Abstract

Given the large numbers of Korean students in Australian ESL classrooms, many teachers have developed a broad knowledge of Korean culture and learning styles. However, the problem
remains of how to incorporate this knowledge into everyday teaching practices in the multilingual classroom. This case study examines the tendency for many Korean learners in
Australia to congregate in classes at pre-intermediate level and below due to inadequate speaking skills. Two successful advanced level Korean learners currently studying in Australia
are interviewed in order to explore some of the underlying factors behind this phenomenon. Finally, some practical suggestions are offered to assist ESL teachers in dealing with some affective factors inside and outside the classroom which may be preventing Korean students from taking full advantage of living in an English speaking environment.

Keywords: Korean learners, ELICOS, Australia, learning styles
  

Introduction
English language teaching in Australia has been undergoing an expansion over the past few years, largely due to increasing numbers of international students enrolling in English Language Intensive Courses (ELICOS) at private colleges. Generally speaking, depending on the nationality mix at particular colleges, teachers typically face multi-lingual classes where students come from a wide variety of different cultural backgrounds. However, Korea is currently the number two source country after China for the ELICOS sector, with private colleges providing 76% of courses for Koreans (Australian Government, 2007). This can mean that Korean students are over-represented in the nationality mix in some classes. 
     Newly arrived Korean students, despite typically scoring quite well on tests of discrete grammatical points, tend to congregate in elementary level classes due to low level competencies in productive skills. Even in ELICOS colleges which comprise quite a wide range of students from different parts of the world, the Korean students can often miss out on a real multicultural experience in the classroom when their classes are overwhelmingly composed of other Korean students. It is also important to remember that some culturally specific affective factors also impact quite significantly on Korean learners’ ability to take full advantage of the benefits of living in an English speaking country. Many of them may need extra encouragement and assistance from their English teachers so that they can confidently take advantage of the extra opportunities for speaking English outside the classroom.
     Korean culture is imbued with the Confucian tradition, which emphasizes the maintenance of social order and the strict structuring of human relationships within society. Within this philosophy, the teacher’s role is to impart knowledge to her students, who do not question the teacher under any circumstances. Learners’ motivation is not driven from within, but is externally directed by parents, peers and the examination system (Han, 2003).  Such learning preferences do not fit well within the communicative language teaching (CLT) tradition, and teachers in Australia can sometimes face resistance when trying to employ these methods in the classroom. It is also easy to assume that all adult learners will automatically be able to take advantage of the opportunities to practise their English outside the classroom. However, as we shall see, this may not necessarily be true for many Korean learners.
     At official levels, CLT has already gained quite wide acceptance in Korea, where it was officially incorporated into the Ministry of Education’s 7th curriculum in 2001 (Yoon, 2005). Of course, CLT can be a catch-all phrase for quite a range of different methods in language teaching, and an analysis of this curriculum reveals that such techniques have only been applied in a very limited way at this stage (Yoon, 2005). Another important factor restricting the use of CLT in Korea is non-native speaker teachers’ general lack of communicative competence in English (Dash, 2002). Therefore, despite recent attempts to place a higher emphasis on communicative competence, the Korean syllabus is still quite heavily weighted in favour of grammatical outcomes (Dash, 2002). Indeed, Li (2001) reports that the grammar translation and audiolingual methods are still quite widely used by Korean teachers.
     The Korean language itself is also so completely different from English, that the Korean learner may have special difficulties in language acquisition that are not shared by learners from other backgrounds. For example, Korean is considered notoriously difficult to learn by English speakers, and the opposite applies for Korean learners of English (Dragut, 1998). The Confucian tradition also implies that a speaker should avoid the use of ‘no’ for the sake of living in harmony (Park, as cited in Dragut, 1998), a cross-cultural factor worthy of consideration by English teachers in Australia, especially at elementary levels where ‘yes/no’ question forms are usually taught. At the syntactic level, Koreans rely on the relative importance of information rather than grammatical function when constructing sentences (Dragut, 1998). Such differences obviously interfere with communicative competence in English, and a knowledge of these and cultural differences may assist the Australian teacher when teaching Koreans.
     Another important phenomenon in the Korean education system which is bound to impact on students’ learning strategies is the overwhelming focus on teaching for exams. Students are groomed throughout their schooling to do well in the ‘College Scholastic Ability Test’ (CSAT), which determines university entrance. This leads Korean parents to spend large amounts of money on extra tutoring, including English ‘cram’ schools, where it is common to study past midnight. However, many of these schools are badly managed, claiming to focus on learning conversation whilst in fact teaching the rote memorisation essential for test preparation (Card, 2005). Nevertheless, Korean students tend to score quite low on an international scale on the ‘Test of English for International Competence’ (TOEIC). According to Card (2005), this is hardly surprising given the amount of corruption and malfeasance in the Korean EFL industry.

Method
A case study approach was used in order to investigate the specific characteristics of Korean learners in the Australian context.  This approach was selected in order to provide a basis for a subsequent action research project seeking to address the problems experienced by Korean learners in developing their speaking skills.
     According to Nunan (1992) the case study is generally concerned with the specific features of an individual entity such as a class or a school. Hence, it is ideally suited to the in-depth investigation of a particular group, which may provide fertile ground to make further generalisations to the broader population of which the group is a member (Cohen & Manion, 1985, as cited in Nunan, 1992). The case study methodology is also particularly suited to the individual teacher, since it is easily accessible and its findings can be put to practical use in the classroom. Nunan (1992) also refers to the centrality of context in case studies, and this is a key reason why the method has been selected in this instance, since the context described is broadly reflected throughout most of the ELICOS sector in Australia. The case study also provides an ideal means for the individual practitioner to explore their own workplace, thereby lessening the importance of external validity (Nunan, 1992).
     This study was inspired by the fact that in my own teaching experience over several years in the sector, Korean students tended to be over-represented at lower levels, and also to stay at those levels longer than students from other countries. Also, as a result of this phenomenon, many teachers had felt pressured by Koreans to put them up to higher levels without the requisite communicative competency. This in turn created problems for pre-intermediate and intermediate level teachers, who often had to deal with classes which included Koreans with inadequate speaking skills who were unable to participate fully in communicative activities.

Design
Standard level test results of an elementary class including a brief five-minute speaking test were analysed. There were 12 students in the class, six of whom came from Korea. The level tests were conducted every five weeks in order to assess whether or not students were ready to advance to the next level.
     Of the six Korean students who took the formal test, all scored 90% or more on the grammar component. The reading section represented the second strongest area for the group of Koreans. Two older female Koreans scored extremely well in the speaking test, but they were in quite a unique position compared with the rest of the Korean group. They were both about 40 years old and were living together with their eight-year-old sons who were enrolled for a year in an Australian primary school. Since their sons were learning English at the same time, they had a policy of speaking as much English as possible after school hours. The other Koreans in the class were much more typical of the average Korean at the school. They ranged in age from 21 to 28 and all were sharing accommodation in Sydney with other Koreans. When asked about when they spoke English outside the classroom, all claimed they hardly ever used it.
     The students all did a short modified IELTS parts one and two speaking test. The speaking marks of the four younger Koreans ranged from 62% to 65%, reflecting a more typical profile for elementary level Korean learners at the school. Surprisingly, their weakest point was in grammar and vocabulary, demonstrating that their grammatical and vocabulary knowledge was not easily available to them for communicative purposes.
     In addition to this, separate interviews were recorded with two higher level Koreans who were studying at the school. The interviews were semi-structured, and ranged in length from an hour to an hour and a half.  Questions were designed to elicit specific cultural characteristics of Korean learners, as well as information on aspects of the Korean education system and lifestyles of Korean students in Sydney.

Participants
The two female interviewees were selected because they represented successful Korean learners who were studying at the college. One of them, ‘Sunny’, is a 33-year-old journalist who studied English literature at university in Korea. She has since graduated at advanced level from the college after completing a 10-week IELTS course. The other one, ‘Eve’, is a 25-year-old advanced level student who is an English teacher in a private English college in Korea, in effect a conversation cram school. She has a degree in English literature and education from a Korean university and was studying in Australia in order to improve her speaking skills. It was the second visit to Australia for both of them.
    Eve taught alongside untrained native speaker teachers at the cram school in Korea, and only ever taught grammar and vocabulary since the native speakers were always assigned the conversation classes. She currently rates her speaking skills as superior to most Korean teachers of English in the state school system. However, when asked to assess her own strengths and weaknesses in English, she claimed grammar and listening to be her strengths, and felt least confident about her speaking skills.
     Sunny comes from a small town in Korea, and excelled at English and Korean at high school. After commencing university, she obtained a scholarship to study English. She has travelled overseas before and enjoys learning about other cultures. Sunny doesn’t really consider herself to be a typical Korean learner, in that she likes to improve her English through reading English novels and newspapers. According to her, most Korean learners do not tend to focus on reading in English. She is able to support herself whilst studying in Australia by working as a freelance journalist for Korean newspapers.
     Generally speaking, most Korean students stay at the school for quite extended periods, most enrolling for between 9 to 12 months. During this time, they usually study General English for 22.5 hours per week, with a small percentage opting for IELTS or Cambridge First Certificate classes if they make it to intermediate or upper-intermediate levels. The typical Korean student is female and in their early to mid-twenties, often in the middle of a university degree in Korea. A small minority elect to stay long term in a ‘homestay’ situation with an Australian family. However, the overwhelming majority of Korean students at the school end up sharing an apartment in the centre of Sydney with other Koreans, just a few blocks walk away from the college.

Interviews with Korean learners
‘Sunny’ and ‘Eve’ both made similar comments about their experiences in learning English in Korea. Sunny had achieved top marks for English when graduating from her high school, but could not speak at all until she went to university and had conversation classes with a Canadian native speaker. They both commented that their high school teachers hardly used English in class, and in fact may not have been able to speak much English at all. They also both confirmed that in order to enter university in Korea, students must pass an English entrance exam, no matter what degree they intend to take.
     Sunny talked about the intense pressure within the Korean education system, with students competing to gain entrance to the top, most prestigious universities. She also mentioned the social problems that this causes, with youth suicide in the age group 15 to 18 years having become an issue over the past 10 years. This is backed up by the Korean National Statistical Office, which calculated that more than 1000 students committed suicide between 2000 and 2003 (Card, 2005). 
     Eve corroborated this point of view, outlining the long hours that most Koreans are forced to spend studying in their high school years in particular. She went to a boarding school during high school, and in her final year classes ran from 6am to 5pm. After that, students were forced to undergo supervised self-study between 5pm and 10pm. Apparently, some private English colleges cater for such demanding school schedules by running English classes from 11 p.m. onwards in the evenings. Eve also made the comment that considering the stress levels that university students also suffer, most Koreans studying English in Australia viewed it as a welcome year off from the pressures back home. She claimed that many would go straight from university to work after this, and their year in Australia would be most Koreans’ only opportunity to enjoy some levels of freedom.
     Sunny and Eve are both atypical of most Korean students at the college, in that they have achieved high levels of oral proficiency in English. Both are quite confident and outgoing and eager to explore the opportunities that Sydney offers to get to know people from all over the world and to practise their English. They both agreed that they don’t see themselves as being typical of most Koreans in this regard. Eve made the point that on her first visit to Australia, living in a homestay environment was more important for improving her English skills than formal study. Both of them highlighted the general Korean uneasiness with making mistakes in speaking, and propensity to avoid speaking altogether, especially with European students.  They confirmed a general Korean impression that European students have superior speaking skills. However, this also reflected an ambivalence amongst Korean learners at the school, since Sunny thought that many of them chose this college because their agents had informed them it attracted higher levels of Europeans than other Sydney colleges.
     Sunny had made a point of going on as many school excursions on weekends as she could, because she wanted to exploit the opportunity to make friends with students from other countries. However, she discovered that hardly any Korean students took advantage of these activities, commenting that they probably were not as adventurous as her and needed more encouragement to participate.
     Eve claimed that Koreans often criticised each other for ‘showing off’ by speaking English to other Koreans or non-Koreans, especially those still at lower levels of proficiency. In her opinion, many Koreans felt that they should find out more about Australian culture before trying to communicate with native speakers, and that quite a few Korean students might not be highly motivated to improve their speaking skills at all. This is due to several factors, including the fact that the education system in Korea does not specifically test speaking skills. Also, many might simply need to enjoy their brief year of freedom in Australia before returning to the stresses of work and study in Korea.

Implications for teaching
Both interviewees’ comments clearly point to differences in learning styles as being a major contributor to Korean learners’ general lack of communicative competence in English.  Although the vast majority would not have been exposed to CLT approaches before coming to Australia, it would seem that many were already aware of these, and had in fact chosen the school because of the range of different nationalities. Also, due to their respect for teachers, and their cultural tendency towards obedience in class, the use of CLT generally meets with cooperation from Korean students, although it sometimes takes a period of a few weeks before they begin to participate fully in communication activities. Given these factors, at least some of their difficulties in attaining competence in speaking would seem to stem from affective factors outside the classroom.
     According to Brown (1994) a learner’s self-identity and world view can be challenged by the move from one culture to another, often leading to culture shock. Eve’s comment about the Korean need to get to know Australian culture better before attempting to converse with native speakers confirms this fear. However, given many Korean students’ tendencies to ghettoise within their own communities whilst living in Sydney, many may never go beyond the ‘second stage’ of such culture shock, instead seeking escape from the intrusion of cultural differences into their new lifestyles (Brown, 1994). Schumann’s hypothesis (as cited in Brown, 1994) reinforces this view by stating that learners who come from more socially distant cultures have proportionately greater difficulty in learning a second language. This would coincide with some previous points about the conservatism of the Confucian culture in Korean society. The ‘optimal distance model’ of second language acquisition states that real fluency only occurs at the third stage of acculturation (Brown, 1994), implying that many Korean learners’ lack of achievement in speaking skills may not be overcome until they more fully embrace aspects of Australian culture.
     Brown (1994) also comments on the detrimental effects of inhibition and the tendency of some learners to view making mistakes as a threat to their egos, pointing to the importance of risk-taking as a counterbalance to these affective factors. In the case of Korean learners, these threats could be sidestepped through the use of risk avoidance strategies such as living with other Koreans, and not going out much to explore the new environment or interact with other nationalities.
     Anther factor which may hinder the development of speaking skills could be related to the focus on semantic meaning within the Korean education system. According to Ellis (2005), there is an important distinction between the teaching processes required to develop semantic and pragmatic meaning. The former defines language as an object and can therefore focus on discrete items such as grammatical structure and purpose, whereas pragmatic meaning is tied to actual language use in real situations and how it functions as a means of genuine communication. The negotiation of pragmatic meaning in a real communicative situation is where real language acquisition actually occurs. Ellis (2005) sees the creation of opportunities to foster the development of this aspect of meaning as one of the most important focuses in the language classroom. Whilst the focus on explicit knowledge such as grammar is definitely important, this knowledge needs to be put into practice in order for it to be converted into the implicit knowledge so vital for fluent communication.
     In the case of Korean learners, much of their previous language learning has focused on the development of explicit knowledge such as grammar and vocabulary, precisely the type of knowledge that must be mastered in order to do well in tests such as the TOEIC. When they arrive in Australia, they are usually ill equipped in terms of pragmatic competence, and this is reflected in their poor speaking skills. In Australia, the onus is thus placed on the teacher to provide as many opportunities as possible for genuinely communicative activities inside the classroom, since, as this study has shown, some Korean students may not be accessing much English outside.
     Another important factor in language acquisition is exposure to the target language, something which Krashen (1994, cited in Ellis, 2005) has argued at some length. His theory of ‘comprehensible input’ emphasises the significance of providing a level of input in the target language which has been modified by the instructor to an appropriate degree i.e. a level which learners can understand but also challenges them to acquire new language. Since many elementary level Koreans may not be exposing themselves to much English outside the classroom, Australian teachers need to keep this in mind. Accordingly, they should encourage Korean students to take advantage of the English-speaking environment with such activities as going to the movies, extensive reading programmes, and organising class excursions where learners are forced to interact with English speakers.
     The nature of the multilingual classroom in the Australian ELICOS sector also requires teachers to recognise individual and cultural differences in learning styles. This requires a ‘flexible teaching approach’ (Ellis, 2005) which can cater for these different styles, as well as providing explicit learner training which highlights various learning strategies. According to Lee and Oxford (2008), many Korean learners are not explicitly aware of how developing learning strategies can assist them in improving their English. However, Chamot (1998, cited in Lee & Oxford, 2008) claims that the development of this very awareness is crucial in language learning, and that successful language learners generally consciously employ learning strategies. Given the unique opportunities that living in an English speaking environment can provide for language acquisition, teachers need to actively encourage Korean learners to focus on new learning strategies that may not have been immediately available to them back home. For example, some of the memorisation strategies that may have been used effectively in Korea to pass exams like the TOEIC must now be superseded by other strategies. Korean learners in Australia must learn to recognise that it is necessary to take risks in order to learn another language and their teachers can encourage this type of behaviour by reinforcing a positive self-image in the classroom. Also, the use of learner diaries where students record all the instances of exposure to English outside the classroom can be a useful means of focusing learners on taking responsibility for their own learning. These diaries can include such events as conversations, functional exchanges, reading the newspaper and even watching television.
     The Australian ELICOS teacher thus faces quite a few challenges in helping to acclimatise Korean students to their new environment. As previously stated, the classroom environment and teaching approaches may be quite readily accepted by Koreans after a relatively short period of study, but cultural factors outside the classroom may impact on their ability to acquire overall competence in English. In order to help them come to terms with their new environment, it is important that teachers find out about their students’ lifestyles in Australia. Do they live with other Koreans? How far from the school do they live? What do they do in their spare time? How do they study in their own time? How often do they use English outside the classroom?
     When asking such questions, the teacher should encourage them to make any necessary changes, such as advertising in the newspaper for non-Koreans to share their apartment. Many Koreans are unaware at the outset of the importance of becoming independent in their learning, as their education system tends to encourage dependence on the teacher. Australian teachers should not assume that, as adults, Korean students will necessarily be aware of what other students may take for granted in this regard. And above all, teachers need to offer lots of encouragement and reassurance to Korean students that making mistakes is a necessary part of the learning process and that they will not be judged harshly in this regard. Class communication activities should emphasise practical transactional routines to begin with, such as asking directions, buying a train ticket, or ordering in a restaurant. These should be followed up with the directive to perform these conversational rituals outside the classroom for ‘homework’, as many Koreans will be more likely to do so if explicitly told to by a teacher.

Conclusions
Given the increasing numbers of Korean students entering the ELICOS sector in Australia, teachers need to be more aware of their learning styles and of their living situations. They also need to acknowledge the fact that many low level Korean learners may hardly be using English at all outside the classroom. On the plus side, the high status of the teacher in the Korean Confucian tradition may mean that explicit teacher intervention in this area could be quite effective.
     However, although teachers represent a pivotal connection between Korean learners and Australian culture, it is not only the job of teachers to make their stay in Australia more worthwhile. There needs to be more effort also from school administrators through their agents to encourage Koreans to live in a homestay for a while on arrival.  Individual schools could probably also do more to organise weekend excursions involving more Koreans so that they can overcome their fear of conversing with students from other countries. The ELICOS sector in Australia currently needs to be able to better accommodate the specific needs of large numbers of Korean learners.

References
Australian Government – Australian Education International (2007) The Republic of Korea. Market Data Snapshot No .25. Retrieved June 8, 2008 from:
http://aei.dest.gov.au/AEI/PublicationsAndResearch/Default.htm

Brown, H. D. (1994).  Principles of language learning and teaching, 3rd edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents Prentice Hall.

Card, J. (2005, November 30). Life and death exams in South Korea. Asia Times Online        Retrieved June 8, 2008 from: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/GK30Dg01.html

Dash, P.  (2002). English only in the classroom: Time for a reality check? Asian EFL  Journal, 4(4), Retrieved August 28, 2006 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com

Dragut, L. (1998). How culture influences language use and consequent implications for  language learning: Observations from Korean learners  The English Connection  2(1), 6 – 9.

Ellis, R. (2005).  Principles of instructed language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3),      Retrieved June 8, 2008 from: http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/September_05_re.php

Han, Song-Ae. (2003). Do South Korean adult learners like native English speaking   teachers more than Korean teachers of English? AARE Conference Papers   Abstracts 2003.  Retrieved August 25 2006 from     
http://www.aare.edu.au/03pap/abs03.htm

Lee, K. & Oxford, R. (2008). Understanding EFL learners’ strategy use and strategy  awareness. Asian EFL Journal, 10(1), Retrieved June 15, 2008 from:
 http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March_08_kl&ro.php

Li, Defeng  (2001). Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative  approach in South Korea. In D.R. Hall & A. Hewings (Eds.), Innovations in English  language teaching: A reader (pp.149 – 166). London: Routledge.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge:   Cambridge University Press

Yoon, Kyung-eun. (2005). CLT theories and practices in EFL curricula: A case study of    Korea. Asian EFL Journal, 7(2). Retrieved September 1, 2006 from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com