assistant in two elementary schools. While enjoying that first year of ‘countryside’ life, I met my wife and we’ve now been married for over three years. In the six years since I moved to Korea, I’ve taught in elementary schools and private academies, and I now teach a general English course at Chungbuk National University. I am enjoying the challenge of engaging with older students in large, mixed-level classes.
You recently finished your Masters thesis with Birmingham. Could you tell us about your thesis topic?
My dissertation focused on the implementation of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in Korea. Briefly put, CLT requires that the teacher builds ‘communicative competence’ by encouraging meaningful communication in the classroom- the goal is for students to be prepared for ‘real world contexts’. This is something that resonates with many teachers yet, as I found while reading and researching, the approach is not easy to put into practice.
Research reveals that Korean teachers have faced a number of barriers to CLT implementation (Li, 1998; Choi 2000; Jeon 2009). Some of these problems spring from the teachers themselves; low proficiency means that non-native teachers struggle to engage in ‘genuine’ conversational English with students and, as well as this, a lack of training has led to much confusion over what the principles of CLT actually are and how to practice them. Student motivation, over-sized classes, and grammar-focused exams make CLT seem all the more impractical.
As previous research has focused on Korean teachers in high schools, the findings are not immediately relevant to teachers like me; little research has been done from the perspective of native-English-speaking (NES) teachers in university settings. In order to explore this area, I decided to compare the beliefs of five NES teachers with their actual classroom practice of communicative principles.
In line with similar studies done in other contexts, I adopted a mixed-methods approach and divided my study according to two research questions; firstly, to what extent do teachers believe in the principles of CLT? Secondly, to what extent does each teacher practice the principles of CLT?
To what extent did the teachers you interviewed believe in the principles of CLT?
The first part of my dissertation sought to find out the extent to which the teachers agreed with CLT principles. I used Karavas-Doukas’ (1996) Likert scale to measure the teachers attitude concerning of five key characteristics of CLT; ‘group/ pair work’, the ‘importance of grammar’, ‘error correction’, the ‘role of the teacher’ and ‘learner contribution’. This was complimented by a semi-structured interview. The results of these indicated that all of the teachers held a largely positive view of CLT; although they were not totally committed to abandoning the explicit teaching of grammar, they strongly supported the use of group work. They therefore appeared to favor a ‘weak’ version of CLT.
To what extent did each of your interviewees practice the principles of CLT?
The same five key characteristics, ‘group/ pair work’, the ‘importance of grammar’, ‘error correction’, the ‘role of the teacher’ and ‘learner contribution’, were used to analyze the teachers’ actual practice. An observation scheme was used to record the structure and activities used during 50 minutes of teaching. As well as this, each lesson was recorded in order to allow transcript analyses. The results of the observation and analysis revealed that, despite the teachers’ support of CLT principles, the stated beliefs were not perfectly reflected in practice. While CLT seemed to influence certain aspects of each lesson, such as the types of questions used by the teacher, each lesson retained traditional elements. Of particular interest, only two of the five teachers incorporated group work into their teaching, all of the teachers dealt with grammar explicitly and, in every class, students were reluctant to engage audibly and meaningfully with the teacher.
While the disparity between stated beliefs and practice may be initially surprising, this corresponds with similar research done in other contexts. Some studies have suggested that the fault of this lies with the teachers and, as a consequence, more training is needed with regard to CLT implementation. Other studies have pointed to contextual barriers which make it virtually impossible to teach communicatively in certain environments. In this dissertation, I was able to identify specific barriers to CLT by closely analyzing the interview transcripts. I found that NES teachers at Korean universities complain of a number of barriers to CLT implementation; these include ‘large class sizes’, ‘a lack of motivation’ and ‘student shyness’. Consequently, more research and training is needed on how to apply these principles and encourage our students towards communicative competence. It seems that the implementation of CLT is an ongoing process in South Korean universities.
Why is the gap between what we believe about teaching and what we actually do in the classroom important?
Since a lot of time, effort and money have been spent on teacher training, creating ‘communicative’ materials, amending the national curriculum, and recruiting NES teachers, it seems very neglectful to ignore the disparity between teacher beliefs and practices. Research should continue to explore the causes of this mismatch so that teachers can be better prepared and more effective. While some have suggested giving up on CLT due to its apparent impracticalities, I believe that the participants of my study genuinely favor CLT principles. In their interviews, each teacher was able to suggest ways in which certain contextual barriers might be overcome; their proposed solutions include ‘making tasks relevant to students’, ‘telling personal anecdotes’, ‘giving students physical prompts during group discussions’, and ‘speaking with shy students individually’. Instead of abandoning communicative techniques in Korea, it seems more appropriate to conclude that a more focused and context-sensitive application of CLT principles will inevitably prove more effective. I would suggest that teachers and researchers must continue to find and share the ways in which they ‘get around’ these recognised contextual barriers.
Is there a biblical foundation for CLT?
As a Christian teacher, the way that Jesus taught his disciples is fascinating. Clearly he was authoritative and yet approachable- the disciples could approach him with their seemingly ‘silly’ questions. He was also patient and took time to explain, telling stories and giving examples, so that his students would better understand. It is also clear that Jesus recognized the importance of learning alongside others; he often divided his disciples into groups and pairs and even gave them specific tasks. I think this kind of training is something we rarely see among the general congregations in churches today- so there is something, perhaps, that the church could learn from Jesus’s more ‘communicative’, less ‘traditional’ approach.
Without overextending the importance and implications of my dissertation, over the six, intensive months of research and writing, I was reminded that it is not uncommon for Christians to notice a gap between their stated beliefs and actual practice. This is certainly the case with me; although I was raised in a Christian home and grew in Bible-knowledge, it has not been easy to share my faith. Yet, since faith without works is dead (James 2:17), we must identify those barriers which hold us back and endeavor to put our beliefs into practice- even if that seems so incremental at times.
The gap between our beliefs and actions is something we should be constantly seeking to narrow. However, while the Bible calls us to ‘work out our salvation’ (Philippians 2:12), we should do so knowing that making mistakes and learning from them is God’s ordained process of sanctification. Thankfully, our Teacher is not so ‘traditional’- He does not punish His students harshly but lovingly encourages us even when we continue to make mistakes (1 John 4:18).
______
The gap between our beliefs and actions in our faith is similar to this study of beliefs in CLT and actual classroom outcomes. We need to mindfully work towards closing the gap inside and outside the classroom. This involves reflection on what we are doing along with planning and flexibility to change the way we teach. We also need to come to a place of repentance, turning, and reliance on Christ to become more faithful doers of the God’s Word.
_____
David Toft, like many of us, is exploring ways to connect his faith to his teaching. He will be a regular contributor to this blog in 2019!
chroniclesofhopekorea 
Well said!
LikeLike