Comparing the Practices of Experienced and Novice Korean English Teachers in Relation to Curricular Aims for English Education

Ian Moodie

https://doi.org/10.24303/lakdoi.2018.26.4.125

∣ Ian Moodie

Comparing the Practices of Experienced and Novice Korean English Teachers in ∣

Relation to Curricular Aims for English Education

(Mokpo National University)

Moodie, Ian. (2018). Comparing the classroom practices of experienced and novice Korean English teachers in relation to curricular aims for English education. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 26(4), 125-150. This study contributes towards understanding the classroom practices of Korean public school English teachers by introducing and applying an observation protocol which analyzes how teachers’ pedagogic activities relate to curricular recommendations for English education such as having student-centered, meaning-focused, and communicative English classes. The study included three classes each from two experienced and two novice primary school English teachers. The analysis showed that the experienced teachers’ classes were much more communicative and student-centered than the novice teachers’ classes were (e.g., 40% to 64% of class time spent on communicative activities versus 8% to 25% for the novice teachers), but that both novice and experienced teachers focused mostly on language forms rather than meaning in their lessons, and that none of the teachers used any task-based activities. The study concludes with implications and recommendations for future research based on these results.

Key Words: classroom-based research, communicative language teaching, task-based language teaching, primary schools, South Korea

1. Introduction

Although a lot of research has been done on communicative language teaching (CLT) in Asia, much of it has relied on self-reported data. Gathering data from authentic classrooms has been problematic, so there remains a question as to what teachers actually do as opposed to what they say they do.

For instance, even though teachers espouse positive beliefs about the effectiveness of CLT (Jeon, 2009; Yook, 2010; Yim, 2009), classroom-based research with Korean English teachers has shown that in-class language use is often dominated by teacher talk, and that it is often in the first language (L1) (Jeon, 2010; Kim, 2011; Nam, 2011). However, one of the biggest drawbacks with much of the prior research from Korean English classes has been the paucity of observation data and a reliance on self-reporting instruments for analyzing classroom practices. Table 1 below was created to illustrate these issues.

Table 1. Issues with Research Methods in Studies of CLT in Korea

Issue	Example Studies
Studies using only self-reporting for analyzing teachers’ beliefs and practices	Butler (2005); Guilloteaux (2004); Jeon (1997, 2009); Kim (2002, 2008); Shin (2010); Shin (2012); Yim (2009)
Studies including observations but with no longitudinal data or only a single participant	Jeon (2010) - 4 participants, 1 observation each Nam (2011) - 4 observations with 1 participant

As indicated in the table above, many studies have only used self-reporting instruments, and even those with observation data are quite limited in scope. Studies about teaching practices without observation data face credibility issues in that one cannot be certain of whether participants were familiar with CLT methods or merely mapping terms onto existing practices (Carless, 2004). Understanding what teachers actually do in classrooms has presented “a major challenge for research” (Moodie & Nam, 2016, p. 79). The current study was designed with this shortcoming in mind.

Given this, the purpose of the study is two-fold. First, because of the challenges for documenting language teaching practices, it will present a procedure and coding system for analyzing the activity types (e.g., language exercises, communicative activities, and task-based activities) and their associated interaction patterns (e.g., student-student, student-teacher) occurring in local primary school English classes. Second, it will analyze the teaching practices of experienced and novice primary school English teachers in Korea by relating their practices to the recommendations of the national curriculum, for example, regarding the degrees of student-centeredness, communicativeness, and focus on meaning that is evident in their classes. In doing so, the study will address the need for further research on the actual (as opposed to stated) classroom practices of Korean English teachers and how their practices relate to policy objectives for CLT in public schools (see Moodie & Nam, 2016).

2. Literature Review

2.1. English in the Revised Seventh National Curriculum

As readers will likely be aware, the Seventh National Curriculum (1997-present) has seen three revisions since its inception (MEST, 2007, 2009; MOE, 2015). Broadly, the English curriculum is covered by four major themes:

1) dissatisfaction with traditional teaching methods,

2) having communicative competence as the learning outcome,

3) seeing student-centered activities as an essential element of coursework, and

4) using English as the language of instruction. (Kim, 2011, pp. 226-227)

Traditional teacher-centered, grammar-translation methods were seen as being in effective, so the new curriculum promoted the importance of communicative competence in English. A major element of the reform were recommendations for CLT and task-based language teaching (TBLT), encouraging teachers to focus on meaning, use collaborative activities, and use English as the medium of instruction (Ahn, 2011; Yook, 2010). As described in a review of ELT research in Korea, “particularly, this emphasis on [CLT] and using English for classroom instruction present a major shift in how English was to be taught” (Moodie & Nam, 2016, p. 65). These changes necessitated reforming pre- and in-service teacher education, providing teachers with retraining in the new methods and opportunities for developing the English proficiency required for teaching in English.

In addition, as part of this new curriculum, English language classes were phased into primary school education for the first time, with English classes currently beginning in Grade 3. According to the curriculum, primary school students should:

1) Acquire interest in English,

2) Build confidence in basic use of English,

3) Build a foundation for basic communication in English in everyday life, and

4) Understand foreign customs and cultures through English education. (National Curriculum Information Center [NCIC], n. d.)

To meet these objectives, the curriculum includes detailed and strict directives for textbook developers regarding aspects such as the vocabulary, grammar, notions, functions, and activity types that are to be included. In addition, because primary school teachers are primarily educated for homeroom teaching, the new policy necessitated reforming pre- and in-service teacher education to prepare them to teach English. Yet, despite many investments in teacher education locally, the research shows that the reforms for English education have not been widely implemented in public school classrooms (Moodie & Nam, 2016). Before looking at the research from Korea, however, it will be helpful to see what the research has had to say about CLT in other East Asian countries.

2.2. CLT Reforms in Asia

Across Asia, many countries have undergone similar communicative-oriented ELT reforms to Korea. Below, the focus will be on selected studies from Hong Kong and Japan.

In the 1990s, Hong Kong introduced a CLT and English-only policy for public school English education. Not only was this change mirrored in Korea, the research has shown that issues for implementation were also similar. Richards and Pennington (1998) followed five first-year teachers, finding that while their beliefs initially aligned with CLT principles, they all diverged from CLT as the year went on due to factors such as exam washback, large classes with unmotivated students, and socialization from more experienced co-workers. Urmston and Pennington (2008) found that similar issues were still evident two decades later, concluding that CLT reform was unlikely to be adapted in the exam-centered Hong Kong education system (see also Littlewood, 2007; Tsui, 2003).

Research from Japan has found similar issues with CLT policy. Studies have shown how teachers face pressures to conform to traditional, teacher-centered classes; that large classes, exam washback, and insufficient training inhibit CLT; but also that teacher English proficiency is an issue (Butler, 2005). As happened in Korea, the reforms came top-down and much was left to the teachers to figure out what to do (Hiramatsu, 2005; Nishino, 2012). Because of this, many teachers have struggled with or have rejected the reforms. For instance, in a comparative analysis of primary school English teachers in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, Butler (2005) found 1) that teachers in all three countries had challenges implementing CLT due a lack of understanding about what constitutes CLT, 2) that they were uncertain about how languages are learned, and 3) that CLT contrasted to norms for education styles in all three contexts. These issues are explored further below with a focus on research from Korea.

2.3. CLT Reforms in Korea

For successful policy implementation, it is essential to understand what teachers think and do about it (Clark & Peterson, 1986). Unfortunately, as previewed above, the literature from Korea suggests that, to a large degree, teachers have not enacted the new policies for English education.

After curriculum was introduced in the late 1990s, Li (1998) discussed how the primary school teachers were worried about the new English policy. They doubted their ability to teach English communicatively, and they doubted that it was appropriate for local education, feeling that the classes were too large and that the assessments were not appropriate for CLT (i.e., with exams focusing on vocabulary and grammar). In a review of 95 studies on English education from Korea, Moodie and Nam (2016) wrote that “research since that time shows that to a large extent these concerns have not gone away” (p. 76). For instance, Jeon (2009) showed that the primary issues had remained the same 12 years after the curriculum was introduced, finding that teachers avoided CLT because of large classes, insufficient training in CLT methods, and that they lacked proper materials for CLT (cf., Jeon, 1997). In addition, teachers generally do not have experience with student-centered and communicative activities as students, which also makes implementation a challenge (Moodie, 2016). As a sub-branch of CLT, TBLT has also been found to be avoided for similar reasons (Yim, 2009). Even if teachers believe in the efficacy of CLT, the status quo of traditional, teacher-centered approaches often wins out (Ahn, 2011; Kim, 2011; Shin, 2012; Yook, 2010).

However, as described in the introduction, the paucity of classroom-based research on ELT in Korean public schools is problematic in that, despite the findings explored in this section, a question remains as to the actual—as opposed to stated—classroom practices of Korean English teachers and how those practices relate to recommendations for CLT in public schools.

2.4. The Research Questions

Given the discussion above, the impetus for this study lies in developing and presenting an instrument for documenting the in-class practices of English language teachers and relating their practices to aspects for English education evident in the national curriculum. To do so, the study will investigate the following research questions:

What are the observed practices of novice and experienced Korean primary school English teachers regarding

1) the communicativeness of their pedagogic activities,

2) the organization and instructional patterns of their pedagogic activities, and

3) the focus of their pedagogic activities?

3. Methods

The analysis uses a mixed-methods approach (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). To do so, it quantifies findings from a qualitative observation scheme developed for the study (Appendix B). The study included three observation classes each from four primary school English teachers, for a total of 12 observation classes spanning three months of data collection. In order to bring consistency across the data sets, one class for each participant came at the beginning of a textbook unit, one class came in the middle of a textbook unit, and one came at the end of a textbook unit. Doing so allowed the study to have a relatively balanced basis for describing the classroom practices of the teachers compared to previous studies.

3.1. Participants and Setting

This study took place in three primary schools in an industrial city in North Gyeongsang Province. Two schools were in a lower-socioeconomic area and one was in a middle-class neighborhood.

The participants were purposively recruited through selective and referral sampling (Miles et al., 2014). Two novice and two experienced teachers were sought who were willing to have an outside observer making frequent visits.

Four female teachers participated. All participants had four-year degrees in elementary education, and all had specialized in subjects other than English. Their teaching experience and classes used for the study are summarized in Table 2 below. (The participants are given pseudonyms.)

Table 2. Participants’ Age, Teaching Experience, and Grade Assignment

Participant	Age	Year Teaching	Year Teaching English	English Classes
Sami	Early 40s	20th	20th	Grade 5
Mia	Late 30s	16th	16th	Grade 6
Eunjeong	Mid 20s	2nd	2nd	Grade 4
Yuna	Mid 20s	1st	1st	Grade 5

Although the experienced teachers, Sami and Mia, had no undergraduate ELT training, they had extensive in-service training. Sami had taken the six-month intensive in-service English teacher training program. Mia had taken numerous Teach English in English (TEE) courses—about 400 hours in total. The novice teachers, Eunjeong and Yuna, had taken two ELT courses as undergraduates but had not had taken any in-service courses at the time of the study.

3.2. Role of Researcher

There were some procedures implemented to emphasize the importance of authenticity on the part of the teachers regarding their practices. Prior to data collection, rapport was established with participants off-site, where the nature of the research was discussed. It was emphasized that the research was not an evaluation. Participants were assured of their anonymity, and the research aims and procedures were discussed at length prior to commencing the study.

There were a number of steps followed for observing classes. First, there was a warming period prior to data collection. Participants introduced the researcher to their students before the study and they led a question-and-answer session with their students and the researcher. Students were instructed to ignore the researcher during observations. Observations were not included for the analysis until the teachers and students seemed accustomed to the researcher’s presence. The participants were explicitly asked not to plan anything special for these observation classes.

3.3. Data Collection

The observation data included video recordings of three classes per participant—one at the beginning of a textbook unit, one in the middle of a textbook unit, and one at the end of a textbook unit. In addition, supplementary data included observation reports, partial transcripts, and field notes.

The observation reports were designed to create consistency within and across cases. First, the lesson topic, page numbers from the textbook, supplementary materials and their sources, and the assigned homework were recorded. Then, the pedagogic sequences were tabled along with descriptions of the activities and procedures, the approximate times of each sequence, the language use and interaction observed, other comments, and follow-up questions for the teacher (see Appendix A). Following the observations, the reports were typed up, as were field notes written in separate notebooks. Then, the procedures were tabulated sequence-by-sequence in a spreadsheet, where a coding system was applied (see Appendix B).

3.4.1. A Typology for Describing Pedagogic Activities

The coding procedure for this study is inspired by the communicative-oriented language teaching (COLT) observation scheme (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995). Although other research from Korea has used COLT (e.g., Jeon, 2010), the present study introduces a new scheme for the following reasons. First, because COLT was originally designed for assessing French emersion education in Canada, it includes higher level features of communication in the classroom than are applicable to primary school English classes in Korea (e.g., sustained speech, language functions, focus on discourse, and focus on sociolinguistic features). Second, the current study is interested in analyzing features of the core pedagogic activities used by a teacher in class (i.e., the activity types, the organization of the activities, and the language focus of the activities), whereas the COLT is designed for analyzing interaction more so than pedagogic activities.

This study, aiming to document the practices of primary school English teachers, will do so by analyzing the teachers’ pedagogic activities across three major categories: task-based activities, communicative activities, and language exercises (see Nunan, 2004).

Task-based activity. As a sub-type of CLT, TBLT includes activities with particular features distinguishing them from more general communicative activities (Ellis, 2009; Nunan, 2004). In this regard, tasks are defined through the following descriptions:

meaning is primary,

there is some sort of relationship to the real world,

task completion has some priority, and

the assessment of task performance is in terms of outcome. (Skehan, 1996, p. 38)

Based on these criteria, the following questions are helpful for identifying tasks:

Will the activity engage learners’ interest?

Is there a primary focus on meaning?

Is there a goal or an outcome?

Is success judged in terms of outcome?

Is completion a priority?

Does the activity relate to real world activities? (Willis & Willis, 2007, pp. 12-14)

Willis and Willis assert that the more we can confidently answer in the affirmative to these questions, the more accurately we can describe a given activity as a task.

Communicative activity. These activities have a central purpose of facilitating communication in the classroom, either among students themselves, or between students and the teacher. As with tasks, communicative activities are designed “to promote interpretation, expression, and negotiation of meaning” (Kumaravadivelu, 1993, p. 12). The point of distinction, however, is the degree to which the outcomes and relations to authentic language use are priorities. To make the distinction explicit, in this study, both communicative activities and tasks might resemble role plays, information-gap activities, or surveys. However, the distinction between a communicative activity and a task would depend on how a teacher adapts them. Because these kinds of activities are not necessarily outcome-oriented—apart from finishing the activity itself—a teacher would need to clearly focus clearly task completion and its relation to real-world language use. Below, an example adapted from one of the teacher’s textbooks is given to illustrate the activity-task distinction:

Name Interest	___________	____________	____________
Music
Art
Computers
Dancing
Cooking
Writing
Sports

For this survey activity, students interview three classmates by asking if they are interested in the given topics. This provides opportunities to communicate, but it would depend on how it is administered as to whether it would be labeled an activity or a task. For example, if the teacher provided the prompts on the board, it would not be a task because the students would not be required to use their own language resources to complete it. As another example, if students were instructed to finish the survey but nothing is done with the information, and there is no feedback given or efforts to relate the information further to the real world—such as reporting the information or doing something with it such as recommending a job for a classmate—then it would be coded as a communicative activity rather than a task.

Language exercise. This category encompasses non-communicative activities, often with an emphasis on form and “lexical, phonological, or grammatical systems” (Nunan, 2004, p. 22). This includes drilling, cloze exercises, and other activities where communication is not the primary aspect.

3.4.2. Other Categories

Apart from these three mean categories, the analysis considered the following subcategories:

The activity focus, that is, whether it was primarily form-focused or meaning-focused;

the activity descriptors, which describe the activity type in more detail (e.g., dictation, role play, chanting);

the skill focus, for example, grammar, vocabulary, listening, or speaking;

the activity organization, that is, whether it was done as a full class, in groups, in pairs, or as an individual activity; and

the interactions occurring, for example, teacher talk, student-student interaction, teacher-student interaction, and so on.

Given the challenges for documenting Korean English teachers’ classroom practices (Moodie & Nam, 2016), this typology provides a systematic means of analyzing practices, giving an indication of how a teacher’s practice aligns with policy (see Appendix B for the full coding scheme).

3.5. Analysis

This study used mixed-methods procedures for the analysis (Miles et al., 2014). Following the observations, the reports were typed up and then entered into spreadsheets where the coding system was applied. At this point, the reports were printed and the videos were displayed and re-watched on a separate screen. This procedure allowed for triangulation of data and it facilitated further accuracy regarding the timing and description of each sequence and activity occurring in the teachers’ classes. Once the data were coded and rechecked for accuracy (see Appendix C for an example from one participant), they were transferred to an MS Word document, where the charting feature was applied. At this step, an analysis was undertaken of the activity types and descriptors in relation to the percentage of class time that they took up.

In this study, although there are no statistical measurements given for the reliability and validity of the instrument, there were procedures undertaken to strengthen both. First, to enhance internal validity (i.e., that the features of the pedagogic activities being compared were distinct from each other) and the reliability of the observation scheme, a researcher with more than 20 years’ experience in the field of ELT was consulted during the design, analysis, and debriefing period of the study. In addition, reliability and validity were enhanced by triangulating the analysis with observation reports (Appendix A), field notes, video recordings, and the tabulated observation data (Appendix C) of each class.

4. Results and Discussion

Across each of the 12 classes, there are some generalizations that can be made. All classes took place in designated English classrooms rather than in the students’ homeroom classes. Prior to class, students entered and found their assigned seats. Classes generally began with greetings and a review phase followed by a sequence of pedagogic activities. Notably, only between 11% (Mia) and 39% (Yuna) of class time included activities from their assigned textbooks, as the teachers preferred using materials from other sources, such as supplementary textbooks and the Internet (e.g., indischool.com).

Below, the results address the research questions sequentially. To address RQ1, the study analyzes the communicativeness of the participants’ lessons (see 4.1). To address RQ2, the study looks at the organization and instructional patterns of their pedagogic activities (see 4.2). To address RQ3, the study analyzes the focus of their pedagogic activities (see 4.3).

4.1. The Communicativeness of Pedagogic Activities for Experienced and Novice Teachers

In regards to RQ1, Figure 1 below displays the percentage of class time teachers spent on various pedagogic activities. The analysis reveals notable differences between the experienced and novice teachers regarding the communicativeness of their lessons. For example, the experienced teachers spent much more class time on communicative activities than the novice teachers: 64% and 40% compared to 25% and 8%, respectively. In contrast, the novice teachers more frequently included language exercises: 11 and 9 compared to 3 and 6 for the experienced teachers. The novice teachers spent more class time on non-pedagogic activities: 24% and 39% for the novice teachers and 13% and 4% for the experienced teachers, respectively, were spent on other things, such as long instructional sequences given in L1. These findings indicate that the experienced teachers’ activities were more in line with CLT, a point of emphasis in the curriculum.

The difference between the experienced and novice teachers was in part due to their differing experience with classroom management. This was something Yuna recognized, noticing that she rarely did “group work because I cannot control all groups all together” (Yuna, post-observation interview).

Notably, no task-based activities were observed. This demonstrates a clear gap in curricular pedagogical knowledge for all participants regarding TBLT. However, it should be mentioned that this is not a phenomenon unique to Korean teachers (see Ellis, 2009).

Figure 1. Activity types in observed classes as percentage of class time. (LE=language exercise, CA=communicative activity, TBA=task-based activity, SG=singing, Other=non-pedagogic activity)

4.2. The Organization and Interactional Patterns of the Pedagogic Activities

In regards to RQ2, Figure 2 below displays data comparing the organization of the activities (i.e., how the students were grouped), something useful for comparing the degree of student-centeredness observed. Key findings were as follows: Experienced teachers spent much more time on group and pair work (72% and 29%), whereas novice teachers did none (0% and 0%). The novice teachers did more individual activities (17% and 13%) than the experienced teachers who did none in their three classes (0% and 0%).

Figure 2. Percentage of class time spent on different groupings in observed classes. (IA=Individual activity, PW=pair work, GW=group work, FCA=full class activity, Other=non-pedagogic activity)

Sami, Eunjeong, and Yuna organized most activities as full-class activities. For them, the present-practice-produce (PPP) method was quite salient. Their classes were more teacher-centered than Mia’s. Mia was more experimental in her procedures, an observation associated with experienced teachers in other contexts (Richards & Pennington, 1998; Tsui, 2003).

More data relating to the degree of student-centeredness came from looking at interaction occurring during activities (see Figure 3 below).

Figure 3. Activities including student-student interaction as percentage of class time in observed classes. (N=number of activities occurring in the three observation classes with each participant)

Third, Figure 3 above displays the percentage of class time that included activities with student-student interaction. Nearly 80% of Mia’s class time included activities with some degree of student-student interaction, whereas 40% of Sami’s did. However, only about 10% of Eunjeong’s and 8% of Yuna’s classes did. Together these data sets provide fairly clear evidence that the experienced teachers were more closely aligned with the call for communicative, student-centered classrooms (MEST, 2008).

4.3. The Focus of the Pedagogic Activities

Fourth, Figure 4 below displays whether their selected activities were predominantly form-focused or meaning-focused. All teachers spent much more time on form-focused activities than meaning-focused activities, showing that they all diverged from this curricular objective. As a general observation, speaking and writing activities were usually supported by prompts written on presentation files or blackboards, thereby limiting authentic language use even during ostensibly meaning-focused activities. An interpretation for this finding is that the teachers were concerned about negatively affecting low-level students. Also, providing language structures enabled the teachers to assert more control of time management during class.

Figure 4. Form-focused versus meaning-focused activities observed in three classes for each participant.

Overall, through describing the activities observed from four teachers, the above analysis provides some quantified data of CLT in Korean classrooms, a problematic area for research from Korea (Moodie & Nam, 2016). These findings also provided evidence that, at least in some cases, CLT is being readily applied in Korean classrooms (cf., Jeon, 2009; Kim, 2011; Nam, 2011; Shin, 2012).

5. Conclusion

This study was designed to address the paucity of classroom-based research on ELT in Korean public schools. In doing so, it presented a coding scheme designed to assess how closely public school English teachers’ practices aligned to themes in the national curriculum regarding the communicativeness of their lessons, the degree of student-centeredness, and whether their pedagogic activities were predominantly form-focused or meaning-focused. Through addressing the three research questions above, a framework for understanding the actual, as opposed to stated, practices of four primary school English teachers was established. It was found that the experienced teachers were more aligned with curricular aims than were novice teachers. For instance, the experienced teachers’ classes were more communicative, included more group and pair work, and involved much more student-student interaction than the novice teachers’ classes did. In summary, the results of this study contribute to the discussion of the differences between novice and experienced teachers (e.g., Farrell, 2006, 2008; Tsui, 2003) and CLT reforms in Asia (Ahn, 2009; Littlewood, 2007; Nishino, 2012), showing that CLT can be successfully adapted in public schools, differences between the novice and experienced teachers notwithstanding.

5.1. Limitations

The study included a few limitations worth documenting. First, this study was only intended to give a descriptive assessment of the sequences and activities occurring in the participants’ classrooms. In doing so, it was not designed for making claims regarding the effectiveness of CLT or of the other pedagogic activities observed. In addition, it should be mentioned that despite the differences observed between the novice and experienced teachers regarding the communicativeness of their lessons, the study is not designed to assess whether or not one group was more effective than the other at teaching English overall.

Second, the analysis provides an estimation of the class time that each sequence and activity took up. The procedures required glossing over some of the inevitable complexities of authentic classrooms, such as sudden changes to the lesson plan or the smaller sequences within pedagogic activities, for instance, how long the instruction or demonstration phases took.

Third, the coding scheme used in the study necessitated making binary distinctions between one activity type or another (e.g., meaning-focused vs. form-focused) when in reality the differences are better viewed on a spectrum.

Fourth, the study does not include statistical measures of validity and reliability for the coding scheme. However, this is not unique to the present study as it is a limitation with any systemic observation scheme.

Fifth, although the study included more participants and more classes than many other studies (see Table 1 above), the findings from these classes may not be indicative of what the participants did throughout the year or when a researcher was not present. Nevertheless, the procedures allowed for documenting, quantifying, and comparing the practices of public school English teachers as they pertain to themes in the national curriculum, something that has been an ongoing challenge for research in Korea (Moodie & Nam, 2016).

5.2. Implications and Future Research

Despite the aforementioned limitations, the results from this study lead to a couple of implications regarding classroom-based research and CLT reforms in Korea. First, the finding that the more experienced teachers were more aligned with recommendations for CLT than were the novice teachers suggests that this is an area requiring further attention. For instance, this finding implies that the common practice of assigning young and new teachers to teach English in primary schools may not be in the best interest of English education in Korea (insofar as meeting curricular aims for student-centered and communicative classrooms is a goal). The experienced teachers had more experience with classroom management and student-centered teaching from their extensive homeroom experience which they were able to apply to their English classes. In order to lessen the systemic turnover of English teachers in primary schools (see Moodie & Feryok, 2015), it is important to look for ways to help younger teachers and new English teachers have better experiences while teaching English.

Second, the coding scheme applied in the study provided a heuristic for seeing if teachers’ practices aligned to curricular aims for English education. Although it has similarities to the COLT scheme (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995), it was designed specifically for the Korean English education context, focusing on the type, organization, and focus of the participants’ pedagogic activities. However, it remains to be seen whether it will be of use to other researchers. Further studies with more participants and data collected over a longer period would be welcome in that regard.

References

신길호. (2010). ‘영어로 진행하는 영어교육’의 실태분석과 개선방안 모색. 언어학연구, 18, 79-99.

전영주. (2010). COLT 수업관찰 분석법을 통한 학교 현장의 의사소통중심 영어 수업 분석. 영어어문교육, 16(3), 339-363.

Ahn, K. (2011). Learning to teach under curricular reform: The practicum experience in South Korea. In K. E. Johnson & P. R. Golombek (Eds.), Research in second language teacher education (pp. 239-253). Hoboken, NJ: Routledge.

Ahn, K. (2009). Learning to teach within the curricular reform context: A sociocultural perspective on English student teachers’ practicum experience in South Korea. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.

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. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 639-662.

Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 255-296). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221-246.

Farrell, T. S. C. (2008). Critical incidents in ELT initial teacher training. ELT Journal, 62(1), 3-10.

Farrell, T. S. C. (2006). The first year of language teaching: Imposing order. System, 34(2), 211-221.

Guilloteaux, M. J. (2004). Korean teachers’ practical understandings of CLT. English Teaching, 59(3), 53-76.

Hiramatsu, S. (2005). Contexts and policy reform: A case study of EFL teaching in a high school in Japan. In D. J. Tedick (Ed.), Second language teacher education: International perspectives (pp. 113-134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jeon, J. (1997). CLT applications: Key issues in Korean EFL situation. Journal of the Applied Linguistics Association of Korea, 13(1), 223-236.

Jeon, J. (2009). Key issues in applying the communicative approach in Korea: Follow up after 12 years of implementation. English Teaching, 64(4), 123-150.

Kim, E.-J. (2011). Ten years of CLT curricular reform efforts in South Korea: An activity theory analysis of a teacher’s experience. In K. E. Johnson & P. R. Golombek (Eds.), Research on second language teacher education (pp. 225-238). Hoboken, NJ: Routledge.

Kim, S.-Y. (2002). Teachers’ perceptions about teaching English through English. English Teaching, 57(1), 131-148.

Kim, S.-Y. (2008). Five years of teaching English through English: Responses from teachers and prospects for learners. English Teaching, 63(1), 51-70.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1993). Maximizing learning potential in the communicative classroom. ELT Journal, 47(1), 12-21.

Li, D. (1998). “It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677-703.

Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40(03), 243-249.

MEST. (2007). [National curriculum for primary and middle schools]. Seoul: Author.

MEST. (2008). [Explanation of the national curriculum in foreign languages (English)]. Seoul: Author.

MEST. (2009). Major policies and plans for 2010. Seoul: Author.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

MOE. (2015). The national curriculum for the primary and secondary schools (Proclamation of the Ministry of Education #215-74). Seoul: Author

Moodie, I. (2015). Grounded narrative inquiry into language teacher cognition: Stories and case studies on English language teaching in South Korea. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Moodie, I., & Feryok, A. (2015). Beyond cognition to commitment: English language teaching in South Korean primary schools. The Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 450-469.

Moodie, I. (2016). The anti-apprenticeship of observation: How negative prior language learning experience influences English language teachers’ beliefs and practices. System, 60, 29-41.

Moodie, I., & Nam, H.-J. (2016). English language teaching research in South Korea: A review of recent studies (2009-2014). Language Teaching, 49(1), 63-98.

Nam, K. (2011). A critical look at interaction in a Korean middle school classroom. English Language Teaching, 23(1), 129-151.

NCIC. (n. d.). National Curriculum of Korea. Retrieved January 14, 2015, from http://ncic.kice.re.kr/english.kri.org.inventoryList.do

Nishino, T. (2012). Modeling teacher beliefs and practices in context: A multimethods approach. The Modern Language Journal, 96(3), 380-399.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C., & Pennington, M. (1998). The first year of teaching. In J. Richards (Ed.), Beyond training (pp. 173-190). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Shin, S.-K. (2012). “It cannot be done alone”: The socialization of novice English teachers in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 46(3), 542-567.

Spada, N., & Fröhlich, M. (1995). COLT - Communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme: Coding conventions and applications. Sydney, Australia: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.

Tsui, A. B. M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of ESL teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Urmston, A., & Pennington, M. C. (2008). The beliefs and practices of novice teachers in Hong Kong: Change and resistance to change in an Asian teaching context. In T. S. C. Farrell (Ed.), Novice language teachers: Insights and perspectives for the first year (pp. 89-103). Oakville, CT: Equinox.

Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching: A practical guide to task-based teaching for ELT training courses and practising teachers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Yim, S. H. (2009). South Korean teachers’ perceptions of TBLT. TESOL Review, 1(1), 29-50.

Yook, C. M. (2010). Korean teachers’ beliefs about English language education and their impacts upon the Ministry of Education-initiated reforms. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.

Appendix A. Observation Report Template

OBSERVATION REPORT

Date and Location:

Classroom Description:

Topic, unit, and pages
Other materials
Homework assigned

Observations

Other Comments/Questions:

Time	Activity Description and Procedures	Interaction	Comments / Questions

Appendix B. Coding System for Observation Reports and Analysis

Appendix C. Example Observation Report Data (Sami’s Classes)

Ian Moodie

Assistant Professor

Department of English Education

College of Education, Mokpo National University

B15-1159, 1666 Yeongsan-ro, Cheongye-myeon

Muan-gun, Jeonnam, 58554, Korea

Phone: +82-61-450-2542

Email: ianmoodie@mokpo.ac.kr

Received on October 30, 2018

Revised version received on December 18, 2018

Accepted on December 31, 2018