Introduction
As the suicides by a few students at one of South Korea's (hereafter Korea) most prestigious universities drew a great deal of attention from the public, partial blame went to the new institutional policy imposed by the university's top administrator: exclusive use of English as the medium of instruction across the entire curriculum (McDonald, Reference McDonald2011). The fanatical pursuit of English education and the overall status of the English language in Korean society have been well documented in the literature (e.g., Jeon & Lee, Reference Jeon and Lee2006; Jeong, Reference Jeong2004; Lee & Shin, Reference Lee and Shin2008; Park, Reference Park2009; Seth, Reference Seth2002). However, little has been written about another controversial trend, English-only instruction, recently introduced at a few selective institutions of higher education in Korea.
This article presents a critical review of the new educational trend of exclusively using English as a teaching medium for higher education in Korea. It is organized as follows. First, the new policy of exclusively using English as a teaching medium at Korean colleges and universities, in the context of the collective pursuit of English education in Korea, will be described in detail. The second section will lay out evidence against the exclusive use of English as a medium of instruction in the Korean classroom, based upon the previous literature. Third, some distinctive benefits of using the first language, especially when shared by instructors and students in the classroom as in Korean higher education, will be discussed. Finally, this article will offer a few suggestions for future research and pedagogical practices pertaining to the use of English as a medium of instruction in an English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) context, such as in Korea.
English-only instruction at Korean universities
English has been perceived by Koreans as the single most important tool that they need to have in order to get ahead at school and in society in general. Figures reported for the amounts of expenditure that Korean parents have been making on their children's learning of English clearly illustrate the Koreans' collective zeal for English education. It was reported that Korean parents spent $20 billion (20 trillion Korean won) annually on their children's supplementary education, including cram schools and private tutoring for primary content areas, such as English and math (Park, Reference Park2007). According to another report, Koreans spent close to $15 billion (15 trillion Korean won) a year on English-related activities, such as standardized tests of English and study abroad programs (Chun & Choi, Reference Chun and Choi2006). Recently, a growing number of middle-class Korean parents take this even a step further by sending their children as young as elementary school students to Anglophone countries for the sake of learning ‘perfect’ English (Choi, Reference Choi2005). More than 35,000 elementary and secondary school students went abroad in the academic year 2005–6, not including the number of students of this age-group who participated in short-term study-abroad programs (Ministry of Education and Human Resources Department, 2006). Sacrificing their normal family lives for the acquisition of native-like English language competence, many of the children live in the foreign country by themselves or with their mother while their father is working back in Korea to provide the financial means (Park, Reference Park2009).
To keep up with Korean parents' and students' desires for and pursuits of native-like English competence, the Korean government sector has brought in a few changes to English education over the years. In 1997, English was introduced as a required subject from Grade 3 in primary school, followed by a Korean Ministry of Education policy in 2001 to use English as the sole medium of instruction in English-language classes. These governmental policies have spurred heated discussions across research and practice as many experienced local teachers expressed their frustration about a lack of the English language proficiency that is needed for English-only lessons (e.g., Butler, Reference Butler2004). In line with governmental efforts to facilitate English education, the Korean Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development announced in 2005 its plan to hire and place a native-speaking English teacher in each primary- and secondary-level school across the nation by way of government-managed recruitment programs, such as EPIK (English Program in Korea) (Jeon & Lee, Reference Jeon and Lee2006; Park, Reference Park2009).
More recently, the exclusive use of English as a teaching medium in Korea has drawn renewed attention, but in a different context: across the curriculum in certain higher education institutions. University administrators have encouraged or mandated their faculty to use English exclusively in delivering lectures and interacting with students across different academic areas, ranging from humanities and social sciences to engineering and hard sciences. For example, Lee (Reference Lee2010) documents the new national experiment surrounding the use of English as the sole medium of instruction with emphasis on chemistry courses at a few selective universities in Korea. This new educational policy aims to promote Korean college students' English-language proficiency without leaving for an Anglophone country while they learn subject matter of interest to them. This is also believed to make Korean colleges and universities more competitive in research and teaching productivity in rankings of world-class institutions of higher learning. Use of English as a medium of instruction and communication on college campuses has also become one of the criteria by which Korean colleges and universities are evaluated (Bae, Reference Bae2011; Lee, Reference Lee2010). Despite the premises and promises of this approach, however, findings from empirical research on the use of a second language as a medium of instruction tend to indicate the opposite. The following sections will lay out previous findings opposed to the exclusive use of English in the classroom, and then turn to the benefits of using the native language (especially when it is shared by instructor and students) for promoting content learning.
Evidence against English-only instruction
In a multilingual and multiethnic society like the United States, effective academic programs for students from home backgrounds where languages other than English are predominantly spoken have been subject to a longstanding debate among policy makers and educators. In particular, which language to use as a medium of instruction for language minority students in public schools has been a thorny issue in public discourse. There has been divisive debate over whether English language learners in American public schools should be taught content areas in the medium of their first language or in English. Despite recent statewide bans on bilingual programs in Arizona, California and Massachusetts, Parrish et al. (Reference Parrish, Merickel, Perez, Linquanti, Socias and Spain2006) found in students' performances on standardized measures for different content areas that English language learners who were immersed in English-only lessons did not outperform those enrolled in bilingual programs where students learned content areas in their first language (e.g., Spanish). Syntheses of empirical research findings in the form of a meta-analysis have consistently shown that English language learners who are taught using at least some of their native language perform significantly better on standardized tests of English reading and other content areas than those who are taught only in English (e.g., Greene, Reference Greene1997; Riches & Genesee, Reference Riches, Genesee, Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders and Christian2006; Slavin & Cheung, Reference Slavin and Cheung2005).
In a similar vein, Thomas and Collier (Reference Thomas and Collier2002) reported that school-aged English language learners attending bilingual programs made greater long-term gains in English reading than those provided with English-only instruction. When comparing English language learners in bilingual programs to mainstream English speakers on English decoding and reading comprehension measures, Uchikoshi and Maniates (Reference Uchikoshi and Maniates2010) found that English language learners provided with instruction in their first language (e.g., Cantonese and Spanish) performed similarly to, or even better than, their monolingual peers. A series of scientifically-based research results points to an advantage of first-language-mediated instruction over English-only instruction when it comes to language minority students' content learning and second language/literacy development. The basic rationale for bilingual education, albeit with all of its variations in the amount and type of first language use, is transferability of language and literacy skills, which implies strong first language and literacy skills as a foundation for learning a second language (Cummins, Reference Cummins1981; Genesee, Reference Genesee1999). Cummins' interdependence hypothesis predicts that instruction in the first language facilitates proficiency in that language and that ongoing proficiency in that first language transfers to the second language in so far as there is abundant exposure to and adequate motivation for learning the second language. Not only second language and literacy development, but also content learning, benefit from the principle of transfer. Learning content areas in the first language enables English language learners to progress in academic subjects at grade level because they are learning new concepts through the language they know best (Genesee, Reference Genesee1999).
Besides its potential effects on student learning, the exclusive use of English as a teaching medium can also influence students' socio-psychological well-being, including their levels of anxiety, motivation, self-confidence, and stress. Anecdotal accounts have shown that instructors and students alike at Korean universities are sometimes unable to fully communicate in English and therefore can be forced to reduce course content to accommodate more rudimentary uses of language, which can be a source of anxiety and stress (Bae, Reference Bae2011). Krashen (Reference Krashen1987) stated that learners' affective filter, serving as a screen that is influenced by emotional and psychological variables, can prevent second language learning. This implicates the importance of creating a comfortable, positive learning environment where students can take in, internalize and produce language. Although the English-only lectures and interactions in college classrooms provide abundant input, both comprehensible and incomprehensible, students might not be able to take in all the available input with the high affective filter prompted by their anxiety and stress over the English-only class policy. More recent research (e.g., Hsieh & Kang, Reference Hsieh and Kang2010; Oxford & Shearin, Reference Oxford and Shearin1994 among others) underscores the importance of learners' emotional and psychological variables to optimize learning processes and maximize learning outcomes. The heightened affective filters induced by the students' anxiety can be counterproductive to the original premises of the English-only instruction policy at Korean colleges and universities.
Benefits of using the first language
In contrast to the common-sense assumptions for English-only instruction, Korean college students can actually benefit from using their native language in pursuit of higher learning in their academic areas. Those in favor of English-only instruction argue that reliance on the first language in classroom interaction will slow students' transition to and development of thinking in English and interfere with their long-term acquisition of English. However, it has been reported that use of the native tongue students know best in fact facilitates second language and literacy development (August & Shanahan, Reference August and Shanahan2006). Higher-order vocabulary skills, such as the ability to provide formal definitions and interpret metaphors, as well as speech discrimination and production, in the first language can be transferred to speaking a second language. Literacy skills, including reading comprehension, reading strategies, spelling and writing, can be applied from a student's first language to a second language. The research indicates that language minority students at both the elementary and secondary levels instructed in their native tongue as well as in English perform better, on average, on standardized tests of English reading proficiency than those instructed only in English.
Similar observations were made among adult language learners. Auerbach (Reference Auerbach1993) reported results of her interviews with teachers and administrators of a community-based native language literacy program in which, when students express their ideas in their native language, Spanish, it helps them to express them in English as well. It was observed that during the gradual, developmental process, students explore ideas through their first language and use of the first language gives way naturally to use of the second language, English, as they become more experienced and proficient in the writing process. Likewise, Friedlander (Reference Friedlander and Kroll1990) supports the positive effects of using the first language for second-language writing. In his study, adult second-language writers were encouraged to use their first language in planning and developing ideas when they had acquired knowledge of the topic in their first language. For adult learners, the strategy of using the first language during the initial process of brainstorming and developing ideas, and then translating those ideas into their second language, does not impede the writing process, but instead facilitates the meta-cognitive processes, such as planning and organizing ideas, which in turn reduces inhibitions on second language production.
On top of its effectiveness in student learning processes and outcomes, there are additional emotional and psychological benefits to the use of the first language. Use of the first language, especially when it is shared by instructors and students as at Korean colleges and universities, can help promote authentic communication and mutual understanding in and outside of the classroom. Cook (Reference Cook2001) points out that when using the first language, the teacher tends to treat the students as their real selves rather than dealing with assumed second language personas. Findings from previous research support the claim that the teacher switches to the first language to make personal remarks, such as when a college student has a coughing fit (Polio & Duff, Reference Polio and Duff1994), and to give praise when elementary-school students come up with correct and appropriate responses to the teacher's questions (Kang, Reference Kang, Dogancay-Aktuna and Hardman2008). As such, use of the first language helps promote and protect students' sense of pride and identity, which are intimately linked to their first language. The English-only instruction policy, often reflecting and representing the asymmetrical power relations in the outside world, may implant a conception that their first language does not carry as high a market value as their second language inside and outside the classroom. Use of the first language as a linguistic resource in the classroom can encourage and enhance students' positive attitudes toward their first language, their belief in themselves and their capabilities to achieve higher learning in academic areas as well as second language and literacy.
Conclusions
The use of English as a sole medium of instruction recently introduced at Korean colleges and universities reflects the status of English often referred to as ‘English fever’ in the wider society. In an attempt to keep up with the globalization trend, Korean institutions of higher education have imposed and implemented this policy without properly preparing their faculty and students for the language competencies and pedagogical strategies necessary for the educational change (Bae, Reference Bae2011). Despite the premises and promises of the new policy, scholars and researchers in language education and program evaluation have shown empirical evidence opposed to using the second language exclusively as a teaching medium for students who are in the process of learning the second language (e.g., August & Shanahan, Reference August and Shanahan2006; Greene, Reference Greene1997; Riches & Genesee, Reference Riches, Genesee, Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders and Christian2006; Slavin & Cheung, Reference Slavin and Cheung2005). Rather, using the first language for at least some of the instructional time helps those learners to achieve content learning as well as second language and literacy development because it allows them to transfer their cognitive and meta-cognitive skills from their first language to a second language (Cummins, Reference Cummins1981; Genesee, Reference Genesee1999). The positive effects of using the first language do not only apply to student learning, but also foster the students' positive attitudes toward their first language and their learning experiences, which in turn reduces inhibitions on producing language and takes in more input with the lower affective filter.
The discussion in this article is based on the belief that the underlying rationale for using the first language for school-aged English language learners in American public schools applies equally to the college student population in Korea. Most of the writings on the exclusive use of English at Korean colleges and universities thus far are journalists' anecdotal reports or governmental reports of the rationale and expected outcomes of the new policy. Little has been written with respect to the quality of English-only instruction and its effects on research productivity and student learning in Korean higher education. Hence, it is necessary to systematically examine what is actually happening in college lecture rooms across different academic areas in light of language choice and classroom interaction in interaction with the local Korean culture, and how this new implementation of English-only instruction facilitates higher learning at Korean colleges and universities. It is also important to gather information about students' perception and belief in the English-only policy and its role in their pursuit of higher learning. Until there is a definitive evaluation outcome, the jury is still out with respect to the new policy and its impact on the Korean higher education and wider society.
Until results of systematical evaluations of the new policy become available, it is premature to draw pedagogical implications, and yet here are a few practical suggestions for the implementation of the English-only instruction in Korean higher education. All good teaching uses the learning tools students already bring into the classroom as the basis for building new skills and acquiring new knowledge. Most Korean students enter college with strong grammatical knowledge and rudimentary communicative skills in English, which they have acquired up to high school (Jeong, Reference Jeong2004). Students learn more effectively if they learn English and other academic areas through the use of their native language, which provides a foundation for higher learning and social interaction in college classrooms and beyond. It will be more effective and efficient to use the first language as the language of instruction in gradually decreasing increments as instruction in English is increased over the course of higher education than it is to place every freshman in English-only classes regardless of their English language and literacy levels. The current English-only policy in Korean higher education is reminiscent of the submersion or ‘sink or swim’ method which was found illegal and outlawed in the US in 1974. To avoid repeating history, it is necessary to provide students with supplementary English lessons and ensure their full mastery of academic content through the first language until students can make a smooth transition to English-only instruction.
HYUN-SOOK KANG is an assistant professor of Linguistics/TESOL in the Department of English at Illinois State University, Normal, USA. She holds a PhD in Educational Linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA. Her research interests include instructed second language acquisition and heritage language learning. Her work has appeared in the International Review of Applied Linguistics, Language Learning, Modern Language Journal and Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Email: hkang@ilstu.edu
