English-medium Instruction: What do Korean University Professors Know?

1. English-medium Instruction: What do Korean University Professors Know? 27th SLED Symposium Jaehan Park Indiana University

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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.

6. Research Questions • What are the teaching approaches and methods used by the Korean professors who teach their courses in English?  • What are their needs for support and professional development for their EMI?

7. 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)

8. Three domains of knowledge base • Teacher as learner of teaching • Teachers’ prior knowledge and background experiences are central in shaping their knowledge base. • School & Schooling • Schoolas a physical and sociocultural setting • Schooling refers to implicit elements such as underlying values and hidden curricula. • Pedagogical process • Knowledge of instructional activities, assessment and learners

9. 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

10. Participants Profile

11. 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%

12. Prof. Linguistics: Scaffolded English Immersion at Global University (GU)

13. RQ 1: Teaching ApproachesProf. 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

14. RQ 1: Teaching ApproachesProf. Linguistics – Teacher as learner of teaching Beliefs about • Role of teacher • “I want to be a guide to students in their problem-solving efforts.”

15. RQ 1: Teaching ApproachesProf. Linguistics – School & Schooling School • GU has a great English language instruction programthat 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.”

16. RQ 1: Teaching ApproachesProf. 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

17. RQ 1: Teaching ApproachesProf. 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.”

18. Prof. Design 1: Dealing with ill-defined problem in a foreign language at Global University (GU)

19. RQ 1: Teaching ApproachesProf. 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

20. RQ 1: Teaching ApproachesProf. 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.”

21. RQ 1: Teaching ApproachesProf. 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

22. RQ 1: Teaching ApproachesProf. 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.”

23. RQ 1: Teaching ApproachesProf. 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

24. Prof. Design 2: Secret Language Agreement at Global University (GU)

25. RQ 1: Teaching ApproachesProf. 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)

26. RQ 1: Teaching ApproachesProf. 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.”

27. RQ 1: Teaching ApproachesProf. 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.

28. RQ 1: Teaching ApproachesProf. 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.”

29. Prof. Music: I am learning to teach at Regional University (RU)

30. RQ 1: Teaching ApproachesProf. 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.

31. RQ 1: Teaching ApproachesProf. 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.”

32. RQ 1: Teaching ApproachesProf. Music – Pedagogical Process Am I in the right classroom? • No use of English as MoI • PowerPoint slides in both Korean and English

33. RQ 1: Teaching ApproachesProf. 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.”

34. RQ 1: Teaching ApproachesProf. Music – Pedagogical Process English Presentation Template

35. Discussion

36. DiscussionRQ 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)

37. DiscussionRQ 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

38. DiscussionRQ 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

39. DiscussionRQ 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).

40. DiscussionRQ 1 – EMI Teaching Approaches • Knowledge construction • Prof Linguistics – His belief about teacher as a guideand his training in inductive reasoningwere 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 experiencesand students’ proficiency and motivation inform how she adapts her instructional strategy.

41. DiscussionRQ 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).

42. DiscussionRQ 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.

43. DiscussionRQ 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 meaning-making systems and subjectivities”(Garcia & Wei, 2014, p. 3).

44. Thank you! • Jaehan Park • jp31@indiana.edu