2011 English Essay Contest 고등부 대상 수상작
<2011EEC_Winner’s Essay: High School Division>
Balanced and Prioritized
By Choi Hye-ji, Second Grade, Gwangju Jungang Girls’ High School
It is widely agreed amongst educators that acquiring a language through exposure is far more efficient than studying it in rigid format. Now that that has been agreed upon, however, the controversy rises in the method of acquiring. When and how do we expose students to foreign languages, namely English?
When choosing between English immersion education and extracurricular English activities, keep in mind that the latter is sufficient for our needs. By using time that isn’t strictly a mandatory part of the school day, practical English can be acquired without harmful side effects. Students can enjoy time to freely speak English, and become comfortable with colloquial English. So long as it remains separate from the “regular” class hours, there can be no possible detriments.
Unfortunately English immersion education appeals highly to some, who wish to surrender all subjects to English. Amongst the avid supporters is President Lee Myung Bak, though his thoughts on English education garnered him much criticism as being reminiscent of Japan’s occupation. ‘Surely, if extracurricular English exposure is helpful, then whole-day English exposures should do wonders,’ the English immersion advocates reason. Too much of a good thing, however, can have serious consequences. Let’s begin with problems in enforcing the policy, one must wonder where the teachers are to come from. The current teachers are certainly ill-equipped to deal with the phenomenon. What then? Shall we simply do away with all of them and train new ones? In that case, how shall we break it to the music teacher that he now needs to have perfect fluency in English?
Taking the issue from the parents’ side of view, it is inevitable that the amount of money spent on private English education will sky-rocket. Korean parents, as a percentage of GDP, already spend over four times more on private education than parents in any other major economy. If the government seriously aims to reduce this amount, it would be contradictive to implement an English immersion education. As if these were not problems enough, yet another policy problem arises when considering the KSAT, one of the key factors in college entrance. As the KSAT is in Korean, it would be inefficient to have students study the subjects in English.
Above and beyond the difficulties in policy, though, consider the inherent flaws of the principle. Even without taking the KSAT into account, there are subjects that are simply impractical when taught in English. What about Korean literature? Should that be taught in English as well? The advocates of English immersion argue that it would be the best way to learn math and science terms, as they are internationally used in English. This is certainly a valid point, but the same effect can be achieved without English immersion. It is not necessary to have classes fully in a foreign language for the sake of learning a few key terms in English.
Let us allow that some classes will be taught in Korean. But still we must still ask the question, “Why?” Since when has English become everything, and such a dominating everything at that? Does English have a right to hoard other subjects into its umbrella? In asking this, it is necessary to bear in mind that English immersion comes at a price: a decrease in class participation and giving up the use of Korean.
The decline of class participation from students is well illustrated by the typical attitude of foreign students. During class, the non-native speaker is usually quieter, and shows little sign of participation, as he or she is less comfortable speaking the language. English immersion is essentially a program that will intimidate the entire class into silence, effectively ostracizing native-speakers in their native education. The damage then extends into the education of all other subjects. If students do not properly understand or actively involve themselves during class time, they will not learn the material well, be it math, social studies, or history. This means that any child without flawless English skills will be left behind in not one, but all subjects. This is to put a severe handicap on the academic potential of most of our students.
Furthermore, choosing English immersion is to choose it over Korean immersion. Is the value of English so great that it is necessary to practically abolish our own language? Korean immersion is so taken for granted that the term itself seems cumbersome and redundant, but without it, knowledge of our own language will noticeably suffer. Especially with Korea’s extensive school hours, students will find it hard to take time to properly speak and listen to Korean. Besides the fact that it would be a national shame to raise a generation uncomfortable in their own language, common sense tells us that fluency in the mother tongue would greatly help in acquiring a second language.
Those who support English immersion insist that the ongoing globalization makes it an inevitable choice for educators. This logic is blatantly faulty. By all means, let us concede that English is a mandatory skill in the international community. But the reason we must hang on to Korean during the regular school hours is not for the sake of some old, dead culture. The very globalization they speak of is the reason that English must be kept in its place, as a foreign language subject. If globalization is impending, then we must keep our identity strong in order to be ready competitors. A unique culture to set ourselves apart is a valuable asset, and culture is directly linked to language.
To argue against English immersion is not to deny the importance of English, but to defend and solidify the importance of Korean. To put it in a nutshell, English must be acquired, but not at the expense of Korean. The extracurricular English activities are the appropriate balance that is needed between the two.
Chonnam Tribune
tribune@cnumedia.com